So what i’m hearing is Apple is still ignoring consumer demand regarding an unhobbled iPad OS, and unhobbled macbook pro hardware. There is 0 justification for limiting the user facing cameras to the same resolution found on the very first iPhone. Video looks like hot garbage. “Facetime HD” is laughably bad. Do better. Also not a fan of seeing trails of red smear going across my “retina” display on a 2020 macbook pro. They’re telling us laptop users don’t demand better displays?
On one side the hardware is bad. On the other side the software is bad. Can’t win!
Would it be too much to ask for you to get your basic facts together before commenting? The first iPhone didn't have a front-facing camera at all; that debuted in iPhone 4.
As for whether there is a "justification" for the front-facing cameras having limited resolution, well, actually there is: it's called physics. Devices this thin don't yet have room for higher-res cameras. The parts haven't existed up to now. Apple's not making that choice; Apple doesn't even make those camera parts.
So what i’m hearing is Apple is still ignoring consumer demand regarding an unhobbled iPad OS, and unhobbled macbook pro hardware. There is 0 justification for limiting the user facing cameras to the same resolution found on the very first iPhone. Video looks like hot garbage. “Facetime HD” is laughably bad. Do better. Also not a fan of seeing trails of red smear going across my “retina” display on a 2020 macbook pro. They’re telling us laptop users don’t demand better displays?
Get a M1x or M2 Mac laptop next month and stop crying like a baby. The future is Mac M series laptops, the slowest M1 laptop unplugged from the wall wipes up the floor with AMD and Intel. (Max Tech was showing mercy). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yTWGjYFiC0
Guess they don’t want my money then. Never buying a MacBook again, too bulky and I already carry something capable of running macOS. No point with new iPads at the moment with this hardware if they don’t want anything to make use of it. Remoting into a proper os doesn’t require much processing power.
Yeah, those darn bulky MacBooks! Lol
I remote into Macs with my iPad frequently for several years now, not sure why you’re having trouble figuring out how.
Yeah, I’m sure after the myriad rumors that the mini LED backlights were facing severe yield problems and delays that they were just concerned about the weight of the 11” and decided only to make the heavier one heavier. Sure, ok. Next year it’ll be on both models.
So what i’m hearing is Apple is still ignoring consumer demand regarding an unhobbled iPad OS, and unhobbled macbook pro hardware. There is 0 justification for limiting the user facing cameras to the same resolution found on the very first iPhone. Video looks like hot garbage. “Facetime HD” is laughably bad. Do better. Also not a fan of seeing trails of red smear going across my “retina” display on a 2020 macbook pro. They’re telling us laptop users don’t demand better displays?
On one side the hardware is bad. On the other side the software is bad. Can’t win!
There is no consumer demand for macOS on an iPad. I think it could be opened up a bit so that it could be used in engineering etc.
I doubt any of us 11" users would have complained about the extra 1/2 milimeter and and 1.5 ounces of extra weight. This decision was driven by cost and supply concerns.
I would certainly not complain. The overall size is the biggest difference for me. I own a 12.9" iPad Pro and it's my least favorite iPad because it's simply too big, at least as a traditional tablet. If you recast the 12.9" iPad Pro as more of a touch screen notebook by attaching a keyboard & trackpad, that's a whole different story. The only issue then is that you're now up into MacBook Air/Pro price territory so the functional pros/cons for your specific needs becomes the deciding factor. In my mind the 12.9" iPad Pro is on the purchase decision matrix against MacBooks, not other iPads.
I hear exactly what the engineers are saying regarding iPadOS vs macOS. But I still overlay my own skepticism and think that they are both: 1) touting the company line and 2) stating a current state of conditions that are bound to limitations that other engineers within Apple are working very diligently to overcome. It's not unheard of for Apple to say one thing based on a current reality and to then create a new version of reality by overcoming the limitations or inadequate approaches that others have attempted prior to Apple stepping in and showing everyone how it should have been done in the first place. Nothing is cast in stone. If there is a really good way to converge macOS and iPadOS such that neither side is compromised, Apple will find a way to do it.
Yes, I agree.
I think its telling that they said the two would remain separate -- but gave no justification for that decision.
They explained why the 11" didn't get the upgraded display (even though their answer may be mostly bullshit) but for adding Bootcamp to the iPad it was just a straight, simple unexplained "No". It strongly suggests that the decision to keep them separate is a marketing, administrative or ideological one rather than a technical one.
On the other hand, they may not be going that route because they intend to bring iPadOS up to MacOS abilities. They have been doing that (it's part of the reason why the split it off from iOS). But, they've been doing it at a snail's pace -- they even tried to hide the addition of the cursor as an accessibility feature for the handicapped. It suggests that there are purists in the iPad development team that don't want to contaminate their pure product -- even though that limits its functionality and usefulness to the user.
"Broderick responded simply that each platform is unique and distinct and will remain so." Or, to paraphrase "Because we said so." This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad and on a Mac Nano (that looks exactly like an Apple TV with an M1 processor) not because it would maximize short term profit but because it would maximize industry disruption and bring Apple a much larger share of the overall computer market over the coming decades. The PC industry has NOTHING to compete with the M series CPUs in low end small form factor PCs and tablets. They won't have anything to compete with it for YEARS. That's how you dominate. You apply your technological advantage in one market to disrupt another market. Cook is a fantastic CEO and has kept the product line full but he can't disrupt like Steve Jobs could.
One could tolerate Steve Jobs telling lies...but to hear two lowly tech guys spout patronising trash wrapped in lies is simply laughable. The former had vision, the two techs rely on rear view mirrors and left/right indicators.
MacOS iPhoneOS iPadOS
Three distinctly different vehicles travelling fixed journeys on roads to a place near nowhere
This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad
But he didn't? The iPad was released under Steve Jobs and ran iOS, not macOS.
The original iPad could not run an Intel based MacOS.
But now that MacOS has come closer to iPadOS and the M1 iPad adopted the Mac's processor that is no longer the case.
Steve never let some purity test stand in the way of building a better product.. Quite the opposite actually. He ate those that did for breakfast.
But, I can't really blame them for not biting this bullet at this time. Both the Mac teams and iPad teams have had a lot to deal with. But, going forward progress will demand that they either bring iPadOS up to MacOS standards (at least while its in laptop mode) or add bootcamp to the iPad. The latter would be the quickest and simplest.
"Broderick responded simply that each platform is unique and distinct and will remain so." Or, to paraphrase "Because we said so." This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad and on a Mac Nano (that looks exactly like an Apple TV with an M1 processor) not because it would maximize short term profit but because it would maximize industry disruption and bring Apple a much larger share of the overall computer market over the coming decades. The PC industry has NOTHING to compete with the M series CPUs in low end small form factor PCs and tablets. They won't have anything to compete with it for YEARS. That's how you dominate. You apply your technological advantage in one market to disrupt another market. Cook is a fantastic CEO and has kept the product line full but he can't disrupt like Steve Jobs could.
Bullsh!t. Steve Jobs was not the avatar of “disruption” but of elegant, simple solutions. He demanded an unmaclike interface because it was meant to be a different process than a sit down computer. Just stop talking about Jobs because you don’t know the first thing about the man.
Apple behaves like a dictator with their tech and then they wonder, why can't they beat an OS that comes with ads built-in, and has dialog boxes from over 20 years ago.
They did beat Windows though? There are more active iOS devices than Windows machines.
Apple won.
Why in the hell do you think Apple is worth so much more than Microsoft?
Apple won.
This.
Ms won the desktop war back when the market was ripe for commodity crap. Then Windows became entrenched.
But it’s a whole new world now. People don’t want crap. They want quality and security and are happy to pay for. It.
Still remember Microsoft ceo balmer completely dismissing the iPhone and misreading the mobile space entirely.
They even BOUGHT NOKIA ... then botched the whole thing and exited the market entirely. They ZUNED themselves over too many times. “Plays for sure?” Doesn’t play at all.
Apple always made the better computers. Just took a revolution for people to notice. Macs are gaining like crazy.
But apples comeback starter with the iPod. Popular, but no real threat to computing.
Then came the iPhone. Boom. Turned the industry upside down. Then erased and redefined it.
Suddenly everything looks and operates similarly to iPhone now.
When people talk about smartphones, they just say iPhone. Like how Google is synonymous with search.
Apple definitely won and can buy Microsoft multiple times over.
You said it.
Apple won.
And they did it not by going for the easy quick cash grab or by “licensing” it’s computers to customers. It won by sticking to its goal of making the best devices on earth. And it does exactly that.
"Broderick responded simply that each platform is unique and distinct and will remain so." Or, to paraphrase "Because we said so." This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad and on a Mac Nano (that looks exactly like an Apple TV with an M1 processor) not because it would maximize short term profit but because it would maximize industry disruption and bring Apple a much larger share of the overall computer market over the coming decades. The PC industry has NOTHING to compete with the M series CPUs in low end small form factor PCs and tablets. They won't have anything to compete with it for YEARS. That's how you dominate. You apply your technological advantage in one market to disrupt another market. Cook is a fantastic CEO and has kept the product line full but he can't disrupt like Steve Jobs could.
The very same Steve Jobs who said if he went back to Apple he’d use mac to sponsor what come next and let it then die.
Seems to me what SJ would do is exactly what is happening. What seems strange is iPad didn’t have iPadOS from day one is it could have grown faster.
Yeh, or iPadOS will be upgraded to the point where it's unnecessary. But one of the two.
The current situation is a machine very capable of running in laptop mode from a hardware perspective but doing it with an OS that isn't fully capable of doing laptop type work in a user friendly, efficient way -- which makes for a poor user experience.
Apple behaves like a dictator with their tech and then they wonder, why can't they beat an OS that comes with ads built-in, and has dialog boxes from over 20 years ago.
They did beat Windows though? There are more active iOS devices than Windows machines.
Apple won.
Why in the hell do you think Apple is worth so much more than Microsoft?
Apple won.
All of the big tech companies won. Microsoft is doing quite well and last time I checked, APPL’s valuation is 2.093 trillion while MSFT is 1.847 trillion.
"Broderick responded simply that each platform is unique and distinct and will remain so." Or, to paraphrase "Because we said so." This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad and on a Mac Nano (that looks exactly like an Apple TV with an M1 processor) not because it would maximize short term profit but because it would maximize industry disruption and bring Apple a much larger share of the overall computer market over the coming decades. The PC industry has NOTHING to compete with the M series CPUs in low end small form factor PCs and tablets. They won't have anything to compete with it for YEARS. That's how you dominate. You apply your technological advantage in one market to disrupt another market. Cook is a fantastic CEO and has kept the product line full but he can't disrupt like Steve Jobs could.
People who worked alongside SJ for years and one was handpicked by him to succeed him, don’t know what he would’ve done but some random forum goer does? I’ll go with TC and his team on this one.
I don’t know about that last point either. Apple Watch, under TC’s leadership is one example. How about AirPods? Apple silicon is another. All under TC’s leadership and all, especially the last one, pretty disruptive.
This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad
But he didn't? The iPad was released under Steve Jobs and ran iOS, not macOS.
The original iPad could not run an Intel based MacOS.
But now that MacOS has come closer to iPadOS and the M1 iPad adopted the Mac's processor that is no longer the case.
Steve never let some purity test stand in the way of building a better product.. Quite the opposite actually. He ate those that did for breakfast.
But, I can't really blame them for not biting this bullet at this time. Both the Mac teams and iPad teams have had a lot to deal with. But, going forward progress will demand that they either bring iPadOS up to MacOS standards (at least while its in laptop mode) or add bootcamp to the iPad. The latter would be the quickest and simplest.
This typifies the lack of thought that the "put MacOS on an iPad" crowd has put into what it would take for this to actually happen.
You seem to think the only technical limitation is the processor as if having an M1 solves all challenges. Let's think about this for a moment.
1. MacOS isn't designed for touch. So critical features like keyboard shortcuts have to be completely rethought. I can't imagine using MacOS if I had to select everything via drop down menus at the top of the screen every time I wanted to create a new folder, document, quit an App.
2. How do you handle dual booting? MacOS has a way to do this but iPadOS doesn't.
3. What happens to the scrutiny of iPadOS? MacOS gives you complete access to the file system on a hard drive. So while booted into MacOS there is a risk of iPadOS being unintentionally altered or worse malware being introduced.
That's just spitballing it on issues that would need to be addressed. Could Apple solve all of these and the laundry list that isn't here? Probably, given enough time and effort? Is it worth that time and effort to satisfy some small number of users who want MacOS on an iPad because.... well, ya'll have never really articulated why it should be there, the argument seems to be "because the iPad has an M1" .... I'd think the time and effort is better spent elsewhere. I'm also guessing Apple has put way more thought into what it would take to put MacOS on an iPad than any of the commenters that keep demanding it be done.
The iPad might not - but the iPad Pro will hopefully run a version of it.
The problem is the developers won’t easily move their software to App Store - like Adobe CC.
I just hope they do something to fix ipad OS. It truly is a stop-gap OS to facilitate a larger screen on a phone platform- and it undeniably sucks big time. iOS needs to be completely reimagined.
With everything moving to the same chipset- I expect a new GUI will emerge and facilitate a convergence.
This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad
But he didn't? The iPad was released under Steve Jobs and ran iOS, not macOS.
The original iPad could not run an Intel based MacOS.
But now that MacOS has come closer to iPadOS and the M1 iPad adopted the Mac's processor that is no longer the case.
Steve never let some purity test stand in the way of building a better product.. Quite the opposite actually. He ate those that did for breakfast.
But, I can't really blame them for not biting this bullet at this time. Both the Mac teams and iPad teams have had a lot to deal with. But, going forward progress will demand that they either bring iPadOS up to MacOS standards (at least while its in laptop mode) or add bootcamp to the iPad. The latter would be the quickest and simplest.
This typifies the lack of thought that the "put MacOS on an iPad" crowd has put into what it would take for this to actually happen.
You seem to think the only technical limitation is the processor as if having an M1 solves all challenges. Let's think about this for a moment.
1. MacOS isn't designed for touch. So critical features like keyboard shortcuts have to be completely rethought. I can't imagine using MacOS if I had to select everything via drop down menus at the top of the screen every time I wanted to create a new folder, document, quit an App.
2. How do you handle dual booting? MacOS has a way to do this but iPadOS doesn't.
3. What happens to the scrutiny of iPadOS? MacOS gives you complete access to the file system on a hard drive. So while booted into MacOS there is a risk of iPadOS being unintentionally altered or worse malware being introduced.
That's just spitballing it on issues that would need to be addressed. Could Apple solve all of these and the laundry list that isn't here? Probably, given enough time and effort? Is it worth that time and effort to satisfy some small number of users who want MacOS on an iPad because.... well, ya'll have never really articulated why it should be there, the argument seems to be "because the iPad has an M1" .... I'd think the time and effort is better spent elsewhere. I'm also guessing Apple has put way more thought into what it would take to put MacOS on an iPad than any of the commenters that keep demanding it be done.
LOL...
1. You are correct that MacOS is not designed for touch. But then neither was iPadOS designed to operate in laptop mode -- which is clearly part of its current charter. So, allowing the user to select macOS when they need MacOS makes sense.
2) How do you "handle" bootcamp? The same way you handle it on Macs: It's called programming.
3) What happens to security if the user has full access to their files? The same thing that happens today with MacOS: nothing.
And why should iPad be upgraded to do all that it can do -- versus being hobbled with a weak OS? If you gotta ask that question, you won't understand the answer.
Perhaps the biggest concern with adding MacOS to iPads via bootcamp is: what will that do to MacBook sales?
The answer: MacBooks would have to get better to stay competitive. THey would have to offer things that iPads cannot.
For Apple users, that's a Win-Win situation. And isn't that what it's all about?
Comments
As for whether there is a "justification" for the front-facing cameras having limited resolution, well, actually there is: it's called physics. Devices this thin don't yet have room for higher-res cameras. The parts haven't existed up to now. Apple's not making that choice; Apple doesn't even make those camera parts.
I remote into Macs with my iPad frequently for several years now, not sure why you’re having trouble figuring out how.
This point has to be hammered home: Steve Jobs would have immediately released MacOS on the iPad and on a Mac Nano (that looks exactly like an Apple TV with an M1 processor) not because it would maximize short term profit but because it would maximize industry disruption and bring Apple a much larger share of the overall computer market over the coming decades. The PC industry has NOTHING to compete with the M series CPUs in low end small form factor PCs and tablets. They won't have anything to compete with it for YEARS. That's how you dominate. You apply your technological advantage in one market to disrupt another market. Cook is a fantastic CEO and has kept the product line full but he can't disrupt like Steve Jobs could.
If we're going to wildly guess about what Steve Jobs would have done, then let's at least take into account what he actually did.
MacOS
iPhoneOS
iPadOS
Three distinctly different vehicles travelling fixed journeys on roads to a place near nowhere
Microsoft is doing quite well and last time I checked, APPL’s valuation is 2.093 trillion while MSFT is 1.847 trillion.
I don’t know about that last point either. Apple Watch, under TC’s leadership is one example. How about AirPods?
Apple silicon is another.
All under TC’s leadership and all, especially the last one, pretty disruptive.
You seem to think the only technical limitation is the processor as if having an M1 solves all challenges. Let's think about this for a moment.
1. MacOS isn't designed for touch. So critical features like keyboard shortcuts have to be completely rethought. I can't imagine using MacOS if I had to select everything via drop down menus at the top of the screen every time I wanted to create a new folder, document, quit an App.
2. How do you handle dual booting? MacOS has a way to do this but iPadOS doesn't.
3. What happens to the scrutiny of iPadOS? MacOS gives you complete access to the file system on a hard drive. So while booted into MacOS there is a risk of iPadOS being unintentionally altered or worse malware being introduced.
That's just spitballing it on issues that would need to be addressed. Could Apple solve all of these and the laundry list that isn't here? Probably, given enough time and effort? Is it worth that time and effort to satisfy some small number of users who want MacOS on an iPad because.... well, ya'll have never really articulated why it should be there, the argument seems to be "because the iPad has an M1" .... I'd think the time and effort is better spent elsewhere. I'm also guessing Apple has put way more thought into what it would take to put MacOS on an iPad than any of the commenters that keep demanding it be done.