• Alto@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The primary benefit for the average consumer tends to be longer battery life due to the same task using less power, in theory anyway.

      • WereCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes. And instead of taking advantage of that they shrunk the battery to have thinner tablet instead of better battery life.

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Sure but I already charge my iPad about once a week and it’s never flat - 13 hours for video playback if you watch one or two TV episodes a day goes a long way.

        I guess they could add a smaller battery, but I don’t think that would reduce the weight by much — it’s pretty small.

        What iPads really need is better software. Safari, for example, is vastly inferior to the Mac version. And don’t even get me started with how window management works on an iPad. It’s total garbage.

        Maybe with better software, I’d use it for something more computationally demanding than watching TV.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Sure, if you use it for an hour a day, you’re not gonna notice it much. And I’m not disagreeing that a lot of the software sorely needs to be improved. The people who are going to notice aren’t you. They’re the ones using their devices all day for work or similar.

          • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            They’re the ones using their devices all day for work or similar.

            I spend about 10 hours a day doing “real work” - writing software - on a desktop Mac with an M1 chip. It’s way faster than I need. Having even more power than that in an iPad? Overkill is an understatement.

            I get why they’re using an M4 — supply chain / economy of scale works better if you have most of your hardware on the latest chipset and also the M1 is missing some important features. Also the M2 was basically an M1 and the M3 used a particularly expensive manufacturing process that was only really sensible for high margin products like the MacBook Pro… so that leaves M4 as the best choice. But for me the marketing is missing the mark by focusing so much on CPU performance. Just say “it’s really fast” and move on to other things, leave the exact details for the spec sheet.

            • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well that was apple’s exact argument when they would not release phone cpu specs back in the day. “It’s not relevant” they would say, as the whole experience is faster. It’s really just whatever suites their marketing people. Slowed down your phones, oh, we got caught. But, it’s a FEATURE, and so we don’t get dragged through lawsuites, we’re adding it as an OPTION. Look, the M4 looks great. But any spin they put on anything, I just take it with a grain of salt.

    • junderwood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Agreed! My trusty little M1 air has been my absolute favorite computer I’ve ever owned. It’s just so darned capable and entirely silent. It does everything I need it to do and then some. I’ll upgrade sometime, but for now long live the wedge!

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      More powerful hardware makes tasks that were previously not considered end-user tasks feasible for end-users, just give it some time.