Apple now nearly as big as Microsoft Windows in personal computing sales - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRulez 

While Android Linux outsells iOS on smartphones by more than 2-to-1, the goal here is to arbitrarily slice and dice the definition of "computers" until we can find a mix that's flattering to Apple.   Get with the program, lest you be called "troll!". ;)

This place does take on kind of a circle jerk tone at times. I've stated before that a big problem with the inclusion of devices like the ipad is that they're designed to be partially reliant on other devices for a full level of computing functionality. You're left with certain gaps, storage and backup being the worst ones. If all of those were resolved at the tablet level (MS seems to do this with the surface pro) it would make more sense to describe sales this way. My issue is that even in lighter tasks, they're still relegated to being a subordinate device like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shojin Monkey 

I wonder if Microsoft should start building Windows on top of Unix the way Apple does, make Windows just another "skin" GUI that could be used on Apple or Android machines, on any machine basically.

Apple didn't build Mac OSX on top of UNIX, at all.  Mac OSX is a microkernel, which is comprised of several different elements to communicate with basic UNIX commands, such as POSIX and message passing.  The only thing "UNIX" about OSX is the Terminal.  Even Aqua is a proprietary GUI, as opposed to xWindows or XORG for Linux.  Funny you mention Windows.  Any OS can achieve UNIX accreditation with the right compatibility layer.  We see an offshoot of this already in Windows with PowerShell.  But, like OSX, that wouldn't turn Windows into a UNIX operating system.  When people talk about OSX being "UNIX-based," they're generalizing, and most of the time it's due to lack of knowledge.  A more proper term would be "UNIX-compliant."  Remember, OSX wasn't accredited by the Open Group until Leopard was released.  That's quite far down the pipe.  However, Linux...being closer to UNIX than OSX ever will be, still has not been OG accredited.  So you see...terms and accreditation don't mean much in the world of UNIX.  

So, are you saying that Tablets are designated to be PCs but Smartphones are not?

Also, the chart shows IOS devices (Iphones included I suppose) so I think the author is dumping Apple's smartphones as PCs, thus Android smartphones should be considered as such as well.

Lastly, that article talks about the lack of tablet optimized apps, which IMO makes no sense for the working resolution of current smartphones equal those of tablets. I must admit that I don't like Tablets and I have only owned one, so my experience with them is limited and I can't stop myself from thinking that they are swollen smartphones. Btw, Android (Linux) can natively support a variety resolutions and that is limited by hardware capabilities so there should not be any scaling unless it is a port.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin 


I'd say it's ok to consider tablets as PCs but not smartphones. It's the same OS and largely the same hardware components and they are only separated by screen size but it has to be about usage scenarios. It's a mildly interesting stat to see that all of Apple's OS sales are coming close to Microsoft's and with Android included, it puts unix-based systems ahead of Microsoft but I think the tablet sales are more important and still impressive:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/06/ipads-thanks-to-the-mini-accounted-for-1-in-6-pcs-tablets-one-third-of-all-pcs-shipped-in-q4-canalys/

With Macs and iPads combined, it puts Apple ahead of HP in terms of hardware vendors shipping PCs. When people are sitting at home browsing the web on their phones for long periods and watching movies, that's when it would replace PCs and should be considered in the same category. I don't see that being commonplace but people are definitely replacing laptops with iPads.
In some respects they are but you can easily sit and use a tablet for hours to type, browse, read and watch films where it would just get uncomfortable to do on a small display. It's difficult to replace a laptop or netbook with a smartphone.
iOS is based on OS X so has the same ability to scale across different resolutions but apps for Android and iOS sometimes have UI layouts that inherently don't scale. If you need a second UI column, that has to be developed into the app.

To cut the chase. I disagree that screen size has any bearing whether a device is considered a PC. Smartphones can do the same tasks as tablets and should not be discriminated for their screen size, specially when most of these devices have HDMI out options. To top it off, I think we'll see smartphones offering desktop solutions (like Ubuntu for Android) in the near future and I predict they will curve Tablet sales (if executed properly). I think OS X for Iphone is a possibility if Canonical does a good job bringing a mobile desktop.

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 
I think OS X for Iphone is a possibility if Canonical does a good job bringing a mobile desktop.

Nonsense. Do you know what OS X is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by iSteelers 


It does seem she is grasping at straws here. Until Apple takes over the enterprise market from Windows it really doesn't matter. iPhones compliment the enterprise, but Windows and Office still reign supreme across most businesses. Until they crack that nut these comparisons don't make much sense.

Which will probably never happen. But I don't think Apple is worried about that, they are making plenty of money from the mobile market.

I also agree that Smartphones and Tablets do not replace PCs (specially not in the business world), they merely compliment PCs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 

To cut the chase. I disagree that screen size has any bearing whether a device is considered a PC. Smartphones can do the same tasks as tablets and should not be discriminated for their screen size, specially when most of these devices have HDMI out options. To top it off, I think we'll see smartphones offering desktop solutions (like Ubuntu for Android) in the near future and I predict they will curve Tablet sales (if executed properly). I think OS X for Iphone is a possibility if Canonical does a good job bringing a mobile desktop.

I'd go further to suggest it's likely inevitable that OS X and iOS will merge.  But I fear the merge will not favor OS X as much as iOS on all device types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Nonsense. Do you know what OS X is?

A desktop OS. I see that you are not familiar with the Ubuntu for Android concept. It is easy, you have your mobile OS (Android/IOS) running in your phone, then you dock it or plug your HDMI cable and your phone switches to desktop OS (Linux/MAC OS) for full productivity support. Not that hard.

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 
A desktop OS.

So putting it on an iPhone would be a… "good" idea? Or even a possible one?

What about Apple makes you think that anything involving the words 'Android' and 'Ubuntu' makes any sense to them?

To pitch, maybe. To use and to sell? Eh… Now, if we're talking both OS' successors…

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacRulez 

I'd go further to suggest it's likely inevitable that OS X and iOS will merge.  But I fear the merge will not favor OS X as much as iOS on all device types.

They don't need to merge. They can coexist in the same device, they would just be launched depending on the output (phone screen/HDMI)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

1.- So putting it on an iPhone would be a… "good" idea? Or even a possible one?

 

2.- What about Apple makes you think that anything involving the words 'Android' and 'Ubuntu' makes any sense to them?

 

3.- To pitch, maybe. To use and to sell? Eh… Now, if we're talking both OS' successors…

1.- We now have 8 core processors for Smartphones. It is possible and if a nonprofit can do it, I am sure Apple can. I think its a great idea (specially for businesses), but we all have our opinions.

2.- If you'd get off your defensive stance. You'd see that I am saying that Apple could do something similar and probably execute it better.

3.- Should I start listing what products were thought not to be profitable but turned to be great successes?

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 
1.- We now have 8 core processors for Smartphones.

Not my concern. Usability is my concern.

This isn't one of them. I know Apple is a master of taking something formerly crap and making it work, but this is perpetually crap. OS X requires a keyboard and mouse. Those would either be built into this dock (as would a display, or something) or be Bluetooth. So the dock would have to have its own Bluetooth chip, since iOS devices can't handle multiple Bluetooth inputs. The dock basically needs its own power, at which point you may as well just get a computer. Everything is going to be stored—two OS' and their respective applications are going to be stored—on an iDevice? Where's the backup? Time Capsule/Airport+hard drive? That's another couple hundred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
OS X requires a keyboard and mouse. Those would either be built into this dock (as would a display, or something) or be Bluetooth. So the dock would have to have its own Bluetooth chip, since iOS devices can't handle multiple Bluetooth inputs. The dock basically needs its own power, at which point you may as well just get a computer. Everything is going to be stored—two OS' and their respective applications are going to be stored—on an iDevice? Where's the backup? Time Capsule/Airport+hard drive? That's another couple hundred.

- Add USB ports (OSX supports USB) to the dock and get a wireless mouse and keyboard.

- Sell Iphones with bigger storage. USB storage is relatively cheap. Add removable memory to the Iphone. Cloud storage for work files.

The idea is to replace a computer. It makes most sense for businesses since at least you are replacing a laptop and a business phone.

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 

USB storage is relatively cheap. Add removable memory to the Iphone.

See, these things will never happen.

Except you're not! You're just moving it! Why can't the future of iOS replace a traditional computer on its own? We're not using a mouse ten years from now. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

See, these things will never happen.

 

If there is no demand for it, no. Plus USB storage is already cheap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Except you're not! You're just moving it

You are in the example I provided. Instead of buying and supporting 2 devices I can do the same functions with one, it is more cost effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Why can't the future of iOS replace a traditional computer on its own? We're not using a mouse ten years from now. 

I don't think the IOS is meant to do that. Yes it does what it does pretty well. But it is not built to be a desktop PC replacement. Touch technology is nice, but it is not meant to be productive (yet). Yes we can send emails, and fill up basic spreadsheets and maybe one day we'll type faster on a touchscreen, but you can't effectively multitask, run specialized software and be generally efficient. The industry will be using a mouse in 10 years.

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 
If there is no demand for it, no. Plus USB storage is already cheap.

I don't understand what demand has to do with anything. And what does reiterating that accomplish?

Some of the same functions, more complicated and with much greater restriction.

That's what OS XI will be for.

Ha! You're joking. This is totally wrong.

Good luck with that. Microsoft might be, but the industry's leaders won't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

1.- I don't understand what demand has to do with anything. And what does reiterating that accomplish?

 

2.- Some of the same functions, more complicated and with much greater restriction.

 

3.- That's what OS XI will be for.

 

4.- Ha! You're joking. This is totally wrong.

 

5.- Good luck with that. Microsoft might be, but the industry's leaders won't.

1.- If Apple's costumers created a high demand for removable storage they'd add it.

2.- There shouldn't be. I think we are not talking about the same things here.

3.- So then IOS will not be doing it like you were suggesting earlier.

4.- Are you suggesting that a IOS device is at least equally efficient as a full fledged desktop? IOS devices don't even support multiple monitors (hallmark of multitasking and efficiency across most industries - there is even studies about this). There is no Autocad support (most used CAD software across multiple industries). Can they run full versions of professional photo editing, website building, graphic intensive games and other specialized software? Many (if not most) of the new  Desktop Personal Computers do. Atm IOS devices may be able to replace internet stations, but that's about it.

5.- The Tech industry is not the only industry out there. For example, the Aerospace and Manufacturing industries are not going touch anytime soon. Btw Win 8 is touchscreen as well.

Let's just agree to disagree and celebrate our right to have opinions.

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 
2.- There shouldn't be. I think we are not talking about the same things here.

You can't run OS X on ARM without compromises that the people for whom this device would be intended wouldn't be willing to accept.

No, it won't be doing what you were suggesting.

I am suggesting that for a growing number of purposes, people would be better served with an iOS device than another computing source. As time passes, eventually the stated benefits of a keyboard and mouse will apply to too few people to bother continuing to make product.

Two eyes, one cursor, one application at a time. You can only DO one thing at once, which is why iOS operates the way it does. As touch pervades the desktop, your needs will be filled, and better than a mouse could ever have done it.

You pitch this as though it's an inherent flaw of the platform, unable to ever be changed for any reason. AutoCAD is next to meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It will be on them, not Apple, to support the products people use going forward.

Again, you're operating under the assumption that now = forever.

Also, yes, for all of these, anyway.

This isn't 2007. Take a gander at modern iOS devices.

Who says? What's your evidence of that? We have posters here who use iPads on their respective companies' factory floors. Sort of puts a hole in that theory.

And look how well they're doing. 

Look, I'm not discounting the idea of a docking, portable device. I sort of like the idea, and would like to see some companies at least throw up concepts of what it could become. I'm discounting your idea of having two OS on one machine. It's crazy, inefficient, and renders far too many compromises to be worth selling to a consumer or professional. And Apple wants consumers and professionals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

You can't run OS X on ARM without compromises that the people for whom this device would be intended wouldn't be willing to accept.

 

No, it won't be doing what you were suggesting.

 

I am suggesting that for a growing number of purposes, people would be better served with an iOS device than another computing source. As time passes, eventually the stated benefits of a keyboard and mouse will apply to too few people to bother continuing to make product.

 

Two eyes, one cursor, one application at a time. You can only DO one thing at once, which is why iOS operates the way it does. As touch pervades the desktop, your needs will be filled, and better than a mouse could ever have done it.

 

You pitch this as though it's an inherent flaw of the platform, unable to ever be changed for any reason. AutoCAD is next to meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It will be on them, not Apple, to support the products people use going forward.

 

Again, you're operating under the assumption that now = forever.

 

Also, yes, for all of these, anyway.

 

This isn't 2007. Take a gander at modern iOS devices.

 

Who says? What's your evidence of that? We have posters here who use iPads on their respective companies' factory floors. Sort of puts a hole in that theory.

 

And look how well they're doing. 

Look, I'm not discounting the idea of a docking, portable device. I sort of like the idea, and would like to see some companies at least throw up concepts of what it could become. I'm discounting your idea of having two OS on one machine. It's crazy, inefficient, and renders far too many compromises to be worth selling to a consumer or professional. And Apple wants consumers and professionals.

1.- ARM is not the only processing platform. Make a new Kernel.

2.- And that is the reason I used "IF"

3.- corecommunication.ca/4-studies-which-show-that-using-a-second-monitor-can-boost-productivity/

4.- It may not be a flaw, but Personal Computers do support most of those applications. Until IOS can match support then we can say that IOS is a viable replacement for Personal Computers.

5.- You are saying that they currently can, and I am saying they courrently can't replace PCs other than Interner stations.

6.- I work on both of those Industries. Having an Ipad to view PDFs (drawings) is not considered adopting touch technologies at large. They had Internet stations that were replaced by Ipads and I already agreed to that.

They are not adopting it anytime soon because the current technology works, and they will not fix what is not broken (Because it costs tons of money). The lifecycle of the software they use is long to minimize training and certification costs. CATIA for example, which is the main 3D software that major OEMs (Boeing, Airbus, Tesla, and other automotive and Aerospace leaders) use. CATIA V5 (about $14k a seat for the cheapest config. + a yearly fee) came out in 1998, CATIA V6 came out in 2008 and it has not been implemented by OEMs yet! Even if CATIA V7 was Touch technology, it'd take many, many years to be adopted, if ever. Suppliers follow what OEMs get, so no hope there either. And smaller design houses (Say MasterCAM's) don't have the power to push touch technology even if they wanted.

Heck, a company recently I contracted with (2000+ employees with a several hundred engineers) still uses Win XP, Office 2007 (recently upgraded) and Acad 2004.

Another heck, some companies already invested into Space Mouses, they are not going to waste all of that money/training to go touch with stylus (assuming there was such software).

All in all, those industries are not going Touch anytime soon.

7.- Idk, I dislike Win 8.

8.- It may use more storage, but a well done Kernel should handle the transition well. I am not advocating running a VM.

Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker 
1.- ARM is not the only processing platform. Make a new Kernel.

So design completely new hardware for a completely new product and completely rewrite BOTH of your operating systems for the SOLE PURPOSE of building a device that can run both of them for an absolutely minuscule niche?!

Except not everyone uses every single piece of software ever written for every industry. Your argument isn't one. iOS is a perfectly valid computing platform and a hugely viable replacement for hundreds of millions of people. ALREADY. And growing.

Yes, you're totally wrong, and I'm right. That's the gist of it.

Thanks for moving the goalposts and simultaneously disagreeing with your original point and agreeing with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaestroDRAVEN 

 

Apple didn't build Mac OSX on top of UNIX, at all.  Mac OSX is a microkernel, which is comprised of several different elements to communicate with basic UNIX commands, such as POSIX and message passing.  The only thing "UNIX" about OSX is the Terminal.  Even Aqua is a proprietary GUI, as opposed to xWindows or XORG for Linux.  Funny you mention Windows.  Any OS can achieve UNIX accreditation with the right compatibility layer.  We see an offshoot of this already in Windows with PowerShell.  But, like OSX, that wouldn't turn Windows into a UNIX operating system.  When people talk about OSX being "UNIX-based," they're generalizing, and most of the time it's due to lack of knowledge.  A more proper term would be "UNIX-compliant."  Remember, OSX wasn't accredited by the Open Group until Leopard was released.  That's quite far down the pipe.  However, Linux...being closer to UNIX than OSX ever will be, still has not been OG accredited.  So you see...terms and accreditation don't mean much in the world of UNIX.  

Max OSX is not a microkernel. OSX is an operating system that includes the Xnu hybrid microkernel that contains mach and bits of the FreeBSD kernel for the required Unix syscalls and process models.

You forgot the entire BSD userland.

A proprietary GUI is as much part of Unix as any other.  CDE was the standard desktop for mainline Unix for years and was proprietary.  Motif was the proprietary GUI toolkit CDE was built on (eventually open sourced).  Ever heard of that maybe?   And OSX had X11 installed up to mountain lion and now supports XQuartz which is the X.org port for OS X.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5293?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

http://xquartz.macosforge.org/landing/

OSX is not UNIX-based.  It IS UNIX and you have no clue what you're talking about.