Got it. It's something only a hobbyist would come up with though, sadly.
What an awful marketing speak, awful even by marketing speak standards. "Productivity experiences", who the hell goes home to their wife after a good days work and goes, gee, honey, I 've just a had a great productivity experience at the office, and you know, I am not into sex tonight. lmao. Just get the trackpad to effing work Satya. And fire the people who's bright idea was the kickstand and the shoddy keyboard at extra cost. And get going at making bing a great search engine so you can kill google's main revenue, or perhaps only revenue, stream. You bailed apple out way back when, you 've done some really cool work with office on the iPad (thank Steve for that), you priced it decently, now get to work on offering a great search engine so we can lose google off our back.
Let me give you a hint, google has completely removed the feature to search forums and discussion threads, go make your own and put some creativity in there to enhance it, like categorising where everything is coming from. Also there is a wide open gap in search about the web sorely missing a directory, do something creative with that too. Make it private and have people opt in only for ads about things they care about and they explicitly chose. Now how hard is it to get a team to work on this for a year or so?
I was just being fair to Microsoft. Microsoft should be judged by their words and actions not mine.
I don't understand the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. I understand why Microsoft created a device. I don't understand why Microsoft created the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. Microsoft is targeting the wrong demographic. The vast majority of consumers appear to desire the tablet.
Microsoft should develop products and services to compete against their most threatening competitor, Google.
Microsoft has created a high-priced laptop-tablet hybrid that doesn't quite fit either niche. Unfortunately, Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is priced beyond cost-conscious enterprises will pay and consumers in the price range will opt for Apple iPad instead.
I think the shift to pro/enterprise performance is going to be pretty huge. Tim keeps mentioning that when he first agreed to work at Apple, how impressed he was that Steve was focused on the consumer, when everyone else was focused on enterprise. Well, Apple has been dominating the consumer market for a while now, and everyone is predictably trying to copy them in that area. I think Apple has a huge opportunity in the enterprise, and that the IBM announcement was the tip of the iceberg.
Soon I think we'll be able to have the best of both worlds, iOS devices with the ability to host apps that can toggle between iOS mode and OS X mode, the latter facilitated by a stylus (which Apple has many patents on). It shouldn't be too hard to get devs of OS X apps to modify their apps to run on an Ax chip I would think, or for Apple to provide a tool to make this easier (Swift?).
AHA! Yes, the hardware is there taking space and power whether needed or not.
Question, wouldn't it be practical to take an x86 app and do a one-time translation to sift the app into the native RISC code -- and store that output for any subsequent execution? a kind of Thin Binary?
I think it would (but I don't know the details of the implementation), that would be a hardware compiler!
The problem is that this kind of flexibility is normally done in software not in hardware and a processor is limited in what it can do because it must be blazing fast.
What I know is that instructions are translated on the fly and are possibly rearranged and merged to better align the RISC instructions.
Translating a batch of instructions in one time would cause delays and a processors doesn't know what program it is running (it only takes the next instruction and has a very limited scope on the instruction stream).
It's also impossible to 'speek' in RISC to the processor.
Ahh ... Thanks for the insight!
So, at least in Intel's current implementation CISC and RISC are joined at the hip on the Intel chip ... that has a certain natural verbal flow to it
And, it does make sense that the translation can be more effective based on what code the ap is actually executing -- rather than a batch convert of the app.
My mind/personality tells me that it would be a major coup to be able to run x86 code on ARM ... But, over a few years, that may not be necessary as more and more traditional desktop apps are being implemented in iOS ... Office, some Photoshop components, some CAD ...
Sadly, Microsoft appears to not recognize who their competitor is.
I was just being fair to Microsoft. Microsoft should be judged by their words and actions not mine.
I don't understand the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. I understand why Microsoft created a device. I don't understand why Microsoft created the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. Microsoft is targeting the wrong demographic.
Microsoft should develop products and services to compete against their most threatening competitor, Google.
Microsoft will not be able to invade the Apple demographic.
Maybe Apple sees both Apple and Google as their competitor.
Right now, OEM's can license Windows for free for tablets and smartphones and there's rumors that MS may offer Windows 10 for free to Win7 and Win8.1 users. On top of that the traditional PC has flatlined in terms of growth - ITW, it's basically a replacement market. So, the reason for Surface Pro is to eventually (hopefully) help off-set the decreasing revenues from Windows.
It shouldn't be too hard to get devs of OS X apps to modify their apps to run on an Ax chip I would think, or for Apple to provide a tool to make this easier (Swift?).
My mind/personality tells me that it would be a major coup to be able to run x86 code on ARM ... But, over a few years, that may not be necessary as more and more traditional desktop apps are being implemented in iOS ... Office, some Photoshop components, some CAD ...
Most developers don't need to modify their applications for Apple Ax architecture. Most developers are already creating apps for iOS, developers need to be encouraged to develop more feature-rich, desktop-class applications rather than apps that offer a fraction of the features available on OS X. Apple iPad Air 2 appears to have the processing power to perform desktop-class computing.
I think the shift to pro/enterprise performance is going to be pretty huge. Tim keeps mentioning that when he first agreed to work at Apple, how impressed he was that Steve was focused on the consumer, when everyone else was focused on enterprise. Well, Apple has been dominating the consumer market for a while now, and everyone is predictably trying to copy them in that area. I think Apple has a huge opportunity in the enterprise, and that the IBM announcement was the tip of the iceberg.
Soon I think we'll be able to have the best of both worlds, iOS devices with the ability to host apps that can toggle between iOS mode and OS X mode, the latter facilitated by a stylus (which Apple has many patents on). It shouldn't be too hard to get devs of OS X apps to modify their apps to run on an Ax chip I would think, or for Apple to provide a tool to make this easier (Swift?).
Yes!
For the subsumption of OS X work (apps) by IOS work (apps) -- Swift is as Lenin's rope.
There are fewer and fewer things that OS X apps can do that today's iPad and iOS apps can't do -- and that's primarily due to some limitations of the touch UI. A good keyboard and an optional Stylus/Digitizer would solve most of the UI issues.
I tried the iPad several times, and never seem to make use of it, it's beautiful but not so useful unless they go full OS X which will probably not happen since they will not make the money the make from selling stupid apps. As it is right now for me the iPad it's more something of Toy's R Us category. For someone with an iPhone the iPad is irrelevant. Surface 3 is not perfect but it is much better all around device and is actually useful, but that's just my opinion.
Right now, OEM's can license Windows for free for tablets and smartphones and there's rumors that MS may offer Windows 10 for free to Win7 and Win8.1 users. On top of that the traditional PC has flatlined in terms of growth - ITW, it's basically a replacement market. So, the reason for Surface Pro is to eventually (hopefully) help off-set the decreasing revenues from Windows.
I agree; however; Microsoft Surface Pro 3 appears to target Apple iPad and Apple MacBook Air as the competition rather than Android OEMs (and former Microsoft OEMs).
Microsoft chose to ignore Apple iPad until too late and enabled Apple iWork to dominate productivity on the iOS platform.
Microsoft chose to ignore the post-PC age until too and enable Apple iPad to dominate enterprise mobile devices.
Apple is; however; a relatively niche market due to numerous factors. Google and Microsoft are invading markets at a breakneck pace with opposing strategies. Microsoft has demonstrated issues adapting pricing strategies against Google. Microsoft shouldn't target Apple consumers. Google and Microsoft proponents continually bang the drum of market share which makes Apple the second most popular platform on both personal computing and mobile device markets. Capturing market share from Apple will be difficult given Apple consumer satisfaction and resultant platform loyalty of customers.
It shouldn't be too hard to get devs of OS X apps to modify their apps to run on an Ax chip I would think, or for Apple to provide a tool to make this easier (Swift?).
My mind/personality tells me that it would be a major coup to be able to run x86 code on ARM ... But, over a few years, that may not be necessary as more and more traditional desktop apps are being implemented in iOS ... Office, some Photoshop components, some CAD ...
Most developers don't need to modify their applications for Apple Ax architecture. Most developers are already creating apps for iOS, developers need to be encouraged to develop more feature-rich, desktop-class applications rather than apps that offer a fraction of the features available on OS X. Apple iPad Air 2 appears to have the processing power to perform desktop-class computing.
What you say is true ...
But there are certain widely-used OS X constructs that are not available in iOS -- for example, a multi-column table (NSTableView) where columns are sortable, resizeable, rearrangeable, hideable ...
iOS Numbers implements this capability (either by brute force or private APIs).
There is no reason that this capability could not be made available to iOS developers ... but it is difficult to create a useable app because of the lack of granularity of the current touch UI
Same with thing with the Pen Tool (Bezier curves and shapes). This was removed from OSX Pages to bring feature parity with iOS and iCloud Pages.
I think the granularity issue can be resolved with a stylus/digitizer or through programming with an Offset Loupe.
But there are certain widely-used OS X constructs that are not available in iOS -- for example, a multi-column table (NSTableView) where columns are sortable, resizeable, rearrangeable, hideable ...
iOS Numbers implements this capability (either by brute force or private APIs).
There is no reason that this capability could not be made available to iOS developers ... but it is difficult to create a useable app because of the lack of granularity of the current touch UI
Same with thing with the Pen Tool (Bezier curves and shapes). This was removed from OSX Pages to bring feature parity with iOS and iCloud Pages.
I think the granularity issue can be resolved with a stylus/digitizer or through programming with an Offset Loupe.
There definitely are issues to resolve.
I believe Tallest Skill is correct in speaking about "convergence" of iOS and OS X as OS Xi; i.e. I believe that most of the remaining issues could be resolved within two years. While I am uncertain the two operating systems will actually converge, the two operating systems are undeniably converging in features.
Desktop class performance - Check (64-bit architecture, processing power)
Desktop class apps - In progress (Apple has provided developers with the right tools - Grand Central Dispatch, Metal, OpenCL, Swift)
The point is that anyone suggesting that Microsoft Surface is the answer is a fool.
But there are certain widely-used OS X constructs that are not available in iOS -- for example, a multi-column table (NSTableView) where columns are sortable, resizeable, rearrangeable, hideable ...
iOS Numbers implements this capability (either by brute force or private APIs).
There is no reason that this capability could not be made available to iOS developers ... but it is difficult to create a useable app because of the lack of granularity of the current touch UI
Same with thing with the Pen Tool (Bezier curves and shapes). This was removed from OSX Pages to bring feature parity with iOS and iCloud Pages.
I think the granularity issue can be resolved with a stylus/digitizer or through programming with an Offset Loupe.
There definitely are issues to resolve.
I believe Tallest Skill is correct in speaking about "convergence" of iOS and OS X as OS Xi. I believe that most of the remaining issues could be resolved within two years. While I am uncertain the two operating systems will actually converge, the two operating systems are undeniably converging in features.
Desktop class performance - Check (64-bit architecture, processing power)
Desktop class apps - In progress (Apple has provided developers with the right tools - Grand Central Dispatch, Metal, OpenCL, Swift)
The point is that anyone suggesting that Microsoft Surface is the answer is a fool.
I agree with all that ... except, maybe TS's OS Xi should be OS iX or iOSX
I would add the importance of the Apple/IBM partnership and its effect on OS X and iOS programming by enterprise IT programmers.
I think your timetable of two years is too conservative. By this time next year we should have:
A9X APU -- More Power (CPU. GPU), more RAM (and/or SRAM),
Xcode 7 -- more common iOS and OS X APIs, enhanced Storyboards, common codebase for iOS and OS X apps
Swift maturation and experience -- proven productivity benefits
Advanced Security -- TouchID on every appropriate device
I think that this is part of a long-term master plan -- For example Swift was introduced this June ... Chris Lattner was hired in 2005 and built the llvm/clang components that underpins Swift (which was begun in 2010).
All the Surface is going to [try to] accomplish is to drag the bloat-laden and productivity-limiited past -- kicking and screaming into the future ... It makes about as much sense as a Telegram does in the age of Tweets.
I believe Tallest Skill is correct in speaking about "convergence" of iOS and OS X as OS Xi
Oh, no. iOS will always be iOS and OS X will evolve into OS XI. I figure the main convergence will come from the means of interaction. Desktop multitouch can’t be handled in the same way as a cursor+keyboard OS, just as the latter wasn’t the same as the Apple ][’s UI.
There are things the iPhone and small iPads won’t do because 1. they just can’t and 2. they aren’t large enough to make it happen well. And OS XI will be great on the desktop, but many things won’t make much sense portably.
12" MBA (retina) to be the first Mac with touch screen. Will replace entire MBA line
Do you get it now?
There is nothing to get because there is no product. You could make a preduciton and then back that up your comments with an argument that we can all read, but that's it. We don't take away a cookie if you are wrong and we don't give you one for accidentally being correct.
I just read an article in Forbes about wait times for the iPhone and iPad. iPhone was still 7 to 10 days at most carriers for all models and sizes. No wait time for iPad. I think demand for iPad will continue to slip unless Apple does something to shake up this product line. But when Cook says he's perfectly fine with someone buying an iPhone or Mac instead of an iPad it makes me wonder how committed they are to this product. I don't get the feeling that they really know what to do with iPad. When their biggest selling feature is making at 18% thinner and they spend most of their keynote talking about the camera you get the feeling they're kind of lost. And a bigger screen isn't enough at least not with the current version of iOS for iPad.
What competitive advantage would it give Apple to have touch-screen Macbooks? And are buyers really clamoring for their laptops to have touch screens?
Clamoring, no, but no one is clamoring for the ?Watch or pretty much anything Apple ever does before they do it. In fact, the most clamored for products are things they never produce, like the xMac.
So why can I see that happening? Well perhaps Apple feels they have a way to make a touchscreen on a Mac or Mac-like device feasible. To me, that could be having an A-series chip with a digitizer along with some convertible style. Note that I don't expect that to happen even as I do expect there to be both a 12" iPad and 12' Retina MBA.
Comments
I was just being fair to Microsoft. Microsoft should be judged by their words and actions not mine.
I don't understand the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. I understand why Microsoft created a device. I don't understand why Microsoft created the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. Microsoft is targeting the wrong demographic. The vast majority of consumers appear to desire the tablet.
Microsoft should develop products and services to compete against their most threatening competitor, Google.
Microsoft has created a high-priced laptop-tablet hybrid that doesn't quite fit either niche. Unfortunately, Microsoft Surface Pro 3 is priced beyond cost-conscious enterprises will pay and consumers in the price range will opt for Apple iPad instead.
I think the shift to pro/enterprise performance is going to be pretty huge. Tim keeps mentioning that when he first agreed to work at Apple, how impressed he was that Steve was focused on the consumer, when everyone else was focused on enterprise. Well, Apple has been dominating the consumer market for a while now, and everyone is predictably trying to copy them in that area. I think Apple has a huge opportunity in the enterprise, and that the IBM announcement was the tip of the iceberg.
Soon I think we'll be able to have the best of both worlds, iOS devices with the ability to host apps that can toggle between iOS mode and OS X mode, the latter facilitated by a stylus (which Apple has many patents on). It shouldn't be too hard to get devs of OS X apps to modify their apps to run on an Ax chip I would think, or for Apple to provide a tool to make this easier (Swift?).
Ahh ... Thanks for the insight!
So, at least in Intel's current implementation CISC and RISC are joined at the hip on the Intel chip ... that has a certain natural verbal flow to it
And, it does make sense that the translation can be more effective based on what code the ap is actually executing -- rather than a batch convert of the app.
My mind/personality tells me that it would be a major coup to be able to run x86 code on ARM ... But, over a few years, that may not be necessary as more and more traditional desktop apps are being implemented in iOS ... Office, some Photoshop components, some CAD ...
Sadly, Microsoft appears to not recognize who their competitor is.
I was just being fair to Microsoft. Microsoft should be judged by their words and actions not mine.
I don't understand the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. I understand why Microsoft created a device. I don't understand why Microsoft created the Microsoft Surface Pro 3. Microsoft is targeting the wrong demographic.
Microsoft should develop products and services to compete against their most threatening competitor, Google.
Microsoft will not be able to invade the Apple demographic.
Maybe Apple sees both Apple and Google as their competitor.
Right now, OEM's can license Windows for free for tablets and smartphones and there's rumors that MS may offer Windows 10 for free to Win7 and Win8.1 users. On top of that the traditional PC has flatlined in terms of growth - ITW, it's basically a replacement market. So, the reason for Surface Pro is to eventually (hopefully) help off-set the decreasing revenues from Windows.
Most developers don't need to modify their applications for Apple Ax architecture. Most developers are already creating apps for iOS, developers need to be encouraged to develop more feature-rich, desktop-class applications rather than apps that offer a fraction of the features available on OS X. Apple iPad Air 2 appears to have the processing power to perform desktop-class computing.
Yes!
For the subsumption of OS X work (apps) by IOS work (apps) -- Swift is as Lenin's rope.
There are fewer and fewer things that OS X apps can do that today's iPad and iOS apps can't do -- and that's primarily due to some limitations of the touch UI. A good keyboard and an optional Stylus/Digitizer would solve most of the UI issues.
Surface 3 is not perfect but it is much better all around device and is actually useful, but that's just my opinion.
I was writing about Microsoft not Apple.
I agree; however; Microsoft Surface Pro 3 appears to target Apple iPad and Apple MacBook Air as the competition rather than Android OEMs (and former Microsoft OEMs).
Microsoft chose to ignore Apple iPad until too late and enabled Apple iWork to dominate productivity on the iOS platform.
Microsoft chose to ignore the post-PC age until too and enable Apple iPad to dominate enterprise mobile devices.
Apple is; however; a relatively niche market due to numerous factors. Google and Microsoft are invading markets at a breakneck pace with opposing strategies. Microsoft has demonstrated issues adapting pricing strategies against Google. Microsoft shouldn't target Apple consumers. Google and Microsoft proponents continually bang the drum of market share which makes Apple the second most popular platform on both personal computing and mobile device markets. Capturing market share from Apple will be difficult given Apple consumer satisfaction and resultant platform loyalty of customers.
What you say is true ...
But there are certain widely-used OS X constructs that are not available in iOS -- for example, a multi-column table (NSTableView) where columns are sortable, resizeable, rearrangeable, hideable ...
iOS Numbers implements this capability (either by brute force or private APIs).
There is no reason that this capability could not be made available to iOS developers ... but it is difficult to create a useable app because of the lack of granularity of the current touch UI
Same with thing with the Pen Tool (Bezier curves and shapes). This was removed from OSX Pages to bring feature parity with iOS and iCloud Pages.
I think the granularity issue can be resolved with a stylus/digitizer or through programming with an Offset Loupe.
There definitely are issues to resolve.
I believe Tallest Skill is correct in speaking about "convergence" of iOS and OS X as OS Xi; i.e. I believe that most of the remaining issues could be resolved within two years. While I am uncertain the two operating systems will actually converge, the two operating systems are undeniably converging in features.
Desktop class performance - Check (64-bit architecture, processing power)
Desktop class apps - In progress (Apple has provided developers with the right tools - Grand Central Dispatch, Metal, OpenCL, Swift)
The point is that anyone suggesting that Microsoft Surface is the answer is a fool.
I agree with all that ... except, maybe TS's OS Xi should be OS iX or iOSX
I would add the importance of the Apple/IBM partnership and its effect on OS X and iOS programming by enterprise IT programmers.
I think your timetable of two years is too conservative. By this time next year we should have:
I think that this is part of a long-term master plan -- For example Swift was introduced this June ... Chris Lattner was hired in 2005 and built the llvm/clang components that underpins Swift (which was begun in 2010).
All the Surface is going to [try to] accomplish is to drag the bloat-laden and productivity-limiited past -- kicking and screaming into the future ... It makes about as much sense as a Telegram does in the age of Tweets.
Oh, no. iOS will always be iOS and OS X will evolve into OS XI. I figure the main convergence will come from the means of interaction. Desktop multitouch can’t be handled in the same way as a cursor+keyboard OS, just as the latter wasn’t the same as the Apple ][’s UI.
There are things the iPhone and small iPads won’t do because 1. they just can’t and 2. they aren’t large enough to make it happen well. And OS XI will be great on the desktop, but many things won’t make much sense portably.
Just reiterating from 6/24/14:
12" MBA (retina) to be the first Mac with touch screen. Will replace entire MBA line
Do you get it now?
There is nothing to get because there is no product. You could make a preduciton and then back that up your comments with an argument that we can all read, but that's it. We don't take away a cookie if you are wrong and we don't give you one for accidentally being correct.
Just reiterating from 6/24/14:
Do you get it now?
Highly doubt it.
I could see a touch-capable 12" MBA if there is a major redesign of the HW and SW to make touchscreen a viable input option.
I could see a touch-capable 12" MBA if there is a major redesign of the HW and SW to make touchscreen a viable input option.
What competitive advantage would it give Apple to have touch-screen Macbooks? And are buyers really clamoring for their laptops to have touch screens?
None. No.
Clamoring, no, but no one is clamoring for the ?Watch or pretty much anything Apple ever does before they do it. In fact, the most clamored for products are things they never produce, like the xMac.
So why can I see that happening? Well perhaps Apple feels they have a way to make a touchscreen on a Mac or Mac-like device feasible. To me, that could be having an A-series chip with a digitizer along with some convertible style. Note that I don't expect that to happen even as I do expect there to be both a 12" iPad and 12' Retina MBA.