Windows Home does not ship Hyper-V, but it allows you to run your own hypervisors just fine.
In the case of Windows Home, that's components like Hyper-V. (Imagine taking Windows Home and injecting Hyper-V from a pirated copy of Windows Pro.)
In the case of iPadOS, that's all the components that macOS has that iPadOS doesn't.
The way to "add" those components to iPadOS is different, but the effect would still be the same: having a computer that works like it has the better edition installed, without paying for the better edition.
But it is. Microsoft just doesn't want home users to run Hyper-V, without paying for a (slightly) more expensive Windows Pro license. Home users still can download free VirtualBox or whatever other solution they care to use. They can also upgrade to a Pro license in-place, by paying $100.
This is all perfectly normal.
iPadOS is completely different. Apple does not _allow_ users to run any non-trivial system-level code. If Apple doesn't want you to access virtualization on iPad, you're out of luck. There are no easy workarounds.
In the Windows case, they can enforce your inability to install/enable Hyper-V on Windows Home through simple measures like protecting system files from modification.
But in the iPadOS case, the only way to really prevent you from running a macOS VM, is by preventing you from running any VM.
Due to the Turing-completeness of virtual machines, there's really no lesser measure they can take. You literally cannot create a piece of software that can run arbitrary VMs except for if the VM is semantically macOS. Whatever signal you would look for to blacklist macOS, an adversarial VM creator can mask by modifying the installation. (At an equilibrium point of such a game, the "adversarially-created macOS VM" would end up looking more like a Hackintosh rootfs than like a Mac rootfs — but it'd still look and feel and work like macOS, and that's all users would care about.)
Which is the "better edition": $2000 iPad Pro or $2000 Macbook?
If the goal is to maximize hardware device proliferation, third (and Nth) variants could be created with software-locked differentiation. Why stop at 2 hardware editions?
The one of the two with a lower profit margin for the manufacturer would usually be the one considered to have more "value" in it.
The usual way to measure this, when software editions are locked to particular hardware, is by looking at the cheapest hardware they sell that'll have the given edition of the software installed.
(Another example of this: managed vs unmanaged routers.)
> Why stop at 2 hardware editions?
You're limited by the willingness of your developer ecosystem to develop different versions of the same third-party software for all your different OSes. Nobody wants a device with no third-party app support.
(But that being said, there is actually a third, even-less-capable hardware ecosystem Apple sells, with its own ecosystem of mostly fungible apps: Apple TV!)
Any client user/device using any service on the server requires a client access licence (CAL).
