[ad_1]
(Read our incredibly detailed 3-part review on iPad Pro)
What power exactly? They are now comfortably installed in the same park as MacBook Pro. Not only MacBook Air and MacBook low power, but MacBook Pros: the leading laptops used by content creators and other professionals. In fact, Apple claims that iPad Pro is more powerful than 9/10 current laptops. Let it run for a minute.
Of course, there are still big problems that would discourage the professionals. IOS is not a Mac OS operating system. With IOS, the control of your files is much less detailed. You can not (yet) connect external storage – although we still hope that the recently provided USB C port could be more efficient than it seems at first glance. You can not even use a mouse and there is usually no trackpad on a classic iPad keyboard. I have low resolution fingers and I need a better way to point to an iPad.
Much remains to be done, but there is less and less reason for it not to be the case.
Until now, I wondered if Apple would end up no longer depending on Intel processors of its MacBooks. This must be a constant source of irritation for Apple not to use its own chips in its laptops. It must be worse than ever now that Apple's A12X processor is almost at the same level as Intel's MacBook devices.
There is no physical reason or design preventing Apple from using its own chips today in its laptops. When you connect a keyboard to a modern iPad, it's hard to say that it's not a remote laptop. There may be a myriad of little details but nothing, in my opinion, would stop that.
The most important problem would be to bring all software running on Intel chips on an architecture based on ARM. (Apple can design and manufacture its own A-series chips, but still uses an ARM-based kernel). This type of transformation has already occurred when Apple switched from IBM Power PC chips to Intel a decade ago and this was a tedious process for everyone. This is something that would not please anyone – especially application developers, for whom it would be a huge and unwanted overload. Applications written in C, for example, can still be recompiled, but it is not a one-stop shop, because of architecture, UI, API and even "cultural" differences . Monolithic mature applications would require years of work and dozens of hours of work to make them work again, not to mention the optimal level.
However, I'm starting to think that this is not a problem that Apple wants to force for the moment, and that it may not be necessary.
Many large applications (which usually run on Mac and Windows) are behind for a complete architectural overhaul. Computer programs that have existed for a very long time can become bulky, not just with built-in features, but with fixes and workarounds that are somehow assimilated into the body of the application. At some point, the program is transformed into a complex and complex body of code that is difficult to take care of and that obviously does not work effectively. Sometimes it's better to just start over.
But if you want to do it, you absolutely have to make sure you target a platform that will exist over time, not a platform that may have a limited future. .
Can you see where this is going?
If you had to chart the course for your company's application software and had to make a valid decision for perhaps a decade or more, what would you choose? ARM or Intel? It would be really hard to decide, because on the one hand, Intel is a platform that you know very well and that may seem like a safe choice. But on the other – very few people would deny that ARM is in a strong position. If the parity with laptop chips is near, where will it be in five or ten years – like the Intel x86 architecture, universal if it is – out of breath? Honestly, if you try to imagine ten years in the future, it's not hard to think that most computers will be powered by ARM chips, and only a small minority of high-end devices will still use x86 processors.
All this is only part of the story, because GPUs and AI compute chips support really hard work. This is probably more than anything that, at least in the short term, makes the idea of an ARM processor the center of everyday computing or even content creators a likely option.
As a software developer, this is one of the most difficult decisions to make. You really bet on the future of your business by planning a decade to come in an area where seismic surprises are omnipresent. But there is another way, and I think it could already happen, right under our noses. First. watch the rise of the iPad Pro.
In most cases, a four-year-old iPad is as good as a new one. And indeed, Apple is happy to sell older iPads at lower cost because there is a demand for them. For content consumption, there is no need for blockbuster power. But for any other benefit, iPads must stay in step with their times. It means being able to manage the creation and creation of content, as well as reading. And – not insignificantly – some users prefer to use powerful features. The new iPads are so fast that it's hard to imagine that they are not considered general-purpose computing devices – at least in a sense, well-placed to become the main computer in the workflow. a typical user.
Which brings us back to the question of whether Apple's laptops and their iPads are about to converge.
The thing is, I do not think they'll converge. At least, not with respect to their content. I just think that ARM, supported by AI and GPU computing, will take over.
So, how is it going to be?
A clue could be in the imminent arrival of Adobe Photoshop for IOS. It now seems likely that Adobe is covering its bets by making some of its flagship applications capable of running on multi-hardware platforms. This is not an impulsive gesture. The amount of work required to port an application such as Photoshop means that Adobe must have acquired a strong belief that IOS and ARM will be at the heart of content creators in the future.
And as iPads become more powerful, there will be no reason to work on the aging architecture of the PC. And look at the benefits: iPads have phenomenal screens, they are naturally touch sensitive, work for centuries on a battery charge, and they are incredibly portable and lightweight.
We are not there yet. IPads have missing features. No mouse. No file system accessible to the user. Can not work flexibly with external storage. These last two gaps will have to be corrected, and the signs show it. The next iteration or the previous two of IOS could well unlock the full potential of this new USB C port. Has anybody ever dismantled a new iPad? I have not seen it, so I do not know if there is a Thunderbolt chipset in the expectation of being released by this USB C connector. Even without it, it is not necessary. There is no reason for the external storage media not to be added to the iPad Pro. As soon as an appropriate file system is supported in the operating system, that is to say.
So, that is what is likely in my opinion. It's a complicated set of circumstances, but I think this will make ARM a dominant platform for content creators in a short period of time, as well as for app developers. , while the port of their huge software packages may pose a problem. for ARM, it's the best time possible to rewrite them from the bottom up.
What will happen to x86 PCs? They will not leave. There is always a case for buying and using them. But they will become more specialized and eventually marginalized. None of this takes into account all that Intel could do to respond.
And what about Macs? Will they go to ARM? Or will people simply turn to increasingly powerful iPads? I think that's exactly what will happen. This will be under our nose. At some point, Mac users will be seduced by super-iPads. They will have full ports and a truly usable file system. It may be that the availability of a file system is what ultimately marks the distinction between iPads and iPad pros. Indeed, at this point, Apple will let the market decide.
But wait! What about the Mac Pro? The imminent arrival (2019) of this definitely non-mobile device completely overcomes all the speculation mentioned above. Maybe not. I think there are three possible outcomes.
- All of the above is largely wrong. Apple will maintain and continue to develop MacOS and the Mac Pro will be a "classic" Intel box with expansion connectors.
- It will be based on Intel but very modular in that it will have an external extension via Thunderbolt or even PCIe.
- It will not use Intel at all, but will rely on multiple Apple ARM processors. The operating system will be an IOS derivative with an accessible file system and offering the ability to access and operate with various peripherals and plugins.
If the third option turns out to be the case, it would mean that Apple only needs to support a single hardware platform (the Apple ARM processors and essentially the same architecture for the first time). iPad Pro and the Mac Pro – with obvious differences, among others). of course, determined by the form factor).
And it should only support one operating system
You can see why Apple might want to do it.
(Read our incredibly detailed 3-part review on iPad Pro)
[ad_2]
Source link
