10/28/13
At their last product launch, Apple made the curious move of renaming their flagship iPad (previously known only as the ‘iPad’), the iPad Air. On the face of it, this might just be to give it an extra marketing kick, “Look everyone, we have a brand new product! It’s really different from last year’s model, because it has a different name!”. However, if they had simply called it the “New” New iPad, it would have largely achieved the same result, “Wow, iPad/ full tablet now means a light, 1lb., device! Look at all those porky Samsung tablets!”
Changing the name leaves a conspicuous opening in the lineup. Can Apple go forward with just an iPad Mini, and an iPad Air? Possibly, after all, there is no longer a product named just “MacBook”, it’s either MacBook Air, or MacBook Pro now (except for the odd, MacBook Pro without Retina Display, but that’s another story).
The immediate reaction is that Apple seems to be making an opening for an iPad Pro, hypothetically with a larger screen, higher specs, and more technology. Let’s indulge in some speculation on what an iPad Pro might look like, and if it makes sense.
As Tim Cook made it a point to impress upon us at this last launch, unlike their competitors, Apple is not at all confused about what an iPad it, “Our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device.” Ok, not exactly specific, but that’s at least saying it won’t be a second-class experience, like say a Netbook, who remembers those?
When Phil Schiller subsequently unveiled the iPad Air, he emphasized the iPad’s impact on Mobile Computing. Certainly, iPads have cannibalized some notebook and laptop sales. They are also edging ever closer, spec-wise.
A high end, 128GB iPad Air costs $799, $200 less than an 11” MacBook Air. While today’s MacBook Air blows the iPad out of the water performance-wise, Haswell basically stalled performance improvements for the sake of battery life, and the A7 appears to only be 2-3 generations behind from being competitive. The iPad also sports a retina display, and GPU performance that is, practically speaking, as good as what you can get from an Intel integrated graphics processor.
It’s not inconceivable that the 2016 iPad model be able to do everything a MacBook Air can today.
But what might such an iPad “Pro” look like? Let’s try out a few possibilities:
If Apple did nothing other than continue to iterate, one would expect the 2016 iPad to:
- Be 4x faster than the iPad Air, in terms of processing and graphics
- Have up to 2x more storage (max 256GB)
- Have 2-4x RAM (2-4GB)
- Be slightly smaller and lighter
- Come equipped with a better camera and sensors, and TouchID
- Have the same 10 hour batter life and 9.7” Retina display
This alone would make things like
true App multitasking an easy reality. The iPad could even run multiple Apps simultaneously on the same screen, like the Surface. This may not sound like much, but the lack of true multitasking is a big stumbling block for real productivity scenarios. Just think of how many times you switch between a browser and Email or a word processor during a work session without even thinking.
It would also bring the iPad to be close to
competing with Console Games. You would expect to see a real first-person shooter like Call of Duty (not the silly scaled down Zombie version) run perfectly on an iPad, though perhaps a version that’s 1-2 years behind the latest console editions.
This is the route the Surface has taken, though frankly the keyboard implementation has not yet lived up to its promise. Let’s imagine if Apple solves this problem, and delivers a true full-sized typing experience with the iPad. It would look something like the best Bluetooth keyboard, physically integrated with the iPad, like a super Smart Cover.
A true, physical keyboard is another major stumbling block preventing more real work being done an an iPad. For the vast majority of people, work involves typing all day, and no matter how good the marketing,
typing on a flat screen is just not the same as on a real keyboard.
The only thing preventing this scenario is Apple’s philosophy towards the iPad. It’s clear that they’ve consciously decided to downplay the need for a keyboard. Even if you attach their Bluetooth keyboard to an iPad today, it’s frustrating how even simple things like shortcuts to change Apps are left out.
Two years, and increased Surface adoption might bring about a change of heart.
Just like the Kindle DX, it’s not difficult to imagine a larger iPad, with say an 11” or 13” screen. With the weight reduction in the iPad Air, an 11” model should weigh close to what the previous model weighed (around 1.4 lbs.). Certainly, they would have prototypes of this running in the lab already.
Let’s imagine it as having the screen equivalent of two Retina iPad Minis. A bit of math: Today’s iPad Mini has a 7.9” diagonal screen size (4.74" x 6.32”), so doubled, that would be 9.5”x6.32”, or roughly 11.4” diagonal. This configuration would have a 1.5 aspect ratio (vs. 1.33 today).
But does a larger iPad make sense? What would a larger screen enable?
One thing is it might allow
two full side-by-side Apps to work seamlessly on the same screen.
Such a device could either supporting old Apps in zoomed mode, side-by-side, or new Apps with the new 1.5 full-screen aspect ratio. Apple has already invested a lot in rolling out technologies like Auto-Layout, which would make supporting different screen sizes and aspect ratios not too difficult for developers.
Combined with #2, a physical keyboard, this 11” iPad could essentially replace the 11” MacBook Air. Anyone able to do their day’s work on an 11” screen today should have no problem doing it on an 11” iPad.
This one is more out on a limb. Like the ill-fated Courier and the much more successful Nintendo DS, one could also imagine joining two Retina iPad Mini screens together in a hinged device. The benefit of this over a single larger screen is that you can prop this up like a notebook and use one screen as a touch keyboard.
Folded up, this iPad Pro would be more portable than one with a single larger screen, at close to the same weight.
Existing Apps would run perfectly on just one of the screens, while allowing the same two-App multitasking, and new dual-screen aware Apps.
Admittedly, this would depart from the
simplicity is king philosophy Apple has today. We’ll more likely see Samsung or Microsoft try this first.
All of these scenarios are technically feasible, but the real question is why should Apple do any of these. Why sell a bigger iPad if they can sell a more expensive MacBook Air that can do the same things better? Why sacrifice mobility for a larger screen or keyboard?
I think the answer hinges not on the future of mobile computing, but rather desktop computing. How will multi-touch play a part on the desktop?
Microsoft sure seems to believe in the vision for larger-screen multi-touch interfaces. You can buy big-screen touch monitors today to run Windows 8 on, even crazy big ones. The hardware’s there,
but not the software.
Therein lies the problem. Without compelling applications, and people who know how to use them, it doesn’t make sense for businesses to invest in touch-screen desktops, which are also more expensive than non-touch desktops today.
Any desktop touch ecosystem
must first incubate and evolve on smaller screens.
This is a route Microsoft might be on, alas if only Surface would gain more traction.
If Apple continues to play their cards right, they can convert their massive library of iOS Apps over to larger screen form factors, and disrupt the desktop computing market from below.
Now, wouldn't that be something?
Related: Tech.