“KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo again hinted that Apple’s iPad Pro will go into commercial production next month or by October,” Alcaraz Research writes for Seeking Alpha. “Kuo also said the 12.9-inch iPad Pro will come with a Force Touch-enabled Stylus.”
“The persistent rumor of a high-end iPad Pro can lead to Apple being forced to use an x86 processor from Intel. Up until now, Adobe, Autodesk, and Apple has yet to find a way on how to recompile full versions of x86-only industry standard software (Photoshop CC , AutoCAD, Final Cut Pro) so they will work on ARM-based processors like Apple’s A8,” Alcaraz Research writes. “Graphic artists will deride a $1,499 Apple iPad Pro that cannot even run Adobe Photoshop CC or Illustrator CC. That is now the predicament of Apple. Without full compatibility with x86/x64 software, a 12.9-inch iPad Pro is just a glorified iPad Air.”
“The majority of creative/design professionals will only give serious thoughts of buying an iPad Pro if it runs native x86 industry standard programs,” Alcaraz Research writes. “The ideal iPad Pro therefore should be a detachable version of the fanless Intel Core-M powered MacBook 2015. It ought to run Mac OS X (not iOS 9), have an stylus and touchscreen support, and a Core i5 processor.”
MacDailyNews Take: Most of this is poppycock. Apple isn’t “forced” to do anything (except, perhaps, to extinguish irrational stock price bonfires before they rage out of control). Anyone who’s used a 64-bit Apple A8X-powered iPad Air 2 with iOS 9 running serious apps understands the tremendous power and capabilities of iPad, unlike Alcaraz Research (which seems to have limited iPad experience, if any). Graphic artists are a small percentage of the potential market for a 12.9-inch iPad Pro. OS X can run on Apple A-series processors and most certainly does in Apple’s labs. Vice versa, Apple likely maintains iOS on Intel versions as well.
Regardless of processor(s) used, this brings to mind a question we asked last October about a theoretical “MacPad” – Anyone in the market for a 12.9-inch device that’s an OS X-powered MacBook when docked with its keyboard base and an iOS-powered iPad when undocked?
Illustration from Apple’s hybrid Mac-iPad patent application
Let’s have nice new apps to get rid off Adobe’s monopoly… Some are already on the way to nicely enough replace PSD, InDesign and Co with the necessary exports to Adobe’s formats.
That’s a weird bit of down voting you got there… guess someone at Adobe is pissed at you and has a few accounts… I agree Adobe needs a good slap.
Having said that, the new round of Adobe iOS apps are fairly decent (Shape, Color, Brush and Draw). I’ve been able to get a lot of art work done on airplanes and random spots where I can just whip out my phone or iPad. Their cloud seems to work faster than Apple’s as well – it’s been pretty instantaneous to transfer drawings + library for me.
I hope the big iPad and stylus rumors are true – I will definitely buy. The rest of the speculation in that article is Looney Tunes.
The internet part is just for the license. The actual applications reside on your computer. If your internet shuts down, you don’t lose your work (unless you’re using cloud) and the programs keep running for a limited time or until you connect again.
What you’re thinking of is web-based apps, photoshop etc. are not that.
What it looks like is a lack of analcyst imagination. Why they’re bothering to write about Apple, when all they can imagine is Microsoft, I cannot image. Very bad show Alcaraz Research. It’s the dog house for you! 😛
That patent image, looks like the old Titanium PowerBook G4. So it’s a pretty old patent application. I recall, in those days, of a strong call for touch screen laptops. At least one company would buy MacBooks, dissect them and remake them into tablets, with touch screens.
At the same time Steve Jobs had said, Apple will never make a tablet computer, to quash the notion. Secretly they were working on the iPad and iPhone, as it turns out.
I am not trying to suggest anything. Just providing some context, for the history conscious.
$1499 ? I freakin hope not !! I really want a larger iPad, I don’t need a “pro” iPad. Bigger screen and proper stereo speakers in landscape mode and I’ll be a happy camper. But not for $1499 … hope he pulled that number out his a$$ like many did before the iPad1 launch…
A MacPad with a double screen WOULD be better. Top part works as normal, but the bottom screen could be an editing controller, color correcting controller, equalizer controller, etc.
It would be up to developers to come up with all kinds of things. And of course, it has that “cool factor”.
Just having an Intel chip…. not quite as cool. But it would be different.
Let’s have nice new apps to get rid off Adobe’s monopoly… Some are already on the way to nicely enough replace PSD, InDesign and Co with the necessary exports to Adobe’s formats.
That’s a weird bit of down voting you got there… guess someone at Adobe is pissed at you and has a few accounts… I agree Adobe needs a good slap.
Having said that, the new round of Adobe iOS apps are fairly decent (Shape, Color, Brush and Draw). I’ve been able to get a lot of art work done on airplanes and random spots where I can just whip out my phone or iPad. Their cloud seems to work faster than Apple’s as well – it’s been pretty instantaneous to transfer drawings + library for me.
I hope the big iPad and stylus rumors are true – I will definitely buy. The rest of the speculation in that article is Looney Tunes.
The down voting is probably from the coalition of Apple Watch down voters. Must have gotten new marching orders.
“The persistent rumor…can lead to Apple being forced….”
Hmmm. That’s a reassuring bit of speculation.
It’s the thought process of a village idiot.
I believe that’s an accurate assessment 😉
Core-M? Hell, I want an i7 in it!
Pixelmator seems to run perfectly well on iOS.
These “experts” about what software the world needs need a better “Outlook” on life.
Seeing as Adobe is internet subscription based can it run on iOS in Safari?
The internet part is just for the license. The actual applications reside on your computer. If your internet shuts down, you don’t lose your work (unless you’re using cloud) and the programs keep running for a limited time or until you connect again.
What you’re thinking of is web-based apps, photoshop etc. are not that.
Maybe it’s just me or is that looks like msft surface?
What it looks like is a lack of analcyst imagination. Why they’re bothering to write about Apple, when all they can imagine is Microsoft, I cannot image. Very bad show Alcaraz Research. It’s the dog house for you! 😛
That patent image, looks like the old Titanium PowerBook G4. So it’s a pretty old patent application. I recall, in those days, of a strong call for touch screen laptops. At least one company would buy MacBooks, dissect them and remake them into tablets, with touch screens.
At the same time Steve Jobs had said, Apple will never make a tablet computer, to quash the notion. Secretly they were working on the iPad and iPhone, as it turns out.
I am not trying to suggest anything. Just providing some context, for the history conscious.
Intel Inside Apple’s iPad Pro?
NO.
The persistent rumor of a high-end iPad Pro can lead to Apple being forced to use an x86 processor from Intel.
Utter rubbish.
The ideal iPad Pro therefore should be a detachable version of the fanless Intel Core-M powered MacBook 2015. It ought to run Mac OS X (not iOS 9)
Total crap.
I said so. 😀
$1499 ? I freakin hope not !! I really want a larger iPad, I don’t need a “pro” iPad. Bigger screen and proper stereo speakers in landscape mode and I’ll be a happy camper. But not for $1499 … hope he pulled that number out his a$$ like many did before the iPad1 launch…
A MacPad with a double screen WOULD be better. Top part works as normal, but the bottom screen could be an editing controller, color correcting controller, equalizer controller, etc.
It would be up to developers to come up with all kinds of things. And of course, it has that “cool factor”.
Just having an Intel chip…. not quite as cool. But it would be different.