I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Once they switched to Intel they have been running generic for years. Those machines could switch between MacOS and Windows 10 quite simply and easily.
Now, they can't do that with WIndows anymore. But there seems little reason that iPadOS and MacOS couldn't be made to run on either machine since they both use the same basic hardware.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Once they switched to Intel they have been running generic for years. Those machines could switch between MacOS and Windows 10 quite simply and easily.
Now, they can't do that with WIndows anymore. But there seems little reason that iPadOS and MacOS couldn't be made to run on either machine since they both use the same basic hardware.
By your logic, Apple should’ve opened up MacOS to run on any Intel-based computer, because those are all the same basic hardware.
This of course is the exact thing you are determined not to acknowledge. Apple does not write operating systems for generic machines. They were often criticized in this very peanut gallery for releasing new Macs that didn’t have the absolute newest intel chip in them. This is because they write MacOS for specific hardware in specific configurations. The newest intel chip that came out the same week as that new Mac hadn’t been in the pipeline long enough to incorporate it into the hardware and software that was being developed in concert. It’s not a generic good enough swap. (It is for Windows, maybe, but not for Apple.) This was also a driver for Apple to make its own silicon, allowing more control over all those things coming together in each new hardware/software combo, created all at once.
Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well enough.
Microsoft already makes the device you want, to the good enough generic specs that you desire. Please buy one.
Joswiak said Apple has no plans to merge the products. Instead, the addition of the Mac-focused chip is part of the company's continual goal to make each product the best in their own categories.
"There's two conflicting stories people like to tell about the iPad and Mac. On the one hand, people say that they are in conflict with each other. That somebody has to decide whether they want a Mac, or they want an iPad. Or people say that we're merging them into one: that there's really this grand conspiracy we have, to eliminate the two categories and make them one. And the reality is neither is true. We're quite proud of the fact that we work really, really hard to create the best products in their respective category."
There is some conflict in their marketing with this. They've shown ads about the iPad as a replacement for a traditional computer and they've heavily promoted Swift coding in education and talked about the jobs the App Store supports. Tim Cook said learning to code is more important than English as a second language:
But you can't code outside of tutorial environments on an iPad, there are restrictions on dynamic code in the OS. Software development is one of Apple's largest segments of pro users. Dynamic code is also used for scripting and plugins inside creative software.
Take a student of science and art. The iPad allows them to draw, paint and sculpt art in a convenient and comfortable way. The Mac allows them to develop software and have unrestricted access to the filesystem for data, backups, downloads and run all kinds of powerful software.
What they are saying is somewhat true, both these products perform well at those respective tasks but a student of both has to choose between them or buy both.
If they started with an iPad and allow it to run macOS when connected to a keyboard (no touch input) then it would behave no differently from a standard Mac laptop in that mode. It's not a merged OS, it's just allowing the same hardware to perform both functions. The only tricky part would be switching between them, whether the iPad mode is like an app inside macOS that goes fullscreen or it's an OS switch with suspend/resume or macOS runs as a mode inside iPadOS.
Here's a video of how the latter option would look:
The part with touching the macOS UI is obviously not a usable experience, the main Mac use would be around 5:00 with keyboard and mouse/trackpad.
Microsoft has demonstrated that a converged device doesn't work well and this is always what Apple has said they won't do for years, which is convergence. The fridge-toaster:
Where convergence goes wrong is when two products perform different functions (fridge and toaster) or are designed for different inputs (Windows with a touch UI). It works very well for things that are complimentary like iPod + GPS + phone + PDA = iPhone. Most of the functions of an iPad and Mac are identical, web browsing takes up most of the usage and is the same on both. Games, email, calendars and so on are the same on both systems. The biggest difference between an iPad and a Mac experience is how the user interacts with it, which is determined by how the user holds the device.
If it's held it like a tablet, nobody wants to be poking at desktop UI elements with their finger, that requires different software. If it's in a dock like the magic keyboard cover, nobody wants to be poking at the screen at all, the keyboard and trackpad are much more comfortable.
Look at the use case shown in the following video at 6:45:
That's an iPad Pro hooked up to an XDR display. It looks amazing and powerful but in reality not usable at all as it's just mirroring the output and you can't use it like you could a Mac system. If that hardware allowed switching over to the Mac system in that environment, it could do everything a Mac could - run Final Cut, Logic, all the Adobe Suite, Da Vinci, Xcode, Node JS, Python, web servers, app publishing.
It could lead to a problem where people end up preferring the power of macOS on the iPad and that would push towards the system becoming more of a converged mess. There's also the issue that a Mac system on a 10" tablet display is not a good experience either (although it could be scaled up a bit), it would mainly be useful on a 12" model and/or external display. But it would be a much better value product for a student or anyone that only wanted a single device to offer the best experience for both tablet and desktop use.
Looking ahead at other products like AR, that can change things entirely because the interaction is no longer a choice between hand-held tablet or keyboard-based, it's a superset of both. The UI can be as big as it needs to be and allow for touch input.
Maybe iPadOS will just continue to improve to the point it doesn't matter but it's now 11 years in and that would surely have been the case by now. Apple's preference is for people to do some things on iPad and some things on Mac and buy both if they need both. The spec of the new iPad Pro offers an opportunity to have those functions on the same hardware. It would be a neat addition to an iPad, even in a limited form to be able have the extra freedom and power macOS offers when the need arises.
You had good points in your post, but there are some I disagree. For example, you mentioned that "Microsoft has demonstrated that a converged device doesn't work well and this is always what Apple has said they won't do for years, which is convergence." The thing is that 4-5 years ago the Surface Pro had a high level of customer satisfaction, similar to the iPad. Also Apple have being copying / adding many features MS had in the Surface, like side-by-side applications / multitasking in the tablet mode, the Pen / Pencil, Windows Hello / FaceID, and multiuser support (I think iOS have multiuser support for educational deployments). They even add a trackpad to the Magic Keyboard, as MS did with the Surface keyboard. Why is Apple copying / adding features from the Surface, if it doesn't works well, as you said?
You also mentioned the "toaster / fridge". Isn't the iPad + Magic Keyboard a "toaster / Fridge"? We have a device with a touch UI and touch optimized app with a keyboard + trackpad. Didn't Apple said this was a bad idea, and terrible from an ergonomic POV?
I have a Surface Pro 4, a MBP and an iPad, and it's clear that there is no perfect device. Each one of them have advantages / disadvantages over the other. But at the same time, I think the three of them are excellent.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
I'm not a fan of cars comparison, but since you post about it, let's go with it. You gave an example of what a "2-in-1" car shouldn't be. At the same time, there are cars that are an excellent example of what "2-in-1" car is. Just look at the Lamborghini Urus, the MB G63 AMG and the Porsche Macan / Cayenne. Are they as good as a sport car as an Aventador, MB AMG GT or the Porche 911? Definitely not. And they are neither as good for off-road as other cars. But they still excellent vehicles. 2-in-1 devices are not perfect, but neither notebooks or tablets. Each one of them have it's advantages and disadvantages. When you see Apple copying / adding features from the Surface to the iPad, we could think that MS is doing something right, don't you think?
As a likely 2021 iPad Pro 12.9 1 TB or 2TB storage buyer, what I'd like to see Apple do is increase iPadOS features, rather than have macOS boot on the iPad. All these features should be touch first designs:
Refine the software keyboard. There are many things they could do. Add a 3 row, even 2 row, keyboard layout. This increases the display area for apps. Add ortholinear and vertically staggered key options to the keyboard layout.
Enable a software based trackpad to control a pointer. The two finger on the software keyboard does a great job at controlling the text insertion point in text fields. That's not that far away from a trackpad.
Develop a touch-first overlapping windowed UI with "unlimited" background apps, including audio. Just have at as toggle in Settings app, just like the current "Multitasking" UI is a toggle in the Settings app. So, there would need to be handles somewhere in a window for moving, resizing, and a window pop-up menu.
With an overlapping windowed UI, extended external display support is a natural follow-on. Another natural follow-on is to use the iPad as an input device. The on-screen software keyboards and software trackpads as input, and the rest of the touch surface could be for additional UI controls and whatnot. Touch sliders and dials, buttons, etc, can all be there.
The page file needs to be enabled and big apps can be moved over. LPX, FCPX, Xcode from Apple. Adobe apps, VM apps. Terminal.app should be at least a downloadable app.
macOS should also be continually refined too. It's been 30 years, so, no low hanging fruit anymore. I think they should make distributed computing a more natural and easy thing to do for developers and users. You have a Mac mini and want faster video transcode times? Add a second Mac mini, connect it with 40 Gbit/s Ethernet over TB to the first one, and the software automatically distributes the transcode task across the 2 machines, or more. I think they should look into keyboards some. The keyboard is a primary input device, and they could build Macs around them, such as a laptop with a hot swappable mechanical keyboard.
I do agree with what they are saying. Make the best possible tablet. Make the best possible PC. That necessarily means a different UI as the input devices are different. They just need to move faster, make both OSes more featured.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
I'm not a fan of cars comparison, but since you post about it, let's go with it. You gave an example of what a "2-in-1" car shouldn't be. At the same time, there are cars that are an excellent example of what "2-in-1" car is. Just look at the Lamborghini Urus, the MB G63 AMG and the Porsche Macan / Cayenne. Are they as good as a sport car as an Aventador, MB AMG GT or the Porche 911? Definitely not. And they are neither as good for off-road as other cars. But they still excellent vehicles. 2-in-1 devices are not perfect, but neither notebooks or tablets. Each one of them have it's advantages and disadvantages. When you see Apple copying / adding features from the Surface to the iPad, we could think that MS is doing something right, don't you think?
It’s not that combining different devices is inherently a bad thing. It’s that combining things just because you can isn’t reason enough that you should. The iPhone combined a cellphone, iPod, blackberry, palm pilot, and a gps all in one device, dispensing with the keyboard, stylus and other unnecessary elements into something that worked better than any of those individual elements.
All the clamoring for combining the iPad and MacBook is about doing something unartful, if obvious, these proponents will insist, simply because you can. So no metaphor is perfect, but I thought of the El Camino because it’s the obvious implementation of a car/truck combo that’s ugly, and not as good as a car (no back seats or enclosed trunk) and not as good as a truck (small bed, wimpy car chassis). GM in that era was a tragically unimaginative company which very predictably produced a vehicle that proved you can combine a car and a truck, but not that you should.
Attach a keyboard with trackpad and the system transitions to a macOS UX. Add external mouse and external keyboard via Bluetooth and the system transitions to macOS. Do none of that: iPad OS. Just to make this happen they need to rename the Files app to Finder and add the other missing apps such as Calculator and Dictionary and Terminal and Text Edit etc. And on the Mac replace Automator with Shortcuts. Users could literally run macOS after attaching to their magic keyboard and they could pull the iPad off the magnets and it would seamlessly switch back to iPadOS.
Its vastly more complex than that, but even the UI transition you mention there is a night-mare. And not all apps are being made for both platforms, nor should they be.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
The only reason? You have no idea of the technical differences between the macOS and iOs. Or how kludgy a solution of connecting a keyboard and seeing your screen totally change ( is it a reboot by the way), some of your apps not working at all, and entire changes to how you have to work. And where are all the ports going to go, into the wireless keyboard?
Attach a keyboard with trackpad and the system transitions to a macOS UX.
What are we attaching to what now? A keyboard to an iPad touch screen? Great, then Mac OS boots up. But what if I want a bigger screen, or to connect multiple dongles. At the moment the ports are on the keyboard in the laptop.
And your transition? Explain the UX there. You are on the iPad playing with Office and then it reboots into Mac OS, somehow and magically, and you are still able to work on Office, but what if it is not installed. And do you expect running two Oses is going to work?
There is no need for this, no customer demand for it, and no benefit to Apple. It is dead in the water. Apple is diverging its operating systems not merging them.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
I'm not a fan of cars comparison, but since you post about it, let's go with it. You gave an example of what a "2-in-1" car shouldn't be. At the same time, there are cars that are an excellent example of what "2-in-1" car is. Just look at the Lamborghini Urus, the MB G63 AMG and the Porsche Macan / Cayenne. Are they as good as a sport car as an Aventador, MB AMG GT or the Porche 911? Definitely not. And they are neither as good for off-road as other cars. But they still excellent vehicles. 2-in-1 devices are not perfect, but neither notebooks or tablets. Each one of them have it's advantages and disadvantages. When you see Apple copying / adding features from the Surface to the iPad, we could think that MS is doing something right, don't you think?
It’s not that combining different devices is inherently a bad thing. It’s that combining things just because you can isn’t reason enough that you should. The iPhone combined a cellphone, iPod, blackberry, palm pilot, and a gps all in one device, dispensing with the keyboard, stylus and other unnecessary elements into something that worked better than any of those individual elements.
All the clamoring for combining the iPad and MacBook is about doing something unartful, if obvious, these proponents will insist, simply because you can. So no metaphor is perfect, but I thought of the El Camino because it’s the obvious implementation of a car/truck combo that’s ugly, and not as good as a car (no back seats or enclosed trunk) and not as good as a truck (small bed, wimpy car chassis). GM in that era was a tragically unimaginative company which very predictably produced a vehicle that proved you can combine a car and a truck, but not that you should.
I understand your point. But don't you think that, maybe, Apple already gave us their version of "El Camino" by releasing the Magic Keyboard for the iPad Pro? How good is a touch first device with touch optimized apps running as a laptop? I suppose it couldn't be that good.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Once they switched to Intel they have been running generic for years. Those machines could switch between MacOS and Windows 10 quite simply and easily.
Now, they can't do that with WIndows anymore. But there seems little reason that iPadOS and MacOS couldn't be made to run on either machine since they both use the same basic hardware.
By your logic, Apple should’ve opened up MacOS to run on any Intel-based computer, because those are all the same basic hardware.
This of course is the exact thing you are determined not to acknowledge. Apple does not write operating systems for generic machines. They were often criticized in this very peanut gallery for releasing new Macs that didn’t have the absolute newest intel chip in them. This is because they write MacOS for specific hardware in specific configurations. The newest intel chip that came out the same week as that new Mac hadn’t been in the pipeline long enough to incorporate it into the hardware and software that was being developed in concert. It’s not a generic good enough swap. (It is for Windows, maybe, but not for Apple.) This was also a driver for Apple to make its own silicon, allowing more control over all those things coming together in each new hardware/software combo, created all at once.
Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well enough.
Microsoft already makes the device you want, to the good enough generic specs that you desire. Please buy one.
So, when you lost the hardware argument you switched to software.
And with your statement: "Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the
rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well
enough."
But who said it could or should? Except the strawman.
The discussion was over how the iPad could be improved because it is now able to run MacOS.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
The only reason? You have no idea of the technical differences between the macOS and iOs. Or how kludgy a solution of connecting a keyboard and seeing your screen totally change ( is it a reboot by the way), some of your apps not working at all, and entire changes to how you have to work. And where are all the ports going to go, into the wireless keyboard?
He does understand the difference. That's why, because they are now essentially the same hardware, either OS should able to run effectively on either machine. While nobody is suggesting that (a weak) iPadOS run on Macs, letting the M1 iPad switch to MacOS when it is in laptop configuration would significantly increase its power, flexibility and appeal.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Wow, a cuck!
What a way to advertise yourself as someone not worth listening to. Bravo!
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Once they switched to Intel they have been running generic for years. Those machines could switch between MacOS and Windows 10 quite simply and easily.
Now, they can't do that with WIndows anymore. But there seems little reason that iPadOS and MacOS couldn't be made to run on either machine since they both use the same basic hardware.
By your logic, Apple should’ve opened up MacOS to run on any Intel-based computer, because those are all the same basic hardware.
This of course is the exact thing you are determined not to acknowledge. Apple does not write operating systems for generic machines. They were often criticized in this very peanut gallery for releasing new Macs that didn’t have the absolute newest intel chip in them. This is because they write MacOS for specific hardware in specific configurations. The newest intel chip that came out the same week as that new Mac hadn’t been in the pipeline long enough to incorporate it into the hardware and software that was being developed in concert. It’s not a generic good enough swap. (It is for Windows, maybe, but not for Apple.) This was also a driver for Apple to make its own silicon, allowing more control over all those things coming together in each new hardware/software combo, created all at once.
Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well enough.
Microsoft already makes the device you want, to the good enough generic specs that you desire. Please buy one.
So, when you lost the hardware argument you switched to software.
And with your statement: "Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the
rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well
enough."
But who said it could or should? Except the strawman.
The discussion was over how the iPad could be improved because it is now able to run MacOS.
1. You understand your pronouncements of who “won” or “lost” arguments is just your own opinion, right?
2. You understand that just because you look at your pronouncement that because the iPad Pro has the M1 in it, it is now able to run MacOS is also just your opinion, right?
Your assumed separation of hardware and software into different “arguments” lies at the root of your folly. Even with the M1 processor, the iPad Pro’s hardware is designed to run on iPadOS. I’m just repeating the things you ignore so you can declare yourself the “winner,” now, but Apple designs these things together, at the same time. They don’t create generic hardware and generic OS software and slap them together at the end of the production line right before the shrink wrap goes on. Your fantasy narrative assumes that they do, and therefore things are interchangeable when they aren’t.
Finally the real point is that even if a hacker could show that MacOS would indeed load on an M1 iPad and perform some basic functions, that still wouldn’t prove much. That’s not how Apple’s model works. People create hackintosh machines that run MacOS on third-party hardware, but that doesn’t mean it works well, and absolutely does not mean that Apple is planning to sell MacOS for that purpose.
Apple didn’t write MacOS to run an iPad with a touch screen and a magic keyboard, so there would be unanticipated variables that wouldn’t function or would even crash. Apple doesn’t write generic bloatware operating systems that try to anticipate an array of possible hardware variants not intentionally designed into the system. That’s why they don’t sell MacOS as a stand-alone product, and why their own gear functions at a high standard with few crashes and almost never a compatibility error.
So no, nobody made you the argument referee, and no, just because you say it works does not actually mean it will work.
Also, no, just because you say Apple should do something, it doesn’t mean that they will, especially when they go out of their way to say, no, they won’t. If anyone gets to be argument referee for this one, it’s the Apple execs who are saying no, they won’t.
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Once they switched to Intel they have been running generic for years. Those machines could switch between MacOS and Windows 10 quite simply and easily.
Now, they can't do that with WIndows anymore. But there seems little reason that iPadOS and MacOS couldn't be made to run on either machine since they both use the same basic hardware.
By your logic, Apple should’ve opened up MacOS to run on any Intel-based computer, because those are all the same basic hardware.
This of course is the exact thing you are determined not to acknowledge. Apple does not write operating systems for generic machines. They were often criticized in this very peanut gallery for releasing new Macs that didn’t have the absolute newest intel chip in them. This is because they write MacOS for specific hardware in specific configurations. The newest intel chip that came out the same week as that new Mac hadn’t been in the pipeline long enough to incorporate it into the hardware and software that was being developed in concert. It’s not a generic good enough swap. (It is for Windows, maybe, but not for Apple.) This was also a driver for Apple to make its own silicon, allowing more control over all those things coming together in each new hardware/software combo, created all at once.
Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well enough.
Microsoft already makes the device you want, to the good enough generic specs that you desire. Please buy one.
So, when you lost the hardware argument you switched to software.
And with your statement: "Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the
rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well
enough."
But who said it could or should? Except the strawman.
The discussion was over how the iPad could be improved because it is now able to run MacOS.
1. You understand your pronouncements of who “won” or “lost” arguments is just your own opinion, right?
2. You understand that just because you look at your pronouncement that because the iPad Pro has the M1 in it, it is now able to run MacOS is also just your opinion, right?
Your assumed separation of hardware and software into different “arguments” lies at the root of your folly. Even with the M1 processor, the iPad Pro’s hardware is designed to run on iPadOS. I’m just repeating the things you ignore so you can declare yourself the “winner,” now, but Apple designs these things together, at the same time. They don’t create generic hardware and generic OS software and slap them together at the end of the production line right before the shrink wrap goes on. Your fantasy narrative assumes that they do, and therefore things are interchangeable when they aren’t.
Finally the real point is that even if a hacker could show that MacOS would indeed load on an M1 iPad and perform some basic functions, that still wouldn’t prove much. That’s not how Apple’s model works. People create hackintosh machines that run MacOS on third-party hardware, but that doesn’t mean it works well, and absolutely does not mean that Apple is planning to sell MacOS for that purpose.
Apple didn’t write MacOS to run an iPad with a touch screen and a magic keyboard, so there would be unanticipated variables that wouldn’t function or would even crash. Apple doesn’t write generic bloatware operating systems that try to anticipate an array of possible hardware variants not intentionally designed into the system. That’s why they don’t sell MacOS as a stand-alone product, and why their own gear functions at a high standard with few crashes and almost never a compatibility error.
So no, nobody made you the argument referee, and no, just because you say it works does not actually mean it will work.
Also, no, just because you say Apple should do something, it doesn’t mean that they will, especially when they go out of their way to say, no, they won’t. If anyone gets to be argument referee for this one, it’s the Apple execs who are saying no, they won’t.
So, what is it about iPad hardware running the Mac's M1 chip that prevents or limits it from running MacOS?
I don't know man. This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing. Right up until the moment they introduce the thing. I just feel like MacOS has been slowly but surely iOSified (iPadOSified if you will) more and more. Could I just be reinforcing my preconceived notions with non-coincidental coincidences? Probably. Likely.
It hasn’t tho. They’ve added a couple things on the surface, like the notifications center. But fundamentally Mac computing is a different use case and user experience.
They’ve been saying this perfectly clearly for years now. Does that mean there will never be a next-thing? No. But Jos was clear, just like Craig was clear.
You really like using that graphic huh? As for the OS unification, I freely admit I could be wrong and admitted as much in the comment you quoted. The clarity of their statements means little in this circumstance though. Previous declarations about different things were just as emphatic, right up to the point they weren't. As I said, it's just a feeling. It's not a prognostication or anything grand. If it turns out I'm wrong, no big deal. If it turns out I'm right I'm an omniscient all seeing God. I can live with either outcome.
They weren't nearly as emphatic. And the market around them changed in some cases. So if another company like MS, or Samsung produced a hybrid device that was actually useful then they would think about it. For now they clearly mean what they have said. Its not like they are not trying to make cross ( Apple) platform coding easier, they are working full belt on that, SwiftUI being the most portable. In the middle of these efforts they are clearly saying - no merging.
And the history of the operating systems that Apple produces is one of divergence, not convergence. From OS X, to iOS, iPad Os, watchOS and tvOS.
George is absolutely correct on this topic. He is NOT asking for merging the iOS and MacOS. He is simply expecting 2 different OSes to run in same hardware which is very much capable of doing that (M1 iPad Pro) in different scenarios, based on user selection. There is NOTHING out of ordinary in that ask from George. It is a perfectly valid expectation.
IF Apple does not take this path, the ONLY reason would be shareholder's interest - i.e. sell 2 devices to customers to increase revenue instead of selling 1 device which is capable of performing both the functions (tablet & laptop) equally well. If that is the decision that Apple takes, then that would be a bad move on the part of Apple. We will have to wait and see which way they go.
No, it's not a "perfectly valid expectation." Apple designs their hardware and operating systems concurrently as single units. They don't create generic hardware to run whatever you want to put on it. This is why their devices work as well as they do. Slapping MacOS into an iPad because some guy on a message board insists that it ought to work ok is ridiculous. It's not about greedily selling two devices instead of one. It's about not selling mismatched devices that undermine their entire business model just because some small segment of the market can't get past their fantasy narrative of "what Apple should do."
Once they switched to Intel they have been running generic for years. Those machines could switch between MacOS and Windows 10 quite simply and easily.
Now, they can't do that with WIndows anymore. But there seems little reason that iPadOS and MacOS couldn't be made to run on either machine since they both use the same basic hardware.
By your logic, Apple should’ve opened up MacOS to run on any Intel-based computer, because those are all the same basic hardware.
This of course is the exact thing you are determined not to acknowledge. Apple does not write operating systems for generic machines. They were often criticized in this very peanut gallery for releasing new Macs that didn’t have the absolute newest intel chip in them. This is because they write MacOS for specific hardware in specific configurations. The newest intel chip that came out the same week as that new Mac hadn’t been in the pipeline long enough to incorporate it into the hardware and software that was being developed in concert. It’s not a generic good enough swap. (It is for Windows, maybe, but not for Apple.) This was also a driver for Apple to make its own silicon, allowing more control over all those things coming together in each new hardware/software combo, created all at once.
Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well enough.
Microsoft already makes the device you want, to the good enough generic specs that you desire. Please buy one.
So, when you lost the hardware argument you switched to software.
And with your statement: "Just because the new iPad Pro has the M1 chip in it doesn’t mean the
rest of the device is a superfluous box that will run any OS well
enough."
But who said it could or should? Except the strawman.
The discussion was over how the iPad could be improved because it is now able to run MacOS.
1. You understand your pronouncements of who “won” or “lost” arguments is just your own opinion, right?
2. You understand that just because you look at your pronouncement that because the iPad Pro has the M1 in it, it is now able to run MacOS is also just your opinion, right?
Your assumed separation of hardware and software into different “arguments” lies at the root of your folly. Even with the M1 processor, the iPad Pro’s hardware is designed to run on iPadOS. I’m just repeating the things you ignore so you can declare yourself the “winner,” now, but Apple designs these things together, at the same time. They don’t create generic hardware and generic OS software and slap them together at the end of the production line right before the shrink wrap goes on. Your fantasy narrative assumes that they do, and therefore things are interchangeable when they aren’t.
Finally the real point is that even if a hacker could show that MacOS would indeed load on an M1 iPad and perform some basic functions, that still wouldn’t prove much. That’s not how Apple’s model works. People create hackintosh machines that run MacOS on third-party hardware, but that doesn’t mean it works well, and absolutely does not mean that Apple is planning to sell MacOS for that purpose.
Apple didn’t write MacOS to run an iPad with a touch screen and a magic keyboard, so there would be unanticipated variables that wouldn’t function or would even crash. Apple doesn’t write generic bloatware operating systems that try to anticipate an array of possible hardware variants not intentionally designed into the system. That’s why they don’t sell MacOS as a stand-alone product, and why their own gear functions at a high standard with few crashes and almost never a compatibility error.
So no, nobody made you the argument referee, and no, just because you say it works does not actually mean it will work.
Also, no, just because you say Apple should do something, it doesn’t mean that they will, especially when they go out of their way to say, no, they won’t. If anyone gets to be argument referee for this one, it’s the Apple execs who are saying no, they won’t.
So, what is it about iPad hardware running the Mac's M1 chip that prevents or limits it from running MacOS?
What component does it lack?
I wouldn’t know, and I expect neither would you. Re-read the above. I don’t think it’s necessary to explain it again.
So, what is it about iPad hardware running the Mac's M1 chip that prevents or limits it from running MacOS?
What component does it lack?
Absolutely nothing. There is no reason why Apple wouldn't be able (with some effort) to get macOS running on an iPad. The same has been true since iPad came out, and isn't significantly more true now.
Hate to say it after your lengthy post... but the Big Sur UI would like a word.
The OS is quite a small part of the user interaction. This is the problem with devices like the Surface - they are really laptops with a touchscreen and not tablets that are designed around the requirement of being fully optimal using a finger. Jumping around parts of the OS can be manageable but as soon as a mouse-optimal app is opened, it will at some point require the use of a stylus or mouse. Most people use Surface products like laptops as the following video describes:
While Big Sur may be designed better for touch, Mac apps still aren't. There's a video where they put Big Sur on a touchscreen laptop (5:45) and some of the UI elements certainly look more optimal for touch:
But the apps haven't changed. All menu interaction would be clumsy, the windowed mode too.
If they did allow the Mac to run on an iPad, they might use the circular cursor instead of the arrow and the Big Sur UI would work better for that. If that was the Mac default, it would encourage Mac developers to make software more touch-optimal and more easily ported.
The ideal scenario is that the iPad doesn't need to run a different OS and that all Macs apps are made optimal for touch but as long as major apps like Final Cut and Xcode remain missing from iPads, people will still have to buy a Mac that sits idle most of the time for people who use iPads as their primary device. For people who use Macs as a primary device, having a supplementary iPad is fine.
If iPads did run macOS, they could at some point be considered the biggest PC manufacturer. Usually tablets are excluded but they can't exclude it at that point:
Running the Mac system like an app inside the iPad system seems like it would be the most intuitive setup for an iPad user. You just install it as an app and install Mac apps inside its sandbox. It probably wouldn't need to boot a second system, it would just be showing the Mac UI and things like the terminal would be restricted to the Mac app sandbox. This setup would discourage people from using it instead of a Mac but it would cover the last 5-10% of usage missing from the iPad and allow students to learn all sorts of software development without restrictions. Apple's filesystem can isolate it from the rest of the iPad system.
Comments
You also mentioned the "toaster / fridge". Isn't the iPad + Magic Keyboard a "toaster / Fridge"? We have a device with a touch UI and touch optimized app with a keyboard + trackpad. Didn't Apple said this was a bad idea, and terrible from an ergonomic POV?
Apple Exec Unwittingly Explains Why IPad Is a Bad Computer Replacement (businessinsider.com)
I have a Surface Pro 4, a MBP and an iPad, and it's clear that there is no perfect device. Each one of them have advantages / disadvantages over the other. But at the same time, I think the three of them are excellent.
macOS should also be continually refined too. It's been 30 years, so, no low hanging fruit anymore. I think they should make distributed computing a more natural and easy thing to do for developers and users. You have a Mac mini and want faster video transcode times? Add a second Mac mini, connect it with 40 Gbit/s Ethernet over TB to the first one, and the software automatically distributes the transcode task across the 2 machines, or more. I think they should look into keyboards some. The keyboard is a primary input device, and they could build Macs around them, such as a laptop with a hot swappable mechanical keyboard.
I do agree with what they are saying. Make the best possible tablet. Make the best possible PC. That necessarily means a different UI as the input devices are different. They just need to move faster, make both OSes more featured.
The only reason? You have no idea of the technical differences between the macOS and iOs. Or how kludgy a solution of connecting a keyboard and seeing your screen totally change ( is it a reboot by the way), some of your apps not working at all, and entire changes to how you have to work. And where are all the ports going to go, into the wireless keyboard?
What are we attaching to what now? A keyboard to an iPad touch screen? Great, then Mac OS boots up. But what if I want a bigger screen, or to connect multiple dongles. At the moment the ports are on the keyboard in the laptop.
And your transition? Explain the UX there. You are on the iPad playing with Office and then it reboots into Mac OS, somehow and magically, and you are still able to work on Office, but what if it is not installed. And do you expect running two Oses is going to work?
There is no need for this, no customer demand for it, and no benefit to Apple. It is dead in the water. Apple is diverging its operating systems not merging them.
Wow, a cuck!
He does understand the difference. That's why, because they are now essentially the same hardware, either OS should able to run effectively on either machine. While nobody is suggesting that (a weak) iPadOS run on Macs, letting the M1 iPad switch to MacOS when it is in laptop configuration would significantly increase its power, flexibility and appeal.
What a way to advertise yourself as someone not worth listening to. Bravo!
2. You understand that just because you look at your pronouncement that because the iPad Pro has the M1 in it, it is now able to run MacOS is also just your opinion, right?
But Apple don't want to do that. Why would they?
While Big Sur may be designed better for touch, Mac apps still aren't. There's a video where they put Big Sur on a touchscreen laptop (5:45) and some of the UI elements certainly look more optimal for touch:
But the apps haven't changed. All menu interaction would be clumsy, the windowed mode too.
If they did allow the Mac to run on an iPad, they might use the circular cursor instead of the arrow and the Big Sur UI would work better for that. If that was the Mac default, it would encourage Mac developers to make software more touch-optimal and more easily ported.
The ideal scenario is that the iPad doesn't need to run a different OS and that all Macs apps are made optimal for touch but as long as major apps like Final Cut and Xcode remain missing from iPads, people will still have to buy a Mac that sits idle most of the time for people who use iPads as their primary device. For people who use Macs as a primary device, having a supplementary iPad is fine.
If iPads did run macOS, they could at some point be considered the biggest PC manufacturer. Usually tablets are excluded but they can't exclude it at that point:
https://macdailynews.com/2020/11/12/canalys-apple-no-2-in-worldwide-pc-market-share/
Running the Mac system like an app inside the iPad system seems like it would be the most intuitive setup for an iPad user. You just install it as an app and install Mac apps inside its sandbox. It probably wouldn't need to boot a second system, it would just be showing the Mac UI and things like the terminal would be restricted to the Mac app sandbox. This setup would discourage people from using it instead of a Mac but it would cover the last 5-10% of usage missing from the iPad and allow students to learn all sorts of software development without restrictions. Apple's filesystem can isolate it from the rest of the iPad system.