Is merging iOS with OS X a good idea? For the longest time, the answer to that question has been a resounding no from anyone who appreciates good software — but with iPad Pro on the horizon, there may well be a growing case for it.
The iPad Pro has the potential to be the ultimate 2-in-1 — a laptop that could really replace a notebook when you need to get stuff done. But in many ways, it’s being held back by iOS, which is still very much a mobile platform without many of the basics we have on our desktops — like a file manager.
So, is there now room for a new platform that delivers the best of iOS and OS X, perfectly suited to a tablet that doubles as a notebook?
Join us in this week’s Friday Night Fight between Cult of Android and Cult of Mac as we battle it out over that very question!
Luke Dormehl (Writer, Cult of Mac): Happy Friday, Killian. So over the past few years, we’ve heard more and more rumors about the idea that Apple might one day throw in the towel and merge OS X and iOS, much as Microsoft has done with Windows for its Surface tablets. Both Phil Schiller and Tim Cook have denied this (of course, Steve Jobs denied Apple was working on a phone, too), but I know it’s an idea you’re actually really keen on.
Why is that? And do you not think it would have the effect of diluting what it is that works about both Apple’s main operating systems, much has Microsoft has found with Windows since it started trying to make it more mobile-friendly? Explain yourself, Fandroid!
Killian Bell (Writer, Cult of Android): To be perfectly honest, I thought it was a silly idea until I seriously started thinking about it when Microsoft announced the Surface Book, which must be the only PC anyone has gotten at all enthused about in recent years. It sold out in a week, and now there’s a massive wait list.
This excitement, at a time when PC sales are in the gutter, makes me think Apple missed a trick with the iPad Pro. As I briefly mentioned in a previous Friday Night Fight, I think the iPad Pro could have been an incredible hybrid between an iPad and a MacBook.
For that to happen, it can’t just run iOS — it needs OS X. In fact, I think it needs both. I’m not suggesting Apple should merge these two platforms together into one completely, but I do think there is a way to tie them together so that they work seamlessly on one device.
For instance, imagine the iPad Pro running iOS while you’re sat in front of the TV, browsing the web. Then imagine pairing it with the Smart Keyboard, and all of a sudden, the UI changes into what is essentially OS X — so it’s just like using a MacBook.
With a desktop UI and real desktop apps, the iPad could finally become the true laptop replacement Apple has been promising, good not only for media consumption, but proper creation, too — whether you’re writing a novel or animating a movie.
I don’t think this would be an easy move; Apple would have to devise a way to make iOS and OS X work seamlessly together on one device, and then make it easy for developers to build apps that have both desktop and tablet UIs. But if anyone can do that well, it’s Apple.
Photo: Apple
Luke: I can’t help but feel you’ve slightly backed down on your original stance. When we talked about the subject for this week’s Friday Night Fight, you seemed to be all gung-ho about arguing that Apple should combine both platforms across the board. So your iMac would essentially run the same OS as your iPhone. That’s a terrible idea in my opinion, which is doubtless why you’ve tried to slip out of having to defend it.
We’ve talked about the Surface Book before, and even as an Apple fan I acknowledge that it looks pretty sweet — but what you’re suggesting sounds more like a (dare I say it, Android-ish) mishmash of half-baked ideas than a strong new direction for Apple. Would this be exclusive to the iPad Pro, for example? And do you realize how tough it would be for developers to overcome the challenge of developing unified apps for two entirely separate operating systems? The coding alone would make it a massive headache.
Ultimately what I like about Apple’s approach is that it’s not cramming everything together into one awkward all-in OS, but creating different ones for different scenarios. Far from having some kind of iOS X hybrid, we’ve now got tvOS, watchOS, CarPlay, iOS, OS X — all of these different context-dependent optimizations which are nonetheless able to communicate the vital information across platforms.
Apple does a great job of combining features where it makes sense. Look at the way it’s moved Force Touch/3D Touch from the Apple Watch to the iPhone to the MacBook to the iMac. But there’s no point in diluting everything by putting them together for absolutely no reason. And I think you know that.
Killian: No, this was always my original stance. The problem is, Luke, you never listen to me. Since I started using Android again, you don’t want anything to do with me. I agree that giving an iPhone and an iMac the same operating system is a stupid idea — but that’s not what I’m suggesting. You’re not seeing the bigger picture.
What I’m suggesting is that there is a case for carefully merging iOS and OS X — not just combining them into one and being done with it, but by creating a platform that offers the best of both worlds — for specific devices.
iOS and OS X both have the same basic foundations — that’s why Steve Jobs told us “iPhone runs OS X” during its original unveiling in 2007 — so it wouldn’t be too difficult for a company that has the talent Apple has to create this platform. Apple could make it easy for developers, too.
Apps would be built in very much the same way, except they would have another UI. Developers are already creating multiple UIs for iPhone and iPad when they make iOS apps, so they would simply need to add another “desktop” UI for when their app is used in desktop mode.
Let’s use the app Pixelmator as an example. It’s a terrific image editing application for Mac, and there are watered-down versions for iPhone and iPad, too. These could be combined together into one package, and users could seamlessly switch between them as necessary.
This wouldn’t have to be an “awkward all-in OS,” and it wouldn’t be for no reason — it could help sell devices.
The iPad Pro looks exciting, but it’s just a large iPad; it doesn’t really do anything an iPad Air 2 doesn’t do. That means it’s still not a laptop replacement for a lot of people who rely on real desktop apps to get stuff done.
Once the novelty wears off, then, iPad Pro sales will stagnate just like they have for every other iPad in Apple’s lineup. Apple’s going to need something new — not just something bigger — at some point, and what could be more exciting than the iPad I’m describing?
Photo: Apple
Luke: I, too, would like to see more pro-level apps for iOS, and certainly more differentiation for the iPad Pro to get sales moving again. But I think Apple can continue to add features on a case-by-case basis, which is what it’s doing at the moment. What you’re describing sounds good in theory, but it also opens up tons of logistical problems to solve.
If Apple had built the iPad Pro with this in mind, it would be a different conversation — but I feel you’re taking a note out of the Samsung playbook and looking for flashy-sounding solutions which would sell in one particular use-case, but aren’t part of any cohesive plan going forwards.
Apple’s resources already feel somewhat overstretched giving us a new version of OS X and iOS each year, and you want to add another version on top of all that? It doesn’t make sense to me as a strategy, and I think that’s why Apple hasn’t done it. Heck, if you’d at least gone the whole hog and suggested Apple builds a touch-screen iMac, or whacks a physical keyboard and mouse on the new iPad, I could’ve respected it as a bold (if misguided) strategy. This would reek of a company with no fresh ideas.
Maybe others will disagree with me, but what you’ve tried to sell me on here doesn’t sound a positive step forward.
Killian: Let’s see what others think, then. I thought an Apple fanboy like yourself would agree with me. I thought you’d be salivating and getting your credit card ready, but clearly I was wrong. Readers, what do you think? Are iOS and OS X fine as they are, or is Apple missing out in a world where hybrid devices are becoming increasingly popular?
Friday Night Fights is a series of weekly death matches between two no-mercy brawlers who will fight to the death — or at least agree to disagree — about which is better: Apple or Google, iOS or Android?
Killian Bell is a freelance writer based in the U.K. He has an interest in all things tech and also covers Android over at CultofAndroid.com. You can follow him on Twitter via @killianbell.
70 responses to “Should Apple merge iOS with OS X for iPad Pro?”
iOS and OS X should not be merged. However, there is a potential scenario of running both experiences on the same device. When in a fully mobile scenario, the device runs/displays iOS, but when “docked/linked” to a magic keyboard, magic mouse, and/or magic trackpad, the iPad could run/display OS X. That way, the optimal Experience is rendered for what the user is actually doing with the hardware being used. This is what the Surface family and Windows 8 and 10 got/get utterly wrong–MSFT forces every user in every scenario to use Windows 10 regardless of how they’re actually using the device.
In no way should iOS run on a Mac
I don’t that’s what they are talking about, it’s more of just making ONE OS that runs on all devices. I think it’s more of getting OS X to run on iOS devices.
No it’s not. They don’t share apps. So, please stop this bs because it never happens in Tim cooks’ lifetime.
Whocares:
so you are telling me that the mackbook is incapable of running iOS software.. Thats a Huge bs statement. im a developer an i can tell you i can run apps on my mac just fine.
so the case is just to allow apps to rune on the OSX and not the other ways around..
Like the senario Killian Bell cam up with is pretty neat..
i think it could work and help us bridge the gab between devices..
and it would forsure improve the usability of the device..
Guys come on; open your eyes. This is a marketing decision on apple’s part, not a “which technical decision is best for the consumer” at all.
They’re avoiding OS X on a tablet for as long as possible, because they know how much egg will be on their face if they admit that a one-OS experience makes sense. That’s the same thing as saying their chief competitor was right all along. They’ll wait until they distance themselves enough So that they can finally do it – Much like they did with adding a keyboard and stylus to their tablet after they decried “refrigerator toasters” up until a couple years ago.
So Don’t worry; they’ll do it eventually, when they can no longer stand the consumer market pressure and once people forget their “we’ll never put OS X on a tablet” mantra. At that time they’ll tout touch OS X on a tablet as something brilliant and Apple devotees will herald how Apple “got it right”.
In the meantime, they’ll be happy to sell their followers two pieces of hardware instead of one. They run to the bank all day long.
As i said I think a OS X experience if keyattatced on the iPad pro would be neat and iOS like experience if it were a “tablet” would be the way to go. So by not polluting OS X experience with iOS apps.
I hope it would happen, in any case I hope I get there so I can run full OS X on the iPad pro with keyboard and iOS without…
Or you can try a surface pro 4 (or surface 3). You might be surprised.
Being enthusiastic about a device and actually making the most of it is another thing! Having a desktop operating system designed for the mouse and keyboard used on a device with a touchscreen a is user experience failure!
Surely desktop apps can over time get updated to play well with the touchscreen but this will remain flawed with the inherent complexity of the desktop operating system!
Tablet apps on the other hand are truly designed for the touchscreen and are fully optimised for it! The only shortcoming here is simply apps that haven’t fully embraced the iPad yet! I believe, and as I undrstand, Apple too believes that desktop apps will find their way to the iPad on the best way possible!
I use many apps across iPad, iPhone, MacBook and each one of them provides the best possible experience. 1password, pages, numbers, wunderlist, MindNode, graphic .. Just to name a few.
In shot Apple is on the right path ! The sooner developers realise iOS and OS X won’t ever merge the better will be for all of us! :)
Very interesting theory. Only problem with your conclusion, is the facts that contradict it – namely people like me using a touchscreen tablet with a full Windows OS that get stellar productivity out of it every day, and no user experience limitations that we ran into daily with an iPad which caused us to enthusiastically ditch it. So sadly your conclusion just doesn’t agree with the facts.
But hey, it was a great theory at least!
You don’t need a hybrid device to combine OS X and iOS.
“Apps would be built in very much the same way, except they would have
another UI. Developers are already creating multiple UIs for iPhone and
iPad when they make iOS apps, so they would simply need to add another
“desktop” UI for when their app is used in desktop mode.”
This is the main reason for a combined OS. Developers have different layouts for iPhone and iPad because they have different screen sizes. There would be another layout for desktop. That doesn’t require having a combined device any more than having a combined iPhone/iPad in order to have the same apps run on both.
Microsoft’s hardware event had two exciting things (and it’s not a Surface). They have Continuum and Universal Apps. In 8 years, no one has been able to come up with anything original that was worth using except Apple, and now Microsoft has something that (if it works), is really exciting and more advanced than what Apple has. Continuum is an improvement on what we can currently do with iCloud/Continuity/Handoff by eliminating the need for a desktop box.
A combination of OS X and iOS would allow the same Universal App concept (and potentially Continuum). A convertible switching around between laptop and tablet modes doesn’t strike me as a good idea. But with iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Apple TV being able to use the same apps, it seems like it would be great to add Mac to that list.
Unlike both sides in this debate, I don’t really think there is anything at an OS level that makes iOS less productive than OSX. At least since the recent additions of split screen apps and DocumentProviders (which basically allows iCloudDrive, DropBox, and others to be the file system shared by any apps).
The only significant differences between the two platforms are external accessories (which I care about on a desktop, but not on a laptop or tablet), system-wide utilities (which exist on OS X and are only now taking shape on iOS via various extensions) and the fact the OSX uses indirect selection (e.g. a mouse) for all UI and iOS uses direct selection for all UI.
Even performance isn’t hugely different as of iPad Air 2, and the iPad Pro will be even closer to full laptop performance parity.
The big productivity problem on iOS is due to entirely to the fact that software makers are not making pro-level software for iPad. And this is because of the terrible precendents and limitations of selling premium software through the iOS App Store, which makes the business of selling software for $50 and more a failing proposition. There is absolutely nothing preventing Pixelmator from being just as full-featured on the iPad Air 2 as it is on a 2013 MacBook Air, except for the fact that the company would lose a lot of money due to the significant resources needed to do that vs. the potential to earn back those expenses. If you look at Apple’s iWork apps on iOS vs. OS X, they are virtually identical feature-wise, with most of any differences being UI-based.
So, to weigh in my opinion: no, Apple doesn’t need to merge the operating systems, iOS is a more secure, streamlined and future-focused OS, and certainly more mobility focused. What Apple needs to do is allow better tools and monetization models for their iOS App Store including free trials, upgrade pricing, and better integrated communication and support between app developers and consumers. Plus anything else they can possibly do to make premium software on iOS a viable business (notice that almost everyone who makes premium software for iOS makes it free as part of a subscription to an expensive, desktop-and-cloud-based premium suite — e.g. Microsoft Office, Adobe, or Apple’s own productivity apps which are given away for free with the purchase of expensive hardware. These are not options for the majority of software developers).
iOS could run under OS X in emulation mode with cut and paste between the two OS’s and then we also have iCloud for collaboration between the two OS’s.
Very very well said! Your example of pages, numbers being identical feature wise across iPhone,iPad, OS X and pixelmator is spot on!! There is nothing stopping developers to reach the same lever of having identical features across iPad/ OSX . I believe the iPad pro will help a great deal on this! You will hear many people already asking for desktop class apps for the iPad pro! If you are a wise software company you will get there! If you resist you are only compromising your user base!
I agree that there is a lot of potential for successful pro-level iPad Pro apps. But wise software companies also need to make enough money to stay in business. There is virtually no example, to my knowledge, of an iPad app costing more than $20 that sells more than a couple hundred copies at most. Of all the top “paid” apps currently on the U.S. app store, the most expensive is $19.99, ranked #153 (and it’s the only one over $9.99). But pro-level apps on the desktop usually start at $29.99 and most commonly cost far more than that ($49, $69, $99, $199, etc.) Of course, desktop apps that cost so much have free trials, and discounts for previous users who are upgrading, neither of which are possible via the app store…
I guess my point being, I fully agree with you on the potential of the iPad Pro from a hardware and experience perspective. But without pro-level software, it will be very limited, and Apple is not doing nearly enough to make pro-level software a viable business on iOS. More than anything else, I think they need to focus on that to make the iPad Pro a really competitive device.
Software companies should not think of pro level apps on the iPad so statistically! It’s not a I spend Z so I need X times Y to justify doing a pro level iPad app!
As a user I am already looking at software that play well and are fully featured across iPhone/iPad/Mac and I did switch to apps that play well across Apple’s ecosystem.
Software companies embracing the Apple ecosystem fully with capable apps across iPhone/iPad/Mac will not only gain a few more iPad pro customers but retain existing and lure a lot of others to get thief apps on all platforms!
I don’t have a problem paying for pro level software I use! They shouldn’t be scared to price their apps accordingly!
I’m not really interested in using desktop apps on my iPad (it’ll be a long time before I start doing C and SQL development on my iPad).
I’m more interested in using great iOS apps on the desktop. In a lot of cases, developers are focusing more on great iOS apps, and either not releasing a desktop app, or releasing a bad one.
I agree with you that there are many iOS apps I would love to see on the Mac, and far too many have no Mac app counterpart. Usually, on desktop, you just have to use the web site. :( But I would still rather see these apps brought over as native OS X apps, built for keyboard and mouse or trackpad, rather than emulating iOS within OS X.
Again, I think it’s up to Apple to do a better job with making the Mac App Store a more thriving marketplace. On the plus side, Apple is doing a great job driving up the number of Mac users, so there is more and more incentive to bring native app experiences to those users. All we need now is 1) A way to easily more easily deploy the same code to iOS as an iOS app and to OS X as an OS X app (many developers believe a framework for this has been under development for a while now) 2) Marketing and other support to drive greater demand for native OS X apps and to bring more and better apps to the Mac App Store.
I really can’t think of a single ios app I can’t perform the equivalent of much better on my Mac book pro vs iPad??
“The big productivity problem on iOS is due to entirely to the fact that software makers are not making pro-level software for the iPad.”
Well..THAT just might be a non-starter for a device trying to claim “pro” level productivity status.
At least someone on an Apple-dedicated site has the courage to say it!
Absolutely yes. Not buying any iPad Pros without it!
There needs to be a mode which will allow iPad to work like a Mac (not vice versa). With aid of Magic Mouse etc… Not touch …
No no no no no no no! iOS doesn’t need to become OS X. However that doesn’t mean that with some clever tricks like a rudimentary file system available to the end user or the ability to use a trackpad can’t come to iOS.
Instead of documents double-clicked to open, a simplified file system with a single tap to show available documents or files. A tap on the document shows apps capable of editing or using the document. A side bar not showing apps, but the documents.
I have a iMac, Surface Pro 3, 12″ Macbook, and an iPad Air. Of the three portables, the Macbook gets the most use, followed by the Surface, and finally the iPad. For me, I would love to have the iPad Pro replace all three but iOS is lacking just a couple of things for it to work while on the go for my work. If iOS simply had: mouse/trackpad support and the ability to have to instances of the same app open at once (viewing two Excel spreadsheet side by side for example. With those two things, I could take the iPad pro as my only device when I travel and get along just fine. I don’t see a need to merge iOS and OS X if I had these two features added to iOS.
If you can’t open two or more excel sheets (or word docs, etc) at the same time on an iPad pro, then the device is an absolute non-starter for productivity.
Forgot to add that functionality….your exactly right. I so badly want the IPP to be my sole travel device but without those things it simply can’t be.
Don’t see why the surface pro 4 can’t be your go-to device.. Granted the UI is not as simplified as iOS, but that’s somewhat the price to pay for power. Beyond that, you’ve got ability to run any kind of app or application, pen with drawing and eraser, awesome keyboard, mouse support, print to any printer, extend your desktop, all on a device that is also your full fledged tablet. Why not just get in the groove with it and go?
NO! Stop asking this question. Apple has said many times… NOOOOOOOOO!
Although Tim Cook denies that they will ever merge the two OSs, they are basically the same at the core. One is just more restrictive, by design. Great compromise would be just to allow iOS apps run in OSX using new fullscreen multitasking. Google is attempting this with ChromeOS and Android, where Android apps run separately, not ANDROID, IT’SELF. Android and ChromeOS are Linux based. What makes Android special is the Dalvik VM and now ART. Besides slight hardware differences, in some cases lack of certine chipsets, Android apps that are well developed work right out of the box. Apple could probably do the same – even more so than Google and Microsoft. it is a marketing challenge first for Apple, not an engineering one. What apple is lacking mostly is the will to do more of a switch from Intel to ARM, although they would not need to to run iOS apps. Remember a few facts, Apple has the largest contingent of processor engineers in the world, not Intel. Apple has cross platform tools such as darwin which has always help them tranform OSs from one chipset to another, ie PowerPC to Intel. Current A7/A8/A9xxx processors are desktop class. the iPad Pro has 4 GB of system Ram, alone. The main thing that needs is a very strong cloud presence. Companies like Adobe are going as far as offering full cloud versions of desktop photoshop and premiere to enterprise and studios where graphically intense processes are distributed and executed in the cloud. Apple needs to wake up and place more resources and acquisitions to development of cloud centric platforms. One more thing – where is my handwriting recognition – ie newton/Inkwell.
Everybody is forgetting for real productivity that a real file system where files can open up the app or apps that they work in is needed. Also the ability to use a mouse or touch pad is essential when being used with a keyboard. With iOS everything is app centric with the only hi being touch. Until this is provided as an option in iOS, the iPad is really nothing more than a consumption device. To get any productivity out of it, you have to jump through app hoops.
Jailbroken iOS devices have enjoyed keyboard, mouse and file system support for years. It’s there – easily being activated by Apple. I have done very strange things on my iOS devices including using as an additional monitor, leveraging my desktop mouse and keyboard on both iPad and Windows desktop simultaneously. Also used iPad as a keyboard/mouse for another iPad. Anything is possible. If individual developers can come up with these clever solutions, of course an entire team could.
iPad, iPad Mini, iPad Air, iPad Pro. There are iPads not OSX devices. Apple will have a team working on a OSX touch enabled device but the iPad has been given the image of the simplistic “anyone can use it” tablet. Breaking this powerful selling point could potentially complicate the iPad brand. Apple will create an OSX tablet but I believe it will be part of the MacBook line, I also think Microsoft knew that Apple was heading this way so they decided to bundle a powerful tablet-laptop together first.
OSX needs some polishing to be user friendly on a touchscreen but the bigger question is will this device come with 3DTouch and how effective would it be on a desktop like environment, right-click, copy-paste, invoking spotlight-mission control. I feel for the Apple Engineers at this point!
I loathe iOS, but it’s understandable that concessions must be made on small mobile devices. But for the love of God, don’t dumb down OS X just because there are millions of iOS users. Most everything to date that Apple has done to incorporate iOS features into OS X has done nothing but weaken it; made it less powerful, flexible, productive, and user friendly.
Before they even think about merging the operating systems (which I am right now against):
– They should unify the APIs in Swift for commonly used APIs.
– Finish building the infrastructure / App store for applications to be written on OS X on Intel and be able to be downloaded for ARM or Intel without the user having to care if they are running on Intel or ARM (applications distributed to app store in transportable bitcode).
Only after they have done that should the reconsider (several years later).
The biggest problem of an operating system being an all-in-one is it tends to serve neither role well. The usability of legacy apps and even new apps tends to become confusing and less intuitive for the user. I personally work mostly from my desk on OS X, touch is the last thing I need since I sit 2 arm lengths or more away from the monitor and raising my arm up all day pushing and greasing up the monitor would be just tiring. I also find that with Windows they have made the menus themselves cluttered trying to serve both use cases. I prefer seamless handoff use of devices and having different devices focus on what they do well.
Everywhere people have tried to make all in one devices (in the kitchen, or vehicles) they tend to make too many compromises and the compromised product tends to serve no-one well. I have 20+ gadgets for the kitchen not one gadget that does everything. I don’t go out and buy a flatbed then drive around it to pick up the kids and wife….. I have a bunch of specialized products for the task at hand.
No, they don’t need to be merged. Tell me, what can’t you do with iOS that needs Mac OS?
Use a mouse or a trackpad.
They are just extensions of how you use a computer. iOS do not need either. I was talking about in the software side. There are enough apps out there for photo & video editing, drawing, 3D animation, word documents, spread sheets and web browsing.
I can’t use a word processor without a trackpad.
The question ISN’T if iOS and OS X should merge. That’s an Apple misdirection from the REAL question — should Apple sacrifice sales to improve spec and drop prices? Even if this includes merging products?
Don’t be naive. There’s only ONE way MS can go after Apple. Fix the software (Windows 10) and attack Apple’s hardware.
Understand: MS just isn’t entering the hardware business. Their items are designed to decimate Apple sales. (I’m not saying they are, mind you, but follow me for a moment.)
What is a Surface? It was pitched as a MacBook Air killer. But it’s also an iPad killer. And so MS takes out two Apple products with one move — making Apple go from pricey to INSANELY pricey in comparison.
Surface Book. What is it? A MacBook Pro killer. But also an iPad killer. See it yet?
Microsoft wants to force Apple to combine it’s products IN ORDER TO to cannibalize itself. That’s all that’s behind all this 2-1 nonsense. Nobody needs a keyboard as a ‘stand’ for their frickin’ laptop. This entire series of products is to make pricey Apple look INSANELY pricey. “We’ll sell you two products for a little more than one of their products.” That’s a DEATH sentence once people SEE it.
I’m a lifelong Mac user since 1986.
I gave up on waiting for Apple to offer 8GBs standard in a MacBook. For the prices they charge it should have been there 3 years ago. The should offer a 1080p screen, 8GB model for not a nickel over $999.
I also gave up on waiting for Apple to offer a 15 inch MacBook Pro that wasn’t spec’d into frickin’ two Gs. How about an entry level i5 with a 1080p screen, 8GBs of RAM, 256 SSD? In the PC world that can be under $800. Apple could charge $1399 for such a unit and still build giant pricey spaceship offices.
I also gave upon waiting for trackpad/mouse support in iOS. That would give me an iPad Pro to love, but no, Apple must raise the price but not the spec.
I also have officially given up on Apple wanting bigger marketshare. They don’t. They want bigger offshore stacks of money that can’t be taxed.
They live to DOUBLE DIP — 1.) Raise the price 2.) drop the spec. Apple’s own greed has cured me of my complete interest in their products. They are being too greedy even on Apple’s standards.
I will always keep an iMac as a base of operations. No viral and malware worries, no drivers, no MS weirdness. But Windows 10 is the first Windows OS that doesn’t suck. Ever. It’s better than better Linux distros. It’s like the early years of OS X when you could feel a company ON THE RIGHT PATH.
It’s resulted in me buying two Asus laptops. One is a B+ clone of the 15 inch MacBook Pro. The screen is 1080p, i7, 256 SSD, 8GBs of RAM. The unit is little thicker than MCPro but a little lighter. The other laptop is an A- clone of the 12 inch ‘MacBook’, though mine gains an extra inch. Screen is 1080p. 8GBs of RAM, 256 SSD. Fanless. Both — together — brand new cost $1379 together after a $100 rebate. With CA tax.
Do you see why I don’t give a Dunkin Poopnut if iOS and OS X merge? That’s not the real issue anymore. The issue is if Apple’s going to congratulate itself for a $129 trackpad… or compete on spec/pricing.
I used to work in Apple Store. Back in the early days when there were merely a handful. Customers loved me… because I explained the reason why you paid more for a Mac. I said “The day MS ever stops counting its money and start spending it on the OS and making hardware better — I won’t be standing here.”
That day is almost here. Apple fans — fake the wuck up. Stop giving Apple a way on greed. Buy some PCs and tell them about it. Maybe they’ll improve spec and drop prices.
I can dream, can’t I?
Wow..you better be careful, you’re making way too much sense. People will not like you very much. especially on this site, they’ll hate you.
I on the other hand thought your post was awesome. Have the guts to tell it like it is. Props.
Just know I tell it like it is to the Linux Deluded and Windows Faithful too. Windows 10 still has a LONG way to go before it rivals OS X. The exciting thing is that Win10 is already better than Linux and Chrome OS.
Would expect nothing less. So do I. I agree that Win10 beats Linux and Chrome Os (latter not being in the same league technically), and that OS X is a solid OS. But to say Windows is no rival to OS X on all counts is overstating.
I’ve been an OS user for 35 years, and I’ve used every version of Windows as well as Mac OS, and what is now OS X, and they both have their advantages and disadvantages. beyond even the OS itself, if you’re talking pure business productivity then Windows simply supports 90+% of enterprise productivity software, including IT connectivity such as active directory, that OS X doesn’t. So if you’re going to be a “tell it like it is guy”, then don’t overstate your case, it looks unprofessional.
I’m not talking about beyond the OS experience. For if you do there’s no point in alternatives to Windows.
And even that said — just because Windows supports zillions of speciality software and thousands of games DOESN’T make the OS itself an easier to use.
The only reason Apple exists is because of how poorly MS has implemented Windows over the years. If Apple had released Windows 8, Apple would be gone.
“I’m not talking about beyond the OS experience. For if you do there’s no point in alternatives to Windows.”
Fair enough.
“The only reason Apple exists is because of how poorly MS has implemented Windows over the years.”
MS has definitely had its missteps over the years. As all companies do (or will). I believe your statement is oversimplified. I find certain UI behavior in OS X & prior Mac OS’s to be painful compared to Windows implementation. On other things, OS X has the upper hand. But the real advantage OS X has had is being able to customize a system with a small footprint of a homogeneous hardware & user base. You can lock down a lot in that scenario. You also can’t take over worldwide IT, as MS did. There’s the trade off. And MS has dealt with what any company would have had to deal with given a global install base of open-ended hardware and professional use case scenarios – exponentially growing issues with interoperability, security attacks, and so forth. ANY company dealing with that scenario would have issues. That is often ignored when this case of “MS vs Apple quality” is made. There is no perfect world. If Apple begins to win the enterprise and they are forced to deal with more 3rd party scenarios for hardware, domains and so forth (very likely to horn), my prediction is they will face it too.
So for an OS that offers choices the world over, especially in enterprise, Windows has been an overall solid player, and appears to be upping that game with Windows 10. The fact that they have offered a system that allows for open enterprise, IMHO, gives them the upper hand over a company that remains closed, even if they can claim more “stability” by doing so. My guess is, the open enterprise market will vote that way too.
I’ve appreciated your respectful dialogue.
First of all — I enjoy a poster who first quotes and then replies. Typically it reveals they actually read one’s post. So thank you.
“MS has definitely had its missteps over the years. As all companies do (or will). I believe your statement is oversimplified.”
Whereas I find these statements over generous in favor of MS.
There’s one very simple way to look at this — why do Apple users even exist? Why would they pay more money to get access to less programs and games? The Winfanbois explanation here is Apple users are iSheep, marketing suckers, who want status.
Wrong. That’s not it. The truth is the Windows OS user was weak. So weak it allowed Apple to exist, despite lacking games, programs, and MS Office. Google Chrome exists WHY again? Because IE and Edge are weak. Why does the iPhone and iPad exist? Weak, weak, weak.
These are more than missteps. MS was a company so happy to count their cash they didn’t DO THEIR JOB. The irony now is that Apple is arrogantly counting their cash instead of doing THEIR JOB of increasing marketshare. It could be so easy for them but they refuse do it. Why? You elude to it —
“MS has dealt with what any company would have had to deal with given a 90% owned global install base MS has dealt with what any company would have had to deal with given a 90% owned global install base”
Exactly. And you’re right. Why are Toyota and Honda slipping in quality these days? They sell TOO MANY cars. So I get that Apple kinda sorta doesn’t want to succeed too much — or by winning they start losing.
Michael Dell has said some pretty asinine stuff over the years — but when he gave up with Windows and asked Apple to offer OS X to them — that said it all.
Good news here is that OS X is kind of plateauing and Win10 is catching up. Not copy catting as much as finally polishing Windows into an OS a Mac user can actually use and not cringe every moment of use.
I believe we’re saying many of the same things. So I appreciate your opinions.
I do agree that all companies can get lazy and fat with success, and MS has been no exception. So on that we’re agreed. I make only one exception – I think your view that Apple lives solely because Microsoft was weak is again, a bit of a narrow oversimplification. I could argue the same thing in other cases – for example in the days of DEC – “why does Intel and Microsoft users even exist? Because DEC was weak.” But that would be a non sequitur. The DEC Alpha 64-bit RISC was considered one of the most advanced platforms ever. But they were undersold by x86 and out marketed by Microsoft platforms. I believe Apple has done much the same thing in many cases, like the “PC vs Mac” ads focusing on a “sniffling PC” that has a cold, making the claim that Macs are systemically more secure, when this HS been regarding as largely a market plot by a company who’s largely enjoyed the benefit of being a non-target for security hackers. That is now beginning to change, as malware and other security threats are on the rise in the OS X and iOS worlds.
I speak in generalities (oversimplifications) because typically the big picture can be reduced to simpler terms.
Hillary Clinton. Has done all sorts of Democratic things her entire life. But if you look at her voting record she votes alongside Jeb more than Bernie Sanders. And so — in general — voting for Hillary is like voting for Jeb. The generalization (inferred) is that voting for Hillary is EXACTLY like voting for Jeb, which isn’t true. But if she’s voting the same on 18 out of the 20 most important issues — it’s like you’re voting for Jeb. Close enough for jazz.
I know the existence of Android and Apple is very complicated series of events with vague starts, clever chess moves, good timing, corporate branding, etcetera. But I also know —
— that Windows was failing to make people love their products. That Windows was not providing an easy to use OS — and still haven’t*. That Windows had an INSANELY over-inflated notion of pricing for their OS. That working with Windows lead OEMs to produce a ton of garbage. That IT people worshipped Windows because of how many things needed to be fixed on a regular basis.
Consider that paragraph. Shouldn’t it inspire two other companies to compete and offer something much better?
It did — and I see no way around that. Think of how deliciously absurd it is that a search engine beat Windows to market with a compelling phone. That’s an embarrassment.
* As of this version of Windows I had a graphics driver crashing last week. Win10 informed me it was crashing, reboots the driver, and then I’m good. Until it crashes again. And again.
That is ridiculous. What’s stopping MS from taking said crash reports, doing research with the related vendors, and feeding the consumer the fix? A simple fix does exist. This is known issue which requires going backwards a driver version. But I had to waste days. Win10 should be when such crapola stops.
Epic trolling
Not trolling. The giveaway is this statement — if Apple dropped from a %50 markup back down to %25, I’d only use Apple products exclusively. Their OS and products and eco-system ARE better than their competitors.
But the prices have gone from pricey to insane. Those new iMacs? An i5 with 21 inch 1080p monitor and a 1Terabyte spinning drive for $1299? But I have a 15 inch 1080p laptop with an i7 and 256SSD with the same ram for $799. Apple could offer that as an iMac for $1099 (see the markup?) and if you needed more storage (as I do) either pick up a spinning terabyte off Amazon for $53 or iCloud it.
Why should I pay more AND live in the past? DOUBLE FRICKIN DIPPIN!
I dare a MacPatriot to explain why this spec regression and obscene markup make sense.
Sounds like both Luke and Killian need to grow up.
Har, har, har.
I don’t use Apple junk but will keep coming back here for the laughs.
So Apple finally conceded that a “toaster fridge” isn’t such a bad idea after all.
But then they do such a ridiculously bad job of making one, it doesn’t even have a decent keyboard or support a mouse or trackpad. And they haven’t got a proper OS or dev kit to run on it.
The Schadenfreude is sublime.
Definitely NO. Desktop OS is NOT designed for touch panel. However, they could put more PRO-feature in iPad Pro, both hardware and software. Such as an extra Lighting port, a “File centre” tab in Notification centre that can access ‘local’ works and ‘remote’ files on external storage or file server, and the ability to run to instances of the same App side by side.
I run several pro apps on a Surface Pro 3. I can tell you it definitely works. I love Apple but the Surface is my go-to portable work machine now
The big problems I can see are: porting osx to ARM processors makes yet another version of an OS that apple has to support, and the fact it is only running on only one niche device makes that pretty untenable. Second I can imagine the uproar among developers having to support yet another version of their apps on a new OS. Third, the hardware requirements for OSX are far greater, so the ipad would need a minimum of 8 (or to fulfill the graphic artists needs, 16GB) of Ram, plus support for at the bare minimum USBC, if not thunderbolt and USB 3, as well as larger SSD drives. All of these add up to a fatter, heavier, less optimized, much more expensive device. What is the upside? That they could undermine their whole laptop line? That they could splinter their Tablet line? For what? Apps for artists on the ipads are getting great, and if they could more easily take a thumb drive or even get plugged into a Hard Drive, that would be wonderful. Combining the two OS’s is just not worth the difficulty or the downsides.
They already have a version of OS X that runs on ARM processors….. that was the easy part. The kernel of the operating system is mostly the same and all changes in the source control on tweaks for ARM were already identified. If you don’t think they are playing around with the idea of an ARM based Macbook you would be naive.
The best thing that Apple can do with the iPad Pro is to refine on what Microsoft did with the Surface Book. When in tablet mode, it runs iOS and tablet apps. When the keyboard connected, it runs OS X and full desktop apps.
Think of it this way. The iPad Pro still has the A9X chip underneath the screen. However, Apple should do what Microsoft did with the Surface Book but instead of having a dedicated GPU, it contains all the same components as a regular Mac. That is, an Intel CPU with its own dedicated RAM, SSD, motherboard and everything else. Apple has shown they can do this with Macs that have much smaller form factors than the iPad Pro does, so they should hurry up and do it.
Agree, that has already been said elsewhere and is the only way possible, given that the 2 OSs will never be merged. An ipad pro in the screen and a macbook pro in the base. Ipad pro is same weight as surface book clipboard and even thinner, so even better as a high res screen.
If you like Prius, enjoy it, but you will never get the best experience of BMW gasoline cars or efficiency of Tesla EV.
I’m a video editor and VFX artist and have been a Mac user for 20 years. I bought a Surface on which I run Premiere, After Effects and Photoshop. I hate to say it, but Microsoft are 100% right and Apple have got it completely wrong. I’m 10x more productive, I don’t need to carry 2 devices and I don’t need to try and run cut-down toy versions of my software on a phone OS.
Apple abandoned professionals when they killed Shake; FCPX added insult to injury and the iPad “Pro” with no ports 4 gb ram and no file system really shows were their priorities are.
I really hope Apple changes course fast. I can tell you, most of my colleges have moved to Windows/Linux. If nothing changes, I’ll be joining them.
When you start seeing multiple concessions like this on a Mac lover’s site, you know there’s some truth to it.
That hasn’t stopped Apple devotees from sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling “la la la la” though. I’ve been in plenty of dialogues with them these past couple months. They refuse to open their ears to the possibility that Apple has it wrong. Even while they advance-purchase their iPad pro with keyboard and stylus..
Hi Jim, why do you need a touch device like the Surface to run apps that honestly were developed for keyboard/mouse/trackpad? Isn’t that why Apple came out with the MacBook Pro line? I’m an artist so my iPad allows me to draw on the go away from my studio. I use Procreate and a Jot Touch and that’s a very productive combo for me personally. But video editing and Photoshop? I’d not like doing that on a screen that is less than 10 inches. So what’s all the clamoring for pro apps for the iPads? We will see how app devs adjust to the iPad Pro once it hits the streets, there may be some method to Apple’s madness after all.
Adobe have done a very good job of making touch workspaces for their CC suite. Photoshop on the Surface is a dream-come-true and I can mask in Premiere in fraction of the time it takes on my MBP.
If you have a solution that works for you then that’s great but it doesn’t erase the clear disregard Apple has shown to the very people that kept it afloat before the return of SJ.
Many developers are simply not going to spend valuable time and resources on making truly professional iPad apps. Making a touch UI is easy enough. Making a whole new program for an under-powered sandboxed system is a whole other story. Adobe can do this because it already has a huge revenue stream from Creative Cloud and it’s “pro” iPad apps are essentially toy versions of the real thing
Like I said, I’ve used Macs for 20 years, I now also use a Surface. From my own personal experience as someone who uses these machines to make a living, Microsoft has a much stronger vision for professionals. I really really hope I’m wrong, but Apple, it would seem, is more focused on phones and self-driving cars at the moment.
That’s a fair assessment. I can only speak from my use case as an illustrator so YMMV, but my understanding is that the pro apps for the iPad Pro aren’t available yet to the public and the previously stripped down versions were designed with a few previous generations of iPads in mind. I’m about to jump from the iPad 3, the bottom of the iOS 9 support range to the iPad Pro and that is a significant upgrade. I’d say that my case of upgrade cycle is just what Apple is expecting. A very pragmatic, non-fanboy upgrade (although I’m as giddy as a kid on Christmas Eve).
I use my Pad with Procreate on the regular and after beta testing the version designed for the iPad Pro, I think there is a unique opportunity for devs to take advantage of this platform that is far from maturity and is only showing signs of stable growth. The guys at Procreate seem to be doing very well. A very agile, tightly knit, talented lot. I think SJ was thinking more about guys like them when the iPad got an App Store, not so much the legacy devs like Macromedia and Adobe et al. The idea was to create an environment where entry points were low, and apps could have smaller footprints, that would do a few things very well instead of a million things moderately well- we are still talking about a mobile OS here. I know that would scare the sh*t out of a platform like Windows, because if iOS became wildly popular, as the hardware evolved and improved so would the Apps, and a new generation of devs and users would be able to do a lot without having to touch a single piece of desktop software. And let’s face it, Microsoft is a software firm first and foremost, not a device mover like Apple. Their answer? Windows Mobile and we all know how that went.
The Surface line is now a type of last line of defense to keep their OS relevant in an environment that has seen mobile devices become a commodity to the average consumer which means fewer purchases of Windows desktop hardware which chokes their license along with all those third party software devs who ate at that table. I’m just glad Microsoft is doing something, competition is good for all of us. Their OEMs will take it from there (grabs popcorn).
Apple will either merge the 2 systems or find a way to put both on the iPad Pro when the market forces them to.
Apple has said NO to a lot of things in the past- a larger iPhone, a smaller iPad, a LARGER iPad (with a keyboard AND a stylus), etc. But, they ALWAYS change their mind when their competitors’ products and ideas are well-received by the market. THEN, Apple will change their mind and find ways to deliver the products that people actually want.
“he iPad Pro has the potential to be the ultimate 2-in-1 — a laptop that could really replace a notebook when you need to get stuff done.”
Wait a minute, I think you’re confused. That’s called a surface pro.
Or a surface 3 can do it too for much less than an iPad Pro.
Aren’t you excited? No longer any need to wait on Apple to figure it out!
Merging the two would be a technical nightmare. An iOS emulator on OS-X, however…
Several software companies tried to do this and nothing really picked up steam. Windows 10 has a “Tablet Mode” option but basically it just changes the start menu. Ubuntu had a really cool version that would have it’s “MOBILE” OS and when docked would turn into real Ubuntu. So yes there are ways to do it and I would think it could be easy. Just have 1 environment where Real Apps and mobile apps can live together and let me choose how I want my UI (touch or precision oriented). App shortcuts could show and hide depending on the UI chosen. Other Operating systems are bridging the gap between Mobile and Desktop worlds. Basically all one would have to do is make the system touch sensitive (larger clickable areas). You can KINDA do this on Windows 10 with some effort. Google seems to be merging their Android and ChromeOS too.
It really isn’t that complicated. Just tag apps with a Touch or Mouse/Pen option in the store. Once the option is there, app developers can update with support for both.
However I think there is a physical limitation. The same reason why Windows RT died. The iOS apps are written for ARM based processors and the desktop are designed around x86. This is the reason why Microsoft abandoned Windows RT because they were limited to specific Windows RT apps and stuck on a mobile chipset. So to make this work, you would almost need a dual processor, one for iOS apps and 1 for OSx apps
I would be happy with the ability to hook my iPad or iPhone up to a dock and use a trackpad/mouse and a keyboard and a large monitor with it. I am happy with iOS and the apps available on the platform. Think M$ Continuum or even something like Ubuntu for Android. Don’t merge the OS’s, keep them separate but allow OS X to run on a mobile device when docked. ONE DEVICE TO RULE THEM ALL ! All your files in your pocket, but backed up to a external disk connected to a dock AND the cloud. :)
Then they’d be admitting that Microsoft got it right.
SDK is software development kit for ios application development. The ios operating system framework and Objective-C language is used for the development of native applications, which runs directly on ios OS. Native applications are installed physically on the device and runs both in presence and absence of network connection.