I don't see what this has to do with anything.
That's the problem.
I can put a 4G USB modem in my Laptop. My server is never disconnected from the internet. You can run an iPhone in WiFi only mode. The iPad which runs iPadOS (basically iOS) doesn't always have a Modem and connects via WiFi just like a Laptop and yet still has a walled garden etc
I think I made the point that they can have said connections. But, you didn't have this one the phone was made. Things carry over from when it starts to now. Technology gets shared among other devices.
You also don't tend to walk around town and or drive with a server in your pocket.
It runs almost the exact same OS that macOS does and always has done.
Right. OK. I'm sure when iOS came out and right up to now it was the exact same OS. Almost..
They initially removed a lot of needless things to reduce its footprint (size on storage) and optimise it more for lower energy use and the fewer CPU cycles but that has largely changed as of 2022 because a lot of what they did for the iPhone has made its way back into improving macOS.
So that's not the exact same OS now is it? Even almost.
For instance sleeping browser tabs when not in focus, pausing the frame buffers of video players when they're not in view, adaptively adjusting the screen refresh rate to match the content. All these started on iOS and iPadOS and made their way back to the Mac as general improvements. Similarly things from the Mac (almost all of it) went to iOS.
Again, not the same OS. Thanks for making that more clear. And what was needed on iOS wasn't needed for a desktop OS, but it's beneficially for a laptop due to battery and power consumption.
This is just an interface thing, you could easily run the iPad interface on a Mac. All the other stuff is there, you can even run iPad/iPhone apps on a Mac today if you have an M1 equipped Mac.
No, you could not. On iOS you don't have any AMD or intel GPU (let alone old Nvidia) drivers as they are not needed. So you would see very little to nothing on your laptop/desktop display. Resolution would be bad as it is with this iOS/iPad OS apps trying to work on current M1 devices that share similar enough hardware to make it possible. Not to mention inputs, apps for iOS/iPadOS are meant for touch, and you don't have that on the Mac cause it was meant for keyboard and mouse.....
Unless your definition of running is it does something other than nothing.
macOS also has AirPrint and has since 2012. Remember these operating systems (macOS and iOS) are almost 1:1 under the hood. It's just the interface on top and some frameworks and API's that differ. Heck you can even run iOS apps on M1 equipped Macs, natively because under-the-hood it's the same thing.
TODAY, you can run them TODAY. It took YEARS to got to TODAY.
And if its so easy to do what you saying. Why hasn't anyone else done it? I mean with any other OS? So easy, just take this remove that, add this square that. Done.
You can literally get iPhones with 4x more storage than some Macs shipping today and the iPad Air and Pro now run the same SoC as their Macs (M1). This argument that these devices are fundamentally different is dead.
I'm glad you woke up when everything is as it is today. Your argument is completely incorrect as your presenting it with todays tech. As if we started TODAY. We did not. You had massive differences fro iPhone 1.0 and then computing capabilities compared to today. M1 exists in both an iPad and Desktop. You did not run a Samsung whatever arm flavor CPU in your desktop. You had WAY more storage space in a PC/Mac than you could have in a mobile. It got better yes, but you did not have the same level as we do today. So your starting point is not from today. You carry over that tech from the past. All the sins and right choices made for "that" device. It was and is a fundamentally different approach to computing from then to now.
They run the same kernel, the same base system, the same frameworks, the same API's and in some cases the same SoC.
The correct terms/words would be based off the same Mac OS X technologies.
They differ in form factor but even that is debatable when you can get keyboards with trackpads for the iPads.
So why can't I run Final Cut on my iPad? Or AVID ProTools? Maybe today on an M1 or the last 2 or 3 A series chips. Care to try that on A1-9? Or should I just shove an intel CPU in the phone.
I also think the battery life thing is a bit of a stretch. Apple has really good power management not just on iPhone and iPad but on their Macs too. Being able to get over 12 hours on a laptop of active usage, not standby in a bag is actually incredible.
I still have a Ti PowerBook that would like to know what you're talking about. It hasn't always been great. And many of us wanted a PowerBook G5, that never came cause it wasn't going to work in a laptop. Then the switch to intel, and we got more power (eventually) than a G5 could give, and in a power envelope that was workable for what Apple wanted to design. Yes, you can get an top end intel CPU into a thin and light. But, you still sacrifice all the performance power to save battery life. Which is why Apple is ditching intel and making their own. The ARM chips are WAY better performance per watt used. My Mac Studio Max has yet to even be luke warm in the exhaust in the back. It's actually colder in the back then where I sit at my desk. It's almost a refrigerator. Meanwhile, we have tons of Dell SSFF (super small form factor) PC's the size of about a mac mini that generate WAY more heat. i5 or i7. Doesn't matter.
They are great with managing power, but the underlying technology helps a lot there.
I believe the trade offs are worth it, thus I want the ability. If you do not want it, then you don't have to install software outside of Apples app store.
By you making this choice forces me to have to choose. I can very well end up having to go third-party because my app is no longer on the store. So I have to compromise my security for you to have a choice. When you could just choose Android and leave me alone...
I would use the same system they have on macOS. Firstly the operating system is partitioned away from user data and is read-only. The Kernel will not allow writes to that area, period. Secondly all software would still need to be digitally signed with a developer certificate from Apple (which is how it's done on macOS) and thirdly Apple operates a revocation system so that bad software by bad developers can be disabled by voiding their certs.
Clearly you have paid no attention to what Apple has been dealing with security wise on the macOS. Just try and install something from outside the AppStore on Mac OS. How many prompts, how many sign-in? How many allows? I put on a few of our work Mac's Trend Micro AV software. It took 15 minutes (including the installation) to get it fully installed due to all the security and full disk access to allow, and restarts of the App and reboot of the OS. Its not like it used to be.
It works great on macOS. And for users who don't want to get into that can of worms they can choose to never allow third party stores or sideloading apps. It would be a choice left to the user.
It's now a choice left up to the developer. And developers have not always been kind to Apple.
I think your argument that allowing more apps somehow increases attack surface is very flawed as you can already install third party software on these devices through the App Store.
Via the AppStore gatekeeper. You only get on the store if you go through the process. And if it's a bad piece of software. Apple can pull it universally, and I would have support from Apple to get my phone back together if something really bad happened.
The origin of the software doesn't change the fact I can install a nefarious or broken app from Apples store directly.
Yes it does, that's called support. I can get support from Apple. Whom am I getting support from a 3rd party store? The Store or the developer of the app? Whom will blame whom?
Apple has had issues with privacy invasive software on the App Store and has had to revoke developer certificates in the past for apps they themselves vetted as safe and allowed onto the store.
Exactly, which is why we want to keep it that way. What incentive does a 3rd party have in keeping my device working well? They want to operate with less margins compared to Apple but somehow provide better service? Like I said above, if someone could do it better they are wasting time. Could be rolling in profits by now.
You can literally visit a website on almost every version of iOS and have the entire phone rooted because of browser engine flaws, flaws in the very browser engine that Apple forces all developers on iOS to use.
And Apple patches those flaws. No software is perfect. But, why would I want to worry about this AND the endless apps that are not properly monitored because they could be installed in ways I can't prevent? I don't visit bad sites, so I will never get rooted in such a manner. But, the fact that it's possible with current gatekeeping just speaks volumes to how much worse it would be if you could just install any app you want from a web-download.
Heck you could even send a text message to an iPhone as recently as last year and root the entire device and because you cannot install any kind of diagnostic software on the phone yourself to determine if it has been compromised or not you simply have to guess.
And yet people want to open up the device more? The limited ways we can get hacked now, lets just amplify that more. You're proving my point.
This was how Jeff Bezos was hacked by the leadership of Saudi Arabia (Mohammed bin Salman) who tried to then blackmail him with photographs he stole from his iPhone remotely.
Nation States have the resources to figure out ways to do such things. Imagine how much easier it would have been if they could just side load an app on his phone.
There have also been tetherable exploits where plugging the phone into a computer via Lightning lets you exploit weaknesses in its computer handshake to root the devices or even brute force the pass key in minutes.
So patch it so it doesn't happen again, and keep the other doors closed.
These devices are sadly not that secure as Apple likes to make them out to be, which I'm saddened by considering the amount of control they exert over them.
They seem to be more secure than you make them out to be.
Apple did this approach for monetary reasons and that's pretty much it.
Says every hater on earth. You do have to realize that you don't have developers chomping at the bit to make software for a platform that is brand new? Apple had to sell the phone first, get customers buying it. BEFORE a developer would commit their time, money and resources in the "chance" of being successful?
