or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple job listing hints at new iPhone OS-based devices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple job listing hints at new iPhone OS-based devices - Page 2

post #41 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post



Do you think they'd put an AEBS into a Home Server or keep it a separate device?


I think they keep AEBS as a separate device. Integration sounds nice but I may want to have two areas where I keep my AEBS and Home Server that benefit each device with regard to coverage and sound.

Though perhaps Apple simply puts in a Airport Slot in the mythical Home Server that allows it to extend a network or create a small wifi network a la the Airport Express.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I think they keep AEBS as a separate device. Integration sounds nice but I may want to have two areas where I keep my AEBS and Home Server that benefit each device with regard to coverage and sound.

Though perhaps Apple simply puts in a Airport Slot in the mythical Home Server that allows it to extend a network or create a small wifi network a la the Airport Express.

I could have worded that much better. Do you think they'd put an AEBS into a Home Server or keep the Home Server as a separate device without router capabilities? Do you think they will keep Time Capsule or have both if a Home Server arrives with router capabilities?

edit: Your comment about the AirPort express is solid. Any Home Server will have Ethernet and WiFi so making it as simpler as Mac OS X is when sharing a network to extend a network or use as the router should be a cake walk.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #43 of 70
Luis, I don't think you really get it.

iPhone OS on a device doesn't mean that it has to have multitouch.
It's an operating system used to run applications.
It can be used for pretty much all of Apple's current and future devices regardless of the interface or UI.

Devices could be locked to running a single app or a limited set of apps. The device/app could accept RF, bluetooth... any sort of inputs. This would greatly simplify updates for devices as they would just be an app update.

Read up on how linux/unix is used on devices.

I'd love to see this implemented for apple tv. It would completely transform the device. Play games, surf the 'net.... I'd definitely get one.
post #44 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

This is, of course, absurd. Apple's not going to switch the Mac to an ARM device. They're not that stupid.


I'll give you five good reasons why they will.

1: Economies of scale. Apple has supposedly invested 1 billion dollars in the A4 processor, to get the price per unit down they are going to need to sell A LOT of somethings, so why not include most Mac's too?

2: Hackintoshes and cloners. Apple regains their OS hardware lock like they had with the PPC processor.

3: DRM schemes, locked right in the processor, like EFI which can call home, verify the machine wasn't tampered with, enforce content etc.

4: Lower power needs, means smaller batteries and thinner devices.

5: Absolute control, one less thing to rely upon the PC market for.



Quote:
Nor is the iPad going to bite significantly into Mac sales.


Apple seems to think so, they replaced all MacBooks but the highly selling white one for a line of iPads. It's obvious what their plans are.



Quote:
They serve different functions and much of the iPad functionality is tied to iTunes - requiring a Mac. Do you think the iPhone cut into Mac sales or expanded Mac sales? Obviously, the latter.

The iPod Touch and the iPhone need iTunes on a computer for the larger screen, but the iPad doesn't have that problem.
post #45 of 70
This is a GOOD time to be an Apple consumer and shareholder........
post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I could have worded that much better. Do you think they'd put an AEBS into a Home Server or keep the Home Server as a separate device without router capabilities? Do you think they will keep Time Capsule or have both if a Home Server arrives with router capabilities?

I think price reasons will be the only thing that prevents the perfect Home Server/AEBS integration. So I'm going to guess basic routing at Home Server level and more advanced features in the AEBS (which I just bought) if Apple goes down this road.

I was at MacWorld in the HP booth showing off the Mediasmart server and the interest is there for a product. The problem is getting the price down to sub $500 for consumer.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #47 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

.... fucking irrelevant?!?...for a good fucking reason.....you use your fucking TV...


Captain obvious arrives and utters obviosalities. I'm bored already.

Hopefully bored enough to go away permanently. Oh, and clean your mouth too.
post #48 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Then they redesigned that single macbook to feature "unibody" construction. Why redesign a product you are phasing out?

The white MacBook sells well and Apple is keeping it for those who need it obviously until sales of the iPad and it's siblings take off.


Quote:
You can use iPhone OS apps on a mac if you are a developer and have the iPhone/iPad simulator. Why hasn't Apple given everyone the ability to use iPhone OS apps on a mac? The apps are designed for a touch screen and an arm processor, they wouldn't run natively on OSX and cursor input is less than ideal for multitouch based programs. Apple prides themselves in a superior user experience, they aren't ones to slap on features for the sake of having features.

If your trying to promote people to "Get a Mac" you draw a lot of attraction to get one. Apps can be compiled for different processors and even different UI's, touch screen and cursor based. Sure some apps can't be either, but you usually try to offer both so people can use the same apps on both computers and their portable devices with auto-syncing ability.


Quote:
If Apple was abandoning OSX why would they require it to code iPhone apps? Apple wants more developers using the mac platform in the hopes that some will transition into developing proper OSX programs in addition to iPhone OS programs.

Then why not have dual OS X and iPhone/iPod/iPad apps? Gives developers even more apps to sell.


Quote:
I don't understand how these crazy conspiracy theories come about. Will Apple borrow elements from iPhone OS in future iterations of OSX? Yes. Will iPhone OS get some new OSX features? Yes. Could they eventually merge into one? Maybe, in a long time, but the resulting OS would be a lot different from what we see today.

Apple dropped a bomb, the iPad with the touchscreen UI, a closed App Store, a A4 processor and removed all but one MacBook.

It's obvious they intend to phase out OS X UI, perhaps leaving it on the Mac Pro's only.
post #49 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Speaking of "uttering idiocies" you have failed to understand anything stated in this thread but you get the asshat award of the day for the nastiness of your ignorance.

Ahh, arguing by insulting the persona. How childish. Your arguments and condonations are still lacking.

Quote:
He never said the iPHone OS with the iPhone UI.

There's no iPhone OS without iPhone UI. The first is built around the second. If you want to build another OS with another interface, you can always bring about some core features of the Mac OS X entire ecossystem, and build new ones. Whatever that is, it's not "iPhone OS", but don't let that obvious state of facts deter you from insulting me yet again with your inanities.

Quote:
He said the iPhone OS and clearly implied the core mobile OS with a unique interface designed for it, just... like... in the... iPad.

What the fuck are you talking about, the iPad's interface is exactly the same as the iPod touch. How can you compare that with an interface that is controlled by remote? No app designed for the iPad could work in the A TV, so why bother with such a mess of a strategy? You don't think things through.

Quote:
With a Home Server or Time Capsule the interface would most likely be rendered through a local app or a browser. Can you not separate the OS from the UI? Can you not see how the current AppleTV uses pretty much the standard Mac OS X Tiger build with a different UI called Backrow?

If your point is that apps and movies can be treated in the A TV in the same way as they are in the iPad, you may have a point. The problem is that there isn't any problem whatsoever on the way movies and media in general is treated in the ATV, so the only nice add on would be apps.

But there's an issue there: there aren't enough ATVs to make its market anywhere "interesting". And its apps wouldn't be interesting (except perhaps a browser). So you'd have a complex product that wouldn't do anything better than your other gadgets and you wouldn't use it anyway.

IOW, your idea is bunk.
post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacob1varghese View Post

Luis, I don't think you really get it.

iPhone OS on a device doesn't mean that it has to have multitouch.

If there's no multitouch, there's no reason to use "iPhone OS", since that OS is built around the UI, and all of its current apps would be useless in a multitouch-less environment. Your argument is as silly as those who espouse the lack of flash in the iPad as "bad" because they can't play flash games in it.

Well, doh, flash games usually depend on basic stuff like "mouseover", that doesn't exist in the iPad. How can you even use youtube's flash design without "mouseover"?

It's the same issue here. You people are all insulting me (while I've only insulted your lacking arguments) while espousing silly ideas. Bah.

Quote:
It's an operating system used to run applications.

.... tell me exactly which iPhone OS app would be "usable" in the A TV or in the Home Server, or the AE?

Exactly, nil.

Quote:
It can be used for pretty much all of Apple's current and future devices regardless of the interface or UI.

Ahhh fuck, where's that picture of facepalm when you most need it?

Quote:
Devices could be locked to running a single app or a limited set of apps. The device/app could accept RF, bluetooth... any sort of inputs. This would greatly simplify updates for devices as they would just be an app update.

You don't need a complex OS like the iPhone OS to do that. That would be, ahem, stupid.

Quote:
Read up on how linux/unix is used on devices.

iPhone OS isn't linux, your point is completely irrelevant.

Quote:
I'd love to see this implemented for apple tv. It would completely transform the device. Play games, surf the 'net.... I'd definitely get one.

Surf the net. That's all there is to it. Give it a bluetooth to use a keyboard, and implement Safari in it. There is no app market in a television gadget.
post #51 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

...So an lineup that could use the iPhone OS would be

iPad - duh
ATV - no brainer really if Apple want to allow more gaming and web support.
Home Server - A4 would be more than powerful enough for home use.
Macbooks - for quick boot/limited functionality.

[and, also mentioned, elsewhere in the thread, Airport routers, Time Capsule]

Apple TV: Well, changing Apple TV over to iPhone OS (ARM), rather than the Mac OS (x86) variant it apparently runs now would probably be neither here nor there, but the main relevant issue is what processor they use in it. I haven't really paid that much attention to Apple TV, so I don't know whether an ARM processor would be appropriate or not. I'm not sure how much more gaming support this would draw since it wouldn't be touch gaming, and it would presumably require some sort of traditional, and separate, gaming controls to be forthcoming.

Home Server: This doesn't exist currently, so it would be beneficial to the discussion if it were actually defined. I don't see an ARM processor as appropriate for a server that I would want to run, but if this is just a media server, or something like that, it might be appropriate.

MacBooks: So, you're suggesting putting both ARM and x86 processors in MacBooks so they could be run in MacBook and iPad modes, or something like that? Doesn't really appeal to me, but maybe it would have a place for some.

Airport routers: An A4 would probably be overkill, as would the current iPhone processor. Does anyone know what these things run now?

Time Capsule (as a server, I guess): Well, maybe, although I'm not sure it would be any better than an x86 processor, really just an issue of cost.

I think it's most likely that Apple would be looking at new consumer electronics type applications -- control panels on appliances perhaps, new types of gadgets, etc. And the comments in this thread about Macs going away just seem a bit absurd, at this time.
post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) You have no idea what an OS is.

2) You have no idea what a server is.

3) You have no idea what is being discussed on this thread.

Repeating your silly and insulting mantra won't make it true. Try to make a point, instead of insulting.

Quote:
4) You really should apologize for your comments and being completely off base but I have a feeling you'll claim that the other posters didn't mean what they obviously meant. Maybe it's time you take a trip back to Shutter Island.

While I have only insulted people's ideas (this idea is stupid, that idea is insane, etc.) you have insulted me. I played the ball, you played the man. I have no fault that you don't understand this basic concept of discussion ethics. Your demand is silly, and you're the one who should apologize and retract your direct insults at my persona.
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

What the fuck are you talking about, the iPad's interface is exactly the same as the iPod touch.

Are you having a laugh or are you really Karl Pilkington? You're telling me that when you look at the Touch's OS and the iPad's OS you can't see any difference? You're actually arguing that they took the iPhone's OS and plopped it into the iPad without completely redesigning the UI to fit a 10" 4:3 ratio display and usage? Whatever you are smoking because you really need to quit immediately.

Quote:
How can you compare that with an interface that is controlled by remote?

Do you understand what I/O is? I'll give you a hint: The 'I' stands for input. An infrared remote send signals that are interpreted by the app. By your logic, since Front Row, QuickTime, Keynote and other apps works with the keyboard and mouse it couldn't possibly be made to work with the Apple Remote. Also by your wonky logic, Mac OS X Tiger never could have been rewritten to become the AppleTV with a new UI called BackRow.

Quote:
No app designed for the iPad could work in the A TV, so why bother with such a mess of a strategy? You don't think things through.

What does that have to do with anything? Apps made for the iPad can't work on the iPhone or Touch. Apps made for the Mac can't work on the AppleTV, iPhone, Touch, or iPad yet every single once is based off of OS X and the iPod Touch, iPhone and IPad are based on the iPhone OS. OS X has evolved dramatically and iPhone OS is a very lightweight version of OS X designed for ARM devices.


Quote:
If your point is that apps and movies can be treated in the A TV in the same way as they are in the iPad, you may have a point. The problem is that there isn't any problem whatsoever on the way movies and media in general is treated in the ATV, so the only nice add on would be apps.

But there's an issue there: there aren't enough ATVs to make its market anywhere "interesting". And its apps wouldn't be interesting (except perhaps a browser). So you'd have a complex product that wouldn't do anything better than your other gadgets and you wouldn't use it anyway.

IOW, your idea is bunk.

Now the rest of this is so bonkers I have no idea how to reply to it's parts. For some reason you think iPhone OS is defined by multitouch, and not the streamlined version of OS designed for ARM. Perhaps you should re-read the thread and realize the mistakes you made before continuing to defend such a nonsense point.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are you having a laugh or are you really Karl Pilkington? You're telling me that when you look at the Touch's OS and the iPad's OS you can't see any difference? You're actually arguing that they took the iPhone's OS and plopped it into the iPad without completely redesigning the UI to fit a 10" 4:3 ratio display and usage? Whatever you are smoking because you really need to quit immediately.

So you think that the difference between an iPad and an ATV is akin to the difference between an iPod and an iPad?

And I'm the one who doesn't understand squat about what's being "talked about" in your dear thread?

Really?

Pathetic.

Quote:
Do you understand what I/O is? I'll give you a hint: The 'I' stands for input. An infrared remote send signals that are interpreted by the app.

SNOOOORE.

Quote:
By your logic, since Front Row, QuickTime, Keynote and other apps works with the keyboard and mouse it couldn't possibly be made to work with the Apple Remote.

YES, they CAN. If they are rewritten. Now tell me. Why the fuck would Apple want to rewrite their productivity apps so that you can use them with your TEEVEE that is inside your own house, where you also have.... COMPUTERS?

Can't you see that you have no market there?

Quote:
Also by your wonky logic, Mac OS X Tiger never could have been rewritten to become the AppleTV with a new UI called BackRow.

You can rewrite anything. But when you rewrite iPhone OS and dump its multitouch UI it is no longer "iPhone OS". It's still OS X, though. Stay with that.

Quote:
What does that have to do with anything? Apps made for the iPad can't work on the iPhone or Touch. Apps made for the Mac can't work on the AppleTV, iPhone, Touch, or iPad yet every single once is based off of OS X and the iPod Touch, iPhone and IPad are based on the iPhone OS. OS X has evolved dramatically and iPhone OS is a very lightweight version of OS X designed for ARM devices.

Given the modularity of OS X, arm functionality is not impressive enough to shift iPhone OS to ATV. You just need to add that functionality to BackRow. There's also little need for the ATV to be ARM, at least from the power point of view. ARM's advantage is its low power consumption. You don't need that for ATV. Perhaps there are other advantages within A+ that I'm not aware of.

Perhaps we are missing the biggest thing here. Perhaps they are planning to change their core CPU of Macbooks to multi-core A+'s...


...naaa.

Quote:
Now the rest of this is so bonkers I have no idea how to reply to it's parts. For some reason you think iPhone OS is defined by multitouch, and not the streamlined version of OS designed for ARM. Perhaps you should re-read the thread and realize the mistakes you made before continuing to defend such a nonsense point.

The most important point of iPhone OS is its UI, the power saving techniques are impressive but not exclusive.


I've yet to see and read any good argument to why the iPhone OS should be used in the other appliances more than "it would be KEWL!"
post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by reliason View Post

I saw this buzz a couple places. And I can see a 'clam-shell' like device with a keyboard and touch screen, but... How would you roll multi-touch into AppleTV? Unless it required a iPod Touch/iPad/iPhone as the remote control...

This is so easy I.m surprised you asked. One make the Apple TV a wifi base station. Two write an app for iPhone/Touch. Your Touch device then becomes a the remote for the Apple TV and all the sensor data gets sent over Wifi to the Apple TV controller.
Quote:
Now, the core iOS on Apple Silicon with a different (than iPad) UI? That is the future (if it has one) of the AppleTV.

Well Apple TV and a lot of other devices I would hope. First the form factor of the iPad is screwed for what I wanted, to big and not wide screen enough. So I'm still hoping for a 7" iPod Touch device. Beyond that there are many other things that would be possible given a little engineering time. Included here would be large screen TV's with Apple TV built in.
Quote:
But I can't see the Mac Mini or the MacbBook Air being 'replaced' by iOS devices. The Mac Mini is successful because it it IS a full Fledged Mac. And the cachet for the MB Air is a fully functional, ultra portable, premium laptop. [I can also see an iOS clam-shell device canabalizing this market - which would lead me to say that it won't happen]

One don't worry about cannibalization because Apple doesn't. The whole concept is rather stupid form the management standpoint.

Two I agree with the status of the Macs I don't think that will change. Apple is doing really well with the current lineup. I do expect them to try to tweak the line up some but that is to be expected. By tweak I mean bring new features to the software supporting the machines. The hardware will likely stay Intel or AMD.

Dave
post #56 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

I'll give you five good reasons why they will.

1: Economies of scale. Apple has supposedly invested 1 billion dollars in the A4 processor, to get the price per unit down they are going to need to sell A LOT of somethings, so why not include most Mac's too?

If Apple spent $200 million on A4 they have probably spent way beyond industry average here. The billion dollar mark is simply bogus.
Quote:

2: Hackintoshes and cloners. Apple regains their OS hardware lock like they had with the PPC processor.

It would be far easier for Apple to just add custom hardware someplace to deal with this. Even then it won't stop hackers and Apple knows this. Neither would custom hardware, heck even PS3 has been hacked.
Quote:

3: DRM schemes, locked right in the processor, like EFI which can call home, verify the machine wasn't tampered with, enforce content etc.

The problem with hardware DRM is that in many places it would be illegal. As can be seen with the record business, DRM is not universally accepted.
Quote:

4: Lower power needs, means smaller batteries and thinner devices.

This is a very good reason for ARM based devices but it does not out weight the need for i86 compatibility.
Quote:

5: Absolute control, one less thing to rely upon the PC market for.

Relying on the PC market has lead Apple to very high profitability, as such they will not give that up.

Quote:


Apple seems to think so, they replaced all MacBooks but the highly selling white one for a line of iPads. It's obvious what their plans are.

Actually it isn't obvious at all. Further I highly doubt that iPad will impact Notebook sales as the devices serve different needs. for example I would find it very hard to believe that your average student would buy an iPad in place of a notebook.

Quote:

The iPod Touch and the iPhone need iTunes on a computer for the larger screen, but the iPad doesn't have that problem.

Err that isn't entirely true. What iPad does and doesn't need is an open question right now. It is pretty clear though that it is not a device that is fully capable as an independent device.


Dave
post #57 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

The most important point of iPhone OS is its UI, the power saving techniques are impressive but not exclusive.

iPhone OS used as base for the iPad, yet they made a new UI, they took out some stuff and added others.

Mac OS used as base for the AppleTV(x86), yet they made a new UI, took out some stuff, added others.

iPhone OS will be used as base for AppleTV(ARM), they make a new UI or adopt the one in the current AppleTV, they'll take out some stuff and others.

Think about WinCE, which has been the basis for many WinMo phones, the Zune and now WinMo7, yet they all have different UIs and they all aren't necessarily touch-based. Now look at ATMs and vending machines and many other devices that are all based on WinCE. The OS is not defined by a single I/O.

You can keep on floundering on this thread with your angry and nasty comments but it's not going to make you right and I'm just keep pushing your trollish little buttons until you go away.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

iPhone OS used as base for the iPad, yet they made a new UI, they took out some stuff and added others.

Like exactly what? What did they add up in its OS? Or taken away, for that matter? Tell me the difference (apart from the res) of the iPod vs iPad.

Quote:
Mac OS used as base for the AppleTV(x86), yet they made a new UI, took out some stuff, added others.

Let's just say it's a very different. We could even say, it's streamlined. Wasn't that what you always wanted?

Quote:
iPhone OS will be used as base for AppleTV(ARM), they make a new UI or adopt the one in the current AppleTV, they'll take out some stuff and others.

Ok, I still think this is an insane idea, since there's no advantage at all in doing that.

Quote:
Think about WinCE, which has been the basis for many WinMo phones, the Zune and now WinMo7, yet they all have different UIs and they all aren't necessarily touch-based. Now look at ATMs and vending machines and many other devices that are all based on WinCE. The OS is not defined by a single I/O.

Windows Mobile isn't an example for anyone.

Quote:
You can keep on floundering on this thread with your angry and nasty comments but it's not going to make you right and I'm just keep pushing your trollish little buttons until you go away.

Ahh boo hoo, did I traumatize you? Was that too much for you? Awww.
post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD View Post

Apple must have figured out the faster way to grow market was through iTunes and no bikinis.

I hate bikinis anyway. Topless is the way to go!
post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

Like exactly what? What did they add up in its OS? Or taken away, for that matter? Tell me the difference (apart from the res) of the iPod vs iPad.

NDA but if you google it you can find plenty of info out there. Note, iPad apps won't run on the iPhone or Touch, but they'll scale up the other way around and iPhone OS v3.2 CANNOT be used to make iPhone/Touch apps, only v3.1. It's very different as it has to be to support all the changes they had to make for a 10" tablet.

Quote:
Ok, I still think this is an insane idea, since there's no advantage at all in doing that.

No advantage? Mac OS X is efficient for a desktop OS, but it's simply not needed for these much slower devices. The AppleTV uses a 1GHz Pentium-based chip. This makes it expensive while also not be fast. The AppleTV OS is simply not designed the way every other flavour of OS X is. The advantages of an AppleTV with ARM means that it could be cheaper while seemingly

Going to an iPhone OS-base mean that an ARM processor can be used and it can run much more efficiently with a lot less resources. Home Servers currently use Atom CPUs and while faster than ARM they also running clunkier OSes designed for much faster HW.

Note there are Android-based netbooks emerging. Kyboards, trackpads and no multitouch, with a new UI for the display. It's still all Android OS.

Quote:
Windows Mobile isn't an example for anyone.

WinCE has plenty of advantages, hence why it's used in so many devices. Not having a great smartphone marketshare than Apple doesn't mean it's not used in other areas.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post



Ahh boo hoo, did I traumatize you? Was that too much for you? Awww.

Ummm, LuisDiaz.... if anyone here looks 'traumatized,' it certainly is not solipsism.

You've spouted a lot of venom, insults, foul language, and verbiage all over this thread to actually say very little. In fact, I still have no clue why or over what you've been on a rant-fest.

Calm down, man. Relax. Go take a walk outside or something.
post #62 of 70
Please let be Apple TV.

An Apple TV that can play App Store games can become a contender in the video game console wars.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by benny-boy View Post

No. There is a lot to be gained from keeping windows-compatible macs running intel. Macs are gaining market share and own a disproportionate amount of profit in this sector.

Frankly, dude. Why bring all that crap up? No one is interested in market shares here. It's about platforms. Skip.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #64 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Not even remotely plausible. Their flagship for smaller-than-a-laptop, portable, battery operated devices? Maybe. But it's not going to replace x86 on Macs. Ever.

It isn't "maybe". It's "for sure". Sorry, if you can't tell what A4 is good at from what desktop system processors are, keep your "nos" to yourself.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #65 of 70
A4's roadmap in home appliances land still looks somewhat questionable. Its only visible virtue is so far energy efficiency. Which is much less a factor for refrigerators. Yet it's priceless asset in the realm of mobility.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #66 of 70
The fact is that Apple's closed systems are far more profitable for it than OS X on Macs. The fact is that Apple is concentrating it's resources in that direction. It's showing the world how closed systems are more profitable than open systems. Of course they are, but is that the direction you want computing to go? Single tasking, pay for everyting, over and over, on the same device? A device that is an open portal to your bank account and credit card? That's a far cry from the promise of personal computing and what we all have come to know until now. Abandon the Pros and those who use their machines like pros, and sell to the consuming masses that are too stupid to know they are being ripped off, over and over, with a corporate overseer that decides how you use your machine that you bought and how to keep siphoning money from you through that device that makes you so "happy". Enjoy, freedom is slavery, think alike 
post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

NDA but if you google it you can find plenty of info out there. Note, iPad apps won't run on the iPhone or Touch, but they'll scale up the other way around and iPhone OS v3.2 CANNOT be used to make iPhone/Touch apps, only v3.1. It's very different as it has to be to support all the changes they had to make for a 10" tablet.

I said "apart from screen size". You can point to none, at least qualitative differences. Yes, iPad apps can't work on iPods, but that's merely due to screen size and perhaps chipset setbacks.

Point being, the user interface is equal, and the apps are designed to work exactly like in the iPod or the iPhone. There is no qualitative difference between these things.

Handwaving about how I'm "ignorant" and pointing me to go find for myself what you should be providing (i.e., fucking evidence for your claims) won't do.

Quote:
No advantage? Mac OS X is efficient for a desktop OS, but it's simply not needed for these much slower devices. The AppleTV uses a 1GHz Pentium-based chip. This makes it expensive while also not be fast.

Apple TV uses a very stripped down version of Mac OS X, and the 1GHz Pentium chip is more than enough to do the job. To call it "expensive" is insane, we are not talking about core i7 chips, we are dealing with 2006 technology ffs.

Now, you can use ARM in it, so you can drop the obsolete technology and control the overall line of production properly, but why have "more speed" in it? You haven't provided any argument for it.

Quote:
The AppleTV OS is simply not designed the way every other flavour of OS X is. The advantages of an AppleTV with ARM means that it could be cheaper while seemingly

... seemingly what? Use the same app code that iPhone OS? What's the point? You need to have a selling point before you do the specs, that's the way apple works. You ought to know better.

Quote:
Going to an iPhone OS-base mean that an ARM processor can be used and it can run much more efficiently with a lot less resources. Home Servers currently use Atom CPUs and while faster than ARM they also running clunkier OSes designed for much faster HW.

Home servers deal with files in a substantially different way than iPods and iPads, they do not work properly with such a stripped down version of OS X such as the iPhone OS, and there's no advantage in using its UI. So no, that's not a good idea.

Quote:
Note there are Android-based netbooks emerging. Kyboards, trackpads and no multitouch, with a new UI for the display. It's still all Android OS.

They are all "client" hardware. Netbooks, tablets, smartphones, etc., are akin to iPads, iPods, iPhones... Again you are missing the point. And I'm ignorant. Fuuuck.

Quote:
WinCE has plenty of advantages, hence why it's used in so many devices. Not having a great smartphone marketshare than Apple doesn't mean it's not used in other areas.

I was clearly talking about Windows Mobile timeline of development. Yes, there were "multiple" WM over the years, but 1) their purpose was the same (phones) and 2) they were forced to do it because they are fucking stupid.

THEREFORE, you shouldn't use them as an example.

Aww fuck this is too stupid.
post #68 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ummm, LuisDiaz.... if anyone here looks 'traumatized,' it certainly is not solipsism.

Well, at least I won't make the fucking error of bolding a misspell.

Quote:
You've spouted a lot of venom, insults, foul language, and verbiage all over this thread to actually say very little. In fact, I still have no clue why or over what you've been on a rant-fest.

Because fucking bad ideas are to be destroyed.

Quote:
Calm down, man. Relax. Go take a walk outside or something.

Why don't you do that, since you're the one ranting completely off topic? Or do you have anything meaningful to contribute?

You know, I kinda think that criticizing and confronting people's ideas is somewhat "on topic".

Whining about other posters' attitude is nothing but whining.
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post

The white MacBook sells well and Apple is keeping it for those who need it obviously until sales of the iPad and it's siblings take off.

That doesn't answer my question asking "why redesign a product you are phasing out?"

Quote:
If your trying to promote people to "Get a Mac" you draw a lot of attraction to get one. Apps can be compiled for different processors and even different UI's, touch screen and cursor based. Sure some apps can't be either, but you usually try to offer both so people can use the same apps on both computers and their portable devices with auto-syncing ability.

If you've been paying attention, iPhone OS 3.2 makes it easier than ever to sync data between OSX and iPhone OS programs.

Quote:
Then why not have dual OS X and iPhone/iPod/iPad apps? Gives developers even more apps to sell.

Again you didn't answer my question, but I'll answer yours. Developers are free to develop for OSX and the iPhone and even encouraged to do so by requiring a mac to code for iPhone OS. Why not have dual iPhone OS and OSX apps? I assume you mean like universal power PC and intel programs. There would be a lot of wasted code in every iPhone app if you also included OSX code. My iPhone only has limited space, I don't want to double or triple the size of every app on it.

Quote:
Apple dropped a bomb, the iPad with the touchscreen UI, a closed App Store, a A4 processor and removed all but one MacBook.

It's obvious they intend to phase out OS X UI, perhaps leaving it on the Mac Pro's only.

No it isn't obvious. I take it you're just trolling and I need to edit my ignore list though.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #70 of 70
Well, three words for those who can indeed read. It may as well be very probably:
future cell architectures

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple job listing hints at new iPhone OS-based devices