5 ms·

I believe the future of the iPad is in the exact opposite direction - as a computer for the majority of needs of people for whom Personal Computers and the desk

I believe the future of the iPad is in the exact opposite direction - as a computer for the majority of needs of people for whom Personal Computers and the desktop metaphor never worked. A Pareto machine that covers 80% of functionality with 20% of the complexity. Beefing it up towards something that is capable of serving as a development environment, as quite a few people wish for here, is fundamentally incompatible with that. Wanting a touch Mac is of course well and fine and understandable - but the iPad cannot become that without killing what makes it special in the first place. Maybe there is a way to expose more power through iOS' user interface without adding noticeable complexity - but if there is, Apple has not found it yet. A good chunk of enhancements have either made things more complex — the "just stuff another button into the share sheet" school of thought seems prevalent — or led to features that are wholly invisible and undiscoverable. Multitasking is a prime example: I end up using my girlfriends iPad Pro about once a week, and for the past year I have not managed to internalize how to reliably manage split screen modes and the like.

christophilus 6y ago
I mean, you can have both. What you experience today could just be the default desktop. If you go to settings -> superradmode you’d be placed in osx and can then do your dev thing.
- janfoeh 6y ago
  I do not believe you could - not without significant compromises, since both systems exhibit very different capabilities and security design considerations. You'd still end up with either a more complex iOS, a severely restricted macOS or a split-brained, dual-booting machine which has trouble even freely sharing files between its boot modes.
  - flixic 6y ago
    None of the suggestions in the post would increase the complexity. I like the way Apple redesigned the home screen experience this year: a LOT more features, but all are gradually discovered. App Library discovered when you "hide" an app. Togglable pages discovered when you tap on dots in wiggle mode. Widgets discovered via + in wiggle mode. Many people won't know about any of this, and that's fine. Same with Pro apps and plugins, or side-loading. Gradually discovered complexity, and only if you need[0]. The post does not argue for introducing a Finder and a file system, or overlapping windows. [0] - one possible downside would be if for App Store rules reasons some major apps would go for side-loading. Even if only Netflix decided to move away from the App Store and educate customers how to install via side-loading, it would suck for most people AND Apple. Probably the main reason why Apple will do anything in it's power to never allow this to happen.
    - tgv 6y ago
      Certainly the "side loading" option would increase complexity, or it would make a large group of iPad users load applications, mess up their iPad or expose their data, and then complain to Apple. The iPad's strength is that it's hard to break its functionality.
      - mantap 6y ago
        We on this forum complain to Apple on a daily basis. Nothing ever happens. I don't see evidence that Apple's decision making is affected by what their users think. It took them three years to fix the keyboards even when they were objectively broken. Apple doesn't want side loading because it would mess up their revenue stream. Not because they care about their customers. Look at the lengths they are going to avoid USB-C on the iPhone, a technology they pioneered, just to protect their revenue stream.
        tgv 6y ago
        True, but the safety/stability is (IMO) a great selling point. Not for the people here, but for the non-technical crowd it's definitely a plus.
    - janfoeh 6y ago
      > None of the suggestions in the post would increase the complexity. Apart from maybe sideloading, I agree with you. It's not the list of suggestions I disagree with, it's the fundamental assumption of the article that iPads can and should become pro devices. The needs of power users and non-power users are at odds with each other most of the time - so far, so obvious. Improving a product for one group usually comes at the expense of the other - this is pretty visible in iPadOS already, which arguably has become a lot more intimidating and less user friendly than, say, iOS 6. I believe that trying to bridge that divide is ultimately futile, at least for the foreseeable future and barring some major breakthrough in human computing interfaces. Apple should once and for all position iPads as a non-pro machines, to free iPadOS from these contradicting expectations and requirements. Beefing it up in ways the article suggests only deepens the problem. In that light, I would consider the iPad Pro line to be a strategic mistake. A "pro" tablet line should either have come with macOS, or not exist at all. I'm not even sure it should have been called iPad.
  - simonh 6y ago
    The new AS Macs can already run iPad apps natively. There's nothing to stop Apple simply releasing an iPad form factor AS Mac that ran the iPad UI as an application in tablet mode, but switches out of it back to the MacOS UI when you attach a keyboard case. No need for dual-boot. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, or that they will do it, but it should be trivially achievable at this point.
adim86 6y ago
All what your saying makes sense, but OP is just saying look, professionals are looking for a high powered computer in the form factor of an iPad. If you look at it that way Apple can still make their simple tablet but have a Pro version for Pros. There is a whole market that would love to do work on "a portable iMac"
- janfoeh 6y ago
  Again, I absolutely understand that desire. I am arguing that it's not possible to do that in iPadOS without making it unusable - or at least severely worse - for non-power users. Come to think of it, the iPad Pro line was a bad strategic mistake.
als0 6y ago
> Multitasking is a prime example: I end up using my girlfriends iPad Pro about once a week, and for the past year I have not managed to internalize how to reliably manage split screen modes and the like. I'm still shocked that they haven't done anything to solve or improve this. I love the idea of side by side apps but it's always so hard to remember the voodoo needed to summon it. There's also the problem that I can never remember which apps don't support it.
- juahan 6y ago
  Same here, I have owned iPads years and I still don't get split screen to work without some trial and error every time I use it. Obviously not that often, but wasn't Apple stuff supposed to be easy to use!?
  - piva00 6y ago
    I have the problem where I figure out how to do split screen but then I don't know how to get out of it. I eventually manage it but it's incredible that I avoid using a feature on an Apple device because the usability is horrendous...
justsomeuser 6y ago
I wish I could just use the iPad for its hardware - the screen could attach to my Mac OS and just display as a normal screen, and the CPU/RAM can be used when I'm running some code like compiling something large. It seems a waste to have strong CPUs and great screens in 3 devices (phone, tablet, laptop) but they all must be used by themselves.
- sbuk 6y ago
  > the screen could attach to my Mac OS and just display as a normal screen. See Sidecar - https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210380 https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210380
jjeaff 6y ago
I don't see it replacing anything until it can do 100% of what a regular consumer needs. I always hear these tech journalists or reviewers saying they mostly use an ipad now because it can do 99% of what they need to do. But for that remaining 1%, guess what? They still need to have a computer. So while I guess that means you could spend less on a computer, you still need one. Even if it's for that 1% of tasks.

christophilus 6y ago

I mean, you can have both. What you experience today could just be the default desktop. If you go to settings -> superradmode you’d be placed in osx and can then do your dev thing.

janfoeh 6y ago
I do not believe you could - not without significant compromises, since both systems exhibit very different capabilities and security design considerations. You'd still end up with either a more complex iOS, a severely restricted macOS or a split-brained, dual-booting machine which has trouble even freely sharing files between its boot modes.
- flixic 6y ago
  None of the suggestions in the post would increase the complexity. I like the way Apple redesigned the home screen experience this year: a LOT more features, but all are gradually discovered. App Library discovered when you "hide" an app. Togglable pages discovered when you tap on dots in wiggle mode. Widgets discovered via + in wiggle mode. Many people won't know about any of this, and that's fine. Same with Pro apps and plugins, or side-loading. Gradually discovered complexity, and only if you need[0]. The post does not argue for introducing a Finder and a file system, or overlapping windows. [0] - one possible downside would be if for App Store rules reasons some major apps would go for side-loading. Even if only Netflix decided to move away from the App Store and educate customers how to install via side-loading, it would suck for most people AND Apple. Probably the main reason why Apple will do anything in it's power to never allow this to happen.
  - tgv 6y ago
    Certainly the "side loading" option would increase complexity, or it would make a large group of iPad users load applications, mess up their iPad or expose their data, and then complain to Apple. The iPad's strength is that it's hard to break its functionality.
    - mantap 6y ago
      We on this forum complain to Apple on a daily basis. Nothing ever happens. I don't see evidence that Apple's decision making is affected by what their users think. It took them three years to fix the keyboards even when they were objectively broken. Apple doesn't want side loading because it would mess up their revenue stream. Not because they care about their customers. Look at the lengths they are going to avoid USB-C on the iPhone, a technology they pioneered, just to protect their revenue stream.
      - tgv 6y ago
        True, but the safety/stability is (IMO) a great selling point. Not for the people here, but for the non-technical crowd it's definitely a plus.
  - janfoeh 6y ago
    > None of the suggestions in the post would increase the complexity. Apart from maybe sideloading, I agree with you. It's not the list of suggestions I disagree with, it's the fundamental assumption of the article that iPads can and should become pro devices. The needs of power users and non-power users are at odds with each other most of the time - so far, so obvious. Improving a product for one group usually comes at the expense of the other - this is pretty visible in iPadOS already, which arguably has become a lot more intimidating and less user friendly than, say, iOS 6. I believe that trying to bridge that divide is ultimately futile, at least for the foreseeable future and barring some major breakthrough in human computing interfaces. Apple should once and for all position iPads as a non-pro machines, to free iPadOS from these contradicting expectations and requirements. Beefing it up in ways the article suggests only deepens the problem. In that light, I would consider the iPad Pro line to be a strategic mistake. A "pro" tablet line should either have come with macOS, or not exist at all. I'm not even sure it should have been called iPad.
- simonh 6y ago
  The new AS Macs can already run iPad apps natively. There's nothing to stop Apple simply releasing an iPad form factor AS Mac that ran the iPad UI as an application in tablet mode, but switches out of it back to the MacOS UI when you attach a keyboard case. No need for dual-boot. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, or that they will do it, but it should be trivially achievable at this point.

adim86 6y ago

All what your saying makes sense, but OP is just saying look, professionals are looking for a high powered computer in the form factor of an iPad. If you look at it that way Apple can still make their simple tablet but have a Pro version for Pros. There is a whole market that would love to do work on "a portable iMac"

janfoeh 6y ago
Again, I absolutely understand that desire. I am arguing that it's not possible to do that in iPadOS without making it unusable - or at least severely worse - for non-power users. Come to think of it, the iPad Pro line was a bad strategic mistake.

als0 6y ago

> Multitasking is a prime example: I end up using my girlfriends iPad Pro about once a week, and for the past year I have not managed to internalize how to reliably manage split screen modes and the like. I'm still shocked that they haven't done anything to solve or improve this. I love the idea of side by side apps but it's always so hard to remember the voodoo needed to summon it. There's also the problem that I can never remember which apps don't support it.

juahan 6y ago
Same here, I have owned iPads years and I still don't get split screen to work without some trial and error every time I use it. Obviously not that often, but wasn't Apple stuff supposed to be easy to use!?
- piva00 6y ago
  I have the problem where I figure out how to do split screen but then I don't know how to get out of it. I eventually manage it but it's incredible that I avoid using a feature on an Apple device because the usability is horrendous...

justsomeuser 6y ago

I wish I could just use the iPad for its hardware - the screen could attach to my Mac OS and just display as a normal screen, and the CPU/RAM can be used when I'm running some code like compiling something large. It seems a waste to have strong CPUs and great screens in 3 devices (phone, tablet, laptop) but they all must be used by themselves.

sbuk 6y ago
> the screen could attach to my Mac OS and just display as a normal screen. See Sidecar - https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210380 https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT210380

jjeaff 6y ago

I don't see it replacing anything until it can do 100% of what a regular consumer needs. I always hear these tech journalists or reviewers saying they mostly use an ipad now because it can do 99% of what they need to do. But for that remaining 1%, guess what? They still need to have a computer. So while I guess that means you could spend less on a computer, you still need one. Even if it's for that 1% of tasks.