New M4 iPad Pro

[analogika]

This exchange is great: 

9 hours ago, TJ Cornish said:

Agreed - I want my IPad to stay an IPad. I have Microsoft Surfaces as well and they aren’t the same. Windows tablet mode is uninspiring. The limitations of IOS make it not suck. 

 

vs. 

 

9 hours ago, Ibarch said:

A Macbook without a touchscreen is not better. An iPad with a crippled OS is not better. 

 

Deliberately limiting products in order to make more profit is not better - except for shareholders. It is nothing more than marketing spin. This is something that much of the Apple world has never understood. 

 

Great juxtaposition of viewpoints. 🙂 

 

Thing is: We understand this. The point of Macintosh — and Apple philosophy for the past forty years — is that more functionality does not make a better product for most people. 

iPad is not a better computer than a MacBook at this point — no access to drivers, no Terminal, no on-board developer environment, multitasking interface is a kludge, limited external monitor support, etc., etc., etc. 

However, it is a better tablet than a Surface exactly because it excludes these things and forces developers to rethink their software to make it work on a touch interface. 

iPad absolutely needs to "grow up" in terms of computing capabilities — the software needs to match the hardware. But running macOS applications is definitely not the way to do it. 

Having written that: now watch Apple go and do exactly that. Over the past twenty years, they've ruined most of the other immutable tenets of good user interface that set the Macintosh apart, so I wouldn't put it past them. 

[AnotherScott]

6 hours ago, analogika said:

Thing is: We understand this. The point of Macintosh — and Apple philosophy for the past forty years — is that more functionality does not make a better product for most people. 

iPad is not a better computer than a MacBook at this point — no access to drivers, no Terminal, no on-board developer environment, multitasking interface is a kludge, limited external monitor support, etc., etc., etc. 

However, it is a better tablet than a Surface exactly because it excludes these things and forces developers to rethink their software to make it work on a touch interface. 

iPad absolutely needs to "grow up" in terms of computing capabilities — the software needs to match the hardware. But running macOS applications is definitely not the way to do it. 

 

I agree in part... One of the things that differentiates the Surface Pro from the iPad is that Apple goes out of its way to prevent users from having a terrible experience. Microsoft lets you do whatever you want, which is a double-edged sword. So in this case, sure, you get the flexibility of running any Windows app, but by letting you run any app regardless of whether it is touch optimized (or capable of scaling its image to the Surface-resolution screen in a useful/usable way), it becomes very easy to find yourself having a bad experience, especially if you don't have a keyboard and external pointing device.

 

The part where I disagree is  that I don't necessarily see that as an unsolvable problem. For example, an iPad could have a "Mac boot mode" that only functions on specific models and configurations. For example, it might not be available unless a keyboard and external pointing device are attached, and only on models with certain size screens. So if it were to be implemented today, maybe it would only be available on the 13" Pro model with their M4-specific Magic Keyboard attached (or if they wanted to be more generous, models with at least 11" screens with any keyboard and external pointing device attached). Basically, this would give you a single device that could be operated as either an iPad or as something very much like a Macbook Air... but it would not permit you to operate it as a Mac unless it was in a configuration that allowed any Mac app to run without a likelihood of user frustration. And in fact, since Apple already permits Macs to run iPad apps (if the developer permits it), such a model could also be left in "Mac boot mode" and would still be able to simultaneously run iPad apps.

 

Though I think there is still the question of whether any iPad (as currently designed) is indeed technically capable of running MacOS. The fact that you can get an iPad with an M processor and at least 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage (which, on paper, is enough to run the current MacOS) doesn't necessarily mean its design can support MacOS.

 

iPad is specifically designed around goals of minimum size with minimum heat generation, and high battery life, and there are compromises in making those your design priorities, in the hardware that is used and in the OS designed to run on that hardware. So for example, until recently (OS 16 I believe), iPad OS did not support a VM swapfile, which is essential for MacOS; and even when that function was added, it was added in a more limited capacity (from what I read, it maxes out at 16 GB on a compatible iPad, whereas it can grow to as much free storage space as you have available on a Mac). Why did they limit its size on the iPad? Too much heat generation? Too much power drain? Too much wear on the kind of flash chips used? Some kind of performance issue? Who knows? But if they felt it was necessary to limit its size to 16GB, might that indicate an issue for the potential of running MacOS which is designed to run without such a limit? Would an iPad-style tablet that could run MacOS need to have some different or additional hardware, or need to be bigger, or need to have a different cooling implementation (e.g. Surface models have had fans)? And then, back to your original point, if the trade-off to make a Mac-compatible iPad would mean the iPad would have to be bigger/heavier (and possibly pricier), have you made, in a sense, a lesser iPad?

 

There's also the alternate Windows approach Apple could borrow, especially now that Macs can run many iPad apps... add a touchscreen to the Macbook Air, and have the keyboard able to be folded completely back against the screen. It may be easier to turn a Mac into an iPad than to turn an iPad into a Mac, since the Mac clearly has everything it needs to run iOS apps. An on-the-fly "iPad mode" could be added which would allow it to more comfortably be used as a hand-held (e.g. when invoked, it would only run iOS apps, and an iOS home screen in lieu of the Mac desktop).

[TJ Cornish]

3 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

The part where I disagree is  that I don't necessarily see that as an unsolvable problem.

The challenge is that it is very difficult to add capability without tradeoffs that are worse than the disease. Microsoft tried and failed with this in the early days of the Surface with Windows 8/Windows Mobile. Apple, at least relative to the rest of the industry, has had better luck saying no to dubious user requests and coming up with products that have an identity, and aren’t trying to be everything.

 

I have a 2 in 1 Windows machine as my primary work computer. I like that the screen folds backwards as it works for my desk at home, but I’ve touched the screen about 6 times in the last 12 months. I’m typing this on an IPad. The IPad comes out when I want instant on with the dozen or so apps I use. I have cellular data, apps that are optimized for the screen size and my fingers, and it just works.

 

I will say I’m annoyed that the new IPad doesn’t support the Keyboard Folio - the Magic Keyboard is too big and doesn’t allow for flipping the keyboard out of the way. My M1 IPad is beat up but functional; I will upgrade if/when someone - either Apple or a 3rd party - makes a case that doesn’t double the size and weight of the tablet and lets me flip the keyboard out of the way without detaching.

[analogika]

3 hours ago, TJ Cornish said:

The challenge is that it is very difficult to add capability without tradeoffs that are worse than the disease. Microsoft tried and failed with this in the early days of the Surface with Windows 8/Windows Mobile. Apple, at least relative to the rest of the industry, has had better luck saying no to dubious user requests and coming up with products that have an identity, and aren’t trying to be everything.

 

This. I absolutely didn't claim the issue was "unsolvable". 

 

7 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

The part where I disagree is  that I don't necessarily see that as an unsolvable problem. For example, an iPad could have a "Mac boot mode" that only functions on specific models and configurations. For example, it might not be available unless a keyboard and external pointing device are attached, and only on models with certain size screens. So if it were to be implemented today, maybe it would only be available on the 13" Pro model with their M4-specific Magic Keyboard attached (or if they wanted to be more generous, models with at least 11" screens with any keyboard and external pointing device attached). Basically, this would give you a single device that could be operated as either an iPad or as something very much like a Macbook Air... but it would not permit you to operate it as a Mac unless it was in a configuration that allowed any Mac app to run without a likelihood of user frustration. And in fact, since Apple already permits Macs to run iPad apps (if the developer permits it), such a model could also be left in "Mac boot mode" and would still be able to simultaneously run iPad apps.

 

Just reading that description of a hodge-podge of different modes that switch depending upon whatever, or require a total REBOOT, makes me want to put it aside. Ugh! 😖

 

The solution — I desperately hope — will be to allow the iPad to take on more and more complex functionality, NOT to slam the Mac onto a platform whose primary distinction, and in fact sole reason for existing at all, is "NOT being a Mac." 

I doubt we will ever see full feature parity, but we may not need to. Super curious to see where Apple is taking this at WWDC; it's painfully obvious that it's the software that needs to unleash the platform's potential at this point. 

I think it will continue to be bifurcated: iPad as "the computer for the rest of us" — as per the original Macintosh motto — and the Mac for those specialty cases not sufficiently addressed by iPad. Those use cases will become fewer and fewer over time. We're already at a point where iPad is completely sufficient for many, many users. I don't know if my daughter will ever own a "traditional" computer. She'll probably use one at work at some point. 

[AnotherScott]

16 hours ago, analogika said:

Just reading that description of a hodge-podge of different modes that switch depending upon whatever, or require a total REBOOT, makes me want to put it aside. Ugh! 😖

 

I don't think "two" qualifies as a hodge-podge." 😉 

 

It's similar to how, when Macs had Intel processors, they came with Boot Camp which allowed you to boot them as PCs. The "depending on whatever" addition is that it would not let you boot into the alternate OS unless you had a keyboard and pointing device attached (and it would only be available on some iPad models, not ones that don't meet certain minimum specs... much like, for example, how Stage Manager functions today).

[Paul Woodward]

47 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

 

I don't think "two" qualifies as a hodge-podge." 😉 

 

It's similar to how, when Macs had Intel processors, they came with Boot Camp which allowed you to boot them as PCs. The "depending on whatever" addition is that it would not let you boot into the alternate OS unless you had a keyboard and pointing device attached (and it would only be available on some iPad models, not ones that don't meet certain minimum specs... much like, for example, how Stage Manager functions today).

iPads booted into a different OS? Did I miss something?

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, Paul Woodward said:

iPads booted into a different OS? Did I miss something?

It's a discussion about hypothetical ways Apple could merge iPad and Macbook functionalities. Nothing that exists today.

[analogika]

2 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

I don't think "two" qualifies as a hodge-podge." 😉 

 

It's similar to how, when Macs had Intel processors, they came with Boot Camp which allowed you to boot them as PCs. The "depending on whatever" addition is that it would not let you boot into the alternate OS unless you had a keyboard and pointing device attached (and it would only be available on some iPad models, not ones that don't meet certain minimum specs... much like, for example, how Stage Manager functions today).

 

I'm reading at least FOUR modes: 
1. iPad touch mode

2. macOS mouse-pointer mode

3. iPadOS apps on macOS mode

4. macOS apps on iPad mode

 

Two of those require rebooting, which is annoying at least. The other two are a kludge, even if launching the apps is seamless. Or you can have the same document open in the same application, twice, but in two different modes, like in the early days of Windows Surface (I dunno, is it still like that?). 

And you're saying it would depend upon whether a mouse and keyboard were attached, except… iPads come with keyboards and trackpads, if you want… so: yeah, I guess? 

 

All of this is workable, if you know exactly what you're doing. If you don't, it's…not. 
Even IF you know exactly what you're doing, it's still shitty interface. 

Apple can get away with something like this on the Mac, because it hasn't been "the computer for the rest of us" for decades, now. 

Boot Camp on the Mac served a different purpose: that was reassurance to every single Windows user that whatever they had invested into software would continue to work 1:1 until the developer finally deigned to port it to Mac OS, even if it wouldn't run properly in virtualisation. 

Boot Camp and the total disaster that was Windows Vista sold SOOOOO many Macs in those years. 

 

Adding a macOS boot mode to iPads would serve no such purpose. 

[AnotherScott]

4 hours ago, analogika said:

I'm reading at least FOUR modes: 
1. iPad touch mode

2. macOS mouse-pointer mode

3. iPadOS apps on macOS mode

4. macOS apps on iPad mode

 

I think you're conflating two different setups, based on entirely different devices...

 

1. the main one I discussed, allowing an iPad tablet to run Mac apps

 

2. the alternate scenario I mentioned as well, allowing a Macbook Laptop (which can already run iPad apps as you know) to function as a tablet (by giving it a touchscreen and allowing the keyboard to fold all the way back against the screen).

 

* For device #1, there would be two modes:

 

... iPad touch mode (the current way it works)

 

... a bootcamp-like reboot option to alternatively use the iPad to run MacOS (and yes, since Mac lets your run many iPad apps, you'd have the option of running them here as well, but that's not an additional "mode" and would be no more confusing than how Mac works today)

 

The bootcamp-like option would only be available on some models (similar to how Stage Manager works today), since the ability for it to work could require a certain level of processor, a certain amount of RAM, a certain screen size, whatever. Further, it would require that you have connected a keyboard and pointing device. This would be to prevent making it easy to have a very sub-standard experience, as you would likely have trying to run many Mac apps on a system with no keyboard or external pointing device. But instead of having to buy (and possibly travel with) both an iPad and Macbook Air, you'd be able to buy just the iPad (with keyboard/trackpad) which would serve as just a tablet when that's what would serve you best, but also as a full Mac when that's what would serve you best. (Though again, for the reason I mentioned, I'm not certain this design is feasible within the constraints of current iPad hardware, even despite there being iPads which have sufficient processor/RAM/storage.)

 

(As an aside: I would design it so that, while the keyboard/pointing device could be required for it to boot into Mac mode, it should not have to remain attached... once booted, you should be able to attach and unattach it at will. )

 

* For device #2, there would be two modes (though the second is not strictly necessary):

 

... what you referred to as macOS mouse-pointer mode, i.e. the way Macs work today (which, again, does happen to include the ability to run many iPad apps, no special additional mode required)

 

... an optional/defeatable mode you can switch in or out of "on the fly" (no reboot required) which would "filter" the apps such that the only ones that would be accessible would be the iPad apps, and the "home" screen would be something that looks like the iOS home screen instead of the Finder desktop. This is again to help prevent a sub-standard experience. The idea would be that, when using it as a handheld device (keyboard folded behind), you would not suddenly/unexpectedly find yourself at the Finder or in a standard Mac app, i.e. you would not suddenly/unexpectedly find yourself on a screen where you have to find a place to put the device down and fold out its keyboard/trackpad to continue working smoothly. Someone could choose not to use that mode, and take that risk. This "iPad/tablet mode" would simply serve as a way to assure someone who (for the moment) wants to use it strictly as a tablet that they would be able to use it just as they would be able to use an iPad, and not worry that they're going to end up on a screen where they really need to access the keyboard/trackpad.

 

[tfort]

I can see Apple doing this as long as it’s simple- maybe the new iPads switch immediately to (touch-enabled) macOS when connected to the new Magic Keyboards, and immediately switch back to iPad OS when the tablet is removed from the keyboard. It could work with other manufacturers’ keyboards if they used the official connectors or something like that, too. 
 

Putting a touchscreen on a MacBook or MacBook Pro would be simple for Apple to do, I’d like to see it tried. You could touch the screen when it suits you, and use the trackpad or mouse when you need a precision pointing device. It would cause some UI/size target issues, but might be worth trying. 
 

For going the other way, making your iPad run MacOS, see this:

https://www.macstories.net/stories/i-turned-the-new-13-ipad-pro-into-a-macpad-and-portable-gaming-display/
 

 

[Ibarch]

In my view, Apple don't need to make 2 devices with 2 different operating systems. The biggest improvement would be to have one code base that worked on both iPads and their computers. 

 

Imagine a world where iPad users wouldn't spend years waiting for half functioning copies of programs like Mainstage to be released. Imagine if all virtual instruments and plugins were available. Imagine not spending hundreds of hours researching half decent piano apps because the same VSL and EastWest pianos that had already been bought for the computer worked on a tablet.

 

You don't need to imagine. That world exists. It is called Windows. 

 

But Apple just do everything better, right? 

 

 

[Ibarch]

My biggest frustration with this is that Apple could do everything that is talked about and wished for in this thread. 

 

They could release an OS that ran on both types of hardware, that could automatically adapt to the type it was on. They could bring touch into MacOS and make it as useful and natural as on iPads. They could make iPad and Mac apps build from a single code base, even if it required different binaries. 

 

They could put a team together and deliver all this for the cost of a few weeks profit. 

 

But they choose not too. 

 

Yet, still there are people that defend them to the hilt, that honestly believe Apple arnt doing this because it can't be done. That can't see any of the anti consumer, anti competitive crap that is happening. 

 

WAKE UP 

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, Ibarch said:

You don't need to imagine. That world exists. It is called Windows. 

 The problem is that, as a tablet, a Surface Pro provides a worse user experience than an iPad. Yes, you get the top tier selection of apps. But you get a clumsier everything else, largely because the environment is not optimized for manipulation by touch alone.  (And thicker, heavier, mostly not fanless, etc.)

 

Basically, in comparing a Surface Pro to the combination of an iPad and a Macbook, it is arguable as to whether you're getting the best of both worlds, or the worst (i.e. a lesser tablet and a lesser laptop).

 

The two scenarios I proposed would give you a no-compromise something. My "scenario 1" described an iPad every bit as good as a current iPad as a tablet, while still being a very good laptop replacement, even if slightly lagging a Macbook in some ways. My "scenario 2" described a Macbook Air every bit as good as a current Macbook Air, while still being a very good iPad replacement, even if slightly lagging iPad in some ways. Surface Pro is a combo of a compromised tablet and a compromised laptop. It's still one of the best things you can get, though,  especially since my two theoretical Apple products don't exist. 😉 

 

ETA: There are other "dual function" PCs besides Surface Pro, and some of them would qualify as no-compromise on the laptop side, but I'd say none are no-compromise on the tablet side.

[tfort]

5 hours ago, Ibarch said:

In my view, Apple don't need to make 2 devices with 2 different operating systems. The biggest improvement would be to have one code base that worked on both iPads and their computers. 

 

Imagine a world where iPad users wouldn't spend years waiting for half functioning copies of programs like Mainstage to be released. Imagine if all virtual instruments and plugins were available. Imagine not spending hundreds of hours researching half decent piano apps because the same VSL and EastWest pianos that had already been bought for the computer worked on a tablet.

 

You don't need to imagine. That world exists. It is called Windows. 

 

But Apple just do everything better, right? 

 

 

iOS and iPad OS are essentially the same, and MacOS isn’t that different from both these days. One is optimized for a precision pointing device (a mouse), and the other is optimized with touch targets for a fat, imprecise pointer (your finger) with multitouch possibilities. There are are differences in expectations of memory available, I/O, file structure, etc. as well. 

 

Those relatively small differences aside, Mac apps and iOS/iPad apps are running on essentially the same processor cores and most of the code base will run directly or only need slight modification, and Apple provides tools for this.
 

I think in terms of music software, the amount of work to make a touch-enabled version of a Mac app isn’t that much, and Apple allows iPad apps to run on MacOS- the developers essentially just need to check a box to allow it. 
 

I believe the primary issue holding back more universal software and plugins are the developer’s business models. They are used to charging relatively high prices for an app or plugin on the PC/Mac side, but the iOS/iPad market developed to support less expensive apps. The developer may have nearly the same code base, with the same features and capabilities, but with two different historical and expected pricing structures. Developers are trying to figure out how to proceed without leaving money on the table, devaluing their work, or pissing off their existing legacy PC/Mac customers.