I mean the author explains his thoughts in the article, you should read it again.
He can get what he wants by buying a new Mac, as he suggests. It's not like what he wants doesn't exist. He's just complaining that some other random product doesn't do what he wants, even though it's not designed to. Pointless.
iPads are marketed as capable of "doing all the things you love", how it's "so versatile it's up to any task" and so on - leading to perception that it's like a computer, except in a different form factor. While, in reality, of course it's not.
Personally, I never found any subjectively meaningful use case for iPads except for portable media consumption (aka watching movies on the Porcelain Throne, and even then it's not a great option as it lacks multi-user support). Every time Apple announces a new one, I have this feeling of cognitive dissonance between what the device actually is and how it's marketed.
(I'm sure there are lots of good use cases for iPad - just nothing I personally need or care about. Aka "I'm not in the target market")
That's a weird conclusion, even for a sarcastic remark.
Is it a fraud - is the marketing deceptive? Possibly, yes, I personally believe it can be said so. I think it could be the case because it fails to mention the nuance that iPads aren't a good device for certain tasks. If an ad says "for everyone" without any asterisks and small print to it, it's valid to complain that this is not true. It could be the norm, but it doesn't change the fact that there's a gap that may affect uninformed person's decision making towards purchasing the device that is not a good fit for them. I mean, anecdotally that's what happened to the author after all.
Is it a deliberate fraud, though? I haven't been in a room when that ad was discussed, so I cannot possibly tell. I'm not versed in marketing, but I believe I've heard that it's quite a common practice to not include any negativity (aka "when or why you wouldn't want our product?") from marketing materials, for the money doesn't smell. I have respect to the people and companies that do so, for I perceive it as a signal they respect me (aka not wasting my time researching). But whenever it was actually discussed and dismissed ("Should we mention if developers should rather get a Mac? Nah, we want them to buy an iPad too, even if it's useless to them!") or if the idea haven't even been mentioned (e.g. if it's simply not a thing in Apple culture) is unknown to me.
Are they trying to spite anyone? I don't have any evidence that suggests so, so I find it highly unlikely. While Apple has different system of beliefs and values, drastically different from some freedom-loving software crowds, I don't think I've seen signs of any significant deliberate hatred towards those who don't share their values, or willingness to make their lives worse somehow. There could've been some less than great attitudes (but my memory fails me here, I only have a vague idea that I might've possibly heard or read something that didn't resonate well with me), but I don't recall anything seriously hateful.
All this said, I would love for us all have more discussion about ethics in marketing. Honest, open, and ideally without any sarcastic remarks (for they rarely help and frequently discourage civilized discussion).
YMMV, but I don't find this situation funny or deserving a sarcastic remark. What happened is that a person had seen an ad for a device with very good hardware specs that they cannot use because it doesn't work for them software- and policy-wise, and they're unhappy about it. I can understand if that person would make fun of their unhappiness (a perfectly valid way to handle the discomfort), but I wouldn't make fun of them as a bystander.
I think it's perfectly natural and expected to voice discontent if you saw an ad but the product wasn't a good fit for you and ad failed to disclose it (for obvious reasons, but still creating a conflict of interest). Especially because Apple is marketing to everyone, including software developers.
It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad.
His point is that over the years, Apple has blurred that line a lot. You can use keyboards and mice. You can do all your daily computing on an iPad - email, spreadsheets, YouTube, whatever.
But it's still locked down, for whatever reason, despite being a perfectly capable computer that doesn't necessarily need to be.
It's honestly really obvious what he's saying. iPads have changed over the last 5 or so years, and people on HN clearly haven't used one in a while. The author isn't _wrong_.
Apple spends all this effort to blur the lines between personal computer and a device you can compute on, and it mildly tricks users who don't necessarily realise there's a difference between the computer and the tablet, especially amongst younger generations who grew up on tablets ("iPad kids").
An XBox's hardware is designed to run general purpose Windows software.
However, it's been clear for a decade that Microsoft is selling the XBox as a game playing appliance, and has no intention of allowing you to run general purpose Windows software on it.
If you choose to buy an appliance instead of a computer, that's your call.
You gain ease of use and freedom from having to manage device complexity, but lose the ability to do whatever you want.
This is why I prefer Android. Google is evil, sure, but at least they don't treat me like a child. If I want to take one of their devices and shoot myself in the foot with it, that's fine with them (and thanks to nix-on-droid, there's plenty of ammo for such adventures).
Sure, game consoles are user-hostile. They're also great for playing games, and they tend to "just work" with less configuration and customization than a typical gaming PC.
Less configuration tends to mean fewer problems and easier tech support, but the primary business reason game consoles are locked town is to make it harder to play unlicensed commercial games on them.
Which is user-hostile. The user bought the hardware, so they should be allowed to play whatever they please. Hiding the true cost of the hardware by inflating game prices using licensing fees is monopolistic and an attempt at misleading the consumer.
This is the exact same business model as printer companies reducing the price of printers by inflating the price of printer cartridges and locking down the ability to use third-party ones. It is unbelievable to see people on a site called "Hacker News" defending that business model.
Some people prefer the simplicity and reliability of an appliance.
Some people embrace complexity in the name of having the freedom to do anything (including the freedom to shoot yourself in the foot).
The notion that consumers shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that are different than your own... THAT is user hostile.
Having the choice is fine, but if there's no way to opt-out then it's not a choice. While far from perfect the Xbox One is a good example of the video game platform that offers an opt-out. And it works, it is one of the most secure gaming consoles on the market and yet it still offers consumers the ability to create their own game software for it.
Don't buy it.
Linux isn't going anywhere.
You just don't think people should be allowed to make choices you don't approve of.
This is what Apple believes, not the person you're replying to?
I am appalled by how easily people dismiss the importance of open platforms as insecure and inconvenient. How will people ever learn technical skills if all the technology they own is locked down and glued shut?
If you buy a device you should be allowed to fully own it. You shouldn't be forced to buy niche inferior alternatives or pay a huge premium.
The Tuxedo, System 76, iXsystems, Pinephone, Jolla, SteamDeck (with native apps, not Proton),... of the world.
R&D is undertaken with the expectation of future reward, often including licensing fees. However, if we consider component and manufacturing costs, those have always been included in the price of the Nintendo Switch. Even the disc-based PS5 became profitable by that metric after 8 months, during a global pandemic with supply chain shocks.
By all means have a some kind of verified/sealed mode and refuse to support anything that's not in that mode--but there are negative consequences to normalizing a lack of control over the technology that people interact with.
Take the crowd strike incident for instance. Millions of people unable to do jobs that they're relied upon to do, and we can't even hold them accountable for that because it turns out they were never in control of their tools in the first place--locked out of the section necessary to carry out the repair.
You wouldn't tolerate a screwdriver that refused to be used to pry open a paint can. I don't see how it should be any different with a phone. I want to be able to rely on users of tools--not vendors of tools--to do things, and I can't. Not because the people are authentically incompetent, but because some vendor has made a dumb decision about what they're now not allowed to do.
In thus case, it was Crowdstrike that shot them in the foot.
Managing complexity has a cost that some people don't want to be bothered with.
They are allowed to choose an appliance instead of a PC, even if you would make a different choice.
So in the end, even if he could get CLI/Root access to his iPad it wouldn't matter anyway because of their perceived quality of the iPad accessory peripherals, that are built into the Macbook.
So he should just buy a damn Macbook. He wants an iPad that runs MacOS and has a quality keyboard and trackpad, so buy the product that has all of those things built in and don't complain you can't jerry rig the iPad to do the same.
So sure it contains an M2, but it’s also a fanless device that combines its entire componentry, including the screen, into a package that is just a few mm thick. On top of that it also has a much smaller battery.
That kind of heat envelope makes it suitable for burst work, but poor for enduring workloads. Unlike the Mac it’s not going to allow limitless multitasking while exporting video and other processor heavy tasks. This hardware limitation is recognised in the types of software that the device runs competently.
So I partly blame Apple’s marketing, but I also think caveat emptor - why would the buyer assume that all of these other Mac shapes and sizes exist if they can actually all be squeezed into a 5mm thick enclosure.
That applies to a lot of the tech that's talked about here.
Consider that some people (and I guarantee you that they vastly outnumber the "my iPad should run macOS/Linux and be a full laptop-equivalent" crowd, probably by several orders of magnitude) may want a locked down perfectly capable computer if it means they don't have to waste their time and brain energy on dealing with things outside of their goal.
Which is a perfectly valid complaint since it doesn't need to be locked down. It's an entirely artificial limitation. An iPad pro is like selling a Ferrari that can only turn left at 30mph.
I don't understand the "buy something else" mentality. Freedom of computing on hardware you own used to be core to the tech community, but I guess it's now cooler to side with monopolists.
People who want root on everything and a command line are a tiny minority of the population.
Most users don't even know what root is. They don't want to know. It doesn't interest them. They don't find it a limitation because command line computing is something they're actively indifferent to.
Having a powerful engine (for burst computing) changes nothing. They still don't care. They want something that runs CapCut or whatever, and that's the extent of their interest in technology.
He's bought something whose limitations and target demographic are well known.
And then complaining when he hits one of those limitations.
It would be unreasonable to buy, say, a flip phone in 2007 and complain that it can't replace a graphics workstation. It didn't have the hardware for that workload. Today, it's the artificial nature of the limitations that make the device akin to a cage.
And the whole point of an iPad is that you have a simple and consistent experience.
The question was "will ipadOS and macOS merge?
"NO"
it was iOS and macOS but still...
Has that not been Apple's entire marketing thrust since 1984?