Oh, I wouldn't pay too much attention to that term, it's a thought terminator used whenever someone does talk about legit issues like sexism in the tech space.
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 The iPad is not for traditional Mac users
- Thread starter Retskrad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Again, no. Absolutely no one wants to decrease the chip. I don’t know why you would even say that.
No clue why apps are only scaled down desktop versions but I cannot see what that has to do with the iPadOS. It must be a market decision of the app makers and not the OS fault. Apps on iPads are expected to cost at top 20 USD or being free. Completely unrealistic to get a good app economy around that.
Windows management: it is actually complicated and time consuming to handle windows. Full screen mode and split screen - nice and easy.
External display support - I agree but this is an advanced user feature. The average user is not going to use it so it.
External gear (like virtualisation) I associate with Macs (or rather PC which has better capabilities/apps for that) and not iPads. Apple does as well.
Price has nothing to do with it. IPhones are pricier than MacBooks and has hardware that can run MacOS. No one expects iPhone to run MacOS when docked (I might be wrong).
Apple made the error of questioning what a computer was for most people. I’d say the wrong target group tries to answer that question.
Because as soon as Apple used an M1, the complaints of "It's the same chip as the MacBook so it should run MacOS" began. Since the iPad wont run MacOS, the only logical conclusion is for Apple not to use an M1 chip.
Complaints date back to much earlier than that, and since Apple Silicon everybody knew that iPad pro was capable of running MacOS, but some could argue that RAM was not enough until 2020, with M1 there is finally spec parity... Is it still necessary, after this long thread, that I repeat that nobody here is asking to replace iPadOS with MacOS but to add it as an option? Just in case you missed it....
I don't expect it, but I wouldn't complain if the iPhone also got the M1 (even the SE) and packaged a dock with it, if it was affordable and marketed as a "back-up Mac" feature. Because unlike the iPad, you can fit an iPhone in your pocket. It would never, ever replace Macs or even the iPad, but for urgent situations (I can't think of many) it's at least a cool idea.
I agree with most of it - what I don't agree with is the idea that iPad somehow cant both be for power users and tech illiterate people.. I don't see why this would be the case. It can literally run the same software and I really do hope MacOS apps come to iPad. There is zero reasons for them not to.
I agree. ProCreate is the reason I got my iPad.
Apple allowing pro apps in the app store is only a win
I disagree. Options do make things more complex generally (and literally ?)
I dont think it makes business sense for Apple to invest time in making that Virtualized MacOS - but I see no harm from Apple allowing Parallels to do it instead.
And for us - its the same thing. I would be first to get virtualised OSX
I think Apple would only let in "Mac store apps", regarless of who does it, they really care about their 30%....
Still can't because Apple doesn't make an M1 with 32GB RAM; which is what you would need to swap between both running OSes. Apple wont choose dual-booting because its too clunky of a solution.
So Apple needs to limit it's chips to keep people from complaining that it doesn't run MacOS.
Yes exactly. This is what I keep saying. iPad OS is mostly fine
What we need is more powerful apps, not MacOS
What - do some people use the system itself for work? come on.. you use software for work, not the OS
Nope, that is not a logical conclusion at all. No one wants a slower processor in their iPad, not a single person would agree that’s a good idea. No one is calling for that other then you.
The fact that they put a better processor into the iPad, one that could handle an operating system that would allow people to do the things that they want to do, is a good reason for people to ask for Apple to make those things possible.
It makes absolutely no sense for you to conclude that those people would want a slower processor.
Most of the virtualization libraries for running a MacOS guest OS are already done on the M1. Apple would just have to add whatever is needed for when the keyboard and mouse/trackpad were missing.
And no Apple isn’t likely to do this for all the reasons above. But they should.
In the thread we also include computers for older people who are not computer savvy. Which OS was designed for them In mind? Actually none and perhaps iOS is the closest. Point is - by all means make the iPadOS (or apps) more capable but do not make iPadOS more complicated to use in the process. If it gets as complex as MacOS/Win, then it has no place. iPadOS is already now on the brink of being too complicated to use.
I see iPad and Mac/PC as different types of computers and wishes that both to stay true to their intended use case.
What sort of acces to filesystem do you want? iPad already provides you with it.. Do you want to be able to modify system files? Why are you not happy with the access to filesystem iPad is currently giving you?
I definitley dont want you to have acces to system files.
And I want not to have access to them either.
I want Apple to manage my system and my system files.
As for other files - I have all the access in the world, don’t you?
Well since a faster processor makes the dual OS proponents unhappy, they obviously need a slower one with less RAM.
But that's irrelevant since there is no M1 with more than 16GB, and you would need 32GB to have a good dual OS experience. So if such an iPad existed, the minimum you would spend is $2700 for a 32GB/1TB 13" iPad (imagine the outrage over a single port 13" MacBook), a pencil, and a magic keyboard.
I dont want them to do it.
I want iPad to remain a very robust device.
I also want Parallels to do it.
But more than that - I want Universal Apps to come to iPad
I don’t really care about MacOS, all I want is MacOS apps
Mostly I get your argument but I can't see why the iPad can't be both. Apple went through this whole 'your next computer might not be a computer' marketing campaign, I know a few of people who bought iPad Pros on the strength of that campaign then became frustrated that they couldn't do the same kind of things on it they would have been able to do on a same-price-or-cheaper Windows laptop because of constraints imposed by the OS and primitive apps which didn't live-up to the capabilities of their desktop equivalents. And this time I don't mean niche-interest apps like Cubase, but mainstream apps like Word (can you even add new fonts to an iPad? How would you even begin?). Consequently their expensive computer-priced iPad Pros became relegated to bedside content-consumption devices, which by and large you don't need to have invested in an iPad Pro for (large screen aside).
I have paid more than $20 for some specialist iPad apps, but you're right most people expect iPad apps to be either cheap or free, yet on a PC/Mac they're happy to pay (ok, begrudgingly accepting of the concept of paying) full price for the full-fat product. Why is that? Again, it's down to how most people see an iPad: simple content-consumption device they don't expect to compete on equal terms with their PC and Mac. Consequently, such apps don't get developed, despite the hardware being eminently capable.
Last edited:
That really doesn’t make much sense. Parallels is using the libraries that Apple developed to run MacOS guests on the Mac. So for Parallels to do MacOS virtualization on iPadOS, Apple would have to do most of the work.
No you don‘t. MacOS works on 8Gb just fine, so you need a 16GB iPad.
But I don’t want MacOS on iPad at all. Why would I want MacOS on iPad? That seems like a very un elegant solution to the problem. OS doesn't matter, iPad OS is fineeee.
But give me MacOS apps on iPad and I will be happy.
And with universal Apps I think this is coming! It will certainly make it very easy for developers to develop the same app for all systems.
A downloadable app is great as it does not increase the complexity of iPadOS. I know too little but is there limitations in iPadOS for such a virtualization app or is it a market decision from the app makers?
yes I agree with you.
Apple needs to make MacOS libraries and APIs available for iPad development.
But keep the iPad UI. It’s great for touch.
It’s a decision from Apple to make it possible. Right now the iPad’s M1 has virtualization support disabled on startup. Apple also has written the libraries that allow MacOS virtualization on MacOS and would need to provide them on iPadOS.
Fine for doing work on 8GB is debatable so unless you are proposing that dual OS is only available for people who do light work, there wont be dual OS unless there is an M1 with 32GB RAM and that currently doesn't exist. Not to mention, Mac OS currently uses as much RAM as available at a minimum MacOS would have to be rewritten to have a hard limit of only 50% of the available RAM; otherwise there wouldn't be enough RAM to switch between OSes without reloading everything each time you switch OSes. Unless you think that MacOS runs fine on 4GB RAM, everyone with an iPad with 8GB RAM wouldn't be able to use the dual-OS feature. Now also imagine how annoying that limit would be on Mac computers; you would have to buy double the RAM you normally would.
I don't know why people think that universal apps would work with two OSes that have different file systems; this difference affects something as simple as the Open/Save mechanism.
No. Again, that is not a logical nor a reasonable conclusion. That is just something that you continue to repeat for some strange reason. Absolutely no one would be happier with a slower processor.
As I’ve said multiple times, just because someone wants the software to keep up with the hardware, it doesn’t mean they would be happy to slow down the hardware to match the software. That makes perfect sense, but you’re unwilling to accept it because it goes against your argument.