Dual OS iPad Pro?

[Night Spring]

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

Well, imo, adding trackpad would be a short-term solution, and getting developers to write apps in such a way that touch and/or keyboard shortcuts work as well or better than a trackpad is a longer term solution. Because trackpads take up space on mobile keyboards, and if there is no need for them, then that space could be used for other things. Or to make a smaller keyboard.

 

[username:]

Well, imo, adding trackpad would be a short-term solution, and getting developers to write apps in such a way that touch works as well or better than a trackpad is a longer term solution. Because trackpads take up space on mobile keyboards, and if there is no need for them, then that space could be used for other things. Or to make a smaller keyboard.

Yeah, I don't really know how it's going to work. I understand that having a trackpad could make the iPad less touch friendly. Maybe I just need to adjust to reaching up with my arm instead of down to a trackpad.

 

[Rogifan]

Hmm...if Apple added a trackpad to the smart keyboard no doubt the cries for a mouse pointer in iOS would become louder and louder. Already a developer posted a photo on Twitter of windowed apps on an iPad. Most of the criticism I've seen of iPad Pro seems to be coming from those who want it be a laptop. I hope Apple resists the temptation to turn iOS into a desktop OS on the iPad. There has to be a way to provide more functionality without the complexity that comes with a desktop OS.

 

[jclardy]

Nope. You can count on there never being an OS X iPad. How can I promise this? Easy. Look at the iPod touch for answers.

As technology has advanced, the iPod touch has had the capability of replacing the iPhone as a phone device. The iPod touch could easily be used as a wifi enabled phone device using VOIP but Apple purposely blocks it from being possible.

WHY???

Because it would take away from iPhone sales. The same would apply to the iPad. The technology is finally there to where the iPad could run OS X. We all know the mobile processors are now more powerful than what laptop processors were out 5 years ago and they are catching up to current processors at exponential increases in performance.

However, If customers could spend $500 for a device that replaces their $799-$1399 laptop, then customers stop purchasing those laptops and sales decline.

Apple is pretty strategic. They market the iPad and iPad Pro as devices that can "do anything" and even want you to think that they are professional, but then they limit them just enough to make customers still want a laptop/desktop to do the heavy lifting for certain tasks.

Don't believe me, just ask anyone with a degree in business if it would be a smart idea for Apple to provide a $500 device that can replace their high end computers.

Their $500 device can replace their high end computers for most people, because most people don't actually need a high end computer. Facebook, email, photos, video, documents...all work fine on a $500 iPad Air 2.

And the iPod Touch can't replace the iPhone even if it had an earpiece, unless you never leave your own home. In fact, iPod Touch already has FaceTime and iMessage...why do people still buy iPhones? Because they need it to work outside of the 20 foot radius of their own house and office. The iPhone IS an iPod Touch, but with a bigger batter and cellular radios/antennas, also all the required FCC licensing to go with it (Also a better display, better cameras and faster chipset which all add up to the increased cost.)

The iPad could run OS X, yes. But it doesn't, because of the UI. Every single Mac app is designed to be used with a keyboard and a mouse cursor. Now replace that with a virtual keyboard and your fingers, and what do you get? A terrible experience, or Windows 10 (Just kidding, it isn't that bad.) If you need evidence, look at your mouse cursor on your mac. Now look at the pixel at the very tip. Compare that to the size of your finger - you finger is about 100 times the size of that pixel.

If you want the full desktop approach - go Surface. Microsoft is trying to build from the top down - start from a desktop OS and try and simplify it to make it finger friendly. Apple is going from the bottom up - start from a touch based OS and add complexity. In this next year I am sure we are going to see some major improvements for the iPad in iOS 10.

 

[rowspaxe]

As technology has advanced, the iPod touch has had the capability of replacing the iPhone as a phone device. The iPod touch could easily be used as a wifi enabled phone device using VOIP but Apple purposely blocks it from being possible.

I've explained how Apple could embrace VOIP and make it technically easier already...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.

I responded to original assertion that Apple "puposely blocks" the possiblity of ipod touch being used as a voip phone. I believe I have completely debunked this assertion.

You seem to have reinterpreted the OP assertion into: Apple could make the ipod touch a better voip phone with hardware modications, integrated support of voip functionality in ios, and the provision of a native voip phone app.

So what? The issue is whether Apple "puposely" frustrates the use of the ipod touch as a voip client. The answer is "no". Voip apps are freely available in the app store, the hardware works fine as a voip client, and calls and texts show up in notifications.

The all Apple integrated solution you propose might make for a marginally better voip client, but not significantly so. Certainly the fact that Apple has not proactively embraced voip functionality in the ipod touch cannot be interpreted as blocking the use of the touch for this purpose.

 

[chasonstone]

I responded to original assertion that Apple "puposely blocks" the possiblity of ipod touch being used as a voip phone. I believe I have completely debunked this assertion.

You seem to have reinterpreted the OP assertion into: Apple could make the ipod touch a better voip phone with hardware modications, integrated support of voip functionality in ios, and the provision of a native voip phone app.

So what? The issue is whether Apple "puposely" frustrates the use of the ipod touch as a voip client. The answer is "no". Voip apps are freely available in the app store, the hardware works fine as a voip client, and calls and texts show up in notifications.

The all Apple integrated solution you propose might make for a marginally better voip client, but not significantly so. Certainly the fact that Apple has not proactively embraced voip functionality in the ipod touch cannot be interpreted as blocking the use of the touch for this purpose.

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.

I clearly stated my intentions/interpretations for responding to what they said were. So if you're taking issue with the "purposely blocks it from being possible" line you're barking up the wrong tree because I already said....

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 told you I wasn't arguing it couldn't be used as a VOIP phone, but Apple purposely doesn't add the support themselves and that's because, well, why would they? But you keep asserting....

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

I haven't asserted any disproven arguments. I've only stated how I interpreted his iPod/iPhone analogy to the iPad/Mac, explaining how Apple could make alterations to fully embrace the "wifi phone" but why they won't because it would eat into sales of the iPhone. But you seem to think I'm somehow arguing that they have blocked VOIP apps from the App Store or something, which I've never said. I even started my first response out explaining this is what I thought they meant. But I do think with whatever intentions in mind Apple isn't adding a speaker near the FaceTime camera on the iPod. That could be something beneficial to their own FaceTime audio service, but at the same time would ease the use of the iPod as a VOIP phone with third party apps. They're not interested and not doing it. I would say this is because they don't want to make it too easy to use it as a VOIP phone because it would cut into iPhone sales if they make it too easy. Again, I'll reiterate I don't think they're purposely blocking it from being possible but rather blocking it from being an easy, consumer friendly, integrated possibility. Because the easier they make it. The more likely people will adopt it as a VOIP phone. To end what I'm saying, all I wanted to do was explain what I thought his intentions were and that is:

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.

 

[rowspaxe]

Again, I'll reiterate I don't think they're purposely blocking it from being possible but rather blocking it from being an easy, consumer friendly, integrated possibility.

I believe I have demonstrated ipod touch and voip apps provide a voip client that is "easy, consumer friendly, [and] integrated" [although not native].

You assert Apple is "blocking" an "easy, consumer friendly, [and] integrated" voip experience by not providing a native implementation and hardware modifications that might provide for a better experience. Apple is not blocking anything. They are simply just not in the voip client business

 

[DaniJoy]

eh, just get a cintiq companion (can run OSX on it too) or modbook pro. ipads are just consumer grade parts. apple just does not have the vision anymore....

 

[chasonstone]

I believe I have demonstrated ipod touch and voip apps provide a voip client that is "easy, consumer friendly, [and] integrated" [although not native].

You assert Apple is "blocking" an "easy, consumer friendly, [and] integrated" voip experience by not providing a native implementation and hardware modifications that might provide for a better experience. Apple is not blocking anything. They are simply just not in the voip client business

And they're not in that business because it will cut into sales of their more expensive and lucrative iPhone line. Which is the entire point I'm making. The amount of people who go the voip route now, verses the amount of people who would go the voip route if Apple implemented as I described and likely two very different numbers. They're blocking a better voip experience in order to maintain their iPhone line. That's the only thing I'm saying. I get you can use it as a voip phone with apps. But honestly I don't know who you're trying to kid if you don't think Apple could do it better if it was at a system level.

Anyways this thread is about a dual OS iPad, this whole iPod thing was a side note comparison and nothing more.

 

[rowspaxe]

[Apple is] blocking a better voip experience in order to maintain their iPhone line.

You seem to be confusing "failure to actively support" with "blocking".

By analogy, has apple been "blocking" a better drawing experience on the ipad for the past five years? Have they stopped "blocking" it now that they have implemented digitizing technology on the ipad pro and manufactured the pencil?

 

[kiranmk2]

Apple really needs to innovate in UIs pretty quickly. The iPad sales are probably going to fall off a cliff in the next year and even thought the Mac is increasing in sales it's still a drop in the profit ocean. As has been said, no one wants OSX on an iPad - that is Windows 10 (although I understand iOS is OS X underneath the UI). At the same time, a larger, more powerful iPad doesn't solve the puzzle of that last 10-20% and I think the iPad Pro is going to be a victim of this fact. What Apple needs is an 'I've cracked it!' moment akin to Jobs' often-quoted exclamation about the TV interface - just shoving out a bigger iPad with a pencil isn't going to cut it. I don't think someone's going to stumble upon it - it's going to take a lot of work. Even putting a desktop UI onto the iPad Pro, while selling more tablets to the 'nerd' crows isn't going to turn the iPads sales decline around - they need to understand what would convince people to trade in their PC/Mac for an iPad. This may harm Mac sales, but people are more likely to update a $6-700 iPad a lot more often than a $1-1.5k laptop.

 

[chasonstone]

You seem to be confusing "failure to actively support" with "blocking".

By analogy, has apple been "blocking" a better drawing experience on the ipad for the past five years? Have they stopped "blocking" it now that they have implemented digitizing technology on the ipad pro and manufactured the pencil?

If they were intentionally holding back a better drawing experience, then yes they were. If they were doing it due to technological limitations, then no they weren't. With the iPod they have more than enough ability to make a VOIP iPod phone. They're intentionally not pursuing it which is blocking the experience. I'm not sure how many more ways I can rephrase this same sentiment. But the pencil analogy isn't really the same as there's no other product in their lineup this feature would place in jeopardy. A voip iPod phone would cut into the iPhone. A dual OS iPad would cut into the Mac. They're not doing either even though it's technologically possible because it would cut into other product lines and/or it would be a subpar experience.

 

[cynics]

If they were intentionally holding back a better drawing experience, then yes they were. If they were doing it due to technological limitations, then no they weren't. With the iPod they have more than enough ability to make a VOIP iPod phone. They're intentionally not pursuing it which is blocking the experience. I'm not sure how many more ways I can rephrase this same sentiment. But the pencil analogy isn't really the same as there's no other product in their lineup this feature would place in jeopardy. A voip iPod phone would cut into the iPhone. A dual OS iPad would cut into the Mac. They're not doing either even though it's technologically possible because it would cut into other product lines and/or it would be a subpar experience.

Can't you do FaceTime audio (voip) on the iPod? That's Apples own software. And if you wanted a more universal solution there are plenty of apps available (even Facebook messenger). Apple could literally block all that at the App Store like they do with other apps and functions, but they aren't.

 

[chasonstone]

Can't you do FaceTime audio (voip) on the iPod? That's Apples own software. And if you wanted a more universal solution there are plenty of apps available (even Facebook messenger). Apple could literally block all that at the App Store like they do with other apps and functions, but they aren't.

You can but as I said earlier in the thread that's not really a true VOIP service. They only way someone could dial a number and call you with that service is if you already had a number attached to your Apple ID, which would require you to have an iPhone as well. Which doesn't really allow you to replace an iPhone and expensive service with an iPod and cheap/free wifi service.

I never said they were blocking apps. I said they were blocking it from being an easy, consumer friendly solution to just use an iPod instead of an iPhone. They could add the speaker by the FaceTime camera so those apps would allow you to hold your iPod like a phone but they won't do that. They could also integrate a voip service so you can use iMessage with your voip number but they won't. They won't do either of these because it would create more people who could ditch the iPhone for an iPod.

 

[macguy360]

You can but as I said earlier in the thread that's not really a true VOIP service. They only way someone could dial a number and call you with that service is if you already had a number attached to your Apple ID, which would require you to have an iPhone as well. Which doesn't really allow you to replace an iPhone and expensive service with an iPod and cheap/free wifi service.

I never said they were blocking apps. I said they were blocking it from being an easy, consumer friendly solution to just use an iPod instead of an iPhone. They could add the speaker by the FaceTime camera so those apps would allow you to hold your iPod like a phone but they won't do that. They could also integrate a voip service so you can use iMessage with your voip number but they won't. They won't do either of these because it would create more people who could ditch the iPhone for an iPod.

People know that there are enough wifi hotspots around to where you could literally just use a portable voip phone and be just fine without paying $50-$100 a month for a cell phone. If you do a google search you can find entire forums of people that ditch their cell phones for voip alternatives similar to the way people ditch cable tv for Netflix, Amazon type stuff.

Fact of the matter is Apple could put a speaker/mic setup on the iPod touch just like the iPhone to allow people to make voip calls, but they will never do it. There are workarounds the form of using your own bluetooth headset or corded earpiece/mic, but that doesn't really make the iPod touch a quick pickup alternative to an iPhone. Thus they are blocking (i.e. preventing) the iPod from being an easy alternative to an iPhone.

They could even put cellular chips in the iPod touch to allow data use like an iPad, then people could literally have a go anywhere voip phone for an additional $10 on their cell phone plan, but Apple really isn't going to do that.

And for people that really think its just happenstance that these things aren't included on the iPod touch, consider that every single minute detail of each product is gone over multiple times over by teams of people before a product is created.

*and you can have a true VOIP without having an additional iPhone. The phone number of your voip is registered to your voip app account and when someone dials that number your iPod rings.

 

[Night Spring]

They could even put cellular chips in the iPod touch to allow data use like an iPad, then people could literally have a go anywhere voip phone for an additional $10 on their cell phone plan, but Apple really isn't going to do that.

Or, you know, phone companies could just allow us to sign up for data-only plans with our iPhones. But they don't.

So if Apple makes this hypothetical iPod with cellular chip and speakers positioned so it can be held up to your ear as a phone, they can't just do it on their own. They've got to get the phone companies to agree to sell data plans for it.

Oh, and in order to allow the iPod to be held against the face, they've got to add a proximity sensor. So a cellular chip plus a proximity sensor adds to the cost of manufacturing an iPod, doesn't it? By that time, might as well call it a cheaper iPhone, don't you think?

 

[lockerc18]

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.

I have an iPad3 and old HP Vista laptop that I replaced with a Yoga 900 running Windows 10. The Yoga is about the size of a MBA. It folds over so that you can use it as a tablet. I have to say, I am far happier with this than I was with my iPad3, which got slower and slower as each new release of IOS came out. The only problem with the Yoga is the shortness of the battery life, and also it's a little bulky when in tablet mode, especially compared to an iPad Air 2. But it runs the full Windows OS, not a constrained version, like IOS is. YMMV, but I really like this system and don't see going back to an iPad. I do have a rMBP which I still use, too. But the Yoga is even getting to the point where that's more of my go-to system than the Mac.

Apple has missed the boat by not offering a 2-in-1 system like this. The iPad Pro with the keyboard doesn't come close.

 

[Night Spring]

I have an iPad3 and old HP Vista laptop that I replaced with a Yoga 900 running Windows 10. The Yoga is about the size of a MBA. It folds over so that you can use it as a tablet. I have to say, I am far happier with this than I was with my iPad3, which got slower and slower as each new release of IOS came out. The only problem with the Yoga is the shortness of the battery life, and also it's a little bulky when in tablet mode, especially compared to an iPad Air 2. But it runs the full Windows OS, not a constrained version, like IOS is. YMMV, but I really like this system and don't see going back to an iPad. I do have a rMBP which I still use, too. But the Yoga is even getting to the point where that's more of my go-to system than the Mac.

Apple has missed the boat by not offering a 2-in-1 system like this. The iPad Pro with the keyboard doesn't come close.

Well, I've considered those hybrid systems, and my conclusion is, at the moment, I don't need one, because I don't need a full computer on the go. iPads and iPhones are all I need in terms of mobile computing, and when I'm home or at the office, I have my desktop systems to use.

I understand that there are many people who prefer the hybrid systems. But Apple is betting that users like me are greater in number than people who need/want full desktop computing on the go.

The iPad Pro is an interesting device, in that the only thing preventing me from doing my day job on it is that my office still uses legacy software that is like 20 years old. I mean, there's nothing hardware-wise or software-wise that makes iPP inadequate for the task, it's just that the software happens to be incompatible with the ones we use at work. It'd be the same thing if my job used iOS specific software and I had an Android tablet. Unfortunately my work requires that I keep my Windows machines around. If not for that, I'd happily ditch Windows, do 99% of my computing on iOS and keep a Mac around for the other 1%.

 

[macguy360]

Or, you know, phone companies could just allow us to sign up for data-only plans with our iPhones. But they don't.

So if Apple makes this hypothetical iPod with cellular chip and speakers positioned so it can be held up to your ear as a phone, they can't just do it on their own. They've got to get the phone companies to agree to sell data plans for it.

Oh, and in order to allow the iPod to be held against the face, they've got to add a proximity sensor. So a cellular chip plus a proximity sensor adds to the cost of manufacturing an iPod, doesn't it? By that time, might as well call it a cheaper iPhone, don't you think?

To your first point: You can't blame phone companies when Apple doesn't create the hardware to support other alternatives with other devices.

Regarding your second sentence: Phone companies don't have to agree to sell data plans. Apple could make an iPod without the cellular capability and just add an upper speaker/ proximity sensor and then let customers use the device as a Voip device when near wifi. There is so much free wifi in the world, you literally would only need cell service if your driving between locations. There are even companies now that sell access to thousands of wifi spots for a flat $5-$10 a month. For a minimalist person that doesn't like having a cell phone but would like the capability of making calls when out an about, this is the perfect option.

To your last point about the cellular chip: Apple sells iPads with cellular capability for like $129 extra, the same can be done with an iPod and people would buy them. Your talking $329 for a base model cellular iPod that people could use to stream music using a cell signal while out on a run, or navigating during a hike, or anything else you an imagine.

While the cellular iPod is very unlikely, an iPod with a proximity sensor and speaker is a very reasonable thing for customers to want.

 

[Billy95Tech]

I'd happily ditch Windows, do 99% of my computing on iOS and keep a Mac around for the other 1%.

The same i'd happily ditch Windows completely and only use Android and IOS but the only reason that i have to use Windows is the video editing software as i make videos on Youtube and since the video editing software on Android/IOS is still pretty basic and does not have many features compared to video editing software on Windows so i have to use Windows for to make my Youtube videos.

But i am really really hoping that Apple will get developers to create more advanced video editing software/apps for IOS on ipads in the future which i am sure they will especially with the iPad Pro and iPad Air 2 so then i can use my Ipad to make Youtube videos.

Other then that i still like Windows but not as much as IOS and Android, i do definitely like IOS/Android a lot more then Windows on tablets!!

 

[Night Spring]

Apple sells iPads with cellular capability for like $129 extra, the same can be done with an iPod and people would buy them. Your talking $329 for a base model cellular iPod that people could use to stream music using a cell signal while out on a run, or navigating during a hike, or anything else you an imagine.

Okay, and why couldn't this hypothetical $329 device be called an iPhone?

The only reason why it would be an iPod instead of an iPhone is if the phone companies agreed to sell data-only plans for it. So it's not only up to Apple to build such a device, the phone companies have to get on board, too.

As for wifi, good for you if you live somewhere where wifi is available everywhere you go, but that's not the case yet where I live. It's getting better, but it still has a way to go. Once wifi really is available everywhere, sure, we can expect Apple to start making premium wifi only "iPhones." But I think that will be a while yet.
[doublepost=1452200534][/doublepost]

Other then that i still like Windows but not as much as IOS and Android, i like IOS/Android a lot more then Windows on tablets!!

I did like Windows 7, but like I said, 99% of my computing time is now spent in iOS. I go for days without starting my desktop, then whenever I turn it on, it always has new updates it wants me to install. And then Adobe and Java are always trying to install *their* updates, and I always have to be careful with those because they always try to install crapware or change my default search engine. So I'm more and more inclined not to turn on my desktop unless I really can't help it. And the less I use my desktop, the more pain it is when I do turn it on. It's a vicious cycle...

 

[rowspaxe]

Fact of the matter is Apple could put a speaker/mic setup on the iPod touch just like the iPhone to allow people to make voip calls, but they will never do it. There are workarounds the form of using your own bluetooth headset or corded earpiece/mic, but that doesn't really make the iPod touch a quick pickup alternative to an iPhone. Thus they are blocking (i.e. preventing) the iPod from being an easy alternative to an iPhone.

"Blocking" implies "active prevention or mitigation" of service. Apple is not "blocking" the use of the use of the ipod touch as a voip client. I use it and it works great.

Apple is not "actively supporting" a voip experience. Its a destinction with a difference. Apple does not support a file tree or usb connection in ios. Is Apple blocking these things? No, it is merely not designing the product to support these functionalities. You could always buy an iphone and use that as a voip client--Apple is not blocking that, either.