[r00fus]

Why so? A Mac is a very high ASP item - why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS (using the ARM processor).

Ultimately, the 2016 MBPs are a great example of why Apple needs to divest from Intel. The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors and lack of low-power RAM were both Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises.

And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?

[scarface74]

Apple wouldn't need an ARM chip to allow iOS apps to run on Macs. I would think that all iOS apps are already compatible with x86. When a developer writes apps today using Xcode and runs the app in the simulator, they are running an x86 compiled version of their app linked against an x86 version of the iOS framework. It wouldn't be that much of a technical hurdle to polish the experience and officially support fat binaries that run on x86 and ARM.

[gcp]

Only in theory. In practice the existing base of software in the App Store would cause compatibility issues.

Intel based Android devices have an ARM emulator on board (libhoudini) and claim to be ARM when querying the store, in order to not have a software offering disadvantage.

[scarface74]

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but we are talking about Apple allowing IOS apps run natively on Macs. iOS apps are already running natively on macOS - but only if you have Xcode. Apple could really just include the x86 based iOS framework that it already has in the next version of macOS and tell developers if you want to run on Macs, just modify your UI to support a third target - you are already probably targeting iPhone and iPad - let Xcode bundle the x86 build its already doing while you're testing.

As far as Intel based phones, that's even easier, tell developers they are realeasing an x86 based phone in the next year, either you bundle an x86 version - again you're already testing an x86 build every time you run the emulator - or you'll lose compatibility. Apple has never been afraid to abandon apps when it transistioned processors.

The Android situation is different, if people have a choice between buying an Android device that is 70 percent compatible and one that is 100% compatible. The one that is 70 percent compatible is at a disadvantage. But if people want an iOS device and Apple switches to Intel and they lose some apps what choice do they have?

[r00fus]

I'd be amazed if Apple ever gave up ARM for x86. Has Intel improved that much in comparison to ARM for power efficiency?

[wmf]

why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS

That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen).

And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?

Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that. And getting back to the article, if the OS is radically different then presumably it doesn't need both Intel and ARM processors.

[true_religion]

> That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen).

Windows 10 Apps seem to have bridged the divide between mobile and desktop, and run fine on both.

It wasn't instant, Windows has been trying to bring this divide closer since Windows 8... and after so long they're pretty much succeeded with the Surface tablet/laptop.

[r00fus]

> Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that.

I'm a Mac user too. Unfortunately, Apple is notorious for doing what they think is right, regardless of their user base. Need I say "lightning headphones" or "no magsafe, just USB-C"?

Both of these strike me as positioning for the future Apple wants despite the concerns the vocal parts of their userbase.

[X86BSD]

Skate where the puck will be, not where it is.

[roryisok]

No reason they couldn't put a touch screen on a MacBook or imac, though I guess they can't guarantee one on a mac pro

[__jal]

Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck. Holding your arm out screen operations for any length of time is awful, and wiping the prints off your screen on your pant leg doesn't work very well on a laptop.

That's not to say Apple doesn't release terrible things at times (hockey puck mouse[1]?), but I have trouble imagining Apple releasing one of those. (Laplet? tabletop?)

[1] I actually think that may have been calculated - it is impossible that Jobs didn't know it was a shitty mouse, but alongside the iMac, it got a ton of attention at the time Apple really needed it.

[scholia]

> Well, one reason is that touch screens for desktop OSes suck

They work perfectly well on desktops like the Surface Studio, where you can bring the screen down to a drawing board angle. They also work well with a "desktop OS" on convertible laptops and 2-in-1s with multiple use modes including "tent" and "tablet".

They're actually not too bad on real desktops with vertical screens, especially if you're standing up. (Try putting an all-in-one in your kitchen.)

It would be foolish to assume that just because you have a touch screen that you have to touch it all the time. You don't. You can still use a mouse, a pen, an air-mouse, a games controller, and several other things. Having a touch screen doesn't make you do anything you don't want to do, it just gives you an extra option.

It's a bit like claiming that if you use a mouse you can't use keyboard shortcuts. Really, that's not how it works....

[ScottBurson]

Except that a touch screen can't (reasonably) be optically coated to reduce reflected glare, because skin oils from fingerprints disable the effect, showing up as bright spots.

Those of us who are still bummed that we can't get a matte screen on a Mac laptop anymore will be triply upset if we can't even have an optical coating.

For the use cases of tablets/convertibles, it presumably doesn't matter so much, but for the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Okay -- Apple could have one touchscreen laptop model and leave the rest as they are, or make a touchscreen optional on the whole line. But I would never want to buy a touchscreen laptop.

[scholia]

How many have you bought? The last time I bought a non-touch laptop -- last year -- I quickly realised my mistake, took it back and paid more for one with a touch-screen.

Anything without a touch-screen just feels horribly broken and out of date now.

Otherwise I'm not sure what your complaint is. I see lots of people happily using touch screens for all sorts of purposes. That includes smartphones, tablets, convertibles, laptops and desktops.

I don't really see why something that works on screen sizes from 4-inches to 28 inches (Surface Studio) across multiple form factors should somehow not work on some particular device.

> the more intensive creative work that laptops are better for, it does.

Not sure what you mean, here. Laptops are less powerful than desktops and ergonomically inferior. They are not better for anything except moving around.

[roryisok]

I have a hp spectre with a touch screen and windows 10, and it certainly doesn't suck. Great for sticking in tablet mode and browsing, organising photos etc.

[xbmcuser]

No touch screen at the moment. Apple could be looking at making a hybrid ipad/mac.

[amiga-workbench]

That would cannibalise sales of the iPad. Its why they have yet to release a proper iPad Pro, just a gigantic iPod touch with a stylus.

[scholia]

Macs cost more so why would that be a bad thing?

iPad sales were down by 22% in the last quarter and are roughly half what they were at the peak. As someone has pointed out, the iPad sales chart is looking like the iPod's, except it might be going down a little faster...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-ipad-is-on-life-support/

Tim Cook's "why on earth would you buy a PC?" routine isn't looking quite as hot now iPads are the fourth ranked revenue earner at Apple, behind the iPhone, Macs, and Services.

[kobayashi]

>The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors [was one of] Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises.

I've heard similar sentiments quite a few times. However, there's little reason to believe that Apple would have been able to meet their needs better than Intel could have. It's not like Intel's development schedule was misaligned with Apple. They just couldn't get the processor out in time.

[__jal]

> why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS

Never say never, but that is the sort of thing Apple would never do.

[rz2k]

I believe the Touch Bar on new MacBook Pros is a modularized component running a version of iOS on ARM.

[jolux]

It's running a stripped-down watchOS actually

[__jal]

Hadn't heard that, but I can believe it. It is also entirely different than users running Infinity Blade or whatever.