We know what the next iMac is.

[Boil]

From the perspective that Apple is switching / transitioning to a whole new laptop / desktop architecture (their very own Apple silicon), they could 'throwback' to the original classic Macintosh (AIO), and announce a 24" iMac (AIO) as the first Apple silicon Mac...!

But the argument towards a laptop being the first Apple silicon Mac, as a display of the efficiency of the new hardware is also compelling...!

 

[thenewperson]

this is correct, however I really hope we dont see a 13.3 MBP as part of the first batch, as a 14"makes so much sense in a pro model and leave the 13"to the air as the more portable solution.

I definitely agree, though I guess they would want a 'more powerful than an Air' laptop in the first batch (though personally the 24" redesigned iMac should really cover the need for a more performant Mac as part of the first batch). A 13" Air, 14/16" Pro line would be quite neat.

 

[Yebubbleman]

...so, in other words, quite a lot "iPad Pro esque" about it. Nobody's suggesting that it will literally be sold as an iPad (any more than an iPad running MacOS - which is perfectly feasible and has even been done, badly, via emulation - is a "Mac").

There's a WORLD of difference between taking design cues from something else and being modeled directly after something else. Unless you're just trying to be pedantic and argue semantics here, in which case, I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

An iPad running macOS has never NOT been feasible. iPadOS, like iOS, like watchOS, like tvOS, IS macOS at its core. Always has been. Similarly a touchscreen Mac has never not been feasible. But you're not going to have iPadOS's UI be what is used on the Mac. Nor will you ever have macOS's UI on the iPad. Just because those things are feasible doesn't mean Apple will ever want to do it. They've been steadfast in saying that they won't do it and for reasons that are fairly logical.

Once Macs are capable of natively running iOS software, the case for a Mac (desktop or laptop) with a touchscreen & detachable tablet section suddenly becomes much, much stronger than the case for a Windows PC "convertible" which lacks a substantial base of tablet-friendly software (but which are, nevertheless, quite popular). Maybe not the #1 possibility, but certainly not a stupid idea.

It's not a great idea. It also goes against the tons of resources that they've poured into Catalyst, which, once they perfect it, will be the ideal way to get an iPadOS app to run on a Mac. The Mac is best with a mouse and keyboard. Apple understands this. Furthermore, you're not going to have an iPadOS app run on a Mac with a better user experience than you would otherwise have running that app on an actual iPad. This much is evident on running iPhone apps on an iPad. The ability is there if you need it, but the user experience pales in comparison to running it on the device it was intended to run on. Again, that's the whole point of Catalyst to begin with. Touchscreen has never taken off wildly in the Windows world and it's not for a lack of decent touch support, both in Windows 10 and in associated apps. There's no benefit to it other than maybe saving you from buying an iPad.

 

[theluggage]

They've been steadfast in saying that they won't do it and for reasons that are fairly logical.

Apple will be steadfast against putting a touchscreen on the Mac until the day they announce a Mac with a touchscreen, same as they were steadfast against an iPad with a stylus until the day they announced the Pencil (see also: iOS multitasking, home screen widgets...) - when the game changes, they change their mind. The past arguments against touchscreens assume that (a) you just stick one on an existing MacBook/iMac without switching to a "2 in 1" design - leading to "gorilla arms" syndrome and (b) all Mac software is designed for keyboard/pointer. Apple Silicon means that a machine with at least 13" MacBook Pro-level power could be built into a tablet form factor, and suddenly there's a huge App Store full of touch-oriented iOS software which runs under MacOS.

It's not a great idea. It also goes against the tons of resources that they've poured into Catalyst, which, once they perfect it, will be the ideal way to get an iPadOS app to run on a Mac.

Yet, despite Catalyst, they've decided to support native iOS Apps on MacOS - which itself must have taken significant resources. So, clearly, Apple don't see Catalyst as the complete solution to bridging the Mac and iPadOS.

Anyway, Catalyst isn't a "way to get an iPadOS app to run on a Mac" - iOS Apps have to be (re)written to use Catalyst, so developers still have to go an extra mile to support MacOS and - for any substantial app that isn't just a glorified menu - deal with the different UI design considerations between MultiTouch and WIMP. It's great for developers who set out to make dual iPad/MacOS apps, but it does very little to make the vast range of iOS apps available on a Mac... and, yeah, native iOS support in MacOS isn't exactly going to encourage uptake of Catalyst, but it is already a done deal.

The reality is that - at least at the consumer end of the market - "available for iPhone and Android" is the new Windows. Many iOS developers couldn't give a wet slap about Mac support and aren't even necessarily using XCode/UIKit directly (as opposed to development frameworks like Xamarin) and won't bother to use Catalyst. Native iOS support is what is going to make sure that, in future, you can run your favorite eBanking/media streaming/social media/online tax return/casual gaming/fart app on your Mac.

That just leaves the problem that some iOS Apps will be horrible to use without a touchscreen - the arguments against touchscreen Macs have been overtaken by events.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Apple will be steadfast against putting a touchscreen on the Mac until the day they announce a Mac with a touchscreen, same as they were steadfast against an iPad with a stylus until the day they announced the Pencil (see also: iOS multitasking, home screen widgets...) - when the game changes, they change their mind. The past arguments against touchscreens assume that (a) you just stick one on an existing MacBook/iMac without switching to a "2 in 1" design - leading to "gorilla arms" syndrome and (b) all Mac software is designed for keyboard/pointer. Apple Silicon means that a machine with at least 13" MacBook Pro-level power could be built into a tablet form factor, and suddenly there's a huge App Store full of touch-oriented iOS software which runs under MacOS.

Apple made a pencil because there was a use case for drawing on an iPad. The arguments against touchscreen on a Mac are not limited to ergonomics. The experience of using an iPhone app that demands touch input is going to suck on a Mac compared to an iPad, which will still suck compared to using it on an iPhone (which is the device it was intended to be used on). No one is saying it can't be done. What I'm saying is that the user experience would suffer. Outside of Hearthstone, Microsoft Office, and Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator, the experience of doing so on a PC today is lackluster, and, again, it's not because there isn't stellar touch support in Windows 10, because there is. Apple's not stupid; they already know this. That's why they have yet to relent on this.

Yet, despite Catalyst, they've decided to support native iOS Apps on MacOS - which itself must have taken significant resources. So, clearly, Apple don't see Catalyst as the complete solution to bridging the Mac and iPadOS.

Actually, no. It didn't take significant resources. All it took was the Mac and the iPad being on the same processor architecture. Hell, Apple realistically could've made it work on Intel if they really wanted (as apps running in the iPhone simulator are technically running on Intel). Catalyst exists to bridge the gap between touch and keyboard and mouse. It's an initiative that has been in development for as long as Apple has been planning the Apple Silicon transition. Hell, it was an intended element of the transition! Apple's aim is for you, an iPad or iPhone developer to make a Mac native app. Not for you to shrug and say "Well, it's running on the Mac; I'm done."

Anyway, Catalyst isn't a "way to get an iPadOS app to run on a Mac" - iOS Apps have to be (re)written to use Catalyst, so developers still have to go an extra mile to support MacOS and - for any substantial app that isn't just a glorified menu - deal with the different UI design considerations between MultiTouch and WIMP. It's great for developers who set out to make dual iPad/MacOS apps, but it does very little to make the vast range of iOS apps available on a Mac... and, yeah, native iOS support in MacOS isn't exactly going to encourage uptake of Catalyst, but it is already a done deal.

Honestly, it depends heavily on the app. Most apps will adapt fine with a keyboard and mouse, in which case Catalyst may not even be necessary. But for many more involved apps, you're not going to see a developer just say "meh, I don't need to do anything because my app just runs". Furthermore, you're not going to see the Mac App Store flooded with every iOS and iPadOS app out there. Developers have to opt each app into the Mac App Store manually. It's not going to simply be a matter of booting your shiny new Apple Silicon Mac and finding all of your iOS and iPadOS apps there for you to download. They have already stated as much in a bunch of the WWDC20 videos. Similarly, they have also stated in numerous WWDC20 videos that while getting your iOS and iPadOS app to run will simply be a matter of opting in, Catalyst is still the recommended approach for Mac native apps. And that makes sense because the UI will definitely suffer on apps where that isn't being done. Adding a touch screen to a Mac won't really fix any UX problems that arise along the way with apps that clearly need touch input. Again, just because it can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

The reality is that - at least at the consumer end of the market - "available for iPhone and Android" is the new Windows. Many iOS developers couldn't give a wet slap about Mac support and aren't even necessarily using XCode/UIKit directly (as opposed to development frameworks like Xamarin) and won't bother to use Catalyst. Native iOS support is what is going to make sure that, in future, you can run your favorite eBanking/media streaming/social media/online tax return/casual gaming/fart app on your Mac.

Actually, no. Half of those apps exist in these things called "websites". That's how most users sitting down to a desktop platform get things that are otherwise done on an app on their phone. The other half are either native or not the kinds of things the average Mac user would bother to put on their Mac if given the option. Apple is hoping to lure iOS and iPadOS developers into making Mac ports of those apps; hence Catalyst. Not being lazy and using unmodified iOS and iPadOS code to run on the Mac as, again, that makes for poor user experience. And, first and foremost, Apple is all about good user experience.

That just leaves the problem that some iOS Apps will be horrible to use without a touchscreen - the arguments against touchscreen Macs have been overtaken by events.

Maybe in the reality you live in. Meanwhile back here on Earth, that's (a) not what Apple is clearly aiming for and (b) not something that makes any practical sense. Furthermore, iPhone apps run best on iPhones. Running them on iPads is a subpar experience no matter how you slice it. The same will be true of running the apps you say will suck without a touch screen. Again, this is why Catalyst exists. Apple wouldn't make Catalyst, shepherd people towards using it over the past two years (all while clearly laying the groundwork for this transition), only to ditch it because Macs can now natively run iOS and iPadOS apps. You're far more likely to get a Mac with a touchscreen keyboard a la the TouchBar than you are to have the primary display be a touchscreen.

 

[theluggage]

Apple made a pencil because there was a use case for drawing on an iPad.

...and an abundance of iOS apps that will suddenly run on Macs is a use case for having a touchscreen (and Pencil) on the Mac.

All it took was the Mac and the iPad being on the same processor architecture.

Sorry, that's not how computers work. Things like that don't "just happen" without resources.
What is true is that some of the work was already done in the form of the iOS subsystem for Mac that comes with XCode. Even so, that was a developer-only tool that is going to need polishing and higher-priority support if it is going to be a stable solution for end users - including smoothing over the differences between user interfaces - not to mention the necessary changes to the App Store and extra support for developers. Sure, if Apple do a half-baked job of it it won't succeed, but that remains to be seen.

Adding a touch screen to a Mac won't really fix any UX problems that arise along the way with apps that clearly need touch input.

Er... adding touch input won't solve problems with apps that need touch input? Pretty sure it will - unless you're still stuck on the idea of "just sticking a touchscreen on a regular iMac/MBP design". There's more than that to a "2 in 1" design and this all started with the idea of a screen/tablet unit that could be detached from its stand.

Similarly, they have also stated in numerous WWDC20 videos that while getting your iOS and iPadOS app to run will simply be a matter of opting in, Catalyst is still the recommended approach for Mac native apps.

...and you don't think "tick this box to start getting free money from Mac users" will appeal to vastly more developers than "re-write your App to use catalyst to satisfy a small minority of Mac users"? Catalyst could be great, but mainly for developers who are already committed to maintaining a Mac version.

Actually, no. Half of those apps exist in these things called "websites".

...it has somehow escaped your notice that half of those websites are now saying "download our App for all these cool extra features!" because there are things you can implement far more easily in an app-store-approved App which you can't do in a website.

Already, my bank's website only offers a subset of the features available on their iOS app. The app I use to order prescriptions doesn't have a direct website equivalent. This is not a trend that is going away. For many consumer-targeted applications, the #1 priority for developers is the mobile App - not the web version, not even the Windows version and certainly not the MacOS version.

The success of iOS has come at the expense of kicking Mac down into 4th place on many developers' agendas.

...and that's ignoring all of the apps that don't exist as websites.

 

[Boil]

Apple does not want to sell you a touchscreen Mac, because they want you to buy an iPad Pro; now they just need to get the Sidecar software sorted...!

 

[guzhogi]

I could see the AS iMac look something like an iPad Pro on a Magic Keyboard. Remove the rear camera & battery, make it thick enough for a few TB & USB ports and power plug. Finally remove the "chin" & bezels.

 

[Yebubbleman]

...and an abundance of iOS apps that will suddenly run on Macs is a use case for having a touchscreen (and Pencil) on the Mac.

It's not though. And the reason, which for some insane reason you are hell-bent on ignoring, is that THE USER EXPERIENCE WOULD SUCK.

Sorry, that's not how computers work. Things like that don't "just happen" without resources.

I'm not saying effort didn't go into it. I'm saying that the effort that went into it is minimal compared to the effort that went into porting macOS to Apple Silicon and the effort to make Catalyst a thing. Go do some research on this stuff; you'll be surprised at what you discover.

What is true is that some of the work was already done in the form of the iOS subsystem for Mac that comes with XCode. Even so, that was a developer-only tool that is going to need polishing and higher-priority support if it is going to be a stable solution for end users - including smoothing over the differences between user interfaces - not to mention the necessary changes to the App Store and extra support for developers. Sure, if Apple do a half-baked job of it it won't succeed, but that remains to be seen.

Again, it's much less up front effort than you're making it out to be. The one thing needed to really make it happen was the common architecture as the iPhone simulator runs apps on Intel and there isn't and will never be an iOS or iPadOS device running on the Intel architecture. Having macOS, iPadOS, and iOS all running the same architecture is what made that possible. Not some crazy re-work of Xcode, the Mac App Store, or anything of that nature. And even so, Apple STILL wants you to make a Catalyst app!

Er... adding touch input won't solve problems with apps that need touch input? Pretty sure it will - unless you're still stuck on the idea of "just sticking a touchscreen on a regular iMac/MBP design". There's more than that to a "2 in 1" design and this all started with the idea of a screen/tablet unit that could be detached from its stand.

Look. You seem to not grasp the difference between what CAN BE DONE and what WILL BE DONE. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand Apple with regards to how they view Macs as being separate devices from iOS devices. I strongly encourage you to correct this by watching WWDC20 videos as they explain pretty much everything I've been trying to explain to you in graphic detail. Furthermore there are interviews with Craig Federighi and Greg Joswiak on the Daring Fireball that further state that Macs are still going to fundamentally be Macs with no macOS/iPadOS merger of the sort you are talking about to take place. I cannot help you if you don't accept reality.

I never said that Apple couldn't do a reversible 2-in-1. They absolutely CAN. I said that they WON'T. Apple would rather sell you a 12.9" iPad Pro and a 13" MacBook Pro than to sell a device that does both because they believe (and rightfully so) that at best it's a niche feature and at worst it introduces the possibility of a horrible user experience. That and they'd rather sell you two devices than one. It's unfair and it sucks. But that's Apple. Apple wouldn't have spent the effort of developing Catalyst (knowing full well that they'd (a) be transitioning to Apple Silicon and (b) introduce the capability of running iOS and iPadOS apps unmodified on Apple Silicon Macs) if that wasn't the preferred strategy for porting to macOS instead of running touchscreen apps on a touchscreen Mac.

...and you don't think "tick this box to start getting free money from Mac users" will appeal to vastly more developers than "re-write your App to use catalyst to satisfy a small minority of Mac users"? Catalyst could be great, but mainly for developers who are already committed to maintaining a Mac version.

It depends on how much developers care about the user experience on a Mac. Some app developers may be lucky and the experience of just porting the app as is might not be bad, in which case, who needs Catalyst? Though, given what I've watched of the WWDC20 videos, it sounds like Catalyst will make more sense.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself. Catalyst doesn't satisfy a small minority of Mac users; it satisfies ALL Mac users. Developers wouldn't care about even having their iOS or iPadOS app on the Mac if the "small population of Mac users" on Apple Silicon is too small to be worth caring about because that's yet another platform to have to support (because even though the code is unmodified, a developer still has to support it on the platform it's running on).

...it has somehow escaped your notice that half of those websites are now saying "download our App for all these cool extra features!" because there are things you can implement far more easily in an app-store-approved App which you can't do in a website.

No. However, it seems to have somehow escaped YOUR notice that the only reason why those buttons exist is that the website runs like crap on anything mobile. That's the whole reason why native apps for things that are otherwise websites even became a thing on iOS in the first place!

Also, please name me the "things you can implement far more easily in an app-store-approved App which you can't do in a website" because I'm pretty sure that, outside of gaming, that claim is total horse manure, especially given that a vast majority of apps are web-apps using wrappers anyway.

Already, my bank's website only offers a subset of the features available on their iOS app. The app I use to order prescriptions doesn't have a direct website equivalent. This is not a trend that is going away. For many consumer-targeted applications, the #1 priority for developers is the mobile App - not the web version, not even the Windows version and certainly not the MacOS version.

...And those developers are not going to care about the Mac because mobile is more important, like you said. Apple is not going to simply adjust to accomodate that because, as I've said a zillion times already (and as you keep ignoring), iOS apps are best on iPhone, iPadOS apps are best on iPad, macOS apps are best on Mac, universal apps are the ideal way to get apps on multiple platforms and Catalyst is the way to bring those apps to the Mac.

You don't have to like or agree with that. It simply just is.

The success of iOS has come at the expense of kicking Mac down into 4th place on many developers' agendas.

This might be the only thing we agree on. However, you seriously misunderstand the nature of Apple agenda in trying to fix that with this transition. I know you don't believe me, but they don't believe that touchscreen on a Mac will offer a good user experience. And if we're talking about apps that would run more comfortably on an iPad or an iPhone, they're 100% right. Just like running an iPhone app on an iPad comes with obvious compromises, that's how running iOS and iPadOS apps on a Mac will be too. Don't expect Apple to reverse course on this as you'll be waiting for an awfully long time.

...and that's ignoring all of the apps that don't exist as websites.

Please re-read what I wrote above in bold. Despite the ability to run iOS and iPadOS apps unmodified on the Mac, Apple is not going to cave in as far as touch screen support is concerned outside of turning the whole keyboard into one giant touch bar. They will not do a 2-in-1, let alone a reversible one no matter how much you believe that they ought to. No one is saying the technology doesn't exist. Just that Apple won't do it for very clear and obvious reasons.


EDIT: Watch these videos:

iPad and iPhone apps on Apple silicon Macs - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer

Apple silicon Macs can run many iPad and iPhone apps as-is, and these apps will be made available to users on the Mac through the Mac App...

developer.apple.com

What's new in Mac Catalyst - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer

Discover the latest updates to Mac Catalyst and find out how you can bring your iPadOS app to the Mac. Explore enhancements to the...

developer.apple.com

 

[theluggage]

Look. You seem to not grasp the difference between what CAN BE DONE and what WILL BE DONE.

Look in a mirror. I'm just speculating about possibilities. You're the one asserting as fact that they won't happen. It's entirely possible that the hypothetical November launch will consist of the current MacBook Air chassis with an Apple Silicon chip bunged in and that any new iMac will still be Intel based (and, as I've said, just slapping a touch screen on an existing design isn't sensible). I don't know, you don't know - it's fun to speculate.

It's not though. And the reason, which for some insane reason you are hell-bent on ignoring, is that THE USER EXPERIENCE WOULD SUCK.

Which you keep asserting without any rational justification. I'll tell you what does suck - using an application designed for multitouch on a keyboard/mouse system or vice-versa - and not just things like pinch-to-zoom, being able to play a chord on a piano keyboard, or using a Pencil to draw and write - the meaning of actions like click/tap, hover, double-click/long press are completely different.

Furthermore there are interviews with Craig Federighi and Greg Joswiak on the Daring Fireball that further state that Macs are still going to fundamentally be Macs with no macOS/iPadOS merger of the sort you are talking about to take place. I cannot help you if you don't accept reality.

Actions speak louder than words and Apple have announced that MacOS on ARM will run "most" native iOS Apps unmodified. Not just as an incidental feature of XCode but as a user-facing headline feature of the new Macs - if it sucks, Apple will face the consequences. That's not speculation, that's not maybe, that's not carefully chosen words in a press interview. So, sorry, although you can re-define "macOS/iPadOS merger" to mean whatever fits your argument, the reality here is that Apple have already made a major step towards increasing the overlap between MacOS and iOS.

What Apple are trying to talk down is the fear that MacOS itself will get locked down iOS-style. Presumably, though, iOS Apps will be running in a locked-down sandbox, probably aided by the security features of Apple Silicon (otherwise that list of "most" apps is going to be 'unless they use the camera, or FaceID or the fingerprint reader or location services or in-app purchases or... etc. and Apple will look stupid).

No. However, it seems to have somehow escaped YOUR notice that the only reason why those buttons exist is that the website runs like crap on anything mobile.

That was 5 years ago. Now new features are turning up on apps that don't exist on the website - particularly things like fingerprint/face ID integration - but it's also clear which platform is getting the development attention. Probably because of stats like this: https://techjury.net/blog/mobile-vs-desktop-usage/#gref - it doesn't even matter if the stats are true, because the industry has embraced "mobile is the future" as its mantra.

Apple's success with the iPhone and App Store has actually served to demote the Mac from #2 to #4 on developers' priority list. Seriously, when almost everybody who is potty-trained has either an Internet-connected iOS or Android device, regardless of whether they've got a desktop/laptop/Mac/PC ... even in parts of the freaking "developing world" ... what do you think is going to be the first priority for developers?

There are things that you can do with an App that you either can't do on the web or are horribly complicated, hamstrung by security requirements or fragile and browser-dependent. The latter hasn't been helped by Apple being picky about what web standards it implements (Safari/WebKit is now the only browser other than Chrome/Chromium with a significant market share so they have huge influence) - e.g. the web "pointers" standard that would make it far easier to accept multi-touch and stylus input in a browser.

 

[CWallace]

There are still major apps (*cough* Instagram *cough*) that are designed only around the iPhone and run double-size on an iPad and look like crap. God only knows what that is going to look like on a 27" ASi "iMac Pro" or a Pro XDR Display.

If Apple's "grand plan" for the Mac is to move it to ASi so it can just run iPhone and iPad apps bigger with users poking at their screens with their fingers or a pen, then what was the point? An iPad Pro on a Smart Keyboard will do it far better than a laptop and don't even get met started about the experience on a vertically-oriented desktop display like an iMac or Pro Display XDR.

Better to just have killed the Mac and ship 16" and 24" iPad Pros with compatible Smart Keyboards.

I believe Apple has more planned than just making macOS a "big screen" version of iPadOS.

 

[guzhogi]

I'm just waiting for Apple to port Xcode to iPad. Once people can create apps for iPads on an iPad, I see Apple losing interest in Macs and eventually ditching them.

 

[CWallace]

I'm just waiting for Apple to port Xcode to iPad. Once people can create apps for iPads on an iPad, I see Apple losing interest in Macs and eventually ditching them.

Moving macOS to Apple Silicon is, IMO, a sign that this won't be happening.

 

[theluggage]

There are still major apps (*cough* Instagram *cough*) that are designed only around the iPhone and run double-size on an iPad and look like crap. God only knows what that is going to look like on a 27" ASi "iMac Pro" or a Pro XDR Display.

Well, we'll see when the ASi Macs turn up - but I'd assume that an iPhone-only app would run in an appropriately-sized window on MacOS. At worst, it's going to be like Dashboard widgets, which for a lot of phone apps actually makes sense and is 100% better than not being able to run them at all. iPad Apps should be a perfectly usable size.

An iPad Pro on a Smart Keyboard will do it far better than a laptop and don't even get met started about the experience on a vertically-oriented desktop display like an iMac or Pro Display XDR.

Eh? Please explain exactly how using an App on a touch-sensitive display with a keyboard attached is different from using it on... er... a touch sensitive display with a keyboard attached....? They both have the problem of the keyboard getting in the way of the touch screen and, yes, there is the "gorilla arms" problem with iMacs (and larger laptops) which is why this thread has been talking about 2-in-one designs like detachable displays or something along the lines of the Surface Studio and not just slapping a touchscreen on an existing Mac design with no thought to ergonomics.

Moving macOS to Apple Silicon is, IMO, a sign that this won't be happening.

It's certainly hopeful that Apple are sinking so much effort into the Mac. Before that, the launch of iPadOS, improving mouse support on the iPad, the new smart keyboard, Photoshop on iPad etc. really did make it look as if Apple saw the iPad as the new Mac. Mobile isn't going away and will continue to munch away at the consumer end of the PC market, but for some things you just need a "proper" computer.

However, there does seem to be a conflict now between the lower end of the Mac range and the upper end of the iPad Pro range - and the decision to support iOS Apps on MacOS really is at odds with the "Mac is Mac, iPad is iPad" party line.... which is why I wonder if Apple will U-turn and produce a "2-in-1" (something that most of their competitors offer).

 

[Manzanito]

I'm just waiting for Apple to port Xcode to iPad. Once people can create apps for iPads on an iPad, I see Apple losing interest in Macs and eventually ditching them.

You may have to wait for a while. Apple is very careful in differentiating macs and ipads.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I'm just waiting for Apple to port Xcode to iPad. Once people can create apps for iPads on an iPad, I see Apple losing interest in Macs and eventually ditching them.

I have to ask the general community:

What the attraction of using applications like XCode / Final Cut Pro / Lightroom / Logic Pro on a small touch screen device like an iPad that has limited memory and storage capability?

Considering XCode, most developers are heavily keyboard-based and want a lot of screen real-estate. Availability of 3rd party tools and command-line tools is a big consideration, and AFAIK, the iPad doesn't offer a lot of these.

Same story with FCP, Logic & most Adobe products - you need screen real-estate to see what's going on and use all the controls. Yes, the iPad has some good speed optimisations compared to Intel processors but I don't see how a 4-6GB iPad with a much slower internal SSD (write speeds 8x slower) is going to compete with a 32GB iMac or MacBook Pro with a discrete GPU and blazingly fast SSD - or with similarly-specced Apple Silicon laptops/desktops when they arrive.

I can see a few use cases where a highly portable device is useful for some mobile work, such as previewing videos or photos in the field and doing some basic editing, or using on-stage for live music, or basic document editing. But surely the experience will be much better with a full OS and large screen?

A tablet is great where you can't sit down at a table or desk, and where you need "book-like" ergonomics, and access to front and rear cameras, i.e. any job where you are on your feet and may need to operate one-handed, or where you would otherwise have pen & paper - hospitals, factory floors, hospitality staff etc. However, you are unlikely to be using XCode in these circumstances

I could see the benefit if the iPad were much cheaper than a similar laptop - but it's not. A 12.9" iPad Pro with Magic Keyboard costs more than a mid-level MacBook Pro 13 with the same storage. It's also the same weight, and heavier than the MacBook Air

When Apple Silicon MacBooks are released, the difference will be even more marked, with the MacBook using improved versions of the same SoC - and presumably beating the iPad Pro due to better thermal management or more cores.

So why the interest in running productivity apps (that do not require or benefit from a touch interface) on an iPad?

I don't get it - is there some other advantage that I'm unaware of? It's not cost, performance, weight, or capability/flexibility of the OS....so...what?

I have an iPad and MBP16 and use them both extensively - just not for the same things. iPad for consumption away from my desk (mostly non-work) - MBP for everything else.

Please enlighten me!

 

[CWallace]

Eh? Please explain exactly how using an App on a touch-sensitive display with a keyboard attached is different from using it on... er... a touch sensitive display with a keyboard attached....?

Having used 13" Windows Laptops with touchscreens and 12.9" iPad Pros with Magic Keyboards, I find the latter to be ergonomically better since you have more flexibility in how you adjust it and how it "floats" over the keyboard / stand so it's easier to reach then a laptop display.

You can also just yank it off and use it as a tablet when you need to and in that configuration it is lighter than the "2 in 1" Windows laptops that rotate the screen to lay flat against the keyboard, so you are still carrying the weight of both with you (and if you want that flexibility, the Smart Keyboard Folio will fold back against the iPad).

Anyway, for what it matters, I am on record as believing Apple could bring touch to the ASi laptops. But I do not believe it will be part of the desktop line.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Having used 13" Windows Laptops with touchscreens and 12.9" iPad Pros with Magic Keyboards, I find the latter to be ergonomically better since you have more flexibility in how you adjust it and how it "floats" over the keyboard / stand so it's easier to reach then a laptop display.

You can also just yank it off and use it as a tablet when you need to and in that configuration it is lighter than the "2 in 1" Windows laptops that rotate the screen to lay flat against the keyboard, so you are still carrying the weight of both with you (and if you want that flexibility, the Smart Keyboard Folio will fold back against the iPad).

Anyway, for what it matters, I am on record as believing Apple could bring touch to the ASi laptops. But I do not believe it will be part of the desktop line.

Good points; the ergonomics of the iPad + Magic Keyboard are much better for touch than a touch-screen laptop, and the option of using it without the keyboard is great. It's not unique, however - the MS Surface is similar. I don't think we'll see touch-screen Apple laptops, unless they develop a MacOS laptop with a detachable keyboard.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Look in a mirror. I'm just speculating about possibilities. You're the one asserting as fact that they won't happen. It's entirely possible that the hypothetical November launch will consist of the current MacBook Air chassis with an Apple Silicon chip bunged in and that any new iMac will still be Intel based (and, as I've said, just slapping a touch screen on an existing design isn't sensible). I don't know, you don't know - it's fun to speculate.

If you're talking only about what's possible, then yes, it's possible. However, we established that point several posts earlier in that thread, in which case, what the hell are you doing still debating me?

It's not probable. Period. You keep arguing that it is for reasons that are not logical given what we already know. Hence continued debate.

Which you keep asserting without any rational justification.

No, I give rational justification. You just don't like hearing it. I've run iPhone apps on an iPad. They are not as nice to run on an iPad as they are on an iPhone. I have used 2-in-1 PCs, let alone reversible 2-in-1 PCs, let alone PC tablets such as the Surface Pros. Where the desktop operating system is still the primary element, the experience is not logical nor sensible. I'm citing actual hands-on experience. Windows has had built-in support for touch and multi-touch since the days of Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, let alone Windows Vista and newer. Sure the displays have improved many-fold, but it's just not fun taking a 15" computer and doing touch on it, especially for tablet and phone optimized experiences. Trust me, it's not a new proof-of-concept just because Apple now can run their mobile apps on macOS. Given that, just like iOS apps are not as nice to use on an iPad as they are on an iPhone, iPad and iPhone apps won't be fun to use on a 2-in-1 Mac or a tablet that happens to be running macOS and not iOS.

Google is trying this strategy with Android apps running on ChromeOS tablets rather than dedicated Android tablets. Guess what? It's not being widely adopted by users.

So, if you're only talking about what's possible (which again, if you were, you wouldn't be debating me so damn hard), yes, it's possible. It's not probable though. Like, not even close.

I'll tell you what does suck - using an application designed for multitouch on a keyboard/mouse system or vice-versa - and not just things like pinch-to-zoom, being able to play a chord on a piano keyboard, or using a Pencil to draw and write - the meaning of actions like click/tap, hover, double-click/long press are completely different.

And, for the fifty billionth time, that's why Apple encourages the use of Catalyst.

Actions speak louder than words and Apple have announced that MacOS on ARM will run "most" native iOS Apps unmodified. Not just as an incidental feature of XCode but as a user-facing headline feature of the new Macs - if it sucks, Apple will face the consequences. That's not speculation, that's not maybe, that's not carefully chosen words in a press interview. So, sorry, although you can re-define "macOS/iPadOS merger" to mean whatever fits your argument, the reality here is that Apple have already made a major step towards increasing the overlap between MacOS and iOS.

It's not an incidental feature of Xcode; it's an incidental feature of them moving to the processor architecture that Xcode builds iOS and iPadOS apps for. It's not hard to recompile an Xcode project for different processor architectures, so long as the option exists in Xcode. macOS since 10.0 (hell, since the NeXT days) has been processor architecture independent by design. That's not merging two different platforms. At least that's not what someone who understands computing platforms and their differences would call it. But I'm not going to argue semantics with someone who clearly doesn't fit the description in the prior sentence.

What Apple are trying to talk down is the fear that MacOS itself will get locked down iOS-style. Presumably, though, iOS Apps will be running in a locked-down sandbox, probably aided by the security features of Apple Silicon (otherwise that list of "most" apps is going to be 'unless they use the camera, or FaceID or the fingerprint reader or location services or in-app purchases or... etc. and Apple will look stupid).

*sigh* Dude, go read a book on macOS and how it works. I highly advise macOS Support Essentials, let alone any ACMT or ACiT training. Seriously. What you say here demonstrates that you (a) haven't been following what Apple has been doing to macOS over the past eight years and that (b) you don't understand Apple's vocally stated M.O. with the Mac.

macOS will never get locked down iOS style. The guy in charge of macOS at Apple has outright stated that numerous times. As have other Apple executives. That's why the Secure Boot technology on T2 Intel Macs that Apple can only have apply system-wide, will now apply per installed OS. So, you can have one OS with restrictions, and another without. That's LESS locked down than how it is on a T2 Mac and allows for the ability to have greater control while still being secure. Were it done how it's done on iOS, you'd only be able to install the latest macOS release with no ability to ever downgrade. On an Apple Silicon Mac, you'll be able to have Big Sur, with any number of its successors, so long as that Mac is supported on them.

Furthermore, macOS already employs sandboxing. It's not like iOS apps would need to do anything different and it's not like Apple Silicon changes how apps run, be they iOS or macOS apps.

That was 5 years ago. Now new features are turning up on apps that don't exist on the website - particularly things like fingerprint/face ID integration - but it's also clear which platform is getting the development attention. Probably because of stats like this: https://techjury.net/blog/mobile-vs-desktop-usage/#gref - it doesn't even matter if the stats are true, because the industry has embraced "mobile is the future" as its mantra.

Apple's success with the iPhone and App Store has actually served to demote the Mac from #2 to #4 on developers' priority list. Seriously, when almost everybody who is potty-trained has either an Internet-connected iOS or Android device, regardless of whether they've got a desktop/laptop/Mac/PC ... even in parts of the freaking "developing world" ... what do you think is going to be the first priority for developers?

What's your point? I don't disagree that mobile is more important than desktop. But as a thesis for "Apple is going to put in touchscreens on the Mac to further support iOS and iPadOS apps running as-is, it's not something that Apple would ever do because it makes far more sense to let the developer optimize for Mac if they really care about Mac users having the same functionality. It's why you now have Facebook Messenger with a Catalyst app. Catalyst is very obviously how Apple gets those apps over. Not via a touchscreen. All a touchscreen would enable a developer to do is to half-assedly make something that people hate running on their Macs and will much rather use an iPad or iPhone for, depending on the app's native UI. That's the problem Catalyst aims to solve. But for most app devs, like you say, the Mac is either going to be important enough to make a good app for on it via Catalyst will be able to run fine without a touchscreen and with a keyboard and mouse. Speculate on pigs flying all you want using proof that it can be done, we're still not going to see it happen.

There are things that you can do with an App that you either can't do on the web or are horribly complicated, hamstrung by security requirements or fragile and browser-dependent. The latter hasn't been helped by Apple being picky about what web standards it implements (Safari/WebKit is now the only browser other than Chrome/Chromium with a significant market share so they have huge influence) - e.g. the web "pointers" standard that would make it far easier to accept multi-touch and stylus input in a browser.

And developers will either care to bring that experience to the Mac so it doesn't suck via Catalyst, or their iOS/iPadOS app will just simply work without a touch screen. Or they'll just ignore the Mac altogether and not hit the checkbox. That's what will happen. But go ahead, keep dreaming. There's enough evidence to support what I say and most of it comes straight from Apple.

 

[theluggage]

I've run iPhone apps on an iPad. They are not as nice to run on an iPad as they are on an iPhone.

...because the only option iPadOS offers for iPhone apps is to full-screen them (or run them with huge black borders). That's not how it works when running iOS Apps on MacOS - they run in appropriately-sized, movable windows that you can run alongside other applications. You can see that at ~1:42 in the WWDC keynote demo.

Where the desktop operating system is still the primary element, the experience is not logical nor sensible.

Which is why you have a convertible and not just a laptop with a touch screen bolted on.

Windows has had built-in support for touch and multi-touch since the days of Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, let alone Windows Vista and newer.

...but they never had a "critical mass" of multi-touch applications. Windows has an unbeatable range of applications designed for desktop/laptop. One of the problems with Windows 8 and Windows RT was the underwhelming choice of apps written for "the interface formerly known as Metro" in the MS store. When it comes to mobile Apps, the advantage is with Apple and the iOS App Store - and even Android can't compete when it comes to more powerful apps designed for high-end tablets.

And, for the fifty billionth time, that's why Apple encourages the use of Catalyst.

And for the fifty billion and first time, Apple have deliberately provided an alternative to Catalyst by announcing support for native iOS apps on ASi Macs.

macOS will never get locked down iOS style.

I never said it would, although you're hopelessly naive if you think Apple wouldn't change that policy overnight if the wind changed. Also, until this summer, Apple were still selling new 5k iMacs that lacked the T2 chip. Now they have T2 across the entire Intel range and the ASi range will have all the security features of Apple Silicon, so in maybe the next-but-one release of MacOS they would have been free to require T2 and potentially lock down.

That's why the Secure Boot technology on T2 Intel Macs that Apple can only have apply system-wide, will now apply per installed OS. So, you can have one OS with restrictions, and another without. That's LESS locked down than how it is on a T2 Mac and allows for the ability to have greater control while still being secure.

...and Apple have also explicitly said that they won't support direct booting an alternate operating system. The stuff you're citing is purely about booting different versions of MacOS, multiple (MacOS) boot discs, recovery partitions (containing MacOS) etc. So, yes, in theory maybe that means that someone could produce a "direct boot" version of (say) Linux, but only if they also come up with drivers for all the essential functions (including at least graphics and SSD access) which will now be handled by proprietary Apple Silicon hardware - which will be very hard without Apple support making the "secure boot" issue pretty much moot.

(Incidentally - have Apple said whether any MacOS features will stop working if you don't use secure boot? Like, for example, running iOS native Apps, especially if they need to access authentication, in-app purchase etc...?)



Anyway, that's irrelevant to the iOS-on-MacOS issue, which isn't about locking down MacOS it's about the iOS subsystem within MacOS which is likely to just as firmly locked down as any real iDevice. Currently, the only way a regular user can run an iOS App on an iOS device is to download it from the App Store - and there's no reason to believe that Apple will concede that distinction with iOS apps under ASi MacOS. Currently, you can build an iOS App from source using XCode and test it (strictly sandboxed) using the iOS-for-MacOS subsystem that comes with XCode but - even if you rebuild as ARM - you can't install it on a real iDevice without a developer subscription. With ASi (and no more non-T2 Macs to support) even that might change - and in any case I doubt that the XCode "iOS sandbox" will be on an equal footing with the App Store Only iOS sandbox.

It's not an incidental feature of Xcode; it's an incidental feature of them moving to the processor architecture that Xcode builds iOS and iPadOS apps for.

No, moving processor architecture is neither sufficient nor necessary to enable iOS apps under MacOS. There is far more to a hardware platform than the processor architecture.

Since iOS existed, XCode has always been able to run iOS apps in an "iOS Simulator" for testing purposes - but that isn't an ARM emulator/translator. The code is running "natively" on x86 because (as you say) iOS apps written in Swift/ObjC can easily be compiled simultaneously for multiple processors - but compiling an iOS app for x86 doesn't turn it into a MacOS App. That's why XCode needs the iOS Simulator, to implement the iOS system libraries, translate between pointer input and touch input and things like the home button or the 'shake' action, replicate user settings and other system services present on iOS but not MacOS, and test (not actually perform 'for real') authentication, Apple Pay etc. Play with it for a few minutes and it's obvious that it's not a viable solution to make iOS Apps "just work" on MacOS without a lot more development and refinement. If it had been, Apple could have very easily given developers a trivial tick-box option to include an Intel binary in their the App Store upload at any stage (far simpler than switching to Catalyst).

...and that's just the technical side, not to mention the detailed design considerations of making an app that works well with a touch interface vs. a pointer (start with the fact that a pointer interface always knows where the pointer is and that there is only one pointer, whereas a touch interface doesn't know the pointer location until a tap event occurs, and may have to deal with multiple simultaneous taps... the need for finger-sized controls for touch whereas even a trackpad has far higher precision... the way that 'inertial' scrolling is really confusing if you're using a mouse or cursor key...) - that's actually one of the main underlying reasons for the strict "iOS vs MacOS" separation that you keep citing.

If there is a hardware issue it's more likely the need to support non-T2 Macs for a few more years yet would make it harder to implement a secure sandbox for iOS Apps.

That's not merging two different platforms.

So giving platform B the ability to run platform A binaries (and, by inference, implementing enough platform A services and libraries to make that a worthwhile facility) isn't "merging". OK, words mean whatever you want them to mean...

Just to re-iterate, because you seem to be in denial about it, Apple have announced that ASi Macs will be able to run unmodified iOS Apps, that it will be a simple opt-in for developers, they see it as sufficiently important to demonstrate in the WWDC Keynote. Not speculation. Not surmise. Announced and demonstrated... and self-evidently a distraction from promoting Catalyst.

If it's just something that happened by accident (which isn't possible anyway) that they've thrown in without a lot of attention to detail to make it "just work" then Apple are going to look very silly.

 

[dmccloud]

If you read the details about iOS and iPad apps running on MacOS with Apple Silicon, there are several exceptions carved out, such as apps that rely on iPhone/iPad specific features (gyroscope, GPS, cellular triangulation, etc.), as well as apps that rely heavily on certain methods of interaction. Yes, there are a ton of Windows-based laptops with touch screens and 2-in-1 form factors. However, the vast majority of those machines are used briefly as touchscreen/with a pen, then are just used like any non-touch laptop after the novelty wears off. There is an ergonomic concern that has never been fully addressed by HP, Dell, Samsung, etc. when it comes to the 2-in-1 market. Not even Microsoft can decide whether or how it wants to approach the touchscreen form factor, with the Surface Pro, Surface Laptop, and Surface Book all using very different approaches to the same scenarios.

The "iOS/iPad OS apps on a Mac" is not the all or nothing proposition that "theluggage" keeps claiming it is.

 

[Yebubbleman]

...because the only option iPadOS offers for iPhone apps is to full-screen them (or run them with huge black borders). That's not how it works when running iOS Apps on MacOS - they run in appropriately-sized, movable windows that you can run alongside other applications. You can see that at ~1:42 in the WWDC keynote demo.

I know what iOS apps look like on Apple Silicon Macs. I've watched more than the WWDC20 Keynote video thank you very much.

Which is why you have a convertible and not just a laptop with a touch screen bolted on.

You just don't get it. Even a 2-in-1 convertible (which is what I was talking about) Mac is still not as good of an end-user experience as using a damn iPad to run iPadOS apps. Nor is it as good of an end-user experience as using an iPhone to run iOS apps. Why do you keep ignoring this?

...but they never had a "critical mass" of multi-touch applications. Windows has an unbeatable range of applications designed for desktop/laptop. One of the problems with Windows 8 and Windows RT was the underwhelming choice of apps written for "the interface formerly known as Metro" in the MS store. When it comes to mobile Apps, the advantage is with Apple and the iOS App Store - and even Android can't compete when it comes to more powerful apps designed for high-end tablets.

You do realize that there is a Windows release after Windows 8, right? And that the app ecosystem of touch-friendly apps there outnumbers that of the ones for Windows 8 and Windows RT by a sizable portion, right? Also that most buttons are optimized so that if someone wanted to use a Windows 10 tablet, or 2-in-1 or convertible 2-in-1, that they could right?

Because if you did, you wouldn't speak on the matter like your knowledge of it was frozen in time back in 2013.

And for the fifty billion and first time, Apple have deliberately provided an alternative to Catalyst by announcing support for native iOS apps on ASi Macs.

That doesn't mean jack squat, especially when Apple is repeatedly telling developers to still make Catalyst apps. They say that most apps will be fine un-modified. In case you're too stubborn to read into it, that means fine without a touch screen. So, yeah, not everyone will NEED to make a Catalyst app; you're at least correct about that. But touchscreen won't be the answer that Apple provides for those that otherwise require it. Sorry to burst your bubble. But it won't.

I never said it would, although you're hopelessly naive if you think Apple wouldn't change that policy overnight if the wind changed. Also, until this summer, Apple were still selling new 5k iMacs that lacked the T2 chip. Now they have T2 across the entire Intel range and the ASi range will have all the security features of Apple Silicon, so in maybe the next-but-one release of MacOS they would have been free to require T2 and potentially lock down.

Actually, you're wrong about that on many fronts. For one, the 21.5" iMac STILL doesn't have a T2 chip. That machine is still being sold new today. You can buy one from Apple right now!

Furthermore, if you watch both more WWDC20 videos than the keynote (I believe I linked you to two of them) as well as the Daring Fireball interview with Federighi and Joswiak, you'll see that it's not Apple's MO to lock everything down. That's why you still have the ability to override System Integrity Protection and why you still have the ability to turn Secure Boot off. Apple recognizes that people sometimes need to tinker with their Macs. You have the ability to turn off most of these protections if need absolutely be. The fact that Apple is making it so that you can control Secure Boot on a per OS basis rather than the system-wide setting on T2 Intel Macs is evidence of this.

And really, that's not naiveté, that's called being informed. Most of the things you've said throughout this debate aren't concerned with facts and what's actually probable, but more on what's possible. Anything is possible. Talking only about what's possible doesn't really accomplish anything.

...and Apple have also explicitly said that they won't support direct booting an alternate operating system. The stuff you're citing is purely about booting different versions of MacOS, multiple (MacOS) boot discs, recovery partitions (containing MacOS) etc. So, yes, in theory maybe that means that someone could produce a "direct boot" version of (say) Linux, but only if they also come up with drivers for all the essential functions (including at least graphics and SSD access) which will now be handled by proprietary Apple Silicon hardware - which will be very hard without Apple support making the "secure boot" issue pretty much moot.

No, I'm talking about direct booting multiple Apple operating systems. If you have Secure Boot turned on with a Big Sur installation, but turned off on another, then the Mac won't flip out when booting that other system (or installing a specific older unsigned version of Big Sur on that partition), while still leaving the partition with secure boot on still secure. This is going to be huge for people that need to run multiple versions of macOS on their Mac as doing such a thing now on a T2 Mac means that you have to turn off Secure Boot altogether.

As for Apple's stance on direct booting other OSes, that is something that COULD change as Apple made such a change back in 2006 when in the middle of the last architecture transition and because users were begging for a way to get Windows XP to boot and run on Intel Macs. This time, the hurdles are much greater for both Apple and Microsoft, but at least there's a precedent that was set there and substantial facts to explain Apple's current stance and what would need to happen bare minimum to change it.

(Incidentally - have Apple said whether any MacOS features will stop working if you don't use secure boot? Like, for example, running iOS native Apps, especially if they need to access authentication, in-app purchase etc...?)

No. Secure Boot has absolutely nothing to do with code execution. It's solely a boot process control mechanism designed to ensure that the OS you are attempting to boot is valid, signed, and not tampered with.

Anyway, that's irrelevant to the iOS-on-MacOS issue, which isn't about locking down MacOS it's about the iOS subsystem within MacOS which is likely to just as firmly locked down as any real iDevice. Currently, the only way a regular user can run an iOS App on an iOS device is to download it from the App Store - and there's no reason to believe that Apple will concede that distinction with iOS apps under ASi MacOS. Currently, you can build an iOS App from source using XCode and test it (strictly sandboxed) using the iOS-for-MacOS subsystem that comes with XCode but - even if you rebuild as ARM - you can't install it on a real iDevice without a developer subscription. With ASi (and no more non-T2 Macs to support) even that might change - and in any case I doubt that the XCode "iOS sandbox" will be on an equal footing with the App Store Only iOS sandbox.

There is no "iOS subsystem within macOS". The two platforms now share pretty much every element of the stack except the UI layer (and even with Catalyst that gap is rapidly narrowing). Period. You're otherwise making this way more complicated than it actually is.

No, moving processor architecture is neither sufficient nor necessary to enable iOS apps under MacOS. There is far more to a hardware platform than the processor architecture.

Please explain then. I would love to hear what you come up with. Because so far, everything you've said demonstrates to me that you know very little about how this all actually works.

Since iOS existed, XCode has always been able to run iOS apps in an "iOS Simulator" for testing purposes - but that isn't an ARM emulator/translator. The code is running "natively" on x86 because (as you say) iOS apps written in Swift/ObjC can easily be compiled simultaneously for multiple processors - but compiling an iOS app for x86 doesn't turn it into a MacOS App. That's why XCode needs the iOS Simulator, to implement the iOS system libraries, translate between pointer input and touch input and things like the home button or the 'shake' action, replicate user settings and other system services present on iOS but not MacOS, and test (not actually perform 'for real') authentication, Apple Pay etc. Play with it for a few minutes and it's obvious that it's not a viable solution to make iOS Apps "just work" on MacOS without a lot more development and refinement. If it had been, Apple could have very easily given developers a trivial tick-box option to include an Intel binary in their the App Store upload at any stage (far simpler than switching to Catalyst).

You do realize that iOS is effectively macOS with different UI frameworks, right? Every Apple OS is some stripped down or modified version of macOS, even down to watchOS. You act like iOS and macOS are fundamentally different. They're not. And especially not with releases from the past year. Go do some research. Please.

...and that's just the technical side, not to mention the detailed design considerations of making an app that works well with a touch interface vs. a pointer (start with the fact that a pointer interface always knows where the pointer is and that there is only one pointer, whereas a touch interface doesn't know the pointer location until a tap event occurs, and may have to deal with multiple simultaneous taps... the need for finger-sized controls for touch whereas even a trackpad has far higher precision... the way that 'inertial' scrolling is really confusing if you're using a mouse or cursor key...) - that's actually one of the main underlying reasons for the strict "iOS vs MacOS" separation that you keep citing.

Actually, these are all things that Apple already had developed (and for years now), they're called "UI Frameworks". I don't disagree that Apple had to build in things to translate from touch to mouse, but it was something they had done over the past two years and was a huge part of...you guessed it...Catalyst!

If there is a hardware issue it's more likely the need to support non-T2 Macs for a few more years yet would make it harder to implement a secure sandbox for iOS Apps.

That's not how sandboxing even works. Nor is that even how iOS apps even work. I'm trying not to be overly rude here, but you really have no clue what you're even talking about with most of this stuff!

So giving platform B the ability to run platform A binaries (and, by inference, implementing enough platform A services and libraries to make that a worthwhile facility) isn't "merging". OK, words mean whatever you want them to mean...

"Merging" implies more than one platform's apps are running on another platform. That's not me mincing words, that's me using words according to their dictionary definitions. Try it sometime!

If there was an actual merger taking place, we'd have more serious interface conventions from one OS combining with another. That's not what's happening with Big Sur. You have Control Center, and you have some simplified menu bar icons and items. You have iconography that's closer to what you see on iPadOS. That's where the "merging" ends. You still have a Finder. You still have a Terminal. You still have a Disk Utility. You still have a System Preferences. An Apple Menu, a System Information/Profiler, and a ton of other Mac specific UI conventions that are not in iPadOS. Looks and appearance aside, it's not different from macOS Mojave. So, no. Not a merger.

Just to re-iterate, because you seem to be in denial about it, Apple have announced that ASi Macs will be able to run unmodified iOS Apps, that it will be a simple opt-in for developers, they see it as sufficiently important to demonstrate in the WWDC Keynote. Not speculation. Not surmise. Announced and demonstrated... and self-evidently a distraction from promoting Catalyst.

Please quote where I was at all in denial about this. I'm pretty sure that I have never denied that Apple would allow for such things. In fact, it's the crux of this entire debate.

I am in denial that it means what you think it means (which is that Apple will or even should introduce a touch screen to accommodate the apps that don't fare well without it) because what you think it means doesn't make any practical sense given facts and logic.

Furthermore, Apple still wants developers to use Catalyst for the apps that don't work fine unmodified and/or require extensive touchscreen use as is evidenced in this video: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10114/

Seems to me that you're the one in denial about what Apple has stated about iOS and iPad apps running natively on Apple Silicon...

If it's just something that happened by accident (which isn't possible anyway) that they've thrown in without a lot of attention to detail to make it "just work" then Apple are going to look very silly.

I think you're the only one lacking in attention to detail here. Watch that video. Also this one: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10143/

And, also go do some research on iOS apps and how they actually function, the platform stacks for both iOS and macOS, and how all of this actually works. Because right now, you're the one looking silly.

 

[theluggage]

You just don't get it. Even a 2-in-1 convertible (which is what I was talking about) Mac is still not as good of an end-user experience as using a damn iPad to run iPadOS apps.

So you've tried running iOS Apps on a 2-in-1 tablet, then? Apps written from the ground up for a multi-touch-only operating system? As in, not desktop Windows apps made with bigger buttons because there is zero market for Windows applications that aren't optimised for desktop/laptop.

...and who said anything about it being "as good" as a real iPhone/iPad? It just has to be better than running touch-centric apps on a non-touch laptop.

You do realize that there is a Windows release after Windows 8, right?

I never said there wasn't. You do realise that Windows 8 was a major flop (for many reasons, but including the attempt to force a mobile-inspired UI onto desktop users without a large mobile software library to back it up) making Windows 10 a really hard sell and resulting in MS having to extend support for the 11-year-old Windows 7 until early this year...? Those who ignore history...

you'll see that it's not Apple's MO to lock everything down.

It is absolutely Apples MO to lock everything down where possible, all their other product lines are locked down, and they'd love to get a 30% cut of every software/services transaction on a Mac - but they clearly understand that, in the current climate, locking down Mac OS would not be acceptable to many Mac OS customers. If the day comes where their market research suggests that climate has changed, locked-down MacOS will suddenly become the magical and courageous thing to do.

As for Apple's stance on direct booting other OSes, that is something that COULD change as Apple made such a change back in 2006 when in the middle of the last architecture transition and because users were begging for a way to get Windows XP to boot and run on Intel Macs.

Apple's stance on anything could change. You've cited one of many examples. That's why I'm concentrating on the one fact they have explicitly committed to - that they will allow iOS Apps to run natively on Apple Silicon - rather than your personal interpretation of their carefully chosen words during interviews and presentations. (...and, frankly, even that could always turn out to be missing in action when ASi Macs finally launch).

...and yes, the bar to that one was very low because only a disk partitioning utility and an existing open-source EFI "BIOS emulation" module - none of which were Apple proprietary - prevented you from just inserting a bog-standard Windows XP DVD and installing away. Geek types had Windows XP up and running on Intel Macs almost on day 1 without any help from Apple - Bootcamp was just a polished and shrink-wrapped way for regular users to do the same without hosing their MacOS installation.

No. Secure Boot has absolutely nothing to do with code execution. It's solely a boot process control mechanism designed to ensure that the OS you are attempting to boot is valid, signed, and not tampered with.

...and if you turn it off you could possibly load a tampered-with OS that (say) lets you run iOS Apps without downloading them from the App store. I've never suggested that this is anything but speculation but there is an argument for tying features like iOS support to having secure boot enabled. That hasn't happened so far - but then they're still supporting Macs that don't support secure boot, and iOS support is a brand new feature. Should Apple decide to do that, they're certainly not going to let former promises about "not locking down MacOS" deter them from locking down brand new features.

There is no "iOS subsystem within macOS".

iOS apps will not run on MacOS without there being MacOS implementations of iOS-only frameworks like UIKit that deal with things like mapping mouse/trackpad/keyboard events to touch events. If you think that's trivial, then you haven't thought about the issue in depth. If you look at the help for the existing iOS "simulator" in XCode, there's a laundry list of frameworks that it doesn't support. If you want to nitpick as to whether that constitutes a "subsystem" then feel free to choose some other name, but the point is that it's not something that appeared by magic "because Apple Silicon". Apple had no need to add iOS app support to MacOS - it's not something that a third party could hack together for anything other than a gimmick (if only because it needs to work with the App Store) - and the fact that they have gone that extra mile proves that they don't see Catalyst alone as sufficient.

Please explain then. I would love to hear what you come up with.

Do you want to start with the way that Apple II software didn't run on a Commodore 64 even though they both had a 6502 processor? Or that Windows for PowerMac never appeared (other than via emulation), even during the period when MS were shipping a PPC version of NT 3.51 for IBM and Motorola PPC systems? Or that the PPC Mac couldn't run PS3 games even though they both used PPC?

...or that ASi Macs won't be able to (usefully) run ARM Windows or ARM Linux unless Apple release (or support the development of) Linux & Windows drivers for ASi graphics, ASi disc controllers and whatever other functions currently handled by generic PC industry hardware that Apple moves onto the ASi SoC.

The Intel/x86 platform is an aberration because virtually all modern x86 personal computers (I'm sure there are exceptions) evolved from the proprietary IBM PC/AT system, which has always been joined at the hip with DOS/Windows and enjoyed such a dominant market share that any third party maker of disc controllers, GPUs, networking hardware etc. has been obliged to ship them with x86/Windows drivers. So when people talk about "x86" or "Intel" they actually refer to a loose collection of hardware and firmware standards that define a modern Windows PC. The reason that it was so easy to get Windows running on the early Intel Macs was that they basically were PCs, made from standard PC components. The Windows installer would run with a minor tweak to the (open source) firmware and all the required drivers were downloadable from the chipset manufacturers' websites. Bootcamp just wrapped it up and tied a ribbon around it.

We don't know what the exact hardware architecture of ASi Macs will be (there's some clues from the WWDC stuff but most of it is 'use our software frameworks as so and we'll worry about the hardware') - we know that things like PCIe and Thunderbolt/USB/3/4 will be there but we also know that - at the very least - the graphics and disc controller will be proprietary - and Apple's only commitment is to provide closed, MacOS drivers for those, which leaves them free to completely change the hardware interface with every subsequent new Mac.

...but there we go off on an irrelevant tangent again because you've thrown in a red herring and insisted that it is a banana.

You do realize that iOS is effectively macOS with different UI frameworks, right?

You can't run native MacOS Apps (even ones re-compiled for ASi) on iOS and you can only run native iOS Apps on ASi MacOS because Apple has added MacOS implementations of the required framework, added the ability to install iOS Apps on Mac to the App store etc. Whether that's compatible with your statement "iOS is effectively macOS" is another one of your red herring/bananas.

You do realize that for many iOS Apps, a significant part of the iOS-specific development work is in the UI, and re-writing one to use AppKit/Catalyst/whatever (and testing and refining the result) can be a non-trivial job? Which is probably why Apple have conceded that Catalyst is not sufficient in itself by adding iOS support to MacOS. First, to use Catalyst, you have to modify your source code and, secondly, nothing in Catalyst is going to make your gesture-driven game or Pencil-based sketching app usable on a non-touch laptop.

"Merging" implies more than one platform's apps are running on another platform.

Feel free to cherry pick specific interpretations of non-technical words that support your argument.

If there was an actual merger taking place, we'd have more serious interface conventions from one OS combining with another.

Hate to break it to you, but the iOSsification of the MacOS UI has been an ongoing drip-drip process since 2011 when Mac OS Lion removed the scrollbar arrows and made "reverse scrolling" the default.

OS X Lion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...the whole reverse scrolling/scrollbars/scroll arrows thing is a great example of how what works for a touchscreen doesn't work for a mouse - or even a trackpad - by the way.

 

[thenewperson]

the whole reverse scrolling/scrollbars/scroll arrows thing is a great example of how what works for a touchscreen doesn't work for a mouse - or even a trackpad - by the way

It works quite well for trackpads actually.

 

[dmccloud]

...the whole reverse scrolling/scrollbars/scroll arrows thing is a great example of how what works for a touchscreen doesn't work for a mouse - or even a trackpad - by the way.

You couldn't be more wrong on that front. It may not work for YOU, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work for everyone. Personally speaking, it is much more intuitive than the "traditional" way on both touchscreens (i.e. iOS/iPadOS, Android, etc.) and trackpads. The issue (at least on the Windows side) is that nobody can agree on what specific purpose the trackpads should play. You have almost as many variants of trackpad designs and capabilities as you do HP laptops at Best Buy (16+ models of just HP laptops the last time I was in my local store). Consequently, there is no one standard for how trackpads should behave on the Windows side, and users often have to relearn specific things when they switch between models (whether both are from the same manufacturer or the customer is switching brands). This is where Apple's design of the OS and hardware allows the company to stand out from everyone else, because they can craft the OS to fit the hardware and vice versa.

Your comments on AS Macs not being able to run Windows on ARM is also based on a false inference. Before Apple can even start building a version of BootCamp that contains Windows drivers, Microsoft has to first open up the licensing requirements for WoA. We have seen multiple reports confirming that Apple and Microsoft have already begun discussions regarding opening up WoA in that manner. Given that Microsoft itself is heavily pushing their Surface Pro X already, it is clear that even the folks in Redmond are looking towards ARM as the next evolution of Windows, and once Microsoft agrees to open up things on their end, Apple could begin working on those drivers that would be needed for running Windows on these new Apple Silicon Macs.