Next year iP15, both non-Pro and Pro have Oled, but again only Pro has always-on display.
Honestly that is the reason I am still on my Note9, and looking for another Android.
I understand what product segmentation is, and probably I am minority, but damn, it feels like subscription-based heated seats.
Because in always-on mode, the refresh rate on the Pro drops down to a much lower refresh rate, as low as 1Hz.
Apple could've shipped an always on display mode with either OLED or a variable refresh-rate screen (or neither), but they only wanted to do it when they have both.
OLED so that black pixels are not illuminated and you save a good chunk of battery on that.
Variable RR so that you can drastically reduce that to save battery life as well.
Did Apple explicitly say something to that effect, or is it just the media or random comments who made this justification on their behalf?
In any case, besides concerns for "best performance/more battery" etc and enabling stuff were it's more well supported, Apple also puts different specs to different models for reasons of product differentation / price segmentation.
Also, this is completely off-topic to the original comment.
Where did Apple justified that?
Mandate support for alternate OSes, like Asahi Linux on Macbook, https://github.com/AsahiLinux/docs/wiki/Apple-Platform-Secur...
> ipadOS not even one layer of Mac virtualization
iPadOS 17 on M4 has a "Secure Exclave" OS, https://mastodon.social/@_inside/112440596781136013
https://www.samsung.com/us/apps/dex/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/surface
Vote with your wallet, if enough people do that, maybe Apple will notice.
Now if you already validated what they are selling is enough to keep the masses happy, then it is as it is.
Instead it really is a unique device with unique use cases as evidenced by todays keynote. Did you watch it? I came away impressed with the cool things they developed just for the iPad.
That would fix a current blocking problem, as the lack of nested virtualisation means Docker Desktop (which runs its containers inside a Linux VM) has to run on the host and can't run inside a VM.
Edit: Should've added that you can only run Windows ARM. Emulating x86 on ARM (= running "normal" Windows on macOS M-processors) may be possible (I'm not sure), but practically not usable as it will be painfully slow. That will probably not change in the near future. However Windows ARM contains a Rosetta-like x86 emulation layer so with some luck you won't even notice that you're running Windows ARM and not "normal" Windows.
I tried the UTM qemu based solution for x86 windows. It's there and it ... starts. But yes, it's way way too slow for daily use. If you just have an occasional task like document conversion once in a while, i guess you could.
