Stop panicking about Apple's rumored switch from Intel to its own chips in the Mac

178101213

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 246
    melgross said:

    That move wouldn’t happen if Apple does what I’m suggesting. In and of itself, simply by according the performance and high Rez screen, the iPad would make a fine developmental platform. If the chip could run x86, then there would be nothing g to complain about other than what people like to complain about for every other machine they use. Add better cursor support as I’ve already suggested, and you would not have anything left to complain about.
    I completely agree that if x86 compatibility is maintained then this is absolutely a non-issue. 

    Touching on your other point, I don't think that the iPad is a wonderful device for larger scale app development. When I'm on the road, I sometimes do some dev work on my 12" rMB and the screen size is small enough that it impedes my work some. I *can* do that kind of work, but it's not ideal. That's kind of outside of the scope of the larger discussion, but I'm curious to know if you think that the small screen could be adapted to for that kind of work.  

    Edit: I see you addressed that in another post. That's what I get for replying before reading the whole thread :) 

    edited April 2018
  • Reply 182 of 246
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,485member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    That would be like uniting watchOS, tvOS, and iOS simply because they're all AArch64. Hell, even iOS for the iPhone and iPad are distinct UIs with different downloads despite  the I/O being almost identical. I don't see any future where iOS and macOS will be "united" into a single crappy OS. They will, however, continue to share code, which they've been doing since iOS was created despite the discrete architectures in play.
    Thank you Soli. 
    Aaand...I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would result in a “crappy” OS.
    You honestly don't think unifying watchOS, tvOS, iOS for iPhone, iOS for iPad, podOS, macOS and every other OS X-based OS into a single, unfed download would not make for a crappy OS? What reason for the Apple Watch need to be weighted down with any code it doesn't need.

    I don't see that ever happening. We don't even have iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad being unfied OS and those use nearly the same HW and code base. All of these OS X-based OSes will continue to share code as it suits each product but they will never be unified.
    Having all the same code isn’t what I’m saying. It’s just the opposite of what I’m saying. Right now, all of Apple’s OSs are based on the same Unix. Apple, as we know, strips out everything that isn’t needed for a particular device family. That eliminates a huge chunk of code, while allowing the base to remain the same. The biggest differences are the UI requirements, and the external interfaces. No massive printer or monitor databases inside an iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch. That’s hundreds of megabytes right there, even a gigabyte. 

    But the base code is the same, or similar enough. As far as I know, because I haven’t done this for some time, the main differentiation remains the UI differences. Resolve that, and you’re pretty much there. For the iPad, that would just require either a mouse interface, or the on screen trackpad I discussed earlier. Mostly, that would do it.

    but you’re assuming, I’m assuming (;~)) that this would all be a mess everywhere. It wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting a tiny keyboard on the Apple Watch.

    and I specifically stated that it would NOT be a unified download. Right now, Apple downloads what it needs for a specific device. Apple knows exactly what you’ve got in hardware, and which version of the OS you’re running. So if you buy an app for your iPhone, very often, if a developer has an iPad version, you get that one on your iPad. There is no unified code of both in one being imported to both devices. We know how this works, because Apple spelled it out a good two years ago. Apple has the capability to look at what you’ve got, and send only that code to you. Since they can do that already, I see no reason why that couldn’t also be done for a unified OS.

    and certainly, when it comes to Apple, don’t say never. Apple does change its mind. Remember what Jobs said that nobody wanted to watch video on a small iPod or phone, and then just a few months later, Apple was doing it? Also, he said that OS X was their next OS for “15 years”. Well, it’s past 15 years now. We don’t know what they’re doing other than not sitting on their hands. He also said, right before he came back to Apple, when asked, in an interview, what he would do with Apple if he was running it again, and he responded - “I’d milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I’d go on the the next big thing.” That’s not the exact words, I don’t think, but you get the gist.
  • Reply 183 of 246
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,690member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    That would be like uniting watchOS, tvOS, and iOS simply because they're all AArch64. Hell, even iOS for the iPhone and iPad are distinct UIs with different downloads despite  the I/O being almost identical. I don't see any future where iOS and macOS will be "united" into a single crappy OS. They will, however, continue to share code, which they've been doing since iOS was created despite the discrete architectures in play.
    Thank you Soli. 
    Aaand...I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would result in a “crappy” OS.
    You honestly don't think unifying watchOS, tvOS, iOS for iPhone, iOS for iPad, podOS, macOS and every other OS X-based OS into a single, unfed download would not make for a crappy OS? What reason for the Apple Watch need to be weighted down with any code it doesn't need.

    I don't see that ever happening. We don't even have iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad being unfied OS and those use nearly the same HW and code base. All of these OS X-based OSes will continue to share code as it suits each product but they will never be unified.
    Having all the same code isn’t what I’m saying. It’s just the opposite of what I’m saying. Right now, all of Apple’s OSs are based on the same Unix. Apple, as we know, strips out everything that isn’t needed for a particular device family. That eliminates a huge chunk of code, while allowing the base to remain the same. The biggest differences are the UI requirements, and the external interfaces. No massive printer or monitor databases inside an iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch. That’s hundreds of megabytes right there, even a gigabyte. 

    But the base code is the same, or similar enough. As far as I know, because I haven’t done this for some time, the main differentiation remains the UI differences. Resolve that, and you’re pretty much there. For the iPad, that would just require either a mouse interface, or the on screen trackpad I discussed earlier. Mostly, that would do it.

    but you’re assuming, I’m assuming (;~)) that this would all be a mess everywhere. It wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting a tiny keyboard on the Apple Watch.

    and I specifically stated that it would NOT be a unified download. Right now, Apple downloads what it needs for a specific device. Apple knows exactly what you’ve got in hardware, and which version of the OS you’re running. So if you buy an app for your iPhone, very often, if a developer has an iPad version, you get that one on your iPad. There is no unified code of both in one being imported to both devices. We know how this works, because Apple spelled it out a good two years ago. Apple has the capability to look at what you’ve got, and send only that code to you. Since they can do that already, I see no reason why that couldn’t also be done for a unified OS.

    and certainly, when it comes to Apple, don’t say never. Apple does change its mind. Remember what Jobs said that nobody wanted to watch video on a small iPod or phone, and then just a few months later, Apple was doing it? Also, he said that OS X was their next OS for “15 years”. Well, it’s past 15 years now. We don’t know what they’re doing other than not sitting on their hands. He also said, right before he came back to Apple, when asked, in an interview, what he would do with Apple if he was running it again, and he responded - “I’d milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I’d go on the the next big thing.” That’s not the exact words, I don’t think, but you get the gist.
    That's not a unified OS. That's some basic sharing of code. If you want to talk about Darwin, then, yeah, that OS is pretty unified between all the Apple devices under  the OS X umbrella.
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 184 of 246
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,485member
    melgross said:

    That move wouldn’t happen if Apple does what I’m suggesting. In and of itself, simply by according the performance and high Rez screen, the iPad would make a fine developmental platform. If the chip could run x86, then there would be nothing g to complain about other than what people like to complain about for every other machine they use. Add better cursor support as I’ve already suggested, and you would not have anything left to complain about.
    I completely agree that if x86 compatibility is maintained then this is absolutely a non-issue. 

    Touching on your other point, I don't think that the iPad is a wonderful device for larger scale app development. When I'm on the road, I sometimes do some dev work on my 12" rMB and the screen size is small enough that it impedes my work some. I *can* do that kind of work, but it's not ideal. That's kind of outside of the scope of the larger discussion, but I'm curious to know if you think that the small screen could be adapted to for that kind of work.  

    Edit: I see you addressed that in another post. That's what I get for replying before reading the whole thread :) 

    I didn’t say it was. But how much work is large scale? I’d bet just a small percentage. The point would be that there are a lot of developers out there for whom this would work much of the time. Even in a large project, where it’s broken up into small parts, those smaller parts could be done on an ipad. My iPad Pro has a 12.9” screen with 2700 x 2000 Rez. That higher than most any laptop no matter the size of the screen. And higher resolution than most 24” monitors at home. I’m typing on mine now, and that’s one heck of a lot of text on the screen at once.

    i may seem pedantic, but I’m pretty much excited about the prospects.
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 185 of 246
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,485member

    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    That would be like uniting watchOS, tvOS, and iOS simply because they're all AArch64. Hell, even iOS for the iPhone and iPad are distinct UIs with different downloads despite  the I/O being almost identical. I don't see any future where iOS and macOS will be "united" into a single crappy OS. They will, however, continue to share code, which they've been doing since iOS was created despite the discrete architectures in play.
    Thank you Soli. 
    Aaand...I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would result in a “crappy” OS.
    You honestly don't think unifying watchOS, tvOS, iOS for iPhone, iOS for iPad, podOS, macOS and every other OS X-based OS into a single, unfed download would not make for a crappy OS? What reason for the Apple Watch need to be weighted down with any code it doesn't need.

    I don't see that ever happening. We don't even have iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad being unfied OS and those use nearly the same HW and code base. All of these OS X-based OSes will continue to share code as it suits each product but they will never be unified.
    Having all the same code isn’t what I’m saying. It’s just the opposite of what I’m saying. Right now, all of Apple’s OSs are based on the same Unix. Apple, as we know, strips out everything that isn’t needed for a particular device family. That eliminates a huge chunk of code, while allowing the base to remain the same. The biggest differences are the UI requirements, and the external interfaces. No massive printer or monitor databases inside an iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch. That’s hundreds of megabytes right there, even a gigabyte. 

    But the base code is the same, or similar enough. As far as I know, because I haven’t done this for some time, the main differentiation remains the UI differences. Resolve that, and you’re pretty much there. For the iPad, that would just require either a mouse interface, or the on screen trackpad I discussed earlier. Mostly, that would do it.

    but you’re assuming, I’m assuming (;~)) that this would all be a mess everywhere. It wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting a tiny keyboard on the Apple Watch.

    and I specifically stated that it would NOT be a unified download. Right now, Apple downloads what it needs for a specific device. Apple knows exactly what you’ve got in hardware, and which version of the OS you’re running. So if you buy an app for your iPhone, very often, if a developer has an iPad version, you get that one on your iPad. There is no unified code of both in one being imported to both devices. We know how this works, because Apple spelled it out a good two years ago. Apple has the capability to look at what you’ve got, and send only that code to you. Since they can do that already, I see no reason why that couldn’t also be done for a unified OS.

    and certainly, when it comes to Apple, don’t say never. Apple does change its mind. Remember what Jobs said that nobody wanted to watch video on a small iPod or phone, and then just a few months later, Apple was doing it? Also, he said that OS X was their next OS for “15 years”. Well, it’s past 15 years now. We don’t know what they’re doing other than not sitting on their hands. He also said, right before he came back to Apple, when asked, in an interview, what he would do with Apple if he was running it again, and he responded - “I’d milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I’d go on the the next big thing.” That’s not the exact words, I don’t think, but you get the gist.
    That's not a unified OS. That's some basic sharing of code. If you want to talk about Darwin, then, yeah, that OS is pretty unified between all the Apple devices under  the OS X umbrella.
    Yes it is. If your concept that even the watch should run a full sized Photoshop for it to be a unified OS, then I think that you should think it out some more. Even for the Mac, there are some apps that simply won’t run on a Macbook that will run on higher end machines.
  • Reply 186 of 246
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,690member
    melgross said:

    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    That would be like uniting watchOS, tvOS, and iOS simply because they're all AArch64. Hell, even iOS for the iPhone and iPad are distinct UIs with different downloads despite  the I/O being almost identical. I don't see any future where iOS and macOS will be "united" into a single crappy OS. They will, however, continue to share code, which they've been doing since iOS was created despite the discrete architectures in play.
    Thank you Soli. 
    Aaand...I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would result in a “crappy” OS.
    You honestly don't think unifying watchOS, tvOS, iOS for iPhone, iOS for iPad, podOS, macOS and every other OS X-based OS into a single, unfed download would not make for a crappy OS? What reason for the Apple Watch need to be weighted down with any code it doesn't need.

    I don't see that ever happening. We don't even have iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad being unfied OS and those use nearly the same HW and code base. All of these OS X-based OSes will continue to share code as it suits each product but they will never be unified.
    Having all the same code isn’t what I’m saying. It’s just the opposite of what I’m saying. Right now, all of Apple’s OSs are based on the same Unix. Apple, as we know, strips out everything that isn’t needed for a particular device family. That eliminates a huge chunk of code, while allowing the base to remain the same. The biggest differences are the UI requirements, and the external interfaces. No massive printer or monitor databases inside an iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch. That’s hundreds of megabytes right there, even a gigabyte. 

    But the base code is the same, or similar enough. As far as I know, because I haven’t done this for some time, the main differentiation remains the UI differences. Resolve that, and you’re pretty much there. For the iPad, that would just require either a mouse interface, or the on screen trackpad I discussed earlier. Mostly, that would do it.

    but you’re assuming, I’m assuming (;~)) that this would all be a mess everywhere. It wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting a tiny keyboard on the Apple Watch.

    and I specifically stated that it would NOT be a unified download. Right now, Apple downloads what it needs for a specific device. Apple knows exactly what you’ve got in hardware, and which version of the OS you’re running. So if you buy an app for your iPhone, very often, if a developer has an iPad version, you get that one on your iPad. There is no unified code of both in one being imported to both devices. We know how this works, because Apple spelled it out a good two years ago. Apple has the capability to look at what you’ve got, and send only that code to you. Since they can do that already, I see no reason why that couldn’t also be done for a unified OS.

    and certainly, when it comes to Apple, don’t say never. Apple does change its mind. Remember what Jobs said that nobody wanted to watch video on a small iPod or phone, and then just a few months later, Apple was doing it? Also, he said that OS X was their next OS for “15 years”. Well, it’s past 15 years now. We don’t know what they’re doing other than not sitting on their hands. He also said, right before he came back to Apple, when asked, in an interview, what he would do with Apple if he was running it again, and he responded - “I’d milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I’d go on the the next big thing.” That’s not the exact words, I don’t think, but you get the gist.
    That's not a unified OS. That's some basic sharing of code. If you want to talk about Darwin, then, yeah, that OS is pretty unified between all the Apple devices under  the OS X umbrella.
    Yes it is. If your concept that even the watch should run a full sized Photoshop for it to be a unified OS, then I think that you should think it out some more. Even for the Mac, there are some apps that simply won’t run on a Macbook that will run on higher end machines.
    I made no mention of apps. I'm strictly speaking about the OS. There's no reason I should be able to download a massive "Apple OS" and have it install on everything Apple makes and have it include only the frameworks, drivers, and UIs for that particular device. That's insane! If they haven't done it for watchOS, tvOS, and iOS then there's absolutely no reason for you to think that they'd do it for macOS simply because it now offers AArch64 support in a fat binary.
  • Reply 187 of 246
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,505member
    melgross said:

    for those who want an easy to manipulate cursor, I have an idea for that too. Apple leave plenty of room above the keys. They can add a key there. Press and hold, and a large trackpad opens over the keyboard. Use that trackpad the same way you use it on a Mac. You can release it by taking your finger off that key, or have the key work with a press, and release with a press.

    Actually, I was thinking about having a Display Cursor Option when a kb case is attached -- the kb could include a trackpad...

    It appears that Apple is investigating a separate hybrid touch kb:


    Apple Invention covers a Hybrid Touch Sensitive Keyboard

     

    In February Patently Apple posted a report titled "Apple Granted a Patent for a Dual Display MacBook or Second Generation iPad Pro." Last month we posted another report on this subject matter titled "Apple Invents Keyless Keyboards for Macs and iPad Pro with Morphing Interface Options for Gaming, Music & more." Apple has been working on a touch-based keyboard for some time, in fact back to 2006. Apple's latest MacBook Pro introduced the new touch sensitive "Touch Bar" replacing the traditional F-Key bar. This could be a test before extending multi-touch functionality to a full keyboard as Apple's past granted patents suggest. Today's invention relates to a possible next-gen hybrid keyboard for a future iMac or MacBook that relates to a full touch sensitive mechanical keyboard that can accept touch events performed on the surface of the keys. 

    *

    *

    *

    Apple's invention regarding a new kind of keyboard covers touch sensitive mechanical keyboards and methods of configuring the depressibility of one or more keys of a keyboard. 

     A touch sensitive mechanical keyboard can accept touch events performed on the surface of the keys. 

    Additionally, the keyboard can accept key depressions as textual input. The keyboard can be placed in a gesture operation mode, which can lock the keys to prevent a user from inadvertently depressing a key while attempting to perform a touch event on the surface of the keys. 

    The keyboard can also be placed in a key press mode, which can allow depression of the keys by a user. 

    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/04/apple-invention-covers-a-hybrid-touch-sensitive-keyboard.html


    Then, as a fall-back, there's always this little beauty!





    edited April 2018
  • Reply 188 of 246
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,505member
    melgross said:

    melgross said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    In theory, but not soon, I don't think. 
    Yup. My thoughts have always been that they would, even though Apple has denied it. With their new project, allowing iOS software to run in macOS, using a mouse, I believe we can see the beginning of the end of the total differentiation between the two.

    as I’ve mused here a number of times whenever this topic is discussed, I believe that at some point Apple will have the “UOS” - I.e., the Universal Operating System. That would entail Apple calibrating what an app is when it’s downloaded to a particular device. So for the Apple Watch, we would get a version that would use what that UI and SoC is capable of. Ditto for the iPhone’s and iPads. The same thing or Macs. All would be file compatible. Essentially, the app would be the same inside, just allowing the capabilities of the hardware.

    with Unix being what all of Apple’s OSs are tied together with, this should be easier than it has been for Microsoft. If Apple could work this out so that the capabilities they already have, which is to look at your hardware and download just what is needed there, then this isn’t such a great leap. It would be painless for users, and not too bad for developers.

    @melgross I wanted digest your post before responding...

    I believe that you are absolutely correct that Apple will have a UOS!  It's obvious in the way the various OSes are organized under Craig Federighi and WWDC keynote presos that are made by him.

    There are so many benefits to this for Apple internally and external 3rd-party developers.

    Who's to say what IOT solutions Apple has under development -- which may utilize AI, ML, etc. -- with different (or no) UIs... wearable clothing, for example...

    The key to this is communication among devices running apps built with
    I think some people dismiss this. But it would simplify things from a user standpoint. Developers might prefer it, unless they’re making money from each of those separate versions, and think that this would cut into that. But it would also allow them to come out with software that’s cheaper than the original Mac version, yet more expensive than the iOS version. That’s because they would sell far more copies with iOS being part of the same OS. The greater sophistication of the software would allow that higher price. It would take too much to explain exactly what I’m thinking on this ina post.
    Great point!  

    Developers would be defraying their R&D costs over a larger number of product[s] sales a lower prices. That's exactly what Apple does does with its A-Series chips.

    And...

    And... 

    And...

    As the capability of the next version of the underlying devices grows -- the sophistication of the apps running on those devices grows -- a no-brainer $upgrade for customers using those apps!

    Boom!
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 189 of 246
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,505member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    That would be like uniting watchOS, tvOS, and iOS simply because they're all AArch64. Hell, even iOS for the iPhone and iPad are distinct UIs with different downloads despite  the I/O being almost identical. I don't see any future where iOS and macOS will be "united" into a single crappy OS. They will, however, continue to share code, which they've been doing since iOS was created despite the discrete architectures in play.
    Thank you Soli. 
    Aaand...I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would result in a “crappy” OS.
    You honestly don't think unifying watchOS, tvOS, iOS for iPhone, iOS for iPad, podOS, macOS and every other OS X-based OS into a single, unfed download would not make for a crappy OS? What reason for the Apple Watch need to be weighted down with any code it doesn't need.

    I don't see that ever happening. We don't even have iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad being unfied OS and those use nearly the same HW and code base. All of these OS X-based OSes will continue to share code as it suits each product but they will never be unified.
    Having all the same code isn’t what I’m saying. It’s just the opposite of what I’m saying. Right now, all of Apple’s OSs are based on the same Unix. Apple, as we know, strips out everything that isn’t needed for a particular device family. That eliminates a huge chunk of code, while allowing the base to remain the same. The biggest differences are the UI requirements, and the external interfaces. No massive printer or monitor databases inside an iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch. That’s hundreds of megabytes right there, even a gigabyte. 

    But the base code is the same, or similar enough. As far as I know, because I haven’t done this for some time, the main differentiation remains the UI differences. Resolve that, and you’re pretty much there. For the iPad, that would just require either a mouse interface, or the on screen trackpad I discussed earlier. Mostly, that would do it.

    but you’re assuming, I’m assuming (;~)) that this would all be a mess everywhere. It wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting a tiny keyboard on the Apple Watch.

    and I specifically stated that it would NOT be a unified download. Right now, Apple downloads what it needs for a specific device. Apple knows exactly what you’ve got in hardware, and which version of the OS you’re running. So if you buy an app for your iPhone, very often, if a developer has an iPad version, you get that one on your iPad. There is no unified code of both in one being imported to both devices. We know how this works, because Apple spelled it out a good two years ago. Apple has the capability to look at what you’ve got, and send only that code to you. Since they can do that already, I see no reason why that couldn’t also be done for a unified OS.

    and certainly, when it comes to Apple, don’t say never. Apple does change its mind. Remember what Jobs said that nobody wanted to watch video on a small iPod or phone, and then just a few months later, Apple was doing it? Also, he said that OS X was their next OS for “15 years”. Well, it’s past 15 years now. We don’t know what they’re doing other than not sitting on their hands. He also said, right before he came back to Apple, when asked, in an interview, what he would do with Apple if he was running it again, and he responded - “I’d milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I’d go on the the next big thing.” That’s not the exact words, I don’t think, but you get the gist.
    That's not a unified OS. That's some basic sharing of code. If you want to talk about Darwin, then, yeah, that OS is pretty unified between all the Apple devices under  the OS X umbrella.
    Yes it is. If your concept that even the watch should run a full sized Photoshop for it to be a unified OS, then I think that you should think it out some more. Even for the Mac, there are some apps that simply won’t run on a Macbook that will run on higher end machines.
    I made no mention of apps. I'm strictly speaking about the OS. There's no reason I should be able to download a massive "Apple OS" and have it install on everything Apple makes and have it include only the frameworks, drivers, and UIs for that particular device. That's insane! If they haven't done it for watchOS, tvOS, and iOS then there's absolutely no reason for you to think that they'd do it for macOS simply because it now offers AArch64 support in a fat binary.
    I don't think you are reading @melgross' comments correctly.  As I understand it, he means that:

    1. Apple will package its diverse OSes (UIs,frameworks, etc.) into a single Package
    2. Instead having a mostly duplicate custom UIs,frameworks, etc. for each OS
    3. the UIs,frameworks, etc. are customizable to the devices and UOS version

    At development time the developer will select:

    1. the UOS version level he wants to support
    2. the devices he wants to support
    3. the app. features he wants to support
    4. the UIs,frameworks, etc. customize themselves (adding or removing code/capabilities) based on the UOS Version and Devices

    After testing, the Xcode IDE will build a single UDP (Universal Distribution Package) based upon the developer selections.  This will be uploaded to the Single App Store.

    At user download time, the UDP will customize what is downloaded based on the device and UOS version.


    This is a win-win:  The customer gets fast, efficient, potentially lower-cost and more sophisticated apps, smaller-size, more-reliable apps (and updates) -- the developer gets all the advantages of working/collaborating with a single code base.

    Finally, all this is already being done to some extent, e.g.:

    • Universal iOS Apps for iPhone and iPad
    • Applications with multiple targets for iOS and macOS
    • Apps with multiple schemas, e.g. watch and iPhone
    • Storyboards for multiple device UIs
    • Conditional statements within source code to add or remove code -- based on device, OS version, developer choices, etc.
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 190 of 246
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,690member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    iqatedo said:
    Soli said:
    nunzy said:
    Will this be a step towards uniting iOS and OSX?
    That would be like uniting watchOS, tvOS, and iOS simply because they're all AArch64. Hell, even iOS for the iPhone and iPad are distinct UIs with different downloads despite  the I/O being almost identical. I don't see any future where iOS and macOS will be "united" into a single crappy OS. They will, however, continue to share code, which they've been doing since iOS was created despite the discrete architectures in play.
    Thank you Soli. 
    Aaand...I disagree. There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would result in a “crappy” OS.
    You honestly don't think unifying watchOS, tvOS, iOS for iPhone, iOS for iPad, podOS, macOS and every other OS X-based OS into a single, unfed download would not make for a crappy OS? What reason for the Apple Watch need to be weighted down with any code it doesn't need.

    I don't see that ever happening. We don't even have iOS for iPhone and iOS for iPad being unfied OS and those use nearly the same HW and code base. All of these OS X-based OSes will continue to share code as it suits each product but they will never be unified.
    Having all the same code isn’t what I’m saying. It’s just the opposite of what I’m saying. Right now, all of Apple’s OSs are based on the same Unix. Apple, as we know, strips out everything that isn’t needed for a particular device family. That eliminates a huge chunk of code, while allowing the base to remain the same. The biggest differences are the UI requirements, and the external interfaces. No massive printer or monitor databases inside an iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch. That’s hundreds of megabytes right there, even a gigabyte. 

    But the base code is the same, or similar enough. As far as I know, because I haven’t done this for some time, the main differentiation remains the UI differences. Resolve that, and you’re pretty much there. For the iPad, that would just require either a mouse interface, or the on screen trackpad I discussed earlier. Mostly, that would do it.

    but you’re assuming, I’m assuming (;~)) that this would all be a mess everywhere. It wouldn’t. I’m not suggesting a tiny keyboard on the Apple Watch.

    and I specifically stated that it would NOT be a unified download. Right now, Apple downloads what it needs for a specific device. Apple knows exactly what you’ve got in hardware, and which version of the OS you’re running. So if you buy an app for your iPhone, very often, if a developer has an iPad version, you get that one on your iPad. There is no unified code of both in one being imported to both devices. We know how this works, because Apple spelled it out a good two years ago. Apple has the capability to look at what you’ve got, and send only that code to you. Since they can do that already, I see no reason why that couldn’t also be done for a unified OS.

    and certainly, when it comes to Apple, don’t say never. Apple does change its mind. Remember what Jobs said that nobody wanted to watch video on a small iPod or phone, and then just a few months later, Apple was doing it? Also, he said that OS X was their next OS for “15 years”. Well, it’s past 15 years now. We don’t know what they’re doing other than not sitting on their hands. He also said, right before he came back to Apple, when asked, in an interview, what he would do with Apple if he was running it again, and he responded - “I’d milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I’d go on the the next big thing.” That’s not the exact words, I don’t think, but you get the gist.
    That's not a unified OS. That's some basic sharing of code. If you want to talk about Darwin, then, yeah, that OS is pretty unified between all the Apple devices under  the OS X umbrella.
    Yes it is. If your concept that even the watch should run a full sized Photoshop for it to be a unified OS, then I think that you should think it out some more. Even for the Mac, there are some apps that simply won’t run on a Macbook that will run on higher end machines.
    I made no mention of apps. I'm strictly speaking about the OS. There's no reason I should be able to download a massive "Apple OS" and have it install on everything Apple makes and have it include only the frameworks, drivers, and UIs for that particular device. That's insane! If they haven't done it for watchOS, tvOS, and iOS then there's absolutely no reason for you to think that they'd do it for macOS simply because it now offers AArch64 support in a fat binary.
    I don't think you are reading @melgross' comments correctly.  As I understand it, he means that:

    1. Apple will package its diverse OSes (UIs,frameworks, etc.) into a single Package
    2. Instead having a mostly duplicate custom UIs,frameworks, etc. for each OS
    3. the UIs,frameworks, etc. are customizable to the devices and UOS version

    At development time the developer will select:

    1. the UOS version level he wants to support
    2. the devices he wants to support
    3. the app. features he wants to support
    4. the UIs,frameworks, etc. customize themselves (adding or removing code/capabilities) based on the UOS Version and Devices

    After testing, the Xcode IDE will build a single UDP (Universal Distribution Package) based upon the developer selections.  This will be uploaded to the Single App Store.

    At user download time, the UDP will customize what is downloaded based on the device and UOS version.


    This is a win-win:  The customer gets fast, efficient, potentially lower-cost and more sophisticated apps, smaller-size, more-reliable apps (and updates) -- the developer gets all the advantages of working/collaborating with a single code base.

    Finally, all this is already being done to some extent, e.g.:

    • Universal iOS Apps for iPhone and iPad
    • Applications with multiple targets for iOS and macOS
    • Apps with multiple schemas, e.g. watch and iPhone
    • Storyboards for multiple device UIs
    • Conditional statements within source code to add or remove code -- based on device, OS version, developer choices, etc.
    That's not a single, unified OS, now is it?
  • Reply 191 of 246
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,505member
  • Reply 192 of 246
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,505member

    Soli said:

    That's not a single, unified OS, now is it?
    I don't understand your question.

    edited April 2018
  • Reply 193 of 246
    thttht Posts: 3,112member
    The only real issue imo is whether or how fast MS Office and Adobe CC apps are ported over, and how well they work when they are. Maybe some other pro apps. Maybe office automation apps will be primarily web apps 5 years down the road, so you can take MS Office off the list of must have software for a platform, but the big issues are when and how many of the big apps will move over. 

    There aren’t any technical issues with Apple designing a high performance ARM machine or the developer toolchain. Apple can compete in the performance game with Intel. I have zero doubt about that. The Xcode thing is also a non-issue.

    Gurman’s written a couple of clickbait rumors articles in succession here: Apple will sell a non Inte-basedl PC in 2020 and iPhones with curved displays and off display gestures, also no earlier than 2020. It’s like Bloomberg gave him an article quota and he has to fill it. There’s not much substance or newness with either article.

    The only big strategic win for Apple to do this is that they see Intel falling behind in manufacturing technology. Maybe they know that Intel’s 10 nm fab is not working well and won’t work well for the foreseeable future. So breaking off on their own with ARM and TSMC as the manufacturer would be a net win. There are good economic reasons for this. The manufacturing, fabrication money is going towards producing phone hardware, and his bigger money flows behind it than Intel’s fab does.

    This will result in TSMC, maybe Samsung, having better fabs than Intel will in the 2020s. If this is true, Apple should be moving to their custom ARM solution as soon as TSMC surpasses Intel in fab prowess, and in 2018, they are pretty darn close to be equal.

    Maybe this is just Intel leaking Apple’s hand to put Intel in a more favorable position for Apple and Intel’s CPU cost negotiations, and they want to call Apple’s bluff.
  • Reply 194 of 246
    WingManWingMan Posts: 6member
    Not panicking at all, we can see that in the long term, Apple is doing a great job when it comes to company/product development.
    Soli
  • Reply 195 of 246
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 2,558member
    A friend of mine said about this news, "this move will most likely result in the inability to run GPL3 code". Is there any reason to actually believe this is the case, or is he just spouting FUD?
  • Reply 196 of 246
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,690member
    A friend of mine said about this news, "this move will most likely result in the inability to run GPL3 code". Is there any reason to actually believe this is the case, or is he just spouting FUD?
    Yes, but only if Apple makes the Mac App Store the only way in which to install apps.
  • Reply 197 of 246
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,267member
    melgross said:

    wizard69 said:


    But, here's the thing: ARM is mainstream. Every iPhone, every iPad, every Samsung, nearly every smartphone has an ARM chip in it. Xcode is already set up to be the transition tool that developers need, so the friction will be extremely low.
    ARM is extremely mainstream in content consumption devices and almost nonexistent in content creation (developer content - Nobody develops on ARM). 

    You may be right, of course. For what it's worth, I'd totally buy an ARM based 12" rMB for travel. I have the original now and it's the best travel computer I've ever used. 
    My god get a grip there is little difference in a processor driving a content consumption devices as opposed to a content creation device.  It is pretty amazing you even pulled this into the dicussion.  

    Grip acquired! Some context about my comment might be helpful: I was responding to Mike's assertion that ARM based systems are mainstream devices, which was a response to my assertion that the move to ARM is Apple's first move away from mainstream devices. We were both discussing the context of developers potentially leaving the ecosystem should there be a move away from Intel. ARM based devices (probably?) outnumber Intel based devices and so are very much mainstream, but when we're talking about devices used by developers for development I don't think they are. That was my only point there. 

    I'm not saying that there is any reason whatsoever that ARM based Macs can't be great content creation machines and I'm not commenting on ARM based CPUs' abilities as general purpose CPUs. I'm only making the assertion, in a back and forth with Mike, that a move away from Intel might result in a lot of developers moving away from Apple, just as the move to Intel brought a lot of them along. 

    Anyway, I'm not wringing my hands, nor panicking. In this discussion, for the time being, I would prefer it if Apple would not move solely to devices incapable of running Intel VMs and containers. Two years from now I may change my mind, or I may have to change platforms. Neither situation will be much of a loss for you :) 


    That move wouldn’t happen if Apple does what I’m suggesting. In and of itself, simply by according the performance and high Rez screen, the iPad would make a fine developmental platform. If the chip could run x86, then there would be nothing g to complain about other than what people like to complain about for every other machine they use. Add better cursor support as I’ve already suggested, and you would not have anything left to complain about.
    I don’t know what better cursor support means. iOS is distinguished from macOS by its primary input being the finger not the mouse. Developers need a fast typing device, copy and paste,  large screen real estate, fast and plentiful storage, lots of ram and as much cpu as possible to allow faster compile times. 

    An an iPad isn’t going to cut it. 
  • Reply 198 of 246
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,267member
    melgross said:

    Soli said:
    knowitall said:
    I keep wondering if it would make sense for a Mac (and macOS) to support configurations with:
    1. an ARM CPU and an Intel CPU
    2. multiple ARM CPUs
    3. multiple ARM CPUs and an Intel CPU
    Maybe it need not be all or nothing?
    I think it does. Including an Intel CPU defeats the purpose (getting rid of Intel).
    Why assume that Apple would be getting rid of Intel because they wanted to use an ARM-based Mac for, say, a new MacBook Air that was basically the 12" MacBook but running an Apple-designed chip? Do you really think there's an ARM-equivlenet that will work for the Mac Pro? I don't see the Pro-line being affected by this until such time as most people are instead bitching that Apple isn't moving fast enough to switch their high-end machines to to ARM.
    Prescient!
    Sure. If Apple can get the ARM chips to run x86 software natively, as I’m proposing, there is no way they could consider it for a high end machine. While some say that Apple could force its users and developers down that road again, I’m not so sure.

    whike users don’t care what in the machine, as long as it works, developers do. There are all too many ignorant people out there who believe the solution is to “just have it go through a recompile!” Sure, if you have a flashlight app, that will work. But no decently complex software will ever work properly, if at all, with “just” a recompile. It’s months of major work, at least, and mammoth amounts of money. Developers have to be taken off other projects, etc.

    having said that, desktop chips don’t have the power constraints mobile chips do. Even the Macbook Pro uses chips up to a 35 watt power draw. Compare that to the 6 watt draw of the A series for the iPad, or the M series of Intel chips for the Macbook. There’s plenty Apple could do just by going to 12 Watts. But at some point there’s a limit. As you go up the power scale, you actually have less options, because when you hit these power levels, you find that you’re competing with really high end chips. Right now, the A series can compete with the M series easily, and some other ultralow power Intel chips for mobile. But Desktop chips are different. Apple may still have an advantage, but by how much?
    It’s will be a recompile for pretty much everything that uses objective c, swift, even c or c++ code that compiles already in Xcode. What compiles for ARM or x86 now for iOS can work for the Mac in future. 
  • Reply 199 of 246
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 2,558member
    Soli said:
    A friend of mine said about this news, "this move will most likely result in the inability to run GPL3 code". Is there any reason to actually believe this is the case, or is he just spouting FUD?
    Yes, but only if Apple makes the Mac App Store the only way in which to install apps.
    Is there any reason to suspect that they'd do this based on any of this other info we do know? I'm not sure how that has anything to do with moving to ARM, unless he's thinking we'd lose the ability to run a Terminal and unix/linux shell applications, etc.
  • Reply 200 of 246
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,505member
    Soli said:
    A friend of mine said about this news, "this move will most likely result in the inability to run GPL3 code". Is there any reason to actually believe this is the case, or is he just spouting FUD?
    Yes, but only if Apple makes the Mac App Store the only way in which to install apps.
    Is there any reason to suspect that they'd do this based on any of this other info we do know? I'm not sure how that has anything to do with moving to ARM, unless he's thinking we'd lose the ability to run a Terminal and unix/linux shell applications, etc.
    It's a start...



    http://osxdaily.com/2018/01/08/get-terminal-app-ios-command-line/



Sign In or Register to comment.