[RickS]

It continues to astound me that Apple seems not only reluctant – but actively disinterested – in bringing general purpose computing to touchscreen devices.

I want whole-ass macOS on the iPad, and not only are they not doing it, they're doing the reverse: massive adoption beyond early apple's technical/creative userbase is leading to the iOS-ification of macOS. Lower level controls are increasingly locked behind padded walls. I'm old enough to remember when the radio button for "allow apps from unidentified developers" was just... there. I didn't need to hunt stackoverflow for wacky CLI workarounds just to install indie software on my own computer.

It's uniquely unfortunate for apple too, because it's apple. Surely bringing desktop computing patterns to finger/pencil interfaces has a lot of hard problems in need of novel solutions, but there was a time when apple was an HCI powerhouse, and would have been as good a candidate as anyone to try and tackle such things. Could ~2013 apple have done windows 8 better than windows 8? In their sleep, IMO.

Anyway, do people have favorite takes on the actual motivations behind this? Does it truly come down to a desire to own the platform e2e and keep raking in that sweet sweet app store tax? Or is there some kind of more nuanced incentive structure at work?

[yourboirusty]

Making an open ecosystem will never be in the best interest of their shareholders. They didn't make it to the top of Wall Street by accident.

Why would they make profit on their hardware alone if they can have an almost passive income in the form of an app store.

They'll put as many scary pop-ups as they can to prevent a regular user from installing third party software as they can. They'll block third party developers from integrating with their ecosystem as much as they can get away with.

It'll be really interesting to see how much EU can influence them, but I wouldn't hold my breath to see them doing more than absolute bare legal minimum.

[walterbell]

> Why would they make profit on their hardware alone if they can have an almost passive income in the form of an app store.

Why not both? Google is offering Android app store _and_ Debian Linux packages. Each distribution mechanism meets different needs.

[rchaud]

Google's ads business dwarfs everything else, so as long as ads can be integrated into apps deployed through Google Play Services, they're happy.

Third party app stores mostly provide unprofitable utility apps Google aren't interested in stopping. And thank goodness for that, because it allows any Android phone to be used as a relatively open computing device without having to register with Play Services.

[hagbard_c]

> but actively disinterested

They're disinterested because they get to sell more hardware that way. Combine all functions in one device and you'll only buy that one device, split those functions arbitrarily over several devices while making sure that those devices only really play along well within their own family and the target market has shown to buy those devices even though they sputter and fume about it being astounding that they're not combining functions.

The solution is clear but hard to implement since the congregation will have to be convinced to stop going for the next sacrament.

[walterbell]

> they get to sell more hardware that way

This claim is frequently repeated, but does not reflect reality for those who buy Apple devices. When iPads actually meet user needs, the result is iPad proliferation, not replacement of MacBooks. An iPad with macOS/Linux VM is needed for adhoc time-sensitive tasks which require non-iOS software, like a quick doc edit or Unix toolchain. For scheduled work sessions, Macbook is better.

As the article noted, there is a $3500 iPad. If that iPad variant ran macOS/Linux VMs, it would sell more units. Anyone willing to spend that much money for portability and convenience would not blink at buying a Macbook for other use cases.

[hagbard_c]

> This claim is frequently repeated, but does not reflect reality for those who buy Apple devices. When iPads actually meet user needs, the result is iPad proliferation, not replacement of MacBooks

Of course more versatile tablets will replace laptops/notebooks, the only reason the latter are preferred over the former is because they offer features which the former do not yet have. Add those features - which mostly comes down to removing restrictions - and there will be far less need for ultralight notebooks. Add the features to (i.e. remove restrictions from) large-screen tablets and laptops will be far less necessary. Even people with more money than sense will see the utility in having only one device which they need to keep charged and for which they need to get a mobile data subscription.

An uncrippled modern tablet with a good keyboard/cover is a good replacement for many if not most common tasks notebooks are used for. A larger uncrippled tablet with such a cover is a good replacement for many tasks laptops are used for. Not for all tasks, not yet. That time will come as well but we're not there yet due to battery capacity restrictions and thermal limits but it will come. The market went from fridge-sized desk-side to tower to desktop to 'luggable' to portable to laptop to notebook, the next step is either a tablet of some sort or some form of wearable. If and when some form of direct interaction without need for a keyboard and monitor ever comes to pass for mainstream applications it will be the latter.

[walterbell]

What's an example shipping device for "uncrippled modern tablet"?

> Of course more versatile tablets will replace laptops/notebooks

Maybe the distinction is irrational, but as we spend more time on screens, there is some aesthetic difference in a device used mostly for work/creation and a device used mostly for leisure/consumption. Even if the underlying electronics are near-identical.

Thanks to eBay and the end of Moore's Law, multiple older devices are affordable and quite functional, e.g. enterprise $2000 Thinkpad 2-in-1 Yoga tablets for a few hundred. But nothing yet compares to the usability of iPadOS, despite no shortage of attempted competitors.

[rchaud]

The more "computer-like" an iDevice is, the less likely its users are to stay within the confines of its walled garden.

Apple didn't even deign to give their lowly iPad users a file manager until 2017. Post-iOS Apple's aspirations are to be AOL.

[walterbell]

> there was a time when apple was an HCI powerhouse.. Could ~2013 apple have done windows 8 better than windows 8?

2025 iOS, macOS and VisionOS are converging.

Android and ChromeOS are also being unified.

The muscle memory of 1 billion human workflows awaits Magic or Mayhem.

[m463]

> but actively disinterested

I keep thinking this will be a market opportunity for someone to make phones and tablets into computers that people own, that don't have to ask permission from someone to use, but it hasn't gone anywhere.