The reason to merge the product lines is that Apple believes that a product line that spans tablets to laptops to desktops will be compelling to consumers.
If your tablet is android and your desktop/laptop is windows, then it can be problematic to move back and forth between them. They have different capabilities, and the software that's available on one, may not be available on the other. If you don't like one device, you can replace it with a different device from another manufacturer.
If the MacBook and iPad run the same software, then it becomes easy to mix and match. Grab you iPad or your Desktop, either one and you have full functionality. The big differences will be the physical keyboard, and/or raw processing power.
When the Mac and iPad converge, then there will be a few hardware differences, but both will run the same software. Start something on one, an seamlessly pick it up on the other. I can carry on an SMS text conversation while seamlessly switching between iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. It won't surprise me if I soon start getting texts on my AppleTV.
You have made the argument for apps on all platforms to be able to work with the same documents, cloud storage and handoff. All of which Apple has in their current product portfolio.
The requirements you put forth here can be met without forcing all devices great and small to run the exact same OS with the exact same UI and the exact same application binary images.
You have made the argument for apps on all platforms to be able to work with the same documents, cloud storage and handoff. All of which Apple has in their current product portfolio.
The requirements you put forth here can be met without forcing all devices great and small to run the exact same OS with the exact same UI and the exact same application binary images.
There does not need to be an exact match, but we are rapidly moving towards a lot of commonalty.
Remember, under the hood OS-X, iOS, even the AppleTV OS, are all the same. The primary difference is the user interface shell. The same codebase can be used for Pages for OS-X as Pages for iOS, and eventually Pages for Apple TV.
We have seen that Apple has been working towards unifying features and capabilities across the various product lines.
The issue is how Apple will resolve the differences between functionality on various platforms?
It seems that when the Mac version of a program offers more features than the iOS version, Apple chooses to remove features from the Mac version, rather than adding features to the iOS version. This strongly suggests that iOS is the reference platform, and other platforms will be brought into compliance with iOS.
Let's look at windowing. The traditional Mac interface is multiple windows from multiple Apps all onscreen at once. The iPad presents a single full screen application at a time. Apple's Mac applications now prefer to run full screen, matching the iPad interface. For multitasking, the iPad has added a split screen mode for limited display of two apps. This mode is now available on the Mac.
Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud.
The Mac interface is being changed to match the iPad interface.
The preferred input on all three platforms is touch. A touchpad on the Mac, a touch screen on iOS, and a touchpad on the AppleTV remote.
Apple is even moving the to limit the Mac to running only approved versions of OS-X. Current versions of OS-X do not let users modify OS files or folders. Kernel extensions won't load if they have been modified. User's see a warning for Applications that have not been signed in an Apple authorized fashion. I expect that within a year or so, we will see hardware enforcement limiting the Mac to Apple authorized OS versions.
The latest MacBook has only a single connector for power and syncing (just like iPad).
While the MacBook may remain separate from the iPad in terms of branding, as time goes on, the Mac is becoming more and more iPad like. Eventually the differences will be ones of marketing, not functionality.
There does not need to be an exact match, but we are rapidly moving towards a lot of commonalty.
Remember, under the hood OS-X, iOS, even the AppleTV OS, are all the same. The primary difference is the user interface shell. The same codebase can be used for Pages for OS-X as Pages for iOS, and eventually Pages for Apple TV.
We have seen that Apple has been working towards unifying features and capabilities across the various product lines.
The issue is how Apple will resolve the differences between functionality on various platforms?
It seems that when the Mac version of a program offers more features than the iOS version, Apple chooses to remove features from the Mac version, rather than adding features to the iOS version. This strongly suggests that iOS is the reference platform, and other platforms will be brought into compliance with iOS.
Let's look at windowing. The traditional Mac interface is multiple windows from multiple Apps all onscreen at once. The iPad presents a single full screen application at a time. Apple's Mac applications now prefer to run full screen, matching the iPad interface. For multitasking, the iPad has added a split screen mode for limited display of two apps. This mode is now available on the Mac.
Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud.
The Mac interface is being changed to match the iPad interface.
The preferred input on all three platforms is touch. A touchpad on the Mac, a touch screen on iOS, and a touchpad on the AppleTV remote.
Apple is even moving the to limit the Mac to running only approved versions of OS-X. Current versions of OS-X do not let users modify OS files or folders. Kernel extensions won't load if they have been modified. User's see a warning for Applications that have not been signed in an Apple authorized fashion. I expect that within a year or so, we will see hardware enforcement limiting the Mac to Apple authorized OS versions.
The latest MacBook has only a single connector for power and syncing (just like iPad).
While the MacBook may remain separate from the iPad in terms of branding, as time goes on, the Mac is becoming more and more iPad like. Eventually the differences will be ones of marketing, not functionality.
"Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud."
That's true for Mac apps sold through the Mac App Store, not for "big" apps that are side loaded (ie: Photoshop, Office, etc.)
"Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud."
That's true for Mac apps sold through the Mac App Store, not for "big" apps that are side loaded (ie: Photoshop, Office, etc.)
Yes. Change does not happen instantly.
Even Adobe sells iPad Apps via Apple's App store. It is conceivable that Apple will be able to get Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store.
Apple clearly would like all Mac Apps to be sold through the App store. At the moment they don't have enough clout to force this. Perhaps someday they will.
At one point, no one thought the iPad would be successful because it lacked support for Flash. Today, not everyone is sure if Flash will stick around because it isn't supported on the iPad.
Even Adobe sells iPad Apps via Apple's App store. It is conceivable that Apple will be able to get Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store.
Apple clearly would like all Mac Apps to be sold through the App store. At the moment they don't have enough clout to force this. Perhaps someday they will.
At one point, no one thought the iPad would be successful because it lacked support for Flash. Today, not everyone is sure if Flash will stick around because it isn't supported on the iPad.
Adobe sells iPad apps because those apps have been rewritten from the ground up for iPad. They're not just Mac ports. Getting Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store isn't just about clout, it's about the technical "limitations" (ie: sandboxing) of the Mac App Store. Unless of course, Adobe re-writes Photoshop for the Mac App Store, which at this point, I highly doubt they will do.
If anything, Adobe will "port" their iPad apps to the Mac environment and sell those apps through the Mac App Store, not Photoshop proper.
Adobe sells iPad apps because those apps have been rewritten from the ground up for iPad. They're not just Mac ports. Getting Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store isn't just about clout, it's about the technical "limitations" (ie: sandboxing) of the Mac App Store. Unless of course, Adobe re-writes Photoshop for the Mac App Store, which at this point, I highly doubt they will do.
If anything, Adobe will "port" their iPad apps to the Mac environment and sell those apps through the Mac App Store, not Photoshop proper.
It's an interesting question. Obviously, Adobe will port Photoshop to the Mac App store if and when Adobe believes that to be to their advantage.
There is nothing inherent in Photoshop's core functionality (image editing) that is inconsistent with sandboxing.
Another possibility is that Adobe will drop Photoshop for Apple products. The vast majority of people don't need something as powerful as Photoshop. If the Mac moves towards being a consumer machine, it might end up with only those image editing tools that are also available on the iPad.
Keep in mind, Apple is a very secretive company. Imagine that they were planning to drop the Mac line in 3 years. They certainly would not announce this, and would be careful to make statements that seemed to suggest otherwise. If they announced that the Mac was going away in 3 years, current sales would plummet, and the iPad isn't quite ready to take over.
It's an interesting question. Obviously, Adobe will port Photoshop to the Mac App store if and when Adobe believes that to be to their advantage.
There is nothing inherent in Photoshop's core functionality (image editing) that is inconsistent with sandboxing.
Another possibility is that Adobe will drop Photoshop for Apple products. The vast majority of people don't need something as powerful as Photoshop. If the Mac moves towards being a consumer machine, it might end up with only those image editing tools that are also available on the iPad.
I think it's obvious that the Mac is moving AWAY from being a "consumer" machine — what with all this iPad business taking over more and more duties except at the high end…
While the MacBook may remain separate from the iPad in terms of branding, as time goes on, the Mac is becoming more and more iPad like. Eventually the differences will be ones of marketing, not functionality.
INTERFACE and marketing, not functionality. The primary difference is not in what the platform can do (apart from the raw horsepower needed towards the higher-end audio and video stuff), it's in how you interface with it.
I think it's obvious that the Mac is moving AWAY from being a "consumer" machine — what with all this iPad business taking over more and more duties except at the high end…
If Apple is able to address the needs of 99% of the market with consumer machines, Apple may decide it is not worth pursuing the high end market.
Apple has already decided that it is not interested in the datacenter market (RIP X-Serve).
As a high end user I will be very annoyed if Apple stops making the machine I want. As a stockholder I will be thrilled at the money they make by not wasting resources on relatively small market niches.
"Matching" and "becoming" are two completely and utterly different things.
An interesting distinction.
Under the hood, Mac OS-X and iOS are both the same Unix based operating system. What makes them different is that they have a different user interface. If the two interfaces match, then there will be little difference between them.
"iOS" is just the name that Apple's marketing department puts on the mobile oriented version of Mac OS-X.
If Apple is able to address the needs of 99% of the market with consumer machines, Apple may decide it is not worth pursuing the high end market.
Apple has already decided that it is not interested in the datacenter market (RIP X-Serve).
As a high end user I will be very annoyed if Apple stops making the machine I want. As a stockholder I will be thrilled at the money they make by not wasting resources on relatively small market niches.
A huge part of their consumer market success is their SW, which includes their IDE and their 3rd-party developer support. That alone tells me the Mac is not going anywhere. Then I look at the Mac's position in the traditional PC malarkey and how it's growing, and I double down on the Mac continuously getting better and more popular for the foreseeable future.
A huge part of their consumer market success is their SW, which includes their IDE and their 3rd-party developer support. That alone tells me the Mac is not going anywhere. Then I look at the Mac's position in the traditional PC malarkey and how it's growing, and I double down on the Mac continuously getting better and more popular for the foreseeable future.
We are both speculating. Neither of us is privy to Apple's internal figures, and if we were, we couldn't talk about them.
An interesting question is what mix of Macs does Apple sell. Is the MacPro the most popular model? Is it the MacBook Air? Is it something else?
If Apple was making billions selling MacPros, then I would suspect that Apple's priority would be to keep this market segment alive. If the vast majority of Mac are low end machines going to consumers, then the high end of the market might be insignificant.
Would losing the high end of the Mac market be a 5% drop in Mac sales, a 95% drop, or something else?
If the high end of the market is just a drop in the bucket, then Apple can easily walk away from it.
Some Mac sales go to people that surf the web, send email, take a few photos, and do some word processing. These people could easily be served by an iPad like Mac. Perhaps they would be better served by this? If that's the case, why would Apple need to spend resources on products for the high end user. Apple's limited resources are much better spent on developing products for the high volume mainstream market, and growth markets (like self-driving cars).
In terms of software development, Apple could choose to port their IDE to the iPad.
Under the hood, Mac OS-X and iOS are both the same Unix based operating system. What makes them different is that they have a different user interface. If the two interfaces match, then there will be little difference between them.
"iOS" is just the name that Apple's marketing department puts on the mobile oriented version of Mac OS-X.
If you aren't at all clear on what the difference between touch-oriented interface with a finger and the total abstraction introduced by remote-controlling an interface via external pointing device is, then I'm not sure what the point is in discussing this, at all.
You can remote-control a car, and you can drive a car. The car can look exactly the same, and have exactly the same features and specifications and load and tasks, but in terms of actual operation and experience, they could not be any more different.
"iOS" is the name that Apple marketing puts on the TOUCH-ORIENTED version of Darwin.
If you aren't at all clear on what the difference between touch-oriented interface with a finger and the total abstraction introduced by remote-controlling an interface via external pointing device is, then I'm not sure what the point is in discussing this, at all.
You can remote-control a car, and you can drive a car. The car can look exactly the same, and have exactly the same features and specifications and load and tasks, but in terms of actual operation and experience, they could not be any more different.
"iOS" is the name that Apple marketing puts on the TOUCH-ORIENTED version of Darwin.
What happens when Apple moves the MacBook from a touchpad to a touch screen?
No. You can't run iOS on a pointer-operated machine, either.
What will (probably) happen at some point is that Apple ports OS X to run on their own ARM chips.
But they can't do that until those chips are fast enough to run existing intel apps in emulation.
That's not true, iOS is running currently on a non-pointer operated machine using a (remote) touchpad - it's called tvOS and the machine is the ATV.
iOS on a "MacBook" is much more likely than going through the rigamarole of transitioning OS X to a new chip and bringing all the apps to the new system - the speed required to match OS X on an Intel chip in an A-series chip is much further out than equally or superior performing iOS on a MacBook.
That's not true, iOS is running currently on a non-pointer operated machine using a (remote) touchpad - it's called tvOS and the machine is the ATV.
iOS on a "MacBook" is much more likely than going through the rigamarole of transitioning OS X to a new chip and bringing all the apps to the new system - the speed required to match OS X on an Intel chip in an A-series chip is much further out than equally or superior performing iOS on a MacBook.
tvOS is decidedly NOT iOS. That's the whole point of giving it a different name. It does not look like iOS, it does not work like iOS, and it most decidedly does not work like the Mac. It has a COMPLETELY different interface approach, designed specifically and uniquely for the remote.
Your "logic" is completely moot.
iOS on a MacBook IS NOT POSSIBLE. It wouldn't be iOS anymore, as the ENTIRE POINT of iOS is that it is touch-operated.
The only way this could possibly work is if the MacBook/Pad had two completely separate and distinct operational modes. Which would make it complex, confusing, and a bad trade off over having two separate devices being best at their separate things.
Comments
Originally Posted by mfryd
The reason to merge the product lines is that Apple believes that a product line that spans tablets to laptops to desktops will be compelling to consumers.
If your tablet is android and your desktop/laptop is windows, then it can be problematic to move back and forth between them. They have different capabilities, and the software that's available on one, may not be available on the other. If you don't like one device, you can replace it with a different device from another manufacturer.
If the MacBook and iPad run the same software, then it becomes easy to mix and match. Grab you iPad or your Desktop, either one and you have full functionality. The big differences will be the physical keyboard, and/or raw processing power.
When the Mac and iPad converge, then there will be a few hardware differences, but both will run the same software. Start something on one, an seamlessly pick it up on the other. I can carry on an SMS text conversation while seamlessly switching between iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. It won't surprise me if I soon start getting texts on my AppleTV.
You have made the argument for apps on all platforms to be able to work with the same documents, cloud storage and handoff. All of which Apple has in their current product portfolio.
The requirements you put forth here can be met without forcing all devices great and small to run the exact same OS with the exact same UI and the exact same application binary images.
You have made the argument for apps on all platforms to be able to work with the same documents, cloud storage and handoff. All of which Apple has in their current product portfolio.
The requirements you put forth here can be met without forcing all devices great and small to run the exact same OS with the exact same UI and the exact same application binary images.
There does not need to be an exact match, but we are rapidly moving towards a lot of commonalty.
Remember, under the hood OS-X, iOS, even the AppleTV OS, are all the same. The primary difference is the user interface shell. The same codebase can be used for Pages for OS-X as Pages for iOS, and eventually Pages for Apple TV.
We have seen that Apple has been working towards unifying features and capabilities across the various product lines.
The issue is how Apple will resolve the differences between functionality on various platforms?
It seems that when the Mac version of a program offers more features than the iOS version, Apple chooses to remove features from the Mac version, rather than adding features to the iOS version. This strongly suggests that iOS is the reference platform, and other platforms will be brought into compliance with iOS.
Let's look at windowing. The traditional Mac interface is multiple windows from multiple Apps all onscreen at once. The iPad presents a single full screen application at a time. Apple's Mac applications now prefer to run full screen, matching the iPad interface. For multitasking, the iPad has added a split screen mode for limited display of two apps. This mode is now available on the Mac.
Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud.
The Mac interface is being changed to match the iPad interface.
The preferred input on all three platforms is touch. A touchpad on the Mac, a touch screen on iOS, and a touchpad on the AppleTV remote.
Apple is even moving the to limit the Mac to running only approved versions of OS-X. Current versions of OS-X do not let users modify OS files or folders. Kernel extensions won't load if they have been modified. User's see a warning for Applications that have not been signed in an Apple authorized fashion. I expect that within a year or so, we will see hardware enforcement limiting the Mac to Apple authorized OS versions.
The latest MacBook has only a single connector for power and syncing (just like iPad).
While the MacBook may remain separate from the iPad in terms of branding, as time goes on, the Mac is becoming more and more iPad like. Eventually the differences will be ones of marketing, not functionality.
There does not need to be an exact match, but we are rapidly moving towards a lot of commonalty.
Remember, under the hood OS-X, iOS, even the AppleTV OS, are all the same. The primary difference is the user interface shell. The same codebase can be used for Pages for OS-X as Pages for iOS, and eventually Pages for Apple TV.
We have seen that Apple has been working towards unifying features and capabilities across the various product lines.
The issue is how Apple will resolve the differences between functionality on various platforms?
It seems that when the Mac version of a program offers more features than the iOS version, Apple chooses to remove features from the Mac version, rather than adding features to the iOS version. This strongly suggests that iOS is the reference platform, and other platforms will be brought into compliance with iOS.
Let's look at windowing. The traditional Mac interface is multiple windows from multiple Apps all onscreen at once. The iPad presents a single full screen application at a time. Apple's Mac applications now prefer to run full screen, matching the iPad interface. For multitasking, the iPad has added a split screen mode for limited display of two apps. This mode is now available on the Mac.
Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud.
The Mac interface is being changed to match the iPad interface.
The preferred input on all three platforms is touch. A touchpad on the Mac, a touch screen on iOS, and a touchpad on the AppleTV remote.
Apple is even moving the to limit the Mac to running only approved versions of OS-X. Current versions of OS-X do not let users modify OS files or folders. Kernel extensions won't load if they have been modified. User's see a warning for Applications that have not been signed in an Apple authorized fashion. I expect that within a year or so, we will see hardware enforcement limiting the Mac to Apple authorized OS versions.
The latest MacBook has only a single connector for power and syncing (just like iPad).
While the MacBook may remain separate from the iPad in terms of branding, as time goes on, the Mac is becoming more and more iPad like. Eventually the differences will be ones of marketing, not functionality.
"Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud."
That's true for Mac apps sold through the Mac App Store, not for "big" apps that are side loaded (ie: Photoshop, Office, etc.)
"Apple is now pushing Mac developers to match the iPad model of hiding the file structure. Mac applications are losing the "save" command. Documents get stored to the cloud."
That's true for Mac apps sold through the Mac App Store, not for "big" apps that are side loaded (ie: Photoshop, Office, etc.)
Yes. Change does not happen instantly.
Even Adobe sells iPad Apps via Apple's App store. It is conceivable that Apple will be able to get Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store.
Apple clearly would like all Mac Apps to be sold through the App store. At the moment they don't have enough clout to force this. Perhaps someday they will.
At one point, no one thought the iPad would be successful because it lacked support for Flash. Today, not everyone is sure if Flash will stick around because it isn't supported on the iPad.
Yes. Change does not happen instantly.
Even Adobe sells iPad Apps via Apple's App store. It is conceivable that Apple will be able to get Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store.
Apple clearly would like all Mac Apps to be sold through the App store. At the moment they don't have enough clout to force this. Perhaps someday they will.
At one point, no one thought the iPad would be successful because it lacked support for Flash. Today, not everyone is sure if Flash will stick around because it isn't supported on the iPad.
Adobe sells iPad apps because those apps have been rewritten from the ground up for iPad. They're not just Mac ports. Getting Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store isn't just about clout, it's about the technical "limitations" (ie: sandboxing) of the Mac App Store. Unless of course, Adobe re-writes Photoshop for the Mac App Store, which at this point, I highly doubt they will do.
If anything, Adobe will "port" their iPad apps to the Mac environment and sell those apps through the Mac App Store, not Photoshop proper.
Adobe sells iPad apps because those apps have been rewritten from the ground up for iPad. They're not just Mac ports. Getting Adobe to sell Photoshop through the Mac App Store isn't just about clout, it's about the technical "limitations" (ie: sandboxing) of the Mac App Store. Unless of course, Adobe re-writes Photoshop for the Mac App Store, which at this point, I highly doubt they will do.
If anything, Adobe will "port" their iPad apps to the Mac environment and sell those apps through the Mac App Store, not Photoshop proper.
It's an interesting question. Obviously, Adobe will port Photoshop to the Mac App store if and when Adobe believes that to be to their advantage.
There is nothing inherent in Photoshop's core functionality (image editing) that is inconsistent with sandboxing.
Another possibility is that Adobe will drop Photoshop for Apple products. The vast majority of people don't need something as powerful as Photoshop. If the Mac moves towards being a consumer machine, it might end up with only those image editing tools that are also available on the iPad.
Keep in mind, Apple is a very secretive company. Imagine that they were planning to drop the Mac line in 3 years. They certainly would not announce this, and would be careful to make statements that seemed to suggest otherwise. If they announced that the Mac was going away in 3 years, current sales would plummet, and the iPad isn't quite ready to take over.
It's an interesting question. Obviously, Adobe will port Photoshop to the Mac App store if and when Adobe believes that to be to their advantage.
There is nothing inherent in Photoshop's core functionality (image editing) that is inconsistent with sandboxing.
Another possibility is that Adobe will drop Photoshop for Apple products. The vast majority of people don't need something as powerful as Photoshop. If the Mac moves towards being a consumer machine, it might end up with only those image editing tools that are also available on the iPad.
I think it's obvious that the Mac is moving AWAY from being a "consumer" machine — what with all this iPad business taking over more and more duties except at the high end…
While the MacBook may remain separate from the iPad in terms of branding, as time goes on, the Mac is becoming more and more iPad like. Eventually the differences will be ones of marketing, not functionality.
INTERFACE and marketing, not functionality. The primary difference is not in what the platform can do (apart from the raw horsepower needed towards the higher-end audio and video stuff), it's in how you interface with it.
The Mac interface is being changed to match the iPad interface.
"Matching" and "becoming" are two completely and utterly different things.
I think it's obvious that the Mac is moving AWAY from being a "consumer" machine — what with all this iPad business taking over more and more duties except at the high end…
If Apple is able to address the needs of 99% of the market with consumer machines, Apple may decide it is not worth pursuing the high end market.
Apple has already decided that it is not interested in the datacenter market (RIP X-Serve).
As a high end user I will be very annoyed if Apple stops making the machine I want. As a stockholder I will be thrilled at the money they make by not wasting resources on relatively small market niches.
"Matching" and "becoming" are two completely and utterly different things.
An interesting distinction.
Under the hood, Mac OS-X and iOS are both the same Unix based operating system. What makes them different is that they have a different user interface. If the two interfaces match, then there will be little difference between them.
"iOS" is just the name that Apple's marketing department puts on the mobile oriented version of Mac OS-X.
A huge part of their consumer market success is their SW, which includes their IDE and their 3rd-party developer support. That alone tells me the Mac is not going anywhere. Then I look at the Mac's position in the traditional PC malarkey and how it's growing, and I double down on the Mac continuously getting better and more popular for the foreseeable future.
A huge part of their consumer market success is their SW, which includes their IDE and their 3rd-party developer support. That alone tells me the Mac is not going anywhere. Then I look at the Mac's position in the traditional PC malarkey and how it's growing, and I double down on the Mac continuously getting better and more popular for the foreseeable future.
We are both speculating. Neither of us is privy to Apple's internal figures, and if we were, we couldn't talk about them.
An interesting question is what mix of Macs does Apple sell. Is the MacPro the most popular model? Is it the MacBook Air? Is it something else?
If Apple was making billions selling MacPros, then I would suspect that Apple's priority would be to keep this market segment alive. If the vast majority of Mac are low end machines going to consumers, then the high end of the market might be insignificant.
Would losing the high end of the Mac market be a 5% drop in Mac sales, a 95% drop, or something else?
If the high end of the market is just a drop in the bucket, then Apple can easily walk away from it.
Some Mac sales go to people that surf the web, send email, take a few photos, and do some word processing. These people could easily be served by an iPad like Mac. Perhaps they would be better served by this? If that's the case, why would Apple need to spend resources on products for the high end user. Apple's limited resources are much better spent on developing products for the high volume mainstream market, and growth markets (like self-driving cars).
In terms of software development, Apple could choose to port their IDE to the iPad.
An interesting distinction.
Under the hood, Mac OS-X and iOS are both the same Unix based operating system. What makes them different is that they have a different user interface. If the two interfaces match, then there will be little difference between them.
"iOS" is just the name that Apple's marketing department puts on the mobile oriented version of Mac OS-X.
If you aren't at all clear on what the difference between touch-oriented interface with a finger and the total abstraction introduced by remote-controlling an interface via external pointing device is, then I'm not sure what the point is in discussing this, at all.
You can remote-control a car, and you can drive a car. The car can look exactly the same, and have exactly the same features and specifications and load and tasks, but in terms of actual operation and experience, they could not be any more different.
"iOS" is the name that Apple marketing puts on the TOUCH-ORIENTED version of Darwin.
If you aren't at all clear on what the difference between touch-oriented interface with a finger and the total abstraction introduced by remote-controlling an interface via external pointing device is, then I'm not sure what the point is in discussing this, at all.
You can remote-control a car, and you can drive a car. The car can look exactly the same, and have exactly the same features and specifications and load and tasks, but in terms of actual operation and experience, they could not be any more different.
"iOS" is the name that Apple marketing puts on the TOUCH-ORIENTED version of Darwin.
What happens when Apple moves the MacBook from a touchpad to a touch screen?
What happens when Apple moves the MacBook from a touchpad to a touch screen?
It will run iOS.
In fact, it already does.
You can't run OS X on a touch screen.
What happens when Apple moves the MacBook from a touchpad to a touch screen?
What's more likely is that Apple extends iOS to run in a MacBook with a touchpad (non-touchscreen) sporting an A-series chip.
What's more likely is that Apple extends iOS to run in a MacBook with a touchpad (non-touchscreen) sporting an A-series chip.
No. You can't run iOS on a pointer-operated machine, either.
What will (probably) happen at some point is that Apple ports OS X to run on their own ARM chips.
But they can't do that until those chips are fast enough to run existing intel apps in emulation.
No. You can't run iOS on a pointer-operated machine, either.
What will (probably) happen at some point is that Apple ports OS X to run on their own ARM chips.
But they can't do that until those chips are fast enough to run existing intel apps in emulation.
That's not true, iOS is running currently on a non-pointer operated machine using a (remote) touchpad - it's called tvOS and the machine is the ATV.
iOS on a "MacBook" is much more likely than going through the rigamarole of transitioning OS X to a new chip and bringing all the apps to the new system - the speed required to match OS X on an Intel chip in an A-series chip is much further out than equally or superior performing iOS on a MacBook.
tvOS is decidedly NOT iOS. That's the whole point of giving it a different name. It does not look like iOS, it does not work like iOS, and it most decidedly does not work like the Mac. It has a COMPLETELY different interface approach, designed specifically and uniquely for the remote.
Your "logic" is completely moot.
iOS on a MacBook IS NOT POSSIBLE. It wouldn't be iOS anymore, as the ENTIRE POINT of iOS is that it is touch-operated.
The only way this could possibly work is if the MacBook/Pad had two completely separate and distinct operational modes. Which would make it complex, confusing, and a bad trade off over having two separate devices being best at their separate things.