The iPad Lost Its Soul
The Regression to a World of Windows
The transition to the iPad represented, for some users, the promise of a new design philosophy that differentiated itself from the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) model that dominated graphical interfaces. This new approach, rooted in iOS and focused on the full-screen application, prioritized managed multitasking and uninterrupted focus, establishing a workflow optimized for touch. Systems like Windows 8 shared this touch-first focus, and the iPad seemed to validate this direction for the future of tablets. However, Apple's latest system, by reintroducing floating windows, even without the complete desktop "surface", seems to have moved away from its original efficiency.
The Useless Complexity of the WIMP Paradigm
The core critique lies in transplanting elements of the WIMP window model onto a primarily tactile interface. The historical utility of windows is only justified by the metaphor of the digital workspace (the desktop). In the WIMP environment, windows function as spatial cutouts which, alongside icons, files, and text snippets, allow the user to freely organize materials, replicating the chaotic, yet functional, organization of a physical desk.
However, the iPad never fully adopted this metaphor; it lacks the "surface" for manipulating loose files, possessing only an app launcher (Home Screen). Without this complete working surface to justify the spatial management, the introduction of manual windows—which requires dragging and resizing via touch—is inherently inefficient.
This complexity becomes even more questionable due to the declining use of the desktop paradigm. In recent decades, the dominant user behavior is the immediate maximization of windows, seeking total immersion in a single application. The manual spatial management of clippings and files has lost its practical relevance, being replaced by clipboard managers and quick searches.
Today, dealing with windows on the iPad feels more like a visual and tactile experience, almost like a fidget toy, than a functional gain. It is the adoption of WIMP's complexity without its functional justification, imposing an unnecessary cognitive load on the touch user.
The Lost Value: Split View and Slide Over
The Split View and Slide Over features were not just functionalities; they were the highest expression of tablet design. They offered the productivity of two (or three) apps side-by-side, with the system automatically managing the layout. It was an intuitive, practical, and perfectly optimized system for touch. This approach proved that efficient multitasking is perfectly possible without the clutter and manual window management.
By sacrificing this unique experience in favor of a desktop imitation, Apple attempts to position the iPad as a laptop replacement. The iPad loses its strength precisely by trying to be what it never needed to be, entering direct competition with native window operating systems, where it ends up becoming a secondary, rather than superior, option.
Stage Manager: Scale-Limited Effectiveness
The Stage Manager is undeniably a powerful tool, but its design is better suited for external monitors or very large tablet screens. On smaller screens, such as the 11-inch model, managing multiple overlapping rectangles quickly becomes chaotic and ineffective. The inevitable result, as many users report, is reverting to full-screen mode, which nullifies the utility of the function in mobile environments.
Apple may have aimed for greater flexibility, but by fully embracing the window model, they removed the iPad's soul. For those who sought refuge in a clean and elegant interface, the exchange of managed multitasking for manual window clutter does not represent an evolution, but a fundamental departure from the simplicity and efficiency that defined the iPad.
12/12/2025 - Update Apple almost solved all the problems, almost.
Although iPadOS 26.2 has reintroduced Split View and Slide Over, window management still has problems. The failure occurs specifically when moving a window to the upper end of the screen, at which time the application control buttons, traffic light buttons, come into visual and functional conflict with the system status bar. Windows should not be able to use the space that should be reserved for the clock, date, menu and battery code. Only in full screen mode could the application use the entire screen, as it happens in macOS. Currently, in iPadOS, each developer is responsible for adjusting their own program to be in accordance with the traffic light buttons of the new version of the system. This is a mistake because many developers never update their applications or simply do not understand the concept. The system should not be hostage to the goodwill of developers, Apple should, like other systems, have the title bar with the window control buttons, the sunset traffic light buttons, always present regardless of the application developer. The operating system should take native control of this top bar to establish a clear and tamper-proof limit, thus ensuring easy handling of the window and preventing the controls from conflicting.
