When Apple released the MacBook Neo it was obvious to most that Apple had introduced a product that would shake up the larger laptop market. Lurking just underneath that obviousness was how it might or might not affect the iPad market. It was only a matter of time and timing, before those who, both rightly in some cases and wrongly in others, criticized Apple for not delivering the iPad of their dreams that could do anything and everything seized on the Neo’s success as a pivot point in the discussion.
The quest for the perfect device for everyone is and will always be an imperfect one. Much like the arguments. In addition to its impact on the laptop manufacturing markets, the MacBook Neo proves just how imperfect those arguments are. Yet, there’s already a large dollop of discourse saying that the Neo proves Apple’s iPad strategy needs adjusting. Add to that the rumors of a touchscreen Mac that continue to recirculate the same way the iPad discussion does just prior to WWDC each year.
On Michael Tsai’s Blog there’s an excellent collection of links and comments that’s worth a look if you’re at all interested in this ultimately meaningless debate. The links feed off a post from Craig Mod, titled MacBook Neo and How The iPad Could Be, that argues “iPads should be radically touch only and MacBooks should be keyboard-first.” I can’t say I disagree. But I think the discussion should go further than either/or.
There’s got to be several data centers worth of AI-scraped web articles on the ups and downs of the iPad floating around and how Apple’s strategy held it back. And yes, the iPad has had its ups and downs. But I would argue that’s mostly, not completely, a question of preference rather than any “the iPad should be this or that” win or lose proposition.
Being an iPad user since the first edition, I’ll say this. Most of the dissatisfaction I’ve seen over the years comes from those who wanted the iPad to be more like a Mac than those who used it primarily as a tablet. Without trying to be derisive, I’d venture to say that most who complained were keyboard jockeys by trade. I don’t begrudge them their complaints. From that perspective the complaints did and still do make sense. In many ways they were following Apple’s lead from the “What’s a computer?” days, before Apple abandoned that tack and sailed into broader and more lucrative waters with Apple Silicon.
Admittedly I’m showing my own preference here. I use an iPad as a tool in my work as a theatre practitioner. I’m on my feet with a script on my iPad, using an Apple Pencil to take notes. If I need to do keyboard work in the rehearsal room, I plop the iPad on a Magic Keyboard, do the keyboard related task, then pop the iPad off again and get back on my feet. When I’m back in my digs, I mostly work on a Mac. Apple’s ecosystem makes this all possible. When it works well.
Personally, I hope Apple keeps developing and delivering all of its current line of products. Stretch capabilities in some to the limit, and limit others with less.
The current lineup serves me well. Frankly, I can’t imagine any changes Apple could make that would alter how I work. I’d be content with that future, even though I know the tools I’m going to use are going to change regardless of my current comfort zone. If that future is all about creating hardware to run AI, as it appears to be, the decision points are going to shift away from most of the spec and capability differences we’ve been accustomed to in the past anyway.
Craig Mod argues that “the specificity of our tools should be radically clear.” I buy the argument, but extending the discussion I’ll say it’s better to have more capability than less. Most users don’t touch anywhere near what even the most limited devices can offer. In my experience they find their way to whatever level they need, which is a much lower one than most realize. Those of us who may made need more, don’t understand that most users couldn’t care less.
Moving on, and with the “What’s a Computer?” miscues behind us, Apple’s current challenge and our headaches stem more from Apple trying to meld its operating systems into some sort of grand cohesive vision that feels the same across all of its devices. Admirable. But ultimately flawed in the same way that each different computing device Apple sells is as different as any two users who use that same device. Vive la différence.
I’m sure Apple gets that, but until the MacBook Neo that wasn’t quite as smack the Apple press in the face apparent, even though there have been lesser featured iPads at lower price points prior to the Neo. You could argue the same about the iPhone Air, but the higher price obscures the point.
With talk of higher priced “ultra” iPhones and who knows what else supposedly on the horizon, who knows where all of this really leads. I’m guessing Apple will be more than content to have a multi-layered series of price points attracting customers from both the low end and the high end. That all leads to more users spending money on Apple services and that’s the key to Apple’s continued growth. More hardware entry points (price) bring in more users than new features most won’t ever use. It’s simple math.
As long as Apple’s hardware profit margins can be maintained across its lineup, even with lower priced and perhaps less capable hardware, it’s pretty much a slam dunk. The success of the Neo not only points to this strategy, it should also point ahead to a diversified hardware lineup that fills many needs, as long as there is a clear and distinct choice for the toolsets that suits them best.
(image from the author)
You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above. This site does not use affilate links.
Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3 