Review: Apple's iPad Pro with A9X CPU and 12.9-inch Retina display

135678

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 158
    Apple should be the one to do this. Also, I don't see why some version of Airdop or Bluetooth couldn't be used by such an app to create greater interoperability between the Mac and the iPad. I find it silly that I still have to use iTunes -- which, many of us here agree is now a clunky, bloated piece of software -- as the primary interface if I wish to connect the iPad to my Macs. Why isn't there, for instance, an iPad app on OS X and a similar (obviously simple, and able to hand some basic tasks such as file transfers) OS X app on my iPad? It could work very similarly to how my AppleWatch interacts with my iPhone, for starters.

    It would be nice to be able to plug in your phone or iPad to your main computer and get a desktop icon you could double click on to open and immediately see representations of files accessible to you in some kind of intelligent organization, probably by app.
  • Reply 42 of 158
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    ireland wrote: »
    The kooaid still has some juice left it seems.

    Seems to me you guys are too much into the Scrumpy Jack over there. Bad mood, bad vibes, bad hangovers, grousing with no engineering perspective whatever.

    The camera "issue" is bogus and you know it. And who are you to say that the internals were not locked in over a year ago, before production and integration of the faster Touch ID was at volume scale, while Apple was waiting for Sharp to get its oxide TFT display lines running well enough to announce this product?

    Or do you imagine they are re-engineering the small stuff, tinkering with the finished production design in all its complexity, to the very last, just to pass the time while they're waiting for screens?

    I agree you guys need an Apple store or three, however. That's worth complaing about.
  • Reply 43 of 158
    Here is one problem I see with the pro: a pre-established use. When the first iterations of iPad came out, the design was built to service the single user in a very domestic environment. Think of it as a mere web browser/game device. Did Apple foresee this thing taking over as a cash register in thousands of businesses? Doubt it. The mini was clearly designed with e-reading and travel in mind. I've seen it used for inventory and check in functions. Now we have the big guy and Apple is targeting the Designer and professional office crowd. What's people are looking for, is to fit it into their own niche. So just as the other devices went through growing pains and further iterations, the pro needs to do the same thing. So fresh out of the box, Apple doesn't really know where this thing will end up next. However, they are really good at spotting trends and seamlessly assimilating those categories. People cry for a mouse pointer and OS changes before the industry has even had a chance to absorb the tech. Let's see who grabs at this new device before we start trying to gum it up. I can tell you the pro is not meant to sit in the back of a mini-van streaming Peppa Pig.
  • Reply 44 of 158
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Taking a look at iPad Pro's benchmarks puts some tangible numbers to inherently subjective speed claims. Using Geekbench 3 the Pro posted a multi-core score of 5,498 and a single-core score of 3,233, putting it behind Apple's 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro with Intel Core i5 CPU. Comparatively, iPad Pro's on paper performance sits between the already zippy A9, currently found in iPhone 6s handsets, and a full-blown x86 laptop.



    Apple includes 4GB of system memory with A9X, doubling up on the 2GB of RAM paired with the A9 and previous generation A8 series chips. Further, Geekbench 3 gave Pro's memory performance a score of 3,943 points. The boosted RAM allotment was likely a key consideration for Apple's engineers, who not only had to deal with a massive increase in display size, but also the apps iPad Pro will spawn.



    On that note, readers would do well to remember iOS is by no means a desktop operating system. It's stripped down by design, meaning the performance quantified by those benchmark numbers above is applied to lean software overhead in comparison to a MacBook running OS X or Microsoft's Surface Pro 4 running Windows.

     

    Geekbench 3 cannot properly compare x86 and ARM, so that skews the results even further.  Anandtech knows this, which is why they don't use Geekbench 3 for these types of comparisons.  Unfortunately, the image created will be taken out of context and give people the wrong impression about the performance.

  • Reply 45 of 158
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    One question I have is how do you make desktop class apps viable on a platform where people are used to paying nothing or $.99 for an app. The top grossing/top paid apps are either games with IAP or free apps with subscription services like HBO Now or Pandora.

     

    Write something that is worth it for someone to buy.  There are plenty of apps that are worth nothing or $0.99.  There are a number of applications that are worth more  (Pages, OmniFocus, OmniGraffle, Ulysses, etc.) to someone.  Don't expect the Apple store to do your job, it is just a store... do your own marketing, demos, try to get reviewed, etc.  There will always be more failures than successes - that is just the reality of software development.  I can remember my father having 9 or so productivity apps installed on his computer for comparison - all but Office have more or less disappeared.  

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    Well I've heard that in comparison to…Apple. But I think happy developers also make for happy customers. 

     

    Yeah, right developers make for happy customers....  not when they feel taken advantage of.  

     

    Sure if it were some 3rd party developer making tools and that was their business..... and it was a worthwhile product then I am happy buying their product.  If I am developing for someone else's platform I would be happier if I felt they had skin in the game as well.  The majority of people that develop applications won't make back the cost of the development platform, it is just the way it is.  

     

    As an individual developer you can go and download Oracle RDBMS and write a prototype application and only when you take it to market the first time do they ever worry about you using their product for free.  They know that developers developing applications for their platform make them money - more money than trying to squeeze a couple grand out of each developer for the pleasure of making Oracle money.   

  • Reply 46 of 158
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by satchmo View Post

     



    Apple greed seems to be a reoccurring theme these days. Certainly with me and many of my colleagues who are life-long Apple users. And like you, I've noticed the nickel and dimeing. From overpriced accessories, to forced memory upgrades, to minor incremental upgrades, all geared for maximum profits. 

     

    I get that Apple is a business with stakeholders to answer to. And I'm not about to jump ship. There are still many great things I love about Apple. But as you say, I think people are finding this treatment, disrespectful. Much of Apple's success has been built on a loyal customer base. Once users believe that Apple no longer has their best interest, they will move on.  

    You know what they say, perception is reality.


     

    Actual real world, inflation adjusted prices are now LOWER (much lower in many cases) than in 2000, maybe it's your own expectations that changed.

     

    I pad $1200 for a average crummy laptop from HP in 2001, that's about $1600 dollars now.

    For half that price now, I get something incredible.That's reality.

    So, how do you even judge current prices versus old prices

    . You can't. The "greedyness", is your own narrative based on very little facts.

    Because otherwise, what you said MAKES NO SENSE.

  • Reply 47 of 158

    I can understand new iPad user complaining about lack of file system but for seasoned user, you can easily replicate a file system with many of the file manager app.  I have been using Goodreader since ipad 1. 

     

    From ios 8 onwards, many apps can open files from an app like Goodreader and also save files to Goodreader.  I synced the files from my PC to Goodreader via wifi on a daily basis and my ipad always has the latest files identical to my PC. Maybe Apple should have just purchased a company with a file management app.

     

    Granted user still cannot access ipad system files but I think that is the whole point about simplifying the computing experience and keeping security in check.

     

    I have been using ipad pro for the past 2 days and have never felt that the Touch ID is not fast enough.  I get a feeling the reviewer just has to point out things so as to give the feeling that the review is comprehensive?

     

    Personally I prefer the Touch ID on my ipad Pro.  It has been very accurate and not too sensitive compare to my iphone 6s plus.

     

    Based on past 2 days experience, I feel that the iPad Pro Touch ID recognised the fingerprint as fast as the iphone 6s.  But one has to take into account turning on a 12.9" screen system versus a 5.5" screen.  All things being equate, I would expect the 5.5" screen to be lighted up a split second faster.

     

    I have regularly felt that the Touch ID button was too fast or too sensitive on my iphone 6s plus.  Whenever I left my finger on the Touch ID button for a split second more, the Touch ID button would activate Siri.  This irritates me a bit and makes me want to turn off Siri.

     

    My guess is that the design for ipad pro was done many months ago and was designed with touch ID version 2.  Coupled with the fact that touch ID version 2 is good enough and possible supply constraint on the new Touch ID, Apple could have decide to leave it as it is.

     

    The talk about leaving some minor features out so as to induce future purchases is so trollish.  Come on...all Apple needs to do is to fit in an A10X and with better softwares/app, people would upgrade.

     

    The key issue and main hindrance to ipad replacing the laptop is really....the capability of the available apps.

  • Reply 48 of 158
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Well I've heard that in comparison to…Apple. But I think happy developers also make for happy customers. One question I have is how do you make desktop class apps viable on a platform where people are used to paying nothing or $.99 for an app. The top grossing/top paid apps are either games with IAP or free apps with subscription services like HBO Now or Pandora.

     

    "One question I have is how do you make desktop class apps viable on a platform where people are used to paying nothing or $.99 for an app. "

     

    http://metakite.com/blog/2015/11/the-prisoners-dilemma/

  • Reply 49 of 158
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    I'll bet the Pro used in conjunction with a nice DSLR is going to be a killer combo for both pro and amateur photographers and videographers.

    To a certain extent, this has already happened. The app Shuttersnitch is something a lot of photographers have. If you've got a camera with an SD card with built in WiFi, as a number do, or a WiFi accessory, as you can get for many cameras, the will send the images, as you shoot them, to your iPad. There, you can do some work on them. I'm not going tomdescribe the app in full because it's too complex for that, but look for it in the App Store. We love this, because we can see our photos almost immediatel\y on the big screen. If we just send the JPEG2000 during shooting, it's often good enough, and is much faster.

    The Pro will make this even better, with the capability, so far, in Adobe's apps to run a photo of 50MP in RAW. This is a very good start. I expect this to get better. I expect all the apps to get better. One reason I keep telling people to get an iPad rather than an Android model is because we've now got 850,000 apps optimized for the tablet. Android has but a few, all others are just phone apps. Developers there refuse to put the effort into it no matter how much Google has urged them to.

    In fact, the other day I wanted to show a friend, who is an architect, and a guy who has designed airports all around the world, my CAD apps and drawing apps. When it came to iDraw, a pro level drawing app, it couldn't find it. I thought it didn't carry over to my new Pro. But the name was changed because it was bought by Autodesk, the company that produces AutoCad. That shows that they are taking this seriously. I already use AutoCad 360 on my tablets, and while it's not the equal of the Desktop version, unsurprisingly, it's pretty good (it also requires a yearly fee).

    So we're seeing a good push by major vendors here. If the Pro sells well enough, then we'll see some major apps appear within short order (a year, or so), and major upgrades to what's there now.

    I've got a lot of confidence in this. So far, even without the Pencil, something my daughter and I are really icing to have come in, hopefully this coming week, it's been a surprising advance in many ways. For an example. The Internet comes in at about Desktop speeds. Sites that were really slow because of Ads and frackers, as well as other junk, now pop in in a coup,e of seconds. That's about ten times faster! This really has Desktop performance in a number of ways.
  • Reply 50 of 158
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bkkcanuck View Post

     

    Rosetta on ARM would effectively turn the ARM processor (benchmarked at 5,500ish on Geekbench 3) into one that is less as half as performant.  So any applications that you installed would infact seem like they were running on [lower end] hardware of maybe a decade or so ago....  That performance would be so bad as to seriously damage the Apple brand.


    That might be so, but I don't think so. Remember - this isn't emulation but on-the-fly cross-compile. And the OS and all Apple apps will be native ARM code.

     

    I remember that, during the PPC > x86 transition, Rosetta apps were a bit slower but not unacceptably so.

     

    In my mind, the biggest issue is the UI. You would need a precise pointing device, such as a trackpad or mouse, rather than relying purely on touch. The targets are just too small for fingers to work well.

  • Reply 51 of 158
    ireland wrote: »
    This cheapening out on Apple's parts by using last gen Touch ID and cameras is a worrying trend for this company. Schiller should be ashamed of himself. You just know this was his doing to make the inevitable iPad Pro 2 seem like more of an upgrade than it should be. Corporate greed is one of the worst facets of the 21st century and Apple are becoming ever more greedy these days. Anyone who defends Apple for these moves deserves how Apple treats you. A 420p FaceTime camera is a 1.5K new MacBook? Disgusting lack of respect for your loyal customers.

    are you worried? perhaps even...concerned?
  • Reply 52 of 158
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    If I find anything silly, it's comments like this one. Unless there is far better file system interoperability between iOS and OS X, the iPad -- Pro or not -- will remain a complement and not a substitute to the PC.

    "Something we're use to" describes a massive segment of PC users that Apple sure wants to migrate to its platforms.

    I've ordered mine since my iPad 3 is due for an upgrade. However, other than the larger size and the faster speed, I see very little evolution in the product, vis-a-vis my needs. In three years. That aspect of it is disappointing.

    I agree, and again, I go back to mentioning the first Mac. The OS was very easy to use back then, but it was also pretty simple, by today's standards. I've also seen complaints by a few writers that the Mac is too complex these days, and should go back to what I imagine they think of as " The good old days". Apple. To a certain extent has been doing that, and it's not always good.

    I believe that it's true, and that iOS and OS X are moving towards convergence. Whether they will ever become one and the same is a topic for another discussion, but we can see how Apple has moved major features from one to the other, and this is a good thing, as long as they allow more complex functionality to be brought out by those of us who need it, and don't just kill it off.

    But there's no doubt that Apple is serious about bringing iOS further into the major organization. The days of Steve Jobs stating that "The enterprise is not our customer", is long over, and thankfully. When he came back, it made some sense, but not any more. Apple's consumer devices have made surprising inroads into enterprise and government, but in order to move further in, they need to accommodate these specific needs. And they can do that without compromising the experience for everyone else. If anyone can do it, it's Apple. We can see by Microsoft's aborted attempts with Win Phone and Win 8 that they don't know how to do it. While Win 10 is much better, it's also an acknowledgement that they needed to step backwards in order to accomplish anything. Surface Pro tablets are just Windows machines. They will have even more limited usage than an iPad, and we can see that by the fact that they sold just around 3 million units in the last 12 months. It's been around for 3 years now, so the concept is no longer new. And even though the new 4 is better than the 3, etc. the major market for it seems to be the IT department, and that's rather limited.

    I don't want to see an OS X tablet either. I've used the Axiom model, and it sucks, just as Windows on a tablet does. Those who are true blue fans of an OS will love them, but few others care.
  • Reply 53 of 158
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by plovell View Post

     

    That might be so, but I don't think so. Remember - this isn't emulation but on-the-fly cross-compile. And the OS and all Apple apps will be native ARM code.

     

    I remember that, during the PPC > x86 transition, Rosetta apps were a bit slower but not unacceptably so.

     

    In my mind, the biggest issue is the UI. You would need a precise pointing device, such as a trackpad or mouse, rather than relying purely on touch. The targets are just too small for fingers to work well.


     

    I wonder why all the people were shouting about poor performance of Adobe's apps on Intel machines... and why it was taking them so long to recompile / update it so that it ran natively.....

  • Reply 54 of 158
    iOS created lots of wasted space for the iPad, most especially the Pro.
  • Reply 55 of 158
    ireland wrote: »
    I hear more and more people talking about how greedy Apple has become lately. Frankly, I wouldn't bet against move on myself someone. I never would have said that 3 years ago. There's only so much shafting you can take before you get sense. Even myself I've begun to vocalise this with my non-hard core Apple friends. And they're not Android defenders or anything or the sort. Most of them use iPhones.

    if it results in decreased troll posts I'm all for you moving on.
  • Reply 56 of 158
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,038member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

     

     

    I hear more and more people talking about how greedy Apple has become lately. Frankly, I wouldn't bet against move on myself someone. I never would have said that 3 years ago. There's only so much shafting you can take before you get sense. Even myself I've begun to vocalise this with my non-hard core Apple friends. And they're not Android defenders or anything or the sort. Most of them use iPhones.




    You’ve created quite an alternate universe for yourself haven’t you.

  • Reply 57 of 158
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    larryjw wrote: »
    The problem with iPad Pro is too little for too much. And yes, the killer for usefulness of the Pro is iOS and its underlying philosophy -- no sharing among apps.

    This latter is a real problem among applications on the Macs also. I'm speaking primarily about the reading apps -- iBooks, Kindle, Overdrive, PDF readers, etc. All are brain-dead apps on both OS X and iOS, in that they only support the most basic Use Cases, and most of those not well.

    Regarding the hardware? Four speakers. How stupid is that? Speakers are necessary in case you forgot your earphones, or in the few cases in which there is a need to share the sounds with more than one person. In either case, you must be in an environment where using speakers will not disturb others. A rare set of circumstances.

    The danger for Apple here is that it is DOA -- an orphaned product that will never see a version 2. A very niche product. And I say that as a user of the MBP 17" -- another orphaned product which I find useful, but niche, because I belong to a too small a class of user for Apple to build.

    You're wrong about some of this. As of iOS 9 there is sharing between apps. But Apple smartly restricts just how this happens so that we don't get the Android problems along with it.

    You're also wrong about the way iBooks and other apps of them type run, and why. There are competitive reasons amount the various companies that prevent sharing. That understood. Just go on any platform, and see if you can share between the Nook and Kindle apps. You can't. It's not an Apple thing per se. I do t know what you're problem is with PS4 readers though.

    Four speakers, yes. It makes great sense. Not everyone is a aurally blind as you are. Many of us actually like to listen to things without ear buds or earphones all of the time, and I have a couple of very expensive ones. Every Friday, several friends of mine get together for lunch, and then we come to my house. This last Friday I demonstrated the Pro to them, and they were impressed. Most of these guys, are, as I am, audiophiles, and we all liked the way this sounded. The way Apple implemented this is brilliant. Several years ago, Apple hired Holman, who invented the THX system which is the surround system all theaters use, and proper home A/V systems use as well. Apple cares about sound, and some of what they've been patenting is now coming to products. Unless you hear this, you have no right to comment on the sound, or why it was done.
  • Reply 58 of 158
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    It would be nice to be able to plug in your phone or iPad to your main computer and get a desktop icon you could double click on to open and immediately see representations of files accessible to you in some kind of intelligent organization, probably by app.

    That would be good.
  • Reply 59 of 158
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by satchmo View Post

     



    Apple greed seems to be a reoccurring theme these days. Certainly with me and many of my colleagues who are life-long Apple users. And like you, I've noticed the nickel and dimeing. From overpriced accessories, to forced memory upgrades, to minor incremental upgrades, all geared for maximum profits. 

     

    I get that Apple is a business with stakeholders to answer to. And I'm not about to jump ship. There are still many great things I love about Apple. But as you say, I think people are finding this treatment, disrespectful. Much of Apple's success has been built on a loyal customer base. Once users believe that Apple no longer has their best interest, they will move on.  

    You know what they say, perception is reality.




    You make a good argument.

     

    Here's another side. Xerox was a fairly innovative company but primarily within their skunkworks side -- PARC -- Palo Alto Research Center. Yes, Jobs took ideas from Xerox, not the product side of Xerox, but the PARC side. Management of Xerox was brain-dead and had no ability or desire to productize PARC. But, PARC itself had a problem -- nothing was ever done. They always had the next-best thing just around the corner. Smalltalk was invented at PARC and if it had been priced and marketed properly, we'd be using Smalltalk instead of Java -- I'd would have considered that an improvement. 

     

    Where does Apple sit in all this? Apple monetizes and productizes the results of their research and ideas. They push incrementally improved products out the door on a fairly regular basis. It pays for their research and operations to build the products. We buy these products in spite of often merely incremental improvements, which Apple then feeds back into their business. 

     

    The approach is not always successful as witnessed by the fiasco that was GTA sapphire plant. 

  • Reply 60 of 158
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    robertc wrote: »
    Geekbench 3 cannot properly compare x86 and ARM, so that skews the results even further.  Anandtech knows this, which is why they don't use Geekbench 3 for these types of comparisons.  Unfortunately, the image created will be taken out of context and give people the wrong impression about the performance.

    I don't understand what you're saying here, because Geekbench does very well with this. Benchmarks have always been controversial. This goes back to when intel didn't include a FPU on their chips but Motorola did. So that, and another number of tests weren't done, because it was considered to be unfair to the x86 chips that didn't have the FPU. So we see some people today pointing out differing tests in geekbench, pointing out that there are tests for ARM that don't correspond to those in x86 tests, and as those test points rate very highly, they should be discounted, which then brings the ARM results lower. That makes those x86 chip groupies happy.

    But it's unrealistic, as I point out, because comparing across chip families in individual tests is problematic. The OS and software uses these differing functions in these chip families, and so what matters is the overall score. If your'e looking at something specialized, such as encryption, then those features designed for that, which is something Apple's ARM chips do especially well, then those scores, by themselves, are important.

    At any rate, what I've seen of the ratings seem right and proper to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.