I think this is the issue - if the NIMBYs want to protest things they should really start when the office space gets built.
The filled office space full of white collar jobs paying $200K is what triggers the eye of the residential developers of high density housing as it provides a basis for the profit margin spreadsheet model.
I think the reverse offering on the Apple device roadmap would be interesting.
A MacPad and a MacPhone. Given its eventually going to be completely the same silicon this would enable them to offer a non App Store experience for people who want to experiment with alternative app stores like Epic.
In that way they could keep the average Apple target iPhone/iPad customer within the walled garden of iOS while being able to point specifically to EU regulators that they are allowing alternative app stores on the MacPhone/MacPad platform.
Except it doesn't run MacOS, and it doesn't allow you to install any application you want to - only those that Apple allows you to. And you're still forced to use Safari in every browser you install.
Fairly confident the CPU has never been the reason you can't install whatever you want on an iOS/iPadOS device. Also not the reason you can't install macOS on it either.
If you want macOS, you buy a Mac. You want iPadOS, you buy an iPad. And if you want an iPad Pro that can double up as a Mac in a pinch, you feel awkward while Tim Cook death stares at you until you empty your pockets.
In all seriousness though, I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook (as a lot of people here do I'm sure) and it would make a poor laptop. And how do you switch between macOS and iPadOS? I don't see a way to have that not be clunky because of all the different metaphors. I'd rather just have both (actually I'd rather just have the MacBook as the iPad sits largely idle, as I'm also sure a lot of people's do).
They can absolutely make the iPad Pro run macOS just fine and figure out the software solution quite easily.
They just need to make it run macOS by default but with an UI layer that could transform it in an iOS like UI in a pinch (while shutting down most of the daemons and stuff iPad OS doesn't use currently). You can already run iPad apps on Apple Silicon macs just fine.
It's purely and simply a commercial decision, to force people to buy multiple devices. If the iPad could run as a Mac they would lose a large amount of MacBook Air and low-end MacBook Pros, this is a simple as that.
It’s clearly for commercial reasons. It still doesn’t change the fact that it would be clunky, like Windows and Android tablets are today. The surface is a poor tablet and Android is a poor desktop OS. The metaphors are oil and water.
Sure, they could adapt macOS and iPadOS enough to make it sort of workable, but I tend to agree with them that it would ultimately be a master-of-none device.
Clearly the reason they don’t want to do it is that it’ll cannibalise other sales. If macOS were written from scratch today it wouldn’t allow apps outside of the App Store or even multiple users. They’re Apple.
Isn't the whole "raison d'être" of Apple to be able to do stuff that other computer company completely fail ?
The surface make a poor tablet but that's mostly because the hardware isn't suitable for it anyway (because they lack the potential Apple Silicon has). It would be quite pointless for Microsoft to focus on tablet style software when the hardware wouldn't be able to make advantage of it and anyway, the touch layer they have on top is largely sufficient for most task you would want to do in tablet mode (especially since it is sold with a stylus and focus on that interaction method).
Android would make a poor desktop OS as is, but Google is merging ChromeOS with it and there is Samsung Dex that is quite competent already. With the increased competitiveness of Qualcomm chips I think they'll attain a quite decent middle ground at some point.
You say it would be a master of none device but isn't it what the iPad Pro already is ? Quite overkill for a content consumption tablet and too limited to be a full laptop replacement. This is particularly true for the 13 inch model, most use the 11 inch, which is kinda pointless for the price. Better to buy a cheaper iPad Air and a good enough laptop for the price asked.
But really the hardware isn't the problem, it's all about the software that Apple willingly gimp, they could very well make a dual mode device with legacy support for "classic" Mac Apps and a way to suspend to swap when you go into full tablet mode. Most of the app in the ecosystem already use the same underlying data and files format, it's all about differentiated UIs in the end. There is no real problem problem, only lack of will, because of greed as you mention.
Apple spent billions on an overpriced VR device, for which they will never be really competitive because one of its primary use case (gaming), largely require open development model that they will never allow because of their greed.
If Apple would figure out the software solution there would be no reason to buy both a Mac and an iPad for most common use case, and that's really the only reason for their lack of interest.
I think that's good because if the competition manage to figure out the hardware, they'll give them a run for their money.
>Fairly confident the CPU has never been the reason you can't install whatever you want on an iOS/iPadOS device. Also not the reason you can't install macOS on it either.
Are you lost? Did you reply to the wrong comment? My comment says nothing about CPU or anything about hardware, at all.
The thread above my comment is talking about a "MacPad" which means running MacOS on Apple tablets and phones.
Of course Apple prevents this even though it's entirely possible to do it, because Apple is going to do Apple things.
>In all seriousness though, I have an iPad Pro and a MacBook (as a lot of people here do I'm sure)
Reality distortion field in effect?
> and it would make a poor laptop.
Uh... all you would need to do is add a keyboard and mouse and it's a laptop, and all of that is already possible to do and has been possible for a very long time.
>(actually I'd rather just have the MacBook as the iPad sits largely idle, as I'm also sure a lot of people's do).
If you have a look around on the interwebs there are longstanding criticisms of how overpowered the iPad is relative to what you're actually empowered to do with it, and by extension the question of who is it supposed to be for. Like you said, Apple doing Apple.
I'm sure a lot of them sit idle because a constant complaint people have (again all over the interwebs) with them is that they aren't good at much besides media consumption, and are rarely people's first choice for that due to convenience.
Whatever though? It hardly matters. Enjoy your iPad I guess(?)
You're basically proving their point. One will replace the other, sooner or later. The iPad doesn't necessitate it's own existence, unless you make it the new Mac.
Offering something like that would be tantamount to admitting that they were wrong (or lying) about their motivation for locking the system down with no user choice, that it's for the protection of the user. I don't see that happening.
Interestingly it's popularity or unpopularity would prove out two things - both of which are somewhat of a win win for Apple:
1.) If MacPhone/MacPad is popular then it would prove that there does exist a currently untapped, unaddressed market who wants Apple HW and are willing to pay a premium but do not want the locked down iOS garden which means more money for minimal effort.
2.) If MacPhone/MacPad is unpopular then it would prove that their motivation and hypothesis was correct - people do indeed come to Apple and pay the premium precisely for the walled garden and the convenience it affords.
If its indeed unpopular you could keep it around for a couple of years as an EU regulatory compliance device. Then you can say to any future regulator who wants to tear down the iOS walled garden - we tried that back in 2026 and nobody wanted it.
My hot take is that there are seem to be really two markets here:
1.) Candy crush type board games targeting kids with well-off parents. Basically really focused on immersive and interactive visuals like effects and cutscenes.
2.) Serious board games targeting older teenagers and adults playing heavy games with BoardGameGeek weightings of above 3.5 with money to spend on their own hobby. Think games like 18XX, Brass Birmingham, Dune, Terraforming Mars or Gloomhaven. They would find the digital board game experience useful for accessing expansion maps (i.e. 18xx) or expansion campaigns (Gloomhaven). Additional features of interest might be solo play against automated players, game state/score tracking, game tutorials.
It almost feels like these two groups would have such different profiles that two separate marketing approaches should be attempted.
I feel like they should target commercial applications first before worrying about trying to get into people's homes.
It would seem like the ideal target for this would be say a hotel operator. A team of these could clean a large number of rooms on an unoccupied floor of a hotel at once. Even if this was tele-operated remotely, this seems like it could be particularly beneficial for hotels in remote locations where its harder to hire people locally.
There was/is a pretty interesting board game roughly based on Python Turtles created by a middle schooler a while back.
Instead of a turtle you control a bunny and instead of lines of code with commands you collect up and then use sequences of cards with commands (i.e. left, right, forward, back). Eventually, I think you end up using loop command cards, etc.
I'd imagine you could have teams control each bunny.
My hot take is that it will probably follow the Netflix model of pricing once the VC money wants to turn on the profit switch.
Originally Netflix was a single tier at $9.99 with no ads. As ZIRP ended and investors told Netflix its VC-like honeymoon period was over - ads were introduced at $6.99 and the basic no ad tier went to $15.99 and the Premium went to 19.99.
Currently Netflix ad supported is $7.99, add free is $17.99 and Premium is $24.99.
Mapping that on to OpenAI pricing - ChatGPT will be ~$17.99 for ad supported, ~$49.99 for ad free and ~$599 for Pro.
Netflix has lots of submarine (product placement) ads that you get even on ad-free plans. I expect OpenAI to follow that model too, except it'll be much worse.
I feel like it'd be perfect if all these school replacements (home-school, charter school, online only schools) went after replacing the dearth of quality after school options.
Really the only options for after school activities after graduating from elementary school are competitive sports, competitive math, competitive music, competitive chess, etc. which are pretty much all zero sum in nature.
I'd love options for kids that let them gradually explore their interests to help them discover future vocational interests in a way that was beneficial to society such that they don't have an existential crisis when they hit senior year in high school and have to pick a college major.
I mean you just can't take a comment seriously when it lists music class as a zero sum competition. About the only time that's true is if you're dead set on first chair in a specific orchestra, or think a career any less successful than Mick Jagger's would be a failure.
Frankly I think that indicates the grandparent just didn't think very hard before leaving their comment.
It feels a better strategy for all parties involved to have transitioned these shows to ABC's streaming properties (i.e. Hulu) and made them "exclusive" content for these platforms.
This would have put them out of the reach of the FCC (based on the FCC's initial spectrum is for public benefit for all claim) for now.
There is probably significant IP in both of these shows that could still have been monetized given brand familiarity. It would have been less than before but still something is better than nothing.
I don't have any data to back this up but I can't imagine a lot of people still use Over The Air TV. And the intersection of people who rely solely on OTA TV and are clamoring to watch Kimmel/View is probably even lower.
This also would probably have benefitted the administration in that it wouldn't have trigger as many alarm bells from a free speech perspective.
I think there could be a case for a fixed amount of annual tax credit for each US citizen that is employed by a company - since presumably that person is not on the government payroll or on benefits so the US government is saving money.
The big plus is business owners love claiming tax credits. You would not really need that much paperwork or auditing as far as I can tell since you have every US employees tax info already versus trying to monitor/regulate "outsourcing".
The filled office space full of white collar jobs paying $200K is what triggers the eye of the residential developers of high density housing as it provides a basis for the profit margin spreadsheet model.
reply