iPad Pro Nano textured glass for iPad Pro <1 TB?

[msackey]

My question is very simple: given what you understand about Apple, do you think a nano textured glass for the iPad Pro would ever be available for units that are less than 1TB? Why or why not?

I currently don't need an iPad upgrade, but having seen the nano textured glass, I can imagine having it when I do upgrade. At the same time, I don't really need 1TB; it's way too much. Max I would need it 512GB and 256GB is even sufficient!

 

[Zapdoc]

My question is very simple: given what you understand about Apple, do you think a nano textured glass for the iPad Pro would ever be available for units that are less than 1TB? Why or why not?

I currently don't need an iPad upgrade, but having seen the nano textured glass, I can imagine having it when I do upgrade. At the same time, I don't really need 1TB; it's way too much. Max I would need it 512GB and 256GB is even sufficient!

Probably to encourage sales of more s=expensive 1Tb and 2 Tb IPPs ?

 

[sracer]

My question is very simple: given what you understand about Apple, do you think a nano textured glass for the iPad Pro would ever be available for units that are less than 1TB? Why or why not?

I currently don't need an iPad upgrade, but having seen the nano textured glass, I can imagine having it when I do upgrade. At the same time, I don't really need 1TB; it's way too much. Max I would need it 512GB and 256GB is even sufficient!

I think it will most likely remain a niche option limited to the 1TB model.

But... if their market research discovers that people would be willing to pay (something $100) a premium for the option, then I can see it being available across the Air and Pro models.

I use matte protectors on my touchscreen devices. I hope to have an opportunity to take my 10th gen iPad w/matte protector (which I love!) to the Apple store to compare it with a nano texture screen. I've heard reports that the glare-reducing properties of the nano screen isn't as effective as screen protectors... so I'm curious.

 

[CalMin]

Not with this generation of iPads.

Nano texture is not “anti glare for the rest of us“. It’s aimed at certain field based professionals who work in certain environments.

Making it available on only the high end iPads and charging so much extra for it is Apples way of discouraging consumers who dont NEED this. My guess is that it is more easily damaged than a glossy screen, and they don’t want the customer support headaches from when your five year old uses wax crayons on the iPad, and someone wants a warranty replacement!

 

[msackey]

My guess is that it is more easily damaged than a glossy screen, and they don’t want the customer support headaches from when your five year old uses wax crayons on the iPad, and someone wants a warranty replacement!

LOL. That is a hilarious image you gave me there I can't imagine how difficult it is to get rid of all that wax in between the grooves!!

My main reason to get the nano texture is for ease of reading AND a somewhat better pencil feel. I'd be happy to pay say $100 for the upgrade, but to pay so much more than that...hmm....

 

[msackey]

I use matte protectors on my touchscreen devices. I hope to have an opportunity to take my 10th gen iPad w/matte protector (which I love!) to the Apple store to compare it with a nano texture screen. I've heard reports that the glare-reducing properties of the nano screen isn't as effective as screen protectors... so I'm curious.

I don't use a matte protector on any of my screens. I did find the anti-glare properties of the nano texture screen to be good enough for me, though as I said I have nothing else to compare it with.

I'm also thinking how "funny" this all is because when we think back to when laptops, LCDs first came out decades ago, they were ALL matte screen. They weren't called nano texture and weren't glass, but essentially they seem to function the same. THEN, glossy screen came out maybe in the mid 2000s for Powerbooks?? And now we're returning to matte AND it's being upcharged as "premium". So funny (in a ridiculous way, honestly).

 

[CalMin]

LOL. That is a hilarious image you gave me there I can't imagine how difficult it is to get rid of all that wax in between the grooves!!

My main reason to get the nano texture is for ease of reading AND a somewhat better pencil feel. I'd be happy to pay say $100 for the upgrade, but to pay so much more than that...hmm....

I saw the nano texture in store yesterday and while it's really nice it does lack a little of the 'pop' that comes with the glossy. Your use case it legitimate, but it's just not what I think Apple had in mind for this particular glare reduction technology. It's really there for a pro who makes money on this in places where glossy might be impractical - eg. field photographers/videographers. I just don't see it as consumer tech given the cost and fragility.

Of course, viewed more cynically, it could just be another way of artificially forcing users up the pricing ladder. Apple has gotten very good at getting us to pay more than we want to. I always find these days that the specific Apple product I want is always just a little bit more than I wanted to spend!

 

[sracer]

I don't use a matte protector on any of my screens. I did find the anti-glare properties of the nano texture screen to be good enough for me, though as I said I have nothing else to compare it with.

I'm also thinking how "funny" this all is because when we think back to when laptops, LCDs first came out decades ago, they were ALL matte screen. They weren't called nano texture and weren't glass, but essentially they seem to function the same. THEN, glossy screen came out maybe in the mid 2000s for Powerbooks?? And now we're returning to matte AND it's being upcharged as "premium". So funny (in a ridiculous way, honestly).

😂
tell me about it... 😁 I've been using ThinkPads for decades (even before they were available to the general public)... all of them with a matte screen.

 

[msackey]

Of course, viewed more cynically, it could just be another way of artificially forcing users up the pricing ladder. Apple has gotten very good at getting us to pay more than we want to. I always find these days that the specific Apple product I want is always just a little bit more than I wanted to spend!

SO TRUE! That's kinda what I mean by: recall when LCDs and laptops only came with the matte option and now we are being upcharged for "nano texture" when in decades past that was just normal everyday ho-hum. It's also not just Apple, of course. Almost all corporations are finding ways to monetize processes that in the past were just seen as "built in".

Like what? Well, like seat selection for your airplane ticket. It used to be no matter WHAT class of ticket you bought, you always got to select your seat when you purchased the ticket. Then, they started charging you a price for selecting CERTAIN seats. Now, we've gotten to the point where for some tickets, if you want to select a seat at all before check-in, they'll charge you! What next? Maybe if you check-in early they'll charge you for wanting to be in line earlier. It gets more and more stupid, but as the bar is set lower and lower, consumers keep accepting that as normal and acceptable. (oh...don't get me started about most subscription-based software....)

 

[Johnny Steps]

I saw the nano texture in store yesterday and while it's really nice it does lack a little of the 'pop' that comes with the glossy. Your use case it legitimate, but it's just not what I think Apple had in mind for this particular glare reduction technology. It's really there for a pro who makes money on this in places where glossy might be impractical - eg. field photographers/videographers. I just don't see it as consumer tech given the cost and fragility.

Of course, viewed more cynically, it could just be another way of artificially forcing users up the pricing ladder. Apple has gotten very good at getting us to pay more than we want to. I always find these days that the specific Apple product I want is always just a little bit more than I wanted to spend!

Do you think then it’s not worth it for someone who purely draws? I was considering it, but I currently have no issues drawing on the glossy screen.

 

[msackey]

Do you think then it’s not worth it for someone who purely draws? I was considering it, but I currently have no issues drawing on the glossy screen.

If you have ZERO issues with what you currently have, then the upcharge for nano texture doesn't seem worth it.

To me, the nano texture is better for writing with Apple Pencil than the conventional glossy. That said, some people might say: then get a matte screen protector. I've shied away from those too because I'm not crazy about putting on an additional plastic film on top of the touchscreen. I suppose I'd rather than bare with the glossy glide as opposed to plastic film.

 

[Nikhil72]

I think it’s also relegated to the higher tier models because it’s harder to manufacture at scale versus the glossy glass and saving it for higher tiers allows them to sell t o the smaller percentage of clients who will spend

 

[CalMin]

Do you think then it’s not worth it for someone who purely draws? I was considering it, but I currently have no issues drawing on the glossy screen.

I'm not an artist so I can't really provide a meaningful answer for this.

What I was trying to say is that a regular iPad rejects glare pretty well. Sure the nano texture does this better but it does come at a price - it seems a little less contrasty and somehow just less visually impressive than the glossy. Don't get me wrong it still looks excellent and much better than those paperlike matte screen protectors, but I'm not sure it's the right choice for someone who just wants it because they have a window in their office. It's for folks who work outside in environments where they are constantly battling multiple bright light sources etc.

 

[Aka757]

I think they limited the nano-texture option to the higher tiers as a way of indicating that that option is really only for those that have a need for reduced glare. Obviously a lot of folks on here enjoy it regardless, but I don't think the average consumer (even the average iPad Pro consumer) would really care about nano-texture, and Apple likely doesn't really want a lot of folks getting the nano-texture option and causing an uproar because it's different. They made it so that you have to make the choice very deliberately (especially if you were only looking at the base model anyway). From what I recall, that was also the sense I got during the Let Loose event when they first described it as well, they talked about it around the same time as the "pro" capabilities and mentioned it's for their users who need the best color accuracy in harsh lighting conditions.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

It’s niche. Unless it proves to have high demand, it will remain on the 1TB+ models.

I’d guess that it won’t ever be available outside of those.

The customer getting the 256 or 512 model is not the same as the customer who knows what nano texture glass is and wants it. They’re likely to already be interested in 1 and 2TB anyway.

I think there should be a BTO for nano texture on lower model, only available from Apple online store, but I don’t think that will happen now or ever.

I wonder if we will see these options on MBP’s as well. Nano texture glass seems to be slowly expanding its offerings.

 

[msackey]

I don't know if there is a "market" for nano texture screens outside of what Apple has said. But I am sure there are people interested in nano texture screens besides doing photography work under glare conditions. For one, it offers a nicer Pen feel than the slick glossy option. For another, reading (which I often do with my iPad Pro) is easier with the nano texture.

 

[HouseLannister]

The ship time went from a month initially to 1-2 days now, so I am not sure if that means the supply chain improved or the interest died off.

 

[carbphrek]

If you have ZERO issues with what you currently have, then the upcharge for nano texture doesn't seem worth it.

To me, the nano texture is better for writing with Apple Pencil than the conventional glossy. That said, some people might say: then get a matte screen protector. I've shied away from those too because I'm not crazy about putting on an additional plastic film on top of the touchscreen. I suppose I'd rather than bare with the glossy glide as opposed to plastic film.

I agree with your 2nd paragraph, I had a glossy & nano and fell in love with the nano with the pencil and fingers (returned the standand glass). It’s so smooth and silky, once I had the nano screen thats all I wanted to touch. I am a graphic artist and use the Apple Pencil 80% of the time and occasionally draw outside in Florida sunlight, screen is amazing. never been a fan of screen protectors they gave me the weird tactile feedback, ya I’m weird.

 

[msackey]

I agree with your 2nd paragraph, I had a glossy & nano and fell in love with the nano with the pencil and fingers (returned the standand glass). It’s so smooth and silky, once I had the nano screen thats all I wanted to touch. I am a graphic artist and use the Apple Pencil 80% of the time and occasionally draw outside in Florida sunlight, screen is amazing. never been a fan of screen protectors they gave me the weird tactile feedback, ya I’m weird.

Can't agree more! With my Apple Pencil, I primarily use it to write notes and mark up my PDFs and eBooks. Still, I love the feel of actual pen on paper and while nano texture doesn't really come close to that, it is much better than Pencil on glossy glass.

 

[subjonas]

Probably to encourage sales of more s=expensive 1Tb and 2 Tb IPPs ?

That’s always the automatic assumption around here, but not sure if the numbers necessarily add up, because I’m not sure how many people would upgrade expensive storage just to be able to pay more again for nano texture, plus Apple is losing money on the nano texture upgrades that smaller storage people would have made if it was available to them. So who can really say?
One other possibility is Apple is being cautious because nano texture is a new hardware feature, and higher storage has smaller sales volume, so they’re limiting the rollout to those models, the users of which are probably also the demographic who would find nano texture most useful (creatives who use the Pencil etc.).

 

[GMShadow]

I don't use a matte protector on any of my screens. I did find the anti-glare properties of the nano texture screen to be good enough for me, though as I said I have nothing else to compare it with.

I'm also thinking how "funny" this all is because when we think back to when laptops, LCDs first came out decades ago, they were ALL matte screen. They weren't called nano texture and weren't glass, but essentially they seem to function the same. THEN, glossy screen came out maybe in the mid 2000s for Powerbooks?? And now we're returning to matte AND it's being upcharged as "premium". So funny (in a ridiculous way, honestly).

PowerBooks were all matte. The move to gloss came with the switch to Intel, though Apple offered matte display options on the 15 and 17” Pros for a few years around the turn of the decade.

 

[teohyc]

That’s always the automatic assumption around here, but not sure if the numbers necessarily add up, because I’m not sure how many people would upgrade expensive storage just to be able to pay more again for nano texture, plus Apple is losing money on the nano texture upgrades that smaller storage people would have made if it was available to them. So who can really say?
One other possibility is Apple is being cautious because nano texture is a new hardware feature, and higher storage has smaller sales volume, so they’re limiting the rollout to those models, the users of which are probably also the demographic who would find nano texture most useful (creatives who use the Pencil etc.).

It is to make money. This company is excellent at making money. They would rather sell few units and make huge profits than sell many units at lower profits. But of course, the best scenario is to sell many units and huge profits.

In this case, they probably want people to pay for the insane marked up storage upgrades.

 

[ThailandToo]

Not with this generation of iPads.

Nano texture is not “anti glare for the rest of us“. It’s aimed at certain field based professionals who work in certain environments.

Making it available on only the high end iPads and charging so much extra for it is Apples way of discouraging consumers who dont NEED this. My guess is that it is more easily damaged than a glossy screen, and they don’t want the customer support headaches from when your five year old uses wax crayons on the iPad, and someone wants a warranty replacement!

Completely disagree. This is about corporate greed and forcing people who want the feature to upgrade a bunch of other stuff at overly inflated prices.

 

[Aka757]

Completely disagree. This is about corporate greed and forcing people who want the feature to upgrade a bunch of other stuff at overly inflated prices.

If they wanted more people to pay to get the nano-texture option, don’t you think either of the following would generate more revenue:

1) Offer the option on the 256 / 512 models (you lose out on minimal revenue from folks upgrading solely for the nano-texture display but earn revenue from folks wanting to try it out on the lower tier models
2) Market it more, and specifically towards average consumers so they are aware of what it is and see the benefits outside of professional workflows (in the launch event they aimed the nano-texture option specifically at creative workflows)

I think either of the above approach is a better approach from a finance perspective, limiting the option to higher tier builds actually limits revenue comparatively.

 

[subjonas]

It is to make money. This company is excellent at making money. They would rather sell few units and make huge profits than sell many units at lower profits. But of course, the best scenario is to sell many units and huge profits.

In this case, they probably want people to pay for the insane marked up storage upgrades.

Well ultimately everything any company does is to make money, if not directly then indirectly. Otherwise, they would go out of business. Customers just tend to appreciate the indirect methods more. How we can reasonably conclude that this decision was direct or indirect depends largely on information we don’t have—again, that would be how many storage upgrades the situation causes versus how many nano texture upgrades it prevents—yes, even accounting for the higher profit margins of the higher storage units. It’s all numbers and therefore all an equation, but we can’t even begin to solve the equation if there are major unknown variables.