It has been ongoing since then.I'm not quite old enough, but all these macos on iPad posts make me wonder, was the same debate going on back in the day between the original Mac series and the Apple II series?
While the iPad is a "touch-first device," the Mac is designed for "indirect manipulation," with a mouse or keyboard, which is a point that Apple has reiterated several times over the years.
To be fair app launching has been a longstanding deficiency on Mac versus Windows. On System 7 and prior apps would just install wherever on your root directory, good luck finding them! Mac OS 8 and higher tried to organize things with an Applications folder (and if you were smart you threw that folder into your Apple Menu Items system folder), and said folder organization exists to this day in Mac OS X/macOS (put your Applications folder in the Dock and set the display to List). But there's never been a universal way to see all apps installed on your system until Launchpad. You can argue it's flawed but it's at least something.Yep, Launchpad on Mac was the start
There are numerous fallacies in this. They have the same SoC, but an SoC isn’t the whole computer. Also, the batteries are much smaller and the thermals are much worse than a MBA. It’s also a touch device whereas macOS and all of its apps are touch hostile. Sure it could run macOS, but it would suck badly. Craig F. even said so years ago, saying they had macOS running on iPads. They tested it and found the experience to be pretty bad. Apple doesn’t deliberately ship awful experiences (note I said deliberately).The only reason the iPad is complementary to the Mac is because Apple is artificially limiting the potential of the iPad, which has the same hardware as the base MacBook Air, so we know it can run macOS without a problem.
”Computer” does not equal “laptop”. People misread what Apple was going for in that ad. Prior to that ad, most people considered iPads to be toys, only to be handed down to little kids. Apple wanted people to consider the iPad when deciding on what computer to buy next. Prior to that, people would think laptop or desktop. Apple wanted people to now think laptop, desktop, or iPad. The iPad is a computer, but is not a laptop. Nor is a laptop a desktop, but both are computers. All three have overlapping features, but all three have their strengths and weaknesses. A desktop is the ultimate powerful machine (just consider sticking an M2 Ultra in a laptop, i.e. not happening). A laptop is portable with most of the power of a desktop. A tablet is an ultraportable computer with touch features, and tends to have instantaneous response.So all of that “this is a computer” stuff several years ago was just…marketing!?
Marking VPs are incapable of understanding reality.If the Mac and iPad are supposed to compliment each others ability, why isn't there uniformity of use between the two? The VP's rhetoric doesn't align with current Apple use reality, in my opinion.
My older 2019 MacBook Pro definitely feels snappier than my M1 iPad Pro, especially when multitasking. iPadOS feels like computing through molasses.”Computer” does not equal “laptop”. People misread what Apple was going for in that ad. Prior to that ad, most people considered iPads to be toys, only to be handed down to little kids. Apple wanted people to consider the iPad when deciding on what computer to buy next. Prior to that, people would think laptop or desktop. Apple wanted people to now think laptop, desktop, or iPad. The iPad is a computer, but is not a laptop. Nor is a laptop a desktop, but both are computers. All three have overlapping features, but all three have their strengths and weaknesses. A desktop is the ultimate powerful machine (just consider sticking an M2 Ultra in a laptop, i.e. not happening). A laptop is portable with most of the power of a desktop. A tablet is an ultraportable computer with touch features, and tends to have instantaneous response.
Huh? Complement does not mean they do all the same things. To complement means they do different things that help the other. By definition that means they don’t do all the same things.If the Mac and iPad are supposed to compliment each others ability, why isn't there uniformity of use between the two? The VP's rhetoric doesn't align with current Apple use reality, in my opinion.
If “Pro” stands for “Professional, the new 13“ iPad Pro should offer the option to run OSes — M4 and OLED is not enough.There aren’t that many people who want macOS. You’re living in a tech bubble with tech diehards who want to manipulate Terminal settings. The 99.9% of regular people like iPadOS just the way it is. They don’t want a Mac. They want the ultra portability and simplicity of iPadOS. IPadOS is just fine and doesn’t need any fundamental changes.
When I’ve surveyed people in the past, it isn’t iPadOS that people want a change to. They want to run Mac programs because they tend to be more mature than their iPad counterparts. That isn’t the OS. That’s the apps. People may ask why iPad apps (some) can run on macOS while Mac apps cannot run on iPadOS, it’s because of sandboxing. macOS supports sandboxing, but is not enforced. IPadOS requires sandboxing, which very few Mac apps support. Mac apps are allowed to range all over the file system while sandboxing prevents that and would break Mac apps. That’s why Terminal and Finder are forbidden and will never happen and why Apple threw in Stage Manager instead of Finder. Finder just isn’t possible. If Apple were to change sandboxing, it would essentially be a complete rewrite of iPadOS since that is a core security feature of their mobile OS’es. If Apple had the opportunity to redo macOS, they’d make it more like iPadOS rather than the other way around. But the horse left that barn decades ago. Rewriting macOS would break almost all existing Mac apps.
Keep in mind Macs have been around for almost four decades with macOS being around for 20 years or so. IPadOS is very new with programmers, unfamiliar with how to write touch-first apps. There’s a steep learning curve, hence the slower pace of iPad apps. It’s flat out hard to write touch programs. Stalwarts like Photoshop promised fully desktop features, but it’s been three years and counting. Final Cut Pro is still missing plugins but is slowly moving forwards. DaVinci Resolve ported all their desktop tabs but hid all but two because they aren’t sure how well they’d work in a touch environment.
So it’s not really iPadOS that people have a beef with. It’s that they own Mac programs they want to run. But consider this, people knock the MacBook Air for throttling and poor performance with high end Mac apps and consider the MacBook Air to be more of a casual consumer device. The iPad Pro is a lesser beast than even the MacBook Air with smaller battery and poorer thermals, yet people here want the iPad Pro to run software that would make an M3 Max MBP sweat. Even if it were to run macOS where Apple shockingly makes it touch-friendly (it’s not in the least), no Mac apps are touch friendly. This is the same curse that hits Surface Pros. MS has tried since Vista to make a successful hybrid and has failed. One of the big reasons is the lack of touch friendly apps. Nobody wants to be tethered to a mouse and keyboard on a tablet, because it’s no longer a tablet if you do that. So why bother making an inferior device to a MacBook Air into a MacBook Pro? It’s a recipe for disaster, which is why Apple won’t do it. They’re not stupid enough to not see a disaster in the making, just watching Microsoft flail. It’s not that they’re out of touch with the people. They know exactly what most people want. MacOS isn’t it except with a small subset of the perpetually online geeks.
The new 13 inch iPad „Pro“ has a processor and a display that is more advanced than those in most of the current M2/3 laptops and iMac. I would replace my M2 12.9 iPad Pro with the new 13 if it ran MacOs in addition to iPadOS — yes, i want the option to switch between both. Until then, „Pro“ stands for „Provisional“, not „Professional“. If I were able to use both , I could be more „Pro“ductive and it would truly complement rather than compete with my 14“ M3 Max laptop & Studio Display setup.
For her review of the new M4 iPad Pro, The Wall Street Journal's Joanna Stern spoke with Tom Boger, Apple's vice president of iPad and Mac marketing. Stern focused on comparing the iPad Pro to a MacBook, and asked some targeted questions about the way Apple views the two devices.
![]()
According to Boger, Apple sees the iPad Pro and Mac as devices that are meant to be used alongside one another. "We don't see them as competing devices," he said. "We see them as complementary devices." While the iPad is a "touch-first device," the Mac is designed for "indirect manipulation," with a mouse or keyboard, which is a point that Apple has reiterated several times over the years.
"macOS is for a very different paradigm of computing," he went on to explain after Stern asked about the possibility of running Mac apps on the iPad or a Mac with a touch screen. Boger said that many Apple customers have both devices, and use the iPad to "extend" Mac work with Continuity.
When asked if Apple would ever change its mind on a touch screen Mac, he didn't say no. "Oh, I can't say we never change our mind," he told Stern.
Stern traded her MacBook for an iPad for her review, and said that the iPad was better for portability, touch, and 5G connectivity, a feature not available on the Mac. The Mac offered superior port options (it has more than one), better software and multitasking, longer battery life, and better multi-display support.
Stern's full review and interview with Boger can be read over at The Wall Street Journal.
Article Link: iPad Marketing VP: iPad and Mac are Complementary Devices, Not Competing Devices
Not unless those apps have been rewritten to include the menu bar.We know Apple has Mac apps running under iPadOS in a secret room. Just like they had PowerPC Mac laptops able to triple-boot macOS, Windows, and OS/2.
IMO Launchpad is better than digging into the Applications folder, using Spotlight, putting aliases on the desktop, or every application in the Dock's top level.Yep, Launchpad on Mac was the start
If the Mac and iPad are supposed to compliment each others ability, why isn't there uniformity of use between the two?
Complimentary, in this case, means an iPad can be a hot spot for a MacBook. Thing A does stuff, thing B does different additional stuff and, if a user so desires, they can use both for added benefit.Has anyone asked an Apple executive why they don't offer cellular on MacBooks?
The sad part is really that iPadOS really doesn't stand on its own two legs.Reads to me like they're digging their feet in on iPadOS being iPadOS.
Probably licensing costs make it less pretty.Has anyone asked an Apple executive why they don't offer cellular on MacBooks?