14 ms·

The M1 iPad Air is $499, couple that with Apple Pencil, the writing experience is near frictionless. The M1 era is going to redefine the industry in subtle and

The M1 iPad Air is $499, couple that with Apple Pencil, the writing experience is near frictionless. The M1 era is going to redefine the industry in subtle and not so subtle ways.

rusk 4y ago
Intel’s failing will redefine the industry in many ways. ARM and AMD and other players are taking chunks out of them at the cutting edge. They seem to be redefining themselves as a “couture” fabricator rather than taking leadership on the design end of things … playing off their scale rather than their velocity. It’s a big change and probably has as much to do with why apple ditched them. Remember Apple did this before when they switched to to intel from IBM/Motorola, when they too had stagnated.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Stagnated? Weren't PowerPC chips pretty advanced compared to Intel whose chips were carrying a lot of baggage at the time? Given that PowerPC chips were based on RISC, I'd guess they're a lot closer to the M1 than modern Intel chips are. My understanding is that IBM/Motorola's struggle with achieving volume is what doomed them not a lack of innovation. This is all way outta my area of understanding though.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    In general, IBM was just going in a different direction with Power than Apple needed them to be going in. IBM was and is focused on the highest end, high priced end of the server market.
  - b3morales 4y ago
    If I recall, the scuttlebutt was that Motorola had promised Apple (meaning Steve Jobs) that faster clock speeds were just around the corner for a while, and when that repeatedly failed to materialize Apple (meaning Steve Jobs) got pissed and activated the Intel backup plan.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      It was driven by power and heat for the portable market. Intel x86 laptops were the best at the time and PPC couldn’t compete especially with thin and light.
    - kalleboo 4y ago
      By the time Apple dropped PowerPC and went to Intel, Motorola was already out of the picture and IBM was making the G5
      - rdsnsca 4y ago
        The G5 was the desktop chip, it was Motorola's task to scale it down for laptops, which they were unable to do.
      - b3morales 4y ago
        That's a good point, thanks.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        Sort of. The G4 chip was still used in laptops until the Intel transition, and was produced by Motorola until they spun off their semiconductor division into Freescale, which continued producing the G4 until the end.
    - 7speter 4y ago
      Well it wasnt really clockspeeds, it was performance per watt. The g5 was able to go into a (watercooled) powermac but IBM couldnt get it to run cool and efficient enough to go into apple laptops (or the mac mini iirc). By 2005 intel was, at the very least, probably prototyping multicore (I dont remember if IBM’s processor offering to apple was multicore at the time) chips that blew ibm (and previous intel offerings) out of the water performance and efficiency wise and apple announced the transition.
      - kergonath 4y ago
        The last generation of PowerMacs had dual-core G5s. They still ran very hot and it did not change much in the end.
  - giantrobot 4y ago
    > My understanding is that IBM/Motorola's struggle with achieving volume is what doomed them not a lack of innovation. Before Apple announced their Intel transition laptops were more than half of their Mac sales. Of their desktop sales, the iMac dominated over PowerMacs. So a majority of the systems they were selling had relatively tight thermal envelopes. Neither IBM nor Motorola was willing (or able) to get computing power equivalent to x86 into those thermal envelopes. The G5 was a derivative of IBM's POWER chips they put in servers and workstations. They were largely unconcerned with thermals. Motorola saw the embedded space as more profitable and didn't want to invest in the G4 to make it more competitive. Meanwhile Intel had introduced the Pentium III derived Core series chips. Good thermals, high performance, multiple cores, and 64-bit. It was better performance than Apple's G5 in the thermal envelope of the G4. Neither IBM or Motorola had general issues with production volume. Apple switching was all about the future direction of the architecture. There was no market for desktop PowerPC chips besides Apple. Neither IBM or Motorola really wanted to compete directly with Intel and saw their fortunes in other segments. So Apple went with Intel because they were making chips compatible with what Apple wanted to do with the Mac. The first Intel Macs ran circles around the PowerPC machines they replaced with no major sacrifices needed in thermals or battery life. So Intel innovation in the 00s got Apple to switch to them and a lack thereof got them to switch away again.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    > Weren't PowerPC chips pretty advanced compared to Intel PowerPC had better floating point performance which was important for graphics and publishing workflows. Photoshop performance comparisons seemed to happen at every year's MacWorld during that period. Unfortunately, IBM used Power as a workstation chip, and making a version of the chips for laptops was not on their radar. Of course, at the time, Pentium IV chips weren't known for running cool either. The more popular laptops got, the more this was a problem. After Intel transitioned to the Core architecture, Apple transitioned to Intel so they could make laptops with a much better performance per watt than PowerPC offered.
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      People weren't buying laptops for everything during the PowerPC transition. They were buying desktops. No one doing "serious" work bought laptops in 1994. Not for coding, not for photo manipulation, or even gaming. It wasn't until the 20-teens (2013 - 2015) that Macs for coding caught on. Apple transitioning to PowerPC made perfect sense for graphics workstations.
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        >People weren't buying laptops for everything during the PowerPC transition. That was the period where it became obvious that laptops would overtake desktops and become the most popular form factor for computers. Neither PowerPC or Pentium IV were a good fit for laptops, but once Intel transitioned from NetBurst to Core it was a new ball game. Apple even transitioned back to 32 bit for it, since Core didn't offer 64 bit support until Core 2 shipped.
      - matthewfcarlson 4y ago
        Most students in my engineering programs had macs (2010-2015)
        slowmovintarget 4y ago
        Right, but I didn't start seeing Mac laptops show up at work (software companies in the Midwest and Eastern U.S.) until 2014 when the MBP became a serious contender to Dells and HPs. I had a Toshiba laptop in '95 for work, but it was a spare for when I was traveling. That pattern continued with Windows laptops as supplements for desktops in the office for the next 20 years. In 2015 my company went all MacBook Pro for everything, but they were trailing not trailblazing. Students are always going be the leading edge, because they have to be mobile, they get used to it, then they bring it into the new workplace when they come. It's one of the benefits of hiring in new people.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    The PPC processors may have been decent. But they were hamstrung by having to run an emulated 68K operating system and Apple cheaper out by having slower buses.
    - Affric 4y ago
      Perhaps in terms of sheer raw compute but across every scale from data centre to IoT and wearables.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        PPC processors in wearables and IOT devices?
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  This take totally misses the mark on the realities of the situation. Intel made a bad bet on tech and wasn’t able to shrink the node. TSMC got the right choice. TSMC was therefore able to make better tech in the short term. Intel designs are not directly related to that shortcoming. TSMC makes way more chips than intel. TSMC is therefore able to buy the fabs, equipment, engineers, etc at a lower price per chip (since more chips). TSMC is therefore able to spend more on their fabs, and invest more in research. Intel can’t keep up on the manufacturing side even if they can on the design side. The only way to justify the research costs and fab costs is to amortize it across more chips which means they need to manufacture for more than just intel. It’s basically the AWS model - you can be your best customer, but you can drive prices down for yourself with extra customers. Amazon didn’t abandon the revolutionary 2 day shipping when they became a data center provider. Assuming intel still has good designers left, they won’t abandon their own chips.
  - dtech 4y ago
    Multiple reports over the years indicate that it's not just a single bad bet that got Intel into this, but a corporate culture where engineers have less and less influence and MBAs more and more, leading to worse and worse tech. Similar to Boeing.
    - onepointsixC 4y ago
      Yet Intel is still competitive to AMD, and now has an engineer in charge. Intel's problems feel pretty over stated their products are still good, they're launching new ones which will bring new competition to the GPU space.
      - matthewfcarlson 4y ago
        I’m personally quite excited for what intel has planned and I work on M1 chips (opinions are my own). I think there’s a decent chance they’ll have a comeback in the next few years. Yes, AMD is doing awesome and ARM is bigger than ever. We’re definitely headed into a very interesting time for processors as consumers.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  >Intel’s failing will redefine the industry in many ways. ARM and AMD and other players are taking chunks out of them at the cutting edge Failing? Have you looked at Intel's 12th Gen CPUs? This trope was valid till the 10th Gen 14nm++++ era from 2019 but you might have overslept the last couple of years. Intel has improved massively since then starting with 11th Gen and Xe graphics. Intel's 12th gen big-little tech really shook up the market and even AMD now is feeling the pressure.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Not to mention, they intend to compete with Apple on transistor density before 2024. Time will tell how successful they are, but I do get a laugh out of the people who are counting Intel out of the game right now. Apple doesn't sell CPUs, they sell Macs. They aren't even competing in the same market segment.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    11th gen Intel chips were still 14nm, the top chip had less threads than the 10th gen because of the thermals, and intel xe was, iirc, only offered with the 11900/11900k (i.e. the top of the stack). Intel has had a stranglehold on integrated transcoders for a while but AMD’s integrated vega cores (soon to be RDNA2) still wipes the floor with current integrated XE offerings gaming wise…
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      >11th gen Intel chips were still 14nm Nope, 11th Gen was 10nm. You might be confusing it with 10th Gen which was a mix of 14 and 10 nm.
      - 7speter 4y ago
        Maybe the mobile products were? Desktop was 14nm: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212047/intel-core-i711700k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212047/...
  - 4y ago
- mhh__ 4y ago
  > Apple did this before when they switched to to intel from IBM/Motorola, Apple + (Intel) "Core" (geddit)?
coder543 4y ago
> M1 iPad Air is $499 $599, actually.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  That's a lot of money to pay for a device that locks you into the App Store.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    A lot of money for whom?
  - saghm 4y ago
    To be fair, the iPhone does as well and is way more expensive than that
midislack 4y ago
No it's not. Even the multi-core era failed to do that with laptops. If you're going to redefine the industry you need a radical new idea, not just 'the same, but slightly faster, slimmer, and lighter.' Whatever will redefine the industry will probably be laughed at and only adopted by nerds for a while. Like OS X back in the day. Only people interested in the first couple versions were Unix nerds. Everybody else's software they needed was on OS 9.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Yeah I was one of them. Unfortunately the Unix part seems to be very underappreciated by Apple recently so I've already moved on again. I was an early adopter of macOS and have 'converted' many more mainstream users that still use it. But for me it's become too locked down.
  - midislack 4y ago
    I stopped using Apple products when they started spying on everything I did. Do I really want Apple recording the name and hash of every program I run? Why ask permission and click "agree" to write code for my own use? Checked right out of that ecosystem and I won't be going back.
  - llllllllllll9 4y ago
    windows11 with wsl2. sometimes i forget i'm not in kde.
  - p1mrx 4y ago
    Which OS/distro did you move onto?
    - GekkePrutser 4y ago
      FreeBSD with KDE
    - rch 4y ago
      Nixpkgs on Fedora w/ i3wm
layer8 4y ago
The M1 iPad Air is actually $599 for the entry-level 64 GB, which nowadays isn’t that much storage. If you go for the 256 GB (there’s no 128 GB, for profit-maximization reasons) and add the Pencil plus maybe the missing charger, then you’re already at over $900.
- raydev 4y ago
  What is the average person actually storing on their iPad, though? Photos taken with the iPad, maybe? I think for most people it's just an expensive, nicer Chromebook. Everything they want to consume needs an internet connection anyway. If you're a creative or just a nerd, then sure, you'll need to spend more money to get the specs you need.
  - layer8 4y ago
    Or photos/videos taken with the iPhone. The iPhone now starts at 128 GB, so it’s surprising they still start the iPad Air at 64 GB.
  - kylehotchkiss 4y ago
    Downloaded videos for long flights! You have to get a storage bump to actually get a variety of content downloaded. Also local copies of cloud storage are very valuable to keep on iPad.
    - wildzzz 4y ago
      One thing I've really appreciated on flights is the addition of streaming videos to your own device. If it saves fuel and maintenance costs, I'm perfectly fine with them ripping all the personal TVs out of the plane as long as they can keep a selection of movies available in case I forget to download my own and don't feel like reading.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      I think you missed the “average person” bit. The average user does know what local copies are.
Affric 4y ago
Is it less hot when writing? I have the original pro and I won't buy another iPad again until it doesn't get so hot when taking notes.
- d3nj4l 4y ago
  I’ve had multiple iPads (though, admittedly, not the original Pro) and none of them has had a perceptible change in temperature when writing.

The M1 iPad Air is $499, couple that with Apple Pencil, the writing experience is near frictionless. The M1 era is going to redefine the industry in subtle and not so subtle ways.

rusk 4y ago

Intel’s failing will redefine the industry in many ways. ARM and AMD and other players are taking chunks out of them at the cutting edge. They seem to be redefining themselves as a “couture” fabricator rather than taking leadership on the design end of things … playing off their scale rather than their velocity. It’s a big change and probably has as much to do with why apple ditched them. Remember Apple did this before when they switched to to intel from IBM/Motorola, when they too had stagnated.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
Stagnated? Weren't PowerPC chips pretty advanced compared to Intel whose chips were carrying a lot of baggage at the time? Given that PowerPC chips were based on RISC, I'd guess they're a lot closer to the M1 than modern Intel chips are. My understanding is that IBM/Motorola's struggle with achieving volume is what doomed them not a lack of innovation. This is all way outta my area of understanding though.
- ghaff 4y ago
  In general, IBM was just going in a different direction with Power than Apple needed them to be going in. IBM was and is focused on the highest end, high priced end of the server market.
- b3morales 4y ago
  If I recall, the scuttlebutt was that Motorola had promised Apple (meaning Steve Jobs) that faster clock speeds were just around the corner for a while, and when that repeatedly failed to materialize Apple (meaning Steve Jobs) got pissed and activated the Intel backup plan.
  - newsclues 4y ago
    It was driven by power and heat for the portable market. Intel x86 laptops were the best at the time and PPC couldn’t compete especially with thin and light.
  - kalleboo 4y ago
    By the time Apple dropped PowerPC and went to Intel, Motorola was already out of the picture and IBM was making the G5
    - rdsnsca 4y ago
      The G5 was the desktop chip, it was Motorola's task to scale it down for laptops, which they were unable to do.
    - b3morales 4y ago
      That's a good point, thanks.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Sort of. The G4 chip was still used in laptops until the Intel transition, and was produced by Motorola until they spun off their semiconductor division into Freescale, which continued producing the G4 until the end.
  - 7speter 4y ago
    Well it wasnt really clockspeeds, it was performance per watt. The g5 was able to go into a (watercooled) powermac but IBM couldnt get it to run cool and efficient enough to go into apple laptops (or the mac mini iirc). By 2005 intel was, at the very least, probably prototyping multicore (I dont remember if IBM’s processor offering to apple was multicore at the time) chips that blew ibm (and previous intel offerings) out of the water performance and efficiency wise and apple announced the transition.
    - kergonath 4y ago
      The last generation of PowerMacs had dual-core G5s. They still ran very hot and it did not change much in the end.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  > My understanding is that IBM/Motorola's struggle with achieving volume is what doomed them not a lack of innovation. Before Apple announced their Intel transition laptops were more than half of their Mac sales. Of their desktop sales, the iMac dominated over PowerMacs. So a majority of the systems they were selling had relatively tight thermal envelopes. Neither IBM nor Motorola was willing (or able) to get computing power equivalent to x86 into those thermal envelopes. The G5 was a derivative of IBM's POWER chips they put in servers and workstations. They were largely unconcerned with thermals. Motorola saw the embedded space as more profitable and didn't want to invest in the G4 to make it more competitive. Meanwhile Intel had introduced the Pentium III derived Core series chips. Good thermals, high performance, multiple cores, and 64-bit. It was better performance than Apple's G5 in the thermal envelope of the G4. Neither IBM or Motorola had general issues with production volume. Apple switching was all about the future direction of the architecture. There was no market for desktop PowerPC chips besides Apple. Neither IBM or Motorola really wanted to compete directly with Intel and saw their fortunes in other segments. So Apple went with Intel because they were making chips compatible with what Apple wanted to do with the Mac. The first Intel Macs ran circles around the PowerPC machines they replaced with no major sacrifices needed in thermals or battery life. So Intel innovation in the 00s got Apple to switch to them and a lack thereof got them to switch away again.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > Weren't PowerPC chips pretty advanced compared to Intel PowerPC had better floating point performance which was important for graphics and publishing workflows. Photoshop performance comparisons seemed to happen at every year's MacWorld during that period. Unfortunately, IBM used Power as a workstation chip, and making a version of the chips for laptops was not on their radar. Of course, at the time, Pentium IV chips weren't known for running cool either. The more popular laptops got, the more this was a problem. After Intel transitioned to the Core architecture, Apple transitioned to Intel so they could make laptops with a much better performance per watt than PowerPC offered.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    People weren't buying laptops for everything during the PowerPC transition. They were buying desktops. No one doing "serious" work bought laptops in 1994. Not for coding, not for photo manipulation, or even gaming. It wasn't until the 20-teens (2013 - 2015) that Macs for coding caught on. Apple transitioning to PowerPC made perfect sense for graphics workstations.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      >People weren't buying laptops for everything during the PowerPC transition. That was the period where it became obvious that laptops would overtake desktops and become the most popular form factor for computers. Neither PowerPC or Pentium IV were a good fit for laptops, but once Intel transitioned from NetBurst to Core it was a new ball game. Apple even transitioned back to 32 bit for it, since Core didn't offer 64 bit support until Core 2 shipped.
    - matthewfcarlson 4y ago
      Most students in my engineering programs had macs (2010-2015)
      - slowmovintarget 4y ago
        Right, but I didn't start seeing Mac laptops show up at work (software companies in the Midwest and Eastern U.S.) until 2014 when the MBP became a serious contender to Dells and HPs. I had a Toshiba laptop in '95 for work, but it was a spare for when I was traveling. That pattern continued with Windows laptops as supplements for desktops in the office for the next 20 years. In 2015 my company went all MacBook Pro for everything, but they were trailing not trailblazing. Students are always going be the leading edge, because they have to be mobile, they get used to it, then they bring it into the new workplace when they come. It's one of the benefits of hiring in new people.
- scarface74 4y ago
  The PPC processors may have been decent. But they were hamstrung by having to run an emulated 68K operating system and Apple cheaper out by having slower buses.
  - Affric 4y ago
    Perhaps in terms of sheer raw compute but across every scale from data centre to IoT and wearables.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      PPC processors in wearables and IOT devices?
vineyardmike 4y ago
This take totally misses the mark on the realities of the situation. Intel made a bad bet on tech and wasn’t able to shrink the node. TSMC got the right choice. TSMC was therefore able to make better tech in the short term. Intel designs are not directly related to that shortcoming. TSMC makes way more chips than intel. TSMC is therefore able to buy the fabs, equipment, engineers, etc at a lower price per chip (since more chips). TSMC is therefore able to spend more on their fabs, and invest more in research. Intel can’t keep up on the manufacturing side even if they can on the design side. The only way to justify the research costs and fab costs is to amortize it across more chips which means they need to manufacture for more than just intel. It’s basically the AWS model - you can be your best customer, but you can drive prices down for yourself with extra customers. Amazon didn’t abandon the revolutionary 2 day shipping when they became a data center provider. Assuming intel still has good designers left, they won’t abandon their own chips.
- dtech 4y ago
  Multiple reports over the years indicate that it's not just a single bad bet that got Intel into this, but a corporate culture where engineers have less and less influence and MBAs more and more, leading to worse and worse tech. Similar to Boeing.
  - onepointsixC 4y ago
    Yet Intel is still competitive to AMD, and now has an engineer in charge. Intel's problems feel pretty over stated their products are still good, they're launching new ones which will bring new competition to the GPU space.
    - matthewfcarlson 4y ago
      I’m personally quite excited for what intel has planned and I work on M1 chips (opinions are my own). I think there’s a decent chance they’ll have a comeback in the next few years. Yes, AMD is doing awesome and ARM is bigger than ever. We’re definitely headed into a very interesting time for processors as consumers.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
>Intel’s failing will redefine the industry in many ways. ARM and AMD and other players are taking chunks out of them at the cutting edge Failing? Have you looked at Intel's 12th Gen CPUs? This trope was valid till the 10th Gen 14nm++++ era from 2019 but you might have overslept the last couple of years. Intel has improved massively since then starting with 11th Gen and Xe graphics. Intel's 12th gen big-little tech really shook up the market and even AMD now is feeling the pressure.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Not to mention, they intend to compete with Apple on transistor density before 2024. Time will tell how successful they are, but I do get a laugh out of the people who are counting Intel out of the game right now. Apple doesn't sell CPUs, they sell Macs. They aren't even competing in the same market segment.
- 7speter 4y ago
  11th gen Intel chips were still 14nm, the top chip had less threads than the 10th gen because of the thermals, and intel xe was, iirc, only offered with the 11900/11900k (i.e. the top of the stack). Intel has had a stranglehold on integrated transcoders for a while but AMD’s integrated vega cores (soon to be RDNA2) still wipes the floor with current integrated XE offerings gaming wise…
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    >11th gen Intel chips were still 14nm Nope, 11th Gen was 10nm. You might be confusing it with 10th Gen which was a mix of 14 and 10 nm.
    - 7speter 4y ago
      Maybe the mobile products were? Desktop was 14nm: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212047/intel-core-i711700k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212047/...
- 4y ago
mhh__ 4y ago
> Apple did this before when they switched to to intel from IBM/Motorola, Apple + (Intel) "Core" (geddit)?

coder543 4y ago

> M1 iPad Air is $499 $599, actually.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
That's a lot of money to pay for a device that locks you into the App Store.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  A lot of money for whom?
- saghm 4y ago
  To be fair, the iPhone does as well and is way more expensive than that

midislack 4y ago

No it's not. Even the multi-core era failed to do that with laptops. If you're going to redefine the industry you need a radical new idea, not just 'the same, but slightly faster, slimmer, and lighter.' Whatever will redefine the industry will probably be laughed at and only adopted by nerds for a while. Like OS X back in the day. Only people interested in the first couple versions were Unix nerds. Everybody else's software they needed was on OS 9.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Yeah I was one of them. Unfortunately the Unix part seems to be very underappreciated by Apple recently so I've already moved on again. I was an early adopter of macOS and have 'converted' many more mainstream users that still use it. But for me it's become too locked down.
- midislack 4y ago
  I stopped using Apple products when they started spying on everything I did. Do I really want Apple recording the name and hash of every program I run? Why ask permission and click "agree" to write code for my own use? Checked right out of that ecosystem and I won't be going back.
- llllllllllll9 4y ago
  windows11 with wsl2. sometimes i forget i'm not in kde.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  Which OS/distro did you move onto?
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    FreeBSD with KDE
  - rch 4y ago
    Nixpkgs on Fedora w/ i3wm

layer8 4y ago

The M1 iPad Air is actually $599 for the entry-level 64 GB, which nowadays isn’t that much storage. If you go for the 256 GB (there’s no 128 GB, for profit-maximization reasons) and add the Pencil plus maybe the missing charger, then you’re already at over $900.

raydev 4y ago
What is the average person actually storing on their iPad, though? Photos taken with the iPad, maybe? I think for most people it's just an expensive, nicer Chromebook. Everything they want to consume needs an internet connection anyway. If you're a creative or just a nerd, then sure, you'll need to spend more money to get the specs you need.
- layer8 4y ago
  Or photos/videos taken with the iPhone. The iPhone now starts at 128 GB, so it’s surprising they still start the iPad Air at 64 GB.
- kylehotchkiss 4y ago
  Downloaded videos for long flights! You have to get a storage bump to actually get a variety of content downloaded. Also local copies of cloud storage are very valuable to keep on iPad.
  - wildzzz 4y ago
    One thing I've really appreciated on flights is the addition of streaming videos to your own device. If it saves fuel and maintenance costs, I'm perfectly fine with them ripping all the personal TVs out of the plane as long as they can keep a selection of movies available in case I forget to download my own and don't feel like reading.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    I think you missed the “average person” bit. The average user does know what local copies are.

Affric 4y ago

Is it less hot when writing? I have the original pro and I won't buy another iPad again until it doesn't get so hot when taking notes.

d3nj4l 4y ago
I’ve had multiple iPads (though, admittedly, not the original Pro) and none of them has had a perceptible change in temperature when writing.