Shootout: Apple's new 9.7" iPad Pro vs. iPad Air 2

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    AI please include some sort of benchmark next time you use the word Shootout. This was a spec comparison found at apple.com Pretty pathetic writing.
    If this was a car magazine, their "shootout" would not be comparing cars at the drag strip or the race track; it would be comparing stats on a spec sheet and speculating about how it might relate to real world experience.
  • Reply 22 of 46
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 247member
    sog35 said:

    32 GB is exactly the size iPad I want.  The $599 32GB iPad is exactly what I want.

    Stop being so myopic.
    If anyone's being myopic (and self-centered), that would be you my friend.

    Besides, Apple's now overcharging all those imminent iPad customers who only need 16GB of storage, according to your logic.
    staticx57singularityroger wade
  • Reply 23 of 46
    bb-15 said:
    If someone must have a new 9.7 inch IPad with the Pencil, keyboard connector and 128 GB or more of storage, then the new iPad Pro is the only choice.
    - But let's say that a person can get by with about 64GB of storage (& they don't need the Pencil), then the price difference between the Air 2 and the 9.7 inch IP Pro could be a factor.
    9.7 iPd Air 2 64 GB $499
    9.7 iPad Pro 32 GB $599
    9.7 iPad Pro 128 GB $749.

    * Performance; depending on the benchmark the Air 2 can be close in speed to the new IP Pro. Ars Technica did some tests in their hands on article;
    Geekbench 3 single core the new Pro is a little over 1/3 faster than the Air 2
    Geekbench 3 multi core the new Pro is a little over 10% faster than the Air 2
    GFXBench GL: Onscreen T-Rex HD frames/sec; new IP Pro 59.5, Air 2 52.8
    Manhattan HD; new IP Pro 35.3, Air 2 28.1

    In terms of performance, imo for many users, they will not be able to tell the difference between the new IP Pro and the Air 2. Considering price / performance to me the Air 2 will be the better deal for a lot of buyers.
    Which graphs are you looking at?

    The Geekbench 3 single core shows the new Pro is ~70% faster than the Air 2. (And ~15% faster in multicore).
    And the onscreen GPU test is capped at 60 fps.  Which as you said won't matter for most apps.  But the fact that offscreen tests show the Pro is ~50% faster than the Air 2 means it has more breathing room for more graphically intense software.

    The Air 2 should be fine for a while and I agree it's great for most users/tasks, but the at least 50% improvement in CPU and GPU on the Pro shouldn't be unnoticeable.
    edited March 2016 michial
  • Reply 24 of 46
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    kpluck said:
    sog35 said:
    This is true and judging by their sales lately, it seems a lot of folks have chosen an alternative.
    really? by whose profit are you measuring that? cuz I'm of the opinion that tablet sales are down but Apple still reaps the lion's share. do tell. 

    also, there's absolutely no need to sign your messages on a forum. amateur move. 
    edited March 2016 netmage
  • Reply 25 of 46
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member
    bb-15 said:
    If someone must have a new 9.7 inch IPad with the Pencil, keyboard connector and 128 GB or more of storage, then the new iPad Pro is the only choice.
    - But let's say that a person can get by with about 64GB of storage (& they don't need the Pencil), then the price difference between the Air 2 and the 9.7 inch IP Pro could be a factor.
    9.7 iPd Air 2 64 GB $499
    9.7 iPad Pro 32 GB $599
    9.7 iPad Pro 128 GB $749.

    * Performance; depending on the benchmark the Air 2 can be close in speed to the new IP Pro. Ars Technica did some tests in their hands on article;
    Geekbench 3 single core the new Pro is a little over 1/3 faster than the Air 2
    Geekbench 3 multi core the new Pro is a little over 10% faster than the Air 2
    GFXBench GL: Onscreen T-Rex HD frames/sec; new IP Pro 59.5, Air 2 52.8
    Manhattan HD; new IP Pro 35.3, Air 2 28.1

    In terms of performance, imo for many users, they will not be able to tell the difference between the new IP Pro and the Air 2. Considering price / performance to me the Air 2 will be the better deal for a lot of buyers.
    Which graphs are you looking at?

    The Geekbench 3 single core shows the new Pro is ~70% faster than the Air 2. (And ~15% faster in multicore).
    And the onscreen GPU test is capped at 60 fps.  Which as you said won't matter for most apps.  But the fact that offscreen tests show the Pro is ~50% faster than the Air 2 means it has more breathing room for more graphically intense software.

    The Air 2 should be fine for a while and I agree it's great for most users/tasks, but the at least 50% improvement in CPU and GPU on the Pro shouldn't be unnoticeable.
    I went over the Ars Technica test scores again done by Andrew Cunningham.
    - I apologize for getting my math wrong on the single core score (though I think the new iPad Pro is ~60% faster than the Air 2 but I'm not going to quibble).
    - My estimate of the multicore score, "a little over 10%" was close to your estimate of 15% (which seems about right).
    Cunningham said about that and the new iPad Pro; "Its multi-threaded CPU performance also isn’t drastically better than the A8X in the iPad Air 2—the Air’s CPU cores are slower, but there are three of them to the A9X’s two."
    - The onscreen gfxbench GPU test scores I wrote about were straight from the Ars Technica graph. I saw nothing about the gfxbench test being capped at 60 fps.
    About this Cunningham said; "Onscreen performance, which renders scenes at the screens' native resolutions, is about the same (as the big iPad Pro)" But it is also not that much faster than the Air 2 as the scores show.
    - As for the off screen gfxbench GPU test (which is always done at 1080p) the scores are way above 60 fps which again does not show any cap. The higher off screen score shows the power of the GPU in the new iPad which could eventually have better performance with higher resolution games (though it's hard to say when those will be released) or for a presentation connected to a large monitor/screen at higher resolution.

    * As for what would be noticeable right now; software that is CPU intensive which uses single core will clearly be faster on the new iPad Pro. But current apps that are multicore intensive or available GPU intensive apps used on each device's native resolution are not going to show much of a difference imo.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 26 of 46
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,208member
    Yes, I know Apple treats iOS devices very differently from Macs. You don't need to tell me that. But the fact remains they should have put the same 4 GB of RAM into this 9.7 inch iPad Pro as they did in the 12.9, regardless of how much more ram a larger screen device would actually need.   Ditto for the fast charging, high speed USB3 chip that the larger sibling has but which the 9.7 lacks.  As such, Apple should either give us the BTO option to add more RAM when we buy an iPad, or they should just bite the bullet and give us the full 4 GB in the 9.7 inch form factor.

    Yes, I know full well that adding such a BTO option may not be very practical. And if that's true, the solution is simple. Just give us the full 4GB.   I don't care if it impacts battery life. I want a full 4GB.   The only sneaky reason not to do that would be to artificially limit the lifespan of the device, knowing that future updates an app requirements will grow as will RAM requirements. In other words, putting 4 GB into a 9.7 inch iPad now would probably give it close to a 10 year practical use lifespan, perhaps requiring only a battery swap during that time.  

    Perhaps Apple doesn't want us to use their devices that long?   But if they do think that way, that's simply foolish because, at least in my family, we don't trash old Apple devices. We keep them around. We try to keep them useful. And all the while we buy new Apple devices too.

    So what I'm saying is, I want as long of a lifespan as I can get from my Apple devices because they will always be used by someone.   Placing too many artificial limits on the hardware in effect shortens it's useable life. I have all sorts of troubles with my retina iPad 3 today which I didn't have trouble with when it was running iOS 6.

    As the OS evolves, so do the hardware requirements.  I am more than happy to pay more for a device that can be used longer than to go the cheap route and buy a less expensive device that could only practically be used for half as long. 


    edited March 2016 bb-15roger wadenetmagerogifan_new
  • Reply 27 of 46
    bb-15 said:
    Which graphs are you looking at?

    The Geekbench 3 single core shows the new Pro is ~70% faster than the Air 2. (And ~15% faster in multicore).
    And the onscreen GPU test is capped at 60 fps.  Which as you said won't matter for most apps.  But the fact that offscreen tests show the Pro is ~50% faster than the Air 2 means it has more breathing room for more graphically intense software.

    The Air 2 should be fine for a while and I agree it's great for most users/tasks, but the at least 50% improvement in CPU and GPU on the Pro shouldn't be unnoticeable.

    - The onscreen gfxbench GPU test scores I wrote about were straight from the Ars Technica graph. I saw nothing about the gfxbench test being capped at 60 fps.
    About this Cunningham said; "Onscreen performance, which renders scenes at the screens' native resolutions, is about the same (as the big iPad Pro)" But it is also not that much faster than the Air 2 as the scores show.
    - As for the off screen gfxbenchGPU test (which is always done at 1080p) the scores are way above 60 fps which again does not show any cap. The higher off screen score shows the power of the GPU in the new iPad which could eventually have better performance with higher resolution games though it's hard to say when those will be released.
    * As for what would be noticeable right now; software that is CPU intensive which uses single core will clearly be faster on the new iPad Pro. But current apps that are multicore intensive or available GPU intensive apps used on each device's native resolution are not going to show much of a difference imo.
    Onscreen tests are capped at the refresh rate of the display which is usually 60Hz... Which is why you won't see any scores above 60 (check over at Anandtech where they test a lot of devices).  Eventually the GPUs get so good at the older GL benchmarks that just about everything gets around 60 onscreen unless there is a drastically different native resolution of the screen.  And then they have to update the benchmarks to make it worthwhile to even run onscreen tests.

    Offscreen tests are done at 1080p, but there is no display to hold back the refresh rate, so it's unlimited.  It's interesting to compare the two, because you get situations where "hey the Galaxy S6 GPU is better than the iPhone 6's GPU, it kills it in offscreen tests!" but then "Yeah but the Galaxy S6 GPU still can't handle its high native screen resolution so XYZ looks choppy!"...

    I think we'll probably have the usual effect of the Pro only looking slightly faster at first, but the difference becoming more apparent as iOS grows e.g. iOS 10.
    edited March 2016 ration al
  • Reply 28 of 46
    AI2xxxAI2xxx Posts: 38member
    Offscreen tests are done at 1080p, but there is no display to hold back the refresh rate, so it's unlimited.  It's interesting to compare the two, because you get situations where "hey the Galaxy S6 GPU is better than the iPhone 6's GPU, it kills it in offscreen tests!" but then "Yeah but the Galaxy S6 GPU still can't handle its high native screen resolution so XYZ looks choppy!"...

    I think we'll probably have the usual effect of the Pro only looking slightly faster at first, but the difference becoming more apparent as iOS grows e.g. iOS 10.
    Offscreen is always the most relevant in defining an SoC's true performance. Content and applications don't need to be running at the device's native resolution. Additionally, GPU compute does not have to depend on the resolution of the screen. Onscreen comparisons had been popular in a time when it would take a high end phone or tablet just to run the UI and basic applications properly. As with the PC world, offscreen or equal resolution comparisons are always used.  
  • Reply 29 of 46
    michialmichial Posts: 10member
    apple ][ said:
    sog35 said:
    Exactly.

    I love that Apple is giving us CHOICE.  

    All the people who are crying about 16GB/32GB devices don't realize that if Apple started devices at 64GB they would have to raise prices.  It would be horrible for me and many other users who are fine with 16/32GB to be forced to pay more and buy a base model 64GB device.
    Yes. Those people are basically freeloading losers who expect other people to subsidize their purchases. Not me. I'm not going to contribute a dime to help out those people.

    Apple has actually improved on the storage issue, because it wasn't that long ago that it cost $100 to go from 16 to 32. Now, that same $100 will get somebody 64 on many devices.

    If we fast forward 25 years, I guarantee you that there will be people complaining about the Apple iPhone (Hologram Edition).

    Man, the entry level model only comes with one terrabyte of RAM! That sucks! Apple is so cheap! Everybody knows that a browser needs at least 2 terrabytes RAM to function smoothly. This thing is going to flop so badly! Apple is doomed! (again......)
    I agree about everything you said. Choice is good. One thing to consider is the cost of flash memory. Why is it unreasonable for Apple to start base storage at higher capacities but at the same price as the lower? Five years ago starting costs for 16 and 64 were disparate but now are nearly negligible. So even though many only need 16 the costs for more storage is low enough to keep the entry price the same and not make those who do need it to pay hundreds when it literally costs a few more dollars at the bulk rates Apple buys it at. 
  • Reply 30 of 46
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member
    bb-15 said:

    - The onscreen gfxbench GPU test scores I wrote about were straight from the Ars Technica graph. I saw nothing about the gfxbench test being capped at 60 fps.
    About this Cunningham said; "Onscreen performance, which renders scenes at the screens' native resolutions, is about the same (as the big iPad Pro)" But it is also not that much faster than the Air 2 as the scores show.
    - As for the off screen gfxbenchGPU test (which is always done at 1080p) the scores are way above 60 fps which again does not show any cap. The higher off screen score shows the power of the GPU in the new iPad which could eventually have better performance with higher resolution games though it's hard to say when those will be released.
    * As for what would be noticeable right now; software that is CPU intensive which uses single core will clearly be faster on the new iPad Pro. But current apps that are multicore intensive or available GPU intensive apps used on each device's native resolution are not going to show much of a difference imo.
    Onscreen tests are capped at the refresh rate of the display which is usually 60Hz... Which is why you won't see any scores above 60 (check over at Anandtech where they test a lot of devices).  Eventually the GPUs get so good at the older GL benchmarks that just about everything gets around 60 onscreen unless there is a drastically different native resolution of the screen.  And then they have to update the benchmarks to make it worthwhile to even run onscreen tests.

    Offscreen tests are done at 1080p, but there is no display to hold back the refresh rate, so it's unlimited.  It's interesting to compare the two, because you get situations where "hey the Galaxy S6 GPU is better than the iPhone 6's GPU, it kills it in offscreen tests!" but then "Yeah but the Galaxy S6 GPU still can't handle its high native screen resolution so XYZ looks choppy!"...

    I think we'll probably have the usual effect of the Pro only looking slightly faster at first, but the difference becoming more apparent as iOS grows e.g. iOS 10.
    Thank you for the explanation. So, with the gfxbench onscreen GPU tests done by Ars Technica, the T-Rex HD results of the iPad Pros could be ignored since the Pro devices are bumping up against the 60 HZ limit of the displays and are almost at 60 fps with that test.
    - But Ars also did a Manhattan HD onscreen test. And the scores for that did not bump up against the 60 HZ / 60 fps limit.
    - 9.7 iPad Pro 35.3 fps
    - 9.7 inch Air 2 28.1 fps
    Back to my point. The graphic performance of the new iPad and the Air 2, on their screens (which is currently what most users will see), does not seem to be that different.
    edited March 2016 netmage
  • Reply 31 of 46
    DCJ0001DCJ0001 Posts: 63member
    It features an A9X processor, a leap over the A8X used in the Air 2. Apple claims that the chip's CPU performance is 1.8 times faster
     They A9X is 1.8 times the speed of, or 0.8 times faster than, the A8X. It is not 1.8 times faster, as you say. 

      Why do you write this nonsense, Roger? 
  • Reply 32 of 46
    AI2xxx said:
    Offscreen tests are done at 1080p, but there is no display to hold back the refresh rate, so it's unlimited.  It's interesting to compare the two, because you get situations where "hey the Galaxy S6 GPU is better than the iPhone 6's GPU, it kills it in offscreen tests!" but then "Yeah but the Galaxy S6 GPU still can't handle its high native screen resolution so XYZ looks choppy!"...

    I think we'll probably have the usual effect of the Pro only looking slightly faster at first, but the difference becoming more apparent as iOS grows e.g. iOS 10.
    Offscreen is always the most relevant in defining an SoC's true performance. Content and applications don't need to be running at the device's native resolution. Additionally, GPU compute does not have to depend on the resolution of the screen. Onscreen comparisons had been popular in a time when it would take a high end phone or tablet just to run the UI and basic applications properly. As with the PC world, offscreen or equal resolution comparisons are always used.  
    I realize that, in fact that's why I gave the example I gave.  It *is* important that a GPU be able to handle the resolution that the screen forces it to though.  If I put the most powerful mobile GPU in the market paired with a 4K screen, it's not going to be enough to drive it particularly well, so things will have to be either low frame rate or run at a quality level/resolution that wastes the higher quality screen.  So I'm sticking with both onscreen and offscreen tests as being important benchmarks.
    Onscreen comparisons are important with mobile devices because they have fixed screen resolutions and mobile GPUs are still very weak compared to what we're used to on desktops.
    edited March 2016 bb-15
  • Reply 33 of 46

    bb-15 said:
    Onscreen tests are capped at the refresh rate of the display which is usually 60Hz... Which is why you won't see any scores above 60 (check over at Anandtech where they test a lot of devices).  Eventually the GPUs get so good at the older GL benchmarks that just about everything gets around 60 onscreen unless there is a drastically different native resolution of the screen.  And then they have to update the benchmarks to make it worthwhile to even run onscreen tests.

    Offscreen tests are done at 1080p, but there is no display to hold back the refresh rate, so it's unlimited.  It's interesting to compare the two, because you get situations where "hey the Galaxy S6 GPU is better than the iPhone 6's GPU, it kills it in offscreen tests!" but then "Yeah but the Galaxy S6 GPU still can't handle its high native screen resolution so XYZ looks choppy!"...

    I think we'll probably have the usual effect of the Pro only looking slightly faster at first, but the difference becoming more apparent as iOS grows e.g. iOS 10.
    Thank you for the explanation. So, with the gfxbench onscreen GPU tests done by Ars Technica, the T-Rex HD results of the iPad Pros could be ignored since the Pro devices are bumping up against the 60 HZ limit of the displays and are almost at 60 fps with that test.
    - But Ars also did a Manhattan HD onscreen test. And the scores for that did not bump up against the 60 HZ / 60 fps limit.
    - 9.7 iPad Pro 35.3 fps
    - 9.7 inch Air 2 28.1 fps
    Back to my point. The graphic performance of the new iPad and the Air 2, on their screens (which is currently what most users will see), does not seem to be that different.
    I don't think I'm disagreeing with you as much as you seem to think :)  But yes, the larger difference will be seen in CPU speed, where the Pro is significantly faster for more important single core tasks.  In any case, the Anandtech review (or maybe the full Ars one) should have a whole lot more comparisons that include more CPU tests and things like throttling, etc.   I'm getting the Pro because I want the Pencil support and any increases in speed-  but I will use them.  The Air 2 is still a great value and probably the second best 10" tablet on the market.
    bb-15
  • Reply 34 of 46
    bb-15bb-15 Posts: 283member

    bb-15 said:
    Thank you for the explanation. So, with the gfxbench onscreen GPU tests done by Ars Technica, the T-Rex HD results of the iPad Pros could be ignored since the Pro devices are bumping up against the 60 HZ limit of the displays and are almost at 60 fps with that test.
    - But Ars also did a Manhattan HD onscreen test. And the scores for that did not bump up against the 60 HZ / 60 fps limit.
    - 9.7 iPad Pro 35.3 fps
    - 9.7 inch Air 2 28.1 fps
    Back to my point. The graphic performance of the new iPad and the Air 2, on their screens (which is currently what most users will see), does not seem to be that different.
    I don't think I'm disagreeing with you as much as you seem to think :)  But yes, the larger difference will be seen in CPU speed, where the Pro is significantly faster for more important single core tasks.  In any case, the Anandtech review (or maybe the full Ars one) should have a whole lot more comparisons that include more CPU tests and things like throttling, etc.   I'm getting the Pro because I want the Pencil support and any increases in speed-  but I will use them.  The Air 2 is still a great value and probably the second best 10" tablet on the market.
    This has been an enjoyable and instructive discussion for me. And we are agreeing about many things including looking forward to the upcoming complete reviews for the new iPad.
    As for your choice, since you want the Pencil and much faster single core speeds, of course the new IP Pro is the better (only) option.
    I considered the 128GB new IP Pro ($749) but in the end will be going with the Air 2 (upgrading my IP3).
    It was a hard decision. I wanted the keyboard connector (I almost always use a physical keyboard). And if the new IP Pro had 4GB of RAM that might have tipped the balance.
    But in the end it's a price / performance thing. The Ars Technica tests showed me that the Air 2 is still pretty fast. And $499 for a 64 GB Air 2 was too good a deal to pass up. For me at least.
    edited March 2016
  • Reply 35 of 46
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 2,074member
    bb-15 said:
    But in the end it's a price / performance thing. The Ars Technica tests showed me that the Air 2 is still pretty fast. And $499 for a 64 GB Air 2 was too good a deal to pass up. For me at least.

    Last fall I was expecting Apple to release the iPad Air 3 and was very disappointed that they only released the iPad Pro 12.9".    My third generation iPad had far too many problems with browsing in Safari.    Eventually I broke down at Christmas time bought an Air 2 that was $100 off.   I've been pretty happy with it since its is definitely lighter.
    I hope you enjoy yours too.   Its about time they dropped the price on the Air2 since its a year and half old technology wise.

    I've been wondering if I would have buyer's remorse for getting the Air2 when I did and not waiting till this Pro came out.   Glad to realize that I'm not feeling that way.  Both the iPad Pro 12.9 inch and iPad Pro 9.7 have some good technology improvements but until the iPad Pro II 9.7 inch gets the fast charging and the price drops some more I think will be very happy with the Air2 for several years.   

    I still consider the iPad primarily a web surfing tool and until the usage of the Apple pencil gets more compelling software supporting it (beyond graphics work) I'm just not sure how worthwhile the iPad Pro is.   The pencil seems like an expensive accessory that can get easily lost.   I actually like how the Samsung Galaxy Note has a place to store its stylus.   The pencil does not seem like as ubiquitous a tool as the mouse for PC's.   So Apple needs to make it either cheaper or more useful.
    bb-15
  • Reply 36 of 46
    sog35 said:
    Exactly.

    I love that Apple is giving us CHOICE.  

    All the people who are crying about 16GB/32GB devices don't realize that if Apple started devices at 64GB they would have to raise prices.  It would be horrible for me and many other users who are fine with 16/32GB to be forced to pay more and buy a base model 64GB device.


    There's an issue with storage cost beyond whether Apple is too stingy with the base amount provided, and that is the egregious amount charged for upgrades.

    You are able to stream your content, so you're right, a lower-capacity alternative is a good idea for you and others like you. To those of us for whom streaming is not a viable option, paying over $2 per GB for slow flash is, in my opinion, cynical exploitation.

    When I come home with a new Apple product I don't feel 100% good about it. I feel 50% happy about how it will improve my life, and 50% ashamed of myself for paying what I consider to be too much for upgrades and accessories. That drives me to resist additional purchases rather than embrace new products as they become available (like this ancient Mac I'm typing on that I cling to rather than replace because i just can't get over how much Apple wants me to pay for BTO storage and RAM upgrades). Obviously Apple perceives greater value in the short-term gain they realize than the long-term hit to total purchases it may cause in people like me. Am I in a minority feeling the way I do?
  • Reply 37 of 46
    apple ][ said:
    JoakimW said:
    Does anyone know if the new 9,7" iPad Pro use the same improved Touch ID sensor as the iPhone 6S/6S Plus?  As far as I know the 12,9" iPad Pro use the older and slower sensor.
    I've read that the iPhone 5SE uses the older sensor, but I don't believe that I've read anything about the iPad Pro 9.7 Touch sensor yet, though I would probably guess that it's the previous version too most likely. The new one is lightning fast, but I don't really have any complaints about the previous one either, and I use it many times per day on a few different devices.
    I don't know if Trumpet fever is going to your head, as it is with a majority of illiterates in this country, or you're just being comical (in your eyes only, of course), but it is NOT the iPhone 5SE. I've seen you reference the SE as the 5SE multiple times since its introduction, and it's really growing old. 
  • Reply 38 of 46
    lem0nayde said:
    Typo?
    The Air 2 originally shipped with three capacity options: 16, 64, or 128 gigabytes, in Wi-Fi-only or 4G-capable configurations. With the arrival of the new Pro, the 128-gigabyte tier has disappeared.

    The Pro is available in 32-, 128-, or 256-gigabyte versions, again with a choice of Wi-Fi or 4G-ready hardware. It's in fact the first iOS device of any kind to offer 256 gigabytes.
    It took me a minute to get what happened. It wasn't worded quite right. What it was meant to imply is since the introduction of the 9.7" Pro, the Air 2 no longer has the 128GB option. It should read: "the 128-gigabyte tier has disappeared for the Air 2."
  • Reply 39 of 46
    Does the built-in Apple SIM card get carrier locked if pick AT&T like on the Air 2?

    On the Air 2 you could get another card to go back to Sprint or T-Mobile if it did, and swap them out on the fly. You'd be stuck for life with a built-in card.
    I called Apple sales about this issue. They turned me over to tech support and they said there's also a SIM tray we can put our att card in and both the embedded card and the tray card will be visible in the Settings->Cell section.
  • Reply 40 of 46
    The new 9.7-inch iPad Pro is meant to be a successor to the iPad Air 2 as much as a cheaper alternative to its 12.9-inch sibling. But what separates the 9.7-inch Pro from its predecessor, and what's unchanged?

    In comparing the Air 2 with the Pro, the real question is whether it's worth the cost difference. Stay tuned for AppleInsider's full review to find out.
    There are PLENTY of quality keyboards and drawing tools for iOS devices.....  sure Apple is finally providing one of their own.... but what is really needed are more 'pro apps' and mouse support, file system means to access external drives without a hokey 3rd party app...... until then the iPad will have a tough time replacing a Mac.  .... I still think they need to bite the bullet and create a cross over device like Microsoft has done - but maybe iOS will continue to grow up and OS X will merge.
    edited March 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.