If Apple did this I’d buy one tomorrow. As is, the iPad is almost entirely for consumption, producing content on it is as much of a faff as using Windows - it’s really clunky, frustrating and fiddly; not Apple-esque at all. Everything from the crappy file manager to the windowing system.
Running MacOS I assume would reduce restrictions on direct hardware access and the requirement for signed apps. Right now it’s too restrictive to develop on iPadOS or run scientific programs - which often require real scripting (not Shortcuts), another impossibility on iPadOS. There are thousands of Unix utilities that could make use of the powerful M2, but as is barely anything can use the CPU to its full extent.
I’d love to have a tablet Mac where I could make in-the-field fixes to programs and scripts, fix network issues, use custom apps for specific purposes etc. None of that is possible on iPadOS.
Oh for the love of… not the ancient, tired, and utterly wrong “they are only for consumption” argument again. That was dead, buried, and decayed to dust years ago.
I and many others use iPads as our primary creation device. Painting, writing, music, Animation, I even use Numbers on it. That’s been going on for years. Also I’ve used it with Remote Desktop to access our main system when I’m on the road to edit, send and file business correspondence. It Is my go-to mobile computing device for work and content creation.
As someone immediately pointed out in a reply to the original Twitter post, the installer in the image in the post is precisely the size of iOS 13.7. It appears someone simply renamed the installer either as a gag on us or the original poster.
dewme said: This sounds like something Microsoft would do. Or to be more precise, something Microsoft has already done at least 4 times with varying degrees of failure.
But then Apple came along and took the touch screen phone concept and made it good. Then they did the same with iPadOS. So who’s to say Apple couldn’t do the same with a touch desktop?
Apple killed the Blackberry and the Palm Pilot by making a simpler device that was functionally better than either of the other things. People put down those other devices and never looked back because they didn’t give up anything to use the new iPhone. All of the descriptions of a 2-in-1 iPad/Mac in this thread above describe devices that would be less capable than a MacBook Pro and more clunky than an iPad. Apple isn’t going to do that. There’s nothing in their history or ethos that should lead anyone to believe that they’re interested in creating a device that strives to be all things to everyone by compromising what they do well. There will be no Apple El Camino.
There’s no way of spinning that Apple in any way “killed” the Palm Pilot.
dewme said: This sounds like something Microsoft would do. Or to be more precise, something Microsoft has already done at least 4 times with varying degrees of failure.
But then Apple came along and took the touch screen phone concept and made it good. Then they did the same with iPadOS. So who’s to say Apple couldn’t do the same with a touch desktop?
Apple killed the Blackberry and the Palm Pilot by making a simpler device that was functionally better than either of the other things. People put down those other devices and never looked back because they didn’t give up anything to use the new iPhone. All of the descriptions of a 2-in-1 iPad/Mac in this thread above describe devices that would be less capable than a MacBook Pro and more clunky than an iPad. Apple isn’t going to do that. There’s nothing in their history or ethos that should lead anyone to believe that they’re interested in creating a device that strives to be all things to everyone by compromising what they do well. There will be no Apple El Camino.
There’s no way of spinning that Apple in any way “killed” the Palm Pilot.
If iPhone didn't kill the Palm Pilot, it certainly danced on its grave.
dewme said: This sounds like something Microsoft would do. Or to be more precise, something Microsoft has already done at least 4 times with varying degrees of failure.
But then Apple came along and took the touch screen phone concept and made it good. Then they did the same with iPadOS. So who’s to say Apple couldn’t do the same with a touch desktop?
Apple killed the Blackberry and the Palm Pilot by making a simpler device that was functionally better than either of the other things. People put down those other devices and never looked back because they didn’t give up anything to use the new iPhone. All of the descriptions of a 2-in-1 iPad/Mac in this thread above describe devices that would be less capable than a MacBook Pro and more clunky than an iPad. Apple isn’t going to do that. There’s nothing in their history or ethos that should lead anyone to believe that they’re interested in creating a device that strives to be all things to everyone by compromising what they do well. There will be no Apple El Camino.
There’s no way of spinning that Apple in any way “killed” the Palm Pilot.
If iPhone didn't kill the Palm Pilot, it certainly danced on its grave.
Not sure how literal Crowley is considering "Palm Pilot". The Palm Pilot brand and devices were probably dead sometime in 2005? Palm Pilots were effective killed by smartphones in the early aughts. The platform lived on as Treo smartphone devices after that, running Palm OS. Not "Palm Pilots", but you got your point across AppleZulu. Basically thumb board smartphones which Palm, RIM and MS were big players in the mid-aughts. I never did get the chance to try the 25 key thumb board models, sort of a halfway in-between T9 and QWERTY.
When the iPhone came out, that definitely spelled the end of the then feature phones and smart phones, and dumb phones. It was clearly change or die for the incumbents. They really did try to change, but operating systems and software platforms take an incredible amount of work, and luck, to be successful. Nokia, LG and Sony used to be huge huge brands in the T9 era, and they are all out of the phone business now. Sony still has a few models, maybe?
Not happening. If Apple feels MacOS should be ported to iPad in whatever size/features version suitable for iPad than Apple will port on all iPads and remove iPadOS. Unless there is a MacOS for MAC and iPad; Apple not going to do half hazard job. Easily confuse consumer base.
How lame is the Apple user base that it could be "confused" by this?
dewme said: This sounds like something Microsoft would do. Or to be more precise, something Microsoft has already done at least 4 times with varying degrees of failure.
But then Apple came along and took the touch screen phone concept and made it good. Then they did the same with iPadOS. So who’s to say Apple couldn’t do the same with a touch desktop?
Apple killed the Blackberry and the Palm Pilot by making a simpler device that was functionally better than either of the other things. People put down those other devices and never looked back because they didn’t give up anything to use the new iPhone. All of the descriptions of a 2-in-1 iPad/Mac in this thread above describe devices that would be less capable than a MacBook Pro and more clunky than an iPad. Apple isn’t going to do that. There’s nothing in their history or ethos that should lead anyone to believe that they’re interested in creating a device that strives to be all things to everyone by compromising what they do well. There will be no Apple El Camino.
There’s no way of spinning that Apple in any way “killed” the Palm Pilot.
If iPhone didn't kill the Palm Pilot, it certainly danced on its grave.
Not sure how literal Crowley is considering "Palm Pilot". The Palm Pilot brand and devices were probably dead sometime in 2005? Palm Pilots were effective killed by smartphones in the early aughts. The platform lived on as Treo smartphone devices after that, running Palm OS. Not "Palm Pilots", but you got your point across AppleZulu. Basically thumb board smartphones which Palm, RIM and MS were big players in the mid-aughts. I never did get the chance to try the 25 key thumb board models, sort of a halfway in-between T9 and QWERTY.
When the iPhone came out, that definitely spelled the end of the then feature phones and smart phones, and dumb phones. It was clearly change or die for the incumbents. They really did try to change, but operating systems and software platforms take an incredible amount of work, and luck, to be successful. Nokia, LG and Sony used to be huge huge brands in the T9 era, and they are all out of the phone business now. Sony still has a few models, maybe?
A version of Nokia still exists and is making phones.
dewme said: This sounds like something Microsoft would do. Or to be more precise, something Microsoft has already done at least 4 times with varying degrees of failure.
But then Apple came along and took the touch screen phone concept and made it good. Then they did the same with iPadOS. So who’s to say Apple couldn’t do the same with a touch desktop?
Apple killed the Blackberry and the Palm Pilot by making a simpler device that was functionally better than either of the other things. People put down those other devices and never looked back because they didn’t give up anything to use the new iPhone. All of the descriptions of a 2-in-1 iPad/Mac in this thread above describe devices that would be less capable than a MacBook Pro and more clunky than an iPad. Apple isn’t going to do that. There’s nothing in their history or ethos that should lead anyone to believe that they’re interested in creating a device that strives to be all things to everyone by compromising what they do well. There will be no Apple El Camino.
There’s no way of spinning that Apple in any way “killed” the Palm Pilot.
If iPhone didn't kill the Palm Pilot, it certainly danced on its grave.
Not sure how literal Crowley is considering "Palm Pilot". The Palm Pilot brand and devices were probably dead sometime in 2005? Palm Pilots were effective killed by smartphones in the early aughts. The platform lived on as Treo smartphone devices after that, running Palm OS. Not "Palm Pilots", but you got your point across AppleZulu. Basically thumb board smartphones which Palm, RIM and MS were big players in the mid-aughts. I never did get the chance to try the 25 key thumb board models, sort of a halfway in-between T9 and QWERTY.
When the iPhone came out, that definitely spelled the end of the then feature phones and smart phones, and dumb phones. It was clearly change or die for the incumbents. They really did try to change, but operating systems and software platforms take an incredible amount of work, and luck, to be successful. Nokia, LG and Sony used to be huge huge brands in the T9 era, and they are all out of the phone business now. Sony still has a few models, maybe?
A version of Nokia still exists and is making phones.
Wow! I forgot about that. I wonder what their marketshare in the EU is?
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. People who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There would be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. For people who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There were be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
Very interesting perspective. This is exactly the kind of free flow of ideas and different ways of looking at topics that can differentiate a true “insiders” community or forum like AppleInsider from all of the others.
I’d never have considered the possibility of running iPadOS and macOS side by side on the same hardware, but why not?
Whether this or any other of the several speculative concepts put out there ever come to fruition doesn’t really matter. Apple totally controls that. But it’s still very interesting to see how other people can envision a concept or rumor unfolding into what could someday be a reality. It’s all about enjoying the voyage, whether real or imagined.
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. For people who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There were be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
Very interesting perspective. This is exactly the kind of free flow of ideas and different ways of looking at topics that can differentiate a true “insiders” community or forum like AppleInsider from all of the others.
I’d never have considered the possibility of running iPadOS and macOS side by side on the same hardware, but why not?
Whether this or any other of the several speculative concepts put out there ever come to fruition doesn’t really matter. Apple totally controls that. But it’s still very interesting to see how other people can envision a concept or rumor unfolding into what could someday be a reality. It’s all about enjoying the voyage, whether real or imagined.
I am convinced that in some lab in Cupertino, there are Macs running iPadOS and iPads running macOS.
Could Apple take these to market? Probably. Here's the key thing that many here don't want to accept: APPLE DOESN'T WANT TO.
They probably keep running these prototypes to see if there's any justifiable user case where it makes sense to let iPad run macOS. More likely they see certain functionality that might be considered to migrate over. Hence iOS apps to Macs and something more like a desktop manager to iPad.
In a similar way, there are undoubtedly prototype Macs in a lab with touchscreen displays. There's probably an iPad with a permanent keyboard attached via a hinge. It's not like if anyone at Apple read what I just wrote, they'd slap their head and say "Why didn't we think of that?!?"
One thing for sure: iOS and iPadOS are optimized for touch input and are architected for power efficiency because all host devices are handhelds and have limited hardware resources. macOS is optimized for mouse/keyboard/trackpad input and allow for greater performance.
The rumor there's an iPad running macOS shouldn't come as a surprise. The only surprise would be if Apple took this to market anytime soon.
Not happening. If Apple feels MacOS should be ported to iPad in whatever size/features version suitable for iPad than Apple will port on all iPads and remove iPadOS. Unless there is a MacOS for MAC and iPad; Apple not going to do half hazard job. Easily confuse consumer base.
How lame is the Apple user base that it could be "confused" by this?
Confused not in a technical sense, but from a product positioning point of view. It would completely ruin the clarity between products and their use-cases. Apple is definitely not the company that would allow two of their own operating systems on the same device. But they might be R&D’ing regardless.
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. People who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There would be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
This just makes my head hurt. That’s not how any of this works. Here we have a bloatware, dual simultaneous(!) OS iPad that requires an external screen to use the second OS. It will not “be the lightest Mac” because you have to lug around a separate display. It will be less convenient than any MacBook because the Mac display is a separate device. Simultaneously running two operating systems, it will be slower than either individual device, when it’s not crashing from simultaneous but incongruous demands on the processor, memory, etc.
All of the supposed benefits of this arrangement are achieved way more effectively by using an iPad and a MacBook Pro. You can already transfer documents from one to the other seamlessly, and each has the full attention of its processor and memory to carry out tasks.
Also, Apple operating systems are not “free.” They are included in the price of Apple hardware. Apple cannot simply give away MacOS as a second operating system for free as an iPad app.
I left the MS Windows world behind long ago, in no small part because I really hated the ubiquity of the “workaround” as a means to make your computer do things.
Apple’s ‘It just works’ ethos is the antithesis of that. It’s reliable and does the things it’s supposed to do, and you’re not meant to ‘get under the hood’ to force it to do other things. The hardware and software are designed together to do the things that it does well, and not to chase every possible permutation of bells and whistles in an effort to be all things to all people. It’s how Apple avoids bloatware, hardware and software conflicts and system freezes and crashes.
It’s mind-boggling that supposed Apple enthusiasts are oblivious to that ethos or don’t understand at all how it’s achieved. So they come up with “ideas” to make Apple become complicated, buggy, and with this gem of an idea, primed for an awkward, clunky workaround on the most fundamental level.
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. People who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There would be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
This just makes my head hurt. That’s not how any of this works. Here we have a bloatware, dual simultaneous(!) OS iPad that requires an external screen to use the second OS. It will not “be the lightest Mac” because you have to lug around a separate display. It will be less convenient than any MacBook because the Mac display is a separate device. Simultaneously running two operating systems, it will be slower than either individual device, when it’s not crashing from simultaneous but incongruous demands on the processor, memory, etc.
All of the supposed benefits of this arrangement are achieved way more effectively by using an iPad and a MacBook Pro. You can already transfer documents from one to the other seamlessly, and each has the full attention of its processor and memory to carry out tasks.
Also, Apple operating systems are not “free.” They are included in the price of Apple hardware. Apple cannot simply give away MacOS as a second operating system for free as an iPad app.
I left the MS Windows world behind long ago, in no small part because I really hated the ubiquity of the “workaround” as a means to make your computer do things.
Apple’s ‘It just works’ ethos is the antithesis of that. It’s reliable and does the things it’s supposed to do, and you’re not meant to ‘get under the hood’ to force it to do other things. The hardware and software are designed together to do the things that it does well, and not to chase every possible permutation of bells and whistles in an effort to be all things to all people. It’s how Apple avoids bloatware, hardware and software conflicts and system freezes and crashes.
It’s mind-boggling that supposed Apple enthusiasts are oblivious to that ethos or don’t understand at all how it’s achieved. So they come up with “ideas” to make Apple become complicated, buggy, and with this gem of an idea, primed for an awkward, clunky workaround on the most fundamental level.
You wouldn't have to lug a display around - one at home, one at work - and there would be nothing stopping them displaying the Mac view on the iPad without touch support but it's more intuitive for it to be on an external non-touch display and leave the iPad fully controllable.
The commands to the processor and storage don't have to be entirely separate, both systems share the same base architecture.
It would be slower than separate hardware but not unusably slow. Both iPad Pro and Macbooks are way ahead of basic needs in terms of efficiency and people buy both with 8GB so running two systems with 16GB RAM is fine. iPad OS runs fine with under 2GB RAM.
The proper secondary display support that was added to iPad OS has improved things a lot so continued improvement there might be enough but it will always be lacking full-featured apps and software devs are one of Apple's biggest customers:
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. People who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There would be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
This just makes my head hurt. That’s not how any of this works. Here we have a bloatware, dual simultaneous(!) OS iPad that requires an external screen to use the second OS. It will not “be the lightest Mac” because you have to lug around a separate display. It will be less convenient than any MacBook because the Mac display is a separate device. Simultaneously running two operating systems, it will be slower than either individual device, when it’s not crashing from simultaneous but incongruous demands on the processor, memory, etc.
All of the supposed benefits of this arrangement are achieved way more effectively by using an iPad and a MacBook Pro. You can already transfer documents from one to the other seamlessly, and each has the full attention of its processor and memory to carry out tasks.
Also, Apple operating systems are not “free.” They are included in the price of Apple hardware. Apple cannot simply give away MacOS as a second operating system for free as an iPad app.
I left the MS Windows world behind long ago, in no small part because I really hated the ubiquity of the “workaround” as a means to make your computer do things.
Apple’s ‘It just works’ ethos is the antithesis of that. It’s reliable and does the things it’s supposed to do, and you’re not meant to ‘get under the hood’ to force it to do other things. The hardware and software are designed together to do the things that it does well, and not to chase every possible permutation of bells and whistles in an effort to be all things to all people. It’s how Apple avoids bloatware, hardware and software conflicts and system freezes and crashes.
It’s mind-boggling that supposed Apple enthusiasts are oblivious to that ethos or don’t understand at all how it’s achieved. So they come up with “ideas” to make Apple become complicated, buggy, and with this gem of an idea, primed for an awkward, clunky workaround on the most fundamental level.
You wouldn't have to lug a display around - one at home, one at work - and there would be nothing stopping them displaying the Mac view on the iPad without touch support but it's more intuitive for it to be on an external non-touch display and leave the iPad fully controllable.
The commands to the processor and storage don't have to be entirely separate, both systems share the same base architecture.
It would be slower than separate hardware but not unusably slow. Both iPad Pro and Macbooks are way ahead of basic needs in terms of efficiency and people buy both with 8GB so running two systems with 16GB RAM is fine. iPad OS runs fine with under 2GB RAM.
The proper secondary display support that was added to iPad OS has improved things a lot so continued improvement there might be enough but it will always be lacking full-featured apps and software devs are one of Apple's biggest customers:
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
You’re describing a combo device that would sort of deliver both operating systems, but in a compromised package that is markedly inferior to the things it’s supposed to replace, supposedly to offer consumers a cheaper option than using separate iPads and MacBooks.
When has Apple ever introduced a new or expanded (but compromised) device in order to pursue the low-end of the market? Sure, they’ll offer a version of a prior year’s watch or phone at a lower cost, but that’s not what this is.
You’re suggesting that Apple cannibalize their MacBook line to offer a slower, inferior MacOS experience as a free add-on to a MacBook Pro. There is nothing in their history to indicate they would ever do something like that.
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
This is why I always think it's a bad idea to position iPad for students as some may take programming courses and that would not be possible with iPad. They would need to get a Mac or Windows. It just makes no sense if iPadOS cannot allow programmers to develop applications using popular languages like Python/NodeJS/C then what good is iPad for other than creative content creation and media consumption?
So, maybe if they could modify iPadOS to allow programmers to run those popular programming languages in a small generic VM (like Docker), that would be a huge step. Especially with web development.
But but didn’t hair force one give a number of RECENT interviews stating apple has no intentions to merge Mac OS and iPad?… LOL
Federighi manages both macOS and iOS development and won't merge the systems. Both systems already run on M1, macOS can run iOS apps and iOS supports external displays. All that's needed is boot support for macOS on iPad hardware.
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. People who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There would be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
This just makes my head hurt. That’s not how any of this works. Here we have a bloatware, dual simultaneous(!) OS iPad that requires an external screen to use the second OS. It will not “be the lightest Mac” because you have to lug around a separate display. It will be less convenient than any MacBook because the Mac display is a separate device. Simultaneously running two operating systems, it will be slower than either individual device, when it’s not crashing from simultaneous but incongruous demands on the processor, memory, etc.
All of the supposed benefits of this arrangement are achieved way more effectively by using an iPad and a MacBook Pro. You can already transfer documents from one to the other seamlessly, and each has the full attention of its processor and memory to carry out tasks.
Also, Apple operating systems are not “free.” They are included in the price of Apple hardware. Apple cannot simply give away MacOS as a second operating system for free as an iPad app.
I left the MS Windows world behind long ago, in no small part because I really hated the ubiquity of the “workaround” as a means to make your computer do things.
Apple’s ‘It just works’ ethos is the antithesis of that. It’s reliable and does the things it’s supposed to do, and you’re not meant to ‘get under the hood’ to force it to do other things. The hardware and software are designed together to do the things that it does well, and not to chase every possible permutation of bells and whistles in an effort to be all things to all people. It’s how Apple avoids bloatware, hardware and software conflicts and system freezes and crashes.
It’s mind-boggling that supposed Apple enthusiasts are oblivious to that ethos or don’t understand at all how it’s achieved. So they come up with “ideas” to make Apple become complicated, buggy, and with this gem of an idea, primed for an awkward, clunky workaround on the most fundamental level.
You wouldn't have to lug a display around - one at home, one at work - and there would be nothing stopping them displaying the Mac view on the iPad without touch support but it's more intuitive for it to be on an external non-touch display and leave the iPad fully controllable.
The commands to the processor and storage don't have to be entirely separate, both systems share the same base architecture.
It would be slower than separate hardware but not unusably slow. Both iPad Pro and Macbooks are way ahead of basic needs in terms of efficiency and people buy both with 8GB so running two systems with 16GB RAM is fine. iPad OS runs fine with under 2GB RAM.
The proper secondary display support that was added to iPad OS has improved things a lot so continued improvement there might be enough but it will always be lacking full-featured apps and software devs are one of Apple's biggest customers:
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
You’re describing a combo device that would sort of deliver both operating systems, but in a compromised package that is markedly inferior to the things it’s supposed to replace, supposedly to offer consumers a cheaper option than using separate iPads and MacBooks.
When has Apple ever introduced a new or expanded (but compromised) device in order to pursue the low-end of the market? Sure, they’ll offer a version of a prior year’s watch or phone at a lower cost, but that’s not what this is.
You’re suggesting that Apple cannibalize their MacBook line to offer a slower, inferior MacOS experience as a free add-on to a MacBook Pro. There is nothing in their history to indicate they would ever do something like that.
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
So, maybe if they could modify iPadOS to allow programmers to run those popular programming languages in a small generic VM (like Docker), that would be a huge step. Especially with web development.
That's a possibility. Running a VM would get another step towards development support. If they allow the following to run, which somehow is allowed to run Python:
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
This is why I always think it's a bad idea to position iPad for students as some may take programming courses and that would not be possible with iPad. They would need to get a Mac or Windows. It just makes no sense if iPadOS cannot allow programmers to develop applications using popular languages like Python/NodeJS/C then what good is iPad for other than creative content creation and media consumption?
So, maybe if they could modify iPadOS to allow programmers to run those popular programming languages in a small generic VM (like Docker), that would be a huge step. Especially with web development.
iPadOS has quite a few programming environments, including C/C++/Python/Javascript for people to learn how to code and do basics. So it is fine for beginners. I've dabbled in Pythonista and it seems fine. Can't download packages that don't come with it, but you can do a lot with the builtin packages and with what is there. Apple should have a Terminal.app so users can grow into a typical environment. They also need to have bigger displays and external display support, something they charge a lot for or have just started to support. Maybe iPadOS 17 for a Terminal.app.
Apple's issue with education is that its the same as their issue with Enterprise. There is basically no difference between the two. IT sets up the environmental framework for the school or the business. They mandate having this or that. They want the cheapest possible hardware and software. That's not Apple.
Chromebooks are like $300. Windows laptops are something like $400. Services and tools are "cheap". My kids' school district uses web software from some book publisher that looks to be designed in the 1990s or 2000s. Fixed size web design for something like 800x600 displays. They are all in as MS Office 365 environment, cloud and all. The Dell laptops are basically cheap as possible tanks. Apple is not going to chase this. Google? They seem to love it? Maybe? Who knows with Google.
Apple could make a Mac laptop with an A14, 8 GB of RAM, 128 GB storage, and a 13" display for $800. They won't do that even though it has been possible for at least 2 years now. That $150 Apple TV with A15? Double the RAM to 8 GB and that could be a nice Mac for $300 and have some margin at that price. They aren't going go do that either.
Comments
So just drop that argument.
When the iPhone came out, that definitely spelled the end of the then feature phones and smart phones, and dumb phones. It was clearly change or die for the incumbents. They really did try to change, but operating systems and software platforms take an incredible amount of work, and luck, to be successful. Nokia, LG and Sony used to be huge huge brands in the T9 era, and they are all out of the phone business now. Sony still has a few models, maybe?
It doesn't make sense to run macOS on all the iPads because there's not enough storage and RAM on all of them but the iPad Pros go up to 16GB/2TB.
The Mac install and boot can be controlled by iPad OS, which can be running at the same time and require that an external display be plugged in to show macOS. iPad OS will continue to be displayed on the touch screen and macOS will display on the external display. macOS will be able to open supported iPad apps and files/email/calendar/music can be shared between both systems.
This makes a higher priced iPad Pro (1TB 12" is $1799) way more appealing for some people as they don't have to get both Mac and iPad. They can sketch in Procreate with the Pencil and import it into Photoshop on the external display on the same device.
While the iPad is connected to the display, the mouse would seamlessly switch between both systems and allow drag and drop. There's no adding touch to the Mac (which they can't due to the UI) and iPad OS stays the same but the user gets the best of both. It allows software development because macOS will allow compilation in the background. On the go, someone can code in an editor on iPad and compilation can run on the Mac system without breaking the iPadOS sandbox and the Mac can install it on iPad for testing if it's an iPad app.
It would also be entirely optional. People who are happy to use iPads with just iPad OS can do that. People who need the Mac side get this extra capability with minimal effort. There would be a macOS for iPad app that installs the OS and allows booting it in the background. The app will say to connect a monitor and it can switch between using as an extended display for iPad OS and showing macOS.
It would be the lightest Mac at half the weight of the Air. This is zero convergence between iOS and macOS, it's just allowing extra optional capability to the iPad hardware.
Could Apple take these to market? Probably. Here's the key thing that many here don't want to accept: APPLE DOESN'T WANT TO.
They probably keep running these prototypes to see if there's any justifiable user case where it makes sense to let iPad run macOS. More likely they see certain functionality that might be considered to migrate over. Hence iOS apps to Macs and something more like a desktop manager to iPad.
In a similar way, there are undoubtedly prototype Macs in a lab with touchscreen displays. There's probably an iPad with a permanent keyboard attached via a hinge. It's not like if anyone at Apple read what I just wrote, they'd slap their head and say "Why didn't we think of that?!?"
One thing for sure: iOS and iPadOS are optimized for touch input and are architected for power efficiency because all host devices are handhelds and have limited hardware resources. macOS is optimized for mouse/keyboard/trackpad input and allow for greater performance.
The rumor there's an iPad running macOS shouldn't come as a surprise. The only surprise would be if Apple took this to market anytime soon.
All of the supposed benefits of this arrangement are achieved way more effectively by using an iPad and a MacBook Pro. You can already transfer documents from one to the other seamlessly, and each has the full attention of its processor and memory to carry out tasks.
Also, Apple operating systems are not “free.” They are included in the price of Apple hardware. Apple cannot simply give away MacOS as a second operating system for free as an iPad app.
The commands to the processor and storage don't have to be entirely separate, both systems share the same base architecture.
It would be slower than separate hardware but not unusably slow. Both iPad Pro and Macbooks are way ahead of basic needs in terms of efficiency and people buy both with 8GB so running two systems with 16GB RAM is fine. iPad OS runs fine with under 2GB RAM.
The proper secondary display support that was added to iPad OS has improved things a lot so continued improvement there might be enough but it will always be lacking full-featured apps and software devs are one of Apple's biggest customers:
Apple's marketing pushes iPads for students and they are pushing software development as being one of the most important skills young people can learn but they don't allow code compilation on iPads, no C/C++/NodeJS/Python. A dual system setup is an instant fix for this.
Maybe it doesn't need to be the whole OS running. Mac apps can run in full-screen mode. There may be a way to have a Mac app run in a pane similar to an iPad app. It would just need to be clear that the view wasn't touch enabled. This would be more like running Mac apps on the iPad than running macOS in a similar way to running iOS apps on macOS. The user wouldn't have to think about the OS part and would just open a Mac app like Final Cut and iPad OS takes care of the background system requirements.
This is why I always think it's a bad idea to position iPad for students as some may take programming courses and that would not be possible with iPad. They would need to get a Mac or Windows. It just makes no sense if iPadOS cannot allow programmers to develop applications using popular languages like Python/NodeJS/C then what good is iPad for other than creative content creation and media consumption?
So, maybe if they could modify iPadOS to allow programmers to run those popular programming languages in a small generic VM (like Docker), that would be a huge step. Especially with web development.
https://developer.apple.com/macos/iphone-and-ipad-apps/
This is just the reverse.
It wouldn't cause much cannibalization. People haven't stopped buying iPads now that they can run iOS apps on Mac.
Apple also had Bootcamp before, this would be much less involved than Bootcamp.
That's a possibility. Running a VM would get another step towards development support. If they allow the following to run, which somehow is allowed to run Python:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/ish-shell/id1436902243
https://ish.app
they should be able to support their own VM for compilation and could allow apps like After Effects and Blender to work, as well as web development.
Apple's issue with education is that its the same as their issue with Enterprise. There is basically no difference between the two. IT sets up the environmental framework for the school or the business. They mandate having this or that. They want the cheapest possible hardware and software. That's not Apple.
Chromebooks are like $300. Windows laptops are something like $400. Services and tools are "cheap". My kids' school district uses web software from some book publisher that looks to be designed in the 1990s or 2000s. Fixed size web design for something like 800x600 displays. They are all in as MS Office 365 environment, cloud and all. The Dell laptops are basically cheap as possible tanks. Apple is not going to chase this. Google? They seem to love it? Maybe? Who knows with Google.
Apple could make a Mac laptop with an A14, 8 GB of RAM, 128 GB storage, and a 13" display for $800. They won't do that even though it has been possible for at least 2 years now. That $150 Apple TV with A15? Double the RAM to 8 GB and that could be a nice Mac for $300 and have some margin at that price. They aren't going go do that either.