Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPad Pro

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 805 posts

Re: iPad Pro

#721

Post by lstroud »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #631
michaelmrose wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Letting the user control the device inevitably means letting the user hurt themselves that is inevitable and impossible to fix. The least intrusive method is too allow users to add additional software sources and either opt out of sandboxing wholly or totally for select vetted apps. This isnt hard it would just hurt Apples ability to get a 30% cut as third party stores would spring up. User owned personal computing d…

The comment of yours that I replied to explicitly mentioned jailbreaking, which is not the same thing as "additional software sources." I'd like to see Apple allow users to install signed apps from places other than the App Store, and I suspect that protecting revenue is the main reason they don't. But I'm not particularly interested in jailbreaking, even though I'd like to see functionality that iOS doesn't currentl…

Well technically you can do that. Download code, build in Xcode, and install to your device. Probably not what you meant, but it does enable some side loading.

Re: iPad Pro

#722

Post by int_19h »

millstone wrote: post #718
tokyodude wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are not legitimate security reasons for Webkit only. That makes zero sense. Chrome has hands down beat every other browser on security for years. Go read the CVEs. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that iOS webkit has a better track record than webkit at large. Therefore it's nearly certain your iOS device is less secure browsing the net with webkit/Safari than if Apple allowed real chrome to run there…

You misunderstand. Apple can fix WebKit bugs, but they can't force Google to fix Chrome bugs. Also for Apple to allow v8, they would have to permit 3rd party unsigned executable code (JITed in this case). Apple doesn't want to allow that. This is not about CVEs, it's a meta discussion of not outsourcing the security of the platform.

> Also for Apple to allow v8, they would have to permit 3rd party unsigned executable code (JITed in this case). Apple doesn't want to allow that.

And how does that pertain to security? Android doesn't seem to have a problem with JITed code in sandboxed store apps. Neither does Win10.

Re: iPad Pro

#723

Post by King-Aaron »

I still hold my doubts that this could even nearly replace a traditional machine in a real professional's workflow. If anyone has real-world performance comparisons, I'd be interested to see... But the iPads still feel like an expensive toy to me.

Re: iPad Pro

#725

Post by j45 »

oleganza wrote: post #661
j45 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that horsepower, no accurate steering wheel. Is it a pro device if the choice to add a mouse isn't there? Many pros work in pixel accurate selection instead of pencil or finger.

"Pixel-accurate" might be an obsolete term today when you have 9 or more pixels where previously there was 1. (I know, that isn't what you meant ;-) See how Autocad was using a command line for ages to implement precise control over coordinates. Don't need a mouse for that. At the same time, the imprecise things that you use mouse for (e.g. dropping a symbol from a library into a workspace, or connecting controls wit…

Obsolete or not, it was clear what I meant. :)

A mouse has a lot of reasonable functions that are quicker for selection and editing that touch doesn't come near. Touch has its own benefits.

Re: iPad Pro

#726

Post by j45 »

killerdhmo wrote: post #632
beenBoutIT wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a "Pro" device because Apple used a flimsy keyboard that doesn't allow the possibility of actual lap-top use.

You can buy other keyboards... it's the specs that make it Pro.

Yup Logitech makes a good keyboard.

Re: iPad Pro

#727

Post by int_19h »

coldtea wrote: post #416
DiabloD3 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no ugly "chin". Problem is, the iPhone X family got rid of the chin... but have the dreaded notch, and not even the mostly acceptable teardrop everyone else standardized on. At least the iPad Pro adopted chinless and also notchless design. First time in years Apple has made a product that isn't weirdly ugly.

> Problem is, the iPhone X family got rid of the chin... but have the dreaded notch, and not even the mostly acceptable teardrop everyone else standardized on. You mean "copied with a tiny alteration". > At least the iPad Pro adopted chinless and also notchless design. First time in years Apple has made a product that isn't weirdly ugly. You probably didn't get the memo, but the "oh my god, it has a notch, oh noes, s…

> the "oh my god, it has a notch, oh noes, so ugly" thing some pundits tried to pull died in its birth

Did you know that Google had to ship an update for Nexus 3 XL that "disables" the notch in hardware (by making the background for the part of the screen around it black, making it less noticeable), because of how many people complained about it?

Re: iPad Pro

#728

Post by j45 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #681
j45 wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All that horsepower, no accurate steering wheel. Is it a pro device if the choice to add a mouse isn't there? Many pros work in pixel accurate selection instead of pencil or finger.

Is pixel level selection an issue when the UI immediately supports an arbitrary zoom level? (Pixel grows to the size of your palm).

The iPad UI is designed around touch, so generally not in those cases.

Add a few select and very valuable uses (remote shell, remote access, desktop/graphic layout) and a mouse is much faster.

Re: iPad Pro

#729

Post by felix_nagaand »

millstone wrote: post #718
tokyodude wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are not legitimate security reasons for Webkit only. That makes zero sense. Chrome has hands down beat every other browser on security for years. Go read the CVEs. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that iOS webkit has a better track record than webkit at large. Therefore it's nearly certain your iOS device is less secure browsing the net with webkit/Safari than if Apple allowed real chrome to run there…

You misunderstand. Apple can fix WebKit bugs, but they can't force Google to fix Chrome bugs. Also for Apple to allow v8, they would have to permit 3rd party unsigned executable code (JITed in this case). Apple doesn't want to allow that. This is not about CVEs, it's a meta discussion of not outsourcing the security of the platform.

> You misunderstand. Apple can fix WebKit bugs, but they can't force Google to fix Chrome bugs.

If apple could make their browser the defacto browser of tomorrow in the way chrome is today then google would surely work harder to fix the pain points apple identifies

Re: iPad Pro

#730

Post by appleiigs »

wishinghand wrote: post #580
mbreese wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's funny... I specifically don't use a case with my iPhone because I feel they have been designed as they are to work without a case.

I fee like if Apple truly didn’t believe they needed a case, they wouldn’t make and sell them.

If Apple believed the iphone required a separate case, they would build the iphone like a raspberry pi so users can build their own lego case :). Or build the iphone with plastic because it's cheap and light instead of metal and glass.
Post reply on HN