If Apple makes another device optimized version of OS X for a tablet, that isn't necessarily a lesser, compromised OS. It's just an OS that is tailored for the hardware and use case at hand.
[?]
But a 10" slate that runs "OS X" was never anything but a fantasy, while a 10" slate that runs a highly specialized version of same was always a sure thing.
I find that confusing. I view OS X as the blanket term for all version of OS X that run on the Mac, AppleTV and iPhone.
Inform us as to what changed to make typing on a 10? piece of glass with either your hands held out in front or bending over to look at half a display that isn?t covered by a virtual keyboard more viable than a physical keyboard in a natural palm resting position with the larger than 10? display set naturally in front of our eyes?
inform us as to how you know exactly what the input method will be on the unreleased tablet.
I find that confusing. I view OS X as the blanket term for all version of OS X that run on the Mac, AppleTV and iPhone.
I guess it's a matter of terminology, but most people seem to make a distinction between the iPhone OS and "OS X", by which they mean the desktop OS. Of course, Apple themselves make that distinction with their naming scheme.
Although I of course agree with you that it's all OS X, my point is that people are getting needlessly worked up about a tablet running the "iPhone OS", as if that were by definition an inferior OS.
Particularly given that a tablet would almost certainly running a tablet specific variant, it seems like a needless worry, to me. The only way it rankles is if you had imagined that a tablet was going to run "OS X", meaning the same software that's on your MacBook Pro, with touch pieces bolted on. I don't think that was ever a reasonable expectation.
I find that confusing. I view OS X as the blanket term for all version of OS X that run on the Mac, AppleTV and iPhone.
You might, and Apple might -- but consumers on a whole don't, and that is by design. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of iPhone owners who know that the OS on the device has anything to do with OSX is in the low single digits. Even to people who think in terms of an OS, the OS is defined by the UI, not the underlying code.
But Apple won't allow it because they like the control and profit potential the carriers security excuse has given them.
It's not a carrier's security issue. It's Apple's demand for a great user experience. Carriers might have bandwith concerns, which may or may not affect App availability, but that's another discussion. As far as "profit potential," you'd better realize that 30% of PAID downloads (remember most apps are free), minus advertising, minus credit card processing fees, minus server infrastructure and maintenance, minus TAXES - all this equals not a HUGE source of profit for Apple. They're certainly not losing money, but they're in it for the hardware sales, not the downloads.
I guess it's a matter of terminology, but most people seem to make a distinction between the iPhone OS and "OS X", by which they mean the desktop OS. Of course, Apple themselves make that distinction with their naming scheme.
Although I of course agree with you that it's all OS X, my point is that people are getting needlessly worked up about a tablet running the "iPhone OS", as if that were by definition an inferior OS.
Particularly given that a tablet would almost certainly running a tablet specific variant, it seems like a needless worry, to me. The only way it rankles is if you had imagined that a tablet was going to run "OS X", meaning the same software that's on your MacBook Pro, with touch pieces bolted on. I don't think that was ever a reasonable expectation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You might, and Apple might -- but consumers on a whole don't, and that is by design. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of iPhone owners who know that the OS on the device has anything to do with OSX is in the low single digits. Even to people who think in terms of an OS, the OS is defined by the UI, not the underlying code.
I’ve never seen where Apple simply refers to the Mac variant as “OS X” when they are also talking about other variants of their OS X umbrella. Even in this pic they are referring to it “OS X Leopard” making a clear distinction.
They’ve since changed up the term to “IPhone OS”, which does sound better. That would make the Mac variant of OS X "Mac OS" or “Snow Leopard OS”, all of which are very clear.
I?ve never seen where Apple simply refers to the Mac variant as ?OS X? when they are also talking about other variants of their OS X umbrella. Even in this pic they are referring to it ?OS X Leopard? making a clear distinction.
They?ve since changed up the, which does sound better, to ?IPhone OS? which makes the Mac variant ?Mac OS" or ?Snow Leopard OS?, all of which are very clear.
Um, right? But I though you were saying that you viewed "OS X" as the blanket name for all the versions. Whereas Apple (and as Dr. Millmoss points out, the public) makes a distinction between "OS X" (of whatever cat) and "iPhone OS", despite their shared lineage.
At any rate, it seems to me that when people bemoan the fact that a tablet wouldn't run "OS X" that's what they mean-- that the tablet won't run OS X Snow Leopard + touch.
I actually have no idea what we're disagreeing about, if in fact we are.
inform us as to how you know exactly what the input method will be on the unreleased tablet.
Just sayin'
I don?t have to know what Apple has in store to see failed logic of stating a touchscreen tablet will replace notebooks. Glass, plastic, haptic feedback, external keyboard, touch-senstive back panel, voice recognition, etc. None of these will replace a physical keyboard for speed and ease of use for heavy typers. Any shift in the way society inputs text that will replace a physical keyboard will first be seen on a smaller scale and we have to see that in any product.
But, they could make a duo compiler. Write once, compile twice with one click, like was done with PPC and Intel.
That still doesn't solve the problem that the original screen layout assumes it will be used with a mouse rather than touch. To make a good "touch" app (either iPhone or iSlate) you need to design for touch. Button size / spacing, etc.
I?ve never seen where Apple simply refers to the Mac variant as ?OS X? when they are also talking about other variants of their OS X umbrella. Even in this pic they are referring to it ?OS X Leopard? making a clear distinction.
Right. For Apple, I meant internally. They certainly don't encourage consumers to think of all these operating systems as variants of OSX. Apple has actually worked pretty hard to divorce the iPhone from the commonly understood concept of operating systems, which is a game many believe Apple has already lost. This is just the opposite from the strategy Microsoft has pursued, treating all variants of Windows as subsets of Windows, because they assume that most believe Microsoft has already won that battle. On the surface at least it looks like Microsoft is smart to visibly leverage Windows into other devices, and smart for Apple to not do so, but I think the results are showing that Apple has the sounder strategy.
Um, right? But I though you were saying that you viewed "OS X" as the blanket name for all the versions. Whereas Apple (and as Dr. Millmoss points out, the public) makes a distinction between "OS X" (of whatever cat) and "iPhone OS", despite their shared lineage.
At any rate, it seems to me that when people bemoan the fact that a tablet wouldn't run "OS X" that's what they mean-- that the tablet won't run OS X Snow Leopard + touch.
I actually have no idea what we're disagreeing about, if in fact we are.
Which is likely why it?s confusing. The posters here and elsewhere are not all applying the same definition to OS X, which allows for a loss of communication.
I pointed out that even Apple has used the ?X? to denote the iPhone OS back in 2007 and have themselves used the basic ?OS X? to refer to the OS, not the OS specifically for Macs. Perhaps it?s there fault for switching it up sometime in 2008 and not having a firm marketing handle on the terms, but that doesn?t resolve the communication problem that now results.
I understood your post after I stopped and reread it, but most posters aren?t as clear as you in writing. Some are just downright ambiguous.
Here is an Apple press release using ?OS X? in reference to the iPhone several times. There are others. It wasn?t a flux?.
Q: If we are to refer to the Mac OS simply as OS X and never refer to the iPhone OS with an ?X? then what do we call the blanket Darwin OS with all the included frameworks, etc?
Using the Iphone OS would be very disappointing and limit the usefulness of the device. I would much prefer a touch version of snow leopard with an Iphone emulator.
This will allow iPhone Developers (over 115,000 apps) to use their skillz directly in creating new iSlate apps. Makes lots of sense, really.
Using the Iphone OS would be very disappointing and limit the usefulness of the device. I would much prefer a touch version of snow leopard with an Iphone emulator.
This will allow iPhone Developers (over 115,000 apps) to use their skillz directly in creating new iSlate apps. Makes lots of sense, really.
Open up your Apps in Slow Leopard and see how well they?d fair if you were to use only your digits to navigate and everything was shrunk down to a 7? or 10? display. It?s just not going to work. Any Tablet from Apple will have to run a new arm of OS X, likely called Tablet OS or Tablet OS X. It will have elements from both the iPhone OS and Mac OS, while sharing a lot of the foundations and frameworks across all three. It?ll have a new UI that is designed specifically for the tablet I/O which will not be feasible on the iPhone or Mac.
Which is likely why it’s confusing. The posters here and elsewhere are not all applying the same definition to OS X, which allows for a loss of communication.
Yes.
Quote:
I pointed out that even Apple has used the “X’ to denote the iPhone OS back in 2007 and have themselves used the basic “OS X” to refer to the OS, not the OS specifically for Macs. Perhaps it’s there fault for switching it up sometime in 2008 and not having a firm marketing handle on the terms, but that doesn’t resolve the communication problem that now results.
Yes, although they've been pretty consistent since the earlier ambiguity. It seems clear that they'd prefer that we think of the iPhone OS as its own thing.
Quote:
I understood your post after I stopped and reread it, but most posters aren’t as clear as you in writing. Some are just downright ambiguous.
Right, it's that ambiguity that I was originally lamenting.
Quote:
Here is an Apple press release using “OS X” in reference to the iPhone several times. There are others. It wasn’t a flux….
Yep, but again, they seem to have settled on "iPhone OS" since then. I dare say the tablet will either use that or "Tablet OS" or "iPhone OS Tablet Edition" or something. I seriously doubt they'll let "OS X" get anywhere near it.
Quote:
Q: If we are to refer to the Mac OS simply as OS X and never refer to the iPhone OS with an ‘X’ then what do we call the blanket Darwin OS with all the included frameworks, etc?
Excellent question. Maybe "The OS X Family"? "The OSes Formerly Know as X"? Actually, I'm not adverse to "Mac OS X" as being the desktop designation with "OS X" being reserved for the whole squad, but that doesn't help much with the confusion that people seem to have.
Excellent question. Maybe "The OS X Family"? "The OSes Formerly Know as X"? Actually, I'm not adverse to "Mac OS X" as being the desktop designation with "OS X" being reserved for the whole squad, but that doesn't help much with the confusion that people seem to have.
I’m just gonna stick with iPhone OS, Mac OS, AppleTV OS and Tablet OS all for the OS X family.
I’m just gonna stick with iPhone OS, Mac OS, AppleTV OS and Tablet OS all for the OS X family.
:lol on the Prince reference.
Seems pretty reasonable, I believe I'll follow suit. Perhaps if enough people do that folks will start to get it.
BTW, where's Ireland? He keeps insisting that a tablet will run something he's been calling "Mac OS X Touch" or something. Where does that fit in? I've never been exactly clear what he imagines that to be, but I get the impression he's agitating for more Mac OS and less iPhone.
Seems pretty reasonable, I believe I'll follow suit. Perhaps if enough people do that folks will start to get it.
Perhaps, iDevice and 3GSM has caught on well enough and those aren?t used by Apple.
Quote:
BTW, where's Ireland? He keeps insisting that a tablet will run something he's been calling "Mac OS X Touch" or something. Where does that fit in? I've never been exactly clear what he imagines that to be, but I get the impression he's agitating for more Mac OS and less iPhone.
His mock ups have always showed Mac OS on them. I figure he expects just some minor UI tweaks to the OS and apps to make them more touch friendly. I can?t see that happening. I think that iPhone apps will be likely used in a windowed mode, like with the iPhone Simulator in the SDK, but I don?t see any Mac OS X apps being able to natively work on a 7? or 10? tablet.
Comments
Using the same logic, putting iPhone OS on a tablet is like putting a joystick on a motorcycle.
More like iPod OS.
If Apple makes another device optimized version of OS X for a tablet, that isn't necessarily a lesser, compromised OS. It's just an OS that is tailored for the hardware and use case at hand.
[?]
But a 10" slate that runs "OS X" was never anything but a fantasy, while a 10" slate that runs a highly specialized version of same was always a sure thing.
I find that confusing. I view OS X as the blanket term for all version of OS X that run on the Mac, AppleTV and iPhone.
Inform us as to what changed to make typing on a 10? piece of glass with either your hands held out in front or bending over to look at half a display that isn?t covered by a virtual keyboard more viable than a physical keyboard in a natural palm resting position with the larger than 10? display set naturally in front of our eyes?
inform us as to how you know exactly what the input method will be on the unreleased tablet.
Just sayin'
I find that confusing. I view OS X as the blanket term for all version of OS X that run on the Mac, AppleTV and iPhone.
I guess it's a matter of terminology, but most people seem to make a distinction between the iPhone OS and "OS X", by which they mean the desktop OS. Of course, Apple themselves make that distinction with their naming scheme.
Although I of course agree with you that it's all OS X, my point is that people are getting needlessly worked up about a tablet running the "iPhone OS", as if that were by definition an inferior OS.
Particularly given that a tablet would almost certainly running a tablet specific variant, it seems like a needless worry, to me. The only way it rankles is if you had imagined that a tablet was going to run "OS X", meaning the same software that's on your MacBook Pro, with touch pieces bolted on. I don't think that was ever a reasonable expectation.
I find that confusing. I view OS X as the blanket term for all version of OS X that run on the Mac, AppleTV and iPhone.
You might, and Apple might -- but consumers on a whole don't, and that is by design. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of iPhone owners who know that the OS on the device has anything to do with OSX is in the low single digits. Even to people who think in terms of an OS, the OS is defined by the UI, not the underlying code.
But Apple won't allow it because they like the control and profit potential the carriers security excuse has given them.
It's not a carrier's security issue. It's Apple's demand for a great user experience. Carriers might have bandwith concerns, which may or may not affect App availability, but that's another discussion. As far as "profit potential," you'd better realize that 30% of PAID downloads (remember most apps are free), minus advertising, minus credit card processing fees, minus server infrastructure and maintenance, minus TAXES - all this equals not a HUGE source of profit for Apple. They're certainly not losing money, but they're in it for the hardware sales, not the downloads.
I guess it's a matter of terminology, but most people seem to make a distinction between the iPhone OS and "OS X", by which they mean the desktop OS. Of course, Apple themselves make that distinction with their naming scheme.
Although I of course agree with you that it's all OS X, my point is that people are getting needlessly worked up about a tablet running the "iPhone OS", as if that were by definition an inferior OS.
Particularly given that a tablet would almost certainly running a tablet specific variant, it seems like a needless worry, to me. The only way it rankles is if you had imagined that a tablet was going to run "OS X", meaning the same software that's on your MacBook Pro, with touch pieces bolted on. I don't think that was ever a reasonable expectation.
You might, and Apple might -- but consumers on a whole don't, and that is by design. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of iPhone owners who know that the OS on the device has anything to do with OSX is in the low single digits. Even to people who think in terms of an OS, the OS is defined by the UI, not the underlying code.
I’ve never seen where Apple simply refers to the Mac variant as “OS X” when they are also talking about other variants of their OS X umbrella. Even in this pic they are referring to it “OS X Leopard” making a clear distinction.They’ve since changed up the term to “IPhone OS”, which does sound better. That would make the Mac variant of OS X "Mac OS" or “Snow Leopard OS”, all of which are very clear.
I?ve never seen where Apple simply refers to the Mac variant as ?OS X? when they are also talking about other variants of their OS X umbrella. Even in this pic they are referring to it ?OS X Leopard? making a clear distinction.They?ve since changed up the, which does sound better, to ?IPhone OS? which makes the Mac variant ?Mac OS" or ?Snow Leopard OS?, all of which are very clear.
Um, right? But I though you were saying that you viewed "OS X" as the blanket name for all the versions. Whereas Apple (and as Dr. Millmoss points out, the public) makes a distinction between "OS X" (of whatever cat) and "iPhone OS", despite their shared lineage.
At any rate, it seems to me that when people bemoan the fact that a tablet wouldn't run "OS X" that's what they mean-- that the tablet won't run OS X Snow Leopard + touch.
I actually have no idea what we're disagreeing about, if in fact we are.
inform us as to how you know exactly what the input method will be on the unreleased tablet.
Just sayin'
I don?t have to know what Apple has in store to see failed logic of stating a touchscreen tablet will replace notebooks. Glass, plastic, haptic feedback, external keyboard, touch-senstive back panel, voice recognition, etc. None of these will replace a physical keyboard for speed and ease of use for heavy typers. Any shift in the way society inputs text that will replace a physical keyboard will first be seen on a smaller scale and we have to see that in any product.
But, they could make a duo compiler. Write once, compile twice with one click, like was done with PPC and Intel.
That still doesn't solve the problem that the original screen layout assumes it will be used with a mouse rather than touch. To make a good "touch" app (either iPhone or iSlate) you need to design for touch. Button size / spacing, etc.
I?ve never seen where Apple simply refers to the Mac variant as ?OS X? when they are also talking about other variants of their OS X umbrella. Even in this pic they are referring to it ?OS X Leopard? making a clear distinction.
Right. For Apple, I meant internally. They certainly don't encourage consumers to think of all these operating systems as variants of OSX. Apple has actually worked pretty hard to divorce the iPhone from the commonly understood concept of operating systems, which is a game many believe Apple has already lost. This is just the opposite from the strategy Microsoft has pursued, treating all variants of Windows as subsets of Windows, because they assume that most believe Microsoft has already won that battle. On the surface at least it looks like Microsoft is smart to visibly leverage Windows into other devices, and smart for Apple to not do so, but I think the results are showing that Apple has the sounder strategy.
Um, right? But I though you were saying that you viewed "OS X" as the blanket name for all the versions. Whereas Apple (and as Dr. Millmoss points out, the public) makes a distinction between "OS X" (of whatever cat) and "iPhone OS", despite their shared lineage.
At any rate, it seems to me that when people bemoan the fact that a tablet wouldn't run "OS X" that's what they mean-- that the tablet won't run OS X Snow Leopard + touch.
I actually have no idea what we're disagreeing about, if in fact we are.
Which is likely why it?s confusing. The posters here and elsewhere are not all applying the same definition to OS X, which allows for a loss of communication.
I pointed out that even Apple has used the ?X? to denote the iPhone OS back in 2007 and have themselves used the basic ?OS X? to refer to the OS, not the OS specifically for Macs. Perhaps it?s there fault for switching it up sometime in 2008 and not having a firm marketing handle on the terms, but that doesn?t resolve the communication problem that now results.
I understood your post after I stopped and reread it, but most posters aren?t as clear as you in writing. Some are just downright ambiguous.
Here is an Apple press release using ?OS X? in reference to the iPhone several times. There are others. It wasn?t a flux?.Q: If we are to refer to the Mac OS simply as OS X and never refer to the iPhone OS with an ?X? then what do we call the blanket Darwin OS with all the included frameworks, etc?
Using the Iphone OS would be very disappointing and limit the usefulness of the device. I would much prefer a touch version of snow leopard with an Iphone emulator.
This will allow iPhone Developers (over 115,000 apps) to use their skillz directly in creating new iSlate apps. Makes lots of sense, really.
Using the Iphone OS would be very disappointing and limit the usefulness of the device. I would much prefer a touch version of snow leopard with an Iphone emulator.
This will allow iPhone Developers (over 115,000 apps) to use their skillz directly in creating new iSlate apps. Makes lots of sense, really.
Open up your Apps in Slow Leopard and see how well they?d fair if you were to use only your digits to navigate and everything was shrunk down to a 7? or 10? display. It?s just not going to work. Any Tablet from Apple will have to run a new arm of OS X, likely called Tablet OS or Tablet OS X. It will have elements from both the iPhone OS and Mac OS, while sharing a lot of the foundations and frameworks across all three. It?ll have a new UI that is designed specifically for the tablet I/O which will not be feasible on the iPhone or Mac.
Which is likely why it’s confusing. The posters here and elsewhere are not all applying the same definition to OS X, which allows for a loss of communication.
Yes.
I pointed out that even Apple has used the “X’ to denote the iPhone OS back in 2007 and have themselves used the basic “OS X” to refer to the OS, not the OS specifically for Macs. Perhaps it’s there fault for switching it up sometime in 2008 and not having a firm marketing handle on the terms, but that doesn’t resolve the communication problem that now results.
Yes, although they've been pretty consistent since the earlier ambiguity. It seems clear that they'd prefer that we think of the iPhone OS as its own thing.
I understood your post after I stopped and reread it, but most posters aren’t as clear as you in writing. Some are just downright ambiguous.
Right, it's that ambiguity that I was originally lamenting.
Here is an Apple press release using “OS X” in reference to the iPhone several times. There are others. It wasn’t a flux….
Yep, but again, they seem to have settled on "iPhone OS" since then. I dare say the tablet will either use that or "Tablet OS" or "iPhone OS Tablet Edition" or something. I seriously doubt they'll let "OS X" get anywhere near it.
Q: If we are to refer to the Mac OS simply as OS X and never refer to the iPhone OS with an ‘X’ then what do we call the blanket Darwin OS with all the included frameworks, etc?
Excellent question. Maybe "The OS X Family"? "The OSes Formerly Know as X"? Actually, I'm not adverse to "Mac OS X" as being the desktop designation with "OS X" being reserved for the whole squad, but that doesn't help much with the confusion that people seem to have.
Excellent question. Maybe "The OS X Family"? "The OSes Formerly Know as X"? Actually, I'm not adverse to "Mac OS X" as being the desktop designation with "OS X" being reserved for the whole squad, but that doesn't help much with the confusion that people seem to have.
I’m just gonna stick with iPhone OS, Mac OS, AppleTV OS and Tablet OS all for the OS X family.
I’m just gonna stick with iPhone OS, Mac OS, AppleTV OS and Tablet OS all for the OS X family.
:lol on the Prince reference.
Seems pretty reasonable, I believe I'll follow suit. Perhaps if enough people do that folks will start to get it.
BTW, where's Ireland? He keeps insisting that a tablet will run something he's been calling "Mac OS X Touch" or something. Where does that fit in? I've never been exactly clear what he imagines that to be, but I get the impression he's agitating for more Mac OS and less iPhone.
I wonder who for?
Source
Seems pretty reasonable, I believe I'll follow suit. Perhaps if enough people do that folks will start to get it.
Perhaps, iDevice and 3GSM has caught on well enough and those aren?t used by Apple.
BTW, where's Ireland? He keeps insisting that a tablet will run something he's been calling "Mac OS X Touch" or something. Where does that fit in? I've never been exactly clear what he imagines that to be, but I get the impression he's agitating for more Mac OS and less iPhone.
His mock ups have always showed Mac OS on them. I figure he expects just some minor UI tweaks to the OS and apps to make them more touch friendly. I can?t see that happening. I think that iPhone apps will be likely used in a windowed mode, like with the iPhone Simulator in the SDK, but I don?t see any Mac OS X apps being able to natively work on a 7? or 10? tablet.
It seems Samsung have been mass producing new 64GB moviNAND chips since December.
I wonder who for?
Source
I thought the 3-bit NAND was having some problems with corruption.