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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
An Apple TV that can play App Store games can become a contender in the video game console wars.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
future cell architectures