Microsoft tried to push that on there customers with Windows 8 and it was a disaster to say the least.
Apple said it wouldn't work and they were right. I'm glad Tim knows that and won't make the same kind of disastrous mistake that Microsoft did.
Microsoft makes their money selling the OS. They don't make any money off an android tablet, only off tablets that run Windows. Apple makes their money selling hardware. Apple makes money off the Mac whether it runs OS-X, iOS, or Linux.
Microsoft only has a successful desktop/laptop OS. They don't have a successful tablet OS. Apple has both.
Apple isn't moving towards putting their desktop OS onto their tablets. They are moving towards putting their tablet OS onto their desktops/laptops.
And when the Mac Pro hadn't been updated for a few years, Tim Cook told people not to worry. People who loved the old Mac Pro took that to be a sure sign that an updated Mac Pro would retain the lay feature of a large machine with internal expandability and customization. Instead that got a machine with no internal expandability.
Apple does not pre-announce their future roadmap. If there is a big change coming, then they will imply there is nothing coming until the day of the announcement. When the new Mac Pro was announced, the big question on most people's mind was whether they had kept the number of internal expansion slots/bays the same, or increased them.
Also keep in mind, that Apple is a consumer product company. The number of people who actually need a Mac Pro, or an X-Serve is tiny compared to the number of people who need a sealed box appliance. Take a look at the iMac, Apple actually glues the damn thing closed.
Sure Apple may lose power users, but for every power user they lose, they gain a thousand consumers. Apple has a responsibility to their stockholders (not to their traditional customer base). By losing the high end of the market, and dominating the consumer market, Apple will keep making truckloads of money.
We call this troll meme "Apple hates Pros."
All you need to do is define "pros" very, very narrowly.
the convergence of what/when/how is performed by that blob on top of their necks ...
Obviously, there are many Pro users whose needs are not met by a consumer machine.
Apple is a business. Their primary goal is make a profit. If abandoning the Pro market for the consumer market will increase profits, then that's what they will do.
We can argue over whether or not we think Apple needs to service the high end market, but what we think, or even the reality is not important. The only thing that's important is what Apple's management thinks. Apple's management does tell us what they are going to do. All we can do is to look at where their products are headed and draw out own conclusions.
Apple has discontinued their server line.
Apple has discontinued a Pro level machine with internal expansion.
Apple has even taken to gluing the computers shut or using custom screws to dissuade owners from opening their own machines.
Apple's actions clearly indicate that they are not interested in the high end, pro user.
There are those who will point to the new Mac Pro as serving the high end Pro user. This is not the case. The Mac Pro is designed for a rich executive who wants the fastest machine on his desk. The executive does not need expansion. The simple design of the Mac Pro is a perfect match for an un-cluttered executives desk.
Those who really need power can use the Mac Pro, but only in the middle of a spaghetti nest of wires connecting it to the various peripherals a Pro needs. Although usable in this fashion, the Mac Pro is badly designed for this task.
Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to knock Apple. Although as a power user, I am annoyed by the corporate direction, as a stockholder I am thrilled.
All you need to do is define "pros" very, very narrowly.
Please don't bring this down to Trolls vs. Fanboys. Let's try to keep a civil conversation going.
There are a number of issues here where we seem to disagree. Please tell us more about your position.
You disagree with my characterization of what a pro might need. Please tell us what you think Pro users want.
You seem to think that it is a "bad thing" for Apple to abandon the Pro user and go after the vastly bigger consumer market. Why is this bad? Isn't it a good thing to go after the mainstream market? Does losing the pro market make it a bad thing?
"We feel strongly that customers are not really looking for a converged Mac and iPad," Cook said. "Because what that would wind up doing, or what we're worried would happen, is that neither experience would be as good as the customer wants. So we want to make the best tablet in the world and the best Mac in the world. And putting those two together would not achieve either. You'd begin to compromise in different ways."
...
"It's true that the difference between the X86 and the A-series is much less than it's ever been," says Cook. "That said, what we've tried to do is to recognize that people use both iOS and Mac devices. So we've taken certain features and made them more seamless across the devices. ...
Given how rapidly the A-series chips is approaching x86 performance, a Mac with an A-chip might be a good idea. But I don't think it is likely to happen because:
While some x86 chips can be beat by an A-chip, not all will. I don't think Apple will want to ship some Macs (low-end models) with one CPU architecture and others (higher-end models) with a different one. It will create a support nightmare and will create a lot of really aggravating work for developers (who will of course be forced to support both if they want their apps listed in the App Store.)
Switching to something that's not x86 will make it impossible to dual-boot into Windows and will make virtualization software slower and more complex. VMWare/Parallels/VirtualBox are all much simpler than VirtualPC was.
Although Apple has successfully switched processor architectures several times in the past, it's always an expensive effort. They would have to bundle something akin to Rosetta - either via development, licensing or acquisition. And all the associated support costs. And the bad will a few years later when they decide to drop the emulation from the OS.
While I'm sure Apple is keeping their options open, and they probably have internal desktop systems running Mac OS X on an A-series chip, I don't see them making such a switch unless Intel seriously drops the ball here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
...Like I said in another thread today, even the iPad PRO is not yet PRO due to the inherent limitations of iOS, the lack of PRO apps (wherefore art thou FCPX on iOS?), and the fact that even though it's a honking 12-inches in size the iPad PRO is still considered a Mobile Device (i.e., like a PHONE), and as such Google kicks down the resolution of YouTube videos on it to 720p (as stupid Google does on all iOS "mobile" devices)....
You've been repeating this in many threads for quite some time now. I think you're just hung up over Apple's choosing to use the word "pro" in the product name. You seem to think that a product has no right to this word unless it can act as a desktop replacement for every conceivable use-case.
You should be aware that Apple has never used this kind of definition. The "Mac Pro" didn't wasn't any more "professional" than the iMac it shipped alongside. It was simply the next evolution of the PowerMac, and they wanted to get rid of "Power" from the name due to it not having a PPC chip.
Apple has also used the word "Pro" for the keyboard, mouse and speakers they shipped in 2002, none of which were particularly "professional". The speakers were pretty lousy, and the keyboard and mouse were not significantly different from the ones they shipped beforehand (or afterward.)
The current Mac Pro is, in the opinion of many "professionals" inferior to its predecessor, since it has almost no internal expansion capability.
There should be nothing all surprising for Apple's decision to use the word "Pro" for an extra-large iPad where the only unique feature is a high-resoution stylus and keyboard dock. If you are offended by that term, go right ahead, but your claim that your personal desires are mandatory for any product called "pro" is nothing more than your opinion, no matter how many times you repeat it claiming otherwise.
Yes, but not a mouse, a touchpad. They've already created a version of iOS that allows for non-touch input, via the remote with tvOS. That little smart connector on the iPad Pro is key to all this. Drop your (future with smart connector) iOS device in a "docking" station that is connected to a keyboard, touchpad and monitor and you've got a "desktop" system, allowing the flexibility of portable iOS in your iOS device, with the power of a static desktop system with larger monitor and "room" to be productive with keyboard and touchpad interface. This is the future iOS - no need for any convergence, iOS and iDevices will give you better than convergence.
No problem with your vision here other than why exclude a mouse? This would help with adoption rates and does not compromise the proposed solution at all. I could use a touchpad (and get the benefits that it offers) but many like the old mouse. I think it accomplishes the same thing for the most part. I was also thinking of wireless so you could simply walk up and keep your phone in your pocket but a docking type situation would indeed eliminate challenges with wireless connectivity. Good thoughts.
the convergence of what/when/how is performed by that blob on top of their necks ...
Obviously, there are many Pro users whose needs are not met by a consumer machine.
Obviously, there are many pro users' needs that are not met by a pro machine ...
My point is that pro users have more than 1 set of tools to meet all their needs!
A computer is better for some things, a tablet for others, a phone for others and a wearable for others.
Apple is a business. Their primary goal is make a profit. If abandoning the Pro market for the consumer market will increase profits, then that's what they will do.
Apple will not abandon the Pro market for the consumer market -- they will abandon a market (Pro, Prosumer, Consumer, Fashion, Enterprise) when it no longer meets Apple's needs (Apple is not a charity).
Currently the Pro market is profitable -- and provides high-end products and a base for R&D into future hardware, software, content and services that benefit Apple's other markets.
While I think the approach is fine, I'd still like to see more effort put into making the iPad more than a second thought to the iPhone's iOS.
Split view is nice, and fuller on-screen keyboard, but that's just tinkering around the edges.
The iPad Pro really could be a laptop replacement, but it needs to have its own feature set, not just be forced to be a bigger iPhone.
The biggest issue is fixing the problem of getting files on and off of the device. Its fine for a phone to have the strict silo-ing and invisibility of other apps, but as long as you have to jump through hoops to get data from one app to another, its not really 'pro'.
And Apple needs to lead the way in devoting resources to true 'pro' apps for the device. Perhaps then indie developers will follow.
As much as I've been looking forward to the pro, I'm now leaning towards either waiting for v2, or hoping that the pencil will come to the iPad Air.
No problem with your vision here other than why exclude a mouse? This would help with adoption rates and does not compromise the proposed solution at all. I could use a touchpad (and get the benefits that it offers) but many like the old mouse. I think it accomplishes the same thing for the most part. I was also thinking of wireless so you could simply walk up and keep your phone in your pocket but a docking type situation would indeed eliminate challenges with wireless connectivity. Good thoughts.
The thing with a mouse is that it's really only to indicate focus (and generally is associated with a cursor), which is different for a touch-based system than traditional desktop OSes. What I mean is that coming at the issue (of requiring focus to be indicated on the screen) from this touch-based OS is different than coming at it from first generation GUIs. If the only interface paradigms we'd ever had were touch-based, a mouse and cursor would never make sense to introduce. That's how the younger generation whose only computers are their phones see the world - to them a mouse is something their parents use at the desktop. A touchpad is something that is an extension of the touch-based interface that is iOS, so for the OS and for its users, a touchpad is what will make most sense, and in my opinion there will never be a cursor, per se, on an iOS screen. Look at tvOS - no cursor (rudimentary input of course).
A mouse/cursor on a touch system is a kludge - you touch the screen and the cursor jumps to your finger, which is redundant and ugly. On touch, your finger is the mouse and cursor, so other ways of indicating focus make more sense than introducing a cursor that you need to push around the screen. I think Apple would adopt this cleaner approach, meaning no cursor, meaning no mouse. We'll see how well they do with only using a touchpad and no cursor, but I think we've got the early version of it with tvOS and it works well. Now they only need roll those changes into iOS mainstream and turn it on when there is a touchpad (or touch device such as iPhone) attached along with an external (non-touch) monitor.
The thing with a mouse is that it's really only to indicate focus (and generally is associated with a cursor), which is different for a touch-based system than traditional desktop OSes. What I mean is that coming at the issue (of requiring focus to be indicated on the screen) from this touch-based OS is different than coming at it from first generation GUIs. If the only interface paradigms we'd ever had were touch-based, a mouse and cursor would never make sense to introduce. That's how the younger generation whose only computers are their phones see the world - to them a mouse is something their parents use at the desktop. A touchpad is something that is an extension of the touch-based interface that is iOS, so for the OS and for its users, a touchpad is what will make most sense, and in my opinion there will never be a cursor, per se, on an iOS screen. Look at tvOS - no cursor (rudimentary input of course).
A mouse/cursor on a touch system is a kludge - you touch the screen and the cursor jumps to your finger, which is redundant and ugly. On touch, your finger is the mouse and cursor, so other ways of indicating focus make more sense than introducing a cursor that you need to push around the screen. I think Apple would adopt this cleaner approach, meaning no cursor, meaning no mouse. We'll see how well they do with only using a touchpad and no cursor, but I think we've got the early version of it with tvOS and it works well. Now they only need roll those changes into iOS mainstream and turn it on when there is a touchpad (or touch device such as iPhone) attached along with an external (non-touch) monitor.
I'm with you on this. I just can't help to think of using Excel on a professional level. I have just preferred mouse feedback/mechanics for this specifically. Other than that and maybe other app specific instances no issue with touch interface.
Lets call this what it is - a business strategy, not a product strategy. The iPad pro is a perfect example of a hobbled device - it's dying to be what everyone needs but they won't let it. If they simply put some kind of representitve gesturing control into iOS (mouse, crackpot support), then they would change the paradigm of what computing today is. It's the same thing they did when they went from the apple ii series to mac... it was a painful transition - but it was the right one.
Microsoft surface is a fantastic device... and anyone who wants to throw barbs at it is a shortsighted fool. Microsoft got their ass handed to them and they came out swinging. Who cares if if makes money - they've got the most versatile device there is, and the tide is going to start turning - want to see the future of computing - stop being a tool and look at Surface. BUT APPLE still has the edge - because - all Tim Cook would have to do is allow a mouse into the iOS input universe. That's it. Select, Cut, Copy, Paste without having to point and go through that contorted touch screen process - which feels like the stone age. Don't converge, do converge - that's PR lingo bull. A mouse on the iPad Pro - that's a game changing move that takes how people work now and elevates to a new level... and it's SOOOO simple to accomplish.
Want the killer iPad Pro app? - it's a MOUSE (or trackpad on the bluetooth keyboard) then I could get some real work done on a plane. Until that happens it's a toy. Sure some people have found ways to do productive things with it... but the NOT hard core work of spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing etc. LET THE iPad Pro out of it's cage!
What amazes me is the length that Apple will go to contort iOS so that they don't put a mouse on it... And for what? FEAR - fear it will take a chunk out of there laptop business. The pencil proves they certainly don't fear going back on their philosophical word. Maybe they can realize that FEAR is just like the cage like they put their iOS devices in.
Obviously, there are many pro users' needs that are not met by a pro machine ...
My point is that pro users have more than 1 set of tools to meet all their needs!
A computer is better for some things, a tablet for others, a phone for others and a wearable for others.
Apple will not abandon the Pro market for the consumer market -- they will abandon a market (Pro, Prosumer, Consumer, Fashion, Enterprise) when it no longer meets Apple's needs (Apple is not a charity).
Currently the Pro market is profitable -- and provides high-end products and a base for R&D into future hardware, software, content and services that benefit Apple's other markets.
Apple knows what they are doing.
We agree that different users have different needs.
We agree that Apple will abandon a market when it no longer meets Apple's needs.
The question is whether or not Apple has made that decision for the "Pro" Mac market.
Perhaps it is a matter of terminology. Let's try to move away from the word "Pro" and look at specific needs:
Apple has abandoned the server market. The X-Serve has been discontinued, and they no longer make an easily rack-mounted product. Yes, you can throw some Mac Mini's on some shelves, but these are not high end machines. Apple has even discontinued the quad-core version of the Mac-Mini, leaving only dual-core versions.
Apple has made things difficult for those who need lots of expansion. They no longer make a chassis that you can fill with storage, optical burners, and various audio/video interface devices. With the old Mac Pro it was easy to configure a portable high-end workstation. In a building, you could easily put it on a rolling cart and take it where you need it. For those on the road, there was one shipping crate for the Mac Pro, and one for the Monitor/mouse/keyboard. Easy to setup on location, and easy to pack for shipping. Now you have a Mac Pro, a rat's nest of wires and cables, and a much harder job of setting up and tearing down. I don't know what label to give this market segment, but Apple has abandoned it.
Let's look at the user who wants a lot of local storage, optical drives, and a neatly organized desk. While the old Mac Pro was a perfect choice for this user, the new Mac Pro no longer fits nicely under the desk, and requires storage and optical drives to be external. Apple seems to have abandoned this market as well.
Apple's default configuration doesn't include a numeric keypad, so they don't seem to be targeting anyone who works with numbers. You can still order a Mac with a USB keyboard that includes a numeric KeyPad, but Apple will still charge you for the higher priced wireless keyboard.
Most Apple laptops don't include an Ethernet connection. You can add one if you want, but the default is to omit it. Yes, the Wi-Fi is more than fast enough for surfing the web, but if you want to do serious work with network based storage, you really want the faster wired network.
Apple has embraced the customer who wants a very fast Mac, that looks great on his desk, but doesn't need extra storage, optical drives, audio/video interfaces, etc. Yes, there are people who fit into this category. Some who do serious work and need horsepower without needing lots of storage, and some who just want bragging rights for having the fastest machine.
Let's look at the customer that Apple is targeting:
Someone who doesn't need to break the glue seals to open their machine.
Someone who stored their data in the cloud and buys their Apps online. When your HD fails, you install a new HD, and reload everything from iCloud. This is great for people who use Pages, Numbers, and Photos and don't want to pay attention to where their data is stored, and can't be bothered to do backups.
Apple is targeting people who are willing to sacrifice the ability to customize the operating system in exchange for better virus protection. If the OS doesn't allow you to make changes to system files/folders then you can't accidentally approve a virus installation (or any system modification).
Steve Job's vision was for the computer to be an appliance. You shouldn't have to know what's going on under the hood. You shouldn't need to know about filesystems on your Mac and more than you need to know about the filesystems in the computer that runs your car.
Sure, some people like rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty, but the vast majority don't want to know how their computer (or car) actually works. High end drivers want a manual transmission. Most drivers prefer an automatic transmission. Apple is clearly moving the Mac to be more like an "automatic transmission" than a manual.
What amazes me is the length that Apple will go to contort iOS so that they don't put a mouse on it... And for what? FEAR - fear it will take a chunk out of there laptop business. The pencil proves they certainly don't fear going back on their philosophical word. Maybe they can realize that FEAR is just like the cage like they put their iOS devices in.
While Mac's cost more than an iPad, the general consensus is that iPads have a much higher profit margin. I suspect Apple makes more profit from a high end iPad then a low end Mac.
I'm with you on this. I just can't help to think of using Excel on a professional level. I have just preferred mouse feedback/mechanics for this specifically. Other than that and maybe other app specific instances no issue with touch interface.
But, I think you're absolutely right about that, it's important - tvOS is rudimentary touch input (so far), how will they incorporate input when you need to do things like selecting cells and copying and pasting and inputting data in large numbers and moving things around the screen without the benefit of being able to touch the screen. That's an issue they *must* solve if this has any chance of being taken seriously as a "desktop" environment that allows for more than simple text entry or other basic everyday tasks. And it has to be as easy as using a mouse, for those of us who do use and enjoy (count me as one of them - I prefer the mouse, I have both, but I use the mouse more often).
Part of the issue will have to be dealt with by the apps developers themselves, but first Apple has to come up with the paradigms that allow them to develop these apps more fully to work with external monitors and whatever method of touch input they ultimately support (iPhone or touchpad or whatever). The next part of the problem, then, will be us users - no problem for those who never used or never use a mouse, bit of a learning curve for the rest of us.
It's all very exciting, I get so giddy with all this I just love it. I'm a geek I know. :-)
But a company that make both these large trucks and popular consumer cars, probably sells a lot more cars than gigantic trucks.
If the company's factories are running at capacity, they maximize profits by dedicating their factories to cars and allowing someone else to make trucks.
If they don't have enough engineers, they are better off having them work on the popular consumer car, then the low volume gigantic truck.
Comments
Microsoft tried to push that on there customers with Windows 8 and it was a disaster to say the least.
Apple said it wouldn't work and they were right. I'm glad Tim knows that and won't make the same kind of disastrous mistake that Microsoft did.
Microsoft makes their money selling the OS. They don't make any money off an android tablet, only off tablets that run Windows. Apple makes their money selling hardware. Apple makes money off the Mac whether it runs OS-X, iOS, or Linux.
Microsoft only has a successful desktop/laptop OS. They don't have a successful tablet OS. Apple has both.
Apple isn't moving towards putting their desktop OS onto their tablets. They are moving towards putting their tablet OS onto their desktops/laptops.
We call this troll meme "Apple hates Pros."
All you need to do is define "pros" very, very narrowly.
Bingo!
It's important to remember that:
Obviously, there are many Pro users whose needs are not met by a consumer machine.
Apple is a business. Their primary goal is make a profit. If abandoning the Pro market for the consumer market will increase profits, then that's what they will do.
We can argue over whether or not we think Apple needs to service the high end market, but what we think, or even the reality is not important. The only thing that's important is what Apple's management thinks. Apple's management does tell us what they are going to do. All we can do is to look at where their products are headed and draw out own conclusions.
Apple has discontinued their server line.
Apple has discontinued a Pro level machine with internal expansion.
Apple has even taken to gluing the computers shut or using custom screws to dissuade owners from opening their own machines.
Apple's actions clearly indicate that they are not interested in the high end, pro user.
There are those who will point to the new Mac Pro as serving the high end Pro user. This is not the case. The Mac Pro is designed for a rich executive who wants the fastest machine on his desk. The executive does not need expansion. The simple design of the Mac Pro is a perfect match for an un-cluttered executives desk.
Those who really need power can use the Mac Pro, but only in the middle of a spaghetti nest of wires connecting it to the various peripherals a Pro needs. Although usable in this fashion, the Mac Pro is badly designed for this task.
Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to knock Apple. Although as a power user, I am annoyed by the corporate direction, as a stockholder I am thrilled.
We call this troll meme "Apple hates Pros."
All you need to do is define "pros" very, very narrowly.
Please don't bring this down to Trolls vs. Fanboys. Let's try to keep a civil conversation going.
There are a number of issues here where we seem to disagree. Please tell us more about your position.
You disagree with my characterization of what a pro might need. Please tell us what you think Pro users want.
You seem to think that it is a "bad thing" for Apple to abandon the Pro user and go after the vastly bigger consumer market. Why is this bad? Isn't it a good thing to go after the mainstream market? Does losing the pro market make it a bad thing?
"We feel strongly that customers are not really looking for a converged Mac and iPad," Cook said. "Because what that would wind up doing, or what we're worried would happen, is that neither experience would be as good as the customer wants. So we want to make the best tablet in the world and the best Mac in the world. And putting those two together would not achieve either. You'd begin to compromise in different ways."
...
"It's true that the difference between the X86 and the A-series is much less than it's ever been," says Cook. "That said, what we've tried to do is to recognize that people use both iOS and Mac devices. So we've taken certain features and made them more seamless across the devices. ...
Given how rapidly the A-series chips is approaching x86 performance, a Mac with an A-chip might be a good idea. But I don't think it is likely to happen because:
While I'm sure Apple is keeping their options open, and they probably have internal desktop systems running Mac OS X on an A-series chip, I don't see them making such a switch unless Intel seriously drops the ball here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDW
...Like I said in another thread today, even the iPad PRO is not yet PRO due to the inherent limitations of iOS, the lack of PRO apps (wherefore art thou FCPX on iOS?), and the fact that even though it's a honking 12-inches in size the iPad PRO is still considered a Mobile Device (i.e., like a PHONE), and as such Google kicks down the resolution of YouTube videos on it to 720p (as stupid Google does on all iOS "mobile" devices)....
You've been repeating this in many threads for quite some time now. I think you're just hung up over Apple's choosing to use the word "pro" in the product name. You seem to think that a product has no right to this word unless it can act as a desktop replacement for every conceivable use-case.
You should be aware that Apple has never used this kind of definition. The "Mac Pro" didn't wasn't any more "professional" than the iMac it shipped alongside. It was simply the next evolution of the PowerMac, and they wanted to get rid of "Power" from the name due to it not having a PPC chip.
Apple has also used the word "Pro" for the keyboard, mouse and speakers they shipped in 2002, none of which were particularly "professional". The speakers were pretty lousy, and the keyboard and mouse were not significantly different from the ones they shipped beforehand (or afterward.)
The current Mac Pro is, in the opinion of many "professionals" inferior to its predecessor, since it has almost no internal expansion capability.
There should be nothing all surprising for Apple's decision to use the word "Pro" for an extra-large iPad where the only unique feature is a high-resoution stylus and keyboard dock. If you are offended by that term, go right ahead, but your claim that your personal desires are mandatory for any product called "pro" is nothing more than your opinion, no matter how many times you repeat it claiming otherwise.
Today, the screen on a MB is a dumb screen, driven by the computer under the keyboard.
So, Apple makes a screen-less MBP to which you attach the iPad Pro as the screen.
And, didn't Apple design their dumb flat keyboard for the iPad Pro to attach in a way to make it fit into that scenario?
Yes, but not a mouse, a touchpad. They've already created a version of iOS that allows for non-touch input, via the remote with tvOS. That little smart connector on the iPad Pro is key to all this. Drop your (future with smart connector) iOS device in a "docking" station that is connected to a keyboard, touchpad and monitor and you've got a "desktop" system, allowing the flexibility of portable iOS in your iOS device, with the power of a static desktop system with larger monitor and "room" to be productive with keyboard and touchpad interface. This is the future iOS - no need for any convergence, iOS and iDevices will give you better than convergence.
No problem with your vision here other than why exclude a mouse? This would help with adoption rates and does not compromise the proposed solution at all. I could use a touchpad (and get the benefits that it offers) but many like the old mouse. I think it accomplishes the same thing for the most part. I was also thinking of wireless so you could simply walk up and keep your phone in your pocket
Obviously, there are many pro users' needs that are not met by a pro machine ...
My point is that pro users have more than 1 set of tools to meet all their needs!
A computer is better for some things, a tablet for others, a phone for others and a wearable for others.
Apple will not abandon the Pro market for the consumer market -- they will abandon a market (Pro, Prosumer, Consumer, Fashion, Enterprise) when it no longer meets Apple's needs (Apple is not a charity).
Currently the Pro market is profitable -- and provides high-end products and a base for R&D into future hardware, software, content and services that benefit Apple's other markets.
Apple knows what they are doing.
While I think the approach is fine, I'd still like to see more effort put into making the iPad more than a second thought to the iPhone's iOS.
Split view is nice, and fuller on-screen keyboard, but that's just tinkering around the edges.
The iPad Pro really could be a laptop replacement, but it needs to have its own feature set, not just be forced to be a bigger iPhone.
The biggest issue is fixing the problem of getting files on and off of the device. Its fine for a phone to have the strict silo-ing and invisibility of other apps, but as long as you have to jump through hoops to get data from one app to another, its not really 'pro'.
And Apple needs to lead the way in devoting resources to true 'pro' apps for the device. Perhaps then indie developers will follow.
As much as I've been looking forward to the pro, I'm now leaning towards either waiting for v2, or hoping that the pencil will come to the iPad Air.
[B][U]Sales 101[/U][/B]
You can only sell what you have in the wagon!
[B][U]Marketing 101[/U][/B]
Determine/Create the need for what goes in the wagon next year!
[B][U]Marketing 102[/U][/B]
Don't give 'em everything -- save something for the year after next!
With the exception of the iPad 2, most recent Apple products meet the above criteria.
If you think this year's iPad Pro (or Apple product of choice) is great -- just wait 'til next year ...
No problem with your vision here other than why exclude a mouse? This would help with adoption rates and does not compromise the proposed solution at all. I could use a touchpad (and get the benefits that it offers) but many like the old mouse. I think it accomplishes the same thing for the most part. I was also thinking of wireless so you could simply walk up and keep your phone in your pocket
but a docking type situation would indeed eliminate challenges with wireless connectivity. Good thoughts.
The thing with a mouse is that it's really only to indicate focus (and generally is associated with a cursor), which is different for a touch-based system than traditional desktop OSes. What I mean is that coming at the issue (of requiring focus to be indicated on the screen) from this touch-based OS is different than coming at it from first generation GUIs. If the only interface paradigms we'd ever had were touch-based, a mouse and cursor would never make sense to introduce. That's how the younger generation whose only computers are their phones see the world - to them a mouse is something their parents use at the desktop. A touchpad is something that is an extension of the touch-based interface that is iOS, so for the OS and for its users, a touchpad is what will make most sense, and in my opinion there will never be a cursor, per se, on an iOS screen. Look at tvOS - no cursor (rudimentary input of course).
A mouse/cursor on a touch system is a kludge - you touch the screen and the cursor jumps to your finger, which is redundant and ugly. On touch, your finger is the mouse and cursor, so other ways of indicating focus make more sense than introducing a cursor that you need to push around the screen. I think Apple would adopt this cleaner approach, meaning no cursor, meaning no mouse. We'll see how well they do with only using a touchpad and no cursor, but I think we've got the early version of it with tvOS and it works well. Now they only need roll those changes into iOS mainstream and turn it on when there is a touchpad (or touch device such as iPhone) attached along with an external (non-touch) monitor.
The thing with a mouse is that it's really only to indicate focus (and generally is associated with a cursor), which is different for a touch-based system than traditional desktop OSes. What I mean is that coming at the issue (of requiring focus to be indicated on the screen) from this touch-based OS is different than coming at it from first generation GUIs. If the only interface paradigms we'd ever had were touch-based, a mouse and cursor would never make sense to introduce. That's how the younger generation whose only computers are their phones see the world - to them a mouse is something their parents use at the desktop. A touchpad is something that is an extension of the touch-based interface that is iOS, so for the OS and for its users, a touchpad is what will make most sense, and in my opinion there will never be a cursor, per se, on an iOS screen. Look at tvOS - no cursor (rudimentary input of course).
A mouse/cursor on a touch system is a kludge - you touch the screen and the cursor jumps to your finger, which is redundant and ugly. On touch, your finger is the mouse and cursor, so other ways of indicating focus make more sense than introducing a cursor that you need to push around the screen. I think Apple would adopt this cleaner approach, meaning no cursor, meaning no mouse. We'll see how well they do with only using a touchpad and no cursor, but I think we've got the early version of it with tvOS and it works well. Now they only need roll those changes into iOS mainstream and turn it on when there is a touchpad (or touch device such as iPhone) attached along with an external (non-touch) monitor.
I'm with you on this. I just can't help to think of using Excel on a professional level. I have just preferred mouse feedback/mechanics for this specifically. Other than that and maybe other app specific instances no issue with touch interface.
Lets call this what it is - a business strategy, not a product strategy. The iPad pro is a perfect example of a hobbled device - it's dying to be what everyone needs but they won't let it. If they simply put some kind of representitve gesturing control into iOS (mouse, crackpot support), then they would change the paradigm of what computing today is. It's the same thing they did when they went from the apple ii series to mac... it was a painful transition - but it was the right one.
Microsoft surface is a fantastic device... and anyone who wants to throw barbs at it is a shortsighted fool. Microsoft got their ass handed to them and they came out swinging. Who cares if if makes money - they've got the most versatile device there is, and the tide is going to start turning - want to see the future of computing - stop being a tool and look at Surface. BUT APPLE still has the edge - because - all Tim Cook would have to do is allow a mouse into the iOS input universe. That's it. Select, Cut, Copy, Paste without having to point and go through that contorted touch screen process - which feels like the stone age. Don't converge, do converge - that's PR lingo bull. A mouse on the iPad Pro - that's a game changing move that takes how people work now and elevates to a new level... and it's SOOOO simple to accomplish.
Want the killer iPad Pro app? - it's a MOUSE (or trackpad on the bluetooth keyboard) then I could get some real work done on a plane. Until that happens it's a toy. Sure some people have found ways to do productive things with it... but the NOT hard core work of spreadsheets, word processing, photo editing etc. LET THE iPad Pro out of it's cage!
What amazes me is the length that Apple will go to contort iOS so that they don't put a mouse on it... And for what? FEAR - fear it will take a chunk out of there laptop business. The pencil proves they certainly don't fear going back on their philosophical word. Maybe they can realize that FEAR is just like the cage like they put their iOS devices in.
Obviously, there are many pro users' needs that are not met by a pro machine ...
My point is that pro users have more than 1 set of tools to meet all their needs!
A computer is better for some things, a tablet for others, a phone for others and a wearable for others.
Apple will not abandon the Pro market for the consumer market -- they will abandon a market (Pro, Prosumer, Consumer, Fashion, Enterprise) when it no longer meets Apple's needs (Apple is not a charity).
Currently the Pro market is profitable -- and provides high-end products and a base for R&D into future hardware, software, content and services that benefit Apple's other markets.
Apple knows what they are doing.
We agree that different users have different needs.
We agree that Apple will abandon a market when it no longer meets Apple's needs.
The question is whether or not Apple has made that decision for the "Pro" Mac market.
Perhaps it is a matter of terminology. Let's try to move away from the word "Pro" and look at specific needs:
Apple has abandoned the server market. The X-Serve has been discontinued, and they no longer make an easily rack-mounted product. Yes, you can throw some Mac Mini's on some shelves, but these are not high end machines. Apple has even discontinued the quad-core version of the Mac-Mini, leaving only dual-core versions.
Apple has made things difficult for those who need lots of expansion. They no longer make a chassis that you can fill with storage, optical burners, and various audio/video interface devices. With the old Mac Pro it was easy to configure a portable high-end workstation. In a building, you could easily put it on a rolling cart and take it where you need it. For those on the road, there was one shipping crate for the Mac Pro, and one for the Monitor/mouse/keyboard. Easy to setup on location, and easy to pack for shipping. Now you have a Mac Pro, a rat's nest of wires and cables, and a much harder job of setting up and tearing down. I don't know what label to give this market segment, but Apple has abandoned it.
Let's look at the user who wants a lot of local storage, optical drives, and a neatly organized desk. While the old Mac Pro was a perfect choice for this user, the new Mac Pro no longer fits nicely under the desk, and requires storage and optical drives to be external. Apple seems to have abandoned this market as well.
Apple's default configuration doesn't include a numeric keypad, so they don't seem to be targeting anyone who works with numbers. You can still order a Mac with a USB keyboard that includes a numeric KeyPad, but Apple will still charge you for the higher priced wireless keyboard.
Most Apple laptops don't include an Ethernet connection. You can add one if you want, but the default is to omit it. Yes, the Wi-Fi is more than fast enough for surfing the web, but if you want to do serious work with network based storage, you really want the faster wired network.
Apple has embraced the customer who wants a very fast Mac, that looks great on his desk, but doesn't need extra storage, optical drives, audio/video interfaces, etc. Yes, there are people who fit into this category. Some who do serious work and need horsepower without needing lots of storage, and some who just want bragging rights for having the fastest machine.
Let's look at the customer that Apple is targeting:
Someone who doesn't need to break the glue seals to open their machine.
Someone who stored their data in the cloud and buys their Apps online. When your HD fails, you install a new HD, and reload everything from iCloud. This is great for people who use Pages, Numbers, and Photos and don't want to pay attention to where their data is stored, and can't be bothered to do backups.
Apple is targeting people who are willing to sacrifice the ability to customize the operating system in exchange for better virus protection. If the OS doesn't allow you to make changes to system files/folders then you can't accidentally approve a virus installation (or any system modification).
Steve Job's vision was for the computer to be an appliance. You shouldn't have to know what's going on under the hood. You shouldn't need to know about filesystems on your Mac and more than you need to know about the filesystems in the computer that runs your car.
Sure, some people like rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty, but the vast majority don't want to know how their computer (or car) actually works. High end drivers want a manual transmission. Most drivers prefer an automatic transmission. Apple is clearly moving the Mac to be more like an "automatic transmission" than a manual.
There are some that need these:
...
What amazes me is the length that Apple will go to contort iOS so that they don't put a mouse on it... And for what? FEAR - fear it will take a chunk out of there laptop business. The pencil proves they certainly don't fear going back on their philosophical word. Maybe they can realize that FEAR is just like the cage like they put their iOS devices in.
While Mac's cost more than an iPad, the general consensus is that iPads have a much higher profit margin. I suspect Apple makes more profit from a high end iPad then a low end Mac.
I'm with you on this. I just can't help to think of using Excel on a professional level. I have just preferred mouse feedback/mechanics for this specifically. Other than that and maybe other app specific instances no issue with touch interface.
But, I think you're absolutely right about that, it's important - tvOS is rudimentary touch input (so far), how will they incorporate input when you need to do things like selecting cells and copying and pasting and inputting data in large numbers and moving things around the screen without the benefit of being able to touch the screen. That's an issue they *must* solve if this has any chance of being taken seriously as a "desktop" environment that allows for more than simple text entry or other basic everyday tasks. And it has to be as easy as using a mouse, for those of us who do use and enjoy (count me as one of them - I prefer the mouse, I have both, but I use the mouse more often).
Part of the issue will have to be dealt with by the apps developers themselves, but first Apple has to come up with the paradigms that allow them to develop these apps more fully to work with external monitors and whatever method of touch input they ultimately support (iPhone or touchpad or whatever). The next part of the problem, then, will be us users - no problem for those who never used or never use a mouse, bit of a learning curve for the rest of us.
It's all very exciting, I get so giddy with all this I just love it. I'm a geek I know. :-)
There are some that need these:
But a company that make both these large trucks and popular consumer cars, probably sells a lot more cars than gigantic trucks.
If the company's factories are running at capacity, they maximize profits by dedicating their factories to cars and allowing someone else to make trucks.
If they don't have enough engineers, they are better off having them work on the popular consumer car, then the low volume gigantic truck.