iPad Pro Is Parallels/Fusion VM for M1 iPad our best hope for Mac/Windows on iPad?

[bscheffel]

I think it is doubtful that Apple will officially support MacOS dual boot on iPad Pro anytime soon but how feasible is a version of Parallels/VMware Fusion for M1 iPads to get "desktop" OS on iPad? (although Parallels doesn't yet support Big Sur VM until later this year, but Windows ARM is supported)
The latest version of Parallels supports M1 Macs so why not a version for M1 iPad? Hardware is not an issue now with M1 8GB/16GB iPads. I assume it would require App Store policy changes to allow a true VM application but does iPadOS support hypervisor?
Allowing VM's on iPad is a bone Apple could throw us. There are use cases where I need a desktop OS to get something done and I'd happily boot a VM when needed. Jump desktop helps today but it's not suitable for some work.

 

[007p]

Yes. I think there is a far better chance of getting VMs than native booting capabilities.

See this Twitter thread about it:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383789987146002434

Theoretically Apple could control it via entitlements, limiting who could utilise the framework. Not sure whether that would help or not with getting big sur on a VM but hopefully the big names could work it out.

Keeps iPadOS completely intact, while allowing more advanced users the ability to take advantage of the hardware when they need to. And it certainly wouldn’t kill the Mac/MacBooks as a vm is never going to be as good as running natively.

 

[bscheffel]

Yes. I think there is a far better chance of getting VMs than native booting capabilities.

See this Twitter thread about it:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383789987146002434

Theoretically Apple could control it via entitlements, limiting who could utilise the framework. Not sure whether that would help or not with getting big sur on a VM but hopefully the big names could work it out.

Keeps iPadOS completely intact, while allowing more advanced users the ability to take advantage of the hardware when they need to. And it certainly wouldn’t kill the Mac/MacBooks as a vm is never going to be as good as running natively.

This is good that the discussion is happening. I agree that it is an easy way for Apple to appease those iPad users that want it without changing iPadOS fundamentally. Based on the recent Joswiak/Ternus interview where they talked about "headroom" in new iPad this would be a perfect opportunity for them to say "Gee whiz just look at what our wonderful developer community has done to take advantage of the new iPad hardware. Proudly announcing Parallels has been approved in the App Store to bring VM capabilities to iPadOS". Parallels/Apple make it happen please!

 

[AutomaticApple]

This is good that the discussion is happening. I agree that it is an easy way for Apple to appease those iPad users that want it without changing iPadOS fundamentally. Based on the recent Joswiak/Ternus interview where they talked about "headroom" in new iPad this would be a perfect opportunity for them to say "Gee whiz just look at what our wonderful developer community has done to take advantage of the new iPad hardware. Proudly announcing Parallels has been approved in the App Store to bring VM capabilities to iPadOS". Parallels/Apple make it happen please!

They would never allow that in the App Store.

 

[bscheffel]

They would never allow that in the App Store.

Hopefully we will be pleasantly surprised, like we were with the 8gb/16gb announcement. With IPP maxing out at 6GB RAM before the experience would be painful (look at UTM for example - allocating memory is a constraint) but with 8GB/16GB RAM performance would be fine (look at the M1 MacBook Air).

 

[Yoms]

They would never allow that in the App Store.

Is there an App Store rule that prevent this from happening at the moment?

 

[Yoms]

BTW, I'm really curious about something that hasn't been mentioned. Say Parallels and VMware Fusion for M1 iPad Pro are released. These softwares still need an OS. So, will Apple provide macOS for free to people who bought... an M1 iPad Pro?

 

[AutomaticApple]

Is there an App Store rule that prevent this from happening at the moment?

Yes, it could be used as a loophole.

 

[bscheffel]

BTW, I'm really curious about something that hasn't been mentioned. Say Parallels and VMware Fusion for M1 iPad Pro are released. These softwares still need an OS. So, will Apple provide macOS for free to people who bought... an M1 iPad Pro?

Good question - at the moment Big Sur is not available as a guest OS on M1 Macs. Apparently the way they boot is different than the Intel versions of previous MacOS - however Parallels is projecting to support Big Sur as guest OS this year. In order to have a Big Sur VM on iPad, Apple would have to alter the Big Sur installer to allow installation on hardware that identifies itself as “M1 iPad”.

 

[Internaut]

Dual boot? I'd agree unlikely. iPadOS and MacOS sitting side by side, on a Level 1 Hypervisor, is IMHO a distinct possibility. What else are we going to do with all that power and storage on a crazy maxed out M1 iPad Pro?

 

[Yoms]

Yes, it could be used as a loophole.

Mmmm, can you elaborate?

Because as I see it, there's no loophole since the app that runs on iPadOS won't be macOS per se, but VMware Fusion or Parallels. And that app itself would still be sandboxed within iPadOS and comply with existing AppStore rules. And I'm pretty sure Apple will have a pretty good look at it before validating such an app on the store.

 

[Yoms]

As of today, the best options are and will still be for some time (Apple, please make me wrong) to connect to another Mac locally using Sidecar/Luna Display or remotely using an app like JumpDesktop or by paying a monthly subscription and renting a Mac in the cloud.

 

[AutomaticApple]

Mmmm, can you elaborate?

Because as I see it, there's no loophole since the app that runs on iPadOS won't be macOS per se, but VMware Fusion or Parallels. And that app itself would still be sandboxed within iPadOS and comply with existing AppStore rules. And I'm pretty sure Apple will have a pretty good look at it before validating such an app on the store.

It could allow you to view pornography. That's one example. ?‍♂️

 

[Yoms]

It could allow you to view pornography. That's one example. ?‍♂️

What???????????
You can watch porn on iPadOS and I don't see why this is a loophole in the OS itself.

 

[appleisler]

Currently I rent a windows cloud machine from Paperspace and use Jump Desktop on iPP 11” and it works great. I also used Jump to get into my iMac occasionally. Will be getting a new IMac and plan to use my Paperspace machine on there as well for the time being.

 

[AutomaticApple]

What???????????
You can watch porn on iPadOS and I don't see why this is a loophole in the OS itself.

No, my point is that pornography isn't allowed on the App Store.

 

[Yoms]

No, my point is that pornography isn't allowed on the App Store.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. I don't know what you mean. What has bringing a VMware/Parallels iPad app to the AppStore to do with pornography?

 

[007p]

I'm sorry, I'm confused. I don't know what you mean. What has bringing a VMware/Parallels iPad app to the AppStore to do with pornography?

Basically Apple ‘believes’ it controls what applications, and therefore almost anything you can do on the device (minus web browsing), through the App Store. It’s why they are against sideloading and virtual machines.

In allowing virtual machines someone could theoretically just use that to lose all the hand holding and restrictions Apple has put in place. Now for us, that’s want we want, but Apple will argue it would be harmful to their consumers.

In reality it’s just harmful to the App Store profits. If someone could just install a VM running macOS as the only application on the device, it would potentially greatly reduce their App Store revenue. Apple loves to interchangeably use ‘security’ with ‘profits’. Sideloading definitely does not bypass their security, nor would VMs technically as they would still be sandboxed.

I believe that is what they are referring to by ‘loophole’, basically you’d be bypassing the App Store.

 

[Lucifer666]

There's a big difference between side loading and virtual machines. And anyway, the reason Apple doesn't like side loading, is that the app makers don't want it. They initially were fine with it until these makers cried foul. Everyone saw that coming.

So it's not a security issue. And since when has Apple been against virtual machines? and besides that there's no talk of it even (besides here) for iPad OS.

Apple is flexible. But granted there may be some issues, but I doubt it. Chances are we will see this. Just will increase sales in a big way.

 

[bscheffel]

Currently I rent a windows cloud machine from Paperspace and use Jump Desktop on iPP 11” and it works great. I also used Jump to get into my iMac occasionally. Will be getting a new IMac and plan to use my Paperspace machine on there as well for the time being.

I also use Jump desktop from my iPad Pro to my Mac Mini and it does bridge some functions that can't be done on iPad directly (add ALAC to iTunes library, use that website that just doesn't load right on iPad, etc.) but its not really useable for running applications with detailed user interface elements or audio needs like Logic Pro. A VM would get me closer...

 

[AutomaticApple]

Basically Apple ‘believes’ it controls what applications, and therefore almost anything you can do on the device (minus web browsing), through the App Store. It’s why they are against sideloading and virtual machines.

In allowing virtual machines someone could theoretically just use that to lose all the hand holding and restrictions Apple has put in place. Now for us, that’s want we want, but Apple will argue it would be harmful to their consumers.

In reality it’s just harmful to the App Store profits. If someone could just install a VM running macOS as the only application on the device, it would potentially greatly reduce their App Store revenue. Apple loves to interchangeably use ‘security’ with ‘profits’. Sideloading definitely does not bypass their security, nor would VMs technically as they would still be sandboxed.

I believe that is what they are referring to by ‘loophole’, basically you’d be bypassing the App Store.

Yes, that's what I meant @Yoms.

 

[Yoms]

...

Thanks for the explanation.

I guess we'll see. I really have low expectations tbh.

I think - call me pessimistic - that all the fuss about "what's the use of a M1 chip inside an iPad Pro?" has nothing to do with dual boot macOS/iPadOS or allowing VMs. I think everything will stay the same OS-wise, i.e. iPadOS not providing any more flexibility. In order to "justify" the use of M1, Apple will bring apps like Logic and FCP to the iPad, probably restricted to the iPad Pro. Nothing more than this sadly.

I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[appleisler]

In order to "justify" the use of M1, Apple will bring apps like Logic and FCP to the iPad, probably restricted to the iPad Pro. Nothing more than this sadly.

I hope I'm wrong though.

You know I wouldn’t mind that - full function apps directly onto iPad - I actually love how coherence in Parallels gives you this illusion.

But sadly Excel is probably the only windows app that I use that is mainstream big enough to even hope for this especially as its Microsoft and they can’t even be *rsed to give Excel for Mac the same features as it has in the windows version. However it would be so cool if there was one ‘full feature’ Microsoft Excel app that could run on any M1 device.