And who said Quicktime wasn't ported? If you're referring to the Quicktime Player, it would be rather useless, but Quicktime is the framework that handles Media in all of Apple's Applications and Technology. This goes for Safari, FCS, iLife, iWork, iTunes, etc.
These are the things that are being used from Mac OS X to create "iPhone" OS X. Whatever you wish to call it, it has a right to the name of OS X. Cocoa is there, so is Core Animation, they didn't say Core Audio or Core Video specifically in there, but they do say Audio and Video It's basically Code Reuse. Apple is reusing the very core technology that gives OS X it's Media, Networking, and Security abilities.
There is no marketing confusion, it's quite straightforward.
And who said Quicktime wasn't ported? If you're referring to the Quicktime Player, it would be rather useless, but Quicktime is the framework that handles Media in all of Apple's Applications and Technology. This goes for Safari, FCS, iLife, iWork, iTunes, etc.
These are the things that are being used from Mac OS X to create "iPhone" OS X. Whatever you wish to call it, it has a right to the name of OS X. Cocoa is there, so is Core Animation, they didn't say Core Audio or Core Video specifically in there, but they do say Audio and Video It's basically Code Reuse. Apple is reusing the very core technology that gives OS X it's Media, Networking, and Security abilities.
There is no marketing confusion, it's quite straightforward.
No, it's really not. But thanks for trying. The only two names that can truly be associated to OS X are Cocoa and CoreAnimation...everything else was left vague for a reason I suppose.
QuickTime wasn't ported to iPods, yet iPods play video and audio quite well. iPods can also be considered 'low-powered' and have 'syncing' and graphics abilities. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sonny boy.
edit: besides, no Carbon means no QuickTime...I wonder how Apple will get Flash onto its iPhone Safari.
No, it's really not. But thanks for trying. The only two names that can truly be associated to OS X are Cocoa and CoreAnimation...everything else was left vague for a reason I suppose.
QuickTime wasn't ported to iPods, yet iPods play video and audio quite well. iPods can also be considered 'low-powered' and have 'syncing' and graphics abilities. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sonny boy.
\
Quicktime Player was not ported, the Quicktime Framework is behind EVERY Apple piece of Software and hardware for it's media playback abilitys.
The iPod's syncing abilitys only play to the tune of iTunes, otherwise it's just another Buffed up External HDD.
Apple is using code from OS X, the Kernal, the Framework, etc. to design the OS for the iPhone. It has a right to the name of OS X.
kks: Yeah, but they never *said* OS X was on the iPod.
One thing I'd point out, since you brought up QT again - QT has been being migrated on to the top of CoreAudio, CoreVideo, etc, for a while now. It's been slow, but I have a sneaking suspicion we'll see QT8 with Leopard that finally breaks the Carbon dependency. At that point, I don't think there are many pieces of OS X (and no crown jewels) that rely on Carbon at all... which means a lot fewer assumptions about the hardware. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that QuickTime 8 will bring Cocoa as the primary API moving forward, with legacy C access still allowed through Core*.
You're right, they may not port QuickTime onto iPhone, but they're going to have to get media capabilities on there somehow. Reusing libraries from OS X to do so makes sense.
Remember, the iPod was originally using an OS from someone else. I have a hunch that iPod 2.0 will be OS X as well - a stripped down iPhone. Well, at least the video iPod will be. Can't say much about the Shuffle 2.0. (I don't mean a particular rev or gen of the hardware, I mean the next leap for the iPod platform as a whole.)
Er, SLewis... to anybody's knowledge who can talk, the iPod doesn't have anything like QT on it, sorry. It's a minimalist device. But you are right that QT no longer requires Carbon. In the past, porting QT to Windows *DID* in fact take porting a big chunk of the MacOS (back in the OS 7/8 days) because of the dependencies. Those became Carbon. So, really, a lot of Carbon has been ported to Windows - which is silly, and Apple has been trying to sweep those bits out of the dependencies ever since.
Quicktime Player was not ported, the Quicktime Framework is behind EVERY Apple piece of Software and hardware for it's media playback abilitys.
Not quite. The iPod has nothing remotely QuickTime-related. Well, perhaps some of its AAC and ALAC decoding code, and its FairPlay decryption. But not the framework, or even a noteworthy subset.
Quote:
The iPod's syncing abilitys only play to the tune of iTunes, otherwise it's just another Buffed up External HDD.
So by your definition, Quicktime is incapable of running on Windows because Windows doesn't have Carbon, likewise with Flash.
Actually, QuickTime for Windows was originally a port of most of the Mac OS toolbox. iTunes for Windows uses a lot of ported Carbon code, and some CoreFoundation code as well.
You even have bundles, yes, bundles, in Apple's Windows apps.
Heck, you have freaking Software Update on Windows now. And .lproj-based localizations.
So, yes, in many senses, a lot of CoreFoundation- and Carbon-esque stuff is over there. No problem at all.
Er, SLewis... to anybody's knowledge who can talk, the iPod doesn't have anything like QT on it, sorry. It's a minimalist device.
So to the best of anybody's knowledge, Apple built the Media Codec Decoding into the iPod by hand, instead of using a subset of a perfectly good framework to do it instead. It's a minimalist device, but without any kind of software at all, it's just an External HDD.
Not quite. The iPod has nothing remotely QuickTime-related. Well, perhaps some of its AAC and ALAC decoding code, and its FairPlay decryption. But not the framework, or even a noteworthy subset.
Maybe not a Noteworthy subset, but defanitely a subset. Apple built the iPods Software, likely using Quicktime. The iPod still needed a way to decode FairPlay, AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, and MPEG-4, etc. and they likely used the Quicktime Framework to do it.
Actually, QuickTime for Windows was originally a port of most of the Mac OS toolbox. iTunes for Windows uses a lot of ported Carbon code, and some CoreFoundation code as well.
You even have bundles, yes, bundles, in Apple's Windows apps.
Heck, you have freaking Software Update on Windows now. And .lproj-based localizations.
So, yes, in many senses, a lot of CoreFoundation- and Carbon-esque stuff is over there. No problem at all.
So to the best of anybody's knowledge, Apple built the Media Codec Decoding into the iPod by hand, instead of using a subset of a perfectly good framework to do it instead. It's a minimalist device, but without any kind of software at all, it's just an External HDD.
No, most of the audio, image and video decoding capabilities are already there, done by PortalPlayer. Apple only had to add some custom codecs of their own. It'd not only be hugely wasteful to add their whole framework; it might be downright impossible. We're talking an embedded chipset here, with two ARM cores. It's not only a wholly different architecture; it's also a lot more limiting than what Apple can do on a desktop.
And, at the time, OS X was nowhere near as scalable and mature. The same certainly goes for QuickTime, which was far more stuck in its old Toolbox-esque ways than it is even still now.
So to the best of anybody's knowledge, Apple built the Media Codec Decoding into the iPod by hand, instead of using a subset of a perfectly good framework to do it instead. It's a minimalist device, but without any kind of software at all, it's just an External HDD.
You missed the point that Chucker and I have been saying: the iPod's OS was written by Pixio, not Apple. The iPod's ability to decode the media was supplied by the dedicated chips - the codecs were embedded in the chips themselves, for just such sorts of devices. Apple did not write the iPod OS, nor did they *need* to add the codec support. This isn't speculation, this is public fact.
No, it's really not. But thanks for trying. The only two names that can truly be associated to OS X are Cocoa and CoreAnimation...everything else was left vague for a reason I suppose.
That means it's not running on an Intel (or PPC) core.
No, so far we know nothing about the architecture. ARM is an educated guess, but we can't rule either PowerPC or Intel out.
Quote:
That means it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like).
Why's that? What about OS X ties it conceptually to those two architectures? Nothing.
Quote:
Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X, does not run on ARM processors. The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold
Except that Apple, of course, isn't bound by that license agreement, because they are the ones who issued it to begin with: the copyright holders. A license agreement applies to how third parties may or may not use intellectual property, not to how the freaking owner can.
We have Apple's word against mediocre conjecture full of fallacies. Joswiak, as quoted at http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...m?newsid=16927 , is fairly unequivocal about this: it's "an optimized but full version of OS X", and that they did not focus on "cutting functionality or removing core technologies".
Perhaps it would make some sense to simply believe Apple on this matter until we know better, hmm?
Well...not in the same way I'm saying it's not OS X (and by OS X I mean Mac OS X ). The story is claiming that the underpinnings of the OS on iPhone have nothing to do with Mac OS X's underpinnings (or Darwin). I'm not saying this. I'm merely saying that while the bits and pieces of Mac OS X are present, so much is missing from OS X on iPhone that it's deceitful to call it OS X.
Comments
Based on *bit'n'pieces* of Mac OS X that we love.
Now that I can deal with. iPhone OS X BitsNPieces Edition 2007.
It's OS X.
And who said Quicktime wasn't ported? If you're referring to the Quicktime Player, it would be rather useless, but Quicktime is the framework that handles Media in all of Apple's Applications and Technology. This goes for Safari, FCS, iLife, iWork, iTunes, etc.
These are the things that are being used from Mac OS X to create "iPhone" OS X. Whatever you wish to call it, it has a right to the name of OS X. Cocoa is there, so is Core Animation, they didn't say Core Audio or Core Video specifically in there, but they do say Audio and Video
There is no marketing confusion, it's quite straightforward.
Sebastian
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!
Heh heh heh. Thanks for the credit though (since it's my post at AppleNova).
It's OS X.
And who said Quicktime wasn't ported? If you're referring to the Quicktime Player, it would be rather useless, but Quicktime is the framework that handles Media in all of Apple's Applications and Technology. This goes for Safari, FCS, iLife, iWork, iTunes, etc.
These are the things that are being used from Mac OS X to create "iPhone" OS X. Whatever you wish to call it, it has a right to the name of OS X. Cocoa is there, so is Core Animation, they didn't say Core Audio or Core Video specifically in there, but they do say Audio and Video
There is no marketing confusion, it's quite straightforward.
No, it's really not. But thanks for trying.
QuickTime wasn't ported to iPods, yet iPods play video and audio quite well. iPods can also be considered 'low-powered' and have 'syncing' and graphics abilities. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sonny boy.
edit: besides, no Carbon means no QuickTime...I wonder how Apple will get Flash onto its iPhone Safari.
No, it's really not. But thanks for trying.
QuickTime wasn't ported to iPods, yet iPods play video and audio quite well. iPods can also be considered 'low-powered' and have 'syncing' and graphics abilities. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, sonny boy.
Quicktime Player was not ported, the Quicktime Framework is behind EVERY Apple piece of Software and hardware for it's media playback abilitys.
The iPod's syncing abilitys only play to the tune of iTunes, otherwise it's just another Buffed up External HDD.
Apple is using code from OS X, the Kernal, the Framework, etc. to design the OS for the iPhone. It has a right to the name of OS X.
Sebastian
edit: besides, no Carbon means no QuickTime...I wonder how Apple will get Flash onto its iPhone Safari.
So by your definition, Quicktime is incapable of running on Windows because Windows doesn't have Carbon, likewise with Flash.
Knowing Apple, they probably built Flash right into Safari itself, or they just didn't bother.
The Quicktime Framework does NOT require MAC OS X or CARBON because it is a MEDIA FRAMEWORK built into all of Apple's MEDIA Applications AND Hardware.
Sebastian
One thing I'd point out, since you brought up QT again - QT has been being migrated on to the top of CoreAudio, CoreVideo, etc, for a while now. It's been slow, but I have a sneaking suspicion we'll see QT8 with Leopard that finally breaks the Carbon dependency. At that point, I don't think there are many pieces of OS X (and no crown jewels) that rely on Carbon at all... which means a lot fewer assumptions about the hardware. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that QuickTime 8 will bring Cocoa as the primary API moving forward, with legacy C access still allowed through Core*.
You're right, they may not port QuickTime onto iPhone, but they're going to have to get media capabilities on there somehow. Reusing libraries from OS X to do so makes sense.
Remember, the iPod was originally using an OS from someone else. I have a hunch that iPod 2.0 will be OS X as well - a stripped down iPhone. Well, at least the video iPod will be. Can't say much about the Shuffle 2.0.
Er, SLewis... to anybody's knowledge who can talk, the iPod doesn't have anything like QT on it, sorry. It's a minimalist device. But you are right that QT no longer requires Carbon. In the past, porting QT to Windows *DID* in fact take porting a big chunk of the MacOS (back in the OS 7/8 days) because of the dependencies. Those became Carbon. So, really, a lot of Carbon has been ported to Windows - which is silly, and Apple has been trying to sweep those bits out of the dependencies ever since.
Quicktime Player was not ported, the Quicktime Framework is behind EVERY Apple piece of Software and hardware for it's media playback abilitys.
Not quite. The iPod has nothing remotely QuickTime-related. Well, perhaps some of its AAC and ALAC decoding code, and its FairPlay decryption. But not the framework, or even a noteworthy subset.
The iPod's syncing abilitys only play to the tune of iTunes, otherwise it's just another Buffed up External HDD.
iTunes's syncing is not part of QuickTime.
So by your definition, Quicktime is incapable of running on Windows because Windows doesn't have Carbon, likewise with Flash.
Actually, QuickTime for Windows was originally a port of most of the Mac OS toolbox. iTunes for Windows uses a lot of ported Carbon code, and some CoreFoundation code as well.
You even have bundles, yes, bundles, in Apple's Windows apps.
Heck, you have freaking Software Update on Windows now. And .lproj-based localizations.
So, yes, in many senses, a lot of CoreFoundation- and Carbon-esque stuff is over there. No problem at all.
Er, SLewis... to anybody's knowledge who can talk, the iPod doesn't have anything like QT on it, sorry. It's a minimalist device.
So to the best of anybody's knowledge, Apple built the Media Codec Decoding into the iPod by hand, instead of using a subset of a perfectly good framework to do it instead. It's a minimalist device, but without any kind of software at all, it's just an External HDD.
Sebastian
Not quite. The iPod has nothing remotely QuickTime-related. Well, perhaps some of its AAC and ALAC decoding code, and its FairPlay decryption. But not the framework, or even a noteworthy subset.
Maybe not a Noteworthy subset, but defanitely a subset. Apple built the iPods Software, likely using Quicktime. The iPod still needed a way to decode FairPlay, AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, and MPEG-4, etc. and they likely used the Quicktime Framework to do it.
iTunes's syncing is not part of QuickTime.
I never said it was
Sebastian
Actually, QuickTime for Windows was originally a port of most of the Mac OS toolbox. iTunes for Windows uses a lot of ported Carbon code, and some CoreFoundation code as well.
You even have bundles, yes, bundles, in Apple's Windows apps.
Heck, you have freaking Software Update on Windows now. And .lproj-based localizations.
So, yes, in many senses, a lot of CoreFoundation- and Carbon-esque stuff is over there. No problem at all.
That uses the W32 API
Sebastian
So to the best of anybody's knowledge, Apple built the Media Codec Decoding into the iPod by hand, instead of using a subset of a perfectly good framework to do it instead. It's a minimalist device, but without any kind of software at all, it's just an External HDD.
No, most of the audio, image and video decoding capabilities are already there, done by PortalPlayer. Apple only had to add some custom codecs of their own. It'd not only be hugely wasteful to add their whole framework; it might be downright impossible. We're talking an embedded chipset here, with two ARM cores. It's not only a wholly different architecture; it's also a lot more limiting than what Apple can do on a desktop.
And, at the time, OS X was nowhere near as scalable and mature. The same certainly goes for QuickTime, which was far more stuck in its old Toolbox-esque ways than it is even still now.
Maybe not a Noteworthy subset, but defanitely a subset. Apple built the iPods Software, likely using Quicktime.
No, Apple did not build the iPod software. The iPod's OS is based on Pixo. Much of the iPod's features are based on PortalPlayer's chipset features.
The iPod still needed a way to decode FairPlay, AAC, MP3, Apple Lossless, and MPEG-4, etc. and they likely used the Quicktime Framework to do it.
Most of them, certainly MP3 and MPEG-4, and probably AAC, were already there.
That uses the W32 API
Yes, it eventually interfaces with Win32. But there's still a lot of OS X code in there. There's piles upon piles of evidence all over the place.
So to the best of anybody's knowledge, Apple built the Media Codec Decoding into the iPod by hand, instead of using a subset of a perfectly good framework to do it instead. It's a minimalist device, but without any kind of software at all, it's just an External HDD.
You missed the point that Chucker and I have been saying: the iPod's OS was written by Pixio, not Apple. The iPod's ability to decode the media was supplied by the dedicated chips - the codecs were embedded in the chips themselves, for just such sorts of devices. Apple did not write the iPod OS, nor did they *need* to add the codec support. This isn't speculation, this is public fact.
No, it's really not. But thanks for trying.
Well, this piece seems to agree with you that it is not OS X.
That means it's not running on an Intel (or PPC) core.
No, so far we know nothing about the architecture. ARM is an educated guess, but we can't rule either PowerPC or Intel out.
That means it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like).
Why's that? What about OS X ties it conceptually to those two architectures? Nothing.
Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X, does not run on ARM processors. The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold
Except that Apple, of course, isn't bound by that license agreement, because they are the ones who issued it to begin with: the copyright holders. A license agreement applies to how third parties may or may not use intellectual property, not to how the freaking owner can.
We have Apple's word against mediocre conjecture full of fallacies. Joswiak, as quoted at http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...m?newsid=16927 , is fairly unequivocal about this: it's "an optimized but full version of OS X", and that they did not focus on "cutting functionality or removing core technologies".
Perhaps it would make some sense to simply believe Apple on this matter until we know better, hmm?
Well, this piece seems to agree with you that it is not OS X.
Well...not in the same way I'm saying it's not OS X (and by OS X I mean Mac OS X
There. Darwin. Ported to ARM. If the base system runs, everything else can get ported as well.
(Someone, likely Kickaha, is gonna get all nitpicky and point out that that project doesn't have any code yet.