Slashdot Mirror
iPhone Not Running OS X
rochlin writes "We know that Steve Jobs has said the iPhone won't accept third-party apps. The iPhone looks to be running on a Samsung provided ARM core processor. That means it's not running on an Intel (or PPC) core. That means it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like). Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X, does not run on ARM processors. The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold (paraphrased; read it yourself). A Cingular rep has said the iPhone version of the OS source will not be made available. It will be closed, like the iPod OS and not like Darwin. So if it ain't Darwin, it ain't OS X (in any meaningful way). An InfoWorld article on an FBR Research report breaks down iPhone component providers and lists Samsung as the chip maker for the main application / video cpu. So, that leaves the question... What OS is this phone really running? Not Linux or the source would need to be open."
Its running Vista. Thats why its not available for a few months, Apple are waiting for the first service pack to be released.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Windows Mobile
Surely Apple's free to do what they want with their source code, unless it OSX is substantially based on code from elsewhere.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Last things first: Apple doesn't have to abide by the APSL with respect to their own code.
Second, if it's "OS X" on PPC, and "OS X" on Intel, why wouldn't it be "OS X" on ARM? It could well come from the very same code base, simply an unreleased branch.
I think you are a bit confused. The license holders, in this case Apple, have the right to license out their works to people in an agreement that defines what the licensees can do with Apple's product. The "Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement" you quote is just this, Apple's agreement with whoever wants to use it. Apple, being the owners of the Mac OS X, can do whatever they'd like with Mac OS X because they own the rights. We, on the other hand, are only licensing it.
hackers of the world unite!
So it's not running OSX. Who cares? Why does it have to be running some variant of a desktop OS anyway? There are plenty of embedded OSes to choose from...
Why the heck couldn't it be a stripped down OS X on ARM. It's just a matter of compiling the bits they need for ARM. Darwin should be pretty damn portable, just like Linux. Your that it isn't OS X just because it isn't running on x86 or PPC is flawed.
Most programmers allready knew this, who in their right mind would actualy port OSX (darwin + the rest) to a tiny handheld?
Its only the apple whores who believe in steves hype machine.
1) Licenses are for people who don't own the code. Apple can make a new product using its own code (and BSD code) without releasing sources, even though a third party would be required to do so (I'm assuming your interpretation of the APSL is correct).
2) OS X is not Darwin. For most people, the identity of the system has nothing to do with the kernel or even the BSD-level userland programs. This applies not only to users, but also to developers working with high-level APIs (Cocoa, Carbon, any of the Core* technologies...). They could replace the kernel entirely, and it would make little difference.
Look at the XNU source code - it's in Darwin, and you can see info here. XNU is portable, obviously. An in-house team at Apple could have ported it to ARM. And there's no reason that Apple could "dual-license" the source *to themselves* and use something like a BSD license.
But none of that matters. It's all just speculation until the device ships. No one knows.
Why isn't this article titled "iPhone Not Running OS X ???" It's not fact, and phrasing it as such doesn't make it so.
First, if it was really OSX, why would they need Google's help to implement Google Maps? It would just run.
Second, the interface is obviously significantly different.
Third, it's hard to believe a handheld would have the resources to run OSX.
Finally, if it was really OSX, then any OSX app would run on it (in theory).
I suspect it's "OS X" like my PDA runs "Windows".
I think you are a bit confused yourself. Apple only hold the rights to the small parts of OS X that they developed themselves. The majority of OS X (including the kernel) is based on BSD, GNU and other Open Source code that never originated within Apple. If they are to reuse any of that for the Apple iPhone, they would have to release the source code.
--
*Art
it's a microkernel, why not just drop aqua onto whatever kernel they feel like? If it's not a gpl or other open licensed kernel, there's no requirement to publish code, and Apple still retains the right to call it OSX. Unless I am missing something, It's always been called OSX running on BSD, I'm assuming this means the look and feel of the GUI, the window manager, the kernel, and several other things are what make up an operating system. In the case of a kernel swap it might not be UNIX or BSD any longer, but won't it still be OSX?
That was a truly awful summary, filled with obviously (and painfully) biased statements backed with a bitter sentiment. I don't read slashdot summaries to find out the inner hatreds of the poster, I read it as an introduction to the story (so I don't have to read it, of course). Just shocking that this was let through by the editors.
The iPhone looks to be running on a Samsung provided ARM core processor
Well what makes you think that???? seriously just a job posting on apple.com is not enough to say that.
beacuse NetBSD already runs on ARM perhaps? They have their own coders to do what ever they need inhouse anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think you are confusing OSX with Mac OSX. Mac OSX is the OS that Apple sell and put on their computers. At no point in the Keynote or after has anyone said that the iPhone runs Mac OSX. They have simply said that it runs OSX. To my mind this means that it is running a subset of Mac OSX. At the very least the iPhone OSX appears to be missing Carbon (no loss to me), the Finder and other "built in" apps and quite possibly Quicktime. Whilst Steve said it had Cocoa that normally just refferrs to the main Kits: Foundation and the App Kit. This does not include PDFKit, QTKit and so on.
Whether is's based off Darwin or not is hard to say. At a certain level that does not matter. What would matter if Apple decide to open up to third part developers is the APIs that are available. There may be a small subset that want POSIX on their phone but for actual application development Cocoa with some custom PhoneKit is probably all that is important.
1) Apple isn't affected by the APSL in this way. The APSL affects 3rd parties that contribute, use or modify the source that Apple makes available. It doesn't require Apple to make source or changes to source available.
2) Mac OS X is portable. It already runs on x86, x86-64, ppc, and ppc64. It looks like Apple has it running on ARM ISA (not sure exactly which) given statements by Apple.
Exactly which aspects of XNU, IOKit, BSD layer, user-land frameworks, etc. that make up "OS X" are running on the iPhone is unknown (Cocoa has been stated to exist by Apple, which implies a handful of other frameworks also exist). It is also possible that something other then XNU is being used... but I doubt that... much more likely it is has been slimmed down to exactly what the iPhone needs.
No the parent is right. There is very little GPL or otherwise copyleft code shipped with OS X, and what is there is all userland stuff that really doesn't need to be on a phone. The vast majority of the stuff that Apple/NeXT didn't write is licensed under BSD-like terms, and therefore allows them to do whatever they want with it.
Even if there isn't an ARM version of the kernel, and who's to say there isn't. Apple do not have to follow their own licence. That doesn't preclude the rest of the operating system being standard OS-X libraries compiled for ARM. The video iPod is also ARM and some time ago Apple were advertising for a quicktime expert with ARM experience which suggests that at least quicktime has been ported to ARM. If you can have Linux on an AMD-64 and an ARM 7 why not OS-X?
BSD does not require that modified source code be released. AFAIK, there is no GNU software in the mainline distribution of OS X. The only significant piece of GNU software that I'm aware of is the optional GCC compiler. Since Apple is unlikely to ship GCC on their iPhone, they're almost certainly free and clear.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Seriously don't people use google anymore? It's a search engine one can use to verify things before postting their moronic assumptions on slashdot. Samsung licensed the PowerPC core from IBM and this is probably a use for that:
/ 10/061006-samsung-may-sneak-ibm-back-into.php
u rces_powerpc_production/
Google for: Samsung IBM PowerPC
Here:
http://www.pennwellblogs.com/sst/eds_threads/2006
"Last year, Samsung announced that it had licensed the PowerPC-core IP from IBM for inclusion in SoC designs." (last year=2005)
Here is stuff showing that Samsung would have experience building it:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/07/ibm_outso
Is anyone seriously surprised by this? Surely no-one had expected that the phone would be running the same operating system that runs on macs?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Apple own and hold copyright on Darwin, they released their own code under APSL for YOU to use and YOU to give modifications back (i.e. this is their license protection for you making a commercial OS X clone)
They can do whatever THEY like to it and never release the source, just like any GPL code author is free (under the terms of the GPL, even) to relicense their code for any party they see fit (BSD, APSL, whatever). It is up to the author and the copyright holder, if they are even in fact different people. Apple are both!
So OS X doesn't run on ARM? Why not? Because OpenDarwin doesn't? This whole article is horseshit speculation and a completely random nonsense of misunderstanding how software licensing works, who wrote and owns Darwin (Apple!) and the technical aspects involved (they've been working on the iPhone for the better part of a year and a half.. that's plenty of time to do a port to a new processor, especially given how abstracted the Darwin kernel is, XNU Apple additions and so on)
Didn't you know?
There's a quad-core G5 in the iPhone.
No, if I'm not mistaken, OSX is based largely on FreeBSD. The BSD license doesn't require the source code to be released. In fact, I could grab the FreeBSD source code, rebrand it as anything I want, and sell it without releasing a single line of code. Not smart, but allowed by the license, and 100% legal. The only caveat is that somewhere I would have to state that I'm using BSD copyrighted code.
Maybe not
On the octave mailing some months ago there was a project opening for developers that where into PPC for building a new telephone platform on PPC instead of ARM. We are talking about the audio and rf-transmission coding usually happens on the arm. I guess new PPC based phones will come eventually anyway.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Wait, are we talking about the same Apple that just told Cisco to fuck off ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I think the submitter found 12 different ways to say "the iPhone is not running OSX"
Any chance we could, like, wait for the iPhone to be, you know, actually released before we make definitive statements on what OS it is or isn't running? Right now, the only people who have any idea what OS is really running on the iPhone are the people who worked on it; I'm taking a wild guess here that you're not one of them.
Sure, I understand it's going to be a long six months with nothing but speculation to keep us warm at night. But let's keep in mind that, until we get our hands on the iPhone, it's speculation only, not knowledge.
is the question this begs (in my mind at least). is it the UI? or is it the architecture? the kernel?
/.'ers can shed some light on this for me!
another post mentioned that if it's os x on intell and ppc, then why not arm?
the summary implies that for it to be os x in a "meaningful" sense, it must be the same kernel (darwin). what if it was a complete different kernel with the same core services on top of it. in other words, isn't it the API that defines an os? if my app can get access to the hardware through the same API calls, and i don't have to worry about said hardware, isn't that the same os? java comes to mind, but it abstracts the os (thus the hardware). . .
i understand the gist of the summary, and there may be a CS defined standard of "what makes an os an os" that i'm unaware of, but it seems it would have to be API-based or architecture/paradigm based, or both.
hopefully other
cheers,
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
Who gives a crap what OS your phone runs? What's next, hacking the TRON code that runs your washer and dryer?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
psssst! BSD isn't licenced under the GPL. The name of the license BSD is under escapes me right now, but I'm pretty sure it isn't GPL (or any other license you were thinking of which requires releasing source code). (end sarcasam).
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
PWNED!
Is this a news article or a product placement ad? Well, this one is a real "whodunit" aint it? Looks like we got a good ol' fashion Easter Egg Hunt goin' on.
What?
Just search for "iPhone" in jobs.apple.com:
t ernal.showJob&RID=4241&CurrentPage=1)
Bluetooth/Wifi SW Engineer - iPhone
[...]
MacOS X / IOKit driver development experience
Mach IPC and/or Mach Server design experience
[...]
Solid understanding of embedded hardware platforms (ARM processors, SDIO, UARTs, etc
(http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=1&method=mEx
Maybe, but you'd only be able to hold it for a minute or so before it got too hot.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...with that tiny screen, and all-in-one form factor, I say it's running The System.
I'll buy one when they come out with the iPhone SE/30.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
I'm friends with some of the people on the iPhone team. Before I knew about the iPhone, i constantly heard about radical ways to strip down OS X to make it run meaner and leaner and make sure it runs on "limited hardware". I assumed they were working on some sort of PVR or something, but clearly I was wrong. I'm fairly sure that lots of the code written is in CoreFoundation and they ARE using Mac OS X frameworks (stripped down to have only the functionality they need) - but the kernel may something completely new.
2) Mac OS X is portable. It already runs on x86, x86-64, ppc, and ppc64.
And its base (NeXTStep) ran on Motorola 68xxx to start with, and IIRC, SPARC and whatever HP had inside its old HP-UX workstations.
OS X appears to be quite demonstrably portable... not much short of NetBSD appears to be more portable.
Tweet, tweet.
"The Darwin / Apple Public Source licensing agreement says the source would have to be made available if it is modified and sold (paraphrased; read it yourself). A Cingular rep has said the iPhone version of the OS source will not be made available. It will be closed, like the iPod OS and not like Darwin. So if it ain't Darwin, it ain't OS X (in any meaningful way). An InfoWorld article on an FBR Research report breaks down iPhone component providers and lists Samsung as the chip maker for the main application / video cpu. So, that leaves the question... What OS is this phone really running? Not Linux or the source would need to be open."
We know that Windows CE does not use the NT kernel. This means that it is not using the same kernel as Windows XP and Windows Server. That means that WIndows CE is not Windows in any any meaningful sense. (Microsoft could brand toilet paper as running Windows if they like.) The NT kernel, the Mach-like microkernel that underlies what Microsoft has been calling Windows since the end of DOS, does not run on mobile phones or PocketPCs. The Microsoft Windows EULA is totally proprietary, and its source is carefully controlled. A Verizon Wireless rep said he had no idea what I was talking about. The WinCE source code is closed, like that of the Zune or XBox, and not like Linux. Now, Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! So, obviously, the iPhone is not running Windows CE, and must therefore be running Mac OS X 10.7 "Sabretooth."
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
The following is taken verbatim from the NY Times interview article
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
So he's saying that Apple and possibly others might write software for the iPhone. From what Jobs said
you can see that the emphasis will be on control to ensure that all Apps are very robust so that the phone
works reliably.
It's Apple's code they can compile it for another processor if they wish and they don't have to publish the source. Darwin has always been the under pinnings of Mac OSX and no-one has kept it a secret or implied anything else. To put MacOSX onto a mobile means being able to leave out a lot of desktop related material which would leave it small enough to run run on a handheld.
The original comments are badly researched by someone with no historical perspective on MacOSX/OPENSTEP/NeXTSTEP/BSD
There was an unknown error in the submission.
At it's lowest level, the Mac OS X kernel (XNU) is based on Mach 3.0 with a BSD "personality" to provide (mostly) POSIX kernel APIs and helpful functionality such as a network stack. The OS X userland is mostly ported from FreeBSD and NetBSD. On top of that is Cocoa, Carbon, Java and all of the other APIs normally used for application development.
As an interesting note is how Jobs described the OS the phone uses. He said "OS X." Normally Apple refers to their desktop operating system as "Mac OS X." That tells us a few things about what's really going on inside the phone.
My educated would be: the phone does run the Mach part of XNU, likely runs at least parts of the BSD subsystem and the I/O Kit device driver interface. Apple has also said that the iPhone supports PDF. This leads me to guess that parts of WindowServer and CoreGraphics are there. The references to Widgets support this as well. Widgets also tell us something else: WebKit is available. Calling the browser Safari supports this.
So, it's not the Mac OS X that runs on this laptop, but it would appear that enough of the existing OS X technology is there to call it OS X. Though, all of this is total speculation the product isn't on sale so it really can't be analyzed.
Finely, I'm still not entirely sure the no third-party apps bit is a forever thing. We don't know anything but what they've said, but I'll wait until Apple's World Wide Developer Conference (which interestingly is usually just about the time the iPhone ships) before I'll pass judgement on that.
> First, if it was really OSX, why would they need Google's help to implement Google Maps?
> It would just run.
But it wouldn't be integrated into the phone functionality, which was what Jobs demonstrated at the keynote.
> Second, the interface is obviously significantly different.
Yes.
> Third, it's hard to believe a handheld would have the resources to run OSX.
The handheld is more powerful than the desktops that ran NeXTStep with no problem in its time.
> Finally, if it was really OSX, then any OSX app would run on it (in theory).
I suspect it is OS X with all the (for the demo) unnecessary components stripped out. Probably with Cocoa as the sole API.
Looks like it really is a scaled-down version of Mac OS X. From Macworld Expo:
c fm?newsid=16927
The iPhone is running an optimised but full version of OS X that weighs in at "considerably less" than half a GB, according to Apple vice president of worldwide iPod marketing Greg Joswiak.
Joswiak confirmed that the operating system sits in the flash memory of the device and that Apple will "provide updates to the operating system like we do today."
Joswiak claimed that the reduced size of the operating system was a result of expertise of the team at Apple, rather than cutting out functionality or removing core technologies. "Remember that OS X on a Mac features a lot of applications that we don't have to ship on the iPhone," he added.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itunes/news/index.
The iPhone team is seeking a highly motivated Embedded SW Engineer to develop
middleware and low-level drivers for Bluetooth and Wifi enabled products
"Not smart, but allowed by the license, and 100% legal. The only caveat is that somewhere I would have to state that I'm using BSD copyrighted code."
Why isn't it smart? Presuming you can add some value it's always smart to profit from free labor.
IIRC they also took the advertising clause away so you don't even have to tell anybody about it.
evil is as evil does
A lot of people are claiming to know what an iPhone really is like inspite of not having seen one or even known of their existence before a couple of days ago.
It may be a striped version of OSX but it obviously is a version of OSX since it has some very OSX features like Core Animation which doesn't even show until Leopard. Even things like Widgets are OSX. They've been working on the phone for years so I'd assume they adapted the OS to the chip they are using. Using even a notebook processor would be silly. The power requirements would limit you to one five minute phone call per charge.
What really seems to be pissing everyone off is it's a computer under the hood and Apple isn't open sourcing it. Apple has always been big on protecting their hardware and I'm guessing that's why they aren't providing the code. It's meant to be a phone at this stage and they don't want to deal with all the hassles of people screwing up their phones trying to get Pong to run on it. Also that has to be the crown jewel for virus writers so why help them? I'm sure they'll open it up to development eventually but it's likely to be years and only when it starts crossing the line into becoming a full on portable computer. It's a staggering smart phone, deal with it.
Even if they used a Linux kernel, then piled there own locked down apps on top,
what difference would that make? It is still a closed development model of a black box system.
They are trying to sell a very high end phone that is completely closed to add-on apps.
That worked for the mp3 player, but the functionality of an mp3 player is expected to be limited.
Apple has chosen to live and die with a closed box model.
OSX is a very large OS. While it is modular, a small embedded OS highly optimized for ARM would be a much smarter choice. This is consumer electronics not computers. The standards are MUCH higher. They need zero latency execution, absolute stability, and above all low cost. Every cent saved adds up to millions over a manufacturing run of 100,000 units. I would hazard to guess Apple did the smart thing and bought an off the shelf OS, and wrote a few apps for it with a set of prebuilt development tools just like every other phone and embedded device maker out there. Asking what OS the iPhone is running is like asking what OS is my microwave is running (yes I know my microwave doesn't have an OS). For consumers it doesn't matter and for developers there is a development kit available. This article us not news.
When launched, the Nokia N70 used to cost 6-700 EUR (down to 450-500 EUR carrier subsidized), I personally know of people shelling out 800 EUR for QTec smartphones. The Apple Phone is pricewise perfectly in line with the intended market and while it won't compete with cheap polyphonic tone cells it's a clear threat for Nokia, Sony/Ericsson and the WinMobile bandwagon (especially those, given the reality trip the users have to suffer...) and it's an iPod... and it has the Apple ergonomics.
I'm buying one as soon as it comes with a 3G radio (luckily I'm European, here we have decent networks).
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Is there anything in that post which is correct? So what is OS X doens't have a known ARM port, the BSDs run on ARM so porting it would be trivial. Also, Apple own the source so can do anything, including making a private branch. The iPhone could be using a low power PPC chip.
/., and it appears that 2007 is the year it happens.
I've been waiting for clue to finally disappear from
Yeah, I meant that a strictly rebranded, for pay FreeBSD wouldn't be smart because everyone would just download the original. Unless, of course, I added value. I should've mentioned that.
Maybe not
You mean it doesn't give rights to Apple's customer's at all. There's nothing to protect unless the law says all source code must be open.
It's scary being a Flash and Flex developer on Slashdot. You guys are unnaturally rabid.
Does this person not know how to read? The source has to be made available if someone else modifies or sells it. Darwin is Apple's operating system. If they made a version for ARM processors, they're under absolutely no obligation to open source it. Furthermore, Jobs said the iPhone has Cocoa, CoreAnimation and the whole lot of the Mac OS X APIs. So I'd say that it definitely runs OS X "in a meaningful sense".
How did this tripe get posted?
Coordination would have required for Google Map because google maps on the iPhone knows your location. The normal Google maps does not. They probably had to connect cingular's cellular location services with Google's mapping backend and tie it all together with a pretty iPhone shell to get it to work.
Google already does this with SMS google searches, so it isn't technologically difficult. But it does require cooperation.
The ______ Agenda
Yes, but since Apple put it under the GPL to begin with, they can also dual license it. In other words, if you license something as GPL you can still go out and do whatever you want with it. Examples include MySQL & Ghostscript.
KangarooBox - We make IT simple!
C'mon.... it's targetted for an ARM, designed for low power consumption, resource restricted (not much RAM, not much ROM), it can only be....
;)
the Newton OS!
(And here's a patronising link for the kids who are too young to remember
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_OS)
If it wasn't for the Newton, we wouldn't even have the ARM either.
portions are LGPL, other portions BSD. WebKit is derived from KHTML and KJS, which contain (AFAIK) no GPL-ed code, and even if it does, Apple will have replaced it.
:)
As long as they didn't modify the LGPL-bit while designing it for this phone, they wouldn't have to release it again. They already did
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Jobs+Wozniak=Joswiak?
---
No, if it were Linux it would be covered by GPL. Distribution on embedded devices still counts as distribution, they would have to make any kernel changes available. TiVo is required, and does, make it's kernel changes available for this reason.
Looks like they are making a truly converged platform.
From phones to tv to computers, all linked via "OSX".
OSX is not more of a platform with the same API's, core subsystems, etc...
May be they should buy (Merge with) Nintendo
no sig yet
I reckon it's running Nucleus, from Mentor Graphics. That's what runs the iPods.
The only places I have seen people claiming it has a Samsung processor are based on pure speculation from "industry analysts". There is no confirmation, nor even serious inside information.
Why couldn't it just be running a Freescale PowerPC? They have 'system on a chip' PPCs made for extremely low power consumption, and for integrated environments such as this. They have 603e processors (which older versions of OS X can be hacked into running on,) that only draw 2.5 watts of power. They even have a 3.1 watt G4, and PowerPC 800-series processors that draw as low as 0.1 watt (yes, one-tenth of a watt, and are code compatible with the G3.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Linux is a very large kernel, it's made usuable in an embedded environment by throwing out everything not needed. Linux is embedded in some very small devices. Same with OS X, just throw out all the bits not needed and it gets very small. Searching on embedded BSD turns up quite a bit showing. Why waste development effort on two operating systems instead of focusing on one?
Confirming that the iPhone indeed is running a full version of OSX? I am very suspicious, simply because I cannot see why Apple would invest so much in developing a (closed) platform whose underpinnings simply do not exist (BSD not running on ARM).
MS ported WinCE to many CPU cores. Is Apple so lame they can't do the same?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I don't give a shit what OS it runs as long as it works every time and is secure.
I did hear rumors of OSX for embedded devices.
Of course we hear all types of rumors about Apple.
I believe nothing about what is being released until John Mayer sings.
photosMy Photostream
or also that apps will be written for a sandbox like dashboard, where a failure won't affect "real" functionality.
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
This should at least be marked as an editorial, and an extraordinarily poorly written one at that. Something so inflamatory and infantile shouldn't have made it to the front page in the first place.
"The guide is definitive, reality is frequently inaccurate."
I suppose that might be an argument IF Apple were currently selling the iPhone. But they are not. So assuming that the iPhone runs a version of OS X as Apple has said (and there is no reason to doubt it), Apple still has several months to meet the terms of the agreement.
Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X
Darwin has a significant amount of BSD code in it, but it is based on Mach.
an embedded OSX isn't really OSX. Just as embedded Linux isn't really linux and Windows CE isn't really Windows. It's mostly a matter of branding.
Any one that ever used J2ME, C++ for Symbian or the .Net Compact Framework knows apple is throwing sand to the eyes of the crowd.
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I can create a 600meg bootable cdr OSX today, theres a program that does it for you.
And after that its easy to trim things down.
Getting it fast is another story, though it was decent on 600mhz PPCs, being a smaller screen it should be easy, especially with 99% of
services not running/installed like printer/ samba / sshd etc.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Who says the iPhone has a resolution-independent UI? Who says that running Widgets requires Dashboard? Who says that having the capabilities means that it's OS X?
"No Third-party Apps on iPhone" Says Jobs. Who cares, this device became less relevant, the only way I think this will make a come back for me is if it has a terminal installed w/ ssh.
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
No, he only said that there would be a more controlled environment and that the device needed to work. It was you that connected the two and concluded that the reason for control was to assure that the apps were "very robust so that the phone works reliably". The controlled environment that Jobs refers to could be, and likely is, for business reasons. App quality has never been a justification for closing a platform from Apple or any other computer or smartphone system before.
1. Here are the iPhone components according to FRB Research via arstechnica:
- Samsung Electronics for the CPU/Video processing
- Marvell for the 802.11 chipset
- Infineon Technologies for baseband communications
- Broadcomm Corp. for the touch screen controllers
- Cambridge Silicon Radio for the Bluetooth chipset
2. Darwin is an open source core based on FreeBSD according to Apple, Inc..
3. Here is freebsd on ARM processors (intel-based). ARM FreeBSD.
4. Why is it tough to believe that Apple would simply recompile necessary components of Darwin on the ARM processors and then include and compile the necessary (and only the necessary!) mid level libraries? Many existing apps would work with only minor modifications (to take into account the new control scheme) and a recompile.
"That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
Remember that the iPhone syncs with iTunes: He's also saying that the iTunes Store is going to be the only place you can buy software for it. This has some interesting implications. One of them involves truckloads of money.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
modern embedded devices are more powerfull than 2001 mobile phones.
Modern 2007 phones have cpus on par with say 2001 desktops, 600mhz. Ram is easy to go up to 128meg, its not like it takes
lots of room these days. Because the screen is smaller it has less to render so it can do it easy, try setting a slow
ass 300mhz ppc mac to 320x480 and see how fast it is.
Hell its a good starting point for development, make a prototype work in X hd space and so much ram, ie the very first ibooks in the same res, 320x480 cropped on the 640x lcd.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
IIRC, there was a NeXT port to some version of ARM about 1994. Never released but there were hooks to it in NS3.2 and on.
I am fully open to the possibility that this is not running OS X, but none of the points in the summary are indicative of that. Yes, the APSL requires distribution of source code, but Darwin is copyrighted by Apple. A copyright holder can do whatever they want with their work, regardless of the license they normally release it under.
Beyond that, as far as I'm aware, the APSL only requires releasing modified files, not them and anything linked with them. I.E., if I wanted to use Darwin on another platform, I could replace the platform dependent files with my own for the new platform, and not have to release anything.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Safari's rendering engine WebKit is built on KHTML, from Konqueror, and licensed under the GPL, IIRC.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Yes, but it's not part of the OS. So it should be recompilable without changes. Which means that Apple would point you here when you asked for source code.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But most of what it's based on is BSD licensed.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
Personally I think it would be nuts to allow applications to run under any mobile phone OS? It would be a support/virus nightmare - "Er why is there an explosive device displayed on my screen where the pretty pixmaps used be?". Applications should run in a sand box such as Java (like most phones today) or even better in the browser. The fact that phones will be running powerful browsers like webkit and Opera (announced for Samsung phones) opens up a whole new world for mobile applications.
When it comes down to it, an operating system is just a software layer designed to allow programs to interface with a computers hardware. They've grown immensely from DOS right up to Vista, from using basic interrupts to full-blown multitaking/threaded beasts like Vista...from providing minimal graphics capabities (who ever used an interrupt to draw a pixel? lol) to providing a complete graphics windowing system. The iPhone does use OSX, in that programs for the iPhone can use most of the same function calls, parameters, handles, etc as they would if they were on OSX (PPC) or OSX (Intel). They still have to be compiled for the appropriate processor however.
Surely Apple's free to do what they want with their source code, unless it OSX is substantially based on code from elsewhere.
Big chunks of the OS X source code came from open source software (Mach, BSD, GNU), but they are complying with the licenses. A lot of the rest of the OS X source code came from NeXT.
So, a big part (I suspect the majority) of OS X source code was not developed at Apple, and Apple must comply with the third party licenses of that source code, and they apparently do. Many of those third party licenses simply don't require Apple to make available their modifications.
Who says the iPhone has a resolution-independent UI?
The 160dpi screen says that - they won't have developed this software twice for both Macs and the phone, and even for phone-only software a 160dpi screen wouldn't have been available at the start of this device's development.
Who says that running Widgets requires Dashboard?
Dashboard itself isn't required of course, it's the WebKit development required to support Dashboard that I'm really referring to.
Who says that having the capabilities means that it's OS X?
That's easy - I do. Why on earth would you write this stuff twice?
Cheers,
Ian
'' Every cent saved adds up to millions over a manufacturing run of 100,000 units. ''
Not in my book.
I think its ridiculous that these phones cost almost twice as much as a Pocket PC or PDA Phone.. and you can't install 3rd party apps?? that's insane.. firstly, there's a huge market out there for stupid ass little $10 pocket PC games.. Someone mentioned the possibility of viruses, and I understand that reasoning, but the damn thing still costs $500+ and that is insane for the amount of features it has.. what saddens me the most about the iPhone, is that people are definitely going to buy it.. they've successfully manipulated the uneducated and or stubborn and trendy people..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
It was an optional component for a great deal of time, but eventually became the default shell by popular demand. (TCSH was the previous default.) Somehow I don't think that the iPhone will have much use for a BASH installation. :-/
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like
I can see it now....
iTP: Wiping made easy.
this is just shit now, first , it was OMG revolutionary device, and it runs osx. and so u can do anything u like with it.. next day, oh wait, no third party apps.. next day.. now we are being sued next day,m oh we lied about it running osx,, SO BASICALLY it is just another effing generic PDA like a palmpilot.. thats GAY. im pissed and now im not gonna get one.. APPLE JUST LOST 50 million sales
Firstly, I find it dubious that this is true, I'm confident that systems have been closed on these grounds before. Even if it is true that it hasn't been used as a justification before, what's to stop it being used as a justification now?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Not only that, but I speculate that they *already* have a derivation of OS X running on an ARM processor. Guess what processor the iPod runs: ARM? Does anyone know what OS it is running? The only information available is that the interface of the 1st generation iPod was built by Pixo, whose head-hancho now runs a company by the name of Iventor that designs interfaces for competing products. I'm not saying it is a sure thing, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Think about it, like the iPhone, they have a product they expect to continue developing with for a long time. Why not use a software platform that is descendant from existing projects?
"Progress comes from the intelligent use of experience."
The LGPL, and its fairly small and light, so I doubt they'd have to modify it. If they do, then they still get to wait until they release the product before releasing the changes.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
It's a Cortex-A8, check wikipedia. Those are new ARM cores that run in the 600-800MHz and possibly 1GHz range and are quiet capable.
Why can't people remeber? NextStep ran on Motorola chips and the it got ported to Sparc and HP-PA chips in less than a year. Later to Intel chips. Mac OS X runs on PPC, Intel. They probably have OS X running in Sparc, and HP-PA chips at apple's basement just as POC. So Apple can surely port Max OS X to ARM in less than 2 years.
The fact that those existed doesn't mean that there wasn't also a native port of the NeXT OS to Sun and HP hardware. As far as I know, those ports did exist.
(I'm not exactly sure I'd use a word derived from "server" in that context; system calls go directly to the BSD code, and the file system and networking kernel code runs in process context the same way it does on most other UN*Xes.)
> Toiler paper running OS X
I don't want to look at these core dumps.
Yeah, it's not as if Linux distributions can be made to work on x86, x86-64, PPC, PPC64, 68k, SPARC, S/390, S/390-64 (a/k/a z/Architecture), SuperH, ARM, IA-64, MIPS, etc.. :-)
Try turning on "Windows Sharing" in the Sharing pane of System Configuration and then ask yourself what piece of software named after a Brazilian style of music and dance is acting as the SMB server on your Mac. :-) But, no, you're probably not going to see Samba running on your iPhone, either.
The Newton and iPod are both ARM-based. Apple has experience writing a kernel/OS for ARM processors.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If they didn't sue over "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame., what makes you think they'll sue over this?
The original article is wrong in that it asserts a negative that is directly contradicted by the article it
sites. Steve Jobs did not disallow the possibility that the iphone would accept 3rd party apps.
If you don't "see" the reasoning that I see for the controlled environment based on what Jobs said
then I was wrong in what I said about what "you can see". You can't see what you can't see and I'm so sorry
to have so grossly misrepresented you.
You might see it if unlike the author of this little article you read both quotes in the extraction from
the times article from end to end. If you know about software engineering that meets the standards that he's talking
about and if you've ever had to use or write software with those requirements then you would see what I see with
the same clarity. If you want to conclude that he's not giving all his reasons or that he is diverting
attention from his main reasons then that is quite possible but its also a different issue.
> Who are you people to care about what does a frikin cell phone run on?
Well, it's like this, Senator Stevens...
Samsung is not the only company that sells ARM processors. Intel's ARM based XScale microprocessors can be found in products such as the popular RIM BlackBerry handheld, the Dell Axim family of Pocket PCs, most of the Zire, Treo and Tungsten Handheld lines by Palm, later versions of the Sharp Zaurus, the Motorola A780, the Acer n50, the Compaq iPaq 3900 series and many other PDAs.
It's not a strech to assume that Apple used the same CPU as the rest of the smartphone industry, then ported their version of the highly portable Unix OS to it.
WebKit is much more then just KHTML, etc.
Not true. NeXTSTEP/Openstep for SPARC/PA-RISC were native OS ports with kernel and everything.
Openstep for Solaris was a completely different beast from OpenStep/SPARC.
The PA-RISC version ran on some hp900s, and the SPARC version ran on SparcStation 5s and 20s (maybe 10s too, but I don't remember seeing that).
If you think OS X is the current code base, well, then, it's probably running OS X that's been built from a lot of the current code base, so it's OS X.
If you think OS X is something you can run Adobe Illustrator on without a problem, then it is most certainly Not OS X. Things have changed over the past few years, it used to be that an OS implied a hardware platform, and that's just not the case anymore. Therefore the naming convention no longer accurately describes what's going on.
A few years back I bought the Loki Games port of Descent3 for Linux. That's what it said on the box- Descent3 for Linux. In the box there's a compiled binary that most certainly will not run on non-x86 Linux installs.
Is it Apple's responsibility to say that even if the code is the same, the binaries are different?
Did Steve tell the truth, lie, or mis-lead via omission?
By the way, Intel can and has produced ARM processors in the past, and I'd imagine they will be a major supplier of the ARMs in the iPhones (maybe not initially, but as production ramps up, yes) - is saying that the iPhone has an Intel processor truth, lie, or a similar mis-lead?
Before everybody goes and gets hysterical about whether or not the iPhone runs OS X, or whether or not it will be able to run third-party applications, I think everybody should try to remember a few things:
First, when the iPod was first introduced, it was FireWire-based and only marketed for Macs. It was very purposefully NOT aimed at the much larger PC market. There was no iTunes Music Store, just plain ordinary iTunes. It took two years and several revisions to bring us a music store and a PC version. It took several more years still to bring us TV shows and movies and games, and to move from FireWIre to USB. The point here is that this is a 1.0 product, and in all probablity it is merely the first in what will be a FAMILY of phones that will have overlapping features and come in a range of sizes and price points. In other words, just because Apple didn't announce it today does not mean they haven't got all kinds of plans for things. Why would anybody assume for a minute that they didn't?
Secondly, I think all this carping about processors and defining what is, or isn't, "true" OS X is missing the point. If Apple were to ship a Tablet Mac that didn't include a keyboard, and which, consequently, had a handful of new technologies enabling complete control via the screen and stylus, and perhaps some new or modified applications which made optimal use of handwriting as an input method, nobody would be saying that it wasn't still, fundamentally, running OS X. It would simply be OS X with additional tablet-specific functionality incorporated. I think Jobs called it OS X because they are trying NOT to make people jump to the conclusion that the iPhone is somehow a new Mac model, or needs a Mac to work, or works best with a Mac. Saying it ran MAC OS X would just make some people conclude that it was connected to, or WAS, a Mac, with whatever biases that may bring. For all intents and purposes, OSX = Mac OS X = an operating system developed by Apple for the purpose of running its family of Mac computers and assorted other devices.
Thirdly, what we see on the iPhone as a user interface is no more foreign than, say, a kiosk computer that lets you run a specific set of tasks but prevents you from seeing or accessing any other functionality. Front Row is a good example of an alternate interface to a Mac that gives you specialized and very limited controls optimized for use as an entertainment hub. I would argue that the iPhone interface is but another example of a specialized interface optimized for use on a small mobile phone device. If all you knew about a Mac was what you saw of one running Front Row, that wouldn't make it any less of a Mac, or make whatever version of Mac OS X it were running any less valid, any more than the version that may be running on iPhones. The truth is, we don't know yet what is on an iPhone, but claiming that it isn't "real" OS X because it lacks a Finder, or might run on an ARM processor, or may not run off-the-shelf Mac OS X applications unmodified, well, those just aren't proper criteria. If the APIs are there for the bulk of what we consider Mac software, I'd call that a Mac OS. Period.
Fourthly, and this is probably my most important point: I think everybody is failing to remember probably the most important reason behind the development of Dashboard. I highly doubt that it was to address the needs of the throngs of people clammoring for a modern set of desk accessories and other utilities. Dashboard was created, I would argue PRIMARILY, for the purpose of creating a software platform. A platform that is, for the most part, not tied to the Mac, not tied to a CPU architecture, not tied to anything at all except HTML, CSS and Javascript. I submit that the ultimate purpose for creating such a platform was very specifically to enable robust third-party application development for small devices like iPods and iPhones. The ease with which such applications can be developed, and the widespread availablity of people with the know-ho
- Apple fanatics will go to religious lengths to defend the latest "it" thing emerging from the mothership.
- Apple detractors will nit-pick the fanatics with facts or (more likely) the next best thing available to them.
- As long as Steve Jobs' delivers more [revolutionary technology/status symbols]
As far as this latest firefight, you're both wrong and you're both right.If it started out BSD license then it's all theirs. They can license it to the public in any license they choose. It could be public domain, free ware, share ware, GPL, BSD, (c), or any number of others. I would have to check to be sure but I would be surprised if the BSD license is present on anything when you buy and install OS X. OS X just happens to be based on Darwin an open source project that Apple uses to allow the community to help develop future enhancements to OS X. Apple didn't have to tell you what base operating system was running under the hood. They could have, and still can, call it Apple Unix and keep it completely closed source.
btw, that's why I love the BSD license.
What scares me is that Jobs stated that there were no plans to allow 3rd parties to develop applications for the iPhone. Well that's a deal breaker for me folks.
Apples credo is that if you want to write good software make your own machine. Now it looks like they are saying if you want good software then it has to be written by Apple.
I have a 8125 (Cingular) pocket PC phone. I hate windows and I really hate mobile windows. With that said the fact that I can write my own programs for my pocket device makes it my choice. I was drooling over the iPhone until rumors came out that APIs and support for XCode would note be provided. Who does apple think they are? Microsoft? If XCode supported it at least the code for it would have to be developed on a Mac, similar to how mobile windows applications have to be developed on a windows system. This could improve sales of their workstations.
I would hope that what Apple means about it running Mac OS X is that it is running a tight closed source fork of Darwin and thin version of the OS X GUI. But, in honesty, I think they could say it is running OS X if it were doing either. Heck, they could say it if they thought saying it would help them sell it. That's like saying mobile Windows is a direct port of Windows XP. Do you think there is a MS DOS shell underneath windows mobile?
As far as the processor goes what difference does it make? As quickly as Apple changes their primary CPU in no time soon OS X will run on almost as many devices as does Linux (LOL). But at least you can use the super giant deluxe FAT binary to distribute applications.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
as being utterly clueless?
What part of "Mac OS X is highly portable" is so hard for people to understand? From it's original NeXT roots m68k, x86, sparc, pa-risc, and powerpc were shipping platforms at one time or another. Yes, it takes work to port to another platform (which might be ARM this time), but every time they port it they get better at it. The MacWorld 2007 keynote presentation of the iPhone sure looked like Mac OS X to me. Would you rather believe they wrote an entire embedded operating system *from scratch*? It's clear that the bogon flux has increased.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
2. Apple is free to modify their own code to run on ARM and not release the source.
3. You
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Several people posted good info that invalidates my original posting. 1. Samsung is a licensee/subcontractor to IBM for the production of PowerPC chips. (And IBM lists some versions that are low power and appear to be up to the task of running the iPhone). So there is no reason to suppose the iPhone is running ARM. It's a lot more common to run phones on ARM cores, but PPC can do it. A power PC core would make it much more likely that the iPhone is running on some variation of a Darwin based OS X. 2. Apple doesn't have to make any Darwin based operating system open if they don't want to. Their license restricts everyone else. So there was no material basis for my Suggestion that the iPhone isn't running OS X. It might not be, but my reasons were mostly wrong.
A beginners' guide to Portland, OR?
OMG people, 348 comments so far.
It is like, new Nokia N800 doesn't run Linux because it is ARM, you know, ARM is sort of quantum computing chip that no GCC can compile anything for!
OSX is a very large OS.
No it's not - it's perfectly able to run on a 600 MHz PPC with 32 MB of RAM. And that is with a lot of stuff running that a phone doesn't need. A "media phone" like the iPhone will most likely have a CPU speed and memory akin to that.
You are confusing the OS with the content of their Mac-oriented "distribution", including Aqua which the phone of course will not run, any more than Linux on an iPaq runs X11.
Look inside a Mac and you will see that the platform for OS X is a standardized personal computer with x64 and UNIX core OS, same as the competition. Everybody in the industry, no matter how humble, has access to a standardized personal computer with x64 and UNIX core OS. Theoretically, Apple could buy another PC manufacturer and keep using the same parts below OS X. The whole platform is not going to suffer from short supply of an exotic chip.
... big deal. The "Mac OS" part of "Mac OS X" is there to show heritage. No such concern on the iPhone. Besides, they would have to decide between "Phone OS X" and "Pod OS X" and maybe it is both.
Break open an iPhone, and you will see that the platform for OS X is a standardized smart phone with ARM and proprietary core OS, same as the competition. Over 75% of smart phones are ARM/Symbian/S60 and the iPhone is similarly ARM/OS X/Safari. The S60 browser is also based on the Apple WebKit engine, same as Safari of course. The platform won't suffer from short supply of an exotic chip, and Apple can make as many of these as they can sell because these parts are being made right now to be put into tomorrow's smart phones, whether they are iPhones or other.
All the reasons that make a standardized x64 with UNIX the right choice under the Mac's OS X are the same reasons why ARM is right under the iPhone's OS X (at least for right now). Each is the "core platform" of that kind of device right now, and is what people who work in that industry know how to supply, sell, service, and support.
OK, so Apple didn't call the OS X on the iPhone "Phone OS X" to precisely match "Mac OS X"
And: look at the crazy monkey!
> That means it's not running on an Intel (or PPC) core.
... they're going to see the same Web on the iPhone as they see on their Mac. Wow. The same movies and music, the same contacts and calendars, the same rich animated graphics, the same sharpness and high-quality, the same attention to the interface and the user.
> That means it's not running OS X in any meaningful sense
> (Apple can brand toilet paper as running OS X if they like).
> Darwin, the BSD based operating system that underlies what Apple has previously been calling OS X, does not run on ARM processors.
"OS X" refers to a set of user-features, not geek-features. The user does not give a shit whether it is Intel or ARM and if you are a geek and you don't know that yet, then you have simply not been listening. Every feature mentioned at the iPhone intro was a user feature.
The following is true of both the Mac and the iPhone:
- CoreGraphics provides a PDF-based, resolution-independent display layer with the highest quality and most features in the industry
- WebKit provides standards-based Web rendering throughout the system
- Web browser: Safari
- email client: Mail
- media playback: iTunes
- address book: Address Book
- calendar: iCal
These are the features that users know from Mac OS X, and they see them in "OS X" on the iPhone and they get the picture
It also works the other way. In the future, iPhone users who haven't used a Mac will see that it has the same Web from their iPhone, the same rich graphics, and they'll get that if they like their iPhone, they will like a Mac. It's the same.
The Mac OS X and the iPhone OS X are so much more similar than they are different, that it would be more confusing to call it something else. This will probably be more true in the future, not less, as the iPhone gets more powerful and the Mac gets smaller.
...why the OS matters to consumers in what is a consumer device? All it has to do is provide applications that work ("all" he says... ;-)
I got my "smart phone" deliberately as a computing device to include programming and things like ssh terminal ages ago (it's HTC/PPC based, but there are Linux based alternatives... now), but the iPhone isn't aimed at sad nerds, it's aimed at my children and if they showed any interest in anything beneath the up-front applications I'd be surprised and pleased.
He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
Who cares what freaking OS it is running.
It is not like anyone can develop anything for it. This is like debating the OS of a closed source DVD player, it means nothing to anyone.
I could care if it was running System 9, or CPM, since we have no access to develop or it past what Apple tells us we can use on it, then this is all an exercise that is meaningless.
Here, lets debate something with more relevance. The XBox 360's core OS. Why? Because you can at least develop for it.
While everyone here argues the OSX issue, I'm going back to develop a Windows Pocket PC app for my phone (that is 2 years old, and does everything the iPhone can do and more, including 3G and realtime Video).
What next? We going to debate real Star Trek Language dialects too? They are as relevant or real as running anything on the iPhone that Apple doesn't control the DRM on and jam down our throats.
At $500+ per unit and a goal of 1% of the phone market, it won't really make itself into THE platform to write apps for, now will it?
Not until they add a sensor array and start calling it the iCorder...
Blank until
...OS X phones then must run OS X CE.
"Oh-Ess Sexy"
I think Jobs can live with that.
(Of course, he could have popularized "SCSI" as "sexy" as well but somehow missed out on that)
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Somehow I don't think that the iPhone will have much use for a BASH installation.
Sure it will. When crackers and other playful souls start breaking into iPhones over the net, they'll need a shell prompt to move around inside the system with.
Think of a whole network of malevolent bots all running on Apple iPhones.
Like most successful hand held OS's it running some version of a Windows CE. Who knows maybe Windows Vista CE.
-Dickens
Who is to say that the iPhone isn't running OSX. A different GUI running different software doesn't mean it's a different OS(AQUA sits on top of Darwin remember.). An OS is a foundation. Theoretically Apple could produce any computer product and run OSX on it. It may look slightly different but it's quite possible that the iPhone is running OSX with darwin under the hood. And i don't see why they would have to reissue code for this OS. After all...if it's OSX, then the code is already public. Your argument is ridiculous!
Oh, Christ, Darwin is just a UNIX variant. Porting UNIX to a new processor, especially a version of UNIX that already runs on two processors, is routine.
And Apple's the copyright holder. The APSL doesn't prevent them from releasing a Darwin version not under APSL, any more than the GPL keeps developers who dual-license their software from releasing non-redistributable versions.
If they have made it run on PPC and Intel why can't they make it run on another?
Huh? Where did he say that?
Between the lines. Come on, it's transparent: iPhone syncs with iTunes. iPhone syncs with content from the iTunes Store. iPhone software will be available to buy in a "controlled environment". This isn't a leap, it's obvious.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Since when iTunes implies truckloads of money?
I mean truckloads of money that they wouldn't be getting with open development. If it's all sold through iTunes they'll be getting a cut on every bit of software that is sold for the iPhone, on top of the phones themselves. Cellular providers already make tons of money this way, though often through subscriptions (my provider charges $1.99/mo to use a WAP browser), and absurd overpricing ($3.99 ringtones). Apple is more likely to go with the same you-own-it model as the other content they sell.
All in all it's a unique position.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Yeah, I'm with you 100% on ditching Norton, if you're still using that on a Mac. It SUCKS! As far as my RAM comment went though, I was more worried he might have only 256MB in his Mini. Many of them came with that, standard, on the first production run - and 256MB is *not* enough to do anything useful with OS X. The OS gets loaded up and there's no RAM free to run the applications without a bunch of hard disk swapping ... so boom, no performance.
Mac Mini G4's only have 1 RAM slot, by the way. You can put a 256MB, a 512MB or a 1GB stick in it, and that's it.
"The 160dpi screen says that - they won't have developed this software twice for both Macs and the phone, and even for phone-only software a 160dpi screen wouldn't have been available at the start of this device's development. "
Of course they develop software separate for Macs and the iPhone, and there's absolutely no evidence that a resolution independent UI exists for the iPhone and it does not yet exist for the Mac either. Screen dpi means nothing outside the context of viewing distance anyway. Phones are viewed at a different distance than desktops.
My current cell phone has a 180 dpi screen. 160 dpi screens have existed for some time. The iPhone display is unique for its size and its total pixel count, not its dpi (which is rather ordinary in fact).
"Dashboard itself isn't required of course, it's the WebKit development required to support Dashboard that I'm really referring to."
WebKit itself isn't required either. Widgets use existing Web technology and they could be run without any existing OS X software at all.
"That's easy - I do. Why on earth would you write this stuff twice? "
That's a relief. For a moment there I thought an expert might have been making a huge mistake.
Nothing, and it's certain the reason being "presented". It is, however, unlikely to be the real reason. Maturity of the platform, control over the device, and control over the revenue stream are far more likely reasons.
I see far more than the face value that you see. I see a device that is productizing a new and unproven user input method. I see a company afraid of 3rd parties subverting their DRM system. I see a partner that is notorious for crippling phone software. I see a company famous for attempting to monopolize its own platforms. I see a CEO famous for his "reality distortion field". I see self-contradicting statements and attempts to mislead. I see business as usual.
If you want to believe that Jobs has only the user's best interests at heart then you are free to believe that. It is you that is failing to see all there is however.
QNX can run on ARM processors, and it's trivial to recompile C/C++ software on Darwin over to it.
Just a thought.
You seem to think that you are an expert on what I believe. Apple's DRM system is largely dictated by the music and video industry. In order to attract customers so that they can make a profit they do their best to make this as easy on their customers as possible. They also have to do this without sacrificing their own property which protects their long term ability to do the business they want to do. Additionally, DRM has some basis in legitimate ownership of real products products that happen to have digital form. You may not like the current law regarding DRM and I don't necessarily disagree with your dislike, but DRM is not an acronym for something satanic. Its something to be understood and improved to everyone's benefit. Apple is a business and they are in business to make money. They are legally required to conduct business as a for-profit company. You seem to think that there is something nefarious about this fact and you also seem to be associating negative aspects of DRM law with Apple. On the reality distortion field issue. Microsoft has the biggest reality distortion field going in this business because they've go most users believing that they are getting what they deserve (screwed) for their money. They've got their customers confused between what they do deliver and what they promise to deliver in the future, between the graphic appearance of functionality and the real functionality, between quality software and abusive garbage and between numerical hardware specifications and real integrated hardware-software functionality. The second biggest reality distortion field going is generated by RMS and the open source movement. They want to deny peoples right to ownership of their intellectual property. as a for profit company. Why are you so offended by that. The biggest reality distortion fields in this industry
Did you write the article misrepresenting what Jobs actually said about 3rd party apps and then make up the name dfgjk to hide your embarassment.
"You seem to think that you are an expert on what I believe."
Actually, it was you that said that I was the one who couldn't see. To quote you: "You can't see what you can't see and I'm so sorry
to have so grossly misrepresented you." Who is claiming to be the expert here?
"Apple's DRM system is largely dictated by the music and video industry."
Perhaps, but we don't really know that. Apple benefits from its DRM scheme and deliberately locks out other vendors. One could argue that Apple is the one driving DRM for the benefit of iPod and iTunes.
"They also have to do this without sacrificing their own property which protects their long term ability to do the business they want to do."
No, they don't. You're just apologizing for Apple's business methods. You think Apple can't compete solely on merit?
"You may not like the current law regarding DRM and I don't necessarily disagree with your dislike, but DRM is not an acronym for something satanic."
Since when did I ever say that? I simply said that Apple fears fairplay being subverted or their platform's reliance on iTS being bypassed.
"They are legally required to conduct business as a for-profit company."
Haha, no they aren't. They are in business to make money but not because they're legally required to. It's good that you realize that Apple is in business to make money. Now perhaps you might understand that locking the 3rd party developers out might be motivated by profit, not quality.
"You seem to think that there is something nefarious about this fact and you also seem to be associating negative aspects of DRM law with Apple."
I never said nor implied any such thing. I would never say anything as stupid as "DRM law".
"Microsoft has the biggest reality distortion field going in this business because they've go most users believing that they are getting what they deserve (screwed) for their money."
This isn't a discussion about Microsoft. You're simply exposing your predudices here.
"The second biggest reality distortion field going is generated by RMS and the open source movement."
This isn't a discussion of RMS or open source either.
"Why are you so offended by that."
I've made no comments regarding MS or RMS here. Who says I'm offended one way or another?
So are you still asserting that Steve Jobs said that 3rd party apps aren't going to be allowed ?
Yes, Steve Jobs and another exec both said that in interviews. Any development by parties other than Apple would have to be coordinated with Apple. That means no 3rd party apps and they said that specifically.
You just contradicted yourself.
You are also a dishonest person.
In order to work on iPhone apps, according to Jobs, you will have to enter into an agreement with Apple whereby you partner with them to develop the software. Apple controls distribution. That is not 3rd party development and Apple has made it clear that 3rd party development will not be allowed.
It has been enjoyable arguing with you. You make your points so powerfully.
I suppose that defining things in just the right way in your own mind allows you to maintain the pretense of integrity even if the reference you cited did say what you are asserting. The bottom line is that you deliberately misrepresent information and yourself. Its called dishonesty.
What reference did I cite?
Just what is a 3rd party app if it isn't software developed, tested, distributed and supported by a company other than the 1st party i.e. Apple? Apple has made it clear that it won't allow that. There is absolutely no controversy. 3rd party partners perhaps, 3rd party apps absolutely not.
As I impied before, you seem totally unable of forming any argument on your own. Why don't you try offering something other than personal insult?
Rewriting the dictionary won't make you an honest person or a person of integrity.
Dishonesty is a characteristic not a name.
In addition to your dishonesty your attitude towards ownership of property marketed in digital form
suggests that you don't respect other peoples property when you think that its socially acceptable not to.
You seem to think that Apple is so bad that its OK to deliberately
misrepresent them by posting distorted information on slashdot,
to the point of representing yourself as different people, to the point of rewriting the dictionary, etc.
You are confused. This isn't an argument and on your end its was never about facts.
Just what are the facts? I noticed you haven't bothered to offer any nor have you even suggested what I am misrepresenting. I assume it's about the claim that Apple won't allow 3rd party apps. Who knows.
p les-jobs-more-iphone-apps-coming-before-launch/932 0/ 0430200
Some Jobs quotes:
"I don't want people to think of this as a computer," he said. "I think of it as reinventing the phone."
"These are devices that need to work, and you can't do that if you load any software on them," he said. "That doesn't mean there's not going to be software to buy that you can load on them coming from us. It doesn't mean we have to write it all, but it means it has to be more of a controlled environment."
"We define everything that is on the phone," Jobs told the New York Times. "You don't want your phone to be like a PC. The last thing you want is to have loaded three apps on your phone and then you go to make a call and it doesn't work anymore. These are more like iPods than they are like computers." Jobs told Newsweek something similar. "You don't want your phone to be an open platform," he said. "You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn't want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up."
A couple articles discussing the fact that Apple won't allow 3rd party apps:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/ap
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12
Of course, there are many others but there's no need to list them. The fact that the iPhone is closed to 3rd party development is so well established and confirmed by Apple that it's a joke that anyone would suggest otherwise. Go ahead and masturbate to the belief that Jobs is about to deliver the greatest gadget in the history of the world; that is if you've even made it through puberty.
You are not interested in facts.
Its dishonest to represent your opinion and perspective as factual information
about what was presented and said. Its also manipulative if you are doing it
because you have some axe to grind.
Why not be honest. Post an Apple hate spew.
Drop the laughable pretense at rationality and the name shell game.
> Yeah, it's not as if Linux distributions can be made to work on x86, x86-64, PPC, PPC64, 68k, SPARC, S/390, :-)
... everything is identical, so much so that Steve Jobs used to contrast them by showing a PPC Desktop and then transition to the next slide it is the Intel Desktop and it is identical. And they are doing this with an application platform that is over 10,000 commercial apps, with many non-technical users, and in the shadow of Microsoft's felonies.
> S/390-64 (a/k/a z/Architecture), SuperH, ARM, IA-64, MIPS, etc..
Isn't that more like saying "UNIX is portable" rather than saying "OS X is portable"? There are a lot of Linuxes running on a lot of platforms and a lot of UNIXes but I haven't seen a Linux that runs identically on PPC and Intel so much so that you can't tell them apart, the way Mac OS X does
One of the main advertised and demonstrated features is that everything on the screen can scale up or down at any time. The actual software "screen" is much, much larger than 3.5 inches diagonally and 320x480 pixels. The hardware screen acts like a fixed window that you are looking through to see an image that is projected on the other side at various magnifications. So when you pan around a Web page with your fingers, the reason this works so smoothly is because at some level you really are moving the full Web page around so you can see parts of it through the window. Each single pixel of the screen on the iPhone is not matched to a single pixel of the image that's being displayed, as is the case with every other screen in the world. This will also be true of Leopard Macs.
Also, if you follow OS X development, in version 10.4 Tiger Apple included a new feature called "resolution-independent UI" which was turned off by default, but which developers could turn on to test their apps as they build them so that by the time 10.5 Leopard ships, the idea is that all Mac apps will be able to work seamlessly whether they are shown on a 30 inch display or a 30 foot display or a 3 inch display. If you are familiar with computer interface design this is also a hot topic because the traditional barriers between "screen" and "print" break down when you go above 150 dpi, which is about the resolution of a drug store photographic print, or today's most-dense LCD screens.
So, there are quite a few people who watch the iPhone demo and go "oh, there's Leopard's CoreGraphics with its resolution-independent UI" because it is an OS X feature, not an iPhone feature, although the iPhone obviously runs OS X.
> The iPhone display is unique for its size and its total pixel count, not its dpi (which is rather ordinary in fact).
... basically skinning vectors like Adobe Fireworks.
No, you're wrong, and about 2-3 years behind the curve. It is not the display HARDWARE, but rather its SOFTWARE (display layer) that is special.
The iPhone display is unique in that each single pixel of the display (hardware pixel count) is NOT matched to a single pixel of the user interface (software pixel count). Every other screen on the planet is 1:1 pixel ratio aka zero pixel scaling aka so-called "72 dpi".
If your smart phone has a 320x480 pixel display, then inside of that you will see a 320x480 pixel user interface. A button that is 40x20 pixels in your interface will be stored somewhere in the phone as a 40x20 pixel graphic. The grid of pixels is turned on and off to create the illusion of movement or animation, one single pixel at a time. This is a particular kind of sleight-of-hand, but it is not what the iPhone or Mac OS X Leopard (and Tiger in a particular test mode) do with their screens.
The iPhone's actual screen is a huge "soft-screen", much larger than 320x480, that you can think of as being covered up and only viewable through a 3.5 inch diagonal window which is the hardware screen. Imagine an 8.5x11 piece of paper with a 3.5 inch diagonal magnifying glass. As you drag a large Web page around on the iPhone, you are simply re-orienting it behind the hardware screen so that you can see another part of the soft-screen, which contains more of the Web page. You have no way of knowing how big a particular image within that Web page is in pixels, because you are not likely to be looking at it at 1:1 pixel ratio like in every other Web browser, but rather your "soft-screen" is scaled up or down to match your last actions, your last requirements, the last Web page you visited.
Every image you see on the iPhone is created in real-time for you using the actual pixel or vector image data as source only. You aren't just shown a 200x300 image using 200x300 pixels, but rather at whatever size is appropriate. Pinch your fingers and you'll change it.
What's happening in screens now is that once you go above 150 dpi, you are better to start to use printing math and printing methodologies to create images. For the history of computer screens, their much lower pixel count than print has enabled operating systems to be lazy but now that we are going above 150 dpi that is over. At that point the display device has to start scaling to be flexible enough.
A key issue with all of this is, for example, if your operating system's user interface icons are stored at 128x128 and you try to display a Desktop on a 30 foot display with 150 dpi you are going to see them looking like a fly on the wall. For this reason, in Tiger, Mac OS X icons were increased to 512 pixels square from 128 pixels square so that they can shown without jaggies on very large screens or high pixel counts. Apple is also creating interface elements on the fly rather than storing bitmaps
> WebKit itself isn't required either. Widgets use existing Web technology and they could be run without any existing OS X software at all.
This is sort of true. However the tag that is essential to Widgets was created by Apple, within WebKit, and then was adopted by Mozilla/Firefox/Gecko in a way that is ready for standardization. So Apple could also use Gecko instead of WebKit, but not anything else. Since WebKit is built from the beginning to be smaller and faster than Gecko it seems like WebKit would be a better choice for iPhone. Also, there is a browser for Symbian/ARM called "S60" which is WebKit based, so WebKit already was running on ARM before iPhone.
You saw the future in the iPhone introduction but just didn't recognize it.
Have you tried? I.e., have you, for example, installed a given release of Debian on both an x86 PC and a PPC Mac, both configured with the same desktop environment? If you've tried different distributions, and not found them identical, perhaps you're comparing apples^Wbananas and oranges.
> At $500+ per unit and a goal of 1% of the phone market, it won't really make itself into THE platform to write apps for, now will it?
> Its not going to replace the Blackberry or even the Danger HiptopIII.
Until iPhone nano in the tiniest phone form factor.
This iPhone is just to get started. See the original iPod.
> Apple controls distribution. That is not 3rd party development
... what you just described is how third-party development works in the game industry, for example PS2, XBox, iPod games.
Uh
It sounds like Jobs is saying that "iPhone apps" will be done the same way as "iPod apps", rather than the same way as Mac apps. I'm not sure why this would surprise anyone. The iPhone is more iPod than Mac, in spite of OS X.
It has a wireless Web browser in it, huh?
... like Firefox but with better text rendering and complete CSS 2.1.
You can write Web apps and they will work not only on the iPhone but on other Web clients also.
What kind of app would you write for the iPhone that you couldn't do as a Web app?
Remember it is a full Web browser
I would really like to hear what kinds of apps people are being prevented from writing for the iPhone. Music players? Contact managers?
"You are not interested in facts."
Funny that you say that. I've asked you to provide facts more than once and you've made no attempt. I've also offered some that you've ignored. Who's the one not interested in facts here?
"Its dishonest to represent your opinion and perspective as factual information about what was presented and said."
Opinions are never factual information. Quotes are. I've provided facts, not opinions.
"Its also manipulative if you are doing it because you have some axe to grind."
You assume I have an axe to grind because you don't like what I say. Nevertheless, all I've said is what Steve Jobs has said minus the candy coating and hand waving.
"Why not be honest. Post an Apple hate spew. Drop the laughable pretense at rationality and the name shell game."
You are clearly crazy. Just what is it you are objecting to? You've never even made that clear.
Its obvious to me can't read with comprehension or think with clarity. I suppose its the only way to maintain that much lack of integrity with a decent self image.