Is the iPad Pro Less of a Cloud Client and More of a Stand Alone Computer?
-
This boils down to what Scott mentioned the other day - dedicated device for dedicated purpose.
I think the biggest thing you get with something like the Pro is now medical might like it even more - You get closer to the amount of information on a single pane as you do with a single sheet of paper. That said, without vendors making apps for it, it doesn't matter.
I've never used finger first Office - I have no idea how good it is for day to day creation of excel and word files on a finger only (no keyboard) device.
I watch how our staff use the EHR we have - if excellent voice to text is there, I think they can probably do 80-95% of their tasks with touch only (and an on screen keyboard).
-
I use Siri a ton and the voice to text options for doing lots on my ipad. Also the Ipad/iPhone has the best on screen keyboard for pretty much everything. I can't type quite as fast as on a real keyboard of course but pretty good.
-
The difficult thing for me is applying this to business. Does one expect a business to buy multiple devices for each person? This seems rather costly.
-
@Minion-Queen said:
I use Siri a ton and the voice to text options for doing lots on my ipad. Also the Ipad/iPhone has the best on screen keyboard for pretty much everything. I can't type quite as fast as on a real keyboard of course but pretty good.
Yeah I've seen reports that physicians can use medical terms and Siri does a pretty good job.
I know that our current EHR is not supported for clinical use on an iPad.
-
@Dashrender said:
The difficult thing for me is applying this to business. Does one expect a business to buy multiple devices for each person? This seems rather costly.
They used to say that about buying computers for each person. In theory the value calculations are the same - does this make you more efficient? If so, is it enough to offset the cost of the device? If so, absolutely you buy them because they pay for themselves.
For a lot of businesses they are trivial to cost justify. For others they make no sense.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yeah I've seen reports that physicians can use medical terms and Siri does a pretty good job.
Has to be better than doctors writing things down themselves!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Yeah I've seen reports that physicians can use medical terms and Siri does a pretty good job.
Has to be better than doctors writing things down themselves!
not if the word's completely wrong, but I get what you're saying.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The difficult thing for me is applying this to business. Does one expect a business to buy multiple devices for each person? This seems rather costly.
They used to say that about buying computers for each person. In theory the value calculations are the same - does this make you more efficient? If so, is it enough to offset the cost of the device? If so, absolutely you buy them because they pay for themselves.
For a lot of businesses they are trivial to cost justify. For others they make no sense.
Yeah, of course. In my situation we are hiring more staff, but continue to make less and less money. So while we might become a bit more efficient, it won't help the bottom line so I guess that pretty much kills their purchase.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yeah, of course. In my situation we are hiring more staff, but continue to make less and less money. So while we might become a bit more efficient, it won't help the bottom line so I guess that pretty much kills their purchase.
Doesn't take much efficiency to justify an iPad. You get years of value from a single purchase and they are not that expensive compared to the cost of a person. And considering you get more value from a person than you pay them (or you would not hire them) the efficiency is against their value, not their salary. So it gets that much easier to justify it.
A $600 iPad good for three years (we get more like four to five out of them) is just $200 a year in value to justify at break even. If you save someone several hours a year, it's paid for.
And remember that these investments are pre-tax money.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I don't know if just adding more horsepower really makes that much of a difference to the use case.
Take the use case shown in the keynote. Immediate editing of video. Doing this on the iPad Air 2 works. but the local processing time of the transcoding is greatly reduced by the power of the iPad Pro.
Yes, you need a connection to get the video form some other device to the iPad (unless it was shot with the iPad). Then you need a connection to get the video published.
But you need to process the video locally (right now).
I do see this going away too though, because crunching this kind of data SHOULD be done on a cloud compute instance. They just need to come up with a solid method of remote editing. Something like editing a low res mirror copy and only sending up the commands and changes.
-
That's a good example. I would guess that that kind of use case is on the rarer side. Clearly I do some of that myself, but the compression times are pretty fast as it is for how most people do it, I think. Only a small number of users really impacted there.
-
I do have to admit the split screen would be nice.
-
The split screen is definitely a neat feature. That is very welcome.
-
But not sure it is worth upgrading
-
@Minion-Queen said:
But not sure it is worth upgrading
Don't the features come on the smaller screens too, just not as useful? Everything with iOS 9 will get the side by side features, I am guessing.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
Don't the features come on the smaller screens too, just not as useful? Everything with iOS 9 will get the side by side features, I am guessing.
No, only the iPad Air 2, Mini 4, and Pro get full split screen functionality.
The iPad Air and Mini 2&3 get a less capable split screen.
-
Okay, so it's partially device dependent and not totally an iOS feature.
-
Oh cool I have an Ipad Air2.
-
resisting flammable comments
-
