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's Greg Joswiak: No Plans to Merge Mac and iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. The UI changes in macOS Big Sur make way more sense when you view them with the context of iOS apps running unmodified on Apple silicon Macs, which is what he’s probably getting at with “most comfortable and natural.”Craig Federighi, VP at Apple denies it:
"I gotta tell you when we released Big Sur, and these articles started coming out saying, ‘Oh my God, look, Apple is preparing for touch’. I was thinking like, ‘Whoa, why?’
We had designed and evolved the look for macOS in a way that felt most comfortable and natural to us, not remotely considering something about touch.
[...]
It's just they all feel like the natural instantiation of the experience for that device. And that's what you're seeing not some signaling of a future change in input methods."
Apple tells us how it made its new chip and MacBooks
Exclusive: Apple’s hardware, software and marketing chiefs explain how the company’s new processors came to existwww.independent.co.uk
Can you imagine iOS apps running unmodified against the UI of macOS Catalina? They’d stick out like sore thumbs, more than they already do.
They...won’t get the apps, because they don’t have the M1 SoC in their iPad Pro. Presumably, at least.
Apple already has a mechanism of restricting iOS apps in the App Store to devices with the A12 chip or later. No reason they couldn’t do the same for the M1.
Form factor and primary input and device experience.
they split off iOS and iPadOS specifically because they could have the same ‘phone’ and ‘computer’ base between those two with software compatibility (but not 100% feature compatibility).
they are making it easier to write one app that is targeting a phone,iPad, tv, and watch (but with affordances being needed for platform capabilities)
they are trying to make that multi-platform targeting easier with some common frameworks and more UI/ UX overlap. the iPad is the central point here because it is both a ‘big iPhone’ and a ‘computer’
If this were reddit I’d give you an award for this post. This is brilliant and something Apple should consider some day. With the trackpad/keyboard combo the MK gives you (alongside the portability) you should easily be able to run and utilize macOS on the iPad. The iPad would be become the machine its always yearned to be and take advantage of all that power since it’s obvious that iOS can’t.
Unfortunately that’s the benefit of upgrading your device, remember the current gen iPad is 2.5 years old (I think everyone is in agreement last years iPad Pro is basically the same as the 2018 version), yes it’s going to upset some people but the vast majority it won’t bother them in the slightest.
The iPad Pro is a very niche product only appealing to the Pro users, the vast majority of iPad customers will have the Air or the standard iPad (those users won’t be bothered about their inability to use the pro apps).
The only people who might be hacked off are those who own the 2018 or 2020 Pros, but it will only be a small majority of the users of those devices.
Unfortunately for apple to bring Pro apps to the iPad there will never be a ‘good time’ to take the plunge as there will always be users of older pros disappointed, but it gives a reason for 2018 and 2020 pro users to upgrade their devices if they want to take advantage of the pro apps.
“iPadOS” is a marketing name for iOS on the iPad. It’s not “split” in any way that’s meaningfully different from how iOS was distributed before, where features are switched on or off based on the device they’re building for. There’s a reason why iOS and “iPadOS” updates are released simultaneously and have the same build number.
That might change eventually, but for now, it’s just a marketing name.
That's a great post, thanks for your analysis. So the iOS slider that you say it's 27pt, which is far below the specs you cited on the Apple guidelines of 44pt. Which means you can't judge and rule out a touch interface merely on the 44pt recommendation as you alluded earlier. And there are many more examples where Apple breaks their own guidelines where it's necessary.
You say the macOS Control Center diameter is just 20pt but at what resolution? Because depending on the resolution, the touch target will get bigger/smaller. Similarly 27pt on iOS may have smaller/bigger target size in the real world, if the OS device has a higher resolution, the iPad mini comes to mind which has a higher density.
To compare Big Sur and iOS, I opened Apple's iOS UI kit in Adobe Xd, and compared it to a screenshot from Big Sur, properly resized to match pixel density, it turns out the UI elements are 100% the same:
With regards to spacing in menu icons, even if it's 4pt as you claim vs 5.5pt, it's not a deal breaker at all, it'd still work perfectly fine for touch. Doing a quick comparison, the spacing is very similar in both Big Sur and iOS:
For menu items, even in the worst use case possible, missing a target is very forgiving, you just slide over, or try again without penalties. There are other iOS examples with far worse transgressions and it seems Apple deems good enough to feature prominently on their product page, here's an example:
With regards to global menu height, you have a good point regarding this, but we could argue that Apple may be willing to bend the rules or break their guidelines again on this, I don't think it's a deal breaker.
Having said that, Big Sur actually added A TON more height system-wide to titlebars, which some users have complained about:
Here's an example comparing Safari in Big Sur, it could be argued these taller titlebars are now compliant for iOS-like controls in a near future:
Like I said earlier, there is a lot going on in Big Sur that screams touch convergence. Not everything is obvious or ready, like you say the traffic light buttons would be an issue. But if/when Apple decides to make it official, I'm sure they can add more spacing if needed fairly easily. The groundwork is done though.
I guess power consumption prevents macOS and macOS apps on a device with a tiny battery like the iPad..? 🤔
Until now, iOS device chips always came with lower amounts of RAM than Macs (which was justified by iOS needing less RAM, which of course in itself comes with side-effects). Now the iPad Pro comes with the same amount of RAM as the whole consumer level of Macs (though to get the 16 GB option, one has to pay a lot by virtue of it being to tied to storage levels). That in itself will help with compatibility with pro apps (though iOS still not using swap memory will continue to hold it back in that regard).
I think it’s safe to say convergence or dual boot would only happen if:
it doesn’t compromise the mac’s goal (ultimate tool) or the iPad’s goal (accessible technology)
AND
there is significant return on investment.
However, it seems like it would be a huge amount of work, but the demand seems to only come from a subset of iPad enthusiasts which I can’t imagine being all that big. And I don’t see how a merged OS can hit both aforementioned goals as well as the Mac and iPad hit their respective goals (eg. would it be a file-centric or app-centric OS? Would it be locked down or open?). A pro-merge person may have a different goal in mind, but it doesn’t seem like Apple will budge from their goals. So then a dual boot is the go-to theoretical little-to-no compromise solution, but since I don’t have deep technical knowledge, in practice I am unsure what consequences it would entail. Not to mention I’ve never seen a good dual boot experience. It just seems to be a Frankenstein feature that is added out of necessity. Apple put dual boot Windows in Macs (I’m sure reluctantly), but there was huge financial pressure to do so. And now that the financial pressure has eased off, dual boot has been removed from Macs. I don’t see the financial pressure being there for dual boot iPads.
I really think Apple views touch input as not critical. So for those who say they don’t want to have to carry both a MacBook and an iPad, I think Apple just thinks if you really want both devices functionally, the overall experience is better having separate dedicated devices, even with having to carry both devices—but if you really don’t want to carry both devices, the Mac (and iPhone) can do everything you need to do, the iPad on top of that is mostly just for convenience, so just leave the iPad at home. The main exception would be Pencil input. But I guess they don’t think that’s a big enough market.
edit-
Oh also, can Mac applications work inside ipados with its different file system? It makes sense that a sandboxed ipad app can work in a file-centric macOS but not so much the other way around.
it doesn’t compromise the mac’s goal (ultimate tool) or the iPad’s goal (accessible technology)
AND
there is significant return on investment.
However, it seems like it would be a huge amount of work, but the demand seems to only come from a subset of iPad enthusiasts which I can’t imagine being all that big. And I don’t see how a merged OS can hit both aforementioned goals as well as the Mac and iPad hit their respective goals (eg. would it be a file-centric or app-centric OS? Would it be locked down or open?). A pro-merge person may have a different goal in mind, but it doesn’t seem like Apple will budge from their goals. So then a dual boot is the go-to theoretical little-to-no compromise solution, but since I don’t have deep technical knowledge, in practice I am unsure what consequences it would entail. Not to mention I’ve never seen a good dual boot experience. It just seems to be a Frankenstein feature that is added out of necessity. Apple put dual boot Windows in Macs (I’m sure reluctantly), but there was huge financial pressure to do so. And now that the financial pressure has eased off, dual boot has been removed from Macs. I don’t see the financial pressure being there for dual boot iPads.
I really think Apple views touch input as not critical. So for those who say they don’t want to have to carry both a MacBook and an iPad, I think Apple just thinks if you really want both devices functionally, the overall experience is better having separate dedicated devices, even with having to carry both devices—but if you really don’t want to carry both devices, the Mac (and iPhone) can do everything you need to do, the iPad on top of that is mostly just for convenience, so just leave the iPad at home. The main exception would be Pencil input. But I guess they don’t think that’s a big enough market.
edit-
Oh also, can Mac applications work inside ipados with its different file system? It makes sense that a sandboxed ipad app can work in a file-centric macOS but not so much the other way around.
Last edited:
Hardware merge. I don't think a Mac device would need a touchscreen for example
Most iPad apps are essentially a subset of what macOS is capable of doing while just using a keyboard and mouse. So it made sense to allow it on the Mac.
With Mac, you have to worry about menubar apps (how would you close them if they didn't live in the dock), apps that run in background (self updating apps), apps that have special installation steps like Office/Creative Suite which could access areas outside the sandbox. Also, most apps would probably not be able to carry out any tasks if using a touchscreen.
I think he brings up some valid technical questions that shouldn’t be brushed aside. Someone like me who doesn’t have technical knowledge can say it should be this way or that way, but if there’s no decent sense of a clear path there in the nitty gritty details, then it’s really just wishful thinking. Not sure it’s a complete 1 to 1 comparison with dual boot windows macOS since those are both file centric OSes, but regardless it’s also a pretty clunky experience, and probably not what Apple aspires to. I think Apple only did it out of necessity which is why they’ve dropped it now that it’s no longer as necessary. So I think the awkwardness is a big point.
I don’t think it goes both ways as easily since one OS is file centric and the other is sandboxed, among other differences possibly.
I provided a design justification immediately thereafter. Many controls in iOS don’t have a visually distinct hit area; the UISlider control does, plus it would look dumb if it were scaled to 44 pt.
The gap between the hit areas for menu bar items is negative. They overlap. It's not a difference from 5.5 pt to 4 pt; it's a difference from 5.5 pt to −4 pt.
Match pixel density between what? I’m seriously unsure what you mean here. There are numerous pixel densities in use across iOS and macOS.
I don’t know what you mean here either. The slider knob is rendered with a diameter of 20 pts which translates to 40 px on Macs with a Retina display. You can run a Mac at higher than native resolution (as I do) which makes it appear smaller physically, or you can run at lower than native resolution which makes it appear larger, but it doesn’t change that the diameter is rendered at 20 pt, which is how I measured it.
Ultimately, if Apple ever decides to ship a Mac with a touchscreen, they’ll modify macOS’s design for it then; they would not do so multiple years ahead of time. It’s also highly unethical and potentially illegal for their executives to lie publicly — that is, specifically say they do not plan to release a touchscreen Mac when such plans exist — about a matter like this. If Apple says they have no plans for a Mac with a touchscreen, then it’s not happening any time soon, end of story. If they start declining to comment/respond when asked about a touchscreen Mac, then I’ll listen.
Last edited:
That doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure how you are measuring that, it seems to me you look at the menu highlight area when a menu is selected and you measure the overlap there? But that's not necessarily a target area.
Looking at the screenshot below, the bottom line is that Big Sur and iOS have very similar spacing which translates to similar target areas.
In some cases in iOS there is far less spacing than Big Sur, check out the last example in the screenshot.
but all besides the point.
All I said was "if the Ipad Pro ran MacOS and was hooked up to a m/k/monitor then using MacOS would be identical as using it on a MacMini."
And I said it in response to someone who said it would be a hideous compromised experience to run MacOS on an iPad Pro.
And the reason it would be the same is because the silicon is the same and it has the ability to output to a screen already and accept wireless m/k already. And obviously could dual boot at the very least.
Would people want that option? Would it sell? Would it be used much? Could they do it a different way? Virtualize it? etc. Those are all different pts which I don't have much of an opinion on and is besides the pt I was making. I'm just (saying,) at the end day, it (will) behave the same as a Mini when connected to a m/m/k so nothing technically stopping Apple from letting people run MacOS on it if they wanted to just like Apple let people (easily) run Windows on Macs.
Last edited:
I already showed you this. They are definitely the hit areas; they overlap by 4 pt (hence −4-pt spacing) and work as you’d expect overlapping hit areas to work — the half of the overlap area on which you click defines the button you click. In any case, alongside numerous other macOS controls, they’re still too small to be touchable.
You also failed to address anything else in the post, including most notably the potential legal exposure for any Apple executive who goes on the record explicitly denying their plans for a touchscreen Mac if such plans did actually exist.
Macworld has an article that says what I was saying about what the internet was saying.
https://www.macworld.com/article/34...bolt-micro-led-xdr-display-m1-apps-speed.html
https://www.macworld.com/article/34...bolt-micro-led-xdr-display-m1-apps-speed.html
The ipp is obviously for content creators, folks like ijustine will be able to shoot high quality pics and videos, use Final Cut Pro, all from the wilds on one device! So expect the next we hear from apple is that pro apps will now work with ipp! 99% of the non pro iPad users are perfectly happy with iPad os
We will continue using iOS apps, and probably won't be able to access the more pro apps like Final Cut Pro.
Personally, I don't see much happening on the iPadOS front, in that the features announced are going to be rolled out to all iPads. The main differentiation will likely come from apps, thanks to Catalyst.
Ok lets backtrack a bit. Earlier when you claimed the slider in Big Sur was 20pt while in iOS you said it was 27pt, and that such difference disqualified the Big Sur UI for touch, I asked you at what resolution/density you were making that measurement. The reason I was asking that, and the reason I mentioned the resolution/density issue, is because at the end of the day, what matters is the target as seen in real life, not a fixed measurement of an UI element in pixels/pt.
To clarify this point, lets see an example of a toggle button, which is 51x31.
It turns out the target size in real life (the actual target you need to hit with your finger), varies greatly on different iOS devices. Lets see some comparisons:
Notice the significant difference is size, even though the UI is 51x31 on all devices, there is almost a 20-30% in target size discrepancy in size among iPad mini vs iPad Air vs iPhone 12. Apparently even with this significant range in target sizes, Apple deems this usable across all iOS products.
This is why you can't just dismiss Big Sur UI by a fixed UI dimension in pixels/pt, instead, we need to measure it as seen in real life vs other iOS devices, and then we can draw a conclusion if the targets are too small for you to hit with your finger.
I made some comparisons with probably the 2 most 'sensible' resolutions on my MBP 16", and it turns out with the middle setting, the 51x31 toggle button on Big Sur is practically the same size as my iPhone 12. And with the 'default' setting, the UI only about 20% smaller, which is about the same size as the iPad Mini.
This means that depending on the resolution you set on your Mac, several of the new UI elements in Big Sur would be perfectly within the target range that Apple deems usable (as evidenced again, in the iPad Mini example).
I hope that clears the confusion regarding the resolution issue and why we can't just dismiss touch-capability from fixed UI number in pixels/pt.
Last edited:
Doing some more research, if we match the same resolution, it looks like the Big Sur slider is 28pt, which is the exact same size as iOS.
As I said earlier, we can't go by pixel/pt alone, we need to see the actual resolution of the device, but as I posted earlier, the more I dig, the more it shows a clear trend towards touch-ready UI.
With regards to this argument, I find this probably one of the weakest arguments. Apple history is filled with examples of denying or misleading on something. Here's an example:
2003 - No Plans to Make a Tablet
"There are no plans to make a tablet," Jobs was quoted saying to Mossberg. "It turns out people want keyboards.... We look at the tablet, and we think it is going to fail." Steve Jobs
https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Steve_Jobs_No_Tablet_No_PDA_No_Cell_Phone_Lots_Of_iPods/
It turns out Apple was toying around with tablets prior to iPhone, and had the intention of doing a tablet, but then decided to go with the phone first, and then the tablet.
Jobs got away with this 'lie' perfectly fine.
In this specific case, I don't see a clear denial from Joswiak, look at all his statements closely, look at this statement for example "Apple plans to keep making both products better and is not going to "get all caught up in" theories of "merging or anything like that.""
Lets dissect this:
1. "Apple plans to keep making both products better" - true statement, it's possible there is a merged product in the pipeline, but in the meantime both lines will get improvements, so you see Joswiak doesn't have to lie here.
2. "...and [Apple] is not going to "get all caught up in" theories of "merging or anything like that."" in other words, Apple executives won't get stressed out or distracted with theories around the internet about merging, because they have better things to do, like... actually working on the merged product line
.See how legally Apple can get away with these statements? There is nothing that legally binds Apple here.
Last edited:
Could all this be a red herring and just simply be that Apple wants the UX to be similar for users on both MacOS and iPadOS? That is a common theme for companies when releasing their products on different platforms