Indeed - and now's where we start to see the true benefit of their move to processor-independent code. Migrating to x86 was just the start. It's gonna get interesting, real fast.
Before, developing for iPod, iPhone, and Mac required developing for three interfaces. If iPod goes OS X, developing for iPod, iPhone, and Mac still requires developing for three interfaces (since iPod nano or its replacement will likely still not have a touch screen interface). So no change there.
But before, developing the non-UI innards of iPod was completely separate than developing the innards for Mac or iPhone. Now those are united. Lastly, non-UI (and some UI like Coverflow) iTunes code for Mac OS X is now running on OS X for iPhone, and it will now also be running on iPod. If the wireless iTunes store, as rumored, comes to be, then another piece of the iTunes codebase will be reused on the iPod and iPhone. To me, that rumor only has validity if the iPod is using OS X; I can't see Apple developing an iTunes download interface (with DRM, financial transaction security, and all that) for two separate OSes (iPod, iPhone).
As to onlooker's comment, no one has reported on the actual Apple-Creative agreement. At the time, many thought Apple got off very cheaply (assuming Creative really had a valid case of infringement, which, given that Apple gave in means that Apple thought it was not worth fighting out further in court). So it could be that Apple paid so little because it agreed to abandon the "Creative" interface by a given date - end of 2007. It may be that if Apple continues to use the interface, it would owe Creative further financial payment.
It's more than that. If it weren't, then Apple wouldn't have made a big deal about it being "true" OS X.
No, they are publicizing the fact that these devices will use OS X. It's a publicity move as well as a practical one.
The idea is for Apple to be able to say that we sold 75 million devices running OS X this year, rather than saying that they sold 9 million.
It's not only a dig at MS, it's also a dig against Linux. It's a war of words as much as anything else.
Lastly, by saying that the phone or iPod that people are using has OS X, Apple is hoping that it will convince them to buy a computer that also runs OS X.
Don't assume that there is a relatively small amount of work to "tweek" it for other devices. These other devices are totally different from the Mac. ATv comes the closet in regards to the cpu, but the others are on different platforms. It's like the difference between the PPC and X86.
It's more than that. If it weren't, then Apple wouldn't have made a big deal about it being "true" OS X.
No, they are publicizing the fact that these devices will use OS X. It's a publicity move as well as a practical one.
The idea is for Apple to be able to say that we sold 75 million devices running OS X this year, rather than saying that they sold 9 million.
It's not only a dig at MS, it's also a dig against Linux. It's a war of words as much as anything else.
Lastly, by saying that the phone or iPod that people are using has OS X, Apple is hoping that it will convince them to buy a computer that also runs OS X.
Don't assume that there is a relatively small amount of work to "tweek" it for other devices. These other devices are totally different from the Mac. ATv comes the closet in regards to the cpu, but the others are on different platforms. It's like the difference between the PPC and X86.
Maybe so, maybe not. I still don't think that majority of peoplewould be stupid enough to count oranges as apples. If they implemented Safari to iPod on the other hand, they would add drastic weight against IE in the new browser wars. Maybe then we could finally get standard web pages, and companies moving out from activeX components. Then there would be one obstacle less for companies to start slowly leaning towards Macs.
There are many, many embedded systems using a FreeBSD or Linux core and ARM processor. My D-Link cable router at home, for example, all $39 worth of it, in a tiny grey box not much larger than an iPhone, is actually a Linux core running on an ARM for example. The actual Unix core (the low-level OS API) is actually quite lightweight, since it was originally designed to run on a PDP-11 minicomputer with a whole 256K bytes of memory and far less CPU power than an ARM.
It doesn't surprise me that Apple wants to migrate all of its appliances from using whatever embedded OS they were previously using to the FreeBSD/Mach core that is the OS-X core. That gives them 100% ownership of the product and provides better functionality in multi-tasking type environments (such as running the front panel buttons while displaying videos coming in over a WiFi network) while requiring less OS core maintenance for the appliance guys, since they are now no longer required to heavily modify a 3rd party embedded OS or write one from scratch. Now the embedded people, if they need a performance tweak, can just ask the OS-X group for the tweak instead of having to do it themselves or ask someone like VxWorks to add a new optimization just for the iPod (bwahaha! as if).
And performance tweaks to reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iPod will also likely reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iMac. It's a win-win all around.
Now the embedded people, if they need a performance tweak, can just ask the OS-X group for the tweak instead of having to do it themselves or ask someone like VxWorks to add a new optimization just for the iPod (bwahaha! as if).
And performance tweaks to reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iPod will also likely reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iMac. It's a win-win all around.
The 6G iPod surely can get OS X with similar ARM and RAM levels as the iPhone , but I don't see the Nano getting this OS upgrade until the CPU and RAM capabilities are greatly increased. Something that doesn't seem possible with its current minute dimensions. The Shuffle, or course, will still remain with the same OS.
There are many, many embedded systems using a FreeBSD or Linux core and ARM processor. My D-Link cable router at home, for example, all $39 worth of it, in a tiny grey box not much larger than an iPhone, is actually a Linux core running on an ARM for example. The actual Unix core (the low-level OS API) is actually quite lightweight, since it was originally designed to run on a PDP-11 minicomputer with a whole 256K bytes of memory and far less CPU power than an ARM.
It doesn't surprise me that Apple wants to migrate all of its appliances from using whatever embedded OS they were previously using to the FreeBSD/Mach core that is the OS-X core. That gives them 100% ownership of the product and provides better functionality in multi-tasking type environments (such as running the front panel buttons while displaying videos coming in over a WiFi network) while requiring less OS core maintenance for the appliance guys, since they are now no longer required to heavily modify a 3rd party embedded OS or write one from scratch. Now the embedded people, if they need a performance tweak, can just ask the OS-X group for the tweak instead of having to do it themselves or ask someone like VxWorks to add a new optimization just for the iPod (bwahaha! as if).
And performance tweaks to reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iPod will also likely reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iMac. It's a win-win all around.
So, does that system use Unix or Linux? They are not the same. I think it's doubtful it uses Unix.
Comments
But before, developing the non-UI innards of iPod was completely separate than developing the innards for Mac or iPhone. Now those are united. Lastly, non-UI (and some UI like Coverflow) iTunes code for Mac OS X is now running on OS X for iPhone, and it will now also be running on iPod. If the wireless iTunes store, as rumored, comes to be, then another piece of the iTunes codebase will be reused on the iPod and iPhone. To me, that rumor only has validity if the iPod is using OS X; I can't see Apple developing an iTunes download interface (with DRM, financial transaction security, and all that) for two separate OSes (iPod, iPhone).
As to onlooker's comment, no one has reported on the actual Apple-Creative agreement. At the time, many thought Apple got off very cheaply (assuming Creative really had a valid case of infringement, which, given that Apple gave in means that Apple thought it was not worth fighting out further in court). So it could be that Apple paid so little because it agreed to abandon the "Creative" interface by a given date - end of 2007. It may be that if Apple continues to use the interface, it would owe Creative further financial payment.
It's more than that. If it weren't, then Apple wouldn't have made a big deal about it being "true" OS X.
No, they are publicizing the fact that these devices will use OS X. It's a publicity move as well as a practical one.
The idea is for Apple to be able to say that we sold 75 million devices running OS X this year, rather than saying that they sold 9 million.
It's not only a dig at MS, it's also a dig against Linux. It's a war of words as much as anything else.
Lastly, by saying that the phone or iPod that people are using has OS X, Apple is hoping that it will convince them to buy a computer that also runs OS X.
Don't assume that there is a relatively small amount of work to "tweek" it for other devices. These other devices are totally different from the Mac. ATv comes the closet in regards to the cpu, but the others are on different platforms. It's like the difference between the PPC and X86.
Excellent points.
It's more than that. If it weren't, then Apple wouldn't have made a big deal about it being "true" OS X.
No, they are publicizing the fact that these devices will use OS X. It's a publicity move as well as a practical one.
The idea is for Apple to be able to say that we sold 75 million devices running OS X this year, rather than saying that they sold 9 million.
It's not only a dig at MS, it's also a dig against Linux. It's a war of words as much as anything else.
Lastly, by saying that the phone or iPod that people are using has OS X, Apple is hoping that it will convince them to buy a computer that also runs OS X.
Don't assume that there is a relatively small amount of work to "tweek" it for other devices. These other devices are totally different from the Mac. ATv comes the closet in regards to the cpu, but the others are on different platforms. It's like the difference between the PPC and X86.
Maybe so, maybe not. I still don't think that majority of peoplewould be stupid enough to count oranges as apples. If they implemented Safari to iPod on the other hand, they would add drastic weight against IE in the new browser wars. Maybe then we could finally get standard web pages, and companies moving out from activeX components. Then there would be one obstacle less for companies to start slowly leaning towards Macs.
It doesn't surprise me that Apple wants to migrate all of its appliances from using whatever embedded OS they were previously using to the FreeBSD/Mach core that is the OS-X core. That gives them 100% ownership of the product and provides better functionality in multi-tasking type environments (such as running the front panel buttons while displaying videos coming in over a WiFi network) while requiring less OS core maintenance for the appliance guys, since they are now no longer required to heavily modify a 3rd party embedded OS or write one from scratch. Now the embedded people, if they need a performance tweak, can just ask the OS-X group for the tweak instead of having to do it themselves or ask someone like VxWorks to add a new optimization just for the iPod (bwahaha! as if).
And performance tweaks to reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iPod will also likely reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iMac. It's a win-win all around.
Now the embedded people, if they need a performance tweak, can just ask the OS-X group for the tweak instead of having to do it themselves or ask someone like VxWorks to add a new optimization just for the iPod (bwahaha! as if).
And performance tweaks to reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iPod will also likely reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iMac. It's a win-win all around.
The 6G iPod surely can get OS X with similar ARM and RAM levels as the iPhone , but I don't see the Nano getting this OS upgrade until the CPU and RAM capabilities are greatly increased. Something that doesn't seem possible with its current minute dimensions. The Shuffle, or course, will still remain with the same OS.
There are many, many embedded systems using a FreeBSD or Linux core and ARM processor. My D-Link cable router at home, for example, all $39 worth of it, in a tiny grey box not much larger than an iPhone, is actually a Linux core running on an ARM for example. The actual Unix core (the low-level OS API) is actually quite lightweight, since it was originally designed to run on a PDP-11 minicomputer with a whole 256K bytes of memory and far less CPU power than an ARM.
It doesn't surprise me that Apple wants to migrate all of its appliances from using whatever embedded OS they were previously using to the FreeBSD/Mach core that is the OS-X core. That gives them 100% ownership of the product and provides better functionality in multi-tasking type environments (such as running the front panel buttons while displaying videos coming in over a WiFi network) while requiring less OS core maintenance for the appliance guys, since they are now no longer required to heavily modify a 3rd party embedded OS or write one from scratch. Now the embedded people, if they need a performance tweak, can just ask the OS-X group for the tweak instead of having to do it themselves or ask someone like VxWorks to add a new optimization just for the iPod (bwahaha! as if).
And performance tweaks to reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iPod will also likely reduce memory footprint or improve performance for the iMac. It's a win-win all around.
So, does that system use Unix or Linux? They are not the same. I think it's doubtful it uses Unix.