This represents a fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors. It’s in plain view, but many of the primary themes of peanut-gallery criticism of Apple suggest a lot of people don’t see it.
Micrsoft’s business model with Windows is to create a single software product that is all things to all people. I have no doubt that there are utilitarian reasons under the hood for Windows to have an ‘s mode’ version built into the full installation, rather than having a separate version of the OS. Clearly the now-sunsetted ‘10 S’ was an attempt to venture into something more akin to Apple’s OS structure, but that probably became too unwieldy for them to consistently manage alongside the standard version of Windows. One could imagine that developing parallel updates to Windows and Windows 10S involved a lot of duplicative work, while actually multiplying the probable number of functional variables. That would then create higher probabilities for unanticipated bugs, even though the objective of 10S was to create a more stable experience for their Surface products. So for Microsoft, it’s probably easier to create consistency across platforms by writing one version of Windows and simply switching off some of it to run on Surface machines.
Meanwhile, Apple continues not to try to be all things to all people. MacOS runs on a very small number of machines, all of them made by Apple. The same goes for iOS, which is separately designed to run on touchscreen devices, all of them made by Apple. That creates orders of magnitude fewer variables that must be anticipated in the operating systems, which generally yields greater stability and fewer crashes and bugs. MacOS and iOS function differently, because the machines they run on function differently. While there are cross-platform consistencies, there are also significant differences in the user interfaces that are best designed separately.
This seems to frustrate the people who continually pipe up with lamentations that Apple doesn’t write a single, cross-platform OS, or create touchscreen MacBooks, or run MacOS on iPads, or make it easy to swap out or add on third party components to Macs and MacBooks, or simply open up MacOS to other manufacturers. All those complaints are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple’s core model that has existed from the beginning of the company. By creating the OS and the hardware exclusively in-house, Apple will never be all things to all people, but they will be very good at creating devices that some people will want to buy and enjoy with great consistency.
My understanding is that Apple has said it will take at least 10 years to get to a single OS for iPads and computers.
I think they could do it in less time in steps. First step is adding multi user(family) support to iOS for iPad, appleTV , and HomePod.
Second step is creating iOS based laptop with mouse support to replace MacBookAir. This should run on an A12X chip so that Apple could begin dumping Intel.
My understanding is that they’ve looked at it, and it’s fairly unlikely that the two will be combined anytime soon. The user interfaces are fundamentally different. Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying, and that’s even more the case going in the other direction by trying to make a touchscreen work for the MacOS interface. This is literally what I was trying to get at in my previous post. It is central to Apple’s ethos to not try to jam different things together just to satisfy some irrational need to be all things for everyone.
It's true that Apple don't try to merge iOS and macOS, but that doesn't means it's for the better. As an example, they pushed the iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard as a desktop replacement, even though is not the best thing from an ergonomic POV. SJ was very clear that the experience of touchscreen notebooks wasn't the best, and that's the same experience an iPad + keyboard offers.
Compare that to a Surface Pro, where you are working in tablet mode, and when you need it, you switch the UI to desktop mode with a keyboard that includes a trackpad. IMO, that makes more sense than forcing you to use a touch UI as iOS with a keyboard without trackpad as a desktop replacement.
Things can and do change over time, but unless there’s a specific
functional and business case identified for merging those things,
there’s really no reason to do it. Windows has continually tried to do
this sort of thing, and it’s not proven to be all that great. While I’m
sure some people like them, Surface devices have not become bestselling
category killers. Why on earth would Apple try that? I can think of a
lot of functional and business reasons not to merge apple
operating systems and devices, but very few reasons to do so, other than
to fulfill poorly conceived fantasy crossover narratives.
Last year, Surface Pro consumer satisfaction was a bit higher than iPad.
Maybe this is proof that Surface devices turn out to be great devices. If MS made it possible, don't you think that Apple can do something similar or better than an iPad w/ keyboard or even better than the Surface Pro?
Again, why would Apple pursue Microsoft's model? Surface sales are in the doldrums and dropping, while iPad sales are at the top of the tablet/convertible market and going up. This is also what I was getting at in my post above. People keep suggesting that Apple drop what they’re doing and go with the all-things-to-everyone model, despite Apple’s continuing robust success on the path they’ve been on for many years. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple is and what Apple does. Fortunately, Apple is also pretty good at ignoring all this “advice.”
It’s almost funny. Almost. AI posts an article about Microsoft making a correction in software for a struggling product, I write a post pointing out that that this highlights precisely why Apple should not take the frequent peanut gallery advice to become more like Microsoft, and then the first two responses to that post are are essentially saying “yeah, but maybe Apple should try being more like Microsoft.”
This represents a fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors. It’s in plain view, but many of the primary themes of peanut-gallery criticism of Apple suggest a lot of people don’t see it.
Micrsoft’s business model with Windows is to create a single software product that is all things to all people. I have no doubt that there are utilitarian reasons under the hood for Windows to have an ‘s mode’ version built into the full installation, rather than having a separate version of the OS. Clearly the now-sunsetted ‘10 S’ was an attempt to venture into something more akin to Apple’s OS structure, but that probably became too unwieldy for them to consistently manage alongside the standard version of Windows. One could imagine that developing parallel updates to Windows and Windows 10S involved a lot of duplicative work, while actually multiplying the probable number of functional variables. That would then create higher probabilities for unanticipated bugs, even though the objective of 10S was to create a more stable experience for their Surface products. So for Microsoft, it’s probably easier to create consistency across platforms by writing one version of Windows and simply switching off some of it to run on Surface machines.
Meanwhile, Apple continues not to try to be all things to all people. MacOS runs on a very small number of machines, all of them made by Apple. The same goes for iOS, which is separately designed to run on touchscreen devices, all of them made by Apple. That creates orders of magnitude fewer variables that must be anticipated in the operating systems, which generally yields greater stability and fewer crashes and bugs. MacOS and iOS function differently, because the machines they run on function differently. While there are cross-platform consistencies, there are also significant differences in the user interfaces that are best designed separately.
This seems to frustrate the people who continually pipe up with lamentations that Apple doesn’t write a single, cross-platform OS, or create touchscreen MacBooks, or run MacOS on iPads, or make it easy to swap out or add on third party components to Macs and MacBooks, or simply open up MacOS to other manufacturers. All those complaints are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple’s core model that has existed from the beginning of the company. By creating the OS and the hardware exclusively in-house, Apple will never be all things to all people, but they will be very good at creating devices that some people will want to buy and enjoy with great consistency.
My understanding is that Apple has said it will take at least 10 years to get to a single OS for iPads and computers.
I think they could do it in less time in steps. First step is adding multi user(family) support to iOS for iPad, appleTV , and HomePod.
Second step is creating iOS based laptop with mouse support to replace MacBookAir. This should run on an A12X chip so that Apple could begin dumping Intel.
My understanding is that they’ve looked at it, and it’s fairly unlikely that the two will be combined anytime soon. The user interfaces are fundamentally different. Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying, and that’s even more the case going in the other direction by trying to make a touchscreen work for the MacOS interface. This is literally what I was trying to get at in my previous post. It is central to Apple’s ethos to not try to jam different things together just to satisfy some irrational need to be all things for everyone.
It's true that Apple don't try to merge iOS and macOS, but that doesn't means it's for the better. As an example, they pushed the iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard as a desktop replacement, even though is not the best thing from an ergonomic POV. SJ was very clear that the experience of touchscreen notebooks wasn't the best, and that's the same experience an iPad + keyboard offers.
Compare that to a Surface Pro, where you are working in tablet mode, and when you need it, you switch the UI to desktop mode with a keyboard that includes a trackpad. IMO, that makes more sense than forcing you to use a touch UI as iOS with a keyboard without trackpad as a desktop replacement.
Things can and do change over time, but unless there’s a specific
functional and business case identified for merging those things,
there’s really no reason to do it. Windows has continually tried to do
this sort of thing, and it’s not proven to be all that great. While I’m
sure some people like them, Surface devices have not become bestselling
category killers. Why on earth would Apple try that? I can think of a
lot of functional and business reasons not to merge apple
operating systems and devices, but very few reasons to do so, other than
to fulfill poorly conceived fantasy crossover narratives.
Last year, Surface Pro consumer satisfaction was a bit higher than iPad.
Maybe this is proof that Surface devices turn out to be great devices. If MS made it possible, don't you think that Apple can do something similar or better than an iPad w/ keyboard or even better than the Surface Pro?
Again, why would Apple pursue Microsoft's model? Surface sales are in the doldrums and dropping, while iPad sales are at the top of the tablet/convertible market and going up. This is also what I was getting at in my post above. People keep suggesting that Apple drop what they’re doing and go with the all-things-to-everyone model, despite Apple’s continuing robust success on the path they’ve been on for many years. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple is and what Apple does. Fortunately, Apple is also pretty good at ignoring all this “advice.”
This has nothing to do with Apple following MS model. You said that "Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying". But Apple didn't did anything better by adding a keyboard to the iPad Pro. The link mentioned the Apple POV at the time regarding touchscreen notebooks, and that's exactly the way an iPad Pro works with the keyboard. I gave the example of the Surface Pro, since allows the user to switch from desktop to touch UI when the user needs it. And the link showed that customer satisfaction was at the level of the iPad. This has no relation of product sales, as you mention.
It’s almost funny. Almost. AI posts an article about Microsoft making a
correction in software for a struggling product, I write a post pointing
out that that this highlights precisely why Apple should not take the
frequent peanut gallery advice to become more like Microsoft, and then
the first two responses to that post are are essentially saying “yeah,
but maybe Apple should try being more like Microsoft.”
I see no mention from MS that Windows 10S was struggling. The reason behind the change is "feedback that the naming was a bit confusing for both customers and partners."
This represents a fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors. It’s in plain view, but many of the primary themes of peanut-gallery criticism of Apple suggest a lot of people don’t see it.
Micrsoft’s business model with Windows is to create a single software product that is all things to all people. I have no doubt that there are utilitarian reasons under the hood for Windows to have an ‘s mode’ version built into the full installation, rather than having a separate version of the OS. Clearly the now-sunsetted ‘10 S’ was an attempt to venture into something more akin to Apple’s OS structure, but that probably became too unwieldy for them to consistently manage alongside the standard version of Windows. One could imagine that developing parallel updates to Windows and Windows 10S involved a lot of duplicative work, while actually multiplying the probable number of functional variables. That would then create higher probabilities for unanticipated bugs, even though the objective of 10S was to create a more stable experience for their Surface products. So for Microsoft, it’s probably easier to create consistency across platforms by writing one version of Windows and simply switching off some of it to run on Surface machines.
Meanwhile, Apple continues not to try to be all things to all people. MacOS runs on a very small number of machines, all of them made by Apple. The same goes for iOS, which is separately designed to run on touchscreen devices, all of them made by Apple. That creates orders of magnitude fewer variables that must be anticipated in the operating systems, which generally yields greater stability and fewer crashes and bugs. MacOS and iOS function differently, because the machines they run on function differently. While there are cross-platform consistencies, there are also significant differences in the user interfaces that are best designed separately.
This seems to frustrate the people who continually pipe up with lamentations that Apple doesn’t write a single, cross-platform OS, or create touchscreen MacBooks, or run MacOS on iPads, or make it easy to swap out or add on third party components to Macs and MacBooks, or simply open up MacOS to other manufacturers. All those complaints are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple’s core model that has existed from the beginning of the company. By creating the OS and the hardware exclusively in-house, Apple will never be all things to all people, but they will be very good at creating devices that some people will want to buy and enjoy with great consistency.
My understanding is that Apple has said it will take at least 10 years to get to a single OS for iPads and computers.
I think they could do it in less time in steps. First step is adding multi user(family) support to iOS for iPad, appleTV , and HomePod.
Second step is creating iOS based laptop with mouse support to replace MacBookAir. This should run on an A12X chip so that Apple could begin dumping Intel.
My understanding is that they’ve looked at it, and it’s fairly unlikely that the two will be combined anytime soon. The user interfaces are fundamentally different. Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying, and that’s even more the case going in the other direction by trying to make a touchscreen work for the MacOS interface. This is literally what I was trying to get at in my previous post. It is central to Apple’s ethos to not try to jam different things together just to satisfy some irrational need to be all things for everyone.
It's true that Apple don't try to merge iOS and macOS, but that doesn't means it's for the better. As an example, they pushed the iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard as a desktop replacement, even though is not the best thing from an ergonomic POV. SJ was very clear that the experience of touchscreen notebooks wasn't the best, and that's the same experience an iPad + keyboard offers.
Compare that to a Surface Pro, where you are working in tablet mode, and when you need it, you switch the UI to desktop mode with a keyboard that includes a trackpad. IMO, that makes more sense than forcing you to use a touch UI as iOS with a keyboard without trackpad as a desktop replacement.
Things can and do change over time, but unless there’s a specific
functional and business case identified for merging those things,
there’s really no reason to do it. Windows has continually tried to do
this sort of thing, and it’s not proven to be all that great. While I’m
sure some people like them, Surface devices have not become bestselling
category killers. Why on earth would Apple try that? I can think of a
lot of functional and business reasons not to merge apple
operating systems and devices, but very few reasons to do so, other than
to fulfill poorly conceived fantasy crossover narratives.
Last year, Surface Pro consumer satisfaction was a bit higher than iPad.
Maybe this is proof that Surface devices turn out to be great devices. If MS made it possible, don't you think that Apple can do something similar or better than an iPad w/ keyboard or even better than the Surface Pro?
Again, why would Apple pursue Microsoft's model? Surface sales are in the doldrums and dropping, while iPad sales are at the top of the tablet/convertible market and going up. This is also what I was getting at in my post above. People keep suggesting that Apple drop what they’re doing and go with the all-things-to-everyone model, despite Apple’s continuing robust success on the path they’ve been on for many years. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple is and what Apple does. Fortunately, Apple is also pretty good at ignoring all this “advice.”
This has nothing to do with Apple following MS model. You said that "Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying". But Apple didn't did anything better by adding a keyboard to the iPad Pro. The link mentioned the Apple POV at the time regarding touchscreen notebooks, and that's exactly the way an iPad Pro works with the keyboard. I gave the example of the Surface Pro, since allows the user to switch from desktop to touch UI when the user needs it. And the link showed that customer satisfaction was at the level of the iPad. This has no relation of product sales, as you mention.
It’s almost funny. Almost. AI posts an article about Microsoft making a
correction in software for a struggling product, I write a post pointing
out that that this highlights precisely why Apple should not take the
frequent peanut gallery advice to become more like Microsoft, and then
the first two responses to that post are are essentially saying “yeah,
but maybe Apple should try being more like Microsoft.”
I see no mention from MS that Windows 10S was struggling. The reason behind the change is "feedback that the naming was a bit confusing for both customers and partners."
I disagree with your assertion that the iPad Pro with a keyboard works exactly like a touchscreen notebook. I have both an iPad Pro and a MacBook Pro. If I’m going to do a little light typing that’s a little more than I want to do with the onscreen keyboard, I flip out the physical keyboard and use that. That’s what I’m using to type this. If I were to do more intensive work such as creating documents or spreadsheets or whatever, the MacBook Pro is definitely the better tool. It’s nice, though, to be able to use the iPad for reading the news, web stuff and whatnot and have a little keyboard built into the cover flap. It’s a convenience. It’s also engineered so that when you use it, there’s a brace behind the iPad, so that touchscreen activities also work well. One of the reasons all the way back to Steve Jobs for Apple not using a touchscreen on a notebook is that tapping on hinged notebook screens does not offer a stable user experience; the screen is going to wobble and the keyboard is going to lift up and jump around, and it gets progressively worse the lighter you make the device. An iPad Pro with a keyboard is not at all like that.
It seems to me that making the OS switch from desktop to touch UI would be a disorienting experience. You start doing something on a tablet, then flip out a keyboard and the program interface changes? Maybe the user can adapt and get used to it, but the programming underneath would have to be a hot mess. When I flip out the physical keyboard on the iPad, the onscreen UI stays the same, which is the simpler way to go, which is the Apple approach, generally speaking.
As for Windows 10S struggling, of course Microsoft isn’t going to describe it that way. If you believe all they’re changing is the name, however, I’ve got some waterfront property you might be interested in. Microsoft is not selling that many Surface machines, so dedicating resources to maintaining a stripped down distinct 10S variant operating system was undoubtedly too costly. So now they’re delivering regular Windows 10, with some stuff switched off for “S mode.” Ultimately, that means that Windows is inherently bloatware, because it has to carry the code to appear and function in different ways, depending on what type of device it’s loaded on, who made it, what custom hardware is attached, and -apparently- whether it’s acting like a tablet or a notebook at the moment. It’s trying to be all things to all people. It’s great that Microsoft is out there doing that for people who want all that, but it’s also great that Apple is over here making things that work well because they don’t have to account for infinite variability among machines running the same OS.
So once again, none of this describes any reason why Apple would want to change what they’re doing to be more like Microsoft or sell a hybrid device more like the Surface line.
This represents a fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors. It’s in plain view, but many of the primary themes of peanut-gallery criticism of Apple suggest a lot of people don’t see it.
Micrsoft’s business model with Windows is to create a single software product that is all things to all people. I have no doubt that there are utilitarian reasons under the hood for Windows to have an ‘s mode’ version built into the full installation, rather than having a separate version of the OS. Clearly the now-sunsetted ‘10 S’ was an attempt to venture into something more akin to Apple’s OS structure, but that probably became too unwieldy for them to consistently manage alongside the standard version of Windows. One could imagine that developing parallel updates to Windows and Windows 10S involved a lot of duplicative work, while actually multiplying the probable number of functional variables. That would then create higher probabilities for unanticipated bugs, even though the objective of 10S was to create a more stable experience for their Surface products. So for Microsoft, it’s probably easier to create consistency across platforms by writing one version of Windows and simply switching off some of it to run on Surface machines.
Meanwhile, Apple continues not to try to be all things to all people. MacOS runs on a very small number of machines, all of them made by Apple. The same goes for iOS, which is separately designed to run on touchscreen devices, all of them made by Apple. That creates orders of magnitude fewer variables that must be anticipated in the operating systems, which generally yields greater stability and fewer crashes and bugs. MacOS and iOS function differently, because the machines they run on function differently. While there are cross-platform consistencies, there are also significant differences in the user interfaces that are best designed separately.
This seems to frustrate the people who continually pipe up with lamentations that Apple doesn’t write a single, cross-platform OS, or create touchscreen MacBooks, or run MacOS on iPads, or make it easy to swap out or add on third party components to Macs and MacBooks, or simply open up MacOS to other manufacturers. All those complaints are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Apple’s core model that has existed from the beginning of the company. By creating the OS and the hardware exclusively in-house, Apple will never be all things to all people, but they will be very good at creating devices that some people will want to buy and enjoy with great consistency.
My understanding is that Apple has said it will take at least 10 years to get to a single OS for iPads and computers.
I think they could do it in less time in steps. First step is adding multi user(family) support to iOS for iPad, appleTV , and HomePod.
Second step is creating iOS based laptop with mouse support to replace MacBookAir. This should run on an A12X chip so that Apple could begin dumping Intel.
My understanding is that they’ve looked at it, and it’s fairly unlikely that the two will be combined anytime soon. The user interfaces are fundamentally different. Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying, and that’s even more the case going in the other direction by trying to make a touchscreen work for the MacOS interface. This is literally what I was trying to get at in my previous post. It is central to Apple’s ethos to not try to jam different things together just to satisfy some irrational need to be all things for everyone.
It's true that Apple don't try to merge iOS and macOS, but that doesn't means it's for the better. As an example, they pushed the iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard as a desktop replacement, even though is not the best thing from an ergonomic POV. SJ was very clear that the experience of touchscreen notebooks wasn't the best, and that's the same experience an iPad + keyboard offers.
Compare that to a Surface Pro, where you are working in tablet mode, and when you need it, you switch the UI to desktop mode with a keyboard that includes a trackpad. IMO, that makes more sense than forcing you to use a touch UI as iOS with a keyboard without trackpad as a desktop replacement.
Things can and do change over time, but unless there’s a specific
functional and business case identified for merging those things,
there’s really no reason to do it. Windows has continually tried to do
this sort of thing, and it’s not proven to be all that great. While I’m
sure some people like them, Surface devices have not become bestselling
category killers. Why on earth would Apple try that? I can think of a
lot of functional and business reasons not to merge apple
operating systems and devices, but very few reasons to do so, other than
to fulfill poorly conceived fantasy crossover narratives.
Last year, Surface Pro consumer satisfaction was a bit higher than iPad.
Maybe this is proof that Surface devices turn out to be great devices. If MS made it possible, don't you think that Apple can do something similar or better than an iPad w/ keyboard or even better than the Surface Pro?
Again, why would Apple pursue Microsoft's model? Surface sales are in the doldrums and dropping, while iPad sales are at the top of the tablet/convertible market and going up. This is also what I was getting at in my post above. People keep suggesting that Apple drop what they’re doing and go with the all-things-to-everyone model, despite Apple’s continuing robust success on the path they’ve been on for many years. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what Apple is and what Apple does. Fortunately, Apple is also pretty good at ignoring all this “advice.”
This has nothing to do with Apple following MS model. You said that "Using a mouse or trackpad to interface with iOS would be unintuitive and unsatisfying". But Apple didn't did anything better by adding a keyboard to the iPad Pro. The link mentioned the Apple POV at the time regarding touchscreen notebooks, and that's exactly the way an iPad Pro works with the keyboard. I gave the example of the Surface Pro, since allows the user to switch from desktop to touch UI when the user needs it. And the link showed that customer satisfaction was at the level of the iPad. This has no relation of product sales, as you mention.
It’s almost funny. Almost. AI posts an article about Microsoft making a
correction in software for a struggling product, I write a post pointing
out that that this highlights precisely why Apple should not take the
frequent peanut gallery advice to become more like Microsoft, and then
the first two responses to that post are are essentially saying “yeah,
but maybe Apple should try being more like Microsoft.”
I see no mention from MS that Windows 10S was struggling. The reason behind the change is "feedback that the naming was a bit confusing for both customers and partners."
I disagree with your assertion that the iPad Pro with a keyboard works exactly like a touchscreen notebook. I have both an iPad Pro and a MacBook Pro. If I’m going to do a little light typing that’s a little more than I want to do with the onscreen keyboard, I flip out the physical keyboard and use that. That’s what I’m using to type this. If I were to do more intensive work such as creating documents or spreadsheets or whatever, the MacBook Pro is definitely the better tool. It’s nice, though, to be able to use the iPad for reading the news, web stuff and whatnot and have a little keyboard built into the cover flap. It’s a convenience. It’s also engineered so that when you use it, there’s a brace behind the iPad, so that touchscreen activities also work well. One of the reasons all the way back to Steve Jobs for Apple not using a touchscreen on a notebook is that tapping on hinged notebook screens does not offer a stable user experience; the screen is going to wobble and the keyboard is going to lift up and jump around, and it gets progressively worse the lighter you make the device. An iPad Pro with a keyboard is not at all like that.
Here is a line from the article,
"We've done tons of user testing on this, and it turns out it doesn't work. Touch surfaces don't want to be vertical. It gives great demo but after a short period of time, you start to
fatigue and after an extended period of time, your arm wants to fall
off. it doesn't work, it's ergonomically terrible."
Isn't that the way you interact with an iPad + Smart keyboard? And there is no mention from SJ related to screen wobble, as you said.
It seems to me that making the OS switch from desktop to touch UI would
be a disorienting experience. You start doing something on a tablet,
then flip out a keyboard and the program interface changes? Maybe the
user can adapt and get used to it, but the programming underneath would
have to be a hot mess. When I flip out the physical keyboard on the
iPad, the onscreen UI stays the same, which is the simpler way to go,
which is the Apple approach, generally speaking.
The change from touch to desktop UI is not disorienting at all. It just switch from a screen designed for touch to a Start Menu for desktop mode. It's clear that applications designed from the ground up as desktop applications won't have the best experience in touch mode, but it's nice that in the same device you can switch and work as a notebook/desktop. The iPad is simpler, but limited since you have to move to a notebook/desktop device for a better experience with more complex work.
As for Windows
10S struggling, of course Microsoft isn’t going to describe it that way.
If you believe all they’re changing is the name, however, I’ve got some
waterfront property you might be interested in. Microsoft is not
selling that many Surface machines, so dedicating resources to
maintaining a stripped down distinct 10S variant operating system was
undoubtedly too costly. So now they’re delivering regular Windows 10,
with some stuff switched off for “S mode.” Ultimately, that means that
Windows is inherently bloatware, because it has to carry the code to
appear and function in different ways, depending on what type of device
it’s loaded on, who made it, what custom hardware is attached, and
-apparently- whether it’s acting like a tablet or a notebook at the
moment. It’s trying to be all things to all people. It’s great that
Microsoft is out there doing that for people who want all that, but it’s
also great that Apple is over here making things that work well because
they don’t have to account for infinite variability among machines
running the same OS.
No, I didn't say that I believe that they are only changing the name. If you had read the link, they announced that "S mode" will be part of all Windows versions, not a separate SKU. And I don't see any relation of Surface sales with Windows "S mode", since there were many other vendors that offer Windows 10S. BTW, that version is based in the same code, so I don't think they had to dedicate a large of resources for that specific versions.
On the bloatware comment, personally most of the time I don't use that term. What is bloat for some users, could be important features for others. What you call simpler, could be called limited by other.
So once again, none of this describes any
reason why Apple would want to change what they’re doing to be more like
Microsoft or sell a hybrid device more like the Surface line.
Again, I don't think that Apple has to follow Apple. MS went with the 2-in-1 devices, but Apple could have done another thing. What it's clear is that Apple approach with the iPad Pro and Smart keyboard it's the same SJ criticize a few years ago. And that's not necessarily a good thing.
Comments
It’s almost funny. Almost. AI posts an article about Microsoft making a correction in software for a struggling product, I write a post pointing out that that this highlights precisely why Apple should not take the frequent peanut gallery advice to become more like Microsoft, and then the first two responses to that post are are essentially saying “yeah, but maybe Apple should try being more like Microsoft.”
I see no mention from MS that Windows 10S was struggling. The reason behind the change is "feedback that the naming was a bit confusing for both customers and partners."
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/03/07/windows-10-s-mode-coming-soon-editions-windows-10
It seems to me that making the OS switch from desktop to touch UI would be a disorienting experience. You start doing something on a tablet, then flip out a keyboard and the program interface changes? Maybe the user can adapt and get used to it, but the programming underneath would have to be a hot mess. When I flip out the physical keyboard on the iPad, the onscreen UI stays the same, which is the simpler way to go, which is the Apple approach, generally speaking.
As for Windows 10S struggling, of course Microsoft isn’t going to describe it that way. If you believe all they’re changing is the name, however, I’ve got some waterfront property you might be interested in. Microsoft is not selling that many Surface machines, so dedicating resources to maintaining a stripped down distinct 10S variant operating system was undoubtedly too costly. So now they’re delivering regular Windows 10, with some stuff switched off for “S mode.” Ultimately, that means that Windows is inherently bloatware, because it has to carry the code to appear and function in different ways, depending on what type of device it’s loaded on, who made it, what custom hardware is attached, and -apparently- whether it’s acting like a tablet or a notebook at the moment. It’s trying to be all things to all people. It’s great that Microsoft is out there doing that for people who want all that, but it’s also great that Apple is over here making things that work well because they don’t have to account for infinite variability among machines running the same OS.
So once again, none of this describes any reason why Apple would want to change what they’re doing to be more like Microsoft or sell a hybrid device more like the Surface line.
"We've done tons of user testing on this, and it turns out it doesn't work. Touch surfaces don't want to be vertical. It gives great demo but after a short period of time, you start to fatigue and after an extended period of time, your arm wants to fall off. it doesn't work, it's ergonomically terrible."
Isn't that the way you interact with an iPad + Smart keyboard? And there is no mention from SJ related to screen wobble, as you said.
The change from touch to desktop UI is not disorienting at all. It just switch from a screen designed for touch to a Start Menu for desktop mode. It's clear that applications designed from the ground up as desktop applications won't have the best experience in touch mode, but it's nice that in the same device you can switch and work as a notebook/desktop. The iPad is simpler, but limited since you have to move to a notebook/desktop device for a better experience with more complex work.
No, I didn't say that I believe that they are only changing the name. If you had read the link, they announced that "S mode" will be part of all Windows versions, not a separate SKU. And I don't see any relation of Surface sales with Windows "S mode", since there were many other vendors that offer Windows 10S. BTW, that version is based in the same code, so I don't think they had to dedicate a large of resources for that specific versions.
On the bloatware comment, personally most of the time I don't use that term. What is bloat for some users, could be important features for others. What you call simpler, could be called limited by other.
Again, I don't think that Apple has to follow Apple. MS went with the 2-in-1 devices, but Apple could have done another thing. What it's clear is that Apple approach with the iPad Pro and Smart keyboard it's the same SJ criticize a few years ago. And that's not necessarily a good thing.