Build a screen-less MBP, use the iPad pro as the screen. Now you have Apple's competitor to the Surface done right.
YES! I've been saying this for a while too.
I would buy one of these immediately. When I travel, I almost always have to take my MacBook with me in case something work related comes up. The iPad can do some things, but not nearly all things easily, not to mention the lack of local storage. But I want to take my iPad with me because that's what I read my books on while traveling, and browse the internet on, get my e-mail, and other excellent things the iPad does. So I have to carry both of them, and the power supplies and charges and adapters for both.
Now what if I had them compliment each other, the iPad forming a clamshell with the MacBook while traveling, but easily detachable to use as an iPad. The MacBook could even be hooked up to a TV and used separately if needed, and I've got screen spanning if I need that.
This preserves Apple's stake in both iPad and MacBook sales to some extent, while offering a discount for the customer who buys both at once.
An with that kind of integration in mind, Apple could customize apps so that key areas on both are automatically synchronized locally, so when you separate them the files you need are available on both. It would be way better than the mess that is iTunes synchronization now. And that alone solves the iPad file structure problem.
I think it's a great idea, and still fits with Tim Cooks statement that they won't be merged.
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.
I just had a graphics card go out on my 2008 Mac Pro - it's aging but loaded with 3 SSDs, and 4x 3&4 TB hard drives and a 1TB PCI card SSD boot drive and a USB 3 card. I priced out a new Mac Pro and accessories to use my good old drives - the absolute cheapest bare bones (only 4 cores vs my current 8) was $4500 ($2800 + $900 + $800) and it would be a rats nest of wires external power supplies, fans and security concerns that my external drives would get ripped off and something with an already old processor and graphics card that I will never be able to upgrade. I ended up buying a used graphics card on eBay for my 2008 mac pro and will wait a few more years - not happy.
In my spare time I IT a health clinic and have surface pro 3s and Dell Optiplex 9020s. Why can't Apple make an Optiplex? - it comes in 4 form factors, the nice small form factor takes 2 drives and 2 PCI cards - is small quiet and quick for a desktop i7. I really dislike windows and refuse to use it for my work, but I hate how I have no decent desktop options. Come on Apple - why are you being so pig headed and antagonistic to the pro/semi pro mac market. If Dell can have a zillion SKUs surely Apple can make 1 or 2 more to appease those who often are the evangelists for the Apple universe. At a minimum give us a desktop i5/i7 with at least 2x 2.5 inch slots and 2x PCI card ports. I am so desperate I considered buying an iMac motherboard and building my own desktop - but the iMac is crappy laptop parts and only one PCI one SATA slot.
final note on this parent topic - My clinic's surface pros 3s work well - they use the stylus to enter EMR charts and run in desktop mode. The new surface pro 4 keyboard and trackpad is decent. The touch part of the OS is not very intuitive - but I actually like the concept of one box. Now a iPad PRO/Mac that runs iPad apps if you are in touch mode (easily done with an emulator), and a touch based mac desktop for when work needs to get done with a surface pro 4 type keyboard would be nice - no more lugging around a mac book and an iPad. I think Microsoft is right - their software just needs a few more generations to really make the concept efficient. But they are getting there - and kudos to their tenacity and slow iterative approach.
Apple needs to complete at all levels - they may have won the phone war, but they are far from winning the desktop/laptop war and Microsoft is all in to keep their desktop/laptop market and try and get back some of the tablet market.
My chief problem with this whole debate is that no-one seems able to come up with a reason for Apple to merge the Mac and iPad hardware lines, or even for a Mac OSX tablet, other than "It would be cool"...
The reason to merge the product lines is that Apple believes that a product line that spans tablets to laptops to desktops will be compelling to consumers.
If your tablet is android and your desktop/laptop is windows, then it can be problematic to move back and forth between them. They have different capabilities, and the software that's available on one, may not be available on the other. If you don't like one device, you can replace it with a different device from another manufacturer.
If the MacBook and iPad run the same software, then it becomes easy to mix and match. Grab you iPad or your Desktop, either one and you have full functionality. The big differences will be the physical keyboard, and/or raw processing power.
When the Mac and iPad converge, then there will be a few hardware differences, but both will run the same software. Start something on one, an seamlessly pick it up on the other. I can carry on an SMS text conversation while seamlessly switching between iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. It won't surprise me if I soon start getting texts on my AppleTV.
Imagine that seamlessness working no matter what program you are running, with little or no setup. Once you are invested in this proprietary Apple system, it will be much harder to mix in a non-apple device.
A converged Mac and iPad makes a lot of sense for an Apple targeting the consumer market.
I think the real rake away from Tim Cook's comments, is that Apple will maintain a product line called "Mac". It's an open question whether or not that product morphs into an iPad with a keyboard, or retains a separate existance.
The Surface is just an half baked, poorly designed, highly overpriced solution to a non existent problem....
They are incredible - you clearly haven't used one - The clinic I IT at has 5 SP3s that I got, EMR was impossible without it, it has allowed a 1.76 lb stylus touch screen with the ability to flip down the keyboard to type notes, all day battery. NOTHING is close on the market. magnetic charging connections, magnetic type cover connections - a few key ports, a great dock. If Apple was smart they would copy it as fast as they can, and improve it and make a decent hybrid OS or just run them both - click the button for iPad mode and click again for desktop mode. I want an Apple surface pro 4! (And I have the new macbook - which I love BTW - but it is only a laptop)
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.
Yes lets have Apple stop mac improvements. Where will people get their apps from?
Yes lets have Apple stop mac improvements. Where will people get their apps from?
Things are seldom black and white.
When the Mac first came out, the only development environment available was the Apple Lisa. Eventually, Apple came out with a development environment that ran natively on the Mac.
Currently, you need Apple's X-Code development environment to develop Apps. Currently, X-Code is only available for the Mac. Apple could easily choose to release X-Code for another platform (say iPad Pro). It appears that iPad Pro has enough horsepower and memory to run X-Code. Whether or not Apple releases X-Code to run on iPad is primarily a policy issue.
It would not surprise me if we soon have X-Code running on the iPad.
Get a MacBook. You are misrepresenting the pitch. Apple is trying to communicate that you can let an iPad handle a certain amount of needs. If your needs aren't met then get a MacBook. iPad Pro is Pro, but not in the way you think of it.
You and your like-minded associates (mostly those who Thumbed-up your post) are not understanding or helping with such statements. "Get a XXX" is all you really say, and that isn't saying very much at all. And just because it "works for you personally" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else will be a clone of you. Case-in-point, your and my disagreement. We are both Apple fans, yet you and I are very different, hence my point.
As I said before, TIM COOK HIMSELF is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement even if it cannibalizes MacBook sales. Your tired "Get a MacBook" chant ignores that fact, and no, citing a couple case stories doesn't change things either. Your stance also ignores the glaring omissions and "compromises" that currently exist in the iOS world, especially for large TABLETS which really are a WORLD APART from silly Smart Phones. Smart PHONES can only get so big. Even the iPhone PLUS is too big for many people. TABLETS are not PHONES, nor are they NOTEBOOKS. They really are a separate category altogether, but the way Apple Tablets are setup today, they are confined to the limitations of SMARTPHONES.
The real BREAKTHROUGH with Apple Tablets will come when those tablets can take on a life of their own, not being inseparably tied to the world of PHONES. Again, no one is saying Apple should make an OS X & iOS hybrid. But for tablets to be PRO, there is much, much more work to be done on the part of Apple and app developers. There is too much emphasis on silly phones (which cost a fortune in monthly fees) and not enough attention given to making a tablet ALL THAT IT CAN BE.
Think outside the box. "Just get a Mac. Just get an iOS device. Stop thinking about anything else." is "the box." Think real INNOVATION. And submit your feedback to Apple accordingly. I certainly do.
The real BREAKTHROUGH with Apple Tablets will come when those tablets can take on a life of their own, not being inseparably tied to the world of PHONES.
You've never needed a smartphone to use an iPad. The only real connection is that you can run phone apps at 2x on an iPad.
Beyond that, they're separate platforms from a user perspective.
You and your like-minded associates (mostly those who Thumbed-up your post) are not understanding or helping with such statements. "Get a XXX" is all you really say, and that isn't saying very much at all. And just because it "works for you personally" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else will be a clone of you. Case-in-point, your and my disagreement. We are both Apple fans, yet you and I are very different, hence my point.
As I said before, TIM COOK HIMSELF is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement even if it cannibalizes MacBook sales. Your tired "Get a MacBook" chant ignores that fact, and no, citing a couple case stories doesn't change things either. Your stance also ignores the glaring omissions and "compromises" that currently exist in the iOS world, especially for large TABLETS which really are a WORLD APART from silly Smart Phones. Smart PHONES can only get so big. Even the iPhone PLUS is too big for many people. TABLETS are not PHONES, nor are they NOTEBOOKS. They really are a separate category altogether, but the way Apple Tablets are setup today, they are confined to the limitations of SMARTPHONES.
The real BREAKTHROUGH with Apple Tablets will come when those tablets can take on a life of their own, not being inseparably tied to the world of PHONES. Again, no one is saying Apple should make an OS X & iOS hybrid. But for tablets to be PRO, there is much, much more work to be done on the part of Apple and app developers. There is too much emphasis on silly phones (which cost a fortune in monthly fees) and not enough attention given to making a tablet ALL THAT IT CAN BE.
Think outside the box. "Just get a Mac. Just get an iOS device. Stop thinking about anything else." is "the box." Think real INNOVATION. And submit your feedback to Apple accordingly. I certainly do.
"And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it": Yes he is, but he also did say that it's a laptop replacement for MANY people, not all people. I'm pretty sure they know that.
"TABLETS are not PHONES, nor are they NOTEBOOKS." : I agree, they are not.
" but the way Apple Tablets are setup today, they are confined to the limitations of SMARTPHONES." : Agreed. The iPad line needs its own OS, the same way that Apple Watch, Apple TV, and Macs have their own OS, to unleash its unique capabilities. I think this article explains it better than me;
He's right. Tablets and laptops work differently. Trying to merge them would result in a worst of both worlds kludge.
Laptops center on their keyboards and a trackpad. That means users keep their hands low while sitting at a desks. Tablets involve touching a screen. That's fine in many positions, including sitting in a chair or standing. But it's a cursed nuisance to reach up to a screen when you're typing at a desk.
Also, a touch-screen UI is inherently less powerful than a keyboard, mouse, and graphic pad one. Simple programs port well to touch. I'd hate to see someone try to cram InDesign UI into a touch screen UI.
I am interested, however, in the feasibility of using Apple's new tablet chips in a MacBook Air. There'd be no UI issues, but does the idea make sense technically? That'd I'd like to know.
It's also a cursed nuisance to have to take my hands off of the keyboard to mouse the cursor or use the trackpad. I am actually faster highlighting text touching the screen than using a mouse and much faster than using a trackpad.
That said, I myself would like to see Apple release a MacBook and Mac mini based on the A series CPU. I was quite disappointed that the recently released MacBook did not have the A9X but the far costlier and lower performance Core M.
As Apple continues the recent less pace of development, the GPU performance of the A(n)X should very easily continue to surpass and by a significant margin, Intel integrated graphics. The next version consisting of the A10X should bring performance parity to the high end Core i5 CPUs and low end Core i7s.
That being the case, the MacBook running OS X will become a curiosity. Too slow for a pro to run "real" software and too slow when compared to the iPad for the consumer to run games. And when the A11X surpasses the performance of a Core i7 CPU, whatever the name of the high portable CPU Intel is producing? How will Apple navigate that minefield? Users will be wanting to stay on x86 for compatibility, but many power users will definitely want the performance with the much longer battery life the A series will provide.
At this point, I am taking delivery on an iPad pro. The MacBook with its poor performance and throttling of the CPU turned me off. The MacBook Air uses a far hungrier CPU which kills the battery far more quickly than the iPad pro.
So, given the cost savings of the A series over Intel's Core series, performance now reaching the level of a low end Core i5, the long battery life afforded by the Apple CPU which does not require a fan to reach that level of performance, how long before Apple puts the CPU into a Mac Mini and shrinks the size of the device dramatically. And puts the CPU into the iMac lowering the price slightly and allowing for a greater profit margin. And how long before the entire portable line moves over to the CPU as the A9X Graphics performance now outperforms all Intel integrated Graphics with CPU performance only one of two generations before achieving performance parity with Intel's highest performing portable chips. So tell me why Apple would keep the Intel CPU in these scenarios over their own CPU costing an order of magnitude less?
Apple won't converge the iPad and MacBook. That is understandable. But the Apple CPU will be coming to the MacBook. It's really only a matter if when at this point. It's no longer a matter of if.
I agree with the current thinking, but let's see how the iPad and MacBook lines evolve over the next decade before completely shutting the door on convergence.
This discussion is all about the device, its metaphor and a faith among Mac users that this is an important discriminator for Apple platforms. But the focus should be on the user experience, not on the device. When I'm in tablet mode, I want a device designed to optimize function in that mode. When I'm in laptop mode I want some different functions. I'm the one that shifts mode, not the device.
When Apple makes a tablet with a stylus that I can use like a tablet in meetings to take notes, I want what iOS provides now (although a better file system and network connectivity would make it even more useful for this purpose. But when Apple itself suggests I prop the same device up behind a keyboard, I will only use that when I'm in laptop mode - and when I'm in that mode I can't function without a trackpad and a real file system.
You don't need to converge operating systems to meet my usability needs in both cases, you just need to add a better file system, network interface and pointing device drivers. It would be trivial to provide a first party iPhone app to turn the iPhone into a trackpad if there was a pointing device interface, for example. All this ideology about different device uses is in direct conflict with Apple's commitment to understanding what users want and what "mode" the user is in. That's always been Apple's greatest strength, and this ideological fixation with keeping touch and pointer devices separate is getting in the way.
I agree the iPad pro can never replace the macbook but at the same time the macbook or the pc can never replace the ipad also. There are things that you do with the iPad that you can never do on the macbook. So there you have it. We need them both right now.
And I prefer to have 2 devices that excel at what they are doing rather than a converge that lags and is full of holes.
I have the surface pro 3 and I know what I'm talking about.
Given all the previous "never" comments from Apple (Steve Jobs re: stylus or 'phablet'), you can be assured that Apple is truly working on the 'MacPad'. If it ran OS X and was the size and weight of the iPad Pro, they would have a winner. But, unfortunately, it would also cannibalize from the MacBook and the Air.
If they felt it was the better product and the future of the market, this wouldn't bother them in the least.
iOS and OSX WILL converge. I'm an Apple user, both iOS OSX. Microsoft has paved the way and I've been considering their hybrid solution. A friend of mine has already switched to Microsoft Surface. Now even her new phone is an Android. I'll wait for Apple to do their hybrid device, because I know it would be much better than Microsoft's Surface.
Some things I know: - Apple wants to offer great products and continue being the personal devices leader. - Microsoft Surface sales are on the rise. - While selling not hybrid devices, an Apple CEO would NEVER say that an hybrid one is on the go.
This brings us to the only conclusion: Tim Cook is now protecting the Apple sales, and to do so in the future, he will have to sell a MacPad.
Comments
As I said in a previous entry.
Build a screen-less MBP, use the iPad pro as the screen. Now you have Apple's competitor to the Surface done right.
YES! I've been saying this for a while too.I would buy one of these immediately. When I travel, I almost always have to take my MacBook with me in case something work related comes up. The iPad can do some things, but not nearly all things easily, not to mention the lack of local storage. But I want to take my iPad with me because that's what I read my books on while traveling, and browse the internet on, get my e-mail, and other excellent things the iPad does. So I have to carry both of them, and the power supplies and charges and adapters for both.
Now what if I had them compliment each other, the iPad forming a clamshell with the MacBook while traveling, but easily detachable to use as an iPad. The MacBook could even be hooked up to a TV and used separately if needed, and I've got screen spanning if I need that.
This preserves Apple's stake in both iPad and MacBook sales to some extent, while offering a discount for the customer who buys both at once.
An with that kind of integration in mind, Apple could customize apps so that key areas on both are automatically synchronized locally, so when you separate them the files you need are available on both. It would be way better than the mess that is iTunes synchronization now. And that alone solves the iPad file structure problem.
I think it's a great idea, and still fits with Tim Cooks statement that they won't be merged.
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.
I just had a graphics card go out on my 2008 Mac Pro - it's aging but loaded with 3 SSDs, and 4x 3&4 TB hard drives and a 1TB PCI card SSD boot drive and a USB 3 card. I priced out a new Mac Pro and accessories to use my good old drives - the absolute cheapest bare bones (only 4 cores vs my current 8) was $4500 ($2800 + $900 + $800) and it would be a rats nest of wires external power supplies, fans and security concerns that my external drives would get ripped off and something with an already old processor and graphics card that I will never be able to upgrade. I ended up buying a used graphics card on eBay for my 2008 mac pro and will wait a few more years - not happy.
In my spare time I IT a health clinic and have surface pro 3s and Dell Optiplex 9020s. Why can't Apple make an Optiplex? - it comes in 4 form factors, the nice small form factor takes 2 drives and 2 PCI cards - is small quiet and quick for a desktop i7. I really dislike windows and refuse to use it for my work, but I hate how I have no decent desktop options. Come on Apple - why are you being so pig headed and antagonistic to the pro/semi pro mac market. If Dell can have a zillion SKUs surely Apple can make 1 or 2 more to appease those who often are the evangelists for the Apple universe. At a minimum give us a desktop i5/i7 with at least 2x 2.5 inch slots and 2x PCI card ports. I am so desperate I considered buying an iMac motherboard and building my own desktop - but the iMac is crappy laptop parts and only one PCI one SATA slot.
final note on this parent topic - My clinic's surface pros 3s work well - they use the stylus to enter EMR charts and run in desktop mode. The new surface pro 4 keyboard and trackpad is decent. The touch part of the OS is not very intuitive - but I actually like the concept of one box. Now a iPad PRO/Mac that runs iPad apps if you are in touch mode (easily done with an emulator), and a touch based mac desktop for when work needs to get done with a surface pro 4 type keyboard would be nice - no more lugging around a mac book and an iPad. I think Microsoft is right - their software just needs a few more generations to really make the concept efficient. But they are getting there - and kudos to their tenacity and slow iterative approach.
Apple needs to complete at all levels - they may have won the phone war, but they are far from winning the desktop/laptop war and Microsoft is all in to keep their desktop/laptop market and try and get back some of the tablet market.
...
My chief problem with this whole debate is that no-one seems able to come up with a reason for Apple to merge the Mac and iPad hardware lines, or even for a Mac OSX tablet, other than "It would be cool"...
The reason to merge the product lines is that Apple believes that a product line that spans tablets to laptops to desktops will be compelling to consumers.
If your tablet is android and your desktop/laptop is windows, then it can be problematic to move back and forth between them. They have different capabilities, and the software that's available on one, may not be available on the other. If you don't like one device, you can replace it with a different device from another manufacturer.
If the MacBook and iPad run the same software, then it becomes easy to mix and match. Grab you iPad or your Desktop, either one and you have full functionality. The big differences will be the physical keyboard, and/or raw processing power.
When the Mac and iPad converge, then there will be a few hardware differences, but both will run the same software. Start something on one, an seamlessly pick it up on the other. I can carry on an SMS text conversation while seamlessly switching between iPhone, iPad, and MacBook. It won't surprise me if I soon start getting texts on my AppleTV.
Imagine that seamlessness working no matter what program you are running, with little or no setup. Once you are invested in this proprietary Apple system, it will be much harder to mix in a non-apple device.
A converged Mac and iPad makes a lot of sense for an Apple targeting the consumer market.
I think the real rake away from Tim Cook's comments, is that Apple will maintain a product line called "Mac". It's an open question whether or not that product morphs into an iPad with a keyboard, or retains a separate existance.
The Surface is just an half baked, poorly designed, highly overpriced solution to a non existent problem....
They are incredible - you clearly haven't used one - The clinic I IT at has 5 SP3s that I got, EMR was impossible without it, it has allowed a 1.76 lb stylus touch screen with the ability to flip down the keyboard to type notes, all day battery. NOTHING is close on the market. magnetic charging connections, magnetic type cover connections - a few key ports, a great dock. If Apple was smart they would copy it as fast as they can, and improve it and make a decent hybrid OS or just run them both - click the button for iPad mode and click again for desktop mode. I want an Apple surface pro 4! (And I have the new macbook - which I love BTW - but it is only a laptop)
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.
Yes lets have Apple stop mac improvements. Where will people get their apps from?
Translation: "Apple is not going to waste time building something no one wants."
According to Apple's 10K, I think FY2015 Mac revenue was $25B and iPad revenue $23B.
That's revenue not units. iPad costs about half to less than half of what a Mac does on average. Macs run people about $1400. iPads cost around $600.
Yes lets have Apple stop mac improvements. Where will people get their apps from?
Things are seldom black and white.
When the Mac first came out, the only development environment available was the Apple Lisa. Eventually, Apple came out with a development environment that ran natively on the Mac.
Currently, you need Apple's X-Code development environment to develop Apps. Currently, X-Code is only available for the Mac. Apple could easily choose to release X-Code for another platform (say iPad Pro). It appears that iPad Pro has enough horsepower and memory to run X-Code. Whether or not Apple releases X-Code to run on iPad is primarily a policy issue.
It would not surprise me if we soon have X-Code running on the iPad.
Get a MacBook.
Get a MacBook.
Get a MacBook. You are misrepresenting the pitch. Apple is trying to communicate that you can let an iPad handle a certain amount of needs. If your needs aren't met then get a MacBook. iPad Pro is Pro, but not in the way you think of it.
You and your like-minded associates (mostly those who Thumbed-up your post) are not understanding or helping with such statements. "Get a XXX" is all you really say, and that isn't saying very much at all. And just because it "works for you personally" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else will be a clone of you. Case-in-point, your and my disagreement. We are both Apple fans, yet you and I are very different, hence my point.
As I said before, TIM COOK HIMSELF is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement even if it cannibalizes MacBook sales. Your tired "Get a MacBook" chant ignores that fact, and no, citing a couple case stories doesn't change things either. Your stance also ignores the glaring omissions and "compromises" that currently exist in the iOS world, especially for large TABLETS which really are a WORLD APART from silly Smart Phones. Smart PHONES can only get so big. Even the iPhone PLUS is too big for many people. TABLETS are not PHONES, nor are they NOTEBOOKS. They really are a separate category altogether, but the way Apple Tablets are setup today, they are confined to the limitations of SMARTPHONES.
The real BREAKTHROUGH with Apple Tablets will come when those tablets can take on a life of their own, not being inseparably tied to the world of PHONES. Again, no one is saying Apple should make an OS X & iOS hybrid. But for tablets to be PRO, there is much, much more work to be done on the part of Apple and app developers. There is too much emphasis on silly phones (which cost a fortune in monthly fees) and not enough attention given to making a tablet ALL THAT IT CAN BE.
Think outside the box. "Just get a Mac. Just get an iOS device. Stop thinking about anything else." is "the box." Think real INNOVATION. And submit your feedback to Apple accordingly. I certainly do.
I am sorry, but what's your point?
You've never needed a smartphone to use an iPad. The only real connection is that you can run phone apps at 2x on an iPad.
Beyond that, they're separate platforms from a user perspective.
You and your like-minded associates (mostly those who Thumbed-up your post) are not understanding or helping with such statements. "Get a XXX" is all you really say, and that isn't saying very much at all. And just because it "works for you personally" doesn't necessarily mean everyone else will be a clone of you. Case-in-point, your and my disagreement. We are both Apple fans, yet you and I are very different, hence my point.
As I said before, TIM COOK HIMSELF is pitching the iPad PRO as a notebook replacement even if it cannibalizes MacBook sales. Your tired "Get a MacBook" chant ignores that fact, and no, citing a couple case stories doesn't change things either. Your stance also ignores the glaring omissions and "compromises" that currently exist in the iOS world, especially for large TABLETS which really are a WORLD APART from silly Smart Phones. Smart PHONES can only get so big. Even the iPhone PLUS is too big for many people. TABLETS are not PHONES, nor are they NOTEBOOKS. They really are a separate category altogether, but the way Apple Tablets are setup today, they are confined to the limitations of SMARTPHONES.
The real BREAKTHROUGH with Apple Tablets will come when those tablets can take on a life of their own, not being inseparably tied to the world of PHONES. Again, no one is saying Apple should make an OS X & iOS hybrid. But for tablets to be PRO, there is much, much more work to be done on the part of Apple and app developers. There is too much emphasis on silly phones (which cost a fortune in monthly fees) and not enough attention given to making a tablet ALL THAT IT CAN BE.
Think outside the box. "Just get a Mac. Just get an iOS device. Stop thinking about anything else." is "the box." Think real INNOVATION. And submit your feedback to Apple accordingly. I certainly do.
"And I think the iPad pro will not 'converge' the MacBook[xxx] line... it will devour it": Yes he is, but he also did say that it's a laptop replacement for MANY people, not all people. I'm pretty sure they know that.
"TABLETS are not PHONES, nor are they NOTEBOOKS." : I agree, they are not.
" but the way Apple Tablets are setup today, they are confined to the limitations of SMARTPHONES." : Agreed. The iPad line needs its own OS, the same way that Apple Watch, Apple TV, and Macs have their own OS, to unleash its unique capabilities. I think this article explains it better than me;
http://markdmill.com/2015/10/12/ipad-pro-and-the-toaster-fridge/
It's also a cursed nuisance to have to take my hands off of the keyboard to mouse the cursor or use the trackpad. I am actually faster highlighting text touching the screen than using a mouse and much faster than using a trackpad.
That said, I myself would like to see Apple release a MacBook and Mac mini based on the A series CPU. I was quite disappointed that the recently released MacBook did not have the A9X but the far costlier and lower performance Core M.
As Apple continues the recent less pace of development, the GPU performance of the A(n)X should very easily continue to surpass and by a significant margin, Intel integrated graphics. The next version consisting of the A10X should bring performance parity to the high end Core i5 CPUs and low end Core i7s.
That being the case, the MacBook running OS X will become a curiosity. Too slow for a pro to run "real" software and too slow when compared to the iPad for the consumer to run games. And when the A11X surpasses the performance of a Core i7 CPU, whatever the name of the high portable CPU Intel is producing? How will Apple navigate that minefield? Users will be wanting to stay on x86 for compatibility, but many power users will definitely want the performance with the much longer battery life the A series will provide.
At this point, I am taking delivery on an iPad pro. The MacBook with its poor performance and throttling of the CPU turned me off. The MacBook Air uses a far hungrier CPU which kills the battery far more quickly than the iPad pro.
So, given the cost savings of the A series over Intel's Core series, performance now reaching the level of a low end Core i5, the long battery life afforded by the Apple CPU which does not require a fan to reach that level of performance, how long before Apple puts the CPU into a Mac Mini and shrinks the size of the device dramatically. And puts the CPU into the iMac lowering the price slightly and allowing for a greater profit margin. And how long before the entire portable line moves over to the CPU as the A9X Graphics performance now outperforms all Intel integrated Graphics with CPU performance only one of two generations before achieving performance parity with Intel's highest performing portable chips. So tell me why Apple would keep the Intel CPU in these scenarios over their own CPU costing an order of magnitude less?
Apple won't converge the iPad and MacBook. That is understandable. But the Apple CPU will be coming to the MacBook. It's really only a matter if when at this point. It's no longer a matter of if.
I agree with the current thinking, but let's see how the iPad and MacBook lines evolve over the next decade before completely shutting the door on convergence.
When Apple makes a tablet with a stylus that I can use like a tablet in meetings to take notes, I want what iOS provides now (although a better file system and network connectivity would make it even more useful for this purpose. But when Apple itself suggests I prop the same device up behind a keyboard, I will only use that when I'm in laptop mode - and when I'm in that mode I can't function without a trackpad and a real file system.
You don't need to converge operating systems to meet my usability needs in both cases, you just need to add a better file system, network interface and pointing device drivers. It would be trivial to provide a first party iPhone app to turn the iPhone into a trackpad if there was a pointing device interface, for example. All this ideology about different device uses is in direct conflict with Apple's commitment to understanding what users want and what "mode" the user is in. That's always been Apple's greatest strength, and this ideological fixation with keeping touch and pointer devices separate is getting in the way.
I agree the iPad pro can never replace the macbook but at the same time the macbook or the pc can never replace the ipad also. There are things that you do with the iPad that you can never do on the macbook. So there you have it. We need them both right now.
And I prefer to have 2 devices that excel at what they are doing rather than a converge that lags and is full of holes.
I have the surface pro 3 and I know what I'm talking about.
If they felt it was the better product and the future of the market, this wouldn't bother them in the least.
It never has.
Some things I know:
- Apple wants to offer great products and continue being the personal devices leader.
- Microsoft Surface sales are on the rise.
- While selling not hybrid devices, an Apple CEO would NEVER say that an hybrid one is on the go.
This brings us to the only conclusion: Tim Cook is now protecting the Apple sales, and to do so in the future, he will have to sell a MacPad.
Maybe sooner than later.
That makes me happy, I prefer a pure computer/workstation experience and a pure tablet experience.