Regardless, it would difficult to argue that Apple did not consider the implications of leaving certain things out. I for one am glad they did as they forced me to reconsider how I interact with a computer.
Cheers.
What is interesting is that they forced you reconsider how to use a computer, that at the end it was very similar to what MS had 5 years ago with the Surface Pro 4. And I don't think that Apple didn't add those features because the reasons you mentioned, considering how Apple criticize touchscreens for being "ergonomically terrible", at least based in their studies.
That’s the point. Had they done everything that Microsoft had done, it wouldn’t have had the impact of the iPad. It would’ve been a tool that was lost (not unlike the force touch that Apple had to finally ditched because very few people could grasp what to do with it and how to include it in their routines. And I was just starting to get the grasp of it and then they took it out. ߤ簟Ｆzwj;♂️)
Now that people have been sufficiently trained... err have had the experience of working in a touch first environment, it becomes beneficial to bring in or bring back other features. It’s a balancing act that Apple is generally very good at. Not that there aren’t other examples of Apple losing this battle. The file management system is another habit/way of thinking that Apple couldn’t totally kick either.
But now with Scribble, the iPad is something far more versatile than any other computing product and is touch first to boot. One of the best things about mg set up with the iPad Pro is that it is an iPad first and foremost.
Regarding your last statement (in bold), you never show your hand or perceived weaknesses in a battle. Why would you say something is great when you’re selling a device that is purposefully limiting the ways you can interact with it?
Can someone name one original idea from Microsoft?
Of course what? Of course Appleinsider misquoted Bloomberg to make it sound as if Microsoft's objective was to follow Apple? Or, of course Microsoft wants to remain competitive in the cloud computing industry in which they are a major player?
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
Microsoft could ask Apple to sell its chip for the Surface. Indeed, Apple could sell its Mx processor line of CPUs to any vendors who make PCs that don't come with macOS but instead come with Windows for ARM or some other OS. Apple could become the new Intel. Apple could charge PC vendors up to $1000 for the CPU that goes into their Windows PCs. If Apple could profit $500 for each non-Apple PC sold, that's a lot of profit for Apple. There are 260 million PCs sold each year. If Apple could sell an Mx CPU to run in every one of those PCs, that would be $130 billion dollars in profit every year. That's more than double Apple's current annual profit.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
Apple did think of adding those features to iPads. For example, they had studies that the show how vertical screens were terrible from an ergonomic POV. And also they criticize the "toaster/fridge" devices. What is interesting is that at the end, that is what we have with the iPad w/ Magic Keyboard today. At the end, it looks like you are glad they forced you reconsider how to interact with a computer similar to MS had 5 years ago with the Surface Pro.
I also would consider this akin to the chromebook. I personally think google has it right, in a few years time most things will be able to be done through one window... the browser. By the time we are a few years into 128 bit computing we may nearly be able to do it all. But the tech and infrastructure are not there yet, so any attempt to bring it to the masses in substantial way is going to be difficult. This is not including those that are a little older and have an attachment to the idea of what a computer is and how a program is supposed to look and work. At the point in time when Apple sees it’s time to make the leap, it will jump over to that side and will start preach praises of what this will mean. But the entire time leading up to this leap they were shooting it down.
JFC, it's because of that that some of us Apple users are being called pricks on sight. Seriously people, when the M1 was released everyone on that forum started to tell how it would change the industry, how a shift from x86 would happen.
And when that begins to happens, all the people who are still stuck in the early 90's and 00's are out, 30 years later and still bitter about everything that happened, are showing that they have only one thing in mind : "KILL MICROSOFT, WE NEED AN APPLE MONOPOLY".
I don't get it, Apple products are great, the company is sucessfull, it's literally the most profitable company in the world, why are you acting like a bunch of insecure people who always feel the need to belittle other ? (case in point that one guy above who went off topic and said that the surface laptop 3 are made of plastic, when they are actually made of metal, or alcantara.) Apple isn't a small and delicate company suffering from a thing that happened decades ago, they are a f**** behemot on top of the world.
What is happening right now is great for everyone, you need to finally realise that there's always going to be a part of the population who's going to prefer Pc's (or Android), no matter what. They have their reasons. It's like manual and automatic cars. Even if automatic cars are easier to use, some people like driving a manual car, you'd have to be a real prick to shame them about that.
It’s a great tome to be an Apple enthusiast. Like Hockey great Wayne Gretzky Apple skates to where the puck will be instead of where’s it’s at. And it remains funnier than hell to watch Apple do something, get mocked by the competition, declared DOA by the trolls under the AI bridge, and see the competition and the critics follow suit.
Don't forget "it's too expensive" before the product takes off.
Also Microsoft copying something Apple has been working years on? This isn't Mac Vs. Windows anymore where Bill Gates infiltrated Apple to steal from them. Releasing a knockoff too late has consequences....
Seriously people, when the M1 was released everyone on that forum started to tell how it would change the industry, how a shift from x86 would happen.
And when that begins to happen
That alone is a misconception, the cloud computing industry (one that Apple is not a part of) has been moving towards ARM for years. That's the highlight of the Bloomberg article, that Microsoft is creating ARM chips for their Azure servers. The fact that some of that tech might trickle down to their Surface line is not the main takeaway and certainly not the driver behind Microsoft's decision - yet Appleinsider decided to completely frame this article as Microsoft following Apple.
Microsoft could ask Apple to sell its chip for the Surface. Indeed, Apple could sell its Mx processor line of CPUs to any vendors who make PCs that don't come with macOS but instead come with Windows for ARM or some other OS. Apple could become the new Intel. Apple could charge PC vendors up to $1000 for the CPU that goes into their Windows PCs. If Apple could profit $500 for each non-Apple PC sold, that's a lot of profit for Apple. There are 260 million PCs sold each year. If Apple could sell an Mx CPU to run in every one of those PCs, that would be $130 billion dollars in profit every year. That's more than double Apple's current annual profit.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
It’s highly unlikely that Apple will sell a major competitive advantage to competitors. This is why it never licensed MacOS to PC makers.
I wouldn’t just yet because this is one of the worst examples of tech journalism I have seen in years.
The Bloomberg piece has been read, copied verbatim in some places, and then completely switched in others in order to start a bun fight in the forums.
Here’s what Bloomberg actually wrote:
The world’s largest software maker is using Arm Ltd.designs to produce a processor that will be used in its data centers, according to people familiar with the plans. It’s also exploring using another chip that would power some of its Surface line of personal computers.
which, oddly enough, ended up as this in translation:
According to sources of Bloomberg, Microsoft is working on an in-house processor design, one that could be used in its Surface lineup, but may also end up in servers.
You may think this switch around is subtle, but in my book it amounts to deliberately misquoting someone else’s sources, and changes the tone and emphasis of the original article.
While I doubt anyone is daft enough to make investment decisions based on anything they read here, it shows why it’s important to read the original story.
The world’s largest software maker is using Arm Ltd.designs to produce a processor that will be used in its data centers, according to people familiar with the plans. It’s also exploring using another chip that would power some of its Surface line of personal computers.
This is what most ARM customers do: they build new processors from existing ARM reference designs, which is far cheaper than what Apple does which is to design the processors from the ground up.
LOL. One could not write a more ridiculous 30 year story about Microsoft copying and following Apple. Windows. Luna UI. Zune. Windows phone. Surface. It’s comical!
I don't see something wrong for MS following Apple, and going with their own chips. You just have to consider the benefits for their Azure datacenter, a pass that knowledge to their devices. That could be huge for the Surface line.
And I don't get why you think it's ridiculous to copy good ideas. Was Apple ridiculous when copied MS with the Pencil, keyboard + trackpads, FaceID and multitasking in tablet mode to iPads?
Hmmm ever looked at the Knowledge Navigator or cared about the Newton, all the idea’s you mentioned Apple already showed in the late 80’s, look ik up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umJsITGzXd0) The ATG of Apple had all the stuff already up and running in the 80’s, it took another 30 years to make it small enough, efficient and powerful to be useful ...
It’s a great tome to be an Apple enthusiast. Like Hockey great Wayne Gretzky Apple skates to where the puck will be instead of where’s it’s at. And it remains funnier than hell to watch Apple do something, get mocked by the competition, declared DOA by the trolls under the AI bridge, and see the competition and the critics follow suit.
I'm not seeing what you're saying here. Surely, it's a mix and Apple gets it wrong as much as anyone else too. As for mocking. It's the same, everybody gets mocked.
Do you think the new Max case will set an industry trend?
Did FaceID set a trend? Was relying on ONE biometric a wise idea? Will Apple include another biometric option on future phones like competing phones have had for years?
Did sticking with 5W battery chargers for 10 years prove trendworthy?
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
Most of the iOS 14 tentpole features are heavily influenced by Android.
Probably the most common email activity over the last 10 years has involved attachments. For far too long, Apple users couldn't even download an attachment to their phones.
Apple misses lots of pucks or skates to where it isn't too, but for some reason you aren't seeing it. If I'm wrong about that, please give some examples of where you believe Apple screwed up. Or do you think they don't exist?
As it stands today, Apple is simply a CE company. Microsoft can be considered that too but is also far, far more. It has its tentacles in many things and pretty forward thinking too (cloud, undersea optical cabling etc). The foundations of the future (or present, as we stand now because they have already deployed solutions). Apple hasn't. Those pucks again.
As a soundbite, what you say looks nice but scratch the surface and and different reality appears. It's like 'it just works'. It may sound nice but there are a ton of caveats to that.
Yes, we all saw the monopolistic wrongs of the past and they got whacked for it. We laughed at Zune too. They have made their fair share of mistakes. Everybody has! Apple included.
I could reel off a whole series of strategic errors Apple has made. There are pucks Apple apparently doesn't know exist.
Either way, competition can only be a good thing for consumers. Everyone should be happy about more choice. We should celebrate that.
LOL. One could not write a more ridiculous 30 year story about Microsoft copying and following Apple. Windows. Luna UI. Zune. Windows phone. Surface. It’s comical!
Remembers to me the “leading by following” motto from Samsung. Would be that MS inspired Sammy?
Microsoft could ask Apple to sell its chip for the Surface. Indeed, Apple could sell its Mx processor line of CPUs to any vendors who make PCs that don't come with macOS but instead come with Windows for ARM or some other OS. Apple could become the new Intel. Apple could charge PC vendors up to $1000 for the CPU that goes into their Windows PCs. If Apple could profit $500 for each non-Apple PC sold, that's a lot of profit for Apple. There are 260 million PCs sold each year. If Apple could sell an Mx CPU to run in every one of those PCs, that would be $130 billion dollars in profit every year. That's more than double Apple's current annual profit.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
It’s highly unlikely that Apple will sell a major competitive advantage to competitors. This is why it never licensed MacOS to PC makers.
It goes beyond this. Apple isn't just making their own ARM-based CPU, they're creating an entire SoC that's configured to maximize the running of macOS and applications. Just selling the chip design or the SoC to a PC vendor running Windows or unix/linux would be a waste. There's so much more to the M-series SoC than many people realize. Yes, you can run linux on it and maybe Windows but it's like putting a Tesla motor in a Volkswagen. Yes, it makes it go faster but the car isn't built to handle that power or any of the other features of the entire Tesla ecosystem. It would be the same outcome if Apple sold the M-series SoC to PC vendors.
Comments
Now that people have been sufficiently trained... err have had the experience of working in a touch first environment, it becomes beneficial to bring in or bring back other features. It’s a balancing act that Apple is generally very good at. Not that there aren’t other examples of Apple losing this battle. The file management system is another habit/way of thinking that Apple couldn’t totally kick either.
Regarding your last statement (in bold), you never show your hand or perceived weaknesses in a battle. Why would you say something is great when you’re selling a device that is purposefully limiting the ways you can interact with it?
**edit - I forgot to bold what I referring too.
There are plenty, but a good and recent example is HoloLens 2 with Azure Remote Rendering and Dynamics 365. Of course, Apple doesn't compete in the cloud computing or commercial augmented reality market, so I wouldn't be surprised if most of the audience here hasn't the slightest idea these groundbreaking technologies even exist.
All you Apple purists will hate this idea, but how can Apple investors be denied a chance to triple their stock value and annual profits?
Upon reflection, my sample numbers are probably too high by 100%, because most CPUs are half that price. Intel's annual profits are half of what I indicated above. So Apple could probably gain only $60 billion per year by replacing Intel.
And when that begins to happens, all the people who are still stuck in the early 90's and 00's are out, 30 years later and still bitter about everything that happened, are showing that they have only one thing in mind : "KILL MICROSOFT, WE NEED AN APPLE MONOPOLY".
I don't get it, Apple products are great, the company is sucessfull, it's literally the most profitable company in the world, why are you acting like a bunch of insecure people who always feel the need to belittle other ? (case in point that one guy above who went off topic and said that the surface laptop 3 are made of plastic, when they are actually made of metal, or alcantara.) Apple isn't a small and delicate company suffering from a thing that happened decades ago, they are a f**** behemot on top of the world.
What is happening right now is great for everyone, you need to finally realise that there's always going to be a part of the population who's going to prefer Pc's (or Android), no matter what. They have their reasons. It's like manual and automatic cars. Even if automatic cars are easier to use, some people like driving a manual car, you'd have to be a real prick to shame them about that.
And my goodness do those look like knockoff MacBooks.
Don't forget "it's too expensive" before the product takes off.
Also Microsoft copying something Apple has been working years on? This isn't Mac Vs. Windows anymore where Bill Gates infiltrated Apple to steal from them. Releasing a knockoff too late has consequences....
This is what most ARM customers do: they build new processors from existing ARM reference designs, which is far cheaper than what Apple does which is to design the processors from the ground up.
Do you think the new Max case will set an industry trend?
Did FaceID set a trend? Was relying on ONE biometric a wise idea? Will Apple include another biometric option on future phones like competing phones have had for years?
Did sticking with 5W battery chargers for 10 years prove trendworthy?
Late to 5G and scrambling to homebrew a 5G modem. They missed that particular puck altogether.
Most of the iOS 14 tentpole features are heavily influenced by Android.
Probably the most common email activity over the last 10 years has involved attachments. For far too long, Apple users couldn't even download an attachment to their phones.
Apple misses lots of pucks or skates to where it isn't too, but for some reason you aren't seeing it. If I'm wrong about that, please give some examples of where you believe Apple screwed up. Or do you think they don't exist?
As it stands today, Apple is simply a CE company. Microsoft can be considered that too but is also far, far more. It has its tentacles in many things and pretty forward thinking too (cloud, undersea optical cabling etc). The foundations of the future (or present, as we stand now because they have already deployed solutions). Apple hasn't. Those pucks again.
As a soundbite, what you say looks nice but scratch the surface and and different reality appears. It's like 'it just works'. It may sound nice but there are a ton of caveats to that.
Yes, we all saw the monopolistic wrongs of the past and they got whacked for it. We laughed at Zune too. They have made their fair share of mistakes. Everybody has! Apple included.
I could reel off a whole series of strategic errors Apple has made. There are pucks Apple apparently doesn't know exist.
Either way, competition can only be a good thing for consumers. Everyone should be happy about more choice. We should celebrate that.