Why no OS X on the iPad?

Question

Why no OS X on the iPad?

Having always been loyal to PCs (believing MACs were just 'too GUI' - too graphical/too gooey), I fell in love with Apple, hard, when the iPhone came out. I've since become one of those people who have watched every WWDC keynote, several times each, and just can't get enough of Apple rumors, or reading about Apple history.

The disappointing iPad has left me heartbroken, and there's one thing I just can't understand:

Why no OS X?

I can't imagine that they couldn't have modified OS X to run on the iPad. I really only have two suspicions. One is that the iPad really was intended more for old people who remain intimidated by computers (and maybe privileged toddlers, with cool parents), but Apple still should have offered an option to run iPhone OS or OS X (maybe like an intra-mac bootcamp). My other suspicion was that Apple didn't want to make something for $500 that could compete with their far-more expensive family of MacBooks (particularly the MacBook Air), but then there should have (at least) just been a more-expensive model that runs OS X.

Perhaps Apple just didn't want to put money into modifying OS X to run on the iPad. I just don't get it and this thing is just such a colossal disappointment.

I understand that things like a camera would have made each iPad more-expensive to manufacture, but having them run OS X shouldn't. Steve Jobs has often said that Apple doesn't have to beat Microsoft, but it seems that if they could have offered a super-portable touch-screen computer, which runs OS X, for $499 (or $649, or whatever), they may actually, after all these years, came out with a majority of the market share.

Anyway, I'm interested in what others think about the iPad just being some joke-sized iPod Touch, instead of a really awesome tablet computer.

MBP 3,1, Mac OS X (10.6.2)

Posted on Feb 1, 2010 2:43 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Feb 1, 2010 3:03 AM in response to fineIswitched

The iPhone, iPod touch and the iPad all run a version of OS X.

If you look at the presentation, all three demonstrating the iPad did it from a sofa as an indication of the low key tech nature of the device, so yes, maybe old people will be a target audience, but there are considerably more in the population at large who would like the convenience of such a device without the need to know anything about tech at all.

Stick around and watch. (And if you have suggestions, use feedback.)

Reply

Answer 2

Feb 1, 2010 3:23 AM in response to fineIswitched

I can't imagine that they couldn't have modified OS X to run on the iPad.

That's exactly what they have done. The iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad all run modified versions of Mac OS X.

In fact, the iPhone OS was originally touted as "OS X" (without the Mac prefix).

Mac OS X is not really designed for touch screen use. Can you imagine trying to accurately touch some of the smaller UI elements present in Mac OS X with your finger on a 1024x768 screen? Trying to force the Mac OS interface into a touch screen environment is unlikely to be user-friendly.

The iPhone OS was designed, from the outset, to work extremely well via touch. That's why it shares very few (if any) user interface elements with Mac OS X.

The reason all those Windows-based tablet PCs never took off, is because that's exactly what Microsoft did. Just added touch capability to the existing Windows UI and gave users a stylus. It just doesn't work, and Apple aren't like that. The user-interface is king in Apple products.

No doubt Apple could've done that years ago, but it wouldn't've been any better than the failed Windows tablet PCs.

One is that the iPad really was intended more for old people who remain intimidated by computers

You still need a 'regular' computer to use an iPad for initial set-up, syncing etc.

Apple have obviously done their research and come to the conclusion that people want an easy to use, finger-based multi-touch gadget, designed from the outset for touch-based input, not just regular Mac OS X-based computer with a stylus to use the mouse-input based UI.

Reply

Answer 3

Tamara

Level 6

13,744 points

Feb 1, 2010 4:33 AM in response to fineIswitched

They have modified OS X to run on the iPad/iPhone/Touch. Since this is an iPhone forum, did you have an actual question about the iPhone?

The disappointing iPad has left me heartbroken.

Your life must be pretty empty if you're heartbroken over what looks to be a pretty nifty device for lots of different groups of people beside the elderly and toddlers. Did you ever stop to think that it's a perfect presentation device for a sales person? A doctor can use it to review patient test results while in the room with you. Steven Colbert can use it to do a presentation at the Grammys. It can be used in the classroom in place of textbooks or as a collaborative learning device.

Reply

Answer 4

carl wolf

Level 6

14,631 points

Feb 1, 2010 6:12 AM in response to fineIswitched

"The disappointing iPad has left me heartbroken, and there's one thing I just can't understand:
Why no OS X?"
What makes you think that the iPad does not use a version of OS? It does. We can't understand why you don't know this.

"I can't imagine that they couldn't have modified OS X to run on the iPad."
They did.

"but Apple still should have offered an option to run iPhone OS or OS X"
It's not an option - that functionality is standard.

"My other suspicion was that Apple didn't want to make something for $500 that could compete with their far-more expensive family of MacBooks (particularly the MacBook Air), but then there should have (at least) just been a more-expensive model that runs OS X."
You are whining about a problem that does not exist.

"Perhaps Apple just didn't want to put money into modifying OS X to run on the iPad. I just don't get it and this thing is just such a colossal disappointment."
They did, and it's not clear why you are whining.

"Anyway, I'm interested in what others think about the iPad just being some joke-sized iPod Touch..."
The joke's on you.

Reply

Answer 5

Feb 1, 2010 6:40 AM in response to carl wolf

I have a 17" MBP, so you could guess that I've always thought netbooks were ridiculous (as does Apple), but really, I could compose a research paper on a net book without being so impaired, when compared to a 17" MBP.

But what about an apple tablet?

You would be very impaired, and I don't think that had to be the case.

I'll probably end up buying an iPad, but it will be in lieu of a
V-tech, probably when my infant nears age 3.

And as far as the iPhone OS being a modified version of OS X, I do remember Steve Jobs introducing the first iPhone and announcing that it will run 'OS X', and maybe it is a very-modified version, but I still think the iPad could have ran 'real OS X'

Would it have been so unrealistic to be able to run Photoshop cs4 on an apple tablet computer?

How about windows and linux, through vmware?

How about a runtime application made with filemaker pro 10 advanced?

It really is like Apple has no interest in being a computer company anymore.

I still think the iPhone was one of the greatest inventions of all time, though. Apple will always deserve a lot of credit for that.

Reply

Answer 6

Feb 1, 2010 7:00 AM in response to fineIswitched

Would it have been so unrealistic to be able to run Photoshop cs4 on an apple tablet computer?

Set your monitor to 1024 x 768 then load up Photoshop CS4, and open a few tool, layer and history palettes. Now imagine what you can see scaled down to 9.7 inches diagonal (a little over half your MacBooks screen size) and try to imagine pressing icons, choosing menu options etc with your finger tip. That is not user friendly.

It really is like Apple has no interest in being a computer company anymore.

What do you think the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are if not handheld computers? And I haven't heard anything about Apple not making MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros anymore.

Just because a device doesn't have a standard desktop "WIMP" user-interface, or run desktop OS software, doesn't mean it's not a computer.

Reply

Answer 7

varjak paw

Level 10

179,680 points

Feb 1, 2010 8:27 AM in response to fineIswitched

as far as the iPhone OS being a modified version of OS X, I do remember Steve Jobs introducing the first iPhone and announcing that it will run 'OS X', and maybe it is a very-modified version, but I still think the iPad could have ran 'real OS X'

It does run "real" OS X. It does not run Mac OS X, which is the variant of OS X designed for Macintosh computers. The variant of OS X that runs on the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch is the same core software, compiled for a different processor and optimized for a device with a touch interface, limited processing and battery power, and a small screen.

Would it have been so unrealistic to be able to run Photoshop cs4 on an apple tablet computer?

Personally I think that would have been totally unworkable. CS4 is huge, both in file size and memory and processing requirements. I can't imagine that, even if Adobe were to have come up with a version that made sense using a touch interface (Julian's point about the small screen of the iPad being equally problematic for Adobe or any other software developer), that any possible version of CS4 would be practical on a highly portable device like an iPad.

How about windows and linux, through vmware?

Ditto. Seen any low-power versions of Windows lately? Much less one that works well with a touch screen?

How about a runtime application made with filemaker pro 10 advanced?

Filemaker To Go.

Message was edited by: Dave Sawyer

Reply

Answer 8

Cander

Level 3

850 points

Feb 1, 2010 8:35 AM in response to fineIswitched

"Would it have been so unrealistic to be able to run Photoshop cs4 on an apple tablet computer?"

Running 'real OS X' wouldnt make a difference. It is a different architecture and would still require a recompile and probably recoding. The iPad uses an ARM processor. Not Intel.

Reply

Answer 9

Feb 1, 2010 8:40 AM in response to fineIswitched

It sounds like you want a tablet PC, which the iPad is clearly not and never was intended to be. It's cpu is optimized for very low power consumption, not for power computing of high end or intensive applications. it has no hard drive for the same reason, low power use and battery life, and SDRAM is still far too expensive to put in enough to enable apps like you wish to work or store files. It is entirely unsuited to running computationally intensive graphics apps, or handling large files such as relational databases.

The iPad is not a laptop and it is not a tablet pc. I know some people were hoping it would be, but clearly Apple was not thinking of that niche at all.

Reply

Answer 10

Feb 1, 2010 2:16 PM in response to fineIswitched

fineIswitched wrote:
The disappointing iPad has left me heartbroken,

Really ?

Honestly ?

Or an attempt at melodrama ?

Didnt work I'm afraid - if you had any idea what you are talking about, you would realise how difficult a full copy of OSX onto a tablet of that size would be.

Reply

Answer 11

varjak paw

Level 10

179,680 points

Feb 1, 2010 2:27 PM in response to Graham Outterside

Methinks some people are far too attached to their technology. 🙂

Reply

Answer 12

roaminggnome

Level 10

106,395 points

Feb 1, 2010 2:41 PM in response to varjak paw

It surprises me how many people expect that a product should be what they want it to be, instead of what it actually is.

I want my car to be a hovercraft, but I don't do spend a lot of time, energy and melodramatics on trying to convince everyone that my car SHOULD be a hovercraft.

Reply

Answer 13

varjak paw

Level 10

179,680 points

Feb 1, 2010 2:50 PM in response to roaminggnome

What surprises me isn't so much how many people expect a product to be something it's not, but rather how much energy and emotion people will exert complaining about how the product isn't what they expected it to be, particularly when not only have they not purchased the product they've never even seen one. Seems to me like a serious waste of time and energy that would be better spent, if nothing else, finding a product that does do what the person wants.

I don't spend a lot of time, energy and melodramatics on trying to convince everyone that my car SHOULD be a hovercraft.

or spend a lot of time, energy and melodramatics complaining about how the car you were waiting for isn't a hovercraft.

🙂

Reply