But no mention and video evidence of the pen input lag and precision, which is what's supposed to set this apart from other eink display solutions. The 1 has some lag, just enough to still be a nuisance: did the 2 fix that?
That being said, the iPad Pro is clearly a high-end general-purpose device, with a price to match. The device that fits our pocketbook is always superior to the device that is amazing, but remains in a box in the manufacturer's shop because we can't justify the price.
But honestly they're different devices. Similar in many ways of course but different too. I don't think it's really apples to apples.
In general, this point makes me think of computational photography. If you have extra computing power, you can do things that are synthetic, but nevertheless real enough to deliver satisfaction, in real time.
I wouldn't mind a little latency if they get the paper feel right.
It also has access to procreate or Adobe fresco if you're still up to getting abused by Adobe as opposed to whatever remarkable can come up with. It seems odd to be coming down on the iPad pro for drawing/writing - it's a lot of money but the experience is on par with much more expensive Wacom devices.
An ipad is a walled garden of expensive hardware and software that does everything, at a high price. Those are completely different worlds, and if we're talking "it costs a lot of dollars", I already own a universal tablet monitor. I don't need something that does less and costs more.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/05/sony-and-remarkables-dueli...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpwbVwfWIKE&t=17m53s
About precision, I'm not really sure. There's a bunch of writing footage in this video, which might have what you're looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9wudCMFWPQ&t=8m10s
But as humans, would we notice 21ms lag while writing even if we paid close attention?
I wonder if you could have a separate layer which physically (chemically) responded to the pressure to make it look like the screen was drawing your line, but which only lasted for about 50ms after the pressure is removed.
This chemical layer would be visible for just enough time for the real eInk pixels to actually refresh underneath the "pressure mask".
> You'd be stuck with essentially one "material" though -- eg color or brush or whatever -- but I could see its utility as a dedicated single-purpose device (like only intended for sketching/notes -- which I guess is mostly true of remarkable anyways)
I'd be curious about human perception of color matching/etc at the <50ms level - I'd suspect if you had _something_ that then became the actual color/brush, our visual system would probably just backfill to say it'd always been that color/texture.
To me 1ms doesn't seem worth it given the diminishing returns. Something like 5-10 would be way easier to do.
I found it fine for note-taking, but lots of people would still notice the latency, especially those using creative tools where there is a strong feedback loop between what you see and what you draw.
They are now claiming 9ms lag. I suspect this is imperceptible for the use case of note-taking and marking up PDF documents (e.g. highlighting, making notes in the margin).
But then again, 20ms is going to be more than fine for that use case as well.