Every now and then, I am tempted by an iPad. I spot some slick individual at a departure gate using one. Look at how neat it is, I think, as I lug my laptop bag over my shoulder. It has great battery life and a built-in cellular connection, too?
Then, I pull out my phone and look up some options. This is where the trouble begins. There is a boggling array of models and sizes, and the newness and benefits of each are not quite clear. I question the necessity of a US$129 stylus, given that Apple cofounder Steve Jobs once said he hated the idea. I wonder, can this really replace my laptop and all I need it to do?
The answer to that question, 14 years after the iPad was first introduced, is still “almost,” which, in practical terms, means no.
And that is the end of it.
On Tuesday, Apple tried to revive its iPad line during a “virtual event” it called “Let Loose.” It brought the first significant update to the high-end iPad Pro since 2018. Investors hope it could reverse five consecutive quarters of negative iPad sales growth. This is a chance for a revival of a product that shows great promise, but has always felt artificially constrained.
The iPad’s limitations are not technical. They are imposed by Apple for protectionist reasons: It still wants consumers to buy its MacBooks. As a result, the software experience is locked into a mobile-first operating system, making it more like a giant smartphone (less useful) than a small laptop (much more useful).
This is why if you ever see an iPad “in the wild,” it is just as likely to be in the clutches of a toddler rather than a businessperson or student. Reinforced with a thick rubber case and loaded up with Peppa Pig, the iPad is a terrific device for those younger than 10 in need of a distraction. Unfortunately for Apple, this consumer cohort is not particularly large, and parents have little need to update the iPad from one offspring to the next.
For adults, the iPad’s primary utility is basically the same. Aside from basic tasks like e-mail, it is a device through which users consume rather than create. This significantly limits its appeal. More recent enhancements, such as a highly capable keyboard and support for the use of a Bluetooth mouse, get things closer to the mark, but still feel like a compromise. The iPad’s software is still “locked down” compared with Mac users’ freedom to install any software they desire. There are missing dedicated popular apps, like Instagram and WhatsApp. All this makes an expensive tablet a tougher sell, given many would still need an expensive laptop to cover their bases.
The iPad’s identity crisis is getting renewed interest this year. On Apple’s troubled income statement — overall company revenue has fallen in five of the past six quarters — the iPad is particularly disappointing. Tuesday’s event is a chance to show off the revived range. In addition to new models, as reported by Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, Apple’s Web site teased an improved pencil that could erase more easily. Welcome to the future.
Apple should be bolder. As Gurman said, the company’s restraint with the iPad has typically been to protect its MacBook business, but that is struggling, too — barely ticking up in the past two quarters after sharp sales declines. If Apple does not move quickly, others might try to step in. Data from Canalys Co suggests the global tablet market grew by 1 percent in the first quarter of this year, reversing four quarters of year-on-year decline. However, the growth has come from Apple’s competitors — the iPad’s global market share fell to 36 percent from 42 percent a year ago.
Similar data from International Data Corp showed overall market improvement, but a shrinking of iPad’s leading position. The global market share of Huawei Technologies Co (華為), the Chinese maker whose devices cannot be bought in the US, jumped by a staggering 43.6 percent.
That said, the vast majority of consumers are still making a choice between an iPad or no tablet at all. Even highly capable rival tablets are a hard sell because they are outside of the Apple ecosystem.
Tuesday’s announcement would spur sales. There would be pent-up demand from those who have wanted to update their iPads over the last year or more, but knew that updates were just around the corner. They would surely be delighted by more powerful chips and a better screen.
However, the mass appeal of the iPad would remain sorely lacking until Apple throws off the shackles and creates a genuinely portable computer. The other parts of Apple’s business would be just fine. The artificial intelligence age would bring about new demands for computing power, allowing the MacBook to remain a compelling product as a high-end workhorse for creatives and specialists.
An iPad powered by something closer to macOS would bring about tantalizing new use cases. It would continue to act as a gateway device as Apple tries to sell consumers on the potential of so-called spatial computing while finally fully satisfying the more traditional demands of work and study. The time has come for Apple to move the needle from “almost” to “yes.”
Dave Lee is Bloomberg Opinion’s US technology columnist. He was previously a correspondent for the Financial Times and BBC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS