Slashdot Mirror
Developers Expect iOS and MacOS To Merge
AHuxley noticed the frightening little Ars story talking about a certain expectation that
iOS and MacOS will merge, leading to a single DRM-locked OS on your MacBook and your iPad. Certainly Apple would love a piece of every app sold. Now I'm sure that this has been discussed over there, but I wouldn't expect it any time soon.
iMerge(TM)
If I were Apple I'd make a desktop iOS a user option like the current Parental Controls. Locking specific users into a walled garden of uncomplicated settings and apps sure would be nice for grandparent support.
If it's not one thing it's another. Apple is dying. Apple is dead. Apple can't recover. The iPod can't save Apple. The Mac can't come back. The iPhone can't save Apple. The 'walled garden' will be the death of Apple. The iPad's failure will kill Apple ... and now the MacOS & iOS are going to merge resulting in pushback, backlash and eventually Apple's demise.
... phasing out MacOS over the next decade? maybe ... but merging the two? Not very likely.
These are different markets and different products. I can't rule out an "Apple appliance" that will serve as a desktop type of computer with iOS running on it
If I were Apple I'd make a desktop iOS a user option like the current Parental Controls.
Apple tried this before; it was called At Ease.
The article discusses how developers expect iOS and OS X to merge from an API perspective - cross pollination between the developments (mostly from iOS to OS X) will lead to a unified development environment. This is *not* the same as the DRM/App Store, which is just the distribution method chosen for the iPhone and iPad. There's nothing technical about this - it's a business choice to make this the sole channel, one that doesn't seem to make sense for desktop computing, and one that I doubt they'd pursue.
Whilst I expect an App Store on the Mac, I would be shocked if it were the only distribution method available. In truth, I suspect we'll see a situation similar to downloading apps via Safari now - the first run, you get a warning about possible unsafe code, you tell it you're fine with that, and then everything carries on as normal. The Mac still represents a vast chunk of their revenue - only marginally less than iPhone in terms of income, and probably more in terms of profit. They're not going to kill a fully functioning golden goose, though I do expect some experimentation with it.
This experimentation is long overdue. For most people, something much simpler than a full desktop would be ideal - my iPad passes my parental approval filter far more than their desktop computer, the complexity of which causes more trouble than benefit. Now, the iPad is *not* a suitable desktop replacement - using my parents as an example again, there's no really useful document processing, no ability to hook up their TomTom, no easy printing. However, I can certainly see some hybrid iMac/iPad (or Android setup, I don't care who makes it) being a *much* better proposition for them than buying another desktop of the current ilk - be it Windows, Mac or Linux.
what will we develop mac applications on? Windows boxes?
Best Slashdot Co
I'm going to be blunt about this: your comment is completely wrong. It makes perfect sense to have a separate operating system for desktops and mobile devices, because they're two completely different things. Trying to run an OS on one designed for the other leads to frustration and unusability. In fact, I think Windows Mobile failed because it wasn't enough of a mobile operating system: it had things like a desktop, the Start Menu, and full multitasking, which make perfect sense in a desktop operating environment and are a terrible idea on a mobile one.
iOS and Mac OS X already do share a lot of code already, but that's just code reuse - proper programming practice. They've got two totally different user interfaces and paradigms, each working best for its target device. Trying to run one on the other would be unusable, and say what you want about Steve Jobs, but it will be a cold day in hell before a product comes out of his company that can be described as "unusable". Such a merger is a horrible idea, there's no evidence it is ever going to take place, and this article is just so much FUD to get the Slashdot crowd ranting and raving about Apple's walled garden.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
"It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."
I can't imagine how a calendar developed for a 2" touchscreen could have the same interface as a calendar developed for a 21" keyboard-and-mouse, and not have it be terrible. Similarly, a copy of Word on the iPhone and a copy of Word on a PC would necessarily need to have very different interfaces... You can't get hover tips on a touchscreen, people don't gesture with keyboards, mice aren't multitouch, and iPhone screens are tiny.
The idea that you can write one app and have it work on such disparate devices shows a fundamental lack of understanding of good design.
The ______ Agenda
The article is about how some of the APIs (UIKit, mainly) in iOS are probably going to be included in future versions of MacOSX, and suddenly the summary is about MacOSX becoming a big iPhone full of DRM! Slashdot: where not even the editors bother to read the articles! (Either that, or someone hates Apple too much...)
The main difference between Mac OS and iOS is you can't code on iOS. It's partly a security feature and partly an anti-complexity feature. iOS is for a non-coding approach to all tasks. You may not know this, but a Photoshop pro writes a ton of code. The home user working with their photos doesn't need to.
Another feature of iOS is no custom drivers. The USB audio interfaces that work with iOS are the "class compliant" ones that work with the system's universal driver. This provides stability and ease of use, but it limits the quality to consumer-quality 16/44 stereo. Audio pros still need a system to hook on an 8 channel 24/192 interface. OS X has a pro audio subsystem the likes of which you can't find anywhere else. Are we going to just abandon that and tell music producers to use toy Windows? The iPod app on iOS is filled up by people using Mac OS.
The mouse is going away, no doubt. But you will still have a consumer OS and a pro OS. Web developers need Apache and Ruby and PHP to make websites for iOS users, movie makers and graphic artists need to code workflows, and app developers need to code apps and Apple needs to code OS X itself. The idea that Mac OS can go away is just so fucking stupid and ignorant and disrespectful when you consider how much of our fucking culture is made on Macs.
Anyone who thinks there is no longer a need for Mac OS is an iPad user. Get an iPad ASAP and enjoy! STFU about Mac OS otherwise. You probably don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
http://www.macstories.net/news/steve-jobs-no-mac-app-store/
If you're uncertain what FUD stands for, please re-read the summary. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
Or Female Urination Device..
"It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."
It doesn't make sense for Ford to be making both cars and trucks. It means they have to have at least two separate lines for most of the components. They should just merge the two concepts.
"Microsoft seems to be moving in a better direction these days with their mobile platform"
You haven't been following very closely then, have you? It's a jumbled mess of mutually incompatible systems, all with the label "Windows" on it. They almost seem to be trying to emulate the diversity of Linux systems. Microsoft's mistake, however, isn't with having multiple OSes, but having multiple OSes that are all UI clones of each other (without the common code base) regardless of the platform.
Jobs and his lieutenants have talked at length about what a mistake it was to try to put desktop Windows (with extensions) on tablets. This is why the TabletPC platform has been such a snoozefest in the market: it's the wrong UI for the hardware. Apple could have released a MacBook Touch (a laptop with a touch screen or a slate, either running OS X) five years ago, but they knew it wouldn't work, so they didn't. The same story applies to Windows Mobile: wrong UI for the hardware. Same outcome: dismal sales for something with the Microsoft brand on it.
Clearly Apple believes that "iOSX everywhere" is the wrong approach. Adobe CS would make no sense on a phone or slate, and neither would Tap Tap Revenge make sense on a desktop or server. They put a whole lot of effort into developing a new OS for slates and phones, using the parts of OS X that fit that platform, and engineering new parts for the rest. They'd be fools to throw out the parts of OS X that still make all kinds of sense for the desktop or traditional laptop just to merge it with iOS, and I see no evidence that they're fools of that sort.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Virginia Tech's System X
I mean it's not like they broke into the top 10 or anything:
Ranking seventh in the Top 500 list of the world's most powerful computer systems, System X was built at a fifth of the cost of the second-least expensive system in the top 10.
Not only that, but every computer that ships with OS X has the ability to become part of an XGrid. All you have to do is enable a checkbox in the Sharing control panel and that's it. XCode will seek out other XGrid computers and use it to compile.
They'll keep selling Macs because it's the only platform you can use to write an i* app. You won't be able to write them on i*s because they are locked down devices by design and that doesn't play well with the needs of a developer.
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.
Apple isn't going to kill the Imac and Macbook lines, they will simply replace the current NEXT based OS with the future versions of IOS and naturally more complex systems are more prone to unexpected issues. Moving the hardware to ARM is trivial as they've already got the HW expertise and OS to do it. The only thing they need to do is get SW makers to fall in line, MS will with their standard half-arsed attempt at Office:Mac and so will Adobe with CS (Adobe dont have the balls to tell Steve to stuff it). Realistically they just need to add more keyboard and mouse support to the Ipad.
Apple wants to do this for three reasons.
1. It just works(TM). Mac OSX can go wrong more then the Iphone. This is because, as fanboys point out OSX is a lot more complex then IOS. Apple does not want users to have to deal with their own problems so they seek to eliminate the chance of it happening. Apple's current strategy is to cut features out that don't work perfectly.
2. Homogeneity. Apple prides itself on the fact that everything works together, that choices are simple. Having two disparate OS lines is detrimental to the long term success of this goal.
3. Control. Fanboys may defend Apple's control for various reasons, mostly using cognitive dissonance (it's for your own good and other such excuses) but you cant deny that Apple wants control. They want to stop the hackintosh, they want to prevent more clones and they want to control what the end users experiences.
This wont happen overnight, not even the RDF turned to eleven could pull that one off. It will happen over time in baby steps and be hailed by the fanboys.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop.
It might, but I would be curious to know whether there was any evidence for this beyond the reported opinion of a handful of third-party app developers. These guys are targeting their products towards Apple's little handheld media boxes (and good luck to them) but their opinion doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
Personally, I hope it doesn't. OS X is certainly not everything I would like it to be, but it is at least a unix-based platform that is useful for my purposes. I would be quite surprised if Apple were to actually dump OS X, given that maintenance and development of a "real" computer platform on established third-party chipsets must be a comparatively small drain on their resources by comparison with what they surely must devote to their phone and tablet devices.
I don't think you are a troll just a bit unrealistic. There is a huge difference between what users expect from Cell phone OSes and what they expect from Computer OSes. In particular Computer OSes need to support custom applications easily.
Apple would lose their place in the IT market, the scientific market, the music market, the video market with a limited lockdown system. They would lose their margins with a high level of control and supervision for a highly capable system. Yes they would love to have the control and the homogeneity. So would Microsoft, so would Linux. Its just that the order on computers is:
a) features -- can do what I want
b) reliability -- does what I want consistently
c) price --
d) convenience -- does what I want easily.
For cell phones the order seems to be
a) basic features
b) form factor
c) other features
There is zero evidence that any such convergence (beyond the fact they already share the same Darwin core and Foundation classes) would be "DRM-locked." You threw the phrase in there as flamebait to ignite discussion. Don't be an alarmist site.
How does the speculation of a few developers vindicate you?
Steve Jobs himself has already addressed this topic and said traditional PCs won't go away. They'll be like trucks; the people who need them will simply be fewer than those who just drive regular cars.
I'd recommend watching the interview with Jobs at D8 (by Mossberg and some other WSJ journalist), it's available (free) on iTunes. He made an excellent car analogy, equating the PC (as in personal computer, not PC/Mac) to trucks in the early days of the automobile market. Basically - the analogy was that back when automobiles were new, the vast majority of cars were trucks, designed for getting work done. As that technology trickled down into the popular market, the car became more user friendly (automatic transmissions, air conditioning, radio, etc.) and less like trucks. Jobs essentially equated MacOS and iOS with trucks and sedans. Ultimately, his point was that there are still trucks now (implying that Apple has no intention of killing their entry in the PC market). As I see it - Apple would love for MacOS marketshare to stay exactly where it is for the foreseeable future (5%) and replace the other 93ish% with iOS. Jobs is not a fool - he knows that we need trucks; I do not believe that Apple has any intention of killing MacOS.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.
Apple doesn't want to kill the desktop, the desktop will be around for quite some time, and they want to be there until the end.
Apple isn't going to kill the Imac and Macbook lines, they will simply replace the current NEXT based OS with the future versions of IOS and naturally more complex systems are more prone to unexpected issues.
iOS is Nextstep, just with (mainly) UIKit replacing AppKit (there are more differences between Mac OS X and iOS, but this is main difference in terms of its relation to Nextstep). As for replacing Mac OS X with iOS, this doesn't make any sense. iOS is designed for small multitouch screens. This notion of iOS on the desktop is just as misguided as the idea of an iPad running Mac OS X. It can be done, but it would make the product worse.
Having two disparate OS lines is detrimental to the long term success of this goal [homogeneity].
Perhaps, but the gain in homogeneity would not offset the loss in quality of the Mac platform.
Control. Fanboys may defend Apple's control for various reasons, mostly using cognitive dissonance
FYI, when you get called a troll, it's for bullshit like this. Calling those who disagree with you "fanboys" makes you a troll, de facto. You may not realize it, leaving you to wonder "what the hell did I say that makes me a troll?" leading you to a conclusion that it must be just a bunch of "fanboys" who just don't want to hear the truth (hence your claim of cognitive dissonance), reinforcing your notion that we're just "fanboys", and therefore our arguments are dismissed out of hand.
Anyway, my point being, if you don't want to be seen as a troll, drop that word from your vocabulary completely, even when you think that there's a situation where it incontrovertibly applies.
They want to stop the hackintosh, they want to prevent more clones and they want to control what the end users experiences.
And this is why you are wrong, whether you get called troll or not. The above, which is pretty much the extent of their "control" is fairly limited, and very weak grounds upon which to base any sort of grand notion that Apple wants to increase control over their users.
The "control" over the hackintosh is obviously very limited, and not the sort of control which leads to any sort of slippery slope issues. They want you to buy a Mac if you want to run Mac OS X. The Mac and their OS are a whole. You may not like that that's how they see it, and that that's how they go about it, but some sort of overarching "control" it is not.
As for "controlling what the end user experiences". That's overstating things quite much. They don't want to control what the user experiences, with the fundamental exception that they want to exclude a set of very rational things. Primarily, buggy software, spyware, and ports which fail to make good use of the platform. They don't want control over my experience other than to help see to it that I don't have to deal with such crap. And when us "fanboys" say (as you said in your post) "it's for your own good and other such excuses", what we're saying is that "it makes the product better". That's why we willingly choose Apple products, so we don't have to deal with a bunch of crap. It's also a huge part of why Apple products do so well even when surrounded by competition whose primary advantage is less "control".
This wont happen overnight, not even the RDF turned to eleven could pull that one off. It will happen over time in baby steps and be hailed by the fanboys.
It (although not the "it" you've been going on about) will be hailed because it will make our lives better. The "it" won't be locking down the Mac, or replacing M
Believing any CEO's pronouncement is like believing a whore who tells you "you're the best".
You have to watch what Apple does, not what Jobs says.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You mean the new Mac Minis they released last week?
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?