Would you convert to an iPad Pro and replace your SP3?

[Gavin Lewarne]

in a word, no

in more than a word, no apple device, be it iOS or OsX are capable of running the applications (not apps, real, full blown applications) that i need for my work. Also, i dont want to start drinking the kool-aid

 

[cdf3]

If it can't connect to USB printers, then no. I enjoy using my iPad and iPad Mini, but they can only print to an Air Print or Wifi printer. That's where my Surface Pro 3 comes in handy. I'm able to print directly to USB connected printers at work.

 

[macmee]

But one of the big issues with the surface line was that it was windows, but it wasn't windows. There was a lot of confusion as to what it really was.

How would this translate to apple? Because no matter how i look at it, even as someone who keeps up to date on tech, ipad means mobile, it means ios. if it were to be some touch enabled osx with ios blended in, i dont think they would call it an ipad, i think they would go out of their way to differentiate the product name so that it sells itself. i jist dont see them releasing a full powered slate and using the ipad branding for it.

The problem with the surface non pro was that you couldnt do anything on it. You can do some stuff on iOS but people will expect to be able to do more on an iPad pro. Thus it makes sense to run OSX on it. Apple probably wants to milk money from iOS some more though.

 

[hughlle]

The problem with the surface non pro was that you couldnt do anything on it. You can do some stuff on iOS but people will expect to be able to do more on an iPad pro. Thus it makes sense to run OSX on it. Apple probably wants to milk money from iOS some more though.

The problem was also that it ran windows (RT) that it turned out was not windows at all but just another limited mobile OS. I am not arguing against it running osx, if it is a full powered slate like the surface pro, then no way in hell it would be ios. But my point was that if it is a powerful osx based device, then i do not think they will call it an ipad because it is a whole new product line they will really want to differentiate.

 

[GreyFox7]

The problem was also that it ran windows (RT) that it turned out was not windows at all but just another limited mobile OS. I am not arguing against it running osx, if it is a full powered slate like the surface pro, then no way in hell it would be ios. But my point was that if it is a powerful osx based device, then i do not think they will call it an ipad because it is a whole new product line they will really want to differentiate.

In essence one mistake MS made with Surface and Surface Pro was not making the distinction clearly. The other mistake was limiting Windows RT and not letting it be all it could be. Hi this is my crippled brother Daryl and I'm restraining him from living a full life with artificial limitations on him. Rule 5: you don't waste good.

 

[hughlle]

In essence one mistake MS made with Surface and Surface Pro was not making the distinction clearly. The other mistake was limiting Windows RT and not letting it be all it could be. Hi this is my crippled brother Daryl and I'm restraining him from living a full life with artificial limitations on him. Rule 5: you don't waste good.

Sounds like my experience with the ipad air 2. Except it was all that it could be, and it still felt like interacting with Daryl

I'd imagine that the "ipad pro" will be little different to the samsung tablet. Just an ipad with a digitizer.

 

[dstrauss]

OUCH! Read what Windows fan NUMBER 1 has to say about the prospects of an iPad Pro:

https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/1838/can-apple-disrupt-the-hybrid-pc-market-with-an-ipad-pro

I know he's controversial, but Paul always tells you what he thinks, right, wrong, or indifferent. This time he seems to be a fountain of doom and gloom over Windows hybrid prospects (that includes Surface Pro 4) in the face of the uber iPad...in all fairness, however, he's never really liked the hybrid model, being an old school laptop kind of guy...

 

[RémiM]

OUCH! Read what Windows fan NUMBER 1 has to say about the prospects of an iPad Pro:

https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/1838/can-apple-disrupt-the-hybrid-pc-market-with-an-ipad-pro

I know he's controversial, but Paul always tells you what he thinks, right, wrong, or indifferent. This time he seems to be a fountain of doom and gloom over Windows hybrid prospects (that includes Surface Pro 4) in the face of the uber iPad...in all fairness, however, he's never really liked the hybrid model, being an old school laptop kind of guy...

Again, someone who thinks from an app point of view. That is crazy how applications ruined everybody's ability to think out of the box. Out of the jail.

They will point to Windows 10 for Mobile, which will offer a simpler, desktop-free, Windows Phone-like experience. But I’d argue that the choice between this platform and iPad Pro would fall apart in the face of the iPad’s vastly superior apps ecosystem.

 

[GreyFox7]

Again, someone who thinks from an app point of view. That is crazy how applications ruined everybody's ability to think out of the box. Out of the jail.

Again, someone who thinks from an app point of view. That is crazy how applications ruined everybody's ability to think. There, fixed it for you.

 

[spinachpie]

But apps are easy to use and touch friendly. That's why people like them - if something which improves consumers' ability to consume information/media is developed and released (apps), why shouldn't it be an important factor/consideration in determining a product's success?

My Surface Pro is fantastic - it would be even more fantastic with apps/games which could make use of the touch screen.

 

[zhenya]

The reality is that apps are the new native programs. You wouldn't take it seriously if it were suggested that your desktop programs be replaced by your web browser. (Although more and more of them are seeing just that happen). By the same token, apps are the new native code that can be faster, more efficient, and provide an overall better experience than a general web app that must dynamically fit a wide range of devices.

What Paul is saying in that article is that Apple has, with iOS, an operating system that is already designed from the ground up to be simple and efficient. It is much easier to extend that system to have more powerful capabilities built upon the foundation and rules of that system than it is for Microsoft to strip away the legacy stuff from Windows. Microsoft built Windows 8 with this duality because they felt that it was the only way to get their users to accept an operating system that was re-built in the modern sense. In 8 the duality was too stark, and the advantages of the Metro side of things were not yet developed to the point to tempt many users. In 10 they have blurred the lines between the two sides a bit. But make no mistake, Microsoft is not giving up on the 'metro' side of their OS. They continue to develop software for it, and in my opinion, what will happen is that slowly, over time, that side of the OS will come to dominate, with the 'desktop' side left behind for legacy compatibility. In this way Microsoft gets to build a new operating system that grows up along side their old one.

This is what I think Paul is missing in his analysis. Apple is much more willing to jettison legacy hardware and software in order to advance more quickly. Microsoft doesn't have that flexibility. So while I agree that an iPad pro could, potentially, take a lot of sales from the Surface market, I also believe that Microsoft is on the right track to do what they need to stay competitive in the long run.