Microsoft has been pushing PC-tablet convergence for over 20 years in the form of the "tablet PC" vision, dating back to the Windows 3.11 days. It has a very long history of being a niche, not a mainstream thing.
part of this is Microsoft being all things to all 'computers...' this was less about 'mainstream' and more about developer snake oil. Learn our OS, and you can program anything from embedded controllers on ballistic missiles to handheld phones, to mainframes to lightbulbs.
Tablets were an obvious metaphor for work mobile computers, to be used while standing up (when there was no lap). I spent 4 years looking at tablet computers for medical use (We crammed a desktops and laptops into a 100 year old workflow, changing the workflow for the worse, until the iPad Mini came into the fore, which my favorite doctor has in his lab coat). and I see the 'Pro' replacing the Desktops in the exam room, and probably in the surgery suite as well (heckuva lot easier to keep sterile), for practice specific patient information management.
If anyone thinks this doesn't mean that apples Ax platform will not result in one that can run OSX, they are missing the point.
Great. I get it. iOS and OS X will not converge. However, if the A9X is faster than a MacBook, than a version of the A10 or A11 absolutely will result in a Mac running it with OS X and apps optimized for it (iWork). Apple will not continue to pay for Intel chips if its own are faster. It's a profit margin thing.
I agree with you. It isn't only profit though IMHO, it's also the total control Apple would then have without Intel involved.
To have some speculative fun, I'd suggest at some point an Apple chip will be put in a MacBook like product running OS X or a variant of OS X, I am pretty sure they have early prototypes already just as they had intel Macs years before the public knew. When they do there is another possibility not mentioned so far. No convergence of MacBools and iPads but possibly a new product line altogether. What that would be capable of and what a variant of OS X might do is anyone's guess. We now have three variants of iOS, iOS itself, TvOS and At the ?WatchOS. We have yet to see a variant of OS X as far as I am aware.
Since Apple has watchOS and tvOS perhaps they also need iPadOS or at least more things that are iPad/iPad Pro specific? I know a 27" iMac runs the same software as a 12" MacBook but I still think iPad needs UI and apps unique to it. Things like split view are a start in the right direction. And I'm saying this from the standpoint of taking advantage of the screen real estate and power of the device not turning it into a laptop.
You are mistaken. These days it would not be a problem at all.
I think the term macintosh will remain adhered to the desktop.
And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it.
Really.
Key tenets:
1) personal computer. My guess iOS will evolve to 'personal' and 'guest/family' accounts. Thats is.
2) 100% touch interface. attachable keyboards not withstanding, no other pointing metaphor will come to bear. Mice, external drawing tablets, etc. will never be allowed
3) Spotlight vs finder.
4) Strong Typing. (more like 3a). Apps own their data. The most object of object oriented computing is the data object, which in iOS is wrapped by the App. The latest iOS is about calling other apps to display data objects, not allowing 20 different applications to muck around with the underlying data structure without using the class messages that the app has defined for it.
5) 100% local or hybrid cloud, or 100% cloud. Every device is a caching view of a cloud storage system.
There are more, but those are the key items that underscore iOS vs MacOSX ideological differences
Since Apple has watchOS and tvOS perhaps they also need iPadOS or at least more things that are iPad/iPad Pro specific? I know a 27" iMac runs the same software as a 12" MacBook but I still think iPad needs UI and apps unique to it. Things like split view are a start in the right direction. And I'm saying this from the standpoint of taking advantage of the screen real estate and power of the device not turning it into a laptop.
I agree to some extent and you could be right but I think iOS will be able to support features on the iPadPro not applicable to its smaller siblings easily enough without requiring a new hybrid the way the Apple TV and ?Watch did.
Touch is by no means even close to optimal for desktop use. Touch is great for phones, phablets and tablets. By offering a keyboard, controllers for those that want to push a one device for all have the solution. Purely from my perspective I feel Apple could make iOS recognize a mouse and allow for simple control to select apps. The mouse and keyboard would then allow apps like spreadsheets and such become very useful. I am not seeing a lot of people effectively using some productivity apps with a touch interface. Yes there are a few that go out of their way to say they can do it but it is not even close to other input methods. I think Apple is on the right track for the most part. I am just waiting for effective airplay to a computer monitor that is already set up with keyboard and mouse. Effectively using iPhone as your computing and storage complimented by tried and true input devices.
There is no need to converge the iPad and the Mac. However, there is a need to achieve greater interoperability between the two, via an iOS app that can seamlessly communicate with and access Mac files, and a MacOS app that can do likewise with iPad files.
The need for primary reliance on iCloud, other cloud services and iTunes to be able do this is clunky and suboptimal.
What he said was that there is not intention to merge the "iPad" and "Mac" brands into a single brand name.
For instance, devices with a built in keyboard may be sold under the "Mac" brand, and devices without the keyboard would be sold under the "iPad" name. Though both devices may be running the same software and OS.
Remember. Apple is primarily a phone manufacturer. Next they are a tablet manufacturer. The Mac is not a significant revenue source for the company. Development resources provide a much higher return when they are used on iPhone/iPad instead of the Mac.
While I agree with Tim Cook about the foolishness of an OS X & iOS "hybrid" device, I disagree with him about the supposed "lack of compromises" in what we have right now. Like I said in another thread today, even the iPad PRO is not yet PRO due to the inherent limitations of iOS, the lack of PRO apps (wherefore art thou FCPX on iOS?), and the fact that even though it's a honking 12-inches in size the iPad PRO is still considered a Mobile Device (i.e., like a PHONE), and as such Google kicks down the resolution of YouTube videos on it to 720p (as stupid Google does on all iOS "mobile" devices).
Give us a more feature rich iOS. It's slowly getting there, but it is SLOW.
Give us PRO apps for iOS especially catered to the iPad PRO and it's big screen.
Give us a tablet that gets around stupid YouTube "720p max" resolution limit and plays 1080p and even 4K.
Give us the ability to multi-task more than just 2 apps.
If the iPad PRO is really PRO, it should shoot 4K with its camera, not just be able edit 4K you already have somewhere else.
Give us the ability to use any Apple Tablet as a viewfinder for pro and prosumer cameras.
And stop telling people like me, "You need a MacBook Pro" or some other such foolishness. Because you full well know that Tim Cook himself is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement, even if that pitch cannibalizes MacBook sales. He's pitching it as "look at all the things you can do with it," but frankly, it's hardly that much more than what any other iOS device can do right now. The above "Give us" list stands firm.
Just stop. The entire point is that Cook doesn't want to release a product like that, and that the products are still separate in functionality. He's saying that yes, for many users the Pro will be good enough to replace their laptops. But he also knows that desktops and laptops are still needed.
What he said was that there is not intention to merge the "iPad" and "Mac" brands into a single brand name.
For instance, devices with a built in keyboard may be sold under the "Mac" brand, and devices without the keyboard would be sold under the "iPad" name. Though both devices may be running the same software and OS.
Remember. Apple is primarily a phone manufacturer. Next they are a tablet manufacturer. The Mac is not a significant revenue source for the company. Development resources provide a much higher return when they are used on iPhone/iPad instead of the Mac.
Um, Q4 revenue for the Mac was greater than iPad.
iPad: $4,276B
Mac: $6,882B
For fiscal year 2015 iPad revenue was $25B, Mac revenue was $19B. The Mac most definitely is a significant revenue source for the company,
That's gross revenue. I was under the impression that iPads had a higher profit margin, and hence generated greater profit.
Furthermore, iPad software development is basically free as it is essentially iPhone software. If they want to keep the Mac software development costs down, they need to replace Mac OS-X with Mac iOS.
That's gross revenue. I was under the impression that iPads had a higher profit margin, and hence generated greater profit.
Furthermore, iPad software development is basically free as it is essentially iPhone software. If they want to keep the Mac software development costs down, they need to replace Mac OS-X with Mac iOS.
It's net revenue. And afaik, there is no data on iPad v. Mac margins put out by Apple.
Don't make up stuff. We have enough useless analysts doing that anyway, and you know no better.
While I agree with Tim Cook about the foolishness of an OS X & iOS "hybrid" device, I disagree with him about the supposed "lack of compromises" in what we have right now. Like I said in another thread today, even the iPad PRO is not yet PRO due to the inherent limitations of iOS, the lack of PRO apps (wherefore art thou FCPX on iOS?), and the fact that even though it's a honking 12-inches in size the iPad PRO is still considered a Mobile Device (i.e., like a PHONE), and as such Google kicks down the resolution of YouTube videos on it to 720p (as stupid Google does on all iOS "mobile" devices).
Give us a more feature rich iOS. It's slowly getting there, but it is SLOW.
Give us PRO apps for iOS especially catered to the iPad PRO and it's big screen.
Give us a tablet that gets around stupid YouTube "720p max" resolution limit and plays 1080p and even 4K.
Give us the ability to multi-task more than just 2 apps.
If the iPad PRO is really PRO, it should shoot 4K with its camera, not just be able edit 4K you already have somewhere else.
Give us the ability to use any Apple Tablet as a viewfinder for pro and prosumer cameras.
And stop telling people like me, "You need a MacBook Pro" or some other such foolishness. Because you full well know that Tim Cook himself is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement, even if that pitch cannibalizes MacBook sales. He's pitching it as "look at all the things you can do with it," but frankly, it's hardly that much more than what any other iOS device can do right now. The above "Give us" list stands firm.
I don't understand this at all. Why is it that the professionals that exist in the world only use FCPX or Photoshop? I feel this is an incredibly narrow view of someone who qualifies as a professional. What about doctors, lawyers, business people, pilots, teachers (in my case), public servants, etc. you know the majority of people that don't rely on or require FCPX/Photoshop. I picked up mine on Wednesday (so excited to retire my owes-me-nothing iPad 2), and I absolutely love it. It took me a couple of days to get used to the size but without a doubt it does what I need no problem. I will NOT be buying a laptop for any reason. The iPad Pro is perfect for me and I'm sure it'll be perfect for a whole slew of other professionals that don't fall under this incredibly narrow definition of a pro.
"Apple will not 'converge' iPad and MacBook lines, says Tim Cook".
Great. Then, please release a Mac tablet to boost sales. Otherwise, it is a deal breaker for our University.
whats a deal breaker? they dont have a convergence device so there is no proposed deal.
We feel strongly that customers are not really looking for a converged Mac and iPad. Because what that would wind up doing, or what we’re worried would happen, is that neither experience would be as good as the customer wants. So we want to make the best tablet in the world and the best Mac in the world. And putting those two together would not achieve either. You’d begin to compromise in different ways.
And stop telling people like me, "You need a MacBook Pro" or some other such foolishness. Because you full well know that Tim Cook himself is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement,
man, how do you people still not get this? he's pitching it as a laptop replacement for people who use CARS, not people who need TRUCKS.
Just stop. The entire point is that Cook doesn't want to release a product like that, and that the products are still separate in functionality. He's saying that yes, for many users the Pro will be good enough to replace their laptops. But he also knows that desktops and laptops are still needed.
And when the Mac Pro hadn't been updated for a few years, Tim Cook told people not to worry. People who loved the old Mac Pro took that to be a sure sign that an updated Mac Pro would retain the lay feature of a large machine with internal expandability and customization. Instead that got a machine with no internal expandability.
Apple does not pre-announce their future roadmap. If there is a big change coming, then they will imply there is nothing coming until the day of the announcement. When the new Mac Pro was announced, the big question on most people's mind was whether they had kept the number of internal expansion slots/bays the same, or increased them.
Also keep in mind, that Apple is a consumer product company. The number of people who actually need a Mac Pro, or an X-Serve is tiny compared to the number of people who need a sealed box appliance. Take a look at the iMac, Apple actually glues the damn thing closed.
Sure Apple may lose power users, but for every power user they lose, they gain a thousand consumers. Apple has a responsibility to their stockholders (not to their traditional customer base). By losing the high end of the market, and dominating the consumer market, Apple will keep making truckloads of money.
Comments
Microsoft has been pushing PC-tablet convergence for over 20 years in the form of the "tablet PC" vision, dating back to the Windows 3.11 days. It has a very long history of being a niche, not a mainstream thing.
part of this is Microsoft being all things to all 'computers...' this was less about 'mainstream' and more about developer snake oil. Learn our OS, and you can program anything from embedded controllers on ballistic missiles to handheld phones, to mainframes to lightbulbs.
Tablets were an obvious metaphor for work mobile computers, to be used while standing up (when there was no lap). I spent 4 years looking at tablet computers for medical use (We crammed a desktops and laptops into a 100 year old workflow, changing the workflow for the worse, until the iPad Mini came into the fore, which my favorite doctor has in his lab coat). and I see the 'Pro' replacing the Desktops in the exam room, and probably in the surgery suite as well (heckuva lot easier to keep sterile), for practice specific patient information management.
I agree with you. It isn't only profit though IMHO, it's also the total control Apple would then have without Intel involved.
To have some speculative fun, I'd suggest at some point an Apple chip will be put in a MacBook like product running OS X or a variant of OS X, I am pretty sure they have early prototypes already just as they had intel Macs years before the public knew. When they do there is another possibility not mentioned so far. No convergence of MacBools and iPads but possibly a new product line altogether. What that would be capable of and what a variant of OS X might do is anyone's guess. We now have three variants of iOS, iOS itself, TvOS and At the ?WatchOS. We have yet to see a variant of OS X as far as I am aware.
You are mistaken. These days it would not be a problem at all.
I think the term macintosh will remain adhered to the desktop.
And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it.
Really.
Key tenets:
1) personal computer. My guess iOS will evolve to 'personal' and 'guest/family' accounts. Thats is.
2) 100% touch interface. attachable keyboards not withstanding, no other pointing metaphor will come to bear. Mice, external drawing tablets, etc. will never be allowed
3) Spotlight vs finder.
4) Strong Typing. (more like 3a). Apps own their data. The most object of object oriented computing is the data object, which in iOS is wrapped by the App. The latest iOS is about calling other apps to display data objects, not allowing 20 different applications to muck around with the underlying data structure without using the class messages that the app has defined for it.
5) 100% local or hybrid cloud, or 100% cloud. Every device is a caching view of a cloud storage system.
There are more, but those are the key items that underscore iOS vs MacOSX ideological differences
I agree to some extent and you could be right but I think iOS will be able to support features on the iPadPro not applicable to its smaller siblings easily enough without requiring a new hybrid the way the Apple TV and ?Watch did.
The need for primary reliance on iCloud, other cloud services and iTunes to be able do this is clunky and suboptimal.
For instance, devices with a built in keyboard may be sold under the "Mac" brand, and devices without the keyboard would be sold under the "iPad" name. Though both devices may be running the same software and OS.
Remember. Apple is primarily a phone manufacturer. Next they are a tablet manufacturer. The Mac is not a significant revenue source for the company. Development resources provide a much higher return when they are used on iPhone/iPad instead of the Mac.
While I agree with Tim Cook about the foolishness of an OS X & iOS "hybrid" device, I disagree with him about the supposed "lack of compromises" in what we have right now. Like I said in another thread today, even the iPad PRO is not yet PRO due to the inherent limitations of iOS, the lack of PRO apps (wherefore art thou FCPX on iOS?), and the fact that even though it's a honking 12-inches in size the iPad PRO is still considered a Mobile Device (i.e., like a PHONE), and as such Google kicks down the resolution of YouTube videos on it to 720p (as stupid Google does on all iOS "mobile" devices).
Give us a more feature rich iOS. It's slowly getting there, but it is SLOW.
Give us PRO apps for iOS especially catered to the iPad PRO and it's big screen.
Give us a tablet that gets around stupid YouTube "720p max" resolution limit and plays 1080p and even 4K.
Give us the ability to multi-task more than just 2 apps.
If the iPad PRO is really PRO, it should shoot 4K with its camera, not just be able edit 4K you already have somewhere else.
Give us the ability to use any Apple Tablet as a viewfinder for pro and prosumer cameras.
And stop telling people like me, "You need a MacBook Pro" or some other such foolishness. Because you full well know that Tim Cook himself is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement, even if that pitch cannibalizes MacBook sales. He's pitching it as "look at all the things you can do with it," but frankly, it's hardly that much more than what any other iOS device can do right now. The above "Give us" list stands firm.
Just stop. The entire point is that Cook doesn't want to release a product like that, and that the products are still separate in functionality. He's saying that yes, for many users the Pro will be good enough to replace their laptops. But he also knows that desktops and laptops are still needed.
Um, Q4 revenue for the Mac was greater than iPad.
iPad: $4,276B
Mac: $6,882B
For fiscal year 2015 iPad revenue was $25B, Mac revenue was $19B. The Mac most definitely is a significant revenue source for the company,
That's gross revenue. I was under the impression that iPads had a higher profit margin, and hence generated greater profit.
Furthermore, iPad software development is basically free as it is essentially iPhone software. If they want to keep the Mac software development costs down, they need to replace Mac OS-X with Mac iOS.
It's net revenue. And afaik, there is no data on iPad v. Mac margins put out by Apple.
Don't make up stuff. We have enough useless analysts doing that anyway, and you know no better.
While I agree with Tim Cook about the foolishness of an OS X & iOS "hybrid" device, I disagree with him about the supposed "lack of compromises" in what we have right now. Like I said in another thread today, even the iPad PRO is not yet PRO due to the inherent limitations of iOS, the lack of PRO apps (wherefore art thou FCPX on iOS?), and the fact that even though it's a honking 12-inches in size the iPad PRO is still considered a Mobile Device (i.e., like a PHONE), and as such Google kicks down the resolution of YouTube videos on it to 720p (as stupid Google does on all iOS "mobile" devices).
Give us a more feature rich iOS. It's slowly getting there, but it is SLOW.
Give us PRO apps for iOS especially catered to the iPad PRO and it's big screen.
Give us a tablet that gets around stupid YouTube "720p max" resolution limit and plays 1080p and even 4K.
Give us the ability to multi-task more than just 2 apps.
If the iPad PRO is really PRO, it should shoot 4K with its camera, not just be able edit 4K you already have somewhere else.
Give us the ability to use any Apple Tablet as a viewfinder for pro and prosumer cameras.
And stop telling people like me, "You need a MacBook Pro" or some other such foolishness. Because you full well know that Tim Cook himself is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement, even if that pitch cannibalizes MacBook sales. He's pitching it as "look at all the things you can do with it," but frankly, it's hardly that much more than what any other iOS device can do right now. The above "Give us" list stands firm.
I don't understand this at all. Why is it that the professionals that exist in the world only use FCPX or Photoshop? I feel this is an incredibly narrow view of someone who qualifies as a professional. What about doctors, lawyers, business people, pilots, teachers (in my case), public servants, etc. you know the majority of people that don't rely on or require FCPX/Photoshop. I picked up mine on Wednesday (so excited to retire my owes-me-nothing iPad 2), and I absolutely love it. It took me a couple of days to get used to the size but without a doubt it does what I need no problem. I will NOT be buying a laptop for any reason. The iPad Pro is perfect for me and I'm sure it'll be perfect for a whole slew of other professionals that don't fall under this incredibly narrow definition of a pro.
whats a deal breaker? they dont have a convergence device so there is no proposed deal.
It's net revenue. And afaik, there is no data on iPad v. Mac margins put out by Apple.
Don't make up stuff. We have enough useless analysts doing that anyway, and you know no better.
Sorry, the financials I saw from Apple (http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q4fy15datasum.pdf) were simple labeled "Revenue"
perhaps english is not your first language?
man, how do you people still not get this? he's pitching it as a laptop replacement for people who use CARS, not people who need TRUCKS.
According to Apple's 10K, I think FY2015 Mac revenue was $25B and iPad revenue $23B.
For future reference, that always means NET revenue.
(Corrected typo)
Just stop. The entire point is that Cook doesn't want to release a product like that, and that the products are still separate in functionality. He's saying that yes, for many users the Pro will be good enough to replace their laptops. But he also knows that desktops and laptops are still needed.
And when the Mac Pro hadn't been updated for a few years, Tim Cook told people not to worry. People who loved the old Mac Pro took that to be a sure sign that an updated Mac Pro would retain the lay feature of a large machine with internal expandability and customization. Instead that got a machine with no internal expandability.
Apple does not pre-announce their future roadmap. If there is a big change coming, then they will imply there is nothing coming until the day of the announcement. When the new Mac Pro was announced, the big question on most people's mind was whether they had kept the number of internal expansion slots/bays the same, or increased them.
Also keep in mind, that Apple is a consumer product company. The number of people who actually need a Mac Pro, or an X-Serve is tiny compared to the number of people who need a sealed box appliance. Take a look at the iMac, Apple actually glues the damn thing closed.
Sure Apple may lose power users, but for every power user they lose, they gain a thousand consumers. Apple has a responsibility to their stockholders (not to their traditional customer base). By losing the high end of the market, and dominating the consumer market, Apple will keep making truckloads of money.