Apple's Craig Federighi Further Explains Why Stage Manager is Only for M1 iPads

[AppleTLDR]

Great, except we paid for all features, not everything but one.

Great. And they should ensure it works given they demoed it.

So?

I can't imagine any iPad running iPadOS 15 would be limited to two apps since they can already run 3 apps at once.

Redundant to point 1. Still not sufficient. It would be better to not launch the feature than to arbitrarily fragment the ecosystem by claiming one chip can do it while another that can do it, won't. Apple messed up. They shouldn't have launched this feature with iPadOS 16, or they should have launched the last generation of iPads with M1.

I am going to stop you right there. I expect every feature released for at least 3 years, with most features without clear hardware limitations (which the M1 is not one) for five.

They did. That's all that matters.

I purchased it with the expectation that all features for the next 3-5 years would be on the iPad

Yet Apple sells iPads on this promise.

They are obligated to provide every feature I paid for. They charged me more upfront with the promise of future OS updates. Are they issuing me refunds or account credits because they failed to deliver all features to the hardware they sold?

But you didn’t pay for every feature. The feature wasn’t even in development three years ago. You can’t pay for something that doesn’t exist. That isn’t how software development works. I should know. I worked at Apple for almost 10 years. Maybe the concept existed. But active development would not likely have started until 18 months ago. In the case of software, Apple doesn’t actively develop products as far in advance as many people seem to believe. Pre-production and concepts are one thing. Moving to development roadmap is another.

Fair enough you have the expectation of every feature for three years. Apple doesn’t advertise that you’ll get every feature. Just software updates for an unspecified number of years. So your expectation isn’t aligned with the reality of what was advertised. You’re welcome to feel entitled to it but have no recourse as the feature was never guaranteed.

Apple aren’t obliged to do anything other than what was advertised. Provide you with a device with the feature set listed at point of sale, a manufacturers warranty and customer support and provide future software updates for an unspecified number of years (they don’t put a number on it on their website). They also make no claims as to what the updates might contain beyond vague statements.

So again by all means have your expectations. If they haven’t been met go ahead and send Apple some feedback or just don’t buy an Apple product again. But nobody is entitled to this feature no matter what they say. Apple could choose to scrap it tomorrow if they wanted. If during the beta process it doesn’t work well enough even on M1, then they absolutely could choose to scrap it for all iPad owners. It’s a beta after all and their terms and conditions state clearly that certain features may not make it to release, may be altered or heavily modified ahead of any potential release.

Expectations are one thing. Reality and an actual entitlement (be it legal or otherwise) are completely different.

 

[atomic.flip]

Craig is doing a commendable job at even attempting to address or respond to these inquiries about feature disparity with M1 and non M1 "Pro" ipads... but really the failure is with marketing and sales on this... not product development. They need to be clear about what they are selling to whom and for what.

To me, every time this happens it looks less like planned obsolescence and more like product abandonment. Planned obsolescence across a series of years is fine. Has been that way for ages with Macs and iOS devices. But yeah this whole "can't multitask" without having tons more memory etc. etc. etc. is total bs.

Does anyone here remember when the iPhone first came out it had no multitasking or task switching available to end user Apps. They colored the narrative to state that no one even needs to run more than one app at any given time. I remember having huge debates with coworkers in the tech space where I would use Windows CE, then Windows Mobile etc. as an example where multitasking was not only possible but present, necessary and common among users of mobile handheld devices of all formfactors..

Then we have the plain and obvious truth that Multitasking EXISTS already on current and past hardware... it's just not exposed to the end user interface as anything functional, but iOS runs a ton of background processes to support everything from storage interfaces, display and audio drivers to the very cellular radios that most of our mobiles use to connect to wireless carriers... not to mention bluetooth, WiFi... and so on. The touch screen has a series of apps that run to support it's dynamic functions. They are just not exposed to the end user.

The main issue here is that Apple COULD expose the APIs allowing many things to occur... like multitasking etc. but they do not because they wish to charge for every incremental feature by product / generation to maintain as much revenue from hardware sales as possible...

If they would transition away from owning the hardware pie and allow the platform to be a bit more open it would truly make iOS and iPad OS etc. very competitive with microbooks and other tablets as well as countless android devices.... but they insist on maintaining this hold onto the hardware and insist on profiting heavily from sales of the hardware while still maintaining an overbearing strangle hold on the operating system and software that runs within it.

Truly very few other manufacturers of similar hardware ever come as close as Apple does to a closed ecosystem... and even fewer dare to compete directly with the vendors providing value add services to their customers through the OS layer. But Apple has routinely deprecated support for external APIs or platform versatility in favor of "stealing" ideas from other developers on their platform then internalizing a function, offering it as a feature and then essentially invalidating the work or value brought by any third party offering.

It crosses into territory of anti-competitive behavior... much like how they will not after all these years make a Windows client for iMessage. It's ludicrous but they keep banking on this idea that everyone will eventually move to their platform because they have no choice. And with no choice.... if you think prices are high now.... well you ain't seen nothin yet. That's all I will say on that.

Keeping things very simple... they could have avoided any bad PR with this decision by not incorporating the word "Pro" into the older iPads.... or they need to establish minimum expectations on just what "Pro" means.

This veers into deceptive marketing tactics if they limit functionality of two Pro devices to such an essential degree. For example, find a single "professional" who would buy a "Pro" device without an expectation of being able to perform "professional" work on it. As such, if the current standards include multi-tasking then they should offer it to all pro devices. Even if the experience is vastly superior on the more modern generation, they aren't artificially limiting you from the "attempt" at use by offering the same but more limited functionality.

Introducing entirely new functionality within a product that was using the very same operating system as all others in it's class at the time of purchase, then elevating it over a year after purchase but leaving out the prior (but still relatively recent) generations of products... well frankly it is just a step too far.

Sadly, they were to be doomed any way they approach this as multi-tasking has been a "NEED" on the iPad for a long time to enable it's use in any remotely professional setting. YOU absolutely need to multitask to do content creation. It is never so linear that you can go in a single sequence without deviation etc. It's just honestly a joke they ever even called the original iPad Pro an iPad Pro and then a couple of years later redefine what Pro even means by creating feature disparity.

They need to pull their heads out of their rear ends and figure out what they want to do with the iPad line and for anyone that bought a pro device in the last 5 years they should offer re-compensation by either offering similar but perhaps less rapid or responsive features or offering a path to viability with a trade in or something to that extent for those who would stand to benefit from the new features.

I personally don't use my M1 iPad pro much at all. In fact it's been sitting around without a charge for months. It just hasn't to date offered enough feature parity with a similarly priced macbook or notebook pc to justify it's size and weight. It's prior OS limitations (before this stage manager effect) just made it nothing more than an iPhone with a much larger screen and inferior camera. And using it as an editing station for video just didn't prove to be very viable when working with large projects.

The only thing the Pro models ever truly did that distinguished them from the non-pro ipads were the Apple Pencil which afforded graphic artists using vector or pixel art to create content on the go. Otherwise there wasn't anything that was specifically exclusive to the iPad that could not be accomplished with a similarly classed iPhone. (Pro Max etc.)

Oh and I HATE the naming conventions they've adopted for all their mobile hardware. Pro, Pro Max... Plus... blah blah blah... it's a joke and most people in the tech field are in on that joke. But it really does need to end. Who knows... this maybe a hill the old iPad development philosophy dies on.... idk.

 

[4jasontv]

When Apple is forced to allow third-parties access to all their APIs and allows sideloading/alternate Appstores, then somebody would develop an alternative to stage manager. Don't worry.

I don't have an issue with Apple having a closed ecosystem. I don't care if they expect people to upgrade more often to get software improvement. But they need to be consistent with their policy. Otherwise, customers can't reasonably 'vote with their dollars' when it comes to making purchases.

 

[UBS28]

Why do people not use Linux by the way? There you can do whatever you want to do.

Then you won’t be at the mercy of Apple deciding things for you.

iPads and Mac’s are cool I guess, but you are stuck with what Apple gives you.

 

[4jasontv]

But you didn’t pay for every feature. The feature wasn’t even in development three years ago. You can’t pay for something that doesn’t exist. That isn’t how software development works. I should know. I worked at Apple for almost 10 years. Maybe the concept existed. But active development would not likely have started until 18 months ago. Apple doesn’t actively develop products as far in advance as many people seem to believe.

Fair enough you have the expectation of every feature for three years. Apple doesn’t advertise that you’ll get every feature. Just software updates for an unspecified number of years. So your expectation isn’t aligned with the reality of what was advertised. You’re welcome to feel entitled to it but have no recourse as the feature was never guaranteed.

Apple aren’t obliged to do anything other than what was advertised. Provide you with a device with the feature set listed at point of sale, a manufacturers warranty and customer support and provide future software updates for an unspecified number of years (they don’t put a number on it on their website). They also make no claims as to what the updates might contain beyond vague statements.

So again by all means have your expectations. If they haven’t been met go ahead and send Apple some feedback or just don’t buy an Apple product again. But nobody is entitled to this feature no matter what they say. Apple could choose to scrap it tomorrow if they wanted. It’s a beta and their terms and conditions state clearly that certain features may not make it to release, may be altered or heavily modified ahead of any potential release.

Expectations are one thing. Reality and an actual entitlement (be it legal or otherwise) are completely different.

Please stop with the 'you didn't pay for future features' argument. Yes, I did.

 

[supergt]

Posted this screenshot over the weekend but want add fuel to this fire. My jailbroken 3.5 year old iPad 7th generation running iOS 14.8 with 5 windowed (and active) apps open and capable of even more.

A10 with 3gb ram. Apple, do better!

 

[Ponylover52]

MacBooks don’t crash if they run out of RAM like iOS devices do.

I even have apps reloading on my M1 12.9 iPad Pro with 8GB RAM.

Hoping the addition of swap allows for more consistent Mac like app states where things don’t get totally kicked and need to “refresh“

 

[tmoerel]

Great, except we paid for all features, not everything but one.

Great. And they should ensure it works given they demoed it.

So?

I can't imagine any iPad running iPadOS 15 would be limited to two apps since they can already run 3 apps at once.

Redundant to point 1. Still not sufficient. It would be better to not launch the feature than to arbitrarily fragment the ecosystem by claiming one chip can do it while another that can do it, won't. Apple messed up. They shouldn't have launched this feature with iPadOS 16, or they should have launched the last generation of iPads with M1.

I am going to stop you right there. I expect every feature released for at least 3 years, with most features without clear hardware limitations (which the M1 is not one) for five.

They did. That's all that matters.

I purchased it with the expectation that all features for the next 3-5 years would be on the iPad

Yet Apple sells iPads on this promise.

They are obligated to provide every feature we paid for. They charged more upfront with the promise of future OS updates. Are they issuing me refunds or account credits because they failed to deliver all features to the hardware they sold? No? Then deliver on promises.

Wow, feeling entitled much? Apple sold you an iPad as it was then. They never ever promised you more than what you bought. You might have read something that wasn't there and that tells more about you than about Apple!

Next time buy what you need, not what you would hope it would develop into!

 

[4jasontv]

Wow, feeling entitled much? Apple sold you an iPad as it was then. They never ever promised you more than that you bought. You might have read something that wasn't there and that tells more about you than about Apple!

Next time by what you need, not what you would hope it would develop into!

It's not entitlement if you specifically paid more money to get something that is intended to be updated and used for years. That's what I paid for.

They sold me the iPad as it will be in 5 years. That's the expectation, and that's what I agreed to. If Apple wants us to upgrade earlier they need to do it in ways that doesn't devalue what they already sold.

I purchased what I needed knowing that a $1000 device would be able to run the next few OSs without compromises.

 

[smulji]

Please stop with the 'you didn't pay for future features' argument. Yes, I did.

No, you didn't. You paid for a product that with the expectation that it would meet a certain need at the time you bought it. If you bought it with the expectation it would get EVERY feature of every iPadOS version that would run on it or that Apple promised you specific future features without being explicit about it then shame on you. Hopefully you learn from your lesson.

 

[4jasontv]

No, you didn't. You paid for a product that with the expectation that it would meet a certain need at the time you bought it. If you bought it with the expectation it would get EVERY feature of every iPadOS version that would run on it or that Apple promised you specific future features without being explicit about it then you are the idiot. Hopefully you learn from your lesson.

It doesn't matter what features were added to the new OS. Anyone who purchased an iPad in the past 3 years should expect to receive everything.

And people need to stop the name-calling.

 

[smulji]

It's not entitlement if you specifically paid more money to get something that is intended to be updated and used for years.

Your iPad will receive iPadOS updates and can be used for years. You're just butt hurt that it didn't get the one specific feature that's M1 exclusive based on your false sense of expectation.

 

[singularity0993]

These hardware limitations are totally nonsense. The jailbreak community will prove that in no time.

 

[citysnaps]

Show us where Apple promised that any given iPad (or iPhone) would support all features of a future iOS update?

Cracks me up people expect that, and then when a new feature comes out that won't work on an older device with less processing power and memory, stomp their feet with an embarrassing whine.

 

[mariusignorello]

This article literally proves you wrong.

So? Is Apple changing the system requirements for stage manager? Nope (for now).

 

[4jasontv]

Cracks me up people expect that, and then when a new feature comes out that won't work on an older device with less processing power and memory, stomp their feet with an embarrassing whine.

It cracks me up that people don't understand that Apple should withhold the feature until they can apply it to all the devices they sold in the past few years.

 

[smulji]

So? Is Apple changing the system requirements for stage manager? Nope (for now).

I don't ever expect them to change the system requirements.

 

[4jasontv]

Your iPad will receive iPadOS updates and can be used for years. You're just butt hurt that it didn't get the one specific feature that's M1 exclusive based on your false sense of expectation.

It's not false to expect what you paid for. Especially when it's a feature that could run on an iPad that is already 5 years old.

 

[citysnaps]

Stage Manager is the culmination of a beta never released feature developed for MacOS (OS X) in 2006. So the fact that requires an M1 is absurd and completely false.

Will you be sending a message to Apple by voting with your wallet and purchase computers/phones/tablets from a competing company?

 

[citysnaps]

It cracks me up that people don't understand that Apple should withhold the feature until they can apply it to all the devices they sold in the past few years.

Will you be standing up sending a message to Apple by voting with your wallet and purchase tech products from Apple competitors?

 

[AppleTLDR]

Please stop with the 'you didn't pay for future features' argument. Yes, I did.

In your view you paid for every feature. It was never advertised that you would get every feature. So in actual fact you paid for what was advertised at the point of sale.

iPadOS 16 is not synonymous for features only being available for certain devices.

Here is what Apple advertised for iPadOS 15. You’ll note the many feature that require an A12 for example. While others could be supported on an A9.

I understand your disappointment I really do. But unfortunately that doesn’t translate into any wrong doing on Apple’s part. They’ve made a choice and people can make up their own minds about it as has been possible in each release of iPadOS.

 

[Cognizant.]

Cracks me up people expect that, and then when a new feature comes out that won't work on an older device with less processing power and memory, stomp their feet with an embarrassing whine.

Please explain why you find humor in this. Also, please offer an explanation as to how Apple’s latest bleeding edge A-series chips, which are essentially desktop class chips crammed into phones and tablets and dominate in graphical and computational power compared to all other devices on the market in their class, cannot have this feature. Also explain why you find joy in other people’s issues. I’ll wait.

 

[citysnaps]

Please explain why you find humor in this. Also, please offer an explanation as to how Apple’s latest bleeding edge A-series chips, which are essentially desktop class chips crammed into phones and tablets and dominate in graphical and computational power compared to all other devices on the market in their class, cannot have this feature. Also explain why you find joy in other people’s issues. I’ll wait.

The humor is in the hypocrisy exhibited. Will you be voting with your wallet, sending Apple a strong message and purchase a superior product from a competitor?

 

[4jasontv]

In your view you paid for every feature. It was never advertised that you would get every feature. So in actual fact you paid for what was advertised at the point of sale.

iPadOS 16 is not synonymous for features only being available for certain devices.

Here is what Apple advertised for iPadOS 15. You’ll note the many feature that require an A12 for example. While others could be supported on an A9.

I understand your disappointment I really do. But unfortunately that doesn’t translate into any wrong doing on Apple’s part. They’ve made a choice and people can make up their own minds about it as has been possible in each release of iPadOS.

This is circular logic. Apple's list of supported devices doesn't justify what devices they support.

 

[sarevok]

I guess Apple should just state older devices will only get security updates and bare-bones features. At least for people who have ios for a long time with major features uncut. There is a reason people pay the Apple tax.