Apple hasn't been excited about the Mac in years - and it shows. I'm sure we'll get a beautiful, fancy, and incredibly overpriced Mac Pro this year to keep the "pro" market happy for another few years. In the meantime, Apple will continue to push the iPad as a laptop replacement, as well as a general purpose computing device. They sure aren't pushing the Mac! What we're going to see with Marzipan is not unlike what we saw with Classic > Carbon > Cocoa.
I don’t know why people take statements like this seriously. They’ve been filling all the gaps in the Mac lineup, and aside from a stumble where we had multiple pauses in updates overlapping, have more than proven to me that they actively care about the Mac. I haven’t seen them “pushing” the Mac any less than any other time in the past decade.
Also sounds like they don’t really understand what Marzipan is. They’re literally just bridging gaps between iOS and macOS to make it easier to target both platforms when building apps. The idea that making it easier for iOS developers to start targeting the Mac as well somehow signals the death of the Mac is absurd for obvious reasons.
It's not absurd at all. I would suggest that you're simply not looking far enough into the future. Making it easier for iOS developers to target the Mac standardizes development between the two platforms. The initial and short-term result will be iOS apps coming to the Mac. The long-term result will be Mac and iOS apps using all of the same APIs. Once that happens, the underlying guts of the OS become less important. And while iOS is based on macOS, they are still quite different in many key respects, not the least of which is user access to the Unix layer of macOS.
I think it's very obvious from the way Apple has treated the Mac over the past decade that its heart now belongs to iOS. The Mac Pro has been a joke product for years now. The trashcan Mac Pro wasn't a proper "pro" device, unless you like a rat's nest of wires and stacks of external boxes. Mac prices keep rising, yet the hardware is never cutting-edge. Sometimes it's several years out of date, yet still commands top dollar. Furthermore, Apple is doing more and more to lock the Mac down (T2 chip) as well as limit it's overall usefulness as a Unix platform. They have gutted Server. Each macOS revision sees macOS lose a bit more of its Unix-ness, even if it's not always obvious to the end user.
As for Apple not pushing the Mac, they don't. They've accepted their marketshare glass ceiling and aren't doing anything to break through. They haven't for years. In fact, they do the opposite. They raise prices and further alienate many types of users. The new Mini is a perfect example. In my opinion they are really starting to push more of their user base to iOS and the iPad as a general purpose computing tool. They're happy to milk the Mac, just as they milked the Apple II back in the day, but the focus is now on iOS, just as it was on the Mac back in the twilight days of the Apple II. I find it hard to believe that they will dedicate the resources to porting macOS (as we know it today) to ARM. They could and probably already have, but I don't think they'll bring it to market until most apps use Marzipan.
In the end, whether we call it macOS or iOS probably doesn't matter. Long-term they will be one unified OS. Marzipan starts that process. When iOS moves to the desktop, I don't think most users will notice and I think that's very much Apple's goal. What I see being lost, ultimately, from macOS is all of the Unix stuff. Just like one doesn't have access to this part of iOS, I believe macOS will ultimately follow.
I can't disagree. The comparison to when they were selling the Mac and AppleII series is very apt. They did sell the AppleII up until the early '90s but you could tell the Mac was where they were going. I hadn't thought of it before you mentioned it but it does have the same feel. iOS devices are growing by leaps and bounds. Just as when the Mac became a more powerful and versatile system than the AppleII, the iPad is rapidly approaching the same point, where you will be able to do everything you can on a Mac and more, on iOS. Once that happens a lot of people will jump ship.
The key difference to me is the Data transfer. Apple ][ and Mac at the time were almost completely incompatible data wise. Even if you had drives of the same physical size on both machines it was a number of years before there was compatible software. Even Apple own ClarrisWorks couldn't talk to Appleworks to bring even simple word processing documents over.
MacOS and iOS not only talk but can similtanously share data. There really is no barrier between them other than finding the right software for your tasks and buying the machine to suit.
Add to this the sidecar rumour of a tether iPad becoming an interface to a Mac and it gets more interesting still. They have no reason to leave one behind to advance the other like they did with Apple ][.
They could actually build something in between. A proper padOS that has an interface that can take full advantage of screensize and interaction modes it has on offer in various form factors and yet still stream traditional OS's Mac, Windows, Citrix, etc.
Apple hasn't been excited about the Mac in years - and it shows. I'm sure we'll get a beautiful, fancy, and incredibly overpriced Mac Pro this year to keep the "pro" market happy for another few years. In the meantime, Apple will continue to push the iPad as a laptop replacement, as well as a general purpose computing device. They sure aren't pushing the Mac! What we're going to see with Marzipan is not unlike what we saw with Classic > Carbon > Cocoa.
I don’t know why people take statements like this seriously. They’ve been filling all the gaps in the Mac lineup, and aside from a stumble where we had multiple pauses in updates overlapping, have more than proven to me that they actively care about the Mac. I haven’t seen them “pushing” the Mac any less than any other time in the past decade.
Also sounds like they don’t really understand what Marzipan is. They’re literally just bridging gaps between iOS and macOS to make it easier to target both platforms when building apps. The idea that making it easier for iOS developers to start targeting the Mac as well somehow signals the death of the Mac is absurd for obvious reasons.
It's not absurd at all. I would suggest that you're simply not looking far enough into the future. Making it easier for iOS developers to target the Mac standardizes development between the two platforms. The initial and short-term result will be iOS apps coming to the Mac. The long-term result will be Mac and iOS apps using all of the same APIs. Once that happens, the underlying guts of the OS become less important. And while iOS is based on macOS, they are still quite different in many key respects, not the least of which is user access to the Unix layer of macOS.
I think it's very obvious from the way Apple has treated the Mac over the past decade that its heart now belongs to iOS. The Mac Pro has been a joke product for years now. The trashcan Mac Pro wasn't a proper "pro" device, unless you like a rat's nest of wires and stacks of external boxes. Mac prices keep rising, yet the hardware is never cutting-edge. Sometimes it's several years out of date, yet still commands top dollar. Furthermore, Apple is doing more and more to lock the Mac down (T2 chip) as well as limit it's overall usefulness as a Unix platform. They have gutted Server. Each macOS revision sees macOS lose a bit more of its Unix-ness, even if it's not always obvious to the end user.
As for Apple not pushing the Mac, they don't. They've accepted their marketshare glass ceiling and aren't doing anything to break through. They haven't for years. In fact, they do the opposite. They raise prices and further alienate many types of users. The new Mini is a perfect example. In my opinion they are really starting to push more of their user base to iOS and the iPad as a general purpose computing tool. They're happy to milk the Mac, just as they milked the Apple II back in the day, but the focus is now on iOS, just as it was on the Mac back in the twilight days of the Apple II. I find it hard to believe that they will dedicate the resources to porting macOS (as we know it today) to ARM. They could and probably already have, but I don't think they'll bring it to market until most apps use Marzipan.
In the end, whether we call it macOS or iOS probably doesn't matter. Long-term they will be one unified OS. Marzipan starts that process. When iOS moves to the desktop, I don't think most users will notice and I think that's very much Apple's goal. What I see being lost, ultimately, from macOS is all of the Unix stuff. Just like one doesn't have access to this part of iOS, I believe macOS will ultimately follow.
I can't disagree. The comparison to when they were selling the Mac and AppleII series is very apt. They did sell the AppleII up until the early '90s but you could tell the Mac was where they were going. I hadn't thought of it before you mentioned it but it does have the same feel. iOS devices are growing by leaps and bounds. Just as when the Mac became a more powerful and versatile system than the AppleII, the iPad is rapidly approaching the same point, where you will be able to do everything you can on a Mac and more, on iOS. Once that happens a lot of people will jump ship.
In my mind the upcoming Mac Pro is like the IIgs. It breathes some new life into the platform and buys some time to get the other (replacement) platform to where they need it to be. The difference this time is that I don’t believe Mac users will notice much difference when iOS comes to the desktop.
It's not absurd at all. I would suggest that you're simply not looking far enough into the future. Making it easier for iOS developers to target the Mac standardizes development between the two platforms. The initial and short-term result will be iOS apps coming to the Mac. The long-term result will be Mac and iOS apps using all of the same APIs. Once that happens, the underlying guts of the OS become less important. And while iOS is based on macOS, they are still quite different in many key respects, not the least of which is user access to the Unix layer of macOS.
Okay, this doesn't tell me anything about the future though other than what I said about it making it easier to develop for both OSes.
I think it's very obvious from the way Apple has treated the Mac over the past decade that its heart now belongs to iOS. The Mac Pro has been a joke product for years now. The trashcan Mac Pro wasn't a proper "pro" device, unless you like a rat's nest of wires and stacks of external boxes. Mac prices keep rising, yet the hardware is never cutting-edge. Sometimes it's several years out of date, yet still commands top dollar. Furthermore, Apple is doing more and more to lock the Mac down (T2 chip) as well as limit it's overall usefulness as a Unix platform. They have gutted Server. Each macOS revision sees macOS lose a bit more of its Unix-ness, even if it's not always obvious to the end user.
As for Apple not pushing the Mac, they don't. They've accepted their marketshare glass ceiling and aren't doing anything to break through. They haven't for years. In fact, they do the opposite. They raise prices and further alienate many types of users. The new Mini is a perfect example.
We know there's a new Mac Pro coming this year, no need to keep bringing up the well-known problem of the 2013 MP. The Mac mini by all measures is a great update, except for the minority clamoring for a cheap low end mini which is not their target market anymore. The T2 chip is also a huge benefit for security on the Mac, I welcome it. Server, meh. As far as "lose a bit more of its Unix-ness", I'm not even sure what that means.
In my opinion they are really starting to push more of their user base to iOS and the iPad as a general purpose computing tool. They're happy to milk the Mac, just as they milked the Apple II back in the day, but the focus is now on iOS, just as it was on the Mac back in the twilight days of the Apple II. I find it hard to believe that they will dedicate the resources to porting macOS (as we know it today) to ARM. They could and probably already have, but I don't think they'll bring it to market until most apps use Marzipan. In the end, whether we call it macOS or iOS probably doesn't matter. Long-term they will be one unified OS. Marzipan starts that process. When iOS moves to the desktop, I don't think most users will notice and I think that's very much Apple's goal. What I see being lost, ultimately, from macOS is all of the Unix stuff. Just like one doesn't have access to this part of iOS, I believe macOS will ultimately follow.
You're concluding that "iOS moves to the desktop" which is weird. iOS obviously is for one use case and macOS the other. They've repeatedly said they're not merging the OSes. They're obviously putting a lot of work into macOS (and their hardware, despite what you seem to think). I just don't see the problem in the near or longterm future. There seems to be some conflation that either the Marzipan stuff to aid in cross-platform development or macOS moving to ARM somehow means we're going to be all using dumbed down iPad interfaces on our Macs and I simply don't think that's a rational conclusion.
What is "all of the Unix stuff" that's being lost in macOS?
Ok, I'll start over and make this simple. This is what I believe:
1. Marzipan brings UIKit to the Mac, thus making it easier for developers to target both the Mac and iOS-based devices. But it's a two-way street. Marzipan is as much about making it easier to bring iOS apps to the Mac as it is about bringing the desktop to UIKit, which will allow an iOS-based device to offer a desktop UI one day.
2. You can call it macOS, iOS, or appleOS. Whatever you want. But one day there will be just one Apple OS with multiple variants. We already see this today with iOS and tvOS.
3. Apple will not port the current macOS to ARM. When "macOS" arrives on ARM-based "Macs", it will not support AppKit apps and won't offer access to the underlying Unix layer because "macOS" on ARM will be based on iOS, not today's macOS.
I run dual 22" HD monitors, and aside from any floating windows (calculator, stickies) or apps that are made up of several different windows (transmission) which I do not want to take the time to arrange in a pseudo full screen look, it is a full screen app per monitor...
Now I could see a setup with an iPad Pro as the main unit, but when you get to the desk you have options for keyboard, pencil, & mouse as input devices, and the option for a second independent external monitor, which would be hooked to an AppleTV that also acted as a ports & power dock for the iPad Pro, with ability for the iPad Pro to access an external drive / array...
2. You can call it macOS, iOS, or appleOS. Whatever you want. But one day there will be just one Apple OS with multiple variants. We already see this today with iOS and tvOS.
I think you got it, they will not merge iOS & macOS (OS X), but give us a rebrand as appleOS & everything will be ARM, either mobile or a handful of blades......
It's not absurd at all. I would suggest that you're simply not looking far enough into the future. Making it easier for iOS developers to target the Mac standardizes development between the two platforms. The initial and short-term result will be iOS apps coming to the Mac. The long-term result will be Mac and iOS apps using all of the same APIs. Once that happens, the underlying guts of the OS become less important. And while iOS is based on macOS, they are still quite different in many key respects, not the least of which is user access to the Unix layer of macOS.
Okay, this doesn't tell me anything about the future though other than what I said about it making it easier to develop for both OSes.
I think it's very obvious from the way Apple has treated the Mac over the past decade that its heart now belongs to iOS. The Mac Pro has been a joke product for years now. The trashcan Mac Pro wasn't a proper "pro" device, unless you like a rat's nest of wires and stacks of external boxes. Mac prices keep rising, yet the hardware is never cutting-edge. Sometimes it's several years out of date, yet still commands top dollar. Furthermore, Apple is doing more and more to lock the Mac down (T2 chip) as well as limit it's overall usefulness as a Unix platform. They have gutted Server. Each macOS revision sees macOS lose a bit more of its Unix-ness, even if it's not always obvious to the end user.
As for Apple not pushing the Mac, they don't. They've accepted their marketshare glass ceiling and aren't doing anything to break through. They haven't for years. In fact, they do the opposite. They raise prices and further alienate many types of users. The new Mini is a perfect example.
We know there's a new Mac Pro coming this year, no need to keep bringing up the well-known problem of the 2013 MP. The Mac mini by all measures is a great update, except for the minority clamoring for a cheap low end mini which is not their target market anymore. The T2 chip is also a huge benefit for security on the Mac, I welcome it. Server, meh. As far as "lose a bit more of its Unix-ness", I'm not even sure what that means.
In my opinion they are really starting to push more of their user base to iOS and the iPad as a general purpose computing tool. They're happy to milk the Mac, just as they milked the Apple II back in the day, but the focus is now on iOS, just as it was on the Mac back in the twilight days of the Apple II. I find it hard to believe that they will dedicate the resources to porting macOS (as we know it today) to ARM. They could and probably already have, but I don't think they'll bring it to market until most apps use Marzipan. In the end, whether we call it macOS or iOS probably doesn't matter. Long-term they will be one unified OS. Marzipan starts that process. When iOS moves to the desktop, I don't think most users will notice and I think that's very much Apple's goal. What I see being lost, ultimately, from macOS is all of the Unix stuff. Just like one doesn't have access to this part of iOS, I believe macOS will ultimately follow.
You're concluding that "iOS moves to the desktop" which is weird. iOS obviously is for one use case and macOS the other. They've repeatedly said they're not merging the OSes. They're obviously putting a lot of work into macOS (and their hardware, despite what you seem to think). I just don't see the problem in the near or longterm future. There seems to be some conflation that either the Marzipan stuff to aid in cross-platform development or macOS moving to ARM somehow means we're going to be all using dumbed down iPad interfaces on our Macs and I simply don't think that's a rational conclusion.
What is "all of the Unix stuff" that's being lost in macOS?
Ok, I'll start over and make this simple. This is what I believe:
1. Marzipan brings UIKit to the Mac, thus making it easier for developers to target both the Mac and iOS-based devices. But it's a two-way street. Marzipan is as much about making it easier to bring iOS apps to the Mac as it is about bringing the desktop to UIKit, which will allow an iOS-based device to offer a desktop UI one day.
2. You can call it macOS, iOS, or appleOS. Whatever you want. But one day there will be just one Apple OS with multiple variants. We already see this today with iOS and tvOS.
3. Apple will not port the current macOS to ARM. When "macOS" arrives on ARM-based "Macs", it will not support AppKit apps and won't offer access to the underlying Unix layer because "macOS" on ARM will be based on iOS, not today's macOS.
I doubt we will see a merged OS. The iPad will now be able to better perform some functions commonly done on MacBooks. But, that won't make them MacBooks and the OS remains a simplified version of MacOS which better fits the main thrust of the iPad -- simple, easy, user friendly, mostly content based functions.
I don't think Apple will try to make the iPad into a MacBook. All they are doing here is removing a functional limitation where some functions that were entirely possible to do on an iPad were made more difficult by the lack of a cursor and mouse.
A lesser company would combine the two OS's in order to produce a cost savings. But not Apple.
(And, I also disagree with your Point #3. There is not reason why MacOS can't run on an ARM based processor. )
I can! But since it has been so misused to now commonly describe news one doesn't like or approve of, I don't use it much anymore.
As for a cursor and mouse on the iPad: As soon as Apple started billing it as a laptop replacement, the question became one of "When" rather than "If".
1. USB-C isn’t what enables mouse support. First, most mice (“mouses”) are USB-A or Bluetooth. And Apple no longer sells a wired mouse of any kind, so if they really wanted to support an iPad mouse, they’d go Bluetooth.
2. The only time I want a mouse on my iPad is when I run software like Citrix Receiver to connect to corporate computers (usually Windows). Citrix already sells a mouse for iOS users of their app: https://youtu.be/9R6WcZkz-Ik (and it works well)
3. I think using a pointer + mouse for native iOS apps misses the point of the tablet form factor. I get that some people think a tablet should be a desktop Windows PC, but I do not, and I do not think Apple thinks this either.
This will in no way impact your use of an iPad in tablet mode. It simply adds additional functionality to an already great product. Or, put another way: Instead of "adding functionality" one could claim it removes a limitation without impacting the other functions of the iPad.
I disagree with the “more options = better” philosophy, and so does Apple. We are talking about the company that built a platform off of the one-button mouse. The company that replaced all connectors with Thunderbolt 3. Jony Ive has pushed for removing, simplifying, reducing as design philosophy.
Samsung believes in choice. Microsoft believes in choice. Why risk making the wrong design decisions when you can put both a fingerprint reader and a (2D) face recognition camera and let the user choose? Google believes in choice. Why design a service when you can offer several competing beta services and later cancel all the least popular ones? Apple doesn’t do that because it means the designer did do his/her job and solve the problem. That isn’t always popular with the “gimme choices!” crowd.
1. USB-C isn’t what enables mouse support. First, most mice (“mouses”) are USB-A or Bluetooth. And Apple no longer sells a wired mouse of any kind, so if they really wanted to support an iPad mouse, they’d go Bluetooth.
2. The only time I want a mouse on my iPad is when I run software like Citrix Receiver to connect to corporate computers (usually Windows). Citrix already sells a mouse for iOS users of their app: https://youtu.be/9R6WcZkz-Ik (and it works well)
3. I think using a pointer + mouse for native iOS apps misses the point of the tablet form factor. I get that some people think a tablet should be a desktop Windows PC, but I do not, and I do not think Apple thinks this either.
This will in no way impact your use of an iPad in tablet mode. It simply adds additional functionality to an already great product. Or, put another way: Instead of "adding functionality" one could claim it removes a limitation without impacting the other functions of the iPad.
I disagree with the “more options = better” philosophy, and so does Apple. We are talking about the company that built a platform off of the one-button mouse. The company that replaced all connectors with Thunderbolt 3. Jony Ive has pushed for removing, simplifying, reducing as design philosophy.
Samsung believes in choice. Microsoft believes in choice. Why risk making the wrong design decisions when you can put both a fingerprint reader and a (2D) face recognition camera and let the user choose? Google believes in choice. Why design a service when you can offer several competing beta services and later cancel all the least popular ones? Apple doesn’t do that because it means the designer did do his/her job and solve the problem. That isn’t always popular with the “gimme choices!” crowd.
Yes, all quite true... But the other thing Apple has never believed in: Ideology ... It always ends eating those who worship at its feet.
As for a cursor and mouse on the iPad: As soon as Apple started billing it as a laptop replacement, the question became one of "When" rather than "If".
Considering this is reportedly going in Accessibility, this is probably to better accommodate the disabled who can't use touch and use assistive devices for navigation/etc. ie, little to do with billing iPads as laptop replacements.
Comments
1. Marzipan brings UIKit to the Mac, thus making it easier for developers to target both the Mac and iOS-based devices. But it's a two-way street. Marzipan is as much about making it easier to bring iOS apps to the Mac as it is about bringing the desktop to UIKit, which will allow an iOS-based device to offer a desktop UI one day.
2. You can call it macOS, iOS, or appleOS. Whatever you want. But one day there will be just one Apple OS with multiple variants. We already see this today with iOS and tvOS.
3. Apple will not port the current macOS to ARM. When "macOS" arrives on ARM-based "Macs", it will not support AppKit apps and won't offer access to the underlying Unix layer because "macOS" on ARM will be based on iOS, not today's macOS.
Now I could see a setup with an iPad Pro as the main unit, but when you get to the desk you have options for keyboard, pencil, & mouse as input devices, and the option for a second independent external monitor, which would be hooked to an AppleTV that also acted as a ports & power dock for the iPad Pro, with ability for the iPad Pro to access an external drive / array...
What we want...
I don't think Apple will try to make the iPad into a MacBook. All they are doing here is removing a functional limitation where some functions that were entirely possible to do on an iPad were made more difficult by the lack of a cursor and mouse.
A lesser company would combine the two OS's in order to produce a cost savings. But not Apple.
(And, I also disagree with your Point #3. There is not reason why MacOS can't run on an ARM based processor. )
As for a cursor and mouse on the iPad: As soon as Apple started billing it as a laptop replacement, the question became one of "When" rather than "If".
Samsung believes in choice. Microsoft believes in choice. Why risk making the wrong design decisions when you can put both a fingerprint reader and a (2D) face recognition camera and let the user choose? Google believes in choice. Why design a service when you can offer several competing beta services and later cancel all the least popular ones? Apple doesn’t do that because it means the designer did do his/her job and solve the problem. That isn’t always popular with the “gimme choices!” crowd.
But the other thing Apple has never believed in: Ideology
... It always ends eating those who worship at its feet.