iPadOS Evolution: Balancing Familiarity and Uniqueness
With the arrival of iPadOS 26, Apple has introduced a suite of desktop-like multitasking features, including a revamped windowing system and a streamlined swipe-down menu bar. These changes, announced at WWDC 2025 and detailed in press and media interviews, have sharpened focus on an old question among Apple enthusiasts: why doesn't the iPad simply run macOS, now that Apple Silicon powers both device lines?
According to Apple's Senior Vice President of Software Engineering, Craig Federighi, the answer centers on user experience. In a recent interview with Swiss journalist Rafael Zeier, Federighi explained that iPadOS 26 aims to “retain all the simplicity of the iPad, but still allow iPad users who want to go deeper and further to push it at their own pace to doing more.” As reported, he emphasized that macOS, while more familiar to professional users, is "not optimized for touch-screens," a recurring theme in Apple’s public stance since the first iPadOS divergence.
"I think with macOS, you'd lose what makes iPad iPad, which is the ultimate touch device. But there are lots of things the two platforms can learn from one another, and that's where we've adapted our best ideas to each," Federighi said, underscoring Apple's incremental approach to blending features while preserving defining characteristics. (Source: Rafael Zeier interview)
iPadOS and macOS: Apple’s Carefully Maintained Boundaries
While iPads and Macs have shared processors since the introduction of Apple Silicon, their user interfaces remain distinct. iPadOS is engineered as a touch-first platform, prioritizing immediacy in navigation and gesture interaction. MacOS, by contrast, remains mouse and keyboard oriented—optimized for indirect manipulation, deep multitasking, and traditional desktop workflows. According to Apple executives (as detailed by 9to5Mac), merging the two would “compromise the strengths of both, potentially confusing users and diluting the unique capabilities of each device.”
Notably, iPadOS 26 brings the iPad’s window management and task handling closer to what power users expect from macOS. Yet the underlying architecture, according to Apple Insider, reflects purposeful redesigns rather than raw hardware muscle. Not only do these updates enhance new devices, but they also run on older iPads (for example, the A12X-powered iPad Pro), emphasizing a strategic platform rethink.
Rumors and the Road Ahead: Touchscreen Macs, Foldables
Rumors persist about Apple exploring macOS-optimized touchscreen Macs and even a 19-inch foldable iPad. Reports attributed to supply chain analysts and referenced on MacRumors indicate these concepts might see daylight in coming years, although Apple has made no public commitments. Industry watchers note that while Apple has gradually borrowed features from both platforms, the company continues to signal its intention to respect each device’s core design ethos.
Comparative Perspective: Learning Across Platforms
Apple’s ecosystem strategy leans on continuity—features like Handoff and Universal Control bridge devices, allowing users to move seamlessly between iPad and Mac without a merged OS. This is in line with broader industry trends, where competitors such as Microsoft pursue more unified touch-and-desktop operating environments (e.g., Windows 11 for Surface devices). However, Apple consistently signals that maintaining distinct "personalities" for iPad and Mac not only preserves user clarity, but also supports its deep vertical integration model.
The Bottom Line for Enthusiasts
Recent updates and executive commentary reaffirm Apple’s commitment to keeping the iPad a uniquely touch-optimized platform, even as it incorporates increasingly desktop-class capabilities. Recent pro-focused features in iPadOS 26 suggest Apple’s willingness to adapt to evolving user demands, but without resorting to a simplistic OS merger. While rumors suggest further convergence could happen—such as possible touch-enabled Macs—Apple’s current strategy hinges on platform complementarity, not redundancy.