4 ms·

I believe it's simply more lucrative to keep selling both devices to the same target group, than try to solve the users' problem with a single device. Everythi

I believe it's simply more lucrative to keep selling both devices to the same target group, than try to solve the users' problem with a single device. Everything in Apple is designed to silo off the two product groups. An "iPad with MacOS" would just shift revenue from the MacOS division to the iPad division, losing a MacOS customer and probably NOT gaining a iPad customer (as he would have purchased an iPad anyway). Just as much as developing an MacBook convertible is not an issue of user experience but an issue of unnecessary cannibalization of iPad sales...

latexr 2y ago
By that logic, the iPhone wouldn’t have been able to play music as soon as it launched. Yet that was part of the whole pitch: “an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator”.
- richrichardsson 2y ago
  Not so sure. From mid-to-late 90s onwards a mobile phone was basically an essential item. I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold. Before the iPhone there were already phones which could play music and access the web. I even remember some Motorolas which interacted directly with iTunes. The iPhone didn’t succeed just by smooshing those together. Either way, that’s neither here nor there, the point is precisely that Apple didn’t shy away from cannibalising their own product.
    - frumper 2y ago
      It was cannibalizing a cheaper iPod for a more expensive iPhone. iPad would be taking from the more expensive MacBook market.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      I don't know how it is relevant what Apple did on other products, especially "pre-iPhone". The point is that TODAY the PC line and the iPad line of Apple are quite notable silo'ed to very specific usage-patterns. There is no technical reason for that, but the distinct commercial reason that there is nothing to gain in terms of revenue or profit by combining the two products into one. They both sell fine and at great margin separately, there is little to gain by building an iPad Pro that is 2000 USD and supports the use-cases of both a 600 USD iPad and a 1600 USD MacBook respectively. Quite bluntly: You want the iPad to be convenient in a workflow as far as possible, and then SUCK really bad in a way only a fully synchronized Macbook can fix.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  The iPod is a product of the pre-iPhone times. Apple used its dominance in Music players to enter the cellphone space. The iPhone was an iPod combined with an iTunes store, allowing the user to buy content without being in front of a PC, and only buy from Apple. It was an iPod and a Browser that could be sold in huge volumes via a carrier. Ah yeah. And a Phone.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  And then the iPod died.
  - latexr 2y ago
    Yes, exactly, that’s the point. Apple did it to themselves. They didn’t “silo off the two product groups”.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      Then either your point is the same as the one I made, or I don't get your point.
  - interludead 2y ago
    I still have my own
ajdude 2y ago
This is the same reason behind the Apple Pencil not working on the iPhone. Despite the iPhone approaching sizes of an iPad mini, I can't use the incredibly expensive pencil on an iPhone because according to Apple only the iPad should be used for tablet stuff.
- Kirby64 2y ago
  What? The Apple Pencil works because there’s a special digitizer layer on the screen for pencil compatible devices that allows it to work. This isn’t included on the iPhone. Same reason a Samsung S-Pen doesn’t work on devices that don’t support it.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    I think the technical reason why the Pencil doesn't work is beside the point here. Apple is building the hardware, and they decide that the Pencil use-case a iPhone user may have shall not be covered by buying an Apple Pencil, but by buying an iPad (and a Apple Pencil)
    - Kirby64 2y ago
      The technical reason is important, though. If it was totally free I suspect they’d allow it to function, but it doesn’t… so burdening the 200M iPhones with the additional cost of the pencil hardware is a trade off not worth taking. Just like Samsung not “allowing” S-pen to work on most of the phones since adding the digitizer element would be a silly cost adder, especially for their super cheap phones.
      - rickdeckard 2y ago
        It's a decision of product proposition, and Apple decided that the Pencil use-case shall support iPad sales and not be cannibalized by the iPhone. They also decided for a while that all their premium iPhones shall have "Force Touch", an entirely unique display technology only for iPhones to sense pressure without the potential of additional accessory sales. These are all valid decisions. They are not a charity, they operate to maximize the profit they can gain from each customer. The iPad has the big "issue" of barely needing to be replaced with new models, as most use-cases are consumption-oriented and there are no real disrupting sales-driving requirements for iPad media consumption. So the Pencil was created to drive the proposition towards Media CREATION, because people would buy a new, more-expensive iPad then and requirements for that segment are constantly increasing (better pencils, lower latency, more-demanding apps). Also in the past year: iPhone increases focus on Media recording with more-complex video features, iPad is tagging along with demanding Media processing use-cases

latexr 2y ago

By that logic, the iPhone wouldn’t have been able to play music as soon as it launched. Yet that was part of the whole pitch: “an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator”.

richrichardsson 2y ago
Not so sure. From mid-to-late 90s onwards a mobile phone was basically an essential item. I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.
- latexr 2y ago
  > I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold. Before the iPhone there were already phones which could play music and access the web. I even remember some Motorolas which interacted directly with iTunes. The iPhone didn’t succeed just by smooshing those together. Either way, that’s neither here nor there, the point is precisely that Apple didn’t shy away from cannibalising their own product.
  - frumper 2y ago
    It was cannibalizing a cheaper iPod for a more expensive iPhone. iPad would be taking from the more expensive MacBook market.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    I don't know how it is relevant what Apple did on other products, especially "pre-iPhone". The point is that TODAY the PC line and the iPad line of Apple are quite notable silo'ed to very specific usage-patterns. There is no technical reason for that, but the distinct commercial reason that there is nothing to gain in terms of revenue or profit by combining the two products into one. They both sell fine and at great margin separately, there is little to gain by building an iPad Pro that is 2000 USD and supports the use-cases of both a 600 USD iPad and a 1600 USD MacBook respectively. Quite bluntly: You want the iPad to be convenient in a workflow as far as possible, and then SUCK really bad in a way only a fully synchronized Macbook can fix.
rickdeckard 2y ago
The iPod is a product of the pre-iPhone times. Apple used its dominance in Music players to enter the cellphone space. The iPhone was an iPod combined with an iTunes store, allowing the user to buy content without being in front of a PC, and only buy from Apple. It was an iPod and a Browser that could be sold in huge volumes via a carrier. Ah yeah. And a Phone.
rickdeckard 2y ago
And then the iPod died.
- latexr 2y ago
  Yes, exactly, that’s the point. Apple did it to themselves. They didn’t “silo off the two product groups”.
  - rickdeckard 2y ago
    Then either your point is the same as the one I made, or I don't get your point.
- interludead 2y ago
  I still have my own

ajdude 2y ago

This is the same reason behind the Apple Pencil not working on the iPhone. Despite the iPhone approaching sizes of an iPad mini, I can't use the incredibly expensive pencil on an iPhone because according to Apple only the iPad should be used for tablet stuff.

Kirby64 2y ago
What? The Apple Pencil works because there’s a special digitizer layer on the screen for pencil compatible devices that allows it to work. This isn’t included on the iPhone. Same reason a Samsung S-Pen doesn’t work on devices that don’t support it.
- rickdeckard 2y ago
  I think the technical reason why the Pencil doesn't work is beside the point here. Apple is building the hardware, and they decide that the Pencil use-case a iPhone user may have shall not be covered by buying an Apple Pencil, but by buying an iPad (and a Apple Pencil)
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    The technical reason is important, though. If it was totally free I suspect they’d allow it to function, but it doesn’t… so burdening the 200M iPhones with the additional cost of the pencil hardware is a trade off not worth taking. Just like Samsung not “allowing” S-pen to work on most of the phones since adding the digitizer element would be a silly cost adder, especially for their super cheap phones.
    - rickdeckard 2y ago
      It's a decision of product proposition, and Apple decided that the Pencil use-case shall support iPad sales and not be cannibalized by the iPhone. They also decided for a while that all their premium iPhones shall have "Force Touch", an entirely unique display technology only for iPhones to sense pressure without the potential of additional accessory sales. These are all valid decisions. They are not a charity, they operate to maximize the profit they can gain from each customer. The iPad has the big "issue" of barely needing to be replaced with new models, as most use-cases are consumption-oriented and there are no real disrupting sales-driving requirements for iPad media consumption. So the Pencil was created to drive the proposition towards Media CREATION, because people would buy a new, more-expensive iPad then and requirements for that segment are constantly increasing (better pencils, lower latency, more-demanding apps). Also in the past year: iPhone increases focus on Media recording with more-complex video features, iPad is tagging along with demanding Media processing use-cases