iPad Pro For anyone wondering about whether the Nano texture display is for them…

[Macintosh101]

I just got back from visiting my local Apple Store. For background, I picked up my 11 inch M4 iPad Pro with a regular display on launch date. However, after watching various videos and hearing about the nano-texture display, I wanted to check it out further for myself, to see if it would be of use to me. I spent 45 minutes using the nano display. For anybody wondering about whether this display is for them, here are my observations:

• The most noticeable thing when using the nano display is how text appears. It is not that the text is necessary less sharp or blurry, but the text doesn’t pop as much, and any dark text on a white background looks degraded. The nano texture display gives the white screen a kind of hazy, shimmering appearance. It was incredibly distracting. The best way I can describe it was that I constantly felt like I wanted to clean the screen. This issue goes away in Dark Mode - i.e with white text on a dark background. So this will be less of an issue if you’re willing to use Dark Mode all the time.
• There is noticeably less contrast with the nano texture display, as others have pointed out. The benefits of the new OLED screen are entirely negated IMO. You only need to put the two iPad M4s side-by-side to see the difference between these displays in terms of contrast and blacks. The level of blacks on the nano-display is almost like looking at a regular LCD panel (think of an iPad Air or a MacBook Air)
• The screen feels different under your fingers. It does feel smoother.
• Photographs look stunning on the nano texture display. Absolutely stunning. Whilst they pop more on the regular glossy screen, photos (and drawings) on the nano display have the appearance of printed photographs.
• Obviously glare is much reduced (this is the main selling point).
• Fingerprints show far more on the nano display. They can leave a noticeable grey smudge, particularly when there is a white background.

A member of staff at the Apple Store told me that they had a lot of returns of the nano texture display - he said that many customers had bought the nano texture display and then returned it for the standard display. He said there was a subset of people, mainly designers and illustrators, who knew they wanted the matte display due to its benefits when working with photos and drawings. They were delighted with it because they had been asking for it for a long time.

Ultimately of course, so much of this is going to have to do with people’s perception (and their eyesight). The degradation in reading quality (for me) was stark. In my work I need to read a lot of text and write a lot of text, and I don’t always want to be doing this in dark mode. I also enjoy the deep inky blacks of the glossy OLED panel. For this reason the trade-offs are not worth it. To me the nano texture display is clearly for professionals who need to specific use case. Remember you have to pay to get the 1TB model and then an extra 100 to get the nano texture display. If there was a nano-texture option for the 256 GB model, I would not get it due to the trade-off in display quality. Even if the nano display was $100 cheaper than the regular display, I would not get it.

As always YMMV. Hope this helps some of you 👍🏼

 

[SpitUK]

Thank you for this detailed explanation. Glossy display is definitely for me.

 

[erasr]

That does help a lot. Haven’t had chance to get to the Apple Store yet.

I also think the OLED panels bring higher brightness so therefore easier to view outdoors anyway. I just love using my iPad in my yard in the sun.

Random point but I tried my glossy Deck OLED today in bright sun, I can see it absolutely fine. The old LCD Deck wasn’t easy to use outside.

I think OLED negates a lot of the outside issues.

 

[Jackbequickly]

I had decided the day I ordered to get the regular glass. The nano display sounds good but not willing to take any chances. Very happy with my choice!

 

[Populus]

I’ll share my opinion after testing it thoroughly on the Apple Store, although I already talked about it on my M4 iPad Pro preview, here in this subforum.

I’ve used high quality matte tempered glass on my iPad Pro (not plastic ones like Paperlike), and had to stop using them because despite the great smooth touch of the matte glass surface and the lack of fingerprints, the crispness of the screen was noticeably better without it.

That grainy look over white screens, that rainbowy effect… it was subtle but it was there nonetheless. And you can get used to it, but when you see a screen without it, you then realize you want that color saturation, brightness and crispness on your screen. So after accidentally dropping my iPad Pro to the floor, the matte glass cover shattered (and saved my iPad screen) and I removed it forever. Now the clarity of the gorgeous display is much better.

Okay, now that you’ve read my experience with matte glass protectors, let’s dive into the M4 iPad Pro nano-textured glass.

I went to look the screen from all the possible angles, with white screens (those are the most distorted, because, you know, color white doesn’t really exist, it’s just the sum of every wavelength). And here’s my veredict:

It creates a similar “interference” with the image, especially the white backgrounds, BUT a much smaller scale, it diminishes a bit the crispness and it’s evident that the thin characters appear with softened borders, but it’s much more refined than the matte glass covers. And the rainbowy effect on white backgrounds is almost non existent. On the other hand, blacks, if you’re not in perfect dark, appear less deep than without the coating.

So if you really enjoy contrasty images with deep black levels, saturated colors, and crisp images, you’ll like the glossy finish better. But, on the other hand, if you really enjoy matte surfaces and you’re willing to trade-off the above qualities in favor of less reflections, smoothness of touch, and no fingerprints, then the nano-textured finish is much better for display quality than any third party matte (glass or plastic) protector. Not perfect, because that’s impossible, you know, physics, but really a good compromise between matte finish and image quality. A compromise that only you can evaluate.

As for the use with pencil, no idea, I didn’t try the pencil with this finish.

EDIT: after reading OP’s post, I fully agree with it. Maybe with the fingerprints we had a different experience, but I think that depends on how naturally greasy our fingers are.

 

[Macintosh101]

I’ll share my opinion after testing it thoroughly on the Apple Store, although I already talked about it on my M4 iPad Pro preview, here in this subforum.

I’ve used high quality matte tempered glass on my iPad Pro (not plastic ones like Paperlike), and had to stop using them because despite the great smooth touch of the matte glass surface and the lack of fingerprints, the crispness of the screen was noticeably better without it.

That grainy look over white screens, that rainbowy effect… it was subtle but it was there nonetheless. And you can get used to it, but when you see a screen without it, you then realize you want that color saturation, brightness and crispness on your screen. So after accidentally dropping my iPad Pro to the floor, the matte glass cover shattered (and saved my iPad screen) and I removed it forever. Now the clarity of the gorgeous display is much better.

Okay, now that you’ve read my experience with matte glass protectors, let’s dive into the M4 iPad Pro nano-textured glass.

I went to look the screen from all the possible angles, with white screens (those are the most distorted, because, you know, color white doesn’t really exist, it’s just the sum of every wavelength). And here’s my veredict:

It creates a similar “interference” with the image, especially the white backgrounds, BUT a much smaller scale, it diminishes a bit the crispness and it’s evident that the thin characters appear with softened borders, but it’s much more refined than the matte glass covers. And the rainbowy effect on white backgrounds is almost non existent. On the other hand, blacks, if you’re not in perfect dark, appear less deep than without the coating.

So if you really enjoy contrasty images with deep black levels, saturated colors, and crisp images, you’ll like the glossy finish better. But, on the other hand, if you really enjoy matte surfaces and you’re willing to trade-off the above qualities in favor of less reflections, smoothness of touch, and no fingerprints, then the nano-textured finish is much better for display quality than any third party matte (glass or plastic) protector. Not perfect, because that’s impossible, you know, physics, but really a good compromise between matte finish and image quality. A compromise that only you can evaluate.

As for the use with pencil, no idea, I didn’t try the pencil with this finish.

I agre with this wholeheartedly. A lot of this is going to depend on people’s vision too- we all perceive things slightly differently. For me, the “rainbowy effect on white backgrounds“ was very noticeable unfortunately, enough to be distracting. I’m not an illustrator or a phot-editor, a read a lot, and type a lot, and it really got in the way of enjoying that experience the for me. However, when in dark mode, it was much better. I just don’t want to use every app in dark mode all the time.

I think the nano texture is something most people definitely need to see and try out in person before making a decision.

 

[H_D]

So I was at Apple yesterday (and found it weird that I couldn't get a pair of headphones spontaneously there), to check out the Nano myself. They had the 11", only one, and a couple of other iPads, and here is what I found:

As Macintosh101 wrote, the screen is smoother. I expected some kind of «papery» feel, but instead it is rather silky. It lacked the stickiness of the glossy display. Using it with fingers is really nice and using the pencil doesn't not nearly make the kind of haptic difference a Paperlike or Remarkable etc will offer. I still think that Apple should work on a nib that gives that kind of feeling (with the Remarkable2 it is the Wacom tip that makes writing feel so good, not the e-ink-display itself). It is minimally different to write on the iPad with the nano texture.

What really grabbed me: It is fresh not to see some kind of reflection of yourself in the display. In the store, while the regular iPads reflected light and the surroundings, the nano looked like a sheet of paper. Not even like a regular matte screen, just like a sheet of paper that emanated light. I did not notice much of brutal lack of contrast in the store setting, which of course is controlled light, compared with the regular 11" next to the nano. Text was crisp, the whole interface looks clear and bold, not like a cheap LCD at all, far from it. While looking cool, not making the whole display nano is a mistake, I think, as there are the reflections that we just git rid off distracting you from the frame of the device again. It's subtle, but a dead-matte-display would have been a better UX. (But of course the glossy frame is where you touch it, so maybe better in regards of fingerprints or maybe Apple saved a few cents not chemoetching the whole glass, who knows?).

All in all it's not what I was hoping for (paper feel) but really nowhere as bad as I feared, on the contrary. Because of the comments here, on YT and elsewhere, I was considering going glossy again, but seeing the display IRL made me reconsider back to the original decision to give the nano display a spin.

Oh, and something else. I come from the 11", loved the 12" MB, lovelovelove the Mini6 and the 14" MBP, so when it comes to mobile, I tend to opt for smaller and lighter devices. And boy: Do not buy the 11". There is almost no real delta to my 2018 iPP in terms of ergonomics. It just feels kinda the same (and it would have been sexy if Apple brought it to below 5 mm, frankly). The 13" on the other hand is amazing. It feels almost as light as the 11", the size to «thinness»-ration makes it feel more amazing and stunning, almost as if you just can use the display of an MBP as a solo device. I would not spend 3300€ on the new 11", as the much better hardware is not really put to use by the software, the 2018 device still is more than capable for using GoodNotes, iAWriter, the NYT and anything else and even Logic works really well on it, while the speed increase of the M4 is barely felt... at least I do not use Apps on the iPad that would make a much faster system necessary, as it lacks, say, Lightroom, Photoshop, Indesign, real FinalCut and so on.

The 13" however is such a straight-out-of-SF-feeling in hand that it justifies the upgrade. You almost feel weird holding it, as if it is a prop in some movie. To have that much power in this form factor – just something to get your head wrapped around.

The Pencil and the Magic Keyboard both feel like the usual Apple-y incremental upgrades. You appreciate it but also feel there somehow should be more. The cheap outside plastic fabric of the Keyboard still is absolutely terrible for a device with that price tag, the pencil feels basically unchanged ergonomically, FindMy is almost a joke, you could so so much more with that device and I also found the Squeeze to be something to get used to, a bit awkward to get to work and also not working consistently across all apps (of course). As ever with Apple: enough to call it an upgrade, but also enough make you hunger for more functionality and the next step in what you know the iPad and its I/O ecosphere should be able to do ideally. The Magic Keyboard, by the way, makes you feel, that yes, MacOS-Apps should in some way run on iPadOS, however you think about it, with the Keyboard this is an MBA Light and it is absurd to not be able to use your daily Mac-Tools on this. It does not have to be the OS itself (if there is a better file system) but in some way, AdobeCC, FontManagement, a seamless Dropbox integration and so on... all of the many little things we have on Mac, should find their way to iPad. It just makes sense. With the MK attached, the iPad feels sad, like a Testarossa with the wheels kicked off. It could do so much, it could be so much fun, but no go. I really hope Apple finds a way to make both camps happy here, as I feel that for the «touch only» crowd and the «MacOS on iPad» crowd there can be a sensible middle ground and that would lift the iPad as a whole system and idea way, way up.

So, in good old Apple fashion it's an upgrade you do not NEED, probably, but surely WANT.

 

[Populus]

I agre with this wholeheartedly. A lot of this is going to depend on people’s vision too- we all perceive things slightly differently. For me, the “rainbowy effect on white backgrounds“ was very noticeable unfortunately, enough to be distracting. I’m not an illustrator or a phot-editor, a read a lot, and type a lot, and it really got in the way of enjoying that experience the for me. However, when in dark mode, it was much better. I just don’t want to use every app in dark mode all the time.

I think the nano texture is something most people definitely need to see and try out in person before making a decision.

Yes indeed, the rainbowy effect is there for sure, but having used matte glass covers, it’s less noticeable on the nano-textured glass, probably because the “grain” is smaller. But yeah, it’s there and it will depend on the person wether it is too noticeable, like in your case, or not so much, like mine.

This is definitely a feature people should see in first person.

Like you said, I think it’s pretty oriented towards professionals (or even advanced amateurs) who really need this type of surface. Even if it didn’t have an extra cost, I wouldn’t choose it. Remember, with a cover/protector, you can put it on and off. This, you will have it on your screen forever, and it might even affect the reseal value.

 

[purplerainpurplerain]

One month long wait if I want one. Artists are buying all the nano models fast.

 

[RickG]

While my eyes aren’t the best I walked around the Apple Store to compare the nano vs non - the employee had to point out the one ipad on the table with the nano. So, go see for yourself before buying. It wasn’t as big as a difference as I thought and it is smoother glass. If your gonna use on a plane or outside the nano is the way to go.

 

[Snoggin]

I have both versions here at home. 13” Nano and Glossy, 2TB. I ordered the Nano day one and ordered and picked up a Glossy on launch day after reading all the back and forth.. Im leaning towards keeping the Nano. The Glossy does have the appearance of more saturation etc and I might lose a hair of deep black but I think the Nano wins out overall for me.. When watching movies or looking at photos and comparing, it seems to me all the detail is there on both of them, amazingly so. But the glossy screen just has the “wet” look. It is appealing but when I objectively compare I still see all the details and contrast the same on the nano…

And I really like the benefits of almost no glare! And I disagree about the fingerprints. At least in my case its much less noticeable.. but my fingers are pretty dry, I know this from playing guitar where my guitars stay real nice when i play them but some other people when I let them use they get nasty and sticky quick. Ugh

Anyway I think I prefer the Nano. Im coming from a 2015 first Gen IPad Pro.. I intend to keep this one a similar amount of time most likely.. I will use it for video editing and also to run live sound paired with my digital mixing board where the nano will be great. DaVinci REsolve seems to be almost the same on IPad as the desk top.. I am working on a project with 1.8 TB of files at 4K on it no problems

 

[sracer]

The nano texture option is realistically only for a small percentage of customers.

I'm an ancient ThinkPad user/fan (using them since before IBM made them generally available to the public) and love matte screens. When Apple made matte screens an option for the Macbook Pro, I always spent the extra to get it. The Samsung monitor attached to my M2 Mac Mini is matte. My iPads all have matte screen protectors (image quality is fine).

But I'm in the very small minority.

What I find interesting is...

Fingerprints show far more on the nano display. They can leave a noticeable grey smudge, particularly when there is a white background.

I haven't experienced that behavior on any matte screen protector I use for my iPads (and Galaxy Tab S6). I hope to get a chance to stop by an Apple Store with my iPad w/matte screen protector to do a side by side comparison.

 

[ssledoux]

I went to the Apple Store yesterday to pick up a pencil pro, and didn’t even think to look at the screens. I got the regular screen on my 11” figuring I could always put a matte protector on if I got the urge (I’ve used paperlike in the past when I was doing a lot of writing with the pencil, but I know there are better options for matte screens). I didn’t even really consider the nano, but it would have been nice to actually look at them. Lol

 

[spinstorm]

You are all MISSING the point here. The Nano removes glare. You can see top glossy display loads of reflections hard to see. Bottom nano - no reflections. Sure there is some diffuse light but that means you can see clearly.

The Nano display is for those that want to see the iPad and use it outside or in areas where the lighting isn’t great. That simple.

 

[Macintosh101]

The nano texture option is realistically only for a small percentage of customers.

I'm an ancient ThinkPad user/fan (using them since before IBM made them generally available to the public) and love matte screens. When Apple made matte screens an option for the Macbook Pro, I always spent the extra to get it. The Samsung monitor attached to my M2 Mac Mini is matte. My iPads all have matte screen protectors (image quality is fine).

But I'm in the very small minority.

What I find interesting is...

I haven't experienced that behavior on any matte screen protector I use for my iPads (and Galaxy Tab S6). I hope to get a chance to stop by an Apple Store with my iPad w/matte screen protector to do a side by side comparison.

To be fair, the model I was looking at was a display model, so potentially had been marked with someone with very dirty fingers.

 

[Macintosh101]

View attachment 2380136 View attachment 2380142

You are all MISSING the point here. The Nano removes glare. You can see top glossy display loads of reflections hard to see. Bottom nano - no reflections. Sure there is some diffuse light but that means you can see clearly.

The Nano display is for those that want to see the iPad and use it outside or in areas where the lighting isn’t great. That simple.

Yes, for sure. I just wasn’t happy with how text appeared on it. Especially on a white background. Sharp text is a no.1 priority for my workflow. It did find the issue was made better when using dark mode however.

 

[atownguy]

The conflicting information I’m seeing on the fingerprint situation with the nano texture display is really interesting. It seems literally half the people with it say that it’s picks up more fingerprints and they are harder to get off, and the other half say it picks up less fingerprints and they are just as easy to wipe off as they are on the standard display:

Fingerprints show far more on the nano display. They can leave a noticeable grey smudge, particularly when there is a white background.

you really enjoy matte surfaces and you’re willing to trade-off the above qualities in favor of less reflections, smoothness of touch, and no fingerprints, then the nano-textured finish is much better for display quality

And I disagree about the fingerprints. At least in my case its much less noticeable..

”... weakness- it does get very very dirty... That’s why the give you a polishing cloth…”

“… but with nano texture it rejects fingerprints and smudges way better which mean on top of looking cleaner and not constantly wanting to wipe it down your fingers actually glide and scroll and swipe much easier” …

This is just a sample of dozens of contradictory comments I’m seeing everwhere on this and I don’t know what to do because honestly my biggest reason for wanting nano texture is to reduce fingerprints (I’m weirdly OCD about constantly wiping down fingerprints on my devices).

 

[dominiongamma]

View attachment 2380136 View attachment 2380142

You are all MISSING the point here. The Nano removes glare. You can see top glossy display loads of reflections hard to see. Bottom nano - no reflections. Sure there is some diffuse light but that means you can see clearly.

The Nano display is for those that want to see the iPad and use it outside or in areas where the lighting isn’t great. That simple.

I wish Apple would have left the standard glass choice instead offering the nano stuff, people are too confused and returns have been high. I was shopping for a new MacBook yesterday and asked them about if people are returning iPads because of the nano and they said yes

 

[NauticalDan]

This is just a sample of dozens of contradictory comments I’m seeing everwhere on this and I don’t know what to do because honestly my biggest reason for wanting nano texture is to ( reduce fingerprints (I’m weirdly OCD about constantly wiping down fingerprints on my devices).

I tried both, and the nano-texture sorta shows the fingerprints a bit less when you’re using it - they don’t accumulate as much. But once they are there, they don’t wipe away as easily as the standard glass. The oils get trapped more in the porous surface. I mean, I think this just makes sense - and they give you a polishing cloth to deal with it better as opposed to the standard glass.

 

[Snoggin]

The conflicting information I’m seeing on the fingerprint situation with the nano texture display is really interesting. It seems literally half the people with it say that it’s picks up more fingerprints and they are harder to get off, and the other half say it picks up less fingerprints and they are just as easy to wipe off as they are on the standard display:







”... weakness- it does get very very dirty... That’s why the give you a polishing cloth…”

“… but with nano texture it reject fingerprints and smudges way better which mean on top of looking cleaner and not constantly wanting to wipe it down your fingers actually glide and scroll and swipe much easier” …

This is just a sample of dozens of contradictory comments I’m seeing everwhere on this and I don’t know what to do because honestly my biggest reason for wanting nano texture is to ( reduce fingerprints (I’m weirdly OCD about constantly wiping down fingerprints on my devices).

I think different people have different chemistry around finger oil and sweat.. Mine are pretty dry. I find less fingerprints on the nano vs gloss and i have both here at home to compare

 

[Populus]

I think different people have different chemistry around finger oil and sweat.. Mine are pretty dry. I find less fingerprints on the nano vs gloss and i have both here at home to compare

Yep, that’s my experience as well, my fingers are usually clean (I clean my hand pretty often), and dry. Thats why the small, light fingerprints are more noticeable on the glossy screen. However, for people with greasy or sweaty hands, or just an extended use without washing your hands, as @NauticalDan said, the pores of the nano-textured glass fill more of grease and dirt, so it eventually becomes noticeable and, because of the rough surface nature of it, it’s more difficult to clean than the glossy glass.

 

[MadeInBaveria]

Yes, for sure. I just wasn’t happy with how text appeared on it. Especially on a white background. Sharp text is a no.1 priority for my workflow. It did find the issue was made better when using dark mode however.

For me, that was also the toilet criterion for the nano display. If it weren't for the noticeable blurring of text on a white background, I would have preferred the Nano

 

[atownguy]

I tried both, and the nano-texture sorta shows the fingerprints a bit less when you’re using it - they don’t accumulate as much. But once they are there, they don’t wipe away as easily as the standard glass. The oils get trapped more in the porous surface. I mean, I think this just makes sense - and they give you a polishing cloth to deal with it better as opposed to the standard glass.

This just adds another example to the contradictory statements I’m seeing on this- I asked this exact question in the comments of one the YouTube videos I previously linked to. The YouTuber had both display options to compare and he said he found fingerprints just as easy to remove on the nano texture. I’m not trying to discount your experience at all (and as you said, I think it makes sense that with a more porous surface fingerprints would be harder to wipe off on nano texture), but the fact that I’ve seen just as many people say that they are the same or easier to wipe off than people saying they are harder to remove just goes to further prove my point that the amount of contradictory info I’m seeing on this is starting to get a little ridiculous. I’m so conflicted lol.

 

[Soccerrick10]

I’m a photographer that works almost 100% in black and white. When the 12.9” mini-led came out. I switched my photo editing to the ipad Pro.

I was very excited to see how the new OLED display would compare. So I headed to the Apple Store with my 12.9” and a high resolution print of one of my files. At the store I was able to compare my items with 13” standard and nano textured displays.

It is amazing how good all 4 looked viewing the same file, side by side. The differences are very subtle, but present. I’ve decided I’m going to upgrade to the 13” with standard screen. It is better than the mini-led in micro-contrast and depth. The nano lost in the micro-contrast and details just weren’t as crisp. The nano texture screen looks like it loses a little dynamic range. It was very similar to the 12.9”.

Admittedly, my use case is very specific. But, the breathtaking detail seen in my print was almost identical with the 13” standard screen. From a proofing point alone, this will save me time and money in paper and ink. So, I’m very excited about this update.

 

[GMShadow]

So I was at Apple yesterday (and found it weird that I couldn't get a pair of headphones spontaneously there), to check out the Nano myself. They had the 11", only one, and a couple of other iPads, and here is what I found:

As Macintosh101 wrote, the screen is smoother. I expected some kind of «papery» feel, but instead it is rather silky. It lacked the stickiness of the glossy display. Using it with fingers is really nice and using the pencil doesn't not nearly make the kind of haptic difference a Paperlike or Remarkable etc will offer. I still think that Apple should work on a nib that gives that kind of feeling (with the Remarkable2 it is the Wacom tip that makes writing feel so good, not the e-ink-display itself). It is minimally different to write on the iPad with the nano texture.

What really grabbed me: It is fresh not to see some kind of reflection of yourself in the display. In the store, while the regular iPads reflected light and the surroundings, the nano looked like a sheet of paper. Not even like a regular matte screen, just like a sheet of paper that emanated light. I did not notice much of brutal lack of contrast in the store setting, which of course is controlled light, compared with the regular 11" next to the nano. Text was crisp, the whole interface looks clear and bold, not like a cheap LCD at all, far from it. While looking cool, not making the whole display nano is a mistake, I think, as there are the reflections that we just git rid off distracting you from the frame of the device again. It's subtle, but a dead-matte-display would have been a better UX. (But of course the glossy frame is where you touch it, so maybe better in regards of fingerprints or maybe Apple saved a few cents not chemoetching the whole glass, who knows?).

All in all it's not what I was hoping for (paper feel) but really nowhere as bad as I feared, on the contrary. Because of the comments here, on YT and elsewhere, I was considering going glossy again, but seeing the display IRL made me reconsider back to the original decision to give the nano display a spin.

Oh, and something else. I come from the 11", loved the 12" MB, lovelovelove the Mini6 and the 14" MBP, so when it comes to mobile, I tend to opt for smaller and lighter devices. And boy: Do not buy the 11". There is almost no real delta to my 2018 iPP in terms of ergonomics. It just feels kinda the same (and it would have been sexy if Apple brought it to below 5 mm, frankly). The 13" on the other hand is amazing. It feels almost as light as the 11", the size to «thinness»-ration makes it feel more amazing and stunning, almost as if you just can use the display of an MBP as a solo device. I would not spend 3300€ on the new 11", as the much better hardware is not really put to use by the software, the 2018 device still is more than capable for using GoodNotes, iAWriter, the NYT and anything else and even Logic works really well on it, while the speed increase of the M4 is barely felt... at least I do not use Apps on the iPad that would make a much faster system necessary, as it lacks, say, Lightroom, Photoshop, Indesign, real FinalCut and so on.

The 13" however is such a straight-out-of-SF-feeling in hand that it justifies the upgrade. You almost feel weird holding it, as if it is a prop in some movie. To have that much power in this form factor – just something to get your head wrapped around.

The Pencil and the Magic Keyboard both feel like the usual Apple-y incremental upgrades. You appreciate it but also feel there somehow should be more. The cheap outside plastic fabric of the Keyboard still is absolutely terrible for a device with that price tag, the pencil feels basically unchanged ergonomically, FindMy is almost a joke, you could so so much more with that device and I also found the Squeeze to be something to get used to, a bit awkward to get to work and also not working consistently across all apps (of course). As ever with Apple: enough to call it an upgrade, but also enough make you hunger for more functionality and the next step in what you know the iPad and its I/O ecosphere should be able to do ideally. The Magic Keyboard, by the way, makes you feel, that yes, MacOS-Apps should in some way run on iPadOS, however you think about it, with the Keyboard this is an MBA Light and it is absurd to not be able to use your daily Mac-Tools on this. It does not have to be the OS itself (if there is a better file system) but in some way, AdobeCC, FontManagement, a seamless Dropbox integration and so on... all of the many little things we have on Mac, should find their way to iPad. It just makes sense. With the MK attached, the iPad feels sad, like a Testarossa with the wheels kicked off. It could do so much, it could be so much fun, but no go. I really hope Apple finds a way to make both camps happy here, as I feel that for the «touch only» crowd and the «MacOS on iPad» crowd there can be a sensible middle ground and that would lift the iPad as a whole system and idea way, way up.

So, in good old Apple fashion it's an upgrade you do not NEED, probably, but surely WANT.

Re: not making the whole screen matte, the rational reportedly had to do with the sensors and cameras - they can’t be covered, so there would have been a lot of odd gaps and holes in the bezel to allow them to function. Apple felt it was better aesthetically to just leave the whole bezel ‘clean’.