I don't want to seem like a troll, since this is my first comment in these forums, but I have been reading AppleInsider for years now. But the usage of photos in this article really galls me.
It's extremely lame to use pictures from MacNN to illustrate this article without clear attribution as to the source. I know there's the "Visit MacNN for even more photos" line, but it should be made clear that the photos used originated from MacNN's website.
The photograph of the two bridges is from Apple, it has been floating around the net since at least March. That no doubt is where MacNN got it. Might ask them about it.
The biggest issue I have with the naming scheme is that it doesn't solve the mouthful that occurs when you try to explain that iPhone SDK based applications can run on iPhone or iPod. If it was OS X Mobility, you would avoid this confusion.
I blogged on this point back in April. Here is an excerpt:
"The platform is called iPhone SDK but if they execute, there will be as many if not more of these devices running on iPod touch (as iPhones). It is a mouthful to have to write every reference as 'runs on iPhone and iPod touch devices' and it is certainly less crisp, which limits the effectiveness of marketing messages that leverage viral, word of mouth strategies."
Basically, it was widely circulate, and, if I recall correctly, was on Apple's homepage for a while. The cnet image actually seems to have a link button on it...
I'd agree it was a stupid naming idea, but I would like to point out that OS X iPhone is only designed to work on the iPhone setup, which is reproduced on the touch. It is tied to the display size.
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone.
Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS.
Any release for another device like it would have to use a Massively Remade version of OS X iPhone.
The touch API's are tied to screen size, and to port them to another screen size takes major OS changes.
You notice that screen size didn't change between the touch and the iPhone. This is why.
And as for the naming, well, its got to do with the fact that the iPod Touch is really just a cropped version of the iPhone anyway. Steve doesn't like it at all.
Think of the touch as an iPhone lite, and it all makes sense.
Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
Huh? iPhone is just a copied version of touch? Steve doesn't like it at all?
Reality: Apple doesn't generally build stuff by accident, and they certainly don't roll out high volume products that Jobs isn't 200% behind. Plus, all of this stuff is derivative. iPhone is hugely derived from iPod, and iPod touch is hugely derived from iPhone.
My only point is that if one base of apps is designed to work on the iPhone/Touch class of devices, why not have a naming scheme that is clear that it's an AND?
Bear in mind that 100M iPods have been sold, and many of those customers may never buy an iPhone but also won't likely leave the iPod universe since their memories and their media are already sync'd with the platform.
There is very low awareness with this base that the SDK touches their world - pun intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
I'd agree it was a stupid naming idea, but I would like to point out that OS X iPhone is only designed to work on the iPhone. It is tied to the display size.
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone.
Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS.
Any release for another device like it would have to use a Massively Remade version of OS X iPhone.
The touch API's are tied to screen size, and to port them to another screen size takes major OS changes.
You notice that screen size didn't change between the touch and the iPhone. This is why.
And as for the naming, well, its got to do with the fact that the iPod Touch is really just a cropped version of the iPhone anyway. Steve doesn't like it at all.
If there is indeed a Snow Leopard in our path and it is mostly security and performance tweaks then Steve should do us all a favor and give it away for free. That is to those that already have Leopard.
My opinion is that this whole iPhone thing is really getting too big. I don't know if it's due to the buzz the iPhone generates. My belief is that Steve is too involved in the iPhone and he might lose focus on the whole "macintosh" part of Apple.
Splitting OSX in "Leopard" and "iPhone" might generate a lot of problems in the long run. Just as the two golden gates in the pic, the OSs would slowly tend to drift apart. This means double the effort for Apple, double the risk of problems and a great risk of inconsistencies.
The same Microsoft was blamed for with WinMob...
I am no programmer, no IT guru nor an advisor. But I am a user of Apple's products (MB (Leopard), iPhone, AppleTV (2.0)). I already see inconsistencies (FrontRow). My guess is that Steve is pushing the iPhone to far and might get burnt.
Simplicity, consistency and design is what I cherish in Apple's computer. Creating two teams for two OSs in the same company is NOT what will make it better, in my modest opinion.
Supporting ONE OS for ALL users has been a strenght for Apple much more than people generally give it credit to. ONE OS allows to move faster, innovate better and create a unique experience.
Splitting OS might generate more problems than what is seems to offer opportunities. But hey... It's Steve's phone and he wants it to shine and achieve that goal of sales figuers he has set. It's SEEMS to me it's more about pride than strategy.
I'd agree it was a stupid naming idea, but I would like to point out that OS X iPhone is only designed to work on the iPhone setup, which is reproduced on the touch. It is tied to the display size.
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone. Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS. Any release for another device like it would have to use a Massively Remade version of OS X iPhone. The touch API's are tied to screen size, and to port them to another screen size takes major OS changes. You notice that screen size didn't change between the touch and the iPhone. This is why. And as for the naming, well, its got to do with the fact that the iPod Touch is really just a cropped version of the iPhone anyway. Steve doesn't like it at all. Think of the touch as an iPhone lite, and it all makes sense.
Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
Well I have unfortunately not had time to dive into the iPhone SDK, but I would *HIGHLY DOUBT* that the user interface APIs in mobile OSX are strongly coupled to the current iPhone's resolution (320x480). I can't think of any legitimate development reason for such a thing, and it would be such an asinine design flaw that I'd have to seriously question the intelligence of the lead developer of iPhone OS. There is just no way in my mind that this could be true. And Besides other possible tablet/MID devices, they surely wouldn't make the assumption that the iPhone's display hardware won't evolve over time.
"Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense." --- and I don't even know how to reply to this gem of a statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William John
The photograph of the two bridges is from Apple, it has been floating around the net since at least March. That no doubt is where MacNN got it. Might ask them about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
The image is from Apple:
CNET links to it:
Ars uses it, too:
Basically, it was widely circulate, and, if I recall correctly, was on Apple's homepage for a while. The cnet image actually seems to have a link button on it...
You guys have the wrong idea. The poster complaining about AI using MacNN images without citation was referring to all the pics of the Moscone Center on this post. I don't know how you got on the topic of the two-bridge picture...
My opinion is that this whole iPhone thing is really getting too big. I don't know if it's due to the buzz the iPhone generates. My belief is that Steve is too involved in the iPhone and he might lose focus on the whole "macintosh" part of Apple.
Splitting OSX in "Leopard" and "iPhone" might generate a lot of problems in the long run. Just as the two golden gates in the pic, the OSs would slowly tend to drift apart. This means double the effort for Apple, double the risk of problems and a great risk of inconsistencies.
The same Microsoft was blamed for with WinMob...
I am no programmer, no IT guru nor an advisor. But I am a user of Apple's products (MB (Leopard), iPhone, AppleTV (2.0)). I already see inconsistencies (FrontRow). My guess is that Steve is pushing the iPhone to far and might get burnt.
Simplicity, consistency and design is what I cherish in Apple's computer. Creating two teams for two OSs in the same company is NOT what will make it better, in my modest opinion.
Supporting ONE OS for ALL users has been a strenght for Apple much more than people generally give it credit to. ONE OS allows to move faster, innovate better and create a unique experience.
Splitting OS might generate more problems than what is seems to offer opportunities. But hey... It's Steve's phone and he wants it to shine and achieve that goal of sales figuers he has set. It's SEEMS to me it's more about pride than strategy.
But then again, I am no "guru".
So you suggest that Apple throw away the years it spent trimming down OS X and adding code to make a viable mobile OS? That the iPhone and iPod Touch should be canceled?
They've already the hard part. Some have called it impossible, saying Apple can't enter a developed cell phone market. Others said that MS could make Windows a viable mobile OS (WinMobile is not the same as desktop Windows, it was jsut made to look like it on the surface) and so Apple couldn't do it.
It's all relatively smooth sailing from here compared to what was needed to create a whole new platform, including the SDK. And we've seen Macs change to Intel and Mac designs and innards change, and we've even seen new Macs come to fruition.
The Mac line is not dying, in fact, the iPods, the iPhones and Apple Stores all help grow the Mac brand. They are still the powerhouse behind Apple's revenue and will continue to be so for some time.
The fact that Apple has the same core OS running both the iPhone and Macs makes it that much easier for them to develop more and better products in less time. If they really want to trim the fat, they could well by dropping 32-bit and PC support from future Mac OS X builds, which might be something we see come Monday to the chagrin of many people still using older?though not necessarily old?machines.
Well I have unfortunately not had time to dive into the iPhone SDK, but I would *HIGHLY DOUBT* that the user interface APIs in mobile OSX are strongly coupled to the current iPhone's resolution (320x480).
It wouldn't be. They would have the page match the resolution just like with all teh different size monitors they have for Macs, MB and MBPs.
PS: I'm guessing that Apple won't be keeping the 320x480 resolution. While it was a high ppi 18 months ago when it was showcased there are now phone with double the resolution?full VGA?on smaller screens. Even if Apple had planned to use the same screen again, they could have changed up to probably a few months ago if they saw that competition was using better screens. And since Apple will probably only update the iPhone about every 6 months at most and there will be a new competing device coming out every few weeks, I would assume, it's imperative that they go state-of-the-art on this front.
You guys have the wrong idea. The poster complaining about AI using MacNN images without citation was referring to all the pics of the Moscone Center on this post. I don't know how you got on the topic of the two-bridge picture...
AI usually doesn't post the main article page images on the forum post, so if you found this article directly through the forum you could get lost. It's happened to me a few times.
I just put my iPod Touch on my MBA and it looks nothing like that poster. My Touch is tiny compared to the posters perspective. Even in the poster it looks like it is towards the back of the MBA and leaning on it.
I just put my iPod Touch on my MBA and it looks nothing like that poster. My Touch is tiny compared to the posters perspective. Even in the poster it looks like it is towards the back of the MBA and leaning on it.
The poster clearly shows the device in front of the MBA. The image link below is a much clearer view.
Just as a reference, Apple has never put up easily visible posters several days before an event that revealed secrets about a device's look.
I stand corrected. And thanks. I was getting all excited by a tablet pc. However I did see something interesting to the side of the poster. Is it a finger print in a yellow square with an iPhone next to it?
No coverd up banners this time? This makes earth-shaking announcements higly unlikely...
iPhone and Air are placed at the center of the banner. Maybe Apple got smarter and decided to cover the center of the banner with existing products to increase surprise.
Also: I don't see anything .mac or .me related in none of the ads. Being WWDC I would expect there to be something like that..
Comments
Does anyone else see a tablet in the main banner?
http://images.appleinsider.com/08_wwdc_f_6.jpg
In the middle, positioned in front of the MBA?
Or is it just an iPhone?
I say it's an iPhone...
I can't wait to watch this event online. Apple is truly the most exciting and inspiring company on earth.
Time to start going crazy.
JKAJSLkjhas;fyha;kry;aeuyrwpe8yoiqhw4e.;l8547 ehi !~!!!!!!!
I don't want to seem like a troll, since this is my first comment in these forums, but I have been reading AppleInsider for years now. But the usage of photos in this article really galls me.
It's extremely lame to use pictures from MacNN to illustrate this article without clear attribution as to the source. I know there's the "Visit MacNN for even more photos" line, but it should be made clear that the photos used originated from MacNN's website.
The photograph of the two bridges is from Apple, it has been floating around the net since at least March. That no doubt is where MacNN got it. Might ask them about it.
I blogged on this point back in April. Here is an excerpt:
"The platform is called iPhone SDK but if they execute, there will be as many if not more of these devices running on iPod touch (as iPhones). It is a mouthful to have to write every reference as 'runs on iPhone and iPod touch devices' and it is certainly less crisp, which limits the effectiveness of marketing messages that leverage viral, word of mouth strategies."
Here's the full post if interested.
Sub $200 Wi-Fi Touchscreen iPods by Fall?
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...0-wi-fi-t.html
Mark
CNET links to it:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9959884-37.html
Ars uses it, too:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...from-june-9-13
Basically, it was widely circulate, and, if I recall correctly, was on Apple's homepage for a while. The cnet image actually seems to have a link button on it...
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone.
Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS.
Any release for another device like it would have to use a Massively Remade version of OS X iPhone.
The touch API's are tied to screen size, and to port them to another screen size takes major OS changes.
You notice that screen size didn't change between the touch and the iPhone. This is why.
And as for the naming, well, its got to do with the fact that the iPod Touch is really just a cropped version of the iPhone anyway. Steve doesn't like it at all.
Think of the touch as an iPhone lite, and it all makes sense.
Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
Reality: Apple doesn't generally build stuff by accident, and they certainly don't roll out high volume products that Jobs isn't 200% behind. Plus, all of this stuff is derivative. iPhone is hugely derived from iPod, and iPod touch is hugely derived from iPhone.
My only point is that if one base of apps is designed to work on the iPhone/Touch class of devices, why not have a naming scheme that is clear that it's an AND?
Bear in mind that 100M iPods have been sold, and many of those customers may never buy an iPhone but also won't likely leave the iPod universe since their memories and their media are already sync'd with the platform.
There is very low awareness with this base that the SDK touches their world - pun intended.
I'd agree it was a stupid naming idea, but I would like to point out that OS X iPhone is only designed to work on the iPhone. It is tied to the display size.
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone.
Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS.
Any release for another device like it would have to use a Massively Remade version of OS X iPhone.
The touch API's are tied to screen size, and to port them to another screen size takes major OS changes.
You notice that screen size didn't change between the touch and the iPhone. This is why.
And as for the naming, well, its got to do with the fact that the iPod Touch is really just a cropped version of the iPhone anyway. Steve doesn't like it at all.
I see this...
If there is indeed a Snow Leopard in our path and it is mostly security and performance tweaks then Steve should do us all a favor and give it away for free. That is to those that already have Leopard.
Splitting OSX in "Leopard" and "iPhone" might generate a lot of problems in the long run. Just as the two golden gates in the pic, the OSs would slowly tend to drift apart. This means double the effort for Apple, double the risk of problems and a great risk of inconsistencies.
The same Microsoft was blamed for with WinMob...
I am no programmer, no IT guru nor an advisor. But I am a user of Apple's products (MB (Leopard), iPhone, AppleTV (2.0)). I already see inconsistencies (FrontRow). My guess is that Steve is pushing the iPhone to far and might get burnt.
Simplicity, consistency and design is what I cherish in Apple's computer. Creating two teams for two OSs in the same company is NOT what will make it better, in my modest opinion.
Supporting ONE OS for ALL users has been a strenght for Apple much more than people generally give it credit to. ONE OS allows to move faster, innovate better and create a unique experience.
Splitting OS might generate more problems than what is seems to offer opportunities. But hey... It's Steve's phone and he wants it to shine and achieve that goal of sales figuers he has set. It's SEEMS to me it's more about pride than strategy.
But then again, I am no "guru".
I'd agree it was a stupid naming idea, but I would like to point out that OS X iPhone is only designed to work on the iPhone setup, which is reproduced on the touch. It is tied to the display size.
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone. Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS. Any release for another device like it would have to use a Massively Remade version of OS X iPhone. The touch API's are tied to screen size, and to port them to another screen size takes major OS changes. You notice that screen size didn't change between the touch and the iPhone. This is why. And as for the naming, well, its got to do with the fact that the iPod Touch is really just a cropped version of the iPhone anyway. Steve doesn't like it at all. Think of the touch as an iPhone lite, and it all makes sense.
Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
Well I have unfortunately not had time to dive into the iPhone SDK, but I would *HIGHLY DOUBT* that the user interface APIs in mobile OSX are strongly coupled to the current iPhone's resolution (320x480). I can't think of any legitimate development reason for such a thing, and it would be such an asinine design flaw that I'd have to seriously question the intelligence of the lead developer of iPhone OS. There is just no way in my mind that this could be true. And Besides other possible tablet/MID devices, they surely wouldn't make the assumption that the iPhone's display hardware won't evolve over time.
"Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense." --- and I don't even know how to reply to this gem of a statement.
The photograph of the two bridges is from Apple, it has been floating around the net since at least March. That no doubt is where MacNN got it. Might ask them about it.
The image is from Apple:
CNET links to it:
Ars uses it, too:
Basically, it was widely circulate, and, if I recall correctly, was on Apple's homepage for a while. The cnet image actually seems to have a link button on it...
You guys have the wrong idea. The poster complaining about AI using MacNN images without citation was referring to all the pics of the Moscone Center on this post. I don't know how you got on the topic of the two-bridge picture...
My opinion is that this whole iPhone thing is really getting too big. I don't know if it's due to the buzz the iPhone generates. My belief is that Steve is too involved in the iPhone and he might lose focus on the whole "macintosh" part of Apple.
Splitting OSX in "Leopard" and "iPhone" might generate a lot of problems in the long run. Just as the two golden gates in the pic, the OSs would slowly tend to drift apart. This means double the effort for Apple, double the risk of problems and a great risk of inconsistencies.
The same Microsoft was blamed for with WinMob...
I am no programmer, no IT guru nor an advisor. But I am a user of Apple's products (MB (Leopard), iPhone, AppleTV (2.0)). I already see inconsistencies (FrontRow). My guess is that Steve is pushing the iPhone to far and might get burnt.
Simplicity, consistency and design is what I cherish in Apple's computer. Creating two teams for two OSs in the same company is NOT what will make it better, in my modest opinion.
Supporting ONE OS for ALL users has been a strenght for Apple much more than people generally give it credit to. ONE OS allows to move faster, innovate better and create a unique experience.
Splitting OS might generate more problems than what is seems to offer opportunities. But hey... It's Steve's phone and he wants it to shine and achieve that goal of sales figuers he has set. It's SEEMS to me it's more about pride than strategy.
But then again, I am no "guru".
So you suggest that Apple throw away the years it spent trimming down OS X and adding code to make a viable mobile OS? That the iPhone and iPod Touch should be canceled?
They've already the hard part. Some have called it impossible, saying Apple can't enter a developed cell phone market. Others said that MS could make Windows a viable mobile OS (WinMobile is not the same as desktop Windows, it was jsut made to look like it on the surface) and so Apple couldn't do it.
It's all relatively smooth sailing from here compared to what was needed to create a whole new platform, including the SDK. And we've seen Macs change to Intel and Mac designs and innards change, and we've even seen new Macs come to fruition.
The Mac line is not dying, in fact, the iPods, the iPhones and Apple Stores all help grow the Mac brand. They are still the powerhouse behind Apple's revenue and will continue to be so for some time.
The fact that Apple has the same core OS running both the iPhone and Macs makes it that much easier for them to develop more and better products in less time. If they really want to trim the fat, they could well by dropping 32-bit and PC support from future Mac OS X builds, which might be something we see come Monday to the chagrin of many people still using older?though not necessarily old?machines.
Well I have unfortunately not had time to dive into the iPhone SDK, but I would *HIGHLY DOUBT* that the user interface APIs in mobile OSX are strongly coupled to the current iPhone's resolution (320x480).
It wouldn't be. They would have the page match the resolution just like with all teh different size monitors they have for Macs, MB and MBPs.
PS: I'm guessing that Apple won't be keeping the 320x480 resolution. While it was a high ppi 18 months ago when it was showcased there are now phone with double the resolution?full VGA?on smaller screens. Even if Apple had planned to use the same screen again, they could have changed up to probably a few months ago if they saw that competition was using better screens. And since Apple will probably only update the iPhone about every 6 months at most and there will be a new competing device coming out every few weeks, I would assume, it's imperative that they go state-of-the-art on this front.
You guys have the wrong idea. The poster complaining about AI using MacNN images without citation was referring to all the pics of the Moscone Center on this post. I don't know how you got on the topic of the two-bridge picture...
AI usually doesn't post the main article page images on the forum post, so if you found this article directly through the forum you could get lost. It's happened to me a few times.
I say it's an iPhone...
I just put my iPod Touch on my MBA and it looks nothing like that poster. My Touch is tiny compared to the posters perspective. Even in the poster it looks like it is towards the back of the MBA and leaning on it.
I just put my iPod Touch on my MBA and it looks nothing like that poster. My Touch is tiny compared to the posters perspective. Even in the poster it looks like it is towards the back of the MBA and leaning on it.
The poster clearly shows the device in front of the MBA. The image link below is a much clearer view.
Just as a reference, Apple has never put up easily visible posters several days before an event that revealed secrets about a device's look.
The poster clearly shows the device in front of the MBA. The image link below is a much clearer view.
Just as a reference, Apple has never put up easily visible posters several days before an event that revealed secrets about a device's look.
I stand corrected. And thanks. I was getting all excited by a tablet pc. However I did see something interesting to the side of the poster. Is it a finger print in a yellow square with an iPhone next to it?
No coverd up banners this time? This makes earth-shaking announcements higly unlikely...
iPhone and Air are placed at the center of the banner. Maybe Apple got smarter and decided to cover the center of the banner with existing products to increase surprise.
Also: I don't see anything .mac or .me related in none of the ads. Being WWDC I would expect there to be something like that..