I would understand that objection if people could only own a single computing device. But us who want the iPad to be a dumb consumption device probably own a proper computer for creation. In fact, having an iPad that is supported by all the big companies (native apps, DRM, ...) makes it easier to use a main operating system that runs none of the SV junk.

From my POV, it is really the opposite. People who want the iPad to be a universal computing device are the problem, because they'd be willing to move to a locked-down platform if only it had Xcode or whatever.

Yep. And not just iOS. The way the hardware and software synchronize with each other when you include more devices is just alien. Like when you're using an iPhone with a MBP next to a Mac Mini as well, with a single keyboard/mouse being able to interface in some way or another with all of the devices.

You can pull off some very powerful workflows for this and customize very powerful workflows that benefit the user far beyond just what apps can be installed. Apple is amazing and they're just barely getting started.

That would require these companies to share interoperability specification. Something Apple tries mightily to not do.

All that being said, Apple definitely sets the gold standard on the user-experience axis, and the entire landscape is better for it.

The iPad is probably the biggest such attempt to do most of those things. :)

Probably would do jack all good, as the tight integration between hardware and software is likely what makes iOS anything special.

The iPhone was originally planned not to have any apps. I guess that would've been even better (and less horrible)?

Exactly what I would argue, and the only thing that would bring me back to iOS at this point.

> Maybe we should put the whole idea of having one device that does everything to rest and accept that there are advantages to have a split between 'real computers' and tablets/phones.

Google "convergence Pinephone", and imagine how powerful that would be with an iPhone running convergent macOS. And how much more powerful having macOS (with a mobile-optimized GUI) on the phone would make it on the go.

Isn't that the iPhone and iPad?

EDIT: Even the camera sensors + DSP for processing is specially built for phones these days.

It's all software.

It is sad and amazing that not many more software developers, both big companies and indie devs realize how important that is. There is nothing lacking in modern generation of devices to have 100% fluent interface. The only problem is that the software in many cases doesn't optimize for it...

This would finally solve one of my biggest heartbreaks with the iPad...

Not that it would be more powerful (it would be), but that the iPad Pro could run macOS and the “normie iPad” could go back to being a dead-simple experience.

With the iPad 1 and 2 I was shouting from the rooftops “get your parents an iPad, get your grandparents and iPad, get every non-tech person an iPad!”. When it came out it was opposite an overly-complicated industry with the majority of new users being terrified of pressing a button that breaks something. The iPad was a genuine solution to that in a way that nothing else was (and even now almost nothing is, including the iPad).

Let the Pros have macOS and everyone else have an elegant intuition-focused iOS.

I actually agree wholeheartedly. Apple's devices are the apex of form following function, which is why their form advances so rarely: the functionality of the iPhone changes so little from year-to-year, that Apple doesn't really need to re-engineer much. Hell, the iPhone 12 is just a redux of the iPhone 5 footprint, an anachronism that's yet another great example of form meandering while function stagnates. The deficiencies in our current devices are clear: they're centralized, non-extensible, and exceptionally difficult to fix when they break. Apple profits off all three of those markets, so I have little faith that they intend to change anything there soon.

> Contrast that to a competing product like the ASUS ROG Phone

Don't make me (or Tim Cook, for that matter) laugh. The iPhone doesn't compete with the ROG Phone: they're ostentatiously different products. One is a gaming phone, the other is an iPhone. You're comparing a dune-buggy to a Ford Fiesta, which you're welcome to do, but will sway very few of their respective audiences.

iOS, when the iPhone first came out, turned many of the entrenched perceptions about computing devices around on their head, and people embraced it.

Even without the celebrity power of someone like Apple, an experimental system could still thrive today in the shadows with a small cult of followers nurturing and developing it, until it breaks out.

Being able to target desktop, phone, tablet, and TV devices while reusing 80%-90%* of the same code for all of them, is cross-platform enough for me. :)

macOS, iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and soon AROS if the rumors have weight, comprise over a billion users. And if you're someone who likes to tinker with the latest tech in your apps, Apple has the best ecosystem because most of their users quickly upgrade to the latest OS, compared to Android etc.

* Ass estimate

I disagree. iPad is fundamentally a touch device, and trying to shoehorn macOS into this paradigm would have probably doomed iPad–remember, that's what the competition was doing back before iPad, and you know how the sales of those devices were…

> It's an endless discussion with no right answer.

These don't seem like the hallmarks of a well-designed, mature platform.

We live in a bubble, so it was exciting for us.

The iPhone was exciting for everyone, for the whole world, and in no small part because normal people finally felt confident enough to try all that sweet sweet software that became available thanks to people like you who don't need a safety net to tinker with stuff.

I'm right there with you.

In fact, I'll state an even stronger position: I wish there were at least 3-5x more choices of platform for all form factors of computing device.

The duopoly that developed during the '90s was so clearly unhealthy, and yet it has set the expectations for OS competition so completely that many people seem to think it is an inevitability.

If we had a half-dozen or more mainstream OS choices, there would be massively more pressure for interoperability. That would mean that rather than lock-in, the various OS vendors would have to compete on things people actually like.

Now, just as you, I am a happy Apple user, and have been since before Jobs' return as iCEO. From where I sit, Apple does very much try to provide things that users want, to some extent...

...but if they had 4 more real competitors, there's much more chance that some of them would be providing many of those same things, and thus pushing Apple to do better and be better (just as you implied, indeed).

Because people also want a faster horse, not a car.

The iPad has been developing its own identity and language as a product category. Yes, it takes a while to iterate on the features. But Apple clearly sees the iPad as a chance to develop a language for how to interact with a tabula rasa. The easy thing would be to just slap a desktop OS on it. How do we get any better as a species if we do that? The iPad does need something, yes. It does not need a desktop OS.