Metriacanthosaurus

urahara said:

Metriacanthosaurus said:

Soli said:

MplsP said:

OMG - that camera bump is SO UGLY! I wouldn’t be caught dead with that iPad Pro! /s

Seriously, iPads, particularly the 12” pro, are not used for picture taking in the same manner as an iPhone so I’m not sure how much sense it makes to put the same camera cluster, although from a component supply perspective it may be easier/cheaper. 

Face ID would be awesome, though. 

1) That mockup is very rough and that camera setup is very unappealing.

2) I've seen plenty of people using an iPad as a camera. It's a device they have on them and the large display is helpful for many. Does Apple typically not move general camera tech from the iPhone to the iPad?

The iPad is too large to be used as a POS camera. But it can (and is) used in tripod mounted situations by professionals, who don't mind the bulk in capturing so that they can have the benefit of the screen for editing immediately after.

Too bad Apple doesn't let iCloud Photos speed up its own process of syncing between devices by letting two local devices sync peer-to-peer. I would really appreciate this, as I always shoot on iPhone, and then wait wait wait until I can view them on iPad.

Interesting idea about syncyng the iCloud photos directly between the divices. I know that it would be great. Sometimes I need to wait for almost an hour after I come home, before I can see my new photos on my laptop. But there are probably some challenges to overcome, if Apple would consider implementing it. E.g. You shot on the iPhone, it starts syncing to the iCloud, it gets synced to iPad, you delete the picture (or edit) on the iPad, which version should be loaded to iCloud? iPhone is still loading it to iCloud, iPad has a different version of the picture (or deleted picture).

It wouldn't be a problem, it would just fast track the item being available on the nearby device. The database itself should be update immediately so that iCloud and any connected device instantly knows that a new photo is added to the library, even if it isn't uploaded yet. Then while Device A goes through its long, slow, criteria-laden process of uploading a photo to iCloud, it also transfers it directly to Device B nearby at 500 MB/s. Device B's local copy is flagged as having come from the automatic peer transfer, so it isn't uploaded to iCloud. Now Device A can take its time uploading to iCloud, and once done, Device B simply recognizes the cloud copy and local copy as the same.

Soli said:

MplsP said:

OMG - that camera bump is SO UGLY! I wouldn’t be caught dead with that iPad Pro! /s

Seriously, iPads, particularly the 12” pro, are not used for picture taking in the same manner as an iPhone so I’m not sure how much sense it makes to put the same camera cluster, although from a component supply perspective it may be easier/cheaper. 

Face ID would be awesome, though. 

1) That mockup is very rough and that camera setup is very unappealing.

2) I've seen plenty of people using an iPad as a camera. It's a device they have on them and the large display is helpful for many. Does Apple typically not move general camera tech from the iPhone to the iPad?

The iPad is too large to be used as a POS camera. But it can (and is) used in tripod mounted situations by professionals, who don't mind the bulk in capturing so that they can have the benefit of the screen for editing immediately after.

Too bad Apple doesn't let iCloud Photos speed up its own process of syncing between devices by letting two local devices sync peer-to-peer. I would really appreciate this, as I always shoot on iPhone, and then wait wait wait until I can view them on iPad.

hodar said:

The Always On display is Good/Bad. I'd prefer the option to sacrifice some hours of battery life, for always on during the daytime, as it would be annoying at night, (in the theater, driving in the dark, etc). How about the option to have it turn constant on during some time period - and work like a conventional Apple watch outside of that time period - and thus give more than 18 hours of battery life?

Why do you assume it would result in increased battery life?

The always on display dramatically drops the brightness and refresh rate to the point where it is barely consuming any power. There is no gain to be traded for. And no one needs more than 18 hours of battery life. You charge it at night, wear it during the day. It really is that simple, and doesn't need to be more than that. 

I'm stoked that Apple Watch finally has an always-on mode for the display. But I'm not going to upgrade for it. I'll upgrade from my series 4 to a series 6 or 7, and be glad for always on display at that time.

spice-boy said:

I was disappointed that Apple chose to continue with glass backs on these new models. 

What an intelligent comment. Be sure to tell Apple engineering how they could be doing so much better.