Talk:IPad Pro

Move all the pages
The 11 and 12.9-inch models have different generations. To avoid confusion, when referring to both models, the year should be used. So:

iPad Pro (1st generation) > iPad Pro (2015)

iPad Pro (2nd generation) > iPad Pro (2017)

iPad Pro (3rd generation) > iPad Pro (2018)

iPad Pro (4th generation) > iPad Pro (2020)

iPad Pro (5th generation) > iPad Pro (2021)

iPad Pro (6th generation) > iPad Pro (2022)

172.59.187.246 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * They appear to be redirects already, so it was obviously decided it wasn't the preferable option. Seasider53 (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions
First time I've ever seen this in a comparison table about electronic devices. All the cited sources are from Apple and thus inherently biased. This just reeks of greenwashing. I've deleted it since it doesn't seem to serve any other purpose than Apple patting itself on the back. Donkeyschote (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Your argument is entirely subjective. If apple's calculations are contested, then link the contestations. It's not Wikipedia's job to censor information. If you don' trust apple's citations, then why haven't you gone through the citation list to find secondary sources?
 * As long as apple's methodology remains consistent, then it can be used as a valid comparison tool within the article.
 * I signed up to add this information but there's no point if it will get deleted again. Floresian Rimor (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it though? Greenhouse gas emissions are neither a common metric in consumer electronics nor very reliable or easy to calculate since you can get wildly different results depending on what you include (or not). As long as there's no generally accepted standard and independently verifiable method for calculating GGEs in consumer electronics I won't change my stance. It's just a very cheap attempt of greenwashing and thus advertising in disguise by Apple in my eyes. A compromise would be a note saying 'unverified claims by Apple' in my opinion, but that would probably be taken down as well since it's, well, unverified.
 * >If you don' trust apple's citations, then why haven't you gone through the citation list to find secondary sources?
 * Because that's your job, you're making the claims. Everyone can copy text directly from ad brochures.
 * And if you think that amounts to censorship, I'd advise you to check out the German Wikipedia and look at the history and talk pages there. There's a handful of 'super-mods' who delete almost every new or changed entry under the guise of 'irrelevancy', I've long given up on editing anything there. Donkeyschote (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With no tools from Apple, measure the clock speed of the processor of an iPad.
 * The third party benchmarking tools are creating comparison scores not measuring the clock speed, that is reported by the OS. When an independent operating system is installed on the device, then you can directly measure the clock speed. Until then, the clock speeds are "unverified claims by Apple". Floresian Rimor (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and if I had it my way, Apple would get this label on almost every device since there's often no direct way to measure what they claim their devices can do, in no small thanks to their walled-garden approach (which - thankfully - has them landed several antitrust cases in both the EU and the US, but that's another issue). Apart from that, processor speed and greenhouse gas emissions are VERY different things and this is about the latter, please don't derail the discussion. Greenhouse gas emissions, especially one-sided claims about them, are just not a valid metric in consumer electronics (yet), at least as long as they can not be independently verified. Though you're free to back up your claims with other sources though, if you manage to find any that is. Donkeyschote (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)