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.
My second thoughts, exactly. On the other hand, maybe an iPhone v2 would share its predessor's shape and dimensions (except for depth, maybe) and would still be named "iPhone" without any suffixes?
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...
Just re-read the thread... my bad: it did say photos.
Regarding the "licensing OS X" talk... it would make absolutely no business sense at this point in time:
-Apple isn't having trouble keeping up with production demands for computers
-The Apple "brand" places value on "cool, elegant, and easy." Licensing detracts from all of these.
-OSX could actually hit double-digit market share quite soon, without other manufacturers "helping out."
-Potential vendors gain more from selling Linux-- it's free!
-Apple's only potential gain out if it is end-users upgrading over time. The likelihood they can derrive profit (or loyalty) out of clones is extremely low.
-The market Apple doesn't compete in is the low-end desktop. In this market, Linux again provides more value than licensed OSX would.
-The Mid-Tower market that actually has some opportunity for Apple can be better served with another kind of innovation; Apple keeping this open for themselves seems more profitable.
The divide is for developers, not for Apple Inc.
Agreed.
Maybe the 'divide' is between Intel and PPC machines? Maybe Snow Leopard is Intel only and does stuff a PPC cannot support. Not that i know what that would be ... ZFS maybe?
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.
Very little of this post makes any sense. Let's start with the first statement. No it is not tied to the display. This is a big reason Apple has been developing resolution independence in their UI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone.
Probably, it is all rumor from people that haven't programmed for the iPhone. What does that have to do with it being true or not? Let's say this came straight from Jobs or Ives...one might assume they would know. But I sort of doubt either has done much iPhone programming. It really isn't relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS.
Elaborate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
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.
No, this is not why. It is because it made the most sense for the next Touch device. A Tablet would be a new market for Apple. If the do a Tablet at all, it would make more sense to do the iPod next, since it is a known market. iPhone had to be first because it would appeal to the largest market (Tablet would be a much smaller potential market) and would hence created the biggest buzz. Far bigger than doing iPod Touch or Tablet Touch first.
Common screen size does mean that they wouldn't have to worry about any potential resolution issues, but those are not show stoppers. Apple has some experience with UIs...enough not to be afraid of screen size issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
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.
Really? You know this how?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
Think of the touch as an iPhone lite, and it all makes sense.
Except it isn't a phone...other than that, yes calling the OS on the iPod Touch OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG4G
Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
I think the other 'landmark' part of this keynote will be they'll announce the license OS X coming in January.
Think about it for a second. They've dropped all reference to Mac in the OS X posters and I think Snow Leopard will be the release for all PC's in January. They dropped a bombshell a few years ago with the move to Intel. This just seems to be a natural progression of the OS for all.
Anyway just my thoughts on this.
It makes since in a way, still if they do it, they have to do it smart. No BIOS, no Legacy ports, and for god's sake tell ATI and Nvidia so they can start making their cards compatible with BOTH EFI and BIOS (windows) firmware. Apple is at its strongest, while Microsoft is very vulnerable. They would be foolish to let this pass.
Apple has unfurled its customary banners in the run-up to WWDC and is emphasizing the split between OS X iPhone and OS X Leopard in what promises to be a company-defining event.
What is it about the banners that alerts the writer of this article to this alleged company defining event?
Picture of two bridges ..... Landmark event in more ways than one ....... Two bridges = OSX for Mac and OSX for iPhone/iPod Touch
Exactly. While the OSes might be the same cores, there will always be some marked differences in what functionality is exposed and what sort of apps will be developed for them.
Two bridges simply means two developer paths on the same OS. You wouldn't use the standard Mac SDK to dev iPhone apps and you wouldn't use the iPhone SDK to develop Mac apps. This is a graphic to promoted the WWDC after all...it is two development paths.
That name sure limits this as a product (although I didn't actually see this name on any of the photos shown above)... Why not something that could apply to any like product... a name like "OS X Mobile" would at least keep it flexible enough for future (unknown) products.
Ugh! Awful inconsistent naming!!! I just saw the banner on Macrumors...
What makes more sense...
- Mac OS X Leopard
- iPhone OS X Leopard Cub (for example... or Little Leopard, if you like)
No coverd up banners this time? This makes earth-shaking announcements higly unlikely...
Some of the best ways to hide things are in plain sight. I wouldn't expect much in the way of hardware announcements, but there may be things far more important than a speedbump.
sorry i only had time to skim all of the responses, but the photo credit comments are about the MOSCONE CENTER PHOTOS, not the 2 GoldenGate Bridges.
i also agree the mobile OS X shouldn't be named OS X iPhone, and i seriously doubt it will... but naming it OS X Moblie leads to the question of what else will be using this OS... come January.
Maybe the 'divide' is between Intel and PPC machines? Maybe Snow Leopard is Intel only and does stuff a PPC cannot support. Not that i know what that would be ... ZFS maybe?
I wouldn't be surprised at multiple meanings. A divergence of OSX not only to computer and handheld, but universal and intel as well. i wouldn't expect ZFS until 10.7. Snow Leopard, if it does exist, will be a highly optimized version of leopard to take full advantage of intel-based machines and to serve as a base for future versions of Mac OS X.
Better pic... yeah, ain't no tablet. Oh, well. The smaller pic seemed to have a thinner bezel. Also: yeah, the Apple Secret Police would not allow a banner showing the future to be unveiled early.
Still, I am hoping to see a tablet; Apple would do it right.
After reading a little more, I take back some of what I said.
Can a tablet happen, yeah it can. It would take some serious OS work, of course, but yes its possible. Can they use OS X iPhone for that? Not realistically, I don't think. Tablet is more for higher OS functions than OS X iPhone allows at the present stage. If they were to release it, it would be based on more OS X Leopard me thinks.
My point about the naming was a reference to a quote which i can now no longer find. It was where Steve released the iPhone in London last year, in November, and he refered to the touch as "training wheels for the iPhone." In his subsequent releases the iPod touch has always been an addendum to the iPhone. If you view the touch like training wheels for the iPhone, then the naming makes sense. It does, however, limit the ease of explanation. The Touch is really just iPhone minus a few features and a cellular connection.
If you viewed the iPod touch as an iPhone in a disguise, not as an iPod as such, then this makes a lot more sense.
I didn't mean Steve didn't like the touch, but he doesn't view it as the real deal from his words, and the way he speaks about it. It is the "add on to help adjust."
I actually think this redefines Apple and I am really excited as to where it goes. I just think everyone is going to need to get their bearings on where Apple is at.
Sorry for any confusion.
BTW, stuff I mention may be alluding to info under an NDA. I am covered by one, so I can say some stuff but my backup is strictly confidential. I will know some stuff I say is right, and it will seem very stupid to others. I hope you understand that we developers have spent the last three months learning what OS X iPhone really is, and understand quite a bit that may seem to be our own personal beliefs and assumptions, to others. I apologise for not making that clear.
I think the other 'landmark' part of this keynote will be they'll announce the license OS X coming in January.
Think about it for a second. They've dropped all reference to Mac in the OS X posters and I think Snow Leopard will be the release for all PC's in January. They dropped a bombshell a few years ago with the move to Intel. This just seems to be a natural progression of the OS for all.
Anyway just my thoughts on this.
Although I believe that Apple would not do this since they like to keep their customers within their own realm of hardware/software, I would very GLADLY welcome this change in their business model. We've all seen just how possible it is to run OS X on a standard PC box (go ahead, call the boxes ugly), and since the public did the hard work for BootCamp originally... this still makes sense. Following patterns thus far:
iTunes: Originally made for Apple machines back in OS 9. Now, you may download it for both Macs and Windows, with all iPods supported on both platforms. iTunes is (correct me if I'm wrong) the most used internet music store due to that idea.
Safari: Originally made for Apples in OS 10.3. Now we find it running on Windows. Still hasn't gained the market share they were looking for.
BootCamp: Macs run Windows... natively. Apple makes and packages drivers (and updates them all too far and few between) for Windows. Was brought into life by a hacker, in which Apple closely followed.
OSx86: Hacked up, illegal version of OS X to run on standard PCs with Intel. Apple announces it has had Intel versions of all OS X since 10.1 somewhere in their development team.
Intel Macs: Internal hardware, except for the TPM chip and EFI, is identical to regular PCs.
I so hope your idea is true... The we'd all get the mini-tower we've been waiting for, and can even build it ourselves. But again, it goes against all that Apple is. From day ONE, they always have been hardware/software (minus the time they almost went under, and licensed their software to some other computer makers... till Gates came in and gave Apple a boost so he wouldn't become illegal in monopolies! Now we are back to Hardware/Software)
Perhaps apple will license it to run on virtual machines like they do with Server? I dunno, but it would make sense. Especially at a WWDC.
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."
It would not be "Mobility" because that has a very specific meaning. It usually refers to vehicle modifications (lifts, for example) and services for the disabled in the automotive industry.
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.
Can you be more specific? What do you mean "Steve doesn't like it at all"?
Comments
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.
My second thoughts, exactly. On the other hand, maybe an iPhone v2 would share its predessor's shape and dimensions (except for depth, maybe) and would still be named "iPhone" without any suffixes?
Picture of two bridges ..... Landmark event in more ways than one ....... Two bridges = OSX for Mac and OSX for iPhone/iPod Touch
Long live System 7.1
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthre...96#post5531896
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...
Just re-read the thread... my bad: it did say photos.
Regarding the "licensing OS X" talk... it would make absolutely no business sense at this point in time:
-Apple isn't having trouble keeping up with production demands for computers
-The Apple "brand" places value on "cool, elegant, and easy." Licensing detracts from all of these.
-OSX could actually hit double-digit market share quite soon, without other manufacturers "helping out."
-Potential vendors gain more from selling Linux-- it's free!
-Apple's only potential gain out if it is end-users upgrading over time. The likelihood they can derrive profit (or loyalty) out of clones is extremely low.
-The market Apple doesn't compete in is the low-end desktop. In this market, Linux again provides more value than licensed OSX would.
-The Mid-Tower market that actually has some opportunity for Apple can be better served with another kind of innovation; Apple keeping this open for themselves seems more profitable.
The divide is for developers, not for Apple Inc.
Agreed.
Maybe the 'divide' is between Intel and PPC machines? Maybe Snow Leopard is Intel only and does stuff a PPC cannot support. Not that i know what that would be ... ZFS maybe?
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.
Very little of this post makes any sense. Let's start with the first statement. No it is not tied to the display. This is a big reason Apple has been developing resolution independence in their UI.
I strongly doubt the whole Tablet thing. Its all rumor from people who haven't programed for the iPhone.
Probably, it is all rumor from people that haven't programmed for the iPhone. What does that have to do with it being true or not? Let's say this came straight from Jobs or Ives...one might assume they would know. But I sort of doubt either has done much iPhone programming. It really isn't relevant.
Those who have know there is a strong tie between the screen size and the OS.
Elaborate.
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.
No, this is not why. It is because it made the most sense for the next Touch device. A Tablet would be a new market for Apple. If the do a Tablet at all, it would make more sense to do the iPod next, since it is a known market. iPhone had to be first because it would appeal to the largest market (Tablet would be a much smaller potential market) and would hence created the biggest buzz. Far bigger than doing iPod Touch or Tablet Touch first.
Common screen size does mean that they wouldn't have to worry about any potential resolution issues, but those are not show stoppers. Apple has some experience with UIs...enough not to be afraid of screen size issues.
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.
Really? You know this how?
Think of the touch as an iPhone lite, and it all makes sense.
Except it isn't a phone...other than that, yes calling the OS on the iPod Touch OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
Nothing else from Apple apart from the iPhone and iPhone lite, and OS X iPhone makes perfect sense.
no idea what this means.
I think the other 'landmark' part of this keynote will be they'll announce the license OS X coming in January.
Think about it for a second. They've dropped all reference to Mac in the OS X posters and I think Snow Leopard will be the release for all PC's in January. They dropped a bombshell a few years ago with the move to Intel. This just seems to be a natural progression of the OS for all.
Anyway just my thoughts on this.
It makes since in a way, still if they do it, they have to do it smart. No BIOS, no Legacy ports, and for god's sake tell ATI and Nvidia so they can start making their cards compatible with BOTH EFI and BIOS (windows) firmware. Apple is at its strongest, while Microsoft is very vulnerable. They would be foolish to let this pass.
Apple has unfurled its customary banners in the run-up to WWDC and is emphasizing the split between OS X iPhone and OS X Leopard in what promises to be a company-defining event.
What is it about the banners that alerts the writer of this article to this alleged company defining event?
Picture of two bridges ..... Landmark event in more ways than one ....... Two bridges = OSX for Mac and OSX for iPhone/iPod Touch
Exactly. While the OSes might be the same cores, there will always be some marked differences in what functionality is exposed and what sort of apps will be developed for them.
Two bridges simply means two developer paths on the same OS. You wouldn't use the standard Mac SDK to dev iPhone apps and you wouldn't use the iPhone SDK to develop Mac apps. This is a graphic to promoted the WWDC after all...it is two development paths.
"OS X iPhone"? Whaaaaat?
That name sure limits this as a product (although I didn't actually see this name on any of the photos shown above)... Why not something that could apply to any like product... a name like "OS X Mobile" would at least keep it flexible enough for future (unknown) products.
Ugh! Awful inconsistent naming!!! I just saw the banner on Macrumors...
What makes more sense...
- Mac OS X Leopard
- iPhone OS X Leopard Cub (for example... or Little Leopard, if you like)
...or...
- OS X Leopard
- OS X iPhone ... uh...
I agree. It should be called OS X Mobile.
I agree. It should be called OS X Mobile.
Too much association possible with the turd that is Windows Mobile. OS X Mobile makes the most sense to me too and it sounds better.
No coverd up banners this time? This makes earth-shaking announcements higly unlikely...
Some of the best ways to hide things are in plain sight. I wouldn't expect much in the way of hardware announcements, but there may be things far more important than a speedbump.
i also agree the mobile OS X shouldn't be named OS X iPhone, and i seriously doubt it will... but naming it OS X Moblie leads to the question of what else will be using this OS... come January.
Maybe the 'divide' is between Intel and PPC machines? Maybe Snow Leopard is Intel only and does stuff a PPC cannot support. Not that i know what that would be ... ZFS maybe?
I wouldn't be surprised at multiple meanings. A divergence of OSX not only to computer and handheld, but universal and intel as well. i wouldn't expect ZFS until 10.7. Snow Leopard, if it does exist, will be a highly optimized version of leopard to take full advantage of intel-based machines and to serve as a base for future versions of Mac OS X.
Still, I am hoping to see a tablet; Apple would do it right.
Can a tablet happen, yeah it can. It would take some serious OS work, of course, but yes its possible. Can they use OS X iPhone for that? Not realistically, I don't think. Tablet is more for higher OS functions than OS X iPhone allows at the present stage. If they were to release it, it would be based on more OS X Leopard me thinks.
My point about the naming was a reference to a quote which i can now no longer find. It was where Steve released the iPhone in London last year, in November, and he refered to the touch as "training wheels for the iPhone." In his subsequent releases the iPod touch has always been an addendum to the iPhone. If you view the touch like training wheels for the iPhone, then the naming makes sense. It does, however, limit the ease of explanation. The Touch is really just iPhone minus a few features and a cellular connection.
If you viewed the iPod touch as an iPhone in a disguise, not as an iPod as such, then this makes a lot more sense.
I didn't mean Steve didn't like the touch, but he doesn't view it as the real deal from his words, and the way he speaks about it. It is the "add on to help adjust."
I actually think this redefines Apple and I am really excited as to where it goes. I just think everyone is going to need to get their bearings on where Apple is at.
Sorry for any confusion.
BTW, stuff I mention may be alluding to info under an NDA. I am covered by one, so I can say some stuff but my backup is strictly confidential. I will know some stuff I say is right, and it will seem very stupid to others. I hope you understand that we developers have spent the last three months learning what OS X iPhone really is, and understand quite a bit that may seem to be our own personal beliefs and assumptions, to others. I apologise for not making that clear.
I think the other 'landmark' part of this keynote will be they'll announce the license OS X coming in January.
Think about it for a second. They've dropped all reference to Mac in the OS X posters and I think Snow Leopard will be the release for all PC's in January. They dropped a bombshell a few years ago with the move to Intel. This just seems to be a natural progression of the OS for all.
Anyway just my thoughts on this.
Although I believe that Apple would not do this since they like to keep their customers within their own realm of hardware/software, I would very GLADLY welcome this change in their business model. We've all seen just how possible it is to run OS X on a standard PC box (go ahead, call the boxes ugly), and since the public did the hard work for BootCamp originally... this still makes sense. Following patterns thus far:
iTunes: Originally made for Apple machines back in OS 9. Now, you may download it for both Macs and Windows, with all iPods supported on both platforms. iTunes is (correct me if I'm wrong) the most used internet music store due to that idea.
Safari: Originally made for Apples in OS 10.3. Now we find it running on Windows. Still hasn't gained the market share they were looking for.
BootCamp: Macs run Windows... natively. Apple makes and packages drivers (and updates them all too far and few between) for Windows. Was brought into life by a hacker, in which Apple closely followed.
OSx86: Hacked up, illegal version of OS X to run on standard PCs with Intel. Apple announces it has had Intel versions of all OS X since 10.1 somewhere in their development team.
Intel Macs: Internal hardware, except for the TPM chip and EFI, is identical to regular PCs.
I so hope your idea is true... The we'd all get the mini-tower we've been waiting for, and can even build it ourselves. But again, it goes against all that Apple is. From day ONE, they always have been hardware/software (minus the time they almost went under, and licensed their software to some other computer makers... till Gates came in and gave Apple a boost so he wouldn't become illegal in monopolies! Now we are back to Hardware/Software)
Perhaps apple will license it to run on virtual machines like they do with Server? I dunno, but it would make sense. Especially at a WWDC.
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."
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
It would not be "Mobility" because that has a very specific meaning. It usually refers to vehicle modifications (lifts, for example) and services for the disabled in the automotive industry.
http://www.toyota.com/mobility/
http://www.gm.com/shop/services/gm_mobility/
http://www.automobility.daimlerchrysler.com/
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.
Can you be more specific? What do you mean "Steve doesn't like it at all"?