Comment by afavour
14 hours ago
I'd argue the account given in the blog post disagrees with what you're saying. Up until recently the OS did exactly what the OP wanted:
> I rely heavily on writing on handouts from my iPad, projected via AirPlay to an external screen that my students can see. When I’m doing this, my iPad is also doing many other things: controlling a PowerPoint presentation on my Mac, showing me notes that I’ve taken on points I want to mention and students I want to call on, and showing me the results of polls before I reveal them to the class.
That's not a crippled OS. And he's using it professionally so "Pro" doesn't seem inappropriate. The way the author describes what they're doing, it's difficult to see a laptop replacing it.
So, using powerpoint related functions on a tablet is a problem solved in 2014. Are we still going to be using that as a justification to a pro label on a $1000+ device with a desktop grade processor?
The post makes it clear they’re making heavy use of multitasking and you’re isolating just one task then saying the CPU is overkill. I don’t think simultaneous note taking, Airplay display and remote control of a Mac was a solved problem in 2014.
And I think the broader question is “is this functionality worth $1000 to the person using it”, the answer is yes and the specific grade of CPU inside the machine doesn’t have a ton of bearing on that.
He could have achieved all that even with an iPad Air. So again, my question is what is the relevance of the "pro" moniker?
The broader question is "is a desktop grade processor sold with a "pro" moniker being able to perform some basic PowerPoint and screensharing worth the $1000 asking price?"
2 replies →