I dunno. I don't think you can really put the Surface and iPad Pro in the same category, especially not the category of 'detachables'. Otherwise you'd have to include devices like the Surface Book, which is technicallya 'detachable', but I think that might skew numbers in Microsoft's favour
my personal experience is that the Surface has one of the highest rates of return I've ever seen. Between the lower end models being woefully underpowered for their cost and the flimsy build quality, I would say an easy 20% of surfaces get returned.
my personal experience is that the Surface has one of the highest rates of return I've ever seen. Between the lower end models being woefully underpowered for their cost and the flimsy build quality, I would say an easy 20% of surfaces get returned.
I dunno. I don't think you can really put the Surface and iPad Pro in the same category, especially not the category of 'detachables'. Otherwise you'd have to include devices like the Surface Book, which is technicallya 'detachable', but I think that might skew numbers in Microsoft's favour
Right... Well if it does those god damn numbers should be easy to find heh. Go look for them buddy. I think not.
I dunno. I don't think you can really put the Surface and iPad Pro in the same category, especially not the category of 'detachables'. Otherwise you'd have to include devices like the Surface Book, which is technicallya 'detachable', but I think that might skew numbers in Microsoft's favour
Yes, these two devices should be in separate categories. The iPad Pro is a tablet with a keyboard attachment while the Surface is a laptop with a detachable keyboard. Although they may look somewhat similar on the outside they are completely different on the inside (putting them in the same category is judging a book by its cover). The IDC seems to be suffering from a category confusion. In reality, tablets like the iPad Pro and Pixel C should be counted among the traditional tablets while the Surface should be counted along with the other Windows tablets.
Sure there are plenty of jobs that don't require heavy duty coding, however I fundamentally have a problem with Apple calling devices "Pro" models without any real changes to the software. While some may disagree iOS hasn't really changed much over the last few years, it still lacks even a decent or basic file system. Whats the point of having an iPad with specs as good as a Macbook yet can't take advantage of the same software? I have a 12.9 iPad Pro and I use it often but rarely for anything related to work.
Even those that use Photoshop won't use an iPad Pro over a Mac because the software is nothing more than a dumbed down version. The days of Apple being able to get away with simply changing the size of something or making it thinner are over or haven't you noticed AAPL this week?
If Apple is going to tag something as a "Pro" model then IMHO it needs to be running OS X not iOS.
I know people are going to say "Apple will never run OS X on an iPad. Yeah Apple was also never going too make a bigger iPhone, the iPad was never going to be bigger than 9.7 in or smaller for that matter. There is nothing stopping Apple from running OS X on an iPad Pro. At least then people will truly have a laptop alternative.
As someone that is an engineer I'm always looking for parity. If the hardware is getting faster and the hardware specs are getting better, if the software isn't maturing at the same rate then it's a waste.
Also you kind of proved my point. The industries you mentioned, there aren't any of them that have mass adoption of the iPad over traditional laptops. Any Police car I have seen always has a laptop in it, daughter is a Nurse and Wife has been in education for over 15 years, not an iPad to be found.
1) There are no real changes to the software between a surface and a surface PRO. No real software changes between a MacBook and a MacBook PRO. PRO just means bigger or more powerful. Much in the same way that AIR means lighter and thinner. You know, like the iPad AIR or the MacBook AIR. Not to mention mini meaning smaller. Like the Mac MINI or the iPad MINI or the iPod MINI before the nano came out. 2) Apple's never going to run OS X on an iPad because iOS is simply more popular with far better/more third party support, already optimized for touch, gives apple the level of control that they've always wanted, runs on a thimble, and, if anything, we'll see an ios-based desktop machine before we see an OS X tablet. You're essentially expecting apple play the weaker hand, simply because a bunch of people that are continually wrong, say they should. Does not compute.
"There is nothing stopping Apple from running OS X on an iPad Pro"
How about the fact that Intel mobile processors are kinda poor at being mobile in comparison to ARM processors? So, if apple were to switch OS X to the iPad, it'll have almost NO software because x86 (CISC) software won't run natively on ARM (RISC) architecture. That means, your grand idea of running photoshop on an iPad through OS X won't happen, whoops #1. Then there's the processing overhead involved. Whoops #2. And, because of whoops #1, they'll be essentially snatching the rug from under their OS X AND iOS developers once again. Whoops #3. Then there's the fact that Apple would have to completely flip OS X's interface onto its head to make it work with touch. Whoops #4. As an engineer you should have known all of this. It's not as simple as installing OS X on an IPad and calling it a day. Even if you did that, none of the existing software would work without some really painful software implementation to emulate x86 architecture. Conversely, they can't just make them x86 tablets because Intel doesn't do mobile well and even if they did, Apple would be shooting all of the third party developers on their more popular platform square in the gut in favor of a less popular, less profitable platform. Does not compute.
Apple has a long history of suddenly changing its architecture and such. Each time it was painful for everyone involved and Apple had to basically pull a rabbit out of a hat to make it work because they HAD to make those changes. They don't HAVE to push their less popular platform. Macs are doing well enough but osx doesn't have anywhere near the install base or third party' support that iOS has, so OS X on a tablet won't happen. If you really want an OS X tablet, buy an axiotron modbook or invent a time machine, go back in time to the late 80's and make sure that macs are so popular that iOS never gets invented.
Let's be a bit more constructive than that. Your whoopses are based on a false assumption: iPads don't have to run x86 code to run OS X or OS X applications. A simple recompile in Xcode should be sufficient and fat binaries take care of the rest. So whoops, you should have known that before writing this nonsense.
Now the constructive part, instead of trying to think how things might not work, it's refreshing to think how they possibly can.
Safari on iPad is an example of how 'apps' can universally work on a touch and non touch interface. This is no accident, it is designed to be so. Taking a clue from this setup, it's not such a stretch to do this for OS X apps too. To realize this OS X apps can run in a sandbox/virtual machine (for the same architecture mind you!) and touch interface actions can be intercepted and translated to logical mouse actions in a similar way Safari does (note that Safari can do this because the app defines and renders the interface according to html5 spec). You can call this the dos box equivalent of iOS.
One step further, Apple can provide an Xcode package that can translate OS X software automatically (with few source code changes, if any) to an iOS app equivalent, this means that the look and feel is much more like a native app on OS X.
See, not so difficult after all, just a nice exercise.
I dunno. I don't think you can really put the Surface and iPad Pro in the same category, especially not the category of 'detachables'. Otherwise you'd have to include devices like the Surface Book, which is technicallya 'detachable', but I think that might skew numbers in Microsoft's favour
Yes, these two devices should be in separate categories. The iPad Pro is a tablet with a keyboard attachment while the Surface is a laptop with a detachable keyboard. Although they may look somewhat similar on the outside they are completely different on the inside (putting them in the same category is judging a book by its cover). The IDC seems to be suffering from a category confusion. In reality, tablets like the iPad Pro and Pixel C should be counted among the traditional tablets while the Surface should be counted along with the other Windows tablets.
The iPad Pro has been outselling the Surface for a while now.
I remember seeing a bunch of articles a few months ago about how the iPad Pro was selling more than the Surface.
Despite not hitting the market until the middle of the last quarter, Apple sold 2 million units of its iPad Pro, exceeding sales of the Microsoft Surface, which came in at 1.6 million units for the quarter, according to IDC estimates. The research group called the iPad Pro the big winner in a declining tablet market which fell 10 percent year over year.
Apple's iPad Pro outsold Microsoft's Surface tablet last quarter
Surface-related revenue is up to $1.1 billion this quarter, an increase of 61 percent from the same period last year. Both the Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book helped push sales, but as always Microsoft is keeping the exact number of devices a secret.
It is a bit weird comparison to start with. Even with "Pro" moniker, iPad Pro is still iOS tablet, and still lacks "serious" software for pro use. Surface Pro is x86 laptop in tablet form factor. I really cannot see many people considering between those two. As such, they don't compete. SP is competing with premium Windows ultraportables. iPad Pro still competes against iPads and other Arm/mobile OS tablets of the world.
Beside that... Surface Pro has been around for a while. Even if we ignore original, chubby format with 11" screen that Surface Pro 1 and 2 had, SP3 and SP4 have been around for almost 2 years now... iPad Pro is available for what, half a year? SP is maturing product, many people with SP3 or even SP2 (which was based on same Haswell platform as SP3) will not upgrade to SP4. iPad Pro is "hot new" thing. It is first ever large iPad, and as such, it is iPad's version of iPhone 6. Everyone who wanted larger iPad will consider it. There is (almost) 0 saturation for that market segment. Let's see how well these initial sales hold, and if/when iPad Pro betters not moment sales, but actual numbers in wild that SP products have.
I don't know of anyone who has bought a Surface Pro (3 or 4) that bought it to use a tablet. They bought it because they thought it was (supposed to be) a slick, ultra portable laptop replacement. A common theme has also been a lot of regret when it turns out to be not what they thought. For a while it was people getting Windows RT and not understanding why nothing was compatible. Now that time has passed, and its more I/O woes, and random quirks this hardware exhibits that other OEM laptops do not.
Source: I work with a lot of people that purchase their own equipment for work.
Every Surface Pro users I know bought theirs for work, and uses it as an ultra-portable laptop, not as a tablet. It's always in landscape mode, keyboard attached, propped up on its kickstand, running the classic desktop apps.
That's kind of tough call. True, all our Surface customers are using them as laptops. Docking station in office, 2 screens, full size desktop keyboard and mouse, usually wired network. They use it as laptop when out and about, with stand and type cover. USB hub with gigabit lan is second most common accessory, after type cover.
But... we have no visibility how they use them out of office hours. I know that I use my SP3 as tablet a lot. Most of the tablet features I use can be done on dedicated tablets, true... but I still see value in integrated kickstand, larger than average screen and capability to switch to laptop mode at any moment. Just in case that unsuspecting email is work related and requires me to have access to ConnectWise and other software I might not have in tablet form.
And then, of course, it is my travel one-stop-shop machine. Tablet, laptop, even backup ebook reader.
We are small IT company supporting around 1000 seats altogether. We estimate around 200 - 250 of those, at the moment, being convertibles, almost exclusively Surface Pro 3, with some SP4, handful of HP Elite X2. Can't talk about other users, but ours are quite happy with SP. Simple proof for that is that for incoming hardware refreshes, we see more and more Surface-like devices requests, at expense of old-school laptops. Desktops are still reasonably stable, which makes sense - Surface replaces laptop, desktop is still a bit different product. At least in end-users' minds. People who want laptop are considering convertibles more and more. People who want desktop, much less.
As suddenly newton's observations hint at and the champions of running "real apps" on the Surface unwittingly confirm, the Surface is used mainly as a Windows laptop that happens to have a detachable touchscreen.
There's no incentive for developers to create touchscreen apps for the Surface when "real apps" work on the Surface.
What does a developer have to gain from the extra time, resource and support demands of making their "real apps" work with the Surface touchscreen?
Those same developers aren't making iOS versions of those apps either so the point is moot. And their apps already work with the touchscreen. No special development is required for that. They just aren't optimized for it.
You can't run any kind of scripting in iOS so that makes it worthless in lots of use cases. You could never have a fully functional version of ArcGIS with that limitation. Or MatLab. And as was already stated by others, any sort of programming or web development is a no go unless you want to write a bunch of text files and hope they actually work when you get them to an OS that will allow them to be compiled and run. And anything beyond basic word processing is a major headache in iOS I've found.
You buy the tool tool that fits the job. I enjoy my iPad for basic tasks: web browsing, wasting a few minutes on games, checking email, social media. But the Surface Pro has proven itself to be a very capable tool for my needs. Yes, it mostly gets used as an ultra portable laptop but I also like having the touchscreen and stylus. I constantly mix keyboard, trackpad and touchscreen input. And I liked being to add storage space after the fact for about $20 instead of the $100 Apple would have charged.
Not long ago i would disagree with you... but today, I humbly admit that I use touchscreen (if device have it) a lot, even if device has touchpad or mouse available. Some things - scrolling comes to mind firs, but also zooming in/out - just feels better, more direct, more "connected" when applied to screen, directly over results of such actions. I don't expect it would work that good on large desktop screens, but on tablets and small laptops, really nice.
my personal experience is that the Surface has one of the highest rates of return I've ever seen. Between the lower end models being woefully underpowered for their cost and the flimsy build quality, I would say an easy 20% of surfaces get returned.
Yeah... entry SP4 is so under-powered in comparison to 12" Macbook, Zenbook UX305, Elite X2, Miix 700 and quite a few other Core M ultras... and the flimsiness, oh the flimsiness. Let's not even go that way
1) There are no real changes to the software between a surface and a surface PRO. No real software changes between a MacBook and a MacBook PRO. PRO just means bigger or more powerful. Much in the same way that AIR means lighter and thinner. You know, like the iPad AIR or the MacBook AIR. Not to mention mini meaning smaller. Like the Mac MINI or the iPad MINI or the iPod MINI before the nano came out. 2) Apple's never going to run OS X on an iPad because iOS is simply more popular with far better/more third party support, already optimized for touch, gives apple the level of control that they've always wanted, runs on a thimble, and, if anything, we'll see an ios-based desktop machine before we see an OS X tablet. You're essentially expecting apple play the weaker hand, simply because a bunch of people that are continually wrong, say they should. Does not compute.
"There is nothing stopping Apple from running OS X on an iPad Pro"
How about the fact that Intel mobile processors are kinda poor at being mobile in comparison to ARM processors? So, if apple were to switch OS X to the iPad, it'll have almost NO software because x86 (CISC) software won't run natively on ARM (RISC) architecture. That means, your grand idea of running photoshop on an iPad through OS X won't happen, whoops #1. Then there's the processing overhead involved. Whoops #2. And, because of whoops #1, they'll be essentially snatching the rug from under their OS X AND iOS developers once again. Whoops #3. Then there's the fact that Apple would have to completely flip OS X's interface onto its head to make it work with touch. Whoops #4. As an engineer you should have known all of this. It's not as simple as installing OS X on an IPad and calling it a day. Even if you did that, none of the existing software would work without some really painful software implementation to emulate x86 architecture. Conversely, they can't just make them x86 tablets because Intel doesn't do mobile well and even if they did, Apple would be shooting all of the third party developers on their more popular platform square in the gut in favor of a less popular, less profitable platform. Does not compute.
Apple has a long history of suddenly changing its architecture and such. Each time it was painful for everyone involved and Apple had to basically pull a rabbit out of a hat to make it work because they HAD to make those changes. They don't HAVE to push their less popular platform. Macs are doing well enough but osx doesn't have anywhere near the install base or third party' support that iOS has, so OS X on a tablet won't happen. If you really want an OS X tablet, buy an axiotron modbook or invent a time machine, go back in time to the late 80's and make sure that macs are so popular that iOS never gets invented.
Let's be a bit more constructive than that. Your whoopses are based on a false assumption: iPads don't have to run x86 code to run OS X or OS X applications. A simple recompile in Xcode should be sufficient and fat binaries take care of the rest. So whoops, you should have known that before writing this nonsense.
Now the constructive part, instead of trying to think how things might not work, it's refreshing to think how they possibly can.
Safari on iPad is an example of how 'apps' can universally work on a touch and non touch interface. This is no accident, it is designed to be so. Taking a clue from this setup, it's not such a stretch to do this for OS X apps too. To realize this OS X apps can run in a sandbox/virtual machine (for the same architecture mind you!) and touch interface actions can be intercepted and translated to logical mouse actions in a similar way Safari does (note that Safari can do this because the app defines and renders the interface according to html5 spec). You can call this the dos box equivalent of iOS.
One step further, Apple can provide an Xcode package that can translate OS X software automatically (with few source code changes, if any) to an iOS app equivalent, this means that the look and feel is much more like a native app on OS X.
See, not so difficult after all, just a nice exercise.
May I add? Frankly, there is very little reason why Core M that powers 12" MacBook could not fit in iPad Pro 13" tablet format. So even that is not really an issue. Apple could pack x86 platform running OSX in iPad Pro chassis... if they decide not to, that is not due to inability, but due to strategy they have selected for this time. How good or bad such strategy is, well, only time will tell.
Comments
Right... Well if it does those god damn numbers should be easy to find heh. Go look for them buddy. I think not.
Your whoopses are based on a false assumption: iPads don't have to run x86 code to run OS X or OS X applications. A simple recompile in Xcode should be sufficient and fat binaries take care of the rest.
So whoops, you should have known that before writing this nonsense.
Now the constructive part, instead of trying to think how things might not work, it's refreshing to think how they possibly can.
Safari on iPad is an example of how 'apps' can universally work on a touch and non touch interface.
This is no accident, it is designed to be so. Taking a clue from this setup, it's not such a stretch to do this for OS X apps too.
To realize this OS X apps can run in a sandbox/virtual machine (for the same architecture mind you!) and touch interface actions can be intercepted and translated to logical mouse actions in a similar way Safari does (note that Safari can do this because the app defines and renders the interface according to html5 spec). You can call this the dos box equivalent of iOS.
One step further, Apple can provide an Xcode package that can translate OS X software automatically (with few source code changes, if any) to an iOS app equivalent, this means that the look and feel is much more like a native app on OS X.
See, not so difficult after all, just a nice exercise.
exactly, thank you
Beside that... Surface Pro has been around for a while. Even if we ignore original, chubby format with 11" screen that Surface Pro 1 and 2 had, SP3 and SP4 have been around for almost 2 years now... iPad Pro is available for what, half a year? SP is maturing product, many people with SP3 or even SP2 (which was based on same Haswell platform as SP3) will not upgrade to SP4. iPad Pro is "hot new" thing. It is first ever large iPad, and as such, it is iPad's version of iPhone 6. Everyone who wanted larger iPad will consider it. There is (almost) 0 saturation for that market segment. Let's see how well these initial sales hold, and if/when iPad Pro betters not moment sales, but actual numbers in wild that SP products have.
That's kind of tough call. True, all our Surface customers are using them as laptops. Docking station in office, 2 screens, full size desktop keyboard and mouse, usually wired network. They use it as laptop when out and about, with stand and type cover. USB hub with gigabit lan is second most common accessory, after type cover.
But... we have no visibility how they use them out of office hours. I know that I use my SP3 as tablet a lot. Most of the tablet features I use can be done on dedicated tablets, true... but I still see value in integrated kickstand, larger than average screen and capability to switch to laptop mode at any moment. Just in case that unsuspecting email is work related and requires me to have access to ConnectWise and other software I might not have in tablet form.
And then, of course, it is my travel one-stop-shop machine. Tablet, laptop, even backup ebook reader.
We are small IT company supporting around 1000 seats altogether. We estimate around 200 - 250 of those, at the moment, being convertibles, almost exclusively Surface Pro 3, with some SP4, handful of HP Elite X2. Can't talk about other users, but ours are quite happy with SP. Simple proof for that is that for incoming hardware refreshes, we see more and more Surface-like devices requests, at expense of old-school laptops. Desktops are still reasonably stable, which makes sense - Surface replaces laptop, desktop is still a bit different product. At least in end-users' minds. People who want laptop are considering convertibles more and more. People who want desktop, much less.
May I add? Frankly, there is very little reason why Core M that powers 12" MacBook could not fit in iPad Pro 13" tablet format. So even that is not really an issue. Apple could pack x86 platform running OSX in iPad Pro chassis... if they decide not to, that is not due to inability, but due to strategy they have selected for this time. How good or bad such strategy is, well, only time will tell.