In December, rumors surfaced about project "Marzipan,"a plan to allow iOS apps to run on Macs,
Actually no, that isn’t the plan, that was just AI’s take on a poor headline from another rumor source. Those closer to development don’t believe that’s the plan at all, and that it is instead about more unified app dev via new frameworks. Again, read Gruber’s take:
“One user experience” is neither possible nor desirable. The truth is that this effort by Apple is almost certainly not about cross-platform applications but instead cross-platform frameworks for developers. It’s developer news, not user news.
Read this article again. I noticed you cut off the rest of the paragraph in your quote.
FTA: "The effort may be intended to foster better support of the Mac App Store, which hasn't done nearly as well as its iOS counterpart -- but is more probably something like the "fat binary" or "universal binary" approach that was needed for the migration from 68K to PowerPC and then from PowerPC to Intel. "
...which would have been a nice paragraph, if you had omitted the first sentence with the totally wrong claim of what the purpose of Marizpan is. That's why I responded to that portion and not the rest. The latter sentences about universal binaries are much more likely the truth (Gruber's post) but is contradictory to AI's claim that it's "iOS apps running on Mac". These are two different things.
I like Apple computers and have been using them for decades but other computer companies seem to give customers more freedom of choice.
Freedom of choice? Choice only provides freedom if YOU get to determine the options. If product vendors, Microsoft (or Google) get to decide your options, you’re the opposite of free - you’re being controlled.
So what are you after? A good product or the illusion of freedom that choice provides?
I don't have a clue what Apple is doing in the future in terms of ARM processors but it appears as though Wall Street is very unhappy with whatever the company is doing.
Then it is about time that Apple gave Wall St the finger and went private. Then Wall St would have to turn their attention to someone else. Wall St is a blot on society. Well, the so called Analists who just love to speak out of their backsides about things they have no real understanding of and often to the benefit of their friends who will be shorting thier targets. Have I covered everything?
I wish this could happen...idk why some just sit here and worry about what investors think about Apple. Apple doesn't care...Apple shouldn't care. Apple should just focus on being Apple and the rest will take care of itself.
At some point Swift needs a first class interface system. Surprised no one is claiming that Marizpan is that interface and will be designed to scale across all the interactions sizes Apple uses. iPad and Light-weight Mac apps would seem to be best targets for that transition to kick off.
Apple need to produce light low price MAC book call MAChrome so new pencil $299 iPad and similar priced Machrome at lower end especially in education market can compete well with everyone. Than, rest middel to high end iPads and MAC products.
Why? Competing with no profit is pointless. Much like comments with poor grammar and spelling.
I absolutely love my iPad, and I love my Macs. I don’t want them merged. What I do want, though are some touch features on my MacBooks. I use my iPad Pro with its Smart Keyboard so often that I’ve been conditioned to reach up and use touch gestures on the screen. Out of habit I do the same on my MacBook, where I frequently reach up to pinch-zoom or select things. Having SOME touch features on a MacBook would not kill Apple or compromise the Mac interface. I’m not looking for my MacBook to replace my iPad. I don’t need my MacBook to be as thin, light, or have as long a battery life as my iPad. I still want menus and to use a track pad and mouse on my MacBook. But I also want to be able to reach up and pinch-zoom a photo or select a spreadsheet cell with my finger. And, no, the touch bar is not the right solution. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was at the bottom of the screen, but lying flat against the keyboard makes it difficult to see without moving your focus off of the screen, which is terrible for someone like me who is a touch typist.
Marzipan is probably just a back-end method so one set of code can connect and the OS does the things about connecting the interface, letting the OS do whats best for the available hardware.
Think of it like this: Twitter just discontinued its mac client. Why? Because it's a lot of work up keeping both iOS and Mac. Imagine if the same codebase could with a press work on both iOS and Mac, and the OS handled if there's cursor or a touch interface.
It'd be a big boon to MacOS. Thats what I believe it's for, not any hair brained scheme to merge OSes.
In truth, iPad, iPhone, iWatches. They're all Macs. Apple as computer appliance. Macs for the rest of us. They're just flying the flag for the original Mac mandate.
Who said what to who? All semantics.
One day it will Siri in yer wall with a big screen and retinal augmented reality thought power...with computing power hived off...well, the AI God Hive. When we're all Mac AI drones the current semantics will be quite amusing.
As for today. Organising compiles for watch, pad, phone and Mac across a common platform but with interface 'calls' for the appropriate device...and having a common 'A' chip to deal with all those platforms makes even more sense when its power is equal to mainstream Intel CPUs. And it's closing in REAL fast. Two years tops sounds about right. (Intrigued about the power of this year's A12 and next year's A13...they should both kick ass.)
Expect iPads to get more like Macs. That's probably the better way to do it. (But allowing the underlying technology to create a 'Mac' app from an iPad code base makes sense. The underlying ability to create an app from a core platform but with various interfaces.). A eventual(?) 21 inch iPad is going to have more features added to it...to make it even more 'Mac like.' ...iOS is nimble. But lots of core Mac tech underneath. It sprang from the Mac platform. Basically the same thing. They'll just add the tech' they need to iOS as they need it e.g. file system but without compromising its efficiency. Apple have moved to a new file system. iOS got this and Metal 1st. It's probably easier to do it that way because iOS is leaner.
I'd expect the iPad to morph until the Mac no longer exists. It will live on in the Mac. It will be a Mac. They are...all Macs. Just in different device shapes and interfaces.
What Tim says, shrugs. It's more what Apple does. But he didn't say 'Why would you need anything else?' this time. He uses his iMac for work (heh) and his iPad at home. (Lol...but yeah, you can use the iPad for work and as it increases in screen size and the iOS gets legs it will handle 'more' of the work you would have 'only' done on the Mac.)
Check where the hardware updates have gone in the last 5 years.
Until Mac/Pad more/less over the next few years, Apple will happily sell you two devices. The iMac sits on your desk. The iPad can be carries around with you.
Like most CEOs Cook is very gifted at communication and answers the question he wants to answer while subtly leaving out important detail.
The question was not whether macOS and iOS should merge. That makes sense because it allows a dual marketing strategy with one product serving as a base model for content consumption and the other as a premium/content creation offering.
The issue was whether ARM cores would be powering some Macs from 2020 onward. This seems almost certain considering the large focus on Bitcode compilation and abstraction of the processor, hardware and presentation layers of software delivered through the App Store. The extent of the calling client's capabilities are well known, so the delivered binary is 'best possible' to run on that hardware. That means no 'fat binaries' or emulation layer required for anything coming out of Xcode with the Bitcode flag set, which will be enforced for all targets.
This is a huge change, genius really. Boxed software is over. Apple want to migrate the last holdouts to digital delivery through their own store, maximising revenue. They also want to be able to break Intel's strange-hold on the macOS platform. This way they can still offer high-end x86_64 if they so desire, but also support pretty much any CPU from ARM64 to any wild instruction set they dream up in their labs, and can fab wherever is cheapest or has the best process.
Step 1: Build a strawman and light it on fire: "We will never merge the two if doing so would mean compromises."
In other words, "We are in the process of merging the two." Putting an ARM chip in the macs and running the OS on the ARM isn't the same as merging, I suppose...
Merging the macOS and iOS means that the same OS that you install on a mac device is exactly the same as on an iOS device and all the UI traits would be the same - you could (like the Windows convertible tablet/computers - which tend to be the best at either). The merged OS would then have the same kernel (exactly) and either one unified UI design or two different UI stacks that switch depending on the way the device is used. What processor used is a moot point since it does not impact which OS you can use. Apple could compile iOS onto Intel, or they could compile macOS on to ARM... but that is just the choice of hardware underneath the OS - no more than which GPU is used.
Whether you unify the two OSs into one or leave them as two separate ones - you could combine the UI toolkits (aka Marzipan) and allow developers to write one application which can be installed on macOS or iOS - in the same way that you can currently write a combined application for iPad and iPhone which are effectively two different UIs (they don't look the same between them).
Right now I use macOS on the desktop and the monitor sits effectively one and a half arm lengths away - touch would not help (not to mention I despise fingerprints on my monitor). I use my desktop with a completely different metaphor than I do an iPad. I would hate to have to hunch over an iPad all day doing what I do on the Mac - my spinal cord which is already a mess would definitely hate me for it. When I use an iPad it is usually in situations where I am not at a desk - walking around, sitting on the couch doing something else but also playing with the iPad from time to time. Merging the OSs do nothing for either of those scenarios -- other than maybe make me less productive.
There are of course cases where maybe touch might be nice on a laptop, but usually, it is because I have just switched from using an iPad and I am using the same motor skills as an iPad. The problem is that if you do introduce touch - most of the applications for the laptop were designed for more graphical real estate in mind than what would be available if everything interactive had to be blown up to be reasonably sized for touch. This is where the compromise situation comes in.
Basically merging the operating systems would be more disruptive to productivity than helpful. That does not mean a 3rd alternative metaphor be developed that combines the two, but then you would likely have 3. (which would make a unified framework even more important).
All CEOs will disavow something - that is not ready for release -- even if working on it. Better to not confuse the masses with something that might exist 2 years from now.
“One user experience” is neither possible nor desirable. The truth is that this effort by Apple is almost certainly not about cross-platform applications but instead cross-platform frameworks for developers. It’s developer news, not user news.
I would consider cross-platform frameworks for developers as the first step to cross - platform apps. It may take a while longer to get there.
Lots of things that that I would like to see in iOS first including family (multi-user or profile support) on the iPadPro, appleTV , and HomePod.
In December, rumors surfaced about project "Marzipan,"a plan to allow iOS apps to run on Macs,
Actually no, that isn’t the plan, that was just AI’s take on a poor headline from another rumor source. Those closer to development don’t believe that’s the plan at all, and that it is instead about more unified app dev via new frameworks. Again, read Gruber’s take:
“One user experience” is neither possible nor desirable. The truth is that this effort by Apple is almost certainly not about cross-platform applications but instead cross-platform frameworks for developers. It’s developer news, not user news.
Read this article again. I noticed you cut off the rest of the paragraph in your quote.
FTA: "The effort may be intended to foster better support of the Mac App Store, which hasn't done nearly as well as its iOS counterpart -- but is more probably something like the "fat binary" or "universal binary" approach that was needed for the migration from 68K to PowerPC and then from PowerPC to Intel. "
...which would have been a nice paragraph, if you had omitted the first sentence with the totally wrong claim of what the purpose of Marizpan is. That's why I responded to that portion and not the rest. The latter sentences about universal binaries are much more likely the truth (Gruber's post) but is contradictory to AI's claim that it's "iOS apps running on Mac". These are two different things.
But, neither you nor I can say that with any accuracy. While I didn't write the original story here at AI, "patient zero" of the leak is what Gurman said. Gruber doesn't have any more information on it than Gurman put forth.
Could it be for what Gurman says it is? Sure, it's possible. I don't particularly think so, but, we just don't know and claiming that we do is irresponsible. So, for now, we'll talk about both, despite your protestations.
I absolutely love my iPad, and I love my Macs. I don’t want them merged. What I do want, though are some touch features on my MacBooks. I use my iPad Pro with its Smart Keyboard so often that I’ve been conditioned to reach up and use touch gestures on the screen. Out of habit I do the same on my MacBook, where I frequently reach up to pinch-zoom or select things. Having SOME touch features on a MacBook would not kill Apple or compromise the Mac interface. I’m not looking for my MacBook to replace my iPad. I don’t need my MacBook to be as thin, light, or have as long a battery life as my iPad. I still want menus and to use a track pad and mouse on my MacBook. But I also want to be able to reach up and pinch-zoom a photo or select a spreadsheet cell with my finger. And, no, the touch bar is not the right solution. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was at the bottom of the screen, but lying flat against the keyboard makes it difficult to see without moving your focus off of the screen, which is terrible for someone like me who is a touch typist.
Cook says they won't merge iOS and MAC "without compromises". That means when they have done it it will be without compromises. Kinda of like getting a pencil on the iPadPro when Apple is against styluses. Merging OS's will probably take 5-10 years. Apple is not going to put feature/app development of either macOS or iOS on hold to merge them (that's how you end up with Windows 10).
At some point Swift needs a first class interface system. Surprised no one is claiming that Marizpan is that interface and will be designed to scale across all the interactions sizes Apple uses. iPad and Light-weight Mac apps would seem to be best targets for that transition to kick off.
Makes me wonder if with Project Marzipan there will now be an option for developing desktop mouse/trackpad apps this year or next in Swift. Either way I think the ClassRoom App on MacOS will be facilitated by or based on Marzipan.
iPads and Macs should have different UIs while having the same features. iPads should be designed to be used like a piece of paper, flat on a table or being held while reading with fingertips or styli for input. Macs should be designed to be used with the display vertical, with the various input devices it has. So I agree with Apple here. So, hopefully, this Marzipan rumor is true and Apple will have a new or modified set of app frameworks that will be supported on iOS and macOS, with some automagic translation of input events.
Where I think Apple is wrong is not driving feature parity between iPads and Macs. There should be better interapp communication, better backgrounding, more types of apps, similar hardware features for iPads. Getting closer with iOS 11, but more work to do.
Yep! iPads lie flat and never stand up. Macs stand up and never lie down.
Comments
...which would have been a nice paragraph, if you had omitted the first sentence with the totally wrong claim of what the purpose of Marizpan is. That's why I responded to that portion and not the rest. The latter sentences about universal binaries are much more likely the truth (Gruber's post) but is contradictory to AI's claim that it's "iOS apps running on Mac". These are two different things.
So what are you after? A good product or the illusion of freedom that choice provides?
Think of it like this: Twitter just discontinued its mac client. Why? Because it's a lot of work up keeping both iOS and Mac. Imagine if the same codebase could with a press work on both iOS and Mac, and the OS handled if there's cursor or a touch interface.
It'd be a big boon to MacOS. Thats what I believe it's for, not any hair brained scheme to merge OSes.
In truth, iPad, iPhone, iWatches. They're all Macs. Apple as computer appliance. Macs for the rest of us. They're just flying the flag for the original Mac mandate.
Who said what to who? All semantics.
One day it will Siri in yer wall with a big screen and retinal augmented reality thought power...with computing power hived off...well, the AI God Hive. When we're all Mac AI drones the current semantics will be quite amusing.
As for today. Organising compiles for watch, pad, phone and Mac across a common platform but with interface 'calls' for the appropriate device...and having a common 'A' chip to deal with all those platforms makes even more sense when its power is equal to mainstream Intel CPUs. And it's closing in REAL fast. Two years tops sounds about right. (Intrigued about the power of this year's A12 and next year's A13...they should both kick ass.)
Expect iPads to get more like Macs. That's probably the better way to do it. (But allowing the underlying technology to create a 'Mac' app from an iPad code base makes sense. The underlying ability to create an app from a core platform but with various interfaces.). A eventual(?) 21 inch iPad is going to have more features added to it...to make it even more 'Mac like.' ...iOS is nimble. But lots of core Mac tech underneath. It sprang from the Mac platform. Basically the same thing. They'll just add the tech' they need to iOS as they need it e.g. file system but without compromising its efficiency. Apple have moved to a new file system. iOS got this and Metal 1st. It's probably easier to do it that way because iOS is leaner.
I'd expect the iPad to morph until the Mac no longer exists. It will live on in the Mac. It will be a Mac. They are...all Macs. Just in different device shapes and interfaces.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Check where the hardware updates have gone in the last 5 years.
Until Mac/Pad more/less over the next few years, Apple will happily sell you two devices. The iMac sits on your desk. The iPad can be carries around with you.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A few years yet...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Whether you unify the two OSs into one or leave them as two separate ones - you could combine the UI toolkits (aka Marzipan) and allow developers to write one application which can be installed on macOS or iOS - in the same way that you can currently write a combined application for iPad and iPhone which are effectively two different UIs (they don't look the same between them).
Right now I use macOS on the desktop and the monitor sits effectively one and a half arm lengths away - touch would not help (not to mention I despise fingerprints on my monitor). I use my desktop with a completely different metaphor than I do an iPad. I would hate to have to hunch over an iPad all day doing what I do on the Mac - my spinal cord which is already a mess would definitely hate me for it. When I use an iPad it is usually in situations where I am not at a desk - walking around, sitting on the couch doing something else but also playing with the iPad from time to time. Merging the OSs do nothing for either of those scenarios -- other than maybe make me less productive.
There are of course cases where maybe touch might be nice on a laptop, but usually, it is because I have just switched from using an iPad and I am using the same motor skills as an iPad. The problem is that if you do introduce touch - most of the applications for the laptop were designed for more graphical real estate in mind than what would be available if everything interactive had to be blown up to be reasonably sized for touch. This is where the compromise situation comes in.
Basically merging the operating systems would be more disruptive to productivity than helpful. That does not mean a 3rd alternative metaphor be developed that combines the two, but then you would likely have 3. (which would make a unified framework even more important).
All CEOs will disavow something - that is not ready for release -- even if working on it. Better to not confuse the masses with something that might exist 2 years from now.
Lots of things that that I would like to see in iOS first including family (multi-user or profile support) on the iPadPro, appleTV , and HomePod.
Could it be for what Gurman says it is? Sure, it's possible. I don't particularly think so, but, we just don't know and claiming that we do is irresponsible. So, for now, we'll talk about both, despite your protestations.
mattinoz said: Makes me wonder if with Project Marzipan there will now be an option for developing desktop mouse/trackpad apps this year or next in Swift. Either way I think the ClassRoom App on MacOS will be facilitated by or based on Marzipan.