Yeah, and 3.5" is the perfect size for a phone screen, and no one needs a smaller iPad, and nobody wants a stylus.
What they say doesn't always line up with what they do.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Execs Talk M1 Chip, Touchscreen Macs and More in New Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What they say doesn't always line up with what they do.
"nobody needs a stylus" to use an ipad.
big difference there.
i don't think they said 3.5" was perfect, ever.
steve jobs book showed they were working on a smaller ipad.
Then why do they sell one? If they really believed that, surely no one would buy the Apple pencil.
And Jobs actually said larger phones don't work because you can't hold them. I guess the 5 and up have all been proof of that?
Wasn't that "No" two years ago? I realize they've been downplaying the prospects for a touch Mac for many years. If memory serves, Steve Jobs years ago made the point that touch doesn't work for an extended period of time for a device that is in a vertical orientation (e.g. a monitor or a laptop screen), and something similar has been repeated by Craig and others in interviews over the years.
However, none of that precludes some kind of hybrid device (think something like a convertible laptop) which can be configured to rest horizontally for at least some use cases. Like I said, I don't think they've said anything that definitely implies it's coming, but I think they've left themselves enough wriggle room to introduce a new category device that at least optionally or partially runs macOS with touch capabilities. Imagine a device that runs both iPadOS and macOS - if executed properly, it could be pretty interesting.
And the updates to Big Sur could be just the first step in making macOS more touch friendly. If next year's version of macOS further incorporates an iPad-like design sensibility around larger UI elements, then that would be further evidence that Apple is at least preparing for the possibility of a touch device running macOS, IMO.
yes it's 2 years ago.
the NO was very explicit in regards to merging iPadOS and macOS. they'll never do that. I don't know how much clearer can they get. i don't know what Apple can do to make this any clearer. it's a big fat "NO".
That's some expert-level hair-splitting you're doing.
We've seen from the Surface devices, countless Windows laptops, and even the iPad Pro in its keyboard and trackpad case that touchscreens in that form-factor do work, they have clear benefits, and that users both want and need them. We've even seen Apple willing to half-ass it by adding the touchbar. At this point, where they're bringing iOS apps (which are all designed for touch) to the Mac on an opt-out rather than opt-in basis that there's clearly a need for touch on the Mac, all that matters now is how stubborn they're going to be about getting around to it.
Last edited:
And yet MacOS and iOS are closer now than ever, with MacOS even getting iOS app compatibility. Also, saying "No, we won't merge the operating systems" isn't the same as saying "no, we'll never make a touchscreen Mac".
I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs did say this when the iPhone was introduced, but I don't hold it against him. One of the reasons for the screen size they chose is because that's what was available in the quality and volume that they desired. I think they stuck with that size a little longer than they should have (in the face of popular large-screen Android devices) because Steve was a particular fan of a small and pocketable phone, but eventually they bowed to consumer demand.
I'm not sure why you're so closed off to the possibility.
When Apple got into the media player business (iPod), people were skeptical - it was a competitive business and they didn't seem to have any natural edge. We all know what happened with the success of the iPod. When they added video to the iPod, people laughed at them (who would want to view postage-stamp-sized video?) but consumers bought them, and Apple was able to expand the product category. When they introduced the iPhone, people were skeptical, how would Apple take on BlackBerry and Nokia and Microsoft and others. It's since become an enormous part of their business, far eclipsing the Mac. When they introduced the iPad, people called it a glorified iPod touch (remember those?) and mocked it, but they created (or at least popularized) a new category of products that grew their market share.
Apple is always looking for ways to grow marketshare, to redefine or create new product categories. Isn't it at least possible that includes macOS? I think so, but time will tell. Either way, it will be interesting to see how things play out.
I'm not sure they care too much. I was pretty stunned at the brazenness of calling the iPhone the iPhone, as Cisco (a huge company in its own right) owned the trademark and already had a VoIP phone called iPhone when Apple launched their phone. The Cisco phone was a desktop phone and not a mobile smartphone, but at the time people thought of smartphones primarily as phones, so from that perspective they were very similar products.
It did lead to a lawsuit which Apple settled, but if that didn't faze them, I doubt M7 will! Speaking of which, what popular product are you thinking of that uses M7? The first thing that comes to mind for me when I think of M followed by a number are the BMW M1/M3/M5 cars, but I'm sure it's used in many other contexts.
By the time they get to the AS M7, the M7 motion coprocessor will be ~14 years old. They'll likely just stop using the M naming scheme for those chips moving forward and it won't be an issue. Besides, it's not like it's the first time they've reused a name for an entirely different thing (see MagSafe, iBook, and so on).
it's not hair-splitting. steve was very explicit when talking about the iPad. "if you NEED a stylus, you've already failed". Apple pencil is "not needed" to use an ipad. it's purely optional. splitting hairs would be talking about the iPhone where steve did say "nobody wants a stylus" and so far Apple hasn't included Pencil support for that device, so their argument holds up here.
just because microsoft did it doesn't make it right. microsoft made tablets before the iPad and those didn't work well.
touchbar isn't positioned vertically.
there's absolutely no need for touch on the mac since the magic trackpad can accommodate most gestures. in fact, Apple would rather leave touch out and encourage developers to make native Mac versions once they see high usage of their iPad apps coming from mac platforms. including touchscreen macs would give iPad developers no reason to make native Mac versions, even though the experience wouldn't be as good.
it's closer because Apple made it easier for iOS developers to port their apps to Mac. why should Apple spend years of engineering work (and possibly compromising the design of their macbooks) for something that developers can spend a little time on to get it right? makes 0 sense.
this is why Apple made SwiftUI. if you make an iOS app using SwiftUI, it takes very little work to get it working on a Mac. not to mention free compatibility with iPadOS' magic keyboard right out of the box.
I was responding to his comment specifically about "Imagine a device that runs both iPadOS and macOS". that will absolutely never happen. 100%.
The M7 coprocessor from the iPhone 5s/ iPad Air
It was mostly tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure the answer is something along the lines of ignore it's already been used as this is a far more prominent chip.Would love to see the quote, but I've listened to the iPhone announcement many times. I don't recall him ever saying that. Closest thing I can recall was from the Steve Jobs book where they were discussing a new iPad size and Steve said "no, that'll cause headaches for the developers who have to support many sizes" and he threw out Android as an example for bad fragmentation.
Maybe Apple did for the iPhone 5. Again, can't recall specifically a quote about it being "perfect".
From user point of view, it's too messy. A grandma isn't going to know which apps are meant to be used as iPadOS where you should probably fold the screen all the way back and which apps are meant for macOS where it's meant to be used with a keyboard and mouse. This grandma is going to try and tap a button in a macOS app with her finger that's way too small. I've tried this on Windows 8 trying to tap a damn button in Bulletproof FTP on a touchscreen and I couldn't do it. I had to use a stylus. And how do you tell grandma on the Mac App Store that this app is a touchscreen specific app vs a native Mac App or both? There's too much to learn for not a lot of benefit.
As a developer, I'm going to ignore figuring out how to get my app on the Mac App Store since I'll just assume users are always going to use a touchscreen Mac which isn't always the greatest experience. Plenty of apps like games and spreadsheets work better with a native pointer/keyboard instead of using a blunt finger.
The far better route is telling the developers "check out SwiftUI, takes little work to make your iPad app work on the Mac".
I didn't say it was right because they did it, I said it was right because it improved the user experience, which it does.
No, it's positioned in a way that forces you to look away from your screen to use it, and is often obscured by your hands while typing. Vertically would be a hell of an improvement, but while they're at it, why not just skip the secondary display and just let me touch the display I'm already looking at.
I strongly disagree. There's plenty of need for touch now that the Mac is going to run touch-based apps. If they wanted people to redesign their apps, then maybe don't start by directly running touch apps on a non-touch display. It's going to be a mediocre-at-best experience, and I predict that's something we're going to see get brought up in every review. Everything they're doing signals that touch is coming, regardless of what they say.
It wouldn't compromise anything, so there's no need to worry about that. Adding touch is a known quantity, they don't need to reinvent the wheel here - or if it is a real challenge, then maybe they're not quite as skilled as they should be.
And yet iOS apps are designed for touch interaction first and foremost, so incorporating that into the MacOS experience makes the most sense. Why not give all their devices the same input options so users don't have to adjust their use to fit a gimped experience on one device vs another? Being stubborn about keeping things separate isn't good for the user experience - again, this is something we've seen other laptop makers do and it brings plenty of benefits with basically no drawbacks. And if you really hate it, just don't use it - simple.
Then they shouldn't be bringing iOS apps to the Mac at all. The situation you're describing shows exactly why touchscreen Macs make sense. You shouldn't have to remember what input method belongs where, you should be able to interact with your computer in the manner that makes most sense to you for the given task.
On second thought, I'm not sure it was said right in the initial iPhone unveiling, but I'm pretty sure he said it at one point. Again, I don't think it's a big deal and I don't hold it against him, but you were interested so I found this quotation from CNBC in 2013:
"Jobs said that a 3.5-inch screen is a "perfect size for consumers""
Apple seems ready to give up Steve Jobs' ghost
Apple shares rose 6 percent after it reported earnings that beat expectations. But the best news may be the company's cultural shift, say close Apple watchers.
I think this, combined with the engineering effort that you mentioned elsewhere, are the best arguments for why they wouldn't do this. And I agree, it's possibly very messy and the engineering effort is high. Microsoft has shown that it's very difficult to graft touch onto a mouse-first interface and provide a good user experience.
That said, if anyone can figure it out and redefine expectations, it's Apple, so I still think it might happen one day.
I'm expecting redesigns of at least some Mac devices next year (current iMac and Macbook Pros are overdue) and it will be interesting to see what Apple comes up with given these are the first machines designed for M1 chips from the start.It really doesn't. I've tried to use many apps on my old Dell Venue 7 and I just gave up trying to click on buttons that are way too small. Was trying to use filezilla and bulletproof ftp and their interfaces were designed with mouse only in mind.
Ergonomically speaking, it's fine.
I didn't say I love the touch bar, but for long periods of usage, it's fine. For certain interactions like scrubbing a Quicktime video, it's great. For tapping F1, F2, F3, it's not better than dedicated keys for sure. I'd prefer dedicated keys for that usage.
I find it odd that you're complaining about a usability issue with touchbar, but ignore the usability issue with having a touchscreen Mac, which in many ways, is more critical to the user experience than the touch bar.
Agree to disagree. A touchscreen Mac will undoubtedly have compromises in the design. A trackpad can certainly handle most iPad apps on the Mac.
Don't know what you mean. Apple wants people to use SwiftUI which makes it quite easy to bring apps to the Mac. I don't see why Apple would invest heavily on figuring out controls that Mac and iPad and create Project Catalyst. If Apple is really making a touchscreen Mac, they would have ported UIKit entirely to the Mac instead of making Project Catalyst and SwiftUI.
No way the lid remains the same thickness. A touch layer would at least add thickness, weight, and compromise on battery (which, sure, is more than enough, but it's still a compromise). Not to mention additional cost to the product.
Giving user options of many input options adds complexity for both the user and developer. Have you seen Android? Some Androids have foldable screens, yet what apps take advantage of that? Very little. I remember I had a Droid with a physical keyboard, but most apps have stretched out screens when typing with the keyboard (because sliding out the keyboard forces you to use the device in landscape mode with a very narrow screen).
Then you have to worry about whether the user should have the option to add a touchscreen to their Mac. Or should Apple make all Macs have touchscreens and be forced to pay $100 extra for something they don't need?
If all Macs had touchscreens then developers will be forced to test their apps on keyboard/mouse + touchscreen inputs. However, if *some* Macs had touchscreens, then the user needs to figure out if the app they're going to buy supports touch input.
I used my iPad Pro with magic keyboard. I tried using a trackpad as a mouse pointer to navigate through the ESPN app, but the interface wouldn't let me click on anything, so I had to switch to the touch input. If Apple can't even get magic keyboard to work well with all apps, what makes you think it'll work great when Apple introduces a touchscreen Mac?
TL;DR version:
You're skipping over very important details that the user/developer/Apple needs to worry about when introducing touch to the Mac. How *exactly* does it get implemented across the entire user experience, from buying a Mac (option to have one? or forced across all Macs? Mac mini/Pro too? how does that work?), to developers supporting it (forced to support touchscreens? or allow iPad and iOS flavors alongside Mac keyboard flavor? or optionally support Mac touchscreens?), to a user buying an app (is it an iPhone app? iPad app? or is it just the difference between Mac app with keyboard support, Mac app with touch only support? Mac with both keyboard/mouse/touch support?), to a user using the app (do you flip the MacBook screen back to use the iPad app? if so, how do you switch between Mac and iPad windows? or is it natively a Mac touch screen app in which case the user will swap between a keyboard and touch screen? or do you force the developer to always adopt keyboard and touch?).
It's not that simple as adding a touch layer to the Mac.
On second thought, I'm not sure it was said right in the initial iPhone unveiling, but I'm pretty sure he said it at one point. Again, I don't think it's a big deal and I don't hold it against him, but you were interested so I found this quotation from CNBC in 2013:
"Jobs said that a 3.5-inch screen is a "perfect size for consumers""
Apple seems ready to give up Steve Jobs' ghost
Apple shares rose 6 percent after it reported earnings that beat expectations. But the best news may be the company's cultural shift, say close Apple watchers.www.cnbc.com
I think this, combined with the engineering effort that you mentioned elsewhere, are the best arguments for why they wouldn't do this. And I agree, it's possibly very messy and the engineering effort is high. Microsoft has shown that it's very difficult to graft touch onto a mouse-first interface and provide a good user experience.
That said, if anyone can figure it out and redefine expectations, it's Apple, so I still think it might happen one day.
I'm trying to find the source of that quote. Googling that quote shows other sites quoting it, but doesn't say the source. Closest one I saw was "Steve Jobs described the 3.5-inch screen of the iPhone 4 as the "perfect size for consumers"." But I downloaded the subtitles of the iPhone 4 and now where did Steve say that. Another source says "When the original iPhone came out in 2007, it featured a 3.5-inch screen, a screen size Steve Jobs called a “perfect size for consumers." but I checked the transcript of the 2007 keynote, no where does Steve say it. Feels like people are imagining it, kind of like the Mandela effect.
Maybe a change in executive team will cause Apple to do it, but for as long as Craig and Tim are at the helm, by the looks of it, I don't think it will happen.
I get the argument towards touch elements being too small in macOS, but it seems an Apple Pencil would alleviate some of that issue...?
And did the rest of your laptop stop working because of it? Or were you free to use another input method of your choice?
I disagree on it being ergonomically fine. And why are you fine with the tradeoffs of the touchbar, but not of a touchscreen (which you could easily ignore)?
An extra milimeter of thickness in what is already a very thin part isn't much of a compromise. They made the Macs thicker last time around anyway, and this way they could probably even squeeze FaceID in too. Minor dimensional changes are very, very reasonable tradeoffs and are likely to happen anyway.
I think their highly skilled and highly paid devs could probably figure it out. They already did the opposite and brought mouse support to the iPad, so I don't think figuring out the intricacies of if-they-tap-here-treat-it-like-a-click will be all that troublesome.
Either way, this is clearly not sinking in for you, so let's pretend that you won and that there are no totally obvious signs of future touch support for the Mac. Congrats.
Also, it's not like there aren't small elements in iOS anyway - look at the minuscule back button in the top left when you switch between apps or the tiny x to close tabs in Safari. And yet somehow, people manage to hit those just fine. They could space out the MacOS traffic light buttons the way they've already done with the menu bar icons and they'd be completely fine. Big Sur is already 90% of the way there for touch support, and the rest can pretty much be fixed by borrowing a couple more elements from iOS.
I mean, people have already put it on touch-enabled laptops and it works, it just needs a little polish and refinement:
Last edited:
I couldn't work anymore as I had no mouse or keyboard with me on my trip. Are you telling me I should travel with my keyboard and mouse too? Kinda defeats the purpose of a touchscreen device...
Can't ignore a touchscreen if Apple decides to make it mandatory (for developers to implement and for users to buy). Unless it's optional in which case you can't ignore the complexity of choosing what Mac and Mac apps to buy. Can easily ignore touchbar.
It's not as simple as increasing the thickness to accommodate the touch layer. Likely there will be a thicker glass so that your finger doesn't easily distort the display. There's the weight of both the touch layer and thicker glass. There's the repairability/warranty (another point of failure in the product). There's the cost. There's adjustments to the hinge to make it either tighter for vertical touch use or to make it loose for 360 degree movement (which changes the design). And on and on...
Like I said, the iPad mouse support is janky. I tried swiping on things in the ESPN app with a trackpad and it wouldn't work. Imagine if half the apps on the Mac App Store didn't work with touch even though you bought a touch Mac. What a bad user experience.
Let's see...the big NO shown on stage, quote from the interview: " ‘Oh my God, look, Apple is preparing for touch’. I was thinking like, ‘Whoa, why?’", many more mentions of not bringing iPad or touch to the Mac, yet you're telling me I'm ignoring obvious signs? JFC, please take a look at what you're saying here.
Yeah sounds like we're done here. Congrats.