Seeing that Apple has based the iPhone on a version of OSX and that they feel the iPhone is a revolutionary device and the 'future', does that pretty much kill the idea that Dvoak, and others, have floated saying that Apple will migrate to the Windows OS? I seem to think so, but wonder what others think.
Seeing that Apple has based the iPhone on a version of OSX and that they feel the iPhone is a revolutionary device and the 'future', does that pretty much kill the idea that Dvoak, and others, have floated saying that Apple will migrate to the Windows OS? I seem to think so, but wonder what others think.
Dvorak is being Dvorak. There is no possibility that Apple would shift the Macintosh to Windows. I believe that it is safe to say that we are going to see special versions of MacOS X in other devices in the future.
P.S.: What to hear a joke? Windows Mobile. That's it--Windows Mobile.
Dvorak is being Dvorak. There is no possibility that Apple would shift the Macintosh to Windows. I believe that it is safe to say that we are going to see special versions of MacOS X in other devices in the future.
P.S.: What to hear a joke? Windows Mobile. That's it--Windows Mobile.
I agree but there were some here suggesting that. I even think groverat suggested this.
PS It might not have been groverat, but it was a seasoned veteran. I'm not trying to diss you groverat.
C'mon now...you don't seriously believe the iPhone OS can be called OS X do you? It's been stripped of absolutely everything.
Actually, I can. The operating system on your Macintosh is *Mac*OS X. That is the official name of the OS on your computer, not OS X. Look back at the Keynote, and every bit of PR coming from Apple. NOWHERE does the word 'Mac' appear when discussing the phone's OS.
My take?
MacOS X will be one version of OS X... the one that runs on Macs. The iPhone has a different set of features from OS X. The Apple TV (maybe) has another set of features from OS X. All based on the same code base, collectively called OS X, but different slices through the code and feature set, optimized for specific hardware.
I'm guessing that we'll see MacOS X rebranded as OS X for Macintosh or somesuch, at some point in the future. It will be the version of OS X for the Apple hardware PC.
Quote:
Jobs was just trying to gather cheers from the crowd.
If I'm right, there's damned good reason to be cheering. Think about what the iPhone offers - now think of other hardware devices that could use that Apple touch - and the OS doesn't have to be written from scratch. One OS core set that scales from handhelds to servers? Slick. This would give them an OS that can be moved to various consumer electronics quickly and easily. Add in QuickTime, and their distribution system in the iTunes Store, and they could, in theory, simply walk into whatever market they want to in the consumer media fields, when they choose to, with the hardware of their option.
Quote:
Almost everything on that phone was powered by WebKit...Safari, Mail, as well as the Stocks, Weather, Calculator widgets. WebKit is *not* OS X. Apple has added a few eye-candy effects powered perhaps by CoreAnimation or perhaps not...who knows.
And yet they kept saying OS X, didn't they? I think they were being very, very accurate.
Quote:
Sure, if you remove all the device drivers that are related to computer peripherals, all the Apple apps and all the other files that have nothing to do with an iPhone, you can fit the thing on probably 200MB of space, but...that's not OS X, that's iPhone OS.
No, that's the core of OS X. Darwin, if you will. What you're used to is MacOS X, not OS X. A fine distinction, but an important one. There was a lot of attention to detail surrounding use of OS X as the term, and not MacOS X, which is the official name.
I suppose it's sort of a compliment to OS X, that it's users can't distinguish between the UI/Aqua, and the actual Unix underpinnings and Mach kernel that actually make the OS. Apple's gone to great lengths to hide that layer.
Linux, specifically embedded linux, doesn't seem to have this distinction.
And yet they kept saying OS X, didn't they? I think they were being very, very accurate.
It's OS X.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious to the doubters, Kickaha. Why is this even being argued? Whether it runs the full-OS or a scaled down version, it is still running OS X. This is a non-point.
I still think Apple would be better served by going with one of the established OSes, though. They could probably even do wonders with embedded Windows as a baseline OS, and Apple UI and services piled on top.
Why would Apple use their main competitor's product (specially when they have a far technologically superior OS in OS X)?
I suppose it's sort of a compliment to OS X, that it's users can't distinguish between the UI/Aqua, and the actual Unix underpinnings and Mach kernel that actually make the OS. Apple's gone to great lengths to hide that layer.
Linux, specifically embedded linux, doesn't seem to have this distinction.
Linux is nothing but a Kernal. Combine it with say... Fedora Core and you get GNU Fedora Core Linux or however it's true naming scheme works.... I forgot... ^_^;;
Why are you driving this into people's heads? You're confusing them. How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it? Because what we're using is *Mac* OS X? Come on now.
What you're saying is that it's a completely different OS but it's ok because they called it "OS X" and not "Mac OS X", so there can't possibly be any confusion. Wrong!
Why isn't Darwin called OS X? It's a heavily stripped down version of Mac OS X right?
Call it what you will...Apple has made a big mistake calling it OS X and naive people may start believing they can run Mac OS X apps on it. It's a marketing move to move people's attention to Macs (which is good but considering it's deceitful, it's also bad.) I'll keep on calling it iPhone OS or even Darwin to piss you all off. That's what it is anyways Darwin with WebKit, a graphical layer that uses CoreAnimation, and...that's about it really.
Darwin isn't called OS X because, while sharing the same basics, it has none of the more advanced frameworks. Not Carbon, not Cocoa, not Quartz, not Core Animation, Core Audio, Core Video, Core Data, Spotlight, you name it.
The OS X on an iPhone has Cocoa as well as Core Animation, which is a heck of a lot closer to Mac OS X already than Darwin itself. It also, like Darwin, appears to use XNU, which sure is a very unique approach for a cellphone, or any embedded device for that matter, which generally (for performance reasons) tend to use highly monolithic kernels. XNU isn't quite a microkernel, but its architecture sure isn't very monolithic. Finally, it's looking like it even uses IOKit, in which case we're looking at an interesting prospect for drivers.
So this OS does appear to be based on Darwin's codebase, and not only that; it also uses technologies that Darwin itself does not have, and one of which (Core Animation) Mac OS X 10.4 doesn't even have.
Now you tell me why this shouldn't be called OS X. There is absolutely no OS it is architecturally more similar to.
Why are you driving this into people's heads? You're confusing them. How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it? Because what we're using is *Mac* OS X? Come on now.
What you're saying is that it's a completely different OS but it's ok because they called it "OS X" and not "Mac OS X", so there can't possibly be any confusion. Wrong!
Sorry, but you're wrong, according to what we've seen and been told so far. It's not a complete different OS - it's the SAME OS. Stop, mull that over, and let it sink in. Hell, call it a branding issue if you want. Chucker is correct in his post.
Quote:
Why isn't Darwin called OS X? It's a heavily stripped down version of Mac OS X right?
1) Marketing. It made sense at the time to give the 'product' a name that was distinct from MacOS X, to differentiate it from the closed OS and frameworks that everyone thinks of. Now, it makes sense to build brand name recognition for "OS X" alone, independent of Macintoshes. My belief is that you'll see Apple entering more consumer electronics markets, using OS X as the branding. Think of it as pushing the iPod halo effect to the extreme. "If you liked any of our OS X products, think of how much you'll love OS X for Macintosh..."
2) Darwin is a variant of OS X with the BSD layer. Call it OS X Unix if you want, doesn't matter.
Quote:
Call it what you will...Apple has made a big mistake calling it OS X and naive people may start believing they can run Mac OS X apps on it. It's a marketing move to move people's attention to Macs (which is good but considering it's deceitful, it's also bad.)
You said it yourself - naive. Now, if they had said it ran MacOS X, then *THAT* would have been deceptive, but they didn't. They were extremely careful how they said it, and branded it. They were correct. Those who have been equating MacOS X with OS X just need to realize that they are *not* the same anymore.
OS X is a kernel plus a collection of frameworks. Porting the kernel to new hardware, and selecting which frameworks you want, that's what creates a shippable product. MacOS X has been the only version we've seen (unless you want to count MacOS X PPC and MacOS X Intel as separate products), but that's about to change.
Quote:
I'll keep on calling it iPhone OS or even Darwin to piss you all off. That's what it is anyways Darwin with WebKit, a graphical layer that uses CoreAnimation, and...that's about it really.
Sorry, unless more info comes out, you're wrong again. There's no evidence that the BSD layer is in there, so it's not Darwin + anything. It's OS X for iPhone.
Call it anything you like. It's still OS X, according to the only source that matters: Apple. From what little they've released so far, it appears they have solid technical reasons for doing so. If, later, it turns out that there's nothing really shared between the OS + frameworks on the iPhone, and MacOS X, then they'd be pulling the same marketing-only branding crap that MS has with Windows. (Windows Mobile, Windows XP, etc, share very *VERY* little code, and almost none of it in the OS itself. I understand they're getting better at merging them, but it's painful to do after the fact, and now Vista has completely upset that applecart.)
MacOS X has obviously been designed from the ground up for portability and flexibility, and now they're taking advantage of that. To me, *that* is bigger news to come out of MWSF than even the iPhone.
How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it?
I think it will cause confusion and I don't like it being used in their marketing. Even though it is actually OS X, which is the term used to define the collective system components.
It gives people the impression that it will run all the apps they use normally. If Apple then turn around and say it's a closed system and third party software won't be allowed to run on it then to me that's false advertising, albeit not explicitly.
If they include measures to prevent third party apps running then to me it's not what I consider OS X because OS X doesn't have such a feature. If they don't prevent third party apps running and just don't provide an API then I imagine people will develop one somehow and I won't have as big a problem with it.
Agreed - the lack of 3rd party apps is probably the biggest disappointment for me, initially, but I understand why they're doing it. One of the biggest complaints I hear about other smartphones is "Oh, it crashed again." Phones shouldn't crash. (Of course, neither should computers, but hey.)
OTOH, consider this - by saying "The iPhone uses OS X", Apple is implicitly saying "The iPhone has power, stability, flexibility, and honest to god user-oriented *features*"... and at the same time saying "OS X is flexible, portable, and so darned good we're using it for a phone - wouldn't you like to have it on your computer?"
Compare this with MS tossing the term Windows on something - to a lot of people, that means instability, viruses, etc. Apple has a pretty unique chance here, as far as computer and consumer electronics companies go. They have a solid technical base to build on, and are trying to tie together the panache of the iPod with the technical cred of MacOS X.
It's a marketing risk, but I think it's the right direction for them to go.
Agreed - the lack of 3rd party apps is probably the biggest disappointment for me, initially, but I understand why they're doing it. One of the biggest complaints I hear about other smartphones is "Oh, it crashed again." Phones shouldn't crash. (Of course, neither should computers, but hey.)
Right, but an app can't crash the entire system in OS X. Protected memory and all. So, that can't be it. Heck, if reliability (protection from crashes) and security (protection from network breaches, perhaps especially a concern of Cingular's?) are the worries here, why not sandbox apps even further? Make them more limited, and call them, gee? gadgets? Widgets?
That's the thing I don't get; why don't they let third parties at least port Dashboard widgets? Adopt Dashcode to churn out desktop-format widgets (free-form) and phone-format (fixed-ratio) ones.
Quote:
OTOH, consider this - by saying "The iPhone uses OS X", Apple is implicitly saying "The iPhone has power, stability, flexibility, and honest to god user-oriented *features*"... and at the same time saying "OS X is flexible, portable, and so darned good we're using it for a phone - wouldn't you like to have it on your computer?"
Bingo. That's exactly the message they're carrying: one, that the iPhone is just as reliable as you'd expect from a Mac, and two, that OS X has become so flexible that they can use it on "An iPod! A phone! An Internet communicator!" as well as a laptop, desktop, and even a 1U rack server. Talk about scalable. Aaaand talk about one efficient kernel design.
I wonder if the closed OS isn't more due to Cingular/AT&T than to Apple.
If it were open to developers then wouldn't it be easier to hack it and enable wifi VoIP or other features that the cellular provider doesn't want us to have???
I wonder if the closed OS isn't more due to Cingular/AT&T than to Apple.
If it were open to developers then wouldn't it be easier to hack it and enable wifi VoIP or other features that the cellular provider doesn't want us to have???
None of that has happened in any widespread manner on the dozens of other smartphones which do have extensive means for third-party developers. Why would it no an iPhone? Steve's assertion that this could "take Cingular's West Coast network down" is ridiculous, and he knows it.
I have to confess ignorance here because I gave up on smartphones after a year with a Treo 650, but do other smartphones have wifi capabilities? Do any have VoIP capabilities?
Right, but an app can't crash the entire system in OS X. Protected memory and all. So, that can't be it. Heck, if reliability (protection from crashes) and security (protection from network breaches, perhaps especially a concern of Cingular's?) are the worries here, why not sandbox apps even further? Make them more limited, and call them, gee? gadgets? Widgets?
That's the thing I don't get; why don't they let third parties at least port Dashboard widgets? Adopt Dashcode to churn out desktop-format widgets (free-form) and phone-format (fixed-ratio) ones.
I think that's exactly what they're going to do - Schiller has a quote floating around to the effect that anyone is welcome to submit a (widget,app) to Apple for QA testing prior to being a blessed inclusion. iTunes may start selling widgets/apps in addition to iPod games, is my guess.
Quote:
Bingo. That's exactly the message they're carrying: one, that the iPhone is just as reliable as you'd expect from a Mac, and two, that OS X has become so flexible that they can use it on "An iPod! A phone! An Internet communicator!" as well as a laptop, desktop, and even a 1U rack server. Talk about scalable. Aaaand talk about one efficient kernel design.
Ayup. I still say that was the most exciting stealth news out of the whole keynote.
I think that's exactly what they're going to do - Schiller has a quote floating around to the effect that anyone is welcome to submit a (widget,app) to Apple for QA testing prior to being a blessed inclusion. iTunes may start selling widgets/apps in addition to iPod games, is my guess.
But that excludes "independent" (small-company/one-man) developers, since they won't ever get through ADC's bureaucracy to get any SDK to begin with.
Unless, of course, the quotes are misleading and there will be a public SDK for everyone (or perhaps for every Select or Premier member at least?). That would perhaps be quite an acceptable compromise.
The current impression I'm getting is that developers can request such an SDK, which typically amounts to being ignored unless we're talking very large customers (e.g., EA when it comes to games). That would be quite an unfortunate road, and it sure is the one they're taking with iPod games. Meh.
Comments
Seeing that Apple has based the iPhone on a version of OSX and that they feel the iPhone is a revolutionary device and the 'future', does that pretty much kill the idea that Dvoak, and others, have floated saying that Apple will migrate to the Windows OS? I seem to think so, but wonder what others think.
Dvorak is being Dvorak. There is no possibility that Apple would shift the Macintosh to Windows. I believe that it is safe to say that we are going to see special versions of MacOS X in other devices in the future.
P.S.: What to hear a joke? Windows Mobile. That's it--Windows Mobile.
Dvorak is being Dvorak. There is no possibility that Apple would shift the Macintosh to Windows. I believe that it is safe to say that we are going to see special versions of MacOS X in other devices in the future.
P.S.: What to hear a joke? Windows Mobile. That's it--Windows Mobile.
I agree but there were some here suggesting that. I even think groverat suggested this.
PS It might not have been groverat, but it was a seasoned veteran. I'm not trying to diss you groverat.
C'mon now...you don't seriously believe the iPhone OS can be called OS X do you? It's been stripped of absolutely everything.
Actually, I can. The operating system on your Macintosh is *Mac*OS X. That is the official name of the OS on your computer, not OS X. Look back at the Keynote, and every bit of PR coming from Apple. NOWHERE does the word 'Mac' appear when discussing the phone's OS.
My take?
MacOS X will be one version of OS X... the one that runs on Macs. The iPhone has a different set of features from OS X. The Apple TV (maybe) has another set of features from OS X. All based on the same code base, collectively called OS X, but different slices through the code and feature set, optimized for specific hardware.
I'm guessing that we'll see MacOS X rebranded as OS X for Macintosh or somesuch, at some point in the future. It will be the version of OS X for the Apple hardware PC.
Jobs was just trying to gather cheers from the crowd.
If I'm right, there's damned good reason to be cheering. Think about what the iPhone offers - now think of other hardware devices that could use that Apple touch - and the OS doesn't have to be written from scratch. One OS core set that scales from handhelds to servers? Slick. This would give them an OS that can be moved to various consumer electronics quickly and easily. Add in QuickTime, and their distribution system in the iTunes Store, and they could, in theory, simply walk into whatever market they want to in the consumer media fields, when they choose to, with the hardware of their option.
Almost everything on that phone was powered by WebKit...Safari, Mail, as well as the Stocks, Weather, Calculator widgets. WebKit is *not* OS X. Apple has added a few eye-candy effects powered perhaps by CoreAnimation or perhaps not...who knows.
And yet they kept saying OS X, didn't they? I think they were being very, very accurate.
Sure, if you remove all the device drivers that are related to computer peripherals, all the Apple apps and all the other files that have nothing to do with an iPhone, you can fit the thing on probably 200MB of space, but...that's not OS X, that's iPhone OS.
No, that's the core of OS X. Darwin, if you will. What you're used to is MacOS X, not OS X. A fine distinction, but an important one. There was a lot of attention to detail surrounding use of OS X as the term, and not MacOS X, which is the official name.
It's OS X.
Linux, specifically embedded linux, doesn't seem to have this distinction.
And yet they kept saying OS X, didn't they? I think they were being very, very accurate.
It's OS X.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious to the doubters, Kickaha. Why is this even being argued? Whether it runs the full-OS or a scaled down version, it is still running OS X. This is a non-point.
And to those that suggested before the announcement that Apple should use Windows Mobile for the iPhone, such a suggestion shows a complete and utter disregard for the competitive nature between Apple and MS as well as the implications of such a move (mostly negative for Apple, positive for MS).
Originally Posted by Booga
I still think Apple would be better served by going with one of the established OSes, though. They could probably even do wonders with embedded Windows as a baseline OS, and Apple UI and services piled on top.
Why would Apple use their main competitor's product (specially when they have a far technologically superior OS in OS X)?
Ridiculous.
I suppose it's sort of a compliment to OS X, that it's users can't distinguish between the UI/Aqua, and the actual Unix underpinnings and Mach kernel that actually make the OS. Apple's gone to great lengths to hide that layer.
Linux, specifically embedded linux, doesn't seem to have this distinction.
Linux is nothing but a Kernal. Combine it with say... Fedora Core and you get GNU Fedora Core Linux or however it's true naming scheme works.... I forgot... ^_^;;
Anyways, Linux is just a Kernal.
Sebastian
Why are you driving this into people's heads? You're confusing them. How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it? Because what we're using is *Mac* OS X? Come on now.
What you're saying is that it's a completely different OS but it's ok because they called it "OS X" and not "Mac OS X", so there can't possibly be any confusion. Wrong!
Why isn't Darwin called OS X? It's a heavily stripped down version of Mac OS X right?
Call it what you will...Apple has made a big mistake calling it OS X and naive people may start believing they can run Mac OS X apps on it. It's a marketing move to move people's attention to Macs (which is good but considering it's deceitful, it's also bad.) I'll keep on calling it iPhone OS or even Darwin to piss you all off.
The OS X on an iPhone has Cocoa as well as Core Animation, which is a heck of a lot closer to Mac OS X already than Darwin itself. It also, like Darwin, appears to use XNU, which sure is a very unique approach for a cellphone, or any embedded device for that matter, which generally (for performance reasons) tend to use highly monolithic kernels. XNU isn't quite a microkernel, but its architecture sure isn't very monolithic. Finally, it's looking like it even uses IOKit, in which case we're looking at an interesting prospect for drivers.
So this OS does appear to be based on Darwin's codebase, and not only that; it also uses technologies that Darwin itself does not have, and one of which (Core Animation) Mac OS X 10.4 doesn't even have.
Now you tell me why this shouldn't be called OS X. There is absolutely no OS it is architecturally more similar to.
Kickaha...you've got to be kidding me.
Why are you driving this into people's heads? You're confusing them. How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it? Because what we're using is *Mac* OS X? Come on now.
What you're saying is that it's a completely different OS but it's ok because they called it "OS X" and not "Mac OS X", so there can't possibly be any confusion. Wrong!
Sorry, but you're wrong, according to what we've seen and been told so far. It's not a complete different OS - it's the SAME OS. Stop, mull that over, and let it sink in. Hell, call it a branding issue if you want. Chucker is correct in his post.
Why isn't Darwin called OS X? It's a heavily stripped down version of Mac OS X right?
1) Marketing. It made sense at the time to give the 'product' a name that was distinct from MacOS X, to differentiate it from the closed OS and frameworks that everyone thinks of. Now, it makes sense to build brand name recognition for "OS X" alone, independent of Macintoshes. My belief is that you'll see Apple entering more consumer electronics markets, using OS X as the branding. Think of it as pushing the iPod halo effect to the extreme. "If you liked any of our OS X products, think of how much you'll love OS X for Macintosh..."
2) Darwin is a variant of OS X with the BSD layer. Call it OS X Unix if you want, doesn't matter.
Call it what you will...Apple has made a big mistake calling it OS X and naive people may start believing they can run Mac OS X apps on it. It's a marketing move to move people's attention to Macs (which is good but considering it's deceitful, it's also bad.)
You said it yourself - naive. Now, if they had said it ran MacOS X, then *THAT* would have been deceptive, but they didn't. They were extremely careful how they said it, and branded it. They were correct. Those who have been equating MacOS X with OS X just need to realize that they are *not* the same anymore.
OS X is a kernel plus a collection of frameworks. Porting the kernel to new hardware, and selecting which frameworks you want, that's what creates a shippable product. MacOS X has been the only version we've seen (unless you want to count MacOS X PPC and MacOS X Intel as separate products), but that's about to change.
I'll keep on calling it iPhone OS or even Darwin to piss you all off.
Sorry, unless more info comes out, you're wrong again. There's no evidence that the BSD layer is in there, so it's not Darwin + anything. It's OS X for iPhone.
Call it anything you like. It's still OS X, according to the only source that matters: Apple. From what little they've released so far, it appears they have solid technical reasons for doing so. If, later, it turns out that there's nothing really shared between the OS + frameworks on the iPhone, and MacOS X, then they'd be pulling the same marketing-only branding crap that MS has with Windows. (Windows Mobile, Windows XP, etc, share very *VERY* little code, and almost none of it in the OS itself. I understand they're getting better at merging them, but it's painful to do after the fact, and now Vista has completely upset that applecart.)
MacOS X has obviously been designed from the ground up for portability and flexibility, and now they're taking advantage of that. To me, *that* is bigger news to come out of MWSF than even the iPhone.
How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it?
I think it will cause confusion and I don't like it being used in their marketing. Even though it is actually OS X, which is the term used to define the collective system components.
It gives people the impression that it will run all the apps they use normally. If Apple then turn around and say it's a closed system and third party software won't be allowed to run on it then to me that's false advertising, albeit not explicitly.
If they include measures to prevent third party apps running then to me it's not what I consider OS X because OS X doesn't have such a feature. If they don't prevent third party apps running and just don't provide an API then I imagine people will develop one somehow and I won't have as big a problem with it.
We'll just have to wait and see when it arrives.
OTOH, consider this - by saying "The iPhone uses OS X", Apple is implicitly saying "The iPhone has power, stability, flexibility, and honest to god user-oriented *features*"... and at the same time saying "OS X is flexible, portable, and so darned good we're using it for a phone - wouldn't you like to have it on your computer?"
Compare this with MS tossing the term Windows on something - to a lot of people, that means instability, viruses, etc. Apple has a pretty unique chance here, as far as computer and consumer electronics companies go. They have a solid technical base to build on, and are trying to tie together the panache of the iPod with the technical cred of MacOS X.
It's a marketing risk, but I think it's the right direction for them to go.
Agreed - the lack of 3rd party apps is probably the biggest disappointment for me, initially, but I understand why they're doing it. One of the biggest complaints I hear about other smartphones is "Oh, it crashed again." Phones shouldn't crash. (Of course, neither should computers, but hey.)
Right, but an app can't crash the entire system in OS X. Protected memory and all. So, that can't be it. Heck, if reliability (protection from crashes) and security (protection from network breaches, perhaps especially a concern of Cingular's?) are the worries here, why not sandbox apps even further? Make them more limited, and call them, gee? gadgets? Widgets?
That's the thing I don't get; why don't they let third parties at least port Dashboard widgets? Adopt Dashcode to churn out desktop-format widgets (free-form) and phone-format (fixed-ratio) ones.
OTOH, consider this - by saying "The iPhone uses OS X", Apple is implicitly saying "The iPhone has power, stability, flexibility, and honest to god user-oriented *features*"... and at the same time saying "OS X is flexible, portable, and so darned good we're using it for a phone - wouldn't you like to have it on your computer?"
Bingo. That's exactly the message they're carrying: one, that the iPhone is just as reliable as you'd expect from a Mac, and two, that OS X has become so flexible that they can use it on "An iPod! A phone! An Internet communicator!" as well as a laptop, desktop, and even a 1U rack server. Talk about scalable. Aaaand talk about one efficient kernel design.
If it were open to developers then wouldn't it be easier to hack it and enable wifi VoIP or other features that the cellular provider doesn't want us to have???
I wonder if the closed OS isn't more due to Cingular/AT&T than to Apple.
If it were open to developers then wouldn't it be easier to hack it and enable wifi VoIP or other features that the cellular provider doesn't want us to have???
None of that has happened in any widespread manner on the dozens of other smartphones which do have extensive means for third-party developers. Why would it no an iPhone? Steve's assertion that this could "take Cingular's West Coast network down" is ridiculous, and he knows it.
Right, but an app can't crash the entire system in OS X. Protected memory and all. So, that can't be it. Heck, if reliability (protection from crashes) and security (protection from network breaches, perhaps especially a concern of Cingular's?) are the worries here, why not sandbox apps even further? Make them more limited, and call them, gee? gadgets? Widgets?
That's the thing I don't get; why don't they let third parties at least port Dashboard widgets? Adopt Dashcode to churn out desktop-format widgets (free-form) and phone-format (fixed-ratio) ones.
I think that's exactly what they're going to do - Schiller has a quote floating around to the effect that anyone is welcome to submit a (widget,app) to Apple for QA testing prior to being a blessed inclusion. iTunes may start selling widgets/apps in addition to iPod games, is my guess.
Bingo. That's exactly the message they're carrying: one, that the iPhone is just as reliable as you'd expect from a Mac, and two, that OS X has become so flexible that they can use it on "An iPod! A phone! An Internet communicator!" as well as a laptop, desktop, and even a 1U rack server. Talk about scalable. Aaaand talk about one efficient kernel design.
Ayup. I still say that was the most exciting stealth news out of the whole keynote.
I think that's exactly what they're going to do - Schiller has a quote floating around to the effect that anyone is welcome to submit a (widget,app) to Apple for QA testing prior to being a blessed inclusion. iTunes may start selling widgets/apps in addition to iPod games, is my guess.
But that excludes "independent" (small-company/one-man) developers, since they won't ever get through ADC's bureaucracy to get any SDK to begin with.
Unless, of course, the quotes are misleading and there will be a public SDK for everyone (or perhaps for every Select or Premier member at least?). That would perhaps be quite an acceptable compromise.
The current impression I'm getting is that developers can request such an SDK, which typically amounts to being ignored unless we're talking very large customers (e.g., EA when it comes to games). That would be quite an unfortunate road, and it sure is the one they're taking with iPod games. Meh.