- Last Active
macplusplus said:commentzilla said:wallym said:As a developer, I need both mac and windows support. To openly campaign to remove Windows compat is to be irresponsible to the marketplace. If users don't need Windows, that's fine. Don't penalize me for your lack of needs.
The next assertion "for Apple's biggest user base, the need for Windows compatibility isn't the same as it is for the main readers of this site" is fabricated out of thin air and has zero supporting data. Whether true or not it's based on nothing but speculation.
If the primary uses of the Macs are Pro and everyone else migrates to iPads then a significant fraction of Mac users (dare I say 35%) will want x86 compatibility.
But, nope...because they disagree they didn't read the article.It wasn't handwaved away. What it is, is that 35% of the user base that reads AI doesn't need it, which is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs and does with their machines, and you know this as well, based on your own interactions with the rest of the AI readership. And, even if you translate it literally, it does mean that the majority doesn't care about Windows on the Mac.
And how do you know that it is "an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs"? On what data is this assertion based on? Why do you assume that the majority of your readers are pros? Why did you not include in your survey to self identify if they were pros or just general users? Never mind that these polls are generally horridly misleading anyway.
The article, and you, would like to make it seem like it's 0.35% of the user base to sell the idea that x86 compatibility is no longer needed. Apple may have a good idea as to the number but you don't. Moreover you ignored the entire enterprise market because it's inconvenient. Does IBM and other major Mac deployments believe x86 compatibility is irrelevant? I have no idea and neither do you. It would have been fairly easy to reach out to IT folks highlighted in past articles and ask "hey, is x86 compatibility important to your Mac enterprise deployment?"
But hey...35% is an overly conservative estimate of what the larger user base needs...
In regards to our audience, exactly who do you think AppleInsider is read by far, far more? College grads with advanced degrees, industry folk, designers and whatnot, or the "new Apple user" which is iOS centric, where the iPhone is a halo for the Mac and not the other way around?
I will assert, based on personal experience, that there are very few enterprise iOS developers that don't care about MS project, DOORS and a bevy of windows/x86 corporate tools...still dependent on Excel with macros. People send me a lot of stuff in Visio to boot. Also, most of us aren't iOS developers but enterprise developers and the docker tool chain is a significant part of devops.We didn't set out to draw precisely where the line is, so there is no failure to show something that we didn't set out to show. The piece is more to remind folks that there is a line, even though that there is the assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody. We were pretty clear in the end of the piece in regards to the Mac Pro maybe never shifting.
Who do you think reads AI? Do you not think it's primarily Apple devout for decades? William addresses this in the piece, somewhat, in regards to who reads AI. Who reads AI should be apparent from the forums at least. Based on what we know, the "average" AI reader has been in the Apple ecosystem for well over a decade, is pretty heavily technologically savvy, has many Apple devices and has for ages, well before the iPhone 3gs, iPad, and iPhone 6 explosions in Apple user volume.
If we could tap into 1% of the "new" Apple customer, we'd be sitting on a gold mine. Most of the new Apple users bought an iPhone and have just that so aren't relevant to this particular conversation, or got an iPhone or iPad and said "hey, this Mac thing might be pretty great" rather than the other way around like it was a decade ago.
If around a third of the prospective user base needs a feature it sure as hell isn't a minor feature. There isn't any "assumption that Windows compatibility is everything to everybody" but that a significant part of the Mac user base (say closer to 35% than 3.5%) wants that feature.
There is nothing an ARM based Mac does that an ARM based iPad Pro couldn't do with a couple further tweaks to iOS.
So why go through the disruption of a significant processor change and leave the Mac lineup half Intel and half ARM?
Add Sidecar in iPadOS and take the idea a couple of versions of development time. Apple could then relegate MacOS to a headless backroom box in a rack if you still have a workflow that needs in. Or an iMac in your home office. A Pro MacBook for road warriors.
Make everything else a new family starting with iPadPro and adding bigger and bigger screen sizes as the GPU can drive them.
MplsP said:This is a bit confusing - the iPad has had a 'distinct experience' for quite some time, with features and capabilities from the iPhone (and Mac.) Why bother changing the name? Unless they are planning on making the programming APIs completely separate from iOS.
I really don't care what they call it, I hope they continue to improve and mature i(pad)OS to make workflows better and easier. There is a lot you can do on an iPad, it is just that it is frequently significantly more cumbersome and awkward than working on a Mac. Maybe chaining the name will also cut the imaginary cord between the iPad and the iPhone to make things easier?
I think they only did it now so they can separate out apps suitable for cross over to Mac.