or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple seen merging iOS, Mac OS X with custom A6 chip in 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple seen merging iOS, Mac OS X with custom A6 chip in 2012 - Page 2

post #41 of 186
I think this would be a big, big mistake. One of the key reason I finally moved over to the Mac was the fact that it ran on Intel. I gave me a lot of comfort, coming from the Windows world

Plus, Intel is on a tear improving the performance of its microprocessors. Just look at the massive improvements in the latest MBAs. It is all Intel driven. And, Intel has the Tri-gate 3D technology in the wings which are going to rock in the next 12 months

As an AAPL investor, I'd really hate to see this change. Perhaps they are using it as leverage to negotiate some incredibly awesome terms with Intel. Now, that would be very smart

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #42 of 186
If they do this they will lose a very large portion of their customers. Like many people, I HAVE to run VMWare ( or Parallels ) virtual windows machines on my box because the software that my company sells will not ever run on OSX/iOS.

That means that I would never be able to buy another Apple PC.....PERIOD..... because I HAVE to be able to run windows on the computer.....

It might work for the Air Computers ( basically iPad with keyboard), but I would never buy one for that reason....
post #43 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

2) Your last sentence refers to a universal application. That's different than a Universal OS that will have the drivers, frameworks, and UIs for all devices. Mac OS is already over 3.5GB just for Macs if you were to add it for all iDevices consider at least another 1GB. But for argument sake lets ignore that and just consider the 3.5GB of Mac OS and assume it also contains all the needed files for the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad and AppleTV models. Does it really make sense for, say, an iPod Touch user to download 3.5GB just to update their iPod? Not in the least!

The rest of your comment was correct. However, this need not be true. OS X is extremely modular right from the kernel level. It has a micro-kernel architecture which allows only needed features to be plugged in. Apple could easily release the same OS on all platforms, but only with the needed plugins.

The timeline this article states for the merger is 2016. By then 3.5 Gigs will be a joke, in terms of storage space. It might be annoying to download that large an OS, however, with iOS5 Apple is already issuing Delta OS updates. What do you think is more likely? That the merged OS would keep the iOS delta update structure, or retain the Mac OS X whole OS replacement structure?

In short, the size of the OS will not be a meaningful impediment at all in 2016.
post #44 of 186
The big upside would be compatibility. Having tried to work on Keynote and Papers documents on my iPad and mac, to date its a fail. iCloud integration will be a huge step forward. But I don't want the ability to work on the same document in iOS and Lion to mean we have to have lowest common denominator features and functionality. So, yes, I would like Lion and iOS to move closer together in many respects.

In my mind the user interface can be different; but the core features of functionality, data structures and documents should match as closely as possible.
post #45 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're implying there won't be X86 emulators for ARM processors in 2016 when they exist now.

I really hope you weren't serios about this question. If you are I will just say good luck with that.
post #46 of 186
...when Steve Jobs explained a couple of months ago why we would not be seeing a touch-screen iMac. Arm fatigue sets in rapidly when using a vertically-oriented screen which makes heavy use of it almost impossible.
post #47 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

That's not fair to people with autism. My son has it and can still apply logic and reason far better than this analyst.

Yah... in the words of Stephen Colbert "Don't say retarded... it's gay!"

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #48 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242 View Post

I may be talking about of my butt here, but I don't think Rosetta had as much to do. To run Windows, an emulator has to emulate an entire machine in order to provide a guest OS access to virtual hardware. Rosetta simply had to translate some instructions.

Virtualization platforms already have to do much of that. The big performance killer in the past has been instruction translation.
post #49 of 186
Well that and a hardware issue as iOS devices have serious issues with RAM space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kube View Post

The big upside would be compatibility. Having tried to work on Keynote and Papers documents on my iPad and mac, to date its a fail. iCloud integration will be a huge step forward. But I don't want the ability to work on the same document in iOS and Lion to mean we have to have lowest common denominator features and functionality. So, yes, I would like Lion and iOS to move closer together in many respects.

In my mind the user interface can be different; but the core features of functionality, data structures and documents should match as closely as possible.
post #50 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You're implying there won't be X86 emulators for ARM processors in 2016 when they exist now.

Emulating a different CPU architecture takes a major speed hit, though, so an A6 MacBook Air running x86 software under emulation would feel really slow.

Does Apple really want to ship a Mac that is incompatible with all the software the other Macs are using? I agree with what someone else said; if Apple is going to use the A6 in Macs, they'll transition ALL Macs over to it. But, I don't see that happening. Being able to run Windows x86 software on your Mac at native speeds is just too valuable in the current market.
post #51 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Apple could still make software available to both platforms without needing to merge the entire OS. They already have the technology in place to do this; universal binary support and specific UI for appropriate devices and views.

They could create one version of Pages or Numbers that would work across all their devices. There is absolutely no need to merge iOS and Mac OS X to do this.

I think Apple's idea is to give iPad and iPhone users the same experience their already familiar with --- and put it on the desktop. Were seeing this. Eventually i expect the OS experience and iCloud services will render a nearly ubiquitous interface across hand held, TV, and desktop devices. Thus the walled garden will be complete.
post #52 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

The visible file system is a design choice...much like changing the look of the scrollbars.

Merging the 2 OS'es would basically involve merging almost all the code below the UI. They might even try merging the APIs (which are already very similar). This would mean that the same 3rd Party codebase would function across Mac, iPad, iPhone with only the UI needing to be changed.

This would be a dramatic improvement for both devs and customers.

The merge WILL happen, as long as Apple is technically capable of actually doing it. The only remaining question is when will they start.

The under-the-hood stuff would make a lot of sense; having similar API's and similar file systems.

I don't ever see Apple offering users the option of installing iOS on their MacBook Air, though. Not gonna happen. Unlike Windows 8, the two interfaces will remain completely separate. Apple is taking some of the best ideas from their iOS research and merging them into OS X, but it won't go beyond that.
post #53 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I really hope you weren't serios about this question. If you are I will just say good luck with that.

Just playing off his fear that ARM would take over the world (it won't). He wouldn't have accepted an out-of-universe answer, so I kept to the original statement.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #54 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

That's not fair to people with autism. My son has it and can still apply logic and reason far better than this analyst.

No offence, but autism and retardation are not related to each other at all.

Also, "retarded" is a perfectly scientific word. There is a big push on lately to have it deleted from our collective lexicon for being offensive but it's not actually in and of itself a pejorative or even a negative remark. It's a shortened form of the technical term "developmentally retarded."
post #55 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

Don't like this iOS merging business!

I do. The vast majority of people don't need anything except iOS. It makes perfect sense to trim the bloat from OSX. Only a very few people will miss anything, and it will be easier for most customers to use.
post #56 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

More like 2020 for the culmination of these trends,...

And is it really worthwhile at all to speculate about something that might happen in the computer industry 10 years or more from now?



Ummmm.........You just did exactly that.
post #57 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuisDias View Post

This is the most stupid thing I heard all day. I guess they have to come up with something to keep the laughter-of-the-day.

No, iOS won't "fuse" with Mac OS next year.

It's not period. And anyone who thinks otherwise is just being silly, ignorant or retarded.

Look at it this way:


1) a version of OS X was delayed to get the original iPhone out on time -- because Apple borrowed the OS X talent to work on iOS

2) most, if not all, OS X frameworks have been ported to iOS

3) many iOS-specific frameworks have been ported to OS X

4) many of the UI features are shared among the 2 OSes

5) many Apple apps have versions for both OSes (I suspect we will see FCP X on a tablet before too long)

So, basically, we have 2 OSes with a lot of common source code and UI features.

You could consider this as a single OS with 2 [major] variants (there is that whole AppleTV and/or Apple TV set thing).

I suspect that Apple will soon offer tablet-peripherals for Macs.


I do not think that putting an A6 (or whatever) chip into a Mac necessarily means that the Intel (whatever) chip need be removed.

Potentially, Thunderbolt offers Apple great flexibility into which devices they place CPUs, GPUs, RAM, HDDs, SSDs, etc.


Finally, it makes sense economically to maintain a single OS instead of Multiple OSes -- especially when much of the code is in common.


BTW, about 30 minutes ago, AAPL market cap was within $18 Billion of XOM.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #58 of 186
Ridiculous. I say bring back floppy disk drives. How dare they.
post #59 of 186
Obvious press-seeker is obvious.

Also, by 2089, computers will fly.
post #60 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryb View Post

I've been using Lion for a week or two now and I love a lot of the changes in the GUI many of which are subtle and elegant. However some of the iOS implementation such as Launch pad has no place in my daily routine. I really don't find Launch pad a shortcut and more convenient way to my apps, a click on the Applications folder is not that difficult and it offers me more sorting options. Mission Control most likely has is fans but again I don't find myself having any need to run that many windows and apps at the same time. I never used Spaces in Snow Leopard either. I really enjoy my iOS devices but even using Pages and Numbers is a clumsy at best solution. If Apple intends on returning to a "one OS fits all" company I predict merging OSX with iOS will be a bigger challenge than the transition from Classic Mac to Mac OS X. As always it will be interesting to see what develops.

For your needs, it may not make sense.

But, consider a graphic artist, draftsman or other creative whose primary interface with the computer may be a graphics tablet, guitar fretboard, piano keyboard or even the spoken voice.

For these needs, the mouse/kb is a clumsy, but [currently] necessary, deterrent to make the computer device do what they want.

If you used an unusual device as your primary interface to a Mac, I think it would be much easier to tap-swipe-tap to bring up LaunchPad, navigate the OS, and select the app or file you want.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #61 of 186
"Merging the iOS and Mac OS X platforms would allow users to have content be available and optimized on an even wider range of devices".

WRONG!!!

What is needed is compatibility with the 95% of the world, which means both Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Today that is possible because the Macs use Intel microprocessors. Switch to ARM and we will be back to the PowerPC fiasco. Did Apple learn from the past? Hopefully!
post #62 of 186
MacOS is unlikely to go ARM until bog developers commit or a compatibility mode exists. Photoshop and Office come to mind. Perhaps cloud apps might mitigate this.
post #63 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Also, "retarded" is a perfectly scientific word. There is a big push on lately to have it deleted from our collective lexicon for being offensive but it's not actually in and of itself a pejorative or even a negative remark. It's a shortened form of the technical term "developmentally retarded."

Hear, hear.

To expand on this, all sorts of things can be retarded - not just developmentally. Engine Retarder Brakes, A music suspension that resolves upward instead of downward (a retardation), Retarded potential in electrodynamics - etc...

It always grinds my gears when people freak out at me for using the most scientifically correct term available.
post #64 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

The visible file system is a design choice...much like changing the look of the scrollbars.

Merging the 2 OS'es would basically involve merging almost all the code below the UI. They might even try merging the APIs (which are already very similar). This would mean that the same 3rd Party codebase would function across Mac, iPad, iPhone with only the UI needing to be changed.

This would be a dramatic improvement for both devs and customers.

The merge WILL happen, as long as Apple is technically capable of actually doing it. The only remaining question is when will they start.


Oh... I'd say Apple will start somewhere in late 2006 or early 2007
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #65 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1) Those that assume it have no idea what they are talking about. Apple clearly has different UIs for the iPod Touch/iPhone and iPad. They even release different builds for each version of a device within a market category. For example, the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, G4 iPod Touch, and G3 iPod Touch all have different IPSWs for iOS 5.0 despite all having the same UI design from CocoaTouch.

2) Your last sentence refers to a universal application. That's different than a Universal OS that will have the drivers, frameworks, and UIs for all devices. Mac OS is already over 3.5GB just for Macs if you were to add it for all iDevices consider at least another 1GB. But for argument sake lets ignore that and just consider the 3.5GB of Mac OS and assume it also contains all the needed files for the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad and AppleTV models. Does it really make sense for, say, an iPod Touch user to download 3.5GB just to update their iPod? Not in the least!

3) I can see Apple eventually moving their Xcode SDK to allow for easier code sharing for Mac OS and iOS apps the way they made it easy for iOS for iPhone/Touch and iOS for iPad apps to share code. That is where Apple, the developer and the user would benefit from well designed system, but not from having one bulky OS that will install on all their products.


Everything you say is true...

Except that just because the OS consists of a single all-incluseive bundle does not mean that it need be delivered (downloaded) and installed that way (though it would be nice to have the option of a single download to be installed on all your Apple computers and devices).

The latest beta of iOS 5 has OTA updates for all iDevices -- so Apple may have already demonstrated the capability to do install-time download/configuration of iOS.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #66 of 186
Merging the OS' of major computing platforms such as the MBP, MP, iMac, etc. with the OS' of small, niche embedded devices like the iPhone and iPad is ridiculous.

I do see Apple capitalizing off of their success though and Apple will be trying to redefine the term "niche" in the process. For the company, it seems a niche product is no longer niche if the majority of people use it. Regardless of the inherent limitations in what it can do.

I don't NEED an iPhone. but I have one. don't NEED and iPad either... but you get the point.

I do NEED my MBP for both work and home endeavors. And the way it works is so much easier with a more robust experience.

IOS is great for the slimmed down mobile experience - when mobile means in transition from place to place or position to position in the same place. But not when it simply means transportable.

The MBP is a better product for computing than the touchscreen iPad.

The money coming in from IOS devices seems to skew Apple here as they have done some foolish moves with Lion, which is a great OS, but handicapped in some ways by its "merge" with iOS though process. Marketing is ruling over development in some areas where it should not be so.

The mouse on a flat surface is far more precise than a finger on an angled screen. It's only exacerbated should fatigue set in.

The ARM architecture will no doubt be able to have PC like strength in 2016. However, that is compared to the PC's of today. In 2016, there will be much more powerful chips available.

Apple for a few years seemed to be doing everything right - the best engineered, powerful computers that literally let you do EVERYTHING, removing any barrier one might have to making the mac the center of their computing experience for work or play. It was a success. The marketshare grew and the sales went up up and away.

however...

that all paled in comparison to the sales of the iDevices. And while no one can blame Apple for looking into ways to translate that kind of stratospheric money making into Mac sales as well, they are seriously hampering the robust mac experience by doing so. merging the two OS' seems fine when the iOS gets more Mac like features, but not when the robust, feature laden Mac is dumbed down in order to accomadate said "merge."

We have already seen this philosophy in play with the recent FCP X disaster, where Apple was using a high profile, major professional tool in order to try to convince professionals that real work can be done this way - without saying it of course. and in the real world (outside of apple thinktanks) it simple makes a great product inferior, regardless of how glossy and cool the interface graphics are.

c'mon apple!
post #67 of 186
This would be a real downgrade for those of us who consider Mac OS X to be a pretty unix system, and rely on things like the terminal, filesystem, and macport functionality for our everyday work, particularly now that the new Air is so attractive when paired with a thunderbolt screen (and hopefully external GPU box in the future). This includes a huge fraction of the computer scientists and engineers who have entered or graduated from school within the past 10 years.
post #68 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Merging the OS' of major computing platforms such as the MBP, MP, iMac, etc. with the OS' of small, niche embedded devices like the iPhone and iPad is ridiculous.

While I agree with much of the sentiment of your post, classifying iPhone and iPad as "small, niche embedded devices" is shortsighted. Mobile devices are taking over computing. The transition may take a while, but it's underway. We are headed for the day when heavyweight desktop and laptop products will be the "niche devices".
post #69 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

He doesn't outline anything, so these are valid questions.

But a fully-multitouch desktop OS can easily be done. Its audience is everyone. It's the replacement of the mouse.

The Magic Trackpad is the replacement of the mouse done ergonomically and practically.

Having to reach up and touch your work is literally a pain in the arm (and other body parts). A trackpad pointer can be accurate to a single pixel. The average finger is only accurate to 100 pixels (10x10 grid) at best and most people using a touch screen cover more than 200 pixels at a time.
Try touching your work without obscuring some of it with your hand. Yeah that's SO efficient.
post #70 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

BTW, about 30 minutes ago, AAPL market cap was within $18 Billion of XOM.

With their last quarter pulling in $25.34B or something like that we will see Apple beating Exxon in the next quarter. Wow, who would have thought... Exxon did pull in $383B last year in revenue with 'only' 80k+ employees, all pretty staggering. But their net income of $30B doesn't even come close to Apples'
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #71 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes View Post

This would be a real downgrade for those of us who consider Mac OS X to be a pretty unix system,



The number of customers who use Unix is vanishingly small. OTOH, the number of people who want/need to do common tasks, as easily and efficiently as possible, is HUGE.

Apple is now aiming for the sweet spot, where most of the money is. I expect that their devices will become, over time, easier to use. That is what gives value to the hardware, not the ability for a few geeks to do esoteric tasks.
post #72 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The latest beta of iOS 5 has OTA updates for all iDevices -- so Apple may have already demonstrated the capability to do install-time download/configuration of iOS.

Those OTA delta updates are specific to that device, not a single OTA update that will work for all iOS-based devices. That's the difference.
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 #73 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

I do. The vast majority of people don't need anything except iOS. It makes perfect sense to trim the bloat from OSX. Only a very few people will miss anything, and it will be easier for most customers to use.

Disagree. Do the following with iOS: Create an email and attach to that one email a Pages document, a Numbers file and a PDF. Not possible.

Until iOS implements a file system that is shared across applications (i.e. each app does not own its own files), you cannot come close to replacing a business desktop with an iOS device and you'd be severely limited at home.
post #74 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

The number of customers who use Unix is vanishingly small.

Not so. The number of customer who use Unix is huge. All OSX and iOS users use Unix. Unix is at the core of many consumer appliances. The number of users who use the Unix terminal is small. The main benefit Unix is not the terminal but rather the architecture and stability. If you like the stability, memory management and multitasking abilities of either OS, then Unix is important to you.
post #75 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

While there being a million other things like that, that is the most important one. Without a usable file system, there won't be a need to use a computer.

Assume this happens, how would ANY professional work be done on a computer? Programming, Video Editing, Audio Processing, Desktop Publishing... without easy access to files you essentially kill the professional use of a computer. If Apple went this way, I'd be out, after 17 years.

First: iOS and OSX share a common file system -- it is just hidden on iOS (and sandboxed).

But, Apple is making the first tentative steps to reducing user-dependency/and interaction with the OSX file system. Things like:

1) the documents and download stacks in the dock

2) LaunchPad

3) Media browsers that allow you to access other app's files within an app

4) Predefined locations within the file system for certain types of files -- first iMovie, now FCP X and Motion 5

5) Spotlight

6) file metadata

7) file versioning

8) Smart Folders/Collections

9) large external storage repositories -- RAID, NAS, SAN

10) Dropbox

11) iCloud

12) intelligent file share (export) options which allow the app/OS to gather and package associated interdependent files -- for example FCP X allows you to gather a project, its media files (events), render files, etc. and distribute it as a self-contained package.

13) SQL-based file repository replacing XML


There are some very subtle changes being made within the OS and the apps, themselves. Access to the files information via SQL rather than XML or hierarchical drill-down.

At some point we users will realize that we do not need to know (or care) where the file is just as long as we can access it -- we have computers that can do the grunge/munge work.

Apple already knows this!


EDIT: Oops... forgot that Lion hides ~/Library

I suspect that the UNIX file system will be with us until a superior system is developed...


And, I can remember back far enough -- when real men had to remember (or keep a list) in which drawers of which file cabinets his punch-card data files were stored.

That was over 50 years ago -- and we still retrieve files in much the same way!

Now, where did I put that damned Lion install DVD....
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #76 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Merging the OS' of major computing platforms such as the MBP, MP, iMac, etc. with the OS' of small, niche embedded devices like the iPhone and iPad is ridiculous.

I do see Apple capitalizing off of their success though and Apple will be trying to redefine the term "niche" in the process. For the company, it seems a niche product is no longer niche if the majority of people use it. Regardless of the inherent limitations in what it can do.

I don't NEED an iPhone. but I have one. don't NEED and iPad either... but you get the point.

I do NEED my MBP for both work and home endeavors. And the way it works is so much easier with a more robust experience.

IOS is great for the slimmed down mobile experience - when mobile means in transition from place to place or position to position in the same place. But not when it simply means transportable.

The MBP is a better product for computing than the touchscreen iPad.

The money coming in from IOS devices seems to skew Apple here as they have done some foolish moves with Lion, which is a great OS, but handicapped in some ways by its "merge" with iOS though process. Marketing is ruling over development in some areas where it should not be so.

The mouse on a flat surface is far more precise than a finger on an angled screen. It's only exacerbated should fatigue set in.

The ARM architecture will no doubt be able to have PC like strength in 2016. However, that is compared to the PC's of today. In 2016, there will be much more powerful chips available.

Apple for a few years seemed to be doing everything right - the best engineered, powerful computers that literally let you do EVERYTHING, removing any barrier one might have to making the mac the center of their computing experience for work or play. It was a success. The marketshare grew and the sales went up up and away.

however...

that all paled in comparison to the sales of the iDevices. And while no one can blame Apple for looking into ways to translate that kind of stratospheric money making into Mac sales as well, they are seriously hampering the robust mac experience by doing so. merging the two OS' seems fine when the iOS gets more Mac like features, but not when the robust, feature laden Mac is dumbed down in order to accomadate said "merge."

We have already seen this philosophy in play with the recent FCP X disaster, where Apple was using a high profile, major professional tool in order to try to convince professionals that real work can be done this way - without saying it of course. and in the real world (outside of apple thinktanks) it simple makes a great product inferior, regardless of how glossy and cool the interface graphics are.

c'mon apple!

You're making so many assumptions here and most of them are not supportable. I'm not going to do a point by point ting, but your characterisation of the Final Cut Pro "disaster" is waaay over the top and basically marks you as someone not worth debating at all.

On a more substantive note:

What everyone here who is freaking out about OS X and iOS merging is not thinking about is that iOS is still in the early stages and both OS's are, you know, EVOLVING. So it's not the case that some future OS X will be "dumbed down" to the level of iOS we see today at all. For that to happen iOS would have to be standing still and OS X would have to plummet in popularity. This is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

It's far more likely that the iOS way of doing things will evolve to the point where it can actually handle files and folders than it is Apple would remove the file system from OS X for example.

The point is we don't even know what each of the OS's will look like next year let alone five or ten years down the road. Panicking now is surely not going to be very productive. Let's wait until something actually happens before we all drive off the cliff.
post #77 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

He doesn't outline anything, so these are valid questions.

But a fully-multitouch desktop OS can easily be done. Its audience is everyone. It's the replacement of the mouse.

It's everyone or no one? Touch works great on a 10" tablet. Not so much on a 30" display on a desk.
post #78 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by barthrh View Post

Not so. The number of customer who use Unix is huge. All OSX and iOS users use Unix. Unix is at the core of many consumer appliances. The number of users who use the Unix terminal is small. The main benefit Unix is not the terminal but rather the architecture and stability. If you like the stability, memory management and multitasking abilities of either OS, then Unix is important to you.

Unix will still be there, it just won't likely be as acceptable. Shame really - one of the reasons I'm able to be so productive with my Mac is because I can make short work of processing tons of files at the command prompt.
post #79 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbarriault View Post

Why do people assume a merger of iOS and OS X should automatically entail identical UIs? An OS is a lot more than the user interface - they can have a single OS with the same kernel, device drivers, file system, development environment, etc., with a different style of UI depending on device, in very much the exact same way that iOS handles both iPhone and iPad now. There's no reason they can't extend the idea of a universal iOS application to have a different UI for mouse/keyboard interactions too.

You are describing what they have now, with the exception of having two different UIs.

MacOS X and iOS already have the same core.
post #80 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleLover2 View Post

The number of customers who use Unix is vanishingly small. OTOH, the number of people who want/need to do common tasks, as easily and efficiently as possible, is HUGE.

Apple is now aiming for the sweet spot, where most of the money is. I expect that their devices will become, over time, easier to use. That is what gives value to the hardware, not the ability for a few geeks to do esoteric tasks.

How is this relevant to my post? I said that losing access the terminal, filesystem, and macports tree would be a real downgrade for us. Not that there are a lot of us.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple seen merging iOS, Mac OS X with custom A6 chip in 2012