Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple will never add a trackpad to the iPad. Just take it in, accept it and move on. Their goal is to make touch better (they keep improving the tech, from increased scan times to 3D touch). Their whole approach is to do more with less and adding a trackpad to the iPad would be like adding two more seats to a sports car. You don't have to like it, but deal with it.
This is the type of posting where the poster confuses his opinion with immutable fact. "apple will never build a stylus!" . "apple will never builld a big phone" "apple will never make a large ipad", "Apple will never add additional seats to the Apple sports car"
Get over it, indeed!
 
Exactly, if they really want this to become a true laptop replacement...I don't see why they wouldn't add trackpad/mouse support. Simply, it gives users more options...if you like using your fingers go ahead and do so.....but some us will prefer the trackpad/mouse option...it doesn't hurt anything to have both options. It will make my workflow much faster. I'm not sure why some people are against it.
It's an emotional thing for some people. Just look at the reaction people have about keyboards for the iPad. "If you want a keyboard for your iPad get a macbook!" is one of the more mild responses when people expressed an interest in a keyboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesrick80
Exactly, if they really want this to become a true laptop replacement...I don't see why they wouldn't add trackpad/mouse support. Simply, it gives users more options...if you like using your fingers go ahead and do so.....but some us will prefer the trackpad/mouse option...it doesn't hurt anything to have both options. It will make my workflow much faster. I'm not sure why some people are against it. The Apple Pencil still feels like an after thought or half-baked idea unlike samsungs implementation of the s-pen that has so many pop-up functions as soon as you remove the pen out of the device.......
"why don't you get macbook pro if you want to use a mouse". "Developers are going to make mouse-able only apps then"...and sell them is the Apple regulated store. You read it here first
[doublepost=1471101930][/doublepost]
It's an emotional thing for some people. Just look at the reaction people have about keyboards for the iPad. "If you want a keyboard for your iPad get a macbook!" is one of the more mild responses when people expressed an interest in a keyboard.
A lot people feel its "not a tablet" if it has a larger form factor or seamlessly performs other functionalities.
 
You can double install desktop and touch versions of some programs--but this is not a big deal. I use both touch and desktop versions of sketch book pro, for instance. Its clear what version you are installing since the windows store is the exclusive seller of touch apps

Installing the correct version isn't the problem. It's what happens once you have both desktop and tablet versions installed. When I installed both Dropbox versions, I kept confusing myself about which version I should run.
 
"why don't you get macbook pro if you want to use a mouse".

I have plenty of laptops...just out of sheer convenience alone is why I want mouse support on the iPad Pro. No one is stating that Apple needs to lose their finger touch support...it will not hurt the device to have mouse support as well. I'm tired of people saying get a MacBook. I have plenty of mouse supported devices, I just would like the convenience of using a mouse especially in Microsoft office apps in a device that's being marketed on tv as a laptop replacement. Even android devices have mouse support...it doesn't hurt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
"why don't you get macbook pro if you want to use a mouse". "Developers are going to make mouse-able only apps then"...and sell them is the Apple regulated store. You read it here first
[doublepost=1471101930][/doublepost]
A lot people feel its "not a tablet" if it has a larger form factor or seamlessly performs other functionalities.

Can we keep to actual arguments instead of making up imaginary positions? I can't recall anyone arguing that a larger tablet isn't a tablet. Yes, I've seen "get a MacBook if you want a mouse" and I admit to feeling apprehensive that if iOS gets mouse support, app devs might start writing apps that requires a mouse, rather than keep it optional. See what's happening with gaming control in AppleTV. Apple allowed use of game controllers with AppleTV, but required that apps be usable with the included Apple remote. The end result has been that games aren't able to take full advantage of gaming controllers because they have to keep things compatible with the Apple remote, yet, Apple remote doesn't provide optimal experience. Instead of best of both, you get the two hampering each other. I don't want to see that happen to iPad by mixing touch and mouse.
 
i have my 12.9 incher on my desk connected to my keyboard for it. i'd LOVE a mouse too. i dont care what others think, this is their opinion and choice as well. but the option would be awesome.

never owned a lap top and never want to. i want a mouse with my ipad whatever others might think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
I'm tired of people saying get a MacBook.
So am I, thats why I put in quotes in a joke post
[doublepost=1471105710][/doublepost]
I can't recall anyone arguing that a larger tablet isn't a tablet. Yes, I've seen "get a MacBook if you want a mouse" and I admit to feeling apprehensive that if iOS gets mouse support, app devs might start writing apps that requires a mouse, rather than keep it optional.
There were a lot of posts here saying the ipad pro 12.9 was not a tablet because you couldn't hold it in one hand. Yup. As to the issue of devs developing apps that require mouse support, I think its clear because the ios store is Apple regulated, this won't happen unless Apple approves of this direction, which I think is highly unlikely--but I have no special information. Can you envision a scenario where having access to a pointer would undermine touch? I get your game analogy, but is it truly analogous?
[doublepost=1471105877][/doublepost]
Installing the correct version isn't the problem. It's what happens once you have both desktop and tablet versions installed. When I installed both Dropbox versions, I kept confusing myself about which version I should run.
They have different icons, its pretty discernable. You can group your desktop apps together as well.
This is not a big deal to me but its not as simple as an ipad, granted
 
Last edited:
The only thing I really miss is hover. I frequent websites (e.g. Wikipedia) where this is used a lot and the lack of that ability on the iPad is really the only thing that prevents it from being a useful laptop replacement. Obviously Apple doesn't consider this HTML feature of benefit so they don't even try to support it. Annoying. Mouse or trackpad support with a cursor should support hover but knowing Apple might not.
 
There were a lot of posts here saying the ipad pro 12.9 was not a tablet because you couldn't hold it in one hand. Yup.

Hm, now that you mention it, I recall a few posts like that. That argument seemed nonsensical to me, especially since I tend to use both hands to hold the 9.7 iPad. But ok, some people made that argument -- to me, it seemed like only a few people, but you think there was a lot of them. Confirmation bias? ;)

As to the issue of devs developing apps that require mouse support, I think its clear because the ios store is Apple regulated, this won't happen unless Apple approves of this direction, which I think is highly unlikely--but I have no special information. Can you envision a scenario where having access to a pointer would undermine touch? I get your game analogy, but is it truly analogous?

Sure, Apple can make it a rule that all apps must be fully touch operational, but as I said, this didn't work too well for AppleTV games. Whether or not it'll work for productivity apps, I guess we won't know unless we try. But can you seeat least that the possibility exists that allowing two modes of interaction can go wrong?

Ideally, touch would work perfectly when using an app without a keyboard, and mouse pointer would only be used when someone is using an external keyboard with the iPad, but the two interactive modes would both work as smoothly as the other. But can we get there?
 
i have my 12.9 incher on my desk connected to my keyboard for it. i'd LOVE a mouse too. i dont care what others think, this is their opinion and choice as well. but the option would be awesome.

never owned a lap top and never want to. i want a mouse with my ipad whatever others might think.

An iPad with an attached keyboard and a mouse is pretty much a laptop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M. Gustave
I can see how some people would want things like a trackpad when using the Smart Keyboard, especially Windows switchers.

But honestly and maybe it's because I'm used to using an iPad having owned them all, I don't think it's a necessity. The iPad was and is not designed for things like trackpads, it's not a laptop and the interface isn't designed to be like a desktop OS.

Personally I've no trouble using mine with the SK and Pencil, even when I'm using Jump Desktop. It's hardly a stretch to touch the screen with the pencil when I need to and keyboard shortcuts get around most issues.

I find it much quicker, when for instance I'm typing, to tap two keys at once to select/copy/paste words, sentences or paragraphs than removing my hands from the keyboard and dragging a little pointer around. By the time it takes to do that with a trackpad I've finished what I needed to with keyboard shortcuts and carried on with what I'm doing. All of those saved seconds add up :D
 
Do you really think Apple designed the iPad Pro and the keyboard without market testing and focus group testing of the features include and excluded? They probably found that only a small percentage of keyboard users wanted a trackpad, so they didn't include it.
Apple has moved incrementally in this area: larger ipad, split screen, pencil. Your arguement could have been made against any of these developments. Including a track pad means paradigm tweaking in ios, and finding a better ipad keyboard design, I imagine a kickstand is the nuclear option at Cupertino, but its clearly the best solution
 
Pretty sure both Apple and others said they would never release a stylus either. Saying Apple will never do something is silly. The fact is they have been testing it so if anything it's actually a decent possibility.

I was waiting for someone to mention the Pencil. Ok, so, here goes.

First of all, of course, no one knows what Apple will or will not do with a 100% certainty. Hell, even Tim Cook doesn't know what the future will bring, let alone forum posters. However, we can make educated guesses.

Apple is an interesting company, to say the least. They have changed and evolved over time, but their tenets remained unchanged for the most part. Simplicity instead of complexity (even at a cost of short-term gains), focus, planning long-term, iteration and planning ahead.

This is what makes some predictions easier than others. In fact, while it's hard to predict what Apple will do, it's a bit easier to say what they won't do, not under the direction they are taking now. If you follow Apple, read their interviews, read their bloggers like Jason Snell and John Gruber, if you follow Anandtech and read about technology, you can almost dismiss certain rumours with certainty. For example: are they building an ARM-based Mac? Possibly. Are they going to release it soon? Almost certainly not (I won't go into this, it's a topic for itself, but it is a good example).

I could write pages and pages of my thoughts of Apple, but let's focus on the trackpad. They are not going to release a trackpad for the iPad because that would defeat it's purpose and create conflicting issues down the line. Say you add a trackpad or a mouse to the iPad and have a pointer. Suddenly, you have a paradigm shift when it comes to iOS UI. Current iOS UI is not designed with the pros and cons of pointer input in mind and changing it in this way would fundamentally change iOS. I won't go into detail, but if anyone wants to discuss this with me, we can. The thing is, you really can't do both touch and pointer efficiently (The fact that Windows 8/10 has a "tablet mode" almost proves this) and you certainly can't have it and maintain simplicity and clarity (I'm aware it can be done, but can it be done in a good, clear and easy to use way? If you think the answer is yes, then you just don't get Apple).

So, they can't just add the trackpad without changing iOS so substantially that they, in fact, make it into macOS. It goes the other way, they can't change macOS without changing it into iOS. One day, they may unify these two. I have no idea how they are going to do it, but this hypothetical "AppleOS" will neither be iOS nor macOS and the products that run it will most likely be a whole new category of products.

Adding a trackpad to current iOS devices would create confusion among users and if you think Apple would have two fundamentally different input methods side by side, you're just wrong. It doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else think this would be a good idea - they are not going to add 2 ways to do the same thing (at least not something so fundamental). They just won't. What they are going to do is create things that will complement them. And that's where the Pencil comes in.

1. The Pencil complements the touch system, the trackpad replaces it.
They did not design the Pencil to do the same thing our fingers do. The trackpad is designed to do the same thing our fingers do - that is the difference. They did not design it to manipulate the UI (in fact, they almost removed this option entirely) - they designed it to draw and sketch and doodle. The trackpad is designed to do the same things our fingers do on iPads and iPhones - manipulate the UI.

2. The Pencil fits the iOS UI metaphor.
The iOS UI is based on a metaphor - we touch buttons, we drag surfaces and switches, we pinch photographs. Adding a Pencil to that - is as natural as adding a real pencil to a real paper. You can move the paper around with your hands, you can rotate it with your hands, you can swipe it away from your desk, but you can't paint well with fingers or just dip your finger into ink and write well.

3. The Pencils solves a problem that is otherwise almost unsolvable.
You just can't draw or handwrite without a pen-shaped tool. Until we are able to draw directly with our minds, nothing else will replace it. We can control computers with our voice, with mice, with gamepads, with trackpads and even our bodies, but we can only draw and scribble with pencils. This is the same reason Apple allows game controllers for iOS.

4. The Pencil does not create user confusion.
You know what to do with it and WHEN to use it. No iPad owner takes the pencil and thinks - wait, should I use this to open mail? Sure, you can, if you already have it in hand - but no one grabs a pencil to start an app or swipe down the Notification centre. You take it when you want to write with your hand, draw, select elements on a photo, etc. You always know when to use it and how to use it.

The trackpad, on the other hand:

1. Replaces the touch system.
It is not meant to use alongside touch - you would either grab the trackpad or touch the screen.

2. It does not fit the iOS UI metaphor.

3. It does not solve a problem that is unsolvable by touch.
If touch is not good enough for what it's meant to do - like opening apps, moving UI elements - then it means Apple didn't do a good enough job designing it. If this is true, they need to improve or fix touch, not add new input methods as a quick workaround (this is, basically, what some Android device manufacturers do)

4. It would create user confusion.
Oh sure, you might think otherwise, but in reality, I would have a hard time explaining when to use a finger and when a trackpad to a lot of people. Even when I use both myself, like using a mouse on my Cintiq, I find myself unsure if I should press the start button with a mouse or my finger or both? It sounds silly, of course it's not a dilemma that requires deep thinking, but it does not have that sharp clarity that my iPad has. It's not Apple.

So, I hope this long posts explains my thoughts. Yes, they added a Pencil and that is ok, it's the Apple thing to do. No, they will not add the trackpad.

Sorry for the long post!
[doublepost=1471137696][/doublepost]
This is the type of posting where the poster confuses his opinion with immutable fact. "apple will never build a stylus!" . "apple will never builld a big phone" "apple will never make a large ipad", "Apple will never add additional seats to the Apple sports car"
Get over it, indeed!

If you think making a stylus or a big phone or a large iPad is the same kind of thing as creating a trackpad for the iPad, then we cannot have a good discussion, sir. Sure, they may make and even bigger phone one day. They may make a car. Heck, they may make a 15" iPad or add multiple pencils to it. They will not add a trackpad. I tried to explain my reasoning in the post above.
 
Last edited:
The trackpad, on the other hand:

1. Replaces the touch system.
It is not meant to use alongside touch - you would either grab the trackpad or touch the screen.

Is it so hard to see that a user would use touch or trackpad/mouse in different contexts. Ipad is in my lap--with no accessory attached-- I'll use touch. Ipad is hooked up to the keyboard--i dont want to move my hand and obscure my view--I'll use the trackpad...or touch. I could use either--you can't go wrong. Can you cite a situation where this would lead to confusion?

Posters here argued for years split sceen was "not Apple". Split screen on a tablet was the evil lovechild of Samsumg and Microsoft: a pean to their tablet tastelessness. And then...Oops, there it is!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jamesrick80
Is it so hard that a user would use touch or trackpad/mouse in different contexts--is that so h-a-r-dt o figure out? Ipad is in my lap--with no accessory attached-- I'll use touch. Ipad is hooked up to the keyboard--i dont want to move my hand and obscure my view--


This exists already. When you're working with something in your lap, you use the iPad. When you're at your desk, you use a Mac. That's how Apple sees it, and that's why they are investing in Continuity.

(BTW, I don't know about other posters here, but I never said split screen is not Apple. Or a bigger phone. Why wouldn't it be?)

They won't add a trackpad. Not on a product called iPad, anyway. Maybe they combine the two UIs and make a product that looks like a macOS while you're at your desk, and switches to an iOS mode while you're away (kinda like tablet/desktop mode on Windows), but if they ever do that, that won't be the iPad we know today. I don't think they'll ever do it, but if they do, it will be something new entirely. Maybe something that resembles a Surface Book? I don't know.

And it's not a matter of figuring something out, it's a matter of figuring out a good reason of doing something. The only reason you could have for adding a trackpad to the iPad is that the touch-based UI manipulation is not good enough. Apple does not think touch is not good enough. If anything, they see it as the future. While this may or may not be true, this is how they see things.

As for 'confusion' - it is confusing. Your scenario is: I use touch in my lap, I use a trackpad at my desk. Ok, sure. But if you use a trackpad while at your desk, do you still use touch alongside it or does it replace touch completely? From what you said, you don't use touch because, by your own admission, you use touch 'only while not at a desk'. So, the trackpad replaces touch when it is present. So does that mean the UI changes? If not - then what's the benefit of the trackpad (to click on large, thumb-sized icons?). If it does change - does that mean app developers need to add a new UI to their apps, and if so, is it mandatory? And with the new UI, does the complexity of the UI itself change? And are trackpad-only apps allowed or does Apple insist on both? If I have a pointer, can I have apps with full-blown desktop interfaces on my iPad (or, a better question would be: why wouldn't I have apps with full-blown desktop interfaces on my iPad?). And if I do - why do I even need an iPad, why not just have a Mac?

Turns out it is h-a-r-d to figure out. If you think it's not, you just didn't give it enough thought.

Apple's not going to do it. Not because it's "not Apple-like" but because it would make a lousy customer experience. What they will do is offer you several products: if you want a mobile computer to work while mobile, you have an iPad. If you want a computer you use at a desk, you have a MacBook or iMac. All your files are there, you can continue where you left off, etc. It's their core modus operandi, their business model, their design philosophy - and you're comparing it to.... split screen? Seriously? :)

BTW, just out of curiosity (and this is a question for everyone) - why do you want a trackpad on an iPad? And if the answer is "so I can have both a tablet and a desktop computer in one device" my next question is "why stop there?". Why don't you have a computer, a tablet and a phone in one device?
 
If touch is not good enough for what it's meant to do - like opening apps, moving UI elements - then it means Apple didn't do a good enough job designing it. If this is true, they need to improve or fix touch, not add new input methods as a quick workaround
Maybe touch is not scalable to more complex contexts. Not every problem has a solution.

when when I use both myself, like using a mouse on my Cintiq, I find myself unsure if I should press the start button with a mouse or my finger or both? It sounds silly, of course it's not a dilemma that requires deep thinking, but it does not have that sharp clarity that my iPad has. It's not Apple.
In any context in Windows 8/10, you can use touch or point. There are no "touch only" targets, nor are there "point only" targets. All navigation and app use is touch/pointer redundant. Why is this confusing?
[doublepost=1471144327][/doublepost]
As for 'confusion' - it is confusing. Your scenario is: I use touch in my lap, I use a trackpad at my desk. Ok, sure. But if you use a trackpad while at your desk, do you still use touch alongside it or does it replace touch completely? From what you said, you don't use touch because, by your own admission, you use touch 'only while not at a desk...
No, I was very clear in my post. If you are hooked up to a pointer accessory, you can use the pointer or touch. This is the way it works on the surface pro. There is no pointer only ui in Windows--all targets are touchable. This is what I wrote--the question still stands:

"Ipad is hooked up to the keyboard--i dont want to move my hand and obscure my view--I'll use the trackpad...or touch. I could use either--you can't go wrong. Can you cite a situation where this would lead to confusion?"
 
Last edited:
In any context in Windows 8/10, you can use touch or point. There are no "touch only" targets, nor are there "point only" targets. All navigation and app use is touch/pointer redundant. Why is this confusing?

Confusing in a sense that I am not sure what Apple's goal would be, not in a sense that I would stand in front of an iPad and feel confused. "Oh, but how did Microsoft do it, then?". Easy, they decided to compromise quality. Not all Windows apps can be used with touch, and that's a compromise they were willing to make. For example, it's impossible to use 3dsmax with touch. Not hard - impossible. It's impossible to play, I don't know, World of Warcraft with touch. Then, you have apps like Evernote - that cannot be used with touch, but have a "mobile version" in the store. So you have two versions of the app (one being unusable with touch, the other being really bad for mouse/trackpad input). That is a compromise in quality. I'm not saying the Surface is a bad product, but this aspect of it is certainly "not good".

Now, can you imagine some iPad apps not being usable with touch? Or Apple allowing two versions of the same app? Do you really see that happening? If you do, then you and I understand Apple quite differently. I think this focus is the main differentiator between Apple and their competition. Again, I'm not saying this is the best way to do things - but it is what sets Apple apart from the others (I personally enjoy this no-compromise-even-at-a-cost-of-features approach most, but there are people who prefer Android and Windows devices, and that's fine).

P.S. You mention Windows like it's a success, but for me, using a Windows machine as a touch based tablet is a very bad experience. Sure, I may tap here or there on my Cintiq Companion, but I never leave home without a mouse and keyboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M. Gustave
An iPad with an attached keyboard and a mouse is pretty much a laptop.
That is only true if your definition doesn't factor the operating system. That would be like saying a laptop with a touchscreen is pretty much a tablet. Both instances are gross oversimplifications that they add nothing to the conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjleworthy
This exists already. When you're working with something in your lap, you use the iPad. When you're at your desk, you use a Mac. That's how Apple sees it, and that's why they are investing in Continuity.

(BTW, I don't know about other posters here, but I never said split screen is not Apple. Or a bigger phone. Why wouldn't it be?)

They won't add a trackpad. Not on a product called iPad, anyway. Maybe they combine the two UIs and make a product that looks like a macOS while you're at your desk, and switches to an iOS mode while you're away (kinda like tablet/desktop mode on Windows), but if they ever do that, that won't be the iPad we know today. I don't think they'll ever do it, but if they do, it will be something new entirely. Maybe something that resembles a Surface Book? I don't know.

And it's not a matter of figuring something out, it's a matter of figuring out a good reason of doing something. The only reason you could have for adding a trackpad to the iPad is that the touch-based UI manipulation is not good enough. Apple does not think touch is not good enough. If anything, they see it as the future. While this may or may not be true, this is how they see things.

As for 'confusion' - it is confusing. Your scenario is: I use touch in my lap, I use a trackpad at my desk. Ok, sure. But if you use a trackpad while at your desk, do you still use touch alongside it or does it replace touch completely? From what you said, you don't use touch because, by your own admission, you use touch 'only while not at a desk'. So, the trackpad replaces touch when it is present. So does that mean the UI changes? If not - then what's the benefit of the trackpad (to click on large, thumb-sized icons?). If it does change - does that mean app developers need to add a new UI to their apps, and if so, is it mandatory? And with the new UI, does the complexity of the UI itself change? And are trackpad-only apps allowed or does Apple insist on both? If I have a pointer, can I have apps with full-blown desktop interfaces on my iPad (or, a better question would be: why wouldn't I have apps with full-blown desktop interfaces on my iPad?). And if I do - why do I even need an iPad, why not just have a Mac?

Turns out it is h-a-r-d to figure out. If you think it's not, you just didn't give it enough thought.

Apple's not going to do it. Not because it's "not Apple-like" but because it would make a lousy customer experience. What they will do is offer you several products: if you want a mobile computer to work while mobile, you have an iPad. If you want a computer you use at a desk, you have a MacBook or iMac. All your files are there, you can continue where you left off, etc. It's their core modus operandi, their business model, their design philosophy - and you're comparing it to.... split screen? Seriously? :)

BTW, just out of curiosity (and this is a question for everyone) - why do you want a trackpad on an iPad? And if the answer is "so I can have both a tablet and a desktop computer in one device" my next question is "why stop there?". Why don't you have a computer, a tablet and a phone in one device?
The iOS simulator for devs can be operated entirely via the mouse. It isn't ideal, but at least it's an option. No real reason they couldn't just enable it in the actual OS. Meanwhile, with no mouse support at all, I can't just carry the iPad for work as trying to do real work with just a touch screen is impossible for me as a developer (maybe not all devs, but certainly this one).
 
An iPad with an attached keyboard and a mouse is pretty much a laptop.

Yes, but it isnt. It's still an iPad.

I just think all these options could be 'extras'. This would suit those of use who'd like them, and those of use who dont. I dont want a laptop, i like the flexibility of my IOS iPad, with add-ons

:)
 
Confusing in a sense that I am not sure what Apple's goal would be, not in a sense that I would stand in front of an iPad and feel confused. "Oh, but how did Microsoft do it, then?". Easy, they decided to compromise quality. Not all Windows apps can be used with touch, and that's a compromise they were willing to make. For example, it's impossible to use 3dsmax with touch. Not hard - impossible. It's impossible to play, I don't know, World of Warcraft with touch. Then, you have apps like Evernote - that cannot be used with touch, but have a "mobile version" in the store. So you have two versions of the app (one being unusable with touch, the other being really bad for mouse/trackpad input). That is a compromise in quality. I'm not saying the Surface is a bad product, but this aspect of it is certainly "not good".

Now, can you imagine some iPad apps not being usable with touch? Or Apple allowing two versions of the same app? Do you really see that happening? If you do, then you and I understand Apple quite differently. I think this focus is the main differentiator between Apple and their competition. Again, I'm not saying this is the best way to do things - but it is what sets Apple apart from the others (I personally enjoy this no-compromise-even-at-a-cost-of-features approach most, but there are people who prefer Android and Windows devices, and that's fine).

P.S. You mention Windows like it's a success, but for me, using a Windows machine as a touch based tablet is a very bad experience. Sure, I may tap here or there on my Cintiq Companion, but I never leave home without a mouse and keyboard.

I use 16-20 desktop apps on windows (music, art, finance, math, spreadsheets, 3d) and they all respond to touch. I am not sure about the viewports in autodesk products or zbrush--they work with pen but I have not tried touch. The menus respond to touch. I dont use Evernote--it is sort of a wild card--entry scrolling is flakey with touch. I see this as more of developer issue than a platform issue. Adobe desktop suite: touch. Microsoft desktop Office: touch. Mozilla desktop products: touch.

They work with touch, but would you want to use these apps with touch? Not really. They are complex apps with dense menus that do not translate into touch easily. I am endorsing a daul ui paradigm because it optimizes the ui fit to the software. You seem to be saying that Apple will somehow in some non specified way make touch a desirable work flow with complex apps. Good luck
 
Last edited:
I use 16-20 desktop apps on windows (music, art, finance, math, spreadsheets, 3d) and they all respond to touch. I am not sure about the viewports in autodesk products or zbrush--they work with pen but I have not tried touch. The menus respond to touch. I dont use Evernote--it is sort of a wild card--entry scrolling is flakey with touch. I see this as more of developer issue than a platform issue. Adobe desktop suite: touch. Microsoft desktop Office: touch. Mozilla desktop products: touch.

They work with touch, but would you want to use these apps with touch? Not really. They are complex apps with dense menus that do not translate into touch easily. I am endorsing a daul ui paradigm because it optimizes the ui fit to the software. You seem to be saying that Apple will somehow in some non specified way make touch a desirable work flow with complex apps. Good luck
Than why don't you just buy a laptop?
 
  • Like
Reactions: M. Gustave
You seem to be saying that Apple will somehow in some non specified way make touch a desirable work flow with complex apps. Good luck

No, what I am saying is: they won't add a trackpad to the iPad. As for making a desirable touch work flow for complex apps, they leave that to the app developers. Whether these developers can pull it off or not, is another question. Affinity Photo for iPad seems to be doing a good job, we'll see when it's out. Please don't convince me how you need a trackpad for complex apps, because I'm not saying you don't. Perhaps you do. I'm just saying: Apple won't do it. Apple follows a certain logic, they have a certain approach, they are my hobby - I've been following the company for many years now - and I'm telling you: they won't do it. I explained why.

I could be wrong of course, it's not like I'm clairvoyant or anything, but I'd be willing to bet good money on it.

Besides, you're acting like I'm saying that I wouldn't personally find use for a trackpad or that I personally think it's a bad idea. If they made a trackpad for the iPad, I would go out and buy it the very second it's out. It's not on my wish list, but I'd get it anyway. That doesn't change the fact that Apple won't do this any more that they would add touch to the Mac (in fact, while I seriously doubt they will ever add a touchscreen to a MacBook, I actually think there is a bigger chance of that happening, than a trackpad on an iPad)

If you want to make a good argument against that: stop explaining why a trackpad would be useful or how "Microsoft did it". Instead, try to refute the (good, I hope) points I made about Apple's design philosophy and reasons why they wouldn't do it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.