Dual OS iPad Pro?

[kiranmk2]

It would make more sense for iOS to develop a more desktop-like environment. Perhaps not a desktop clone, but some alternative arrangement that offers more advanced possibilities than the basic iOS grid of apps but without going all the way to the 90s desktop GUI. As has been pointed out people can do probably some 80-90% of what you need to do on an iPad (especially the iPad Pro), but a lot of people are hesitant to commit to the iPad because of that last 10-20%. Split-screen is a good start along with background activity (but this needs improvement), but we still need a better file system (or clever alternative), better text selection/cursor alterative, better solution for multiple screens and better/more full-featured apps.

 

[AZhappyjack]

Will there EVER be a chance of an iPad Pro which can run both iOS and OSX? As in it running iOS when not docked with a keyboard and the option to run either when it is docked?

*HOPING*

I'd never say "never"... but this is about as close as one can get.

 

[Osty]

It would make more sense for iOS to develop a more desktop-like environment. Perhaps not a desktop clone, but some alternative arrangement that offers more advanced possibilities than the basic iOS grid of apps but without going all the way to the 90s desktop GUI. As has been pointed out people can do probably some 80-90% of what you need to do on an iPad (especially the iPad Pro), but a lot of people are hesitant to commit to the iPad because of that last 10-20%. Split-screen is a good start along with background activity (but this needs improvement), but we still need a better file system (or clever alternative), better text selection/cursor alterative, better solution for multiple screens and better/more full-featured apps.

The current split screen implementation reminds me of a tiling window manager in several Linux distros and I think that would be a good model for a desktop iPad environment. Couple this with more control over background processes and daemons and a more open file system as you said and we'd be there

 

[kiranmk2]

I wonder whether 3D touch coupled with the WatchOS layout will be the future. See the Apps floating around the 'desktop', zoom in and out with a pinch, tap on an app to see a preview window of the app in its current state (and perhaps manipulate what's happening in the app at a crude level), moderate 3D touch to open/full-screen the app and full 3D touch to bring up the quick-links we see on the 6s. I suspect this might take 4 GB to allow all the mini App previews, but given that 3D touch probably isn't coming to iPads till 2017 this may happen.

 

[aces99]

It would be much either is they just made the MacBook/MacBook Air/MBP and just make it with a detachable screen. So you could use the MacBook like normal and when you wanted the iPad you would just detach the display screen from the keyboard and bingo bango you had an iPad. But I don't see Apple doing that. But it would be sweet if they did.

 

[Night Spring]

It would be much either is they just made the MacBook/MacBook Air/MBP and just make it with a detachable screen. So you could use the MacBook like normal and when you wanted the iPad you would just detach the display screen from the keyboard and bingo bango you had an iPad. But I don't see Apple doing that. But it would be sweet if they did.

You do realize that the CPU, battery, and other components of a MacBook is in the keyboard part, right? So if you want the detached screen to do anything, you need to move the CPU, battery, etc, to the screen part. There is no "just" about it. Go take a look at Surface Book and all the other hybrid Windows laptops. None of them are as elegant as a MacBook or an iPad.

 

[JD2015]

OSX and any desktop operating system are not touch friendly therefore an iPad experience would be ruined. Just try out remote access apps like Citrix to see this. Not sure how OSX is on an iPad when using apps like parallels or screen so I do stand corrected.

Would rather see developers concerntrate on developing IOS functionality within their apps. However, find it will only truly happen when consumers change their beliefs about willingness to pay more for apps. Traditional model of desktop software/subscription models give a better rate of return than IOS apps to developers. People don't like spending for quality apps. The level of unhappiness if someone needs to pay for apps I find unbelievable sometimes.

 

[nightcap965]

This reminds me of the German Amphicar. It wasn't a particularly good car, and it wasn't a particularly good boat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphicar

 

[chasonstone]

I just think they need to flush out iOS to take care of that final 10-20% of tasks we still cling to a MacBook for. Then you'll have an iPad that can do everything you want and need with touch, and MacBooks where you can do everything you want and need with physical inputs. Each would have tasks that would be more suited for them, but you could do on either. I have a hard time imagining a perfect solution, honestly. I would like to say that continuity and iCloud blend my devices together in a way that I find very user-friendly and honestly better for me than a hybrid tablet would be. If I'm going to have to have all these accessories hooked up to my tablet and then not even need touch input, I think I'd honestly rather just be able to pick up a device designed for it. But I'm not totally opposed to new concepts and ideas that may blend the two items together in the future, I just don't think the Dual OS/one device with attachable keyboards is really all that appealing of a solution.

 

[chasonstone]

I have been using my ipod touch as a voip phone for 3 years--what are you talking about?

Not sure, and I'm not trying to put words in anyones mouth, but I think they mean it's not easily possible by default. As in it doesn't have the appropriate speaker/mic arrangement to hold it to your face as a phone and no "apple" way of VOIP service. Though honestly I think if they did this and created a VOIP service integrated into it, it could be an interesting concept. I know people who tout using wifi almost exclusively, so this could be a phone for those people.

But it's related to the iPad not being made to replace the MacBook, because the iPad could in theory run apps/workarounds/jailbreaks and function more similarly to a MacBook just as an iPod touch can run apps/workarounds/jailbreaks to function more similarly to an iPhone. The problem is Apple isn't making it overly easy for iPod users to replace their phones, and they aren't making it overly easy for iPads to replace their laptops.

 

[Skika]

no "apple" way of VOIP service.

Its called Facetime Audio, introduced with iOS7.

 

[chasonstone]

Its called Facetime Audio, introduced with iOS7.

Ehhh, I hardly consider that a true VOIP service in terms of phone replacement. It's good at being an option for people who already have iPhones and have a number attached to their Apple ID. If you're truly using it as your only phone, then how do you handle not having a phone number? You would have to have people call your Apple ID and sure you can get your friends with iPhones to do that fairly easily. But what do you do about non-iPhone users, businesses, work, etc? To me a Apple VOIP service would entail the iPod touch gaining the phone and messages apps, and a way to get an Apple issued phone number that you can give out and be universal.

 

[Zmmyt]

I really like the simplicity and straight forwardness of iOS but wish I had a laptop once in a while...ideally I'd have the best of both worlds combined in one device; no need to switch between devices and potentially saves money since you only require one device.

I'm living laptop free for the past year and even though I'm okay with not having a laptop I sometimes wish I had one.

 

[Zmmyt]

delete please...duplicate post

 

[rowspaxe]

Not sure, and I'm not trying to put words in anyones mouth, but I think they mean it's not easily possible by default. As in it doesn't have the appropriate speaker/mic arrangement to hold it to your face as a phone and no "apple" way of VOIP service.

Op Mac360 said Apple designed the ipod touch to prevent it from being used as a voip phone. But it is easy use it as such, with apps available in the Apple app store--no jalilbreaking, etc. And the mic/speaker arrangement does not prevent this. Voip apps supply users with a phone number and the cost is about $5 a month, including a significant amount of long distance/international calling. There are several apps in the store. Op is obviously misinformed, and is using misinformation as evidence for his bogus arguement

 

[Rogifan]

You do realize that the CPU, battery, and other components of a MacBook is in the keyboard part, right? So if you want the detached screen to do anything, you need to move the CPU, battery, etc, to the screen part. There is no "just" about it. Go take a look at Surface Book and all the other hybrid Windows laptops. None of them are as elegant as a MacBook or an iPad.

You'd need the iOS components in the screen and the Mac components in the keyboard. How thick and heavy would this device be? And what if someone wanted to use iOS with the keyboard? Would there a button or some toggle to switch operating units? To me that would be an engineering nightmare. Seems to me the right approach is to add capabilities to iOS for iPad. No, not turning into a desktop OS but solving for some of the pain points productivity users have and doing it in a way that stays true to the touch first nature of iOS. I'd like to see Apple rethink some of these paradigms rather than just shove the desktop onto an iPad.

 

[aces99]

You do realize that the CPU, battery, and other components of a MacBook is in the keyboard part, right? So if you want the detached screen to do anything, you need to move the CPU, battery, etc, to the screen part. There is no "just" about it. Go take a look at Surface Book and all the other hybrid Windows laptops. None of them are as elegant as a MacBook or an iPad.

Yes I do. What I meant was if the screen on the MacBook series was the iPad. I know it would make the screen alittle bigger but then they keyboard part of it would be a lot smaller and lighter because the battery and that stuff would be in the "iPad" part. I know Apple would never do that but would be sweet. There is a laptop or notebook that I seen once that was a full laptop and if you wanted a tablet you detached the screen and there you have it. I just meant it would be sweet if Apple came out with something like that. I know it is not just a "just" but I know Apple could make one if they really wanted to. But from a business stand point I would tell them not to because it would cannibalize so many of their other products. I have never used OSX, so how would the iPad experience be if it ran OSX on it instead of IOS?

 

[Starfia]

No, everything Apple has said thus far suggests – sometimes outright – they think iOS and OS X are separate operating systems for separate devices.

 

[chasonstone]

Op Mac360 said Apple designed the ipod touch to prevent it from being used as a voip phone. But it is easy use it as such, with apps available in the Apple app store--no jalilbreaking, etc. And the mic/speaker arrangement does not prevent this. Voip apps supply users with a phone number and the cost is about $5 a month, including a significant amount of long distance/international calling. There are several apps in the store. Op is obviously misinformed, and is using misinformation as evidence for his bogus arguement

But I think the point they were trying to make was Apple isn't making it blatantly easy to use an iPod in this manner (no built in service, no mic arrangement etc.), the same way they aren't making it blatantly easy to use an iPad as a computer (no trackpad support, no filesytem etc.) Because by the standards of being able to put an app and use headphones or like a speakerphone my laptop or iPad could be a phone replacement too.

I think what they are saying is there's no technological reason they couldn't make minor changes to the iPod, only that it would cannibalize iPhone sales. Same with the iPad, they don't want to make it dual OS or anything because it would cannibalize Mac sales. I'm not arguing that you can't use an iPod as a VOIP phone but Apple isn't exactly making it as easy as it technologically could be, and that's the point.

 

[username:]

OSX and any desktop operating system are not touch friendly therefore an iPad experience would be ruined. Just try out remote access apps like Citrix to see this. Not sure how OSX is on an iPad when using apps like parallels or screen so I do stand corrected.

Would rather see developers concerntrate on developing IOS functionality within their apps. However, find it will only truly happen when consumers change their beliefs about willingness to pay more for apps. Traditional model of desktop software/subscription models give a better rate of return than IOS apps to developers. People don't like spending for quality apps. The level of unhappiness if someone needs to pay for apps I find unbelievable sometimes.

I think part of the reason is there is no trial periods. Its hard to know what you're getting. I paid for a couple Omni apps but it took me ages to make the decision and it was only after I used the free trial desktop versions for a while. Really happy with the apps and the price now I know they are worth it, but it took me ages to decide.

But I think the point they were trying to make was Apple isn't making it blatantly easy to use an iPod in this manner (no built in service, no mic arrangement etc.), the same way they aren't making it blatantly easy to use an iPad as a computer (no trackpad support, no filesytem etc.) Because by the standards of being able to put an app and use headphones or like a speakerphone my laptop or iPad could be a phone replacement too.

I think what they are saying is there's no technological reason they couldn't make minor changes to the iPod, only that it would cannibalize iPhone sales. Same with the iPad, they don't want to make it dual OS or anything because it would cannibalize Mac sales. I'm not arguing that you can't use an iPod as a VOIP phone but Apple isn't exactly making it as easy as it technologically could be, and that's the point.

So youre saying Apple should make the ipod more expensive to make it a phone, when they already manufacture a phone? And as I said before, Dual OS on iPad would make OS X worse and the ipad worse.

You say "minor changes" but you are talking about an industry that operates on margins. These minor changes increase the cost of the device, reduce sales, reduce profit and for what? So you can buy a ****** phone that isnt as good as the actual phone Apple already manufacture?

 

[rowspaxe]

I'm not arguing that you can't use an iPod as a VOIP phone but Apple isn't exactly making it as easy as it technologically could be, and that's the point.

I put the app on the ipad touch. And the ipad touch works like a phone! No mic enhancement or any modifications required. The app provider provides me with a valid phone number. I have used this set up for 3 years

I ask you, how could apple make this technically easier!

You're misinformed, like the other poster. But instead of looking into it--you just blandly reassert your disproven arguments

 

[Michael Goff]

There is also a technological reason not to create a iPad that runs OS X. The iPad uses ARM-based processors that are based on an architecture totally different from Intel's x86 architecture. That means every OS X app would have to be recompiled for ARM. Microsoft tried this approach somewhat with Windows RT (originally known as "Windows for ARM") and was not successful. And speaking of Windows, how would you run "traditional" Windows on an iPad the same way you can run it on a Mac via Bootcamp?

I disagree with this completely. OS X started on PPC and moved to Intel. They probably have a version of OS X running on the A9X right now. The jump from PPC to x86 proves to me that they'd be willing to move if they thought it would provide enough benefit.

 

[chasonstone]

I think part of the reason is there is no trial periods. Its hard to know what you're getting. I paid for a couple Omni apps but it took me ages to make the decision and it was only after I used the free trial desktop versions for a while. Really happy with the apps and the price now I know they are worth it, but it took me ages to decide.




So youre saying Apple should make the ipod more expensive to make it a phone, when they already manufacture a phone? And as I said before, Dual OS on iPad would make OS X worse and the ipad worse.

You say "minor changes" but you are talking about an industry that operates on margins. These minor changes increase the cost of the device, reduce sales, reduce profit and for what? So you can buy a ****** phone that isnt as good as the actual phone Apple already manufacture?

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying Apple isn't doing it. Because they want to sell iPhones. Which is the entire point of saying Apple isn't making a dual OS iPad either, because they want to sell MacBooks. The original post that sparked this was saying that's why we would never see a dual OS iPad, by comparing it to why they don't actively push VOIP initiatives fully on the iPod touch because they want to sell iPhones.

I think you're missing what I'm saying entirely. I don't think Apple will or necessarily should make an iPod with changes to make it a phone, it's an interesting concept that would work for some though. I'm also definitely not advocating a dual OS iPad. In these forums I've said it before and I'll say it again I think the current iOS for iPad and OSX for Macs and having continuity between the two is a better set up than trying to blend the two.

 

[chasonstone]

I put the app on the ipad touch. And the ipad touch works like a phone! No mic enhancement or any modifications required. The app provider provides me with a valid phone number. I have used this set up for 3 years

I ask you, how could apple make this technically easier!

You're misinformed, like the other poster. But instead of looking into it--you just blandly reassert your disproven arguments

First of all, I'm not sure why you're being so aggressively rude about it. Chill. Second I've explained how Apple could embrace VOIP and make it technically easier already. If I went and bought an iPod touch I could come home and connect to wifi. Apple themselves could assign me a phone number right there in setup if I wish, probably charging a nominal monthly fee, and I would then have a true number to give to people to call. It would be integrated into the iPod on a system level. Your texts to your number would come through to the messages app/you could associate your number with iMessage, the phone app would be there letting you dial out like any iPhone, and you wouldn't have a third party app to go into to send messages and make calls. If Apple did this it would be effectively a way easier and consumer friendly solution for a VOIP phone. It would effectively be a phone without cellular chips, using wifi networks instead of cellular networks. They could also put a speaker by the FaceTime camera so you can actually use it as a phone. You can't honestly tell me if this was priced the same as whatever app you use/or was free, it wouldnt be a much easier and integrated option.

I'm not misinformed. You're either misinterpreting my posts or not reading them all together. I fully understand the VOIP market, and the apps available for it. I've even used them! The only point I've tried to make is this: Apple hasn't made these modifications to the iPod OS, considered a VOIP service, or added the speaker beside the FaceTime camera because it would cut into more expensive iPhone sales. They're not interested in that. And the relevance of this was the post I was explaining was saying this is evidence the iPad won't make the changes to go Dual OS because it would hurt Mac sales. Apple isn't interested in blending products when they can sell us more than one.

I'm not sure how you're saying my arguments are "disproven" either. I'm not arguing for anything. I'm just saying if Apple wanted to make the iPod touch a low budget wifi only phone, they could definitely make it easier on the consumer than having to get an app and deal with not being able to hold it like a regular phone. That's just a fact, they could do that. They're not going to and I'm not saying they should, but it's an interesting concept that people like you who use VOIP I think would appreciate. So please tell me what parts of any of this I'm misinformed on, I genuinely would like to know.

 

[username:]

I'm not saying they should, I'm just saying Apple isn't doing it. Because they want to sell iPhones. Which is the entire point of saying Apple isn't making a dual OS iPad either, because they want to sell MacBooks. The original post that sparked this was saying that's why we would never see a dual OS iPad, by comparing it to why they don't actively push VOIP initiatives fully on the iPod touch because they want to sell iPhones.

I think you're missing what I'm saying entirely. I don't think Apple will or necessarily should make an iPod with changes to make it a phone, it's an interesting concept that would work for some though. I'm also definitely not advocating a dual OS iPad. In these forums I've said it before and I'll say it again I think the current iOS for iPad and OSX for Macs and having continuity between the two is a better set up than trying to blend the two.

Yeah, I guess you can look at it two ways. You could say they don't want to cannibalise says of their own products, or you could say that they are just trying to make the best products. I think famously Apple do not take the short term view, that is why they are seeing so much success. Their biggest revenue was from the ipod, then they made the iphone which destroyed ipod sales. But they made the iphone because it's awesome. They take the long term view, often at the expense of short term sales, so I believe they don't care about cannibalising sales if it means making a better product.

Although having said that I think they could possibly add trackpad support to the ipad for instances where it makes it easier to use.