Apple's iPad Steals Another MacBook Feature
Customers are experiencing the newly released iPad Pro and iPad Air at the Apple Store in Shanghai ... More (Photo by Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Apple loves to blur the line between its tablet-focused and keyboard-focused hardware. The latest step to bring more of the Mac to the iPad comes in one of the most straightforward UI changes possible, but it will have a considerable impact.
The upcoming iPadOS 19 is expected to be previewed at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference 2025 on Jun 9. Following the event it will go into a mix of private and public beta versions, before a public release in late September. One of the updated features will include a traditional menu bar.
It will not be present at all times. Still, when an external keyboard is connected (such as Apple's Magic Keyboard), the menu bar will become an ever-present feature, pushing the platform further towards a laptop-like portable experience than a handheld tablet.
That feeling will be boosted by changes to Stage Manager, Apple's tool to support multitasking on the iPad. The next version of Stage Manager—part of iPadOS 19—will offer more control and management tools for apps when a keyboard is attached.
Apple continues to blur the lines between its tablet-based products and its desk-bound products. The tweaks to iPadOS allow that distinction to be blurred again, although only under the limited circumstance of a third-party keyboard connecting to the iPad. Apple continues to push the idea of a connected ecosystem, allowing files and information to move between hardware. What it is refusing, once more, is to offer that same synergy of software in its hardware. The Mac will always be bound to a desk, the MacBook will always be a laptop, and the iPad will always be an iPad.
Now read the latest iPad, iPhone, and Mac headlines in Forbes' weekly Apple Loop news digest...
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Rapid Review Quiz: Wearable Health Tech
As wearable health technology becomes more sophisticated and accessible, its impact on disease detection, chronic condition management, and preventive care is growing rapidly. From smartwatches that flag abnormal heart rhythms to headbands that analyze sleep stages and wristbands that monitor blood pressure around the clock, these devices are reshaping the landscape of modern healthcare. However, clinical accuracy can vary significantly across devices. How well do you understand the strengths and shortcomings of these wearable health devices? Check your knowledge with this quick quiz. The Apple Watch is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for over-the-counter use as ECG software to help detect cardiac arrhythmias. In May 2024, the FDA qualified Apple's Atrial Fibrillation History Feature as a Medical Device Development Tool (MDDT). This makes it the first over-the-counter wearable tech accepted under the MDDT program for estimating AF burden in clinical research. The feature might serve as a biomarker to evaluate cardiac interventions, such as ablation therapies, during clinical trials. A new meta-analysis shows that the Apple Watch ECG has high sensitivity and specificity for AF detection compared to standard ECGs. However, expert guidelines and the study itself recommend that providers use the Apple Watch ECG as a screening tool, not for definitive diagnosis. Any positive or suspicious result should be confirmed with a standard 12-lead ECG, which remains the criterion standard for AF diagnosis and can detect other arrhythmias. Choosing to use the Apple Watch ECG as the sole diagnostic tool ignores its limitations and the need for comprehensive evaluation, potentially missing important cardiac conditions. Advising against all use of the device would overlook its value for early and convenient AF screening, especially in at-risk or hard-to-reach populations. Replacing standard ECGs entirely with the Apple Watch is not supported because the Apple Watch cannot provide the full range of diagnostic information. Learn more about AF. A clinical trial showed that after 3 months of using the Dexcom G6, participants had notable improvements in glycemic control. Usage remained high throughout the study, with 91% completing the full 90-day period and wearing the sensor 88% of the time. Compared to fingerstick monitoring, CGM users had lower average glucose levels (184.0-147.2 mg/dL), better time in range (58%-83%), and slight improvements in glucose variability. Additional health benefits included reductions in A1c, BMI, blood pressure (BP), cholesterol, and a lower estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk. Real-world data also confirmed that patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes using CGM for 12 months saw continued improvement in glycemic control, especially when using alert features. This was confirmed in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, which concluded that feedback from CGM positively affects glycemic control in adults, regardless of diabetes status. In March 2024, the FDA approved Dexcom's Stelo Glucose Biosensor System, the first over-the-counter CGM, designed for adults with type 2 diabetes not using insulin and for the general public interested in tracking glucose patterns related to lifestyle factors. Learn more about CGM. The Dreem headband uses portable EEG and motion detection for home-based sleep tracking. A recent study comparing Dreem to polysomnography (PSG) (the criterion standard for detailed sleep analysis) found mixed accuracy across sleep metrics. Total sleep time and sleep efficiency aligned closely with PSG results due to the device's ability to detect sleep-wake transitions via movement. However, REM sleep was overestimated by about 25 minutes. Overestimating REM could delay detection of disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and depression (in which sleep disruptions are linked), making the Dreem less reliable for clinical diagnoses that require precise REM data. Although the device shows potential for general sleep monitoring at home, its limitations (especially in identifying REM) suggest that further validation and algorithm refinement are needed, particularly for use in older adults and people with neurodegenerative conditions. Learn more about sleep EEG. A new meta-analysis concluded that wearable activity tracker-based interventions significantly increased daily step counts in older adults compared to usual care (such as prescribed physical activity), highlighting their potential to boost physical activity in this population. Higher step counts are linked to lower cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality and reduced frailty risk. The interventions did not significantly improve BMI or functional mobility (Timed Up and Go test) or reduce sedentary time. These outcomes might require longer interventions or additional components such as dietary changes or targeted exercises. Learn more about risk factors for coronary artery disease. Hilo, formerly known as Aktiia (Neuchâtel, Switzerland) is a wearable device that measures BP continuously without a cuff, using optical sensors in a wrist-worn bracelet. It has received regulatory approval in the European Union and Canada. A new study found that Hilo (Aktiia) closely matched ABPM readings during daytime and across a full 24-hour cycle. However, it consistently recorded higher systolic BP at night, indicating reduced accuracy during sleep. It nonetheless captured overall nighttime dipping trends. No major discrepancies were found in daytime readings, and claims of inaccuracy during the day were unfounded. The device also did not show overestimation across all periods, only at night. Furthermore, it successfully tracked dipping patterns, supporting its use with some caution for nighttime data interpretation. Learn more about BP assessment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Apple stock has severely lagged the rest of the Mag 7. BofA says a rumored AI deal could turn it around.
Apple is rumored to be conducting internal talks about acquiring AI startup Perplexity. Thus far, Wall Street has been unimpressed by Apple's AI strategy. An AI acquisition could be a lifeline for Apple's stock, which has tumbled this year, says BofA. It's been a rough year for Apple stock, but there might be hope for a rebound with a rumored AI acquisition. Apple has been the worst-performing Magnificent Seven stock in 2025, with shares down 20% year-to-date. On top of weak iPhone sales and tariff concerns, the company has lagged in the AI race among its mega-cap tech peers. At Apple's WWDC earlier this month, the company failed to ease Wall Street's concerns about its Apple Intelligence product, with investors bemoaning the company's lack of a new killer app. However, Apple executives could be eyeing a purchase of AI startup Perplexity, Bloomberg reported last week. While Perplexity has denied any M&A discussions and Apple has declined to comment, Wall Street didn't ignore the buzz. Bank of America believes a deal could throw a lifeline to Apple's thus-lacking AI strategy and turn the stock around. If you can't make your own special AI sauce, buying it might be the next best option, according to BofA. The bank said that, in the near-term, "we think any positive developments around AI initiatives would be positive for the stock that has largely been seen as an AI laggard." Perplexity is an AI-powered search engine that responds to queries with cited responses, as opposed to a Google search that returns links. If completed, the acquisition would provide Apple with a more comprehensive AI offering instead of building one out in-house over years. A strategic partnership, as opposed to an outright acquisition, could also help Apple to a lesser degree. "Any such deal (we do not have any direct knowledge of the probability of such a deal) would likely be positive for shares that are currently in the penalty box given Apple is largely viewed as an AI laggard (deep Siri integration delayed and no cutting edge models)," Wamsi Mohan, technology research analyst at Bank of America, wrote. An acquisition would give Apple access to Perplexity's search and answering capabilities, fresh AI talent, product synergies with Siri and other Apple offering, and exposure to non-Google search, Mohan highlighted. Specifically, Perplexity could revitalize Siri's capabilities, which have struggled to keep up with developments in chatbots. Perplexity could also be integrated with not just Safari but also system-wide, helping Apple build AI into its services and hardware. All of these factors could fetch a higher valuation for Apple stock. Most importantly, an acquisition would provide Apple with a clear AI strategy and prevent Perplexity from being acquired by a competitor. Competition in the AI space is fierce, and Apple certainly isn't alone in pursuing a potential M&A or acquihire strategy. As Big Tech companies scramble to grab market share in the rapidly developing AI industry, growing through inorganic means is becoming more common. Before Meta invested $14.3 billion into data annotation startup Scale AI, it also tried to acquire Perplexity and another AI startup called Safe Superintelligence. But that's not to say that locking down a hot AI startup like Perplexity would solve all of Apple's problems. Integrating a young startup into a larger, more-established company comes with its fair share of organizational challenges, and Mohan pointed to some of Apple's previous M&A ventures, such as Siri or Laserlike, as examples of acquisitions that experienced delays or roadblocks. Apple will need to customize parts of Perplexity's platform to fit into its existing ecosystem and scale up to Apple's much larger user base. There are also legal risks: Perplexity is facing a copyright infringement case, which Apple would need to take on in the case of an acquisition. Buying Perplexity could also jeopardize Apple's existing partnership with Google, creating a potential headwind to earnings. Even with these concerns, Mohan is cautiously optimistic on the payoff of a potential acquisition: "From an investor's vantage point, a deal would offer a high-reward but high-risk proposition," he wrote. "However, execution, in our view, is paramount: Apple would need to break from some of its old habits (siloed development, extreme secrecy, slow rollout) to fully capitalize on Perplexity's fast-paced innovation," Mohan added. If completed, the acquisition would be Apple's biggest ever, as Perplexity is currently valued at $14 billion. It would also be a marked departure from the company's traditional free cash flow strategy of conducting stock buybacks and paying dividends. Bank of America believes Apple could certainly afford to shell out for a deal of this size, as the company posted profits of $24.8 billion in Q1 2025. A Perplexity deal would signal to investors that Apple is willing to shift its capital allocation strategy to compete in the AI race. "Given the transformative potential of AI, many analysts believe that not investing aggressively in AI is the bigger risk, even for a company as successful as Apple," Mohan wrote. Read the original article on Business Insider
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Investors Should Reconsider Buying the Dip on Apple Stock (AAPL)
The year 2025, so far, hasn't been kind to Apple (AAPL) shareholders. The stock is trading below the $200 mark—about 25% off its all-time highs—making it the worst performer among the top seven tech stocks right now. This is a sharp contrast to the 22% total annualized returns Apple has delivered to shareholders over the past decade. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter While the recent bearishness isn't entirely unjustified — higher import fees are putting pressure on Apple's product margins, and sticky interest rates continue to weigh on consumer spending — I don't believe the stock is doomed for an extended correction. Historically, Apple has proven to be a great stock to own during periods of relative weakness like this, especially when valuations reset to more reasonable levels. That said, when it comes to high-quality stocks like AAPL, buying just because momentum looks weak isn't always the best strategy. For now, until the trends start to improve, I remain Neutral on AAPL stock. Among the Magnificent 7 stocks, Apple's recent performance clearly reflects that markets view the company's thesis as one of the most fragile, mainly due to growing concerns around the ongoing trade war. The possibility of new tariffs on imported products resurfaced after the U.S. president threatened to impose a 25% tariff on iPhones manufactured outside the U.S. No doubt, this would be a blow to Apple's bullish case. Growth estimates are likely to be revised downward for the coming quarters—and possibly even years. However, if we step back and look at the bigger picture, these fears might actually be somewhat exaggerated, as TipRanks' risk analysis shows. For one, history shows that tariff threats are often more a political negotiation tool than something that is actually enforced. Additionally, under the highly efficient leadership of CEO Tim Cook, Apple has consistently demonstrated its ability to navigate supply chain challenges. We saw this play out back in 2018-2019, during Trump's first administration, when the U.S.-China trade war intensified. Apple responded quickly by expanding its production outside of China, significantly reducing its reliance on the country. Approximately 75% of Apple's revenue still comes from hardware, which is more susceptible to tariff risks. But here's the other side of the coin: Apple's services segment has grown massively and now accounts for around 40% of operating profit. This part of the business—driven by recurring revenue streams like the App Store and licensing deals (think Google) — is far less exposed to trade war impacts. In fact, I believe the services business is still underrated by the market and remains one of Apple's most powerful growth engines today. Naturally, when tariffs threaten to impact Apple's core business, combined with a broader 'crash correction' where markets rush for cash and liquidity, and the stock is trading at elevated valuation multiples, the outcome tends to be a bearish reaction. Currently, Apple trades at 27.3x forward earnings, which is significantly below the 36x peak reached in January and also below its 12-month average of 31x. While long-term EPS growth expectations aren't particularly exciting at around 10% CAGR, a PEG ratio of 2.5 honestly doesn't seem outrageous for a company with fundamentals as strong as Apple's. But the key point in this case may be that Apple shouldn't be trading at cheap multiples and probably never will, simply because it's a company with a historically low risk of underperformance. While tariffs might seem like a threat, as I've highlighted before, Apple has faced similar headwinds not long ago and managed to navigate them successfully. After all, we're talking about a business with one of the strongest brands and the highest customer loyalty in the world. And when the numbers are crunched, Apple's services segment alone is arguably worth $1.7 trillion—that's more than half of the company's current market cap. Although it may seem counterintuitive, I tend to believe that when it comes to high-quality stocks, the old saying 'buy low, sell high' is somewhat of a misnomer, mainly because no one actually knows where 'low' and 'high' truly are. If you think about it, 'sell high' would've meant selling AAPL (or any other high-quality tech name like MSFT, AMZN, and NVDA) multiple times over the past decade, expecting some massive correction that, honestly, either never came or only briefly happened. Meanwhile, you would have missed out on a ton of upside. That said, it's pretty well known that great stocks—the kind that isn't super cyclical and has rock-solid fundamentals (like Apple)—tend to perform better on a risk-adjusted basis when they're trending higher, not when they're at some mythical 'bottom' or during ugly corrections. And honestly, that pretty much describes where AAPL is right now: stuck in a weak momentum phase. The reality is that when high-quality stocks are in a clear uptrend—meaning trading above long-term moving averages like the 200-day—they deliver lower drawdowns, better Sharpe ratios, and just generally smoother, more consistent returns. In Apple's case, sitting at $198 per share, it's well below its 200-day moving average of $223.50, which is a clear signal of bearish momentum. My take is that I would be comfortable going heavy on the stock only if it starts showing a steady recovery. Otherwise, simply stepping aside when the chart is falling apart may be the wisest course of action. While there's certainly room for skepticism, the consensus among AAPL analysts remains mostly bullish. Out of 29 experts covering the stock, 16 rate it a Buy, nine rate it a Hold, and only four recommend Sell. AAPL's average price target stands at $226.94, suggesting about 15% upside from the current share price. Apple is in bear territory—and in my view, for somewhat justified reasons. As a high-quality stock with pristine business fundamentals (both subjectively and quantitatively), many Apple bulls may be tempted to jump in on the 'buy the dip' opportunity as valuations fall from their peaks. And while that approach makes sense, the reality is that no one ever truly knows how low Apple's valuation can go. Historically, high-quality stocks tend to behave better when they're near a peak rather than stuck in the middle of corrections. That's why, personally, I would prefer to wait for more apparent signs of a reversal. Even if that means giving up part of the upside, the trade-off is entering with a better risk-adjusted setup backed by stronger technical confirmation. Bottom line, I believe Apple is a Hold for now. Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
