I keep seeing people asking for something like this. There's just something that a lot of people don't seem to realize:
For the same reason it doesn't make sense to actually make a touch iMac or Macbook. Just because other companies have done it in the past means it's actually sensible. It's a cool gimmick. People who only occasionally use their computer may use it. But people who actually spend hours among hours working on their computers will not use it. (I've had family members with touch laptops, so this isn't a hypothetical).
Instead of trying to make a "one fit all" device, make separate devices , keep those simple, but as a result be able to make sure that what they can do they can do excellently.
you spent a lot of words to say nothing and actually provide zero real reason why what I was recommending isn't possible.
first:
Current iPads, especially the Pro, are mighty powerful machines and they are fully capable of being the only computer for a LOT of people. Especially those that merely email/write and check the internet for a living as well as many in the creative/artistic fields.
You're right. the iPads are (especially the new Pro's with M1) as powerful as the new iMac with M1. essentially, there's very little difference now in the hardware stack. The primary difference now is software. One runs iOS natively, the other runs MacOS. And both are perfectly cromulent on Apple's M1 hardware. essentially interchangable. So why have two computers, running seperate operating systems, that are essentially the same thing. That's keeping two product lines for the sake of it.
But there just are things you cannot (yet?) do on a mobile OS. There are people who actually need a dedicated desktop OS. The previously mentioned folks may not be aware, but Macs are for example widely used in the Sciences and they have very different software/computing needs.
My recommendation was not to build it aruond iOS. build it around MacOS, which can now run iOS apps. Mac OS is the key differentiator here. unlike iOS which to me feels about 5 years out of date and super restrictive, MacOS is a full blown OS that doesn't have these limitations. However, I also truly doubt that Apple doesn't have the engineering / software prowress to be unable to have "smarts" to be able to adapt from tablet use to desktop use on the fly. Literally MICROSOFT has figured it out. Android can do it. But Apple still refuses to.
Just because both devices come with an M1 chip does it mean they can actually do the same things. Why exactly are there no fans in the iPad but in the iMac?
Ummm. How much time do you have for me to explain thermal properties of CPU's, Cooling and thermal limits? these however might affect overall performance, but they do not in any shape or form limit the capabilities and featuresets of the CPU's. An M1 running in an Ipad is going to give you the same compatibility as an M1 running in an iMac, or MacPro, or Air. the featureset doesn't change jsut because of active cooling vs passive. if this were the case, someone like myself who has a custom watercooled PC would be able to do an infinitely MORE things with my PC than say a regular laptop user. When in reality, a laptop user can run the same software I can. Just not at equal performance.
iPads exist for a specific use case. And they are designed for that.
Macs exist for a specific use case. And they are designed for that.
Nonsense. Both are just computers running their own Operating system. How would an M1 iPad on a stand with keyboard/mouse attached be any different than this iMac? simply put, there isn't. it's still just a computer. We already see this evidenced with the iPad Pro and the magic stand turning it essentially into a full enough laptop. this idea that it is a one fit design and only for that purpose is absolutely nonsense. the iPad is far more capable than being a spefici use case device.
I don't know why people always want to merge things to make *one* device that can do a lot but will not be able to do *everything* or just do it 'so so' because there inherently will be compromises. Specializations exist for a reason because they are *really* good at doing what they're designed for instead of doing average on a merge level. Average will be enough for some, maybe even most, people, but it will not be enough for others. And not everyone needs or can afford a fullblown Mac Pro.
While not everyone can / has usecase for a hybrid device. They are useful. The problem is, there's no specialization in Apple's product lines. these devices are generic. They're not "pro" and they're not truly specialized equipment. How functionally to a user would being able to put your iPad pro on a stand and use it like an iMac change the functional use cases of either? It doesn't because we already see users doing this today with the magic stand turning the iPad into a functional laptop. this whole paragraph of yours says literally nothing of value.
For the same reason it doesn't make sense to actually make a touch iMac or Macbook. Just because other companies have done it in the past means it's actually sensible. It's a cool gimmick. People who only occasionally use their computer may use it. But people who actually spend hours among hours working on their computers will not use it. (I've had family members with touch laptops, so this isn't a hypothetical).
Apple has provided ZERO compelling reason for not making their computeres themselves touch compatible. Their initial defense was "gorilla arm" and years later and touch becoming standard UI option for every other tech has proven this claim to be bunk. Apple chosing to ignore touch is a business decision for some reason. And I can tell you your anecodotal eperience with a couple family members is frankly, worth zero. Touch screen laptops are ever increasing in sales. the entire UI of phones and tablets we all use is touch based. claiming your luddite family doesn't like touch so touch is bad is well. Irrelevant and as meaningless as the rest of your claims
Instead of trying to make a "one fit all" device, make separate devices , keep those simple, but as a result be able to make sure that what they can do they can do excellently.
One size fit all devices aren't what I'm claiming. However, an entry level iMac, that is priced around the same price as na Ipad, running the same hardware, same featureset, was a perfect opportunity for Apple to try instead of playing it safe. I by no means think that this hybrid approach is going to replace a mac pro. or the larger more powerful imac (pro). But in this particular case? This was the perfect opportunity to merge the baseline imac and iPad to create a new product linup of moduler and portable computer devices.
I get it. YOU don't like the idea. but the way I invision it. If you don't need to be portable? Than don't. Keep the device docked on the stand 100% of the time and you've still got an imac.
But hey, isn't it nice instead of having to make sure your data is synced to the cloud, and accross devices, and connected properly. you had one device that you could just pick up and go? and it's 100% the same content, software and ffeatures no matter where you are?
