Plus it runs the worst touch based operating system on the market.
I feel apple lost the edge on innovation on the desktop space a long time ago.
It's possible that your iPad is not performant enough to both render that popup and and deal with keystrokes at the same time. I'd recommend the Pro iPads for any kind of serious work.
Windows 11's window management is brilliant, nothing comes close out of the box (of course i3/sway/etc. can be customized to match it). Windows tablets as laptops are generally more usable than iPads as laptops due to stuff like multi-user support, filesystem access and much better window management. As tablets (media consumption + creative work like drawing) iPads are better.
This foldable device can be a nice primary machine while an iPad can't replace a laptop for most users. Macbooks are of course fine devices, but I think folding can become a nice feature when it matures.
Vast majority of the world population don't give a shit about sustainability.
Consumers always want to improve their life by spending as little money as possible.
This means companies are being pushed to build more efficient things.
For example Electric cars can travel much longer than traditional cars for the same cost of fuel.
More efficient means, less pollution.
Humans will fix sustainability issues automatically.
But it would never be by building products whose core service offering is sustainability.
No, this means companies are being pushed to build the least expensive things, efficiency is just coincidental in some cases.
> Humans will fix sustainability issues automatically.
That depends, if you mean "eventually" I can somewhat agree with the argument but that's just a wishful thinking thought exercise. Eventually sustainability issues will be fixed because if not everyone will eventually die from the lack of resources, doesn't mean that the fixes are timely or with the least suffering that we as a species could be capable of.
Least expensive literally translate to more efficeny. To build cheaper things you need to spend less on electricity for manufacturing, less on transport (fuel), less on labor etc. Which means more efficeny.
> Eventually sustainability issues will be fixed because if not everyone will eventually die from the lack of resources, doesn't mean that the fixes are timely or with the least suffering that we as a species could be capable
Sure. But this also assumes we are on the verge of collapsing because of sustainability issues. We don't know that. This also assumes somehow if we start pushing on sustainability now we are going to overcome that. We don't know that.
You are just considering the production aspect of efficiency. Cheaper is not higher quality, cheaper goods have a higher rate of failure, higher rate of failure means increased consumption which pushes production up. More efficient and cheaper production with better quality definitely falls into your argument, anything else becomes highly variable if it will translate, ultimately, to better efficiency of resource usage overall.
> Sure. But this also assumes we are on the verge of collapsing because of sustainability issues. We don't know that. This also assumes somehow if we start pushing on sustainability now we are going to overcome that. We don't know that.
Why on the verge? I'm using the same time-scale as you did: eventually, which in mathematical terms would mean a function with its time component using a limit approaching infinity. Eventually automatically solving sustainability because "market forces" push towards efficiency doesn't mean that we should just accept that as a rule and that it's the best course of action given that we can actively model and predict if we should and could be more efficient and sustainable.
What's the argument against focusing on sustainability first? Hampering innovation and some warped sense of progress?
Also cheaper doesn't mean it have to be low quality.
Computers used to be unaffordable to vast majority of people and companies 50 years back. Now everyone has one in their pocket.