I was half disappointed, and half not. We've been here before, after all! Using the M1 in iPads for economies of scale makes perfect sense, whether or not other possibilities are realised or implemented.
There was a lot of really good "feature enhancements" (I'll go with that as a term) and iteration. The one reason I might have got my hopes up a little bit was the fact that they were purposefully calling out the M1 iPad Pro's with 1TB/2TB disk space having 16GB RAM. I mean, Apple never even used to tell us RAM specs at all. Why would they highlight the difference if they had no plan for it?
I draw the conclusion that Apple have got plans for the M1 iPads, but we're all jumping the gun. We know that they care about end-to-end responsibility/control/experience.. And we know they care about quality control (and that they've been stung before, albeit normally hardware issues eg antennagate)...
But we can still see hints of a converged experience being highlighted here - Universal Control, SharePlay, Xcode Cloud... It may not have been the convergence that some of us would have loved to have seen (whether that be the fabled-and-would-be-awesome-but-probably-not-gonna-happen MacOS on iPad Pro, or whether that be MacOS M1 apps on iPad which makes a bit more sense, but still might not happen). And all I can think is that either Covid had a major impact on Apple's plans and/or things weren't quite as ready to be signed off as we'd all hoped...
Or... They're exactly where they'd planned to be, and a higher level of convergence is something they're still figuring out, or have planned for further down the roadmap... But, personally, I don't buy that
In professional life, I've seen a lot of people from Microsoft Technical Account Managers to coders to company execs and middle management thrilled with Microsoft's 2-in-1 Surface offerings. Microsoft have dabble with ARM chips and retreated a few times, and what they currently have doesn't match Apple. But they're also going ARM on servers, which is where the $$$ will come from, and that will enable them to spend more on R&D and compete.
So, to this common argument:
So what? Apple were failing when Steve Jobs was booted out... (And it was cruel to boot him out, but the best thing for Apple at the time, and the best thing for Apple and Jobs in the long run...) When Jobs came back to Apple, he simplified their offerings, but one of his famous key messages was not to be afraid of cannibalising product lines.
A prime example is the iPod. The iPhone replaced the need for an iPod. So what?
If an iPad replaces the need for all or some MacBooks, so what? The purpose for Apple is to make people's lives better with personal technology. They charge a premium because they do it so well.
If the iPad and MacBook share the same technical characteristics (processors, RAM, disk space), what would be the need for the different form factors? The iPad has a more convenient form factor. The "gubbings" are in the screen, a keyboard and mouse can be attached when needed -and it has touch input.
The MacBook has better cooling ability. Using Intel chips, this is something critically needed, especially for "Pro" type uses (eg photo/video editing, sound production). ARM processors in the M1 has changed this, but still, the ability to cool will still offer a major advantage to a MacBook Pro, but at the cost of the flexibility of the iPad's form factor.
The MacBook Pro also has the benefit of having a form factor for more ports, and a better keyboard, built in. It also uses an industry standard screen ratio of 16:9. The iPad can offer a choice of keyboards - even natively from Apple with the Smart Folio Keyboard Cover and the Magic Keyboard. Both are decent offerings - the benefit of the Smart Folio is the lightness. The benefit of the Magic Keyboard is the Apple keyboard experience and trackpad.
My point is, that there will still be use cases for the different form factors, even if they're different from what they are today - but the audience overall will be the same. If they're running on the same processors, why inhibit what each product can do.
I think it might mean the end of the MacBook Air and standard MacBook... But there's still Apple products in the iPad with a keyboard case and mouse that could cover them.
As I say. If Apple had taken the "oh it'll hurt another product line's sales" approach, we'd never have had the iPhone.
This makes sense, but as above. Why go out of the way to market the RAM differences? There has to be a bigger plan, and I think that Apple just aren't production ready for it yet. They've made no promises, so they've told us no lies. Anyone that's gambled has done so on their own terms. I understand why they did, but that was speculative on their part.
In all honesty, if it was just economies of scale, they could have made the same chip with different names M1 and A14. Even if the exact same chip, why would it have mattered to give it a different designation (and really wouldn't have taken much on the production line front to do that).
So that fact, combined with the calling out the RAM differential on purpose in marketing... Leads to a cynical "Apple are playing people to extract money from them" card, or they have a bigger plan in mind with convergence of some kind.
Apple can already extract money from us. They know that. The thing is, if we go the cynical route, that might get loyal advocates to part with money today... But be disillusioned in a year or two so go elsewhere.
If we go the convergence route... It may just not be ready quite now. With everything we've been through this past 15 months as a planet, okay. I can accept that. I also think Apple are kinda hedging their bets a bit, and that they want to be seen as leaders rather than followers... Which causes them paralysis in doing the right thing or progressing sometimes?
Which brings me to this:
Apple told us that they wouldn't give us a stylus. They gave us the Apple Pencil - which is the world's best stylus. They told us that they wouldn't allow us to use a mouse for the iPad, but they did firstly through an accessibility excuse, and then allowing it mainstream and now tying it into Universal Control.
Apple have an awesome vision, but sometimes when they get it wrong they need admit it and capitalise on that for everyone's benefit... Rather than being stubborn for the sake of ultimately being "wrong".
That's not to say that they should rush decisions, or go in a direction just because it's popular at the time. There is a balance to be struck --- but I for one would love to be able to take my iPad Pro on holiday and be able to do most, if not all, of whatI can with my MacBook Pro. If I could, I'd still probably buy a Mac Pro or a Mac Mini if they could do better at some tasks at the desktop.
There was a lot of really good "feature enhancements" (I'll go with that as a term) and iteration. The one reason I might have got my hopes up a little bit was the fact that they were purposefully calling out the M1 iPad Pro's with 1TB/2TB disk space having 16GB RAM. I mean, Apple never even used to tell us RAM specs at all. Why would they highlight the difference if they had no plan for it?
I draw the conclusion that Apple have got plans for the M1 iPads, but we're all jumping the gun. We know that they care about end-to-end responsibility/control/experience.. And we know they care about quality control (and that they've been stung before, albeit normally hardware issues eg antennagate)...
But we can still see hints of a converged experience being highlighted here - Universal Control, SharePlay, Xcode Cloud... It may not have been the convergence that some of us would have loved to have seen (whether that be the fabled-and-would-be-awesome-but-probably-not-gonna-happen MacOS on iPad Pro, or whether that be MacOS M1 apps on iPad which makes a bit more sense, but still might not happen). And all I can think is that either Covid had a major impact on Apple's plans and/or things weren't quite as ready to be signed off as we'd all hoped...
Or... They're exactly where they'd planned to be, and a higher level of convergence is something they're still figuring out, or have planned for further down the roadmap... But, personally, I don't buy that
In professional life, I've seen a lot of people from Microsoft Technical Account Managers to coders to company execs and middle management thrilled with Microsoft's 2-in-1 Surface offerings. Microsoft have dabble with ARM chips and retreated a few times, and what they currently have doesn't match Apple. But they're also going ARM on servers, which is where the $$$ will come from, and that will enable them to spend more on R&D and compete.
So, to this common argument:
So what? Apple were failing when Steve Jobs was booted out... (And it was cruel to boot him out, but the best thing for Apple at the time, and the best thing for Apple and Jobs in the long run...) When Jobs came back to Apple, he simplified their offerings, but one of his famous key messages was not to be afraid of cannibalising product lines.
A prime example is the iPod. The iPhone replaced the need for an iPod. So what?
If an iPad replaces the need for all or some MacBooks, so what? The purpose for Apple is to make people's lives better with personal technology. They charge a premium because they do it so well.
If the iPad and MacBook share the same technical characteristics (processors, RAM, disk space), what would be the need for the different form factors? The iPad has a more convenient form factor. The "gubbings" are in the screen, a keyboard and mouse can be attached when needed -and it has touch input.
The MacBook has better cooling ability. Using Intel chips, this is something critically needed, especially for "Pro" type uses (eg photo/video editing, sound production). ARM processors in the M1 has changed this, but still, the ability to cool will still offer a major advantage to a MacBook Pro, but at the cost of the flexibility of the iPad's form factor.
The MacBook Pro also has the benefit of having a form factor for more ports, and a better keyboard, built in. It also uses an industry standard screen ratio of 16:9. The iPad can offer a choice of keyboards - even natively from Apple with the Smart Folio Keyboard Cover and the Magic Keyboard. Both are decent offerings - the benefit of the Smart Folio is the lightness. The benefit of the Magic Keyboard is the Apple keyboard experience and trackpad.
My point is, that there will still be use cases for the different form factors, even if they're different from what they are today - but the audience overall will be the same. If they're running on the same processors, why inhibit what each product can do.
I think it might mean the end of the MacBook Air and standard MacBook... But there's still Apple products in the iPad with a keyboard case and mouse that could cover them.
As I say. If Apple had taken the "oh it'll hurt another product line's sales" approach, we'd never have had the iPhone.
This makes sense, but as above. Why go out of the way to market the RAM differences? There has to be a bigger plan, and I think that Apple just aren't production ready for it yet. They've made no promises, so they've told us no lies. Anyone that's gambled has done so on their own terms. I understand why they did, but that was speculative on their part.
In all honesty, if it was just economies of scale, they could have made the same chip with different names M1 and A14. Even if the exact same chip, why would it have mattered to give it a different designation (and really wouldn't have taken much on the production line front to do that).
So that fact, combined with the calling out the RAM differential on purpose in marketing... Leads to a cynical "Apple are playing people to extract money from them" card, or they have a bigger plan in mind with convergence of some kind.
Apple can already extract money from us. They know that. The thing is, if we go the cynical route, that might get loyal advocates to part with money today... But be disillusioned in a year or two so go elsewhere.
If we go the convergence route... It may just not be ready quite now. With everything we've been through this past 15 months as a planet, okay. I can accept that. I also think Apple are kinda hedging their bets a bit, and that they want to be seen as leaders rather than followers... Which causes them paralysis in doing the right thing or progressing sometimes?
Which brings me to this:
Apple told us that they wouldn't give us a stylus. They gave us the Apple Pencil - which is the world's best stylus. They told us that they wouldn't allow us to use a mouse for the iPad, but they did firstly through an accessibility excuse, and then allowing it mainstream and now tying it into Universal Control.
Apple have an awesome vision, but sometimes when they get it wrong they need admit it and capitalise on that for everyone's benefit... Rather than being stubborn for the sake of ultimately being "wrong".
That's not to say that they should rush decisions, or go in a direction just because it's popular at the time. There is a balance to be struck --- but I for one would love to be able to take my iPad Pro on holiday and be able to do most, if not all, of whatI can with my MacBook Pro. If I could, I'd still probably buy a Mac Pro or a Mac Mini if they could do better at some tasks at the desktop.
