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.
Using Apple Sidecar;
It's no more complex than having to open a laptop to get access to its keyboard.
And, while some tasks are mixed -- back and forth between keyboard intensive and touch/pencil intensive, most tend to be one or the other: Writing an essay for English class then solving algebraic equations in Algebra class and so on.
You're trying to create a problem that doesn't exist in order to defend the indefensible.
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.
1) Yes, Apple administration is likely looking at profits from selling two units instead of one and it takes away enthusiasm to push for it. But,
2) As has been pointed out previously, another reason is stubbornness. One of Apple's traits that has kept them stuck for long periods of time -- like adding a cursor to the iPad. After years of refusing, when they finally added it, they tried to hide and excuse it as an "accessibility" feature.
3) A third reason might be that they devoted massive resources to switching over to Apple Silicon. But that's mostly complete so they can use those same resources to push on ahead.
It's likely that all three reasons are in play in various ways.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
That’s just a nonsensical logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you could substitute your preference for anything they say, because there’s no way to prove the negative. (Example: ask Tim Cook when the Apple Aircraft Carrier will be launched. “We’re not going to make an aircraft carrier,” he replies. “Ah ha!” you exclaim, “The denial just proves they’re going to make an aircraft carrier!”) That’s just ludicrous.
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
That’s just a nonsensical logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you could substitute your preference for anything they say, because there’s no way to prove the negative. (Example: ask Tim Cook when the Apple Aircraft Carrier will be launched. “We’re not going to make an aircraft carrier,” he replies. “Ah ha!” you exclaim, “The denial just proves they’re going to make an aircraft carrier!”) That’s just ludicrous.
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
Well no it's not, because I'm not "substituting my preference", and I can prove they said no to tablets because it's something Jobs actually said. And a direct contradiction to your claim that what they've said will always be the case and they never change their mind. It's a demonstrable example of one of their many U turns. You're the one claiming they will never produce a 2-in-1, because they said they won't. Which is exactly what they said about tablets before they unveiled the iPad.
You have resorted to creating strawman arguments to try and dig yourself out of your hole. Please point out where I claimed the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1?
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
Calm down. How is it disingenuous to say the iPad with keyboard+mouse is like a 2-in-1?
Maybe one of IreneW's laptops is a Mac, one a PC. "Oh yeah."
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
That’s just a nonsensical logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you could substitute your preference for anything they say, because there’s no way to prove the negative. (Example: ask Tim Cook when the Apple Aircraft Carrier will be launched. “We’re not going to make an aircraft carrier,” he replies. “Ah ha!” you exclaim, “The denial just proves they’re going to make an aircraft carrier!”) That’s just ludicrous.
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
Well no it's not, because I'm not "substituting my preference", and I can prove they said no to tablets because it's something Jobs actually said. And a direct contradiction to your claim that what they've said will always be the case and they never change their mind. It's a demonstrable example of one of their many U turns. You're the one claiming they will never produce a 2-in-1, because they said they won't. Which is exactly what they said about tablets before they unveiled the iPad.
You have resorted to creating strawman arguments to try and dig yourself out of your hole. Please point out where I claimed the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1?
Here's a story link that talks about the creation of the iPad.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Just like they said about the iPad before it was revealed. They never talk about future products, what makes you think they'd do so about this?
That’s just a nonsensical logical fallacy. By your reasoning, you could substitute your preference for anything they say, because there’s no way to prove the negative. (Example: ask Tim Cook when the Apple Aircraft Carrier will be launched. “We’re not going to make an aircraft carrier,” he replies. “Ah ha!” you exclaim, “The denial just proves they’re going to make an aircraft carrier!”) That’s just ludicrous.
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
Well no it's not, because I'm not "substituting my preference", and I can prove they said no to tablets because it's something Jobs actually said. And a direct contradiction to your claim that what they've said will always be the case and they never change their mind. It's a demonstrable example of one of their many U turns. You're the one claiming they will never produce a 2-in-1, because they said they won't. Which is exactly what they said about tablets before they unveiled the iPad.
You have resorted to creating strawman arguments to try and dig yourself out of your hole. Please point out where I claimed the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1?
Here's a story link that talks about the creation of the iPad.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
So hybrids are, in Lenovo's opinion, a specific instance of 2 in 1's, that are convertible, but can be separated to create an independent tablet device, running the same OS.
Perhaps you consider the iPad to fit into the hybrid category. The keyboard is optional, shouldn't we really just call it a tablet?
Maybe you consider an iPad a hybrid 2 in 1 after connection to the optional keyboard. Given that this configuration is still constrained to a iPadOS, is that really a reasonable comparison? Maybe it's just an iPad with a keyboard, an accessory that has been available for a number of years, but now, with a trackpad, and cursor!
In fact, that is the crux of the dislike by George and Elijahg, that Apple isn't providing the iPad with MacOS to make it a "true" hybrid; "crippled"!
The truth, for George anyway, is that he wouldn't pay what Apple would price such a 2 in 1 at anyway. Should anyone really be using him as an example of a potential buyer?
Not at all.
So my "irritation", is that these two seem to believe that Apple isn't making a 2 in 1 because they can make more selling Mac Book Pro's and IPad's. That is almost certainly false. More likely, Apple would generate even greater revenue simply by marketing a 2 in 1 running MacOS right between the Mac Book Air and the Mac Book Pro, given that there would be a substantial number of individuals as yourself that would find the granularity of all of these devices together, even more productive.
But Apple states that they aren't going to do that, and has stated that on multiple occasions. Who to believe?
As an aside, Apple is rumored to be developing a "foldable" iPhone. Some would speculate that these would supplant iPhones for most users, but I suspect that Apple would see a substantial portion of users with both, again due to the benefits of granularity, and novelty.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
He's angry because you blew away the assumption his argument was based on: that a touch screen is only used with a finger reaching out over a keyboard to use as touch input on the laptop screen.
In the early days, when Apple said it was ergonomically unfriendly, that's how it was done and Apple was right - it was not ergonomically comfortable or efficient.
But, as you noted with a real life example, times and hardware have moved on and even a cheap device switches quickly and easily from laptop mode to tablet mode, works well in both modes, and is far more capable than a standalone laptop.
Yet my argument is that a Mac Book Pro with an iPad, and Sidecar, would be even more productive, and more capable, than a 2 in 1. None of that convertibility to have to deal with; just consistently smooth workflow, and very performant.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Except as several of us have told you multiple times, that is only true if your primary (paired) computer is a desktop. It is absolutely not more productive to spend half the time faffing about with two devices, which you have to keep up to date, charged and stored, the extra weight and space usage is not insignificant - and then there's the issue where the pairing doesn't always work. You have to remember to take both devices too, and what if you realise that you unexpectedly need the tablet and you didn't bring it with you? With a 2-in-1 that's not a problem, because you cannot forget to bring the touch part with you. Not having the device you need means productivity falls to almost zero. And flipping the screen of a 2-in-1 into tablet mode takes approximately two seconds, faffing around with an iPad takes much, much longer.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
LOL!
Love your crash and burn scenarios...so, lifelike...so, realistic...as if "rememberIng" to take an MBP with an iPad is some kind of mental gymnastics.
Of course, the bottom line remains: Apple leadership has said repeatedly over the years that they're not interested in making a hybrid 2-in-1, so that's the answer. Nope.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications. That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad). One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Well, to be fair, they actually made a 2-in-1 when the iPad got a keyboard and cursor. It is just a quite crippled 2-in-1, as it lacks a few basic functions and key applications.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
"One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and I have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens."
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
So, if i get you right, a device isn't a 2-in-1 until Apple says so? Well, then it is no problem at all. They can just add the touch screen and adapt the macOS accordingly, calling the product something not including the 2/1 moniker and be done with it. I'm not holding my breath though. I'm fine with what I've got.
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
What do you consider a 2 in 1?
In fact, that is the crux of the dislike by George and Elijahg, that Apple isn't providing the iPad with MacOS to make it a "true" hybrid; "crippled"!
The truth, for George anyway, is that he wouldn't pay what Apple would price such a 2 in 1 at anyway. Should anyone really be using him as an example of a potential buyer?
Not at all.
So my "irritation", is that these two seem to believe that Apple isn't making a 2 in 1 because they can make more selling Mac Book Pro's and IPad's. That is almost certainly false. More likely, Apple would generate even greater revenue simply by marketing a 2 in 1 running MacOS right between the Mac Book Air and the Mac Book Pro, given that there would be a substantial number of individuals as yourself that would find the granularity of all of these devices together, even more productive.
But Apple states that they aren't going to do that, and has stated that on multiple occasions. Who to believe?
As an aside, Apple is rumored to be developing a "foldable" iPhone. Some would speculate that these would supplant iPhones for most users, but I suspect that Apple would see a substantial portion of users with both, again due to the benefits of granularity, and novelty.
So you raise a completely out of context quibble over the definition of a 2 in 1 (are you equally as confused as to the definition of a car? Hint: Both can have multiple forms!).
Then you claim that the only reason Apple won't make one is that they make more money selling two devices than only one -- which is true -- but, as has been pointed out to you, there are other reasons as well. They are equally as poor reasons, but nevertheless, other reasons.
Then you make false claims about me.
Then you go back to the bullshit that "Apple said no" -- even though it has also been pointed out to that that means essentially nothing.
Then you change the subject to iPhones.
Obviously you have no logical arguments left -- so you try to muddy the waters.
Comments
Also, you’ll need to show your work to demonstrate where they said repeatedly over the years that they wouldn’t make an iPad before they released the iPad.
That being said, I agree with the original premise that using a horizontal touch screen, far away behind a keyboard, is really poor UX and bad ergonomics. However, that is not how most people use these devices, they tend to flip between the input modes (just like with an iPad).
One of my laptops at work is a cheap Asus convertible, and i have to say it works perfectly fine both as a tablet for presentations, drawing (and content consumption), and as a developer tool with third party peripherals and extra screens.
Your statement isn't accurate and is in fact, quite disingenuous.
Apple sells an accessory that gives some of the capability of a 2 in 1, ie, keyboard input, and touchpad cursor, though Apple does not call that a 2 in 1.
For Fuck Sake...
You just murdered your argument, since you are in fact using multiple devices anyway. Wasn't the 2 in 1 supposed to eliminate those extra devices, and still retain productivity?
Perhaps you want the 2 in 1 only when you require some mobility, or maybe some other limited role for 2 in1's...you know, like the "crippled" iPad with its accessory keyboard that people seem to go everywhere with.
You have resorted to creating strawman arguments to try and dig yourself out of your hole. Please point out where I claimed the denial actually meant they would definitely make a 2-in-1?
Calm down. How is it disingenuous to say the iPad with keyboard+mouse is like a 2-in-1?
Maybe one of IreneW's laptops is a Mac, one a PC. "Oh yeah."
https://www.wired.com/2013/11/one-ipad-to-rule-them-all-all-those-who-dream-big-are-not-lost/
And, speaking about what I've got, my day job as a developer and test lead means there are at least three different laptops on my desk (+ a local build server under the desk). Bringing the convertible to conferences and customer meetings means I can work on the trip and still use it as a tablet for presentations and casual browsing (not to mention watching movies in the flight).
Why so angry?
Here's what Lenovo says;
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/faqs/laptop-faqs/what-is-a-2-in-1-laptop/?orgRef=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
What Lenovo states about hybrids;
https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/faqs/laptop-faqs/what-is-hybrid/?orgRef=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
So hybrids are, in Lenovo's opinion, a specific instance of 2 in 1's, that are convertible, but can be separated to create an independent tablet device, running the same OS.
Perhaps you consider the iPad to fit into the hybrid category. The keyboard is optional, shouldn't we really just call it a tablet?
Maybe you consider an iPad a hybrid 2 in 1 after connection to the optional keyboard. Given that this configuration is still constrained to a iPadOS, is that really a reasonable comparison? Maybe it's just an iPad with a keyboard, an accessory that has been available for a number of years, but now, with a trackpad, and cursor!
In fact, that is the crux of the dislike by George and Elijahg, that Apple isn't providing the iPad with MacOS to make it a "true" hybrid; "crippled"!
The truth, for George anyway, is that he wouldn't pay what Apple would price such a 2 in 1 at anyway. Should anyone really be using him as an example of a potential buyer?
Not at all.
So my "irritation", is that these two seem to believe that Apple isn't making a 2 in 1 because they can make more selling Mac Book Pro's and IPad's. That is almost certainly false. More likely, Apple would generate even greater revenue simply by marketing a 2 in 1 running MacOS right between the Mac Book Air and the Mac Book Pro, given that there would be a substantial number of individuals as yourself that would find the granularity of all of these devices together, even more productive.
But Apple states that they aren't going to do that, and has stated that on multiple occasions. Who to believe?
As an aside, Apple is rumored to be developing a "foldable" iPhone. Some would speculate that these would supplant iPhones for most users, but I suspect that Apple would see a substantial portion of users with both, again due to the benefits of granularity, and novelty.
But you aren't interested in actual productivity as much as low price, so I doubt you would actually pay the price of an Apple 2 in 1 if it existed.
Your argument has fallen flat on its face and you still try and defend it. You're not going to win this, even if you've convinced yourself you're right.
Love your crash and burn scenarios...so, lifelike...so, realistic...as if "rememberIng" to take an MBP with an iPad is some kind of mental gymnastics.