Didn't they already? *Cough-cough* Writedowns *Cough*.
Well that's how things work. If a product is great people buy it. And if it's not they don't. I see the same thing as @spheric. People are like 'wow, that surface is so awesome'. But most of them don't have one. And Microsoft writes down billions in unsold inventory.
those billions in write-downs were related to the Nokia acquisition, not Surface. But point taken.
those billions in write-downs were related to the Nokia acquisition, not Surface. But point taken.
Oh no: that was a separate writedown. The Surface cost them a cool billion (much of that in the Surface RT, though - which wasn't the hybrid portmanteau that the newer Surface Pro machines are).
Oh no: that was a separate writedown. The Surface cost them a cool billion (much of that in the Surface RT, though - which wasn't the hybrid portmanteau that the newer Surface Pro machines are).
As far as Surface RT goes, it was designed a true iPad competitor for the simple reason that it was based around a mobile OS paradigm but failed miserably due to a very stagnant app ecosystem. And when it comes to mobile / touch-first apps Windows still seriously lags. That's why the Surface Pro was created because it allowed Windows users to immediately use all the desktop-based apps they knew and were familiar with. Downside with that is that there wasn't much incentive for developers to create mobile-first apps for Windows because most people who buy Surface Pro use it primarily as a traditional PC.
This is not what I said. My point is that Apple should act if Surface market share increases. Meanwhile, why selling two devices (iPhone, MacPad) per person when he can sell three (iPhone, iPad, Mac)? Tim Cook just tries to continue doing it while he can. Late but not too late.
Surface offers something different that some users might want. If Apple made a hybrid, Surface would be dead (it it isn't already).
Let's face it:
User experience of an iPad + keyboard is far from optimal.
User experience of a laptop with touch screen could be better than without it.
I imagine the best approach today would be a shared filesystem and both iOS and OSX user interfaces on a single device. When keyboard & mouse/trackpad are attached, the OSX UI runs. When unattached, switch to iOS UI. Let's call it iOSX.
iOSX for Apple MacPad.
(and ask top dollar for it)
Let me get this straight. You're not asking for the merging of two OS's but one OS optimized for 2 UI paradigms?
As far as Surface RT goes, it was designed a true iPad competitor for the simple reason that it was based around a mobile OS paradigm but failed miserably due to a very stagnant app ecosystem. And when it comes to mobile / touch-first apps Windows still seriously lags. That's why the Surface Pro was created because it allowed Windows users to immediately use all the desktop-based apps they knew and were familiar with. Downside with that is that there wasn't much incentive for developers to create mobile-first apps for Windows because most people who buy Surface Pro use it primarily as a traditional PC.
The Surface RT failed because it didn't do ANYTHING better than iPad, and a lot of things worse (as you note, a dearth of apps didn't help) and wasn't really cheaper at that. It also failed because Microsoft put it out AT THE SAME TIME as the Surface Pro, and marketed THAT as everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-This-Is-The-Only-Machine-You'll-Need.
It was a typical Microsoftian bungle of bringing out a semi-viable product and very carefully and elegantly fucking it up completely by strategic mismarketing and having to push both strategies forward at the same time (see: Kin vs. Windows Phone). They turned one into a stillborn product and seriously damaged the other in the process.
Let me get this straight. You're not asking for the merging of two OS's but one OS optimized for 2 UI paradigms?
Yes. But the one optimized for 2 UI paradigms must come from the merging of both. It can't be another way, since Apple would never do a device with virtualized OSs running in parallel. What I meant is that the user experience shouldn't change for an iOS and OSX user: same device, using multitouch when in Pad mode, keyboard/mouse/trackpad (adding touch) when in Mac mode. About developing this new OS: THAT would be difficult, I guess iOS and OSX share very little under the hood.
A virtual machine might be necessary to run the current iOS applications on the new hybrid device, but this wouldn't be a long-term solution. Not a good user experience either. Applications wouldn't keep their "raccord": not a huge deal for online synced applications, but a deal breaker for offline apps. So developers would need to get involved in some kind of "Responsive App Design (RAD)", adopting RWD practices such as the substitution of the menu bar for the slide down menu, adjustable font sizes, full-screen vs several windows, element repositioning, etc.
Yes. But the one optimized for 2 UI paradigms must come from the merging of both.
You cannot "optimise for both". That is the complete opposite of what optimising means, and summarises succinctly why Apple won't be following the Surface's lead, even if it does turn out to survive on the market.
You cannot "optimise for both". That is the complete opposite of what optimising means, and summarises succinctly why Apple won't be following the Surface's lead, even if it does turn out to survive on the market.
The only way I can see an "optimized for both" solution is what some devices have tried to do in the past, but have done an exceedingly poor job of it. They could technically, say, rework the MacBook Air—now the we have the MacBook—as an ARM-based detachable or convertible notebook that runs Mac OS X in notebook mode, and then switches to iOS in tablet mode. These are just two different UIs, and since I did mention it being ARM-based, this might be possible as quickly as Launchpad appears on a Mac to bring up the iOS home screen.
Note: I'm not saying this will happen or even that it should happen, merely that it would technically offer a great desktop UI and a great tablet UI.
The only way I can see an "optimized for both" solution is what some devices have tried to do in the past, but have done an exceedingly poor job of it. They could technically, say, rework the MacBook Air—now the we have the MacBook—as an ARM-based detachable or convertible notebook that runs Mac OS X in notebook mode, and then switches to iOS in tablet mode. These are just two different UIs, and since I did mention it being ARM-based, this might be possible as quickly as Launchpad appears on a Mac to bring up the iOS home screen.
Note: I'm not saying this will happen or even that it should happen, merely that it would technically offer a great desktop UI and a great tablet UI.
How so? An ARM-based MacBook Air that would also need a touchscreen and either a detachable keyboard or a 360° hinge would cost more than an ARM-based MBA that was just a notebook, but when you consider the cost of an equally-priced 12.9" 4:3 iPad Pro (in this scenario it only makes sense to make the Mac UI's display 4:3, not force iOS UI's display to 16:9) I don't see how it would be more expensive. And considering we're talking about dropping Intel for an Apple A-series chip, the total cost per unit, even for the SW changes, could be less than they are now for a 13" MBP.
More expensive because you're not factoring the Mac case, keyboard, trackpad along with the cost of the touchscreen, especially with the high-resolution stylus detection that makes the iPad Pro so expensive.
Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly. Worse because the machine would be thicker and heavier than either. Worse because it would be top-heavy when in laptop mode, due to the thick and heavy display. Worse because battery life would suffer. Worse because there would need to be a clunky mechanism for separating/linking the two sections. Yeah, there's a Windows convertible that does that, but it's not exactly thin, and if your battery is dead, you can't even separate it.
More expensive because you're not factoring the Mac case, keyboard, trackpad along with the cost of the touchscreen, especially with the high-resolution stylus detection that makes the iPad Pro so expensive.
Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly.
Worse because the machine would be thicker and heavier than either.
Worse because it would be top-heavy when in laptop mode, due to the thick and heavy display.
Worse because battery life would suffer.
Worse because there would need to be a clunky mechanism for separating/linking the two sections. Yeah, there's a Windows convertible that does that, but it's not exactly thin, and if your battery is dead, you can't even separate it.
Nothing I said would lead to those particular conclusions, but that's all moot, because the comment of yours I'm referring to is about the desktop v mobile UIs.
If you don't merge the UIs, you don't compromise them.
You merely compromise the device, in the ways I describe, among others.
Though you might argue that the interface suffers as well - what happens with the trackpad if the machine is in touch mode? It needs to be deactivated, but it can't just disappear. Or can the machine only be in touch mode when the keyboard is detached? That would make sense, but make quick note-taking massively annoying.
More expensive because you're not factoring the Mac case, keyboard, trackpad along with the cost of the touchscreen, especially with the high-resolution stylus detection that makes the iPad Pro so expensive.
Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly.
Worse because the machine would be thicker and heavier than either.
Worse because it would be top-heavy when in laptop mode, due to the thick and heavy display.
Worse because battery life would suffer.
Worse because there would need to be a clunky mechanism for separating/linking the two sections. Yeah, there's a Windows convertible that does that, but it's not exactly thin, and if your battery is dead, you can't even separate it.
"Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly."
That's based on the assumption that users would want to sideload apps but such a device that Solip described, one based on an ARM architecture, would run apps only from the App Store, not side loaded. So essentially, when KB is detached, the app would show a UI optimized for touch. When KB attached, the app would show a UI optimized for KB / mouse / trackpad. Kind of like how MS' Continuum works.
"Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly."
That's based on the assumption that users would want to sideload apps but such a device that Solip described, one based on an ARM architecture, would run apps only from the App Store, not side loaded.
Uh, no, that's based upon the simple fact that not one single app in the Mac App Store - or elsewhere - is currently compiled to run on ARM processors.
You cannot "optimise for both". That is the complete opposite of what optimising means, and summarises succinctly why Apple won't be following the Surface's lead, even if it does turn out to survive on the market.
You can optimize what you want. Including two UIs running in parallel. Even 2 OSs. There is no 100% optimization, but being just a 10% more power efficient than the competitors would suffice. All these not-Apple devices have enough space for the batteries. Ranging from 7 to 12 hours.
And it's not only Surface, there are some other hybrids (convertibles or detachables) from Lenovo, Dell and HP worth mentioning. It's a whole new market segment that it's here to stay. Right now all my devices have an apple engraved. I'll wait. But I can't wait a long time. The Lenovo ThinkPad Helix 2 + Ultrabook Pro Keyboard would be my choice as of today.
You can optimize what you want. Including two UIs running in parallel. Even 2 OSs. There is no 100% optimization, but being just a 10% more power efficient than the competitors would suffice. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">All these not-Apple devices have enough space for the batteries. Ranging from 7 to 12 hours.</span>
Because "good enough" is so Apple.
You can optimize for a boat, or for a car, but you can't optimize for both. Being 10% more fuel-efficient than other amphibious vehicles does not make a viable mass-market proposition, and it's rather telling that you believe that this is how Apple should think.
You really haven't the slightest idea why they're so wildly successful, do you.
With the Surface products, Microsoft is making 2-in-1 devices with a different emphasis on the main usage scenarios: the Surface Pro being mostly used as a tablet and the Book mostly used as a laptop. Both setups come with compromises. Although the tablet modes in each can run the desktop software, none of it is optimized well for touch input so this works best in laptop mode. This is ok but neither are best in class as laptops either.
Comparison setups would be: Macbook Pro 13" i5, 8GB, 128GB = $1299 iPad Pro 13", 32GB = $799 + Pen = $99 Astropad = $20 $2217
Surface Book 13" i5, 8GB, 128GB = $1499 or Surface Pro 4 12", M3/4GB/128GB = $899 or i5/8GB/256GB = $1299
The Astropad app is offering the ability to converge the iPad and Mac experience. Although the 2-in-1 products allow you to have both experiences in a single device, the quality of the user experience is very important because you're going to be using these products all the time. The following videos show experiences with the iPad + Mac vs Surface Book:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
It's reassuring that Microsoft is continuing their tradition of bringing abject disappointment to users since 1980, now available in tablet form. These kind of products work for Windows (and Android) users because they are the type of people who convince themselves that features, spec or price matter more than user experience and are prepared to suffer for it ( ).
Full desktop software and a desktop environment is essential to be fully productive in certain tasks. Without allowing runtime scripting languages, plugins, filesystem access, mobile systems will be limited in that regard. These limitations come with benefits though, which is that the users never need to deal with the operating system itself. You rarely need to troubleshoot an iOS device. Look at that guy on the Surface Book poking around the tiny desktop UI and adjusting settings and still not happy with the result. If you need to use a pen to use the UI reliably then it's a frustrating experience.
When it comes to filesystem access, the main purpose of this is to share files between apps i.e treat files as objects independently from apps where apps can be removed and files remain in place. This usage of a filesystem doesn't need full filesystem access, which is for repairing or modifying the system files or running a webserver. All Apple would need to make is a service on iOS to let people create projects. There would be an API that would allow an app to create a project. Files can then be saved into this project space. Projects can be an app itself. Multiple apps can then be given access to projects and opening the Projects app can have an option to open all a project's files in their respective apps together. It would never need to be a full filesystem. Removing an app would leave the projects alone. This can also have Handoff-type support and iCloud support so they could port FCPX over, let someone easily drop footage onto the iPad wirelessly, save the project and send it back onto the Mac to open in FCPX there.
With mobile systems having restrictions on runtime scripting languages, plugin support etc, they will always be limited but if they could add a Swift runtime and put XCode onto iOS, again with Projects, that would satisfy some more users.
Allowing the Mac front-end to operate on an iPad with a mouse or Magic Trackpad would be like the Surface Pro. This could be added to the iPad without changing the iPad at all as Astropad shows. However, this requires a switchover from one input mode to the other and this doesn't happen smoothly. Nor would the software be setup optimally for touch. A Trackpad could work with iOS the way it does on the ?TV while keeping the iOS UI the same (this would help with coding) but the whole window and menu system is best being removed completely.
Right now, the user experience on separate devices looks better than having 2-in-1. If desktop operating systems handle the transition better and the hardware performance allows unrestricted systems to run more smoothly, then they could be more suitable replacements for separate devices. Having two separate devices gives you two screens. You can open a browser on the tablet while running a desktop app or you can have a browser on the desktop while sketching on the tablet.
People who have a laptop just now can take it with an iPad and have the converged experience with Astropad and that will let them see the benefits and limitations. Apple's trackpads work very well on the laptops, if they make those larger and offer Pencil support, that will allow drawing on the Mac directly. There will likely be further convergence between Macs and iPads in future but only where it doesn't end up creating a frustrating user experience. Apple bought PrimeSense for something so I expect they will be experimenting with gesture controls but it takes time to get it right.
You can optimize for a boat, or for a car, but you can't optimize for both. Being 10% more fuel-efficient than other amphibious vehicles does not make a viable mass-market proposition, and it's rather telling that you believe that this is how Apple should think.
You really haven't the slightest idea why they're so wildly successful, do you.
You might know something undisclosed about cars and Apple. But transportation systems isn't what we are talking about here.
Check up what's trending for this Christmas. Oh wait, what is it on the 4th place? Surprise! We are not talking about toaster-fridges (as Apple successfully did), boat-cars or space-tractors. It's about the future of laptops here. There are already great convertibles out there, and not-so-great detachables. My guess is that Apple will release a convertible in a 2-year timespan. We'll see.
The "good enough" to release is higher for Apple than for the rest of tech companies. While their products may be the best, they aren't "perfect" either. And, since I know a little about Apple, their hybrid will be the best on its market segment. It's what I meant about performing better. I know they won't stay out of this market. And I think hybrids won't be a fad as netbooks were.
Comments
Didn't they already? *Cough-cough* Writedowns *Cough*.
Well that's how things work. If a product is great people buy it. And if it's not they don't. I see the same thing as @spheric. People are like 'wow, that surface is so awesome'. But most of them don't have one. And Microsoft writes down billions in unsold inventory.
those billions in write-downs were related to the Nokia acquisition, not Surface. But point taken.
Oh no: that was a separate writedown. The Surface cost them a cool billion (much of that in the Surface RT, though - which wasn't the hybrid portmanteau that the newer Surface Pro machines are).
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/technology/surface-billion-dollar-writedown/
Oh no: that was a separate writedown. The Surface cost them a cool billion (much of that in the Surface RT, though - which wasn't the hybrid portmanteau that the newer Surface Pro machines are).
http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/technology/surface-billion-dollar-writedown/
Thanks for the clarification.
As far as Surface RT goes, it was designed a true iPad competitor for the simple reason that it was based around a mobile OS paradigm but failed miserably due to a very stagnant app ecosystem. And when it comes to mobile / touch-first apps Windows still seriously lags. That's why the Surface Pro was created because it allowed Windows users to immediately use all the desktop-based apps they knew and were familiar with. Downside with that is that there wasn't much incentive for developers to create mobile-first apps for Windows because most people who buy Surface Pro use it primarily as a traditional PC.
This is not what I said. My point is that Apple should act if Surface market share increases. Meanwhile, why selling two devices (iPhone, MacPad) per person when he can sell three (iPhone, iPad, Mac)? Tim Cook just tries to continue doing it while he can. Late but not too late.
Surface offers something different that some users might want. If Apple made a hybrid, Surface would be dead (it it isn't already).
Let's face it:
User experience of an iPad + keyboard is far from optimal.
User experience of a laptop with touch screen could be better than without it.
I imagine the best approach today would be a shared filesystem and both iOS and OSX user interfaces on a single device. When keyboard & mouse/trackpad are attached, the OSX UI runs. When unattached, switch to iOS UI. Let's call it iOSX.
iOSX for Apple MacPad.
(and ask top dollar for it)
Let me get this straight. You're not asking for the merging of two OS's but one OS optimized for 2 UI paradigms?
The Surface RT failed because it didn't do ANYTHING better than iPad, and a lot of things worse (as you note, a dearth of apps didn't help) and wasn't really cheaper at that. It also failed because Microsoft put it out AT THE SAME TIME as the Surface Pro, and marketed THAT as everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-This-Is-The-Only-Machine-You'll-Need.
It was a typical Microsoftian bungle of bringing out a semi-viable product and very carefully and elegantly fucking it up completely by strategic mismarketing and having to push both strategies forward at the same time (see: Kin vs. Windows Phone). They turned one into a stillborn product and seriously damaged the other in the process.
Let me get this straight. You're not asking for the merging of two OS's but one OS optimized for 2 UI paradigms?
Yes. But the one optimized for 2 UI paradigms must come from the merging of both. It can't be another way, since Apple would never do a device with virtualized OSs running in parallel. What I meant is that the user experience shouldn't change for an iOS and OSX user: same device, using multitouch when in Pad mode, keyboard/mouse/trackpad (adding touch) when in Mac mode. About developing this new OS: THAT would be difficult, I guess iOS and OSX share very little under the hood.
A virtual machine might be necessary to run the current iOS applications on the new hybrid device, but this wouldn't be a long-term solution. Not a good user experience either. Applications wouldn't keep their "raccord": not a huge deal for online synced applications, but a deal breaker for offline apps. So developers would need to get involved in some kind of "Responsive App Design (RAD)", adopting RWD practices such as the substitution of the menu bar for the slide down menu, adjustable font sizes, full-screen vs several windows, element repositioning, etc.
Yes. But the one optimized for 2 UI paradigms must come from the merging of both.
You cannot "optimise for both". That is the complete opposite of what optimising means, and summarises succinctly why Apple won't be following the Surface's lead, even if it does turn out to survive on the market.
The only way I can see an "optimized for both" solution is what some devices have tried to do in the past, but have done an exceedingly poor job of it. They could technically, say, rework the MacBook Air—now the we have the MacBook—as an ARM-based detachable or convertible notebook that runs Mac OS X in notebook mode, and then switches to iOS in tablet mode. These are just two different UIs, and since I did mention it being ARM-based, this might be possible as quickly as Launchpad appears on a Mac to bring up the iOS home screen.
Note: I'm not saying this will happen or even that it should happen, merely that it would technically offer a great desktop UI and a great tablet UI.
More expensive than either; worse than both.
How so? An ARM-based MacBook Air that would also need a touchscreen and either a detachable keyboard or a 360° hinge would cost more than an ARM-based MBA that was just a notebook, but when you consider the cost of an equally-priced 12.9" 4:3 iPad Pro (in this scenario it only makes sense to make the Mac UI's display 4:3, not force iOS UI's display to 16:9) I don't see how it would be more expensive. And considering we're talking about dropping Intel for an Apple A-series chip, the total cost per unit, even for the SW changes, could be less than they are now for a 13" MBP.
Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly.
Worse because the machine would be thicker and heavier than either.
Worse because it would be top-heavy when in laptop mode, due to the thick and heavy display.
Worse because battery life would suffer.
Worse because there would need to be a clunky mechanism for separating/linking the two sections. Yeah, there's a Windows convertible that does that, but it's not exactly thin, and if your battery is dead, you can't even separate it.
Nothing I said would lead to those particular conclusions, but that's all moot, because the comment of yours I'm referring to is about the desktop v mobile UIs.
You merely compromise the device, in the ways I describe, among others.
Though you might argue that the interface suffers as well - what happens with the trackpad if the machine is in touch mode? It needs to be deactivated, but it can't just disappear. Or can the machine only be in touch mode when the keyboard is detached? That would make sense, but make quick note-taking massively annoying.
More expensive because you're not factoring the Mac case, keyboard, trackpad along with the cost of the touchscreen, especially with the high-resolution stylus detection that makes the iPad Pro so expensive.
Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly.
Worse because the machine would be thicker and heavier than either.
Worse because it would be top-heavy when in laptop mode, due to the thick and heavy display.
Worse because battery life would suffer.
Worse because there would need to be a clunky mechanism for separating/linking the two sections. Yeah, there's a Windows convertible that does that, but it's not exactly thin, and if your battery is dead, you can't even separate it.
"Worse because at the moment, there is NO ARM-based Mac software, and any Mac software that isn't recompiled would need to run in emulation - slowly."
That's based on the assumption that users would want to sideload apps but such a device that Solip described, one based on an ARM architecture, would run apps only from the App Store, not side loaded. So essentially, when KB is detached, the app would show a UI optimized for touch. When KB attached, the app would show a UI optimized for KB / mouse / trackpad. Kind of like how MS' Continuum works.
Uh, no, that's based upon the simple fact that not one single app in the Mac App Store - or elsewhere - is currently compiled to run on ARM processors.
You cannot "optimise for both". That is the complete opposite of what optimising means, and summarises succinctly why Apple won't be following the Surface's lead, even if it does turn out to survive on the market.
You can optimize what you want. Including two UIs running in parallel. Even 2 OSs. There is no 100% optimization, but being just a 10% more power efficient than the competitors would suffice. All these not-Apple devices have enough space for the batteries. Ranging from 7 to 12 hours.
And it's not only Surface, there are some other hybrids (convertibles or detachables) from Lenovo, Dell and HP worth mentioning. It's a whole new market segment that it's here to stay. Right now all my devices have an apple engraved. I'll wait. But I can't wait a long time. The Lenovo ThinkPad Helix 2 + Ultrabook Pro Keyboard would be my choice as of today.
Because "good enough" is so Apple.
You can optimize for a boat, or for a car, but you can't optimize for both. Being 10% more fuel-efficient than other amphibious vehicles does not make a viable mass-market proposition, and it's rather telling that you believe that this is how Apple should think.
You really haven't the slightest idea why they're so wildly successful, do you.
Comparison setups would be:
Macbook Pro 13" i5, 8GB, 128GB = $1299
iPad Pro 13", 32GB = $799 + Pen = $99
Astropad = $20
$2217
Surface Book 13" i5, 8GB, 128GB = $1499
or Surface Pro 4 12", M3/4GB/128GB = $899 or i5/8GB/256GB = $1299
The Astropad app is offering the ability to converge the iPad and Mac experience. Although the 2-in-1 products allow you to have both experiences in a single device, the quality of the user experience is very important because you're going to be using these products all the time. The following videos show experiences with the iPad + Mac vs Surface Book:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
It's reassuring that Microsoft is continuing their tradition of bringing abject disappointment to users since 1980, now available in tablet form. These kind of products work for Windows (and Android) users because they are the type of people who convince themselves that features, spec or price matter more than user experience and are prepared to suffer for it (
Full desktop software and a desktop environment is essential to be fully productive in certain tasks. Without allowing runtime scripting languages, plugins, filesystem access, mobile systems will be limited in that regard. These limitations come with benefits though, which is that the users never need to deal with the operating system itself. You rarely need to troubleshoot an iOS device. Look at that guy on the Surface Book poking around the tiny desktop UI and adjusting settings and still not happy with the result. If you need to use a pen to use the UI reliably then it's a frustrating experience.
When it comes to filesystem access, the main purpose of this is to share files between apps i.e treat files as objects independently from apps where apps can be removed and files remain in place. This usage of a filesystem doesn't need full filesystem access, which is for repairing or modifying the system files or running a webserver. All Apple would need to make is a service on iOS to let people create projects. There would be an API that would allow an app to create a project. Files can then be saved into this project space. Projects can be an app itself. Multiple apps can then be given access to projects and opening the Projects app can have an option to open all a project's files in their respective apps together. It would never need to be a full filesystem. Removing an app would leave the projects alone. This can also have Handoff-type support and iCloud support so they could port FCPX over, let someone easily drop footage onto the iPad wirelessly, save the project and send it back onto the Mac to open in FCPX there.
With mobile systems having restrictions on runtime scripting languages, plugin support etc, they will always be limited but if they could add a Swift runtime and put XCode onto iOS, again with Projects, that would satisfy some more users.
Allowing the Mac front-end to operate on an iPad with a mouse or Magic Trackpad would be like the Surface Pro. This could be added to the iPad without changing the iPad at all as Astropad shows. However, this requires a switchover from one input mode to the other and this doesn't happen smoothly. Nor would the software be setup optimally for touch. A Trackpad could work with iOS the way it does on the ?TV while keeping the iOS UI the same (this would help with coding) but the whole window and menu system is best being removed completely.
Right now, the user experience on separate devices looks better than having 2-in-1. If desktop operating systems handle the transition better and the hardware performance allows unrestricted systems to run more smoothly, then they could be more suitable replacements for separate devices. Having two separate devices gives you two screens. You can open a browser on the tablet while running a desktop app or you can have a browser on the desktop while sketching on the tablet.
People who have a laptop just now can take it with an iPad and have the converged experience with Astropad and that will let them see the benefits and limitations. Apple's trackpads work very well on the laptops, if they make those larger and offer Pencil support, that will allow drawing on the Mac directly. There will likely be further convergence between Macs and iPads in future but only where it doesn't end up creating a frustrating user experience. Apple bought PrimeSense for something so I expect they will be experimenting with gesture controls but it takes time to get it right.
Because "good enough" is so Apple.
You can optimize for a boat, or for a car, but you can't optimize for both. Being 10% more fuel-efficient than other amphibious vehicles does not make a viable mass-market proposition, and it's rather telling that you believe that this is how Apple should think.
You really haven't the slightest idea why they're so wildly successful, do you.
You might know something undisclosed about cars and Apple. But transportation systems isn't what we are talking about here.
Check up what's trending for this Christmas. Oh wait, what is it on the 4th place? Surprise! We are not talking about toaster-fridges (as Apple successfully did), boat-cars or space-tractors. It's about the future of laptops here. There are already great convertibles out there, and not-so-great detachables. My guess is that Apple will release a convertible in a 2-year timespan. We'll see.
The "good enough" to release is higher for Apple than for the rest of tech companies. While their products may be the best, they aren't "perfect" either. And, since I know a little about Apple, their hybrid will be the best on its market segment. It's what I meant about performing better. I know they won't stay out of this market. And I think hybrids won't be a fad as netbooks were.