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.
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.
If the music was purchased from iTunes, there would be no need to upload those files since Apple already has a copy. Photos and Videos would need to be uploaded (once, unless changed), but I think Apple wants all MobileMe users to be uploading/sharing these files through the cloud any way.
I can see some high data creators not being able to use the cloud, but 99% of the rest of us only have modest needs. Apple could charge a higher monthly fee for high bandwidth users.
Anyway, it just makes sense to me that Apple would want to manage all data for its users in a cloud (e.g., as an enhancement to MobileMe). The benefits of being able to access your data from any cloud connected computer is just very compelling and keeps it all in one secure place.
In my naivete (since I know very little about such stuff), I could fantasize about a Mac OS XI system where (if this makes sense) where a hypervisor would run in ring ?)? adjacent to the K64 (XNU) kernel. The C++ expertise could be for many things, maybe even the API I/O Kit.
The Bill and Ballmer Show would be relieved to know that any Windows app could then be run seamlessly on the new Apple system.
If the music was purchased from iTunes, there would be no need to upload those files since Apple already has a copy. Photos and Videos would need to be uploaded (once, unless changed), but I think Apple wants all MobileMe users to be uploading/sharing these files through the cloud any way.
I'll concede that about half of the data i add each day comes from iTunes, and it would be great to have that available any time, any where from the cloud.
But the rest of my stuff is mostly photos and videos (I'm not a pro, just like to take pictures and videos). A good number of the videos are tv shows from "sources other than iTunes".
I wouldn't have enough time to upload it all to the mobile me gallery.
Chrome saves all data content to the web though - I don't think users will like that idea. If the philosophy they have can be embedded into a standard OS with local data and backups then it should work quite well.
You wouldn't have to run the whole OS remotely and get data back via streaming, you'd just get an app from a URL that compiles on-the-fly to your hardware architecture. Google are working on the Go language to try and get C++ execution speed without the long compile times:
"carriage-return compile times" - or similarly, visit a URL compile times. Basically like Python/Ruby/PHP/Javascript etc but with a much faster runtime. x86 and ARM support. 10-20% slower than C is what they say although a number of benchmarks show it to be much lower due to inefficient libraries used with it.
The App Store with all its 225,000 apps show that developers want to create small specialized apps to do specific things with fast turnaround times, not monolithic apps like desktop apps that take ages to build, support and get right.
With small app components, you can build your own workflows with the best tools for each job. Get a good text editor for code, get an FTP component for syncing, get a lightweight image editor for slicing images, get a browser for testing. Compare it to monolithic Dreamweaver and you get some good bits and some bad bits but you have to live with the bad bits and see improvements very rarely.
The software world needs a new language - Objective-C isn't it because it still has slow compile times. Languages like Python and Javascript are just too slow to run.
Imagine if there was a Final Cut program written in Go. You visit a URL, http://www.apple.com/Final_Cut. It asks for your account details. It then downloads encrypted source code into the OS for compilation (even massive amounts of code you'd see in major apps like millions of lines of code will fit into a download under 50MB - it's just the media files that use up a lot). It would load icons and NIB files but just the essentials. The encrypted part is so that someone doesn't just steal the source code.
Then Final Cut just runs and you use it like an app with local content. If you need an update, you can visit the URL to get a new copy of the code. Obviously this can't pave the way to truly cross-platform apps as OS developers like Apple will build core libraries that are proprietary but the bulk of apps can work. As Jobs said in the last press-conf, they see that Google are doing good things and they don't like them being attacked by the media.
This concept completely shakes up the way developers write apps and users use them and buy them and I think it's something that needs to be done. Let the monolithic app developers have their vendor lock-in now and enjoy it but when people get the chance to publish code from a URL and have it execute securely, things will start to change dramatically.
High expectations never really work out with Apple though so a more realistic guess would be just a system-wide web notification system that gives a blocking dialog for every update. The sad thing these days is they've overused the hyperboles so they don't really mean anything any more. I don't want to hear about innovation or revolution, I just want to see it and use it. They over-hype one product using these slogans, under-deliver and then go off promoting again.
A new corporate job listing from Apple boasts of a "revolutionary" new feature for the foundations of Mac OS X that will "truly amaze everyone."
The new job listing posted this week makes numerous references to a specific, singular feature said to be a part of the Mac OS X operating system. Of course, it declines to reveal what that feature could be, but the ad does use the word "revolutionary" on three separate occasions.
"Are you looking to help create something new? Something that has never been done before and will truly amaze everyone?" the job listing reads. "Are you excited by the prospect that what you helped create would be used every day by millions of Apple customers? Then come and work with us on the Mac OS X software engineering team to help build a new and revolutionary feature for Mac OS X."
The listing seeks a software engineer that has experience with developing Internet technologies and services, and also says that an 'exceptional candidate" would have experience with HTTP protocol and the architecture of large Web scale systems.
The posting could be interpreted to mean that Apple is beefing up personnel as it works hard on the next iteration of its desktop operating system platform, Mac OS X 10.7. So far, Apple has made no mention of its next-generation operating system.
Some were hopeful that Apple could show of Mac OS X 10.7 at this summer's Worldwide Developers Conference, even if just in the form of a limited demo. Instead, that event was all about the iPhone 4.
To create the secret new feature, Apple seeks to hire a senior software engineer to help craft the software which will be a part of the "very foundations" of Mac OS X.
"We have something truly revolutionary and really exciting in progress, and it is going to require your most creative and focused efforts ever," the listing days. The company wants to hire someone who has a drive to tackle "really hard" challenges that "have never been done before."
An ideal candidate for the job has a degree in computer science and five years of professional experience in developing C/C++/Objective-C libraries or frameworks for use on end user systems. Applicants with experiencing developing for Mac OS X and UNIX are desired.
Evidence of work on Mac OS X 10.7 came late last year, just a few months after the most recent version, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, shipped. AT the time, a new database entry for the open source "launchd" framework responsible for Mac OS X referenced "11A47." The numerical prefix of a Mac OS X build determines the version number, and 11A47 would imply an early version of Mac OS X 10.7.
For those who mentioned it... the idea of a fully touchscreen version of OS X seems kind of dumb to me. Call me old fashioned, but the idea of reaching out with my arm all day and touching a screen doesn't seem efficient to me...
You could always employ a little imagination and envisage a monitor that laid flat on your desk. Like every book and piece of paper you used at high school. It's a good job some people are able to think outside the box, or there would never be any progress...
I'll concede that about half of the data i add each day comes from iTunes, and it would be great to have that available any time, any where from the cloud.
But the rest of my stuff is mostly photos and videos (I'm not a pro, just like to take pictures and videos). A good number of the videos are tv shows from "sources other than iTunes".
I wouldn't have enough time to upload it all to the mobile me gallery.
try using dropbox sometime, there is no conscious upload, your shared folder contents automatically sync - and it's seamless and very fast. This would be nothing new.
Maybe they're going to put back in the option of defining custom label colors in the FInder. Revolutionary.
I almost misunderstood you. Custom label colors? Really You can change the names to whatever you want but because you can't pick the color you are going to complain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Imagine if there was a Final Cut program written in Go. You visit a URL, http://www.apple.com/Final_Cut. It asks for your account details. It then downloads encrypted source code into the OS for compilation (even massive amounts of code you'd see in major apps like millions of lines of code will fit into a download under 50MB - it's just the media files that use up a lot). It would load icons and NIB files but just the essentials. The encrypted part is so that someone doesn't just steal the source code.
Then Final Cut just runs and you use it like an app with local content.
I am imagining it and it sounds awful. Not only do I have to wait for FCP to load but now I have to wait for it to download first? and I have to have the internet wherever I go? what if I'm in the field? what a waste. Also I want to say to anyone that wants to back up to the cloud to stop and think about most of us who work with large data sets of audio, video and photo and I'm sure a slew of other applications. The cloud might work for itunes, but it won't work for allot of personal/ professional data. Personally I modify allot more than 50MB's/ day. Maybe once we all get 100MB fiber optic, but then what about bandwidth caps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjbDtc826
Sorry if others have said some of these:
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
Comments
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.
Great. That's gonna make web development hard.
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.
If the music was purchased from iTunes, there would be no need to upload those files since Apple already has a copy. Photos and Videos would need to be uploaded (once, unless changed), but I think Apple wants all MobileMe users to be uploading/sharing these files through the cloud any way.
I can see some high data creators not being able to use the cloud, but 99% of the rest of us only have modest needs. Apple could charge a higher monthly fee for high bandwidth users.
Anyway, it just makes sense to me that Apple would want to manage all data for its users in a cloud (e.g., as an enhancement to MobileMe). The benefits of being able to access your data from any cloud connected computer is just very compelling and keeps it all in one secure place.
The Bill and Ballmer Show would be relieved to know that any Windows app could then be run seamlessly on the new Apple system.
Bye bye MonkeyBoy!.
If the music was purchased from iTunes, there would be no need to upload those files since Apple already has a copy. Photos and Videos would need to be uploaded (once, unless changed), but I think Apple wants all MobileMe users to be uploading/sharing these files through the cloud any way.
I'll concede that about half of the data i add each day comes from iTunes, and it would be great to have that available any time, any where from the cloud.
But the rest of my stuff is mostly photos and videos (I'm not a pro, just like to take pictures and videos). A good number of the videos are tv shows from "sources other than iTunes".
I wouldn't have enough time to upload it all to the mobile me gallery.
I'm pretty sure that feature is about running Mac OSX remotely.
How do you merge all these into one congruent user experience?
Mac OSX 10.7 - Lion. Hear it roar!
Surely the often mentioned Clouded Leopard would be a more appropriate name if the focus was on cloud computing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouded_Leopard
To me, the listing sounded more like what Google aims to do with Chrome OS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMrzw7JFzA
Chrome saves all data content to the web though - I don't think users will like that idea. If the philosophy they have can be embedded into a standard OS with local data and backups then it should work quite well.
You wouldn't have to run the whole OS remotely and get data back via streaming, you'd just get an app from a URL that compiles on-the-fly to your hardware architecture. Google are working on the Go language to try and get C++ execution speed without the long compile times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s
"carriage-return compile times" - or similarly, visit a URL compile times. Basically like Python/Ruby/PHP/Javascript etc but with a much faster runtime. x86 and ARM support. 10-20% slower than C is what they say although a number of benchmarks show it to be much lower due to inefficient libraries used with it.
The App Store with all its 225,000 apps show that developers want to create small specialized apps to do specific things with fast turnaround times, not monolithic apps like desktop apps that take ages to build, support and get right.
With small app components, you can build your own workflows with the best tools for each job. Get a good text editor for code, get an FTP component for syncing, get a lightweight image editor for slicing images, get a browser for testing. Compare it to monolithic Dreamweaver and you get some good bits and some bad bits but you have to live with the bad bits and see improvements very rarely.
The software world needs a new language - Objective-C isn't it because it still has slow compile times. Languages like Python and Javascript are just too slow to run.
Imagine if there was a Final Cut program written in Go. You visit a URL, http://www.apple.com/Final_Cut. It asks for your account details. It then downloads encrypted source code into the OS for compilation (even massive amounts of code you'd see in major apps like millions of lines of code will fit into a download under 50MB - it's just the media files that use up a lot). It would load icons and NIB files but just the essentials. The encrypted part is so that someone doesn't just steal the source code.
Then Final Cut just runs and you use it like an app with local content. If you need an update, you can visit the URL to get a new copy of the code. Obviously this can't pave the way to truly cross-platform apps as OS developers like Apple will build core libraries that are proprietary but the bulk of apps can work. As Jobs said in the last press-conf, they see that Google are doing good things and they don't like them being attacked by the media.
This concept completely shakes up the way developers write apps and users use them and buy them and I think it's something that needs to be done. Let the monolithic app developers have their vendor lock-in now and enjoy it but when people get the chance to publish code from a URL and have it execute securely, things will start to change dramatically.
High expectations never really work out with Apple though so a more realistic guess would be just a system-wide web notification system that gives a blocking dialog for every update. The sad thing these days is they've overused the hyperboles so they don't really mean anything any more. I don't want to hear about innovation or revolution, I just want to see it and use it. They over-hype one product using these slogans, under-deliver and then go off promoting again.
A new corporate job listing from Apple boasts of a "revolutionary" new feature for the foundations of Mac OS X that will "truly amaze everyone."
The new job listing posted this week makes numerous references to a specific, singular feature said to be a part of the Mac OS X operating system. Of course, it declines to reveal what that feature could be, but the ad does use the word "revolutionary" on three separate occasions.
"Are you looking to help create something new? Something that has never been done before and will truly amaze everyone?" the job listing reads. "Are you excited by the prospect that what you helped create would be used every day by millions of Apple customers? Then come and work with us on the Mac OS X software engineering team to help build a new and revolutionary feature for Mac OS X."
The listing seeks a software engineer that has experience with developing Internet technologies and services, and also says that an 'exceptional candidate" would have experience with HTTP protocol and the architecture of large Web scale systems.
The posting could be interpreted to mean that Apple is beefing up personnel as it works hard on the next iteration of its desktop operating system platform, Mac OS X 10.7. So far, Apple has made no mention of its next-generation operating system.
Some were hopeful that Apple could show of Mac OS X 10.7 at this summer's Worldwide Developers Conference, even if just in the form of a limited demo. Instead, that event was all about the iPhone 4.
To create the secret new feature, Apple seeks to hire a senior software engineer to help craft the software which will be a part of the "very foundations" of Mac OS X.
"We have something truly revolutionary and really exciting in progress, and it is going to require your most creative and focused efforts ever," the listing days. The company wants to hire someone who has a drive to tackle "really hard" challenges that "have never been done before."
An ideal candidate for the job has a degree in computer science and five years of professional experience in developing C/C++/Objective-C libraries or frameworks for use on end user systems. Applicants with experiencing developing for Mac OS X and UNIX are desired.
Evidence of work on Mac OS X 10.7 came late last year, just a few months after the most recent version, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, shipped. AT the time, a new database entry for the open source "launchd" framework responsible for Mac OS X referenced "11A47." The numerical prefix of a Mac OS X build determines the version number, and 11A47 would imply an early version of Mac OS X 10.7.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
So what we've learned from this is....
1. Apple is working on Mac OS X 10.7! I'm shocked!
2. It will have a new feature, and they will call that feature "revolutionary"! How unlike Apple!
3. They're hiring people... just like they almost always are.
Magical... just magical.
For those who mentioned it... the idea of a fully touchscreen version of OS X seems kind of dumb to me. Call me old fashioned, but the idea of reaching out with my arm all day and touching a screen doesn't seem efficient to me...
You could always employ a little imagination and envisage a monitor that laid flat on your desk. Like every book and piece of paper you used at high school. It's a good job some people are able to think outside the box, or there would never be any progress...
I'll concede that about half of the data i add each day comes from iTunes, and it would be great to have that available any time, any where from the cloud.
But the rest of my stuff is mostly photos and videos (I'm not a pro, just like to take pictures and videos). A good number of the videos are tv shows from "sources other than iTunes".
I wouldn't have enough time to upload it all to the mobile me gallery.
try using dropbox sometime, there is no conscious upload, your shared folder contents automatically sync - and it's seamless and very fast. This would be nothing new.
I can't wait to see what it is.
Looking fwd to the new MBA...bout to sell my 3Gs for $200 and order the iPhone 4! My sister ordered the Magic Track Pad for my B-day!
Today...I'm very happy! Thanks Stevo!
Plastics.
There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Shh! 'nuff said, that's a deal.
Maybe they're going to put back in the option of defining custom label colors in the FInder. Revolutionary.
I almost misunderstood you. Custom label colors? Really You can change the names to whatever you want but because you can't pick the color you are going to complain?
Imagine if there was a Final Cut program written in Go. You visit a URL, http://www.apple.com/Final_Cut. It asks for your account details. It then downloads encrypted source code into the OS for compilation (even massive amounts of code you'd see in major apps like millions of lines of code will fit into a download under 50MB - it's just the media files that use up a lot). It would load icons and NIB files but just the essentials. The encrypted part is so that someone doesn't just steal the source code.
Then Final Cut just runs and you use it like an app with local content.
I am imagining it and it sounds awful. Not only do I have to wait for FCP to load but now I have to wait for it to download first? and I have to have the internet wherever I go? what if I'm in the field? what a waste. Also I want to say to anyone that wants to back up to the cloud to stop and think about most of us who work with large data sets of audio, video and photo and I'm sure a slew of other applications. The cloud might work for itunes, but it won't work for allot of personal/ professional data. Personally I modify allot more than 50MB's/ day. Maybe once we all get 100MB fiber optic, but then what about bandwidth caps?
Sorry if others have said some of these:
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
This is why you created an account? Idiot.
There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?
Shh! 'nuff said, that's a deal.
You guys are showing your age.
New antenna that shorts out when you touch it? lol
Douche
You guys are showing your age.
I'm 27.
I'm 27.
My mistake....and very good!