I don't think either myself or anyone else in this discussion is suggesting to run a Rosetta like translation. The 'lock out' just isn't a big deal for most people. Not everyone is a power user, in-fact people like yourself likely only make up 20% of the market (and I think that's being generous). Don't worry, OSX is not going anywhere just yet. Still likely a good decade or more before it finally kicks the bucket. By then it will have morphed and you won't even tell the difference anyway.
OS X is not going anyway although it may run on different chips. If Apple wanted to merge OSes they would have called Apple TV and Watch OS iOS and released one SDK. Integrating is not what they are doing.
Why would they lose any customers? Who is going to say, "Now that Apple has a $700 MacBook Air running on ARM, my next notebook isn't going to be the latest and greatest MacBook Pro running the latest Intel Core i7, but a WinPC running the latest Intel Core i7"?
Just to remind you about pricing, and what you get for it:
OS X is not going anyway although it may run on different chips. If Apple wanted to merge OSes they would have called Apple TV and Watch OS iOS and released one SDK. Integrating is not what they are doing.
That's precisely my point, Watch OS & TVOS are 'variants' of a highly efficient iOS base OS, the hypothetical iOSX would be a similar variant, all sharing a maintainable common code base.
What if something better than Adobe CC becomes available?
What if it allows you, and other similar companies, to do a better job -- significantly faster, easier at less cost.
Will you adapt?
If not, will you suffer from your competitors who have adapted?
What if, what if, what if. That's meaningless. We can all what if. What if we could travel faster than light? Yes, that's not serious. But we can what if forever. It doesn't do anything. It's just pure speculation. There needs to be a very good business reason. Just because a few people would like this doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
It needs to be looked at from Apple's point of view. What would this do for them? I've just posted price comparisons from Apple's site. An ARM notebook wouldn't cost less, it would cost more. Just look at Apple's pricing.$949 for a Pro with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage vs a Macbook Air with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage for $999. But you need to buy a keyboard for the Pro, and Apple's is $169, and it looks as though third parties keyboards will be about the same. So the Pro with keyboard is $1130. That's a lot more, and it's not really good as a laptop.
I don't think the ARM notebook would have to have touch screen capabilities, so there's some cost savings to be had there. Plus the Pro is new tech which is always priced high, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.
That's precisely my point, Watch OS & TVOS are 'variants' of a highly efficient iOS base OS, the hypothetical iOSX would be a similar variant, all sharing a maintainable common code base.
They already share lots in common ( SDK wise) from the entire foundation layer, SpriteKit, scene kit and more. You can share code between OS X and iOS already and there are sample apps to do that.
That doesn't make iOS = OSX or TV OS = iOS. If Apple wanted to go the MS route it would just have merged these sdks to begin with. They didn't. They have differentiated them for a reason.
From the user perspective the differences between iOS and OS X are the existence of multiple windowed apps ( not just two), the Finder and the visible file system and so on. These are significant differences and are reflected in the SDKs. In the SDKs the Appkit (OS X) has an NSOpenPanel and an NSSavePanel to read and write from the file system and the UIKit doesn't.
That doesn't make iOS = OSX or TV OS = iOS. If Apple wanted to go the MS route it would just have merged these sdks to begin with. They didn't. They have differentiated them for a reason.
The reason was efficiency in a time when ARM was slow as hell. That's time is not now, and that time is not the future.
That's precisely my point, Watch OS & TVOS are 'variants' of a highly efficient iOS base OS, the hypothetical iOSX would be a similar variant, all sharing a maintainable common code base.
iOS is based on OSX, WatchOS/TVOS are iOS variations. The common code base IS OSX. iOS is just a different UI API, same with WatchOS/TVOS.
Microsoft's biggest mistake with the original Surface was trying to coopt the entire desktop OS into a tablet OS without changing any of the underlying functionality, thus absolutely nothing works unless it was built with the phone SDK. Every Windows application is designed around having two mouse buttons.
You can bring up the iOS "UI" on OSX, click on "LaunchPad", once you click on something, it goes back to the OSX interface. Mac software since day 1 has been built around having only 1 button. So making something "touch" enabled is a lot less of a stretch.
The entire build if iOS likely contains a lot less parts than a full OSX build because there are a lot less hardware parts to build drivers and services for. You can't plug in any USB hardware, there's no SATA ports, and so forth.
Heck, Adobe software is such a bloated hog you might even find it runs a bit snappier on iOS!
Ugh. Please don't tell me that you do any graphics work for a living. There is nothing to compete with Adobe's products in photography. Apple tried, and failed. Pixel actor, or whatever it's called, which is being hailed as a photoshop competitor, is a joke. No serious photographer, let alone a professional, would use it.
We read this kind of thing all the time in these conversations. It seems that every piece of leading professional software is crap, according to people who don't need it, and are trying to prove something, like what I'm seeing here. So something OS goi g to magically appear, and knock this software down. Well, many have tried, and all have failed.
iOS is based on OSX, WatchOS/TVOS are iOS variations. The common code base IS OSX. iOS is just a different UI API, same with WatchOS/TVOS.
Microsoft's biggest mistake with the original Surface was trying to coopt the entire desktop OS into a tablet OS without changing any of the underlying functionality, thus absolutely nothing works unless it was built with the phone SDK. Every Windows application is designed around having two mouse buttons.
You can bring up the iOS "UI" on OSX, click on "LaunchPad", once you click on something, it goes back to the OSX interface. Mac software since day 1 has been built around having only 1 button. So making something "touch" enabled is a lot less of a stretch.
The entire build if iOS likely contains a lot less parts than a full OSX build because there are a lot less hardware parts to build drivers and services for. You can't plug in any USB hardware, there's no SATA ports, and so forth.
Yes it's based on OSX, but a very stripped down and efficient version of it. Anyhow, you are all still missing the main point here, this device would not need any of this legacy code or multitude of drivers, this is an entry device for people who just browse and use casual apps.
Ugh. Please don't tell me that you do any graphics work for a living. There is nothing to compete with Adobe's products in photography. Apple tried, and failed. Pixel actor, or whatever it's called, which is being hailed as a photoshop competitor, is a joke. No serious photographer, let alone a professional, would use it.
We read this kind of thing all the time in these conversations. It seems that every piece of leading professional software is crap, according to people who don't need it, and are trying to prove something, like what I'm seeing here. So something OS goi g to magically appear, and knock this software down. Well, many have tried, and all have failed.
I do do graphics work for a living. I don't consider myself a professional graphic designer, but I create better work than 80% of the so called professional designers that I meet as an iOS dev, and it's usually me that ends up doing the graphics.
As I said, if you read my post, it does NOT compete on features, but it ruins Adobe on UI and stability. You can have a multi million $ music studio and still make shit music, another man could make great music with a $1 flute. It's horses for courses.
It's not my "desire". I wouldn't even buy one (in the first 5 years or so anyway), but I know a few million people would. It's the economics and competition which will inevitably drive this through in some shape or form.
Nobody is interested in Microsoft because they make crap and "have no taste" I don't think the singular OS has anything to do with it It's not what you do. it's what you do WELL that counts.
Microsoft is out of the game for good IMO. Their business model is last century, and they have absolutely zero hope of gaining any ground in the crucial mobile market.
You wouldn't buy one, even though you are pushing it so strongly. But you do know, personally, a few million people who have told you that they would?
Apple's next-generation mobile processor may be called the A10 and leap ahead to a six-core architecture, according to a rumor from Chinese microblogging site Weibo.
I don't think either myself or anyone else in this discussion is suggesting to run a Rosetta like translation. The 'lock out' just isn't a big deal for most people. Not everyone is a power user, in-fact people like yourself likely only make up 20% of the market (and I think that's being generous). Don't worry, OSX is not going anywhere just yet. Still likely a good decade or more before it finally kicks the bucket. By then it will have morphed and you won't even tell the difference anyway.
You're making assumptions that you have no right to make. There are thousands of programs out there for the Mac. How do you know how many of those are important, even vital to most Mac users? You don't. But you dismiss all of that too easily. We see people not wanting to move to the Mac because of just one program. Just one. How are they going to get these programs to work, if not by either porting them over, or using something like Rosetta, or Virtual PC? It's one or the other. Yes, IF Apple did this, they would provide a way to ease the process in the SDK. But anything other than simple apps are going to take work, often a lot of work. Most developers will do what they always do, and wait it out.
I want to see iOS continue to be developed to the point where I can continue using my iPad more and more. With the Pro, that will be easier. I foresee where I will use photoshop less for front end use, and more for back end use. This is the way we use Lightroom and Photoshop now. My daughter, a pro lhotographer and editor, is looking forwards to the Pro and Pencil as well. I'm pretty stoked over it. November is a long ways off right now.
But Apple needs to make major improvements in iOS before it can compete with OS X in many ways, and OS X simply isn't going to make it on ARM for a long time. Maybe if Apple did what I've been suggesting here with their ARM SoCs it wou,d have helped, but they look to be going in a different direction.
The article makes it sound like upgrading to 2GB ram had a significant power impact.. which is incorrect. a 1.35v memory chip bank thats 2gb takes same power as a 4 or 8 GB bank of memory.. Memory had NOTHING to do with power usage.
Apple has not 'struggled' with power as much as made strategic decisions with power and how to manage it. My iPhone 6 right now out runs the majority of Android phones, and my iPhone 6s Plus will last a few days.
are you an electrical engineer? where? microsoft's Steven Sinofsky directly contradicts you:
I don't think the ARM notebook would have to have touch screen capabilities, so there's some cost savings to be had there. Plus the Pro is new tech which is always priced high, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.
With no touch, what's the point? So a new tech in multilevel screens. But the ARM chip costs are estimated to be between $27-35, vs $125 for the i5 in the lower price Macbook Air. That would even things out. Yet, the Pro costs more. I've seen no evidence that Apple has lowered the price of the iPads over the years. I know, because I've bought all of them except the 4. I doubt Apple will lower the price of the Pro unless it's a flop.
Comments
OS X is not going anyway although it may run on different chips. If Apple wanted to merge OSes they would have called Apple TV and Watch OS iOS and released one SDK. Integrating is not what they are doing.
Just to remind you about pricing, and what you get for it:
http://www.apple.com/macbook-air/specs.html
Those are Macbook Air prices, and specs.
Here are the prices and specs for the Pro:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/
$799 for 32GB and no keyboard.
$949 for 128GB and no keyboard.
What was that about a $700 ARM notebook again?
And the Air uses an i5, not an i3.
OS X is not going anyway although it may run on different chips. If Apple wanted to merge OSes they would have called Apple TV and Watch OS iOS and released one SDK. Integrating is not what they are doing.
That's precisely my point, Watch OS & TVOS are 'variants' of a highly efficient iOS base OS, the hypothetical iOSX would be a similar variant, all sharing a maintainable common code base.
What if, what if, what if. That's meaningless. We can all what if. What if we could travel faster than light? Yes, that's not serious. But we can what if forever. It doesn't do anything. It's just pure speculation. There needs to be a very good business reason. Just because a few people would like this doesn't mean that it's a good idea.
It needs to be looked at from Apple's point of view. What would this do for them? I've just posted price comparisons from Apple's site. An ARM notebook wouldn't cost less, it would cost more. Just look at Apple's pricing.$949 for a Pro with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage vs a Macbook Air with 4GB RAM and 128GB storage for $999. But you need to buy a keyboard for the Pro, and Apple's is $169, and it looks as though third parties keyboards will be about the same. So the Pro with keyboard is $1130. That's a lot more, and it's not really good as a laptop.
Just to remind you about pricing, and what you get for it:
http://www.apple.com/macbook-air/specs.html
Those are Macbook Air prices, and specs.
Here are the prices and specs for the Pro:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/
$799 for 32GB and no keyboard.
$899 for 128GB and no keyboard.
What was that about a $700 ARM notebook again?
And the Air uses an i5, not an i3.
I don't think the ARM notebook would have to have touch screen capabilities, so there's some cost savings to be had there. Plus the Pro is new tech which is always priced high, so I don't think that's a fair comparison.
They already share lots in common ( SDK wise) from the entire foundation layer, SpriteKit, scene kit and more. You can share code between OS X and iOS already and there are sample apps to do that.
That doesn't make iOS = OSX or TV OS = iOS. If Apple wanted to go the MS route it would just have merged these sdks to begin with. They didn't. They have differentiated them for a reason.
From the user perspective the differences between iOS and OS X are the existence of multiple windowed apps ( not just two), the Finder and the visible file system and so on. These are significant differences and are reflected in the SDKs. In the SDKs the Appkit (OS X) has an NSOpenPanel and an NSSavePanel to read and write from the file system and the UIKit doesn't.
Moving to Arm changes nothing about what OSX is.
That doesn't make iOS = OSX or TV OS = iOS. If Apple wanted to go the MS route it would just have merged these sdks to begin with. They didn't. They have differentiated them for a reason.
The reason was efficiency in a time when ARM was slow as hell. That's time is not now, and that time is not the future.
iOS is based on OSX, WatchOS/TVOS are iOS variations. The common code base IS OSX. iOS is just a different UI API, same with WatchOS/TVOS.
Microsoft's biggest mistake with the original Surface was trying to coopt the entire desktop OS into a tablet OS without changing any of the underlying functionality, thus absolutely nothing works unless it was built with the phone SDK. Every Windows application is designed around having two mouse buttons.
You can bring up the iOS "UI" on OSX, click on "LaunchPad", once you click on something, it goes back to the OSX interface. Mac software since day 1 has been built around having only 1 button. So making something "touch" enabled is a lot less of a stretch.
The entire build if iOS likely contains a lot less parts than a full OSX build because there are a lot less hardware parts to build drivers and services for. You can't plug in any USB hardware, there's no SATA ports, and so forth.
Ugh. Please don't tell me that you do any graphics work for a living. There is nothing to compete with Adobe's products in photography. Apple tried, and failed. Pixel actor, or whatever it's called, which is being hailed as a photoshop competitor, is a joke. No serious photographer, let alone a professional, would use it.
We read this kind of thing all the time in these conversations. It seems that every piece of leading professional software is crap, according to people who don't need it, and are trying to prove something, like what I'm seeing here. So something OS goi g to magically appear, and knock this software down. Well, many have tried, and all have failed.
iOS is based on OSX, WatchOS/TVOS are iOS variations. The common code base IS OSX. iOS is just a different UI API, same with WatchOS/TVOS.
Microsoft's biggest mistake with the original Surface was trying to coopt the entire desktop OS into a tablet OS without changing any of the underlying functionality, thus absolutely nothing works unless it was built with the phone SDK. Every Windows application is designed around having two mouse buttons.
You can bring up the iOS "UI" on OSX, click on "LaunchPad", once you click on something, it goes back to the OSX interface. Mac software since day 1 has been built around having only 1 button. So making something "touch" enabled is a lot less of a stretch.
The entire build if iOS likely contains a lot less parts than a full OSX build because there are a lot less hardware parts to build drivers and services for. You can't plug in any USB hardware, there's no SATA ports, and so forth.
Yes it's based on OSX, but a very stripped down and efficient version of it. Anyhow, you are all still missing the main point here, this device would not need any of this legacy code or multitude of drivers, this is an entry device for people who just browse and use casual apps.
It's called Ethernet and local storage.
Ugh. Please don't tell me that you do any graphics work for a living. There is nothing to compete with Adobe's products in photography. Apple tried, and failed. Pixel actor, or whatever it's called, which is being hailed as a photoshop competitor, is a joke. No serious photographer, let alone a professional, would use it.
We read this kind of thing all the time in these conversations. It seems that every piece of leading professional software is crap, according to people who don't need it, and are trying to prove something, like what I'm seeing here. So something OS goi g to magically appear, and knock this software down. Well, many have tried, and all have failed.
I do do graphics work for a living. I don't consider myself a professional graphic designer, but I create better work than 80% of the so called professional designers that I meet as an iOS dev, and it's usually me that ends up doing the graphics.
As I said, if you read my post, it does NOT compete on features, but it ruins Adobe on UI and stability. You can have a multi million $ music studio and still make shit music, another man could make great music with a $1 flute. It's horses for courses.
You wouldn't buy one, even though you are pushing it so strongly. But you do know, personally, a few million people who have told you that they would?
Anyhow, this is why I stay clear of discussions on AI! I must get on with my work.
Apple's next-generation mobile processor may be called the A10 and leap ahead to a six-core architecture, according to a rumor from Chinese microblogging site Weibo.
I'll wager that they're at least 50% accurate.
You wouldn't buy one, even though you are pushing it so strongly. But you do know, personally, a few million people who have told you that they would?
Oh for god sake, you have deteriorated into drivel. Bye
You're making assumptions that you have no right to make. There are thousands of programs out there for the Mac. How do you know how many of those are important, even vital to most Mac users? You don't. But you dismiss all of that too easily. We see people not wanting to move to the Mac because of just one program. Just one. How are they going to get these programs to work, if not by either porting them over, or using something like Rosetta, or Virtual PC? It's one or the other. Yes, IF Apple did this, they would provide a way to ease the process in the SDK. But anything other than simple apps are going to take work, often a lot of work. Most developers will do what they always do, and wait it out.
I want to see iOS continue to be developed to the point where I can continue using my iPad more and more. With the Pro, that will be easier. I foresee where I will use photoshop less for front end use, and more for back end use. This is the way we use Lightroom and Photoshop now. My daughter, a pro lhotographer and editor, is looking forwards to the Pro and Pencil as well. I'm pretty stoked over it. November is a long ways off right now.
But Apple needs to make major improvements in iOS before it can compete with OS X in many ways, and OS X simply isn't going to make it on ARM for a long time. Maybe if Apple did what I've been suggesting here with their ARM SoCs it wou,d have helped, but they look to be going in a different direction.
are you an electrical engineer? where? microsoft's Steven Sinofsky directly contradicts you:
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/12/ram-energy
With no touch, what's the point? So a new tech in multilevel screens. But the ARM chip costs are estimated to be between $27-35, vs $125 for the i5 in the lower price Macbook Air. That would even things out. Yet, the Pro costs more. I've seen no evidence that Apple has lowered the price of the iPads over the years. I know, because I've bought all of them except the 4. I doubt Apple will lower the price of the Pro unless it's a flop.