5 ms·
Stage Manager follows the same pattern as the other features Apple took too long to realize were already figured out on the Mac: make it arbitrarily different t
by tolmasky 4y ago
Stage Manager follows the same pattern as the other features Apple took too long to realize were already figured out on the Mac: make it arbitrarily different to be able to call it new. Just like the “changing cursor” for trackpad support on the iPad. But hey, I'll take it I guess.
Unfortunately, in previous cases, these "justification" tweaks have resulted in a strictly worse experience IMO. The transforming cursor on the iPad is distracting and it can be weird how it disappears over icons (resulting in me losing track of it sometimes). The iPad Keyboard is more awkward than a real keyboard, top-heavy, and sold separately of course. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same is true of Stage Manager, although at least it's on the Mac too so hopefully if it turns out to not be that great, it won't be excused as "people not getting it" like all the weirdo undiscoverable gestures on the iPad.
The sad reality though is that it's taken 10 years for the iPad to finally mature into... an arbitrarily different take on OS X? Same chip as the Mac. Works with a keyboard and mouse. Better for drawing but worse for external monitor support. And now basically the same window management we've always had with the Mac. I was always (and remain, theoretically) a big believer in the opportunity the iPad presented, and think it could have gotten to the same place sooner, but bolder, with the actual aim of replacing the Mac (the same way the iPhone replaced the iPod). Where it's at now kind of proves that's always been possible... it just chose to get here meekly instead, not stepping on any toes, always making sure there was an excuse to need to buy both devices.
Universal Control to me is the epitome of that mentality: a supremely technically impressive, but ultimately completely over-engineered and absolutely ridiculous "solution" to a problem that wouldn't exist if the Mac simply had a touch screen. You wouldn't need WiFi and communication between two computers to move your mouse from screen A to screen B if the Mac just had a touch screen. The experience of having a touch Mac that you just... plugged into an external display would be strictly better than the weird world of Universal Control, where you drag an image from Adobe Photoshop for Mac over to Adobe Photoshop for iPad, or sometimes, you drag it from Adobe Photoshop for iPad running on the Mac using Catalyst to Adobe Photoshop for iPad running "natively" on the iPad.
I think Apple truly squandered the opportunity in the last decade to get truly get ahead on "big screen" (aka, non-phone-based) computing. Instead, the field still remains wide open.
- kitsunesoba 4y agoWell, given the disasters that other parties in the industry have seen trying to make the new platform into the only platform, I can't help but think that some trepidation is justified. Power users also seem to be quite outspoken about traditional keyboard-and-mouse UX not going away, which also makes the success of a single unified platform unlikely. > Universal Control to me is the epitome of that mentality: a supremely technically impressive, but ultimately completely over-engineered and absolutely ridiculous "solution" to a problem that wouldn't exist if the Mac simply had a touch screen. You wouldn't need WiFi and communication between two computers to move your mouse from screen A to screen B if the Mac just had a touch screen. The experience of having a touch Mac that you just... plugged into an external display would be strictly better than the weird world of Universal Control, where you drag an image from Adobe Photoshop for Mac over to Adobe Photoshop for iPad, or sometimes, you drag it from Adobe Photoshop for iPad running on the Mac using Catalyst to Adobe Photoshop for iPad running "natively" on the iPad. There are plenty of use cases for Universal Control that wouldn't be fixed by a touch Mac, though. I use it to control multiple Macs (previously used ShareMouse and before that Synergy, but Universal Control works much more smoothly without a hardwired connection), as well as to use native iPadOS apps from developers that force their Electron apps on macOS with, like Slack and Discord. Personally speaking I have no desire for touch on traditional MacBooks – I can only see it making sense on a dockable iPad-like Mac.
- tolmasky 4y ago> Personally speaking I have no desire for touch on traditional MacBooks – I can only see it making sense on a dockable iPad-like MacBook. Yes, the fundamental premise is that the last 10 years would have been used differently to grow the touch space to where it fits in the lineup. Arguably a desktop and laptop are as far apart as a laptop and an iPad. That doesn’t mean they need different OSes. I shouldn’t have to use a completely different OS because I want to use the Apple Pencil. It’s just a peripheral. And yes, peripherals should influence the UI (like how scroll bars appear or disappear depending on whether you have a mouse with a scroll wheel attached). I imagine a “Touch Mac” as a laptop where you could spin the screen around to draw on the go for example. Forget complex touch uses, just being able to fold it back to read like a book or watch a movie is a killer feature. But even the Magic Keyboard for the iPad doesn’t support this transformation, you have to take the iPad out to use it… like an iPad. It’s silly. Similarly, opening up touch to the Mac to allow for things like the Surface Studio, for those who need it, would be great! Instead touch is locked in a tiny screen on Apple’s least-used OS (well, after tvOS I guess).