| threezero | 09-11-2015 05:53 PM |
Here's a really good post from reddit regarding the debate between surface pro and iPad pro Quote:
I've been following tablets for a while. For some of us who were aware of what was going on 10 or so years ago, I think the tablet PC really primed us for the potential of the iPad. A lot of recent comments disparaging the iPad Pro and favoring the Surface Pro really lack context, IMO. There are two clear strategies at work here, that largely break down around ARM-designed CPUs vs x86 CPUs.
x86 CPUs were in a way a huge albatross for tablet PCs before the Surface Pro. That's why iPads ended up defining the category, in spite of the fact that MS created the tablet PC years beforehand. MS always touted the advantage of complete software compatibility between tablet and non-tablet PCs. I just want to point out that this was a marketing issue. For the very same reason of complete compatibility, software developers never had a financial incentive to develop tablet-optimized Windows software. That, combined with the low power efficiency of x86 CPUs compared to ARM-designed CPUs, and high costs associated with Wacom active digitizers and the patented convertible tablet design, allowed Apple to swoop in and define the tablet category.
And the ability of app developers to receive additional revenue in another software environment turned out to be a huge asset for iOS. IMO, the importance of creating financial incentives for app developers largely discounts the talk about the fact that the iPad Pro uses iOS instead of OS X. Furthermore, there is no way Apple can catch up to MS by adding a whole layer of tablet functionality to OS X, and they have no reason to even try. The whole argument that the iPad Pro should run OS X is a sign of complete ignorance, IMO. It's a nonsensical objection to the iPad Pro. Windows has had tablet functionality built in since Windows XP. There's no way OS X developers would be on board for a sudden full-scale conversion of that magnitude.
It's also notable that MS Office, back in the day, was never optimized for MS's own tablet PC environment, which was internally promoted by Bill Gates but wasn't received wholeheartedly by the entire corporation. Furthermore, when MS decided to put the full weight of their company solidly behind tablets, they got a lot of flak for "forcing" touchscreen optimization on Windows.
I'm a fan of the Surface Pro. It was necessary and very sensible for MS to create a branded tablet PC, and the performance and yearly advances have been commendable. But there are basic technological and strategic differences between the Surface Pro and the iPad Pro. Technologically, ARM-designed CPUs are going to deliver better power efficiency. That remains true, in spite of Intel's more recent gains in that arena. I think the attempt to put them side by side in some kind of competition that favors the Surface Pro is really a bet on Intel, that has nothing to do with the two different ecosystems. It's also worth recognizing that MS's late attempt to create a viable ARM-based CPU tablet environment with the Surface RT has been scrapped. IMO, it was just too late to get that started. That has kind of forced MS to stick with the x86 pathway, for better or worse. Intel and ARM are competing over this space specifically, and from what I can tell, there's no reason to expect either of them to completely demolish the other.
In the end, I don't see the iPad Pro and Surface Pro as directly competing. It's just a fact that individuals, small businesses, and corporations are already committed to either Apple or MS for all kinds of reasons, and I don't think these devices change that.
Also, I think both devices are equally viable, because the entire software industry is converting to software as a subscription-based service. So if the overall market size is sufficiently large, of course Adobe, MS, etc., will have an incentive to produce tablet-optimized software. And both MS and Apple can command a sufficiently large market size.
If there's a loser in this, it's Wacom. And my personal feeling is that, if there is a company that deserves to fall into obscurity and obsolescence in the history of tablets, it's Wacom.
My overall concern about the first generation iPad Pro is the usage specs — specifically, the weight and battery life. The issue isn't that they aren't competitive, but that they are nigh identical to those of the first generation iPad. These strike me as Apple's "minimal target specs" for a first generation device.
I don't know how to compare the numbers between the iPad Pro and Surface Pro chipsets, because the environments are very different. What matters more is how the software app environments will run, and how much *project* compatibility between tablet and desktop environments the developers can provide with the hardware they have. But I do know that the iPad Pro chipset is pushing a lot of pixels, and that for an iOS device that large to carry only a 10h battery life, we are looking at a chipset that will receive much better optimization over the course of a few years. I'm just pointing out that there's a good chance the iPad Pro is going to end up being similar to the first generation iPad and the iPad 3 (the first retina iPad) — that is, it will probably have the shortest support duration, the least functional longevity, and the least favorable weight to battery life ratio, and in later years, people will remember it for those qualities more than anything it achieves.
| pretty neutral view of both the surface and the iPad and their strategy. looks at things from software development, marketing strategy etc. it's not as simple as slapping on OSX on a huge iPad.
The final takeaway is both product is excellent for consumer and the only one that stands to lose from this is wacom.
And it's a pencil not a pen lol |
