Yes, really. How about this gem? "Apple can try to hit all of these different markets by selling multiple hardware variations (albeit at the risk of making the buying decision intimidatingly complex)"
or
"If Apple wants the iPad to replace the MacBook, it needs to bring iPadOS closer to macOS in scope and organizational structure. It’s not like the software department at Cupertino hasn’t tried"
or
"Conversely, turning iPadOS into a sophisticated desktop-style OS will shrink the iPad’s appeal for its current userbase, by taking away the simple qualities that they value."
or the real revelation:
"And there’s no easy way to make both groups happy."
Some can live with iPadOS as is and others can't.
Exactly. This is true of many computing areas.
It's kind of amusing to see the reaction of those who can vs those who can't - it's like someone said their baby is ugly.
It's more a case of these people being happier to acknowledge what the iPad is and isn't, coupled with a frustration at the "can't" group to rarely (not never) give sensible proposals.
For example, from your own link, is this turd of a paragraph: "the iPad is drifting around in commercial limbo, and something radical was needed to turn it around: not the needless addition of a ludicrously overpowered M4 chip, but a rethink of the software platform itself. And as exciting as WWDC 2024 was, it didn’t offer any real answers to the iPad question."
This is
after the author has conceded that Apple would need to create a complex lineup to please each market, that it has tried to bring iPadOS and MacOS closer together, and going full-tilt to MacOS will shrink the iPad's appeal.
And yet, still, the author decides it's reasonable to end the article by saying Apple needed to "rethink" the iPad and give "real answers"
while conveniently offering precisely SFA ideas of his own. It's cheap.
You raise some good points about the varying needs of users and how technology has evolved to meet those needs. I agree that for some, an iPad or even a smartphone might fulfill all their requirements, eliminating the need for a laptop.
However, my comment about the comparison being like “apples and oranges” still holds in a broader context. While it’s true that for certain tasks and users, an iPad can be sufficient, the inherent differences in functionality, versatility, and user experience between an iPad and a laptop make them fundamentally distinct categories of devices. Something which Apple has stressed. This distinction is important when considering the full range of use cases and needs that laptops traditionally fulfill, which might not be fully addressed by an iPad for everyone.
Certainly — I totally agree. And I think you've highlighted an important point: the problem isn't so much with the iPad itself as much as it's with a refusal to accept what it is and isn't, among certain groups. And, more and more, the more complex needs of a full desktop OS are used by fewer people while the simplicity-with-growing-capabilities of the iPad appeal to more people.
To repeat what I said previously, most people use home computers for non-work tasks. Because most people who work on computers are provided them by the company. They don't go home to Windows Vista/XP/7/10/11 to explore the complexities of the OS, they open Facebook and order their shopping and read emails and play Sims. And so most consumer computing equipment has been far too much for most people. Through this lens the appeal of the iPad is clearer, and it's easier to see how it's truly a "PC replacement" for those people.
apps.apple.com
