Apple Explains Why iPad Multitasking Took So Long to Arrive

[mlayer]

Android chips supported virtual memory right out of the gate. That’s why they could do such a thing, though note that Samsung is the only one that bothers to do so. That should tell you the feature isn’t exactly having people busting down doors to demand it. Apple used their A-series chips designed for iPhones in their iPads all the way up until 2021 when they introduced their M-series chips designed specifically for Macs. Apple’s tendency was to put only what they needed into their chips because they controlled the hardware and software. Qualcomm didn’t have that luxury so they built a more general purpose processor that could be used by unlimited vendors. The iPhone had a single tasking operating system, so virtual memory was totally unnecessary, nor was sufficient RAM put in those devices to run multiple apps without it. Apple naturally didn’t build such a controller into their A-series since it would be a waste of transistors, but because virtual memory was necessary for a desktop operating system, they built it into their M-series chips. This is the main reason they could not introduce significant multitasking into their iPads. They had only RAM to work with, typically limited to 3GB up to 6GB on most iPads. M-series chips started at 8GB.

Nice history lesson. Companies vary their approaches with their platforms. As you mentioned, Android supported a form of virtual memory early on, though as I understand it uses a different schema than, say, Windows. The idea that Samsung supported it alone and called it RAM Plus signals to me that Samsung made a business decision borne of fluctuating memory prices a decade ago or longer. Nothing wrong with that even though as a conglomerate Samsung makes processors, RAM, and flash.

On a parallel track 10 years ago desktop OSes were transitioning from 32-bit to 64-bit. Mac OS X started the process with the PowerPC G5 and mainstreamed it with Snow Leopard. But for a long time in the early 10's, many users happily ran 32-bit apps and didn't really need to access more RAM than 4 GB. That's why there are so many 4 GB MacBook Airs (like mine from 2013) and Surface Pros still chugging away, or sitting on shelves. Windows 10 was released in 2015 in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, a nod to Microsoft's legacy support leanings.

Mobile OSes evolved quickly as the cost of RAM and flash dropped. If your 2024 Android phone has 12 GB of RAM, why would you need virtual memory at all? Same could be said of 8 GB iOS devices. Now that Apple has opened the door to true(r) multitasking on the iPad it's a whole new ballgame. Curiously, Google didn't start requiring 64-bit apps until 2019, two years after Apple with iOS. What you emphasized, that never gets mentioned enough in these fantasy threads, is that resources are scarce and mobile OSes in particular have a tough time managing them. Mobile devices don't have RAM expansion or the ability to swap in new CPUs. They have to worry about heat and battery drain a lot more than a laptop, let alone a desktop.

I'm looking into getting a M3 iPad Air just to experience the full multitasking vision as Apple now sees it. I'm still drawn to the iPad mini because of its size and utility, though I am fully aware that its A17 Pro - the same as in my iPhone 15 Pro - doesn't have the same depth of multitasking or the extended display support. I might get both and do a Pepsi challenge, though it's crazy to me that the combined cost of the base iPad Air 11 and mini is the same as the iPad Pro.

 

[techfreak23]

Utter nonsense. I’m guessing you’ve never done UI design before, which I have. Touch-first is Apple’s motto for the iPad, which does not exclude using a pointer device. Fingers are a lot bigger and wider than any mouse, so controls have to be spaced out far enough and large enough to easily touch without tearing your hair out in frustration as you keep hitting the wrong control. I have this problem with my Vision Pro. The controls are larger, but not large enough. Perhaps it’s my vision issues since I have glaucoma and have had two eye surgeries, but I cannot consistently hit the right control by staring at it. It routinely hits the wrong one, which drives me crazy sometimes.

Now try to ship a Mac with touch. You’d run into the same problem. Yes, you can use it, but not without significant frustration. Microsoft didn’t care and never has cared much for user friendliness, so they shipped their Surface Pro line. Nobody wants to use a Surface Pro as a tablet. It’s basically a weaker laptop where it’s mouse first. This is the main reason iPads far outsell Surface Pro tablets and dominate sales of all tablets. iPads are fantastic touch devices and are therefore fantastic tablets. Surface Pros run desktop software totally unoptimized for touch. It’s also the reason Microsoft broke their promise that Windows 10 would be the last OS they’d ever make. Because Windows 10 sucked royally at touch, they had to create Windows 11. But that doesn’t mean applications are optimized for touch. That’s why Surface Pros are absolutely terrible tablets.

Mice have very precise pointers, which can be used on touch devices, because you don’t have the reverse problem of controls that are too big or too small. Controls can be either widely separated or close together and it won’t matter. That’s why you can use a mouse and keyboard with an iPad. However iPads are touch first, and Apple insists on it. If Apple sold iPads with macOS, sales would suffer enormously.

I'm really glad to see that someone in these threads actually understands what is going on and the explanation among all of the ridiculous amount of "aPplE GReeDY" comments. I hope a lot of people have read your comments and possibly learned something instead of speaking from their rear ends. Makes me really sad how the majority of people have no idea whatsoever on even the simplest level how the devices they use every single day actually work. Not that they must, but most people aren't even curious to learn.

 

[HI50Steve]

Apple once said in a keynote about MS and the Surface that they were confused, by turning tablets into PCs and PCs into tablets. Is Apple confused now or Microsoft was right all along? 🤔

🤣🤣🤣 I love your comment DanVM, hilarious!!! I will say this much, I have wanted Apple to introduce proper windowing on iPads for a long time. Now that they have though I’m not sure how I feel about it. I think it’s a mistake that Apple has kept Stage Manager around but abandoned Split Screen and Slide Over. What would really be nice is if Apple had the option to Snap Windows on either side of the screen to fill up the left-hand or right-hand side of the screen like they do on macOS. And yes, I realize that Microsoft came up with that and it is a really awesome feature!

 

[sunapple]

I love it when non-engineers think they understand computers and how they work under the hood outside of superficial knowledge. It’s absolutely ludicrous to compare time frames, so the statement about the 2007 MacBooks and Windows XP is just silly. That’s because desktop OS’es have been requiring virtual memory for decades while few phones need it. Naturally CPU’s designed for desktop operating systems will have built-in virtual memory controllers.

Android chips supported virtual memory right out of the gate. That’s why they could do such a thing, though note that Samsung is the only one that bothers to do so. That should tell you the feature isn’t exactly having people busting down doors to demand it. Apple used their A-series chips designed for iPhones in their iPads all the way up until 2021 when they introduced their M-series chips designed specifically for Macs. Apple’s tendency was to put only what they needed into their chips because they controlled the hardware and software. Qualcomm didn’t have that luxury so they built a more general purpose processor that could be used by unlimited vendors. The iPhone had a single tasking operating system, so virtual memory was totally unnecessary, nor was sufficient RAM put in those devices to run multiple apps without it. Apple naturally didn’t build such a controller into their A-series since it would be a waste of transistors, but because virtual memory was necessary for a desktop operating system, they built it into their M-series chips. This is the main reason they could not introduce significant multitasking into their iPads. They had only RAM to work with, typically limited to 3GB up to 6GB on most iPads. M-series chips started at 8GB.

When Apple made moves to put M-series into their iPads, that opened up the possibility of launching multiple apps, so they introduced Stage Manager into M-series iPads. The lack of hardware-driven virtual memory controller meant the 2018 iPad Pro was left out in the cold because it ran an A12X chip as well as the 2020 iPad Pro running an A12Z chip. Apple said they came up with a workaround to bring it to those two iPads. Likely, as any software engineer would logically conclude, Apple probably came up with a software-based virtual memory controller. Anything built into hardware would run far faster than a software solution, so they had two criteria. The chip had to be fast enough to run the controller software acceptably and it had to have fast enough SSD’s to swap memory without losing the iPad’s ability to respond to input instantaneously. Older chips could not do that and neither could the A12 chips either. But they were powerful enough to handle 4 apps simultaneously instead of 8 that the M-series could handle.

Another consideration no one seems to understand except the engineers is battery. Batteries on iPads are considerably smaller than even the smallest Mac batteries. That’s why even the M4 iPad Pro cannot run more than 12 apps simultaneously. This is not because the SoC can’t handle it. It’s because the entire package would drain the battery too fast and probably overheat and throttle. The lesser iPads that don’t have hardware virtual memory controllers are even more limited. The lowest iPad is said to be able to run only four apps at a time, something I can’t confirm because I don’t have one. That number goes up depending on the power of the chip. Apple has had several years to optimize its software virtual memory controller, hence why they were able to bring it to weaker iPads.

I know someone’s going to bring up the A12Z built into the developer Mac mini used to allow developers to write macOS apps before the M1 came out. I would remind people that the developer Mac mini was never intended to be sold, so Apple just collected a ton of miscellaneous processors to get it to run macOS. Even then, it ran it poorly with many limitations. Because the A12Z did not support virtual memory, they collected supporting chips that could. Note that in the Intel world, they use Northbridge and Southbridge chipsets to run many functions that the Intel CPU’s could not do since those Intel did not put everything into the CPU. M-series chips don’t need those support chips since everything needed is built in.

Loving these three detailed comments (I gave up trying to quote each since they starting nesting in the first and it became a mess). They offer enough technical insight for me to change my view on the current state of iPad and its limitations.

I do still wonder if their iPad strategy was always going to be what we're seeing now, or if they shifted based on new insight (from media consumption to PC like productivity). But I suppose their effort in producing their own chips was timely and commendable and since those were the driving factors for the needed performance there was no faster route. Maybe we are really witnessing the best (speed & quality) evolution of iPad they could do.

 

[MacFan23]

The moment they brought the menu bar with pointer into iPadOS, they killed the iPad.

For me it was when they introduced the Pro line and then had to start justifying its existence rather than just letting the tablet be a tablet.

Tech enthusiasts wanted it to be a laptop replacement and complained that it was "just an iPad", excellent hardware held back by its operating system because it wasn't the same as a desktop OS. This narrative is what killed the original vision of the iPad, "a magical piece of glass".

 

[rjjacobson]

When you start up iPadOS 26 for the first time it asks the user to choose between Full Screen Apps, Windowed Apps, or Stage Manager. So no, traditional use of iPads will be unchanged unless the user chooses to.

As I mentioned already when I started up iPadOS 26 on my M4 13 inch iPad Pro I never saw that, for me it defaulted stage manager wonder if that was because this one can handle all the features of the new stage manager. Or as one person replied and suggested it was just a bug in this first beta?

 

[ahostmadsen]

The files app is the Finder

I'm not sure what exactly is "needed" that did not get fixed with OS 26

Root access. 99% of users on both Windows and MacOS don't even know how to get root access. Even if they did, they end up complaining their PC is ruined and have to reinstall the whole OS.

View attachment 2519420

The files app and Finder are just UI frontends for the underlying file system. The problem is that apps do not have the same access to the underlying file system as on a Mac. Some apps simply don’t work on iPad because of that.

 

[bradman83]

The issue is not the files app. The issue is that apps do not have access to a general file system. This is a left over from the time when iPad had a totally sandboxed files system. So, some apps don’t work properly. As an example, you cannot properly access Dropbox files on an iPad.

But apps do have access to the general file system, developers just don't bother to support it. Apple has offered APIs for years allowing apps to use Files to open and save documents directly off the file system (and outside of system/library folders your access to the iPad file system isn't that different than it is on macOS).

First party apps like Pages and Numbers fully integrate with Files and all of your documents can be navigated to outside of the apps. A handful of third party apps do as well, but many developers choose to stick with their sandbox, or implement a weird hybrid where you use Files to import and export to and from the sandbox.

 

[mlayer]

If people only want just a tablet they can get a cheapo Amazon Fire. It’s limited and practically disposable. The iPad strove for more as it got greater power at its disposal. Apple didn’t kill the iPad. It killed your narrow perceptions of what a tablet is.

 

[SpaceJello]

For me it was when they introduced the Pro line and then had to start justifying its existence rather than just letting the tablet be a tablet.

Tech enthusiasts wanted it to be a laptop replacement and complained that it was "just an iPad", excellent hardware held back by its operating system because it wasn't the same as a desktop OS. This narrative is what killed the original vision of the iPad, "a magical piece of glass".

I do wonder what they had in mind with a pro iPad line initially.

Maybe they were hoping new robust software would come out from 3rd party developers. Instead, Adobe gave us add-on assistant apps.

With Final Cut and Logic, Apple is really trying now to push them. Perhaps the OS was immature, but there isn’t really any excuse why any software aside from hardcore ones need to be Temu knockoffs now. Hope Apple put Pixelmator to good use though and challenge Adobe.

The iPad needs the public’s buy-in. Unfortunately, the OS and hardware were a bit shy of making that possibility happen, we ended up majority of us wanting things to be the same, with iPad running macOS, keyboard and mouse.

I still hold onto hope that in another decade the iPad Pro will finally become what it can be, like those things on Star Trek. 🤣🤣🤣

 

[hovscorpion12]

I do wonder what they had in mind with a pro iPad line initially.

Maybe they were hoping new robust software would come out from 3rd party developers. Instead, Adobe gave us add-on assistant apps.

With Final Cut and Logic, Apple is really trying now to push them. Perhaps the OS was immature, but there isn’t really any excuse why any software aside from hardcore ones need to be Temu knockoffs now. Hope Apple put Pixelmator to good use though and challenge Adobe.

The iPad needs the public’s buy-in. Unfortunately, the OS and hardware were a bit shy of making that possibility happen, we ended up majority of us wanting things to be the same, with iPad running macOS, keyboard and mouse.

I still hold onto hope that in another decade the iPad Pro will finally become what it can be, like those things on Star Trek. 🤣🤣🤣

This exactly. while I do believe Apple may achieve the peak iPad by 2030 [2026 at the earliest], OS 26 is a huge step in the right direction. I am hoping that there is a-lot of feedback during Beta 1 to continue improving iPadOS 26 by the fall.

 

[deevey]

How long will it take for multi user to arrive?

Cheapskate! You're supposed to buy a device for everyone in the household 😆

But yes, it sucks that the multiuser function already exists but regular people like you and I cannot use it (ABM/ASM)

 

[dalestrauss]

This is so short-sighted. Apple has multiple audiences and use cases for the iPad. That’s why 26 has the option screen at the beginning for the user to choose full screen or windowed, to set expectations. It may not be to your liking, but that’s what the beta is for. When they get to general release there will still be a percentage of dissatisfied users. Can’t please all the people all the time.

As a long time complainer and critic, I have learned a lesson and agree with your assessment. I believe I have totally underestimated the LARGE opposition to the use of MacOS-like features on the iPad, including the now feverish demand for return of Split View and Slide Over.

For me, I'm thrilled with the "Mac-ification" of the iPad (especially the costly Pros), and have enjoyed the developer beta (which I've NEVER tried before a public beta release). The only thing holding me back now is the wait to see if Microsoft is going to up its game and bring Office 365 for iPadOS 26 up to the MacOS version, and if so, iPad Pro will be a replacement option for MacBook Air and Surface Pro - but with Apple's superior touch and tablet operating system.

 

[DanVM]

As a long time complainer and critic, I have learned a lesson and agree with your assessment. I believe I have totally underestimated the LARGE opposition to the use of MacOS-like features on the iPad, including the now feverish demand for return of Split View and Slide Over.

For me, I'm thrilled with the "Mac-ification" of the iPad (especially the costly Pros), and have enjoyed the developer beta (which I've NEVER tried before a public beta release). The only thing holding me back now is the wait to see if Microsoft is going to up its game and bring Office 365 for iPadOS 26 up to the MacOS version, and if so, iPad Pro will be a replacement option for MacBook Air and Surface Pro - but with Apple's superior touch and tablet operating system.

I don’t think Microsoft really needs to up their game here. Apple kind of made iPad behave like a big iPhone for so long, which pushed Microsoft to build touch-first Office apps. But now that iPadOS is getting more desktop-like features, it could shift how developers think about building apps.

The macOS version is already a universal app, so maybe Microsoft could eventually just bring the full macOS version to the iPad and drop the separate iPad version altogether. But that opens up a new question for MS and other developers, should they keep making touch-optimized apps, or start leaning more into desktop-style interfaces?

Personally, I think for apps like Office, the desktop version just makes more sense. Most people working with documents, spreadsheets, or presentations are going to have a better experience using a keyboard and mouse or trackpad than tapping around on a touchscreen. We'll see how developers and users respond to iPadOS changes.

 

[mlayer]

As a long time complainer and critic, I have learned a lesson and agree with your assessment. I believe I have totally underestimated the LARGE opposition to the use of MacOS-like features on the iPad, including the now feverish demand for return of Split View and Slide Over.

For me, I'm thrilled with the "Mac-ification" of the iPad (especially the costly Pros), and have enjoyed the developer beta (which I've NEVER tried before a public beta release). The only thing holding me back now is the wait to see if Microsoft is going to up its game and bring Office 365 for iPadOS 26 up to the MacOS version, and if so, iPad Pro will be a replacement option for MacBook Air and Surface Pro - but with Apple's superior touch and tablet operating system.

The growth of the iPad helped Microsoft make a better Windows with touch along with Office. At this point it seems MSFT is turning its attention away from its former cash cows, which could hamper improvements with the desktop and mobile apps.

The outrage you might be hearing is the simple fact that according to recent estimates, the iPad installed base is 5X the Mac. I have and love both, use both enough to know that they have distinct advantages for certain uses that can't be easily toggled back and forth. MSFT tried this for the better part of a decade and now they're pretty directionless with the Surface program. They made a huge push over the holidays with the Snapdragon chips and CoPilot, to a lukewarm reaction. Now their product mix is as confused as ever. Apple sees this and is being careful not to duplicate it.

 

[dalestrauss]

...Personally, I think for apps like Office, the desktop version just makes more sense. Most people working with documents, spreadsheets, or presentations are going to have a better experience using a keyboard and mouse or trackpad than tapping around on a touchscreen. We'll see how developers and users respond to iPadOS changes.

This would come close to being the end of the need for Windows on ARM and would make the iPad Pro a must have 2-in-1 device for most users looking for that single solution. I tried very hard to like the Surface Pro 11 X Elite but I was shocked that it had limited support for my printer (HP Laser Jet Pro MFP M428fdw) and NO support for my stand alone scanner (Canon ImageFormula R40; in fact no support for any stand alone scanner), while my M4 MacBook Pro fully supports both...