My biggest concern regarding price has nothing to do with Apple but concerns the strength of the U.S. dollar compared to international currencies. For instance, comparing the three Wi-Fi 10.5 inch and 12.9 inch storage tiers for the U.S. and Canada without accessories:
10.5 inch U.S.: $649, $749, $949
10.5 inch CAN: $869, $999, $1259
12.9 inch U.S.: $799, $899, $1099
12.9 inch CAN: $1049, $1179, $1439
On average, that's a north of 30% increase.
If you convert the currency the pricing is fair.
10.5": $657.39, $755.73, $952.48, which is slightly more than the US price. 12.9": $793.555, $891.89, $1,088.59, which is slightly less than the US price.
The pricing relative to the exchange rate may be fair, but for Canadians it is still a price hike. As a result of the exchange rate Canadians are paying approx. 30% more than they otherwise would pay if the Canadian dollar (CAD) was at parity with the U.S. dollar (USD). The last time there was parity was over four years ago. Four years ago an iPad priced at $1,000.00 USD would have cost $1,000.00 CAD. Today that same iPad would cost $1,320.00 CAD given a USD/CAD exchange rate of 1.32. In the intervening four years real wages, that is wages adjusted for inflation, have remained flat. So, the increase in cost is real. Compress the time and look at it like this, if yesterday the Canadian dollar was at parity with the U.S dollar, both Americans and Canadians would pay the same in their respective currencies, $1,000.00 for that iPad. If today the USD surged in strength and appreciated so that USD/CAD exchange rate became 1.32, Canadians would pay $1,320.00 today for the same imported product they paid $1,000.00 for yesterday. That is a 32% price hike. This assumes that Apple adjusted the price to reflect the change in exchange rate (which of course they would not do over the short term). When a domestic currency depreciates against a trading partner's, imports become more expensive independent of income; the purchasing power of consumers declines.
This isn't just a problem for Canadian consumers, it's also a problem for Apple. A strong U.S. dollar has negative impact on Apple's revenue from international business, which is over 60%. Consumers are less likely to buy when domestically prices are higher for imported goods. Added to that is that Apple prefers to adjust local pricing at the time of new product launches, which lag against movements in currencies. Apple eats the revenue loss and reduced margins until local pricing is realigned to reflect the change in exchange rate. Foreign exchange headwinds makes it challenging for Apple to increase its revenue from international sources despite the employment of financial instruments to hedge against such risk.
I'm not sure I understand what you think Apple should do about this. The value of a currency is do to the strength of the economy of that country when compared to others. As the Canadian economy is apparently weak, the currency is valued less. Also the Canadian government, in order to push exports up, may be working to lower the value of the currency.
none of this is Apple fault, and the responsibility to maintain the same relative pricing is their fiduciary duty. If Apple did what you wanted, they would lose money on every sale. I would hope they don't do that, even if total sales there go down. Some companies hold prices until they either just break even, or if they're really concerned about marketshare, even lose money. That's just bad business, and a reason why many companies have problems.
I think you either misread or are misinterpreting what I've written in response to the article. I never wrote that it was Apple's fault or their responsibility, nor did I write that Apple should do anything about it. If you read/reread my original post you'll see that I wrote the following:
"My biggest concern regarding price has nothing to do with Apple..."
"As a pro device I think the iPad Pro offers great value..."
If you reread the article you'll note that it took multiple opportunities to complain about the price of the iPad Pro and also question its value:
"We noted last year in our review of the 9.7-inch iPad Pro that its $599 price tag was high. This year, Apple has increased the cost by another $50."
"Priced at $649, the new 10.5-inch iPad Pro comes in with a price tag $50 higher than its predecessor. Apple justifies the price hike..."
"As a consolation for the $649 price tag..."
"...considering the entry price has gone up again."
"...the $329 iPad with 9.7-inch Retina display, quite frankly, offers a better value proposition than the 2017 iPad Pro."
"...especially considering the hefty $649 starting price of the iPad Pro."
"Our concerns about the price not only remain, but have been amplified."
"The $599 entry price for the 2016 9.7-inch iPad Pro felt steep, especially when previous iPads had debuted at a $499 price. This year, Apple went in the opposite direction, increasing the base cost to $649."
Part of my original post was a response to the article's price/value complaints and I state that "the iPad Pro offers great value", and by implication that I'm fine with the price Apple sells it at because it does offer great value and frankly any concerns I have about price have nothing to do with Apple, but with the exchange rate which doesn't add any value to a device, only increases its price. My follow up post was an explanation of the real price impact of the exchange rate which affects both Canadian consumers and Apple.
Your entire post is right in your reply to me. For the life of me, I don't know how you could forget the entire post that you wrote, and incorrectly pretend that you said something entirely different.
im not interested in what you say you said in your original post to which Soli responded. I responded to your post back, and in that post, you talked entirely about the price differences due to the currency differences, and your complaints as to that. That's what I replied to.
you can't say I misunderstood your post, when I clearly didn't.
When it first came out, it was mentioned it was 256. If someone has evidence that's wrong, I'd like to see it.
Apple has never provided a specific number. However, if you follow the first link in this list, it says that the stylus MS had for the Surface Pro 3 (available right around the time the Apple Pencil first came out) was 256, which was actually a downgrade from their previous stylus according to the article.
"It also looks like the Apple Pencil will have unmatched sensitivity, with its ability to sense multiple layers of pressure (though Apple doesn’t specify precisely how many), as well as the angle and orientation of the pen."
"I can’t find published specs on levels of pressure sensitivity of the Apple Pencil – but given the smoothness of the response I’d bet money on at least 1028."
When it first came out, I read somewhere, that it was 256. You've supplied remarks that say that they don't know, which got us no further than where we were.
ive been using Wacom tablets since the early 1980s. The first one I bought was for my Atari St. it was a 12x18, with no onboard buttons. It had a dark grey electrostatic surface to hold paper down. The other choice was one with a clear plastic cover that came down over the paper to hold it. There were 256 levels for many years. Even when I bought The Crossfield System for my lab in 1988, the 12x18 Wacom that came with it had 256, and their tablets continued to for years after that.
amazingly, 256 works well. It's only when your file is going to be viewed, or printed at very large sizes, that some banding can be seen in areas with slow gamma changes, such as sky. I would like this to be 1024 myself, because I dont see anything larger as being particularly useful. But we may not know for certain unless someone asks Apple directly about it. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.
When it first came out, I read somewhere, that it was 256. You've supplied remarks that say that they don't know, which got us no further than where we were.
I've supplied more than just "they don't know". I've supplied multiple sources that confirm Apple did not provide a specific number when it was originally released. I also noted that the Surface Pro 3 stylus at the time was 256, which is where I suspect that number actually came from. Perhaps you read something from someone who believed that Apple's stylus must also be 256 if Microsoft's was, or that only Wacom was capable of more than 256. Whatever it is, 256 never came from Apple itself. They've only supplied numbers for lag, not for pressure sensitivity.
I feel like the article is implying that iOS 11 will benefit users of the pro models more than the new entry-level model, but besides taking advantage of the beefier hardware specs on the Pro models is there anything in iOS 11 that won't work on entry-level iPads?
When it first came out, I read somewhere, that it was 256. You've supplied remarks that say that they don't know, which got us no further than where we were.
I've supplied more than just "they don't know". I've supplied multiple sources that confirm Apple did not provide a specific number when it was originally released. I also noted that the Surface Pro 3 stylus at the time was 256, which is where I suspect that number actually came from. Perhaps you read something from someone who believed that Apple's stylus must also be 256 if Microsoft's was, or that only Wacom was capable of more than 256. Whatever it is, 256 never came from Apple itself. They've only supplied numbers for lag, not for pressure sensitivity.
As I said, they don't know. What I read clearly was about Apple's Pencil. Sometimes a number is mentioned in passing by someone from Apple, or a supplier. It gets referenced to once or twice, and then forgotten. Since I've been using these things for longer than most people have been alive, it's of interest to me in particular, and therefor, I tend to remember it.
I feel like the article is implying that iOS 11 will benefit users of the pro models more than the new entry-level model, but besides taking advantage of the beefier hardware specs on the Pro models is there anything in iOS 11 that won't work on entry-level iPads?
Quite the opposite, actually. As I said in the review, ALL new iPads will be able to take advantage of all of the new iOS 11 features once it launches.
I feel like the article is implying that iOS 11 will benefit users of the pro models more than the new entry-level model, but besides taking advantage of the beefier hardware specs on the Pro models is there anything in iOS 11 that won't work on entry-level iPads?
The Pencil of course. The Apple keyboard/cases made for the pro models, and that's about it. There are plenty of Bluetooth keyboard/cases for the 9.7 iPads around, from really cheap Chinese models to more expensive models from known makers.
of course those aren't specifically aimed towards iOS 11. But rather than for the hardware of the pro models. But also, some of the multasking features of iOS 11 won't work on the smaller screened models, and goes for last year's 9.7 pro too.
As I said, they don't know. What I read clearly was about Apple's Pencil. Sometimes a number is mentioned in passing by someone from Apple, or a supplier. It gets referenced to once or twice, and then forgotten. Since I've been using these things for longer than most people have been alive, it's of interest to me in particular, and therefor, I tend to remember it.
You don't know either. You don't remember the source, and can't say for sure whether it was really Apple or perhaps a supplier that referenced 256. You're in essentially the same position as the people I quoted in the articles. They're familiar with the products and what the typical standards are. They're interested in knowing for sure what the levels number actually is, but there's nothing available that confirms it. BusinessInsider's article literally had a blurb that they had "reached out" to Apple to get clarification on the sensitivity level and would update when it was available...and obviously the article had never been updated. Apple doesn't provide a number. An educated guess is the best anyone can do. You're convinced that it's 256. Others are convinced that it's at least as good as 1,028 or 2,056. There's a YouTube video that gets passed around online where someone claims it's 1,000,000. IMO, Apple knew Wacom's products were basically the industry standard at the time, so my educated guess is that's what they would have been targeting in terms of pressure sensitivity. Wacom had long since moved on from 256, so in my mind it's unlikely that's what Apple would be satisfied with.
As I said, they don't know. What I read clearly was about Apple's Pencil. Sometimes a number is mentioned in passing by someone from Apple, or a supplier. It gets referenced to once or twice, and then forgotten. Since I've been using these things for longer than most people have been alive, it's of interest to me in particular, and therefor, I tend to remember it.
You don't know either. You don't remember the source, and can't say for sure whether it was really Apple or perhaps a supplier that referenced 256. You're in essentially the same position as the people I quoted in the articles. They're familiar with the products and what the typical standards are. They're interested in knowing for sure what the levels number actually is, but there's nothing available that confirms it. BusinessInsider's article literally had a blurb that they had "reached out" to Apple to get clarification on the sensitivity level and would update when it was available...and obviously the article had never been updated. Apple doesn't provide a number. An educated guess is the best anyone can do. You're convinced that it's 256. Others are convinced that it's at least as good as 1,028 or 2,056. There's a YouTube video that gets passed around online where someone claims it's 1,000,000. IMO, Apple knew Wacom's products were basically the industry standard at the time, so my educated guess is that's what they would have been targeting in terms of pressure sensitivity. Wacom had long since moved on from 256, so in my mind it's unlikely that's what Apple would be satisfied with.
Oh lord, how long are you going to stretch this out? All I said was that I remember reading somewhere that it was 256, and I asked for clarification of that. That's it. I didn't say it IS 256, just that I had read somewhere that it is. You come on and argue with me for no apparent purpose. You've come up with exactly zero new information. All you say is that nobody knows,, without actually admitting that, which is what I've been saying.
but you continue to argue it. Can we wind this down? I'd really like to close this tab.
As I said, they don't know. What I read clearly was about Apple's Pencil. Sometimes a number is mentioned in passing by someone from Apple, or a supplier. It gets referenced to once or twice, and then forgotten. Since I've been using these things for longer than most people have been alive, it's of interest to me in particular, and therefor, I tend to remember it.
You don't know either. You don't remember the source, and can't say for sure whether it was really Apple or perhaps a supplier that referenced 256. You're in essentially the same position as the people I quoted in the articles. They're familiar with the products and what the typical standards are. They're interested in knowing for sure what the levels number actually is, but there's nothing available that confirms it. BusinessInsider's article literally had a blurb that they had "reached out" to Apple to get clarification on the sensitivity level and would update when it was available...and obviously the article had never been updated. Apple doesn't provide a number. An educated guess is the best anyone can do. You're convinced that it's 256. Others are convinced that it's at least as good as 1,028 or 2,056. There's a YouTube video that gets passed around online where someone claims it's 1,000,000. IMO, Apple knew Wacom's products were basically the industry standard at the time, so my educated guess is that's what they would have been targeting in terms of pressure sensitivity. Wacom had long since moved on from 256, so in my mind it's unlikely that's what Apple would be satisfied with.
Oh lord, how long are you going to stretch this out? All I said was that I remember reading somewhere that it was 256, and I asked for clarification of that. That's it. I didn't say it IS 256, just that I had read somewhere that it is. You come on and argue with me for no apparent purpose. You've come up with exactly zero new information. All you say is that nobody knows,, without actually admitting that, which is what I've been saying.
but you continue to argue it. Can we wind this down? I'd really like to close this tab.
The following reads like a statement, as well as disappointment in Apple based on your statement, not a question asking for more information before passing judgment.
...the Pencil (with just 256 levels, come on Apple, that's no longer acceptable)...
As I said, they don't know. What I read clearly was about Apple's Pencil. Sometimes a number is mentioned in passing by someone from Apple, or a supplier. It gets referenced to once or twice, and then forgotten. Since I've been using these things for longer than most people have been alive, it's of interest to me in particular, and therefor, I tend to remember it.
You don't know either. You don't remember the source, and can't say for sure whether it was really Apple or perhaps a supplier that referenced 256. You're in essentially the same position as the people I quoted in the articles. They're familiar with the products and what the typical standards are. They're interested in knowing for sure what the levels number actually is, but there's nothing available that confirms it. BusinessInsider's article literally had a blurb that they had "reached out" to Apple to get clarification on the sensitivity level and would update when it was available...and obviously the article had never been updated. Apple doesn't provide a number. An educated guess is the best anyone can do. You're convinced that it's 256. Others are convinced that it's at least as good as 1,028 or 2,056. There's a YouTube video that gets passed around online where someone claims it's 1,000,000. IMO, Apple knew Wacom's products were basically the industry standard at the time, so my educated guess is that's what they would have been targeting in terms of pressure sensitivity. Wacom had long since moved on from 256, so in my mind it's unlikely that's what Apple would be satisfied with.
Oh lord, how long are you going to stretch this out? All I said was that I remember reading somewhere that it was 256, and I asked for clarification of that. That's it. I didn't say it IS 256, just that I had read somewhere that it is. You come on and argue with me for no apparent purpose. You've come up with exactly zero new information. All you say is that nobody knows,, without actually admitting that, which is what I've been saying.
but you continue to argue it. Can we wind this down? I'd really like to close this tab.
The following reads like a statement, as well as disappointment in Apple based on your statement, not a question asking for more information before passing judgment.
...the Pencil (with just 256 levels, come on Apple, that's no longer acceptable)...
Why don't you quote everything else I said? That quote wasn't saying that it is 256, it was part of my questioning of what it is, saying to apple that 256 is no longer viable, and that they should let us know if it isn't.
from an earlier post, this expresses my thoughts on this, and now, no matter what more you may say, I'm finished with this.
"When it first came out, it was mentioned it was 256. If someone has evidence that's wrong, I'd like to see it.'
As I said, they don't know. What I read clearly was about Apple's Pencil. Sometimes a number is mentioned in passing by someone from Apple, or a supplier. It gets referenced to once or twice, and then forgotten. Since I've been using these things for longer than most people have been alive, it's of interest to me in particular, and therefor, I tend to remember it.
You don't know either. You don't remember the source, and can't say for sure whether it was really Apple or perhaps a supplier that referenced 256. You're in essentially the same position as the people I quoted in the articles. They're familiar with the products and what the typical standards are. They're interested in knowing for sure what the levels number actually is, but there's nothing available that confirms it. BusinessInsider's article literally had a blurb that they had "reached out" to Apple to get clarification on the sensitivity level and would update when it was available...and obviously the article had never been updated. Apple doesn't provide a number. An educated guess is the best anyone can do. You're convinced that it's 256. Others are convinced that it's at least as good as 1,028 or 2,056. There's a YouTube video that gets passed around online where someone claims it's 1,000,000. IMO, Apple knew Wacom's products were basically the industry standard at the time, so my educated guess is that's what they would have been targeting in terms of pressure sensitivity. Wacom had long since moved on from 256, so in my mind it's unlikely that's what Apple would be satisfied with.
Oh lord, how long are you going to stretch this out? All I said was that I remember reading somewhere that it was 256, and I asked for clarification of that. That's it. I didn't say it IS 256, just that I had read somewhere that it is. You come on and argue with me for no apparent purpose. You've come up with exactly zero new information. All you say is that nobody knows,, without actually admitting that, which is what I've been saying.
but you continue to argue it. Can we wind this down? I'd really like to close this tab.
The following reads like a statement, as well as disappointment in Apple based on your statement, not a question asking for more information before passing judgment.
...the Pencil (with just 256 levels, come on Apple, that's no longer acceptable)...
Why don't you quote everything else I said? That quote wasn't saying that it is 256, it was part of my questioning of what it is, saying to apple that 256 is no longer viable, and that they should let us know if it isn't.
from an earlier post, this expresses my thoughts on this, and now, no matter what more you may say, I'm finished with this.
"When it first came out, it was mentioned it was 256. If someone has evidence that's wrong, I'd like to see it.'
It doesn't matter what else you say in another post or potentially contradictory claims within the same post. You made a very clear statement where you said: "Come on Apple, that's no longer acceptable." That's neither a question or in any way qualified to suggest anything else.
Here a single example of how you may have wired that statement: "I don't know if it's true, but I heard that Pencil only has 256 levels. If that's correct, then I feel that's unacceptable in this day and age."
One possible error in the article: I think "Apple sells a 29-watt power adapter, albeit with a USB-C connector" should read Apple sells a 29-watt power adapter, albeit without a USB-C connector".
Thanks for the kind words! That sentence was intended -- the 29-watt power adapter features a USB-C female port, not a full-size USB port.
HI again, Apple's online chat reps and Genius Bar folks in Apple Stores have all said not to use the 29-watt power adapter with the 10.5" iPad Pro because it can potentially cause problems. So who's right?
HI again, Apple's online chat reps and Genius Bar folks in Apple Stores have all said not to use the 29-watt power adapter with the 10.5" iPad Pro because it can potentially cause problems. So who's right?
Did I say this already? I thought I did. As long as you don’t use a lower wattage charger, you’re fine. That goes for iPad/iPhone, too. They shy you away from the 29W adapter because only the iPad Pro supports “fast charging.” But note that the 29W shows that it can output exactly the same amperage as the 12W, so you’ll be fine.
I tested out the iPad Pro yesterday and wanted to share what happened when I tested the charging. I also posted this on MacRumors and wanted to pass along here. I tried charging the device from dead to 100% with a 29W Type-C charger I bought from Apple, plus a C-to-Lightning cable. I compared that to the results from the 12W charger that comes in the box.
For the 29W MacBook Type-C charger with C-to-Lightning cable: the total charging time from dead to 100% was just 2 hours and 15 mins. That’s 48% less charging time than the 12W charger that comes with the iPad Pro! - Battery dead: [email protected] - 0%-~60%: 14.5V@1 to 2A. Once the iPad is charged enough to boot iOS, it sucks max 2A but at 14.5V after a Power Delivery contract is in place, then it gradually decreased to about 1A over time when reaching ~60% full. - ~60%-~80%: 14.5V@1A to 0.5A. The charging current decreased further to 0.5A over time as battery approached ~80% full. - ~80% - 100%: 14.5V@ 0.5A. The charging current stayed at 0.5A and the charging time was noticeably longer than that of when it charged from 0%-60%. It stayed at 0.5A at 100%.
For the 12W in-box Type-A charger, the total charging time from dead to 100% was 4 hours and 20 mins. - Battery dead: [email protected] - 0%-~80%: [email protected] to 2.4A. Once the iPad was charged enough to boot iOS, the charging current remained at 2.4A, then gradually decreased to about 1.4A over time when it reached ~80% full. - ~80% - ~95%: 5V@1A to 1.4A. The charging current dropped quickly from 1.4A to 1A when ~95% charged. - ~95% to 100%: 5V@1A. The charging current stayed constant at 1A and the final 5% charging time was noticeably longer, then dropped to a steady state 0.7A when 100% full.
Bought the 10.5 just 2 days ago to replace my old 17" Macbook. I use the MacBook at home and office. In the office I connect it to my 32" display, which I really need for the design work I do...and my aging eyes!
Guess what I just learned at my cellular store where I bought my new iPad.... you CANNOT connect the new iPad sto an external dispay at all. Nope. Never. Sorry.
I have not seen this mentioned anywhere online after hours of looking to see what my options are if any. So if you guys have any suggestions please let me know. I have 12 more days before I have to return it. This could be a deal breaker for me or anyone that needs to use a larger diaplay a lot.
Bought the 10.5 just 2 days ago to replace my old 17" Macbook. I use the MacBook at home and office. In the office I connect it to my 32" display, which I really need for the design work I do...and my aging eyes!
Guess what I just learned at my cellular store where I bought my new iPad.... you CANNOT connect the new iPad sto an external dispay at all. Nope. Never. Sorry.
I have not seen this mentioned anywhere online after hours of looking to see what my options are if any. So if you guys have any suggestions please let me know. I have 12 more days before I have to return it. This could be a deal breaker for me or anyone that needs to use a larger diaplay a lot.
Ciao....
You absolutely can, and there many ways to accomplish this. One popular way is with AirPlay, if you have a TV connected to an Apple TV. Great way for a quick demo from iDevices or Macs. Then you have various wired connection options.
I believe both support mirroring and using a limited, separate display, like when pushing content, like video (but obviously not for having as two "desktop" windows since you're not sliding a mouse around).
PS: In case you aren't aware, there are great Accessibility features for making text easier to read in iOS Settings. PPS: It's not the most attractive setup since you're daisy chaining some Apple dongles, but your iDevice does support wired Ethernet out of the box.
Comments
im not interested in what you say you said in your original post to which Soli responded. I responded to your post back, and in that post, you talked entirely about the price differences due to the currency differences, and your complaints as to that. That's what I replied to.
you can't say I misunderstood your post, when I clearly didn't.
When it first came out, I read somewhere, that it was 256. You've supplied remarks that say that they don't know, which got us no further than where we were.
ive been using Wacom tablets since the early 1980s. The first one I bought was for my Atari St. it was a 12x18, with no onboard buttons. It had a dark grey electrostatic surface to hold paper down. The other choice was one with a clear plastic cover that came down over the paper to hold it. There were 256 levels for many years. Even when I bought The Crossfield System for my lab in 1988, the 12x18 Wacom that came with it had 256, and their tablets continued to for years after that.
amazingly, 256 works well. It's only when your file is going to be viewed, or printed at very large sizes, that some banding can be seen in areas with slow gamma changes, such as sky. I would like this to be 1024 myself, because I dont see anything larger as being particularly useful. But we may not know for certain unless someone asks Apple directly about it. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.
The Pencil of course. The Apple keyboard/cases made for the pro models, and that's about it. There are plenty of Bluetooth keyboard/cases for the 9.7 iPads around, from really cheap Chinese models to more expensive models from known makers.
of course those aren't specifically aimed towards iOS 11. But rather than for the hardware of the pro models. But also, some of the multasking features of iOS 11 won't work on the smaller screened models, and goes for last year's 9.7 pro too.
but you continue to argue it. Can we wind this down? I'd really like to close this tab.
from an earlier post, this expresses my thoughts on this, and now, no matter what more you may say, I'm finished with this.
"When it first came out, it was mentioned it was 256. If someone has evidence that's wrong, I'd like to see it.'
Here a single example of how you may have wired that statement: "I don't know if it's true, but I heard that Pencil only has 256 levels. If that's correct, then I feel that's unacceptable in this day and age."
Apple's online chat reps and Genius Bar folks in Apple Stores have all said not to use the 29-watt power adapter with the 10.5" iPad Pro because it can potentially cause problems. So who's right?
For the 29W MacBook Type-C charger with C-to-Lightning cable: the total charging time from dead to 100% was just 2 hours and 15 mins. That’s 48% less charging time than the 12W charger that comes with the iPad Pro!
- Battery dead: [email protected]
- 0%-~60%: 14.5V@1 to 2A. Once the iPad is charged enough to boot iOS, it sucks max 2A but at 14.5V after a Power Delivery contract is in place, then it gradually decreased to about 1A over time when reaching ~60% full.
- ~60%-~80%: 14.5V@1A to 0.5A. The charging current decreased further to 0.5A over time as battery approached ~80% full.
- ~80% - 100%: 14.5V@ 0.5A. The charging current stayed at 0.5A and the charging time was noticeably longer than that of when it charged from 0%-60%. It stayed at 0.5A at 100%.
For the 12W in-box Type-A charger, the total charging time from dead to 100% was 4 hours and 20 mins.
- Battery dead: [email protected]
- 0%-~80%: [email protected] to 2.4A. Once the iPad was charged enough to boot iOS, the charging current remained at 2.4A, then gradually decreased to about 1.4A over time when it reached ~80% full.
- ~80% - ~95%: 5V@1A to 1.4A. The charging current dropped quickly from 1.4A to 1A when ~95% charged.
- ~95% to 100%: 5V@1A. The charging current stayed constant at 1A and the final 5% charging time was noticeably longer, then dropped to a steady state 0.7A when 100% full.
The iFixit teardown also mentioned this fast charging feature too, which is enabled by USB Power Delivery. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad+Pro+10.5-Inch+Teardown/92534. Even though there's an extra cost it does charge the iPad Pro much faster.
Guess what I just learned at my cellular store where I bought my new iPad.... you CANNOT connect the new iPad sto an external dispay at all. Nope. Never. Sorry.
I have not seen this mentioned anywhere online after hours of looking to see what my options are if any. So if you guys have any suggestions please let me know. I have 12 more days before I have to return it. This could be a deal breaker for me or anyone that needs to use a larger diaplay a lot.
Ciao....
I believe both support mirroring and using a limited, separate display, like when pushing content, like video (but obviously not for having as two "desktop" windows since you're not sliding a mouse around).
PS: In case you aren't aware, there are great Accessibility features for making text easier to read in iOS Settings.
PPS: It's not the most attractive setup since you're daisy chaining some Apple dongles, but your iDevice does support wired Ethernet out of the box.