No, Apple is saying Stage Manager needs M1 to support 6K output. But no one is asking for 6K output.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Explains Why Stage Manager is Limited to M1 iPads in New Statement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, Apple is saying Stage Manager needs M1 to support 6K output. But no one is asking for 6K output.
Nah, more like many are detecting Apple's BS. Things would've been less drama if Apple would just keep quiet and didn't say anything, like they said nothing why they dropped iphone 7 from ios16. But in this case, they actually went out of their way to make up a technical excuse. Nobody asked them to. So, it's only fair for them to get scrutinized.
BTW, back in iOS5 times, on WAY less capable hardware, the Jailbreak-based Quasar ran multiple programs just fine in multiwindow mode - I used it a lot on my iPad 2 (512MB RAM) and 3 (1GB RAM). That is, "multitasking / multiwindow requires a lot of hardware resources not available in older models" is simply not true. It's plain greed on Apple's part, nothing else.
EDIT: added RAM specs and the closing sentence ("It's plain greed on Apple's part, nothing else.")
EDIT: added RAM specs and the closing sentence ("It's plain greed on Apple's part, nothing else.")
Last edited:
I don’t think the multitasking itself is the issue. Apple likes to put some arbitrary features that might push the requirement up just so they can nudge people to upgrade. For example, in this case, they put driving up a 6K monitor as the feature, which might be overkill for most people, but the older hardware probably can cope with 1080p or 4K just fine. Who knows. After making the statement, Apple refuses to show their data backing up that claim, so we will never know the true reasons, which is why some are calling it BS.
I’m a software engineer. Our company routinely drops support for older versions of Linux. We also drop support for hardware too. Sometimes customers aren’t happy. But we have limited resources.
I don’t know how well this feature would run on older iPads. Supposed it ran just “okay”. Some people would accuse Apple of intentionally hobbling performance to get people to upgrade. If the feature doesn’t run as good as the M1 iPad, people will complain. It’s a lose/lose position for Apple.
Apple will drop support sometimes in an inconsistent manner. Why are people surprised? People want Apple to support software like Microsoft only to be left disappointed.
I am a retired software engineer who has worked in the field for nearly 30 years and I can make some pretty good educated guesses as to what Apple is saying.
Let's tackle the main reason I think Stage Manager is limited to M1's. What many people here say is correct in that the amount of real physical RAM and flash speed make a difference in terms of performance, but something just about no one has mentioned is that the A-series do not appear to have the controllers to handle virtual memory, an absolute requirement for Stage Manager to even begin to function. I'm sure most of you have watched a ton of YouTube videos where people have examined how Apple builds their SoC's. They put in exactly what is needed for their long term plans, no more and no less. They customize their SoC's according to their target plans, such as putting Thunderbolt controllers or ProRes encoders directly into the silicon to boost performance, or even interface transistors to help tie two or more chips together into a single SoC like the M1 Ultra. These are not general purpose processors.
Virtual memory is no different. Requisite controllers are needed to efficiently handle the tremendous amounts of RAM contents that must be moved to and from a swap file. You'll notice that there is no shipping OS that runs on an A-series SoC that supports virtual memory. So why does anyone think the capability is present in the A-series chips? Apple builds into their SoC's only what is required. Anything else is an unnecessary risk since space on a silicon wafer is extremely valuable. The bigger the die, the fewer the chips and the higher the chance of low yields. This is why the A15 chip is left out even though the cores are newer than those of the A14, from which the M1 is based.
It has nothing to do with the performance of its CPU or GPU cores, but has to do with its memory and storage controllers. If they aren't built to handle virtual memory's demands, you're going to have very poor performance without the hardware support. You can simulate all of it in software, but it's not going to have acceptable performance. As an example, hardware ProRes encoder/decoders are orders of magnitude faster than software ones, which the M1 had to rely on, but the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra and M2 benefit significantly from the hardware encoders/decoders built into them. The M-series chips have the required controllers while the A-series chips do not since the M-series chips were built to run a desktop OS where virtual memory is second nature. It was never a requirement for A-series chips to do the same.
Now there are those who bring up the A12Z in the developer's toolkit that managed to run macOS. However, the dev kit was not a shipping system. It had a processor that was the latest capable of running the same instruction set as the future M1 would. The A12Z was Apple's only choice at the time. But how did it run macOS? It didn't without the help of supporting chips. Like an Intel or AMD system, the A12Z wasn't the only chip on the motherboard.
Windows PC's have a zillion support chips to handle things that the CPU/GPU can't. This is why every new release of an Intel/AMD CPU is accompanied by a new chipset. Some may be familiar with the terms, Northbridge and Southbridge. Those are chips that handle I/O for the system because PC's are rather distributed and not concentrated into an SoC. So was the A12Z Mac mini dev kit. It wasn't a shipping system, so Apple engineers cobbled together parts to handle things the A12Z could not handle on its own.
Among that was optimized memory controllers to handle virtual memory. So just because a kluged machine that eventually ended up in the trash bin could run macOS doesn't mean A12X/Z iPads could as well. Those iPads weren't equipped with the support chips the dev kit had and therefore cannot run virtual memory. No virtual memory, no Stage Manager. And as some have said, the dev kit had plenty of real RAM, too. Even if someone were to hack the system to "enable" Stage Manager on A-series iPads, the result would probably be an instant crash or severe out of memory errors. The A-series simply do not have the necessary hardware.
Stick an Intel CPU into a system without its chipset and you get a non-functioning system. The same applies to the A12Z. No support chips, no Stage Manager. No single chip works alone, not even an SoC.
We all guessed last year that Apple stuck the M1 into the iPad Pro because they didn't want to bother making an A14X. I guess we were all wrong. Apple apparently had a roadmap and made sure the 2021 iPad Pros had the required hardware to run desktop-class OS features. Apple doesn't do anything without planning years in advance. One thing it guarantees is that future iPad Pros and Airs will continue to have M-series SoC's. It'll be interesting to see what future features Apple has in store for M-series iPads.
I am extrapolating what Apple's press release said based on a lot of years of experience and having watched the evolution of hardware systems from cheese wedge (early designs are done on a board that looks like a giant cheese wedge) to completed systems. I could potentially be wrong since I have no inside information. The strongest evidence is the lack of virtual memory on any A-series OS which points to a lack of any hardware support, especially with the omission of the A15. Feel free to disagree, but this explanation seems to fit what we know. If you do disagree, tell me why. Please no, "it's because I feel they're lying" arguments. That's just a waste of time.
In the entire history of humanity, has anyone ever created a public presentation to show how badly their product runs? No, and they never will, but that's what you're asking for.
I'm pretty sure even if they somehow did, you'd find a reason to say the demo was artificially staged and that it really runs great. You don't believe them. That's just fine.
With the new media engine in the M2, I wonder if that will allow desktop Pro apps on M2 iPads?
Would that be an excuse that they were waiting for the media engine?
Would that be an excuse that they were waiting for the media engine?
You made it sound like Apple never did something like that. Guess what, Apple did a whole keynote just to show antennagate happened to every phone.
Again, Apple was the one that made the statement. They didn't have to. Things would've been a non issue if they just stayed silent like usual.
I believe in what Apple says about why older iPads can’t run this new feature. But, the problem itself is intentionally created by Apple through the use of low memory RAM. They plan everything ahead. This “problem” was more than likely planned years ago. They are a trillion dollar company for a reason.
The 6K isn't related to Stage Manager, but rather the Thunderbolt controller built into the M1. Whether you have Stage Manager or not, Thunderbolt is capable of supporting a 6K monitor, the biggest one Apple or anyone else makes, except for Dell's 8K monitor. But Dell's requires two Thunderbolt cables, which the iPad can't do.
Just because Apple (or anyone) does anything *once* then they are forever bound to do it again.
You are trying to equate 2 things that aren’t even remotely related.
No one said anything about the FULL version of the OS. Your 2020 iPad is obviously not going to get features exclusive for M-series processors but that's not to day you won't be able to upgrade to a new iPadOS and get features that are non-M-series exclusive.
Companies like Microsoft put out a specific roadmap for their software support, including specific dates. Apple never does this, they just arbitrarily drop support and/or reduce features as they see fit. And if they had maintained status quo by not saying anything, people probably would've shrugged it off in a few days or weeks.
But no, Apple with its wisdom just needed to make up some "technical" excuses and made up a statement. Well, they just opened the can of worms themselves.
That’s why I don’t get why you think they did it deliberately just to force people to upgrade?
If they thought it was a killer feature that they could easily add to existing iPads I think they’d just do it as logic dictates that they would sell more devices at every price range.
The most likely explanation is the one they gave. I.e. the M1 iPads are more powerful and can do this work more easily with less performance degradation and that’s why it’s only implemented there.
I’m more confused why they couldn’t add full screen to external monitors for other iPads rather than just the stage manager stuff. And why it needs a mouse / keyboard plugged in? I feel apple don’t know how to expand the iPad as a device and are very wary of turning it into a mac.
Sure. Then I, as a consumer, doesn't have to believe whatever Apple is saying. Since Apple doesn't want to give any more details, then I have the right to consider this as a BS. Simple.
Up until this release I have never heard such whinging that there was no weather app. It was embarrassing.So…a weather app? Thrilling
IKR, I’m soooo angry. As a professional torrentor not to be able to use my iPad rage rage rage Apple Apple Apple.
And it can already do basic multitasking, for some time with split screen, Slide Over, PiP, and quick notes.
Perhaps some people are a little stupid, as basic iPads can already do simple multitasking, for some time with split screen, Slide Over, PiP, and quick notes.
Sounds like fun to work with.
It’s not useful if you need a larger screen. It’s the opposite actually.
There is no magic. It’s just called ram and fast IO.
these iPads are still supported.
This is an iPad discussion…
“I’m right so shut up”
Shame for you. It worked for me.
Mate, it’s a tablet. It’s just a big one. It’s not complicated.
Going by this logic we could also expect any “desktop Pro apps” that run on M1 Macs to be ported to M1 iPads. So far… nada. 🤷🏻♂️
I said no one has ever done a presentation to show how badly THEIR products run, not other people's. Dissing on other company's products is done all the time.
They answer questions all the time. Someone asked them. They answered. Their answer made sense.
Whatever. M3 will have a feature that M1 won't and so on. I'll be happy as long as I can have my devices supported for at least 5-7 years with core functionality and security. Couldn't care less about 3D globe in Maps.
I find it amusing how the omission of a negligible feature like Stage Manager gets 944 comments spanning 38 pages. 😂
It's not negligible - it's a fundamental change to the way in the user can interact with the UI - and it's likely only the start. 2020 iPads are effectively deprecated. There may be technical reasons for this - but the anger is justified IMO.
There are loads of desktop class professional level iPad apps, including ports from or to the mac, with feature parity. So you don’t know what you’re talking about, clearly.
I guess we just disagree. For me, the Pro is a much better iPad, YMMV.
The numbers from Fortune were in the graph. It would be nice to know how they are counting.
Hard to say what the actual numbers. RedHat estimated Windows at 50% back in 2017. Statista put Windows at 71% in 2019.
Hard to say what the actual number is, and you can get different ones no doubt depending on what you count and ow you collect the data. It does appear though, that Windows has more than a one digit percentage of the market.
Apple simply claimed it wouldn't perfrom well enough and people here are taking that as some plot agaisnt them. Does Apple want to sell more iPads? Sure. That doesn't mean they deliberately hobble the older ones; I'd bet if it did work like they wanted tehy'd include it and point out how even older machines run the latest and greatest.
How doe sit not jibe? All Aple has said is older hardware will not give the user experience they feel is needed. They never said it couldn't run, so jailbreaking, Dev flags, etc. are irrelevent to why Apple made that decision.
It is not something I personally need, but seems to obvious. So patience is not something I am needing for this. Microsoft did this ages ago when they had their Windows phone. I thought it was a brilliant idea, especially for those who are not needing to run more then office software, web browsing and email. The whole computer in your phone. Why build something from the ground up when you have full blown MacOS and could run it on an M1 iPad when plugged in externally.