Are you claiming to actually know something here? I have no doubt that they could write OS X to run directly on ARM, but that doesn't help the many thousands of programs out there that will not.
And running, doesn't translate to running well. As the iPhone five can just beat an old G4 laptop, it isn't going to be very useful. How many people are willing to drop back to that now pathetic level of performance? Not very many.
Why would they want their own x86 license? That would be a waste for them. There is no way they could keep pace with Intel. AMD is so far behind, it's hardly worthwhile thinking about it. Without a state of the art factory, it's impossible to keep up with Intel on their own turf. That's not a useful suggestion.
This is just rumor and speculation. Nothing more.
Apple stated, at the introduction of the iPhone five years ago, that iOS is a slimmed down OS-X. A So OS X ALREADY runs directly on ARM, in more than 400 million devices. Applications written in Objective C under X-Code (which is used for both iOS and OS X development, already supporting both instruction sets) could be recompiled into ARM with the flick of a switch (once 64-bit arrives), so that takes care of the bulk of existing native OS X applications.
When Apple purchased PA Semi, those folks had already fielded PowerPC compatible chips with better performance/power than anything produced by Motorola/IBM. Apple has enough money in the bank to engineer well beyond AMD's capabilities. TSMC has state of the art (if not state of Intel's art) factories, and single digit margins. This gives Apple the ability to apply the margin difference to make up for potential performance lag. If you can cut the price of an acre of silicon in half by removing Intel's margins, you can afford to ship twice the acreage, if you need it.
It will also lead to a massive decrease in performance - which would not be acceptable to most people.
We're a long way from ARM even reaching current levels of Intel performance - and by the time they do, Intel will be much faster than they are now.
At best, I could see an iPad Pro with something like a MBA form factor (and regular keyboard) which is intended to be between the MBA and iPad. This could run on ARM. Replacing MBP and iMac and Mac Pro processors with ARM? Nope.
There is, of course, always the possibility of using AMD chips, though.
Apple may have identified a huge chunk of users that don't need the performance of the fastest CPU of the market, and who are already used to the iOS UI. Give them a laptop type of device with a huge lifetime between charges and the iOS library of applications and it's a winner. This new computer may not initially replace the Intel laptops/desktops, unless the trend becomes a flood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
I foresee two platforms: iOS-based and OSX/Intel based. Laptops could move away from Intel, while desktops do not. However, it won't be for 3-4 years, at least.
Chromebook only without the suck.
I think you are onto the idea Apple may be investigating. With over 400 million iOS devices on the market today, there is a huge demand for portable computing and that needs to be met with CPUs and GPUs that are not power hogs. The current A6X is fast enough to drive a non-retina 13" display while running competent word processors & spread sheets, mail programs & browsers, and games like most people find sufficient to their needs.
Apple could still ship MBPr computers for the power users, which are a minority today, just like the Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrosmash
When pigs fly.
There's very little doubt they've worked on porting OS X to ARM. Why wouldn't they? I'm sure there are much more interesting projects they are working on that will never see the light of day.
Maybe someday it will become slightly viable, sensible, and beneficial to transition Macs to ARM, but that day is so far off into the future that it's not even worth thinking about.
... and maybe that day is 2013 for the emerged base of current iOS users. Apple is right now experimenting with shipping iPad Minis and iPad 4 without cellular connectivity. What if next year Apple ships a new group of super-portable ARM devices that let you drop in your iPhone (with the lightning connector) for those times you need cellular data connection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Indeed. At Ars they reviewed the new Chromebook running on the latest and greatest ARM processor an A15. It was substantially slower than a MBA running on a 1.6 core 2 duo cpu.
If this rumor is true, it would also indicate to me that Apple are going to abandon the creative pro market. There is no way ARM will be competitive with Intel big iron for applications like Photoshop and video editing.
(1) Apple's iOS running an A6X is already butter fast powering a 10" screen. (2) Apple's iOS is optimized for an ARM chip and doesn't have the overhead of Android OS. (3) While most users are not pro users, Apple doesn't need to switch all their products away from Intel. It would be prudent to feed that market as well. I think Apple has a strong interest in the portable pro market and a stronger desire to build the consumer market by filling all the niches at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
Unless ARM can do Intel i7 emulation FASTER than an Intel i7 CPU, then this is a fool's dream.
Any transition has to be with a much faster CPU to do decent emulation. All the years of Intel code won't run on ARM since ARM is too whimpy.
If the Apple ARM computers are aimed at the general consumer market, then there's no need to run Intel-legacy software, or Intel-pro software. Don't forget that Apple now has a huge app library to satisfy most users today. It's a changing tech world and Apple is poised to push it along new paths.
They could never outdo Intel in a general purpose processor. Unless their vertical integration of OS, IDE, and programming language allows them somehow to perform the most common functions in hard-wired silicon, there is no way they can come close to Intel performance. They wouldn't even consider this if it didn't mean they forsee a way to crush the performance of all competitors who use off the shelf parts. If they can do that, then it makes sense to go through another transition. I wouldn't worry yourselves too much. Apple is not going to make a platform-killing blunder.
I forgot to add that Microsoft's forking of Windows into both ARM (RT) and X86 variants may open the door for Apple ARM hardware to virtualize Win RT. That brings Office to iOS, which is a pretty big deal.
Lets talk about that after they have proven without a reasonable doubt that it is effective
I'd much rather see Apple make Windows compatibility irrelevant by fielding good native applications (or creating an environment attractive enough for others to do so), so I agree that Win RT emulation will probably not be a big deal. While Apple may have seen the ability to virtualize Windows as important during the PowerPC->Intel transition, I don't think they're seeing that now.
Originally Posted by AppleInsiderAccording to one of the sources, the recently-returned Bob Mansfield has long been interested in making a more consistent experience across iOS and OS X, a goal that could take shape as former mobile software chief Scott Forstall was recently ousted.
And, of course, since Jony Ive is now in charge of software design as well as hardware design, we can expect to see better, more consistent UX design across all Apple products. That may well mean more unification between OS X and iOS, at least in terms of user interface design elements. (Edit: added the words "design elements.")
Oh, and it is 100% inevitable that Macs will eventually transition to ARM-based Apple CPUs. The iMac and MacBook Air and mini, anyway. Apple might decide to keep an Intel build of OS X around for "Pro" MacBooks and Mac towers that still run those red-hot Intel legacy chips. Until Adobe and other foot-dragging ISVs port their "Pro" apps to OS X for ARM. (And if they don't, Apple won't wait for them. They'll just release their own "Pro" apps to replace Photoshop, Office, and all that legacy bloatware.)
(Edit: the ARMv8 64-bit instruction set was published about a year ago. ARM announced their 64-bit Cortex-A53 and Cortex-A57 cores last month. All Apple has to do is design a quad-core variant, optimize it for energy efficiency, and voila: quad-core 64-bit ARM-based MacBook Air. With no "Intel fan.")
...As Office isn't on iPads now, and they seem to be used successfully, it's very likely that those commercial users are finding that for tablet use, Office isn't required after all....
If Apple is smart, and upgrades their iWork suite, something they haven't been doing, for some reason, they could own the space.
I've found iWork very usable for routine Office documents, however once they get a little complicated like animation in Keynote, tables coming from Word and various combined functions in Excel, it starts to lose its compatibility but this only comes up every once in a while and depends on which direction you are going either Mac-> Win or Win-> Mac, whether or not it is important. I view iPads as sort of the quick and dirty tool when it comes to Office documents so most of the time it would be just fine since it is not really a power user device anyway.
Apple stated, at the introduction of the iPhone five years ago, that iOS is a slimmed down OS-X. A So OS X ALREADY runs directly on ARM, in more than 400 million devices. Applications written in Objective C under X-Code (which is used for both iOS and OS X development, already supporting both instruction sets) could be recompiled into ARM with the flick of a switch (once 64-bit arrives), so that takes care of the bulk of existing native OS X applications.
When Apple purchased PA Semi, those folks had already fielded PowerPC compatible chips with better performance/power than anything produced by Motorola/IBM. Apple has enough money in the bank to engineer well beyond AMD's capabilities. TSMC has state of the art (if not state of Intel's art) factories, and single digit margins. This gives Apple the ability to apply the margin difference to make up for potential performance lag. If you can cut the price of an acre of silicon in half by removing Intel's margins, you can afford to ship twice the acreage, if you need it.
If that's your assumption, then you have a lot to learn. We bandy about the term "OS X". But OS X is the entire OS, not just the core, which is in iOS. Take away the desktop, and you no longer have OS X. Take away the printing technology, the graphics technology and all the other things Apple left out because iOS devices don't need it, and you no longer have OS X. We have Darwin, for the most part, and that's just part of OS X.
Then for iOS, Apple developed an entirely new UI, an entirely new printing tech, and entirely new graphics tech, etc.
What do you think needs to happen here? Do you think Adobe, Microsoft, and thousands of other developers will again want to move to a new chip family? That would be a very difficult sell.
As in most major moves, this is far more complex than you think it is.
And, of course, since Jony Ive is now in charge of software design as well as hardware design, we can expect to see better, more consistent UX design across all Apple products. That may well mean more unification between OS X and iOS, at least in terms of user interface. ...
This is just crazy talk.
You're basing this on the unproven and undefended assumption that "unification of UX design" across multiple categories of products, each having a different utility and in many cases a different market, would actually be a "good thing."
Everything Apple has said to date, and every product they have made to date, would argue against this assumption.
Apple may have identified a huge chunk of users that don't need the performance of the fastest CPU of the market, and who are already used to the iOS UI. Give them a laptop type of device with a huge lifetime between charges and the iOS library of applications and it's a winner. This new computer may not initially replace the Intel laptops/desktops, unless the trend becomes a flood.
I think you are onto the idea Apple may be investigating. With over 400 million iOS devices on the market today, there is a huge demand for portable computing and that needs to be met with CPUs and GPUs that are not power hogs. The current A6X is fast enough to drive a non-retina 13" display while running competent word processors & spread sheets, mail programs & browsers, and games like most people find sufficient to their needs.
Apple could still ship MBPr computers for the power users, which are a minority today, just like the Mac Pro.
... and maybe that day is 2013 for the emerged base of current iOS users. Apple is right now experimenting with shipping iPad Minis and iPad 4 without cellular connectivity. What if next year Apple ships a new group of super-portable ARM devices that let you drop in your iPhone (with the lightning connector) for those times you need cellular data connection?
(1) Apple's iOS running an A6X is already butter fast powering a 10" screen. (2) Apple's iOS is optimized for an ARM chip and doesn't have the overhead of Android OS. (3) While most users are not pro users, Apple doesn't need to switch all their products away from Intel. It would be prudent to feed that market as well. I think Apple has a strong interest in the portable pro market and a stronger desire to build the consumer market by filling all the niches at the same time.
If the Apple ARM computers are aimed at the general consumer market, then there's no need to run Intel-legacy software, or Intel-pro software. Don't forget that Apple now has a huge app library to satisfy most users today. It's a changing tech world and Apple is poised to push it along new paths.
I don't see your argument as being correct. Some of your facts are simply wrong as well. For one, Apple isn't "experimenting" with selling iPads without cell connectivity. They've always sold them that way, and usually WiFi only models have gone on sale first. I don't know where you get the idea you have.
You're making assumptions of what would be a winner, and what won't. How do you know this? You don't. You just think it's true. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. How much of your own real money would you bet on it?
I doubt that Apple isn't investigating every possible option out there. They have to. But most of what they do never is used. And we don't know what they are doing. A few enthusiastic engineers are making statements that are their own desire, perhaps, nothing more.
Apple sold 18 million "computers" last year, about $25 billion worth. They aren't going to abandon that business so soon.
Convincing potential customers to buy an iPad is great, I've got a bunch. But it will be some time before the computer becomes that truck SJ was talking about. And when it does, we won't be using OS X on ARM, we will be using iOS 12 on ARM.
I forgot to add that Microsoft's forking of Windows into both ARM (RT) and X86 variants may open the door for Apple ARM hardware to virtualize Win RT. That brings Office to iOS, which is a pretty big deal.
This statement makes no sense at all.
In what world would "virtualising Windows RT" on an iOS device be useful to anyone? How would this "give you Office" (for ARM) in any practical sense?
The only thing I can envision along these lines is someone jailbreaking an iPad, then using a hack to install Windows RT on it instead of iOS, then running Office ... then ... win? I mean WTF? This makes no sense at all.
Even if you could get Windows RT and iOS running on the same device, you'd have to reboot to use it. How is that effective at all? How is this better than simply using the world class word processor that already exists for iOS? How is this better than using "Office to Go" or any of the other apps that already let you edit Word documents on iOS? How is this better or easier than simply using *any* online document editing system?
Of course Apple is considering it. They'd be foolish not to. But that doesn't mean it'll definitely happen. And guaranteed it won't be for at least 6-10 years. ARM just can't compete on performance with x86 (yet). And they surely wouldn't be hasty about the transition. The switch from PPC to x86 was pretty tough, switching to ARM is sort of going back (i.e. RISC to CISC to RISC). Every single piece of software would need to be rewritten, and if the developer is unwilling/unable to rewrite, you're SOL. And as someone already said, emulation just isn't going to cut it.
If I'm not mistaken, Apple's switch to Intel is what made cross platform software development easier. That would be lost, meaning Macs would once again be isolated from a lot of developers (I'm thinking games in particular). Of course, I'm no programer so I could be way off.
On the other hand, the MBA could go ARM & iOS and become a sort of iPad w/ keyboard. And the supposed iTV would surely be iOS + ARM, in which case iMacs switching isn't a far leap. It could be that we'll see OSX be phased out and/or limited to the high end MBP and Mac Pro.
Definitely will be interesting to see what happens.
You're basing this on the unproven and undefended assumption that "unification of UX design" across multiple categories of products, each having a different utility and in many cases a different market, would actually be a "good thing."
Everything Apple has said to date, and every product they have made to date, would argue against this assumption.
Um, no it's not "crazy talk." But yeah, I should have made myself a little more clear. I was talking at a lower level than you're probably thinking. More in terms of textures and colors. For an example of cross-platform UX confusion in a single app, take a look at Calendar on iOS and OS X. Skeuomorphic torn paper and stitched leather on one, plain iOS Interface Builder elements on the other.
And for an example of radically different UX design in separate apps whose features overlap somewhat, take a look at the Calendar app and the Reminders app (on OS X and iOS.) Calendar is straight vanilla IB on iOS and has skeuomorphic fakeness on OS X. But Reminders is completely paved-over with relentless slate / gray on iOS and OS X. It reminds me of the old brushed-aluminum days of OS X 10.3, when some apps had the brushed-aluminum look and others had the striped-iMac-plastic-bezel look. (I do prefer the Reminders look and feel over the vanilla Calendar, BTW.)
Crossing fingers and toes in anticipation of a stitched-leather-free Calendar app on both iOS and OS X.
I completely agree that iOS and OS X will never share a common UX architecture, and I should have made that clearer. They can't, unless Apple makes the catastrophic mistake of adding multi-touch screens to Macs. Fine for occasional-use kiosks. Terrible for all-day productivity. Just look up "gorilla arm" in Wikipedia.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Are you claiming to actually know something here? I have no doubt that they could write OS X to run directly on ARM, but that doesn't help the many thousands of programs out there that will not.
And running, doesn't translate to running well. As the iPhone five can just beat an old G4 laptop, it isn't going to be very useful. How many people are willing to drop back to that now pathetic level of performance? Not very many.
Why would they want their own x86 license? That would be a waste for them. There is no way they could keep pace with Intel. AMD is so far behind, it's hardly worthwhile thinking about it. Without a state of the art factory, it's impossible to keep up with Intel on their own turf. That's not a useful suggestion.
This is just rumor and speculation. Nothing more.
Apple stated, at the introduction of the iPhone five years ago, that iOS is a slimmed down OS-X. A So OS X ALREADY runs directly on ARM, in more than 400 million devices. Applications written in Objective C under X-Code (which is used for both iOS and OS X development, already supporting both instruction sets) could be recompiled into ARM with the flick of a switch (once 64-bit arrives), so that takes care of the bulk of existing native OS X applications.
When Apple purchased PA Semi, those folks had already fielded PowerPC compatible chips with better performance/power than anything produced by Motorola/IBM. Apple has enough money in the bank to engineer well beyond AMD's capabilities. TSMC has state of the art (if not state of Intel's art) factories, and single digit margins. This gives Apple the ability to apply the margin difference to make up for potential performance lag. If you can cut the price of an acre of silicon in half by removing Intel's margins, you can afford to ship twice the acreage, if you need it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It will also lead to a massive decrease in performance - which would not be acceptable to most people.
We're a long way from ARM even reaching current levels of Intel performance - and by the time they do, Intel will be much faster than they are now.
At best, I could see an iPad Pro with something like a MBA form factor (and regular keyboard) which is intended to be between the MBA and iPad. This could run on ARM. Replacing MBP and iMac and Mac Pro processors with ARM? Nope.
There is, of course, always the possibility of using AMD chips, though.
Apple may have identified a huge chunk of users that don't need the performance of the fastest CPU of the market, and who are already used to the iOS UI. Give them a laptop type of device with a huge lifetime between charges and the iOS library of applications and it's a winner. This new computer may not initially replace the Intel laptops/desktops, unless the trend becomes a flood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh
I foresee two platforms: iOS-based and OSX/Intel based. Laptops could move away from Intel, while desktops do not. However, it won't be for 3-4 years, at least.
Chromebook only without the suck.
I think you are onto the idea Apple may be investigating. With over 400 million iOS devices on the market today, there is a huge demand for portable computing and that needs to be met with CPUs and GPUs that are not power hogs. The current A6X is fast enough to drive a non-retina 13" display while running competent word processors & spread sheets, mail programs & browsers, and games like most people find sufficient to their needs.
Apple could still ship MBPr computers for the power users, which are a minority today, just like the Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrosmash
When pigs fly.
There's very little doubt they've worked on porting OS X to ARM. Why wouldn't they? I'm sure there are much more interesting projects they are working on that will never see the light of day.
Maybe someday it will become slightly viable, sensible, and beneficial to transition Macs to ARM, but that day is so far off into the future that it's not even worth thinking about.
... and maybe that day is 2013 for the emerged base of current iOS users. Apple is right now experimenting with shipping iPad Minis and iPad 4 without cellular connectivity. What if next year Apple ships a new group of super-portable ARM devices that let you drop in your iPhone (with the lightning connector) for those times you need cellular data connection?
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Indeed. At Ars they reviewed the new Chromebook running on the latest and greatest ARM processor an A15. It was substantially slower than a MBA running on a 1.6 core 2 duo cpu.
If this rumor is true, it would also indicate to me that Apple are going to abandon the creative pro market. There is no way ARM will be competitive with Intel big iron for applications like Photoshop and video editing.
(1) Apple's iOS running an A6X is already butter fast powering a 10" screen. (2) Apple's iOS is optimized for an ARM chip and doesn't have the overhead of Android OS. (3) While most users are not pro users, Apple doesn't need to switch all their products away from Intel. It would be prudent to feed that market as well. I think Apple has a strong interest in the portable pro market and a stronger desire to build the consumer market by filling all the niches at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
Unless ARM can do Intel i7 emulation FASTER than an Intel i7 CPU, then this is a fool's dream.
Any transition has to be with a much faster CPU to do decent emulation. All the years of Intel code won't run on ARM since ARM is too whimpy.
If the Apple ARM computers are aimed at the general consumer market, then there's no need to run Intel-legacy software, or Intel-pro software. Don't forget that Apple now has a huge app library to satisfy most users today. It's a changing tech world and Apple is poised to push it along new paths.
Lets talk about that after they have proven without a reasonable doubt that it is effective
I'd much rather see Apple make Windows compatibility irrelevant by fielding good native applications (or creating an environment attractive enough for others to do so), so I agree that Win RT emulation will probably not be a big deal. While Apple may have seen the ability to virtualize Windows as important during the PowerPC->Intel transition, I don't think they're seeing that now.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
And, of course, since Jony Ive is now in charge of software design as well as hardware design, we can expect to see better, more consistent UX design across all Apple products. That may well mean more unification between OS X and iOS, at least in terms of user interface design elements. (Edit: added the words "design elements.")
Oh, and it is 100% inevitable that Macs will eventually transition to ARM-based Apple CPUs. The iMac and MacBook Air and mini, anyway. Apple might decide to keep an Intel build of OS X around for "Pro" MacBooks and Mac towers that still run those red-hot Intel legacy chips. Until Adobe and other foot-dragging ISVs port their "Pro" apps to OS X for ARM. (And if they don't, Apple won't wait for them. They'll just release their own "Pro" apps to replace Photoshop, Office, and all that legacy bloatware.)
(Edit: the ARMv8 64-bit instruction set was published about a year ago. ARM announced their 64-bit Cortex-A53 and Cortex-A57 cores last month. All Apple has to do is design a quad-core variant, optimize it for energy efficiency, and voila: quad-core 64-bit ARM-based MacBook Air. With no "Intel fan.")
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Lets talk about that after they have proven without a reasonable doubt that it is effective
Agreed, Microsoft's move to ARM is reactive. Apple's agglomeration of chip design experts seems proactive to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
...As Office isn't on iPads now, and they seem to be used successfully, it's very likely that those commercial users are finding that for tablet use, Office isn't required after all....
If Apple is smart, and upgrades their iWork suite, something they haven't been doing, for some reason, they could own the space.
I've found iWork very usable for routine Office documents, however once they get a little complicated like animation in Keynote, tables coming from Word and various combined functions in Excel, it starts to lose its compatibility but this only comes up every once in a while and depends on which direction you are going either Mac-> Win or Win-> Mac, whether or not it is important. I view iPads as sort of the quick and dirty tool when it comes to Office documents so most of the time it would be just fine since it is not really a power user device anyway.
If that's your assumption, then you have a lot to learn. We bandy about the term "OS X". But OS X is the entire OS, not just the core, which is in iOS. Take away the desktop, and you no longer have OS X. Take away the printing technology, the graphics technology and all the other things Apple left out because iOS devices don't need it, and you no longer have OS X. We have Darwin, for the most part, and that's just part of OS X.
Then for iOS, Apple developed an entirely new UI, an entirely new printing tech, and entirely new graphics tech, etc.
What do you think needs to happen here? Do you think Adobe, Microsoft, and thousands of other developers will again want to move to a new chip family? That would be a very difficult sell.
As in most major moves, this is far more complex than you think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
And, of course, since Jony Ive is now in charge of software design as well as hardware design, we can expect to see better, more consistent UX design across all Apple products. That may well mean more unification between OS X and iOS, at least in terms of user interface. ...
This is just crazy talk.
You're basing this on the unproven and undefended assumption that "unification of UX design" across multiple categories of products, each having a different utility and in many cases a different market, would actually be a "good thing."
Everything Apple has said to date, and every product they have made to date, would argue against this assumption.
I don't see your argument as being correct. Some of your facts are simply wrong as well. For one, Apple isn't "experimenting" with selling iPads without cell connectivity. They've always sold them that way, and usually WiFi only models have gone on sale first. I don't know where you get the idea you have.
You're making assumptions of what would be a winner, and what won't. How do you know this? You don't. You just think it's true. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. How much of your own real money would you bet on it?
I doubt that Apple isn't investigating every possible option out there. They have to. But most of what they do never is used. And we don't know what they are doing. A few enthusiastic engineers are making statements that are their own desire, perhaps, nothing more.
Apple sold 18 million "computers" last year, about $25 billion worth. They aren't going to abandon that business so soon.
Convincing potential customers to buy an iPad is great, I've got a bunch. But it will be some time before the computer becomes that truck SJ was talking about. And when it does, we won't be using OS X on ARM, we will be using iOS 12 on ARM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimpsen
I forgot to add that Microsoft's forking of Windows into both ARM (RT) and X86 variants may open the door for Apple ARM hardware to virtualize Win RT. That brings Office to iOS, which is a pretty big deal.
This statement makes no sense at all.
In what world would "virtualising Windows RT" on an iOS device be useful to anyone? How would this "give you Office" (for ARM) in any practical sense?
The only thing I can envision along these lines is someone jailbreaking an iPad, then using a hack to install Windows RT on it instead of iOS, then running Office ... then ... win? I mean WTF? This makes no sense at all.
Even if you could get Windows RT and iOS running on the same device, you'd have to reboot to use it. How is that effective at all? How is this better than simply using the world class word processor that already exists for iOS? How is this better than using "Office to Go" or any of the other apps that already let you edit Word documents on iOS? How is this better or easier than simply using *any* online document editing system?
If I'm not mistaken, Apple's switch to Intel is what made cross platform software development easier. That would be lost, meaning Macs would once again be isolated from a lot of developers (I'm thinking games in particular). Of course, I'm no programer so I could be way off.
On the other hand, the MBA could go ARM & iOS and become a sort of iPad w/ keyboard. And the supposed iTV would surely be iOS + ARM, in which case iMacs switching isn't a far leap. It could be that we'll see OSX be phased out and/or limited to the high end MBP and Mac Pro.
Definitely will be interesting to see what happens.
Apple's decline may start when they get off intel's roadmap and go on their own.
Intel made Apple relevant in a way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Kolchak
That's not a small loss for many users.
Really, it sort of is. Macs don't sell because of Boot Camp.
To some buyers, I believe they do.
Apple didn't make enterprise inroads these last few years
solely because of the iPod, iPhone, or iPad.
There's a synergy (don't you love vague buzzwords? never mind, I know you do).
And when you are working with a small minority of desktop users already...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is just crazy talk.
You're basing this on the unproven and undefended assumption that "unification of UX design" across multiple categories of products, each having a different utility and in many cases a different market, would actually be a "good thing."
Everything Apple has said to date, and every product they have made to date, would argue against this assumption.
Um, no it's not "crazy talk." But yeah, I should have made myself a little more clear. I was talking at a lower level than you're probably thinking. More in terms of textures and colors. For an example of cross-platform UX confusion in a single app, take a look at Calendar on iOS and OS X. Skeuomorphic torn paper and stitched leather on one, plain iOS Interface Builder elements on the other.
And for an example of radically different UX design in separate apps whose features overlap somewhat, take a look at the Calendar app and the Reminders app (on OS X and iOS.) Calendar is straight vanilla IB on iOS and has skeuomorphic fakeness on OS X. But Reminders is completely paved-over with relentless slate / gray on iOS and OS X. It reminds me of the old brushed-aluminum days of OS X 10.3, when some apps had the brushed-aluminum look and others had the striped-iMac-plastic-bezel look. (I do prefer the Reminders look and feel over the vanilla Calendar, BTW.)
Crossing fingers and toes in anticipation of a stitched-leather-free Calendar app on both iOS and OS X.
I completely agree that iOS and OS X will never share a common UX architecture, and I should have made that clearer. They can't, unless Apple makes the catastrophic mistake of adding multi-touch screens to Macs. Fine for occasional-use kiosks. Terrible for all-day productivity. Just look up "gorilla arm" in Wikipedia.