This really reminds me of the 80/20 articles that made the frontpage yesterday. Just because a lot of HN users lament the fact that their 20% needs (can't run an LLM or compile large projects on an iPad) aren't met by an iPad doesn't mean that most people's needs can't be satisfied in a walled garden. The tablet form factor really is superior for a number of creative tasks where you can be both "hands on" with your work and "untethered". Nomad Sculpt in particular just feels like magic to me, with an Apple Pencil it's almost like being back in my high school pottery class without getting my hands dirty. And a lot of the time when you're doing creative work you're not necessarily doing a lot of tabbing back and forth, being able to float reference material over the top of your workspace is enough.
At this point Apple still recognizes that there is a large enough audience to keep selling MacBooks that are still general purpose computing devices to people who need them. Given their recent missteps in software, time will tell if they continue to recognize that need.
Downloading 15 different paid or free-with-in-app-purchases or free-with-ads apps to see which one actually does what it's supposed to do is one of those workarounds. I've learned how to do it and done it a bunch of times and I don't really like it. I much prefer the macOS/Windows/Linux workflow where there's typically some established, community run and trustworthy FOSS software to do whatever conversion you need.
Yeah, that took a long time for MS to get to not suck after Windows 8, but touch and tablet interactions on Windows 10 and Windows 11 work perfectly well.
WTH?? This is the first I am hearing this nonsense. Yet another reason why I won't get an iPad even though I am all in on Apple's ecosystem. It seems that Apple sees iPad users as the bottom feeders ripe for exploitation.
Assertions like this are what kill the iPad. Yes, DAWs "exist" but can only load the shitty AUs that Apple supports on the App Store. Professional plugins like Spectrasonics or U-He won't run on the iPad, only the Mac. CAD software "runs" but only supports the most basic parametric modeling. You're going to get your Macbook or Wintel machine to run your engineering workloads if that's your profession. Not because the iPad can't do these things, but because Apple recognizes that they can double their sales gimping good hardware. No such limitations exist on, say, the Surface lineup. It's wholly artificial.
I'm reminded of Damon Albarn's album The Fall - which he allegedly recorded on an iPad. It's far-and-away his least professional release, and there's no indication he ever returned to iOS for another album. Much like the iPad itself, The Fall is an enshrined gimmick fighting for recognition in a bibliography of genuinely important releases. Apple engineers aren't designing the next unibody Mac chassis on an iPad. They're not mixing, mastering and color-grading their advertisements on an iPad. God help them if they're shooting any footage with the dogshit 12MP camera they put on those things. iPads do nothing particularly well, which is acceptable for moseying around the web and playing Angry Birds but literally untenable in any industry with cutting-edge, creative or competitive software demands. Ask the pros.
It's easy to blame "Apple greedy" but optimizing either device to support an alternate input method degrades both. Apple is (supposed to be) all about a "polished" experience so this doesn't mesh with their design ethos. Any time I have seen a desktop environment get optimized for touch, people complain about it degrading the desktop experience. MacOS isn't even there yet and people are already complaining.
There are plenty of good AUs on the App Store (to name a few: DM10, Sonobus, the recent AudioKit modeled synths), but yes the selection of AUs on desktop is far greater. Most AU developers aren't going to pay the developer fee and go through the effort of developing, again, an entirely separate user interface, not to mention go through the app store approval process, to target a smaller market. It's a matter of familiarity. Just because your workflow depends on products that don't exist on iPad, doesn't mean that someone else's workflow isn't entirely productive without it. The entire industry is built on path dependence, so it's no wonder that software that has codebases that span decades and depend on backwards compatibility, i.e. the music production and CAD software, are not finding a lot of competition in the mobile space. Apple isn't designing their next unibody Mac chassis on the iPad, but that doesn't mean that a small business that makes 3D printed widgets isn't going to be happy using Onshape.
To be clear: I don't think an iPad is a _substitute_ for a desktop machine in most professional workflows. Partially due to path-dependence, and partially due to the greater information density that a desktop environment affords. But there are some workflows where the iPad feels like a much more _natural_ interface for the task at hand, and then that task can be transferred to the desktop machine for the parts where it isn't.
They've been doing exactly this since the first M1 MacBooks came out in 2020.
Literally everything you do gets the full power of the chips. They finish tasks faster using less power than previous chips. They can then use smaller batteries and thinner devices. A higher ceiling on performance is only one aspect of an upgraded CPU. A lower floor on energy consumed per task is typically much more important for mobile devices.
You probably won’t notice this when using the new machine.
For me, it only becomes noticeable when I go back to something slower.
It’s easy to take the new speed as a given.
> What if I don't notice the difference between video playback consuming 20% of the chip's available compute and it consuming 10%?
You would notice it in increased battery life. A CPU that finishes the task faster and more efficiently will get back into low power mode quicker.
And that's for macOS. For any other platgorm they actively prohibit any third party operating systems.
1. If you don't know what to do with it, why did you buy it?
2. If you wanted a general purpose computer, why did you buy an iPad?
3. Which iPadOS limitations are particularly painful for you?
It was mentioned, as almost a side comment somewhere, that the M chip is in there for multitasking and higher end image/video editing for "Pros". I could certainly use the M4 in an iPad Pro for iPadOS 26 and it's multitasking. I run into occasional slowness when multitasking on my M2 iPad Air.
Why an iPad? Android tablets have been... not great for a long time. The pencil is very handy, and the ecosystem has the best apps. Also, I know a few rather handy tricks Safari can do, such as exporting entire webpages as PDF after a full-screen screenshot, that are very useful to my workflow.
2. I already own multiple general purpose computers. They're not as convenient as an iPad. My ridiculously powerful PC or even my decent laptop doesn't allow the same workflow. However, that's not an intentional software limitation, it's a consequence of their form factor, so I can't hold Microsoft to blame. On the other hand,Apple could easily make an iPad equivalent to a MacBook by getting out of the way.
3. The inability/difficulty of side-loading apps, the restriction to a locked down store. Refusing to make an interface that would allow for laptop-equivalent usage with an external/Bluetooth m+k. You can use an external monitor, but a 13" screen should already be perfectly good if window management and M+K usage wasn't subpar. Macs and iPads have near identical chips (the differences between an M chip for either are minor), and just being able to run MacOs apps on device would be very handy. Apple has allowed for developer opt-out emulation of iOS and iPadOS apps on Mac for a while now, why not the other way around?
If not obvious from the fact that I'm commenting on HN, I would gain utility from terminal access, the ability to compile and run apps on device, a better filesystem etc. Apple doesn't allow x86 emulators, nor can I just install Proton or Wine. If I can't side-load on a whim, it's not a general purpose computer. I can't use a browser that isn't just reskinned Safari, which rules out a great deal of obvious utility. There are a whole host of possible classes of apps, such as a torrent manager, which are allowed on other platforms but not on iPadOS. It's bullshit.
My pc and laptop simply aren't as convenient for the things I need an iPad for, and they can't be. On the other hand, my iPad could easily do many things I rely on a PC for, if Apple would get out of the way. iPadOS 26 is a step in the right direction, but there's dozens left to go.
All I can say is: stay tuned.
Browser engine lock-in - no Firefox+uBlock Origin = me no buy. And yes, there is Orion, which can run uBlock, but it and Safari have horrible UI/UX.
What rumors have you seen? Anytime I've seen speculation, Apple execs seem to shut that idea down. Is there more evidence this is happening? If anything, Apple's recent moves to "macify" iPadOS indicate their strategy is to tempt people over into the locked down ecosystem, rather than bring the (more) open macOS to the iPad.
> @mingchikuo
> MacBook models will feature a touch panel for the first time, further blurring the line with the iPad. This shift appears to reflect Apple’s long-term observation of iPad user behavior, indicating that in certain scenarios, touch controls can enhance both productivity and the overall user experience.
> 1. The OLED MacBook Pro, expected to enter mass production by late 2026, will incorporate a touch panel using on-cell touch technology.
> 2. The more affordable MacBook model powered by an iPhone processor, slated for mass production in 4Q25, will not support a touch panel. Specifications for its second-generation version, anticipated in 2027, remain under discussion and could include touch support.
I don't understand the appeal, even a little bit. Reaching up to touch the screen is awkward, and every large touchpanel I've used has had to trade off antiglare coating effectiveness to accomodate oleophobic coating. For me, this would be an objective downgrade — the touch capability would never get used, but poor antiglare would be a constant thorn in my side. I can only hope that it's an option and not mandatory, and I may upgrade once the M5 generation releases (which is supposedly just a spec bump) as insurance.
And, in regards to smudges, I mean, just don't use the touchscreen unless you have to and problem avoided.
Antiglare can be a thing but that can be avoided by avoiding string lighting behind you.
FWIW, I often rotate my Samsung Galaxy Book 3 Pro 360 so that the screen is in portrait mode, then hold the laptop as if it's a book and use a stylus and touch on the display with my right hand, and operate the keyboard for modifiers/shortcuts with my left, or open it flat on a lapdesk.
They also said they weren’t merging iOS and macOS, and with every release that becomes more of a lie.
One article that talks about it: https://osxdaily.com/2025/09/19/why-im-holding-off-on-upgrad...
For less discerning users maybe the rough edges aren't that noticeable. But the point of choosing Apple products is you should be a discerning consumer.
the point i'm trying to make is that "apple consumers" are more critical.
There’s no good way to phrase a thought that is fundamentally flawed.
Neither of those things worry me personally, and I think the previous user calling it a “crappification” is still somewhat of an overreaction. Obviously from an accessibility standpoint transparency/legibility is important but as far as I’m aware tweaks are being made and these things can also be turned off or modified in accessibility settings.
There have been rumours of Apple wanting to shift Macs to ARM chips for 14 years. When they made that announcement, they already knew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silico...
It was obvious it was going to happen. I remember seeing Apple announcing iPads doing tasks my Mac at the time could only dream of and thinking they would surely do the switch.
> It turns out that people want windowing options on their large and expensive tablet, to do long-running tasks in the background
The problem isn’t them making iOS (or iPadOS) more like macOS, it’s them doing the reverse.
Yep, the ongoing convergence made that pretty clear. The emphatic "No" was to reassure 2018's macOS developers that they wouldn't need to rewrite their apps as xOS apps anytime soon, which was (and is) true 7 years later.
This is the same session where Craig said, "There are millions of iOS apps out there. We think some of them would look great on the Mac." and announced that Mohave would include xOS apps. Every developer there understood that, as time went on, they would be using more and more shared APIs and frameworks.
> The problem isn’t them making iOS (or iPadOS) more like macOS, it’s them doing the reverse.
That ship has sailed, but it's also completely overblown.
Speak for yourself. I for one despise the current direction of the Mac and the complete disregard for the (once good) Human Interface Guidelines. It’s everywhere on macOS now.
Simple example: The fugly switches which replaced checkboxes. Not only to they look wrong on the Mac, they’re less functional. With checkboxes you can click their text to toggle them; not so with the switches.
I’m not even going to touch on the Liquid Glass bugs, or I’d be writing a comment the length of the Iliad.
You'll be happy to know that checkboxes still exist and work like you'd expect. https://imgur.com/a/p2Xe1WL
Apple provides HIG guidance on switch vs. checkbox toggles here: https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline... It boils down to, "Use the switch toggle style only in a list row".
The Apple Vision Pro was a far more extreme product and was kept pretty well under wraps. (tho a market failure).
Beta quality and expense without value are just some of the reasons for it's failure.
Apple already makes low cost versions of those, which are the previous models that they continue to manufacture.
Apparently there are references to it in macOS already.
It blew the doors off every other laptop and desktop I've had (before or since).
When I think back to how quickly obsolete things became when I was younger (ie 90s and 00s), today's devices seem to last forever.
It's a nice problem to have, since for most of computing history it's been the other way around. (Meaning the hardware was the constraint, not the OS.)
Sometimes though Youtube will make the iPad uncomfortably hot and consume the battery at an insane pace.
So, I guess there's someone using the performance.
In iPadOS 26, more extensive multi-window multitasking like Mac was added.
The quantity of windows you can keep open at once depends on your iPad’s SoC.
If you have a newer Pro iPad with more memory you can keep more of them open and slow down happens further down the rabbit hole.
The hardware is being pushed and used.
As another example, the iPad has pretty intensive legitimate professional content creation apps now (Logic Pro, Final Cut Pro, and others).
So there are people out there pushing the hardware, although I’ll join those who will say that it’s not for me specifically.
There is no particular reason a general purpose computer should be "not for me specifically" in terms of what you can do in software. In terms of design, sure. But not in terms of what you can do in software.
(I have a suspicion the same reason is responsible for why you basically don't find open source software on iOS devices the way you would on even Android or Windows; it doesn't make any money to take a cut out of.)
> It's a nice problem to have, since for most of computing history it's been the other way around. (Meaning the hardware was the constraint, not the OS.)
For anyone who works with (full-size) image or video processing, the hardware is still the constraint... Things like high-ISO noise reduction are a 20-second process for a single image.
I would be happy to have a laptop that was 10x as fast as my MacBook Pro.
Did everyone forget that these chips started in general purpose MacBooks and were later put in the iPad?
If general purpose computing is the goal you can get a cheap Mac Mini
That's sort of the funny thing here. Apple's situation is almost the perfect inverse of Intel's. Intel fell completely off the wagon[1], but they did so at exactly the moment where the arc of innovation hit a wall and could do the least damage. They're merely bad, but are still selling plenty of chips and their devices work... just fine!
Apple, on the other hand, launched a shocking, world-beating product line that destroys its competition in basically all measurable ways into a market that... just doesn't care that much anymore. All the stuff we want to spend transistors on moved into the cloud. Games live on GPUs and not unified SOCs. A handful of AI nerds does not much of a market make.
And iOS... I mean, as mentioned what are you even going to do with all that? Even the comparatively-very-disappointing Pixel 10 (I haven't even upgrade my 9!) is still a totally great all-day phone with great features.
[1] As of right now, unless 18A rides in to save them, Intel's best process is almost five YEARS behind the industry leader's.
I really don’t like macOS but I’ve shifted to recommending Mac to all my friends and family given the battery, portability and, and speed.
Also, again, most folks just don't care. And of the remainder:
> Compiles code twice as fast as my new Windows desktop
That's because MS's filesystem layer has been garbage since NT was launched decades ago and they've never managed to catch up. Also if you're not apples/applesing and are measuring native C/C++ builds: VS is an OK optimizer but lags clang badly in build speed. The actual CPU is faster, but not by nearly 2x.
>That's because MS's filesystem layer has been garbage since NT was launched decades ago [...]
I confess that this kind of excuse drives me batty. End users don't buy CPUs and buy filesystems. They buy entire systems. "Well, it's not really that much faster, it's just that part of the system is junk. The rest is comparable!" That may be, but the end result for the person you're talking to is that their Windows PC compiles code at half the speed of their Mac. It's not like they bought it and selected the glacial filesystem, or even had a choice in the matter.
That's right up there with "my Intel integrated graphics gets lower FPS than my Nvidia card." "But the CPU is faster!" Possibly true, but still totally irrelevant if the rest of the system can't keep up.
At least historically for hardware components of PCs, this was not irrelevant, but the state of things:
You basically bought some PC as a starting basis. Because of the high speed of improvements, everybody knew that you would soon replace parts as you deemed feasible. If some component was not suitable anymore, you swapped it (upgrade the PC). You bought a new PC if things got insanely outdated, and updating was not worth the money anymore. With this new PC, the cycle of updating components started back from the beginning.
If performance is so critical, people do find ways around this. Just to give an arbitrary example since you mention file systems:
Oracle implemented their own filesystem (ASM Cluster File System (ACFS)):
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oracle_Cloud_File...
"ACFS provides direct I/O for Oracle database I/O workloads. ACFS implements indirect I/O however for general purpose files that typically perform small I/O for better response time."
The use case was "compiling code". My assumption was that anyone buying hardware for that application would understand stuff like filesystem performance, system tuning, also stuff like "how to use a ramdisk" or "how to install Linux".
Yes, if you want to flame about the whole system experience: Apple's is the best, period. But not because they're twice as fast, that's ridiculous.
My mom is happily using a Lenovo from 2013 and looking to upgrade because it doesn't support Windows 11 and Win10 is running out of support. A contemporary Mac would have been the 2012 Mac Mini which would have received its final OS update with 10.15 Catalina in 2019, and would have received its final security update in 2022. (Desktop, so no difference in peripherals, etc.)
Incidentally, I actually purchased both the Lenovo and a 2012 Mac Mini (refurb) so I have the pricing data - the Lenovo was $540 and the Mac Mini was $730 - and then both took aftermarket memory and SSD upgrades.
A 500 laptop is probably more repairable and worst case you pay $500 to get a new one. Not to mention battery replacement etc.
The expected total cost of ownership is very high for a Mac. It’s like owning a Mercedes. Maybe you can afford to buy one, but you cannot afford maintenance.
Between work and personal, I’ve had an Intel Air, 2x Intel Pros, M1 Air, 2x M3 Pros, and an M4 Pro. My wife has an M1 Air. My in-laws have an M3 iMac. My mom has… some version of an Apple Silicon laptop.
That is a decent amount of computers stretching over many years. The only maintenance required has been the aforementioned keyboard.
In pre-college education, the answer is often "use any other junky Chromebook from anywhere in the world", which is cheaper still.
I did drop my watch last week, and the second hand fell off, though.
If that had happened to any other laptop I would be able either replace just the broken keycap, or just the keyboard.
And no, apple care+ that covers accidents is not cheap either at $150/year.
Also a lot of people prefer windows. It’s got a lot more applications than Mac. It has way more historical enterprise support and management capability as well. If you had a Mac at a big company 20 years ago the IT tooling was trash compared to windows. It’s probably still inferior to this day.
The Mac can (legally) run more software than any other computer. Aside from macOS software, there's a bunch of iOS and iPadOS software that you can run, and you can run a Windows, Linux, and Android software via VMs.
Let’s not forget that you’re now talking about buying a $100/year license; in just a few years you could buy a whole Windows computer with a permanent license for that money.
And if you’re going to talk about how great VMs are on Mac we can’t leave out how it’s the worst Docker/podman platform available.
Look at glassy UIs. Worth it.
I don't know if this already exists but it would be nice to see these added to benchmarks. Maybe it's possible to get Apple devices to do stable diffusion and related tech faster and just needs some incentives (winning benchmarks) for people to spend some effort. Otherwise though, my Apple Silicon is way slower than my consumer level NVidia Silicon
But newer chips might contain Neural Accelerator to close the gap a little bit (i.e. 10%??).
(I maintain https://apps.apple.com/us/app/draw-things-ai-generation/id64...)