Can you scale the text in the menus on the desktop? In any case, I don't have a Retina iMac. It used to be that on my Mac Mini connected to our TV I could use a hack which sort of gave you crisp text at a large size. That was always the problem with the Mini connected to a TV. Unfortunately, I had to move to a NUC connected to a TV because with Windows I could scale everything.
Apple had been promising resolution independence for years. Have they given up on that? Even with a Retina display you would want some control over global scaling. On the iPad Air2 which has a Retina display changing the scaling does not result in global changes. It changes the size of text in apps that support " Dynamic Type". This doesn't seem to include the top menus in Settings.
No, they actually made good on the promise of resolution independence with the retina displays.
Scaling just text, as you notice on the iPad Air 2, doesn't work properly. The independent scaling of various interface elements and text has never really worked well on Windows, either - text would spill over or get cut off, or things would just look incongruous or "off". With enough tweaking, you could get something that looked and worked okay (I did), but "letting you tweak until it's kinda okay" is obviously not an Apple solution.
Apple's OS X solution is all-or-nothing, but it is true resolution independence that maintains the coherence of their interface design and all of its elements.
No, it actually is. It's just simplified. Apple has stated this a number of times.
Simplified? No, it's different. How "simplified" does something have to be before it's not the same, just similar.
There is no windowing (in the usual sense) on iOS, there are things that Mac apps can do that iOS can't due to sandboxing. There no exposed file system (iCloud drive isn't it). These are just a few or many differences in the interface let alone the conceptual architecture.
When developing software on iOS there is no NSDocument class as documents don't exist in the same way as they do on OS X. Screen co-ordinates inside your code run in different directions. Write code that creates a class that inherits from UIView and then try and build it into an app on OS X - it won't.
As I said, they are similar. But not the same. Of course they share many things as both are built on UNIX and they clearly share many similar items and concepts even at a coding level but that stems from their common inheritance. If iOS is OS X then surely we would have a single OS running on iPhone and Mac, no? Sort-of Windows 10 like .... If Apple has said that iOS is OS X then I'd like to see the link.
Actually, Steve Jobs DID state verbatim in the original iPhone presentation on January 9th, 2007, that "iPhone runs OS X".
Well, if so then he was being a little "economical with the truth" wasn't he?
Macs run OS X. iPhones & iPads run iOS. It says so on Apple's web site and I'm sure you know which one you're installing on your Apple gear (I hope!). Simple really. They are indeed very similar, are both UNIX underneath and share a lot of code but they are not the same. A point Apple has repeatedly made by carefully designing the OS to make the best of the hardware of each platform.
Now you can also add in tvOS and watchOS. Are they also also identical to OS X and iOS?
When things are the same - they are the same. (An iPhone 6 and an iPhone 6)
When things are similar - they are not the same. (An iPhone 6 and an iPhone 6 Plus)
A quick check on my Mac's dictionary for similar supplies "Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical: a soft cheese similar to Brie"
I just realized that for the "Ultimate Laptop" (Surface Book), in addition to the lack of Thunderbolt, there is no quad-core option. That is a dammed expensive laptop for one that is about half the performance of the macbook pro (they got the denominator / numerator mixed up)....
<p>Please Apple, don't ever cater to the clueless and to the backwards thinkers of the world! Apple is a forward thinking company, and I don't believe that they should be in the business of catering to a small group of ignorant people who continue to dwell in the past. The time of the neanderthal has passed, and we must forge ahead, for the sake of all mankind.</p><p> </p><p>I'm talking about the people who will pop up in an iPad thread and they will write that they wish that they could connect a mouse to their iPad! Get out of town son! Are you for real? Talk about totally missing the point! </p><p> </p><p>I'm basically referring to the people who wish that Apple were to make some sort of 'convertible' tablet or a dumb hybrid, kind of like the Surface. Nothing that Apple has ever said has hinted at any such device. Quite the contrary, everything that Apple has said up until this point indicates that they have zero plans to make any such device. Why? Because it's a stupid idea.</p><p> </p><p>If anybody desires such a niche device which is inferior at many tasks, then today is their lucky day, because there is a company that will cater to these people and they should just go and buy themselves a Surface or any of the other convertibles that are on the market. Don't demand that Apple abide by your retrograde technological beliefs.</p>
... And yet Apple made bigger phones and smartwatches just like the competition did before them. They do "me too" products just like everyone else just at a premium level. The iPad Pro is no different. The retina display was probably their last real innovation. 3D touch? LOL!
<p>I just realized that for the "Ultimate Laptop" (Surface Book), in addition to the lack of Thunderbolt, there is no quad-core option. That is a dammed expensive laptop for one that is about half the performance of the macbook pro (they got the denominator / numerator mixed up).... </p>
The 13" Macbook Pro (which is the one that is comparable to the Surface Book) only has a dual core i7. I think you're comparing the wrong laptop (15" MBPr) which most have been doing lately.
The excuse that Microsoft is spending lots of money to develop more integrated products "just like Apple" simply to give its licensees better direction on how to make products running its generic platform, and that it therefore doesn't need to actually sell any of them to be "successful" was already used to flatter Google's Nexus program.
The problem is, all that flattery did nothing for Google and won't help Microsoft either.
And the third rate hardware makers who don't know how to integrate (or write their own) software haven't benefited from years of Nexus or Surface models to copy. In fact, they've all been copying Apple themselves (Galaxy, Ultrabook), and at still unsuccessful even at that.
At some point, you have to stop making excuses for companies trying to copy Apple. Also, saying Microsoft isn't copying Apple because it's doing something with arbitrary differences that are very unApple-like was also used to defend Windows and Android for years. But the reality is that the most successful Android and Windows products are ones that directly copy Apple's products the closest. The really experimental stuff doesn't fly at all. At least its all failed for the last decade.
Microsoft could theoretically develop something really incredible, but it still wouldn't matter if the company also lacked:
a) the ability to manufacture at massive scale
b) the ability to sell at massive scale
c) the ability to sell at a sustainable profit
These are all incredibly important to Apple's business model of developing advanced future tech and bringing the price down rapidly through massive volumes of profitable sales. Some boutique-craft project is not going to cut it because it won't be able to pay for itself. That's a core issue for Nexus, Nvidia, Zune, Moto X etc.
?Surface Book is more expensive than a MacBook Pro. It's also several times more expensive than generic PC laptops. Microsoft can't manufacture them at scale because there's no demand for expensive PC laptops. If there were, all the PC makers would be selling them. They can't themselves, and Microsoft is less capable of building PCs at scale than its hardware partners.
Without hardware profits, Surface is nothing more than a vanity brand like Nexus. No amount of tech enthusiast press praise is going to make high end flagships out of commodity-tugboats.
That was a very long winded take on "Everyone's copying Apple" defense & going on about what you think Microsofts strategy is. If you can't see that what Microsoft has been doing post "Ballmer Era" is to become innovative by creating devices that people like, create renewed competition amongst PC manufacturers to rejuvenate Windows 10 after the disaster that was Windows 8.
Microsoft has been restructuring their business model by not just relying heavily on it's OEM & Office Suite sales. Instead they've been forward thinking by building a robust cloud business, moving to a subscription based strategy for its Office Products, buying great startups to expand deeper into the mobile devices, & looking at the future by creating devices like HoloLens.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that due to your absurd notion that Microsoft is trying to copy Apple. And for what it's worth Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to. If you haven't noticed they aren't afraid to spend Billions on buyouts for it to only fail, write it off, & still able to survive in today's market that always seem to say "Microsoft is dead".
That was a very long winded take on "Everyone's copying Apple" defense & going on about what you think Microsofts strategy is. If you can't see that what Microsoft has been doing post "Ballmer Era" is to become innovative by creating devices that people like, create renewed competition amongst PC manufacturers to rejuvenate Windows 10 after the disaster that was Windows 8.
Microsoft has been restructuring their business model by not just relying heavily on it's OEM & Office Suite sales. Instead they've been forward thinking by building a robust cloud business, moving to a subscription based strategy for its Office Products, buying great startups to expand deeper into the mobile devices, & looking at the future by creating devices like HoloLens.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that due to your absurd notion that Microsoft is trying to copy Apple. And for what it's worth Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to. If you haven't noticed they aren't afraid to spend Billions on buyouts for it to only fail, write it off, & still able to survive in today's market that always seem to say "Microsoft is dead".
A lot of unsupported claims there.
So you think its "absurd" to observe that a software company that ridiculed Apple's business model and then turned around and attempted to copy it as the new core of its redefined self is "devices and services"?
"Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to"
Yes, and Amazon "could be profitable if they needed to," and Google "could be selling hardware if they needed to."
You're right up there with everyone else making excuses for companies with virtually 0% profit share of the largest consumer market ever.
Well, if so then he was being a little "economical with the truth" wasn't he?
Macs run OS X. iPhones & iPads run iOS. It says so on Apple's web site and I'm sure you know which one you're installing on your Apple gear (I hope!). Simple really. They are indeed very similar, are both UNIX underneath and share a lot of code but they are not the same. A point Apple has repeatedly made by carefully designing the OS to make the best of the hardware of each platform.
Now you can also add in tvOS and watchOS. Are they also also identical to OS X and iOS?
Context matters, dude.
None of those things existed when the iPhone was announced. Nobody had ANY concept of what the modern smartphone could be until Jobs unleashed it unto the completely clueless public. We had iPods running a completely custom software platform from Pixo, and we had various phone platforms running more or less stupid software, and the appropriately named WinCE, which had nothing in common with "Windows" proper beyond the name and the manufacturer.
The idea of putting full UNIX on anything but a PC was utterly beyond the scope of most of the industry, let alone the general public.
So, so we have been very lucky to have brought a few revolutionary user interfaces to the market in our time.
First was the mouse.
The second was the click wheel.
And now, we’re gonna bring multi-touch to the market. [0:34:20]
And each of these revolutionary user interfaces has made possible a revolutionary product – the Mac, the iPod and now the iPhone. [0:34:30]
So, a revolutionary user interface.
We’re gonna build on top of that with software. Now, software on mobile phones is like is like baby software.
It’s not so powerful, and today we're gonna show you a software breakthrough. Software that’s at least five years ahead of what’s on any other phone. [0:34:55]
Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation: iPhone runs OSX.
Now, why, why would we wanna run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it’s got everything we need.
It’s got multi-tasking.
It’s got the best networking.
It already knows how to power manage. We’ve been doing this on mobile computers for years. It’s got awesome security.
And the right apps.
It’s got everything from Cocoa and the graphics and it’s got core animation built in and it’s got the audio and video that OSX is famous for.
It’s got all the stuff we want. [0:35:43]
And it’s built right into iPhone. And that has let us create desktop class applications and networking, right. [0:35:52]
Not the crippled stuff that you find on most phones. This is real, desktop-class applications. [0:35:59]
None of that was waffling around, or being "economical with the truth". This was simply the most basic way to express what iPhone was in a way that would be understood by both the tech press and the general public, in January of 2007.
None of those things existed when the iPhone was announced. Nobody had ANY concept of what the modern smartphone could be until Jobs unleashed it unto the completely clueless public.
Isn't it odd how the argument gets turned after Apple gains success in a new market. When the iPhone was announced the knee-jerk complaints were how large it was with its 3.5" display, and how the UI was nothing like the Mac. Even the iPad got complaints for using the core of iOS and CocoaTouch for iPhone with a new UI design instead of using Mac OS X that wasn't designed for the finger as the primary input on a touch screen. It just sounds crazy to me. Even Blackberry's nee RIM's CEOs didn't think the speed of the iPhone was possible, and back then the ARM chip was basically off the shelf. Then after competitors hack together their own copycats it gets deemed as being obvious the whole time. It's just so fucking weird.
…and the appropriately named WinCE, which had nothing in common with "Windows" proper beyond the name and the manufacturer.
1) I thought that they bought their WinCE from someone else.
2) It had a lot in common with desktop Windows. The task bar, the Start button, etc. Link others before them and in true MS fashion, they took a different core OS then tried to mimic their money-making desktop UI.
PS: I'd argue that we should refer to the Mac system as Mac OS X, as OS X is the core for the Mac and iOS-based devices, the Apple TV, and Apple Watch. In fact, before they officially took the iOS branding that was used colloquially right from the start, they did refer to the OS as "OS X iPhone." We can't simply say the similarities end at BSD or Darwin, because there is a lot of shared proprietary code above that, hence their use of OS X. CocoaTouch is what defines the iPhone and iPad, which the Apple TV clearly doesn't use, but we know the original Apple TV was really a Mac with not much more than BackRow(?) as a UI, and then when it went to an ARM-based system we saw that it was clearly iOS as the base (I'm not sure what the UI was called). I really wish more companies would invest in vertical and horizontal integration as the longterm gains can clearly be significant, but that's not easy when you need an executive that can plan for many years down the road, not just the next quarter results.
Isn't it odd how the argument gets turned after Apple gains success in a new market. When the iPhone was announced the knee-jerk complaints were how large it was with its 3.5" display, and how the UI was nothing like the Mac. Even the iPad got complaints for using the core of iOS and CocoaTouch for iPhone with a new UI design instead of using Mac OS X that wasn't designed for the finger as the primary input on a touch screen. It just sounds crazy to me. Even Blackberry's nee RIM's CEOs didn't think the speed of the iPhone was possible, and back then the ARM chip was basically off the shelf. Then afte r competitors hack together their own copycats it gets deemed as being obvious the whole time. It's just so fucking weird.
Isn't it. Especially with hardware design — I remember being beside myself with excitement during the keynote. Two years or so later, I walk past an O2 phone shop that had a sticker on the door and think to myself "huh? O2 carries the iPhone now?" only to realize that this was some sort of Samsung phone. Ruthless mimicry that they could only pass off as "obvious" years later, when everybody had forgotten just how completely astounding iPhone was when it was introduced.
Isn't it odd how the argument gets turned after Apple gains success in a new market. When the iPhone was announced the knee-jerk complaints were how large it was with its 3.5" display, and how the UI was nothing like the Mac. Even the iPad got complaints for using the core of iOS and CocoaTouch for iPhone with a new UI design instead of using Mac OS X that wasn't designed for the finger as the primary input on a touch screen. It just sounds crazy to me. Even Blackberry's nee RIM's CEOs didn't think the speed of the iPhone was possible, and back then the ARM chip was basically off the shelf. Then after competitors hack together their own copycats it gets deemed as being obvious the whole time. It's just so fucking weird.
1) I thought that they bought their WinCE from someone else.
2) It had a lot in common with desktop Windows. The task bar, the Start button, etc. Link others before them and in true MS fashion, they took a different core OS then tried to mimic their money-making desktop UI.
PS: I'd argue that we should refer to the Mac system as Mac OS X, as OS X is the core for the Mac and iOS-based devices, the Apple TV, and Apple Watch. In fact, before they officially took the iOS branding that was used colloquially right from the start, they did refer to the OS as "OS X iPhone." We can't simply say the similarities end at BSD or Darwin, because there is a lot of shared proprietary code above that, hence their use of OS X. CocoaTouch is what defines the iPhone and iPad, which the Apple TV clearly doesn't use, but we know the original Apple TV was really a Mac with not much more than BackRow(?) as a UI, and then when it went to an ARM-based system we saw that it was clearly iOS as the base (I'm not sure what the UI was called). I really wish more companies would invest in vertical and horizontal integration as the longterm gains can clearly be significant, but that's not easy when you need an executive that can plan for many years down the road, not just the next quarter results.
With the way Apple has been branding their operating systems lately, maybe they'll just rebrand OSX as macOS.
With the way Apple has been branding their operating systems lately, maybe they'll just rebrand OSX as macOS.
It was known as "Mac OS" up until I think 2001. Version 10 of the operating system (which is BSD/Darwin; i.e. actually a new operating system aka NEXT) was named to "Mac OS X" (Mac OS [version] 10).... though many (including me) commonly pronounce it as (OS Ex). In 2012 it was shortened to "OS X". I would not mind them moving backwards and rebranding the macOS (drop the version number except in the about screen with build number).... and having the next one named something like "macOS Death Valley".
Simplified? No, it's different. How "simplified" does something have to be before it's not the same, just similar.
There is no windowing (in the usual sense) on iOS, there are things that Mac apps can do that iOS can't due to sandboxing. There no exposed file system (iCloud drive isn't it). These are just a few or many differences in the interface let alone the conceptual architecture.
When developing software on iOS there is no NSDocument class as documents don't exist in the same way as they do on OS X. Screen co-ordinates inside your code run in different directions. Write code that creates a class that inherits from UIView and then try and build it into an app on OS X - it won't.
As I said, they are similar. But not the same. Of course they share many things as both are built on UNIX and they clearly share many similar items and concepts even at a coding level but that stems from their common inheritance. If iOS is OS X then surely we would have a single OS running on iPhone and Mac, no? Sort-of Windows 10 like .... If Apple has said that iOS is OS X then I'd like to see the link.
Your'e talking about the Desktop, which is an app that rides on top of OS X. Apple replaced that Desktop app with a different one for iOS. They then removed all of the drivers that wouldn't be useful. Those are the main differences. If you remember that the OS X Desktop is an app, and not an integral part of the OS, then you can understand what I'm saying.
That was a very long winded take on "Everyone's copying Apple" defense & going on about what you think Microsofts strategy is. If you can't see that what Microsoft has been doing post "Ballmer Era" is to become innovative by creating devices that people like, create renewed competition amongst PC manufacturers to rejuvenate Windows 10 after the disaster that was Windows 8.
Microsoft has been restructuring their business model by not just relying heavily on it's OEM & Office Suite sales. Instead they've been forward thinking by building a robust cloud business, moving to a subscription based strategy for its Office Products, buying great startups to expand deeper into the mobile devices, & looking at the future by creating devices like HoloLens.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that due to your absurd notion that Microsoft is trying to copy Apple. And for what it's worth Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to. If you haven't noticed they aren't afraid to spend Billions on buyouts for it to only fail, write it off, & still able to survive in today's market that always seem to say "Microsoft is dead".
Ballmer is responsible for these initiatives, not Nadella. In fact, Nadella was against buying the phone division of Nokia. We don't know his feeling about the tablet line, but neither is loved, liked, nor popular. The phone division is losing money, that we know for certain from their financials, and it'sbelieved the tablet line is too.
You can state whatever you want to the contrary, but making things up doesn't change the reality.
Hololens is going to fail just as the Kinect did. It's too specialized and expensive.
Comments
Can you scale the text in the menus on the desktop? In any case, I don't have a Retina iMac. It used to be that on my Mac Mini connected to our TV I could use a hack which sort of gave you crisp text at a large size. That was always the problem with the Mini connected to a TV. Unfortunately, I had to move to a NUC connected to a TV because with Windows I could scale everything.
Apple had been promising resolution independence for years. Have they given up on that? Even with a Retina display you would want some control over global scaling. On the iPad Air2 which has a Retina display changing the scaling does not result in global changes. It changes the size of text in apps that support " Dynamic Type". This doesn't seem to include the top menus in Settings.
No, they actually made good on the promise of resolution independence with the retina displays.
Scaling just text, as you notice on the iPad Air 2, doesn't work properly. The independent scaling of various interface elements and text has never really worked well on Windows, either - text would spill over or get cut off, or things would just look incongruous or "off". With enough tweaking, you could get something that looked and worked okay (I did), but "letting you tweak until it's kinda okay" is obviously not an Apple solution.
Apple's OS X solution is all-or-nothing, but it is true resolution independence that maintains the coherence of their interface design and all of its elements.
No, it actually is. It's just simplified. Apple has stated this a number of times.
Simplified? No, it's different. How "simplified" does something have to be before it's not the same, just similar.
There is no windowing (in the usual sense) on iOS, there are things that Mac apps can do that iOS can't due to sandboxing. There no exposed file system (iCloud drive isn't it). These are just a few or many differences in the interface let alone the conceptual architecture.
When developing software on iOS there is no NSDocument class as documents don't exist in the same way as they do on OS X. Screen co-ordinates inside your code run in different directions. Write code that creates a class that inherits from UIView and then try and build it into an app on OS X - it won't.
As I said, they are similar. But not the same. Of course they share many things as both are built on UNIX and they clearly share many similar items and concepts even at a coding level but that stems from their common inheritance. If iOS is OS X then surely we would have a single OS running on iPhone and Mac, no? Sort-of Windows 10 like .... If Apple has said that iOS is OS X then I'd like to see the link.
Actually, Steve Jobs DID state verbatim in the original iPhone presentation on January 9th, 2007, that "iPhone runs OS X".
Well, if so then he was being a little "economical with the truth" wasn't he?
Macs run OS X. iPhones & iPads run iOS. It says so on Apple's web site and I'm sure you know which one you're installing on your Apple gear (I hope!). Simple really. They are indeed very similar, are both UNIX underneath and share a lot of code but they are not the same. A point Apple has repeatedly made by carefully designing the OS to make the best of the hardware of each platform.
Now you can also add in tvOS and watchOS. Are they also also identical to OS X and iOS?
When things are the same - they are the same. (An iPhone 6 and an iPhone 6)
When things are similar - they are not the same. (An iPhone 6 and an iPhone 6 Plus)
A quick check on my Mac's dictionary for similar supplies "Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical: a soft cheese similar to Brie"
I just realized that for the "Ultimate Laptop" (Surface Book), in addition to the lack of Thunderbolt, there is no quad-core option. That is a dammed expensive laptop for one that is about half the performance of the macbook pro (they got the denominator / numerator mixed up)....
... And yet Apple made bigger phones and smartwatches just like the competition did before them. They do "me too" products just like everyone else just at a premium level. The iPad Pro is no different. The retina display was probably their last real innovation. 3D touch? LOL!
The 13" Macbook Pro (which is the one that is comparable to the Surface Book) only has a dual core i7. I think you're comparing the wrong laptop (15" MBPr) which most have been doing lately.
That was a very long winded take on "Everyone's copying Apple" defense & going on about what you think Microsofts strategy is. If you can't see that what Microsoft has been doing post "Ballmer Era" is to become innovative by creating devices that people like, create renewed competition amongst PC manufacturers to rejuvenate Windows 10 after the disaster that was Windows 8.
Microsoft has been restructuring their business model by not just relying heavily on it's OEM & Office Suite sales. Instead they've been forward thinking by building a robust cloud business, moving to a subscription based strategy for its Office Products, buying great startups to expand deeper into the mobile devices, & looking at the future by creating devices like HoloLens.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that due to your absurd notion that Microsoft is trying to copy Apple. And for what it's worth Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to. If you haven't noticed they aren't afraid to spend Billions on buyouts for it to only fail, write it off, & still able to survive in today's market that always seem to say "Microsoft is dead".
That was a very long winded take on "Everyone's copying Apple" defense & going on about what you think Microsofts strategy is. If you can't see that what Microsoft has been doing post "Ballmer Era" is to become innovative by creating devices that people like, create renewed competition amongst PC manufacturers to rejuvenate Windows 10 after the disaster that was Windows 8.
Microsoft has been restructuring their business model by not just relying heavily on it's OEM & Office Suite sales. Instead they've been forward thinking by building a robust cloud business, moving to a subscription based strategy for its Office Products, buying great startups to expand deeper into the mobile devices, & looking at the future by creating devices like HoloLens.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand that due to your absurd notion that Microsoft is trying to copy Apple. And for what it's worth Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to. If you haven't noticed they aren't afraid to spend Billions on buyouts for it to only fail, write it off, & still able to survive in today's market that always seem to say "Microsoft is dead".
A lot of unsupported claims there.
So you think its "absurd" to observe that a software company that ridiculed Apple's business model and then turned around and attempted to copy it as the new core of its redefined self is "devices and services"?
"Microsoft could deliver on larger scale if they needed to"
Yes, and Amazon "could be profitable if they needed to," and Google "could be selling hardware if they needed to."
You're right up there with everyone else making excuses for companies with virtually 0% profit share of the largest consumer market ever.
Well, if so then he was being a little "economical with the truth" wasn't he?
Macs run OS X. iPhones & iPads run iOS. It says so on Apple's web site and I'm sure you know which one you're installing on your Apple gear (I hope!). Simple really. They are indeed very similar, are both UNIX underneath and share a lot of code but they are not the same. A point Apple has repeatedly made by carefully designing the OS to make the best of the hardware of each platform.
Now you can also add in tvOS and watchOS. Are they also also identical to OS X and iOS?
Context matters, dude.
None of those things existed when the iPhone was announced. Nobody had ANY concept of what the modern smartphone could be until Jobs unleashed it unto the completely clueless public. We had iPods running a completely custom software platform from Pixo, and we had various phone platforms running more or less stupid software, and the appropriately named WinCE, which had nothing in common with "Windows" proper beyond the name and the manufacturer.
The idea of putting full UNIX on anything but a PC was utterly beyond the scope of most of the industry, let alone the general public.
Here's the transcript of his announcement:
So, so we have been very lucky to have brought a few revolutionary user interfaces to the market in our time.
First was the mouse.
The second was the click wheel.
And now, we’re gonna bring multi-touch to the market. [0:34:20]
And each of these revolutionary user interfaces has made possible a revolutionary product – the Mac, the iPod and now the iPhone. [0:34:30]
So, a revolutionary user interface.
We’re gonna build on top of that with software. Now, software on mobile phones is like is like baby software.
It’s not so powerful, and today we're gonna show you a software breakthrough. Software that’s at least five years ahead of what’s on any other phone. [0:34:55]
Now how do we do this? Well, we start with a strong foundation: iPhone runs OSX.
Now, why, why would we wanna run such a sophisticated operating system on a mobile device? Well, because it’s got everything we need.
It’s got multi-tasking.
It’s got the best networking.
It already knows how to power manage. We’ve been doing this on mobile computers for years. It’s got awesome security.
And the right apps.
It’s got everything from Cocoa and the graphics and it’s got core animation built in and it’s got the audio and video that OSX is famous for.
It’s got all the stuff we want. [0:35:43]
And it’s built right into iPhone. And that has let us create desktop class applications and networking, right. [0:35:52]
Not the crippled stuff that you find on most phones. This is real, desktop-class applications. [0:35:59]
None of that was waffling around, or being "economical with the truth". This was simply the most basic way to express what iPhone was in a way that would be understood by both the tech press and the general public, in January of 2007.
Isn't it odd how the argument gets turned after Apple gains success in a new market. When the iPhone was announced the knee-jerk complaints were how large it was with its 3.5" display, and how the UI was nothing like the Mac. Even the iPad got complaints for using the core of iOS and CocoaTouch for iPhone with a new UI design instead of using Mac OS X that wasn't designed for the finger as the primary input on a touch screen. It just sounds crazy to me. Even Blackberry's nee RIM's CEOs didn't think the speed of the iPhone was possible, and back then the ARM chip was basically off the shelf. Then after competitors hack together their own copycats it gets deemed as being obvious the whole time. It's just so fucking weird.
1) I thought that they bought their WinCE from someone else.
2) It had a lot in common with desktop Windows. The task bar, the Start button, etc. Link others before them and in true MS fashion, they took a different core OS then tried to mimic their money-making desktop UI.
PS: I'd argue that we should refer to the Mac system as Mac OS X, as OS X is the core for the Mac and iOS-based devices, the Apple TV, and Apple Watch. In fact, before they officially took the iOS branding that was used colloquially right from the start, they did refer to the OS as "OS X iPhone." We can't simply say the similarities end at BSD or Darwin, because there is a lot of shared proprietary code above that, hence their use of OS X. CocoaTouch is what defines the iPhone and iPad, which the Apple TV clearly doesn't use, but we know the original Apple TV was really a Mac with not much more than BackRow(?) as a UI, and then when it went to an ARM-based system we saw that it was clearly iOS as the base (I'm not sure what the UI was called). I really wish more companies would invest in vertical and horizontal integration as the longterm gains can clearly be significant, but that's not easy when you need an executive that can plan for many years down the road, not just the next quarter results.
Isn't it odd how the argument gets turned after Apple gains success in a new market. When the iPhone was announced the knee-jerk complaints were how large it was with its 3.5" display, and how the UI was nothing like the Mac. Even the iPad got complaints for using the core of iOS and CocoaTouch for iPhone with a new UI design instead of using Mac OS X that wasn't designed for the finger as the primary input on a touch screen. It just sounds crazy to me. Even Blackberry's nee RIM's CEOs didn't think the speed of the iPhone was possible, and back then the ARM chip was basically off the shelf. Then afte r competitors hack together their own copycats it gets deemed as being obvious the whole time. It's just so fucking weird.
Isn't it. Especially with hardware design — I remember being beside myself with excitement during the keynote. Two years or so later, I walk past an O2 phone shop that had a sticker on the door and think to myself "huh? O2 carries the iPhone now?" only to realize that this was some sort of Samsung phone. Ruthless mimicry that they could only pass off as "obvious" years later, when everybody had forgotten just how completely astounding iPhone was when it was introduced.
Isn't it odd how the argument gets turned after Apple gains success in a new market. When the iPhone was announced the knee-jerk complaints were how large it was with its 3.5" display, and how the UI was nothing like the Mac. Even the iPad got complaints for using the core of iOS and CocoaTouch for iPhone with a new UI design instead of using Mac OS X that wasn't designed for the finger as the primary input on a touch screen. It just sounds crazy to me. Even Blackberry's nee RIM's CEOs didn't think the speed of the iPhone was possible, and back then the ARM chip was basically off the shelf. Then after competitors hack together their own copycats it gets deemed as being obvious the whole time. It's just so fucking weird.
1) I thought that they bought their WinCE from someone else.
2) It had a lot in common with desktop Windows. The task bar, the Start button, etc. Link others before them and in true MS fashion, they took a different core OS then tried to mimic their money-making desktop UI.
PS: I'd argue that we should refer to the Mac system as Mac OS X, as OS X is the core for the Mac and iOS-based devices, the Apple TV, and Apple Watch. In fact, before they officially took the iOS branding that was used colloquially right from the start, they did refer to the OS as "OS X iPhone." We can't simply say the similarities end at BSD or Darwin, because there is a lot of shared proprietary code above that, hence their use of OS X. CocoaTouch is what defines the iPhone and iPad, which the Apple TV clearly doesn't use, but we know the original Apple TV was really a Mac with not much more than BackRow(?) as a UI, and then when it went to an ARM-based system we saw that it was clearly iOS as the base (I'm not sure what the UI was called). I really wish more companies would invest in vertical and horizontal integration as the longterm gains can clearly be significant, but that's not easy when you need an executive that can plan for many years down the road, not just the next quarter results.
With the way Apple has been branding their operating systems lately, maybe they'll just rebrand OSX as macOS.
With the way Apple has been branding their operating systems lately, maybe they'll just rebrand OSX as macOS.
It was known as "Mac OS" up until I think 2001. Version 10 of the operating system (which is BSD/Darwin; i.e. actually a new operating system aka NEXT) was named to "Mac OS X" (Mac OS [version] 10).... though many (including me) commonly pronounce it as (OS Ex). In 2012 it was shortened to "OS X". I would not mind them moving backwards and rebranding the macOS (drop the version number except in the about screen with build number).... and having the next one named something like "macOS Death Valley".
Your'e talking about the Desktop, which is an app that rides on top of OS X. Apple replaced that Desktop app with a different one for iOS. They then removed all of the drivers that wouldn't be useful. Those are the main differences. If you remember that the OS X Desktop is an app, and not an integral part of the OS, then you can understand what I'm saying.
He was also correct.
Ballmer is responsible for these initiatives, not Nadella. In fact, Nadella was against buying the phone division of Nokia. We don't know his feeling about the tablet line, but neither is loved, liked, nor popular. The phone division is losing money, that we know for certain from their financials, and it'sbelieved the tablet line is too.
You can state whatever you want to the contrary, but making things up doesn't change the reality.
Hololens is going to fail just as the Kinect did. It's too specialized and expensive.
Yeah, Microsoft is trying to emulate apple.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/10/us-microsoft-ceo-idUSBRE8981GF20121010
http://www.gurufocus.com/news/255094/is-microsoft-becoming-more-like-apple
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3568416-can-microsoft-really-copy-apple-and-throw-its-oems-under-the-bus
Why Microsoft should become more like Apple.
http://www.barrons.com/articles/why-microsoft-should-be-more-like-apple-android-1431746907
Really, there's a lot more of this stuff.
It used to be called MacOS a long time ago, before OS X came out.