Because it would be far more profitable to make only one device and charge 50% more for it.
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
I agree with the "anti-touchscreen" sentiments. I have no use for it myself, especially seeing as I hate having fingerprints and other smudges on my displays as it is. In terms of productivity at work, sorry, keyboard and generic mouse beat the tar out of having to rely on touchscreen. I can't imagine having to do my job with that. Certainly not in the current desktop/monitor/etc. workstation paradigm as it currently exists.
I would say adding a touchscreen to anything gives it more functionality. Its not about "Pro" or what its called. Its about what it can do. A touchscreen means you can use it while standing, or use it more easily away from a desk. Those are huge advantages.
I would think people here would be happy with Tim Cook's comments. Especially considering how many complained about the new iWork apps. I would assume people who keep complaining about all the "pro" things they need or Apple dumbing things down in favor of "iToys" wouldn't want a converged device.
iOS is a touch optimized OS X is a click optimized OS. End of story. They don't work well when you flip that on either OS.
Basically what he is trying to say... Right now people buy TWO things from us at X cost. Why would we make it only one and hurt our profit.
When the device is on (its most useful mode), then you can't see fingerprints. Fingerprints are only seen when its off, and that makes it a cosmetic issue for some, not an actual functionality issue.
I would imagine eventually down the line 5 maybe even 7 years out it will be all mobile devices for personal computing.
Having a single product is good for streamlining but bad if people have other preferences or get outright "bored" and bad for market visibility. Apple thrives on having not-so-few products that only barely avoid overlapping too much and keep people interested all the time. There's probably an endless list of pros and cons to your suggestion, but Apple has done their piece of math and found that branching out is more profitable on a grander scale.
Macrumors is a small fraction of Apple's customers.
Which is why Apple still makes Macs.
because you could make one device and charge a lot more for it.
I have a MacBook Pro and I have an iPad Pro. They both perform vastly different functions for me and should remain differentiated. It's the traditional desktop that I think is going extinct.
My thing about iOS though is that it is still crippled by its birth as a phone UI. It needs to be able to fully take advantage of having a 13 inch display with millions of pixels and enough processing power to multitask extremely well. I really feel that all these things can be fixed at a software level, but NOT by making the iPad line more like the OS X line.
They need to remain the same.
Of course another factor here is the cost thing. Is it responsible to have an Apple Watch, an iPhone, an iPad Pro, and a MacBook Pro? They all perform very different functions, but that is a hell of a lot of money I've given away to someone else. Is it ultimately worth it? For me, yes; but not for everyone.
Having said that, the most indispensable device out of that lot is the iPhone. Which is an iOS device. So that brings us back to the idea that iOS is indeed the future, and every other device will merge down into that one.
The Surface experiment is interesting, and I would love to jump on board; but ultimately I agree with Tim Cook. There are too many sacrifices involved, and not even your wallet gets spared in return by merging two devices into one.
So I think in the very long term iOS is the future, but in the shorter term divergence of species is the way to go.
My thing about iOS though is that it is still crippled by its birth as a phone UI. It needs to be able to fully take advantage of having a 13 inch display with millions of pixels and enough processing power to multitask extremely well. I really feel that all these things can be fixed at a software level, but NOT by making the iPad line more like the OS X line.
They need to remain the same.
Of course another factor here is the cost thing. Is it responsible to have an Apple Watch, an iPhone, an iPad Pro, and a MacBook Pro? They all perform very different functions, but that is a hell of a lot of money I've given away to someone else. Is it ultimately worth it? For me, yes; but not for everyone.
Having said that, the most indispensable device out of that lot is the iPhone. Which is an iOS device. So that brings us back to the idea that iOS is indeed the future, and every other device will merge down into that one.
The Surface experiment is interesting, and I would love to jump on board; but ultimately I agree with Tim Cook. There are too many sacrifices involved, and not even your wallet gets spared in return by merging two devices into one.
So I think in the very long term iOS is the future, but in the shorter term divergence of species is the way to go.
Macrumors is so far from representative of the average iOS or OSX user.
That's not the reason at all. The margin on iPads is much higher than on Macs, and they move more iPads per quarter. So no, the correct "business" ($$$) decision would be to canabilize Macs.
Have to disagree with you there. Similar to how screen protectors can hurt your display resolution (unless they're "HD"), smudges still distort pixels (perhaps even moreso on a glossy display). I have enough problems dealing with dust as it is.
I'm not saying there aren't people it doesn't bother; I'm just not one of them. They're probably the same people who wear glasses which appear nearly translucent due to fingerprints.
I see where this is headed. Its headed the same way the iPhone is headed.
1. "My flip phone is good enough."
2. The iPhone comes out
3. "Apple has changed the way people use phones!"
Soon. . .
1. "We don't need touchscreen laptop Macs."
2. A touchscreen Mac laptop comes out.
3. "Apple has changed the way people use laptops!"
1. "My flip phone is good enough."
2. The iPhone comes out
3. "Apple has changed the way people use phones!"
Soon. . .
1. "We don't need touchscreen laptop Macs."
2. A touchscreen Mac laptop comes out.
3. "Apple has changed the way people use laptops!"
The iPad will not be a PC or Laptop replacement until it can run OS X. I hate to say it, but it looks like Microsoft actually has the edge on the tablet/laptop future...
People who think that should remember the same was said about Microsoft in the 90s (re: already won). The tech industry is way too fluid for this kind of thinking. All it takes is one misstep (see Ballmer and iPhone), and yesterday's darling is today's laughingstock.
Personally, I'm not convinced Apple can do much more than ride the iPhone momentum out to its end like Microsoft did with Windows and Office. Their latest products do little to convince me that this isn't true.
Last week on a trip to Denmark, I decided to take my iPad Air and keyboard instead of my rMBP 15", given the short duration, easy connectivity to iCloud for file access and of course weight factor.
The iPad worked perfectly fine for most situations, which makes me now more seriously consider the iPad Pro, as screen size is my biggest complaint. But further to the point I wanted to make. For most use cases I have, revolving around email, spreadsheets, presentations and document creation, this idea of a converged laptop and tablet makes little sense.
I've said this before, but the physical shift between keyboard (external) and touch screen is cumbersome at best, slows productivity and is confusing. Microsoft, in pushing this, is going completely against what they promote, that they're the company that focuses on productivity. I call bs on that. It is anything but more productive and they're being foolish to keep going down this path.
Yes, we have gotten used to touch devices, but that is with hand held devices. Laptops and desktops certainly do not need touch screens because they've already got the on-screen manipulation figured out with trackpads, mice and keyboards.
The iPad worked perfectly fine for most situations, which makes me now more seriously consider the iPad Pro, as screen size is my biggest complaint. But further to the point I wanted to make. For most use cases I have, revolving around email, spreadsheets, presentations and document creation, this idea of a converged laptop and tablet makes little sense.
I've said this before, but the physical shift between keyboard (external) and touch screen is cumbersome at best, slows productivity and is confusing. Microsoft, in pushing this, is going completely against what they promote, that they're the company that focuses on productivity. I call bs on that. It is anything but more productive and they're being foolish to keep going down this path.
Yes, we have gotten used to touch devices, but that is with hand held devices. Laptops and desktops certainly do not need touch screens because they've already got the on-screen manipulation figured out with trackpads, mice and keyboards.
How many people does MacRumor forums represent, maybe .01% of total Mac/iOS users world wide? A very small vocal minority is not reason enough to make one.
Adding functionality doesn't mean a device is more functional.
You can't use a touchscreen on a computer to consistently do anything worthwhile beyond tapping a few icons. Even the three-finger drag gesture on the Apple trackpads alone is far smoother, quicker, and more accurate than you can do with a finger.
'means you can use it while standing' -- really? What do you mean by use it? You can open apps? Drag between a few things? Or work on Photoshop just using your finger? What exactly can you do on a touchscreen if it's running OS X?
I don't think people are biting at the bit for a hybrid iPad, they're biting at the bit to use the Apple Pencil on OS X. Let a MacBook Pro flip around for Pencil use in desktop drawing/photography apps. Don't even allow finger input.
Or let an iMac fully adjust to any angle like a drafting table for use with the Apple Pencil.
You should be able to handoff your artwork, photo work, architecture, notes, etc to your Mac and bring the pen with you.
Professionals are not jealous of hybrids because they are a tablet with a full OS, they are jealous that they are a full OS that also replaces a bulky and expensive Cintiq pen tablet.
I do think we'll see the iMac drafting table idea one day. I also think we'll see a full OS X laptop with 2 screens where the bottom screen uses 3D Touch to replace the keyboard and trackpad, with certain Apps allowing you to use the Apple Pencil on either screen like a true notebook/sketchbook. The bottom screen could also turn into a 3D Touch mixer in audio apps, and all kinds of other controllers in apps that do not need quick keyboard access. Open Photoshop and you get all your tools and shortcut buttons on the bottom screen.
This is the kind of stuff people want. Tim is correct that we don't want a converged device, we want a more capable creativity machine than either the MacBook or iPad Pro currently are.
Or let an iMac fully adjust to any angle like a drafting table for use with the Apple Pencil.
You should be able to handoff your artwork, photo work, architecture, notes, etc to your Mac and bring the pen with you.
Professionals are not jealous of hybrids because they are a tablet with a full OS, they are jealous that they are a full OS that also replaces a bulky and expensive Cintiq pen tablet.
I do think we'll see the iMac drafting table idea one day. I also think we'll see a full OS X laptop with 2 screens where the bottom screen uses 3D Touch to replace the keyboard and trackpad, with certain Apps allowing you to use the Apple Pencil on either screen like a true notebook/sketchbook. The bottom screen could also turn into a 3D Touch mixer in audio apps, and all kinds of other controllers in apps that do not need quick keyboard access. Open Photoshop and you get all your tools and shortcut buttons on the bottom screen.
This is the kind of stuff people want. Tim is correct that we don't want a converged device, we want a more capable creativity machine than either the MacBook or iPad Pro currently are.
"They will start using it and conclude they no longer need to use anything else, other than their phones."
What a weird statement to make. Cook is losing it, in fact I don't think he ever had it, just living off the success of Jobs.
What a weird statement to make. Cook is losing it, in fact I don't think he ever had it, just living off the success of Jobs.
For some people. I would argue there are a lot of people using laptops for the exact same things they're now using their iPad for. Microsoft doesn't have the edge on anything. The Surface line is heading more and more back to laptop territory. How many people are actually using touch first apps on the Surface Pro or Surface Book? My guess is not many. We saw how well the Surface RT did. I predict an OS X tablet would suffer the same fate.
The lines are blurry as ever.
True, it would be ok for "most" people but i still say for create, and/or game type.
You're still not going to type an essay out on this brute without a smart keyboard, and even then Apple's expecting u to store everything in the cloud, or use other cloud-based services.. just to sync, or use itunes... so u still need a computer anyway.
everyone would be using the cloud more, but it still depends where the apps are for which platform/feature set etc..
Perhaps Tim was only mentioning consumers only when he said that.
True, it would be ok for "most" people but i still say for create, and/or game type.
You're still not going to type an essay out on this brute without a smart keyboard, and even then Apple's expecting u to store everything in the cloud, or use other cloud-based services.. just to sync, or use itunes... so u still need a computer anyway.
everyone would be using the cloud more, but it still depends where the apps are for which platform/feature set etc..
Perhaps Tim was only mentioning consumers only when he said that.
Last edited: