The key piece to the job posting has to be the focus on the internet. With everything going mobile, Apple's increased focus on location-based services, and their recent acquisition of that company that was creating a "personal assistant" piece of software, I think that Apple will incorporate that personal assistant software as a core foundation in OS X. Sort of like location services on steroids. You could be in a city on a business trip and every type of service near you could be displayed - bars, restaurants, shops, movie times, etc. BUT, by putting this technology as a deep hook in the OS, it will enable developers to create even more incredibly powerful apps with greater ease. I think their purpose in all of this will be for third-party software development and not necessarily a true OS feature.
I read the first few lines of this article and came to the same conclusion.
This should get interesting. I like the open nature of OS configurations as we have them...but a new day is coming. I will go out on a limb and state for the record that I think the iOS, for better or for worse, is the future of consumer computing, and possibly enterprise desktop computing.
The revenue options/revenue streams are not like anything the industry has ever experienced to date and I'm sure they're working hard on Apple's lead to bring those options to the desktop where everyone truly live and works. ...
I don't think this is right at all.
For starters it makes no sense at all to integrate iOS into Mac OS-X. It's like advocating that all Windows Vista needed was to integrated into a DOS environment. Touch-screen desktop computing makes little sense to begin with, and the fact that you can't pick up your desktop and roll it around to activate the compass, gyroscope or tilt sensors makes the whole thing ridiculous.
Secondly, they don't need to hire some new genius just to do that. It would be fairly straightforward to do the coding, just like running Classic used to be.
Third, the mention of HTML and web technologies makes it sound far more likely this has something to do with the server farm apple is almost finished building. While the common wisdom was that this farm would be used for iTunes streaming, it could also be that they will use it instead to do that "portable home folder" idea that's been floating around for a while.
I firmly believe that if its not 10.7 it will be the next one but will probably be OS XI with multi-touch incorporated at every level of the OS. ...
Never happen.
OS-XI will never happen either. iOS *is* (or will become), OS-XI except they won't call it that because iOS sounds a heck of a lot better.
In other words, by the time that iOS is capable enough to run on a desktop, it will already supplant the desktop. There will be no dual modes, and probably no widgety layer either.
I know everyone is excited and terribly pleased about iOS (and so they should be), but that doesn't mean it's headed for the desktop.
Or they know the bloggers are following their job postings and they are using it to get free press. Apple is pretty well known for all the free airtime they get with the press because of the way they manage their product development and roll-out.
Or they know the bloggers are following their job postings and they are using it to get free press. Apple is pretty well known for all the free airtime they get with the press because of the way they manage their product development and roll-out.
Well stated! ** Let's see what ol' Rob "Quotes R Us" Enderle has to say as the Final Word on this.
This is obviously going to be for OSX 10.8, not 10.7. There is not enough time to revolutionize the OS at the state they are at now. ...
I don't know why people keep saying this. It's fairly obvious that the time between 10.5 and 10.6 was shorter than average, and that the interval between 10.6 and 10.7 is likely to be much longer than average.
10.7 will most likely arrive in the late 2011 time frame or perhaps even later. They have more than a year to go before release and almost a year before the very earliest GM would be given out. More than enough time if you ask me, and easy to delay it even further if they can't do it on time.
How can't you see it guys? It's the App Store for Mac.
You enter, look for Photoshop, 1-click and you receive the license text, after you accept it, it downloads and installs automatically. You want to uninstall? The software is going to be just like in iOS, one icon, press option over the icon and a delete button appears at top left corner, click and gone.
Apple will keep control of the App Store and you can say goodbye to viruses forever. It's the future.
BUT, and this is a big but, if you want any other software outside the App Store... well you'll have to JailBreak your Mac. NOT! Maybe in this case they will not be so strict, because it is a different OS and different scenario.
But, I really think it could be App Store for Mac.
My bet is Apple wants to move to a multi-layered file system which integrates flash storage, local hard disk storage, and network storage all in the file system.
Basically, writes to the file system will first be written to flash storage and then later, copied to hard disk storage which would be mirrored to the cloud (network storage).
This would allow you to "log into" your data on any Mac connected to the cloud, but having the local flash and hard disks will "cache" the data for very fast local operation.
This would be the first OS where all data is stored in the cloud.
My guess is we will see the user exposed "file system" and therefore, "files" start to disappear. There is a better way to manage files on a computer and that is to not have the user manage them at all. It's coming.
Exactly what I'm thinking. And this would make audio and video rental/purchase transparent. Buy a movie, it shows up in your iTunes' "Purchased" page, and you can watch it. Objects like movie and music files could be remote-only. No need to download a copy to your local disk, which would take up space even though it might only be rarely watched, then have it get backed up by Time Machine, and be forced to copy it to a new Mac when you upgrade. It's still your copy, but you watch it through the cloud.
Cloud storage, as everyone keeps saying, would also reduce storage requirements on your local device, whether it's a desktop, laptop, or handheld. This brings down cost and complexity over time. And 10 years from now, Apple's profit center might need to shift from hardware to software and services (and yes, iAd). Hardware costs and margins are relentlessly dropping. It's the nature of the industry. By setting up a cloud-centric OS and device ecosystem, Apple is preparing itself for that future.
I have to constantly move stuff on to backups just to keep a little room on my 1TB drive.
I can't imagine the bandwidth I'd use doing cloud back ups. Seriously, we're talking about 5 to 15 GB per DAY! I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
My ISP gives me 100 GB per month.
I also have no desire to put much of my stuff in the cloud.
i prefer to keep it here, encrypted, fire-walled and unnoticeable.
There are many server technologies/features that could be listed for Apple to add to the Server version (e.g. built-in virtualization and a core installation without the GUI). Apple should takes some notes from Windows 7 as their are some neat features of that OS that have no equivalent in Mac OSX (e.g. Problem Steps Recorder http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...-miracle-tool/). And the snap-to feature which I like.
I'm basically suggesting they move Time Machine to the cloud so the user doesn't need to backup/sync their data explicitly through some other means.
As to those that suggest this would take an "insane amount" of bandwidth, I disagree strongly.
Most Macs have the same bits on them and Apple provided those bits in the first place (like the OS and many of its apps). Apple only has to sync to the cloud the data that is changing (and if support is implemented deep in the OS, only the actual bytes on disk that change would need to be uploaded and then only in background at timed intervals).
Apple could easily check to see if it already has a copy of the file in the cloud somewhere (possibly being used by others). Files used by multiple users would only have to exist once in the cloud saving tons of disk space in the cloud.
I'm basically suggesting they move Time Machine to the cloud so the user doesn't need to backup/sync their data explicitly through some other means.
As to those that suggest this would take an "insane amount" of bandwidth, I disagree strongly.
Most Macs have the same bits on them and Apple provided those bits in the first place (like the OS and many of its apps). Apple only has to sync to the cloud the data that is changing (and if support is implemented deep in the OS, only the actual bytes on disk that change would need to be uploaded and then only in background at timed intervals).
Apple could easily check to see if it already has a copy of the file in the cloud somewhere (possibly being used by others). Files used by multiple users would only have to exist once in the cloud saving tons of disk space in the cloud.
I see your point, but almost all of my internal drive is taken up with photo's music, video and work product. In my case a least, it would be an insane amount of bandwidth. I already exclude 90% of my files from my TC back up.
I have to constantly move stuff on to backups just to keep a little room on my 1TB drive.
I can't imagine the bandwidth I'd use doing cloud back ups. Seriously, we're talking about 5 to 15 GB per DAY! I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
I don't believe that you actually change 5GBs per day (except for local cache files that don't need to be backed up).
Remember that many files are in common with a number of users like the iBooks app stored in iTunes on the Mac and Apple provided those files in the first place (so wouldn't have to actually transfer any bits to the cloud for you since they already have a copy in the cloud).
I doubt I change more than a few megabytes a day. Remember that only the changed bytes in the file would need to be uploaded, not the whole file.
...would be a Finder that supports merging folders, instead of just replacing the folders. It's unthinkable that a modern OS would create a situation where a user can copy an empty folder on top of one with thousands of files and with the click of a button delete the entire folder and its contents, irretrievably. And never once ask if you want to merge the contents.
Oh, BTW, I'm growing weary of the ridiculous levels of hype Apple is throwing out there. Magical and revolutionary.
Comments
After all, Apple's ginormous, billion dollar, S.Carolina server farm is coming online over the next year, that would fit the timeframe.
OS X Cloud Cat
This could be a great foundation for the new Macbook Air: imagine an ultra slim computer with no computer inside.
The key piece to the job posting has to be the focus on the internet. With everything going mobile, Apple's increased focus on location-based services, and their recent acquisition of that company that was creating a "personal assistant" piece of software, I think that Apple will incorporate that personal assistant software as a core foundation in OS X. Sort of like location services on steroids. You could be in a city on a business trip and every type of service near you could be displayed - bars, restaurants, shops, movie times, etc. BUT, by putting this technology as a deep hook in the OS, it will enable developers to create even more incredibly powerful apps with greater ease. I think their purpose in all of this will be for third-party software development and not necessarily a true OS feature.
I read the first few lines of this article and came to the same conclusion.
This should get interesting. I like the open nature of OS configurations as we have them...but a new day is coming. I will go out on a limb and state for the record that I think the iOS, for better or for worse, is the future of consumer computing, and possibly enterprise desktop computing.
The revenue options/revenue streams are not like anything the industry has ever experienced to date and I'm sure they're working hard on Apple's lead to bring those options to the desktop where everyone truly live and works. ...
I don't think this is right at all.
For starters it makes no sense at all to integrate iOS into Mac OS-X. It's like advocating that all Windows Vista needed was to integrated into a DOS environment. Touch-screen desktop computing makes little sense to begin with, and the fact that you can't pick up your desktop and roll it around to activate the compass, gyroscope or tilt sensors makes the whole thing ridiculous.
Secondly, they don't need to hire some new genius just to do that. It would be fairly straightforward to do the coding, just like running Classic used to be.
Third, the mention of HTML and web technologies makes it sound far more likely this has something to do with the server farm apple is almost finished building. While the common wisdom was that this farm would be used for iTunes streaming, it could also be that they will use it instead to do that "portable home folder" idea that's been floating around for a while.
I firmly believe that if its not 10.7 it will be the next one but will probably be OS XI with multi-touch incorporated at every level of the OS. ...
Never happen.
OS-XI will never happen either. iOS *is* (or will become), OS-XI except they won't call it that because iOS sounds a heck of a lot better.
In other words, by the time that iOS is capable enough to run on a desktop, it will already supplant the desktop. There will be no dual modes, and probably no widgety layer either.
I know everyone is excited and terribly pleased about iOS (and so they should be), but that doesn't mean it's headed for the desktop.
Or they know the bloggers are following their job postings and they are using it to get free press. Apple is pretty well known for all the free airtime they get with the press because of the way they manage their product development and roll-out.
Well stated!
This is obviously going to be for OSX 10.8, not 10.7. There is not enough time to revolutionize the OS at the state they are at now. ...
I don't know why people keep saying this. It's fairly obvious that the time between 10.5 and 10.6 was shorter than average, and that the interval between 10.6 and 10.7 is likely to be much longer than average.
10.7 will most likely arrive in the late 2011 time frame or perhaps even later. They have more than a year to go before release and almost a year before the very earliest GM would be given out. More than enough time if you ask me, and easy to delay it even further if they can't do it on time.
1) A CD/DVD drive that DOESN'T suck
2) North Carolina cloud center integration...finally.
3) 3-dimensional stuff
4) Seamless IPad linkage. Kind of like those tablets in "Avatar" when they swipe screens to eachother
5) FaceTime works with iChat
6) Mac turns on and off like the IPad and IPhone
7) 4G LTE support (IT'S COMING!!!) or at least 3G integration in desktops
8) Batteries in all desktops and iMacs for ability to move the units for a short time without losing power for any work you have open
9) iOS integration, like everyone said
10) Android integration
You enter, look for Photoshop, 1-click and you receive the license text, after you accept it, it downloads and installs automatically. You want to uninstall? The software is going to be just like in iOS, one icon, press option over the icon and a delete button appears at top left corner, click and gone.
Apple will keep control of the App Store and you can say goodbye to viruses forever. It's the future.
BUT, and this is a big but, if you want any other software outside the App Store... well you'll have to JailBreak your Mac. NOT! Maybe in this case they will not be so strict, because it is a different OS and different scenario.
But, I really think it could be App Store for Mac.
My bet is Apple wants to move to a multi-layered file system which integrates flash storage, local hard disk storage, and network storage all in the file system.
Basically, writes to the file system will first be written to flash storage and then later, copied to hard disk storage which would be mirrored to the cloud (network storage).
This would allow you to "log into" your data on any Mac connected to the cloud, but having the local flash and hard disks will "cache" the data for very fast local operation.
This would be the first OS where all data is stored in the cloud.
My guess is we will see the user exposed "file system" and therefore, "files" start to disappear. There is a better way to manage files on a computer and that is to not have the user manage them at all. It's coming.
Exactly what I'm thinking. And this would make audio and video rental/purchase transparent. Buy a movie, it shows up in your iTunes' "Purchased" page, and you can watch it. Objects like movie and music files could be remote-only. No need to download a copy to your local disk, which would take up space even though it might only be rarely watched, then have it get backed up by Time Machine, and be forced to copy it to a new Mac when you upgrade. It's still your copy, but you watch it through the cloud.
Cloud storage, as everyone keeps saying, would also reduce storage requirements on your local device, whether it's a desktop, laptop, or handheld. This brings down cost and complexity over time. And 10 years from now, Apple's profit center might need to shift from hardware to software and services (and yes, iAd). Hardware costs and margins are relentlessly dropping. It's the nature of the industry. By setting up a cloud-centric OS and device ecosystem, Apple is preparing itself for that future.
I have to constantly move stuff on to backups just to keep a little room on my 1TB drive.
I can't imagine the bandwidth I'd use doing cloud back ups. Seriously, we're talking about 5 to 15 GB per DAY! I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
My ISP gives me 100 GB per month.
I also have no desire to put much of my stuff in the cloud.
i prefer to keep it here, encrypted, fire-walled and unnoticeable.
There are many server technologies/features that could be listed for Apple to add to the Server version (e.g. built-in virtualization and a core installation without the GUI). Apple should takes some notes from Windows 7 as their are some neat features of that OS that have no equivalent in Mac OSX (e.g. Problem Steps Recorder http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...-miracle-tool/). And the snap-to feature which I like.
As to those that suggest this would take an "insane amount" of bandwidth, I disagree strongly.
Most Macs have the same bits on them and Apple provided those bits in the first place (like the OS and many of its apps). Apple only has to sync to the cloud the data that is changing (and if support is implemented deep in the OS, only the actual bytes on disk that change would need to be uploaded and then only in background at timed intervals).
Apple could easily check to see if it already has a copy of the file in the cloud somewhere (possibly being used by others). Files used by multiple users would only have to exist once in the cloud saving tons of disk space in the cloud.
I'm basically suggesting they move Time Machine to the cloud so the user doesn't need to backup/sync their data explicitly through some other means.
As to those that suggest this would take an "insane amount" of bandwidth, I disagree strongly.
Most Macs have the same bits on them and Apple provided those bits in the first place (like the OS and many of its apps). Apple only has to sync to the cloud the data that is changing (and if support is implemented deep in the OS, only the actual bytes on disk that change would need to be uploaded and then only in background at timed intervals).
Apple could easily check to see if it already has a copy of the file in the cloud somewhere (possibly being used by others). Files used by multiple users would only have to exist once in the cloud saving tons of disk space in the cloud.
I see your point, but almost all of my internal drive is taken up with photo's music, video and work product. In my case a least, it would be an insane amount of bandwidth. I already exclude 90% of my files from my TC back up.
Apple is just trying to get developers to work on OS X. Everything the company does is "amazing" and "revolutionary."
The iPad was "magical," so that was already taken!
I have to constantly move stuff on to backups just to keep a little room on my 1TB drive.
I can't imagine the bandwidth I'd use doing cloud back ups. Seriously, we're talking about 5 to 15 GB per DAY! I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
I don't believe that you actually change 5GBs per day (except for local cache files that don't need to be backed up).
Remember that many files are in common with a number of users like the iBooks app stored in iTunes on the Mac and Apple provided those files in the first place (so wouldn't have to actually transfer any bits to the cloud for you since they already have a copy in the cloud).
I doubt I change more than a few megabytes a day. Remember that only the changed bytes in the file would need to be uploaded, not the whole file.
Oh, BTW, I'm growing weary of the ridiculous levels of hype Apple is throwing out there. Magical and revolutionary.