Apple could theoretically enable Stage Manager for older iPads in iOS 16

Code in the iPadOS 16 beta has revealed that that Apple — and only Apple — could possibly enable Stage Manager on iPads without the M1 processor.

Apple will not add Stage Manager to pre-M1 iPads because of performance concerns and capabilities that simply will not be changed by the release of iPadOS 16, Apple has confusingly said in different ways since WWDC. But, a setting in code makes it clear that they've considered it, and have tested it.

After a few days of conflicting statements about why the feature was limited, Apple Senior Vice President Craig Federighi said in an interview on June 16 that the feature was only on M1 iPads.

"I mean, we would love to make it available everywhere we can," Apple's Craig Federighi said recently about the M1 limitation. he said. "[But it's]only the M1 iPads that combined the high DRAM capacity with very high capacity, high performance NAND that allows our virtual memory swap to be super fast... we just don't have that ability on the other systems."

If only as proof that Apple really did try Stage Manager out on pre-M1 iPads, though, a new internal option has been found in the iPadOS 16 code.

The internal setting enables and disables "Chamois," Apple's codename for Stage Manager. Specifically it does this for what the code describes as "Legacy Devices." It is not a Settings toggle-switch, nor is it user-accessible in any way.

Conceivably, it's a sign that Apple's developers tested, and may still be testing, Stage Manager on older iPads, a report by 9to5mac on late Wednesday claims. It's more likely, however, that since the option cannot be accessed by users, that it simply hasn't been removed yet.

17 Comments

byronl 4 Years · 377 comments

About 2 years ago

of course they can. they’re just tired of people not upgrading from their four year old 2018 ipad pros since they’re still great devices that work great, and wanted to give some extra incentives. classic apple

avon b7 20 Years · 8046 comments

Apple hasn't been as clear with its statements as it could have, and I suspect the reason is the feature can run on older hardware and, dare I say, acceptably well for many users.

Perhaps just by reducing the strain on older systems by not aiming for as high a resolution and reducing the amount of open apps could be enough.

It would be nice if someone just came out and provided clear answers to the follow up questions that have emerged so far.

Apple is basically saying 'we need this hardware to meet our user experience goals' and then evading the questions that arise from that statement.

For example, if the top resolution was reduced and less apps needed to be opened, would responsiveness, latency, overhead etc be suitable for users with older hardware?

Some might see this as Apple setting the bar deliberately high to make those hardware claims.

hmlongco 9 Years · 586 comments

I think they should allow a restricted version on the A12Zs perhaps allowing Stage Manager to run on the iPad but not on an external monitor.

SM allows 4 groups of up to 4 apps, one set on the iPad and another set on up to a 6K external monitor. That's potentially 32 apps plus external monitor support.

Is that likely? No. But many older iPads like the A12X on the 2018 model only have 4GB of RAM and that's a far cry from the 8 or 16GB available on the new M1 iPads.

The A12Z in the DTK did run the full version of macOS... but with 16GB of RAM.

dewme 10 Years · 5775 comments

avon b7 said:

Apple hasn't been as clear with its statements as it could have, and I suspect the reason is the feature can run on older hardware and, dare I say, acceptably well for many users.

Perhaps just by reducing the strain on older systems by not aiming for as high a resolution and reducing the amount of open apps could be enough.

It would be nice if someone just came out and provided clear answers to the follow up questions that have emerged so far.

Apple is basically saying 'we need this hardware to meet our user experience goals' and then evading the questions that arise from that statement.

For example, if the top resolution was reduced and less apps needed to be opened, would responsiveness, latency, overhead etc be suitable for users with older hardware?

Some might see this as Apple setting the bar deliberately high to make those hardware claims.

I think Apple has been very clear in its messaging and has answered the questions asked of them. It's just that some folks don't like their answer.

Let's say that Apple released a feature that they knew was going to run like crap on certain supported machines. Should they then put a team in place to handle all of the inquiries about why it runs like crap that are certain to occur or just tell people in advance "tough luck if it runs like crap?" If they later come to their senses and exorcise the feature from running on machines where it runs like crap do they beef up that support team to handle all of the additional inquiries about its removal, not to mention hire a few lawyers to fight the class action lawsuits that are guaranteed to occur - both from those who claim that the feature slowed down their device (we've seen these already with iOS upgrades) or from those who feel deprived when a feature they liked (no matter how bad it ran or even if it occasionally crashed their system - remember batterygate) was removed? Lose-lose situation for Apple. This entire scenario would be one of proceeding in bad faith by Apple and they would most definitely suffer the consequences.

As a software developer, there is nothing worse than having to put in "special" or "conditional" code in a new feature to accommodate deficiencies in legacy systems. Yes, it sometimes has to be done to handle a large installed customer base, but it is always painful and ugly to implement and it is like having a boat anchor strapped to your leg. There's a saying in software development that the best code ever is the code that you don't have to write. Is this a selfish argument on the part of developers? To some extent it is, but when you look at the volume and complexity of code that has to be developed, developers need to focus on the things that provide the most benefit for the most customers. There are always things that you have to say "no" to in order to move forward and innovate. Putting up scaffolding around a new feature from the start just to allow it to run in a substandard manner, like only support 2 window groups) on legacy systems is something that Apple is saying "no" to, at least for now. Hopefully it frees up developers to focus on making the new release more stable and functional.

Microsoft is definitely more accommodating in this arena, probably because until recently they didn't own the hardware piece and didn't want to alienate partners. But I know from personal experience that being able to install certain versions of Windows on certain systems results in outcomes that cannot be described as "pleasant" or "productive" in any sense of those terms.