Agreed, that would be unfortunate, but I think (pure speculation, mind you) that Dashcode will be the accepted way for small (non-Select, Premiere) developers to get their foot in the door. Just a hunch, that's all.
ie, if you whip up a great widget using Dashcode that you submit and get their attention, then you'll be more likely to get full app/hardware SDK love.
Of course, depending on which chunks of MacOS X they're using, (WebKit, Dashboard, etc), a lot of the APIs may already be familiar to developers. Heck, OS X for iPhone may have been as simple for them as adding in new network device drivers and things like SMS APIs to Chat.framework.
At this point in time, I'm not surprised they're mum on the SDK - the bloody thing probably isn't even nailed down yet, much less ready for devs.
Horeshit, Kickaha, pure and utter horseshit...this whole thing is pure semantics.
At what point do you call Darwin OS X or at what point do you call OS X Mac OS X...the number of frameworks? The layers? The apps?
If Mac OS X is OS X for Macs...and OS X is OS X for iPhones...what will Apple call another variant of OS X that uses a different set of frameworks?
1. If OS X truly uses Cocoa as its framework then it should be entirely possible to get 3rd-party apps on the iPhone (with some minimal hacking and a compiler for the embedded chip) so I don't know why the people that actually think OS X is on the iPhone are complaining.
2. Naive people are everywhere Kickaha...not everyone has the same amount of computer knowledge as computer enthusiasts such as a lot of people on this board...and even THESE PEOPLE got fooled by Steve Jobs' marketing. I bet the first thing almost everyone at MWSF thought when Jobs said "It runs OS X" was "holy shit, we'll be able to run all our Mac apps on this thing."
If Jobs fooled these people and some of us on this forum, then he's fooled 98% of the planet.
At the very least, it should be called iPhone OS X. But you know very well why it wasn't called this...
Why are you driving this into people's heads? You're confusing them. How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it? Because what we're using is *Mac* OS X? Come on now.
It does not matter if it is called OS X or Mac OS X or even if the two are different. Do you expect Apple to include all of the modular components of their computer OS when they would be totally and completely useless in a phone? The fact that these components are taken out does not make this any less an OS X based phone.
Second, your statement that none of the Mac OS X apps works on it is pure and unsupported speculation at this point. In addition, Jobs has specifically stated that Apple wants to have tight control over the apps that run on the iPhone. This is does not mean that the phone is incapable of running OS X apps, but rather, that Apple wants to make sure that the apps it approves do not interfere with the phone's operation by causing instability/network problems, etc.
Quote:
Why isn't Darwin called OS X? It's a heavily stripped down version of Mac OS X right?
Quote:
....this whole thing is pure semantics.
Semantics, yes, I'm glad that you acknowlege this. Darwin is not called OS X because it is the Unix underpinnings of OS X, and as such, it is an integral part of the overall OS, it is not the OS itself.
Quote:
Call it what you will...Apple has made a big mistake calling it OS X and naive people may start believing they can run Mac OS X apps on it.
No naivette here. Jobs has already stated that apps for this phone will either come from Apple or come from approved developers.
Quote:
I'll keep on calling it iPhone OS or even Darwin to piss you all off.
Call it what you want, that won't make what you're saying any truer.
Quote:
That's what it is anyways Darwin with WebKit, a graphical layer that uses CoreAnimation, and...that's about it really.
Yes. In other words, the components of OS X which are suitable to run on a PHONE without those that are suitable to run on a COMPUTER. See above.
It does not matter if it is called OS X or Mac OS X or even if the two are different. Do you expect Apple to include all of the modular components of their computer OS when they would be totally and completely useless in a phone? The fact that these components are taken out does not make this any less an OS X based phone.
Second, your statement that none of the Mac OS X apps works on it is pure and unsupported speculation at this point. In addition, Jobs has specifically stated that Apple wants to have tight control over the apps that run on the iPhone. This is does not mean that the phone is incapable of running OS X apps, but rather, that Apple wants to make sure that the apps it approves do not interfere with the phone's operation by causing instability/network problems, etc.
Semantics, yes, I'm glad that you acknowlege this. Darwin is not called OS X because it is the Unix underpinnings of OS X, and as such, it is an integral part of the overall OS, it is not the OS itself.
No naivette here. Jobs has already stated that apps for this phone will either come from Apple or come from approved developers.
Call it what you want, that won't make what you're saying any truer.
Yes. In other words, the components of OS X which are suitable to run on a PHONE without those that are suitable to run on a COMPUTER. See above.
My beef lies in the way Apple and Jobs are marketing this. If you didn't manage to read between the lines, it's not your fault. Not a whole lot of people can read between the lines.
The OS can't run Mac OS X apps...it shouldn't be called OS X. It's deceiving...even if the OS resembles a lot like Mac OS X.
While the details are scarce and while things can change between now and June/July, it's doubtful the iPhone will run Mac OS X apps for the next few years at least if ever. QuickTime, Java and Flash haven't even been ported for god's sake. Neither has Carbon (which may explain why QuickTime and Flash haven't been ported.)
It's all marketing.
Kickaha: yes, MS is almost as guilty as Apple for calling their mobile OS "Windows Mobile"...it's almost false advertisement to have two modern OS products with nearly identical names when they don't have the pieces to make apps interoperate between them. The difference is that at least MS put 'Mobile' in the name to show *some* distinction.
A lot of people refer to Mac OS X as OS X...and to those people, I can definitely see how they could confuse the two. And I can definitely see a lot of people that don't know much about computers thinking they could install Mac OS X apps onto their phone.
kks, your entire argument hinges on the fact that a lot of people *ERRONEOUSLY* call MacOS X 'OS X'. (I do it too sometimes, but I know the difference.)
I'm really not interested in having an argument with you, if your position is simply that "people are lazy, so Apple needs to cater to their stupidity". This is no different than the asinine "OMG! What will Apple do after 10.4.9 if 10.5 isn't out?!?" threads we see around here. Ignorance in others is no reason to change a perfectly good approach.
And really - what special, super secret info do you have that *no* OS X apps/widgets will run on the iPhone? We're waiting with bated breath. Come on, at this point, nobody knows jack. (Just for the record, I don't think Carbon has a snowball's chance in hell of ever running on this, Cocoa apps *might* be able to if they're not very resource hungry, Dashboard widgets are a given, again, barring resource limits, and over everything hangs the issue of display size, although seeing the resolution independence in the zooming gives me hope. The various Core* libraries are obviously of interest, CoreAnimation has already been shown, CoreImage I think is a gimme as well (saw a report that Jobs confirmed PDF viewing), media playback is already in there... QuickTime 8 is pretty much a given, IMO. And no, kks, QuickTime does not need to rely on Carbon.)
Just because you're not going to be able to run Photoshop on the thing doesn't mean it isn't an OS X machine. Hell, I can't run *most* latest version apps on my B/W G3 tower, because the hardware won't support them. Does that mean it's not an OS X machine, by your definition?
Am I? I think Steve could have prevented a lot of confusion had he said the OS was *based on* Mac OS X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Hell, I can't run *most* latest version apps on my B/W G3 tower, because the hardware won't support them. Does that mean it's not an OS X machine, by your definition?
Well, it is an OS X machine...and the app would work if your hardware was supported. So that example doesn't really work because you obviously need both Mac OS X *and* the required hardware.
Soooooo... if the iPhone had: a better CPU, more RAM, and better graphics, and could run Photoshop, would that satisfy you?
In other words, if you changed pretty much everything about the hardware, but the app still ran, that'd be reason enough to call it OS X?
I think you're finally getting it. Take MacOS X. Now, remove the frameworks that won't work on a handheld hardware, for resource reasons, like Carbon. Add in some new device drivers.
Voila. OS X for iPhone. SAME EXACT OS. Different drivers, and different frameworks. They likely wrote a couple of new ones that would make zero sense on MacOS X, so we won't see them there, but the entire kit and kaboodle, that's OS X.
OS X for Macintosh and OS X for iPhone (speculatively) share the same basic code, but it's the add-ons that are different, based on the hardware available, and the resources at hand. That's all. My B/W G3 uses a different set of device drivers than my PowerBook G4, or the new Intel machines. The new Intel machines allow a different set of frameworks to be run, and different apps to be used. SAME OS. Different capabilities. All you're seeing here is a handheld being a new platform.
Maybe the image will help.
The OS X and MacOS X boxes used to be the same, but now there are pieces in the OS X world that are not intended for Macs. Whether you want to say that OS X refers to the family of technologies, or the Shared Code box, well, that's up to you, IMO. That's where you get into marketing voodoo.
The point stands, however, that, given Apple's very precise use of OS X, instead of MacOS X, there's something more in the works here.
Yup. Apple has already said they're going to control #3, and one would presume #2 through the iTunes Store.
Note though that Dashboard widgets are just JavaScript and HTML - no compiler needed. That's why I think they'll be the 'proving ground' for 3rd party developers, but that's just speculation again.
The OS can't run Mac OS X apps...it shouldn't be called OS X. It's deceiving...even if the OS resembles a lot like Mac OS X.
Windows Mobile 5.0 can't run Windows XP apps.
Windows Mobile 6.0 won't be able to run Windows Vista apps.
Windows NT for PowerPC couldn't run Windows NT for x86 apps.
I guess they shouldn't be called "Windows"?
Mac OS X on PowerPC cannot run Mac OS X for Intel-only apps (e.g., Adobe Soundbooth, Parallels Desktop). I guess it shouldn't be called "Mac OS X"?
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
It's a different architecture and different platform; at a very least, a recompile is naturally necessary.
Quote:
It's all marketing.
It's small part marketing and huge part architectural reality.
Quote:
Kickaha: yes, MS is almost as guilty as Apple for calling their mobile OS "Windows Mobile"...it's almost false advertisement to have two modern OS products with nearly identical names when they don't have the pieces to make apps interoperate between them. The difference is that at least MS put 'Mobile' in the name to show *some* distinction.
Nonsense. Huge, huge nonsense. Microsoft is just as much in their right to have several incompatible variants of Windows that all have a lot in common as Apple is.
Note though that Dashboard widgets are just JavaScript and HTML - no compiler needed. That's why I think they'll be the 'proving ground' for 3rd party developers, but that's just speculation again.
Dashboard widgets support various extensions, such as Cocoa. Heck, Apple created a JavaScript Cocoa bridge for this in 10.4. Just for this.
Apple could eliminate that possibility, of course, but they extensively use it in their own widgets, at least on *Mac* OS X, if only for performance reasons.
Yeah, I wasn't sure where to place that, since we don't know if the iPhone has a BSD layer. Should it be solely within the Shared Code box, in which case the iPhone has a BSD layer, or should it peep out into the Mac Bits box (my guess) where the BSD layer resides? Dunno. So I left it out.
Dashboard widgets support various extensions, such as Cocoa. Heck, Apple created a JavaScript Cocoa bridge for this in 10.4. Just for this.
Apple could eliminate that possibility, of course, but they extensively use it in their own widgets, at least on *Mac* OS X, if only for performance reasons.
Ah, okay. I suspected that, but wasn't sure. Well, we did see Cocoa up there on the OS X technologies slide, so I've been assuming that it's at least a possibility. There's no reason why not, as I see it - the same basic stuff worked on desktop hardware from 1986, after all. That little handheld has way more power. Given that it has enough oomph for the multimedia functions, my assumption is that is has enough for basic Cocoa as well. Whether they'll a) actually include it, b) allow it to be used, well, those are different issues.
Well heck. I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops, huh?
Yeah, I wasn't sure where to place that, since we don't know if the iPhone has a BSD layer. Should it be solely within the Shared Code box, in which case the iPhone has a BSD layer, or should it peep out into the Mac Bits box (my guess) where the BSD layer resides? Dunno. So I left it out.
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Ah, okay. I suspected that, but wasn't sure. Well, we did see Cocoa up there on the OS X technologies slide, so I've been assuming that it's at least a possibility. There's no reason why not, as I see it - the same basic stuff worked on desktop hardware from 1986, after all. That little handheld has way more power. Given that it has enough oomph for the multimedia functions, my assumption is that is has enough for basic Cocoa as well. Whether they'll a) actually include it, b) allow it to be used, well, those are different issues.
Well heck. I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops, huh?
Which would have been technically inaccurate. "Based on Darwin" would have been accurate. "Based on Mac OS X", no.
True. But I suppose, as Kickaha mentioned...the BSD layer. I still think they all deserve a name of their own considering all their differences...even small.
? so you won?t be able to install *applications* on the iPhone? does that include *widgets*? It can?t be a coincidence that Apple just released a Dashcode beta to the public (that?s their widget development environment).?
NEWS FLASH! Just spoke to a recent Apple ex-programmer who says that, in fact, the decision on third-party widgets has not yet been made. So maybe there?s a backdoor to adding new apps to this phone after all!
NEWS FLASH! Just spoke to a recent Apple ex-programmer who says that, in fact, the decision on third-party widgets has not yet been made. So maybe there’s a backdoor to adding new apps to this phone after all!
Comments
ie, if you whip up a great widget using Dashcode that you submit and get their attention, then you'll be more likely to get full app/hardware SDK love.
Of course, depending on which chunks of MacOS X they're using, (WebKit, Dashboard, etc), a lot of the APIs may already be familiar to developers. Heck, OS X for iPhone may have been as simple for them as adding in new network device drivers and things like SMS APIs to Chat.framework.
At this point in time, I'm not surprised they're mum on the SDK - the bloody thing probably isn't even nailed down yet, much less ready for devs.
At what point do you call Darwin OS X or at what point do you call OS X Mac OS X...the number of frameworks? The layers? The apps?
If Mac OS X is OS X for Macs...and OS X is OS X for iPhones...what will Apple call another variant of OS X that uses a different set of frameworks?
1. If OS X truly uses Cocoa as its framework then it should be entirely possible to get 3rd-party apps on the iPhone (with some minimal hacking and a compiler for the embedded chip) so I don't know why the people that actually think OS X is on the iPhone are complaining.
2. Naive people are everywhere Kickaha...not everyone has the same amount of computer knowledge as computer enthusiasts such as a lot of people on this board...and even THESE PEOPLE got fooled by Steve Jobs' marketing. I bet the first thing almost everyone at MWSF thought when Jobs said "It runs OS X" was "holy shit, we'll be able to run all our Mac apps on this thing."
If Jobs fooled these people and some of us on this forum, then he's fooled 98% of the planet.
At the very least, it should be called iPhone OS X. But you know very well why it wasn't called this...
Kickaha...you've got to be kidding me.
Why are you driving this into people's heads? You're confusing them. How can this be OS X if none of the Mac OS X apps work on it? Because what we're using is *Mac* OS X? Come on now.
Right. So you expect us to follow your semantic nit-picking instead of taking apple's word on the subject?
It does not matter if it is called OS X or Mac OS X or even if the two are different. Do you expect Apple to include all of the modular components of their computer OS when they would be totally and completely useless in a phone? The fact that these components are taken out does not make this any less an OS X based phone.
Second, your statement that none of the Mac OS X apps works on it is pure and unsupported speculation at this point. In addition, Jobs has specifically stated that Apple wants to have tight control over the apps that run on the iPhone. This is does not mean that the phone is incapable of running OS X apps, but rather, that Apple wants to make sure that the apps it approves do not interfere with the phone's operation by causing instability/network problems, etc.
Why isn't Darwin called OS X? It's a heavily stripped down version of Mac OS X right?
....this whole thing is pure semantics.
Semantics, yes, I'm glad that you acknowlege this. Darwin is not called OS X because it is the Unix underpinnings of OS X, and as such, it is an integral part of the overall OS, it is not the OS itself.
Call it what you will...Apple has made a big mistake calling it OS X and naive people may start believing they can run Mac OS X apps on it.
No naivette here. Jobs has already stated that apps for this phone will either come from Apple or come from approved developers.
I'll keep on calling it iPhone OS or even Darwin to piss you all off.
Call it what you want, that won't make what you're saying any truer.
That's what it is anyways Darwin with WebKit, a graphical layer that uses CoreAnimation, and...that's about it really.
Yes. In other words, the components of OS X which are suitable to run on a PHONE without those that are suitable to run on a COMPUTER. See above.
Right. So you expect us to follow your semantic nit-picking instead of taking apple's word on the subject?
It does not matter if it is called OS X or Mac OS X or even if the two are different. Do you expect Apple to include all of the modular components of their computer OS when they would be totally and completely useless in a phone? The fact that these components are taken out does not make this any less an OS X based phone.
Second, your statement that none of the Mac OS X apps works on it is pure and unsupported speculation at this point. In addition, Jobs has specifically stated that Apple wants to have tight control over the apps that run on the iPhone. This is does not mean that the phone is incapable of running OS X apps, but rather, that Apple wants to make sure that the apps it approves do not interfere with the phone's operation by causing instability/network problems, etc.
Semantics, yes, I'm glad that you acknowlege this. Darwin is not called OS X because it is the Unix underpinnings of OS X, and as such, it is an integral part of the overall OS, it is not the OS itself.
No naivette here. Jobs has already stated that apps for this phone will either come from Apple or come from approved developers.
Call it what you want, that won't make what you're saying any truer.
Yes. In other words, the components of OS X which are suitable to run on a PHONE without those that are suitable to run on a COMPUTER. See above.
My beef lies in the way Apple and Jobs are marketing this. If you didn't manage to read between the lines, it's not your fault. Not a whole lot of people can read between the lines.
The OS can't run Mac OS X apps...it shouldn't be called OS X. It's deceiving...even if the OS resembles a lot like Mac OS X.
While the details are scarce and while things can change between now and June/July, it's doubtful the iPhone will run Mac OS X apps for the next few years at least if ever. QuickTime, Java and Flash haven't even been ported for god's sake. Neither has Carbon (which may explain why QuickTime and Flash haven't been ported.)
It's all marketing.
Kickaha: yes, MS is almost as guilty as Apple for calling their mobile OS "Windows Mobile"...it's almost false advertisement to have two modern OS products with nearly identical names when they don't have the pieces to make apps interoperate between them. The difference is that at least MS put 'Mobile' in the name to show *some* distinction.
A lot of people refer to Mac OS X as OS X...and to those people, I can definitely see how they could confuse the two. And I can definitely see a lot of people that don't know much about computers thinking they could install Mac OS X apps onto their phone.
hyperjeff will have some work to do to prevent any confusion but is definitely not the only one that will have to add "Mac" in front of "OS X."
I'm really not interested in having an argument with you, if your position is simply that "people are lazy, so Apple needs to cater to their stupidity". This is no different than the asinine "OMG! What will Apple do after 10.4.9 if 10.5 isn't out?!?" threads we see around here. Ignorance in others is no reason to change a perfectly good approach.
And really - what special, super secret info do you have that *no* OS X apps/widgets will run on the iPhone? We're waiting with bated breath. Come on, at this point, nobody knows jack. (Just for the record, I don't think Carbon has a snowball's chance in hell of ever running on this, Cocoa apps *might* be able to if they're not very resource hungry, Dashboard widgets are a given, again, barring resource limits, and over everything hangs the issue of display size, although seeing the resolution independence in the zooming gives me hope. The various Core* libraries are obviously of interest, CoreAnimation has already been shown, CoreImage I think is a gimme as well (saw a report that Jobs confirmed PDF viewing), media playback is already in there... QuickTime 8 is pretty much a given, IMO. And no, kks, QuickTime does not need to rely on Carbon.)
Just because you're not going to be able to run Photoshop on the thing doesn't mean it isn't an OS X machine. Hell, I can't run *most* latest version apps on my B/W G3 tower, because the hardware won't support them. Does that mean it's not an OS X machine, by your definition?
Sorry, kks, but you're just really reaching here.
Sorry, kks, but you're just really reaching here.
Am I? I think Steve could have prevented a lot of confusion had he said the OS was *based on* Mac OS X.
Hell, I can't run *most* latest version apps on my B/W G3 tower, because the hardware won't support them. Does that mean it's not an OS X machine, by your definition?
Well, it is an OS X machine...and the app would work if your hardware was supported. So that example doesn't really work because you obviously need both Mac OS X *and* the required hardware.
In other words, if you changed pretty much everything about the hardware, but the app still ran, that'd be reason enough to call it OS X?
I think you're finally getting it. Take MacOS X. Now, remove the frameworks that won't work on a handheld hardware, for resource reasons, like Carbon. Add in some new device drivers.
Voila. OS X for iPhone. SAME EXACT OS. Different drivers, and different frameworks. They likely wrote a couple of new ones that would make zero sense on MacOS X, so we won't see them there, but the entire kit and kaboodle, that's OS X.
OS X for Macintosh and OS X for iPhone (speculatively) share the same basic code, but it's the add-ons that are different, based on the hardware available, and the resources at hand. That's all. My B/W G3 uses a different set of device drivers than my PowerBook G4, or the new Intel machines. The new Intel machines allow a different set of frameworks to be run, and different apps to be used. SAME OS. Different capabilities. All you're seeing here is a handheld being a new platform.
Maybe the image will help.
The OS X and MacOS X boxes used to be the same, but now there are pieces in the OS X world that are not intended for Macs. Whether you want to say that OS X refers to the family of technologies, or the Shared Code box, well, that's up to you, IMO. That's where you get into marketing voodoo.
The point stands, however, that, given Apple's very precise use of OS X, instead of MacOS X, there's something more in the works here.
Of course, depending on which chunks of MacOS X they're using, (WebKit, Dashboard, etc), a lot of the APIs may already be familiar to developers.
Even so, you'd need a compiler, a means of distribution, a means of installation?
Note though that Dashboard widgets are just JavaScript and HTML - no compiler needed. That's why I think they'll be the 'proving ground' for 3rd party developers, but that's just speculation again.
The OS can't run Mac OS X apps...it shouldn't be called OS X. It's deceiving...even if the OS resembles a lot like Mac OS X.
Windows Mobile 5.0 can't run Windows XP apps.
Windows Mobile 6.0 won't be able to run Windows Vista apps.
Windows NT for PowerPC couldn't run Windows NT for x86 apps.
I guess they shouldn't be called "Windows"?
Mac OS X on PowerPC cannot run Mac OS X for Intel-only apps (e.g., Adobe Soundbooth, Parallels Desktop). I guess it shouldn't be called "Mac OS X"?
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
It's a different architecture and different platform; at a very least, a recompile is naturally necessary.
It's all marketing.
It's small part marketing and huge part architectural reality.
Kickaha: yes, MS is almost as guilty as Apple for calling their mobile OS "Windows Mobile"...it's almost false advertisement to have two modern OS products with nearly identical names when they don't have the pieces to make apps interoperate between them. The difference is that at least MS put 'Mobile' in the name to show *some* distinction.
Nonsense. Huge, huge nonsense. Microsoft is just as much in their right to have several incompatible variants of Windows that all have a lot in common as Apple is.
Am I? I think Steve could have prevented a lot of confusion had he said the OS was *based on* Mac OS X.
Which would have been technically inaccurate. "Based on Darwin" would have been accurate. "Based on Mac OS X", no.
Note though that Dashboard widgets are just JavaScript and HTML - no compiler needed. That's why I think they'll be the 'proving ground' for 3rd party developers, but that's just speculation again.
Dashboard widgets support various extensions, such as Cocoa. Heck, Apple created a JavaScript Cocoa bridge for this in 10.4. Just for this.
Apple could eliminate that possibility, of course, but they extensively use it in their own widgets, at least on *Mac* OS X, if only for performance reasons.
Dashboard widgets support various extensions, such as Cocoa. Heck, Apple created a JavaScript Cocoa bridge for this in 10.4. Just for this.
Apple could eliminate that possibility, of course, but they extensively use it in their own widgets, at least on *Mac* OS X, if only for performance reasons.
Ah, okay. I suspected that, but wasn't sure. Well, we did see Cocoa up there on the OS X technologies slide, so I've been assuming that it's at least a possibility. There's no reason why not, as I see it - the same basic stuff worked on desktop hardware from 1986, after all. That little handheld has way more power. Given that it has enough oomph for the multimedia functions, my assumption is that is has enough for basic Cocoa as well. Whether they'll a) actually include it, b) allow it to be used, well, those are different issues.
Well heck. I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops, huh?
Yeah, I wasn't sure where to place that, since we don't know if the iPhone has a BSD layer.
Good point.
Ah, okay. I suspected that, but wasn't sure. Well, we did see Cocoa up there on the OS X technologies slide, so I've been assuming that it's at least a possibility. There's no reason why not, as I see it - the same basic stuff worked on desktop hardware from 1986, after all. That little handheld has way more power. Given that it has enough oomph for the multimedia functions, my assumption is that is has enough for basic Cocoa as well. Whether they'll a) actually include it, b) allow it to be used, well, those are different issues.
Well heck. I guess we'll have to wait and see what develops, huh?
The suspense is killing me.
The suspense is killing me.
Me too.
Which would have been technically inaccurate. "Based on Darwin" would have been accurate. "Based on Mac OS X", no.
True. But I suppose, as Kickaha mentioned...the BSD layer. I still think they all deserve a name of their own considering all their differences...even small.
Based on *bit'n'pieces* of Mac OS X that we love.
? so you won?t be able to install *applications* on the iPhone? does that include *widgets*? It can?t be a coincidence that Apple just released a Dashcode beta to the public (that?s their widget development environment).?
NEWS FLASH! Just spoke to a recent Apple ex-programmer who says that, in fact, the decision on third-party widgets has not yet been made. So maybe there?s a backdoor to adding new apps to this phone after all!
?Pogue
? Posted by David Pogue
Comment 229 over here.
NEWS FLASH! Just spoke to a recent Apple ex-programmer who says that, in fact, the decision on third-party widgets has not yet been made. So maybe there’s a backdoor to adding new apps to this phone after all!
–Pogue
— Posted by David Pogue
Comment 229 at http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/...ked-questions/
Via http://forums.applenova.com/showpost...9&postcount=61
(edit) Beat me by mere seconds!