masotime
macrumors 68030
Actually given how Apple essentially copied Surface, I have a feeling they're moving towards a unified OS... iOSX?
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.
iPad With iOS 9, Apple’s giant iPad Pro will make run at Microsoft Windows hybrids
- Thread starter pwhitehead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually given how Apple essentially copied Surface, I have a feeling they're moving towards a unified OS... iOSX?
Left4DeadBoy
macrumors regular
Dyn I loved your post because I worked with Chinese competitors who made their own sysadmin setups that put some of my American coworkers on edge as far as I can tell.
urkel
macrumors 68030
As a future iPad Pro owner, my biggest iPad Pro dilemma... How the heck do I stand up an iPad Pro?
As much as Apple people will make fun of Windows machines, they actually have tackled this problem fairly well.
Surface Kickstand
- Integrated Design
- Rigid, freely adjustable wide range of angles
- Closes flush to device keeping it out of the way
- Keyboard not required to stand up
2-in-1 "Yoga" Style
- Standard laptop position
- Folds entirely around to use as a handheld tablet
- Stands up straight for table/tablet viewing
Detachable Screen:
- Fullsize, Real Key keyboard
- Thin keyboard half is easily storable
And now... Apples "Solution"
- Single viewing angle
- Keyboard required to stand up iPad
- iPad not locked into place
- Not "lappable" at all
While I see how this design is an evolution of the Smart Cover, I've used many many iPad keyboards and this simply isn't the "best" keyboard style out there. So its surprising to see Apple use such a flawed (and ugly) solution because when it comes to Apple, they tend to find the best. And this aint it.
As much as Apple people will make fun of Windows machines, they actually have tackled this problem fairly well.
Surface Kickstand
- Integrated Design
- Rigid, freely adjustable wide range of angles
- Closes flush to device keeping it out of the way
- Keyboard not required to stand up
2-in-1 "Yoga" Style
- Standard laptop position
- Folds entirely around to use as a handheld tablet
- Stands up straight for table/tablet viewing
Detachable Screen:
- Fullsize, Real Key keyboard
- Thin keyboard half is easily storable
And now... Apples "Solution"
- Single viewing angle
- Keyboard required to stand up iPad
- iPad not locked into place
- Not "lappable" at all
While I see how this design is an evolution of the Smart Cover, I've used many many iPad keyboards and this simply isn't the "best" keyboard style out there. So its surprising to see Apple use such a flawed (and ugly) solution because when it comes to Apple, they tend to find the best. And this aint it.
masotime
macrumors 68030
I believe Apple is also relying on third party vendors to provide solutions. For example: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/09/09/logitech-create-keyboard-case-ipad-pro/
sracer
macrumors G4
This is where the thinness of the iPad Pro bit Apple. Thinness is Apple's priority and it is their measure of "forward" advances. The iPad Pro is too thin to have included a kickstand mechanism. If Apple were to make the Pro thicker to accommodate a kickstand, then by their own standards they would have gone "backwards".
Apple's approach with the iPad Pro is going to be a real challenge for the Apple-faithful. Virtually every criticism of the hardware that they leveled against the Surface is just as (if not more) applicable to the iPad Pro. The term "lapability" was conjured up specifically to challenge the Surface's unique ability. Lapability was a big deal when the Surface was released, it will be comical to see how now lapability is no longer an important test.
Adobe's demonstration was impressive, but just how many people out there need to do magazine layouts? iPad Pro may be viable for CREATIVE professionals, but for BUSINESS professionals it will be a bit of a struggle. My Surface 2 (Windows RT) handles business scenarios better than the iPad Pro. That is extremely disappointing to me.
I don't understand comments like this. How did Apple copy the Surface? Half the arguments in this thread are from people who are disappointed the device isn't more like a Surface. Apple released a bigger, more powerful iPad, that's it. They never compared it with the Surface, and the two devices have almost nothing in common other than a couple of accessories. The iPad Pro is just another iPad, which predates the Surface.
Speaking only for myself, I'm actually not a fan of the Surface kickstand, the "flip over" keyboards and all the rest of the engineering tricks. I think they are overly complicated and unnecessary, just extra points of potential hardware failure and wear. I really like the hardware simplicity of the iPad - it's a tablet and that's it. I have one of the smart cases for my iPad if I want to angle it some and that's the solution I prefer, personally. That said, I'm not a fan of the keyboard cover and I hope there are simpler cases like the smart cover released for the Pro. On screen keyboard is fine for me.
masotime
macrumors 68030
I'm not dissing the iPad Pro, but you have to admit, ideas like a magnetic snap-on keyboard and a stylus are clearly things that were pioneered by the Surface. There's nothing wrong with copying - I suppose Steve would call it "stealing", as in "great artists steal", and I've found that Apple tends to implement "copied" ideas very well (really, for me Touch ID was... is... an amazing innovation that everyone is doing now, yet fingerprint sensors are not an Apple innovation).
Ultimately my point is that Apple could very well... ok let's use the word steal... the idea of a unified OS from Microsoft with a superior implementation. That's what I mean when I say iOSX, it's not meant as an insult / cynicism - but as a very real possibility.
Ultimately my point is that Apple could very well... ok let's use the word steal... the idea of a unified OS from Microsoft with a superior implementation. That's what I mean when I say iOSX, it's not meant as an insult / cynicism - but as a very real possibility.
newellj
macrumors G3
sracer
macrumors G4
I don't think that a converged OS is Apple's plan, nor should be. The horsepower in the iPad Pro is sufficient to support desktop-class software. The restrictions are currently in what APIs and services iOS allow apps to do.
The restrictions and limitations of iOS (deliberately imposed by Apple) have caused app developers to have to dig deep for innovation. A play on the old, "necessity is the mother of invention" chestnut.
This is why the iOS ecosystem is rich and optimized for tablet/phone usage. Simply taking desktop software and shrinking it to fit on a smaller screen has failed time and time again. (it still fails)
If the iPad Pro is going to be positioned to be a viable alternative to desktop/notebooks for a wider range of users, it will be because the software is getting things done in a different way... not simply doing the same things the same way but on a smaller screen.
masotime
macrumors 68030
I don't really see why this must be a limitation. If you can have a universal app that is bound by the API restrictions of iOS, why should I not be able to run it in OSX? Windows 10 is taking this approach - write once to run on all platforms - it sounds impossible but who is to say Apple couldn't make apps evolve in that direction?
I mean if I can run an iOS app in an iOS simulator, why can't I have it as a window or part of the screen in OSX? You can restrict the aspect ratio perhaps... but really with things like slide-over and split-screen in iOS 9, I find that the distinctions between laptop and tablet are gradually blurring.
cmichaelb
macrumors 68020
Why? OSX is not optimized for a touch screen, wouldn't it be a miserable experience?
masotime
macrumors 68030
Just to clarify, this is definitely not the direction I am thinking of. Shrinking into a smaller screen is essentially a hack and not a carefully considered solution. However, if you start from the most restrictive environment (mobile), then upscale, I think the result could work very well. In web development parlance, this is known as "mobile-first".
sracer
macrumors G4
Well, firstly because it is still "theory". Microsoft has yet to roll this thing out in any meaningful or significant way. Every previous attempt at platform convergence (at any level beyond simply having "Windows" in the name) has failed.
Secondly, bounding an app by API restrictions for a particular OS will compromise the "universal" nature of the app and constrains it to perform at the lowest common denominator. In that scenario, OSX would be little more than an x86 version of iOS. Not the most effective and efficient use of a device capable of far more.
Slide-over and split-screen in iOS makes far more sense for a tablet... virtually none for a desktop/notebook.
Mobile-first wouldn't be successful because of the fundamental differences between mobile use cases and stationary uses.
urkel
macrumors 68030
Nailed it. While the early Surface criticisms are where the battle against versatility may have started, where it actually began affecting the Apple side is in the latest MacBook.
The new MacBook was defended for looking like a tablet but actually being a real "computer". But now here we are with the iPad Pro which may even be more powerful than the MacBook yet is crippled by not being enough of a computer.
Apple Faithfuls may not like to hear this but It really does seem like the MacBook and iPad Pro shouldve been combined using the 2-in-1 fully reversible hinge design and running iOSX.
With both the iPad Pro and MacBook then devices this size and class are not intended to be a primary computer or portable tablet. It's meant to ride that line in-between so combining the versatility (and touchability and lapability and LTEability and filesystemability) of both products actually makes sense.
masotime
macrumors 68030
Hmmm... ok I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Fundamentally both OSX and iOS are UNIX operating systems. True, the user interactions / experience are not the same, but I don't agree that you can't develop an app for both platforms that provides the best user experience for both.
Apple has been really great at small little UI interactions that make the larger screened 6 and 6+ easier to use. I think Apple, if anyone, can figure out OS convergence, and given how features from iOS (e.g. notification center) are seen migrating to OSX, I strongly believe an "iOSX" could happen in the future.
Apple has been really great at small little UI interactions that make the larger screened 6 and 6+ easier to use. I think Apple, if anyone, can figure out OS convergence, and given how features from iOS (e.g. notification center) are seen migrating to OSX, I strongly believe an "iOSX" could happen in the future.
urkel
macrumors 68030
Here's the thing. There is no need for convergence because OSX already is a touch friendly UI.
The problem with putting a full OS on a tablet used to be more about power than practicality. You had to cripple the OS or else an A3 chip would choke to death. But with a chip as powerful as the A9X then the idea of a MacBook Lite or iPad Pro just seem redundant. And while many people may say "Touch doesn't belong on a desktop OS", OSX has already evolved to become touch friendly and over the years the lack of touch as an OPTION is becoming more glaring.
(BTW. I'm not fighting against the idea of two OSs. I'm fine with iOS existing but when it comes to calling something the iPad PRO then it really shouldn't have this many compromises.)
sracer
macrumors G4
There's more to an OS being touch friendly than simply magnified UI elements. OSX is not touch-friendly, nor it is touch-ready. And at this stage, it doesn't need to be.
Ah yes, that's what a lot of us do: build our own toolset. Not much different from say carpenters 🙂
urkel
macrumors 68030
What makes it "not touch friendly". (As in, if touch were an OPTION then how would it negatively affect the user experience)
And note, I'm not arguing a case for anything. I've recently been using a Surface Pro 3 (which I sold to get an iPad Pro) and that's a full desktop (File System, Trackpad, Real Ports, Full Apps) crammed into a Tablet (Touchscreen, Pen Support, Simplified Apps) and it works very well together.
So what I don't understand about the whole "OS X is NOT Touch Friendly" argument is this.
- Launchpad
- Simplified iPhoto
- OSX AppStore
- Full Screen Apps
- Split Screen
- Force Touch Trackpad
- Mission Control App Switching
So, why is a computer that keeps introducing iOS elements into its UI NOT a product that should have the OPTION of touch Screen?
Last edited:
Krevnik
macrumors 601
Agreed. As someone who falls on the creative side of the spectrum, this device appeals to me. There are still things that it can't do, but it isn't about the hardware for the most part. It is the OS that still needs to mature.
Honestly, a lot of those restrictions came about because of starting from a different position (mandatory sandboxing everywhere), and gradually opening things up. Unfortunately, it does mean having to re-tackle nearly every problem in a different way than the PC did ages ago when sandboxing/etc wasn't even something you considered doing with a home OS.
That said, the weak point is mostly iOS at this point, I agree. And mostly in the form of pain points for me:
1) Can't use an iPad as an astrophotography capture tool, because of the lack of USB support (the app I'd use has user land drivers on the Mac, and would fit nicely).
2) Managing files is painful because of the sandbox approach, and devs not adopting "edit in place" bookmarks for accessing document storage providers (and providers not supporting it either!). It even seems like Pages has somewhat abandoned the idea, sadly.
But do these two things? My rMBP just lost its reason for being. Seriously. Two things and I can go to iPad + iMac for everything I do outside of the office.
About the only one that is touch friendly is Launchpad. The AppStore, iPhoto, Split Screen, and Full Screen features have nothing to do with touch. Fewer features != touch friendly. Full Screen and Split Screen are about providing focus, which is something I appreciate with some workflows. Force Touch is more about making the trackpad nicer than anything else. And Mission Control's design is pretty touch unfriendly with how windows are layered.
What makes it touch unfriendly are the UI elements. Buttons that are meant to be clicked on with high accuracy, not "fat fingered". Windows that no longer even have a titlebar to grab onto to move it (Thanks Safari). Multi-window environments that rely on keyboard shortcuts as a means to make things not horrifically tedious to navigate, and if you don't have a keyboard, requires accurate interactions in case a window only peeks out behind another by a few pixels. The elephant in the room that even Win 10 is not really addressing is that these windowed environments with fine details and small controls are built around making room for your canvas, and using a keyboard and mouse to efficiently navigate. And some of those things are coming to iOS so that when you do have a keyboard, you can take advantage (Cmd-Tab is surprising).
Win 10's convergence is attempting to morph the UI to represent the current mode the user is in. If the app supports it. It is ambitious, and is a way forward, but while you can lead a horse to water, good luck making them drink. Devs need to update their apps using new APIs, and devs tend to need nudges from the platform to get them to go where you want (speaking as one myself). Using iOS only on the iPad Pro does represent one way to nudge devs, by saying that if you want a powerful app on this thing, you have to do it right for touch. No shipping a tweaked desktop app and calling it a day.
ZBoater
macrumors G3
Yes, and my TI88 calculator from 20 years ago is also a "computer". Your point?
sracer
macrumors G4
The point is you've said that the iPad Pro isn't a "real" computer without explaining what a "real" computer is... as if there's an objective definition of what a "real" computer is.