If Apple's environmental rhetoric is meaningful, Macs and iPads should converge Apple's Mac hardware keeps getting thinner and lighter, and its iPads keep becoming more and more capable. I'm hardly the first to observe that the two products are getting closer together - but if Apple's environmental claims mean anything the products are now so close it's irresponsible they don't overlap. I say that after …
Indeed.
> making it even more useful for a wider range of tasks
That would be a big marketing no-no: The point of selling stuff is to make as much money as (legally) possible, which necessarily means forcing the potential customer to buy a lot and often. At the highest commercially possible price of course.
MS tried an OS that worked well on a tablet unfortunately they also forced desktop users to have it, then instead of making it have two modes one for tablet and one for desktop style use they threw the tablet stuff away... real shame as win 8 was great on a tablet, dogshit on desktop. 10 really should've had both modes depending on use for those that could understand it.
> MS idea of Surface running Windows was right
I wouldn't call this an "idea". MS didn't have a tablet OS, and is barely capable of managing it's existing desktop OS, so creating one from scratch was out of the question.
As a result, to be able to ride the (then flourishing) tablet craze, the sensible (in MS's marketing mind) thing to do was to turn their desktop OS into a tablet OS, no matter the cost (to users). Cue Win8.
That was the basic issue with W8 - jack of all trades and master of none type of thing! If they'd developed it as two related but distinct platforms they might have got somewhere.
Windows mobile was actually surprisingly good - we had work phones with it for a while and it gave a lot less trouble than the previous (and subsequent) Android phones. I was sorry when they discontinued it.
Unfortunately now pretty much everything MS does is aimed at increasing their subscription revenue - it's a long time since I've looked at a new MS innovation and thought 'that's a good idea'.
Apple did get the related but distinct platforms thing largely right, unlike MS. The way in which they have converged since means they could easily roll tablets and computers into one, with the input method adapting to the hardware - but as others have pointed out it isn't in their commercial interests to do this. Anyone who thinks that claimed green credentials will be allowed to over-ride the hard profit motive is an idealist!
Better than on a computer, I'll grant you - the problem comes when you try to run many desktop programs - a lot simply don't work well on a tablet, and, because W8 has a desktop, proper tablet-optimised versions were never developed in many cases
The Mac as we know it will be dead soon, as Apple force everyone onto iOS App Store.
The direction has been clear for quite some time. The only real question is when.
Apple already have a copy of every piece of macOS software, and installation statistics - at least, for the majority who said yes to tracking. And the ones who said no, well, Apple doesn't care about them.
Utter claptrap. Mac sales have vastly increased since the release of Apple Silicon, at a time when the PC market overall has been dwindling even further.
And why Apple would want to "force everyone on the iOS app store" when Apple makes the same commission through its Mac OS store is anyone's guess as it makes no sense (for a start, many apps can't work on a limited system like iOS, but why waste energy contemplating about the details, right?).
What a stupid comment.
I'd have thought it was obvious, any effort they've put into macOS over the past few years is to iOSize it. That way Apple spend less effort on development and the rather meagre selection of software in the Mac App Store can be bolstered by iOS apps which sort of run more or less on the Mac.
Apple already have a copy of every piece of macOS software
Huh? Some third party software is signed by Apple to allow installing it on Macs kept in a higher state of security that disallows third party installs (corporations prefer this) but developers don't need to give Apple a copy of their software to have it signed nor are they forced to have it signed (other than by pressure from customers if their software is something businesses might want to install as opposed to something marketed primarily at consumers)
Nor has Apple made any moves to suggest they will only support installing Mac software from an App Store. This direction has been "clear" in your fevered Apple hating dreams only.
I've been pondering how Apple could close the gap, and allow iPads to be better productivity devices... and I think an iPad/iOS App, that is effectively a virtual machine instance of one's main MacOS environment (perhaps synced with iCloud) would be a really neat solution... the device is then an iPad for consumption, and contains your full fat MacOS environment for when you have keyboard/mouse/trackpad pluged in, and need to do real productivity tasks, like moving files around / document management etc... it could perhaps be a slimmed down version of the MacOS environment (for example, if they want to protect their walled garden/App store, although I think that model is probably on borrowed time for anti-trust/competition law reasons)... anyway, that would allow me to go away for a couple of days and only take the iPad!
I fail to see the point the article wants to make. From an environmental perspective, it's doesn't really matter much whether Apple sells two products which, supposedly, are similar (even though they are not), instead of just one. For a given number of buyers, whether they all buy iPads or whether sales are split between iPad and MBA, the environmental footprint is roughly the same.
Also, all the complaints about iPads not running mac OS fail to to see why iPad is literally the only tablet platform that is successful in that market (Windows tablets like MS Surface are only doing OK, not great, and are mostly used as laptop replacements; Android tablets have been a complete failure) - which is *not* just running a full desktop OS on tablet hardware but an OS that has been designed around the priorities and (often unique) properties of a tablet.
Most Apple customers see this the same way, which is why iPads and Macs are so successful in making Apple a lot of $$$. Why Apple would want to follow the author's advice, which amounts to little more than asking Apple to replicate the failures of its competitors, is anyone's guess.
Android tablets are useful for some things - we have a few (no more than a couple of dozen) - users are familiar with them from havign Android phones, and we can manage them with Intune alonggside the phones.
I recognise that the uses for them are limited, but they are there.
That said, I would say the same about tablets generallly - I've never owned a tablet and can't see the need for one as well as a laptop and phone, especially given the size most phones are now. The success of ipads is probably more down to marketing (something which Apple is undeniably good at) than filling a sizeable market niche!
Android Tablets have a place, sure - but they've largely been supplanted by Chrome OS and Chrome Books. Google has out-competed it's own product in that respect, and seems like a 2nd attempt at a tablet / phone OS. Just waiting for a Chrome phone device to enter the market...
"But shouldn't that be a matter of choice – by which I mean user choice, not Apple's?"
A user demanding choice? From APPLE?
Reader, I pissed myself with laughter.
Clearly you're thinking about it the wrong way. A non Apple way. You're not an apostate, are you, user?
Apple representatives contacted for comments, expressed total bewilderment at the phrase "user choice".
Even though they recognize the words as English, they are at a loss about what the conveyed meaning. They are currently consulting with legal before any declarations are emitted.
I really hope this happens. I understand that the reason for the iPad's success is that they got the tablet OS right and didn't try to crowbar everything in like Windows 8 did. But...
I'd love them to release a Mac that was something similar to the Surface devices. Run full fat MacOS, but on an iPad style device. They can still keep the iPad product line separate, that's fine, so there would be no confusion and people can make their choice of device at purchase. A completely new 'Mac Touch' line.
MacOS has already morphed into something that is more touch friendly than Windows 8 ever was. Things like Launchpad, the change to catalyst based builds for most of the inbuilt apps (with a more iPad like layout), and the recent change to larger switches and sliders (very iPadOS in style) would already make it a usable tablet experience in my view.
Finally, Apple have just added 'Stage Manager' as an optional new way of multitasking in MacOS. This is a direct lift from iPadOS. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use it on a Mac to be honest. Unless it's preparing the way for touch based Macs, it seems like an odd addition to a mouse based OS.
If you ask me (I know, you didn't), all Apple needs to do to enable a 'tablet mode' on MacOS is to default to Launchpad rather than the desktop, always run apps in full screen, and use Stage Manager for multitasking. Right there you have a better touch experience than Windows ever was. OK, not as seamless as an iPad, but pretty close and probably the best of any transformer style device.
It seems a waste of all the MacOS changes not to do it. Come on Apple!
If we start out with USB4 or higher on the iPhone and iPad, and some enterprising sole makes an iDock that is designed to mate with the i(device) directly and provide the desktop experience, will you not have the best of both worlds. We can agree that you already have the same power in the M2 on both platforms.
Add Dock Will Travel.
Ipad Pros and Airs with TB3 already dock - the hardware is not the issue its the software.
I can literally plug my 11.2 pro into my (generic) Thunderbolt dock and use my Thunderbolt Display, Mac Magic Keyboard and Logitech mouse on it that I usually use to drive my work MBP.
The software experience is what lets it down (screen mirroring at native iPad resolution for example).
Apple should make devices people want to buy, and if people buy more than one even though they don't absolutely _need_ to, I don't see that as Apple's responsibility. Instead of pointing fingers at others for not being green, we should clean up our own houses first.
I have two Linux computers, same distro, one is a Dell laptop and the other is an Asus netbook. I could get by with just one of them, but I like both. Sometimes they are interchangeable, sometimes not, e.g. the laptop has more storage and horsepower, the netbook has longer battery life and more portability. I blame neither Dell nor Asus for making such an imperfect device that I needed (sic) to get another one.
And that's not even the end of it. I have various Apple devices, some retired laptops needing recycled, etc. I suspect the average reader here is in the same boat. Manufacturers can be criticized for forced obsolescence, unrepairability, etc. But for non-convergence? I don't see it.
This is not a Register article, where are the jibs about over priced Apple kit, and their bling addicted users?
Where is the cynicism about the dubious environmental claims?
WTF is that completely humourless byline?
This could be a fluff piece by any run of the mill US tech site, scared to death of saying anything which could lose their journos access to freebies and invites to Apple jollies.
Really what is the point of The Register if this is what we end up with?
iPads are a touch first device, Mac's are curser keyboard/mouse first devices. They should not mix. Microsoft really screwed things up with Windows 8 trying to do a 1 device solution , in fact it was Windows 8 that made me buy my first ever Mac after using nothing but Windows for 20 years previously and always being more anti-apple.
Apple have got it right, there is usually a trade off when you cater for 1 type of input. I use the right device for the right moment. I'm not against Apple allowing the user to install MacOS on an iPad Pro with M1/M2 should they wish to do so, add a keyboard and mouse to it and it would function very well as a Mac. I think this is what they will do at some point as MacOS keeps getting more finger friendly each OS. Spacing on menu bar in Big Sur, change to Settings from System Preferences in Ventura.
If you watch Apple closely you can see when they are up to something well in advance, such as removing 32 Bit app support in Catalina, looking back this was in preparation for moving to ARM based chips so they only have to port x64 support over, if they did not MacOS would be much bigger if it supported x86, x64 and ARM. Also the iPhone 5S was the first 64 bit phone ever, it seemed odd and unnecessary at the time, but this was Apple working on their own chips years in advance to eventually put them in to Mac's.
Trying to chase that elusive "one OS to rule them all" has been less than a roaring success on Windows. They have the monopoly power to shove their inferior crap down everyone's throat, but that's another issue.
It's tempting to see a mobile device (which primarily or exclusively uses a touchscreen for input) and a traditional "desktop" PC (meaning any device that primarily or exclusively uses a mouse and keyboard for input, including regular laptops) as being nearly the same thing, but it hasn't worked in practice.
The Windows UIs since 8 have tried to split the difference, and they have failed. Both of them are a weird admixture of a regular Windows Win32 UI (often using the same dialogs that have been in use for many years) and a touch UI. Some things require the Win32 UI, which does not lend itself to touch use, and others require the mobile UI, which does not lend itself well to mouse and keyboard use. MS has been gradually moving things from the desktop-oriented Control Panel to the mobile-oriented Settings for years, but there are still a number of things for which the Win32 version is necessary, like the Device Manager.
The two form factors have different expectations about what a user can do, though the OS and UI "designers" have increasingly fouled this up with their attempts at convergence.
On my Dell XPS 13 laptop running OpenSUSE Tumbleweed that I am using to write this, I have Firefox set up with a bunch of small icons for various addons. The icons are on the small side if I was going to try to use them with a touch interface even on my 13.4 inch display, let alone the smaller screens on most tablets and all phones. They're easy to hit with a mouse pointer, though, since the point and click events are distinct, and I can see exactly where the pointer is pointing before I trigger the click. The OS/DE (KDE Plasma) helpfully highlights the element when I am pointing at it so I can quickly tell when I am on target. It makes hitting small buttons very fast and easy.
On a touchscreen, you lose sight of the element just before the tap event because now your finger's in the way, and it is a one-stage shot, with no feedback that you're on the right element before the tap is initated. This means that the UI elements have to be much larger, which affects the entire way the UI is designed, not to mention the various applications within.
On a mobile UI, the writer of a given app (or the OS itself) cannot assume the user has a two-stage pointing device that has hover effects to convey useful information or to let that user know which UI element will receive the click event. Most will assume the opposite, since the touchscreen is primary on these devices, and so the oversize UI elements without hover effects will be the norm. Simply adding a mouse pointer (and an input device to drive it) does not turn the UI into a credible mouse-based setup.
The "use the touch UI and just add a mouse pointer" is more or less what Microsoft did with the bits of Windows 8.x and 10 that are mobile oriented... you still have the big UI elements that inefficiently use screen space and don't use the hover effects to their full advantage. When a window is maximized, you still will often have large amounts of wasted (white) space because that UI was designed around a mobile device that does not have a large screen. There's often quite a bit more drilling down to find the option you want, and more UI elements hidden behind things like the infamous hamburger button.
The hamburger button is a UI disaster. It's also nearly ubiquitous, as it has been one of the primary adaptations to the limitations imposed by a touchscreen handheld device. There's a hamburger on the web page I am using right now!
What options are available to me within that menu? There's no way to know at a glance; I won't find out until I click on it. With a web site designed for a real computer, a small menubar could give me the categories of the various options, giving me good information scent about what options or functions are available to me as a user, allowing me to go directly to any one of them if that's what I need to do.
But that hamburger tells me nothing.
I've got plenty of space for a more useful UI, but this site (like so many others) has chosen to make the crippled mobile version the standard for everyone, so all that screen space is wasted. I get all of the downside of the mobile UI even though I am not using a mobile device with so many limitations.
At least it is just a web site and not an entire OS full of applications that make that same compromise for me.
Tim Cook was asked years ago about convergence between Macs and iDevices, and he (to his credit) noted that doing that would necessitate compromises that would result in an inferior experience on one or the other, or both, and that the goal was to make the best Mac available and the best iPad available and leave it at that.
After having seen what a UI disaster Windows has become since Microsoft has tried to chase that dragon, I had to admit Cook had a point, and I am not an Apple fan. I'm used to Apple being the source of the /facepalm moments, like "you're holding it wrong," bendgate, glued-in batteries, the butterfly keyboard, "bravely" getting rid of headphone ports, and so on, but this was one point where they got it right.
In the article, the author says, "But I do marvel at Apple's cheek – selling effectively the same hardware at two price points, differentiated only by user interface hardware and a change of operating system."
Only? What else distinguishes a computer besides OS and Hardware"? Certainly not software these days. Many useful applications and application suites run on multiple CPU types on multiple interface hardware and multiple OS instances. One example is Microsoft 365 office suite. The author also seems to ignore my iPhone and the very useful computer on my wrist.
And, hardware interface does make a difference to users. Some users love their iDevices and still utilize desktop systems with multiple large screens, e.g., 24" monitors, multiple storage devices, and high speed (1Gbps or more) network interfacing. Some users use only iPhones and/or iPads. It really depends on the business purpose served.
So I regard this article as a click bait straw man which is less than substantive.
"Why should I carry both an iPad Pro and a MacBook Air, when it's nothing more than a wasteful duplication of hardware resources?"
That is a personal choice. Choose not to do that. I have a MacBook Air M1. I do not want and would not use any iPad. The closest device I have is my iPhone 7, which is a workhorse within its niche of purposes, few of which would be practical on my MBA M1.
Therefore, I don't understand what you're talking about. Your point is pointless to me.
"The security issues of a single machine running two OSes are real – but they could be managed. The resource issues, however, will continue to plague us until we operate within an understanding that general-purpose computing devices aren't simply landfill-in-waiting. Nor are they meant to be tied to any particular set of tasks at the whim of the manufacturer."
Obviously, the M1 and M2 Macs could run iOS or iPadOS or watchOS. If that fits one's needs, then do it. But the compromise would have to be isolating each OS such that the wide open source of apps and services on any Mac could not breach the not-Mac sandboxes. This is well done already, if desired, using Parallels to run Windows or any other compatible OS. So if that's what you need, it can be done.
Do I personally need this? No.
You call Apple's fulfillment of niche products "the whim of the manufacturer"? Why? I have no comprehension of what you're talking about, once again. The distinct niches of each of these products are painstakingly chosen as well as successful.
As such, this statement makes no sense from my perspective:
"...Many have openly wondered why the iPad has not had an option to run macOS."
No. That would be incredibly hard and nonsensical specifically because of the niche of each of the to products. You work with both and think it's possible to run full MacOS on an iPad within that hardware and graphical user interface realm of simplicity? Nope. That would be a nightmare on several levels. The Mac is the far more able device, allowing for vastly more uses than any iPad or iPhone or Apple Watch. The Mac does not, and must not, have a touch screen. The reason why is the "Gorilla Arm" effect, proven many decades ago, whereby no one wants to have to reach up to play about the screen with their hands specifically because of the muscle, tendon and ligament agony that rapidly results. Apple is, despite many blunders, at least wise enough to stay out of the foolish realm. Therefore, moving iPadOS, etc. to a Mac is not practical unless the interface of that touch oriented OS can be easily and comfortably move to the touch pad, which I personally find to be far preferable to the relatively ancient mouse interface. I never use a mouse at this point.
And so forth. I could rant on about further points in the opinion article. But it all comes down to what YOU, that being any particular user, want or need to do with your computing device. Limiting the variety of devices makes no sense at all when considering the diversity of uses of such devices. Take into account diversity and the focus upon usability for each function among the entirety of users. That's what Apple is doing.
AND Apple is minimizing what ends up in a landfill at the end of life. If Apple is really doing that and continues to do that, then that is the best for all concerned. Worrying about your need to use both an iPad and a MacBook Air? That's a YOU situation for YOU to deal with. Consider dropping one and only using the other. I'd suggest the far more powerful MacBook Air. But by no means would I limit you to only the MacBook Air, or the cruddy niche compromise that combining the two would create.
I'm banging away on a MacBookPro for this as it's less energy intensive than my Mac Pro machines. I have a PC running W7 for CAD/CAM and linux works just fine on my old MBP. I have an Android tablet to control my drone and to remotely operate my camera (CamRanger). Each device has a particular set of tasks I use it for. While I've been using a Mac since a long time ago, I'm not a fan of iOS or iPads. I spend more time creating than consuming so I want a full size keyboard, mouse and Wacom tablet. Using my finger just isn't precise enough and for some bizarre reason, only my right index finger will work on my phone with any consistency.
For some people a tablet is all they need. For others, a laptop with lots of horse power and battery life are important. I don't write as much as I used to, but when I was doing more, I bought a very top end keyboard that is still magnificent for getting words into the computer and off to an editor. I'm not interested in a MacBook Air. Thinner means less battery as far as I'm concerned along with a weaker structure. I also want ports up and down both sides and the back if I can have them. I don't want to haul around a breakout box in my kit. Thin is bad. Light is bad. I'm not saying we need to bring back the old Kaypro or Compaq luggable by any means, but I'd rather have more battery in my laptop than for Apple to save me 250g of weight.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
