Universal Control is a Result of Years of Work on iPadOS, Says Apple Product Manager

BootsWalking said:
The original poster said the integration was unique to Apple - it isn't. Logitech and others have had this integration between desktops, notebooks, and tablets for years. There's no cleverness required to state the obvious but the original poster apparently wasn't aware this feature predates Apple by a considerable period of time.
Click to expand...

This type of integration existed for a long time. Apple “just” did it a lot better.

It’s almost a pattern at this point.
 
Wildkraut said:
So the Apple folks sat there in uncountable meetings thumb twiddling, till someone shouted “Hey let’s snatch the open source code of Synergy, adapt it and call it Universal Control, but limit it to Apple devices…” ? ??. Then it took them a few more years to understand the existing code base to modify it in a way that they could publicly say “We invented something amazing gorgeous, the best feature ever…” ?
Click to expand...

This is a very reductive take.

They made it work with iPads, first and foremost - and in order to get it to work, they had to add many dramatic changes to iPadOS, including really good mouse support.

They also made it work in a way that is much more reliable and performant than Synergy or Logi Options ever was.

They limit it to their devices because they focus their experience to their ecosystem. Of course they do it because it is in their interest, but the consequence of this is really tight integration you just don’t find in multi-platform solutions. Most Apple customers love this approach. If you want multi-platform solutions for various hardware options, Apple should not be your first choice.

UC is amazing. We get it - you’re not the target demographic for this. It’s ok, Apple has a certain approach that’s not for everyone. As a long-time macOS and iPadOS user, this is one of the best features in a long time. It was obviously designed with great care and as a result of a long-term strategy.
 
cpnotebook80 said:
How can you go to home screen on ipad with the universal control mouse cursor esp if you open an app and you need to close out of it? I had to use my hands to swipe on the screen. Is there something i am missing
Click to expand...

While it works best with a trackpad (the gestures are the same) you can use a mouse, just like you would if it was connected to the iPad directly:

Just pull the mouse pointer towards the bottom edge of iPad’s screen, as if you wanted to bring up the Dock. Keep pulling downwards and you’ll go to Home (note: you don’t have to click, just pull the pointer downwards until you get to Home)
 
idmean said:
This doesn’t allow you to drag and drop files. This only shares the cursor and implements something akin to Universal Clipboard, which Apple introduced more than five years ago.
Click to expand...
Drag and drop files? Next you'll be expecting an actual file system! Those things aren't for the privacy/security crowd, they are far too dangerous. If you want to play with fire, get yourself macOS, sunshine. But remember, the iPad is the only computer you'll ever need, so stay safe and stick with iPadOS :D
 
aevan said:
iPad apps which co-exist next to your Mac, in addition to a great second screen? There are so many use cases, not sure what confuses you.

I often use Procreate to doodle some things and transfer them into my documents. Great for feedback. I have chat apps and notes open on my iPad - the way it works with full/half screen apps is great for these kind of usages.

It’s basically like a having a portable second monitor, but working 120hz without any lag wirelessly. With great apps optimized for its size. And with some apps that are not found on a Mac. Best of both worlds, working seamlessly - you almost forget it’s two devices.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
Likely why I struggle. For heavy use I have two 27” 2k monitors. I only use my iPad for consumption and some lighter photo and doc review stuff. I really don’t have a good personal use case.
 
entropys said:
Let’s not pretend Files on iPad is in any way comparable to a proper file system able to access any directory on a network. It is the one of the biggest limitations of iPadOS, right up there with proper multitasking and windowing, and multiuser accounts. I am sure with more reflection there are others, but off the top of my head those are the biggest irritants from my workplace.
Click to expand...
I can access my server on my network just fine in files and by using other apps as a file access app.

The file system the iPad uses is the same file system the mac uses, APFS.

And windowing and multitasking are not related to either the files app or the file system. ?‍♂️

Or is this suddenly now a “The iPad is useless to everyone because ‘I’ can’t do this” type thread?
 
BootsWalking said:
Outside of the automatic setup and drag 'n drop support (vs cut 'n paste) the implementations are indistinguishable.
Click to expand...

It’s much more reliable and consistent and works on iPads. Then, there is all the work they did on iPad side prior to UC, like cursor support. Combined, it gives a great experience - it’s the fact that it’s not just control of a second computer, but control of iPadOS and how it combines with macOS that makes it unique. iPad was a great computer for some people, but a great companion device for others. Now it’s a much better companion device for that group.

When used on two Macs, it’s just the reliability and consistency part, which is still a big deal. And the performance - there’s practically no delay when moving between screens, something I can’t say for Synergy or Logi Options. Of course, these two offer something UC doesn’t - multi-platform support.
 
Karma*Police said:
The reason why users have both a Mac and iPad is because of the limitations you’ve imposed on both platforms! Instead of wasting time and resources to create universal control, you should have figured out a way create one uber OS by merging the best of iPad OS and Mac OS. This would have massive benefits for Apple, developers, and users.
Click to expand...
The reason is to sell more devices, nothing else. That is why we have no multiuser support for iPhone or iPad - albeit it is part of the basic design of iOS due to its macos foundation.

And that is why no iPad will be allowed which is not tied to the same Apple ID.

The M1 iPads are basically Macbook Airs without keyboards. Have a magnetically attached one would instantly turn it into the best Macbook Air ever - if it just would run macos.

I don't see their interest in coherent design and function benefiting us users first. Things get more complicated, too, for no apparent reason other than that their different departments don't talk to each other about decisions regarding hardware and software integration.
 
Last edited:
giffut said:
The reason is to sell more devices, nothing else. That is why we have no multiuser support for iPhone or iPad - albeit it is part of the basic design of iOS due to its macos foundation.

...
Click to expand...
This. They really want to keep the iPad in a role as an appendage to a Mac. Macs are more expensive and are quite possibly upgraded more often than iPads.
 
aevan said:
It’s much more reliable and consistent and works on iPads. Then, there is all the work they did on iPad side prior to UC, like cursor support. Combined, it gives a great experience - it’s the fact that it’s not just control of a second computer, but control of iPadOS and how it combines with macOS that makes it unique. iPad was a great computer for some people, but a great companion device for others. Now it’s a much better companion device for that group.

When used on two Macs, it’s just the reliability and consistency part, which is still a big deal. And the performance - there’s practically no delay when moving between screens, something I can’t say for Synergy or Logi Options. Of course, these two offer something UC doesn’t - multi-platform support.
Click to expand...
Just curious, do you find AirDrop "reliable and consistent" as well?
 
arobert3434 said:
That was my interpretation of "Result of Years of Work" to duplicate something that already existed in open source (though not for iPad) and with all the prerequisites (mouse support, etc.) present on the iPad.
Click to expand...

But they are counting those prerequisites as part of those years.

The existence of an OSS project also doesn't mean a competitor isn't work. Even if UC uses some of Synergy's code (I don't believe it does), there's plenty of work to do for auth, UI, reconnect handling, etc.
 
blackcrayon said:
You mean that it's organized differently and you don't like the interface?
Click to expand...

No, most of it can't be accessed.

This also isn't about what I "like". If you bring up that iOS is APFS, which is technically true, you can't be surprised if people point out that that's completely irrelevant to the user, who only gets a very high abstraction of the file system. You either deliberately or inadvertently missed @entropys's original point.
 
chucker23n1 said:
No, most of it can't be accessed.

This also isn't about what I "like". If you bring up that iOS is APFS, which is technically true, you can't be surprised if people point out that that's completely irrelevant to the user, who only gets a very high abstraction of the file system. You either deliberately or inadvertently missed @entropys's original point.
Click to expand...
Ok, now it's "most of it" can't be accessed instead of "can't be accessed"? Are you referring to not being able to dig around in /Library or something?

I didn't say anything about the underlying file system technology. Just that I can "access" it in most of the usual ways just fine- yes it's divided into individual app folders or folders I create. But i can still copy, save, rename, move files in these folders. I can fire up iSH and manipulate files in these folders from a linux shell.
It's far from "can't be accessed".
 
blackcrayon said:
Ok, now it's "most of it" can't be accessed instead of "can't be accessed"?
Click to expand...

You get an abstraction layer on top of the file system, rather than the actual file system.

blackcrayon said:
Are you referring to not being able to dig around in /Library or something?
Click to expand...

You literally don't get access to any folders in the actual file system.

blackcrayon said:
I didn't say anything about the underlying file system technology. Just that I can "access" it in most of the usual ways just fine- yes it's divided into individual app folders or folders I create. But i can still copy, save, rename, move files in these folders. I can fire up iSH and manipulate files in these folders from a linux shell.
It's far from "can't be accessed".
Click to expand...

I don't understand the point of this argument. You clearly know what everyone is saying.
 
chucker23n1 said:
You get an abstraction layer on top of the file system, rather than the actual file system.



You literally don't get access to any folders in the actual file system.



I don't understand the point of this argument. You clearly know what everyone is saying.
Click to expand...
I guess I don't understand the point of your original statement I replied to. If "you can't access the file system in as many ways as you can with macOS" equals "It can't be accessed", then I apologize for replying :D
You said that, and I explained some ways (some quite "in depth", actually) that it could.
 
blackcrayon said:
I guess I don't understand the point of your original statement I replied to. If "you can't access the file system in as many ways as you can with macOS" equals "It can't be accessed", then I apologize for replying :D
You said that, and I explained some ways (some quite "in depth", actually) that it could.
Click to expand...

You can't move files around between apps. You can't move apps around either. You can't — other than through iCloud or iTunes/Finder — make a backup.

Here's what they originally said:

"Let’s not pretend Files on iPad is in any way comparable to a proper file system able to access any directory on a network. It is the one of the biggest limitations of iPadOS"

And that's very valid. Does this limitation also come with advantages? Yes. But it's a limitation nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top