iPad Pro The 4 kinds of iPadOS improvements

[kard32]

I feel like the discussions on iPadOS are all over the place because people are conflating four different kinds of improvements:

1 - People who want to port macOS into iPad
2 - People who want to import Mac-level pro apps (whether it’s full Photoshop or full Word, or like myself full Safari/Chrome etc)
3 - People who want to improve core iPadOS features (like allowing background processes; multiple audio streams; Files etc)
4 - People who are fine with the status quo.

Differentiating between these four would really go a long way in figuring out what people mean when they say they don’t like iPadOS.

 

[klasma]

I imagine that if iPadOS would become more power-user friendly (#3), it would also attract development of more full-fledged applications (#4). One problem is Apple is focusing on adding “spectacular” features like the AI-driven features announced today, another one is that third-party developers cannot enhance iPadOS like they can macOS (e.g. window management, file management, different touch gestures, alternative control center, etc.).

 

[ProbablyDylan]

I'm firmly in camp 3.There are things Apple can improve in iPadOS, like background tasks.

Argument against 1 - MacOS would not be good on a tablet. Have any of the people advocating for this used Windows 10 on a tablet? Desktop operating systems are not touch friendly. Can Apple make a touch-friendly version? Yes, probably, but the Windows 8 comparisons would be never-ending.

Argument against 2 - Apple cannot force developers to bring Pro apps to iPad - just like how they did not force developers to bring iPad apps to MacOS. Developers need to decide to do this themselves.

No argument against 4 - People are allowed to be happy.

 

[stinksroundhere]

I feel like the discussions on iPadOS are all over the place because people are conflating four different kinds of improvements:

1 - People who want to port macOS into iPad
2 - People who want to import Mac-level pro apps (whether it’s full Photoshop or full Word, or like myself full Safari/Chrome etc)
3 - People who want to improve core iPadOS features (like allowing background processes; multiple audio streams; Files etc)
4 - People who are fine with the status quo.

Differentiating between these four would really go a long way in figuring out what people mean when they say they don’t like iPadOS.

You can ignore the first group. macOS will become more streamlined, smoother and snappier once they no longer need to support Intel/Rosetta and other old apps. A major revamp will occur. iPadOS by then will have some better window management features. This will take place over the next 4 years.

As for the second group, a developer can build any pro application they want today on an iPad. There are no limitations on what a pro app can do. The only thing Apple asks in the developer documentation is that they should be mindful of battery life and heat.

Remember, these are handheld devices first. Users don't like having their hands warmed up when they are using apps.

There are plenty of pro level desktop class apps on the iPad, but developers need to appease the largest group of iPad customers and those are users who touch the screen. So desktop class apps have to be designed with touch, readability and ease of use in mind.

 

[Brakeman75]

I don't know where i fit within your 4 categories (I am not sure that I do) but for me i think those of us who want more from our IPAD pro devices could get it in one of three ways..All of which do not need to mess with IPADos.

1. Let us Dual Boot to Mac os while the Magic Keyboard is attached. Pop up a message when dual booting saying touch only works on IPADos. Add this as a power user option in settings.

2. Let us run a hypervisor aka Parallels or VMWare. This would solve my complaints and let me run what i want.

3. Give us an advanced option to Side-load apps that the EU will be getting. I have been downloading and running apps on PC's and Macs for many years. I can handle protecting my device myself.

Basically i dont want to carry multiple devices and i like IPADOS for the things it does great...but there are times when i need some expanded capability and 1 or 2 of my list solve it for me. Both of these would have 0 impact on users who currently love their IPAD as is.

 

[stinksroundhere]

Both of these would have 0 impact on users who currently love their IPAD as is.

Stating the obvious, macOS is a Mac OS. It's not optimised for touch or tablets. It consumes around 3 times more memory than iPadOS and already needs to sit on two partitions by itself.

The impact is 100% of anyone who does this will complain about a very warm screen and other annoyances, such as needing to scale macOS to a fat interface to make text readable.

The screen sits on the CPU and your hands interact with the screen. Users already complain about pen display tablets from Wacom and Huion for having a warm spot and those devices don't run an OS at all.

 

[Brakeman75]

Stating the obvious, macOS is a Mac OS. It's not optimised for touch or tablets. It consumes around 3 times more memory than iPadOS and already needs to sit on two partitions by itself.

The impact is 100% of anyone who does this will complain about a very warm screen and other annoyances, such as needing to scale macOS to a fat interface to make text readable.

The screen sits on the CPU and your hands interact with the screen. Users already complain about pen display tablets from Wacom and Huion for having a warm spot and those devices don't run an OS at all.

I said to be clear: For people who want no changes, and No MACos, and just want current IPADos, my ideas would have 0 impact on their experience. Do you agree? How does me running MACos in a dual boot configuration effect people who do not want to or have to? How does me wanting to run a Hypervisor effect people who dont want this? You cherry picked a quote of mine out of context and used to to make a different argument.. There is a path to having more options on the ipad without effecting those who want it to stay the same.

I indicated That I would be okay with the requirement to use the Magic Keyboard...thus I would have the mouse and keyboard required to operate MACos. At that point touch could be disabled. I agree MacOS and its apps are not ready for touch, but in this use case touch is unnecessary and yet i still get the experience i would want.

My Multiple Microsoft surface devices, like it or not, are touch tablet, They are not uncomfortable for me to use with my hand to touch or write on. But as i said i would not be using touch on MACos. This argument of yours makes zero sense on its face to me.

Ultimatly what are you trying to argue? You dont want me to have access to virtualization or dual boot cause i might have a bad experience? I dont need your protection. There are a ton of feature i dont use for my ipad, should i suggest they be removed cause I dont use them? Your arguments make zero sence to me. What is your motivation for wanting a less capable device for the end user?

 

[Brakeman75]

So I think one of the things that helps the discussion along and clears up some of my points is expectations of MACos. I don't ever see MACos or its apps running well with a touch interface. These legacy software systems were designed with different input in mind and shoehorning in a different method of input just makes it clunky. It would take years of work and there is no guarentee that it would ever end in a good spot. This is my experience of decades of use of the windows tablet devices. I agree with those that MACos would be poor in a touch first environment.

Thus i will say, if they allowed a dual boot in the IPAD PRO i believe two things:
1. They should require a keyboard and mouse be present to operate
2. They should just disable the touch screen

Of course the user would be made well aware of these limitations.

With these limitations in mind, the dual boot would still be tremendously valuable to me and would still have zero impact on users who just want the current ipad experience.

I could use the ipad with IPADos for the things it does well, and when i need a "Macbook Air" type environment, i could boot into MACos and be on my way.

I agree that some would be dissapointed in these restrictions. But this by itself would be a poor reason to not allow the feature.

 

[DaniTheFox]

I feel like the discussions on iPadOS are all over the place because people are conflating four different kinds of improvements:

1 - People who want to port macOS into iPad
2 - People who want to import Mac-level pro apps (whether it’s full Photoshop or full Word, or like myself full Safari/Chrome etc)
3 - People who want to improve core iPadOS features (like allowing background processes; multiple audio streams; Files etc)
4 - People who are fine with the status quo.

Differentiating between these four would really go a long way in figuring out what people mean when they say they don’t like iPadOS.

I hope the industry goes for #2. But as Apple can not do a lot for #2, they should concentrate for #3. Maybe this will trigger the industry towards #2.

 

[Slartibart]

I hope the industry goes for #2. But as Apple can not do a lot for #2, they should concentrate for #3. Maybe this will trigger the industry towards #2.

Actually certain pro apps can not come to iPadOS due to arbitrary restrictions Apple imposes. E.g. compiling binaries can be only wasm (outside Swift Playgrounds), no subsequent download/install of binaries within an app after install, etc.

 

[profdraper]

Don’t see it, MacOS is hardly capably of running on an atypical 8GB ram iPad.

 

[gusping]

I feel like the discussions on iPadOS are all over the place because people are conflating four different kinds of improvements:

1 - People who want to port macOS into iPad
2 - People who want to import Mac-level pro apps (whether it’s full Photoshop or full Word, or like myself full Safari/Chrome etc)
3 - People who want to improve core iPadOS features (like allowing background processes; multiple audio streams; Files etc)
4 - People who are fine with the status quo.

Differentiating between these four would really go a long way in figuring out what people mean when they say they don’t like iPadOS.

2 and 3 would do wonders for me if Apple made progress on them. 1 isn't happening.
It's all the small individual nusances in point 3 that, when combined, make using the iPad for anything meaningful one of the most frustrrating computing experiences possible. But I have zero faith Apple will change it anytime soon. I expect iPad prices to continue to rise and sales to stagnate as they already are doing....

 

[Abazigal]

I said to be clear: For people who want no changes, and No MACos, and just want current IPADos, my ideas would have 0 impact on their experience. Do you agree? How does me running MACos in a dual boot configuration effect people who do not want to or have to? How does me wanting to run a Hypervisor effect people who dont want this? You cherry picked a quote of mine out of context and used to to make a different argument.. There is a path to having more options on the ipad without effecting those who want it to stay the same.

I indicated That I would be okay with the requirement to use the Magic Keyboard...thus I would have the mouse and keyboard required to operate MACos. At that point touch could be disabled. I agree MacOS and its apps are not ready for touch, but in this use case touch is unnecessary and yet i still get the experience i would want.

My Multiple Microsoft surface devices, like it or not, are touch tablet, They are not uncomfortable for me to use with my hand to touch or write on. But as i said i would not be using touch on MACos. This argument of yours makes zero sense on its face to me.

Ultimatly what are you trying to argue? You dont want me to have access to virtualization or dual boot cause i might have a bad experience? I dont need your protection. There are a ton of feature i dont use for my ipad, should i suggest they be removed cause I dont use them? Your arguments make zero sence to me. What is your motivation for wanting a less capable device for the end user?

This is like going to a Japanese restaurant and suggesting that they serve Italian cuisine as well. “People can order what they like and what I eat doesn’t stop you from ordering your ramen”. It doesn’t change the fact that I go to a Japanese restaurant precisely to eat Japanese cuisine, not anything else.

It can have zero impact on my experience (let’s assume here that it takes minimal resources to store a copy of macOS in the ipad), I can recognise that it is an affront to everything that makes the ipad uniquely what it is, and still oppose the movement purely on ideology grounds.

Not everything here is solely about hardware specs and ticking odd features on a checklist. Identify matters, elegance matters, purity in design matters as well.

Keep the iPad an iPad. If the world demands that the iPad runs macOS, then I will fight the world that demands it.

 

[sputnikBA]

Support for #3 will enable support for #2 imo.

I still genuinely believe that a straight port of macOS to iPad would be a mistake (but is still preferable to keeping iPadOS as it is). I’d rather see more of macOS’ functionality implemented in ways that make sense to improve iPados though.

— less restrictive files system access (doesn’t need to be exactly finder) but closer to what finder is capable of on Mac
ie:

- to move assets between apps — eg if you are a photographer or designer or video editor or musician etc etc etc and you need to work with files with multiple apps - eg easier font management, audio samples, textures, project files etc.)


— less restriction on stuff working in background
a) background processes like exports that won’t cancel because you switch to another app,
b) plugin architecture for apps to enhance each other or additional functionality that adds value to Mac apps being easier to port

I’m not naive -- those are all have huge security implications, but they are standard features of macOS that would greatly improve workflows on iPadOS.

 

[blen]

There’s nothing stopping 2 from happening today, developers just need to invest in iPad and assume users will bring mouse/keyboard as needed.

 

[mrochester]

I said to be clear: For people who want no changes, and No MACos, and just want current IPADos, my ideas would have 0 impact on their experience. Do you agree? How does me running MACos in a dual boot configuration effect people who do not want to or have to? How does me wanting to run a Hypervisor effect people who dont want this? You cherry picked a quote of mine out of context and used to to make a different argument.. There is a path to having more options on the ipad without effecting those who want it to stay the same.

I indicated That I would be okay with the requirement to use the Magic Keyboard...thus I would have the mouse and keyboard required to operate MACos. At that point touch could be disabled. I agree MacOS and its apps are not ready for touch, but in this use case touch is unnecessary and yet i still get the experience i would want.

My Multiple Microsoft surface devices, like it or not, are touch tablet, They are not uncomfortable for me to use with my hand to touch or write on. But as i said i would not be using touch on MACos. This argument of yours makes zero sense on its face to me.

Ultimatly what are you trying to argue? You dont want me to have access to virtualization or dual boot cause i might have a bad experience? I dont need your protection. There are a ton of feature i dont use for my ipad, should i suggest they be removed cause I dont use them? Your arguments make zero sence to me. What is your motivation for wanting a less capable device for the end user?

Apple doesn’t want you to use macOS on the iPad because

a) macOS is not a touch based os
b) Apple wants you to buy an iPad and a Mac.

its as simple as that.

 

[gusping]

There’s nothing stopping 2 from happening today, developers just need to invest in iPad and assume users will bring mouse/keyboard as needed.

Even Apple don't support 2 with their own apps. Doesn't set a great example for other developers. Even using pages or numbers is painful on the iPad vs a Mac with a similar screen size.

 

[stinksroundhere]

I said to be clear: For people who want no changes, and No MACos, and just want current IPADos, my ideas would have 0 impact on their experience. Do you agree? How does me running MACos in a dual boot configuration effect people who do not want to or have to?

Do you mean macOS, I don't know what MACos is

You are failing to understand that users will screw around with a desktop OS on the iPad and find out quickly how bad it is to run a system and apps that isn't optimised for the tablet form factor. It leaves the tablet open to damage caused by applications such as Ollama or Blender which can generate a lot of heat.

It also increases development and support costs for Apple, so there is no benefit. There are almost no people asking for macOS on an iPad except for a a few vocal handfuls of attention seeking libertarian nuts and ignorants on the internet.

That's five partitions btw.

iPadOS uses two partitions. macOS uses three partitions including the hidden UEFI loader.

Both of them have completely different directory structures so they can't share the same user directory.

macOS isn't going to dual boot on an iPadOS anymore than iPadOS will dual boot on a Mac. Apple isn't going to MF their branding just to appease a little bit of viral mania on the internet.

If you do appease mad people they won't stop there. They will make more and more insane demands including running Linux and Windows natively on the iPad and they will not listen to your rationalisations.

 

[blen]

Even Apple don't support 2 with their own apps. Doesn't set a great example for other developers. Even using pages or numbers is painful on the iPad vs a Mac with a similar screen size.

These aren’t great apps even on the Mac. Google Docs/Sheets with a trackpad seems to work well in Safari…

 

[gusping]

These aren’t great apps even on the Mac. Google Docs/Sheets with a trackpad seems to work well in Safari…

Agreed. They are incredibly basic and the UI is junk compared to even MS Word imo.