Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
You forgot to mention lugging multiple chargers around with you -- one for each device.
Maybe Apple should start selling wheelbarrows to go with TMay's idea of a 2 in 1?
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
You forgot to mention lugging multiple chargers around with you -- one for each device.
Maybe Apple should start selling wheelbarrows to go with TMay's idea of a 2 in 1?
Hey George,
Let me know when you spend any money at all on a new computer, especially a 2 in 1.
That will be a red letter day for all of us here.
Oh, and about the charger; the iPad Pro, iPad's, and iPhone will charge at maximum performance on up to the 140 watt charger for the 16 inch Mac Book Pro Max, so no, not any lugging around multiple chargers, and a Type C charging cable is sufficient. Or, just plug the iPad, or iPhone directly into one of the TB ports of the Mac Book Pro with the same charging cable.
Do you really have such limited scope in your life that you couldn't figure that out?
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
What do you consider a 2 in 1?
In fact, that is the crux of the dislike by George and Elijahg, that Apple isn't providing the iPad with MacOS to make it a "true" hybrid; "crippled"!
The truth, for George anyway, is that he wouldn't pay what Apple would price such a 2 in 1 at anyway. Should anyone really be using him as an example of a potential buyer?
Not at all.
So my "irritation", is that these two seem to believe that Apple isn't making a 2 in 1 because they can make more selling Mac Book Pro's and IPad's. That is almost certainly false. More likely, Apple would generate even greater revenue simply by marketing a 2 in 1 running MacOS right between the Mac Book Air and the Mac Book Pro, given that there would be a substantial number of individuals as yourself that would find the granularity of all of these devices together, even more productive.
But Apple states that they aren't going to do that, and has stated that on multiple occasions. Who to believe?
As an aside, Apple is rumored to be developing a "foldable" iPhone. Some would speculate that these would supplant iPhones for most users, but I suspect that Apple would see a substantial portion of users with both, again due to the benefits of granularity, and novelty.
So you raise a completely out of context quibble over the definition of a 2 in 1 (are you equally as confused as to the definition of a car? Hint: Both can have multiple forms!).
Then you claim that the only reason Apple won't make one is that they make more money selling two devices than only one -- which is true -- but, as has been pointed out to you, there are other reasons as well. They are equally as poor reasons, but nevertheless, other reasons.
Then you make false claims about me.
Then you go back to the bullshit that "Apple said no" -- even though it has also been pointed out to that that means essentially nothing.
Then you change the subject to iPhones.
Obviously you have no logical arguments left -- so you try to muddy the waters.
Actually, you misread my statement;
"More likely, Apple would generate even greater revenue simply by marketing a 2 in 1 running MacOS right between the Mac Book Air and the Mac Book Pro, given that there would be a substantial number of individuals as yourself that would find the granularity of all of these devices together, even more productive."
Yeah, Apple would make more money by selling a 2 in 1, alongside the Mac Book Pro, Mac Book Air, iPad, iPad Pro, and iPhone, simply because people buy these items because they want to have them work together.
Learn to read...and for the record, you are a noted cheap bastard to all here when it comes to computers...
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
That’s just a nonsensical logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you could substitute your preference for anything they say, because there’s no way to prove the negative. (Example: ask Tim Cook when the Apple Aircraft Carrier will be launched. “We’re not going to make an aircraft carrier,” he replies. “Ah ha!” you exclaim, “The denial just proves they’re going to make an aircraft carrier!”) That’s just ludicrous.
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
Well no it's not, because I'm not "substituting my preference", and I can prove they said no to tablets because it's something Jobs actually said. And a direct contradiction to your claim that what they've said will always be the case and they never change their mind. It's a demonstrable example of one of their many U turns. You're the one claiming they will never produce a 2-in-1, because they said they won't. Which is exactly what they said about tablets before they unveiled the iPad.
You have resorted to creating strawman arguments to try and dig yourself out of your hole. Please point out where I claimed the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1?
"Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?"
I suppose you can pretend that isn't a claim that "the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1," but it's a pretty clear inference. No straw men here.
Jobs wasn't keen on tablets back before the iPhone because he hated the stylus as a required input device. It's why he hated the Apple Newton that was launched and failed during his exile. The tech for an accurate multi-touch screen that accepts fingers for input had to be invented before either the iPhone or the iPad could be considered. Then an OS with a UI based entirely around multi-touch input had to be developed. Poking at menus and depending on handwriting recognition for input were all unacceptably inelegant interactions for Apple, and they still are. That's also why the 2-in-1 that you and George are incessantly clamoring for isn't going to happen. You want menus on the iPad. Nope. George has previously proposed a device that swaps between operating systems depending on which way up it is. You're both doggedly insisting on the form factor while inadvertently describing the inelegant workarounds that would be required to produce it. That inelegance is why Windows does it and Apple doesn't.
P.S. Before you claim that the Apple Pencil is a reversal of Jobs' position on the stylus, I'll stop you. The Apple Pencil is an optional accessory that is not required for input. It's a tool for specific activities like drawing or, yes, handwriting if you want, but it's not required to use an iPad. While you can use your pencil to tap at icons and such, anyone who has one quickly goes right back to using their fingers for OS-level interactions, because Jobs was right. Using a stylus for basic touchscreen input is inelegant and inefficient.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
That’s just a nonsensical logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you could substitute your preference for anything they say, because there’s no way to prove the negative. (Example: ask Tim Cook when the Apple Aircraft Carrier will be launched. “We’re not going to make an aircraft carrier,” he replies. “Ah ha!” you exclaim, “The denial just proves they’re going to make an aircraft carrier!”) That’s just ludicrous.
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
Well no it's not, because I'm not "substituting my preference", and I can prove they said no to tablets because it's something Jobs actually said. And a direct contradiction to your claim that what they've said will always be the case and they never change their mind. It's a demonstrable example of one of their many U turns. You're the one claiming they will never produce a 2-in-1, because they said they won't. Which is exactly what they said about tablets before they unveiled the iPad.
You have resorted to creating strawman arguments to try and dig yourself out of your hole. Please point out where I claimed the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1?
"Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?"
I suppose you can pretend that isn't a claim that "the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1," but it's a pretty clear inference. No straw men here.
Jobs wasn't keen on tablets back before the iPhone because he hated the stylus as a required input device. It's why he hated the Apple Newton that was launched and failed during his exile. The tech for an accurate multi-touch screen that accepts fingers for input had to be invented before either the iPhone or the iPad could be considered. Then an OS with a UI based entirely around multi-touch input had to be developed. Poking at menus and depending on handwriting recognition for input were all unacceptably inelegant interactions for Apple, and they still are. That's also why the 2-in-1 that you and George are incessantly clamoring for isn't going to happen. You want menus on the iPad. Nope. George has previously proposed a device that swaps between operating systems depending on which way up it is. You're both doggedly insisting on the form factor while inadvertently describing the inelegant workarounds that would be required to produce it. That inelegance is why Windows does it and Apple doesn't.
P.S. Before you claim that the Apple Pencil is a reversal of Jobs' position on the stylus, I'll stop you. The Apple Pencil is an optional accessory that is not required for input. It's a tool for specific activities like drawing or, yes, handwriting if you want, but it's not required to use an iPad. While you can use your pencil to tap at icons and such, anyone who has one quickly goes right back to using their fingers for OS-level interactions, because Jobs was right. Using a stylus for basic touchscreen input is inelegant and inefficient.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
You forgot to mention lugging multiple chargers around with you -- one for each device.
Maybe Apple should start selling wheelbarrows to go with TMay's idea of a 2 in 1?
Hey George,
Let me know when you spend any money at all on a new computer, especially a 2 in 1.
That will be a red letter day for all of us here.
Oh, and about the charger; the iPad Pro, iPad's, and iPhone will charge at maximum performance on up to the 140 watt charger for the 16 inch Mac Book Pro Max, so no, not any lugging around multiple chargers, and a Type C charging cable is sufficient. Or, just plug the iPad, or iPhone directly into one of the TB ports of the Mac Book Pro with the same charging cable.
Do you really have such limited scope in your life that you couldn't figure that out?
So now that you lost the debate you start with personal attacks.
You set yourself up for that by not doing your homework...yet again.
Still with personal attacks because you lost the debate?
And, yes, I was aware that high end iPads use USB-C and that the new MacBooks can use that instead of of their normal Magsafe as a backup. But, having to go to the high end of Apple's lineup only compounds the original problem.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
You forgot to mention lugging multiple chargers around with you -- one for each device.
Maybe Apple should start selling wheelbarrows to go with TMay's idea of a 2 in 1?
Hey George,
Let me know when you spend any money at all on a new computer, especially a 2 in 1.
That will be a red letter day for all of us here.
Oh, and about the charger; the iPad Pro, iPad's, and iPhone will charge at maximum performance on up to the 140 watt charger for the 16 inch Mac Book Pro Max, so no, not any lugging around multiple chargers, and a Type C charging cable is sufficient. Or, just plug the iPad, or iPhone directly into one of the TB ports of the Mac Book Pro with the same charging cable.
Do you really have such limited scope in your life that you couldn't figure that out?
So now that you lost the debate you start with personal attacks.
You set yourself up for that by not doing your homework...yet again.
Still with personal attacks because you lost the debate?
And, yes, I was aware that high end iPads use USB-C and that the new MacBooks can use that instead of of their normal Magsafe as a backup. But, having to go to the high end of Apple's lineup only compounds the original problem.
LOL!
Or, you can use a USB Type C to Lightning cable that you would need for the iPhone, and use a low cost iPad instead. Again, not that difficult to figure out.
I'd guess that there is high proportion of iPad ownership by posters here, so here's a list of devices that work with Sidecar;
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
You forgot to mention lugging multiple chargers around with you -- one for each device.
Maybe Apple should start selling wheelbarrows to go with TMay's idea of a 2 in 1?
Hey George,
Let me know when you spend any money at all on a new computer, especially a 2 in 1.
That will be a red letter day for all of us here.
Oh, and about the charger; the iPad Pro, iPad's, and iPhone will charge at maximum performance on up to the 140 watt charger for the 16 inch Mac Book Pro Max, so no, not any lugging around multiple chargers, and a Type C charging cable is sufficient. Or, just plug the iPad, or iPhone directly into one of the TB ports of the Mac Book Pro with the same charging cable.
Do you really have such limited scope in your life that you couldn't figure that out?
So now that you lost the debate you start with personal attacks.
You set yourself up for that by not doing your homework...yet again.
Still with personal attacks because you lost the debate?
And, yes, I was aware that high end iPads use USB-C and that the new MacBooks can use that instead of of their normal Magsafe as a backup. But, having to go to the high end of Apple's lineup only compounds the original problem.
1) You are not the arbiter of who “won” or “lost” “the debate.”
2) You are quite adept at launching adhominem attacks yourself, to the extent that the actual arbiters here end up deleting segments of comment threads (as with this one) because you can’t abide people disagreeing with your nonsense.
TMay obviously lost that debate so he reverted to personal attacks.
I called him out on it.
LOL
Like I said, you know personal attacks like no one else here...
For the record, can you even delineate what your debate points were?
Let me help;
Has Apple implied or stated that they would build an actual 2 in 1? Apple has repeatedly stated that they would not build a 2 in 1. Your only retort is that they have changed their minds in the past, and could do so again. I'm not seeing it.
2 in 1's can be cheap; True. You even stated that you can buy one for $699, but I doubt that it is even as powerful as a current iPad Air at about the same price.
Are 2 in 1's better than a Mac and iPad w/sidecar? Not necessarily, and depends on workflow. I have argued that the Mac and iPad can be more performant, more productive, and more versatile, than a 2 in 1, especially when compared to convertible's.
Is Apple not selling a 2 in 1 so that they can make more revenue? You have been unable to provide a single piece of information to that effect. I've argued that Apple would actually make more revenue from selling one, alongside its other Mac and iPad models, since Mac buyers like the granularity of Apple's products.
One point of debate that I brought up is true. You wouldn't purchase a 2 in 1 from Apple if it existed, since it would almost certainly be more expensive than comparable Surface models, and multiples more than $699.
The only way you can win the debate, is to purchase a 2 in1, to prove to me that you actually would buy one.
It appears Apple is opening more doors for iPad to progress beyond its (limited) role as a tablet.
It will be interesting to see where this goes and what stems from it.
Oh, so now you have the blinders off, but realize this; you aren't getting Mac OS on an iPad, and it doesn't indicate that Apple is building a 2 in 1 out of the iPad. It's a tablet with keyboard accessories available from multiple sources as an option.
Comments
Let me know when you spend any money at all on a new computer, especially a 2 in 1.
That will be a red letter day for all of us here.
Oh, and about the charger; the iPad Pro, iPad's, and iPhone will charge at maximum performance on up to the 140 watt charger for the 16 inch Mac Book Pro Max, so no, not any lugging around multiple chargers, and a Type C charging cable is sufficient. Or, just plug the iPad, or iPhone directly into one of the TB ports of the Mac Book Pro with the same charging cable.
Do you really have such limited scope in your life that you couldn't figure that out?
"More likely, Apple would generate even greater revenue simply by marketing a 2 in 1 running MacOS right between the Mac Book Air and the Mac Book Pro, given that there would be a substantial number of individuals as yourself that would find the granularity of all of these devices together, even more productive."
Yeah, Apple would make more money by selling a 2 in 1, alongside the Mac Book Pro, Mac Book Air, iPad, iPad Pro, and iPhone, simply because people buy these items because they want to have them work together.
Learn to read...and for the record, you are a noted cheap bastard to all here when it comes to computers...
I suppose you can pretend that isn't a claim that "the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1," but it's a pretty clear inference. No straw men here.
Jobs wasn't keen on tablets back before the iPhone because he hated the stylus as a required input device. It's why he hated the Apple Newton that was launched and failed during his exile. The tech for an accurate multi-touch screen that accepts fingers for input had to be invented before either the iPhone or the iPad could be considered. Then an OS with a UI based entirely around multi-touch input had to be developed. Poking at menus and depending on handwriting recognition for input were all unacceptably inelegant interactions for Apple, and they still are. That's also why the 2-in-1 that you and George are incessantly clamoring for isn't going to happen. You want menus on the iPad. Nope. George has previously proposed a device that swaps between operating systems depending on which way up it is. You're both doggedly insisting on the form factor while inadvertently describing the inelegant workarounds that would be required to produce it. That inelegance is why Windows does it and Apple doesn't.
P.S. Before you claim that the Apple Pencil is a reversal of Jobs' position on the stylus, I'll stop you. The Apple Pencil is an optional accessory that is not required for input. It's a tool for specific activities like drawing or, yes, handwriting if you want, but it's not required to use an iPad. While you can use your pencil to tap at icons and such, anyone who has one quickly goes right back to using their fingers for OS-level interactions, because Jobs was right. Using a stylus for basic touchscreen input is inelegant and inefficient.
Or, you can use a USB Type C to Lightning cable that you would need for the iPhone, and use a low cost iPad instead. Again, not that difficult to figure out.
I'd guess that there is high proportion of iPad ownership by posters here, so here's a list of devices that work with Sidecar;
https://www.pocket-lint.com/laptops/news/apple/148262-apple-sidecar-macos-ipados-features-explained
With that, I wonder how many would actually need to purchase an iPad to gain the benefits of Sidecar?
You're the acknowledged King of Personal Attacks on AI, so you would know about personal attacks.
Does that mean that I'm not supposed to call you a cheapskate?
Like I said, you know personal attacks like no one else here...
For the record, can you even delineate what your debate points were?
Let me help;
Has Apple implied or stated that they would build an actual 2 in 1? Apple has repeatedly stated that they would not build a 2 in 1. Your only retort is that they have changed their minds in the past, and could do so again. I'm not seeing it.
2 in 1's can be cheap; True. You even stated that you can buy one for $699, but I doubt that it is even as powerful as a current iPad Air at about the same price.
Are 2 in 1's better than a Mac and iPad w/sidecar? Not necessarily, and depends on workflow. I have argued that the Mac and iPad can be more performant, more productive, and more versatile, than a 2 in 1, especially when compared to convertible's.
Is Apple not selling a 2 in 1 so that they can make more revenue? You have been unable to provide a single piece of information to that effect. I've argued that Apple would actually make more revenue from selling one, alongside its other Mac and iPad models, since Mac buyers like the granularity of Apple's products.
One point of debate that I brought up is true. You wouldn't purchase a 2 in 1 from Apple if it existed, since it would almost certainly be more expensive than comparable Surface models, and multiples more than $699.
The only way you can win the debate, is to purchase a 2 in1, to prove to me that you actually would buy one.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
Oh, so now you have the blinders off, but realize this; you aren't getting Mac OS on an iPad, and it doesn't indicate that Apple is building a 2 in 1 out of the iPad. It's a tablet with keyboard accessories available from multiple sources as an option.