All iPads The iPad will never be a Mac, and the Mac will never be an iPad

[Kal Madda]

No, it's what makes the argument about the iPad being a potential Mac replacement even exist. Once the iPad went M1 everyone assumed more was coming from the OS to make it a TRUE MacBook replacement/alternative, which just hasn't come to fruition (and likely never will).

Sadly, people were debating that before the M1 came to the iPad Pro. People have been debating this for a very long time now.

 

[bcortens]

No, it's what makes the argument about the iPad being a potential Mac replacement even still exist. Once the iPad went M1 everyone assumed more was coming from the OS to make it a TRUE MacBook replacement/alternative, which just hasn't come to fruition (and likely never will).

This is just because the name “M1” is breaking people. If they had called it an A14X (but it was secretly exactly the same as the M1) would that make you happy? The M1 is just the A14X with a few extra bits to make it more suitable for the Mac (I think it was the M1 that brought 32bit ALUs to Apple’s GPUs For instance. However since then the A series and M series have had a common GPU uarch)

 

[heretiq]

No, it's what makes the argument about the iPad being a potential Mac replacement even still exist. Once the iPad went M1 everyone assumed more was coming from the OS to make it a TRUE MacBook replacement/alternative, which just hasn't come to fruition (and likely never will).

This is nonsensical for two reasons:

1. Why would Apple suddenly re-position the iPad as a MacBook replacement after they went out of their way to design and position it as a complementary device to both the Mac and iPhone?
2. Can you name one other computer where you or anyone else would argue against making its processor more powerful .. or credibly state why a more powerful processor is a bad thing??

What really happened is that people who have no idea why the iPad exists projected their wishes on the device and are now blaming Apple for their unfulfilled pipe dreams.

 

[pdoherty]

It’s not a direct port, nor is it “no compromises”. There is not a single piece of software running on iPad that is not built with the iPadOS SDK and running within the bounds and restrictions of an iPad app.

Considering it's the full game, the onus is on you to prove what's compromised about it.

 

[pdoherty]

They are no different than any of the last few years worth of iPads in that regard. Not meaningfully different anyway. You are reaching, and not understanding of what you’re reaching for.

What evidence do you have that the heat sinks are irrelevant in allowing better performance? Was Apple just wasting time, money and effort adding it?

 

[Kahnforever]

These distinctions provide a reasonably thorough elaboration of the differences between the iPad and a Mac. And while some of them may make the Mac or iPad more or less suitable in certain scenarios or use cases, none of them individually or collectively make the Mac more capable for “professional” work than the iPad. They are both specialized computers that are capable of facilitating a set of unique and overlapping professional and non-professional use cases in varying degrees. Users can make a better choice by simply choosing the one that works best for their particular circumstances and use cases vs relying on opinions of suitability for arbitrary definitions of “professional work.”

I appreciate your perspective, but the fundamental differences between the iPad and Mac in terms of professional suitability can't be overlooked. There is no arbitrary distinction between professional work on a Mac vs. an iPad. The Mac’s ability to run specialized, resource-intensive software like xCode, AutoCad, full blown Adobe applications and not the mobile shells, advanced data analysis tools, etc. is unparalleled. These applications are essential for various professional fields that are used to make the software that you use; that design the buildings you're in... many of these applications simply do not have full-featured counterparts in most cases on the iPad. Additionally, the Mac’s support for multi-monitor setups, extensive peripheral integration, and superior thermal management enables sustained high performance and multitasking capabilities that the iPad can't match. These are critical features for professionals who rely on their devices for complex, high-demand tasks.

The definition of professional is important. I will keep repeating Steve Jobs's analogy of trucks and cars. Macs are trucks, iPads and iPhones are cars.

Furthermore, the ergonomics and precision input of the Mac, with its point and click controller and bitmap screen precise to the level of just 1 pixel, are indispensable for tasks requiring detailed, precise control. The iPad, while excellent for portability and specific use cases with its small screens and thin and lightweight package, falls short in scenarios demanding such precision and efficiency. By downplaying these differences, we end up oversimplifying the use cases of professionals who need the inherent strengths of the Mac while accepting the limitations of iPads and iPhones. While both the Mac and iPad have their place, the Mac’s design and capabilities make it the more robust choice for a broader range of professional applications.

 

[heretiq]

The definition of professional is important. I will keep repeating Steve Jobs's analogy of trucks and cars. Macs are trucks, iPads and iPhones are cars.

So, what are you saying?

1. Those those who use trucks to make a living are professionals, but those who use cars are not professionals?
2. Truck drivers are more professional than car drivers? Or,
3. Both are professionals, but they use different tools to make a living.

Please pick one.

 

[Jensend]

Trying to put all tools into one tool doesn't work, and even if you can get by with it, it compromises the tool in various ways.

Allowing an iPad to optionally dual boot into MacOS does not make it a worse iPad, except if it causes some developers to use that as an excuse to forgo making an iPad version of an app.

It's more like this: Lawn Mower A... has no air intakes or engine cooling fans,

Stop bringing up fans. No one is saying Apple should stop making Macs with fans. You're arguing against a strawman who says cooling fans are never beneficial. The fact is, the best selling Mac has no cooling fans.

The 12.9”/13" iPad has almost identical screen area as an M1 MacBook Air, and supports the same external display options as the M1 and M2 MacBook Airs. So display options are off the table as well if we are discussing the minimum viable Mac.

How about battery life? Well, Apple sells many models of Mac without a battery.

Keyboard and mouse? Those work with an iPad.

As far as sustained high-performance workflows are concerned, so what? I doubt that will be an issue for the majority of users, and if rendering a video for export takes 20% extra time, is that worth buying an extra $2000 computer to remedy?

But if every product was made in a way to please everyone, we’d just be pumping out a lawn mower with wings.

No, that analogy doesn't work, because an iPad Pro could be a decent Mac with zero changes to the hardware.

 

[Rafterman]

No, that analogy doesn't work, because an iPad Pro could be a decent Mac with zero changes to the hardware.

Yep. No one is expecting M3 Max 16 core/40 core GPU performance for an iPad. But iPad Pros can compete with users who like MacBook Airs.

 

[heretiq]

Yep. No one is expecting M3 Max 16 core/40 core GPU performance for an iPad. But iPad Pros can compete with users who like MacBook Airs.

+1. iPad Pros *do* compete with MacBook Airs for certain users — as do iPhones. These devices are all specialized computers with overlapping use cases. For certain users, device A works best; for other users device B or C is the best device. The importance of individual use cases vary from person to person — so absolute statements about device suitability are at best personal opinions.

 

[Kahnforever]

So, what are you saying?

1. Those those who use trucks to make a living are professionals, but those who use cars are not professionals?
2. Truck drivers are more professional than car drivers? Or,
3. Both are professionals, but they use different tools to make a living.

Please pick one.

If you read the conversation it was clear: “macOS and Macs ARE MORE GEARED for professional use than iPadOS and iPads.” It doesn’t mean iPads can’t be used for professional applications.

There is a spectrum of use: on one side, strictly consumer use. On the other, progressively more professional. In the middle, prosumer.

 

[Kahnforever]

Allowing an iPad to optionally dual boot into MacOS does not make it a worse iPad, except if it causes some developers to use that as an excuse to forgo making an iPad version of an app.


Stop bringing up fans. No one is saying Apple should stop making Macs with fans. You're arguing against a strawman who says cooling fans are never beneficial. The fact is, the best selling Mac has no cooling fans.

The 12.9”/13" iPad has almost identical screen area as an M1 MacBook Air, and supports the same external display options as the M1 and M2 MacBook Airs. So display options are off the table as well if we are discussing the minimum viable Mac.

How about battery life? Well, Apple sells many models of Mac without a battery.

Keyboard and mouse? Those work with an iPad.

As far as sustained high-performance workflows are concerned, so what? I doubt that will be an issue for the majority of users, and if rendering a video for export takes 20% extra time, is that worth buying an extra $2000 computer to remedy?

No, that analogy doesn't work, because an iPad Pro could be a decent Mac with zero changes to the hardware.

iPads cannot deal with macOS and the set of pro Mac applications. They neither have the screen size nor the thermal envelopes to run them properly and they would need to be plugged in most of the time because their run-time would be in the minutes or a few hours.

The 13” iPad is an exception for screen size but the other issues still apply.

 

[heretiq]

If you read the conversation it was clear: “macOS and Macs ARE MORE GEARED for professional use than iPadOS and iPads.” It doesn’t mean iPads can’t be used for professional applications.

There is a spectrum of use: on one side, strictly consumer use. On the other, progressively more professional. In the middle, prosumer.

Ok. I’ll interpret that to mean option 2: Truck drivers are more professional than car drivers.

I respectfully disagree. Professional work is binary. The trigger is that someone is willing to pay you to perform it. The distinction between more professional and less professional work is arbitrary and actually detracts from the discussion of why the distinction between iPad and iPadOS and Mac and macOS is meaningful and deserves to be sustained. That is because the use case and context-based distinction between the platforms is factual and defensible while the “professional” vs “non-professional” or “less-professional” distinction devolves to opinion.

 

[Kahnforever]

Ok. I’ll interpret that to mean option 2: Truck drivers are more professional than car drivers.

I respectfully disagree. Professional work is binary. The trigger is that someone is willing to pay you to perform it. The distinction between more professional and less professional work is arbitrary and actually detracts from the discussion of why the distinction between iPad and iPadOS and Mac and macOS is meaningful and deserves to be sustained. That is because the use case and context-based distinction between the platforms is factual and defensible while the “professional” vs “non-professional” or “less-professional” distinction devolves to opinion.

Professional also implies higher power requirements. It’s not just one thing but that is a factor. People with professional designations like project managers, engineers, architects, military applications, etc.

It makes no sense that a person working for money would choose something less productive. An iPad Pro can be good enough for a subset of people but it’s limited in a number of ways. And there is a lot of professional based software required for those trades that is not even available on the iPad and for reasons already mentioned.

You’re not going to design the architecture of a 35 story condo tower on an iPad Pro anymore than you would design a bridge on it. It’s absurd to even have to state these things which are obvious. There is a spectrum of professional applications.

 

[heretiq]

iPads cannot deal with macOS and the set of pro Mac applications. They neither have the screen size nor the thermal envelopes to run them properly and they would need to be plugged in most of the time because their run-time would be in the minutes or a few hours.

The 13” iPad is an exception for screen size but the other issues still apply.

This argument is thin. Let’s take your example of Xcode as a “pro application.” While the iPad does indeed not run Xcode, it has been used (with Swift Playgrounds) to develop both prototype proofs of concept and full applications from idea to AppStore submission and approval. This is the purpose of the Xcode “pro app”, so this exception makes a big dent in the contention that “iPads cannot deal with macOS and the set of pro Mac applications” — at least for this use case. Collectively, this community can probably identify similar exceptions for enough “pro applications” and their use cases to render this absolute statement as purely an unsubstantiated opinion. Further, screen size and thermal envelopes are not absolute determinants of suitability for a task — work product is. And the qualifying work product varies from professional to professional — so one person’s opinion does not constitute a standard for everyone.

 

[heretiq]

Professional also implies higher power requirements. It’s not just one thing but that is a factor. People with professional designations like project managers, engineers, architects, military applications, etc.

It makes no sense that a person working for money would choose something less productive. An iPad Pro can be good enough for a subset of people but it’s limited in a number of ways. And there is a lot of professional based software required for those trades that is not even available on the iPad and for reasons already mentioned.

You’re not going to design the architecture of a 35 story condo tower on an iPad Pro anymore than you would design a bridge on it. It’s absurd to even have to state these things which are obvious. There is a spectrum of professional applications.

So in your world, it appears that it’s a fact that designing buildings is not possible on the iPad. How do you anccount for the following: https://concepts.app/en/stories/the-layers-of-architectural-design/?t ?? Do you believe this is fabricated?

And where does a role such as a Chief Operating Officer with leadership, management and accountability for Strategy, Operations, R&D, Engineering, Marketing and Human Resources (but not responsible for performing those functions day to day) fall on your hierarchy of professionalism? Is this person‘s professionalism above, at the same level or beneath those who perform those functions on a daily basis?

 

[Kahnforever]

This argument is thin. Let’s take your example of Xcode as a “pro application.” While the iPad does indeed not run Xcode, it has been used to develop both prototype proofs of concept and full applications from idea to AppStore submission and approval. This is the purpose of the Xcode “pro app”, so this exception makes a big dent in the contention that “iPads cannot deal with macOS and the set of pro Mac applications” — at least for this use case. Collectively, this community can probably identify similar exceptions for enough “pro applications” and their use cases to render this absolute statement as purely an unsubstantiated opinion. Further, screen size and thermal envelopes are not absolute determinants of suitability for a task — work product is. And the qualifying work product varies from professional to professional — so one person’s opinion does not constitute a standard for everyone.

Let's engage in a scenario together. Imagine you and me are both Execs at Apple. You're in charge of iPadOS and I'm in charge of MacOS. You take the position you have here with me and others in the company, and are pressing us to basically turn the iPad into a Mac... at minimum, to at least mimic a lot of what runs on the Mac on the iPad.

As the Engineers have explained to you that there are significant limits placed on the iPadOS operating system itself and on the applications that run on iPadOS because of: thermal envelope and power constraints given that it's meant to be used in a mobile fashion on battery power and is designed with that purpose in mind; given that its screen size ranges from very small to just entry level; and given that it's a tablet first, touch first device... you discount these things and continue to press forward with your vision. We also explain to you that there is not market support for tablets like iPads to run full blown Mac software and macOS because of the all of the compromises.

Myself and others on our team and others at Apple have a meeting and decide to give you latitude. You go ahead and make the decision to turn the iPad into a more Mac-like experience. To basically take the governor switch off so it can run apps like they are on the Mac, and even dual boot macOS and get iPadOS basically running and functioning more like macOS.

If it doesn't go well... if you don't get market support... you'll be fired.

The reality is that your logic is circular, and you continue to ignore facts/physics/reality. Nobody is going to develop software applications in XCode (Apple's development framework) on iPads: it's impractical. For instance, no, it won't make sense on an iPad Mini, and doesn't make much sense on any iPad for that matter because iPads themselves lack the precise input mode of Macs and XCode is a full development environment including front-end and a simulator. Nobody is going to make a living architecting buildings or designing bridges on iPads either, it's absurd.

I can see you are running off to Google to try and help with the circular logic you are engaging in. The article you linked to is simply talking about how an Architect uses the Concepts App on the iPad to sketch out architecture ideas instead of using pen and paper: not for detailed architectural work. The detailed architectural work is done on a high-end $3000+ CAD program like ArchiCAD on a Mac: not on the iPad Pro.

I've stated that the iPad has its commercial applications, but the further on the spectrum one goes to professional applications, the more it gets into Mac territory for all of the reasons mentioned.

Here's a good example of professionals who try and edit video on the iPad Pro using Final Cut Pro on the iPad and all of the struggles they went through:

 

[Jensend]

iPads cannot deal with macOS and the set of pro Mac applications. They neither have the screen size nor the thermal envelopes to run them properly and they would need to be plugged in most of the time because their run-time would be in the minutes or a few hours.

The 13” iPad is an exception for screen size but the other issues still apply.

The 2018 MacBook Air with a dual-core Intel Core i5 officially supports the latest version of MacOS. Are you suggesting that that it has better sustained performance and battery life than an M4 iPad Pro running MacOS would have?

The 13" iPad Pro has a battery 74% as big as a MacBook Air battery.

And how would the iPad go through battery as quickly as you said it would if it had to throttle much more because of thermal constraints? Doesn't that suggest that it should last longer because the processor is being pushed less?

 

[Kahnforever]

The 2018 MacBook Air with a dual-core Intel Core i5 officially supports the latest version of MacOS. Are you suggesting that that it has better sustained performance and battery life than an M4 iPad Pro running MacOS would have?

The 13" iPad Pro has a battery 74% as big as an MacBook Air.

And how would the iPad go through battery as quickly as you said it would if it had to throttle much more because of thermal constraints? Doesn't that suggest that it should last longer because the processor is being pushed less?

No, I'm not suggesting that the M4 iPad Pro has worse performance and battery life than a 6 year old, Intel based MacBook Air. I'm not suggesting anything because I'm not comparing these two. But I have owned Intel MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs, and some models were good, others weren't. I had the very first MacBook Air and it was a lemon: it constantly throttled its CPU because of overheating. Intel Macs will leverage Rosetta but are basically left in the dust. At the time, things were optimized for Intel on the Mac side so comparing a 2018 MacBook Air to a 2018 iPad Pro makes sense.

What I am comparing is M class devices to each other, as that is now what macOS/Mac applications are more optimized for.

iPads and battery life. What I'm saying is, if the iPad were to run full blown Mac software and macOS, its battery life would be shot. I've seen new M-based iPad Pros last no longer than 2.5 hours on a full charge and this is with all of the constraints iPadOS has. macOS consumes more resources and effectively allows unlimited multi-tasking. And full-blown Mac apps also will consume more resources. So this is what I am referring to. I've seen iPad Pros run 2 degrees C. hotter on tests comparing it to MacBooks doing the same tasks, again... that's with all the constraints iPadOS imposes on iPads.

 

[Jensend]

No, I'm not suggesting that the M4 iPad Pro has worse performance and battery life than a 6 year old, Intel based MacBook Air. I'm not suggesting anything because I'm not comparing these two. But I have owned Intel MacBook Pros and MacBook Airs, and some models were good, others weren't. I had the very first MacBook Air and it was a lemon: it constantly throttled its CPU because of overheating. Intel Macs will leverage Rosetta but are basically left in the dust. At the time, things were optimized for Intel on the Mac side so comparing a 2018 MacBook Air to a 2018 iPad Pro makes sense.

What I am comparing is M class devices to each other, as that is now what macOS/Mac applications are more optimized for.

I'm not suggesting that the M4 iPad would be a better Mac than an entry level M2 MacBook Air (the slowest Mac Apple sells new). But it would be close enough for what most people use their Macs for that performance would be indistinguishable. For people who just need bursts of speed, the iPad would be better. For sustained performance, you suggest the M2 MacBook Air may be better (though I'd have to see some benchmarks to support that).

Unless you believe Apple should stop selling 13" MacBook Airs, I find it disingenuous when you argue that iPads shouldn't have a MacOS option because they wouldn't be as good for some pro workflows that would be best suited to a MacBook Pro or a Mac Studio.

The detailed architectural work is done on a high-end $3000+ CAD program like ArchiCAD on a Mac: not on the iPad Pro.

It's also probably not done on a 13" MacBook Air. Should Apple stop selling it?

 

[gpat]

This is just because the name “M1” is breaking people. If they had called it an A14X (but it was secretly exactly the same as the M1) would that make you happy? The M1 is just the A14X with a few extra bits to make it more suitable for the Mac (I think it was the M1 that brought 32bit ALUs to Apple’s GPUs For instance. However since then the A series and M series have had a common GPU uarch)

Curious that those "extra bits" would include hypervisor support to run something like VMWare on the iPad, but Apple castrated iPadOS explicitly to prevent you from doing that starting from OS 16.3.

If you could just download VMWare or Parallels from the App Store, this whole thread would be moot and people would just do whatever they wanted with their iPad.

Apple would probably sell more 1/2TB iPads as well.
Apparently $400 markup for 512GB SSD and 8GB RAM is not good enough for them.

 

[heretiq]

Let's engage in a scenario together. Imagine you and me are both Execs at Apple. You're in charge of iPadOS and I'm in charge of MacOS. You take the position you have here with me and others in the company, and are pressing us to basically turn the iPad into a Mac... at minimum, to at least mimic a lot of what runs on the Mac on the iPad.

As the Engineers have explained to you that there are significant limits placed on the iPadOS operating system itself and on the applications that run on iPadOS because of: thermal envelope and power constraints given that it's meant to be used in a mobile fashion on battery power and is designed with that purpose in mind; given that its screen size ranges from very small to just entry level; and given that it's a tablet first, touch first device... you discount these things and continue to press forward with your vision. We also explain to you that there is not market support for tablets like iPads to run full blown Mac software and macOS because of the all of the compromises.

Myself and others on our team and others at Apple have a meeting and decide to give you latitude. You go ahead and make the decision to turn the iPad into a more Mac-like experience. To basically take the governor switch off so it can run apps like they are on the Mac, and even dual boot macOS and get iPadOS basically running and functioning more like macOS.

If it doesn't go well... if you don't get market support... you'll be fired.

The reality is that your logic is circular, and you continue to ignore facts/physics/reality. Nobody is going to develop software applications in XCode (Apple's development framework) on iPads: it's impractical. For instance, no, it won't make sense on an iPad Mini, and doesn't make much sense on any iPad for that matter because iPads themselves lack the precise input mode of Macs and XCode is a full development environment including front-end and a simulator. Nobody is going to make a living architecting buildings or designing bridges on iPads either, it's absurd.

I can see you are running off to Google to try and help with the circular logic you are engaging in. The article you linked to is simply talking about how an Architect uses the Concepts App on the iPad to sketch out architecture ideas instead of using pen and paper: not for detailed architectural work. The detailed architectural work is done on a high-end $3000+ CAD program like ArchiCAD on a Mac: not on the iPad Pro.

I've stated that the iPad has its commercial applications, but the further on the spectrum one goes to professional applications, the more it gets into Mac territory for all of the reasons mentioned.

Here's a good example of professionals who try and edit video on the iPad Pro using Final Cut Pro on the iPad and all of the struggles they went through:

I’m sorry, but this scenario is unrealistic and neither represents my perspective nor the simple point I’ve made that you apparently cannot accept:

1. There are no execs at Apple arguing to make the iPad run macOS and neither am I.
2. There are professionals using the iPad to do a spectrum of serious professional work — so the contention that the iPad is physically constrained from doing professional work is ludicrous.

Peace out. 🙏🏽

 

[throAU]

The funny part here is that ”size” is literally the only thing that makes you think any of this is possible let alone inevitable. Truly.

If this conversation was about the iPhone, you wouldn’t be as confident in stating that eventually iPhone will run macOS. What you don’t realize is that it is the same conversation.

Nope. Just an example.

 

[Kahnforever]

I'm not suggesting that the M4 iPad would be a better Mac than an entry level M2 MacBook Air (the slowest Mac Apple sells new). But it would be close enough for what most people use their Macs for that performance would be indistinguishable. For people who just need bursts of speed, the iPad would be better. For sustained performance, you suggest the M2 MacBook Air may be better (though I'd have to see some benchmarks to support that).

Unless you believe Apple should stop selling 13" MacBook Airs, I find it disingenuous when you argue that iPads shouldn't have a MacOS option because they wouldn't be as good for some pro workflows that would be best suited to a MacBook Pro or a Mac Studio.


It's also probably not done on a 13" MacBook Air. Should Apple stop selling it?

For people who just need bursts of speed, the iPad would be better? Where are you getting that from...

The macOS and Mac software don't make sense on the iPad for the following reasons, as repeated many times in this thread:

• iPad thermal envelopes are too small to support a demanding operating system like macOS and Mac software, especially with the internals sandwiched against the screen panel and with how thin the package is. The MacBook Air already has throttling issues but its passive cooling is better because its internals are separated from the screen on a base which also is larger for heat radiation which also can radiate through the keyboard. Other Macs like MacBook Pros, Studios, Mac Pros, etc. have proper thermal envelopes and robust active cooling so they can handle high loads and perform well on sustained output.
• iPad's screens are too small for macOS and precise point and click Mac software, particularly the iPad Mini and 11" iPads. The 13" is a bare minimum exception but its aspect ratio is boxy and poses challenges for applications designed for the Mac’s wider screens.
• iPad is designed as a tablet, touch-first device. Touch is its primary input mode. Keyboards and trackpads can be added but they aren't as good as what is on a MacBook. They do not match the ergonomic and functional efficiency of those on MacBooks. The smaller trackpads and more cramped typing experiences on iPads and particularly the smaller iPads, combined with their imbalanced setup for lap use, make them less practical for extensive professional work compared to MacBooks.
• Battery life is an issue with iPads of all stripes running macOS and Mac software because the battery sizes are smaller. As it is, iPad Pros with all of the software limitations can still suffer from ~3 hour battery life under heavy load. macOS and Mac software... running more Mac pro apps would destroy its battery run-time. The MacBooks suffer too, just not as much. MacBooks are better suited for sustained workloads and can be plugged in during use without compromising their design philosophy. While iPads can also be used while plugged in, they are fundamentally designed to operate primarily on battery power, emphasizing mobility over continuous high performance.
• As an addition, multiple monitor support and high resolution monitor support is important to professionals running macOS and Mac software. Multiple and high resolution monitor support is a significant limitation for the iPad due to its fundamental design as a touch-first, mobile-first tablet. The iPad’s slim profile, designed for portability and ease of use, inherently results in less efficient thermal management and constraints on the size and power of its CPU and GPU. As a result, the iPad isn't equipped to drive multiple high-resolution monitors or as high resolution monitors as Macs, which are often essential for professional workflows that require extensive screen real estate and robust performance.

 

[Kahnforever]

I’m sorry, but this scenario is unrealistic and neither represents my perspective nor the simple point I’ve made that you apparently cannot accept:

1. There are no execs at Apple arguing to make the iPad run macOS and neither am I.
2. There are professionals using the iPad to do a spectrum of serious professional work — so the contention that the iPad is physically constrained from doing professional work is ludicrous.

Peace out. 🙏🏽

I'm not saying and I have not said the iPad can't do "professional" work. What I have clearly said is that there is a spectrum of professional work and the further along that scale you get, the more the iPad falls apart and a Mac is needed. Architecture is an example.