Tim Cook also said it was not a hybrid, nor do Apple believe that a hybrid is viable. I.e. if you’re a power user, Apple expects you to need two devices. It’s still just a tablet. Apple has said that they don’t believe the hybrid is a viable option at the moment because it’s a compromise and like it or not, the SP4 is still a compromise. I have a quad core laptop and a iPad Pro, the iPad Pro is a better tablet and the quad core laptop is a better laptop than my Surface Pro. That is what they call a compromise.Apple's Tim Cook has brought the comparison on himself:
Apple's Tim Cook declares the end of the PC and hints at new medical product
So he get these:
Tim Cook is (Almost) Right About the iPad Pro Replacing a PC
iPad Pro vs. Surface Pro 4 video - CNET
iPad Pro vs Surface Pro 4: Which is best for you?
iPad Pro vs Surface Pro 4: Which is Better?
And when sites like CNET and GottaBeMobile who are huge Apple Fanboi sites start to turn you have issues.
On the issue of tech journalists, I don’t hold much faith in tech journalists for the simple reason that most of them actually sit in white walled offices using desktops and thats how they base their judgement. They play around with a device, check their email, write an article and that defines whether its awesome or not. If they are remotely creative, they might take some photos of the device and do some post processing of them in photoshop. Yeah, that use case probably falls in line with about 0.00001% of the real computer using population. Amazing how the people here are prepared to knock tech journalists if they show any favouritism to Apple, but every time someone posts a favourable SP4 review they’re the most legitimate journalist in the world. The fact that they are comparing it with the SP4 when Apple stated it isn’t a hybrid speaks more for the quality of journalists (or lack there of) than the device itself. I saw a tech journalist say the other day he has never seen an iPad used for legitimate business. Perhaps he needs to get out of his ivory tower more because if you go into companies, you see them in reception where people register to enter the building electronically (replaced a PC as Tim Cook stated) as a starting point, but you see them behind the scenes in business used for mobile maintenance, hospitals (tablet apps that allow doctors to use iPads), etc. Yes, the receptionist is there typing on a computer, but it doesn’t change the fact that iPads are used, it’s just not used for the people typing documents.
On the issue of the Tim Cook and hospital articles you posted, this was available back in 2012 and is already in use
Mobile Asset Management. A lot of customers we see are moving from tough books to these in rugged iPad cases
This was all easy to find on youtube, but the challenge is no one looks at it.
Who is SAP? Well, you probably should care who they are. They are one of the biggest software vendors in the world, the third largest independent. They are worth about $80 Billion and their customer base includes the likes of Shell, BMW, Mercedes, Coca Cola, Walmart, Apple, in fact, 20 of the 25 top supply chain customers listed by Gartner run SAP and even, yes, you guess it, Microsoft How Microsoft runs SAP. Look at Oil and Gas, Mining, Manufacturing, even government and you’ll find a lot of them on SAP.
But if you’re worried that it’s just SAP, SalesForce and other enterprise products have products available that allow you to achieve what you need to on an iPad. SAP’s biggest competition? Oracle. Yeah, doing the same
Tim Cook said it would replace a PC for some users which is true. How many execs these days actually type documents. They check their email, they view the financials (available on a report app). Simply put, an iPad will replace a laptop for the right type of user. It will not replace a desktop for a desk bound worker, but that doesn’t make it any less capable. It doesn’t mean we have to like it, or prefer it. They are different kinds of users. But this idea that one is better than the other has to go. It’s a pointless argument.
You could argue whether Apple’s approach is flawed, but here is the reality. Microsoft is embedded into most companies, whether you like it or not. Companies aren’t getting rid of Windows so what would a hybrid really achieve for them? Would business uproot Windows desktops for their users? Unlikely. we’ve seen companies adopt Chrome Books but even that is fairly limited for work. Companies are slow in just upgrading Windows so the likelihood of anyone switching to OSX broadly in an enterprise is low so creating a hybrid would probably keep the home market happy, but wouldn’t do much for corporate adoption, and that is what we are talking about here.
Anyway, let's not forget where this started. A link to a review driven by a need to sell marketing stock.