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.
Latest iOS and iPadOS 15 Betas Allow Apps to Request Access to More RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really? I feel like it was always the intended chip for the iPad as well as the Macs.
Hard to know, I guess, until the behind the scenes stories start to seep out in a few years. This iPP certainly took time to design, so it’s not like they started after we all first learned of the M1, but it seems too much of an oddball move on the heels of a fairly lackluster update in 2020. It felt like a roadmap changed somewhere. It has that flavor of “not pro enough, my ass”. Apple typically does things more incrementally, and with better HW/SW coordination.
But it doesn’t really matter. It’s here. I still wonder if it’s a one off, or if there will be an iPP for each M series chip.
No, they are probably the reason why beta 2 removed that limit.
Apple listens to us only then we touch their wallet somehow.
(No need to make the joke about 10 people hurting apple’s wallet)
Yeah, the 10 members of MR who decided to make a spectacle of returning their iPads put such a hurt on Apple’s bottom line that they included an obvious feature at such an unlikely time— the next major OS release.
That’s ok, I don’t mind….
Well the CPU, GPU, and RAM are all significant parts of what makes a computer a computer. And the M1 is shared across all platforms I listed. Just seems absolutely overkill for what Apple delivered with iPadOS 15. They brought features to the iPad that were already available on the iPhone last year. They slightly improved multitasking and brought a feature with Apple Pencil that is likely not useful for a lot of users. To say iPadOS 15 tampered the excitement for what was and more importantly is possible on the M1 iPad Pro is an understatement. Apple could’ve brought many more useful features for such advanced and capable hardware, but they didn’t and when people voiced their disappointment here they get lambasted by a bunch of people who will excuse Apple no matter what.
That must be it. Your opinion is righteous and valid, and the only reason people might disagree is because they are Apple apologists who will disagree no matter what. It can’t have anything to do with the fact that you keep talking about the M1 like it’s something that magically transforms any circuit into a Mac that must run a desktop OS to be utilized properly.
Last edited:
Large companies don't respond that quickly. More than likely the change was already on their roadmap. Consider that the 5GB limit was there because the max RAM on any previous iPad was 6GB. It's logical to assume that raising RAM would mean raising the RAM limit. Nobody noticed the limit because it wasn't important before. If it weren't for Procreate telling people there was a limit, no one would have known before the issue was resolved.
Got to have my car running VisiCalc or it's going back!
I blame all those “intel inside” campaigns!
For about 20 yrs intel spent billions trying to convince people that the processor inside their machines was the reason why they had all these wonderful features etc.
Thus also led a whole generation of sloppy pc developers who just waited for intel to make their chips faster instead of actually optimising anything.
so now everyone thinks it’s the chip that gives you the features on a computer. And it’s not. It’s like saying the engine of a car is what gives you the nice interior, sat nav and great suspension. Of course it doesn’t!
Apple used to shy away from putting the chip as a focus point. And to their credit I suppose these chips are “system on a chip” designs. So maybe it has a bit more significance than pc chips in terms of capability.
but the reality is that it’s generally custom chips and more importantly the actual software that creates the features. So what was anyone expecting from using the m1 in the iPad? As if putting the engine from a Lamborghini on a camper van turns it into a sports car!
As all the reviewers have found, the 2021 iPad Pro is pretty much identical in usage to the 2018 one. If Apple didn’t tell you it was an m1 chip no one would have noticed.
what this whole thing tells us is so many people have been primed to believe something is important by advertisers over so many years that now companies like Apple lean on this fallacy just to boost interest and sales.
For about 20 yrs intel spent billions trying to convince people that the processor inside their machines was the reason why they had all these wonderful features etc.
Thus also led a whole generation of sloppy pc developers who just waited for intel to make their chips faster instead of actually optimising anything.
so now everyone thinks it’s the chip that gives you the features on a computer. And it’s not. It’s like saying the engine of a car is what gives you the nice interior, sat nav and great suspension. Of course it doesn’t!
Apple used to shy away from putting the chip as a focus point. And to their credit I suppose these chips are “system on a chip” designs. So maybe it has a bit more significance than pc chips in terms of capability.
but the reality is that it’s generally custom chips and more importantly the actual software that creates the features. So what was anyone expecting from using the m1 in the iPad? As if putting the engine from a Lamborghini on a camper van turns it into a sports car!
As all the reviewers have found, the 2021 iPad Pro is pretty much identical in usage to the 2018 one. If Apple didn’t tell you it was an m1 chip no one would have noticed.
what this whole thing tells us is so many people have been primed to believe something is important by advertisers over so many years that now companies like Apple lean on this fallacy just to boost interest and sales.
Yup.
It's conceivable that some of the feedback drove them to decide to offer this, but I can't imagine they hadn't previously prepared for this possibility.
People need to remember the M1 is an ARM chip and basically an evolution of the A series chips. Having it in an iPad isn't the revelation..... having it in a mac, is.
Last edited:
Well, they didn't really have much of a reason to keep doing a separate A14X or whatever, when the M1 was right there.
YouTube is flooded with rants about it, also reviewers that usually crawl on apple’s feet are talking negatively about the new iPad Pro because of all the limits (slow thunderbolt, limited ram etc). Apple must have been proactive and try to patch things up a bit, for once. That’s how I see it.
If they planned it all along they would have mentioned it during wwdc and beta 1 would have not been limited in first place. I can’t convince myself that wwdc turned into an emojis and gimmicks event at 100%.
Exactly. The A12Z and the M1 have the same config, so in a non-ASi Mac world we'd just get it as an A14X instead. Although I think it was just conceived to be exactly what it is - a chip that works in both Macs and iPad Pros at that power level.
They would not, after all the increase in max RAM usage has never been advertised even though it has increased multiple times. Also pretending WWDC is about "emojis and gimmicks" is just dumb.
I mean, I don't really understand the conspiracy theory here. Do people think someone at Apple was like, "we're going to put 16 GB RAM in it… and then not let apps use it! Muahahahaha"? They must have anticipated that this would be useful for certain high-end apps sooner or later.
There was a lot more to this year's WWDC than "emojis and gimmicks". And it's quite common that features neither get announced nor end up in beta 1. That's not really a sign they listened to feedback.
I think they do lol, because it explains some of the weirder conspiracies in this community. People also want to feel more powerful, so obviously it can't be that a private entitlement (that existed for over a year being made public when hardware that can actually utilise it is present) has now been made public so it can actually be used, it's that Apple was FORCED by ("Pro-Apple") Youtubers to do it.
This is true to a certain extent. Software and hardware are inextricably linked. Many of the "great" things that happen on a workstation/pc seamless to a user is due to the support of the microprocessor and the underlying chipsets. Intel can't advertise their instruction set, so they advertise themselves.
IMO, this is an exaggeration...a whole generation? Clearly throwing hardware at a problem is also a way to go.
It's pretty much true. Try running an AAA game on a pentium core duo and a VGA card.
Apple is advertising the M1, because of the shift in the MAC where everyone was used to intel inside. Since the m1 mac does not run the same software as an intel chip it made sense for them to bring the chip to the forefront.
As far as the 2018 ipad being identical in usage to the 2021 ipad pro (and I bought a pro), it reminds me of the youtube videos showing an iphone 6s opening up an app in the same speed as the iphone 11 and declaring the iphone 11 wasn't any faster. Of course this is true until apps/applications that really use the processor such as imovie, javascript and other intensive tasks fully utilize the power of the processor and take advantage of additional capabilities such as dynamic hdr in movies etc.
There is no fallacy as explained above.
As M1 user I am happy to announce you
9to5mac.com
I knew that we will not need to wait for iPadOS16 update to use potential of M1 iPad Pro.
Apps can request access to more RAM with iOS 15 entitlement, exceeding normal system memory limits - 9to5Mac
A newly documented entitlement will allow app developers to request privileged access to RAM on iOS and iPadOS. This system...
9to5mac.com
I knew that we will not need to wait for iPadOS16 update to use potential of M1 iPad Pro.
If this made any difference in how apps operate starting with iPadOS 15, Apple would have made a very big deal about it at WWDC. They said nothing. I would think they would have at least released Xcode or FinalCut or something like that for iPad Pro if they really intended on the spare RAM being used for pro apps.
You need to tell us what our main issue with iPadOS is.
Yes and no. From what we have learnt so far, the developers can request more RAM usage from a user, but still need to make sure their app works well on devices with lower RAM or where this RAM expansion permission has not been granted by the user for any reason. Long story short - it sounds like a compromise in an attempt to please both low-end and high-end iPad users. 🤷🏻♂️
I used to run a window pc back in the day for music. Back then you needed a sound card to play audio with any low latency at all. And you needed ASIO drivers. It wasn't great.
I then went to a studio with a powermac G3. I think it had a lower clock speed than the PC. I remember my jaw hit the floor when the engineer hit the piano keyboard and with no latency the piano sound played from the headphone socket of the g3! I couldn't believed it!
It was nothing to do with how good the processor was. It was apple's approach to OS design that prioritised sound.
Apple went on to prove that with lower clock speed processors it could outperform things like android. Mainly because the OS was designed well and prioritised the right things. Or because there SDK in iOS used direct memory management rather than Android which used managed memory and garbage collection.
My point is that relying on the clock speed of the core processor or even the gpu is not as important is correctly coding and optimising your software if you want to see real gains. Developers dont like to admit this because they are in fact lazy (I know, I am one). Optimizing takes time and energy and no one wants to spend time doing it if they dont have to.
As for the iPad, everything from the cheaper iPads upwards to iPad Pro 2021 runs software pretty much the same. Very little real difference simply because dev's would be leaving money on the table. They need to make products for the most amount of machines not the few 2021 models that have been released.
So yeah, lt really is all a bit of a marketing fallacy.
And if the M1 was so radically powerful they wouldn't need to rewrite anything to get the improvements anyway.
What the M1 really signifies is how slow and unoptimised intel really was! As there isn't a big difference between A processors on the iPad with M1.