I’m still chalking up 2020’s uptick to the same one that affected the entire industry. You’re correct, though. It will be VERY interesting to see if, in a more normal year, they settle back down to a fairly flat 15 million or so.
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
To really differentiate the iPad from typical tablets, and make it cheaper and lighter and seemingly more powerful, Apple should take out the battery and make it so it has to stay plugged in to line power at all times. Even if it doesn’t actually improve the specs, users will imagine it is much faster because it’s plugged in to the wall, where power comes from. And knowing a power outage could happen at any moment and lose all your work also contributes to the feeling of real power.
Given that iOS/iPadOS are derived from the same core OS that MacOS is, it had all the same multitasking capabilities and a decision was made to disable them, and then eventually to start opening them up in limited ways (VOIP, for example).
There are typically two complaints about iPad multitasking-- one is the lack of true concurrent background tasks, but the other is the fact that once you switch through enough applications (Safari being particularly galling), that an application basically needs to relaunch because it was flushed from memory. This second concern is mitigated by more memory. Would they change iPadOS to accommodate the extra memory? I'd find it completely bizarre if they shipped a 16GB SoC and flat out denied access to 10 or 12GB of that.
As far as concurrent background tasks though, I don't think the RAM/SSD has any real bearing. The resource you're referring to as the "commons" is battery more than memory.
The point I'm replying to, which you endorsed, was implying that without running MacOS you'd only be able to run "iPhone apps" and there was no reason to add extra memory. My point is simply that you don't need MacOS to benefit from the added RAM and SSD, they can continue to expand the capability of iPadOS.
I think trying to run a lot of daemon tasks on a 4 or 6 GB iPad could be problematic. Anything that is only resident temporarily isn't a big hit on RAM but if you just open up iPadOS to allow any background task to run as the developer wants, you are going to run into to trouble on low-memory iPads. I agree it probably isn't as much of a problem on 8 GB and 16 GB iPad Pros. And as you say, battery use is always a problem. One of the reasons for the success of the M1 is that macOS doesn't have to spin up a high-performance core to run a low priority background task.
I very much want Apple to expand the capability of iPadOS. I will be waiting for WWDC to see if it is worth upgrading to the M1 iPad Pro. I'm skeptical though that Apple wants to add functionality that requires an M1 and 8 GB of RAM.
pits a pencil, not a stylus. If you’ve ever used a PDA in the 90’s you’d never think of them ever being similar. Also still no stylus for iPhone which is what he actually stayed, he didn’t say the iPad wouldn’t have a pencil.
The ipad doesn’t need to run macOS in order to run Mac apps. That’s what catalyst is meant to address.
Catalyst is a one-way street. It allows for porting of iPadOS apps to run on macOS. Not the other way around. At least not yet.
Comparatively, there are FAR more iPad apps than there are macOS apps. I’m wondering if they would even put forth the effort as Apple’s clearly sending the message “Develop for the iPad first and foremost, then we’ll make it easy for you to get that running on the Mac… I mean, if you REALLY want to…”
There was interview done by John Gruber with Craig Federighi during WWDC 2020 and he asked Federighi's recommendation on when to use Catalyst and when to use other frameworks. Paraphrasing, Craig said if a developer already has an iPad app then they're better off porting that app to the Mac using Catalyst, else if they're developing a new app from scratch the developer should use SwiftUI / AppKit for the Mac and SwiftUI / UIKit for iPadOS.
By niche, I meant compared to the mainstream consumer. So the groups who use even use those apps in the first place are a niche of the mainstream already, and even more so those who are affected by certain features in those apps being dropped. macOS on the other hand has more general uses that affect much larger swaths of people.
But I think with dropping 32 bit, that was more about realistically advancing technology forward as a whole, because 32 but couldn’t be supported forever. And Apple was probably banking on the entire industry eventually following in their footsteps, which would eventually force every user to give it up.
As far as sales numbers, I don’t know what they are but I suppose that’s all possible.
That’s not at at all what message Apple is sending to developers. They built a new language and framework to develop across the board. Catalyst is the short term crutch they gave to ease the transition.
Ok. But My point was: helping vs boosting...IPhone share in Apple sales plus nobody would carry 2 devices.
ok but you replied to me where I was talking to entropi's point. you do you.
and yes, that's the point. it's stupid to carry an iPhone and an iPod because an iPhone does everything an iPod can do. that's why they killed it with the expectation of loss revenue from the iPod. therefore, they aren't doing it for the reason we "buy as as much stuff as possible".
a hybrid iPad and Mac cannot do everything both devices are currently expected to do as there would be compromises.
Ok.
Unless you get dual boot on iPad Pro, but considering the pre-sales jam, that seems more and more unlikely😏
dual boot would be a compromise. you have two OSes you have to deal with. so the moment you stick it on a magic keyboard, iPad needs to reboot to macOS. the moment you take it off, you need to reboot to iPadOS. it loses its flexibility in quickly adapting to your usage.
then you have to deal with two different system updates, install and keep updating two copies of the same third party apps. so the amount of storage you need is extremely high. and you'd need a bigger battery to power macOS to the same rate as the MacBook Air. bigger battery, means more weight, bringing down the iPad experience, unless you want to compromise the battery life for the Mac experience. the list goes on...
Fair, but those compromises seem to me worthwhile considering they would unleash the M1 potencial for me, as I’m very skeptical about real pro apps getting iPadOS versions (my scenario contemplates MacOS only App, as it is).
Because occasionally I need portability I’m already compromising in a MBP (performance wise)...hopefully M2 16”MBP solves this😉
Also can’t see how Apple can improve iPadOS for Pro users without compromise the generic user base experience.
There's a way to make iPad apps pro friendly. It involves a new interaction sensor. It's a big write up, so I'm not going to try writing it up here. But there's a way to make a large number of pro apps (like Final Cut, Blender) work better on an iPad than on a MacBook. Maybe not Xcode or things that obviously need a keyboard but certainly apps that involve plenty of pointing.
how about then giving a touchscreen mac then? especially since now with iOS apps running on them, just makes sense.
Don’t you find it odd or frustrating if the main MacBook or iMac’s screen is touch enabled but not on the extended displays, which most pro users will definitely have? Apple is all about UI consistency. Such inconsistency would not fly with Apple, IMHO.
This isn't so much a problem. Been using windows laptop with touch for a while.
A lot of the "anti" arguments I hear are about full system interaction. The idea that if you bring in touch, than people are going to primarily use touch for everything.
This is not common use cases and most of the interaction with your laptop/pc don't change.
HOWEVER:
it helps in a lot of really "quick" ways that people just don't realize until they start using them.
The Dock is fantastic for touch. a launcher along the bottom in a laptop is just really quick to use when you're typing. a quick reach and tap to launch / task change. it is faster and more convenience than moving your hand to the track pad, and find your curser, than drag it over and click/doubleclick.
there are just little things like that dotted around day to day interactions that make a touch screen on laptops quiet an enjoyable scenario.
These don't change fundamentally between multi-display setups. it is still faster in those cases to use your touchpad for the WIMP aspects of a desktop UI.
Why I think it's the time for Apple to give Touch though? iOS on MACos. iOS apps are absolutely aimed for touch first interactions and would benefit greatly from being able to be used via touch.
And like any "additive" product. even if you don't want to use it because you don't like the experience, you lose nothing by having it included.
I dunno. I have a work notebook with touch capability. Haven’t used it except when it registered an accidental touch. My hands is either on the keyboard or one holding the mouse. It’s a lot quicker for me to use the mouse to target a UI element than lifting my hand to touch the screen. Maybe it’s just me.
I would think a 27 inch screen would be quite a distance to lift your arm for touch, compared to moving to the mouse and back, probably due to muscle memory. I would imagine repetitive lifting of the arm would cause fatigue fast.
My take on this is that it’s a low hanging fruit for Apple to pick for the Apple Silicon transition, just so that customers have the assumption that they have a ton of software to choose from from day one.
I think Apple will add touch capability to the Macs in future, just not in the near future. I think the environment and technology standards are probably not there yet. As least I think that’s what Apple thinks. Until such time where all display screens are touch capable, and that there’s a standard for touch inputs to get sent back via the display link, touch screen input on macOS will not happen.
Not if they used the port on the iPad to allow it to dock and become a laptop when desired, using a keyboard, mouse and monitor.
how is that not a compromising experience?
for one, you need to download both Office iPad and Office Mac to the device and keep both updated, taking up double the space.
among a hundred other reasons...
Thanks , that’s great!
So is it exclusive for these new 11/12.9”pro iPad’s, or it also works in air?
Is it too cumberstone?