I don't like the term merging as I see no reason for the two OS,s to become one. However there are many features missing from the Mac. People should see this as increasing functionality and data sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Fascinating! I like the integation of iOS on the Mac....just the syncing and Mac App store are amazing!.
The future is, more and more Apple users will have an iphone, iPad and most likely an MBA or even an iMac as well and eventually an Apple TV. And having a "family resemblance" of Apple's devices is the way to go!
The more integrated the two platforms become the more likely people will give up their laptops in favor of a desktop and an iOS devices or two. It isn't a family resemblance that we are looking for but the transparent access to data. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Apple would be better off if the corresponding apps didn't look too much alike.
Quote:
Also, for those interested, this week's macworld podcast is about mountain lion...very interesting!
I will need to check it out. However in just the last few minutes of reading about Mountain Lion I've been suitably impressed. Many of the improvements are exactly what I'm looking for.
I don't see that happening or how it makes sense. Why do I need to have the iOS UIs on my Mac or have the Mac Aqua UI hidden in within every iDevice? You don't there is simply no need for them to converse into one OS.
Now convergent aspects across their different OSes is another story and how iOS started. They scaled back Mac OS X to a core version of OS X that all system could use then diverged iOS from that. They've since shared back and forth along the way with the commonality of iOS-based devices clearly being pushed to the Mac to make it more familiar.
It makes sense because the "converged" OS will have a common code base.
You do not need to have extra UIs (and other components -- either Mac or Touch) on any device that does not use them.
Think about an app like Mail that runs on an iPhone and an iPad (as well as a Mac and a Web browser). The Same code presents a different UI depending on the device it runs.
Apple is fully capable of modularizing UIs and other OS capabilities so that only required code can be downloaded and used on the target device.
For a good article about 10.8, if that's what it will be called, see this article from PCmag. It's interesting that the PC oriented sites have, for the past few years, been giving Apple products really good press. Some of the readers aren't happy, but it is what it is.
Hilarious how pcmag has much more positive impressions from 10.8 than most Apple fansites. This almost reads like Apple PR:
Quote:
Bottom line:
OS X Lion is already the best consumer OS by far. When Mountain Lion ships, it will only increase Apple's lead. Anyone who uses a computer for both pleasure and work won't want to use anything else.
Some of you need to get some perspective and realizes how cynical you've become with anything to do with Apple, imposing your own xenophobic personal needs/wants and completely missing the big picture. And this rebuked much of the concern-trolling here:
Quote:
Apple's parallel but different tracks for OS X and iOS seems the right choice to me, and I wish Microsoft didn't insist on making my Windows desktop machine pretend to be a tablet or phone.
Amazing how everyone is bitching about the baseless 'iOSification' of OSX, yet Microsoft is slapping a tablet/phone interface as the default for a desktop.
If anything we will have a far more powerful OS with these added features. Note the word added, it isn't like they are taking away anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
In what way are they dumbing down OS X? Surely, improving and standardizing the UI across several device classes is strengthening the OS -- not dumbing it down.
At this point I've seen nothing to indicate standardizing of the UI other than the scrolling fix. Rather what i see is the addition of many new features. Features are not Ui's. I suspect that this is where many are confused, some of these features would have made it to the Mac even if iOS didn't exist.
Quote:
As are, automatic versioning, backup restart, location services, AirPlay, Core Media APIs...
Yeah I'm not sure how any of those could be indicators of a dumbed down OS. Rather they should be seen as additional capability or modernization of old features.
Quote:
I can still do all the things I could do with every prior version of OS X (Rosetta excepted) -- and a whole lot more (a lot of that is due to iOS features being rewritten and reported to OS X).
Yeah that whole lot more is what is being missed by many. I guess if your life revolves around your web browser you can't grasp the value of these features. It looks like you and I on the other hand are more of the mindset of what is taking Apple so long.
Some of you need to get some perspective and realizes how cynical you've become with anything to do with Apple, imposing your own xenophobic personal needs/wants and completely missing the big picture.
Pray do explain to us what comprises the "big picture".
It makes sense because the "converged" OS will have a common code base.
You do not need to have extra UIs (and other components -- either Mac or Touch) on any device that does not use them.
Think about an app like Mail that runs on an iPhone and an iPad (as well as a Mac and a Web browser). The Same code presents a different UI depending on the device it runs.
Apple is fully capable of modularizing UIs and other OS capabilities so that only required code can be downloaded and used on the target device.
You are talking about two completely OS philosphies. It's one thing to have iOS for iPhone/Touch and iOS for iPad create universal apps because the code base is so similar. That's just an app with the same basic, primary I/O foundation that is CocoaTouch.
Mac OS X uses Aqua and even though Apple is trying to make them look familiar they still act like a desktop OS app, not an embedded OS app that can't be windowed or resized. It's really just an iOS UI coating over Mac OS X Aqua, but it's not pulling CocoaTouch onto Mac OS and dropping Aqua, hence it's not a converging OS... jut converging aspects within the OS.
And that's just some minor surface points. That isn't even the core ways in which the OS functions. iOS doesn't need drivers for all those Mac ports on the side. It doesn't need drivers for USB connected printers and hard drives. There is a world of difference in the core of the OS that was stripped away to make iOS because it's not needed and never will be.
Bottom line: Apple hasn't dropped the Mac or dumbed it down. What they've done is add continuity between iOS and Mac OS which makes sense as their iOS devices are used by a lot more people than Macs. This isn't Apple dropping the Mac, this is Apple focusing on the Mac. Expect some major Mac HW updates as they are clearly readying to take the platform to a whole... 'nother... level.
I'm still confused by this though? "I assume I was only short list of name, too."
Oops, iPhone autocorrect and my lack of proofreading. I meant to write, "I assume I was on the short list of name, too." in regards to those who you think might point out your longstanding HDTV wish.
We're beginning to see the first implementations of a new kind of file management:
Simply stated: Why should the [average] user know or care where his files are (and when/how they are saved/versioned/backed up...). We have computers that can do all that.
I consider knowing where my files are to be very important. This allows for the use of the file system to organize the files according to project or other factors. One thing that I've quickly grown to hate about iOS is the inability to organize files. If you get past a certain number of files Pages and Numbers just suck on the iPad.
Quote:
1) The OS (Lion) has versioning
2) Modern apps have autosaving
3) iCloud will evolve from an option [to store files] to the default
4) cross-device sync is already in place for many apps
5) some apps, like FCP X, use a built-in SQL db as part of their file structure -- future versions will allow collaboration by combining of these "individual" dbs into a cloud/server based multiuser collaboration db -- you can't change the Title on Clip 3 in Project B because Bill is editing that Title -- though, you can add video effects or edit sound...
You don't need to take it with you -- if you can access it from anywhere...
If only that where true! Every app using iCloud needs to maintain a local copy for when iCloud isn't around. More so the apps need to be able to sync data files upon reconnection.
Quote:
...think iTunes match -- each of our computers and iDevices have access to 16,177 items (I just checked). These are stored across 5 computers, and all accessible on any iDevice from iCloud -- wherever we are.
Yeah I'm thinking I don't like that concept at all. It isn't that I don't like the concept of iCloud for sharing across devices, it is a good concept. The problem is you won't always have access to that cloud storage. Apps need to transparently deal with this issue and that means always having a local copy of everything on iCloud.
Same article 7 years ago simply replaced ARM with Intel.
ARM's moving upscale with more power hungry and powerful processors and Intel is moving downscale with low power mobile processing.
Apple would be foolish not to explore the idea.
Testing is normal for such a large company. If Intel was just sitting on this, that would be one thing. I'd like to see how the two compare a couple years from now. By that I mean chip for chip at that time, not what Intel makes today versus what ARM might be able to make later years later. Some of the math posted on this in the past has been particularly bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
What he said: We think about everything.
What he meant: You're damn right we're going to use ARM chips in Macs.
There are far too many directly quantifiable advantages to switching to ARM. E.g. lower CPU chip cost, lower power consumption, mechanical simplicity (no cooling fans), fewer components, etc. But the priceless, intangible advantage is freedom from Intel and its symbiosis with Microsoft. Apple suffered for many years during its unhappy co-dependence on slow-moving Motorola and IBM for their PowerPC chips.
The major flaw with this logic is that you don't know how these factors would look if you required a chip that would perform comparable to the current Air. At this point we still don't have much beyond speculation and hype, so it's not really a guarantee at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor
One of the reasons Intel has failed to gain market share from ARM in the mobile sector is that OEMs are very reluctant to put themselves at the mercy of Intel's monopoly price exploitation. With ARM chips there is huge competition amongst numerous different chipmakers.
In terms of pricing, power consumption, performance, etc. ARM's current competition in that area has involved atom chips. Should you wish to scale up an ARM chip to be appropriate for an OSX based machine, you'd no longer be looking at such a cheap price, and you are unlikely to see the price charged by Apple fall due to this.
If anything we will have a far more powerful OS with these added features. Note the word added, it isn't like they are taking away anything.
At this point I've seen nothing to indicate standardizing of the UI other than the scrolling fix. Rather what i see is the addition of many new features. Features are not Ui's. I suspect that this is where many are confused, some of these features would have made it to the Mac even if iOS didn't exist.
Yeah I'm not sure how any of those could be indicators of a dumbed down OS. Rather they should be seen as additional capability or modernization of old features.
Yeah that whole lot more is what is being missed by many. I guess if your life revolves around your web browser you can't grasp the value of these features. It looks like you and I on the other hand are more of the mindset of what is taking Apple so long.
Agree completely!
Maybe the proper way to look at it is that Apple is dumbing-up OS X -- so that it can make [non-computer] users comfortable with their [iDevice] apps running on the desktop. *
Just imagine how difficult it will be for someone who is proficient on an iPad to sit down and use a mouse for the first time...
Remember *
No, No, No... Don't look at the mouse -- look at the little cursor on the screen...
No, I don't know why they call it a cursor... you can call it the little arrow, if you feel more comfortable...
No, I don't know why the little arrow becomes a little glove -- maybe it means the computer is cold...
No, No, If you roll the mouse to the end of your desk... just lift up the mouse and move it to the middle of your desk.
No, the cur- eh, little arrow will remember where it was, and not follow you to the middle of the desk...
No, trust me, it'll remember...
Oh, there you go... I should have been more clear... Lift up the mouse and don't set it down until you get to the center of the desk...
Don't set it down, yet!
OK, take a moment to stop crying... now roll the little arrow over that little button...
OK, Now click the button...
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- press down on the mouse so that the little arrow presses the button...
No, I don't know why you can't just reach and press the button with your finger...
Well, no, they don't call it "click and point" -- it just doesn't make sense that way...
* Apologies to Bob Newhart.
There is some standardizing of the UI -- some touch gestures on trackpads, MagicMouse and MagicPad...
But, I should have been more specific -- the "look and feel" standardization -- some in the OS and the desktop, but mostly in the look and feel of the basic apps. It will be nice (less unsettling) to be able to run Calendar or Contacts on a Mac or an iDevice and not need to make the mental adjustment because the app looks and works differently.
It isn't so much an ARM issue as it is a SoC issue. Apple won't switch to Intel on iOS devices until. It can build exactly what it needs into a SoC. this will only become more important in the future.
Now you may say that Intel could do SoC and that may be true, but right now there are huge hurdles to breach at Intel.
As to TB it is simply a question of how much of the IP Apple owns or is willing to license. There is no technical reason keeping TB off ARM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
I almost think it would make more sense for Apple to transition iOS to Intel, down the road of course. ARM works great right now, but has little competition given that Intel fell asleep from ingesting too much money in the 90's and early 21st century.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but LightPeak/Thunderbolt doesn't work on ARM, but would if Apple transitioned to Intel, say 5 years down the road.
I consider knowing where my files are to be very important. This allows for the use of the file system to organize the files according to project or other factors. One thing that I've quickly grown to hate about iOS is the inability to organize files. If you get past a certain number of files Pages and Numbers just suck on the iPad.
If only that where true! Every app using iCloud needs to maintain a local copy for when iCloud isn't around. More so the apps need to be able to sync data files upon reconnection.
Yeah I'm thinking I don't like that concept at all. It isn't that I don't like the concept of iCloud for sharing across devices, it is a good concept. The problem is you won't always have access to that cloud storage. Apps need to transparently deal with this issue and that means always having a local copy of everything on iCloud.
But you or I nor most here are not typical users
I do not believe that Apple will remove needed function (like control of where your files go) for sophisticated users.
They will just hide it from view for the typical user who does not need it -- like ~/Library in Lion.
iCloud is a 1.0 release... I believe with a little expansion of capability it will satisfy the needs of most users -- those who can't surf, mail, socialize without an Internet connection.
For the more sophisticated user, I believe there needs to be an intermediate device between the local devices and the cloud. The primary function of this device would be to stage your files between local storage and the cloud.
When you create a file, the device creates a local backup and change backups ala TimeMachine -- and periodically uploads that to the cloud.
Based on infrequency of reference, the file may eventually migrate to the cloud. Six months from now, when you need to work on those files again they migrate back to local storage.
I believe this would give you the best of both worlds:
1) Local access to all the files you currently (or plan to) use.
2) Everything available on the cloud
3) Mobile access to either the local store or the cloud
The staging device(s) would be an A6 running iOS built into a RAID like the Pegasus.
As to the file system vs no file system: iOS is admittedly limited [poor] -- but OS X isn't much better... there needs to be something in between and better... and I'm thinking the long-term solution includes an SQL db to help you navigate and access files... Like porn -- I can't define it -- but I'll know it when I see it.
First off I have intelligence and 25 years of IT, VM and Data Center experience and have watched a lot of MFG's do this same thing not just Microsoft ,so if you would be so kind as to refrain from taking pop shots and being condescending, please.
You say that iOS will not become the MacOS, how do you know this?
There is more evidence that they are moving MacOS in the direction of iOS than not.
They are replacing apps with in OS X with iOS versions slowly converting OS X to iOS via a slow and methodical transition.
However, for arguments sake I will give you your premiss that the two OS's will remain separate.
They are still dumbing down MacOS which is "obviously and surely a bad thing".
Go ahead and toast me up.
I hate to say this but maybe it is time for an OS X Lite or home version.
They are not dumbing down Mac OS X. Everything that was there is still there. They are merely borrowing naming conventions and UI elements from iOS.
iOS WILL NOT replace OS X. iOS doesn't even support virtual memory. iOS is OS X for devices with very limited resources and will remain as such and Mac OS X will continue to be designed for systems with many, many more (unlimited) resources.
What I think will eventually happen, is Apple releasing a new of line computers that are very similar in user experience as current iOS devices, but make use of a keyboard and (trackpad). Not meant to replace Macs, but meant for people who aren't comfortable with tablets, but also don't necessarily need a super-powerful computer either. I believe that's why they released full-screen mode with Lion. This is the start of transitioning developers towards this type of application design.
Interesting quotes... makes me glad we don't have:
OSX home
OSXhome premium
OSX ultimate
OSX training
OSX mobile
OSX xp
The evolution of the former Mac interface is gradual, feature driven and seems to be done with a tremendous amount of thought.
Having a CEO that vaguely speaks of the direction of company is a positive overall. While mystery is more exciting, business likes to know what is coming, and looks as if Cook may be able to retain the theatrical excitement created by Apple as well as indicate to business what is going to happen... which is... we just sold more iOS devices then Mac OS devices over the last 30 years, we are going to kick MS butt from here on out, get on board, all your employees want Apple products.
As to TB it is simply a question of how much of the IP Apple owns or is willing to license. There is no technical reason keeping TB off ARM.
That's good to hear. I think TB would be great on an iPad for lots of uses.
In any event, should Apple wish to use TB on ARM, they should be able to do it for less than the competition -- even if they must license part of the technology from Intel.
The more integrated the two platforms become the more likely people will give up their laptops in favor of a desktop and an iOS devices or two. It isn't a family resemblance that we are looking for but the transparent access to data. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Apple would be better off if the corresponding apps didn't look too much alike.
It's possible, but I see the potential of dedicated computer space in a house or apartment becoming less common going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to TB it is simply a question of how much of the IP Apple owns or is willing to license. There is no technical reason keeping TB off ARM.
My understanding is that TB is owned by Intel, and Apple simply owns mini displayport which doesn't have an associated licensing fee, although it's only appeared on a few displays at most outside of Apple branded units. I'm kind of surprised they mentioned this at all considering where ARM is at today. It's still far enough out it's difficult to extrapolate where ARM will be in a few years or what it would be like if scaled up to be suitable as a laptop replacement. The issue is that most people seem to just draw tangents on performance growth rather than trying to analyze a greater portion of the trend in performance acceleration. This would probably make more sense if I drew up a nice graph..... maybe later.
Somehow I don't think it would be an automatic rejection if leaving thunderbolt behind was the only snag. Apple has randomly ditched things in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
But you or I nor most here are not typical users
I do not believe that Apple will remove needed function (like control of where your files go) for sophisticated users.
They will just hide it from view for the typical user who does not need it -- like ~/Library in Lion.
iCloud is a 1.0 release... I believe with a little expansion of capability it will satisfy the needs of most users -- those who can't surf, mail, socialize without an Internet connection.
I'm not sure current infrastructure would hold up to these kinds of bandwidth requirements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
That's good to hear. I think TB would be great on an iPad for lots of uses.
In any event, should Apple wish to use TB on ARM, they should be able to do it for less than the competition -- even if they must license part of the technology from Intel.
Apple provided a connector and debuted it on their machines. They don't seem to own any of it seeing as their mini displayport can be circumvented. Neither of these things seem to carry an associated licensing fee.
That's good to hear. I think TB would be great on an iPad for lots of uses.
In any event, should Apple wish to use TB on ARM, they should be able to do it for less than the competition -- even if they must license part of the technology from Intel.
Anand makes a solid argument as to why iDevices won't get TB.
Comments
Fascinating! I like the integation of iOS on the Mac....just the syncing and Mac App store are amazing!.
The future is, more and more Apple users will have an iphone, iPad and most likely an MBA or even an iMac as well and eventually an Apple TV. And having a "family resemblance" of Apple's devices is the way to go!
The more integrated the two platforms become the more likely people will give up their laptops in favor of a desktop and an iOS devices or two. It isn't a family resemblance that we are looking for but the transparent access to data. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Apple would be better off if the corresponding apps didn't look too much alike.
Also, for those interested, this week's macworld podcast is about mountain lion...very interesting!
http://www.macworld.com/article/1654...n_the_way.html
I will need to check it out. However in just the last few minutes of reading about Mountain Lion I've been suitably impressed. Many of the improvements are exactly what I'm looking for.
I don't see that happening or how it makes sense. Why do I need to have the iOS UIs on my Mac or have the Mac Aqua UI hidden in within every iDevice? You don't there is simply no need for them to converse into one OS.
Now convergent aspects across their different OSes is another story and how iOS started. They scaled back Mac OS X to a core version of OS X that all system could use then diverged iOS from that. They've since shared back and forth along the way with the commonality of iOS-based devices clearly being pushed to the Mac to make it more familiar.
It makes sense because the "converged" OS will have a common code base.
You do not need to have extra UIs (and other components -- either Mac or Touch) on any device that does not use them.
Think about an app like Mail that runs on an iPhone and an iPad (as well as a Mac and a Web browser). The Same code presents a different UI depending on the device it runs.
Apple is fully capable of modularizing UIs and other OS capabilities so that only required code can be downloaded and used on the target device.
For a good article about 10.8, if that's what it will be called, see this article from PCmag. It's interesting that the PC oriented sites have, for the past few years, been giving Apple products really good press. Some of the readers aren't happy, but it is what it is.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2400311,00.asp
Hilarious how pcmag has much more positive impressions from 10.8 than most Apple fansites. This almost reads like Apple PR:
Bottom line:
OS X Lion is already the best consumer OS by far. When Mountain Lion ships, it will only increase Apple's lead. Anyone who uses a computer for both pleasure and work won't want to use anything else.
Some of you need to get some perspective and realizes how cynical you've become with anything to do with Apple, imposing your own xenophobic personal needs/wants and completely missing the big picture. And this rebuked much of the concern-trolling here:
Apple's parallel but different tracks for OS X and iOS seems the right choice to me, and I wish Microsoft didn't insist on making my Windows desktop machine pretend to be a tablet or phone.
Amazing how everyone is bitching about the baseless 'iOSification' of OSX, yet Microsoft is slapping a tablet/phone interface as the default for a desktop.
In what way are they dumbing down OS X? Surely, improving and standardizing the UI across several device classes is strengthening the OS -- not dumbing it down.
At this point I've seen nothing to indicate standardizing of the UI other than the scrolling fix. Rather what i see is the addition of many new features. Features are not Ui's. I suspect that this is where many are confused, some of these features would have made it to the Mac even if iOS didn't exist.
As are, automatic versioning, backup restart, location services, AirPlay, Core Media APIs...
Yeah I'm not sure how any of those could be indicators of a dumbed down OS. Rather they should be seen as additional capability or modernization of old features.
I can still do all the things I could do with every prior version of OS X (Rosetta excepted) -- and a whole lot more (a lot of that is due to iOS features being rewritten and reported to OS X).
Yeah that whole lot more is what is being missed by many. I guess if your life revolves around your web browser you can't grasp the value of these features. It looks like you and I on the other hand are more of the mindset of what is taking Apple so long.
Some of you need to get some perspective and realizes how cynical you've become with anything to do with Apple, imposing your own xenophobic personal needs/wants and completely missing the big picture.
Pray do explain to us what comprises the "big picture".
Th short list of AI posters that you thought might point that out.
I'm still confused by this though? "I assume I was only short list of name, too."
It makes sense because the "converged" OS will have a common code base.
You do not need to have extra UIs (and other components -- either Mac or Touch) on any device that does not use them.
Think about an app like Mail that runs on an iPhone and an iPad (as well as a Mac and a Web browser). The Same code presents a different UI depending on the device it runs.
Apple is fully capable of modularizing UIs and other OS capabilities so that only required code can be downloaded and used on the target device.
You are talking about two completely OS philosphies. It's one thing to have iOS for iPhone/Touch and iOS for iPad create universal apps because the code base is so similar. That's just an app with the same basic, primary I/O foundation that is CocoaTouch.
Mac OS X uses Aqua and even though Apple is trying to make them look familiar they still act like a desktop OS app, not an embedded OS app that can't be windowed or resized. It's really just an iOS UI coating over Mac OS X Aqua, but it's not pulling CocoaTouch onto Mac OS and dropping Aqua, hence it's not a converging OS... jut converging aspects within the OS.
And that's just some minor surface points. That isn't even the core ways in which the OS functions. iOS doesn't need drivers for all those Mac ports on the side. It doesn't need drivers for USB connected printers and hard drives. There is a world of difference in the core of the OS that was stripped away to make iOS because it's not needed and never will be.
Bottom line: Apple hasn't dropped the Mac or dumbed it down. What they've done is add continuity between iOS and Mac OS which makes sense as their iOS devices are used by a lot more people than Macs. This isn't Apple dropping the Mac, this is Apple focusing on the Mac. Expect some major Mac HW updates as they are clearly readying to take the platform to a whole... 'nother... level.
I'm still confused by this though? "I assume I was only short list of name, too."
Oops, iPhone autocorrect and my lack of proofreading. I meant to write, "I assume I was on the short list of name, too." in regards to those who you think might point out your longstanding HDTV wish.
We're beginning to see the first implementations of a new kind of file management:
Simply stated: Why should the [average] user know or care where his files are (and when/how they are saved/versioned/backed up...). We have computers that can do all that.
I consider knowing where my files are to be very important. This allows for the use of the file system to organize the files according to project or other factors. One thing that I've quickly grown to hate about iOS is the inability to organize files. If you get past a certain number of files Pages and Numbers just suck on the iPad.
1) The OS (Lion) has versioning
2) Modern apps have autosaving
3) iCloud will evolve from an option [to store files] to the default
4) cross-device sync is already in place for many apps
5) some apps, like FCP X, use a built-in SQL db as part of their file structure -- future versions will allow collaboration by combining of these "individual" dbs into a cloud/server based multiuser collaboration db -- you can't change the Title on Clip 3 in Project B because Bill is editing that Title -- though, you can add video effects or edit sound...
You don't need to take it with you -- if you can access it from anywhere...
If only that where true! Every app using iCloud needs to maintain a local copy for when iCloud isn't around. More so the apps need to be able to sync data files upon reconnection.
...think iTunes match -- each of our computers and iDevices have access to 16,177 items (I just checked). These are stored across 5 computers, and all accessible on any iDevice from iCloud -- wherever we are.
Yeah I'm thinking I don't like that concept at all. It isn't that I don't like the concept of iCloud for sharing across devices, it is a good concept. The problem is you won't always have access to that cloud storage. Apps need to transparently deal with this issue and that means always having a local copy of everything on iCloud.
Nothing really to see here.
Same article 7 years ago simply replaced ARM with Intel.
ARM's moving upscale with more power hungry and powerful processors and Intel is moving downscale with low power mobile processing.
Apple would be foolish not to explore the idea.
Testing is normal for such a large company. If Intel was just sitting on this, that would be one thing. I'd like to see how the two compare a couple years from now. By that I mean chip for chip at that time, not what Intel makes today versus what ARM might be able to make later years later. Some of the math posted on this in the past has been particularly bad.
What he said: We think about everything.
What he meant: You're damn right we're going to use ARM chips in Macs.
There are far too many directly quantifiable advantages to switching to ARM. E.g. lower CPU chip cost, lower power consumption, mechanical simplicity (no cooling fans), fewer components, etc. But the priceless, intangible advantage is freedom from Intel and its symbiosis with Microsoft. Apple suffered for many years during its unhappy co-dependence on slow-moving Motorola and IBM for their PowerPC chips.
The major flaw with this logic is that you don't know how these factors would look if you required a chip that would perform comparable to the current Air. At this point we still don't have much beyond speculation and hype, so it's not really a guarantee at this point.
One of the reasons Intel has failed to gain market share from ARM in the mobile sector is that OEMs are very reluctant to put themselves at the mercy of Intel's monopoly price exploitation. With ARM chips there is huge competition amongst numerous different chipmakers.
In terms of pricing, power consumption, performance, etc. ARM's current competition in that area has involved atom chips. Should you wish to scale up an ARM chip to be appropriate for an OSX based machine, you'd no longer be looking at such a cheap price, and you are unlikely to see the price charged by Apple fall due to this.
If anything we will have a far more powerful OS with these added features. Note the word added, it isn't like they are taking away anything.
At this point I've seen nothing to indicate standardizing of the UI other than the scrolling fix. Rather what i see is the addition of many new features. Features are not Ui's. I suspect that this is where many are confused, some of these features would have made it to the Mac even if iOS didn't exist.
Yeah I'm not sure how any of those could be indicators of a dumbed down OS. Rather they should be seen as additional capability or modernization of old features.
Yeah that whole lot more is what is being missed by many. I guess if your life revolves around your web browser you can't grasp the value of these features. It looks like you and I on the other hand are more of the mindset of what is taking Apple so long.
Agree completely!
Maybe the proper way to look at it is that Apple is dumbing-up OS X -- so that it can make [non-computer] users comfortable with their [iDevice] apps running on the desktop. *
Just imagine how difficult it will be for someone who is proficient on an iPad to sit down and use a mouse for the first time...
Remember *
No, No, No... Don't look at the mouse -- look at the little cursor on the screen...
No, I don't know why they call it a cursor... you can call it the little arrow, if you feel more comfortable...
No, I don't know why the little arrow becomes a little glove -- maybe it means the computer is cold...
No, No, If you roll the mouse to the end of your desk... just lift up the mouse and move it to the middle of your desk.
No, the cur- eh, little arrow will remember where it was, and not follow you to the middle of the desk...
No, trust me, it'll remember...
Oh, there you go... I should have been more clear... Lift up the mouse and don't set it down until you get to the center of the desk...
Don't set it down, yet!
OK, take a moment to stop crying... now roll the little arrow over that little button...
OK, Now click the button...
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear -- press down on the mouse so that the little arrow presses the button...
No, I don't know why you can't just reach and press the button with your finger...
Well, no, they don't call it "click and point" -- it just doesn't make sense that way...
* Apologies to Bob Newhart.
There is some standardizing of the UI -- some touch gestures on trackpads, MagicMouse and MagicPad...
But, I should have been more specific -- the "look and feel" standardization -- some in the OS and the desktop, but mostly in the look and feel of the basic apps. It will be nice (less unsettling) to be able to run Calendar or Contacts on a Mac or an iDevice and not need to make the mental adjustment because the app looks and works differently.
Now you may say that Intel could do SoC and that may be true, but right now there are huge hurdles to breach at Intel.
As to TB it is simply a question of how much of the IP Apple owns or is willing to license. There is no technical reason keeping TB off ARM.
I almost think it would make more sense for Apple to transition iOS to Intel, down the road of course. ARM works great right now, but has little competition given that Intel fell asleep from ingesting too much money in the 90's and early 21st century.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but LightPeak/Thunderbolt doesn't work on ARM, but would if Apple transitioned to Intel, say 5 years down the road.
I consider knowing where my files are to be very important. This allows for the use of the file system to organize the files according to project or other factors. One thing that I've quickly grown to hate about iOS is the inability to organize files. If you get past a certain number of files Pages and Numbers just suck on the iPad.
If only that where true! Every app using iCloud needs to maintain a local copy for when iCloud isn't around. More so the apps need to be able to sync data files upon reconnection.
Yeah I'm thinking I don't like that concept at all. It isn't that I don't like the concept of iCloud for sharing across devices, it is a good concept. The problem is you won't always have access to that cloud storage. Apps need to transparently deal with this issue and that means always having a local copy of everything on iCloud.
But you or I nor most here are not typical users
I do not believe that Apple will remove needed function (like control of where your files go) for sophisticated users.
They will just hide it from view for the typical user who does not need it -- like ~/Library in Lion.
iCloud is a 1.0 release... I believe with a little expansion of capability it will satisfy the needs of most users -- those who can't surf, mail, socialize without an Internet connection.
For the more sophisticated user, I believe there needs to be an intermediate device between the local devices and the cloud. The primary function of this device would be to stage your files between local storage and the cloud.
When you create a file, the device creates a local backup and change backups ala TimeMachine -- and periodically uploads that to the cloud.
Based on infrequency of reference, the file may eventually migrate to the cloud. Six months from now, when you need to work on those files again they migrate back to local storage.
I believe this would give you the best of both worlds:
1) Local access to all the files you currently (or plan to) use.
2) Everything available on the cloud
3) Mobile access to either the local store or the cloud
The staging device(s) would be an A6 running iOS built into a RAID like the Pegasus.
As to the file system vs no file system: iOS is admittedly limited [poor] -- but OS X isn't much better... there needs to be something in between and better... and I'm thinking the long-term solution includes an SQL db to help you navigate and access files... Like porn -- I can't define it -- but I'll know it when I see it.
First off I have intelligence and 25 years of IT, VM and Data Center experience and have watched a lot of MFG's do this same thing not just Microsoft ,so if you would be so kind as to refrain from taking pop shots and being condescending, please.
You say that iOS will not become the MacOS, how do you know this?
There is more evidence that they are moving MacOS in the direction of iOS than not.
They are replacing apps with in OS X with iOS versions slowly converting OS X to iOS via a slow and methodical transition.
However, for arguments sake I will give you your premiss that the two OS's will remain separate.
They are still dumbing down MacOS which is "obviously and surely a bad thing".
Go ahead and toast me up.
I hate to say this but maybe it is time for an OS X Lite or home version.
They are not dumbing down Mac OS X. Everything that was there is still there. They are merely borrowing naming conventions and UI elements from iOS.
iOS WILL NOT replace OS X. iOS doesn't even support virtual memory. iOS is OS X for devices with very limited resources and will remain as such and Mac OS X will continue to be designed for systems with many, many more (unlimited) resources.
What I think will eventually happen, is Apple releasing a new of line computers that are very similar in user experience as current iOS devices, but make use of a keyboard and (trackpad). Not meant to replace Macs, but meant for people who aren't comfortable with tablets, but also don't necessarily need a super-powerful computer either. I believe that's why they released full-screen mode with Lion. This is the start of transitioning developers towards this type of application design.
OSX home
OSXhome premium
OSX ultimate
OSX training
OSX mobile
OSX xp
The evolution of the former Mac interface is gradual, feature driven and seems to be done with a tremendous amount of thought.
Having a CEO that vaguely speaks of the direction of company is a positive overall. While mystery is more exciting, business likes to know what is coming, and looks as if Cook may be able to retain the theatrical excitement created by Apple as well as indicate to business what is going to happen... which is... we just sold more iOS devices then Mac OS devices over the last 30 years, we are going to kick MS butt from here on out, get on board, all your employees want Apple products.
As to TB it is simply a question of how much of the IP Apple owns or is willing to license. There is no technical reason keeping TB off ARM.
That's good to hear. I think TB would be great on an iPad for lots of uses.
In any event, should Apple wish to use TB on ARM, they should be able to do it for less than the competition -- even if they must license part of the technology from Intel.
The more integrated the two platforms become the more likely people will give up their laptops in favor of a desktop and an iOS devices or two. It isn't a family resemblance that we are looking for but the transparent access to data. In fact I'd go so far as to say that Apple would be better off if the corresponding apps didn't look too much alike.
It's possible, but I see the potential of dedicated computer space in a house or apartment becoming less common going forward.
As to TB it is simply a question of how much of the IP Apple owns or is willing to license. There is no technical reason keeping TB off ARM.
My understanding is that TB is owned by Intel, and Apple simply owns mini displayport which doesn't have an associated licensing fee, although it's only appeared on a few displays at most outside of Apple branded units. I'm kind of surprised they mentioned this at all considering where ARM is at today. It's still far enough out it's difficult to extrapolate where ARM will be in a few years or what it would be like if scaled up to be suitable as a laptop replacement. The issue is that most people seem to just draw tangents on performance growth rather than trying to analyze a greater portion of the trend in performance acceleration. This would probably make more sense if I drew up a nice graph..... maybe later.
Somehow I don't think it would be an automatic rejection if leaving thunderbolt behind was the only snag. Apple has randomly ditched things in the past.
But you or I nor most here are not typical users
I do not believe that Apple will remove needed function (like control of where your files go) for sophisticated users.
They will just hide it from view for the typical user who does not need it -- like ~/Library in Lion.
iCloud is a 1.0 release... I believe with a little expansion of capability it will satisfy the needs of most users -- those who can't surf, mail, socialize without an Internet connection.
I'm not sure current infrastructure would hold up to these kinds of bandwidth requirements.
That's good to hear. I think TB would be great on an iPad for lots of uses.
In any event, should Apple wish to use TB on ARM, they should be able to do it for less than the competition -- even if they must license part of the technology from Intel.
Apple provided a connector and debuted it on their machines. They don't seem to own any of it seeing as their mini displayport can be circumvented. Neither of these things seem to carry an associated licensing fee.
That's good to hear. I think TB would be great on an iPad for lots of uses.
In any event, should Apple wish to use TB on ARM, they should be able to do it for less than the competition -- even if they must license part of the technology from Intel.
Anand makes a solid argument as to why iDevices won't get TB.
Anand makes a solid argument as to why iDevices won't get TB.
Even I didn't realize the max transfer rate was "that" low.