Macbook air future a OSX tablet? Theory

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by Three141, Jan 2, 2016.

  1. Three141 macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #1
    I was in another thread and got thinking is the future of the MacBook air line and a full OSX tablet that some want.

    My line of thinking is the 'Air' 'OSX' product label will soon be free as the retina MacBook takes over (I'm assuming the naming convention will go to just MacBook as opposed to the Air's direction).

    Apple are good at keeping things simple and one thing we all saw was how confused people got over MS Surface RT which has resulted in them completely dropping the RT concept.

    I think Apple being Apple they would not want to muddle up the 'iPad' name and have to explain why iPad apps don't work on this new 'ipad pro' version thus calling it something else all together would solve this. Add a familiar Mac name ala MacBook air with a new 'MacBook' design language as opposed the iDevice design language and you have a solid OSX table which should not confuse the masses.

    This would allow Apple to redefine the Retina MacBook as the cheapest entry level MacBook/OSX products as component prices come down.

    Your thoughts? could you see this happening?
     
  2. Boyd01 macrumors 68040

    Boyd01

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Location:
    New Jersey Pine Barrens
    #2
    I can't see it happening, and wouldn't be interested if it did. ;)
     
  3. akimoriRyuuji macrumors regular

    akimoriRyuuji

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    #3
    It wasn't necessarily the naming that confused consumers. That it had the same interface, and could hardly be distinguished from its x86 counterpart were likely more of a problem. And the Surface was not originally called the Surface RT but simply 'Surface', powered by Windows RT (ARM); and there was 'Surface Pro', powered by Windows 8 (x86)

    The iPad doesn't have a desktop mode, so I don't think anyone is likely to be confused.

    They didn't drop Windows RunTime, by the way. It's what powers modern apps. Windows RT was simply a port of Windows to the ARM architecture and was so named most likely due to the fact that it could only run those modern apps using the RunTime.
     
  4. Three141 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #4
    Fair enough :D

    I definitely feel it's the way to go, I remember reading the Ipad pro comments when it was released and the 'No OSX' no sale comments reverting from people and with the Surface products gaining traction particularly in the enterprise market they seem interested in these days it could work and keep IOS and OSX users happy (well sort of happy).
     
  5. Three141 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #5
    You're right the layout was problem they looked identical but the naming convention definitely fuelled the fire, it was one of the reasons behind the talks of having 'one windows' as they felt the software/product line was confusing.

    Not sure if this was UK specific but it was sold as the Surface RT in the UK (http://www.tesco.com/direct/microsoft-surface-rt-106-32gb-tablet-inc-touch-keyboard/312-6770.prd)
    The Surface was the x86 with windows 'home' edition and then Surface Pro.

    The reason I could see the confusion to the 'it just works' could be things like the app store and association i.e IOS for mobile devices, calling an OSX tablet a MacBook Air Tablet keeps the lines clean so to speak.

    I did not realise that WindowsRT was alive and well I thought they killed it thanks for nuggets.
     
  6. Pakaku macrumors 68000

    Pakaku

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    #6
    They wouldn't do it, because it would make too much sense to try to make something that would.

    Apple would rather force you to buy two devices.
     
  7. Cobalt50 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    #7
    Isn't the rMB just an iPad with OS X and a keyboard?
     
  8. akimoriRyuuji macrumors regular

    akimoriRyuuji

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    #8
    Hard to say; I happen to think the naming was second to the similar interface.

    The naming changed. It was originally different. Also, I'm not sure what you meant about the x86 with Home edition part. x86 refers to the processor family line. That would be the 64-bit Intel x86... processor differentiated from the 32-bit Nividia ARM. Correct me if I'm mistaken regarding the manufacturer of the ARM version.

    Windows 8 runs on x86 processors and Windows RT runs on ARM processors.

    No, calling a 'OS X tablet' a 'Macbook Air tablet' does nothing of the sort. It makes it confusing. Apple made it very clear that Mac devices were separate from iDevices. Even though they released a more premium tablet that was meant for people to use it as their primary device, I do not believe that it was a move to merge the two.

    Macbook is a play on Netbook. Air refers to its lightness. And a Macbook would have a clamshell lid. Seeing as its a 'book'.

    OS X does not run on tablets nor is it optimized for them.

    No, Windows RT is 'dead' but as an OS. There is no more support for it. But the Windows RunTime is where its name was derived. And the RunTime is still alive.
     
  9. akimoriRyuuji macrumors regular

    akimoriRyuuji

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    #9
    Not a Pad, and it doesn't have touch.
     
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    OSX still doesn't have a good interface for touch, and it doesn't seem like Apple is going to change it that much.
     
  11. Three141 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #11
    RMB is different, no touch screen for starters.
     
  12. Three141, Jan 4, 2016
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2016

    Three141 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #12
    I remember the feedback from retailers at the time naming it Surface was confusing to the end user, I know the 'universal look' also played a part in the confusion but we saw with the Nokia Lumia 2520 with 8.1 RT that people understood it easier and naming/brand was a large part of that.

    When I say x86 I'm thinking Wintel combination and respective OS versions that run on it.

    You said it was originally called 'Surface' and changed to the Surface RT, I'm saying in the UK it was the originally called Surface RT and later merged into the Surface.
    The naming change added to the confusion, as at the time they had an ARM and a Wintel version both called surface but only one could run Wintel programs.

    MacBook is not a play on Netbook, Apple has been using 'Book' to describe their laptops before the Netbook phase (Powerbook).

    You're right in calling it a book would not fit and Apple has done a good job separating OSX and IOS in the consumer minds but right now their tablets or 'touch screen' devices (excluding the watch) are all IOS devices.
    A full OSX tablet will need a separate naming convention to ensure it's easy separation/identification.

    OSX not being optimised does not mean it can't be, we've seen MS do it.

    That makes sense.
     
  13. Three141 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Three141

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #13
    Agreed, I do think Apple were/are still working on touchscreen for OSX purely based on one remark from Steve when he mentioned using a touch screen desktop (I'm assuming iMac prototype) made you want to saw your arms off.
     
  14. akimoriRyuuji macrumors regular

    akimoriRyuuji

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    #14
    This I will contest if nothing else. I hardly find modern Windows (>8) to be optimized. It's an attempt at best. I would have been more content if Microsoft took a page from the modern web design and learned how to effectively apply a principle called 'responsive' and 'adaptive' layouts. That is, different form-factors and screen sizes require a webpage to change how it lays out things. This is done using CSS and @media queries. The base content (HTML) or structure stays the same, but the way it is displayed and interpreted is more meaningful to the situation. This means that you design a webpage to fit all scenarios; mobile, laptop, desktop, huge, small, non-touch and touch, etc.

    The problem with modern Windows is that it uses one UI for all. And while it can adapt to the size of the screen or type of device, roughly the same interface is presented. They have gone back to change some of that stuff, but it's a change that needs to be done from the ground up.

    Of course, this is highly subjective on my part to say that. But I feel that it doesn't quite fit the ticket.

    And regardless of the UI, there are a whole host of problems. Never in my life have I used such a buggy, slow mess as Microsoft Windows.
     

Share This Page