- ⏰ Yesterday at 22:06
- Medhi Naitmazi
React
In a new article for Bloomberg by Mark Gurman, the journalist returns to one of the iPad’s obvious flaws: an operating system closer to macOS and therefore aimed at professionals. Rather than envisioning a port on the brand’s tablets, Gurman is thinking of a “Pro” mode in iPadOS, something we had already mentioned when iPadOS 15 and specifically the iPad Pro M1 were released.
iPadOS Pro could bridge a gap between iPad and Mac
When Apple released the original iPad in 2010, the device was missing key features like multitasking, app folders, background audio playback, and a unified email inbox. These omissions were quickly corrected, and today’s iPad has almost every feature you would expect from a computer, with some obvious limitations. As Gurman recalls, the iPad’s hardware is actually more advanced than the software.
The device is now equipped with an M1 chip, the same processor that powers a 13-inch MacBook Pro or a 24-inch iMac. That’s far more powerful than what’s needed to run iPadOS, which is ultimately just a bloated, streamlined version of the iPhone iOS.
The American journalist believes that a large part is satisfied with iPadOS to surf Facebook, watch a Netflix series, play games in 120 Hz, but another, also more important, cannot develop on it with Xcode, multiple windows have to see Slack, Messages and a ton of tabs on Safari for example.
The iPad is a cross between the iPhone and the Mac. In the sense that it has to be powerful enough to meet the needs of the most demanding 20% of users and simple enough for the remaining 80%. Apple has achieved this goal with its iPad hardware, but not with its software.
Today, Apple offers four main iPad models: the regular iPad, the iPad mini, the iPad Air, and the iPad Pro. They have different abilities – the iPad Pro has more storage, a ProMotion display and better cameras. With its small screen, the iPad mini almost fits in your pocket. And the entry-level iPad has a much simpler screen, but it’s just what most customers need.
Importantly, all of these iPads are running the same version of iPadOS as well as the same third-party apps. To keep the iPad simple while making it more powerful for business users, Apple needs to take a new approach, says Gurman, something we already confirmed after reviewing the iPad Pro M1.
According to him, the iPad Pro should have three modes:
- A standard touch-first mode with the normal home screen that’s part of iPadOS today.
- A new option that activates when you connect an Apple Pencil and optimizes icons, controls, and UI elements for that accessory.
- And most notably, a new “Pro” mode that activates when iPad is connected to a keyboard and trackpad, like Apple’s Magic Keyboard, or an external display.
I don’t think Apple will ever port macOS to the iPad Pro (I still think it should), but creating a new Pro mode is a good compromise.
So what does this “Pro” mode need to have to be useful enough for professional users without cannibalizing Mac sales? Here are some answers:
- MacOS-style multitasking, or the ability to run multiple windows simultaneously, one on top of the other and one next to the other. Apparently iPadOS 16 could bring floating windows. This would be ideal for the calculator, Apple TV remote, etc.
- A more dynamic dock where you can pin files and minimized apps. You should also be able to hold down icons for a few seconds to quickly review information.
- A real desktop where you can place file folders, images, web shortcuts and more alongside apps. It would also be nice to see more dynamic widgets, allowing you to use them as mini-apps and not just informational inserts.
These features would probably be far too complicated for the vast majority of users looking to escape the complexity of a Mac or PC. But they should be there for customers who want them.
For Mark Gurman, the next iPad Pro could be even bigger, with a 15-inch model that would make the most of all his ideas. Apple is rumored to be currently testing OLED panels of this size.
What do you think of an iPadOS Pro? Good or bad idea?