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.
From what I read Apple was heavily involved in the development of Thunderbolt.
So I assume that Apple has the rights to use and implement the technique in its own ARM chips.
Further, ARM is a formidable opponent for Intel, not only because it has a huge performance per watt advantage at the moment and an enormous installed base (with the inertion that goes with it) but also a very aggressive roadmap and very good GPU integration.
For Mac OS X (and iOS) GPU acceleration is key and some very inventive GPU makers (PowerVR and NVIDIA) have 'joined forces' and make a formidable package.
The GPU roadmap of PowerVR is especially impressive and its current products outclass Intel by by far.
Another important factor contributing to ARMs succes is that it isn't one firm, it's a consortium of corporations all working from the same specification (similar to the argument that Android has an advantage compared to iOS) but varying the SOC (package) in inventive ways.
Apple is about making money, not giving techno snobs something to wank over. So yes they are going to look to what the general consumer needs, including ways to protect themselves in what is perceived as the Wild West of the Internet.
At the same time, Apple is keeping options for those that don't need such protections to reduce or even completely turn them off. Just as while Launchpad was added, they didn't remove Finder etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
"We think about everything" : Is there another CEO in this business who can say this without being immediately ridiculized ?
Or give such non answers to questions and get away with it.
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.
False and potentially bad assumption. It means what he said. They think about everything. But they aren't in a position to say which way their thoughts are going or might go in the future if ARM becomes appropriately powerful.
Which is in its own way way better than Steve who on more than one occasion declared Apple wasn't doing something only to turn around and do it a year or so later. While the company is certainly allowed to change their minds, his comments led to a lot of negative PR in the press and the blogs/forums. This kind of answer avoids such situations because it is a non answer.
Is it just me or does it seem like mountain lion is not going to bring ANY imporovements over lion or even snow leopard? Even lion was a very small step forward I think.
That depends a bit on your definition of 'improvement'
Quote:
I really dont think autosaving was made the best possible way in lion. It just made me uncomfiortable about my documents because I modify many times documents but need the old document swell..
That's why there are also versions and duplication.
That's an interesting dilemma from Apple. Go the whole way and make their own HDTV (tons of people would buy it just because it's not Sony/ Samsung/ Pioneer/ Etc.
Or roll out AppleTV 3/4 with apps and reach out to a very broad base. Most HDTVs have about 3 or 4 HDMI inputs now so another set top box is slightly annoying, but not a dealbreaker.
They'd really need to do something with the interface. Apple has nothing on these other guys in terms of technology related to things like picture quality. Even if they started today, picture quality doesn't guarantee people will pay for it. If they were approaching it from a standpoint of picture quality or sophisticated technology, Apple is a big company. They'd look for a small company with promising research and invest or buy those guys out rather than developing in house. I haven't seen any rumors that really point to such a thing. I think it would be heavily based around aesthetics and interface. Apple rarely has the greatest hardware specs, and they don't market heavily based upon them outside of the apple site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Compared to x86 based chips, ARM based SoC's, which contain almost the entire thing, are so very cheap, that Apple could, if they wanted to, include it within every Mac. That would give them 100% compatibility with iOS apps, just needing the touch input, which Apple is increasing the capability of on their hardware on a regular basis.
This is certain,y possible without compromising the performance of the device. There is a lot that could be done here.
They are cheap, but the total system cost would still go up given potential design and assembly costs tacked onto the price of the necessary components. My argument was that with what is currently available, implementing such a solution within a laptop or desktop computer would require a much more expensive implementation that consumes much more power than what is seen in an iphone or ipad. I get tired of people suggesting that they can replace an i7 with a $15 ARM chip at its current manufacturing cost without impeding performance for the majority of users. It just shows a lack of understanding on their parts and too much attention paid to internet hype rather than white papers. I am not including your statement in that (as obviously you didn't make those claims).
The thing about touch screens is that implementing an ergonomic solution for that in a typical desktop or laptop situation could be expensive in itself. I'm wondering how they'd deal with that. Even cheap monitor arms seem like they would require a fair amount of testing at different angles to see how they hold up to long term stress and torsion. With a clamp type locking system stability and creep also become significant factors in the overall experience. It wouldn't surprise me if this is one of their research projects. Wacom seems to have done a nice job on their recent one. The old one sucked in terms of ergonomics, and yeah with painting/drawing before computers it was typical to use an angled surface rather than looking straight down. Their old stand also lacked a stable feel.
Well, to be accurate, it began as the UI on the demised Zune HD. Then it was extended to be usable on a phone, and so we see it as the UI for WP7. And now, MS is extending it again for Win8.
.
.
.
But Metro, the UI, and programming model, is most definitely from their music player and their phone.
The Metro design language was born out of Media Center (circa 2002).
The "start screen" on Windows 8, and "metro-style" apps targeting WinRT are not using a "tablet/phone" UI.
This interface and its apps are what Microsoft is calling "touch first". The concept being that apps are written to support touch, but also take into consideration the other first class input citizens (mouse, track pad, keyboard and stylus).
This is one of the key (and interesting) differentiators between Apple and Microsoft's strategies.
The iPad has been designed from the ground up to be touch-only. This has had obvious benefits and the results for Apple have been phenomenal.
However there have been some side-effects to Apple's approach, in that it's hard to imagine that Apple could ever retro-fit a mouse/track pad/keyboard/stylus environment back into iOS without it looking like a hack job.
This idea seems to have been confirmed with the Mountain Lion mountain lion announcement. i.e. Your data and the OS concepts flow freely between environments, but there is a clear line between them. iOS is for touch (or maybe at some point, touch+voice), OSX is for keyboard\\track pad\\mouse, and never the two shall meet.
Something like this...
Conversely, Microsoft has not drawn a clean line between the two environments. Windows 8 is designed from the ground up as an OS for hybrids.
The traditional Windows desktop will be included on all Windows 8 devices.
When a PC has a mouse/track pad/keyboard connected a user can access both "metro-style" apps (which are touch first, but mouse/track pad/keyboard/stylus enabled) as well as the traditional Windows desktop.
On a device without a mouse/track pad/keyboard a user can access "metro-style" apps (which are touch first) as well as the traditional Windows desktop (if they happen to be a masochist).
Something like this...
At first glance it's easy to dismiss Microsoft's approach as it appears they are using the same failed tactic they have for a decade (try to cram the wrong UI on the wrong device) however there are a few differences this time around (namely, they are creating something new).
Microsoft's promise is to deliver a first class touch experience, whilst still supporting traditional user input elements like the keyboard, mouse, track-pad and stylus. We'll know before the year is out if this is complete bullshit or not
Comments
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.
From what I read Apple was heavily involved in the development of Thunderbolt.
So I assume that Apple has the rights to use and implement the technique in its own ARM chips.
Further, ARM is a formidable opponent for Intel, not only because it has a huge performance per watt advantage at the moment and an enormous installed base (with the inertion that goes with it) but also a very aggressive roadmap and very good GPU integration.
For Mac OS X (and iOS) GPU acceleration is key and some very inventive GPU makers (PowerVR and NVIDIA) have 'joined forces' and make a formidable package.
The GPU roadmap of PowerVR is especially impressive and its current products outclass Intel by by far.
Another important factor contributing to ARMs succes is that it isn't one firm, it's a consortium of corporations all working from the same specification (similar to the argument that Android has an advantage compared to iOS) but varying the SOC (package) in inventive ways.
J.
Hmmmm..... TMI, Cook, TMI.
Not really. He doesn't really give any definitive answers but rather broad strokes.
I am not a fan of iOS on a Mac PC.
Making the OS stupid proof.
Apple is about making money, not giving techno snobs something to wank over. So yes they are going to look to what the general consumer needs, including ways to protect themselves in what is perceived as the Wild West of the Internet.
At the same time, Apple is keeping options for those that don't need such protections to reduce or even completely turn them off. Just as while Launchpad was added, they didn't remove Finder etc.
"We think about everything" : Is there another CEO in this business who can say this without being immediately ridiculized ?
Or give such non answers to questions and get away with it.
What he said: We think about everything.
What he meant: You're damn right we're going to use ARM chips in Macs.
False and potentially bad assumption. It means what he said. They think about everything. But they aren't in a position to say which way their thoughts are going or might go in the future if ARM becomes appropriately powerful.
Which is in its own way way better than Steve who on more than one occasion declared Apple wasn't doing something only to turn around and do it a year or so later. While the company is certainly allowed to change their minds, his comments led to a lot of negative PR in the press and the blogs/forums. This kind of answer avoids such situations because it is a non answer.
Is it just me or does it seem like mountain lion is not going to bring ANY imporovements over lion or even snow leopard? Even lion was a very small step forward I think.
That depends a bit on your definition of 'improvement'
I really dont think autosaving was made the best possible way in lion. It just made me uncomfiortable about my documents because I modify many times documents but need the old document swell..
That's why there are also versions and duplication.
That's an interesting dilemma from Apple. Go the whole way and make their own HDTV (tons of people would buy it just because it's not Sony/ Samsung/ Pioneer/ Etc.
Or roll out AppleTV 3/4 with apps and reach out to a very broad base. Most HDTVs have about 3 or 4 HDMI inputs now so another set top box is slightly annoying, but not a dealbreaker.
They'd really need to do something with the interface. Apple has nothing on these other guys in terms of technology related to things like picture quality. Even if they started today, picture quality doesn't guarantee people will pay for it. If they were approaching it from a standpoint of picture quality or sophisticated technology, Apple is a big company. They'd look for a small company with promising research and invest or buy those guys out rather than developing in house. I haven't seen any rumors that really point to such a thing. I think it would be heavily based around aesthetics and interface. Apple rarely has the greatest hardware specs, and they don't market heavily based upon them outside of the apple site.
Compared to x86 based chips, ARM based SoC's, which contain almost the entire thing, are so very cheap, that Apple could, if they wanted to, include it within every Mac. That would give them 100% compatibility with iOS apps, just needing the touch input, which Apple is increasing the capability of on their hardware on a regular basis.
This is certain,y possible without compromising the performance of the device. There is a lot that could be done here.
They are cheap, but the total system cost would still go up given potential design and assembly costs tacked onto the price of the necessary components. My argument was that with what is currently available, implementing such a solution within a laptop or desktop computer would require a much more expensive implementation that consumes much more power than what is seen in an iphone or ipad. I get tired of people suggesting that they can replace an i7 with a $15 ARM chip at its current manufacturing cost without impeding performance for the majority of users. It just shows a lack of understanding on their parts and too much attention paid to internet hype rather than white papers. I am not including your statement in that (as obviously you didn't make those claims).
The thing about touch screens is that implementing an ergonomic solution for that in a typical desktop or laptop situation could be expensive in itself. I'm wondering how they'd deal with that. Even cheap monitor arms seem like they would require a fair amount of testing at different angles to see how they hold up to long term stress and torsion. With a clamp type locking system stability and creep also become significant factors in the overall experience. It wouldn't surprise me if this is one of their research projects. Wacom seems to have done a nice job on their recent one. The old one sucked in terms of ergonomics, and yeah with painting/drawing before computers it was typical to use an angled surface rather than looking straight down. Their old stand also lacked a stable feel.
Well, to be accurate, it began as the UI on the demised Zune HD. Then it was extended to be usable on a phone, and so we see it as the UI for WP7. And now, MS is extending it again for Win8.
.
.
.
But Metro, the UI, and programming model, is most definitely from their music player and their phone.
The Metro design language was born out of Media Center (circa 2002).
The "start screen" on Windows 8, and "metro-style" apps targeting WinRT are not using a "tablet/phone" UI.
This interface and its apps are what Microsoft is calling "touch first". The concept being that apps are written to support touch, but also take into consideration the other first class input citizens (mouse, track pad, keyboard and stylus).
This is one of the key (and interesting) differentiators between Apple and Microsoft's strategies.
The iPad has been designed from the ground up to be touch-only. This has had obvious benefits and the results for Apple have been phenomenal.
However there have been some side-effects to Apple's approach, in that it's hard to imagine that Apple could ever retro-fit a mouse/track pad/keyboard/stylus environment back into iOS without it looking like a hack job.
This idea seems to have been confirmed with the Mountain Lion mountain lion announcement. i.e. Your data and the OS concepts flow freely between environments, but there is a clear line between them. iOS is for touch (or maybe at some point, touch+voice), OSX is for keyboard\\track pad\\mouse, and never the two shall meet.
Something like this...
Conversely, Microsoft has not drawn a clean line between the two environments. Windows 8 is designed from the ground up as an OS for hybrids.
The traditional Windows desktop will be included on all Windows 8 devices.
When a PC has a mouse/track pad/keyboard connected a user can access both "metro-style" apps (which are touch first, but mouse/track pad/keyboard/stylus enabled) as well as the traditional Windows desktop.
On a device without a mouse/track pad/keyboard a user can access "metro-style" apps (which are touch first) as well as the traditional Windows desktop (if they happen to be a masochist).
Something like this...
At first glance it's easy to dismiss Microsoft's approach as it appears they are using the same failed tactic they have for a decade (try to cram the wrong UI on the wrong device) however there are a few differences this time around (namely, they are creating something new).
Microsoft's promise is to deliver a first class touch experience, whilst still supporting traditional user input elements like the keyboard, mouse, track-pad and stylus. We'll know before the year is out if this is complete bullshit or not