iPad Pro Majority of iPad users don't need MacOS

[subjonas]

I'd settle for dual boot wherein the attachment of Magic Keyboard prompts a dialogue to boot into macOS if configured so. But, and this is the crucial point that Apple is wilfully ignoring, if this were the case then I would no longer need the Mac. Again this makes business sense but in attempting to deceive their audience Apple is once again showing that it's acting in bad faith 24/7 and that profit comes before both the product and the user. Bad JuJu in my estimation.

maybe not but people would like the choice to activate a macOS or desktop mode at least.

Of course we all want more function without any trade offs, but I have yet to hear a technically knowledgable explanation of how exactly (devil is in the details) a dual OS iPad would work and still be a good UX for most iPad users and be a decent ROI for Apple. Dual boot doesn’t sound like it’s it.

Also @Jim Lahey, I think there are reasons to believe iPadOS’ limits are probably not just a deception or a squeeze, which I listed in post #50. I’ll also add that handfuls of people have been accusing Apple of this for decades, but companies that operate in the accused way don’t tend to last so long with this much customer satisfaction (unless you are implying all those customers are dumber than you).

 

[subjonas]

I own both because I HAVE to own both. If the new Pro ran MacOS, I'd either give my MBA to my wife or sell it.
I used to carry a cell phone AND an iPod, then Apple released the iPhone and I began leaving my iPod at home.

Phone and iPod made perfect sense to combine, they are both basically just apps, nothing fought each other. OSes are not apps, and the iPad and MacBook form factors have subtle but significant differences.

 

[transmaster]

Take a look at the Microsoft Surface it has everything iPad people are hankering over. The only reason Why I have any interesting in it at all is because it runs the Amateur radio software I use that is not yet available on the Apple platform.

 

[subjonas]

Give me a Finder type file management with better window multitasking and I would be happier with iPadOS.

I find a bunch of 3rd party apps aren’t consistently using the share sheet, which is a big problem, but other than that I’m not sure off the top of my head what Finder functions I need that Files app doesn’t do, except maybe some functions I almost never use like batch rename.

 

[subjonas]

There are a few things that are ridiculously easy on a Mac but difficult on an iPad such as “printing” to a PDF file or browsing files. If Apple fixed them most of the “iPad should run macOS“ complaints would go away.

Do you know whenever you go to print something in iPad, you can pinch spread the preview image to enlarge it and then share>save it as a pdf?

What do you mean by browsing files? Aren’t you able to browse files in the Files app?

 

[Pezimak]

By deliberately, I assume you mean artificially (slimmed down software for the sake of selling more devices). I don’t know how completely artificial it is when the iPad has less thermal capacity and battery capacity than an equivalent screen-sized MacBook, which means software features have to be slimmed down accordingly. And one restriction iPadOS has is it has to work well on 8” - 13” screens, while the smallest screen macOS has to make sense on is 13”. On top of that, I think touch inherently doesn’t lend itself to feature-rich UIs and workflows due to ergonomics and requiring large touch targets. But maybe the main reason the state of iPadOS doesn’t seem to be only about squeezing the Mac customer, is that it seems pretty clear Apple wants the iPad to cater to the common everyday person first, and then as many pros and techies as it can secondarily after that. As long as they satisfy the majority of their target market, it wouldn’t make sense to completely change things or spend too much time adding things too few people demand. Of course, we don’t have all the numbers, but we can say this is probably the case based on what we know of sales numbers, market share, and satisfaction rates.

Apple not wanting to cannibalize sales maybe or probably plays some role, but based on what is observable it seems an unreasonable to pin it solely on that.

If Apple wanted to target the 'common everyday person' with the iPad Pro it would NOT be pricing it from £999 up to £3077 fact! That is NOT an everyday person price target. Also you completely missed the second part of my comment where I stated most people do not want Mac OS in an iPad, they just want a more 'Pro' version of the OS it has with things like a proper full file management system.

As for the apps, well you may not know but the iPad DOES have some proper 'Pro' apps on it, Photoshop, Final Cut, Logic, other drawing apps, and Z Brush is coming to it very soon and that is a programme used by the film industry to create special effects. And those are the only things pushing the iPad Pro and Air now power.

If Apple wants Pro apps on its iPads, and it keeps on stuffing in ridiculously powerful chips (by the way the M chip in an iPad totally blows your argument about thermals and battery constraints out the water), and setting professional equipment pricing structures, then it's about time it offered an OS for it that was more capable.
They can do this for the Pro models only at least, leave the Air and all the other models for the 'everyday person'.

 

[Melbourne Park]

The problem is that many people who also use Windows computers, have got used to touch screens. I remember in 1990 having touch screens applied to cathode ray tube monitors which worked on System ... maybe system 7. Back in the days when there was a RISC power chip and a non Apple but approved Apple OS computer maker.

There's no need for MacOS on an iPad if a macbook had a touch interface. But it doesn't. And it would take little make a version of Mac OS that worked on an iPad.

Ironically too, people who use Windows notebooks with touch screens, find iPads terrific to use. They are use to using a finger to select a menu, etc etc. And because they are used to a touch interface ....

They stick with Windows for main notebook use ...

 

[Starfia]

Not sure how other people know what I need or don't need.

(Did someone claim to know what you need or don't need?)

 

[subjonas]

If Apple wanted to target the 'common everyday person' with the iPad Pro it would NOT be pricing it from £999 up to £3077 fact! That is NOT an everyday person price target. Also you completely missed the second part of my comment where I stated most people do not want Mac OS in an iPad, they just want a more 'Pro' version of the OS it has with things like a proper full file management system.

As for the apps, well you may not know but the iPad DOES have some proper 'Pro' apps on it, Photoshop, Final Cut, Logic, other drawing apps, and Z Brush is coming to it very soon and that is a programme used by the film industry to create special effects. And those are the only things pushing the iPad Pro and Air now power.

If Apple wants Pro apps on its iPads, and it keeps on stuffing in ridiculously powerful chips (by the way the M chip in an iPad totally blows your argument about thermals and battery constraints out the water), and setting professional equipment pricing structures, then it's about time it offered an OS for it that was more capable.
They can do this for the Pro models only at least, leave the Air and all the other models for the 'everyday person'.

By common everyday person, I don’t mean financially, I mean in terms of technical know-how/enthusiasm. Most people don’t have a keen interest in technology as we do, and these are the iPad’s target. And of these people, of course Apple will offer a more premium device option for those users who want it and can afford it.

I didn’t miss that part, because I wasn’t pointing out why iPad doesn’t have macOS. I was pointing out why iPadOS isn’t as functional as macOS, since you were saying if Apple had made them more comparable then no one would even want macOS on iPad. That part is probably true, but the part I was challenging was the implication that Apple didn’t do it that way because of sheer greed.

I’m somewhat aware of those pro apps, but as I understand it, so far people complain that they’re not as functional as their desktop counterparts, and I believe it’s probably for the reasons I mentioned.

Just because the iPad has the M chip doesn’t mean it can use all of its power to the extent that Macs can. The smaller thermal and battery capacity mean the chip has to be less utilized by the software most of the time except for short bursts, as well as likely being underclocked.

I think it’s slightly more possible but still unlikely Apple would fork the iPad line into such a device. I say unlikely because I think it would have to probably be as thick as a MacBook to have the same level of software power but would still have some disadvantages compared to MacBooks and macOS, but if there’s enough demand or if Apple is desperate enough for sales, it’s possible they’ll do it.

 

[fw85]

Tell that to the developers of Mac applications you want fully running on iPadOS. You are exactly right, it's very possible for them to do what you want within the confines of iPadOS. That they choose not to do so is a decision for them to explain.

This is only partially true though - yes developers could certainly dedicate more effort to make their app quality high enough to rival their desktop counterparts.

On the other hand, iPadOS is very limited in the APIs/general freedom it provides to developers compared to macOS. Some apps you can't even bring to parity with desktop class because of this.

There are also other issues, such as very limited multitasking (try opening a video export and then minimizing the app - it will crash), terrible audio in/out management etc - the best way I've seen it put so far is 'Inefficiency by a thousand cuts'

 

[subjonas]

The problem is that many people who also use Windows computers, have got used to touch screens. I remember in 1990 having touch screens applied to cathode ray tube monitors which worked on System ... maybe system 7. Back in the days when there was a RISC power chip and a non Apple but approved Apple OS computer maker.

There's no need for MacOS on an iPad if a macbook had a touch interface. But it doesn't. And it would take little make a version of Mac OS that worked on an iPad.

Ironically too, people who use Windows notebooks with touch screens, find iPads terrific to use. They are use to using a finger to select a menu, etc etc. And because they are used to a touch interface ....

They stick with Windows for main notebook use ...

I’m not sure about that. I have no evidence, but anecdotally I and other Windows touch laptop users I know almost never use the touch screen. Personally I only got it for the pen input, I never use touch and would actually prefer if I could disable it. But I use iPads a lot.

And it’s probably pretty difficult to make macOS mouse+touch, and maybe impossible to do very well (not to mention all the ecosystem of apps). Microsoft has gone through many iterations of mouse/touch Windows over the years, and I still don’t see a lot of success (anecdotally). It makes me very doubtful that Apple would find a way to do it much better. I’m sure some people would love it, but I doubt more than a niche.

 

[Pezimak]

Just because the iPad has the M chip doesn’t mean it can use all of its power to the extent that Macs can. The smaller thermal and battery capacity mean the chip has to be less utilized by the software most of the time except for short bursts, as well as likely being underclocked.

The MacBook Air already proves this point invalid, and thus your other points too relating to the hardware. The M chip iPads are mote then capable, they run full blown AAA games like Death Stranding and Resident Evil Village which proves your theory of underclocking incorrect. They are MORE then capable of running a more advance OS with it their thermal dynamics and battery constraints.

Apple is deliberately handicapping the device and the explanation directly from the mouths of Apple executives is for you to go and buy a Mac, the evidence is all there, they are trying to force you to buy two products so they make double the profits.

 

[cardfan]

Apple said themselves that the majority of Mac owners typically own an iPad too, and they use both devices.

This Joz quote is why macOS will likely never come to the iPad - 9to5Mac

Greg Joswiak recently shared that most Mac customers also own an iPad. What does this mean for the prospect of macOS one day coming to iPad?

9to5mac.com

But the reverse isn’t true. Apples focus should be macOS.

 

[fw85]

But the reverse isn’t true. Apples focus should be macOS.

I would argue that Apple's focus should be primarily the mobile operating systems - iOS and iPadOS (and perhaps VisionOS).

The personal computing paradigm has shifted dramatically over the past 14 years. The vast majority of people don't even need traditional computers anymore, not really. At least not for personal needs.
Look around - people, especially the younger generations, just do everything on their phones and tablets now. And it makes sense - it's more practical, more comfortable even - who wants to sit at a desk to perform something that can be easily performed on a handheld device in a more comfortable position?

The reasons to use a traditional PC shrink year-over-year as mobile platforms are gaining both popularity and capability. The upcoming AI integrations will even exacerbate this shift. The iPad already outsells Macs 2 to 1, this ratio will increase. The latest M4 iPads basically outperform half the current Mac lineup, it's insane.

So I think mobile-style operating systems are the future of personal computing, and traditional desktop/laptop computing will slowly die out amongst the general population. The last bastion being work & office environments, as tech choices there tend to be more conservative.

 

[Arctic Moose]

It's a vocal minority who won't buy an iPad because it doesn't run Mac OS locally in the end.

It’s an extremely vocal minority (and a very, very small minority at that) who wants to obliterate the iPad to satisfy a millionth of a percent of users.

You're both entirely missing the point.

I'd bet a significant amount of money that for practically everyone asking for macOS or macOS-like capabilities on an iPad the following two statements are true.

1. They use and enjoy iPad-only features on the iPad, and do not wish to give these up.
2. They have at least one Mac, and most likely several. However, they feel that there are many scenarios where these are not ideal, such as wanting something smaller, lighter and more flexible than the MacBook Air, or not wishing to carry more than one device without giving up the pros of the iPad.

I fail to see how allowing macOS to run virtualized on top of iPadOS, or allowing the iPad to dual boot, would have any effect whatsoever on those of you that do not have any interesting in running macOS apps on your iPads.

The latest M4 iPads basically outperform half the current Mac lineup, it's insane.

Except they don't, because there are still lots of tasks you can perform just fine on a Mac from a decade ago that not event the just-released iPad Pro can handle.

 

[FeliApple]

You're both entirely missing the point.

I'd bet a significant amount of money that for practically everyone asking for macOS or macOS-like capabilities on an iPad the following two statements are true.

1. They use and enjoy iPad-only features on the iPad, and do not wish to give these up.
2. They have at least one Mac, and most likely several. However, they feel that there are many scenarios where these are not ideal, such as wanting something smaller, lighter and more flexible than the MacBook Air, or not wishing to carry more than one device without giving up the pros of the iPad.

I fail to see how allowing macOS to run virtualized on top of iPadOS, or allowing the iPad to dual boot, would have any effect whatsoever on those of you that do not have any interesting in running macOS apps on your iPads.



Except they don't, because there are still lots of tasks you can perform just fine on a Mac from a decade ago that not event the just-released iPad Pro can handle.

They should buy another Mac. Obliterating the iPad isn’t the answer, as much as that extreme vocal minority keeps wanting to shoehorn it in.

And for the iPad’s sake, they should sell it once and for all.

 

[Rafterman]

Just because the iPad has the M chip doesn’t mean it can use all of its power to the extent that Macs can. The smaller thermal and battery capacity mean the chip has to be less utilized by the software most of the time except for short bursts, as well as likely being underclocked.

You may be right but the iPad Pro's thermals and battery can't be any worse than a MacBook Air - also a fanless design now.

 

[Arctic Moose]

They should buy another Mac.

Still entirely missing the point.

There is no Mac we can buy that does what we want.

Also, we like and prefer the iPad for what it does well.

Obliterating the iPad isn’t the answer, as much as that extreme vocal minority keeps wanting to shoehorn it in.

How so?

Allowing us to run what we want on our hardware wouldn’t change anything at all for you any more than the fact that I’ve put stickers on mine.

It would certainly not be “obliterated”.

 

[Johnny907]

Phone and iPod made perfect sense to combine, they are both basically just apps, nothing fought each other. OSes are not apps, and the iPad and MacBook form factors have subtle but significant differences.

... and yet Apple still refuses to allow the Phone app on Cellular enabled iPads.
So much for the "it's just apps," theory.
As for your other point, no, there's no "significant difference" between the new Pro line and the MBA line after you pair the former with a Magic Keyboard. Under the microscope the mainboards for both are virtually identical, the only differences being ports and power management. Even with tighter thermal throttling on the Pro, real world performance would be effectively the same BUT with the benefit of tablet functionality effectively making it everything the MS Surface has tried to be since launch.
There are ZERO downsides to allowing MacOS on the Pro line, so I absolutely do not understand opposition to it.

 

[bscheffel]

They should buy another Mac. Obliterating the iPad isn’t the answer, as much as that extreme vocal minority keeps wanting to shoehorn it in.

And for the iPad’s sake, they should sell it once and for all.

I have yet to hear your thoughts on why you think a dual boot option or allowing virtualization "obliterates" the iPad?
I have never once heard anyone argue that Bootcamp or Parallels "obliterated" the Mac.

 

[rillrill]

stopped by the old Apple Store today and goddamn those pros look and feel nice. Staying strong until wwdc. I can totally see Apple being like if you have 1tb and 16 gb ram you can run apps in the background…sorry 8 gbers….i want to see what improvements iPadOS 18 is going to have, if any…those prices…🙄🫨

 

[canadianpj]

If I needed I could 100% switch to an iPad and think I am still Macs out of nostalgia rather than need.

 

[Melbourne Park]

I’m not sure about that. I have no evidence, but anecdotally I and other Windows touch laptop users I know almost never use the touch screen. Personally I only got it for the pen input, I never use touch and would actually prefer if I could disable it. But I use iPads a lot.

And it’s probably pretty difficult to make macOS mouse+touch, and maybe impossible to do very well (not to mention all the ecosystem of apps). Microsoft has gone through many iterations of mouse/touch Windows over the years, and I still don’t see a lot of success (anecdotally). It makes me very doubtful that Apple would find a way to do it much better. I’m sure some people would love it, but I doubt more than a niche.

Most computers these days are notebooks. And they rarely use a mouse unless there is an external monitor attached.

They use their touch pads, which on Windows do not work as nicely -IMO- as on a Mac. The convertible style kind of notebooks use touch screens as well as touch pads. For instance with HP (who sell one fifth of the world's notebooks) they have several quality levels of their X360 convertible notebooks. I know of the Pavillion, Envy, Elitebook and Spectre in the convertible series. There could be more. Their screens vary from 12" to 17". All have a touch screen, and many have OLED panels. People do use the touch screens at times - and they may not even realise they are doing so. Some of the convertibles also have Ai benefits too. All support pens. They are competitive on weight as well, although there is a price penalty for a lighter version.

Apple wants complementary products. So if an iPad could run for instance Office as well on an iPad as it runs on a MacBook, then Apple perceive that such an iPad would take sales from MacBooks. Apple though ignores getting sales from PC users who could give up a replacement convertible notebook and go for an iPad keyboard combination instead. They don't because the software lets them down. And when they look at a light MacBook, they're miss touch screens. Bemused they continue on with PCs.

Look at some comparable packaging:

M4 11" & Keyboard: 2.3 lb
HP X360 Elitebook 12": 2.5 lb
Macbook Air 13": 2.7 lb
M4 13" & Keyboard: 2.8 lb
HP X360 Elitebook 13.3": 2.8 lb
M2 13" & Keyboard: 3.1 lb
Macbook Air 15": 3.3 lb

Those PC convertibles are competitive on weight. And they have 16 hour endurance, unlike Apple's 10 hours.

Apple need to fully exploit the capabilities of the iPad, and they should be targeting PC users, not trying to force Apple users to buy a MacBook as well as an iPad. And if they force us to do that, people will likely buy a base model iPad and just use it for browsing. Why have a Pro when the base model does an almost identical job?

Lets also look at the option.

The pricing options:
Macbook Pro 16" 18/512 $2,499.00
Macbook Pro 14" 8/512 $1,599.00
Macbook Air 15" 8/256 $1,299.00
Macbook Air 15" 8/512 $1,499.00
M4 13" & Keyboard 8/256 $1,648.00
M4 13" & Keyboard 8/512 $1,848.00
iPad 10.9" 4/64 $349.00
Ipad Air M2 11" 8/128 $599.00

M4 13" with keyboard, 8/256 GB - $1,648
Macbook Air 15" 8/256M & iPad - $1,648
M4 13" with keyboard, 8/512 GB - $1,848
Macbook Air 15" 8/512 & iPad - $1,848
Macbook Pro 14" 8/512 & iPad for $1,948. An extra $100.

The costly iPads cannot compete with Windows or Mac OS for many popular applications ie even Office. If Apple competed with PCs with the iPad, they'd do better financially. Especially if one imagines the cross selling from new Ipad and keyboard combinations to watches and phones.

 

[subjonas]

The MacBook Air already proves this point invalid, and thus your other points too relating to the hardware. The M chip iPads are mote then capable, they run full blown AAA games like Death Stranding and Resident Evil Village which proves your theory of underclocking incorrect. They are MORE then capable of running a more advance OS with it their thermal dynamics and battery constraints.

Apple is deliberately handicapping the device and the explanation directly from the mouths of Apple executives is for you to go and buy a Mac, the evidence is all there, they are trying to force you to buy two products so they make double the profits.

You may be right but the iPad Pro's thermals and battery can't be any worse than a MacBook Air - also a fanless design now.

... and yet Apple still refuses to allow the Phone app on Cellular enabled iPads.
So much for the "it's just apps," theory.
As for your other point, no, there's no "significant difference" between the new Pro line and the MBA line after you pair the former with a Magic Keyboard. Under the microscope the mainboards for both are virtually identical, the only differences being ports and power management. Even with tighter thermal throttling on the Pro, real world performance would be effectively the same BUT with the benefit of tablet functionality effectively making it everything the MS Surface has tried to be since launch.
There are ZERO downsides to allowing MacOS on the Pro line, so I absolutely do not understand opposition to it.

I may be repeating myself, but I don’t think I went into detail before—in a MacBook Air, the heat-producing display is separate from the main body that houses the heat-producing internals. The heat has to go somewhere, and the main way for that heat to escape is by the material (aluminum) of the body and the keyboard. The body is made up entirely of aluminum plus the keyboard. If you take away the heat-venting keyboard and all the aluminum on that side and replace that entire side with a display that not only traps heat but produces more heat, then on top of that slim down the entire case to have an even smaller thermal envelope, then you have the iPad.
I don’t know for sure what the thermal difference is, but in light of those physical differences, I don‘t know how you can just hand-wave them off as insignificant.

And then there’s battery life. There’s a reason iPad runs a slimmed down OS. If you want full macOS with at least iPad battery life, then you have to have a thicker heavier iPad, for thermals and for battery. That’s the unavoidable trade off.

Regarding those AAA games that run on iPad, just the fact they run alone doesn’t prove iPad can perform equally. There’s first the question of is that the definitive measure of MBA’s power. Then there are the variables such as can the iPad match the fps in the most demanding parts of the game for as long as a MBA can. The iPad M chip may or may not be underclocked, but if it’s not, thermals and battery tell me it can’t keep up peak performance for as long, perhaps significantly. And Apple may see the MBA as the base performance/UX of macOS that they’re willing to ship.

But again, it ultimately comes down to demand. The fact remains, if people were really upset touch MacBooks or macOS iPads didn‘t exist, Macs/iPads would not be so popular. Satisfaction rates would be low. More people would be moving to Windows. But as far as I know it’s the opposite. You say Apple is forcing users to buy two devices out of greed, but—setting aside for a moment that a 13” MacBook Air + 11” iPad Air only costs $50 more than a similarly specced 13” iPad Pro + Magic Keyboard—if most customers are buying both devices willingly and happily knowing full-well that Windows all-in-ones exist, then it’s probably not just an evil ploy. More likely it’s just not something most of Apple’s customers really want. Again, unless you just think most Apple customers are dumber than you.

@Johnny907 Sorry I didn’t follow how the phone app not existing on iPad related to my point.

 

[Pezimak]

Regarding those AAA games that run on iPad, just the fact they run alone doesn’t prove iPad can perform equally. There’s first the question of is that the definitive measure of MBA’s power. Then there are the variables such as can the iPad match the fps in the most demanding parts of the game for as long as a MBA can. The iPad M chip may or may not be underclocked, but if it’s not, thermals and battery tell me it can’t keep up peak performance for as long, perhaps significantly. And Apple may see the MBA as the base performance/UX of macOS that they’re willing to ship.

Your argument is still flawed, it ignores the facts which are those games run, on iPad Pro, it is some proof these are powerful devices as running games is much more demanding on a chip then running an OS and Word is. These iPads are much more capable of running a more advanced OS, your argument of it not being so just doesn't match the facts we know.