8 ms·

"Even though it's not designed to" It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. His

"Even though it's not designed to" 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").

GeekyBear 2y ago
> It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. 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.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. The tradeoff argument is legitimate, but it would be easy enough to have a yolo-mode button somewhere that voids the warranty and unshackles the user. 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).
  - musicale 2y ago
    > Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. 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.
    - armada651 2y ago
      > 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.
      - GeekyBear 2y ago
        If there were no way to know in advance if you were buying a gaming appliance or a gaming computer, you might have a point. 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.
        armada651 2y ago
        > 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
NoPicklez 2y ago
He says in the article that "But even if I could somehow get macOS running on my iPad Pro, would that resolve this tension? I don't think so. A tablet lacks a keyboard and trackpad and even if I buy models designed for the iPad, tablets are all about push, poke, and drag." 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.
- quitit 2y ago
  This topic comes up a lot when Apple release a device with the “pro” label. 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.
Suppafly 2y ago
> and people on HN clearly haven't used one in a while That applies to a lot of the tech that's talked about here.
zimpenfish 2y ago
> But it's still locked down, for whatever reason, despite being a perfectly capable computer that doesn't necessarily need to be. 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.
fastaguy88 2y ago
Your concept of designed is very different from mine. The iPad is capable of providing a shell interface, but it is clearly not designed to. It is designed to provide a secure media consumption experience. There is nothing arbitrary (from a mass consumer security perspective) about not providing a shell. Providing a shell makes it much easier for bad actors to dupe unsophisticated users.

GeekyBear 2y ago

> It is designed to, though. That's the thing. The line is arbitrarily drawn at not getting CLI/root access to your iPad. 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.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. The tradeoff argument is legitimate, but it would be easy enough to have a yolo-mode button somewhere that voids the warranty and unshackles the user. 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).
- musicale 2y ago
  > Just because it's commonplace doesn't make it any less hostile to users. 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.
  - armada651 2y ago
    > 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.
    - GeekyBear 2y ago
      If there were no way to know in advance if you were buying a gaming appliance or a gaming computer, you might have a point. 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.
      - armada651 2y ago
        > 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.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

NoPicklez 2y ago

He says in the article that "But even if I could somehow get macOS running on my iPad Pro, would that resolve this tension? I don't think so. A tablet lacks a keyboard and trackpad and even if I buy models designed for the iPad, tablets are all about push, poke, and drag." 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.

quitit 2y ago
This topic comes up a lot when Apple release a device with the “pro” label. 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.

Suppafly 2y ago

> and people on HN clearly haven't used one in a while That applies to a lot of the tech that's talked about here.

zimpenfish 2y ago

> But it's still locked down, for whatever reason, despite being a perfectly capable computer that doesn't necessarily need to be. 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.

fastaguy88 2y ago

Your concept of designed is very different from mine. The iPad is capable of providing a shell interface, but it is clearly not designed to. It is designed to provide a secure media consumption experience. There is nothing arbitrary (from a mass consumer security perspective) about not providing a shell. Providing a shell makes it much easier for bad actors to dupe unsophisticated users.