In this video, Quinn Nelson points out something I, too, had noticed when taking a look at the user interface of the first beta of Mac OS Big Sur. That is, many controls and UI elements appear to have odd spacing for a traditional desktop user interface. It seems as if they were prepared to accept touch input. So now of course the next wave of speculation, post-WWDC, is that touchscreen-enabled Macs may appear in the not-so-distant future.

The biggest piece of evidence to support this theory seems to be what Craig Federighi himself announced during the WWDC 2020 keynote:

As you saw, Macs built with Apple Silicon will be able to run iPhone and iPad apps directly. Starting day one, users can download these apps right from the Mac App Store, and most apps will just work, with no changes from the developer.

Quinn Nelson adds:

The implications of this are huge, but it goes even a step further than that, because during the State of the Union address after the keynote, Apple announced that all iOS apps, both iPhone and iPad, would be available for Apple Silicon Macs in the Mac App Store by default, and the developers, if they didn’t want their apps available for ARM Macs, would have to actively opt out. From the outset this might sound like a good idea: if your desktop and your laptop and your mobile operating devices all run the same instruction set and codebase, well, why wouldn’t you allow for cross-compatibility to bolster these newfangled ARM Macs with the largest software catalogue possible?

But here’s the thing. I don’t peg Apple as a company that would fill their App Store with a bunch of broken, crappy apps that would significantly diminish the experience for these new ARM Mac users. And without a touchscreen, that’s what it would be for a lot of apps — crappy. Most games (which, remember, will be made available by default on day one) require Multi-Touch, and the last time I checked a mouse cursor could really only replicate one finger […]. Come on, you really think that that’s what Apple’s gonna do for consumers? This is Apple: a company that is obsessed with image and visual polish to a fault; and that’s why I was a bit confused by the announcement at all. Because think about it: without a touchscreen, the experience of using iPad and iPhone apps on a Mac will be pretty terrible — even worse than the really really bad Catalyst apps that Apple has been fervently trying to prove can be good.

It’s a solid argument. But on the other hand, consider the following: if making iPad and iPhone apps available for Apple Silicon Macs from the start is the primary reason that signals the impending arrival of touchscreen-enabled Macs, then, by this very reasoning (a Mac with a touchscreen would help achieve the most seamless experience when using iOS apps directly), all Apple Silicon Macs would need to have a touchscreen. Is Apple going to introduce an external touchscreen display for Mac mini users? Is Apple really going to equip all laptops and iMac-like Apple Silicon Macs with a touchscreen? I may be wrong about this, but to me it looks like a terribly expensive solution for Apple and for the consumers. Can you imagine a 27-inch iMac with a good quality touchscreen display?

My theory can be roughly summarised in two main points.

1. There is going to be a Mac model with a touchscreen display

Whether I agree or not with Nelson’s overall take, his observations regarding the increased space in several UI elements within Mac OS Big Sur’s interface have merit. That spacing could very well be simply a cosmetic feature, just to bring more homogeneousness between Mac OS and iPadOS’s interface; or it could indicate that Big Sur is going to support touchscreen Macs. I think Apple is maintaining this sort of ambiguity to have more freedom of movement, to keep their options open just in case. I think they could be planning to release an Apple Silicon Mac that works like a 2‑in‑1 laptop/tablet hybrid, a sort of portable professional/business machine with advanced tablet functions. Apple’s version of a Microsoft Surface, in a nutshell.

It makes sense that they would prepare Big Sur from the start to have a touch-friendly interface. And this wouldn’t even contradict Apple’s long-time stance that touchscreen Macs make little sense. They could say, This class of device can be used just like a traditional Mac with full support of traditional input methods, but it can also become a powerful pen- and touch-based device when needed. Of course, like other 2‑in‑1 devices, it would be more focused on portability and long battery life than sheer performance (though a considerable level of performance would be guaranteed anyway due to it being equipped with an Apple custom SoC). This way, it wouldn’t interfere too much with the sales of ‘regular’ Mac laptops and iPads.

2. Another way to interpret Apple’s announcement

While it’s great that Apple Silicon Macs will be able to run iPad and iPhone apps directly, and that “Starting day one, users can download these apps right from the Mac App Store, and most apps will just work, with no changes from the developer”, it’s also obvious that developers will have to implement a few changes in their apps if they want to offer a good experience to those who want to use them on their Macs. So, what do you think is more likely?

• (a) That Apple goes the extra mile and starts equipping all new Apple Silicon Macs with a touchscreen display; or
• (b) that Apple is giving a not-so-subtle hint to iOS developers that goes like this: With full cross-platform compatibility, your apps will run on Macs directly and we will make them available from the Mac App Store from day one, so if you want the opportunity to extend your apps to Mac users as well, you should start working on optimising them for the Mac and its user interface right now, because the clock is ticking.

I’m thinking (b). With a bit of optimisation (how hard this is going to be depends on the type of apps they offer), an iOS developer can provide a separate Mac OS and iOS app with a seamless experience across the platforms (visually and functionally), instead of just having an iPad app that can run on a Mac, but poorly. It’s also more lucrative for a developer, who can effectively charge for two distinct versions of the same app, instead of offering just a one-size-fits-all app at a single price. Who knows, maybe Apple will also let developers offer Mac OS/iOS bundle pricing, so if you have a Mac and an iPhone, or a Mac and an iPad, or the three devices, instead of purchasing Cool App for iOS/iPadOS at $3.99 and Cool App for Mac OS at $6.99, you could get a bundle with the two apps for, say, $8.99. Or maybe it could be a higher subscription tier, for those developers who favour such an approach. What is more lucrative for a developer is also more lucrative for Apple, ultimately.

Again, I may be completely wrong about this, but it’s a bit hard for me to see Apple just start making Macs with a touchscreen display so that they all can run whatever app you throw at them, as is. If all new Macs with Apple Silicon could be used this way — especially laptops — then the only reason to get an iPad would be its lightness and compactness. There would be more overlap between classes of devices.

As I said above, Apple could offer one class of device with Surface-like functionality. But Apple isn’t Microsoft. They don’t need to offer such a device: they already have good tablets and good desktop/laptop computers; it’s probably in Apple’s best interest to keep the two lines separate. A Surface-like Apple convertible, however, could function as bait for people outside the Apple ecosystem — people who today are using Surface devices because they love and take full advantage of the laptop/tablet hybrid formula.