>They are productive on these closed platforms. I never said otherwise, I asked what's the point of commenters bringing up the M4 performance in comparisons wi

>They are productive on these closed platforms. I never said otherwise, I asked what's the point of commenters bringing up the M4 performance in comparisons with X86/Qualcomm when due to the open vs closed nature of the platforms they're not directly comparable because the M4 is much more restricted in the iPad vs the other chips. That's like comparing a Ferrari to a van saying how much faster Ferraris are. Sure, a Fierari will always be faster than a van, but you can do a lot more things with a van than with a faster Ferrari, and just like M4 iPad Pros, Ferraris are lot less relevant to the function of society than vans which deliver your food, medicine, kids to school, etc. Is the M4 good for you and an improvement for your own workflow? Good for you, just don't compare it to X86 until it can run the same app as those chips. Like you said, it's mostly a consumption device, and as such, the M4 is mostly wasted in that, until they bring it into a device with a more open OS that can run the same SW as the other X86/ARM platforms, which Apple delays intentionally because they're trying to nudge users off the open Mac platform towards the closed iPads OS platform for that sweet 30% AppStore cut they can't get on their devices running MacOS/Linux.