11 ms·

I skimmed through the article but didn’t find mention of one glaring deficiency in iPadOS — it still doesn’t support multiple users and multiuser switching, eve

by AnonC 2y ago

I skimmed through the article but didn’t find mention of one glaring deficiency in iPadOS — it still doesn’t support multiple users and multiuser switching, even though the hardware is capable of it (and exceeds the capacity of many Macs before it). I decided several years ago that I’m not buying another iPad until this is sorted out by iPadOS. I think of iPhones as personal devices, where each person may have their own. But iPads are more likely to be shared for personal use in families. The fact that each person using it cannot have their own user profiles, app data, etc., is a huge drawback. Apple has supported this for a long time (though probably not in the best way) for education, but it’s not available to others. Even tvOS supports switching between user profiles quickly. Apple enforcing the idea that iPad (with iPadOS) should also be a personal device — one device per person — makes the user experience quite poor.

PrettyPastry 2y ago
Does tvOS user switching do anything at all? I tried recently, and all the third party app data was shared across users.
- gumby 2y ago
  Mainly it makes the Apple TV+ app understand your watching history (“up next”) better. Apple has an API so that third party apps can tie profiles to appletv user ids (iCloud ids) but I haven’t seen a single 3P app that uses it. Apple could make it mandatory at some point I suppose but the UX for connecting the two in each app would likely be tedious. Also there is no password protection with changing user ids so kids can accidentally screw up your watch history / preferences. And without any passwords you don’t want to connect photos or anything like that to the tv. It’s pretty much a botch, just like the cases described in this article.
- quenix 2y ago
  It basically just switches over Apple app accounts, such as Music and Photos. Everything else---all third party apps and the home screen layout and BT devices---are exactly the same. It's laughably bad, since Photos doesn't even support more than one iCloud photo library per TV, so switching just makes the Photos app not work.
Tijdreiziger 2y ago
The status quo benefits Apple’s bottom line. After all, if you can’t share your iPad, Apple can sell each member of your household one.
- dkdbejwi383 2y ago
  Might work for some, but I am in the same boat as GP. I’m either buying one to share, or none at all.
  - ethagknight 2y ago
    I have a large(ish) family. We have a LOT of iPads. No way around it. Definitely a feature not a bug designed to sell more iPads.
afavour 2y ago
Not just schools, businesses too. They’re gatekeeping the feature solely to make more cash and it infuriates me.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Would be nice to have, but I don't even use this functionality on my MacBook or iMac(s) at home. For me computers (and iPads) have always just been "personal" for as long as I've used them.
- grumpyprole 2y ago
  Nice if you can afford it! With Apple's current prices, most of us don't have that luxury.
  - _boffin_ 2y ago
    Then afford what can be gotten with other vendors rather than wishing for something outside a price range with different featires
    - grumpyprole 2y ago
      I do. But Apple has a problem if their position is the same as yours.
      - _boffin_ 2y ago
        > But Apple has a problem if their position is the same as yours. From what i see, this is their position and it looks like, so far, it has worked out for them quite well. I'd love to hear your take on it as it seems you have a different than mine.
        grumpyprole 2y ago
        Well investors tend to care more about future growth potential than past performance. History tells us that the outlook for expensive proprietary platforms is usually not so good.
        seec 2y ago
        I agree and the fall has already started I believe. But they have "believers" that don't seem to understand the rational of people saying this. Funny thing is that even Steve Jobs said as much in an interview: basically, that a computing platform was dead without market share and they made a mistake with the Mac, making it too inaccessible for too many people. But I guess history and mistakes are just a cycle. It would be very good for everyone if they fell from grace and start "losing" profit so they can't start working on stuff, once again.
tobiasbischoff 2y ago
But Shareholder Value..
j45 2y ago
For me, the 12” MacBook ended up being superior to the iPadOS experience. It’s the lightest laptop ever made I could find at the time and a similar form factor and weight to an iPad with keyboard. If Apple ever released a 12” MacBook again with Apple silicon I’d go pick one up immediately, and likely use it more than my MacBook Pro. Having a super light full desktop experience without the time required to tap extra gestures was much better. iPad also was a pretend computer for a long time until it got mouse support, then specifically built in to the keyboard.
- arcanemachiner 2y ago
  > iPad also was a pretend computer for a long time until it got mouse support That was a very important step forward. Now, it is a pretend computer with mouse support.
  - j45 2y ago
    Haha. That's true. Apple's resistance to a mouse continued with the resistance to having a mouse pointer. A Surface Pro running MacOS would be the real game changer. Being touch-first is much more inefficient than using a mouse and keyboard. The pageantry of taps and swipes needed add up to a lot of time, and knowing the difference, it can be difficult to justify the effort. Maybe I'm missing a detail. Apple is excellent at introducing technology to beginners (just use your finger), it doesn't mean it's the most productive or effective.
- ngcc_hk 2y ago
  Love that as well. Even M1 12" would be a better device.
  - j45 2y ago
    Since Apple is known to be the most prolific iterator of building working hardware during design.. that and more probably exists :(
- denimnerd42 2y ago
  was just thinking the other day due to the latest iPad release.. I dont know how people stand to use an iPad when you can get a 13" Macbook air or in your case the 12" and just use that. Just the fact that the screen is held to the correct angle for 90% of use cases is huge. Sitting.. lounging.. I can't even really think of a regular use case I have where the iPad ergonomics are better.
lxgr 2y ago
Just buy more iPads, obviously! > Even tvOS supports switching between user profiles quickly. I wonder if somebody had to justify that in an internal meeting at some point? "Most TVs have multiple HDMI ports, wouldn't it be only fair to expect families to buy one Apple TV per–"...
- godzillabrennus 2y ago
  I think it’s a big unaddressed problem for Apple that they have an Apple TV device, an Apple TV app, an Apple TV service, and an Apple TV Plus service.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    To be fair, the app is just called "TV", and Apple TV is only the device, i.e. I'm not aware of any service called that. As an occasional Chromecast (with Google TV) (4K) (running Android TV) user, I think Google wins this round of botched branding. Edit: Of course it makes sense to clarify the app's name as "Apple TV", similarly to "Apple Podcasts" or "Apple Calendar", but that doesn't mean that's its official name. Sure, Apple could have named it something memorable and unambigous like "CouchPotato" or "Bingetime" or whatnot, but that sounds more like early 2000s Apple from a branding point of view.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      I just fired up my AppleTV4k, navigated to my Apple TV app, so that I could view my AppleTV+ service. I'm not really sure what you're on about, but all of the names you boldly claimed are not named what you say they are named. Right there on the app is the apple logo in front of the letters TV, aka AppleTV. Launching that app in the left hand menu, it clearly states Apple TV+ as an option. The logo on the device is the same as the logo on the app. So if you're stipulating it is read as Apple TV for the device, why would it also not be read the same way for the app using the exact same logo?
      - refulgentis 2y ago
HumblyTossed 2y ago
Good luck. People would then just buy one iPad and share it in the household. Apple is struggling to be profitable, I see no reason they should not try to make every penny they can.
- seanhunter 2y ago
  If $23b of earnings last quarter[1] is struggling, I would love to struggle as much as they do. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q2/FY24_Q2_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q2/FY24_Q2_Consol...
  - HumblyTossed 2y ago
    <sarcasm>
- macspoofing 2y ago
  Nah. I suspect that if Apple enabled multiple accounts, it would be a feature used by a very small minority of iPad users. It wouldn't make a dent in their sales.
- evilduck 2y ago
  > Apple is struggling to be profitable Genuinely curious, how does one come to the necessary conclusions that then lead to making statements like this? What supports the notion that Apple is struggling to be profitable?
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    It’s a “hallucination”. Human Intelligences are currently quite prone to them. Many times they just make up plausible sounding sentences that aren’t true because they’re just fancy autocomplete.
    - HumblyTossed 2y ago
      It's called sarcasm.
MarkSweep 2y ago
Like you mentioned, they already have implement support for multiple users on an iPad. But they require that you use mobile device management (MDM) and Managed Apple IDs. https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overview-dep9a34c2ba2/web https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overv... So basically only schools or businesses can use the feature. It’s really galling that the feature is already implemented but they won’t give it to us because of an obvious attempt at a money grab.
- burntalmonds 2y ago
  A lot of people are saying they do it just to sell more iPads, but I'm skeptical. I bet they have research telling them only a small percentage of customers want multi-user sharing.
  - massysett 2y ago
    Indeed I have no interest in multi-user iPad. I have one, my wife has one, my daughter has one. Sharing them just wouldn’t get us anything. Would some people want it, sure, but features aren’t free to add or maintain. iPhone mini showed how much vocal Internet commenters (don’t) represent the actual user base. Commenters said they wanted a smaller iPhone. Then it sold poorly. And I say this as I write this on an iPhone 13 mini. I suspect the multi-user iOS, right along with the people complaining that iOS is underpowered generally, is the same phenomenon at work.
    - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
      I think the question isn't so much whether Apple users want multiuser support. Rather the question is whether Apple wants customers who can't afford to buy one of each sort of device for each family member.
    - sargun 2y ago
      At a previous company, we rotated secondary (more portable) devices around the oncall rotation. I think we used a macbook air, and some fancy portable Windows netbook. Now that iPads exist, and they're super portable, I can imagine that they'd be great for oncall. That being said, I wouldn't want my settings, say in the terminal for example, to affect mine. Although MDM is a solution, at the scale of the ~50 person company, we didn't have anything as the such, nor the capabilities, time, or money to figure it out.
macspoofing 2y ago
It's a UI/UX thing - Apple decided that iPads are single-user devices and login switching is too complicated. That's apple for you. Also, you still can't install runtime environments, making the iPad Pro a poor laptop substitute for developers - again, for no good reason. That's Apple for you.
- neverokay 2y ago
  Perfectly good reason. They don’t want to cannibalize existing products. You never want the customer thinking there is no real difference between a MacBook and iPad. You want them to truly believe in the uniqueness of the product. Iwatch was a master class in that bullshit. Took long enough but people did eventually realize it’s a shittier smaller phone lol (but we’re talking genuine levels of shittier).
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Complete nonsense. I love my Apple Watch. I can leave my house, make payments be fully contactable, access useful information about weather, stonks, work pager messages etc. while weaving a heavy clunky device at home and no distractions like social media. It’s also a fitness tracker and saved people I know who have heart conditions lives. I have the ultra abs the battery life is wonderful too. Like, a device that can literally save your life is shit ?
    - neverokay 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - bamboozled 2y ago
        How does your phone work as a fitness tracker with HRM ?
        kjkjadksj 2y ago
        If you actually want good heart rate monitoring you get one of those straps that go around your chest anyhow.
neverokay 2y ago
iPad sharing is a massive no go. That product is mostly for the education industry and you better convince the school board every kid needs their own iPad (an AI powered one soon enough). Basically becomes a government mandated device, good business.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Except they allow schools to run device sharing.
alt227 2y ago
Preface: I fully agree with you and wont buy an iPad weithout user switching. However, user switching seems to be a features more on lower priced budget devices for world markets where individual people cant afford their own devices. When you are rich enough to live in the western world and buy Apple products, you dont share them!
wlesieutre 2y ago
At a minimum I would like a guest mode so I can hand the device to someone without them being able to read all my emails and go through my photos.
- moi2388 2y ago
  You could employ Face ID for that no?
  - ping00 2y ago
    I think that's too granular and is dependent on the apps offering Face ID as a secondary-layer authentication flow -- I think OP is suggesting an entirely different user profile that doesn't even have the same applications that the original (save for the default iPadOS apps, and even those should be logged out from your Apple ID). The cognitive overhead of "did I make sure to enable Face ID on x,y,z apps so that I can pass around my iPad without worrying about any personal data being accessible" is too high for spontaneous + casual device sharing. Example: "Hey uncle ping00, can I use your iPad real quick to watch something?" "Sure nephew, <switches profile to Guest ,and hands it over> go nuts"
  - rconti 2y ago
    The implication of "I wish I could hand my iPad to..." is that the person receiving the iPad would be able to use it, not just physically hold onto it.
    - moi2388 2y ago
      I mean you can unlock the iPad with passcode, but you can lock specific apps or folders behind Face ID.. At least on Mac you are able to do this.. I agree they should just enable guest accounts etc, just thought this was a workaround in the meantime
- draebek 2y ago
  Is that "Guided Access"? https://support.apple.com/en-afri/guide/ipad/ipada16d1374/ipados https://support.apple.com/en-afri/guide/ipad/ipada16d1374/ip...
e63f67dd-065b 2y ago
My guess is that in addition to Apple just not caring, they have market research telling them that most users don't want this feature. I imagine that the average HN commenter is probably as far as possible from the average iPad buyer. The main usecase is for families, and it's introducing a lot of complexity for basically no return.
- saurik 2y ago
  Yeah, and people having families is pretty rare: no more than a few percent of their market :eyeroll:. The issue isn't that people don't want it: almost everyone wants it! The issue is that the alternatives to the iPad for its use cases are almost precisely zilch, and so implementing this feature mostly serves to cause people to spend less money on redundant iPads.
turtlebits 2y ago
While I agree multi-user would be nice, I don't necessarily agree it's a good thing for families. A shared device should be treated as such. Don't install or login to apps that you're not okay with the rest of the family accessing. I'd even argue that children that aren't old enough to have their own device (IMO before high school) don't need a personal profile. And on that tangent, kids shouldn't even use phones/tablets device unless they can responsibly use them.
boring_twenties 2y ago
Android supports this but as usual with Android, it's shoddy and broken. For example, if you log out of a secondary profile and log back in, all your widgets will be gone. I don't have the bug link handy but IIRC, it's been open since 2021.
pbronez 2y ago
AppleTV has multi-user support but it’s not NEARLY good enough. I would really appreciate more capability there. I want cleaner boundaries around the standard and child experiences, as well as more individualization. Mostly I’m annoyed that all the individual streaming apps have profiles, but they don’t have any link to the Apple ID you’re using. If I’m the active user on the AppleTV, I should see the apps I care about and my profile in those apps. TL;DR stop letting my family ruin my recommendations.
barkingcat 2y ago
the 1 person per ipad is 100% a product decision to get people to buy more ipads. if they made ipad's multiuser capable (it's is perfectly easy to do it technically) ipad sales would tank. they will never do that to their sales figures. the single user nature of the ipad is not a deficiency but a feature.
barbazoo 2y ago
Now I understand a little bit better why AppleTV (or whatever the streaming service is called) doesn't support multiple profiles either.

by AnonC 2y ago

PrettyPastry 2y ago

Does tvOS user switching do anything at all? I tried recently, and all the third party app data was shared across users.

gumby 2y ago
Mainly it makes the Apple TV+ app understand your watching history (“up next”) better. Apple has an API so that third party apps can tie profiles to appletv user ids (iCloud ids) but I haven’t seen a single 3P app that uses it. Apple could make it mandatory at some point I suppose but the UX for connecting the two in each app would likely be tedious. Also there is no password protection with changing user ids so kids can accidentally screw up your watch history / preferences. And without any passwords you don’t want to connect photos or anything like that to the tv. It’s pretty much a botch, just like the cases described in this article.
quenix 2y ago
It basically just switches over Apple app accounts, such as Music and Photos. Everything else---all third party apps and the home screen layout and BT devices---are exactly the same. It's laughably bad, since Photos doesn't even support more than one iCloud photo library per TV, so switching just makes the Photos app not work.

Tijdreiziger 2y ago

The status quo benefits Apple’s bottom line. After all, if you can’t share your iPad, Apple can sell each member of your household one.

dkdbejwi383 2y ago
Might work for some, but I am in the same boat as GP. I’m either buying one to share, or none at all.
- ethagknight 2y ago
  I have a large(ish) family. We have a LOT of iPads. No way around it. Definitely a feature not a bug designed to sell more iPads.

afavour 2y ago

Not just schools, businesses too. They’re gatekeeping the feature solely to make more cash and it infuriates me.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Would be nice to have, but I don't even use this functionality on my MacBook or iMac(s) at home. For me computers (and iPads) have always just been "personal" for as long as I've used them.

grumpyprole 2y ago
Nice if you can afford it! With Apple's current prices, most of us don't have that luxury.
- _boffin_ 2y ago
  Then afford what can be gotten with other vendors rather than wishing for something outside a price range with different featires
  - grumpyprole 2y ago
    I do. But Apple has a problem if their position is the same as yours.
    - _boffin_ 2y ago
      > But Apple has a problem if their position is the same as yours. From what i see, this is their position and it looks like, so far, it has worked out for them quite well. I'd love to hear your take on it as it seems you have a different than mine.
      - grumpyprole 2y ago
        Well investors tend to care more about future growth potential than past performance. History tells us that the outlook for expensive proprietary platforms is usually not so good.
        seec 2y ago
        I agree and the fall has already started I believe. But they have "believers" that don't seem to understand the rational of people saying this. Funny thing is that even Steve Jobs said as much in an interview: basically, that a computing platform was dead without market share and they made a mistake with the Mac, making it too inaccessible for too many people. But I guess history and mistakes are just a cycle. It would be very good for everyone if they fell from grace and start "losing" profit so they can't start working on stuff, once again.

tobiasbischoff 2y ago

But Shareholder Value..

j45 2y ago

For me, the 12” MacBook ended up being superior to the iPadOS experience. It’s the lightest laptop ever made I could find at the time and a similar form factor and weight to an iPad with keyboard. If Apple ever released a 12” MacBook again with Apple silicon I’d go pick one up immediately, and likely use it more than my MacBook Pro. Having a super light full desktop experience without the time required to tap extra gestures was much better. iPad also was a pretend computer for a long time until it got mouse support, then specifically built in to the keyboard.

arcanemachiner 2y ago
> iPad also was a pretend computer for a long time until it got mouse support That was a very important step forward. Now, it is a pretend computer with mouse support.
- j45 2y ago
  Haha. That's true. Apple's resistance to a mouse continued with the resistance to having a mouse pointer. A Surface Pro running MacOS would be the real game changer. Being touch-first is much more inefficient than using a mouse and keyboard. The pageantry of taps and swipes needed add up to a lot of time, and knowing the difference, it can be difficult to justify the effort. Maybe I'm missing a detail. Apple is excellent at introducing technology to beginners (just use your finger), it doesn't mean it's the most productive or effective.
ngcc_hk 2y ago
Love that as well. Even M1 12" would be a better device.
- j45 2y ago
  Since Apple is known to be the most prolific iterator of building working hardware during design.. that and more probably exists :(
denimnerd42 2y ago
was just thinking the other day due to the latest iPad release.. I dont know how people stand to use an iPad when you can get a 13" Macbook air or in your case the 12" and just use that. Just the fact that the screen is held to the correct angle for 90% of use cases is huge. Sitting.. lounging.. I can't even really think of a regular use case I have where the iPad ergonomics are better.

lxgr 2y ago

Just buy more iPads, obviously! > Even tvOS supports switching between user profiles quickly. I wonder if somebody had to justify that in an internal meeting at some point? "Most TVs have multiple HDMI ports, wouldn't it be only fair to expect families to buy one Apple TV per–"...

godzillabrennus 2y ago
I think it’s a big unaddressed problem for Apple that they have an Apple TV device, an Apple TV app, an Apple TV service, and an Apple TV Plus service.
- lxgr 2y ago
  To be fair, the app is just called "TV", and Apple TV is only the device, i.e. I'm not aware of any service called that. As an occasional Chromecast (with Google TV) (4K) (running Android TV) user, I think Google wins this round of botched branding. Edit: Of course it makes sense to clarify the app's name as "Apple TV", similarly to "Apple Podcasts" or "Apple Calendar", but that doesn't mean that's its official name. Sure, Apple could have named it something memorable and unambigous like "CouchPotato" or "Bingetime" or whatnot, but that sounds more like early 2000s Apple from a branding point of view.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I just fired up my AppleTV4k, navigated to my Apple TV app, so that I could view my AppleTV+ service. I'm not really sure what you're on about, but all of the names you boldly claimed are not named what you say they are named. Right there on the app is the apple logo in front of the letters TV, aka AppleTV. Launching that app in the left hand menu, it clearly states Apple TV+ as an option. The logo on the device is the same as the logo on the app. So if you're stipulating it is read as Apple TV for the device, why would it also not be read the same way for the app using the exact same logo?
    - refulgentis 2y ago

HumblyTossed 2y ago

Good luck. People would then just buy one iPad and share it in the household. Apple is struggling to be profitable, I see no reason they should not try to make every penny they can.

seanhunter 2y ago
If $23b of earnings last quarter[1] is struggling, I would love to struggle as much as they do. [1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q2/FY24_Q2_Consolidated_Financial_Statements.pdf https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2024-q2/FY24_Q2_Consol...
- HumblyTossed 2y ago
  <sarcasm>
macspoofing 2y ago
Nah. I suspect that if Apple enabled multiple accounts, it would be a feature used by a very small minority of iPad users. It wouldn't make a dent in their sales.
evilduck 2y ago
> Apple is struggling to be profitable Genuinely curious, how does one come to the necessary conclusions that then lead to making statements like this? What supports the notion that Apple is struggling to be profitable?
- renewiltord 2y ago
  It’s a “hallucination”. Human Intelligences are currently quite prone to them. Many times they just make up plausible sounding sentences that aren’t true because they’re just fancy autocomplete.
  - HumblyTossed 2y ago
    It's called sarcasm.

MarkSweep 2y ago

Like you mentioned, they already have implement support for multiple users on an iPad. But they require that you use mobile device management (MDM) and Managed Apple IDs. https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overview-dep9a34c2ba2/web https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/shared-ipad-overv... So basically only schools or businesses can use the feature. It’s really galling that the feature is already implemented but they won’t give it to us because of an obvious attempt at a money grab.

burntalmonds 2y ago
A lot of people are saying they do it just to sell more iPads, but I'm skeptical. I bet they have research telling them only a small percentage of customers want multi-user sharing.
- massysett 2y ago
  Indeed I have no interest in multi-user iPad. I have one, my wife has one, my daughter has one. Sharing them just wouldn’t get us anything. Would some people want it, sure, but features aren’t free to add or maintain. iPhone mini showed how much vocal Internet commenters (don’t) represent the actual user base. Commenters said they wanted a smaller iPhone. Then it sold poorly. And I say this as I write this on an iPhone 13 mini. I suspect the multi-user iOS, right along with the people complaining that iOS is underpowered generally, is the same phenomenon at work.
  - fauigerzigerk 2y ago
    I think the question isn't so much whether Apple users want multiuser support. Rather the question is whether Apple wants customers who can't afford to buy one of each sort of device for each family member.
  - sargun 2y ago
    At a previous company, we rotated secondary (more portable) devices around the oncall rotation. I think we used a macbook air, and some fancy portable Windows netbook. Now that iPads exist, and they're super portable, I can imagine that they'd be great for oncall. That being said, I wouldn't want my settings, say in the terminal for example, to affect mine. Although MDM is a solution, at the scale of the ~50 person company, we didn't have anything as the such, nor the capabilities, time, or money to figure it out.

macspoofing 2y ago

It's a UI/UX thing - Apple decided that iPads are single-user devices and login switching is too complicated. That's apple for you. Also, you still can't install runtime environments, making the iPad Pro a poor laptop substitute for developers - again, for no good reason. That's Apple for you.

neverokay 2y ago
Perfectly good reason. They don’t want to cannibalize existing products. You never want the customer thinking there is no real difference between a MacBook and iPad. You want them to truly believe in the uniqueness of the product. Iwatch was a master class in that bullshit. Took long enough but people did eventually realize it’s a shittier smaller phone lol (but we’re talking genuine levels of shittier).
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Complete nonsense. I love my Apple Watch. I can leave my house, make payments be fully contactable, access useful information about weather, stonks, work pager messages etc. while weaving a heavy clunky device at home and no distractions like social media. It’s also a fitness tracker and saved people I know who have heart conditions lives. I have the ultra abs the battery life is wonderful too. Like, a device that can literally save your life is shit ?
  - neverokay 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      How does your phone work as a fitness tracker with HRM ?
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        If you actually want good heart rate monitoring you get one of those straps that go around your chest anyhow.

neverokay 2y ago

iPad sharing is a massive no go. That product is mostly for the education industry and you better convince the school board every kid needs their own iPad (an AI powered one soon enough). Basically becomes a government mandated device, good business.

bamboozled 2y ago
Except they allow schools to run device sharing.

alt227 2y ago

Preface: I fully agree with you and wont buy an iPad weithout user switching. However, user switching seems to be a features more on lower priced budget devices for world markets where individual people cant afford their own devices. When you are rich enough to live in the western world and buy Apple products, you dont share them!

wlesieutre 2y ago

At a minimum I would like a guest mode so I can hand the device to someone without them being able to read all my emails and go through my photos.

moi2388 2y ago
You could employ Face ID for that no?
- ping00 2y ago
  I think that's too granular and is dependent on the apps offering Face ID as a secondary-layer authentication flow -- I think OP is suggesting an entirely different user profile that doesn't even have the same applications that the original (save for the default iPadOS apps, and even those should be logged out from your Apple ID). The cognitive overhead of "did I make sure to enable Face ID on x,y,z apps so that I can pass around my iPad without worrying about any personal data being accessible" is too high for spontaneous + casual device sharing. Example: "Hey uncle ping00, can I use your iPad real quick to watch something?" "Sure nephew, <switches profile to Guest ,and hands it over> go nuts"
- rconti 2y ago
  The implication of "I wish I could hand my iPad to..." is that the person receiving the iPad would be able to use it, not just physically hold onto it.
  - moi2388 2y ago
    I mean you can unlock the iPad with passcode, but you can lock specific apps or folders behind Face ID.. At least on Mac you are able to do this.. I agree they should just enable guest accounts etc, just thought this was a workaround in the meantime
draebek 2y ago
Is that "Guided Access"? https://support.apple.com/en-afri/guide/ipad/ipada16d1374/ipados https://support.apple.com/en-afri/guide/ipad/ipada16d1374/ip...

e63f67dd-065b 2y ago

My guess is that in addition to Apple just not caring, they have market research telling them that most users don't want this feature. I imagine that the average HN commenter is probably as far as possible from the average iPad buyer. The main usecase is for families, and it's introducing a lot of complexity for basically no return.

saurik 2y ago
Yeah, and people having families is pretty rare: no more than a few percent of their market :eyeroll:. The issue isn't that people don't want it: almost everyone wants it! The issue is that the alternatives to the iPad for its use cases are almost precisely zilch, and so implementing this feature mostly serves to cause people to spend less money on redundant iPads.

turtlebits 2y ago

While I agree multi-user would be nice, I don't necessarily agree it's a good thing for families. A shared device should be treated as such. Don't install or login to apps that you're not okay with the rest of the family accessing. I'd even argue that children that aren't old enough to have their own device (IMO before high school) don't need a personal profile. And on that tangent, kids shouldn't even use phones/tablets device unless they can responsibly use them.

boring_twenties 2y ago

Android supports this but as usual with Android, it's shoddy and broken. For example, if you log out of a secondary profile and log back in, all your widgets will be gone. I don't have the bug link handy but IIRC, it's been open since 2021.

pbronez 2y ago

AppleTV has multi-user support but it’s not NEARLY good enough. I would really appreciate more capability there. I want cleaner boundaries around the standard and child experiences, as well as more individualization. Mostly I’m annoyed that all the individual streaming apps have profiles, but they don’t have any link to the Apple ID you’re using. If I’m the active user on the AppleTV, I should see the apps I care about and my profile in those apps. TL;DR stop letting my family ruin my recommendations.

barkingcat 2y ago

the 1 person per ipad is 100% a product decision to get people to buy more ipads. if they made ipad's multiuser capable (it's is perfectly easy to do it technically) ipad sales would tank. they will never do that to their sales figures. the single user nature of the ipad is not a deficiency but a feature.

barbazoo 2y ago

Now I understand a little bit better why AppleTV (or whatever the streaming service is called) doesn't support multiple profiles either.