iPad Pro The iPad PRO is finally PRO.

[off3nc3]

Nice condescending insult. Guess we can't all be great like you.

Never said i was great i'm just the better debater and when someone starts a topic and uses false claims that he can't backup and continues to ramble on topics that are public and logical i just call them out on it.

If anyone can prove that this device isn't directed at a very niche target demographic that doesn't mainly game or has any kind of a high demanding job that require above 16 gigs of ram on a tablet that's locked into one of the most limited OS'es on the market , by all means i'm all here to be educated on the matter.

 

[Robstevo]

The hardware for the pro has been pro for a while now. I have the M2 pro and I was so close to getting the M4, but then I sat back and just thought there is zero point until I know that the software will act utilise all that power.

my 12.9 inch is a bit on the heavy side but it runs like a beast, and it’s just held back from crap software.

so Im waiting to see what WWDC brings.

 

[sparksd]

Never said i was great i'm just the better debater and when someone starts a topic and uses false claims that he can't backup and continues to ramble on topics that are public and logical i just call them out on it.

If anyone can prove that this device isn't directed at a very niche target demographic that doesn't mainly game or has any kind of a high demanding job that require above 16 gigs of ram on a tablet that's locked into one of the most limited OS'es on the market , by all means i'm all here to be educated on the matter.

Can't see why anyone would be interested in engaging with such a great debater.

 

[DeepSix]

If the new ipad pro's has as good battery life as the new Mac airs, it would be very tempting to upgrade. Ipad pros won't last you all day for battery life but the mac airs will. At max brightness I can drain my current ipad pro M1 in 3 hours or less. The battery life on M1 ipad pros is overrated. It's decent but could be way better.

 

[bcortens]

Only the lowest layers of the OS made it from macOS to iOS. All the UI stuff as well as apps/memory management and other things are completely different.

Memory management comes in at two levels, at the kernel level they have the same memory management system and almost everything below the UI layer has been brought into alignment in the last few years (this was part of the project to support Mac Catalyst).

The memory management in iPadOS now allows apps to use swap memory, bringing it closer to macOS and further from iOS. Apple being apple of course gated swap memory to only higher end iPads but that is a marketing decision not a technical one. Part of this is quite sensible as people don’t really quit apps on iPad the way they do on mac, it is also sensible because the entry level iPads have never shipped with enough storage to really be able to sacrifice any of it to swap memory space.

On the other hand, iPadOS shares almost everything with iOS.

So while you can accurately say that iPadOS has macOS foundations, it is very clear that iPadOS is a much closer sibling to iOS than it is to macOS, and it is a bit of a stretch to say "iPadOS is macOS adapted for touch".

iOS and iPad OS are both macOS adapted to touch, of course they have a different UI layer and shell (though today you can build great mac apps with UIKit so even that distinction is shrinking). Apple has removed bits of it to slim down the OSs for the initial iPhone which was vastly less powerful than the macs of the time (as was the original iPad).

Also, if you are willing to have such a lose definition of what adapted means, in that case you might as well go to the top of the inheritance tree and say "iPadOS is Unix adapted for touch".

Given the level of API commonality they are clearly very close siblings, the fact that the UI Layer is different and macOS has a less restrictive memory and background task subsystem doesn’t change the fact that there is a huge amount of commonality between the two systems. There is a vast difference between the API compatibility between iPadOS and macOS vs vanilla Unix. Unix doesn’t have metal, core audio, Core Video, Core Animation, the file APIs are different, etc…

 

[DeepSix]

The new MKB is what the one out now should have been with the all metal shell, hot keys on the top and larger trackpad. I could actually see myself buying one because you don't have to worry about fabric ripping and shredding like the original MKB.

 

[gusping]

The new MKB is what the one out now should have been with the all metal shell, hot keys on the top and larger trackpad. I could actually see myself buying one because you don't have to worry about fabric ripping and shredding like the original MKB.

Yea, that original one was truly awful. One of the worst keyboards ever made. Still, I can’t justify £350 for the new one.

 

[DeepSix]

Yea, that original one was truly awful. One of the worst keyboards ever made. Still, I can’t justify £350 for the new one.

I can't justify the price either but it looks very sleek. I hope the metal shell doesn't scratch the ipad screen when closed.

 

[gusping]

I can't justify the price either but it looks very sleek. I hope the metal shell doesn't scratch the ipad screen when closed.

I’m sure there are some little rubber pads or something to stop that.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

This just isn’t true, Affinity makes really really good apps (I haven’t compared recently but the desktop and iPad versions are reaaaaaly close in terms of features) that work with touch first.

Touch first is not the problem. The problem is the Alan Dye school of design where you aren't allowed to have menus, not allowed labels on your controls. The modern flat design seems to mistake visual simplicity for user interface simplicity.

There is no inherent reason you can’t build a touch-first UI which has all of the capabilities of a pointer first UI. You are attributing the error to the wrong part of the process, the input mechanism, when the issue is with the UI design process.

A pointing device allows hover but a good UI shouldn’t rely on hover states.
A pointing device allows greater precision, but for apps that need precision you should have the ability to zoom in and then have pixel/grid snapping at the zoomed in resolution (this also is a good practice for mouse based UIs)

Touch first absolutely is the problem. This isn't up for debate.

 

[bcortens]

Touch first absolutely is the problem. This isn't up for debate.

Sure it is. I'm debating it.

Touch control does not determine whether or not an app can have a feature.
Almost any feature that can be implemented via pointer can be implemented via touch. Hover is about the only thing that really can't be implemented.

To claim that touch first is the problem is to misunderstand how software works. There is nothing in the touch layer that would prevent a LLVM compiler from running when you tap a touch based button. There is nothing in the touch layer that would prevent a 3D render from running when you tap a touch button.

The capabilities of most iPad software is limited not by the OS but by the design choices of the designers and engineers who build the app.

As I have posed elsewhere, Apple's XPC limits do prevent some categories of Apps from being built and the background processing limits make it hard to multitask on iPad.
However neither of these two limits is due to the fact that the OS is touch first. These are decisions Apple made to preserve battery life and for (supposed) security benefits. I think both limits are bad because they hurt the potential of iPad.

The rest of the limits on Apps on iPadOS are due to App developers not bothering to bring the full suite of features.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

To claim that touch first is the problem is to misunderstand how software works.

The irony of this statement is massive. To not understand that touch is a limiting UI and is a limiting factor in everything on iPad is to not understand anything, quite frankly. Welcome to ignore.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

The irony of this statement is massive. To not understand that touch is a limiting UI and is a limiting factor in everything on iPad is to not understand anything, quite frankly. Welcome to ignore.

You keep coming back to, what's effectively, "touch bad" but never get to how it's limiting. I tried checking your earlier posts in this thread, but I could only find one where you called touch a "baby input."

You're not really making a point if you don't get into how touch is supposedly an inferior input method. Is it the lower precision? The accessibility issues?

 

[bcortens]

The irony of this statement is massive. To not understand that touch is a limiting UI and is a limiting factor in everything on iPad is to not understand anything, quite frankly. Welcome to ignore.

Even if you're ignoring me I'll respond anyway.

You aren't really clarifying your points so I don't know what you mean by "limiting UI". Given the nature of this thread I have taken this to mean limited capabilities of Apps. There are of course ways that touch can be limiting in terms of the constraints it places upon UI design but that isn't the same thing as limiting the capability of the software itself.

For example, touch constrains you to the minimum target size of your buttons and controls. It does not constrain what those controls and buttons do.

Touch can also mean fewer controls on screen at the same time vs a pointer based UI, however there are some controls a pure mouse based UI requires that touch does not, zoom and rotate for example can be accomplished with gestures on a touch based UI while they often have on-screen buttons for pointers. For example: The fluidity and speed at which a digital artist can use an iPad in ProCreate often appears to surpass equivalent desktop productivity.

Thought there are real constraints on UI design, given the main subject of this thread is about capabilities not UI constraints, thus that is what I focused on previously.

If you look at the newest versions of Affinity's apps or Procreate, or Luma Fusion, these are not limited apps that have only rudimentary capability. They are professional apps with tons of capability and flexibility that do not appear to be at all limited by being touch-first apps.

 

[Cirillo Gherardo]

You keep coming back to, what's effectively, "touch bad" but never get to how it's limiting. I tried checking your earlier posts in this thread, but I could only find one where you called touch a "baby input."

You're not really making a point if you don't get into how touch is supposedly an inferior input method. Is it the lower precision? The accessibility issues?

It's self explanatory for anyone who remotely understands UI from the last 17 years of multitouch.

 

[sparksd]

It's self explanatory for anyone who remotely understands UI from the last 17 years of multitouch.

For those who don't, please enrich us with your deep knowledge.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

It's self explanatory for anyone who remotely understands UI from the last 17 years of multitouch.

Please, explain to us, since we clearly lack in understanding of the touch-first UX we have been seeing for the past 17 years.

 

[Delgibbons]

It's self explanatory for anyone who remotely understands UI from the last 17 years of multitouch.

Let’s take DaVinci on the iPad Pro for example; basically desktopUI. Lovely. Why can’t we have more like that?!

 

[blkjedi954]

The irony of this statement is massive. To not understand that touch is a limiting UI and is a limiting factor in everything on iPad is to not understand anything, quite frankly. Welcome to ignore.

Tr-oll alert! Added nothing, just contention. Stellar contribution (irony). Welcome to ignore.

 

[blkjedi954]

Even if you're ignoring me I'll respond anyway.

You aren't really clarifying your points so I don't know what you mean by "limiting UI". Given the nature of this thread I have taken this to mean limited capabilities of Apps. There are of course ways that touch can be limiting in terms of the constraints it places upon UI design but that isn't the same thing as limiting the capability of the software itself.

For example, touch constrains you to the minimum target size of your buttons and controls. It does not constrain what those controls and buttons do.

Touch can also mean fewer controls on screen at the same time vs a pointer based UI, however there are some controls a pure mouse based UI requires that touch does not, zoom and rotate for example can be accomplished with gestures on a touch based UI while they often have on-screen buttons for pointers. For example: The fluidity and speed at which a digital artist can use an iPad in ProCreate often appears to surpass equivalent desktop productivity.

Thought there are real constraints on UI design, given the main subject of this thread is about capabilities not UI constraints, thus that is what I focused on previously.

If you look at the newest versions of Affinity's apps or Procreate, or Luma Fusion, these are not limited apps that have only rudimentary capability. They are professional apps with tons of capability and flexibility that do not appear to be at all limited by being touch-first apps.

You’re going to have to ignore Cirillo, they aren’t interested in real sharing of ideas.

 

[Starscape]

No, it isn’t. Unbelievably, the iPad Pro still cannot multitask.

 

[KPOM]

No, it isn’t. Unbelievably, the iPad Pro still cannot multitask.

Yes it can. It supports Stage Manager.

 

[KPOM]

If only it was. iPadOS is iOS adapted for bigger screens.

If it works for you, god bless, but plenty of people find it limiting at best.

It was Steve Jobs himself who proclaimed that “iPhone runs OS X.”

 

[KPOM]

The hardware for the pro has been pro for a while now. I have the M2 pro and I was so close to getting the M4, but then I sat back and just thought there is zero point until I know that the software will act utilise all that power.

my 12.9 inch is a bit on the heavy side but it runs like a beast, and it’s just held back from crap software.

so Im waiting to see what WWDC brings.

A lot of this is on developers. iPadOS does support multiple monitors. It does support multitasking (albeit to a lesser degree than macOS). It is capable of running powerful apps (Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro are two examples, as is DaVinci Resolve). It’s not Apple’s fault that Microsoft gimps O365 on every platform except Windows. Could Apple make it easier to port macOS apps to iPadOS? Perhaps, but given that Apple does make it easy to port iPadOS apps to macOS, perhaps developers should focus on writing great iPadOS apps first and then port them to the Mac.

 

[alecgold]

Never said i was great i'm just the better debater and when someone starts a topic and uses false claims that he can't backup and continues to ramble on topics that are public and logical i just call them out on it.

If anyone can prove that this device isn't directed at a very niche target demographic that doesn't mainly game or has any kind of a high demanding job that require above 16 gigs of ram on a tablet that's locked into one of the most limited OS'es on the market , by all means i'm all here to be educated on the matter.

In that case, go to in institute for education and join the debating club. This is a bloody forum on a website that ends in rumors and has user feedback, what do you expect?

But if you want to debate: why wouldn’t a niche device be targeted at a very specific demographic. It would be a failure of a device if a niche market isn’t supplied with a niche device?!
And what does the locking matter? If it is the tool for that niche (of which you admit there are at least two parts that might not be so niche after all: the 16Gb demanding job’s and gaming) and they are oke with locked devices, what is the problem?
And the point is rather moot, because it is a fact: a large part of the 16Gb business users are probably locked in by the IT-overlords as a managed device. So if you have a Samsung or an Apple device, it will be locked, fenced of and gardened in.

So what is your point about this? That 16Gb is a pointless device? If it would be, it wouldn’t sell and Apple wouldn’t produce it. They are a rather profitable company and that doesn’t come from producing niche market devices without margin.

I would suggest that you, as an excellent debater would first state the case, fence it off, then give pro arguments to your case, the give arguments why counter arguments are void of meaning and then rest your case.
But you don’t do either of them, so I have to assume you are not a very good debater, and just here to troll a bit on a forum.