Agreed, let the developers test it themselves and see if their reviews and conclusions match up to Apple's.Alright already. We need to move on from this.
Agreed, let the developers test it themselves and see if their reviews and conclusions match up to Apple's.Alright already. We need to move on from this.
The code should have been littered with hundreds or thousands of internal variables named "More$ForApple.xxxxx" in there, I guess. One could easily get confused. /sBy disassembling the iOS 16 beta I was able to locate the flag that controls Stage Manager's legacy support. The name of the internal variable is "More$ForApple.IfClear.5"
Exactly, how I feel. /sI sure hope they don’t extend Stage Manager to older iPads. I want a new one and this is just enough to push my ‘should I? shouldn’t I?’ over the top. It’s all about me, don’t you know?
Problem is, they will say when it works poorly. That Apple didn't optimize it enough. Or they should have spent more time to make it work right. And That it can work with an A4 Chip, and on and on.I hope that someone gets this mod working, and then hopefully if Apple's claims are found to be true this controversy can be put to rest.
Some people like conspiracies. They will believe whatever they want to believe. True or not.If Apple are caught out then at least we know where we stand I suppose. Each individual can then decide for themselves whether they want to continue to supporting the iPad/Apple or not.
Well said.My god do people have nothing better to do than to manufacture a stupid controversy? Stage Manager isn't the end all iPad feature.
Right, but the original concept came from Shrinkydink, which was written in 2006 for Macbook Pro's that had 2gb of RAM. That's why we think they're being dishonest. Not because the way that it's written now, doesn't require an M1*, but because they could - and did - write it a decade and a half ago to run on computers that were far less capable than the A14 and A15 chips that they're selling today, that are deemed "too slow".Why do you think they’re being dishonest in the first place?
When asked they simply said- we don’t think it works up to our standards on anything less than m1. They didn’t say it didn’t work. They simply alluded to it being a feature for the most modern cpu architecture in the iPad line.
I mean, that’s it. There no dishonesty there, and as far as everyone knows, their reply was an honest one.
Maybe YOU think something else, but that doesn’t make them liars with anything they have said.
Jesus.A UK consumer champion has launched a £750 million ($907 million) legal claim against Apple over the 2017 iPhone throttling controversy that saw a software update effectively slow down older devices (via The Guardian).
I feel there is a lawsuit potential here - they are blaming the M! chip but we know the iPad 2020 is capable of competing against PC laptops ( faster than, they say) but I suspect it is code to try to force users to upgrade - this is what the real controversy is about - throttling iPad Pro 2020's and we are not buying their explanation anymore in light of their prior nefarious activity.
But a mac, regardless of chipset, for the past several decades has been able to multitask as par for the course. Thats how they work. The iPad hasn’t. It’s the opposite of how they work. They are specifically designed to not work like that. Everything is in a sandbox.Right, but the original concept came from Shrinkydink, which was written in 2006 for Macbook Pro's that had 2gb of RAM. That's why we think they're being dishonest. Not because the way that it's written now, doesn't require an M1*, but because they could - and did - write it a decade and a half ago to run on computers that were far less capable than the A14 and A15 chips that they're selling today, that are deemed "too slow".
It's especially infuriating when every product announcement has Apple saying how much faster their newest A-series chip is compared to the average Intel laptop chip... and then to do a 180 and say "yeah, turns out that what we wrote is so resource intensive even a midrange PC can't run it". If that's the truth, just what are their software engineers doing over there?
* Although that they support the M1 with 64gb and no swap file is... interesting, since it's only 6% faster than the iPad Mini 6 with an A15 chip, and otherwise has the same storage size and non-swap-file.
then there will be another discussion on how Stage manager is bad on older iPads.
So why are we here arguing?
My belief is that it's because each of us has some narrative about why Apple has made this choice and - by god - each of us wants to be right. It just feels sooooo good to win an argument.
It doesn’t matter if they tested the current build or not. If they wanted they could’ve made an Optimized version that could run on, you know, the brand new iPad they released a few months ago.Or maybe it's exactly the opposite, a simple ploy to get us to think they tested it but actually they didn't but just put it there to mislead us?
He wouldnt have allowed anything like this in the first place. Stop bringing his name into it without realising his intentions for anything Apple.Steve wouldn’t of taken no for an Answer.
We all clicked the bait.Looks like this manufactured controversy is going to be beat to death.
Yes! and we also know why they make their own software, hardware, processors, movies, tv shows, credit card, and music streaming... 🤣😉I think we all know why they disabled it on legacy iPads. And why they solder the RAM and SSDs in their computers.
Fair enough. Not really the same conversation though.There's a war in Ukraine. We're coming out of a global pandemic. Democracy is being threatened. But what people are really upset about is the lack of Stage Manager on older iPads. How about we improve our perspective, and put this first world problem to rest.