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.
Tim Cook Says Apple Won't Create 'Converged' Mac and iPad
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Best response to Timbo! Just need to add "thinest" to the list of qualifiers.
Living in your bubble must be nice. While there have been a lot of new OS X users. It doesn't compare to how many win machines are sold.
Tim please focus on hardware and software for Macs and iDevices.
Let's hold off on other plan like cars, watches, etc.
Lately Apple has been lacking the attention to detail that had in the past. Some of the hardware and software is rushed out of the door and the issues are abundant. I still holding back from El Captain. I hear the problems are huge.
Let's hold off on other plan like cars, watches, etc.
Lately Apple has been lacking the attention to detail that had in the past. Some of the hardware and software is rushed out of the door and the issues are abundant. I still holding back from El Captain. I hear the problems are huge.
Quarters mean nothing, especially because sales ALWAYS take a dive before a new product is released. Because people don't want to buy something that will be replaced within 2-3 months. It applies to everything, not just Surfaces. It applies to iPhones, iPads, Macs, cars, planes, even food.
iPad market is bigger because the device is cheaper and is intended for entertainment market. Surface is more expensive, been on the market less time and is intended as a laptop replacement. Less people buy laptops often, compared to iPads. Surface has a tiny market, but that market grows daily.
The last quarter doesn't account for the new release of the SP4 and Surface Book.
I know. No one cares about any of those things, and it's probably a dismal failure, and blah blah blah, but the SP3 had been out for well over year, and sales generally tend to be lower on older hardware during the pre-holiday quarter, so sales being down at that time signifies absolutely nothing.
Microsoft is not Apple's only competition. W10 hybrids are also growing rapidly while iPad sales are declining.
Me too... I don't think about these issues as hard as others do. A laptop still bounds you to a desk. A tablet (ipad) does allow freedom from that constraint.
There is also a lot of work I do which starts on the ipad and completes on the laptop/desktop.
I don't feel each one needs to replace the other. I look at the task at hand, not at the device.
I really wish people who aren't engineers or software developers or IT technicians would just stop talking about iOS technical capabilities versus OSX because you have no idea what this technology actually is and you're just throwing out words like "mobile" and "desktop".
No, you can't just get iOS to perform x86 instructions. At all. Ever. They will not work in a box. They will not work with a fox. They will not work in a house. They will not work with a mouse.
I especially like people saying that an iPad Pro with some frankenstein desktop iOS would be faster than a MacBook. News flash, no it will not. And you should stop talking about this because you don't know what you're talking about.
You can not simply "add desktop" features to an OS. You have to completely rebuild the OS from the ground up because x86 instructions don't stay the same every year. ARM is not CISC, it's reduced instruction set computing for power efficiency. You might think, "Oh that just means it's better because it's more efficient." No, that means it was engineered inferior on purpose because its primary use is efficiency first, performance second.
This is why Geekbench scores are irrelevant comparing the Core M in a MacBook to an iPad Pro. While I am very disappointed in the MacBook's Core M, I won't make the same mistake a lot of you do by thinking that just because it's faster in iOS, it's faster period.
If you were to load a CISC based x86-64 operating system to an iPad, it would run like molasses because it's not built for the thousands of different instruction sets and the inability to perform "load and store" register logic. Basically, instead of storing instructions from memory into the processor registers so the processor can handle the parallel computing by its own sorting methods, an ARM processor attempts to compute "instruction per clock cycle" as it receives them, which creates a huge bottle neck on x86-64 instructions. CISC processors have hardware built logic to handle this type of instruction loading.
It would take 5-7 years to build iOS to handle those types of loads and it would immediately make any devices prior to the change completely unusable on the same OS. Also, the iPad itself would have to use an x86-64 processor, meaning the ARM that it's been building and researching would have to completely change from ARM instructions to x86-64 CISC.
The question remains: why can you run iOS on a laptop computer but not the other way around? Because RISC is software based and software dependent.
Please educate yourselves and never speak of this again until you actually know the science behind it:
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/risc/risccisc/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14794460/how-does-the-arm-architecture-differ-from-x86
No, you can't just get iOS to perform x86 instructions. At all. Ever. They will not work in a box. They will not work with a fox. They will not work in a house. They will not work with a mouse.
I especially like people saying that an iPad Pro with some frankenstein desktop iOS would be faster than a MacBook. News flash, no it will not. And you should stop talking about this because you don't know what you're talking about.
You can not simply "add desktop" features to an OS. You have to completely rebuild the OS from the ground up because x86 instructions don't stay the same every year. ARM is not CISC, it's reduced instruction set computing for power efficiency. You might think, "Oh that just means it's better because it's more efficient." No, that means it was engineered inferior on purpose because its primary use is efficiency first, performance second.
This is why Geekbench scores are irrelevant comparing the Core M in a MacBook to an iPad Pro. While I am very disappointed in the MacBook's Core M, I won't make the same mistake a lot of you do by thinking that just because it's faster in iOS, it's faster period.
If you were to load a CISC based x86-64 operating system to an iPad, it would run like molasses because it's not built for the thousands of different instruction sets and the inability to perform "load and store" register logic. Basically, instead of storing instructions from memory into the processor registers so the processor can handle the parallel computing by its own sorting methods, an ARM processor attempts to compute "instruction per clock cycle" as it receives them, which creates a huge bottle neck on x86-64 instructions. CISC processors have hardware built logic to handle this type of instruction loading.
It would take 5-7 years to build iOS to handle those types of loads and it would immediately make any devices prior to the change completely unusable on the same OS. Also, the iPad itself would have to use an x86-64 processor, meaning the ARM that it's been building and researching would have to completely change from ARM instructions to x86-64 CISC.
The question remains: why can you run iOS on a laptop computer but not the other way around? Because RISC is software based and software dependent.
Please educate yourselves and never speak of this again until you actually know the science behind it:
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/risc/risccisc/
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14794460/how-does-the-arm-architecture-differ-from-x86
Sales are down for a pre-holiday quarter, which, once again, means absolutely nothing. If they continue to drop this holiday season on, despite the fact that they're now offering a new bevy of hardware, then they should worry.
Thanks for giving us your personal perspective. I'm sure it's relevant to the worldwide market. I'd rather trust Gartner who pay people to do the research.
That's irrelevant because it's quarterly based. Their sales might be down compared to a previous quarter or the last year, but they could still be positive market growth, which they are.
I don't need them to think. But they provide numbers that you can't possibly see from your vantage point in London.If you need Gartner to tell you how to think, you need to think different.
Cook is right, and I couldn't agree more.
OS X and iOS share do a lot of the same code, but there are DRASTIC differences in their foundations that would make a complete mess if they converged.
Moving iOS Apps to OS X is easy. Every iOS developer uses a Mac to write code and tests it on a Mac using the iOS simulator before they run it on an iOS device.
Moving Mac Apps to iOS is an entirely different beast.
Besides the obvious user interface differences such as a visible mouse pointer, and overlapping windows, OS X is a "no boundary" operating system. Users have the ability to drop photos, Apps, videos and other documents just about anywhere, and they can get create and install Apps without an App Store.
iOS by contrast is very buttoned down. You can only get Apps from the App Store, photos and videos and other documents are always stored in dedicated spaces and access to them is limited to third party Apps unless you specifically allow it.
Converging the two platforms means breaking those barriers, and that's a bad idea. iOS works as well as it does because it has those restrictions... adding those restrictions to OS X is nearly impossible without breaking the ability to run older Apps.
The best we can hope for is a feature to run iOS Apps within the Mac. Apps would still come from the App Store, and still be limited to accessing only specific places to get documents.
Other than that, what Mac users really need is a touch screen. This can make it easier for them to run iOS apps, but running Mac Apps on iOS is a complete waste of time.
OS X and iOS share do a lot of the same code, but there are DRASTIC differences in their foundations that would make a complete mess if they converged.
Moving iOS Apps to OS X is easy. Every iOS developer uses a Mac to write code and tests it on a Mac using the iOS simulator before they run it on an iOS device.
Moving Mac Apps to iOS is an entirely different beast.
Besides the obvious user interface differences such as a visible mouse pointer, and overlapping windows, OS X is a "no boundary" operating system. Users have the ability to drop photos, Apps, videos and other documents just about anywhere, and they can get create and install Apps without an App Store.
iOS by contrast is very buttoned down. You can only get Apps from the App Store, photos and videos and other documents are always stored in dedicated spaces and access to them is limited to third party Apps unless you specifically allow it.
Converging the two platforms means breaking those barriers, and that's a bad idea. iOS works as well as it does because it has those restrictions... adding those restrictions to OS X is nearly impossible without breaking the ability to run older Apps.
The best we can hope for is a feature to run iOS Apps within the Mac. Apps would still come from the App Store, and still be limited to accessing only specific places to get documents.
Other than that, what Mac users really need is a touch screen. This can make it easier for them to run iOS apps, but running Mac Apps on iOS is a complete waste of time.
If you need Gartner to tell you how to think, you need to think different.
Except for the fact that raw numbers aren't something you can "think outside the box" on.
Keep smoking the Apple Crack.
If Cook has been doing so well with his advisors, then explain the cluster of a mess that is Apple Music. Who advised him to buy Beats?
Tim is not correct on his assessment. In fact, I just read somewhere very recently that he now uses an iPad pro and iPhone only. Who the hell in a corporate environment does that? There is no way in hell can he do his job with the iPad pro only. There are sensitive documents that he would have to work with that belong in a hard drive or external HD for security reasons.
Something tells me Cook doesn't like desktops. I don't think he's the sharp card shark he appears to be. Now Satya, that dude is sharp. Sharper than Ballmer the Screamer. Seriously.
And opening the wallet to help Apple be successful? The company has been here since the 1970s and managed to get by. In fact, it was Microsoft that saved Apple's a$$ when they almost went bankrupt, not because it's a corporate ethic thing to do, but I suspect it was between Bill Gates and Jobs because they shared a long history together.
EDIT: by the way it's possible he uses his desktop in his office rarely and carries those two devices. But if he says that iPad pro is going the be the replacement for Laptops/desktops and uses his iMac in office, then he's being hypocritical.
Last edited:
While the iPad Pro further bridges the gap between iOS and OS X, and notebooks and tablets as a whole, Apple CEO Tim Cook recently told the Irish Independent that Apple is not interested in creating a "converged Mac and iPad."
Instead, Cook said Apple wants to create the best possible Mac and iPad, suggesting that both products have a strong future. The chief executive is "bullish" about the reverse of declining iPad sales in recent quarters.Last week, Cook rhetorically questioned why anyone would buy a PC anymore -- excluding the Mac, which he says is not the "same" -- and said the iPad Pro will serve as a replacement for a notebook or desktop computer for "many, many people."Many early iPad Pro reviews described the tablet as a powerful creative canvas, but not quite a true PC replacement. Benchmarks found the iPad Pro delivers MacBook Air-class CPU performance and MacBook Pro-class GPU performance.
MacStories editor Federico Viticci, as someone who uses iOS as his main computing platform, felt otherwise. "I don't see myself using a Mac as my primary computer ever again," he wrote in his iPad Pro review.
Cook also provided a non-comment about Apple's rumored electric vehicle plans, emphasizing "a need for a focus on user interface."Follow our iPad Pro and Apple Car roundups for the latest news about each topic.
Article Link: Tim Cook Says Apple Won't Create 'Converged' Mac and iPad
