Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Illuminous (Aqua v2) to Compete with Aero
tovarish writes "According to Apple Gazette Apple will replace Aqua with a new name (and hopefully looks) called Illuminous. Is Jobs scared of Aero?, does it make sense to go for a new UI now?, has Aqua run out of steam? The answers will probably come later next month(year)."
I guess /. assumes you know about current technology since you are browsing its pages... Aero is a set of GUI features from Microsoft's new OS, Vista.
And brushed metal.
Brushed Metal is nonexistent in recent Leopard seeds. Even the WWDC build hinted at this with iChat now sporting the 'unified toolbar' look. Now iCal is the same way, and certain other apps are either unified or iLife-style unified.
There aren't any massive sweeping changes -- just an evolutionary move -- the kind where you can tell from a screenshot whether someone is running Leopard, Tiger, Panther, Jaguar, or Puma. Pinstripes are still there, but for fuck's sake they're like 90% white anyway, and if you notice them you're paying too much attention.
HTH
I agree, Illuminous is not an answer to Aero. It's Apple using a page out of Disney's playbook: The best way to predict the future is to create it.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
If they could maintain maintain a competitive *nix, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. Look how much development goes into just the Linux kernel; Apple can't even hope to compete on a technical basis, and will only fall further and further behind. This means things like scalable SMP, efficient threading, network file systems, disk drivers (NCQ anyone?), networking, and many other technical things which while not sexy have a great impact on performance. This work simply isn't getting done. Their low-level OS effort would have a much greater benefit if expended on the GUI and interface instead; these are the areas which distinguish MacOS. Microsoft can't even competing with Linux in these areas, and Apple has but a small fraction of their resources.
As it is now, there are an immense amount of bugs, not to mention very poor performance, and it is basically impossible to even contribute fixes to Apple, which is very frustrating. Apple's uncooperative attitude is simply not productive.
I think that OS X does have a great interface in general, but I don't want to get into an argument with you about it. I do wish that I could make any window transparent, but it's not a big-enough deal for me to actually pay for an add-on. Expose and multiple desktops help so I don't feel the lack of window shading.
However, zooming in to the desktop is very easy, built-in and intuitive in OS X. With the auto-smoothing, I think it makes for decent full screen YouTube viewing. I use it all the time to full screen whatever I'm showing to my coworkers.
Ctrl-. You can change the behavior details in the Keyboard and Mouse preferences.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
Menzoberranzan Networks
Yep. I always got those ipod updates and ipod updater updates.
I didn't have an ipod until a month ago, so that was pretty pointless. They just had to show up in the System Updater...
When I got my iPod, things became better. On first time plugged in, iTunes offered me to download and install the newest firmware. THAT's how I like it.
I don't have the Spotlight issues you're seeing. My old 15" PowerBook and Intel iMac are both perfectly responsive when making searches - perhaps you have a corrupted index or something?
http://www.zeroonetwenty.com/blueharvest/
Hopefully a cure for those annoying "Finder turds"!
sigpending(2)
Command-R in the Finder is "Show Original". There is no "refresh" option.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Wow..
Quick tip: next time shove the corncob up your ass lengthwise instead of sideways.
To the extent that your reply was itself anything but a string of unsupported insults, the remaining two words ('market share') don't automatically lend themselves to the intepretation you suggest in your second round of verbal diarrhea.
As for evidence that Apple's market share is growing in consumer space, Apple's market share numbers have been growing steadily for a couple of years. Granted they're still only around 4%, which makes them anything but the powerhouse in home computing, but the rise does suggest a trend toward growing popularity somewhere. A recent study of third-party resellers said that those vendors are seeing about 20-30% conversion from Windows among Mac buyers. Apple's numbers at the Apple Store run about 50%, which makes sense since the third-party vendors tend to serve more repeat and business customers, while the Apple Store gets a higher share of walk-ins. The gist of it all is that Apple's share in consumer space does seem to be growing, based on the numbers out there. That doesn't make Apple the big dog, but any growth of a competing product is something for Microsoft to take seriously.
Now, as to my own previous post, it is in fact possible for someone to say something that doesn't fit entirely within the boundaries you expected, and still have a point. This knowledge may serve you well in the future, if and when you ever grow up.
My point was that 'market share' is only one way to look at the market, and not necessarily the best one. Market share counts units shipped, but doesn't say anything about how much money a company made shipping those units. It's easy to gain market share by dumping products into the market below cost and eating the loss.. Microsoft has been doing that for years with the Xbox, and the entire dotcom bubble was fueled on the idea that companies would, in effect, sell dollar bills for 75 cents to generate 'brand awareness', then apply that 'brand' to some profitable (but unspecified) line of business later. The first part worked just fine, but most companies didn't survive long enough to do the second.
Dell matters to Microsoft because 80% of Microsoft's OS sales come from OEM license deals, and OS sales are a big chunk of Microsoft's revenue. Dell makes its money in the $1.5-3K price range, and uses those profits to subsidize the low-priced machines that give Dell (and Microsoft) such a big 'market share'.
Right now, market evidence suggests that Apple is starting to eat Dell's lunch in the $1.5-3K price range. The loss of that comparatively small chunk of 'market share' translates to a large loss of profit, which in turn undercuts Dell's ability to keep the pipeline of low-cost entry machines on life support. If Dell can't make a decent business case to continue producing its low-end machines, the loss of that pipeline threatens a large chunk of Dell's 'market share', which in turn threatens Microsoft's 'market share'. Again, that's something for Microsoft to take seriously.
Loss of market share (or more precisely, loss of installed base) hurts Microsoft in more than just direct revenue. It also undercuts Microsoft's ability to lock customers into its OS-and-bundled-software package with proprietary formats and protocols. The more solidly Microsoft can maintain a monoculture, the easier it is for Microsoft to kill competing products simply by making its own products default to something proprietary. The more heterogenous the computing environment gets, the harder it is for Microsoft to lock out competing products that way. And if consumers are using non-proprietary formats and protocols, they have less need to stay on the Microsoft upgrade treadmill, which hits the only profitable business unit Microsoft has.
In the business license market, where Microsoft makes most of the money it doesn't make in OEM licensing, it's easy for the IT department to blow off complaints from the guy in the