Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
Apple doesn't believe that the user should mix touch input on a notebook, or a desktop, hence why the cursor appeared in iPadOS to support an accessory keyboard with trackpad or mouse when the user is primarily inputting text. There isn't anything that is user friendly about reaching out to touch a screen for input.
IMHO, there is no UI that works well with both touch and keyboard simultaneously. If you believe that the Surface has solved that problem, then buy a Surface, or a Surface clone, and enjoy it.
Stop stating that Apple is forcing users to buy two different devices, because they want to increase revenue. It's a lie on your part as there isn't any evidence of that.
Nothing user friendly to a touch screen? Perhaps not -- except when , as I pointed out to you previously, it is necessary to get the job done.
And, why should I stop stating that Apple is forcing users to buy two different devices -- since, for some/many users, that is exactly what they're doing: a MacBook for keyboard input and an iPad for touch input. It makes me wonder if the Apple Car will have a trunk -- since the buyer can also buy a pick up truck if they need to carry things..
Sorry, but I hold Apple to a higher standard. I think they can do better.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
The person who was interviewed answered the question. He was consistent with every other Apple exec who has been asked the same question. They’re not interested in doing the thing you want them to do.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Gee, I guess you'll never enjoy a new Mac, or iPad, if you're waiting for Apple's hybrid, so take my advice, and buy yourself a Surface clone. No sense in living in a computer desert with your ancient hardware, "waiting for Godot". Still, that your grandson seems to have continued access to his school provided hybrid means you don't have to do anything at all for the time being, except continue whinging, I suppose.
For the record, the touch bar was on the keyboard, not the screen, and was limited to either selection, or a linearization action like volume. Hardly the "touch" that you are arguing for in a hybrid.
Hint:
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
But, yeah, you should never give an inch, or submit to Apple.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
No it doesn't. Apple U turns all the time. Have you somehow missed the re-addition of "legacy" ports on the new Macbooks? They're not combining iPad and Mac in the hope users will buy both. Unfortunately for Apple though, people apparently realise iPadOS is too much of a toy to get real work done, so sales have been declining since 2014 - save for a pandemic related boost. You really think carting two devices about just so you can use the touchscreen on one is a better solution than a 2-in-1? right.
So, you must be a user of a 2 in 1...
Pointing out that Apple makes U turns doesn't mean I want a 2-in-1, but I can see where they are useful and have seen them in use in the wild, and they're a lot more capable than an iPad. I draw diagrams fairly often and that's impossible on an Apple laptop at the moment, and there is no way I'm going to get an iPad just for that.
If iPad had a real OS however, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But as my workflow doesn't fit exactly into Apple's narrow view of one should do with an iPad, it is pretty useless to me. Instead, I have a MBP. I would love more than anything to have an M1 iPad that I could connect to external peripherals and use as a real computer to fix software bugs, recompile and flash external devices, write basic scripts and debug networks, rather having little more than an expensive toy with iPadOS. I have no use for a touchscreen on a laptop, but a powerful tablet would be great because it's so much more convenient than a laptop.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
No it doesn't. Apple U turns all the time. Have you somehow missed the re-addition of "legacy" ports on the new Macbooks? They're not combining iPad and Mac in the hope users will buy both. Unfortunately for Apple though, people apparently realise iPadOS is too much of a toy to get real work done, so sales have been declining since 2014 - save for a pandemic related boost. You really think carting two devices about just so you can use the touchscreen on one is a better solution than a 2-in-1? right.
So, you must be a user of a 2 in 1...
Pointing out that Apple makes U turns doesn't mean I want a 2-in-1, but I can see where they are useful and have seen them in use in the wild, and they're a lot more capable than an iPad. I draw diagrams fairly often and that's impossible on an Apple laptop at the moment, and there is no way I'm going to get an iPad just for that.
If iPad had a real OS however, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But as my workflow doesn't fit exactly into Apple's narrow view of one should do with an iPad, it is pretty useless to me. Instead, I have a MBP. I would love more than anything to have an M1 iPad that I could connect to external peripherals and use as a real computer to fix software bugs, recompile and flash external devices, write basic scripts and debug networks, rather having little more than an expensive toy with iPadOS. I have no use for a touchscreen on a laptop, but a powerful tablet would be great because it's so much more convenient than a laptop.
The difference is that Windows is an OS that's already written to deal with infinite variables, and people are already conditioned to expect the baggage that comes with that. If they have to bridge the gaps and overlaps between touch UI and cursor/pointer UI with inelegant solutions, it's more or less expected from Windows.
Apple is not prone to inelegant compromises and workarounds. If you've ever used the Home app on a mac, you can begin to see what pushing the limits looks like. That app was created for a touch UI, and there are some functions in the mac version that are a little less intuitive and a little more awkward. Now imagine everything is like that, but probably worse, and you start to see what an Apple 2-in-1 experience would be like. They could do it, but it wouldn't be great, and that's a big reason why they don't do it.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
The person who was interviewed answered the question. He was consistent with every other Apple exec who has been asked the same question. They’re not interested in doing the thing you want them to do.
that I "Want them to do"?
No, it's what I think they need to do to stay up to date as technology moves forward.
Apple is arguably the world's #1 tech company and I want them to keep that position -- our nation needs them.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Gee, I guess you'll never enjoy a new Mac, or iPad, if you're waiting for Apple's hybrid, so take my advice, and buy yourself a Surface clone. No sense in living in a computer desert with your ancient hardware, "waiting for Godot". Still, that your grandson seems to have continued access to his school provided hybrid means you don't have to do anything at all for the time being, except continue whinging, I suppose.
For the record, the touch bar was on the keyboard, not the screen, and was limited to either selection, or a linearization action like volume. Hardly the "touch" that you are arguing for in a hybrid.
Hint:
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
But, yeah, you should never give an inch, or submit to Apple.
LOL!
Sorry, but by Apple's own admission, the touchbar was created as a substitute for a touch screen -- which they didn't want to do at the time. Now that they have admitted that their solution didn't work, they should probably re-evaluate the whole thing rather than petulantly digging in their heals.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
No it doesn't. Apple U turns all the time. Have you somehow missed the re-addition of "legacy" ports on the new Macbooks? They're not combining iPad and Mac in the hope users will buy both. Unfortunately for Apple though, people apparently realise iPadOS is too much of a toy to get real work done, so sales have been declining since 2014 - save for a pandemic related boost. You really think carting two devices about just so you can use the touchscreen on one is a better solution than a 2-in-1? right.
So, you must be a user of a 2 in 1...
Pointing out that Apple makes U turns doesn't mean I want a 2-in-1, but I can see where they are useful and have seen them in use in the wild, and they're a lot more capable than an iPad. I draw diagrams fairly often and that's impossible on an Apple laptop at the moment, and there is no way I'm going to get an iPad just for that.
If iPad had a real OS however, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But as my workflow doesn't fit exactly into Apple's narrow view of one should do with an iPad, it is pretty useless to me. Instead, I have a MBP. I would love more than anything to have an M1 iPad that I could connect to external peripherals and use as a real computer to fix software bugs, recompile and flash external devices, write basic scripts and debug networks, rather having little more than an expensive toy with iPadOS. I have no use for a touchscreen on a laptop, but a powerful tablet would be great because it's so much more convenient than a laptop.
Yes, and upgrading the OS in the iPad to make it a power machine and a 2 in 1 is likely where they're headed. Apple isn't stupid. They know that there is a need for them that they currently cannot fill.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
So laying a 2 in 1 down to use as a tablet & pencil is harder than lugging 2 separate devices around and juggling the two back and forth -- pulling it out of your backpack, making sure it's charged, then pushing the laptop around to make room for it?
That's a typical argument of someone who has reached their conclusion and is grasping for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Or, more likely, you simply don't understand how 2 in 1's funciton but are trying to trash them anyway simply because, so far, Apple has failed to produce one.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
No it doesn't. Apple U turns all the time. Have you somehow missed the re-addition of "legacy" ports on the new Macbooks? They're not combining iPad and Mac in the hope users will buy both. Unfortunately for Apple though, people apparently realise iPadOS is too much of a toy to get real work done, so sales have been declining since 2014 - save for a pandemic related boost. You really think carting two devices about just so you can use the touchscreen on one is a better solution than a 2-in-1? right.
So, you must be a user of a 2 in 1...
Pointing out that Apple makes U turns doesn't mean I want a 2-in-1, but I can see where they are useful and have seen them in use in the wild, and they're a lot more capable than an iPad. I draw diagrams fairly often and that's impossible on an Apple laptop at the moment, and there is no way I'm going to get an iPad just for that.
If iPad had a real OS however, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But as my workflow doesn't fit exactly into Apple's narrow view of one should do with an iPad, it is pretty useless to me. Instead, I have a MBP. I would love more than anything to have an M1 iPad that I could connect to external peripherals and use as a real computer to fix software bugs, recompile and flash external devices, write basic scripts and debug networks, rather having little more than an expensive toy with iPadOS. I have no use for a touchscreen on a laptop, but a powerful tablet would be great because it's so much more convenient than a laptop.
Yes, and upgrading the OS in the iPad to make it a power machine and a 2 in 1 is likely where they're headed. Apple isn't stupid. They know that there is a need for them that they currently cannot fill.
They aren't stupid, but oftentimes their stubbornness makes them seem it. They're taking their sweet time making iPadOS into something powerful too. They have a habit of backing themselves into a corner too with their mobile UI decisions, such as refusing to use menus. They run out of usable space so just don't bother adding a particular feature at all. It's pretty stupid.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Yes, it is, and macOS is written to operate desktop computers. Big expensive ones. That’s why it isn’t suited to bastardize for a 2-in-1 device.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
So laying a 2 in 1 down to use as a tablet & pencil is harder than lugging 2 separate devices around and juggling the two back and forth -- pulling it out of your backpack, making sure it's charged, then pushing the laptop around to make room for it?
That's a typical argument of someone who has reached their conclusion and is grasping for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Or, more likely, you simply don't understand how 2 in 1's funciton but are trying to trash them anyway simply because, so far, Apple has failed to produce one.
LOL!
So you agree that the 2 in 1 is modal in actual use, ie, convert it to tablet use and orient it close to horizontal, and unfold it to vertical for keyboard use. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That sounds less than productive for a mixed workload, and likely why Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1. A Mac Book Pro, an iPad, and a Pencil gives you unconstrained workflow, and you also have the option of configuring the iPad as a second screen. Or, if your workflow allows, use the keyboard with the iPad, just like a 2 in 1.
BTW, I wouldn't need to be too concerned about the state of the battery on either the Mac Book Pro M1 Max or the iPad Pro, given there extremely long life under battery power; cheap 2 in 1's, yeah, be concerned.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Yes, it is, and macOS is written to operate desktop computers. Big expensive ones. That’s why it isn’t suited to bastardize for a 2-in-1 device.
Taking into account the slight inconvenience of hitting buttons designed for mouse usage, I think the pros outweigh the cons. MacOS is resolution independent, so it's easy for Apple to scale UI elements whilst keeping them looking pretty. On the technological side, an iPad + Mac requires separate charging for each plus the pencil, a 2-in-1 has just one battery charge level to be worried about. An iPad + Mac has two lots of updates to keep up with, and two lots of OSs to fix when one or the other breaks at some point. Practically, two devices is more expensive than one, two is heavier than one, means you have to fumble around with two devices when you're mobile and in confined space, what do you do, put the iPad on top the keyboard of the Mac? Sounds great.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
So laying a 2 in 1 down to use as a tablet & pencil is harder than lugging 2 separate devices around and juggling the two back and forth -- pulling it out of your backpack, making sure it's charged, then pushing the laptop around to make room for it?
That's a typical argument of someone who has reached their conclusion and is grasping for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Or, more likely, you simply don't understand how 2 in 1's funciton but are trying to trash them anyway simply because, so far, Apple has failed to produce one.
That sounds less than productive for a mixed workload, and likely why Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1. A Mac Book Pro, an iPad, and a Pencil gives you unconstrained workflow, and you also have the option of configuring the iPad as a second screen. Or, if your workflow allows, use the keyboard with the iPad, just like a 2 in 1.
"Likely why" Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1 is because they are quite happy selling people both an iPad and a Mac.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
So laying a 2 in 1 down to use as a tablet & pencil is harder than lugging 2 separate devices around and juggling the two back and forth -- pulling it out of your backpack, making sure it's charged, then pushing the laptop around to make room for it?
That's a typical argument of someone who has reached their conclusion and is grasping for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Or, more likely, you simply don't understand how 2 in 1's funciton but are trying to trash them anyway simply because, so far, Apple has failed to produce one.
That sounds less than productive for a mixed workload, and likely why Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1. A Mac Book Pro, an iPad, and a Pencil gives you unconstrained workflow, and you also have the option of configuring the iPad as a second screen. Or, if your workflow allows, use the keyboard with the iPad, just like a 2 in 1.
"Likely why" Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1 is because they are quite happy selling people both an iPad and a Mac.
You and George have that opinion that Apple is avoiding release of a 2 in 1 to maximize revenue, and given that there is no evidence of that, I am, of course, in disagreement with you two.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
"Reconfiguring" it to be used as a tablet is harder than carrying around two separate devices? Wouldn't agree with that. At home with an iMac, a separate iPad would make sense. But you don't have to carry it around separately. Touch screen on a desktop is really dumb.
Apple executives explain how the new MacBook Pro designs came about because of pro user feedback -- and how the company needs to do more work as it pertains to improving third-party repair access.
The new MacBook Pro
As the new 14-inch and redesigned 16-inch MacBook Pro begin arriving for customers -- or sometimes not -- Apple executives have been promoting their new features.
Talking to Joanna Stern of the Wall Street Journal, Apple vice president of Mac and iPad Product Marketing. Tom Boger, said that the new designs come from focusing on what most users need.
"We're constantly listening to our customers," he said, "and with this new lineup of MacBook Pros we decided to make some changes as we do a lot on the Mac."
Boger also admitted that in order to provide what hardware features were being asked for, "the 16-inch MacBook got a little bit thicker, a little bit heavier."
Despite Boger being in charge of both Mac and iPad product marketing, Apple does not plan to make a hybrid device. According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
Stern also questioned the pair about the difficulties of getting third-party repairs. Boger admitted that Apple has to "do work in that space."
She also pointed out that with these models answering most user requests of the last several years, there are now going to be more of them. Stern proposed a water-resistant laptop.
"That hasn't been on many people's lists," said Boger, concluding the interview.
So, Apple wants us to buy 2 devices when one would do both jobs -- that's been proven every time a person buys a two in one.
That's a good business decision -- stock holders will be happy.
Customers -- well, screw them.
Funny, but MS isn't having much luck with Surface sales.
Maybe you could help them out by buying one of their Surface devices, given that you have been whinging about Apple's lack of 2 in 1's since you have been posting, and also given that Apple has deprecated x86.
Give it to your Grandson for his "homework". I'm sure he'll be so excited.
Time to move on.
LOL... So you think Microsoft is the only company selling 2 in 1's? Really?
I'm quite aware of those OEM's.
So why is MS Surface business worth only about $1.5 B?
That's considerably less than Apple Watch revenue per quarter.at $2.3B, iPad Revenue at $8.3B, (up 21% YOY), and Mac revenue at $9.2B, Maybe you are unaware that Apple's 7% of the PC market is worth 60% of the profits?
Perhaps their isn't all that much market for 2 in 1's, and Apple is quite aware of that.
Get a Mac and an inexpensive graphic tablet, or better, get a Mac and an iPad and connect them effortlessly. Infinitely better than a 2 in 1 in actual use.
Glad you are aware of all the vendors selling 2 in 1's.
But, it's still not so clear why you ignore them and harp about Microsoft.
It's also not so clear why I would spend twice as much to buy two devices when one would do the job.
Yet, here you are, complaining about Apple not having a 2 in 1, which if it did, would still be much more than 2 times that cost of your $699 OEM 2 in 1.
What you are telling us is that you wouldn't pay for an Apple 2 in 1 if it did exist, as it is "too expensive", By your own argument, you would be better off enjoying the benefits of that OEM 2 in 1 today over waiting for a 2 in 1 from Apple that likely as not, never exist.
Or maybe, you just like to whinge.
No, I was responding to a claim by another poster.
What you're claiming here is not only out of context but not in any way true.
Well, I also remind you of the context of your many previous posts on the subject. None of your context today, or in the past, was of acceptance of Apple's decision to avoid 2 in 1's, and you were as unhappy then about that, as you are today.
It is more than fair to call you out on your consistent whinging about Apple's lack of a 2 in 1.
Move on, and buy yourself a cheap 2 in 1, and be done with it.
Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? Or just more trolling?
Have you ever had anything constructive to post about Apple and 2 in 1's.
No.
Just more whinging, same as you ever have.
Apple has stated that they won't build a 2 in 1. Take them at their word. Move on.
So you have nothing to contribute, just more trolling. Got it.
Missed this headline until now and clicked through fully expecting to see …this. I am unsurprised.
Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1. They keep saying it, and you keep complaining about it, so predictably that I looked just to see how quickly you got at it.
Also predictably, others disagree with your complaint and point out that they’ve read your predicable lament about this before, then you start calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll. Then sometimes you get really heated about it, and eventually the management comes in and clips off your ad hominem posts and leaves it with whoever made the last point that Apple isn’t going to make a 2-in-1, and that maybe you should just let it go.
Sorry if you disagree with my logic. But it's not my problem that it upsets you. But, if you have anything constructive to add, please let us know.
By the way, Apple would never add a cursor to the iPad either, until they did. You were all upset over any mention of that too -- till Apple added it, then things got real quiet.
There’s no logic to disagree with. Apple has said over and over and over that they’re not going to do the thing you want. As a refresher for you, here’s what Apple said about that this time:
According to John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, that means the company won't add a touch screen to the MacBook Pro.
"We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad," he told Stern. "It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
There’s no equivocation there. They’re not going to do the thing you keep going on about. Belittling everyone who points that out to you won’t make it happen, either.
Life is short. If you want a 2-in-1, go buy one. They’re out there. Instead of using the time you have left complaining that Apple isn’t making one for you, get one of the other ones and start using it. You can probably even use it to surf to a Windows forum where folks share tips and tricks for how to make the most of it. Could be a wholly positive, enjoyable experience for you. I hope it is.
The lack of logic, as I pointed out, is not that they have, so far, refused to make a 2 in 1. But in them selling a car without a trunk and telling people to also buy a pickup truck if they want to carry anything.
2 in 1's are here to stay. They aren't going away and instead will, I think, continue to grow. Apple admitted that when they created the touchbar to take the place of a touch screen. But, that was clearly the wrong direction which they have rolled back from. Which leaves them with nothing.
That said, from their current direction, it appears more likely that they will develop the iPad into a 2 in 1 than the Mac. But, they really could and should do both.
You set a very low bar for Apple.
I think more highly of them and believe they can do better and will continue to point out where I think they can do better -- even if you think that should not be allowed.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you were to use vehicles as a comparison, it would be that Apple makes a really nice passenger car (with a trunk) and a really nice pickup truck. They see no point in making an El Camino instead.
Of course, the analogy doesn't really work, because with Apple, you're talking about two separate operating systems, one built and optimized for touch, and the other built and optimized for an indirect UI. MacOS not only runs MacBooks but also operates the full Mac Pro workstation. Cludging that up with touch UI would ruin the user experience for someone operating a workstation with multiple screens. Making touch UI elements come and go depending on what kind of screen is showing is just windows-like bloat. Simply putting MacOS as-is on an iPad then forces users into a non-touch UI on a touch device, which would be a huge step down from the current iPad experience. Having the OS swap back and forth on the iPad would be both suboptimal and also turn the OS into a massive bloatware mess.
Apple sets a high bar for their user experience, and they're not going to create a mish-mash of it just to compete in a segment that isn't very competitive at all. Even with brand new shiny upgraded devices, Surface sales continue to decline. For the 2-in-1 segment to "continue to grow," it would first have to quit declining.
Apple is not going to make the 2-in-1 you want. Go buy a Windows device if you really want one.
You shot 100% with that one: I didn't see a single point that I think is true.
Ah, well, good for you.
One thing that is undeniably true is that John Ternus, Apple senior vice president of hardware engineering, just said, "We make the world's best touch computer on an iPad. It's totally optimized for that. And the Mac is totally optimized for indirect input. We haven't really felt a reason to change that."
What's weird is that, for the most part, it isn't a hardware issue. How to add touch to a screen was resolved a decade ago. It's mostly a software issue of how to manage that additional input -- just as adding a cursor to the iPad was a software issue.
That’s a Microsoft way to look at it, sure.
Apple looks at hardware and software together, and delivers a total user experience. They’re quite capable of writing the software and making the hardware for a 2-in-1 device. The reason they haven’t done that was made very, very clear in Ternus’ statement right above: “We haven’t felt a reason to change that.” They’re not going to do it because they don’t think it’s worth doing.
You can rail against that reality all you want, but Apple has repeatedly said they’re not interested. No does actually mean no.
Yes, that's true that Apple integrates hardware and software.
But, in this case, the hardware is obviously not the limiting factor. This hardware guy could drop a touch screen into a MacBook with a drop of the hat. It's Apple software that wouldn't know what to do with it.
So, I find it strange that a hardware guy would be the one defending the omission of touch. Why isn't the Mac software team defending their refusal?
Apple already acknowledged some of the benefits of touch when they created the ill fated Touch Bar. But, since then, with the addition of a pencil, many more uses have shown up. And today, there are simply tasks that you can do with it that you cannot do without a touch screen. But now, since Apple (thankfully) gave up on the Touch Bar it is back to 5 years ago with nothing.
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
Yes, and graphics tablets are crap. Not being able to directly see what you're drawing is awkward.
Sure, but using your 2 in 1 as a tablet is primarily modal. You have to "reconfigure it" for keyboard use and vice versa, unless you are adept at drawing on a near vertical screen, or reaching across your keyboard to draw. More likely, you are constantly folding and unfolding your 2 in 1, or splitting it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
So laying a 2 in 1 down to use as a tablet & pencil is harder than lugging 2 separate devices around and juggling the two back and forth -- pulling it out of your backpack, making sure it's charged, then pushing the laptop around to make room for it?
That's a typical argument of someone who has reached their conclusion and is grasping for ways to justify the unjustifiable.
Or, more likely, you simply don't understand how 2 in 1's funciton but are trying to trash them anyway simply because, so far, Apple has failed to produce one.
That sounds less than productive for a mixed workload, and likely why Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1. A Mac Book Pro, an iPad, and a Pencil gives you unconstrained workflow, and you also have the option of configuring the iPad as a second screen. Or, if your workflow allows, use the keyboard with the iPad, just like a 2 in 1.
"Likely why" Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1 is because they are quite happy selling people both an iPad and a Mac.
You and George have that opinion that Apple is avoiding release of a 2 in 1 to maximize revenue, and given that there is no evidence of that, I am, of course, in disagreement with you two.
Considering the Apple emails uncovered by the Epic suit, where execs were discussing lock-in and the remote possibility of decreased revenue from making iMessage - that makes no direct profit - multiplatform, then decided because of this remote possibility to keep it iOS only; it's pretty obvious a discussion over a 2-in-1 that would directly affect a profit stream would have happened.
Anyway, when evidence of similar comes out, or something you say Apple would never do Apple proceeds to do, you stay suspiciously quiet. Funny that.
Comments
For the record, the touch bar was on the keyboard, not the screen, and was limited to either selection, or a linearization action like volume. Hardly the "touch" that you are arguing for in a hybrid.
Hint:
Before hybrids, there were these things called graphics tablets. They could be had for very little money, easily connected to a computer, and allowed artists to create art with applications like Procreate, and Photoshop, and everything else that a hybrid does. They're still cheap, readily available, and will function with all of that ancient hardware that you are holding on to.
But, yeah, you should never give an inch, or submit to Apple.
LOL!
If iPad had a real OS however, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. But as my workflow doesn't fit exactly into Apple's narrow view of one should do with an iPad, it is pretty useless to me. Instead, I have a MBP. I would love more than anything to have an M1 iPad that I could connect to external peripherals and use as a real computer to fix software bugs, recompile and flash external devices, write basic scripts and debug networks, rather having little more than an expensive toy with iPadOS. I have no use for a touchscreen on a laptop, but a powerful tablet would be great because it's so much more convenient than a laptop.
Apple is not prone to inelegant compromises and workarounds. If you've ever used the Home app on a mac, you can begin to see what pushing the limits looks like. That app was created for a touch UI, and there are some functions in the mac version that are a little less intuitive and a little more awkward. Now imagine everything is like that, but probably worse, and you start to see what an Apple 2-in-1 experience would be like. They could do it, but it wouldn't be great, and that's a big reason why they don't do it.
Meh.
I prefer an iPad on the side, with a Pencil, and in my case, an iMac for the primary screen, for productivity. More money, but much more productive, and if I need mobility, I'd opt for a Mac Book Pro M1 Max and an iPad Pro 12.9, together which are pricy, but arguably much more productive. YMV, obviously.
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210380
I'm inclined to trade dollars for productivity, but not everyone agrees with that, and for many users, an iPad Pro is sufficient for their entire workflow, but sure "toy"...
that I "Want them to do"?
Sorry, but by Apple's own admission, the touchbar was created as a substitute for a touch screen -- which they didn't want to do at the time. Now that they have admitted that their solution didn't work, they should probably re-evaluate the whole thing rather than petulantly digging in their heals.
Yes, and upgrading the OS in the iPad to make it a power machine and a 2 in 1 is likely where they're headed. Apple isn't stupid. They know that there is a need for them that they currently cannot fill.
So you agree that the 2 in 1 is modal in actual use, ie, convert it to tablet use and orient it close to horizontal, and unfold it to vertical for keyboard use. Lather, rinse, repeat.
That sounds less than productive for a mixed workload, and likely why Apple doesn't have a 2 in 1. A Mac Book Pro, an iPad, and a Pencil gives you unconstrained workflow, and you also have the option of configuring the iPad as a second screen. Or, if your workflow allows, use the keyboard with the iPad, just like a 2 in 1.
BTW, I wouldn't need to be too concerned about the state of the battery on either the Mac Book Pro M1 Max or the iPad Pro, given there extremely long life under battery power; cheap 2 in 1's, yeah, be concerned.
Using Apple Sidecar;
Taking into account the slight inconvenience of hitting buttons designed for mouse usage, I think the pros outweigh the cons. MacOS is resolution independent, so it's easy for Apple to scale UI elements whilst keeping them looking pretty. On the technological side, an iPad + Mac requires separate charging for each plus the pencil, a 2-in-1 has just one battery charge level to be worried about. An iPad + Mac has two lots of updates to keep up with, and two lots of OSs to fix when one or the other breaks at some point. Practically, two devices is more expensive than one, two is heavier than one, means you have to fumble around with two devices when you're mobile and in confined space, what do you do, put the iPad on top the keyboard of the Mac? Sounds great.
A 2 in 1 solves all that.
Anyway, when evidence of similar comes out, or something you say Apple would never do Apple proceeds to do, you stay suspiciously quiet. Funny that.