[franga2000]

Because it's an artificial limitation to make the company more money, at the expense of customer experience and the environment (yes, locked-down hardware is also a sustainability issue!).

Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public and so such selfish anti-consumer behaviour would be illegal. Unfortunately, they don't and current law seems to affirm that.

[mosselman]

I’d also like to be able to run anything on an iPad. But I know I can’t so I don’t buy it.

I find this notion that companies should do what we want ridiculous. You know the features and capabilities upfront or you can at least and then you can decide to buy or not.

[franga2000]

There are many problems with the "just don't buy it" argument. Mainly, that often times, the alternatives have huge unrelated down-sides. Apple makes the best tablet hardware by a large margin, but it's totally locked down. If I want a good tablet, I have bo real alternatives.

[scarface_74]

So even though as a user you have alternatives, you don’t want to buy one of those alternatives so Apple should make exactly what you personally want?

[franga2000]

No, I'm saying that Apple is so far ahead of the competition and this market is so hard to enter, that they essentially have a monopoly in the category "tablet computer that isn't shit".

And no, it's not that they should make what I want, it's that they should not prevent me from using their device in a way that I want.

[scarface_74]

Microsoft and Google are not tiny little companies. They have their own operating systems and the resources to make a good tablet.

Microsoft has just announced a tablet running full blown Windows running Qualcomm chips that from all indications is competitive with what Apple makes.

The latest Qualcomm ARM chips were designed by a bunch of ex-Apple folks.

But every hybrid solution sucks in one way or the other. I would much rather work on my MacBook Air M3 with a 2TB SSD and 24GB RAM with a 20+ hour battery life than an iPad Air/Pro with a keyboard and mouse attachment that hypothetically runs MacOS.

What problem are you trying to solve by not having both a MacBook and an iPad?

Cost? Give me a fully decked out MacBook Air + a cheap $349 low end iPad any day over an iPad Pro. Just the specs of the MacBook Air makes it better. As a bonus I can use my iPad as a second monitor.

The M4 in the iPad may be just as capable as an M4 in a future Mac. But the MacBook Air has better battery life and the iPad still makes trade offs between portability and power like less RAM (RAM takes battery), OS optimizations, sustained performance tradeoffs, etc.

Portability? The iPad is so light you don’t even feel it in a backpack. I literally traveled with both the entire year last year.

Short version: my wife and I took one way trips last year across the country visiting over a dozen cities while I worked remotely…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36306966

[steve1977]

> I find this notion that companies should do what we want ridiculous.

The thing is, we actually have a vote in this by buying or not buying their products. So apparently, too many people are content enough with what Apple (for example) is doing.

[mosselman]

Yes exactly my point.

[matwood]

> Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public and so such selfish anti-consumer behaviour would be illegal.

Given that iPads are the most sold tablets in the market, I would argue that Apple did serve the public.

[_factor]

Temporarily at best. If I invent fire and lock it down so that only my grill can use it, while also releasing feel good propaganda to convince people that it is the only way fire works, yes it’s more beneficial than not for a time. As society grows around the concept, the artificial limitations begin hindering the elevated stage more than helping.

These companies have convinced unwitting masses that this is in their long-term best interests. I assure you it is not. It is about being controlled, and the invisible limitations placed on an individual when they grow to love their chains.

[steve1977]

> Ideally, companies would exist to serve the public

That would not be "companies" in the common sense anymore, but rather something like the East German "Volkseigener Betrieb" or the Russian "design bureaus". Which is something worth considering probably, but then you'd need larger changes, not just some laws that prohibit companies artificial limitations like this.

[euroderf]

> Because it's an artificial limitation to make the company more money

Market Segmentation 101.

Even back in VCR days the el-cheapos would let you set (say) 4 recordings, the mid-range 8, and the high-end 16. All the manufacturers did was tie down pins.

Hobbled hardware is a (dis)honorable tradition in tech.

[threeseed]

But the problem is that Apple doesn't want the iPad to be a regular computer.

That's the entire value proposition of the device.

And every advanced, niche feature they add dilutes this.