danvm

Blackwhitepanda said:

gmgravytrain said:

Many top people believe computing is now all about A.I. and A.I. data centers scattered all over the planet.  If a tech company doesn't follow standard beliefs, then they're just going to be left in the dust.  Apple has already been left in the dust by Nvidia and Microsoft.  I'm not a fan of A.I. and I hate the idea of water- and energy-wasting A.I. data centers all over the U.S.  I prefer Apple's approach to small, on-device A.I. but because of Apple's small approach to A.I. isn't favored by the computing industry or big investors, Apple has lost plenty of value.  On-device A.I. seems much more practical than running dozens of A.I. data centers 24/7/365.  I don't know why people aren't highly concerned about climate change brought about by all these A.I. data centers using so much energy.  It's almost as though people welcome them.  All this praise because a data center has hundreds of thousands of GPUs seems sort of stupid.  It seems to me is that these data centers will cause more harm than good.  Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.  Anyway, I hope Apple solves the Siri problem of not being as useful as expected, but I'll still continue to use Apple products even if Siri isn't an A.I. champ.  I don't need to rely on A.I. to get things done.

I don´t get your comparison Apple vs. Microsoft and Nvidia.
They are too different from each other. 

What has Microsoft done so far to be an AI player? Surely, Microsoft does provide an AI infrastructure, but Microsoft has no comparable voice assistant. Microsoft is completely dependent on OpenAI for its co-pilot, which is a gabbage as well. 
Have you already read about the relationship between Microsoft and OpenAI? Here, Microsoft is also in a very anxious relationship with OpenAI. 
Nvidia is also dependent on big players incl. META, Tesla, Alphabet and Microsoft. If those big techs stop or reduce their CapEx, Nvidia will be hit. 

Apple is just a B2C company while Microsoft and Nvidia are B2B companies. Too different.

AI is here to stay like Internet. Even a bubble burst, AI will remain important. 

danox said:

Security, Siri, the five Apple systems, Apple Silicon, Apple hardware in general, will always be works in progress. That’s just the way it goes for a vertical computer company hopefully we won’t see Apple listing at sea anytime soon like Intel or IBM. Do I wish Apple would do certain things differently yes, but once again in comparison to their competition, Apple is doing quite well across the board with their arsenal of software and hardware. 

Who is this other tech/computer company that has a better hand across software and hardware? It isn’t Google, Meta, Microsoft, Qualcomm, or Samsung.

loopless said:

All this whining from the tech writers about Siri not knowing , for example, Baseball scores is solved by "Hi Siri, Ask ChaGPT < insert stupid baseball question here>" 

Meanwhile Siri by itself works great for creating messages, reading messages , dictation , creating notes etc...   those useful things that people actually do.

MplsP said:

In general I agree with Federighi. The iPad generally works well at what it does but not so well when you push to do things outside of what it (or the OS) is designed to do. What people really want is a device with the strengths and ease if the iPad touch interface with the power and flexibility of a Mac. That's far easier said than done. 

The iPad is absolutely capable of running MacOS but Apple clearly doesn't want a Microsoft Surface cluster where you have something that doesn't work well in either capacity. That was part of the problem with many early touch devices - they tried to take the desktop interface and use it as a touch interface and it didn't work. Apple rethought things with the iPhone and iPad and make something that works well and has slowly evolved the interface.

The problem with 'writing one program for both devices' is that the interface is different between the two devices so you'd either having a poorly designed program that works on both or effectively writing two programs anyway. It would be far easier to have an iPad program work on a Mac but then people would complain that its functionality was crippled. 

Finally, for the people who say 'Apple should let us install MacOS on the iPad,' that would require some significant rewriting of the OS and if Apple were to do that then they would also be endorsing MacOS on the iPad with all the limitations, which is exactly what this entire thread is about.

StrangeDays said:

avon b7 said:

Those are extremely poor arguments IMO.

…

Apple is already inching (but agonisingly slowly) towards convergence in certain areas and my guess is that that is the real goal at some point (including touchscreen Macs of course). 

…

IMO, that is probably the real reason Apple wants to temper the desire for 'macOS tablet' at the moment. They don't have the foundations ready. 

It’s not their goal, or secret plan. You’re just not listening to what they clearly explain as their position, because you don’t want it to be. You’re using magical thinking. The notion that they don’t have the “foundations” ready despite years of answering this question over and over is simply absurd. 

Reality: touch-enable laptops exist today and nobody cares because it sucks. EOS. It’s out there. I had one 10 years ago, it sucked, never used it, don’t miss it. 

Giving a touch device optional shortcuts for mouse & pointer use is inherently different (and better for it) than giving a pointer device optional touch. 

That you keep insisting its their secret plan just reaffirms that you still don’t understand Apple and its product lines very well. Sounds like you’re more happy with the chinese knockoffs and that’s fine. 

Anyway. Once more, years later:

Maybe Apple will not make macOS optimized for touchscreens, but it seems that iPadOS is making the move to make it similar to a PC / Surface Pro device.  In every update they are making iPadOS the toaster / fridge device they criticize many years ago.