Micro.blog

manton
manton
Stage Manager compatibility without precedent manton.org
In reply to
ChrisJWilson
ChrisJWilson

@manton I am really curious how stage manager might look on the iPad mini (as I am curious how it looks on any ipad to be honest! That side bar of apps is the part I'm not sure about).

The only exception I can think of is the iPad and iPhone. Those two deviced had almost exactly the same os and yet the iPhone never gained split view nor slide over and If my memory is correct, split view/slideover was limited to certain ipad models at first.

None of that means that this is (or has to be) true for the iPad and the mini of course. I like Viticci's compromise idea of a more limited stage manager for non m1 iPads.

Avancee
Avancee

@manton the want for Stage Manager across all iPads can be looked at as a failure of Apple to previously delegate certain hardware and software features to Pro models. They did this with ProMotion, and even with the Pencil. Portrait mode was another feature. But for the most part, Apple hasn’t done a great job of designating “pro” usecases, versus personal-enough computing.

However, if in those who are asking for a neutered version of Stage Manager are doing so because Apple misconstrued (a) premise of the iPad as personal-enough computing, then it probably needs to be Apple fixing their messaging about iPad and iPad Pro, not simply making backwards compatibility a means for it to middle the message further.

manton
manton

@Avancee Yeah, the messaging is muddled. It's not even a Pro thing, because the iPad Air with M1 also supports Stage Manager!

manton
manton

@ChrisJWilson I think the side bar of apps could be hidden or simplified on the iPad Mini. The iPhone is a different thing and splitting iOS and iPadOS makes sense to me, so that each can evolve for their screen sizes. There is some gray area like iPhone Plus/Max supporting split view (inside an app) in landscape.

Avancee
Avancee

@manton it would have been fine to be a “pro” feature if the demo showed such a use case clearly (for example, iMove/Garage Band and using the extended screen to do multi-track editing; or Zoom/WebEx/Teams presenting a deck in presentation/speaker view, w/Center Stage being shown).

The lack clarity came across louder to me than the devices which didn’t get it. Well, that and it not replacing the multitasking view. Lots of muddle

fahrni
fahrni

@manton Wasn’t there a feature of Monterey that only worked on M1 based systems, of did they make it work for x86 systems before shipping? I can’t remember.

pratik
pratik

@manton Not sure about the technical details but if someone develops a software technology that runs best on a certain level of hardware, should it wait to introduce it until the older hardware is obsolete or out of circulation?

manton
manton

@pratik Depends on the software, I guess. I think part of the unique case here is that many of the unsupported iPads are not actually "old". They are brand new devices you can buy today.

pratik
pratik

@manton I’m conflicted about Apple’s decision too but as you mentioned:

Users on non-M1 hardware will understand if Stage Manager is slower or more limited — for example, no external display support or fewer windows open at once — and those limitations will naturally drive iPad upgrades.

The other view is that a slower or more limited will be considered sub-optimal by users and adversely affect their opinion of Stage Manager. So if it’s indeed a ploy to get people to upgrade then promote the shit out of Stage Manager and make it seem like the next best thing which would also drive iPad upgrades.

Munish
Munish

@pratik @manton totally agree with these points. Unfortunately, hardware is not a full reason to upgrade anymore. It is software. That is a dangerous territory for Apple, if the pro and non pro devices are blending together.

Denny
Denny

@manton @pratik I have to say, conversations like this always weird me out because so much is happening in 2022... right now, super important issues playing out. It seems bizarre that we pay this much attention to such topics at all.

Have there not been previous iPhones, iPads, computers, etc that arrive that have new hardware features that previous versions, even recent "new" ones had? I don't really understand how this is actually different. Newer more expensive hardware, by definition, should mean more capability for more advanced features some of which might come at a later date.

Maybe it's just the old guy shakes fist at air thing, but it feels to me that this is just a kind of entitlement thing. If folks want the new features then they should buy the new devices. It's that simple. My 2018 iPad Pro came with 4GB of RAM and that was sufficient for me. I bought an M1 because my iPad is my primary computer. I use it for any work I do with apps like Affinity Designer, Photo and soon Publisher. I upgraded because I wanted any new features that might come. At some point new features will come or new apps that require more at which point I'll have a choice to do without or to upgrade. I'm 53 years old and I've gotten used to this reality.

Again, it may be that I'm just getting cranky but this whole discussion/debate/"controversy" is ridiculous.

pimoore
pimoore

@Denny @manton @pratik I have to agree with Denny on this, I don’t think this is anything deliberately malicious by Apple. Does it suck? Absolutely. Same for me the iPad is my computer, and coming from an Air 2 before buying my M1, there were features and software I couldn’t use on it. The device was too old, and I knew the performance would be abysmal even if I could run those apps I missed.

I’m also in agreement with Chris Lawley who believes this is a RAM constraint for Stage Manager to work properly. However I also surmise it may be the M1 architecture itself playing into this. Considering this is a Mac and iPadOS feature, it’s not unreasonable to assume that the coding underlying it is based on that now shared chipset. Perhaps the pre-M1 SOCs are incapable of driving and allowing access to the VM swap required for S.M. to work. Swap is something macOS has always had, whereas this is a first for the iPad. Maybe it’s the higher number of cores that allows it as well.

I’m sure Apple wants this feature to receive the utmost praise, so of course they want it to perform at its best. I just don’t think it was an intentional omission of older hardware.

manton
manton

@pimoore @Denny @pratik I never suggested that there was anything malicious going on. I just think Apple made the wrong decision. This isn't about 2018 iPads either… It's about brand new iPads you can buy today.

fgtech
fgtech

@manton I do not use an iPad, so I have no horse in this race, but I do want to note the observation that Apple failing to consider the perspective of their users is a growing problem across all of their product lines. I am very concerned that this is such a repeating pattern.

pratik
pratik

@pimoore @Denny @manton That’s my thought too. It’s basically a question of trade-off. Do we let people with non-supported hardware get a suboptimal experience or hold back the feature until 80-90% of their users have the hardware to support it or simply say this feature is currently for 20% of the users?

It’s not the end of the world on your iPad if you don’t have the feature RIGHT NOW; it’s still a good iPad. Wait a couple of years and when you upgrade, you get that feature plus some new that will work probably only on your new iPad.

pimoore
pimoore

@manton @denny @pratik Not you specifically, this has just been the prevailing opinion I’ve read constantly in most other places online. My saying I don’t believe it’s malicious is merely a generalization based on what I’ve seen. I can’t help but feel there’s more going on under the hood than anyone who doesn’t work on Apple’s engineering team would know. There’s another possibility that they merely want to perfect the experience first before back porting to previous but more recent hardware?

If all this is wrong, and it was a decision based purely on the latest and greatest with a push to upgrade, I’ll eat crow and join the chorus of disappointment nonetheless. 😉

Denny
Denny

@manton Oh, hey, yeah, agreed and apologies. I should have been more clear. My comment was really about the larger conversation that's been going on around various corners of the internet, not this specific thread or your post. And I guess I brought up the 2018 iPad Pro because that's what I had and sold. I think the general point there that I was trying to make is that for anyone who has a fairly new iPad, be it a 2018, 2020 or whatever, sometimes the latest hardware is required to take advantage of the latest software. And in this particular case, given the loud and repeated drumbeat about how over-powered the M1 iPad was for the OS, that when a set of features requiring that extra hardware is released, people complain that older hardware with less power won't support it. 🤦‍♂️

pratik
pratik

@manton I don't think you implied anything malicious on Apple's part and it's definitely a question of making a decision. It's about tradeoffs. Some may think Apple made the wrong one and I can see why that may be. @pimoore @Denny

Sylari
Sylari

@manton Imagine the checklist you have to verify against in order to ensure you might do the things they presented that you can do.

manton
manton

@Denny I'm sure that irony is not lost on Apple. "You said you wanted more iPadOS features to take advantage of the M1!" They can't win. 🙂 I stand by my post, though. I can easily confirm having 4 apps in memory on my iPad Mini, switching between 2 sets of 2 apps in split view.

pimoore
pimoore

@Denny @manton Same for me, sorry for the confusion Manton. 😉