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.
No it wouldn't. FFS. Can you even try to engage with the UX issues I mentioned above. What exactly do you mean by "switch to macOS". What kind of anti-technical voodoo is that. A merging of the two OSes would make more sense. But neither makes much sense.
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.
I did read it. You suggested it wouldn't run. But a lot of people do not agree with that because the two have compatible hardware. So, since you didn't say why you don't think it would run or which parts are not compatible, I simply asked the question.
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.
But Apple don't want to do that. Why would they?
Until recently -- when Apple ported MacOS to the M1 chip then replaced the A series chip in the iPad with an M1 -- it may have been theoretically possible but not really feasible because MacOS would not run on an ARM based processor. Now that both Macs and the M1 iPad run the same processor it becomes much more feasible and practical.
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.
I think he was suggesting that, instead of the OS's being merged that the iPad switch to MacOS when in laptop mode and back to iPadOS when in tablet mode. That way there would be a perfect match of form factor and OS. That would make the iPad the complete functional match of a MacBook when in laptop mode-- but without the ports and such.
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.
No it wouldn't. FFS. Can you even try to engage with the UX issues I mentioned above. What exactly do you mean by "switch to macOS". What kind of anti-technical voodoo is that. A merging of the two OSes would make more sense. But neither makes much sense.
It seems that you are assuming it would be a merged OS.
But what has been suggested here is that the OS is not merged but that it switches with the hardware.
There would be no UX issues. It would be a laptop running a laptop OS -- OR -- a tablet running a tablet OS (depending on the mode being used: laptop or tablet)
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.
No it wouldn't. FFS. Can you even try to engage with the UX issues I mentioned above. What exactly do you mean by "switch to macOS". What kind of anti-technical voodoo is that. A merging of the two OSes would make more sense. But neither makes much sense.
It seems that you are assuming it would be a merged OS.
But what has been suggested here is that the OS is not merged but that it switches with the hardware.
There would be no UX issues. It would be a laptop running a laptop OS -- OR -- a tablet running a tablet OS (depending on the mode being used: laptop or tablet)
Look, a refrigerator! But wait, turn it this way, attach the spring lever and little “darkness” knob, and pow! You have a toaster! Hold on. Wait for it to boot up. Wait. The ice maker has to drain first. Hang on... O.K.! Now, you have a toaster!
What? You want to get the butter ready while you’re making toast? Right. Take the knob and the lever off. Right. Now, turn it back this way. Hold on. It needs a few minutes for the compressor to start back up. Hold on. Hold on. Ok. Now you have a refrigerator! Looks like the butter’s fallen out of the door and slid back behind these broken bottles. Here it is. Ok. Now turn it back the other way. Put the lever and knob back on. Boot up. The ice maker only has a little water to drain this time. Right. Hold on. Back to toaster!
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
Nice links there Marvin.
The Surface Pro video was frustrating as the YouTuber didn't go all the way and use the Surface Pro with fingers install of either a mouse or trackpad and keyboard as he was narrating the video. MS Windows' tablet mode has very similar app window management UI and software keyboard UI features as iPadOS, but looks to be implemented worse. That onscreen keyboard was nails on a chalkboard. Ugh.
For iPad Pros, hopefully Apple stays committed to making everything on an iPad touch-first, especially the onscreen keyboard and hopefully an onscreen trackpad controlling a pointer comes soon too. They really need to continually refine the onscreen keyboard features.
And yes, my impression of Surface Pro usage is that they are all used as laptops. The ratio of keyboards to Surface Pros is likely greater than 1. Ie, for every Surface Pro, there is more than 1 keyboard for it. For iPads, maybe 20%? A large majority of iPad owners don't have a keyboard accessory.
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.
But Apple don't want to do that. Why would they?
Until recently -- when Apple ported MacOS to the M1 chip then replaced the A series chip in the iPad with an M1 -- it may have been theoretically possible but not really feasible because MacOS would not run on an ARM based processor. Now that both Macs and the M1 iPad run the same processor it becomes much more feasible and practical.
It comes with some nice upsides. Someone can be sitting on a sofa, open the Mac mode and start up games like Tomb Raider, which runs pretty well on M1 and Airplay it to an Apple TV - StarCraft, Civilization, Hitman, Deus Ex, Dota, Batman, Warcraft, Sims, Witcher. Mac games would be much easier to put onto a TV from an iPad and it increases the audience for those games. The iPad install base is about 3x the Mac, probably over 400 million users. Most will be lower-end models but the Pro models must be close to the Mac in number. It would be like this but running native instead of streamed:
Given that macOS doesn't need to be rebooted to run iPad apps, I'd assume the same can be done for Mac apps running under iPad OS. They'd just be run in some kind of sandboxed environment and possibly default to fullscreen mode for each app.
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."
Or a different merging of a car and Truck would be the SUV which Are extremely popular with Americans.
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."
Or a different merging of a car and Truck would be the SUV which Are extremely popular with Americans.
Australia has UTE's, which are analogous to the car with beds, like the Ford Ranchero, and Chevrolet El Camino, and there are some SUV's that have this, but it isn't the defining feature.
Regarding the OP, I doubt that Apple will even consider a 2 in 1 until long after they have fully transition to Apple Silicon, and if it does happen, it will be new product category sitting between Mac Book Air/Mac Book Pro's, and the iPad. Heck, I'd expect an Folding iPhone Pro with USB4 long before a 2 in 1, and I'd be skeptical if that will ever happen either.
That's a nice way of stating that Mac OS will never run on an iPad. iPad is best in its class, tablets, and Apple won't want to risk that.
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.
No it wouldn't. FFS. Can you even try to engage with the UX issues I mentioned above. What exactly do you mean by "switch to macOS". What kind of anti-technical voodoo is that. A merging of the two OSes would make more sense. But neither makes much sense.
It seems that you are assuming it would be a merged OS.
But what has been suggested here is that the OS is not merged but that it switches with the hardware.
There would be no UX issues. It would be a laptop running a laptop OS -- OR -- a tablet running a tablet OS (depending on the mode being used: laptop or tablet)
Look, a refrigerator! But wait, turn it this way, attach the spring lever and little “darkness” knob, and pow! You have a toaster! Hold on. Wait for it to boot up. Wait. The ice maker has to drain first. Hang on... O.K.! Now, you have a toaster!
What? You want to get the butter ready while you’re making toast? Right. Take the knob and the lever off. Right. Now, turn it back this way. Hold on. It needs a few minutes for the compressor to start back up. Hold on. Hold on. Ok. Now you have a refrigerator! Looks like the butter’s fallen out of the door and slid back behind these broken bottles. Here it is. Ok. Now turn it back the other way. Put the lever and knob back on. Boot up. The ice maker only has a little water to drain this time. Right. Hold on. Back to toaster!
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."
Or a different merging of a car and Truck would be the SUV which Are extremely popular with Americans.
Australia has UTE's, which are analogous to the car with beds, like the Ford Ranchero, and Chevrolet El Camino, and there are some SUV's that have this, but it isn't the defining feature.
Regarding the OP, I doubt that Apple will even consider a 2 in 1 until long after they have fully transition to Apple Silicon, and if it does happen, it will be new product category sitting between Mac Book Air/Mac Book Pro's, and the iPad. Heck, I'd expect an Folding iPhone Pro with USB4 long before a 2 in 1, and I'd be skeptical if that will ever happen either.
That's a nice way of stating that Mac OS will never run on an iPad. iPad is best in its class, tablets, and Apple won't want to risk that.
Apple already has a 2 in 1. It's the iPad Pro with its Magic Keyboard. The trouble is they have not upgraded the OS to be as powerful as that of MacOS or Windows. But that is a very fixable problem and they seem to be working on it -- chugging along slowly but steadily.
But, as has been pointed out, they now also have the option of switching to MacOS when the device is in laptop mode and then back to iPadOS when it's in tablet mode.
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.
IMO, most people use the Surface as laptops because the issue of lack of apps. I have tried some touch optimized apps (Netflix, MS Office Mobile, Drawboard PDF) and they work very well. I see no difference between my iPad and my Surface while using Netflix or browsing. But since there are so few apps, I kills the overall experience. That's different from iPadOS, and it's long list of apps.
And while I think that the iPad is the best tablet, I also think that the Surface is a better device when you attach the keyboard. As the video you posted explains, the keyboard + trackpad make many tasks easier. And the experience you have with keyboard + trackpad in Windows 10 in a Surface is far better than iPadOS.
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
Nice links there Marvin.
The Surface Pro video was frustrating as the YouTuber didn't go all the way and use the Surface Pro with fingers install of either a mouse or trackpad and keyboard as he was narrating the video. MS Windows' tablet mode has very similar app window management UI and software keyboard UI features as iPadOS, but looks to be implemented worse. That onscreen keyboard was nails on a chalkboard. Ugh.
In the video the reviewer mentions that lack of apps is a big issue, and I agree with him. But the few usable apps are very good, same as Window 10 tablet mode. Even Apple copies some elements, like side-by-side apps / multitasking. But like you mention, as a whole, iPadOS is better in tablet mode.
For iPad Pros, hopefully Apple stays committed to making everything on an iPad touch-first, especially the onscreen keyboard and hopefully an onscreen trackpad controlling a pointer comes soon too. They really need to continually refine the onscreen keyboard features.
And yes, my impression of Surface Pro usage is that they are all used as laptops. The ratio of keyboards to Surface Pros is likely greater than 1. Ie, for every Surface Pro, there is more than 1 keyboard for it. For iPads, maybe 20%? A large majority of iPad owners don't have a keyboard accessory.
I think most users use the keyboard + trackpad for two reasons, lack of touch optimized apps, and that keyboard + trackpad is a better option than a touchscreen for many tasks. Working with large documents or complex spreadsheets is far better with keyboard + trackpad than with touch. And that's where you see a better experience in the Surface Pro, even over the iPad + Magic Keyboard. The Surface have the advantage of having full desktop apps and better multitasking. IMO, the iPad is a better tablet device, but as soon as you add a keyboard + trackpad, the Surface Pro becomes the better device.
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.
But Apple don't want to do that. Why would they?
Until recently -- when Apple ported MacOS to the M1 chip then replaced the A series chip in the iPad with an M1 -- it may have been theoretically possible but not really feasible because MacOS would not run on an ARM based processor. Now that both Macs and the M1 iPad run the same processor it becomes much more feasible and practical.
Apple did not take 10 years to port macOS to the ARM instruction set. They could have done it at any time. They didn't, because they didn't want macOS on the iPad. I doubt very much that anything has changed in that regard. It's always been feasible, and practicality has nothing to with it. Apple's willingness is the only thing that matters, and they have shown zero.
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."
Or a different merging of a car and Truck would be the SUV which Are extremely popular with Americans.
Australia has UTE's, which are analogous to the car with beds, like the Ford Ranchero, and Chevrolet El Camino, and there are some SUV's that have this, but it isn't the defining feature.
Regarding the OP, I doubt that Apple will even consider a 2 in 1 until long after they have fully transition to Apple Silicon, and if it does happen, it will be new product category sitting between Mac Book Air/Mac Book Pro's, and the iPad. Heck, I'd expect an Folding iPhone Pro with USB4 long before a 2 in 1, and I'd be skeptical if that will ever happen either.
That's a nice way of stating that Mac OS will never run on an iPad. iPad is best in its class, tablets, and Apple won't want to risk that.
Apple already has a 2 in 1. It's the iPad Pro with its Magic Keyboard. The trouble is they have not upgraded the OS to be as powerful as that of MacOS or Windows. But that is a very fixable problem and they seem to be working on it -- chugging along slowly but steadily.
But, as has been pointed out, they now also have the option of switching to MacOS when the device is in laptop mode and then back to iPadOS when it's in tablet mode.
Apple has a number of ways to go there.
Apple doesn't consider that iPad w/keyboard to be a hybrid. They still market it as iPad + accessory, so while you may think that "Apple has a number of ways to go there", I'm thinking, any future 2 in 1 is going to be a new product. Whether that implies Mac OS, is unknown to us; maybe it will be an entirely new OS derived from Mac OS.
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
Nice links there Marvin.
The Surface Pro video was frustrating as the YouTuber didn't go all the way and use the Surface Pro with fingers install of either a mouse or trackpad and keyboard as he was narrating the video. MS Windows' tablet mode has very similar app window management UI and software keyboard UI features as iPadOS, but looks to be implemented worse. That onscreen keyboard was nails on a chalkboard. Ugh.
In the video the reviewer mentions that lack of apps is a big issue, and I agree with him. But the few usable apps are very good, same as Window 10 tablet mode. Even Apple copies some elements, like side-by-side apps / multitasking. But like you mention, as a whole, iPadOS is better in tablet mode.
For iPad Pros, hopefully Apple stays committed to making everything on an iPad touch-first, especially the onscreen keyboard and hopefully an onscreen trackpad controlling a pointer comes soon too. They really need to continually refine the onscreen keyboard features.
And yes, my impression of Surface Pro usage is that they are all used as laptops. The ratio of keyboards to Surface Pros is likely greater than 1. Ie, for every Surface Pro, there is more than 1 keyboard for it. For iPads, maybe 20%? A large majority of iPad owners don't have a keyboard accessory.
I think most users use the keyboard + trackpad for two reasons, lack of touch optimized apps, and that keyboard + trackpad is a better option than a touchscreen for many tasks. Working with large documents or complex spreadsheets is far better with keyboard + trackpad than with touch. And that's where you see a better experience in the Surface Pro, even over the iPad + Magic Keyboard. The Surface have the advantage of having full desktop apps and better multitasking. IMO, the iPad is a better tablet device, but as soon as you add a keyboard + trackpad, the Surface Pro becomes the better device.
Yet, Apple seems to have the advantage in that they have already moved to ARM, and in a big way, and MS is still trying to figure out how to get developers to "move on" to ARM.
MS has an $8B to $10B a year business in Surface, which pales against Apple's iPad. Sure, there are a lot of third party 2 in 1's, but until MS can fully transition to ARM and at the same time, take advantage of all of that legacy x86 software, I'm not seeing much movement.
Here's a link to a take on Apple's ubiquitous M1, vs the myriad SKU's for processor variants in X86 products.
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.
No it wouldn't. FFS. Can you even try to engage with the UX issues I mentioned above. What exactly do you mean by "switch to macOS". What kind of anti-technical voodoo is that. A merging of the two OSes would make more sense. But neither makes much sense.
It seems that you are assuming it would be a merged OS.
But what has been suggested here is that the OS is not merged but that it switches with the hardware.
There would be no UX issues. It would be a laptop running a laptop OS -- OR -- a tablet running a tablet OS (depending on the mode being used: laptop or tablet)
Look, a refrigerator! But wait, turn it this way, attach the spring lever and little “darkness” knob, and pow! You have a toaster! Hold on. Wait for it to boot up. Wait. The ice maker has to drain first. Hang on... O.K.! Now, you have a toaster!
What? You want to get the butter ready while you’re making toast? Right. Take the knob and the lever off. Right. Now, turn it back this way. Hold on. It needs a few minutes for the compressor to start back up. Hold on. Hold on. Ok. Now you have a refrigerator! Looks like the butter’s fallen out of the door and slid back behind these broken bottles. Here it is. Ok. Now turn it back the other way. Put the lever and knob back on. Boot up. The ice maker only has a little water to drain this time. Right. Hold on. Back to toaster!
Genius. Why didn’t Apple think of this first?
That's a false analogy. But, nice try!
Oh, but it is. It speaks to the interrupted workflow implications that make your idea preposterous. If Apple were to do what you want (and they won’t), it would be universally panned for just that reason.
Currently, if you start typing something on your iPad Pro and realize it’s a bit more than you want to do with the on-screen keyboard, you can add the physical one, and you’re instantly off to the races.
Under your regime, the same action would stop what you’re doing, shut down iPadOS, boot up MacOS, and make you start all over again. The handoff feature that lets you instantly port an activity from your iPad to your Mac wouldn’t function in your scenario, because the two operating systems on your frankenpad aren’t operating at the same time. (Alternatively, if they are operating with one always in the background waiting for the switcheroo, then you’ve halved and wasted the capabilities of the hardware.) In any of these scenarios, the implementation of your frankenpad scheme is worse for the user than just having an iPad running iPadOS. It’s a silly idea you’ve cooked up as an unimaginative workaround to avoid the well-covered territory of the merged OS bloatware scenario that Apple has repeatedly said they’re not going to 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."
Or a different merging of a car and Truck would be the SUV which Are extremely popular with Americans.
Australia has UTE's, which are analogous to the car with beds, like the Ford Ranchero, and Chevrolet El Camino, and there are some SUV's that have this, but it isn't the defining feature.
Regarding the OP, I doubt that Apple will even consider a 2 in 1 until long after they have fully transition to Apple Silicon, and if it does happen, it will be new product category sitting between Mac Book Air/Mac Book Pro's, and the iPad. Heck, I'd expect an Folding iPhone Pro with USB4 long before a 2 in 1, and I'd be skeptical if that will ever happen either.
That's a nice way of stating that Mac OS will never run on an iPad. iPad is best in its class, tablets, and Apple won't want to risk that.
Apple already has a 2 in 1. It's the iPad Pro with its Magic Keyboard. The trouble is they have not upgraded the OS to be as powerful as that of MacOS or Windows. But that is a very fixable problem and they seem to be working on it -- chugging along slowly but steadily.
But, as has been pointed out, they now also have the option of switching to MacOS when the device is in laptop mode and then back to iPadOS when it's in tablet mode.
Apple has a number of ways to go there.
This is a catch-22. If Apple allows macOS on the iPad Pro when in laptop mode, the potential downside is that developers have little incentive to develop apps that are touch-first and optimized for iPadOS.
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.
But Apple don't want to do that. Why would they?
Until recently -- when Apple ported MacOS to the M1 chip then replaced the A series chip in the iPad with an M1 -- it may have been theoretically possible but not really feasible because MacOS would not run on an ARM based processor. Now that both Macs and the M1 iPad run the same processor it becomes much more feasible and practical.
Apple did not take 10 years to port macOS to the ARM instruction set. They could have done it at any time. They didn't, because they didn't want macOS on the iPad. I doubt very much that anything has changed in that regard. It's always been feasible, and practicality has nothing to with it. Apple's willingness is the only thing that matters, and they have shown zero.
You're saying that Apple held back converting the Mac to an ARM style processor because they didn't want to port MacOS to the iPad?
I don't get your logic.
The idea of dual booting either MacOS or iPadOS on the iPad comes from: 1) Like a dog, "they do it because (now) they can"
2) iPadOS is so weak once you expand out of basic tablet mode.
Comments
I did read it. You suggested it wouldn't run. But a lot of people do not agree with that because the two have compatible hardware. So, since you didn't say why you don't think it would run or which parts are not compatible, I simply asked the question.
Until recently -- when Apple ported MacOS to the M1 chip then replaced the A series chip in the iPad with an M1 -- it may have been theoretically possible but not really feasible because MacOS would not run on an ARM based processor. Now that both Macs and the M1 iPad run the same processor it becomes much more feasible and practical.
I think he was suggesting that, instead of the OS's being merged that the iPad switch to MacOS when in laptop mode and back to iPadOS when in tablet mode. That way there would be a perfect match of form factor and OS. That would make the iPad the complete functional match of a MacBook when in laptop mode-- but without the ports and such.
What? You want to get the butter ready while you’re making toast? Right. Take the knob and the lever off. Right. Now, turn it back this way. Hold on. It needs a few minutes for the compressor to start back up. Hold on. Hold on. Ok. Now you have a refrigerator! Looks like the butter’s fallen out of the door and slid back behind these broken bottles. Here it is. Ok. Now turn it back the other way. Put the lever and knob back on. Boot up. The ice maker only has a little water to drain this time. Right. Hold on. Back to toaster!
Genius. Why didn’t Apple think of this first?
The Surface Pro video was frustrating as the YouTuber didn't go all the way and use the Surface Pro with fingers install of either a mouse or trackpad and keyboard as he was narrating the video. MS Windows' tablet mode has very similar app window management UI and software keyboard UI features as iPadOS, but looks to be implemented worse. That onscreen keyboard was nails on a chalkboard. Ugh.
For iPad Pros, hopefully Apple stays committed to making everything on an iPad touch-first, especially the onscreen keyboard and hopefully an onscreen trackpad controlling a pointer comes soon too. They really need to continually refine the onscreen keyboard features.
And yes, my impression of Surface Pro usage is that they are all used as laptops. The ratio of keyboards to Surface Pros is likely greater than 1. Ie, for every Surface Pro, there is more than 1 keyboard for it. For iPads, maybe 20%? A large majority of iPad owners don't have a keyboard accessory.
Given that macOS doesn't need to be rebooted to run iPad apps, I'd assume the same can be done for Mac apps running under iPad OS. They'd just be run in some kind of sandboxed environment and possibly default to fullscreen mode for each app.
"A sport utility vehicle or SUV is a car classification that combines elements of road-going passenger cars with features from off-road vehicles, such as raised ground clearance and four-wheel drive."
Australia has UTE's, which are analogous to the car with beds, like the Ford Ranchero, and Chevrolet El Camino, and there are some SUV's that have this, but it isn't the defining feature.
Regarding the OP, I doubt that Apple will even consider a 2 in 1 until long after they have fully transition to Apple Silicon, and if it does happen, it will be new product category sitting between Mac Book Air/Mac Book Pro's, and the iPad. Heck, I'd expect an Folding iPhone Pro with USB4 long before a 2 in 1, and I'd be skeptical if that will ever happen either.
That's a nice way of stating that Mac OS will never run on an iPad. iPad is best in its class, tablets, and Apple won't want to risk that.
And while I think that the iPad is the best tablet, I also think that the Surface is a better device when you attach the keyboard. As the video you posted explains, the keyboard + trackpad make many tasks easier. And the experience you have with keyboard + trackpad in Windows 10 in a Surface is far better than iPadOS.
I think most users use the keyboard + trackpad for two reasons, lack of touch optimized apps, and that keyboard + trackpad is a better option than a touchscreen for many tasks. Working with large documents or complex spreadsheets is far better with keyboard + trackpad than with touch. And that's where you see a better experience in the Surface Pro, even over the iPad + Magic Keyboard. The Surface have the advantage of having full desktop apps and better multitasking. IMO, the iPad is a better tablet device, but as soon as you add a keyboard + trackpad, the Surface Pro becomes the better device.
Yet, Apple seems to have the advantage in that they have already moved to ARM, and in a big way, and MS is still trying to figure out how to get developers to "move on" to ARM.
MS has an $8B to $10B a year business in Surface, which pales against Apple's iPad. Sure, there are a lot of third party 2 in 1's, but until MS can fully transition to ARM and at the same time, take advantage of all of that legacy x86 software, I'm not seeing much movement.
Here's a link to a take on Apple's ubiquitous M1, vs the myriad SKU's for processor variants in X86 products.
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/322120-apples-m1-positioning-mocks-every-x86-cpu-amd-and-intel-have-ever-launched
Yeah, Apple covers 90% of its Mac market with the M1...
1) Like a dog, "they do it because (now) they can"