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.
iPad Pro M1 iPad Pro...why?
- Thread starter jclardy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm predicting that most of the tech world is going to be severely disappointed with iPadOS 15. The big "leak" we got is that it's going to have the same widgets as the iPhone. There's been no rumors about a major overhaul. The general consensus for the next year will be that the iPad Pro is way overpowered for what it does (which is kind of already the consensus).
iPadOS 16 will be the major update and the 2021 iPad Pro will get most or all of the features.
iPadOS 16 will be the major update and the 2021 iPad Pro will get most or all of the features.
What do you all think of the article today about Apple having no plans to merge the Mac and iPad despite the M1 iPad?
I personally think Apple truly believes the Mac and iPad better serve most customers as separate devices. So I think the only way they’d create a merged product is if there was significant demand that says otherwise (like when phablets were highly demanded), but I don’t think the demand is there at the moment.
As far as the M1 chip iPad, I think Apple may just be consolidating. Getting rid of the AX chips since they’re basically the same. So the lower end iPads may later get older gen M chips. Apple may even get rid of the A chips altogether and put M chips in iPhones, who knows.
I personally think Apple truly believes the Mac and iPad better serve most customers as separate devices. So I think the only way they’d create a merged product is if there was significant demand that says otherwise (like when phablets were highly demanded), but I don’t think the demand is there at the moment.
As far as the M1 chip iPad, I think Apple may just be consolidating. Getting rid of the AX chips since they’re basically the same. So the lower end iPads may later get older gen M chips. Apple may even get rid of the A chips altogether and put M chips in iPhones, who knows.
Why would Apple merge them ever? As long as they both sell they have no incentive to, I also don't think merging them is what most consumers want as both comes with tradeoffs with the tech we have in the coming years.
I'm sure Apple has a clear plan for putting the M1 in the iPad Pros and I think they want the apps from Mac OS to get over to the iPad. I don't really want a traditional desktop OS on my iPad but I for sure want the software.
The statement they made just makes me more sure of this, they want to make the iPad the best tablet experience. That does not involve adding Mac OS to it but getting great software to it.
Totally, very good article.
It now makes a lot of sense that we'll get the ability to launch MacOS apps on the iPad just like we can launch iOS apps on the mac. If anything, it's actually more logical in this direction because at least you can add a keyboard and a trackpad to the iPad, you can't touch your mac's screen.
It now makes a lot of sense that we'll get the ability to launch MacOS apps on the iPad just like we can launch iOS apps on the mac. If anything, it's actually more logical in this direction because at least you can add a keyboard and a trackpad to the iPad, you can't touch your mac's screen.
They can but I doubt they'll do it for models with 64GB base storage. Also, I think it was mentioned in the keynote that the new iPad Pros have 2x faster storage. That's gonna factor in to whether they implement swap or not.
For heavy multitasking, RAM is a very important factor.
Ever since the introduction of the iPad, it’s been the best tablet experience… at this point, Apple wants to branch out from the stigma of tablet, that’s the purpose of “What’s a computer?” theme.
It’s this.. that’s what the M1 brings, better software cohesion between macOS and iPadOS. That’s what I think Apple has planned for the newest iPad Pro.
Gotcha, I’m seeing another data point for the common trend. For most people, the limitations seem to be 1) external hardware support (which makes sense, that’s not an area I do much with professionally, so I never would have hit any of iPadOS’s limitations or would have had simple workarounds for the ones I did hit), especially external display support and 2) the lack of capable third party applications. I don’t think the latter is an inherent failing of iPadOS (outside of software development, perhaps, but I can think of ways for Apple to address that within the context of iPadOS), but firms producing professional software either just don’t realize how powerful the iPad Pro is (perhaps they think of devices more like the iPad mini when they think of the iPad, but hopefully having an M1 processor in the new one will make them realize that the iPad Pro really does have a desktop class processor) or they have significant internal inertia around the breadwinner application and are hesitant to embrace anything that could affect its profit model (think Adobe and the slow process of getting Photoshop on iPadOS).
Oh, I forgot 3) limitations of the Files app. That’s a limitation of iPadOS, but not necessarily an inherent limitation. I suspect Files doesn’t have a clear champion inside Apple, despite its importance for the iPadOS, probably because it’s good enough for casual users. I’d still expect to see improvements for Files, as none of the limitations are inherent to iPadOS.
Some people also want multiple arbitrarily resizeable windows, or they want Windows virtualization, but those two complaints are less common than the three I mentioned. The latter, I expect Apple to partially solve (I expect them to add some virtualization features to iPadOS, as it would be a great way of addressing software development on the iPad [including native development], but Windows depends on Microsoft opening up ARM licensing), but the former doesn’t seem particularly iPad-fluent or touch fluent and would interfere with what Apple is doing with the iPad on the low end. I’d expect Apple to instead address most needs that usually are implemented on the desktop with multiple windows in a way that doesn’t require the old workflow. (I think people who want the OSes to merge are people who want resizable windows, but I think of that more as a barbarous relic of the past, especially on a touch native device. It was always one of the failings of Windows on touch screen devices)
Last edited:
Actually, there is one significant major failing that can be squared at Apple's doorstep which prevents people working as web designers, web developers, UX designers and pretty much anyone like myself who is involved in that industry from coding using an iPad (and it's not what you'd think it is).
It's the browser. Let me explain. Apple may have seemingly given users the choice this iOS version in picking the defaults for various apps, including web browsers (which means people can shift away from Safari) - but that's only good in theory. Why? Because every browser on iOS has to use the underlying rendering engine and JavaScript engine provided to it by Safari (WebKit). Essentially that means all iOS browsers (Including Chrome and Firefox) are Safari, just with candy wrapper shells. This is fine on the surface for things like managing bookmarks and stuff, but if you're anyone who works on the web and needs to test their gear in various browsers to ensure your work is compatible with everyone who isn't Apple - you're screwed.
People who make websites are a huge part of the creative industry, but Apple don't give a hoot. It's why Safari is a second class browser (that anyone who is a web developer professionally moans about constantly).
Oh yea, and iOS won't allow apps to run stuff in the background, which is bad if you're trying to work something in an iOS terminal / ssh client, or if you're trying to compile code while working on something else. Actually what holds most people back in the creative industry IS iOS (ask any media worker how much they like waiting for iOS to render / compile their videos before they can work on something else as iPads forbid background activity).
There are many many apps that need the power of the M1 on iPads. What iPad OS is lacking is the multi-tasking, or parallel working legacy stuff that MacOS delivers.
But if we are talking about just pure app experience, apps like Procreate, Photoshop, uMake, Shape3D, and Autocad requires high level of fidelity and smoothness along with the Apple Pencil, which can push the M1
I am not saying that iPadOS replaces MacOS for professional tasks, but it does not mean that it does not need the same power.
I see people having lots of fits because desktop chips are coming to the iPad or the corollary being their iMac having a tablet chip, since there is some kind of dissonance. Relax it I just a chip. It still has the same level of power.
But if we are talking about just pure app experience, apps like Procreate, Photoshop, uMake, Shape3D, and Autocad requires high level of fidelity and smoothness along with the Apple Pencil, which can push the M1
I am not saying that iPadOS replaces MacOS for professional tasks, but it does not mean that it does not need the same power.
I see people having lots of fits because desktop chips are coming to the iPad or the corollary being their iMac having a tablet chip, since there is some kind of dissonance. Relax it I just a chip. It still has the same level of power.
iPad will never run macOS (and it shouldn’t)
I have a different theory here.... I think that maybe, when you plug your iPad into a monitor, then it will run Mac OS. When you unplug it will run iPad OS. Currently, plugging in an iPad into a monitor is a horrible experience. And iPad OS is not optimized for that use case. So it will always...
forums.macrumors.com
That’s what I’m trying to say. Apple would only have incentive to merge if they have incentive to merge, ie. high demand that would otherwise go to competitors. But as we see, that’s not really the case. There are plenty of competitors trying to merge the laptop tablet experience with pretty limited sales success, surely nothing threatening Apple.
I don’t know if Mac apps can function without the support of macOS. For one thing, iPad apps work on macOS because iPad apps can function entirely in a sandbox, but Mac apps need an open file system which iPadOS can’t provide.
Mac apps doesn’t need an open file system to work, the file system has nothing to do with how most Mac apps function.
What is needed is for the same Apple libraries to be available on both platforms or a translation being available. My guess is this is where Apple is going to put work down, so that developers easily can release the same app for both platforms.
But I would think the types of Mac apps people want ported(not sure if correct term) to their iPads most are the heavy duty file creation type, eg. Final Cut. And I know a big complaint creation people have about the iPad is the closed file system, so I’d think they wouldn’t be happy if ported Mac apps worked with files in the same sandbox manner in iPadOS.
Economy of scale.
The M1 and any functionally equivalent "bespoke iPad Pro" processor that Apple would produce would be required to work in similar power/thermal budget and would yield roughly equivalent performance.
Why build another SOC that does the same things when the M1 would fit and provide the performance required?
Should they have just slapped an A14X badge on the M1? Because running a different production line for a marginally different processor that does the same stuff in the same/similar TDP would be pretty stupid.
You will likely find that due to the less efficient cooling, they may have clocked the m1 slightly lower in the iPad Pro vs. say a MacBook Pro 13", but the silicon is flexible enough to cover both products.
Economy of scale (stuffing the same SOC into multiple products) is how Apple is going to keep the cost of their product line down whilst delivering killer performance in the specific thermal/power budgets they hit.
I can't imagine the whining when the new Mac Pro perhaps comes with 4-8 M1 SOCs (or very close derivatives) onboard for 32-64 cores in a tightly integrated package. The recent M1 (not an M2, etc.) iMac confirms IMHO that this is where things are going. Apple is going to use the M1 package like lego bricks, much the same as AMD does with Ryzen chiplets. M1 is going to be milked for a while yet.
Maybe swapping out the local DRAM on the M1 packages for HBM2 (for on package super fast RAM as sort of an L4 cache) and then giving the user slots for bulk memory.
Intel/AMD does exactly the same thing - they only have typically 2-3 different designs for a given CPU generation and binning for performance/defect rate is how they get multiple models. They don't have different lines for the i3/i5/i7. It's just binning based on how well the end products work.
Apple is doing this too with the 7 vs. 8 GPU core options, and the iPad Pro is likely getting the best performing silicon they can produce; in order to run within the heavily constrained power/thermal budget inside the totally passive cooled iPad enclosure. The base MBA will get the worst silicon with some defective GPUs, the MacBook Pro 13" and MBA 8 GPU core variants will get the bulk of the "OK" cores.
edit:
And yes, I fully expect macOS and iPadOS for the Pro machines at least to start seeing a lot of cross over. The signs are there. Same SOC, similar RAM/storage capacities and a first party trackpad/keyboard combo. You don't need to be a genius to see where things are going. The iPad isn't going to kill the Mac. It's going to become a Mac. And vice versa. As more and more legacy stuff is ripped out of macOS (first Carbon and PPC, then 32 bit intel support, then shifting the Mac to M1, etc.), this is becoming increasingly trivial to implement.
It would very much not surprise me to see the exact same Mac/iPad applications for M1 including both user interfaces in the same app bundle at some point, and even iPadOS and macOS being merged to the point that the UI just shifts depending on whether or not a keyboard and trackpad is attached. Largely the same code is running underneath. Maybe a "macOS light" for the iPad when the trackpad/keyboard is connected.
This is where I see Apple winning vs. microsoft with the surface. Rather than forcing the same UI on both products, the backend application code will run the same on both platforms and the UI is just replaced depending on the platform. The fact that its all mostly swift/objc objects/classes in the back end with similar programming API for both UIs should make it fairly easy to do.
vs. the total disaster that is win32 application programming.
Apple is going to achieve what Microsoft tried and failed to achieve with Windows 8 onward, because they went about it with sound and long term engineering decisions and a 10+ year plan, rather than saddling desktop users with a mobile UI that a huge portion of their user base despised.
Apple has clearly had a plan. Microsoft? On end user devices at least - not so much. So much back-pedalling.
And yeah... anyone who thinks they will be DUAL BOOTING anything apple manufactured isn't paying attention. They can do this stuff without a reboot. You'll attach a keyboard and bam... you'll be in macOS with your applications STILL RUNNING most likely. Unplug and you'll transparently be switched back to the iPad UI. Same apps running. This will obviously only work for apps that include both UIs, but as above I think that's going to happen.
Oh and re: Craig saying "No" to merging macOS and iOS - times change. As do strategies and public announcements. Apple crapped on intel processors for years.... before making products with them.
Take any apple statements made by their staff with a pinch of salt - if there's a significant time elapsed since they were made. I agree with one of the posters above - I don't think you'll see iOS and macOS merge. They'll both be replaced with something like AppleOS.
Last edited:
I doubt what most people want available from the Mac would be content creation apps. If we are just looking at professional apps I would say software development tools or proper Office support are more in demand just by how many people work in that industries.
This is why most YouTube reviews are quite useless to watch, most people aren’t making YouTube videos in their professional life so it really isn’t relevant how good it is at editing a video.
If we don’t just look at professionals then games are most likely what the average person would want the most.
I guess we will have to move everything to the Cloud untill we get the same quality of software in iOS then I suppose, if you want to use it as a main machine.
It would be much nicer to have it work like a MacBook Pro, where you can do everything locally, especially with the M1 chip.
I agree that full Office support is probably the biggest demand. Developers may be above “creatives”, not sure, especially if we include designers and illustrators. But by file creation, I was actually meaning all of the above. But being a “creative” myself, I‘m not actually sure what file system requirements most developers and Office users have. Actually, I don’t even know what other creatives‘ requirements are outside of my specific job. I’m thinking it’s trickier to estimate these things than we think. But I’d be willing to bet we’d still see a lot of complaints from tech review sites if Mac apps on iPad can’t use an open file system haha.
I already actually store everything I care about on my Mac in iCloud Drive because that way I can get at it from any device, so the migration won't be as painful as some might think I reckon.
But what is an open file system? Do you really need to be able to delete any apps files from any other app? Most organisations today use some sort of cloud storage anyway.
I think what would help most people today isn‘t a full file system like the Mac but rather better integration against external storage (network or plugged in) as well as being able to launch default apps for all file sizes from “Files”.
It isn’t either iPad OS’s file system in it’s current form or what Mac OS has that are the options, improvements to the current system would be very good.
The whole "local filesystem" paradigm is going away IMHO. For some sooner than others, but long term - for everyone as network bandwidth and global connectivity improves.
If you're worried about where exactly a file is stored in 2020 you're kinda not taking advantage of the cloud way of thinking.
Where exactly it is, is not important so long as it is available on every device you use and you can find it - and you can export it.
People are going to adapt eventually - as network performance improves and applications evolve.
The benefits of working this way are huge. If I lose my primary device for example (theft/destruction/etc.) - all my current stuff is just synced to a new device. The endpoint is irrelevant/disposable. Whether its OneDrive, iCloud, DropBox or NextCloud/Owncloud - focusing on where things are on your individual device is something people should be trying to get go of (if they can, I will grant you there are edge cases where this doesn't make sense. but they're getting smaller and smaller - and mostly performance guarantee based. see the Steve Jobs "trucks vs. cars" analogy for the Mac vs the iPad, etc.).
edit:
I mean, I'm a tech nerd / enterprise SAN storage admin at work / etc. I ran my home NAS(es) (for the past 10-15 years) until the drives started dying in the current iteration of it this year. I can't be bothered with a replacement to be honest. I'll happily just pay Apple or Microsoft or Amazon for storage that is triple redundant, highly available, etc. and move on to some other problem that I can't just pay a few dollars a month for it to go away.
I mean to do reliable off-site redundancy for a few TB of data with my own hardware will be a couple of grand a year. Plus my time to set it up and babysit it. On my after-hours rate (which I value at say $150-200/hr - my after hours time is a lot less than my work time). Or what... pay Apple or Microsoft say $9/month? A hundred, two hundred bucks a year? It's a no brainer.
This doesn't just apply to iCloud, but Office 365, OneDrive/Sharepoint/Dropbox, etc. Every major platform is going this way because it just makes sense for most users. Building your own servers for this stuff in 2020 is pretty crazy unless you have very exceptional requirements.
And I'm sure some will say "but what if my internet is out?". Have you experienced an internet outage lately? Your phone, email, messages, etc. likely don't work so you can't collaborate or communicate with your team. Internet has become like water or electricity for most people and if it goes out, it isn't just your files you won't be able to work with.
The "what if my internet is out" ship sailed long ago. For most people reliable internet is a requirement of using a computer in the 2020s (and also the 2010s).
If you're worried about where exactly a file is stored in 2020 you're kinda not taking advantage of the cloud way of thinking.
Where exactly it is, is not important so long as it is available on every device you use and you can find it - and you can export it.
People are going to adapt eventually - as network performance improves and applications evolve.
The benefits of working this way are huge. If I lose my primary device for example (theft/destruction/etc.) - all my current stuff is just synced to a new device. The endpoint is irrelevant/disposable. Whether its OneDrive, iCloud, DropBox or NextCloud/Owncloud - focusing on where things are on your individual device is something people should be trying to get go of (if they can, I will grant you there are edge cases where this doesn't make sense. but they're getting smaller and smaller - and mostly performance guarantee based. see the Steve Jobs "trucks vs. cars" analogy for the Mac vs the iPad, etc.).
edit:
I mean, I'm a tech nerd / enterprise SAN storage admin at work / etc. I ran my home NAS(es) (for the past 10-15 years) until the drives started dying in the current iteration of it this year. I can't be bothered with a replacement to be honest. I'll happily just pay Apple or Microsoft or Amazon for storage that is triple redundant, highly available, etc. and move on to some other problem that I can't just pay a few dollars a month for it to go away.
I mean to do reliable off-site redundancy for a few TB of data with my own hardware will be a couple of grand a year. Plus my time to set it up and babysit it. On my after-hours rate (which I value at say $150-200/hr - my after hours time is a lot less than my work time). Or what... pay Apple or Microsoft say $9/month? A hundred, two hundred bucks a year? It's a no brainer.
This doesn't just apply to iCloud, but Office 365, OneDrive/Sharepoint/Dropbox, etc. Every major platform is going this way because it just makes sense for most users. Building your own servers for this stuff in 2020 is pretty crazy unless you have very exceptional requirements.
And I'm sure some will say "but what if my internet is out?". Have you experienced an internet outage lately? Your phone, email, messages, etc. likely don't work so you can't collaborate or communicate with your team. Internet has become like water or electricity for most people and if it goes out, it isn't just your files you won't be able to work with.
The "what if my internet is out" ship sailed long ago. For most people reliable internet is a requirement of using a computer in the 2020s (and also the 2010s).
Last edited:
offt, *shivers*. After losing stuff from iCloud for no apparent reason (and Apple support being useless), i have stayed well clear. For stuff that isn’t important. however, it is great for syncing across devices.
I'll add to that - I do also do local backups of my Mac (including its iCloud Drive), but rather than relying on a NAS for sync or whatever, its iCloud.
So yeah, if my iCloud was to be wiped, I do still have (multiple) local copies (one external drive at work, one at home).
Last edited: