An Ipad with a desktop OSX would sell tons more than the iPad Pro.
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
An Ipad with a desktop OSX would sell tons more than the iPad Pro.
If the keyboard cover for the iPad Pro is a sampling of what a hybrid device would look like (and cost) then it is wise for Apple to not do that until they can produce something will really "wow" customers in a good way. For me, it is "wow, is that the best you can do?"
I was a fan of and actually owned the keyboard dock for the iPad 1/2. But that was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
What a pack of lies. Why carry around two devices when you can use one for both? The main reason they don't want to give the iPad Pro an OSX option is because it would make their under-powered Macbook obsolete.
People have not shown an interest in such devices tho... So if the public is anything to go by, Tim is makig the right decision. Tim has already said Apple is happy to cannibalize old products with new ones if the markets justify such a thing.
Last edited:
I agree. Despite all the contrived reasons people are trying to convince themselves with, about Apple not needing an OSX tablet, the truth is, if Apple took a Surface Pro or a Surface Book and put full OSX on it, those same people would go apes**t over it.
I think what he's getting at, which I agree with, is that a lot of people think they want a converged iPad/Mac, but if Apple actually came out with it, people would not like it since it would be a compromised experience.
ARM isn't fast enough to emulate x86 to run old Mac software, and it isn't fast enough to power the iMac or Mac Pro, so Apple would be unlikely to force OS X developers to go through another architecture conversion. On the other hand, Intel processors aren't efficient enough for iOS. The closest is the Core M, and ARM actually outperforms it. Apple would need to emulate ARM on Intel in order for iOS apps to run, which would hurt performance and battery life.
Plus, OS X isn't optimized for touch, so there would be a huge risk of a Windows 8 issue if Apple tried to force touch onto a 15 year old operating system designed for mouse and trackpad input.
Not if the end result looked like Windows 8. Even Windows 10 isn't ideal, particularly since Desktop software doesn't run well in touch mode, and developers aren't rushing to develop Metro apps. Plus would this OS X tablet run iOS apps? See above.
What processor would you recommend Apple use for the MacBook? The MacBook Air processors use up too much power (so it would be more of a Surface Book, which weighs as much as the MacBook Pro). ARM doesn't run x86 software natively, and would be even slower than the Core M if Apple tried to emulate x86.
Tim, there's definitely more of a market for a Surface Book-like Mac/iPad hybrid than there is for niche products like the iPad Pro and the new MacBook.
But no, he's more interested in trying to get people to buy more devices than make one great device that serves several needs (which I suspect would sell a whole lot more than either of the devices I mentioned above).
I think the problem with iPads is that iOS, while plenty powerful and simple enough to make sense for a phone, is just not powerful enough for most people to replace their laptops with. If iPads ran either Mac OS or an OS all their own that was more powerful than the phone and less powerful than the Mac, I could potentially see more people being drawn to iPad. As it is, a lot of people just see it as a blown up iPhone, which isn't far from the truth.
But no, he's more interested in trying to get people to buy more devices than make one great device that serves several needs (which I suspect would sell a whole lot more than either of the devices I mentioned above).
I think the problem with iPads is that iOS, while plenty powerful and simple enough to make sense for a phone, is just not powerful enough for most people to replace their laptops with. If iPads ran either Mac OS or an OS all their own that was more powerful than the phone and less powerful than the Mac, I could potentially see more people being drawn to iPad. As it is, a lot of people just see it as a blown up iPhone, which isn't far from the truth.
I wish someone would port Prime95 to iOS. There is already a Mac OS X port, so it shouldn't be much work right?
Agree. an apology to this convergence is a car that can be used as a truck and sedan. this truck-sedan can do it all: big load and light daily commute. what gives? well, gas, big, heavy, and not as agile.
Not fully understand what is under the hood, consumers oversimplify the concept of combining osX and iOS. one to rule them all. but life is not perfect, and something has to give. you can't be both mobile/agile yet powerful. that is why we have a big truck for heavy load and car for daily commute. you can see people drive pick-up truck for daily commute but there are only small number of them.
No matter how good a laptop is, it can't replace my desktop for serious work. and my desktop can't replace my laptop for traveling. each device has its own advantages. you can combine them into one but it will lose those advantages.
Microsoft Surface is attractive to tech and spec-love people, but it will never be popular among casual users.
"I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this."
Unfortunately Apple does not offer it to me freely....
Unfortunately Apple does not offer it to me freely....
The iPad is potentially very useful for online shopping. Once online vendors support Apple pay, find what you want, Touch ID, boom. Split screen multitasking at least now gives you the ability to more easily compare items. I don't see why it isn't good for photo editing either, though that's a big range of what qualifies (pro? home editing?).
If a thick, heavy Surface Pro replaced your iPad, it means your use case for your iPad (tablets) was different form other people's. Not everyone wants a "Desktop" tablet that needs a malware scanner & weekly critical updates. For some, the appliance-like nature of the iPad is one of its greatest strengths.
Last edited:
Apple may not need to put OSX on an iPad, but it sure would be nice to have OSX work in with some sore of touch screen! Put it on the macbook or an iMac and see how much it is used. I think the whole experience with touch would work much better! Right now, the magic trackpad is as close as we can get.
He is going to eat his words like he did when he said Apple will not make iphone which needs to use both hands: iPhone Plus?
The compromise now is that you almost have a full computer with an iPad, but don't. If the tablet had the ease of iOS use along with the PC ports, I'd buy one. But like the Woz said, the tablet is a limited device - good and bad.
And where is the data or polls showing this? Just cause people accept that it doesn't exist, doesn't mean they wouldn't want one. I thought Apple was suppose to be the trendsetter, not the consumers.
In fiscal year 2015 Apple's Mac revenue was $25B. iPad revenue was $23B. Again I think people should welcome Cook's comments because it means Apple isn't abandoning the Mac or moving towards some "converged" device that most likely would just anger "pros" because of all the things it was missing.
But Windows 10 DID get better, didn't it? The first try won't be perfect, it never is, for any product. But Apple has to start trying eventually, even if it means we need OSX 11.
Last edited:
I'm not one of those people. I like keeping my desktop and mobile software separate.
Who in their right mind would buy 2 products when they could instead buy 1 from a competitor? Unless of course the 2 separate products are better at their jobs than the combo.
I prefer the MacBook Pro and iPad combo as it provides IMO the best of both worlds. And I'm happy to pay. Others prefer the Surface that does both in 1 product but IMO not as good as the iPad as a tablet and not as good as the MacBook Pro as a laptop. Choice is good, I'm glad MS and Apple have different thoughts on this.
With your line of thinking it's like saying why would Apple release a phone with an iPod when they could sell a phone and an MP3 player.
Tim famously made fun of the surface, its keyboard, and stylus, only to rip it off two years later in a 'magical' iPad Pro experience
No it won't. History already proves it, re Tablet PCs.
When you have a desktop OS, people expect desktop applications. Those won't work on a touch-focus UI on a tablet. Even Microsoft tried it with Windows 8 and Metro, and everybody hated it.
The CEO is not the same as a politician. CEO is there to run a politician is simply a representative of the people who vote for them. The CEO is a hired hand to create value for shareholders.
When Steve Jobs was saying the same types of things you didnt hear people claiming he should be fired for the sake of it.