As far as performance ARM has beefed up their architecture. You can now have up to 8 CPU in a cluster and you can cluster 32 of these Octoclusters together. Want more speed? Add more CPU.
Doesn't work that way for many apps which are constrained by single threaded performance because the expensive computations aren't easily parallellizable.
Also multiple CPUs has architecture costs vs multiple cores. There's no free lunch.
I have no idea why folks will look at the A series of processors and then claim that by adding more cores you can outperform the faster processor when the older quad core A series chips regularly beat the pants off the hexacore and octocore chips that Samsung and Qualcomm made and the A11 will demolish everything Samsung or Qualcomm will have because its single core performance is so much better. Samsung could make a dual processor octacore phone (16 cores) and still lose to the A11 in usable performance.
Those performance advantages don't simply disappear because it's Intel desktop quad core i7 vs any ARM octacore, even Apple's. Intel has been working extremely hard to improve performance per watt to the point we have highly performant 4.5W Intel processors. The dual core Intel Core i7-7Y75 MacBook scores 4020 single core and 7999 multicore on 4.5W TDP. That's on par with the A11 but only using 2 cores and not 4+2. All those folks that claim Intel has done nothing in the last few years is ignoring that Intel has been doing EXACTLY what Apple has wanted them to do: concentrate on performance per watt over top end speed.
Essentially Intel has caught up with ARM on power consumption for performance per watt. The primary difference is at the top end where ARM doesn't compete and price where ARM is much cheaper than Intel and Intel doesn't compete.
The highest end Intel processors (which is what you are comparing to) account for about 10-20% of the market. That leaves a whole lot of room for the "A" series to step in.
So what? The majority of that 80% is better off with an iPad Pro vs an Arm MacBook. The remainder are largely business users with a need to run windows apps natively.
Apple doesnt compete in most of that 80-90% market with the Mac anyway but with the iPad.
80% of users should buy a MacBook Pro instead of a MacBook? Really? Where did you come up with that? And, where are they going to come up with the money for that? There's a reason why Apple named it a "Pro" line.
And, once the iPad has a cursor & touchpad on its keyboard, it will basically be a MacBook since it will be able to do the things that a MacBook does. Or it can be a tablet. Whichever you need at the time.
To make it like a Mac is needs as the primary input to be a cursor driven by a mouse. This is not so much a technical change as a major UI change.
I don't think it's as big a paradigm shift as might appear at first glance. For one thing, we already have a rudimentary non-touch version of iOS in tvOS, just extend that paradigm by adding a proper touchpad (shaped just like the screen you're using it to drive) for more precise manipulation of items on the screen.
Imagine the touchpad mimics (in shape) the screen it is controlling, where you touch the touchpad a "blur" (or something similar to indicate your touch as input) appears in the same location on the screen as if it were your finger actually touching the screen or display (though the screen/display is non-touch). Move your finger around the touchpad, the "blur" moves as if you were touching around in iOS. Remove your finger from the touchpad and the "blur" goes away. That way you can still retain the "touch" paradigm of the OS (so not much really has to change), you're just changing the object you touch and providing the input the OS uses to know what you want to control.
Does that make it a Mac? Most certainly not, iOS is an OS in its own right, having matured and gained much sophistication in recent years. Also, the list of differences between macOS and iOS feature sets has reduced at the same time to the point that iOS actually does serve as primary computing for many, many people. iOS is obviously the company's future, they've done a lot with it so far and it wouldn't be surprising to see them extend it more in the future in very interesting ways.
Thanks for a genuinely interesting argument.
However there are many reasons I wouldnt replace my MacBook Pro with an iPad, even one with a mouse. ( Actually I have both, but the iPad is strictly a consumer device).
A nonexhaustive list would include : an application I run not being available on iOS and unlikely to be, an app I boot into windows for, a proper filesystem which allows me to bypass the Mac Store for downloads, and shows networked, and external drives. A bigger screen. Terminal access. Automation. The ability to mirror the device and run on external monitors. And probably lots I have not yet thought of. I dont really buy that Tim Cook runs only on iPads.
The error in the arguement is the assumption that a cursor would have to replace a touch screen rather than supplement it. Anybody who has used an iPad Pro pencil knows that that is not true.
nht said: Option+shift+arrow selects in most apps with a BT keyboard in text boxes.
Yea, bits of help, but still pretty poor UX (and then, productivity) for many kinds of tasks.
GeorgeBMac said: Yet all they need to do is add a touchpad to their keyboard and you have the best of both worlds all in one package. It's really just a matter of time.
-- The tablet is the best form for some things. The laptop is the best form for other things. -- Touchscreen control is better for some things. Cursor control is better for other things.
It's quite silly for Apple to be dragging this out. Or, perhaps they aren't. They seem to be building the foundation: They have started advertising the iPad as a laptop replacement. They added an external keyboard. And now they've added a file system.
It's just a matter of time before they add a touchpad to the external keyboard. ... The only drawback is the cry of anguish from those fearful the iPad will replace the MacBook.
Yes, that would help, but then there are dozens of other inefficiencies (for laptop/desktop type work). It could happen - and maybe even without that - as Apple doesn't seem to care about UX/UI like it once did. So, really, nearly anything (good or bad) is on the table, IMO.
I get what you're saying, and that's precisely what Microsoft tried... just the other way around. I suppose a properly designed device, that was able to switch contexts appropriately, would be the ultimate for some use-cases.
re: file-system - I'll go on record as calling that a problem since the iPad was introduced! I think they thought the average consumer wouldn't need file-management... which *might* be true, but once you get to anything serious, people don't organize by app.
And, also for the record, I don't care if the iPad replaces the laptop.... but it needs a workable OS and hopefully a mechanical configuration that solves the current state of the iPad pro by some margin. (ex: if I'm sitting somewhere without a table, a laptop is far superior to trying to balance an external keyboard with propped up tablet.)
GeorgeBMac said: Actually No, No they did not say ever say that. They did however say that a touch screen laptop sucked -- shortly before they created one with the iPad Pro.
They didn't create a laptop. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't work well on one's lap, they just added another method of keyboard input to an iOS device... which we could do before the iPad Pro. That doesn't change the fact that a touch screen laptop sucks.... just that Apple's more willing these days to give people sucky stuff if that's what they want.
GeorgeBMac said: The fact is: Apple came to dominate the market by putting product before profit.
... Great Profit follows great product.
Exactly, which is one of my biggest gripes with Apple currently, as I think they are letting this principal slip.
It's strikes me that we should take a step back on this.
What will ARM laptops and desktops do better than Intel laptops and desktops? Faster, better, cheaper?
I think faster then Intel won't be a consistent advantage. At parity with Intel in the PC space is about the most you could hope for unless Intel falls off a cliff. I don't think Intel would just crater.
Cheaper is definitely something that can be done. AMD is doing that to Intel right now, and Apple can do this too as Intel chips command about a 2x to 4x price premium over other merchant chips. Apple can be at performance parody but their laptops and desktops are cheaper by $200 to $1000?
In what way will ARM machines be better and will it be better enough? 2 more hours of runtime? A 10 mm or thinner laptop? Secure enclave? 2x as many cores per Watt? A dual screen laptop? iOS apps? Face ID? Better cameras on PCs? Cellular for cheaper?
What is the advantage to the end user? Not the advantage to Apple, but how would it benefit the end user and much benefit is needed to get users to switch?
tht said: What is the advantage to the end user? Not the advantage to Apple, but how would it benefit the end user and much benefit is needed to get users to switch?
I think it would only have to benefit Apple for them to do it. Exhibit A: headphone jack
As far as performance ARM has beefed up their architecture. You can now have up to 8 CPU in a cluster and you can cluster 32 of these Octoclusters together. Want more speed? Add more CPU.
Doesn't work that way for many apps which are constrained by single threaded performance because the expensive computations aren't easily parallellizable.
Also multiple CPUs has architecture costs vs multiple cores. There's no free lunch.
I have no idea why folks will look at the A series of processors and then claim that by adding more cores you can outperform the faster processor when the older quad core A series chips regularly beat the pants off the hexacore and octocore chips that Samsung and Qualcomm made and the A11 will demolish everything Samsung or Qualcomm will have because its single core performance is so much better. Samsung could make a dual processor octacore phone (16 cores) and still lose to the A11 in usable performance.
Those performance advantages don't simply disappear because it's Intel desktop quad core i7 vs any ARM octacore, even Apple's. Intel has been working extremely hard to improve performance per watt to the point we have highly performant 4.5W Intel processors. The dual core Intel Core i7-7Y75 MacBook scores 4020 single core and 7999 multicore on 4.5W TDP. That's on par with the A11 but only using 2 cores and not 4+2. All those folks that claim Intel has done nothing in the last few years is ignoring that Intel has been doing EXACTLY what Apple has wanted them to do: concentrate on performance per watt over top end speed.
Essentially Intel has caught up with ARM on power consumption for performance per watt. The primary difference is at the top end where ARM doesn't compete and price where ARM is much cheaper than Intel and Intel doesn't compete.
The highest end Intel processors (which is what you are comparing to) account for about 10-20% of the market. That leaves a whole lot of room for the "A" series to step in.
So what? The majority of that 80% is better off with an iPad Pro vs an Arm MacBook. The remainder are largely business users with a need to run windows apps natively.
Apple doesnt compete in most of that 80-90% market with the Mac anyway but with the iPad.
80% of users should buy a MacBook Pro instead of a MacBook? Really? Where did you come up with that? And, where are they going to come up with the money for that? There's a reason why Apple named it a "Pro" line.
And, once the iPad has a cursor & touchpad on its keyboard, it will basically be a MacBook since it will be able to do the things that a MacBook does. Or it can be a tablet. Whichever you need at the time.
To make it like a Mac is needs as the primary input to be a cursor driven by a mouse. This is not so much a technical change as a major UI change.
I don't think it's as big a paradigm shift as might appear at first glance. For one thing, we already have a rudimentary non-touch version of iOS in tvOS, just extend that paradigm by adding a proper touchpad (shaped just like the screen you're using it to drive) for more precise manipulation of items on the screen.
Imagine the touchpad mimics (in shape) the screen it is controlling, where you touch the touchpad a "blur" (or something similar to indicate your touch as input) appears in the same location on the screen as if it were your finger actually touching the screen or display (though the screen/display is non-touch). Move your finger around the touchpad, the "blur" moves as if you were touching around in iOS. Remove your finger from the touchpad and the "blur" goes away. That way you can still retain the "touch" paradigm of the OS (so not much really has to change), you're just changing the object you touch and providing the input the OS uses to know what you want to control.
Does that make it a Mac? Most certainly not, iOS is an OS in its own right, having matured and gained much sophistication in recent years. Also, the list of differences between macOS and iOS feature sets has reduced at the same time to the point that iOS actually does serve as primary computing for many, many people. iOS is obviously the company's future, they've done a lot with it so far and it wouldn't be surprising to see them extend it more in the future in very interesting ways.
Thanks for a genuinely interesting argument.
However there are many reasons I wouldnt replace my MacBook Pro with an iPad, even one with a mouse. ( Actually I have both, but the iPad is strictly a consumer device).
A nonexhaustive list would include : an application I run not being available on iOS and unlikely to be, an app I boot into windows for, a proper filesystem which allows me to bypass the Mac Store for downloads, and shows networked, and external drives. A bigger screen. Terminal access. Automation. The ability to mirror the device and run on external monitors. And probably lots I have not yet thought of. I dont really buy that Tim Cook runs only on iPads.
The error in the arguement is the assumption that a cursor would have to replace a touch screen rather than supplement it. Anybody who has used an iPad Pro pencil knows that that is not true.
literally nothing in the post you are replying to mentioned the cursor. I was talking about the many differences between a laptop and a iPad.
It's strikes me that we should take a step back on this.
What will ARM laptops and desktops do better than Intel laptops and desktops? Faster, better, cheaper?
I think faster then Intel won't be a consistent advantage. At parity with Intel in the PC space is about the most you could hope for unless Intel falls off a cliff. I don't think Intel would just crater.
Cheaper is definitely something that can be done. AMD is doing that to Intel right now, and Apple can do this too as Intel chips command about a 2x to 4x price premium over other merchant chips. Apple can be at performance parody but their laptops and desktops are cheaper by $200 to $1000?
In what way will ARM machines be better and will it be better enough? 2 more hours of runtime? A 10 mm or thinner laptop? Secure enclave? 2x as many cores per Watt? A dual screen laptop? iOS apps? Face ID? Better cameras on PCs? Cellular for cheaper?
What is the advantage to the end user? Not the advantage to Apple, but how would it benefit the end user and much benefit is needed to get users to switch?
As the power of mobile computers approaches the power of laptop computers then "cheaper" becomes more and more of a factor...
In addition to an iPad functioning as a laptop killer (as Apple has said it is), I can also see slipping an iPhone into a dock containing keyboard, touchpad and a large screen containing its own external GPU.
Out present configuration of buying: -- One computer for games -- One computer to sit on a desk -- One computer to use on the couch -- One computer to use at Starbuck's -- One computer to carry in your pocket -- One computer to wear on your wrist -- One computer to drive your TV -- One computer to talk to...
Increasingly I see "One Computer To Rule Them All"... ... Does that make me evil?
As far as performance ARM has beefed up their architecture. You can now have up to 8 CPU in a cluster and you can cluster 32 of these Octoclusters together. Want more speed? Add more CPU.
Doesn't work that way for many apps which are constrained by single threaded performance because the expensive computations aren't easily parallellizable.
Also multiple CPUs has architecture costs vs multiple cores. There's no free lunch.
I have no idea why folks will look at the A series of processors and then claim that by adding more cores you can outperform the faster processor when the older quad core A series chips regularly beat the pants off the hexacore and octocore chips that Samsung and Qualcomm made and the A11 will demolish everything Samsung or Qualcomm will have because its single core performance is so much better. Samsung could make a dual processor octacore phone (16 cores) and still lose to the A11 in usable performance.
Those performance advantages don't simply disappear because it's Intel desktop quad core i7 vs any ARM octacore, even Apple's. Intel has been working extremely hard to improve performance per watt to the point we have highly performant 4.5W Intel processors. The dual core Intel Core i7-7Y75 MacBook scores 4020 single core and 7999 multicore on 4.5W TDP. That's on par with the A11 but only using 2 cores and not 4+2. All those folks that claim Intel has done nothing in the last few years is ignoring that Intel has been doing EXACTLY what Apple has wanted them to do: concentrate on performance per watt over top end speed.
Essentially Intel has caught up with ARM on power consumption for performance per watt. The primary difference is at the top end where ARM doesn't compete and price where ARM is much cheaper than Intel and Intel doesn't compete.
The highest end Intel processors (which is what you are comparing to) account for about 10-20% of the market. That leaves a whole lot of room for the "A" series to step in.
So what? The majority of that 80% is better off with an iPad Pro vs an Arm MacBook. The remainder are largely business users with a need to run windows apps natively.
Apple doesnt compete in most of that 80-90% market with the Mac anyway but with the iPad.
80% of users should buy a MacBook Pro instead of a MacBook? Really? Where did you come up with that? And, where are they going to come up with the money for that? There's a reason why Apple named it a "Pro" line.
And, once the iPad has a cursor & touchpad on its keyboard, it will basically be a MacBook since it will be able to do the things that a MacBook does. Or it can be a tablet. Whichever you need at the time.
To make it like a Mac is needs as the primary input to be a cursor driven by a mouse. This is not so much a technical change as a major UI change.
I don't think it's as big a paradigm shift as might appear at first glance. For one thing, we already have a rudimentary non-touch version of iOS in tvOS, just extend that paradigm by adding a proper touchpad (shaped just like the screen you're using it to drive) for more precise manipulation of items on the screen.
Imagine the touchpad mimics (in shape) the screen it is controlling, where you touch the touchpad a "blur" (or something similar to indicate your touch as input) appears in the same location on the screen as if it were your finger actually touching the screen or display (though the screen/display is non-touch). Move your finger around the touchpad, the "blur" moves as if you were touching around in iOS. Remove your finger from the touchpad and the "blur" goes away. That way you can still retain the "touch" paradigm of the OS (so not much really has to change), you're just changing the object you touch and providing the input the OS uses to know what you want to control.
Does that make it a Mac? Most certainly not, iOS is an OS in its own right, having matured and gained much sophistication in recent years. Also, the list of differences between macOS and iOS feature sets has reduced at the same time to the point that iOS actually does serve as primary computing for many, many people. iOS is obviously the company's future, they've done a lot with it so far and it wouldn't be surprising to see them extend it more in the future in very interesting ways.
Thanks for a genuinely interesting argument.
However there are many reasons I wouldnt replace my MacBook Pro with an iPad, even one with a mouse. ( Actually I have both, but the iPad is strictly a consumer device).
A nonexhaustive list would include : an application I run not being available on iOS and unlikely to be, an app I boot into windows for, a proper filesystem which allows me to bypass the Mac Store for downloads, and shows networked, and external drives. A bigger screen. Terminal access. Automation. The ability to mirror the device and run on external monitors. And probably lots I have not yet thought of. I dont really buy that Tim Cook runs only on iPads.
The error in the arguement is the assumption that a cursor would have to replace a touch screen rather than supplement it. Anybody who has used an iPad Pro pencil knows that that is not true.
literally nothing in the post you are replying to mentioned the cursor. I was talking about the many differences between a laptop and a iPad.
Sorry, but at this point the only meaningful difference is the lack of cursor on the iPad and the lack of a touchscreen on an (Apple) laptop. Oh, and some apps on the separate OS's.
GeorgeBMac said: As the power of mobile computers approaches the power of laptop computers then "cheaper" becomes more and more of a factor...
In addition to an iPad functioning as a laptop killer (as Apple has said it is), I can also see slipping an iPhone into a dock containing keyboard, touchpad and a large screen containing its own external GPU.
Out present configuration of buying: -- One computer for games -- One computer to sit on a desk -- One computer to use on the couch -- One computer to use at Starbuck's -- One computer to carry in your pocket -- One computer to wear on your wrist -- One computer to drive your TV -- One computer to talk to...
Increasingly I see "One Computer To Rule Them All"... ... Does that make me evil?
Regards, Sauron
I'll need to see one of these mythical beasts first, as I'm not sure I'm buying it yet at this point. If an iPhone really is as fast as a MBP, then we're wasting an awful lot of space and electricity. But, most people don't need an iMac or a MBP, as they have way more than enough power with a MacBook. So, your idea of a phone that 'docks' to become a 'desktop' computer makes a ton of sense. In fact, that makes a more sense then adding keyboards and touch-pads to an iPad for a lot of people (i.e.: the masses).
Where I'm not sure I agree is the 'one computer to rule them all' thing. I suppose I'm a unique use-case compared to the average person, but I almost feel that we nearly got there and are now moving in the opposite direction (i.e.: more devices, not less). My dream was to buy a new MacBook Pro that could be my 'everything' computer and then have my iPhone. Now, it looks more like I'm headed back to a desktop, laptop, phone, etc.
GeorgeBMac said: Sorry, but at this point the only meaningful difference is the lack of cursor on the iPad and the lack of a touchscreen on an (Apple) laptop. Oh, and some apps on the separate OS's.
I agree except on the app side. For what a lot of more 'pro' users do, iOS isn't even close to being productive yet, nor having competent apps to make it possible. If you gave me keyboard and mouse on the iPad, it would certainly help. But, it would still be a pretty inefficient workflow compared to macOS. Those things might be solved over time, though. I'm not inherently opposed to iOS eventually replacing macOS... but it will need a more distinct 'laptop/desktop' UI mode and apps/UI aimed more at professional use than the masses. I'm not sure it isn't just easier to keep the two distinct, than try to make one that does both well.
Rhapsody was a failed project by Apple to develop a next generation OS. They gave up and bought NeXT after briefly considering BeOS. They were about two weeks away from bankruptcy and the purchase of NeXT brought Steve Jobs back as interim CEO for $1/yr and unlimited use of the corporate jet. Steve gutted the bloated product line. Defined Pro vs Consumer lines for laptop and desktop. Put all the top leaders at NeXT into department head roles and started work on Mac OS X based on NeXT's OpenStep. Yes, it ran on Intel since day one and was kept in parity with each release of Mac OS X on Intel. The iMac was one of the first products to ship after Jobs returned and it sold a lot. In the early 90's taking an iFruit out of a box and plugging in AC and a modem phone line then getting right on the Internet with no fuss no muss was a major deal.
Apple won't release a cheaper Mac using ARM. In a desktop they could put 64 ARM cores plus insane GPU abilities into a single CPU and give you a super computer. They could put a smaller number of cores into a MBP and just blow the doors off Intel. Right now the A11 Bionic ARM CPU can give a MacBookPro 13" a run for it's money. Imagine if they were not as worried about battery power because it's not a small device with small batteries? By the time Apple makes such a shift to ARM the nanoscale may be down as much as 3 nanometers or even 1 nanometer resulting in even more power efficiency and and speed.
Rhapsody was the 1st post NeXT buyout operating system. Apple couldn't get Copland out the door. They bought NeXT, and Rhapsody based on NeXTstep was the initial strategy. Apple wanted developers to convert their code to Obj-C. Unchanged code would run in an Mac OS 8 emulation box.
But since the big developers (Adobe and MS) weren't going to convert their code, Apple then adjusted by offering a dual API strategy with Obj-C AppKit and a cleaned up Mac Toolbox library called Carbon. Developers still had to do a bit of work, but most of their code could still work. This was Mac OS X. Basically Rhapsody with the Carbon toolbox and Aqua UI.
I'm not sure what the advantages or benefits to users will be enough to be worth the transistion costs.
Here's a hypothetical machine Apple could build. A 13" laptop (clamshell) that is 10 mm thick, have a solid 10 hours of runtime, 2 lbs, fanless, keyboard, trackpad, performs about as fast as a MBP13, cellular, and can run iOS apps as well as macOS apps. $1000.
This is essentially taking a LTE 12.9" iPad Pro, converting it into a clamshell with a keyboard and using 2018 components. Assumes feature parity with macOS.
I'm not sure what the advantages or benefits to users will be enough to be worth the transistion costs.
Here's a hypothetical machine Apple could build. A 13" laptop (clamshell) that is 10 mm thick, have a solid 10 hours of runtime, 2 lbs, fanless, keyboard, trackpad, performs about as fast as a MBP13, cellular, and can run iOS apps as well as macOS apps. $1000.
This is essentially taking a LTE 12.9" iPad Pro, converting it into a clamshell with a keyboard and using 2018 components. Assumes feature parity with macOS.
Who's buying?
Hmmm...how about a $200 desktop with an A10X, 3GB LPDDR4 RAM, 64GB SSD, Gigabit Ethernet, USB-C and HDMI able to drive a 4K display?
Of course, Apple would never make one because it would crater ASPs...and maybe the margin on the new aTV 5 is smaller than usual for Apple because the silly thing is more powerful than the 2017 9.7" iPad with an A9 and almost on par with the iPad Pro...
I'm not sure what the advantages or benefits to users will be enough to be worth the transistion costs.
Here's a hypothetical machine Apple could build. A 13" laptop (clamshell) that is 10 mm thick, have a solid 10 hours of runtime, 2 lbs, fanless, keyboard, trackpad, performs about as fast as a MBP13, cellular, and can run iOS apps as well as macOS apps. $1000.
This is essentially taking a LTE 12.9" iPad Pro, converting it into a clamshell with a keyboard and using 2018 components. Assumes feature parity with macOS.
Who's buying?
Hmmm...how about a $200 desktop with an A10X, 3GB LPDDR4 RAM, 64GB SSD, Gigabit Ethernet, USB-C and HDMI able to drive a 4K display?
Of course, Apple would never make one because it would crater ASPs...and maybe the margin on the new aTV 5 is smaller than usual for Apple because the silly thing is more powerful than the 2017 9.7" iPad with an A9 and almost on par with the iPad Pro...
Yeah. I would not mind that. Wouldn't mind it at $300 let alone $200. But obviously Apple isn't in the cheapo PC box business.
The future is likely going to be a continuing penetration of computing products everywhere. There won't be one true device. There's going to be lots and lots of small computers for every person: big screen, medium screen, small screen, a screen for your wrist, a screen for your eyeballs, a speaker & mic for your ear, etc.
Note that a PC is a rather small subset of all that.
They were about two weeks away from bankruptcy and the purchase of NeXT brought Steve Jobs back as interim CEO for $1/yr and unlimited use of the corporate jet. Steve gutted the bloated product line. Defined Pro vs Consumer lines for laptop and desktop. Put all the top leaders at NeXT into department head roles and started work on Mac OS X based on NeXT's OpenStep.
Note that Apple had something like $1.2B cash on hand at the time, and Microsoft was about to get it's fanny tanned over copying Apple's video code, among other things so made a $150M 'investment' and committed to 5 years of MS Office dev... which was probably just the first payment of the settlement. I know Jobs said they were 90-days from bankruptcy. I'm not sure how that was calculated, but it doesn't seem right. But, yea, Apple would have eventually been in trouble and Jobs made some great moves to revamp the product lineup (which seems needed again!).
GeorgeBMac said: As the power of mobile computers approaches the power of laptop computers then "cheaper" becomes more and more of a factor...
In addition to an iPad functioning as a laptop killer (as Apple has said it is), I can also see slipping an iPhone into a dock containing keyboard, touchpad and a large screen containing its own external GPU.
Out present configuration of buying: -- One computer for games -- One computer to sit on a desk -- One computer to use on the couch -- One computer to use at Starbuck's -- One computer to carry in your pocket -- One computer to wear on your wrist -- One computer to drive your TV -- One computer to talk to...
Increasingly I see "One Computer To Rule Them All"... ... Does that make me evil?
Regards, Sauron
I'll need to see one of these mythical beasts first, as I'm not sure I'm buying it yet at this point. If an iPhone really is as fast as a MBP, then we're wasting an awful lot of space and electricity. But, most people don't need an iMac or a MBP, as they have way more than enough power with a MacBook. So, your idea of a phone that 'docks' to become a 'desktop' computer makes a ton of sense. In fact, that makes a more sense then adding keyboards and touch-pads to an iPad for a lot of people (i.e.: the masses).
Where I'm not sure I agree is the 'one computer to rule them all' thing. I suppose I'm a unique use-case compared to the average person, but I almost feel that we nearly got there and are now moving in the opposite direction (i.e.: more devices, not less). My dream was to buy a new MacBook Pro that could be my 'everything' computer and then have my iPhone. Now, it looks more like I'm headed back to a desktop, laptop, phone, etc.
GeorgeBMac said: Sorry, but at this point the only meaningful difference is the lack of cursor on the iPad and the lack of a touchscreen on an (Apple) laptop. Oh, and some apps on the separate OS's.
I agree except on the app side. For what a lot of more 'pro' users do, iOS isn't even close to being productive yet, nor having competent apps to make it possible. If you gave me keyboard and mouse on the iPad, it would certainly help. But, it would still be a pretty inefficient workflow compared to macOS. Those things might be solved over time, though. I'm not inherently opposed to iOS eventually replacing macOS... but it will need a more distinct 'laptop/desktop' UI mode and apps/UI aimed more at professional use than the masses. I'm not sure it isn't just easier to keep the two distinct, than try to make one that does both well.
First, in my list of multiple computers that could, at some point become consolidated, I was speaking of some future Star Treky world. But, just like the "communicator" it can happen. As you point out, currently we are in the process of adding more and more individual computers to our existence. Over decades though I can see an ebb and flow to that. For instance: "The Cloud" is nothing more than a refresh of the old central mainframe.
As for the iPad taking over the laptop world, too often the common response is about the power users and pro level users. Yet they are a very small percentage of the laptop world. Most are typical people using a browser, email service, FaceBook and YouTube. They have no need for nor any desire for a $500 photo editor app.
GeorgeBMac said: As for the iPad taking over the laptop world, too often the common response is about the power users and pro level users. Yet they are a very small percentage of the laptop world. Most are typical people using a browser, email service, FaceBook and YouTube. They have no need for nor any desire for a $500 photo editor app.
Remember though, that it's about more than OS and apps (as important as those are, too). Form factor matters as well. For example, if I'm sitting on a chair at some conference or lecture, a laptop is much better than trying to prop up an iPad with a keyboard attached. If I'm trying to read something on a crowded train, a phone or iPad is better. If I'm meeting a client for coffee, an iPad is less in the way or intrusive than a laptop.
GeorgeBMac said: As for the iPad taking over the laptop world, too often the common response is about the power users and pro level users. Yet they are a very small percentage of the laptop world. Most are typical people using a browser, email service, FaceBook and YouTube. They have no need for nor any desire for a $500 photo editor app.
Remember though, that it's about more than OS and apps (as important as those are, too). Form factor matters as well. For example, if I'm sitting on a chair at some conference or lecture, a laptop is much better than trying to prop up an iPad with a keyboard attached. If I'm trying to read something on a crowded train, a phone or iPad is better. If I'm meeting a client for coffee, an iPad is less in the way or intrusive than a laptop.
I see that as a very easily fixed problem. A purely mechanical issue that is easily solved by: appropriate weight to the keyboard and attachment points with hinges to the tablet (or perhaps better is a remote keyboard & trackpad combined with a tablet (or its cover) that provides an effective and fully functional stand). At which point you have either a fully functional laptop or a fully functional tablet - whichever is called for based on the situation (which depends both on the external situation as well as what kind of work (or play) you happen to be doing on the computer).
I see this as inevitable. The current situation of buying and carrying both a laptop and a tablet are untenable for the average user. Back in the days when a tablet didn't have the power to do the work of a laptop that was understandable and necessary. But Apple has broken through that barrier. The only thing that remains is designing a functional and quality product -- which is Apple's forte.
GeorgeBMac said: I see this as inevitable. The current situation of buying and carrying both a laptop and a tablet are untenable for the average user. Back in the days when a tablet didn't have the power to do the work of a laptop that was understandable and necessary. But Apple has broken through that barrier. The only thing that remains is designing a functional and quality product -- which is Apple's forte.
Agreed. BUT, it has to, IMO, have two modes. The problem with Microsoft's approach is they tried to make a multi-purpose OS, in terms of UI. Mobile/touch and 'desktop' are two very different contexts in terms of UX/UI, each with their own advantages and needs. For the average user, though, I suppose this becomes less important for simple tasks like browsing, writing a letter, taking notes, or sending an email. I just hope that the push towards the masses doesn't too heavily impact Apple's decisions in this regard. Pros need hardware/software too, and it would be a shame for Apple to lose them (and, I think more negatively impactful than the pie-chart might indicate!).
Comments
Yes, that would help, but then there are dozens of other inefficiencies (for laptop/desktop type work). It could happen - and maybe even without that - as Apple doesn't seem to care about UX/UI like it once did. So, really, nearly anything (good or bad) is on the table, IMO.
I get what you're saying, and that's precisely what Microsoft tried... just the other way around. I suppose a properly designed device, that was able to switch contexts appropriately, would be the ultimate for some use-cases.
re: file-system - I'll go on record as calling that a problem since the iPad was introduced! I think they thought the average consumer wouldn't need file-management... which *might* be true, but once you get to anything serious, people don't organize by app.
And, also for the record, I don't care if the iPad replaces the laptop.... but it needs a workable OS and hopefully a mechanical configuration that solves the current state of the iPad pro by some margin. (ex: if I'm sitting somewhere without a table, a laptop is far superior to trying to balance an external keyboard with propped up tablet.)
They didn't create a laptop. Aside from the fact that it wouldn't work well on one's lap, they just added another method of keyboard input to an iOS device... which we could do before the iPad Pro. That doesn't change the fact that a touch screen laptop sucks.... just that Apple's more willing these days to give people sucky stuff if that's what they want.
Exactly, which is one of my biggest gripes with Apple currently, as I think they are letting this principal slip.
What will ARM laptops and desktops do better than Intel laptops and desktops? Faster, better, cheaper?
I think faster then Intel won't be a consistent advantage. At parity with Intel in the PC space is about the most you could hope for unless Intel falls off a cliff. I don't think Intel would just crater.
Cheaper is definitely something that can be done. AMD is doing that to Intel right now, and Apple can do this too as Intel chips command about a 2x to 4x price premium over other merchant chips. Apple can be at performance parody but their laptops and desktops are cheaper by $200 to $1000?
In what way will ARM machines be better and will it be better enough? 2 more hours of runtime? A 10 mm or thinner laptop? Secure enclave? 2x as many cores per Watt? A dual screen laptop? iOS apps? Face ID? Better cameras on PCs? Cellular for cheaper?
What is the advantage to the end user? Not the advantage to Apple, but how would it benefit the end user and much benefit is needed to get users to switch?
In addition to an iPad functioning as a laptop killer (as Apple has said it is), I can also see slipping an iPhone into a dock containing keyboard, touchpad and a large screen containing its own external GPU.
Out present configuration of buying:
-- One computer for games
-- One computer to sit on a desk
-- One computer to use on the couch
-- One computer to use at Starbuck's
-- One computer to carry in your pocket
-- One computer to wear on your wrist
-- One computer to drive your TV
-- One computer to talk to...
Increasingly I see "One Computer To Rule Them All"...
... Does that make me evil?
Regards,
Sauron
Where I'm not sure I agree is the 'one computer to rule them all' thing. I suppose I'm a unique use-case compared to the average person, but I almost feel that we nearly got there and are now moving in the opposite direction (i.e.: more devices, not less). My dream was to buy a new MacBook Pro that could be my 'everything' computer and then have my iPhone. Now, it looks more like I'm headed back to a desktop, laptop, phone, etc.
I agree except on the app side. For what a lot of more 'pro' users do, iOS isn't even close to being productive yet, nor having competent apps to make it possible. If you gave me keyboard and mouse on the iPad, it would certainly help. But, it would still be a pretty inefficient workflow compared to macOS. Those things might be solved over time, though. I'm not inherently opposed to iOS eventually replacing macOS... but it will need a more distinct 'laptop/desktop' UI mode and apps/UI aimed more at professional use than the masses. I'm not sure it isn't just easier to keep the two distinct, than try to make one that does both well.
Apple won't release a cheaper Mac using ARM. In a desktop they could put 64 ARM cores plus insane GPU abilities into a single CPU and give you a super computer. They could put a smaller number of cores into a MBP and just blow the doors off Intel. Right now the A11 Bionic ARM CPU can give a MacBookPro 13" a run for it's money. Imagine if they were not as worried about battery power because it's not a small device with small batteries? By the time Apple makes such a shift to ARM the nanoscale may be down as much as 3 nanometers or even 1 nanometer resulting in even more power efficiency and and speed.
But since the big developers (Adobe and MS) weren't going to convert their code, Apple then adjusted by offering a dual API strategy with Obj-C AppKit and a cleaned up Mac Toolbox library called Carbon. Developers still had to do a bit of work, but most of their code could still work. This was Mac OS X. Basically Rhapsody with the Carbon toolbox and Aqua UI.
Here's a hypothetical machine Apple could build. A 13" laptop (clamshell) that is 10 mm thick, have a solid 10 hours of runtime, 2 lbs, fanless, keyboard, trackpad, performs about as fast as a MBP13, cellular, and can run iOS apps as well as macOS apps. $1000.
This is essentially taking a LTE 12.9" iPad Pro, converting it into a clamshell with a keyboard and using 2018 components. Assumes feature parity with macOS.
Who's buying?
Of course, Apple would never make one because it would crater ASPs...and maybe the margin on the new aTV 5 is smaller than usual for Apple because the silly thing is more powerful than the 2017 9.7" iPad with an A9 and almost on par with the iPad Pro...
Yeah. I would not mind that. Wouldn't mind it at $300 let alone $200. But obviously Apple isn't in the cheapo PC box business.
The future is likely going to be a continuing penetration of computing products everywhere. There won't be one true device. There's going to be lots and lots of small computers for every person: big screen, medium screen, small screen, a screen for your wrist, a screen for your eyeballs, a speaker & mic for your ear, etc.
Note that a PC is a rather small subset of all that.
For instance: "The Cloud" is nothing more than a refresh of the old central mainframe.
As for the iPad taking over the laptop world, too often the common response is about the power users and pro level users. Yet they are a very small percentage of the laptop world. Most are typical people using a browser, email service, FaceBook and YouTube. They have no need for nor any desire for a $500 photo editor app.
I see this as inevitable. The current situation of buying and carrying both a laptop and a tablet are untenable for the average user. Back in the days when a tablet didn't have the power to do the work of a laptop that was understandable and necessary. But Apple has broken through that barrier. The only thing that remains is designing a functional and quality product -- which is Apple's forte.