Sometimes I wish these CEOs would just not expand on things. They often make themselves look foolish.
"Both are incredible. One of the reasons that both of them are incredible is because we pushed them to do what they do well. And if you begin to merge the two ... you begin to make trade offs and compromises"
Yes, you make compromises. You make trade--offs.
That's exactly what the iPhone is.
Compromises and trade--offs themselves aren't the problem. The results of them might or might not be. That's why you make those trade--offs and compromises in the first place.
It would have been better to just say we have no plans to merge the two and leave it at that.
Nonsense, you’re splitting invisible hairs. Cook absolutely doesn’t need advice on how not to look foolish from any of us anonymous nobodies on a rumors site. He’s performing better at his top executive position than anybody commenting in this peanut gallery ever will, and that’s a fact.
Step 1: Build a strawman and light it on fire: "We will never merge the two if doing so would mean compromises."
In other words, "We are in the process of merging the two." Putting an ARM chip in the macs and running the OS on the ARM isn't the same as merging, I suppose...
That’s not what he said at all, and placing quotes around your claims to attribute them to Tim Cook is misleading at best and deceptive at worst.
Paradoxically myopiarocks accusation that Tim Cook engaged in a straw-man argument was itself a strawman argument while both what tim cook actually said, and even what myopiarocks accused him of saying were not.
Annoyingly it often takes longer to expose logical fallacies then to write them.
Apple need to produce light low price MAC book call MAChrome so new pencil $299 iPad and similar priced Machrome at lower end especially in education market can compete well with everyone. Than, rest middel to high end iPads and MAC products.
Mac isn’t spelled in all caps. It never has been. It never will be.
If we're not merging the platforms, why do all the Mac/iOS apps keep getting feature reduced on the Mac in order to work the same as on iOS?
Unifying an application’s feature sets (like via shared libraries) has nothing to do with merging operating systems. It’s not even in the same conversation.
Meanwhile, many UI "innovations" as of lately simply have been cross-platform harmonisation, which is how both platforms got aligned in the first place.
So what’s the consistency with Cook’s position ?
Think of the Dock on the iPad, LaunchPad on the Mac, Siri, the Finder-alike Files app. Key combinations such as ⌘-C, X, V and ⌘ tab for switching between apps.
And those so-called "universal binaries": what is the bigger idea behind that ?
Do they even know what they want at Apple?
There is a clear need for a convert - a MacBook with a touch interface. How simple that could be made has already been demonstrated by 3rd parties.
Especially Apple - when reluctant for disruptive innovation - is smart enough to launch a crippled version of such a device in the first instance to test it in the market, so that Mac sales does not have to suffer from that.
But let’s keep everything as it is...
iPads and Macs should have different UIs while having the same features. iPads should be designed to be used like a piece of paper, flat on a table or being held while reading with fingertips or styli for input. Macs should be designed to be used with the display vertical, with the various input devices it has. So I agree with Apple here. So, hopefully, this Marzipan rumor is true and Apple will have a new or modified set of app frameworks that will be supported on iOS and macOS, with some automagic translation of input events.
Where I think Apple is wrong is not driving feature parity between iPads and Macs. There should be better interapp communication, better backgrounding, more types of apps, similar hardware features for iPads. Getting closer with iOS 11, but more work to do.
Sometimes I wish these CEOs would just not expand on things. They often make themselves look foolish.
"Both are incredible. One of the reasons that both of them are incredible is because we pushed them to do what they do well. And if you begin to merge the two ... you begin to make trade offs and compromises"
Yes, you make compromises. You make trade--offs.
That's exactly what the iPhone is.
Compromises and trade--offs themselves aren't the problem. The results of them might or might not be. That's why you make those trade--offs and compromises in the first place.
It would have been better to just say we have no plans to merge the two and leave it at that.
Nonsense, you’re splitting invisible hairs. Cook absolutely doesn’t need advice on how not to look foolish from any of us anonymous nobodies on a rumors site. He’s performing better at his top executive position than anybody commenting in this peanut gallery ever will, and that’s a fact.
So you don't think the iPhone wasn't a collection of compromises and trade--offs between a phone and a computer? And the software running on them?
And that for you is splitting invisible hairs?
Trade offs and compromises are the name of the game, even today!
I don't have a clue what Apple is doing in the future in terms of ARM processors but it appears as though Wall Street is very unhappy with whatever the company is doing.
Then it is about time that Apple gave Wall St the finger and went private. Then Wall St would have to turn their attention to someone else. Wall St is a blot on society. Well, the so called Analists who just love to speak out of their backsides about things they have no real understanding of and often to the benefit of their friends who will be shorting thier targets. Have I covered everything?
Wall Street loves Apple:
Over the long term, the stock market is an a posteriori measurement of performance. I’m not sure how to say it nicely, but it’s great at hindsight just like everyone else.
Problem is, they pretend to believe that the value of the stock are predictions of a company’s future performance, which is of course crazy cow patties because nobody is good at that. Some (Buffet et al) are really good at understanding market trends and stay disciplined, but even they get it wrong. Ie, these people are just like us, dumb desk jockeys looking at numbers going up and down.
In December, rumors surfaced about project "Marzipan,"a plan to allow iOS apps to run on Macs,
Actually no, that isn’t the plan, that was just AI’s take on a poor headline from another rumor source. Those closer to development don’t believe that’s the plan at all, and that it is instead about more unified app dev via new frameworks. Again, read Gruber’s take:
“One user experience” is neither possible nor desirable. The truth is that this effort by Apple is almost certainly not about cross-platform applications but instead cross-platform frameworks for developers. It’s developer news, not user news.
Read this article again. I noticed you cut off the rest of the paragraph in your quote.
FTA: "The effort may be intended to foster better support of the Mac App Store, which hasn't done nearly as well as its iOS counterpart -- but is more probably something like the "fat binary" or "universal binary" approach that was needed for the migration from 68K to PowerPC and then from PowerPC to Intel. "
I think the Mac and iDevices need to stay separate because they have separate futures. The iDevices will head in the direction of portability and AR, and the Mac will head in the direction of a stationary device using VR. Where everything will merge is in the cloud not the OS. As Tim said, each device will continue to have an OS custom designed for its form factor.
I don't have a clue what Apple is doing in the future in terms of ARM processors but it appears as though Wall Street is very unhappy with whatever the company is doing.
Then it is about time that Apple gave Wall St the finger and went private. Then Wall St would have to turn their attention to someone else. Wall St is a blot on society. Well, the so called Analists who just love to speak out of their backsides about things they have no real understanding of and often to the benefit of their friends who will be shorting thier targets. Have I covered everything?
Already have watered down the iWork group for inclusion in iOS. Current Pages and Numbers features just plain suck compaired to '09 version. I think they lost any headway they had made into "enterprise."
There will be a huge loss of features if the two OS's are merged.
Step 1: Build a strawman and light it on fire: "We will never merge the two if doing so would mean compromises."
In other words, "We are in the process of merging the two." Putting an ARM chip in the macs and running the OS on the ARM isn't the same as merging, I suppose...
So is your contention that the move to the Intel x86 architecture was part of a plan to merge macOS with Windows? I mean, you seem to be suggesting that it is ridiculous to run different OSes on the same chip architecture. Of course, we're not even considering that they might be designing different chips for the desktop, and don't intend to use anything recognisable as an A series for the Mac. I mean, it would presumably still be an ARM design, but it wouldn't be constrained by the same limitations as for a phone or tablet. (Then again, PA Semi was a PowerPC design house originally...but they'd be unlikely to go back to Power at this point.)
I’d still like to have an iPad with all the workings of an iPhone along with an Apple Watch and a pair of EarPods. Eliminating the need for the separate phone. I have no need for the massive computing power of a Mac but I need more screen than an iPhone offers. Presently I must have the iPhone to operate the Apple Watch! Why?
Ever heard of the Apple Watch series 3?? No phone needed.....
Heard of it? I have one. You need to pair it to a phone to set it up, update the OS, install Apps, oh and at present if your phone isn't connected to the telecoms infrastructure, the LTE features of the watch won't work. (I presume this last is a limitation set by the carriers, and could be fixed with a firmware update if they ever get the go ahead. The rest of it still stands, though.)
Apple need to produce light low price MAC book call MAChrome so new pencil $299 iPad and similar priced Machrome at lower end especially in education market can compete well with everyone. Than, rest middel to high end iPads and MAC products.
Clearly, you guys, this fellow who can’t spell or punctuate or knows that “Mac” isn’t an acronym should be immediately named CEO to replace Cook. He’s clearly a genius.
I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear:
Right now ... The iPad is dead to me. COMPLETELY DEAD! I'm not buying another one until it runs macOS. PERIOD!!
Read this Tim Cook and weep. You are destroying an entire Product Line.
Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away.
But seriously, claiming that "Apple is DO0M3D!!1!" because they're not making exactly what you want is getting tired. It's fair enough that you want macOS on an iPad. I don't, I think it's a bad idea, since it would require them to completely redo the UI for macOS to work on that form factor. So I think they're better off sticking to the OS that's already optimised for it - iOS.
Meanwhile, many UI "innovations" as of lately simply have been cross-platform harmonisation, which is how both platforms got aligned in the first place.
So what’s the consistency with Cook’s position ?
Think of the Dock on the iPad, LaunchPad on the Mac, Siri, the Finder-alike Files app. Key combinations such as ⌘-C, X, V and ⌘ tab for switching between apps.
And those so-called "universal binaries": what is the bigger idea behind that ?
Do they even know what they want at Apple?
There is a clear need for a convert - a MacBook with a touch interface. How simple that could be made has already been demonstrated by 3rd parties.
Especially Apple - when reluctant for disruptive innovation - is smart enough to launch a crippled version of such a device in the first instance to test it in the market, so that Mac sales does not have to suffer from that.
But let’s keep everything as it is...
Nah. You have problems in this post.
First - there is no contradiction or confusion within Apple simply because some UI conventions are shared between the two platforms. In fact, this has been celebrated for years, notably during the "Back to the Mac" event years ago where popular iOS features were shared back to OS X. This is a feature, not a bug.
Second - no, there is not a "clear need" for a touchscreen Mac. You naively attribute the lack of it to supposed difficulty in making one, but that's not at all the reason why there isn't one. Jobs and others at Apple have explained numerous times that they've prototyped touch-Macs because sure it sounds neat, but that they ended up sucking. Gorilla arms, etc. They have a philosophical difference than Microsoft. It's the heaviness of macOS that allows iOS to remain light, and these two platforms serve differing purposes. As tools I know they do for me, and I choose my tool accordingly.
Have you ever seen how many different types of hammers there are? Now why do you suppose that is?
Sometimes I wish these CEOs would just not expand on things. They often make themselves look foolish.
"Both are incredible. One of the reasons that both of them are incredible is because we pushed them to do what they do well. And if you begin to merge the two ... you begin to make trade offs and compromises"
Yes, you make compromises. You make trade--offs.
That's exactly what the iPhone is.
Compromises and trade--offs themselves aren't the problem. The results of them might or might not be. That's why you make those trade--offs and compromises in the first place.
It would have been better to just say we have no plans to merge the two and leave it at that.
Nonsense, you’re splitting invisible hairs. Cook absolutely doesn’t need advice on how not to look foolish from any of us anonymous nobodies on a rumors site. He’s performing better at his top executive position than anybody commenting in this peanut gallery ever will, and that’s a fact.
So you don't think the iPhone wasn't a collection of compromises and trade--offs between a phone and a computer? And the software running on them?
And that for you is splitting invisible hairs?
Trade offs and compromises are the name of the game, even today!
I didn't comment on trade-offs. My three-sentence comment was clearly a reply to your silly claim that Cook made himself look foolish.
You: "Sometimes I wish these CEOs would just not expand on things. They often make themselves look foolish."
Me: "Cook absolutely doesn’t need advice on how not to look foolish from any of us anonymous nobodies on a rumors site."
...the context of my reply was clear. But nice try deflecting. Quick, dodge!
Comments
Nonsense, you’re splitting invisible hairs. Cook absolutely doesn’t need advice on how not to look foolish from any of us anonymous nobodies on a rumors site. He’s performing better at his top executive position than anybody commenting in this peanut gallery ever will, and that’s a fact.
cook actually said, and even what myopiarocks accused him of saying were not.
Annoyingly it often takes longer to expose logical fallacies then to write them.
Mac isn’t spelled in all caps. It never has been. It never will be.
Where I think Apple is wrong is not driving feature parity between iPads and Macs. There should be better interapp communication, better backgrounding, more types of apps, similar hardware features for iPads. Getting closer with iOS 11, but more work to do.
And that for you is splitting invisible hairs?
Trade offs and compromises are the name of the game, even today!
Over the long term, the stock market is an a posteriori measurement of performance. I’m not sure how to say it nicely, but it’s great at hindsight just like everyone else.
Problem is, they pretend to believe that the value of the stock are predictions of a company’s future performance, which is of course crazy cow patties because nobody is good at that. Some (Buffet et al) are really good at understanding market trends and stay disciplined, but even they get it wrong. Ie, these people are just like us, dumb desk jockeys looking at numbers going up and down.
I think they lost any headway they had made into "enterprise."
There will be a huge loss of features if the two OS's are merged.
So is your contention that the move to the Intel x86 architecture was part of a plan to merge macOS with Windows? I mean, you seem to be suggesting that it is ridiculous to run different OSes on the same chip architecture. Of course, we're not even considering that they might be designing different chips for the desktop, and don't intend to use anything recognisable as an A series for the Mac. I mean, it would presumably still be an ARM design, but it wouldn't be constrained by the same limitations as for a phone or tablet. (Then again, PA Semi was a PowerPC design house originally...but they'd be unlikely to go back to Power at this point.)
I'm not buying another one until it runs macOS. PERIOD!!
Read this Tim Cook and weep. You are destroying an entire Product Line.
With apologies to Percy Bysshe Shelley:
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
But seriously, claiming that "Apple is DO0M3D!!1!" because they're not making exactly what you want is getting tired. It's fair enough that you want macOS on an iPad. I don't, I think it's a bad idea, since it would require them to completely redo the UI for macOS to work on that form factor. So I think they're better off sticking to the OS that's already optimised for it - iOS.
First - there is no contradiction or confusion within Apple simply because some UI conventions are shared between the two platforms. In fact, this has been celebrated for years, notably during the "Back to the Mac" event years ago where popular iOS features were shared back to OS X. This is a feature, not a bug.
Second - no, there is not a "clear need" for a touchscreen Mac. You naively attribute the lack of it to supposed difficulty in making one, but that's not at all the reason why there isn't one. Jobs and others at Apple have explained numerous times that they've prototyped touch-Macs because sure it sounds neat, but that they ended up sucking. Gorilla arms, etc. They have a philosophical difference than Microsoft. It's the heaviness of macOS that allows iOS to remain light, and these two platforms serve differing purposes. As tools I know they do for me, and I choose my tool accordingly.
Have you ever seen how many different types of hammers there are? Now why do you suppose that is?
I didn't comment on trade-offs. My three-sentence comment was clearly a reply to your silly claim that Cook made himself look foolish.
You: "Sometimes I wish these CEOs would just not expand on things. They often make themselves look foolish."
Me: "Cook absolutely doesn’t need advice on how not to look foolish from any of us anonymous nobodies on a rumors site."
...the context of my reply was clear. But nice try deflecting. Quick, dodge!