Apple Says It Has No Plans for Solely ARM-Based or Touchscreen Macs

Am I the only one that would want a touchscreen? I have used both PC's and Chromebooks with touch, and it's great. I mean, sure, you won't fiddle in the system settings ticking checkboxes with touchscreens, but when I use one it's like a hybrid. It's great for scrolling, zooming or just clicking links when surfing, but I do most other things with the mousepad. That's why I think Shillers explanation doesn't hold up either - I don't want a device where I NEED to have a touch-optimized interface on every single clickable item in the OS - I just want the freedom to quickly tap / drag / scroll / zoom stuff when needed.

Thinking of trying something like a hackintoshed XPS for my next Mac if Apple doesn't shape up their computer lineup soon, and the multitouch is a non-trivial part of that decision.
 
The obnoxiousness of the anti-touch Apple crowd in this thread ("I have no creativity and my small mind can't picture any creative need for touch whatsoever and I refuse to accept that others need it so it sucks and Apple are Gods, hail Apple!") is doing a great job of driving me even closer to Windows. This "Big Apple" worship is very creepy and cult-like.

Only with Apple do we ever see these battered wives praising having less features. So maybe Apple and the community are both the problem. Apple are just another computer manufacturer, with a neat OS. But staying behind the times is going to hurt them.

Try to think about this rationally for moment:

- They have no touchscreen option for those who need it despite every other manufacturer having touch desktops enjoyed by creatives who need it!?
- And they have a dangerously backwards userbase who praises losing modern features and says that "no sane person uses a touchscreen desktop". A comment which implies that they think they're the only sane ones and that Apple validating their regressive biases is somehow a good thing.
- And Apple finally upgraded their MacBook "Pro" and took away all the ports!??
- And they lingered for half a decade without a Mac Pro upgrade?
- And now they want us to believe it will take a few more years to design a new Mac Pro that won't suck? So... what the hell have they been doing in the past 4 years since 2013's Mac Pro? It should be trivial to use all of their money to keep the desktops up-to-date.

All of that money they have is being squandered by blind idiots at the top who apparently can't multitask the desktop and iOS development at the same time and can't innovate anymore.

And Steve, the only man with creativity and vision - is gone.

The only reason Apple hasn't got a touch computer is because of their shortsighted comments years ago (and the fact that their OS has stayed behind the times as a result of that stubborn comment). They've got too much narcissistic pride to walk back those misguided comments against touch. They'd rather continue to alienate the growing segment that needs touchscreens. A segment that will soon overtake the whole computer market (give that 15 years at most). It's unfathomably shortsighted to believe desktop computers will stay the same as they've been for the past 60 years, while the whole world and all other devices around Apple moves on to touch.

There is nothing more natural than touch, voice and visual input. A mouse and keyboard are a clunky and completely unnatural abstraction which we've simply gotten used to, but which is now finally getting killed more and more, year after year. But Apple's utter fools at the top are instead doubling down on their short-sightedness and staying with ancient, nearly 60 years old, dying input methods, and refusing to even offer touch as an option whatsoever. Their obtuse stupidity, narcissism and short-sightedness is astounding, and the willingness of Apple sycophants to defend the lack of features and the lack of even the option of having that feature for those who do need it is equally astounding and perplexing. Stockholm Syndrome?

My next machine upgrade (due in 1-2 years) will be either a hackintosh with a touchscreen, or a Windows PC with a touchscreen. There's no reason to keep suffering inferior hardware and inferior input methods when Windows is making huge strides as an OS and is getting closer and closer to becoming equal with macOS in quality. Windows has shown that they're willing to redesign and innovate, and I look forward to switching away from the poisonous Apple farm around Windows 11 or Windows 12, so that I can finally enjoy modern hardware and features at great value.

steve-qubesys.jpg


2017: Apple are no longer hungry. Just foolish. However, the lingering reality distortion field is still alive among some of the userbase, but more and more of us are snapping out of it. I'm so close to done with Apple.
 
Last edited:
Times change. Look at iPad. Blank statements like that are often proven incorrect.

That was a sales tactic to convenience people they didn't need a stylus.. SJ was good at sales / marketing tactics.

He was also commenting on the general idea that a tablet would be an electronic pen and pad of paper. "Handwriting has to be the slowest input method known to man" was another of Jobs' beliefs. I think he was right. The Apple Pencil is not a dumb stylus - it's like a Wacom pen.

The Apple Pencil is not designed so you can scribble instead of typing in Notes/recording a lecture using the mic.

I can only assume that people don't see this because they deliberately don't want to see it - they'd rather think Apple is stupid.

It's obvious the Apple Pencil wasn't designed to make iPad navigation easier. No one buys Wacom tablets solely so they can use them to navigate their Macs while they browse the web and write Word docs.

There was even an iOS update which disabled the Pencil's ability to navigate the system! And STILL people like the OP you were responding to like to bring up how Apple used to hate styles and now seems to love them.
 
IMO, Windows does touch pretty well and is convenient to have. Provide the ability and let users decide how to use the devices they paid for.

Macs will one day be the only computers without touchscreens. Only then will they change.



Exactly this. For those who don't care about touch, the experience is no different than it's always been.

You seem to be assuming that touch screens come with no additional cost... I can guarantee that isn't the case and as someone who doesn't really see the point of a touchscreen on laptops (I have a Dell one with touchscreen and I definitely don't use it), i'm glad I don't have to pay extra for something I won't use. However I would have no issues if Apple made it an optional extra for those that really want it.
 
Really glad ARM will not be used as the main processor. Hopefully peeps will let this die. No way in hell will an ARM processor be able to keep up with an Intel CPU when it comes to intense processing (i.e. music/video).

Now if Apple would do a design change for the iTrash, I mean Mac Pro, that would be awesome.

Why couldn't it keep up? I am no engineer, but I would imagine that it could eventually.
 
Why couldn't it keep up? I am no engineer, but I would imagine that it could eventually.

As someone who works with Logic/Ableton, I easily have 40+ tracks of audio (varying from audio recordings to AU/VST instruments), which can take up a good amount of processing. Add on top AU/VST effects like reverbs which take quite a bit more processing, an ARM chip will struggle. ARM is great for mobile devices (phones/tablets).

Also take in mind that applications/drivers/etc will have to be rewritten to accommodate ARM, which is a headache in itself. I for one don't think ARM will be at the same level as an Intel CPU anytime soon.
 
Users will likely either leave it enabled or leave it disabled.

If Microsoft can make it work, surely Apple can. The right balance of touch + traditional desktop UI isn't impossible.

Except Microsoft hasn't been able to make it work. Haven't you heard the lamentations from Windows users about how its UI is being so radically reworked for touch that its mouse interaction is suffering? Fingers are large and imprecise, which means an interface that allows for touch has to allow for large, imprecise, ambiguous input. In the end that means an interface that has fewer options, fewer commands, and less power.
 
Seems to me all the evidence given was about Apple not making touch screen Macs, and the claims about ARM Macs mostly came along for the ride. (There are arguments against it, but they're not in this article)
 
I was always 100% anti-touchscreen when it came to Macs. I still am, at least with iMacs. But I'm starting to wonder if it might be a wise decision to release at least one MBP variation with a touchscreen? I wouldn't need one but there are probably millions of Windows users out there teetering on the edge of switching to Mac, and that might be the final little nudge they need.

I doubt there are any Windows users who would be holding onto Windows simply because no touchscreen MAC exists.
 
Last edited:
Of course they say they have no plans for ARM Macs. If they said they did then current Mac sales would fall in the crapper.

I actually believe that they don't have any solid plans yet, but not because of anything Apple has said.
 
I see Apple's point, but ever since using the iPad, I cannot count the times I've reached over to my iMac screen to swipe or touch something.

I'm not saying it's practical, but it has become like a reflex. Touchscreen phones & iPads have become part of our DNA. So I could see basic touch features being added to an iMac screen being useful.
 
Except Microsoft hasn't been able to make it work. Haven't you heard the lamentations from Windows users about how its UI is being so radically reworked for touch that its mouse interaction is suffering? Fingers are large and imprecise, which means an interface that allows for touch has to allow for large, imprecise, ambiguous input. In the end that means an interface that has fewer options, fewer commands, and less power.
And yet Apple's somehow done this with the keyboard on the iPhone? They have an algorithm for determining the centre of your typing digits (and we learn where this is and unconsciously adjust our usage).
The same could easily be done with the UI on the Mac.

...and the interesting bit...we could learn new ways to use multi-touch because of people using the screen - that could make the touchpad more useful as well.
 
You seem to be assuming that touch screens come with no additional cost... I can guarantee that isn't the case and as someone who doesn't really see the point of a touchscreen on laptops (I have a Dell one with touchscreen and I definitely don't use it), i'm glad I don't have to pay extra for something I won't use. However I would have no issues if Apple made it an optional extra for those that really want it.

We can find laptops as little as $300 with touchscreens. The cost is negligible.

Except Microsoft hasn't been able to make it work. Haven't you heard the lamentations from Windows users about how its UI is being so radically reworked for touch that its mouse interaction is suffering? Fingers are large and imprecise, which means an interface that allows for touch has to allow for large, imprecise, ambiguous input. In the end that means an interface that has fewer options, fewer commands, and less power.

I totally disagree. I've extensively used Windows 10 on touch-enabled laptops and find it to hit a very fine sweet spot between KB+M usability and touch input. Sure, some things are either too small or too big, but I've found that it ultimately works.

Maybe with some additional tweaking, more will be into it. Still, I like options. I can't imagine Apple ignoring this space.
 
Touching your computer screen is disgusting. Why would you ever want gross fingerprints all over a screen :(

Exactly. Makes no sense. Also, as a musician, this quote from Phil especially resonates with me:

"Can you imagine a 27-inch iMac where you have to reach over the air to try to touch and do things? That becomes absurd." He also explains that such a move would mean totally redesigning the menu bar for fingers, in a way that would ruin the experience for those using pointer devices like the touch or mouse. "You can't optimize for both," he says. "It's the lowest common denominator thinking."

My iMac is a couple of feet away, probably farther out than how most people position their iMacs because of my midi keyboard that sits between my keyboard and the iMac. I'm not about to start reaching out that far to get work done. They're going to have keep pushing their iPad Pro and Apple Pencil agenda further to address this because the answer is not in touch screen Macs.
 
You seem to be assuming that touch screens come with no additional cost... I can guarantee that isn't the case and as someone who doesn't really see the point of a touchscreen on laptops (I have a Dell one with touchscreen and I definitely don't use it), i'm glad I don't have to pay extra for something I won't use. However I would have no issues if Apple made it an optional extra for those that really want it.
I think this is the same rationale Apple used when it intro'd the tbMBP along side the nMBP. The same one they used with the reg/Plus and reg/Pro versions of the iPhone and iPad respectively. The same one they used when they brought back the smaller sized iPhone SE. Couldn't they use that rationale with a touchscreen?
 
Click the cog and set the quality to 720p:

https://vid.me/vQZq

That's BetterTouchTool. 4-finger tap = open gesture drawing. I then draw a gesture and it arranges the window for me.

At the end I show BetterSnapTool (built into BetterTouchTool), which is shown when I drag the window to a corner to snap it.

I almost never do that anymore. Gestures are much faster.

BetterTouchTool does everything MagicPrefs does, and everything BetterSnapTool does.

Alfred 3 does everything Paste does and much more. I just press ⌥⌘C to get a window with a full searchable history of all my copy-paste history.

Bartender is something I've looked at using but it seems kinda counterintuitive to hide all status icons.
Cool.

Bartender is great because I can hide or put superfluous icons that come with apps in there if they don't give an option to disable them. Then I can hide things like the notification center icon or Siri icon and have them bound to shortcuts or gestures. I also put settings in there for things like AirPlay that I don't use very often from the Mac, or WiFi or BT on my work iMac, or Creative Cloud's stupid icon. One of the big reasons for using it was eliminated in Sierra: rearranging third party icons.
 
My iMac is a couple of feet away, probably farther out than how most people position their iMacs because of my midi keyboard that sits between my keyboard and the iMac. I'm not about to start reaching out that far to get work done. They're going to have keep pushing their iPad Pro and Apple Pencil agenda further to address this because the answer is not in touch screen Macs.
Why would you have to reach out any distance to get work done? Couldn't you just simply keep doing what you've always done? We are 10 pages in and I have yet to see anyone advocating touch as the only interface. It could be one of many interface options. It could be one of many build choices. Almost every argument against touch has been attached to some personal anecdote relating how touch wouldn't fit a specific use case. Almost every one of those arguments conveniently ignored the fact that touch capability wouldn't have to impact their use case at all. Bizarro world Nike says "Just Don't Do It"
 
Last edited:
Cool.

Bartender is great because I can hide or put superfluous icons that come with apps in there if they don't give an option to disable them. Then I can hide things like the notification center icon or Siri icon and have them bound to shortcuts or gestures. I also put settings in there for things like AirPlay that I don't use very often from the Mac, or WiFi or BT on my work iMac, or Creative Cloud's stupid icon. One of the big reasons for using it was eliminated in Sierra: rearranging third party icons.

Ah but I like seeing the icons. You saw my bar in the video I made. ;) Most of those icons have a purpose and show me some status (keyboard language, backing up, syncing, connection states to VPN or WiFi, whether my mac is in "caffeine" mode, whether my iGPU or dGPU is used etc) or let me toggle status by clicking them. But I can understand that some wouldn't use the icons and just want to hide them all. I've toyed with the idea myself but always come back to "meh, it's just a menu bar and the icons serve a purpose and it's nice to have them instantly available, and if the OS runs out of space for app menus it auto-hides some menubar icons so it's not like it matters that they're all up there constantly..."

By the way, in Sierra, 3rd party rearranging is perfect. I've placed CoconutBattery next to the regular Apple battery icon and it always returns to that exact position on every reboot:

asd.png


Coconut is that extra bar with charge percentage, drain rate, and time left. Something Apple removed lately. ;\
 
"The company has no plans for touchscreen Macs, or for machines powered solely by the kind of ARM processors used in the iPhone and iPad."

Well, that doesn't say Apple isn't going to release ARM-based Macs. It says that Apple isn't going to release Macs using ARM chips suitable for iPhones and iPads, but it might release Macs using (more powerful) ARM chips suitable for Macs! Of course ARM-based Macs are coming. The dropping of Imagination is a clear signpost of changes coming soon.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top