Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
6,253
6,736
While it might only be a power user option, Mac OS could work on an iPad touch and all. Some elements are already touch sized. Anyone using an iPad Pro with Mac OS would probably also be using it with a keyboard and pointing device. I use a keyboard, mouse, pencil and touch in various combinations on and iPad now depending on what I’m doing and what feels right for any given action. You wouldn’t need to inflate all of the touch targets to get it working.
Well, Windows OEMs tried putting Windows as is on tablet laptops—and from what I understand, nobody liked it. I’m sure some people accepted it, and some would also accept it with macOS, but 1) very doubtful that this is a significant market, and 2) that kind of shoehorning is just a very un-Apple thing to do. They always go for the “magical” experience.
The form factor conversion of using a keyboard and trackpad is a little more realistic, since the Magic Keyboard already exists, but that still doesn’t make macOS on iPad likely for reasons I stated earlier in this thread, but mainly, the dual OS experience comes with compromises that I think are subtle in concept, but will become obvious in practice. Those compromises will likely make it a niche use case, and not “magical”, which makes it uninteresting to Apple.
I do think Apple believes carrying two “magical” devices is more “magical” than carrying one un-“magical” device, for those who need to. But also I think most people don’t need to carry both. They can leave either the MacBook or iPad at home (but always bring the iPhone, which covers a lot of functions that a MacBook cannot, and they work pretty easily together with Continuity features), probably usually leaving the iPad. But if one does often need both laptop and tablet functionality together, an iPad mini often makes for a better companion to a MacBook. Its small size makes it very compelling and even optimized for traditional tablet-y things, while the MacBook handles everything else.
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,952
Apple sells more iPads in a given year than ALL Macs combined.
I don't get this argument. iPads sell more because the starting price is $329 on Apple's site and $250 or less on Amazon for the 9th gen iPad which Apple still sells.


Being cheaper means it will sell more. The fact is Apple makes a lot of money from Macs. The SSD and Memory and CPU/GPU core upgrades cost a lot and Apple always views the Mac as a lux product. That is why the starting price of a Macbook is $999.


If Apple sold a $250 Macbook Touch with an A16 with a detachable keyboard and touch/Pencil support and the ability to run iPad apps as well as Mac apps it would defnitely outsell any iPad.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,610
8,628
The fact that more iPads are sold than Macs does not mean they are more successful, but it's due to them being cheaper (most iPads sold are entry level base models).
One could argue that Android tablets are more successful than iPads because they sell more, but the truth is that they sell more because they are, again, cheaper than iPads...
It does mean they’re more successful, though. Part of that success where folks look at the value provided by the Mac, by the iPad, by Android tablets, at the price they’re offering, and purchase the one that meets their expectation of value. And yes, going by units sold, Android tablets are more successful than iPads and, additionally, even MORE successful than Macs.

Having said that, the individual Android vendors do likely wish they were as successful as Apple.
 

exoticSpice

Suspended
Jan 9, 2022
1,242
1,952
Well, Windows OEMs tried putting Windows as is on tablet laptops—and from what I understand, nobody liked it. I’m sure some people accepted it, and some would also accept it with macOS, but 1) very doubtful that this is a significant market, and 2) that kind of shoehorning is just a very un-Apple thing to do. They always go for the “magical” experience.
The form factor conversion of using a keyboard and trackpad is a little more realistic, since the Magic Keyboard already exists, but that still doesn’t make macOS on iPad likely for reasons I stated earlier in this thread, but mainly, the dual OS experience comes with compromises that I think are subtle in concept, but will become obvious in practice. Those compromises will likely make it a niche use case, and not “magical”, which makes it uninteresting to Apple.
I do think Apple believes carrying two “magical” devices is more “magical” than carrying one un-“magical” device, for those who need to. But also I think most people don’t need to carry both. They can leave either the MacBook or iPad at home (but always bring the iPhone, which covers a lot of functions that a MacBook cannot, and they work pretty easily together with Continuity features), probably usually leaving the iPad. But if one does often need both laptop and tablet functionality together, an iPad mini often makes for a better companion to a MacBook. Its small size makes it very compelling and even optimized for traditional tablet-y things, while the MacBook handles everything else.

You brought into Apple's marketing quite well. There was nothing magical about the iPad. Apple just has a very refined Tablet.

What is wrong with dual boot? There were MacBook Air's with 11" screens that ran macOS. The 12.9" iPad can now that it has trackpad and keyboard support as well as external monitor too. It has Mac hardware, why give the hardware?
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,610
8,628
I don't get this argument. iPads sell more because the starting price is $329 on Apple's site and $250 or less on Amazon for the 9th gen iPad which Apple still sells.


Being cheaper means it will sell more. The fact is Apple makes a lot of money from Macs. The SSD and Memory and CPU/GPU core upgrades cost a lot and Apple always views the Mac as a lux product. That is why the starting price of a Macbook is $999.
No, you DO get it :) Apple sells iPads cheaper, so Apple, obviously, sells more. And will likely always sell more (I think they’ve sold more than the Mac from year one). This important for folks like developers… who may make a decision on what platform to develop for based on which one is growing by 40 million NEW users a year. More users = more potential buyers.

If Apple sold a $250 Macbook Touch with an A16 with a detachable keyboard and touch/Pencil support and the ability to run iPad apps as well as Mac apps it would defnitely outsell any iPad.
Quite possible. By the same token, if they sold a MBP 16” for $2, it would outsell any iPad, too.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,610
8,628
The ONLY reason why the base iPads sell more is because they are priced cheaper. The MacBook Air outsells the iPad Pro because its cheaper.
I wouldn’t say it’s the ONLY reason, because there are people that actually prefer iPadOS. But, it doesn’t matter what the reason is to Apple as long as 40 million plus of all different sorts of iPads end up in users’ hands by the end of each year.
 

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
6,253
6,736
iPads were great, even for non-artists, when they had great battery life, quiet and were lightweight. So much so I stopped using MB’s (Intel at the time) for anything other than specific workflows.

When Apple decided to put an M chip in their laptops in was game over for someone like myself who had plenty of time by then to see where iPadOS was going. Expensive accessories, hardware stuck in a repetitive design, and software constantly being in beta. For non-artists why buy and iPad when my M2 MBA:

- 15hrs+ battery life
- Better keyboard/trackpad
- Lighter/thinner than config iPad
- Price

Additionally, I would rather consume media on my MBA and I’m also OCD about finger prints ha. Even laying in bed I would use my phone or MBA for extended viewing than a unwieldy iPad 12.9” with terrible angle adjustments. I’ve tried for years folks and even for a “normy” like me iPads are just a poor choice unless you have a specific use case. Come find me when an iPad gets 20hrs of battery life and OLED similar to iPhones. These dog **** miniLED displays with terrible response time’s literally ruin ProMotion.

The only iPad that has a decent use case and large demographic of potential users is the iPad mini as a complimentary device for the Mac at this stage.

The question is, what is Apple's vision of the iPad and how does the overlapping products acheive that vision?

I think overall, having the iPad a consumption device has served both Apple and its customers so well. No other company has been able to provide a tablet as successful as Apple.

Trying to position the iPad as an alternative to a laptop is where things have not gone according to plan imo. They've been trying for years, so its not like the OS is immature, or just lacks features - they've been attempting this for a long time. For some people it certainly can be a laptop replacement but its pretty clear that for a given market segment - its not successful.

I agree that the iPad started having identity issues when it started trying to be a laptop substitute, and that has been the source of many years of confusion and angst in the tech/Apple community. When it was introduced as JUST a consumption device, no one really had expectations of more. Anyone who could replace their laptop with it was just considered a fortunate oddity.
Now with the iPad’s vague cryptic marketing (“what’s a computer” “maybe your next computer isn’t a computer”), MacBook-level prices, and first party keyboard with trackpad, expectations have changed dramatically, at least in the tech/Apple community. It’s no wonder why people endlessly discuss the state of the iPad (shoot, maybe this is Apple’s intention, to get people to talk about it). I don’t care much about marketing though. In my opinion, the keyboard and trackpad are the biggest sources of contradiction. It showed that Apple was willing to make the iPad a quasi laptop convertible, compromising their stance on dedicated devices, to make it more functional and more marketable. In the end, I think that was the driving force for the change/confusion of the vision—more marketability.
So what is the end goal for the iPad, particularly the Pros? I think the main driving force is still marketability. So ultimately whatever will make Apple the most money. My guess is iPadOS will keep doing what it’s been doing—incremental improvements, but maintaining a distance from macOS, because I don’t see the financial and logical motivation to go all the way in replicating it. Apple still does see iPadOS as serving a different purpose.

I agree that the purer vision of the iPad lives on only in the smaller non-pro iPads, especially the iPad Mini.
 

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
6,253
6,736
Businesses like it a lot. In Australia, the Surface Pro is huge.
“As is” meaning not modified for touch. Windows on Surface Pro has always been modified for touch. I think there is/was a non-modified mode at one point, but I’d love to see data on how many people actually used that mode with touch and not trackpad.
 

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
6,253
6,736
You brought into Apple's marketing quite well. There was nothing magical about the iPad. Apple just has a very refined Tablet.

What is wrong with dual boot? There were MacBook Air's with 11" screens that ran macOS. The 12.9" iPad can now that it has trackpad and keyboard support as well as external monitor too. It has Mac hardware, why give the hardware?
There was a reason I used quotes for “magical”.

I posted earlier in this thread my thoughts on these questions. I’m too lazy to repeat or go back and find them, sorry. But screen size wasn’t the issue.
 

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
6,253
6,736
It does mean they’re more successful, though. Part of that success where folks look at the value provided by the Mac, by the iPad, by Android tablets, at the price they’re offering, and purchase the one that meets their expectation of value. And yes, going by units sold, Android tablets are more successful than iPads and, additionally, even MORE successful than Macs.

Having said that, the individual Android vendors do likely wish they were as successful as Apple.
Success is an incredibly subjective term. The definition of success depends on the context of the conversation and what point you’re trying to make. What was the context of this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digitalguy

Apple_Robert

Contributor
Sep 21, 2012
35,665
52,471
In a van down by the river
I don't think Apple Silicon killed the iPad Pro. I think too many people have the false expectation that the iPad should be the one size fits all computer replacement for everyone. For some people, the iPad is a complete computer replacement. However, I believe that that segment of Apple buyers is selective and small compared to computer users. If the iPad works for you in such a manner, that is great. Use the best tool for job. The iPad isn't marketed as a Mac replacement for the whole and I think many on MR need to stop denigrating the iPad because their false expectations (in spite of Apple stating the iPad isn't meant to be a Mac) keep bringing self-fulfilling disappointment.
 

AF_APPLETALK

macrumors 6502a
Nov 12, 2020
674
923
Panther Aqua Blue.jpg
 

Digitalguy

macrumors 601
Apr 15, 2019
4,643
4,469
Success is an incredibly subjective term. The definition of success depends on the context of the conversation and what point you’re trying to make. What was the context of this?
Yeah by this logic cheap windows laptops are much more successul than MacBooks, because more people buy them and therefore it means they feel they offer more value for their money. And in general cheap low end stuff is more successful than high end more expensive stuff just because it sells more... That's a very subjective point of view.
Personally I don't see success in terms of units sold, and I don't see it even in terms of revenues. Even if iPads made more revenues than Macs, but Macs made more profits than iPads because of higher margins, for instance, I would still consider Macs more successul, and viceversa.
The ultimate goal of a company is making profits for their shareholders. So that's what I consider the main measure of success, not units sold, not revenues, not margins, but actual share of profits the product line contributed to....
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,831
3,723
For some people, the iPad is a complete computer replacement. However, I believe that that segment of Apple buyers is selective and small compared to computer users. (...)
I think they absolutely are marketing it as a "complete computer replacement".

And it isn't limited to the "selective and small" groups, like the proverbial grandmothers keeping in touch with their grandchildren.

And it isn't limited to their "pro" models either - they're now even doing it on their entry-level iPads. Besides depicting it more than half a dozen times with an attached keyboard, just read their marketing for their 10th gen "all‑new colorful iPad for the things you do every day":
  • "enjoy endless versatility for everything you love to do"
  • "Run your favorite apps side by side, edit and share photos with others, and get to all your files"
  • "Get things done — all on one device. Take notes, collaborate, and work seamlessly between apps. From pie charts to pie recipes, iPad is designed for all kinds of productivity."
  • "Edit a spreadsheet, finesse a Keynote presentation, and take amazing notes.
  • "Type comfortably and use a trackpad for precision tasks, like editing a spreadsheet, with the Magic Keyboard Folio. Quickly adjust the volume or search for a file using the 14‑key function row."
  • "Manage a project with Trello, collaborate on the infinite canvas of Freeform, or finish your term paper with Microsoft Word."
The iPad isn't marketed as a Mac replacement for the whole and I think many on MR need to stop denigrating the iPad because their false expectations (in spite of Apple stating the iPad isn't meant to be a Mac)
It isn't meant to be a Mac, a machine for the 10 or 20% of (power) users that require big "trucks" to be productive.

But they are marketing it as an everyday productivity tool, as "cars", for the other 85% of average/casual users, to keep with Steve Jobs' famous analogy.
 
Last edited:

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
6,253
6,736
I think they absolutely are marketing it as a "complete computer replacement".

And it isn't limited to the "selective and small" groups, like the proverbial grandmothers keeping in touch with their grandchildren.

And it isn't limited to their "pro" models either - they're now even doing it on their entry-level iPads. Besides depicting it more than half a dozen times with an attached keyboard, just read their marketing for their 10th gen "all‑new colorful iPad for the things you do every day":
  • "enjoy endless versatility for everything you love to do"
  • "Run your favorite apps side by side, edit and share photos with others, and get to all your files"
  • "Get things done — all on one device. Take notes, collaborate, and work seamlessly between apps. From pie charts to pie recipes, iPad is designed for all kinds of productivity."
  • "Edit a spreadsheet, finesse a Keynote presentation, and take amazing notes.
  • "Type comfortably and use a trackpad for precision tasks, like editing a spreadsheet, with the Magic Keyboard Folio. Quickly adjust the volume or search for a file using the 14‑key function row."
  • "Manage a project with Trello, collaborate on the infinite canvas of Freeform, or finish your term paper with Microsoft Word."

It isn't meant to be a Mac, a machine for the 10 or 20% of (power) users that require big "trucks" to be productive.

But they are marketing it as an everyday productivity tool, as "cars", for the other 85% of average/casual users, to keep with Steve Jobs' famous analogy.
I agree this is Apple’s intention, but I want to get into some nuances here.

First we have to say it, Apple is a bit conflicted in their messaging. Because though they ask everyone why they need more than an iPad, they also market Macs to everyone. They don’t discriminate. Their absolute ideal is for everyone to have a Mac and an iPad, which is a bit like wanting to have their cake and eat it too (unless maybe they only want Mac owners to have smaller cheaper non-pro iPads).
But on the other hand, we should understand that’s just marketing and part of the game. I think behind the scenes, they’re ok with losing Mac sales if it means that iPad takes away a big chunk of PC sales. And I believe that’s why they made the more expensive iPad Pro line. If it’s going to eat into Mac sales, they need to recoup as much revenue as possible.

So I agree they are pushing for the iPad to completely replace the traditional computer for as many people as possible. But only for personal use. They probably know that desktop OSes will probably continue to dominate the professional world for the long term.

But though they may hope to completely replace the traditional computer for most people, maybe something like 80%, for now I think that’s just a hope. In the real world, I think there are still too many random odds and ends that most people need but that the iPad can’t do—either because the iPad needs to get better or because of things outside of Apple’s control, like old government or education websites that require desktop browsers. So for the majority of people, I think the iPad can only do the majority of tasks, and they still need a desktop OS. Maybe someday it will get to complete replacement for most, but for awhile, I think it’s going to be a minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,610
8,628
Success is an incredibly subjective term. The definition of success depends on the context of the conversation and what point you’re trying to make. What was the context of this?
SUCCESS
the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
Companies that make devices, aim to sell those devices. Success, for them, is defined by how many they’re able to sell. This why those checking to see if a company is successful in order to, say, invest in them on the stock market, look to how much revenue a company is making (which, for the reporting of a public company that makes devices, is tied to how many they’re able to sell at what price.)

Now, one COULD certainly define “success” for themselves as “companies that aim to make products that have Apple logos emblazoned on them”. Which is fine. But, if someone’s making a statement like “for a given market segment - it’s not successful.”, I’d suggest they’re likely referring to the former rather than the latter.

Even if someone defines the “market segment” as “people that need a single primary device AND need to run Professional Mac applications at least a few times a month”, the “success” of selling to that market segment would still be defined by how many were sold/how much revenue was made. Which, in this case would be probably as close to zero as it could be.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G4
Jul 22, 2002
10,610
8,628
Yeah by this logic cheap windows laptops are much more successul than MacBooks, because more people buy them and therefore it means they feel they offer more value for their money. And in general cheap low end stuff is more successful than high end more expensive stuff just because it sells more... That's a very subjective point of view.
Personally I don't see success in terms of units sold, and I don't see it even in terms of revenues. Even if iPads made more revenues than Macs, but Macs made more profits than iPads because of higher margins, for instance, I would still consider Macs more successul, and viceversa.
The ultimate goal of a company is making profits for their shareholders. So that's what I consider the main measure of success, not units sold, not revenues, not margins, but actual share of profits the product line contributed to....
You may be confusing the success of a single product line to the success of a company which has several separate revenue streams. And, Apple, as a company, is doing quite well indeed, built on the returns to shareholders they’ve been able to provide due to the existence and growth of the iPhone, the iPad and their Services sectors. And, even though the Mac is their oldest business, they’re certainly having good returns there as well.

That the iPad sells more than the Mac, that’s not even controversial, that’s just a fact. (Same could be said for the iPhone) While it may mean that the Mac is less successful from a unit sales perspective, the Mac is still a high quality device that’s sought after and desired by millions worldwide and, as a result, rightly sells for far more than the iPad.
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
20,392
23,893
Singapore
So I agree they are pushing for the iPad to completely replace the traditional computer for as many people as possible. But only for personal use. They probably know that desktop OSes will probably continue to dominate the professional world for the long term.

I agree, but I feel the iPad is also more about providing a computer alternative, rather than a replacement.

And I would like to believe that the iPad style tablet has indeed replaced laptops for a large number of people. To use an analogy, these are the people who were trying to drive in screws using a hammer because the screwdriver hadn't been invented yet.

The beauty of the iPad is that it lets people perform tasks that were previously impractical or more inconvenient to carry out on a laptop. As such, it does not make sense to try and make the iPad more like a conventional computer because then you risk losing what made the iPad unique in the first place.

You don’t give people more choice by giving them more of the same.
 

rkuo

macrumors 65816
Sep 25, 2010
1,308
955
I agree this is Apple’s intention, but I want to get into some nuances here.

First we have to say it, Apple is a bit conflicted in their messaging. Because though they ask everyone why they need more than an iPad, they also market Macs to everyone. They don’t discriminate. Their absolute ideal is for everyone to have a Mac and an iPad, which is a bit like wanting to have their cake and eat it too (unless maybe they only want Mac owners to have smaller cheaper non-pro iPads).
But on the other hand, we should understand that’s just marketing and part of the game. I think behind the scenes, they’re ok with losing Mac sales if it means that iPad takes away a big chunk of PC sales. And I believe that’s why they made the more expensive iPad Pro line. If it’s going to eat into Mac sales, they need to recoup as much revenue as possible.

So I agree they are pushing for the iPad to completely replace the traditional computer for as many people as possible. But only for personal use. They probably know that desktop OSes will probably continue to dominate the professional world for the long term.

But though they may hope to completely replace the traditional computer for most people, maybe something like 80%, for now I think that’s just a hope. In the real world, I think there are still too many random odds and ends that most people need but that the iPad can’t do—either because the iPad needs to get better or because of things outside of Apple’s control, like old government or education websites that require desktop browsers. So for the majority of people, I think the iPad can only do the majority of tasks, and they still need a desktop OS. Maybe someday it will get to complete replacement for most, but for awhile, I think it’s going to be a minority.
I would argue the iPad can replace a computer pretty successfully for most consumption based usage ... in my experience, the young and old types. My kid obviously cannot do anything on an actual computer and as far as the grandparent goes, she goes for weeks at a time without touching her 27" iMac ... only using to do taxes or log into the DMV or stuff like that.

The reality, however, is that there needs to be a "real computer" somewhere in the house for certain edge cases. So it's not a replacement in a purchase sense, but certainly in a percentage of time based sense.
 

Pezimak

macrumors 68040
May 1, 2021
3,445
3,841
Before Apple Silicon on Mac, around the 2015-2019 time, iPad Pro had better software and hardware than the Mac and the Mac was seen as a legacy product, both by Apple themselves internally and the userbase. Nowadays, the 14" and 16" MacBook Pro's have the edge in both software and hardware. Taking a look at Apple's quarterly earning we see that Mac revenue are way ahead of iPad. It used to be around 1:1 but the Mac now brings home 11.5B vs 7.2B of iPad.

What can put iPad Pro ahead of the Mac again? The usual suspects are pro level apps like Final Cut Pro and Premiere, putting MacOS on the iPad and making a product that combines both Mac/iPad. I personally don't think any of these ideas will put the iPad ahead of the Mac. Most people have an iPhone. Purchasing the expensive iPad Pro's don't make sense for most people because the iPad and iPhone fundamentally do a lot of the same things. The 14" and 16" MacBooks are also very expensive but they offer something that iPhone does not. I think it's going to be difficult for Apple to bring the iPad Pro to a state where it's ahead of the Mac again. What do you guys think?

Sorry but I'd argue the opposite, the Apple M Silicon in the iPad Pro has killed the Max for some.
 

Digitalguy

macrumors 601
Apr 15, 2019
4,643
4,469
You may be confusing the success of a single product line to the success of a company which has several separate revenue streams. And, Apple, as a company, is doing quite well indeed, built on the returns to shareholders they’ve been able to provide due to the existence and growth of the iPhone, the iPad and their Services sectors. And, even though the Mac is their oldest business, they’re certainly having good returns there as well.

That the iPad sells more than the Mac, that’s not even controversial, that’s just a fact. (Same could be said for the iPhone) While it may mean that the Mac is less successful from a unit sales perspective, the Mac is still a high quality device that’s sought after and desired by millions worldwide and, as a result, rightly sells for far more than the iPad.
I don't think I am confusing that at all... I didn't even mention the success of a company... You seem to have misunderstood what I said.
I said what I consider a measure of the success of a single product line, that is how much it contributes to profits, not units sold or other factors, including revenues, read again what I wrote for more details... I consider units sold virtually irrelevant (you can even sell at a loss in theory, although it's not Apple's case). Many of the things you said I never said or implied....
You may have a different opinion of what success is, mine is based on economic and financial factors, maybe also because that's the field I work in (I teach economics and finance).
What is certain is that Apple does not / no longer provide detailed data to make precise judgements on their product lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ericwn

James Godfrey

macrumors 68020
Oct 13, 2011
2,068
1,710
Sorry but I'd argue the opposite, the Apple M Silicon in the iPad Pro has killed the Max for some.
Don’t really know how… because truth be told apple took what was really the next gen iPad chip after the A12Z, slapped it in the mac and rebranded it M1.

Then later got that same chip and put it in the device that it was likely destined for anyway, the iPad Pro.

It was clever marketing at the time to convince people the iPad had suddenly got a Mac chip, but in reality it technically didn’t.
 

AppliedMicro

macrumors 68030
Aug 17, 2008
2,831
3,723
I think the iPad can only do the majority of tasks, and they still need a desktop OS
Every once in a while at least. As in your tax return or something.

But even when the iPad can do a task (as, let's say, "finishing your term paper"), the question is:
Can it do these tasks as good as - or better than - a Mac?
 
  • Like
Reactions: subjonas
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.