←back to thread

Apple must open iPadOS to sideloading within 6 months, EU says

(arstechnica.com)
380 points rezonant | 4 comments | 30 Apr 24 04:44 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
DCKing ◴[30 Apr 24 07:36 UTC] No.40208207[source]▶
The iPad App Store is perhaps an even more dysfunctional place than the iPhone in how much it holds hardware and use cases hostage to the manufacturer's vision. Just imagine how much more versatile the iPad Pro would be if only you could run Linux VMs on it in the moments you want to do anything remotely tinkery on an iPad.

Apple's hardware since the 2021 iPad Pro (with M1) has had the ability to do this. The iPads have the RAM (16gb on higher storage models), appropriate keyboard and trackpads, the works. Great hardware being held back by Apple's vision people weren't allowed to deviate from.

A straightforward reading of the DMA suggests that Apple is not allowed to restrict apps from using hardware features. Let's hope that means Parallels/VMware style VMs are possible without too much of a fight.

replies(13): >>40208607 #>>40208717 #>>40208974 #>>40209049 #>>40209121 #>>40209184 #>>40209236 #>>40209305 #>>40209387 #>>40209654 #>>40209908 #>>40213422 #>>40232256 #
BillyTheKing ◴[30 Apr 24 08:41 UTC] No.40208607[source]▶
totally agree - the iPad Pro could be a great second coding/programming tool - I'd love to justify buying myself one, but.. I just don't see a use-case if I can't work on it. I don't design stuff, don't really feel like I need a separate browsing device either
replies(5): >>40208738 #>>40209098 #>>40209920 #>>40209956 #>>40210193 #
dainiusse ◴[30 Apr 24 09:02 UTC] No.40208738[source]▶
Yep, I've got one and don't use too much. Too big for scrolling, too limited (software) for work. But Apple knows iPad might cannibalize mac and limit it's uses on purpose
replies(3): >>40209047 #>>40209889 #>>40210242 #
whywhywhywhy ◴[30 Apr 24 11:40 UTC] No.40209889[source]▶
> But Apple knows iPad might cannibalize mac and limit it's uses on purpose

Felt the goal was to overtake Mac during the 2015-2019 era, all the real engineering focus was on iPad, the Macs were underpowered and not really fit for purpose.

Why would Apple choose a platform where they don't get 30% of every Creative Cloud sub when they could have had that.

Only reason they backtracked was because Mac sales didn't fall off and the iPad just isn't that good to do real work on.

replies(3): >>40210055 #>>40210152 #>>40228777 #
rickdeckard ◴[30 Apr 24 12:12 UTC] No.40210152[source]▶
I believe it's simply more lucrative to keep selling both devices to the same target group, than try to solve the users' problem with a single device.

Everything in Apple is designed to silo off the two product groups.

An "iPad with MacOS" would just shift revenue from the MacOS division to the iPad division, losing a MacOS customer and probably NOT gaining a iPad customer (as he would have purchased an iPad anyway).

Just as much as developing an MacBook convertible is not an issue of user experience but an issue of unnecessary cannibalization of iPad sales...

replies(2): >>40210271 #>>40213188 #
latexr ◴[30 Apr 24 12:24 UTC] No.40210271[source]▶
By that logic, the iPhone wouldn’t have been able to play music as soon as it launched. Yet that was part of the whole pitch: “an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator”.
replies(3): >>40210530 #>>40210783 #>>40210793 #
1. richrichardsson ◴[30 Apr 24 12:57 UTC] No.40210530{3}[source]▶
Not so sure.

From mid-to-late 90s onwards a mobile phone was basically an essential item.

I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.

replies(1): >>40211241 #
2. latexr ◴[30 Apr 24 14:23 UTC] No.40211241[source]▶
> I was never tempted to buy an iPod, but combine the phone and iPod and give me internet access to boot... sold.

Before the iPhone there were already phones which could play music and access the web. I even remember some Motorolas which interacted directly with iTunes. The iPhone didn’t succeed just by smooshing those together.

Either way, that’s neither here nor there, the point is precisely that Apple didn’t shy away from cannibalising their own product.

replies(2): >>40212931 #>>40213506 #
3. frumper ◴[30 Apr 24 16:34 UTC] No.40212931[source]▶
It was cannibalizing a cheaper iPod for a more expensive iPhone. iPad would be taking from the more expensive MacBook market.
4. rickdeckard ◴[30 Apr 24 17:23 UTC] No.40213506[source]▶
I don't know how it is relevant what Apple did on other products, especially "pre-iPhone".

The point is that TODAY the PC line and the iPad line of Apple are quite notable silo'ed to very specific usage-patterns.

There is no technical reason for that, but the distinct commercial reason that there is nothing to gain in terms of revenue or profit by combining the two products into one.

They both sell fine and at great margin separately, there is little to gain by building an iPad Pro that is 2000 USD and supports the use-cases of both a 600 USD iPad and a 1600 USD MacBook respectively.

Quite bluntly: You want the iPad to be convenient in a workflow as far as possible, and then SUCK really bad in a way only a fully synchronized Macbook can fix.