Slashdot Mirror


Apple Creating Cloud-Based Mac?

hostedftp writes "In speculation news making the rounds — Apple's recent activities in the Cloud has been leading to conclusions of the what the innovative giant plans to unleash in 2011. The most recent news of Apple applying and securing a patent for a network-boosted OS has made speculators believe Apple is going to launch a Cloud-based operating system for the Mac."

204 comments

  1. more like cloud boot iCrap by alen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    idevices are 2/3 of apple's revenue. Mac's are like the bastard step kids that no one cares about anymore

    1. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idevices are 2/3 of apple's revenue. Mac's are like the bastard step kids that no one cares about anymore

      yeah but it's been a while three minutes... time to mention CLOUDS again!

    2. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Slashdot needs a new cloud icon to put beside stories like this.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 'fecal_mass.png'

    4. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idevices are 2/3 of apple's revenue. Mac's are like the bastard step kids that no one cares about anymore

      You forgot: DeviceBook, DeviceBook Pro, Device Pro, iDevice Touch, iDevice Classic, iDevice nano and the iDevice shuffle.

      But I guess they'll have the iDevice Cloud and the Device Pro Cloud soon too. And then maybe the iDevice Touch Cloud?

    5. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by click2005 · · Score: 1

      Maybe Clouds Have Feelings, Too by Kandi

      The evening starts out quiet
      As quiet as ever could be
      But suddenly a stormy night
      Becomes a reality
      The clouds dump out tons of rain
      And it falls so very fast
      Then suddenly its clear again
      And you see the moon at last

      Theres so much mystery about the sky
      About its ever changing moods
      But most people dont realize
      Maybe clouds have feelings, too.

      When theyre sad, they cry,
      And it falls on us as rain
      When theyre happy, theyre white
      And the tears stay away

      So next time you look outside
      And the sky is no longer blue
      Dont get mad, just understand
      Maybe clouds have feelings, too.

      http://www.sffworld.com/authors/k/kandi/poems/maybe.html

      I just wanted to add some culture to the inevitable flame war.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    6. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by eggnoglatte · · Score: 0

      Except that macs are central to Apple's product portfolio, as the one and only development platform for iOS. Without macs, no iApps. Without IApps,...

      I'll start worrying about macs closing down when they put out a cloud-based or Windows-based app development platform.

    7. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the bastard kid would be a fortune 500 company in his own right.

    8. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Carnivorous+Vulgaris · · Score: 1

      Apple have gone too far this time!
      A cloud based Mac is going to implode immediately, and take all it's users with it.

    9. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      They need an ass puffing out that cloud too.

      Not everything will be "better in the cloud". If you disagree, I respectfully challenge you to a game of fart-tag.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    10. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by gtall · · Score: 1

      Okay, how about you give up a third of your income? How does that feel?

    11. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Depends. How much of my workload can I drop?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by paiute · · Score: 1
      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    13. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Android already has a basic cloud based dev tool. I'm sure it's fairly limited right now, but that could change.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    14. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by eggnoglatte · · Score: 1

      An how exactly is that relevant to developing for iOS? The fact is that Apple's business model requires people to develop for iOS. And right now, the only way to do that is using a mac.

    15. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      It's not relevant to developing to iOS right now, I'm pretty sure I said it was for Android. Just an example of what they could do.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    16. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by UncleRage · · Score: 1

      When Apple is ready, XCode will be released for other platforms; much like Openstep Solaris and Enterprise. Perhaps (as amRadioHead suggested), iOS development will take place in the cloud (think of the control that would give Apple in development...), or perhaps we'll see "development boxes" specific for development. Who knows.

      The point is, saying that Macs are central is a bit of a stretch. I think Apple's ultimate goal is more iOS in the palm of your hand and an iOS/OS X hybrid in a Macbook Air form factor. Do desktops and full OS laptops really play a part in a company that killed off their enterprise servers and haven't even bothered to mention a server version of their next major OS?

      I think not.

      I'm thinking that Apple is gearing up to become a consumer appliance company -- which sucks, because I happen to really like OS X (and I also make a living as a Mac sysadmin for a public school district). I'm afraid that the Mac is becoming the Apple II of today's Apple.

      --
      #SickNotWeak
    17. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Clang Apples shinny new compiler has little to no windows support or active development.

    18. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      I believe Steve Jobs referred to Macs using a car metaphor (must be a Slashdot regular). He said that Macs (or PCs more broadly) were like trucks. Most people won't need that amount of utility/capability (they drive cars), but a certain chunk of us will (we drive F-150s). Macs/PCs will still be around to serve that market, even if it shrinks in comparison with tablets (iCrap as you so eloquently put it).

      If I had to guess that the ratio toward which Mac vs. iCrap would converge, I would guess that it would reflect the 90-9-1 rule. Probably 10% will want a full featured PC of varying power, while the other 90% will be happy with something that gives them access to the net/media and performs their daily tasks (email, basic text editing, MyTwitFace, music).

    19. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish my crap was as valuable as Apple's. That's a lot of money for stuff 'nobody cares about'.

    20. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by node+3 · · Score: 1

      That's some crazy train of thought you have there.

      Apple is not going to release Xcode for Windows. It makes no sense. Apple doesn't want to control developers. It makes no sense. Apple isn't going to get rid of Macs or Mac OS X. It makes no sense. Why is the lack of mention of Lion Server a sign that Apple is going to get rid of their desktop PCs? It makes no sense.

      Do you see the trend here? All those things you mention are possible, but at this current time, absolutely none of them make any sense. The only time they will happen is when they do (or are about to) make sense. Most of this hinges on Apple getting out of the PC business. As long as there is a thriving market for PCs, Apple will make theirs. The faulty logic is in the notion that Apple can't both make Macs that are quite open with the exception of third-party primary hardware, and iOS devices that are notably less open.

    21. Re:more like cloud boot iCrap by node+3 · · Score: 1

      That depends if you are currently overworked. If not, then you will just fill up that work with something else. So will you end up making more than you do now? Do you think Apple could make more money by dropping the Mac and replacing that effort on something else? I highly doubt it. Also, it's a strange thing to discuss on the eve of the launch of an App Store for the Mac. Macs are gaining in market share, why would they just throw that all away?

      But more to the point, having a PC line is core to Apple's business. They can't stop selling Macs, not that they have any desire to. The single most important aspect of Apple's success is in providing the entire core user experience. Dropping Macs and dumping their many tens of millions of loyal customers into the Windows world is just about as counter to Apple's strategy as is possible.

  2. Tim Wu Was Right? by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Assuming these predictions are accurate, the end of the article reminded me of Tim Wu predicting Apple is the number one threat to internet freedom:

    Commentators believe the patent could allow Apple to create a subscription-based cloud OS that gives it more control over its users.

    More control over its users.

    On top of that, this whole cloud privacy relationship concept needs to be addressed -- especially when people see commercials advocating it without fully explaining that your photo, data, computations, whatever are being moved to and performed on other machine external to yours. That single Microsoft commercial has further muddied up how people understand what the cloud is.

    I applaud Apple for their foresight and innovation in this but I see it in line with Tim Wu's fears of Apple further controlling your data and information. I'd have the same fears with Chrome OS and Windows utilizing a cloud of computers just the same. This ideal of executing what you want on your hardware in your property seems to be dying. And with it, privacy or any desire thereof.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      This ideal of executing what you want on your hardware in your property seems to be dying.

      I don't know, I mean most people just are not aware of the privacy risks involved in things like facebook. News stories about it might tangentially impinge on their awareness for a moment, but it doesn't matter to them, and maybe they are right to an extent - in all likelihood it will never affect them. However any commercial groups or companies I am aware of are most definetely not leaping aboard the cloud bandwagon, much preferring to keep their operations in-house. Also phones and to a lesser extent netbooks and ipads haven't really got the horsepower to keep everything local, so that might be why we're seeing them being treated as terminals, but eventually they will get both the storage space and processing power to keep apps and data on hand, and the pendulum will swing back again.

      Besides, you don't have to use Apple's services, or anyone's really.

    2. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that, this whole cloud privacy relationship concept needs to be addressed -- especially when people see commercials advocating it without fully explaining that your photo, data, computations, whatever are being moved to and performed on other machine external to yours. That single Microsoft commercial has further muddied up how people understand what the cloud is.

      I applaud Apple for their foresight and innovation in this but I see it in line with Tim Wu's fears of Apple further controlling your data and information. I'd have the same fears with Chrome OS and Windows utilizing a cloud of computers just the same. This ideal of executing what you want on your hardware in your property seems to be dying. And with it, privacy or any desire thereof.

      Can anyone who's a lawyer comment more on the legal ramifications of moving to the cloud? It was my understanding that currently, courts treated data hosted off-site as not requiring a warrant to be accessed, unlike when it's actually hosed on someone's own property.

    3. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>More control over Mac users.

      And of course MS also controls its users (via windows, office, etc). I miss the days when we had alternatives like Atari and Commodore to buy hardware.

      >>>I applaud Apple for their foresight and innovation

      Recycling an old idea from the 1980s (cloud software on a central server; lightweight terminals in front of the user) is innovative? No. Although I guess you could call it "green". ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Americano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps that ideal is only really of interest to the subset of users who actually understand and enjoy tinkering with computers, and the vast majority of the market has been using general-purpose computers for some time that complicated & difficult to maintain, when they really *wanted* an appliance all along?

      There will still be people who own, use, and tinker with general-purpose computers. They'll be the people who design, build, and program the appliances that the other 95% of the population uses.

      What's funny to me is that everybody seems to be ringing the alarm over Apple, rather than Google, in this space. Apple creates the hardware, and uses the software (this supposed "cloud os") as a means to sell those devices. Google creates software (ChromeOS), and uses that software as a means for delivering ads to you - it doesn't make money from YOU, it makes money from *advertisers*. Who has more access, desire, and interest in being able to conveniently harvest all your data from the Cloud? Apple *could* move more into advertising than their foray into iAds, but their goal is first and foremost, to sell the devices. Google, on the other hand, exists to capture data about you & use that data to present you with ads.

    5. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The idea of everyone doing anything they wanted on their own hardware has always been a pipe dream. Most people will never have the skills, time, and resources necessary. In order to make something easy and have any level of security, it has to be under tight control. People need someone reliable to do it for them. Getting it to them inexpensively requires a very controlled environment and a large company that can handle massive scaling.

      Otherwise, people have always been free to spend loads of money on hardware and consultants to set it up for them. That is extraordinarily unlikely to change. It is also extraordinarily unlikely that most people can ever have the ability to do *anything they want* *on their own hardware* cheaply, easily, and securely. It's not Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else imposing this limitation. It is the limited skills and resources of the person. Most people aren't even remotely capable of doing what they want on their own hardware even given the proper software. Even highly proficient programmers constantly rely on the work of others in a tightly controlled environment *just in order to make things work*.

    6. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem. Industry is more likely to cater to the 95% than to the 5%. So if you are in that 5%, this locked-down-device movement will deprive you of what you currently have easy access to. Heck, with economies of scale, it may only be a matter of time before only 5% of users can even afford the open-and-flexible computers. (And that subset of users may have little overlap with those that actually want said access. Just remember back when computer illiterate doctors/lawyers had the best PCs, and the geeks got by with whatever little hardware they could scrounge up.)

    7. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Google creates software (ChromeOS), and uses that software as a means for delivering ads to you - it doesn't make money from YOU, it makes money from *advertisers*.

      Well stated! It will forever confound me that Google gets such a pass from the otherwise intellectually stingy slashdot crowd.

      Google sells ads. Apple sells hardware. I can opt out of the hardware.

    8. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Apple further controlling your data

      To most people this is a FEATURE. People want the safety and security that comes from having a trusted party manage their computers for them.

      This is the #1 key thing that Linux users don't get. Linux people tend to want to learn all about how their computer works and have fun dealing with "managing" it. But very few people want that. Most normal people just see it as a tool, and if someone else will change the oil and the spark plugs for them, then that's even better.

      Look, you could perform all your own car maintenance too, but very few people do that either. They'd rather just take it to the shop for half an hour every once in a while and pay someone else to change the oil for them. This doesn't mean that they're letting the shop "control their car". It means that they see the shop as providing a *service*.

      And it's the same way here, except to a few ultra-paranoids who think that everything is all about "the man controlling our data". Sorry, it just isn't. Apple doesn't give a crap about your data. They're just providing a service that the average guy who isn't a technophile *wants*.

      And that's why Cloud computing will take off. Technophiles have a 100% track record of being wrong about these things, because they don't understand that almost nobody else values what they value.

    9. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      I don't actually know the answer to your question, but I have to say that part of me thinks that anyone storing data relevant to their potential criminal prosecution in the "cloud" kind of deserves what they get :-)

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    10. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but this makes no sense. What were the computer-illiterate doctors and lawyers running on their "best PCs available" if no geeks had any computers to write software with?

    11. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Here's the problem. Industry is more likely to cater to the 95% than to the 5%

      "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". It isn't a problem that the market caters to the 95%, rather than the 5%. It's a *good* thing, and it means the market is working as it should. It means more people are getting what they want: in this case, a simple appliance, rather than a complex machine they have to back up and know how to manage and update and whatever.

      People don't *want* to do all those complex things. They just want to use their damn computer. That's what most people want, so it's quite OK if the market caters to what the vast majority want. Your mistake is thinking that catering to what most people want is a problem.

    12. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can say with absolute certainty that the number one threat to Internet freedom (and freedom in general) are people who don't value freedom. They aer the ones who fund various technological approaches to reducing it.

    13. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      It's pretty simple why Google gets a pass. Google makes Android. Android competes with iOS. iOS is made by Apple. Apple is evil, therefore Google is good.

    14. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. They need us to feed the masses fart apps. I'm being a bit silly, but the point is real. One of the hallmarks of these locked down devices is their inability to be used in writing and compiling their own software. Third party software is as much a feature of iPhone or Android as the part written by Apple or Google. Witness the incalculable number of "there's an app for that" commercials.

      General purpose PCs will become less common in the coming decade I think, but they will remain a large market. Programmers, designers, engineers of all stripes, media people (photo, video, or audio)... They are all greedy for either control, power, storage, screen real estate, or some combination of the four. Such people will always form a large niche market for more powerful and open systems. Apple systems already cater to several of those demographics, I don't see them in particular or computers in general leaving such a large and potentially lucrative market behind. After all, the majority of people who really need power and control are either professionals of some sort, or the type of hobbyist willing to invest cash in their hobby (I should know, I shudder to think how much money has gone into my wife photography habit over the years).

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    15. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is intellectually dishonest. Google doesn't get a pass because it competes with Apple. Google gets a pass because they have a history of giving users what users want. While Apple has a history of giving users what Apple wants. The users that get what they want are just the subset of the population that happen to want what Apple gives them.

      Google MAY do evil in cases where they have little choice if they want to continue to exist. The level of this is debatable. Apple chooses to pioneer evil.

      If you paid attention, as Google has grown and has been faced with harder decisions, it has been increasingly taken to task for it's decisions. So, really, Google hasn't been given a pass at all. Google has been viewed as a whole, and so has Apple. Apple just looks much worse from that perspective.

    16. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I rest my case.

    17. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I could help you see the error of your ways.

    18. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Jezza · · Score: 1

      Err, is could it just be you have a "OS image" on your own server (probably a flippin' Mac Mini given how Apple think) that you boot all your systems from? (Well assuming they have half-eaten fruit on them) Apple have been showing "NetBoot" for a while, actually the idea is quite nice, especially if you can "Time Machine" it. Everyone like to think Apple want to "control" users. I don't see this, Apple want to make users happy to buy more stuff from them. This isn't such a bad goal, and indeed they do pretty well at it - how many people just buy a new iPod every couple of years independent of need?

      This idea that Steve Jobs wants to enslave mankind is stupid. He wants mankind to keep buying successive generations of his product, he thinks he knows better than us what we want (and if he wasn't right so often that might seem arrogant). I don't think the big scary cloud is really in Apple's playbook; they want us to keep buying shiny things. I'm pretty sure Apple would rather sell you a disk drive than rent you space in the cloud - sure they will rent you space, but they still WANT to sell your that disk drive.

    19. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't figure out how to opt out of ads, "You're Doing It Wrong"(tm)

    20. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, have you read your own post?

      "Google gives people what they want." By what metric? Millions of users? Okay, let's use that.

      "Apple doesn't give people what they want." By what metric? If we use the same measure you're using to judge Google, Apple is also *fabulously* successful at giving people what they want: millions of iPods, iPads, iPhones, and Mac OS X systems sold, and growing their share of the computer market at a much faster rate than most (all?) of their competition.

      Apple's patent filing for something that mentions network bootup is being used as evidence for a claim that Apple is the number one threat to internet freedom. Google has already delivered a working model of ChromeOS, and has *every* reason to violate your privacy and freedom as it sees fit because it is in their fiduciary interest to do so, as an advertising company.

      We're sounding the alarm about something that may never see the light of day beyond a patent filing, and saying "Huh, that sounds pretty cool," about the thing that is functional, and backed by a multi-billion-dollar advertising company.

      The only difference I can see between the two is their immediate proximity (Google is a LOT closer to having something ready & working), and the fact that the one causing so much alarm is made by that icky "Apple" company.

      So, as far as intellectual dishonesty - thanks for pointing out the mote in my eye. There's a beam in yours.

    21. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

      If it was the case that everyone had to run the same OS you might have a point, from a political or even an ethical perspective if not a technical one. However it isn't, so you don't.

      It isn't a problem that the market caters to the 95%, rather than the 5%.

      You've got it wrong. The problem isn't when the market caters to the majority. It's when it only caters to the majority. It's when whoever has 95% of the market actively tries to suppress the other 5%.

      But those who like listening to Justin Bieber while chomping a big mac and slurping a bud light probably won't notice, let alone care.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Google give people what they want by the metric that when people are faced with the choice between Google and other similar products, most people choose Google. They don't choose Google because they feel that it is the only thing they can use. They choose Google because Google gives them what they want. Most people who use Google are specifically rejecting the competitor that is installed by default, and are specifically choosing them.

      Most people when faced with Apple products will choose the iPod for MP3 players, but for computers and phones, most people choose their competitors. They do this because their competitors give them what they want.

      I will agree that ChromeOS is a bad idea. You will also find that there are very few people who don't think ChromeOS is a bad idea. It is getting universally panned as an idea. So, claiming that Google gets a pass on ChromeOS is a strawman. Most people also see ChromeOS as DOA. Why? Because it is a bad idea.

      If you want to talk about Googles core business of advertising it is one thing. They have been pretty up front about what they do with that, and have earned their reputation, even if it is starting to slide a bit. But, pointing out ChromeOS and claiming that Google got a pass is simply dishonest.

      And, beyond all of that, claiming that Apple is being picked on because they compete with Google is simply Stupid. Claiming that a bad idea from Apple is getting panned is only being panned because an equally panned idea has come from Google is just bizarre.

      It seems that it is a common theme among Apple fans that any criticism of Apple isn't because Apple has done something wrong/poorly/stupid, but instead they are being criticized for being so cool that everyone else is jealous.

      This idea is not getting panned because of Google. It is getting panned because the idea that is being rumored is a bad idea. All on it's own.

    23. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Stuntmonkey · · Score: 1

      This ideal of executing what you want on your hardware in your property seems to be dying. And with it, privacy or any desire thereof.

      This concept of treating content as a physical good to be owned is a fallacy. It's predicated on a notion of scarcity inherited from the physical world, which doesn't exist with digital goods that cost nothing to reproduce. If you free yourself of this fallacy, there are other usage models that make everyone happier. Like renting for example.

      For myself I look at applications like Photoshop, Mathematica, or Solidworks. I would use these infrequently (maybe every 3 months?), but on those occasions they'd be very useful. I cannot justify buying full licenses, but what if I could rent them for, say, $3/day? I would benefit from (a) greater diversity of applications at my disposal, and (b) access to the latest versions of any software. Meanwhile software companies would get a source of revenue they don't have today. Better yet, could I pay $30/month to have unrestricted use of any software within a catalog of options, with the developers to get compensated based on my share of time spent (the ASCAP model)?

      Yes there are privacy implications. Netflix knows more about me than they would if I only viewed DVDs purchased with cash from Best Buy. But that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

      Obviously I have no idea if this is what Apple is working on, but I think software rentals would benefit everyone, and it's an area that would require leadership from Apple to really take off (providing a common framework for installations, usage monitoring, and billing for example).

    24. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Americano · · Score: 0

      I agree that it seems like a lousy idea, from any company.

      What I'm pointing out is the funny thing about the fact that Apple is being labeled the "number one threat to internet freedom" because it's got some patent filing that mentions net booting a device, while Google *already has* ChromeOS running on hardware, *and* has every reason to want to violate your privacy & restrict your freedoms, and nobody's suggesting that it is somehow "the number 1" (or even number 2) threat to internet freedom.

      If Apple is being panned for a lousy idea, Google should be receiving the same treatment for being *closer to implementation* of the same idea, and that just isn't happening. You keep saying that the idea is being "equally panned" from both parties: the fact is, if you read the commentary on articles here, you will see they are absolutely not both being panned.

      If you want to talk about Googles core business of advertising it is one thing.

      You mean their SOLE business, right?

      FY 2007: 98.9% of their revenues were from advertising.
      FY 2008: 96.9% of their revenues were from advertising.
      FY 2009: 96.7% of their revenues were from advertising.
      Q1 2010 - Q3 2010: 96.1% of their revenues were from advertising.

      Check the numbers yourself: http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

      Google is an advertising company. Do you think they run Gmail out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they are harvesting data about you, and from your emails, and using that to display targeted ads so they can make money. Do you think they run Google maps, or their search engine, or any of their other web properties as charity? Again, no, they are harvesting your data and selling it to advertisers so they can turn a profit. And by giving things away free, they effectively make it impossible for anybody else to compete with them in that market, solidifying their control.

      Frankly, I'd rather have a company whose motivation is to write software in order to help sell hardware (Apple) making a "cloud" service, than have a company whose motivation is to write software which will be free, but will also collect and sell my data to advertisers (Google) making a "cloud" service.

      Google has every reason to want you in the cloud: the more of your life you entrust to them, the more money they make because their profiles of you get that much better. And while I'm sure Apple wouldn't mind making some extra money off advertising, that is not their primary business, and not their primary revenue stream by a long shot - the hardware sales are where they make their money.

      So yes, the idea itself of a "cloud OS" is probably bad; The notion that Apple is the, and I quote, "number one threat to internet freedom" is just flat-out stupid.

    25. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by takowl · · Score: 1

      And here's why that's not a problem. Even if the market is basically targetting that 95%, the hardware that's produced for it can be repurposed easily enough for what we want. Most likely the companies making it will sell some with traditional operating systems, but even if they don't, it'll be hacked. So far, even the most concerted attempts to prevent users getting full control have fallen (PS3, anyone?). And not all companies will make it very challenging to hack. Apart from anything else, the geeky 5% (or even 1%) of the market is still worth having.

      Perhaps the more serious concern is that, if computers become appliances, and only tinkerers have full access to their systems, where do the next generation of tinkerers come from? Will people be able to start prodding things, and finding things out, and slowly developing an interest? My guess is that they will, but it will mostly be at a higher level. Just like writing in assembler or directly controlling tape drives are niche interests now, I guess that compiling software on your own machine is going to become increasingly niche, as more tinkerers play around with the web, or code running in scripting environments.

    26. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      While "number one threat to internet freedom" is certainly hyperbole, the fact that ChromeOS is DOA, and Apple has successfully push bad ideas out to large numbers of people who then rationalize it as good, I would definitly put Apple's cloud offering as more dangerous than Google's. Not because Apple is more evil than Google, but because it has a greater chance of being implemented than Google's.

      Sole, Core, your splitting hairs to make a point that isn't argued. Most of Googles money comes from advertising, and a little comes from other stuff. We agree on that.

      I haven't seen any of the threads that largely praise ChromeOS. All the ones I see discount it as too bad of idea to get off the ground.

      Either way, the focus on Google based on an article about why Apple's idea is bad, is typical of what Apple fans do. They blame Apples failures on others. In this case, it is an attempt to make Apple's REALLY bad idea seem not so bad because Google's idea is worse.

    27. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Apple keeps forcing all those brainless hipsters, riding their penny farthing bikes to Starbucks, to buy all their overpriced, non-working crap. Is really, really sad.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    28. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Either way, the focus on Google based on an article about why Apple's idea is bad, is typical of what Apple fans do. They blame Apples failures on others. In this case, it is an attempt to make Apple's REALLY bad idea seem not so bad because Google's idea is worse.

      This has nothing to do with "fanboys" bringing up anything.

      If you read back up this section of the thread, you'll see that it was eldavojohn who brought up Apple's "being the greatest threat to internet freedom," while referencing an earlier Slashdot article, and tied that previous article to this "cloud OS" notion from Apple. That's what I responded to, because I find it curious that ANYBODY would consider Apple the greater threat when Google *already has* the opportunity, and a great deal more motive, to abuse users with ChromeOS.

      I'd say pointing out the fact that Google is positioned far better to attack & restrict freedoms is entirely warranted, and entirely topical, considering it was a direct response to eldavojohn's commentary.

    29. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Google gets a pass because they have a history of giving users what users want.

      I don't remember asking for ads.

      While Apple has a history of giving users what Apple wants

      No, Apple keeps making stuff that I want. That's why I keep buying it.

      Google hasn't been given a pass at all

      Yes, they have. Every day on slashdot, which is why I qualified their pass as coming from slashdot users.

      Google MAY do evil in cases where they have little choice if they want to continue to exist.

      Uhhhhh, Google made a choice to make money by serving up ads. It's not like they've said, "hey, let's make cool software so we can sell ads", they said, "hey lets sell ads so we can make cool software".

    30. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Gee, I have a cloud boosted OS now. On my Mac a home I edit a document using open office an save it to my Dropbox. All my safari bookmarks are all synched with xmarks, and my rss news feeds using reeder are synched to google reader. My personal email, contacts and calendars are synched through ActiveSync to my phone, and Apple mail with imap, iCal and iCard. I get on a bus and carry on reasons my rss feeds right where I left off from my desk using reeder on my phone. I then get to work, and using my windows pc I retrieve the doc I worked on from my Dropbox. Open the webpage I had open in safari at home with firefox. Thanks xmarks. Etc. All day my data is synched in the cloud. At work all our services are accessble from laptops using VPN or citric, or published web apps. Our corporate cloud works well too. It doesn't gave to be a cloud owned by someone else.

    31. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by indiechild · · Score: 1

      It's the usual Apple-hating bullshit. The ranters make up all sorts of outlandish FUD crap about how Apple is going to fuck the world over and how it's the biggest threat to freedom and our way of life etc.

      In reality, Apple will do more to protect your privacy than anyone else. Certainly more than Facebook and Google (the two biggest advertising powerhouses on the Internet), whose very existence depends on their harvesting your usage patterns and personal data. Android is Google's strategy to get advertising into all facets of people's lives as the smartphone revolution progresses. I find it eternally amusing that so-called geeks are happy about this and give Google a free pass (Facebook is not cool or "open" enough, I suppose).

      The whole "openness" bullshit is a smoke screen, and the less insightful fall for it.

    32. Re:Tim Wu Was Right? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. How long do you think Google is going to last if everybody opts out of ads? How much would YOU pay for an ad that nobody will see?

      Google sells your attention to advertisers. If they have nobody's attention to sell, they make no money. And then what happens to Gmail, Google Maps, and everything else?

      I'll tell you what: Hope you've got backups!

  3. This is why by peragrin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is why marijuana is bad for you. It allows people to come up with even more stupid thoughts than they can do on their own without the use of mind altering drugs.

    That data center is for a revamp of Mobileme(a product that should be free), as well as storage for the new Mac App store.

    Even ChromeOS which runs in the cloud, really is a cloud based OS. The OS is on the hardware which access the cloud for Data. All of it from Websites that already have that data.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    1. Re:This is why by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That data center is for a revamp of Mobileme(a product that should be free),

      Why should a company provide something to you for free? I prefer paying and getting no ads to free-but-ad-inundated services.

    2. Re:This is why by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      This is why marijuana is bad for you. It allows people to come up with even more stupid thoughts than they can do on their own without the use of mind altering drugs.

      You mean like a "cloud based OS"? That stupid thought comes from ignorance, not drugs. With marijuana you rarely get stupid engineering ideas, you usually get artistic or musical ideas.

  4. cloud based... what the heck does that mean anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does everything have to do with networking need to have the word "cloud" in it? Argh!

  5. What does that even mean? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Since the blog talking about the cloud has seemingly dissipated, I have to wonder what a "Cloud Based OS" even would mean, if that's even a thing.

    To put things in more practical and less obscure speech, I think what it means is that something very like Dropbox will be more integrated into the system - and that possibly Apple will offer something like network based backup of application data for iOS devices.

    To me the "cloud" of any value, basically ends up being network storage of some flavor.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What does that even mean? by magarity · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder what a "Cloud Based OS" even would mean

      Sounds like it boots up via PXE from some cloud storage.

    2. Re:What does that even mean? by Tridus · · Score: 1

      The whole point of this "cloud" thing is that nobody knows. It means precisely nothing. Microsoft's "cloud" commercial is a great example, because most of what she's doing has exactly nothing to do with "the cloud" at all.

      The important thing is that making sure "cloud" appears in the ad at least five times provides Buzzword Compliance. In the case of this Apple whatever it is, "cloud" features even more prominently and thus provides more Buzzword Compliance.

      Now if they can create a special iCloud(TM) inside the Steve Jobs reality distortion field, they'll be set.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    3. Re:What does that even mean? by vlm · · Score: 2

      I have to wonder what a "Cloud Based OS" even would mean, if that's even a thing.

      They already have a perfectly good cloud app for data and small amounts of media.. Probably means you download your apps off the network. Probably use your local hard drive as something of a cache.

      In unix terms youd probably mount a FUSE file system as root, and every time you access anything it tries to check "/nfs/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-segfaults/whatever" to see if a new version exists, and if so, copies it into your cache. And probably tries to save a "backup" on both the local drive and the nfs mount.

      Of course they'll use some crazy appletalk over TCP interface instead of NFS, but the idea seems obvious.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    4. Re:What does that even mean? by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      In addition to a Dropbox-like service, it seems reasonable for Apple to fully integrate MobileMe into the next version of OS X, and as you mentioned backup/sync for iOS seems obvious. They might even extend that service to the Mac App Store.

      Considering the upload speed and reliability of typical residential broadband, I also don't see what the cloud offers end users at this point beyond limited storage and syncing. Anything else would raise privacy concerns, waste bandwidth, and—perhaps most importantly—detract from the "native app experience" that Apple so cares about.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:What does that even mean? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Appletalk was over in the 90s, dude. Apple's been using AFP for at least a decade now.

    6. Re:What does that even mean? by v1 · · Score: 1

      To me the "cloud" of any value, basically ends up being network storage of some flavor.

      This looks to have a significant portion of it as remote processing. Thinking more like the dumb terminals we used to have at the university.

      This could really have its up-sides. After you've made the initial investment at your end, getting the keyboard,mouse,printer,display, then if you want to upgrade later you can just spend a little money on an upgrade to your service. No need to physically replace the machine, and cheaper to boot. No outdated computer going to the landfill. No need to even install software, just buy it and its instantly available, on ALL your machines. And your data also available at all your locations at once.

      This is an interesting move, because in the past Apple has always been a hardware seller. They make a great OS but almost give it away, to sell their hardware. This isn't their first move into selling software for profit, (aperture, final cut, server, app store) so should be interesting to see how it pans out.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    7. Re:What does that even mean? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      In addition to a Dropbox-like service, it seems reasonable for Apple to fully integrate MobileMe into the next version of OS X, and as you mentioned backup/sync for iOS seems obvious. They might even extend that service to the Mac App Store.

      Well, if they integrate Dropbox, that would work. MobileMe not so much. But this is exactly what 'normal' people want. They DON'T want to think about backups, where the data is, WHAT the data is or much of anything else. Asked carefully, they might be able to make a distinction between data on their own computer and data on, for example, Flickr. They might.

      It's all Fucking Magic to 'them'. Hell, I was talking to the nurse running the 120K brand new telemetry system last night (Hey, it runs Linux). No conceptual framework for understanding that it was a 'computer', she has yet to grasp the fact that it's a modified WIMP interface (it has a touchscreen for some functions) and that that cute little bar along the top of the application has all sorts of little options that she's written down on 4 post it notes that magically appear when you run the mouse cursor over them. Sigh.

      THOSE are the people that Apple (and pretty much everyone else) is trying to woo with the new shiny. And there are LOTS and LOTS of them. Eternal September over and over and over again. Slashdotters tend to get all wound up about this ("Look, it's not hard, just put the little arrow over the menu text and it tells you what it will do - neat eh?"). Apple just takes it a couple steps further and off to the bank.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:What does that even mean? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the late 90s, when AppleTalk was obsolete. Apple fully supports NFS, but defaults to AFP for network sharing.

    9. Re:What does that even mean? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I see it as remote processing. I can't think of many (any?) consumer needs where putting out work into the cloud is faster than doing it locally.

      Heck, I have a few Mac systems and even I don't use distributed compilation with XCode.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    10. Re:What does that even mean? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      They should bring back Seinfeld for these cloud commercials.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  6. Uh, no. by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It reminds me of an old (and unintentionally hilarious) Crucial memory ad: "Your computer...at Internet speed!"

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:Uh, no. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Throw in some Intel NetBurst technology and you can accelerate your computing experience to ludicrous speed.

  7. Apple is more likely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to offer additional processing capabilities via the internet for iOS devices running professional level software, aka "dumb tablet terminals" with their own A4 processors and phase out the Intel based open Mac's we have all come to love and enjoy. The walled garden gets even more walled in.

    Oh well, Windows 7 and Linux here we come.

    "Bootcamp" and the "MacAppStore" was the obvious signs the Woz effect has worn off the Jobster.

  8. License fee for OS per Year? by olsmeister · · Score: 1

    It is the dream of all software companies to get products that generate recurring revenue indefinitely. Looks like this might fit that bill.

    1. Re:License fee for OS per Year? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Depending upon the implementation, that's not necessarily such a bad thing. One of the problems with OSes is that once you've paid for it, that's the revenue they've got for patching it and providing the next upgrade. Whereas with a subscription model they could provide continuous upgrades for the same price.

      And probably even allow XP users to keep using it indefinitely, or until the number of users gets to be small enough that it's not possible to continue support.

      Of course there is the downside of not being able to use the OS after the subscription expires, but it's not really worthwhile to dismiss out of hand. It's also something that would work well alongside the more traditional model.

    2. Re:License fee for OS per Year? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Call me paranoid, but what I fear about having what amounts to a support contract become a required cost are the following two scenarios:

      1.) $OS_COMPANY, be it Apple, MS, Red Hat, whoever, takes your money and DOESN'T provide support or patches.

      2.) The cost steadily goes up, and as the applications that run on top of the OS are purchased, the question every month becomes whether to call it quits and cut your losses with the apps and data you have, or pay what can easily amount to charging more because they know you'll pay it.

      The REAL issue with point #2 is that providing that kind of support can get VERY expensive. There are still a handful of NT 4.0 servers floating around out there. How much do you think it will cost to write an IPv6 stack for them? Do you charge separate for that?

      It's a can of worms. Call me a dinosaur, but I *LIKE* having my copy of Office 97 sitting on a disc for my reference at any point without having to ask Microsoft pretty please to let me do it. Will I ever actually do that? probably not. Will I be pissed if at some point I can't? you bet.

  9. Re:cloud based... what the heck does that mean any by oldspewey · · Score: 1

    I'm going to name my next child "Cloudy McCloudster" ... come to think of it I better go register that domain right now.

    --
    If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
  10. Error establishing a database connection? by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 1

    Is it`cuz I`m not on a Mac.

  11. URL Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry guys, the URL for the link to the Tim Wu story is Apple the No. 1 Danger To Net Freedom.

  12. Re:The Book of Jobs by click2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    iCloudOS

    Features include -

      . Everything is rented. Why get fleeced once when you can get fleeced monthly. Yes its crazy but aren't fleeces warm and fluffy like how you feel buying Apple products. You get regular updates on all your software like before but now you're paying. You get go keep paying to access the media you used to own. And the best thing is that even if you dont upgrade your iAppliances regularly you still get to keep paying.

      . iAppliance based. Run your iApp (be it movie player, image editor, skype or game) on any of your iPad/iPod/iPhone/iMac/iMini/iWhatever. Talk on your iPhone then when you get to work it shifts to your iMac. Play an iGame iApp on your iPad and when you get home shift it to your 42" iTV iAppliance.

      . Safety. Our walled garden is totally secure. All your interactions are done through iApps.

      . Legacy. If you really must access that dirty web with all its flash we route all your traffic through our content network. We filter it for all that bad stuff like porn, bittorrent and independent thought.

    Admittedly the iAppliance bit is nice but mine is Ubuntu/Android based.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  13. Re:Icon by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Has anyone talked to Adrian Paul?
    We're on our way to a Clan Cloud.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  14. Not worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not worried about this. Apple's history with online services is pretty lackluster. If there's one thing that they can screw up, it's this.

    1. Re:Not worried by tobiah · · Score: 1

      true

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  15. Indeed. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Since the blog talking about the cloud has seemingly dissipated, I have to wonder what a "Cloud Based OS" even would mean, if that's even a thing.

    Yeah, it sounds really nebulous.

    1. Re:Indeed. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Well, it would be like an 80s net boot Unix but with all of the added fun of trying to do this over the Internet.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Indeed. by johneee · · Score: 1

      My internet connection is faster than any of the network connections that were prevalent in the '80s.

      The requirements for what would need to go over the wires has changed, but whatever... The fact remains that I can access a terminal over the internet now at much higher speeds than I could have done over local connections back then. I could actuall

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    3. Re:Indeed. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      For a second, I thought you wrote, "nimbus".

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    4. Re:Indeed. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      For a second, I thought you wrote, "nimbus".

      What the heck does Harry Potter have to do with this? ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Indeed. by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but despite the networks being faster, are they faster proportionally to what they were transferring? I don't know how fast 10-base-2 ethernet went back then, but as a soft science comparison, DOS 6.22 fit on three floppies. Ubuntu 10.10 fills a CD-R. Yes, I know the latter can (and likely would be) trimmed down, but the general point I'm making is that while networks have gotten faster, there's more data that will make use of those speeds.

  16. ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work this.

    A 1920 x 1200 desktop at 32 bits a lot of data.

    In some area all you can get is DSL any where from 1.5 to 6 meg max. maybe 6 meg will work ok but some people can only get 1.5 or 3 meg dsl.

    Cable has higher download speeds but a full block on a Node trying to use this at the same time.

    satellite broadband with the FAP does not kill this the lag will.

    3G 5GB cap will led to big costs for data over 5GB. And ATT's 2GB then $10 per GB will may this cost so much people will get a PC.

    And if you have 2-3 systems then you may need FIOS just make it work good. And Fios is not all over.

    1. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming the core files for the OS would still be installed locally on your HDD to begin with. Then you just download updates, sync your data, and the rest of the bandwidth is comparable to a standard VNC session. Really, the bandwidth would be comparable to many current users.

      This retains the advantages of a Chrome netbook (all your data is always magically online and available from all devices without having to worry about backups), and in theory would allow for the installation of proper apps. Add to that Mac styling, and most users won't care about the walled garden even if geeks will be furious.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work this.

      A 1920 x 1200 desktop at 32 bits a lot of data.

      In some area all you can get is DSL any where from 1.5 to 6 meg max. maybe 6 meg will work ok but some people can only get 1.5 or 3 meg dsl.

      Cable has higher download speeds but a full block on a Node trying to use this at the same time.

      satellite broadband with the FAP does not kill this the lag will.

      3G 5GB cap will led to big costs for data over 5GB. And ATT's 2GB then $10 per GB will may this cost so much people will get a PC.

      And if you have 2-3 systems then you may need FIOS just make it work good. And Fios is not all over.

      Always fun seeing the new guys complain it could never work, even when I was doing it in the 90s with xwindows / nfs / vnc over a 14.4 modem ... and liking it ...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That depends how you choose to implement it. Streaming is likely to be one of the least efficient ways of doing that. It's more likely that rather than streaming the desktop, all you'd be streaming would be the commands, mouse events and the results. Allowing the local client to do the actual rendering. Which for things other than games and such would be a lot faster.

    4. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work this.

      A 1920 x 1200 desktop at 32 bits a lot of data.

      So? I'd imagine that the local computer would still generate the data for that and send it to the monitor in a cloud-based OS, just like in, say, Google Chrome OS, another cloud-based OS.

    5. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh, nobody said the entire desktop would be streamed......

    6. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      You were not running a modern Mac OS X desktop with millions of colors @ 1200 x 800 (or larger) resolution and antialiasing, doing animated GUI transitions over a 14.4 kbps modem in the 90s.

    7. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, there are ways to efficiently run remote desktops with minimal bandwidth usage, its done every day.

    8. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if they weren't being jackasses and using VNC and managed to get near-local-speeds from NoMachine/FreenNX/NeatX
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_technology, remote desktop connections wouldn't suck so bad.

    9. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by MichaelKristopeit343 · · Score: 0
      you do understand that a cloud based OS eliminates the need to transmit the display of the local OS, right?

      oh right, you don't.

    10. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, the average user would tolerate that absurd experience. writing code in emacs with 300ms delay is not exactly going to convert the typical mac user.

    11. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      You liked that it was possible at all, probably saving you lengthy roadtrips to administer a remote server. But when comparing to working on a local machine, GP is entirely correct. I occasionally use a remote Windows computer. Even on our 100 Mbps company network the mouse lag is annoyingly noticeable, let alone when I'm logging in from home via an SDSL line (6 Mbps?).

    12. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by markhahn · · Score: 1

      you seem to be conflating cloud with desktop virtualization. the network needs of cloud use depend primarily on the amount of data creation or mutation going on, not on the bandwidth of the UI. it's also not clear that apple would actually win by shifting to dumber/thinner clients, as opposed to the hardware they sell now, which are basically high-margin reformatted PCs.

    13. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by tool462 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. And to the others who claim current display tech is too much, I do this daily for work (1600x1200 resolution, millions of colors) and have done so for years. It worked great on the 1.5Mbps cable connection I had a few years back. I've run 1920x1080 on my laptop from public wifi connections with no problems either. Bandwidth hasn't really been a limiting factor in my experience. Latency can be killer, though.

    14. Re:ISP caps and slow down speeds will NOT work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1920 x 1200 desktop at 32 bits .... in the 90s with xwindows / nfs / vnc over a 14.4 modem ... and liking it ...

      A 1920x1200 screen in circa 1990 ... Not sure

  17. the *real* question by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Are we reaching Peak Cloud?

    1. Re:the *real* question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. We will hit peak cloud within six months. Not after six months, within six months.

    2. Re:the *real* question by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Not yet, but I detect Global Clouding.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  18. Re:cloud based... what the heck does that mean any by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    cloud based... what the heck does that mean anyway

    We used to call them X-terminals.

    Diskless, boots off the network and connects to a central machine. In this case, the "central" is "distributed", and it may or may not have a disk.

    In short, the finest technology from the 80s is back. :-P

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  19. Expanding , not dying by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This ideal of executing what you want on your hardware in your property seems to be dying.

    It's not dying, and will never die.

    What is happening instead is that consumer choices are EXPANDING. Expanding to included choices where they really can have computers that are more secure and managed - as a side effect, they are also locked down. But it is a choice that I think is good for people to have, because most people simply cannot manage computers.

    On the Mac, soon, you'll have a choice to get applications from anywhere - or to get them from a central source that is somewhat vetted, and furthermore ends the hodge-podge of software update mechanisms to one where you get updates when they arrive without fuss. That's a huge boon to most people.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Uh, dupe within a day? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  21. Unlikely to be the reason for the datacenter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I would not be surprised to see a cloud based OS sometime in the future, I doubt that the new data center is aimed at that technology.

    Apple seems to be moving towards a cloud storage model now. With the new Apple TV lacking a hard drive, and the existence of Mobile me with default directories for applications, media, and backup files but much to low a space to do any of those adequately, I'd say it's more likely that the new data center is aimed at expanding the Mobile me offerings.

    I see the path as something like this:
    1. the cloud as a mirror for small number of high use files (where we are now)

    2. the cloud as a mirror for all files (when you could backup an enteire hard drive to the cloud)

    3. the cloud as primary storage with local storage as a mirror for offline use (as 2 but after adoption and changing OS default behavior some)

    4. Cloud boot as an option

    5. the cloud as primary storage with local storage only for high use files (cloud storage larger than local hard drives on unupgraded macs)

    6. cloud booting as default with local boot as option

    7. total thin terminal (little to no local storage, boots from the cloud, stores everything in the cloud, can't be used offline)

    1. Re:Unlikely to be the reason for the datacenter by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      An Apple computer for your TV. Only 99$USD.

      Before anyone points to previous failed attempts, remember that televisions weren't the HD displays they are today.

      And before anyone else points that HD TVs aren't anywhere near the resolution of current computer displays, they're still higher resolution than what we used to have and higher than the iPhone 4 or iPad.

    2. Re:Unlikely to be the reason for the datacenter by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      How about if I point out that an iPhone 4 (or any equivalent smart phone... it's just quick and easy to look up the iPhone specs) has approximately half the resolution of an HDTV in approximately 1/10th to 1/15th the size. Therefore making the picture approximately 1/5th to 1/8th richer. Most computer monitors also have significantly higher pixels per inch that an HDTV even at similar resolutions (though not quite as exaggerated as a phone screen). Resolution in and of itself doesn't tell you how good your picture quality will be. Blow 1080p up to the size of a movie theater screen and it'll look awful. Shrink 980x640 down to the size of an iPhone screen and it's gorgeous (though it looks blocky and poor on even an smaller computer monitor). A 1080p display at 52 inches is more than fine for video, but I don't know that I'd want to read any great amount of text on it.

      To be fair I've never really tried, it might be fine, but I suspect current HDTV's are to low a resolution for their size to make effective monitors.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:Unlikely to be the reason for the datacenter by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Stop looking at the raw numbers and read my post again. Maybe you're too young to remember, but computers used to be 640x480 and even lower when people first started using windowed operating systems.

      And if you see the pixels in your 52" display it's because you're sitting way too close to it. Ever seen the interface from the new AppleTV?

    4. Re:Unlikely to be the reason for the datacenter by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Oh no, I'm quite old enough to remember. I also remember the headaches from trying to read long documents on those screens. Even back then we knew that the resolution and screen size weren't ideal to the task at hand, it was just the best we had or could afford. That's no longer the case. There's a reason it's taken this long for e-books to really take off. Until recently it's been phenomenally uncomfortable to read a book length work on a computer screen.

      I can read stuff on my HDTV just fine and I don't *really* consciously see the pixels, but I'm also not trying to read, say, a 350 comment Slashdot article on my TV. I'm scrolling through menus, and those menus rather deliberately have a fairly large typeface. Very occasionally I might be forced to read an entire screenful or two worth of text, but that's about the extent of it. Much like I could easily and comfortably read several pages worth of information on my 640x480 monitor, but usually started to get a headache after reading on it for a couple hours or more.

      You're talking about making the TV a monitor for a general use computer. Something I might easily spend several hours working or playing on. I don't know that a 52 inch TV at 1080p will be comfortable for that, though again I've never tried and could be wrong.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  22. Re:"Your" Hardware by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    If you ask Apple really nicely, they'll let you boot it up.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  23. Re:cloud based... what the heck does that mean any by vlm · · Score: 1

    cloud based... what the heck does that mean anyway

    We used to call them X-terminals.

    Diskless, boots off the network and connects to a central machine. In this case, the "central" is "distributed", and it may or may not have a disk.

    In short, the finest technology from the 80s is back. :-P

    We called them 3270 terminals. Connect to a local cluster controller(more or less a stat mux, not a heck of a lot more), then to a NCP, then via VTAM back to the mainframe, probably a system 370 series although memory fades with time. Oddly enough that is exactly the same config I had in the mid 90s except they emulated the 3270 on PCs, mostly.

    In short, the finest technology from the 70s is back :-P

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  24. Slashdotted by AragornSonOfArathorn · · Score: 1

    Obviously, they need a bigger cloud.

    --
    sudo eat my shorts
  25. Re:Finest by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    But look at the Graphics of Tron Legacy!
    Oh - sorry - you meant Apple's equally slick graphics!
    Just don't think too hard what it all means.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  26. First I have heard of this by fotoguzzi · · Score: 2

    Slashdot has not hand an Apple or cloud article in ages.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  27. Benefit? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    For company use I can see some benefit.

    For home consumer use, I can't see the return a user gets for relying on something like this. Especially not as people move to laptops which are not connected all the time. Sure you can cache for there's nothing more obnoxious than having MOST applications cached only to find the one you really wanted to use, was not cached just as you are getting into your international plane flight...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Benefit? by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      For buisness use, I'd love to eliminate the local hard drives of my users. They're one of the most common parts to fail, and the local OS gets corrupted all the time (only the cheap ass power supplies we use fail more). There should be an immutable network copy of the OS that they load at boot time. And installing applications should be as simple as copying an image onto your server and setting the licensing information. Actually, I'd run the same setup at home, too. My wife and kid trash their copy of Windows far too often. At least Windows 7 is easier to lock down and run as non-admin than XP was.

    2. Re:Benefit? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      What you suggest has been available for over a decade. Software that will net boot and restore a system to a pristine state has been available for over a decade. Pretty much the only place I have seen it used is in training centers though. If this is a feature that admins feel is important, and yet they have not implemented it by now, I would question their competence. Buying into a whole new ecosystem to get a decade old feature simply makes no sense.

      I am surprised to hear that your wife and kid trash their copy of Windows that often. What do they do to it? I have given my son full access to Ubuntu from the ages of 1 - 4, and Windows from the ages of 3 to 6. Only once have I felt the need to do a reinstall, and that didn't REALLY need to be done. Are they installing random applications off the internet?

    3. Re:Benefit? by tycoex · · Score: 1

      My younger siblings have caused me to reinstall Windows on their crappy old Windows XP machine numerous times.

      Most of the time it was from exactly as you said. Installing random "Free smilies" or "a game my friend on facebook sent me a link to."

    4. Re:Benefit? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      My first response wants to be that they should be educated on what they are doing. After all, even if it didn't break the computer and in a 'secure' enviornment, that kind of behavior can be very dangerous.

      Of course, the reality is that they won't be. They will continue to behave irresponsibly. Likely for their entire lives. They will be totally oblivious to the damage they do to other people. So, the real answer is to approach the problem from that perspective. Having the OS loaded from a server won't solve that problem. They will still install damaging apps that will make it easier to reinstall than fix. "Free smileies" and "facebook" don't go away with a server/terminal install.

      Home servers are a simple answer to most of the problems that keep trying to be solved by these questionable services. A nightly clone of the system to the home server is a simple solution that would work at least as good if not better than handing your system over to a company for a fee. Heck, even if you did a remote boot from a home server, you would have a better system than getting it from an external company.

    5. Re:Benefit? by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      Are they installing random applications off the internet?

      Yes. It's been a tough thing to educate them out of. It's gotten better with Win 7, where running as non-admin is a viable option (and my kid is no longer allowed to install anything on her computer). The other challenge has been to make sure that their copy of Flash player was up to date. I've had to fix plenty of systems over the last few years where someone has gotten served a malicious flash ad at an otherwise trustworthy site.

    6. Re:Benefit? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I know this might sound harsh, but take it as one parent's advice to another... You REALLY need to teach your child that there are bad people out their that will try to trick them by offering them 'candy'. The PC is the safest way to teach them that.

      It sounds like it is too late for your wife, but now would be the time to teach your kids how to avoid being victims.

      I know... Easier said than done. I also know that we all have different priorities on what we put our effort into with our kids.

    7. Re:Benefit? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      I've advocated for regular users at my work to be set up on virtual machines, that can be either local or network based. Would make hardware issues much easier to deal with, as well as back ups and such. Only let techs touch the base OS.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  28. Re:cloud based... what the heck does that mean any by Paspanique · · Score: 1

    Yes and expect clouds to be pushed very hard by all those who want to control what you see, hear or write on the web.

      The only the will ever be able to control what you do, is by using central repository & computing power.

    --
    I don't have an intelligent phone, so I need to be.
  29. Re:Oh no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not how that works. It's whoever's post they see first, the others are redundant. It sucks, but it's your own fault for not being able to foresee somebody else posting the same thing.

  30. No want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap - this is the combination of my two least liked things - Apple and "The Cloud". The only way that they could possibly make this less attractive to me is if it quoted the bible to you when you when you booted it up..

    1. Re:No want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way that they could possibly make this less attractive to me is if it quoted the bible to you when you when you booted it up..

      Ask, and ye shall receive!

  31. Just Like Facebook: Act First, Ask Later by eldavojohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is happening instead is that consumer choices are EXPANDING.

    I liken it to Facebook's many privacy debacles. First let me explain how Facebook -- and I really think this is all Zuckerberg -- works. They want to increase information flow on Facebook. Even private information. But they realize that if they give the user a choice nobody's going to 'take the plunge' and the feature will largely be left as opt-in but never used. So they make it automatic and they deal with the privacy issue after it's been activated across the board. They put on a show about how they hear the users and now you have an option to disable that but it's not disabled because people have been living with it for a couple weeks and by and large nothing seriously bad has happened -- yet. A good example is the news feed debacle that caused users outrage and protests. But now everyone uses it. How did that happen? More importantly: could it have happened at all had not Zuckerberg stood up and made a decision for hundreds of millions of users? I think that answer is "no."

    When I see the Windows commercial, I don't see an option. I see a feature. I see a feature like Facebook's News Feed. It's being marketed as a feature of Windows 7. The woman is using Windows 7 and then she says "To the cloud" real James Bond like and suddenly we're "in the cloud." And that's Windows 7. People then want that. There's no "I just need to upload my photo to Google's Picassa" or any sort of steps warning the user what exactly is happening in the background. No, it's all streamlined feature rich marketing crap. Are they explaining this can be disabled? No, we'll do that later. Where's my data? Who cares? You're in the cloud, you're sexy, you're hip -- privacy is old school for the squares!

    On the Mac, soon, you'll have a choice to get applications from anywhere - or to get them from a central source that is somewhat vetted, and furthermore ends the hodge-podge of software update mechanisms to one where you get updates when they arrive without fuss. That's a huge boon to most people.

    Okay but this isn't the cloud, this is just a really streamlined distribution service. Am I the only person that wants to have two columns for the Pros and Cons of using a cloud based service as the basis of your home operating system!?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Just Like Facebook: Act First, Ask Later by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you. People have been in the cloud for years now without realizing it. Facebook is part of it, Photobucket is part of it, etc...

      Apps in the cloud have been provided as well. Google, Zoho, etc... have been providing that service for years. People haven't moved everything there yet because they're hesitant to give up control. Market it as flashy/shiny/hip though, and they'll start to.

      Then one day they'll realize they can't get to their spreadsheet because they're not able to connect to the intertubes. Oops!

      I don't have a huge problem with apps in the cloud, but people need to be aware that they're no longer in charge of securing that data, and if there's no local cache/backup, they could be hosed due to an ISP or NIC failure.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    2. Re:Just Like Facebook: Act First, Ask Later by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      When I see the Windows commercial, I don't see an option. I see a feature. I see a feature like Facebook's News Feed. It's being marketed as a feature of Windows 7. The woman is using Windows 7 and then she says "To the cloud" real James Bond like and suddenly we're "in the cloud." And that's Windows 7.

      "Sell the sizzle, not the steak."

    3. Re:Just Like Facebook: Act First, Ask Later by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Except that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WINDOWS 7! It's Windows Office Live, the next version of Office. They are using a cloud based version of Microsoft Office.

  32. Re:The Book of Jobs by gstoddart · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everything is rented. Why get fleeced once when you can get fleeced monthly.

    Expect Microsoft and everybody else to copy this right away and get on with the fleecing.

    iAppliance based. Run your iApp (be it movie player, image editor, skype or game) on any of your iPad/iPod/iPhone/iMac/iMini/iWhatever. Talk on your iPhone then when you get to work it shifts to your iMac. Play an iGame iApp on your iPad and when you get home shift it to your 42" iTV iAppliance.

    In the 80's and 90's, Xerox used to call that ubiquitous computing. And, it's actually a cool idea if it ever happens.

    Safety. Our walled garden is totally secure. All your interactions are done through iApps.

    When Microsoft steal this idea, you will be locked in the garden with the land-mines and kept in with razor-wire. Walking on the grass will be prohibited. Occasionally, wolves will get in.

    The reality is, everybody is likely going to try this. The user experience and amount of lock-in will differ. I bet MBAs all over the world are salivating as to how they can move absolutely everything to a subscription model, and if you stop paying, you lose all of the data you've ever had. Don't think this is unique to Apple.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. Big Data Center??? by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Hasn't everyone been trying to guess what the big data center they are building is for? Well, this could be the answer you're looking for... TFTP booting has been around since the days of Xterms, maybe even before then.

    It makes perfect sense for user-recovery as well. Imagine this: You've dropped your macbook, and now it won't boot from the HD, but can automatically default to net-booting into a utility that will attempt to repair the HD. It will also allow you to boot into a stripped down OS that allows you to copy all your important files to a USB stick or maybe to a ".mac" cloud destination.

    The current Macbook Air doesn't eve have a HD -- it uses flash. Just imagine how much thinner they'll be able to make that computer if all it is, is a screen, keyboard and some wireless networking. Then it really will be a Macbook "Air" -- the whole machine becomes a true "netbook" in that it boots and runs from the internet.

    Just wait until Apple figures out how to power it from the network as well. No batteries needed.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Big Data Center??? by Astatine · · Score: 1

      Gratuitous pedantry: There's no way any cloud-booted computer will use either PXE or TFTP. Those protocols are designed for trusted networks and are far too insecure to operate across the Internet.

      They might have invented some secure protocol to do the same thing. However, I reckon it's probably integrated cloud storage support rather than cloud booting, as other posters suggested earlier. Cloud booting or display rendering in the cloud sounds too likely to give a bad user experience due to ISP issues.

    2. Re:Big Data Center??? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Though there could be value in making cloud booting an option for emergency situation like GP describes. Imagine this:

      You go buy your new iCloud. At "boot up" it asks for your .mac account information (really this would be more like a fancy BIOS than an actual OS boot, that would occur later). It then asks if this is a new iCloud or a replacement for your old one. If it's new the system boots with a clean image either stored in its flash memory or downloaded from the site for the first time and stored for future boots. If it's a replacement the system boots with the image of your old system. All your settings, applications, etc are all there. So if you upgrade from an iCloud to an iCloud 3, your new box has all the new power and features, but all of your old familiar setup. If you have to replace your iCloud due to damage or warranty, your new one is just like your old one.

      On the one hand this is sort of terrifying, on the other I can see advantages for a lot of people. Of course you'd want to system to cache your image and not download it every time, and you'd want backups to be scheduled for convenient times to avoid bandwidth limitations, but all in all it could be quite useful for some types of users.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  35. tenzig_112 by tenzig_112 · · Score: 1

    I'm starting to see a few user advantages to this approach- more or less. Theoretically, everything would be on-demand. So, every application would be instantly updatable, and trying new apps could be simpler, too. But it comes attached to a devil's bargain.

    On the positive side, it would give developers a much better way to control their content and derive revenue from it. On the negative side, however, it would give developers a much better way to control their content and derive revenue from it. Since most of us are both, we probably experience some degree of ambivalence here.

  36. Shoe is on the other foot:Apple now copying google by TonyXL · · Score: 1

    iChromeOS

  37. Re:cloud based... what the heck does that mean any by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    In short, the finest technology from the 70s is back :-P

    *laugh* Why, yes. Now someone will likely point out that back in the 60s they had this as well.

    That, or that they didn't have terminals in the 60s, and they had to toggle in the boot sequence on the front of the machine before they could even begin to start feeding the punch cards. Up hill, both ways. In the dark. And they had to get their own firewood to fire up the tape drives. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  38. Re:cloud based... what the heck does that mean any by timeOday · · Score: 1

    Nah, dumb clients won't come back soon. What I can imagine, though, is an OS where your disk image resides on a server somewhere, at your local client just caches it. You could argue that's not much different than, say, linux today, since almost all software originates from the network anyways. But using a caching infrastructure would create a presumption that the device software is updated every time at boot.

  39. Re:The Book of Jobs by click2005 · · Score: 1

    In the 80's and 90's, Xerox used to call that ubiquitous computing [wikipedia.org]. And, it's actually a cool idea if it ever happens.

    It is a cool idea but I just dont agree with it being cloud based. I'd rather have my own hub at home so I get to control my media and data. I'd only use cloud for off-site backups.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  40. apple is no longer trustworthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    given that amazon recently yanked the services from wikileaks and apple has yanked the wikileaks app, why would anyone trust apple with their cloud? i'm an apple fan from way back, but with all the recent censoring by apple, i've had enough. i'm not buying, nor suggesting, to friends and family to buy a mac.

    1. Re:apple is no longer trustworthy by haydensdaddy · · Score: 1

      Not that refusing to support a quasi-criminal organization is a good indicator, but when exactly did they start being trustworthy?

  41. Cloud-based? by Samuraid · · Score: 1

    I, for one, do NOT welcome our cloud-based overlords.

    --
    if ($question !~ m/bb|[^b]{2}/i) { die(); }
    1. Re:Cloud-based? by jolyonr · · Score: 1

      I, for one, do NOT welcome our cloud-based overlords.

      Don't worry. Every cloud has a silver lining.

      --


      Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
    2. Re:Cloud-based? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I, for one, do NOT welcome our cloud-based overlords.

      Don't worry. Every cloud has a silver lining.

      Yeah. It used to be your silver. Now it belongs to them.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  42. Re:The Book of Jobs by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    I'd only use cloud for off-site backups.

    And, really, only if it was heavily encrypted.

    Under the Patriot act, they can basically force US owned companies to hand over anything they like. As a result, companies here in Canada often can't use something hosted in the US (or owned by a US company) as it basically violates our legal protections. Nothing from the Federal government can go there, and likely some kinds of business run risks.

    If you put data into the cloud, you lose control over who has access to it -- especially with multi-national companies being involved. If your data lands in a place where the government has given themselves ready access, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

    Companies putting data into the cloud do so at some risk.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  43. Introducing Mac Cloud. There Ya Go! by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FepgxmNDuZ4

    Mac Cloud. It don't take no guff.

    .

  44. Dupe ! by steve6534 · · Score: 3, Informative
  45. OS X has offered netboot for years. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    You can netboot macs right now in a corporate or educational environment with the right server setup.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    1. Re:OS X has offered netboot for years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Mac geniuses don't know how to do it!

    2. Re:OS X has offered netboot for years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, the 80s are calling and want their netwares back... Seriously, what's your point? Most OSs have been able to net-boot since decades. And btw, we may as well go back to mainframes but use some more gfx advanced terminals.

  46. Re:The Book of Jobs by Tridus · · Score: 1

    Same thing with the provinces. Microsoft keeps asking us to try their cloud stuff, and we can't find something that we can legally put there due to poor US laws.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  47. Re:The Book of Jobs by v1 · · Score: 1

    Occasionally, wolves will get in.

    rotfl. that has to be one of the most entertaining analogies I've read in quite awhile.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  48. VDI on a Consumer Scale by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    This looks like it could be a move to allow people to purchase an appliance that would connect to an Virtual Desktop environment. Similar to what we're seeing in the enterprise space with Wyse, Citrix, VmWare etc... whereby the user has a 'dumb terminal' at their desk and their OS is actually running on a VM in the datacenter. This significantly cuts down the costs especially with those that don't need the mobility of a laptop or specialized hardware at the desktop (graphics designers come to mind). But if you're doing Outlook/IE/Office or even if you're a programmer (VI/EMACS etc...) there's no reason your entire environment couldn't be hosted in the datacenter.

  49. Re:The Book of Jobs by click2005 · · Score: 1

    Off-site cloud backups would be great for media, game scores & settings but obviously not anything private.

    Cue the re-opening of SeaLand as an off-site data store until the next 'fire'.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  50. WTF...Value anybody? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

    Apple: Charging even more, for even less, since 1984.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  51. Re:The Book of Jobs by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Off-site cloud backups would be great for media

    Until the media companies decide that constitutes copyright infringement. :(

    Cue the re-opening of SeaLand as an off-site data store until the next 'fire'.

    You know, no matter what the SeaLand people say, if they ever became pesky enough they would discover they have nowhere near the autonomy or legal protections they claim. It just doesn't work that way.

    Absolutely no sovereign state recognizes them. If push came to shove, they're going to get stepped on like a bug.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  52. Re:The Book of Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget that if you step on their TOS, and the hosting provider decides to ban that account, it means loss of a good chunk of information and perhaps money spent (think Steam when they ban people with VAC where hundreds of dollars in purchased games are rendered permanently inaccessible.)

  53. Re:The Book of Jobs by Gilmoure · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now all restaurants are Taco Bell.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  54. Re:The Book of Jobs by click2005 · · Score: 1

    Until the media companies decide that constitutes copyright infringement. :(

    As its only a backup I'm more than happy to run it through PGP/TrueCrypt a few times first. If they want to go through the trouble of trying to access my encrypted data I'd even help by telling them one character from one of the passwords.

    I agree with you about SeaLand but it wont stop someone trying. I just hope a few companies will do it competently in a country that respects privacy.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  55. Re:The Book of Jobs by Nikker · · Score: 1

    Encrypting your data on the cloud is pretty much a pipe dream in most circumstances. The whole idea of "Cloud Computing" is that you have your data worked on off site and it's not possible to do much processing on raw encrypted data. It's likely you will have to use Apple's CA to encrypt your data and it will be encrypted as far as others on the same "Cloud/process" see it but if anyone with a lawyer came knocking they would pony up the keys right quick. Never mind this opens up a rich playing field for black hats as far as escaping VM's go. Now you know for sure your data will be rubbing elbows with high profile data and if you can exploit that in any way you can have access to the whole bit farm, now that will be a big incentive. Why just hack grandmas computer or maybe get into one company's system when you can grab hundreds or thousands at once?

    --
    A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
  56. The More Things Change... by withoutfeathers · · Score: 1

    Maybe they can call the cloud piece OS CCCLXX.

  57. Re:The Book of Jobs by vbraga · · Score: 1

    In the 80's and 90's, Xerox used to call that ubiquitous computing [wikipedia.org]. And, it's actually a cool idea if it ever happens.

    Is this the same thing of the older Oracle Network Computer hype?

    I don't why this idea is always been revived in a way or another as the time goes.

    --
    English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  58. Re:The Book of Jobs by Fineliner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft to steal this ?, they where earlier on cloud software, earlier with virtualization, and i advised them to use a online store with windows 98.
    For years you have been able to buy 3th party software through their channels; but they never named it app store acka app shop.
    The reason for this is there are many others who develop for Microsoft in fact everyone is free to create whatever they want; from porn games to autocad.
    But those developers are never bound to Microosft alone they are free to run their own sites. (but you see Microsoft helping many startup companies).

    Before you think the ipad is new... i dont see why.
    maybe i'm a power user and demand a bit more from a touch screen netbook then a ipad can deliver (i'm running vmware here on a touchscreen netbook....)
    While i still am able to convert my own CD's to MP3 and use them on every device i have.. it is wonderfull magic.. its just different.
    I'm less about the outside looks rather about inside performance; the kind of guy that does pay a bit more to get cowon audio /video devices.
    And no I dont even call it luxery or trendy, no it's simple quality, and freedom to exchange my music.

    Like there are script kiddies using ipad and hackers who re-design their netbooks; and dont even want to be cool because of a cheap gadget..hilarious isnt it :)

  59. Re:The Book of Jobs by vbraga · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I wonder if homomorphic encryption could change this landscape, allowing the processing of data in a third party site but allowing the data owner to keep it's privacy.

    --
    English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  60. Re:Shoe is on the other foot:Apple now copying goo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iChrome-ba

  61. Re:Lock In by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Would 2013 finally be the Year of the Linux Desktop if that's the only version that doesn't go Subscription?

    I think we'd be due also for an XP-User zombie rebellion if Windows 9 tried to go Cloud/Azure only.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  62. Pretty weird timing to be off-loading the OS by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

    Who in their right mind would want to net-boot even a portion of the OS now that solid state drives are affordable?

    --

    War as we knew it was obsolete
    Nothing could beat complete denial
    - Emily Haines
  63. Re:The Book of Jobs by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

    It's not practical for the way companies want you to use the cloud (ie as an essentially seamless piece of your work flow), but if you're just using the cloud as an off site backup it's pretty trivial to encrypt the data before it leave your system. You'd have to pull it back and decrypt it to actually use it, but while it's in the cloud it's just an encrypted blob. It'd be inconvenient as hell for actual work documents, but fine for a backup.

    Personally I keep a number of files with no real private data on my Dropbox in a normal unencrypted form so I can grab them if I need them (things like my resume, some spreadsheets I use to model my WoW character, a copy of my insurance card (becasue I ALWAYS forget to print the damned things and put them in my glove box), etc. I also have an encrypted blob that contain some stuff that I want to make sure I don't lose, but which contains more personal information ( a copy of my DD-214 which has my social on it, some bank stuff, scanned copies of mortgage stuff, etc). If I ever want to actually USE any of that I'll have to download it and decrypt it first, but I have it and it's fairly safe. Since I also keep local copies and a local backup If Dropbox ever fails I'll just find a new provider.

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  64. Not sure I understand your point by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    In addition to a Dropbox-like service

    But they already have a Dropbox-like service - iDisk. It's not as good as Dropbox, but it's pretty Dropbox-like.

    it seems reasonable for Apple to fully integrate MobileMe into the next version of OS X

    I'm not sure how much more integrated it could get. iDisks mount up just like local disks. MobileMe mail is integrated w/ Mail.app. Galleries goes hand-in-hand w/ iPhoto. Etc.

    Considering the upload speed and reliability of typical residential broadband, I also don't see what the cloud offers end users at this point beyond limited storage and syncing. Anything else would raise privacy concerns, waste bandwidth, and—perhaps most importantly—detract from the "native app experience" that Apple so cares about.

    I'm with you on this one. I'm on a FiOS connection, and I still wouldn't want to have to pull major parts of my OS and/or applications over the "wire" every time I booted up. That's nuts.

    1. Re:Not sure I understand your point by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my last post could have used a bit more editing. The Dropbox reference actually came from the GP, who suggested:

      something very like Dropbox will be more integrated into the system

      I was expanding on that, saying it would be nice to see all of MobileMe become included with OS X instead of being sold as a separate product. With Chrome OS (and Google's services in general) offering cloud-based storage for free, Apple should suck up the cost and make free MobileMe another selling point for the Mac.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Not sure I understand your point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But they already have a Dropbox-like service - iDisk. It's not as good as Dropbox, but it's pretty Dropbox-like.

      Sort of, but it doesn't work nearly so well, because iDisk is primarily a remote disk that happens to be cached locally, where Dropbox is a local directory that happens to be mirrored remotely.

      That's the million dollar difference, because iDisk sucks to work on or in, whereas Dropbox imposes no overhead when using.

      The difference also illustrates just why you don't want the "cloud" having anything to do with primary operation of a computer. At best the cloud should always be someplace data gets to eventually.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  65. For sure by Gulthek · · Score: 1

    It'll be one data store with your info, email, apps, documents, etc. The iPad will present one interface, the iPhone another, the laptop yet another. All the same "computer" data and settings.

  66. Re:The Book of Jobs by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    . Safety. Our walled garden is totally secure. All your interactions are done through iApps.

    Huh? How can that be? Apple cannot possibly review and rigorously test every line of code to be vulnerability and malicious behaviour free. Considering it's rather trivial to hide malicious code in place sight, or introduce a deliberate coding mistake. They could only ever catch very obvious malicious behaviour and only if that emerges while in testing considering the logisitical impossiblity of Apple to thoroughly test the hundreds of thousands of App submissions, therefore it's safe to assume they've only done the most obvious and basic testing. They are also extremely tight lipped about their testing process.

    That is of course, if the walled garden is about our safety at all.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  67. Re:The Book of Jobs by erroneus · · Score: 1

    The "why" is simple. Every software, data handling and network service provider knows that business depends on its data. At the moment, most business controls their own data. What they want is to take control of your data and then make you pay for the privilege.

    The Federal Reserve scheme was presented to the US government several times before they finally bought into it... and now the government isn't in control of the money any longer. See how much better things are now that we can have a humongous federal deficit instead of only spending what we have?

  68. Re:The Book of Jobs by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it will keep getting revived until we actually reach the point where we have it. It seems like a good idea and is probably inevitable to some extent. I take it you disagree?

    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  69. 3 words: SET TOP BOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all are missin' how Apple's broken the cell phone sales model (at least in the US) and how they're now positioned to leverage into another market where the provider's previous dominance has limited consumer choice of devices. They're gonna put forth an AppleTV type system that netboots from the cableco's network (thereby ensuring the integrity of the system, at least to the cableco's requirements) but allows end users to install their own apps. And Apple's perfectly positioned to do this; moreover they must use the cable-compatible ATV akin to the iPhone if they don't want to be run out of the market completely by the likes of Comcast. So this is their trojan horse; and hopefully it will have the same effects on the cable set top box market that the iPhone had on smartphones - to raise the bar for consumer choice.
    g=

  70. Re:The Book of Jobs by joeyblades · · Score: 0

    they where earlier on cloud software...

    For instance?

    earlier with virtualization...

    I find this claim highly dubious, but I'm willing to listen to your evidence.

    ... there are many others who develop for Microsoft in fact everyone is free to create whatever they want; from porn games to autocad.

    This is true of Apple software as well. Don't confuse the app store distribution model with the entire application space.

    You're right. The iPad was not designed for users like you. Neither is your vmware netbook designed for users like me. I'm a different level of power user who needs unix and the full power of a computing platform that a netbook simply can't muster... Different strokes for different folks.

    ...hilarious isnt it

    More than you know.

  71. Re:The Book of Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much more likely, some of your home directory folders will be stored in the cloud so that your calendar, ~/Documents, and ~/Libraries folders sink automagically.

  72. Re:The Book of Jobs by gstoddart · · Score: 0

    While i still am able to convert my own CD's to MP3 and use them on every device i have.. it is wonderfull magic.. its just different.

    Are you asserting I can't do this? All of my music is DRM-free MP3s I ripped either from FreeBSD or iTunes and use on whatever device I choose. Have been for a decade now.

    Most of the rest of what you wrote is bordering on incomprehensible, so I won't even try.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  73. Once again, XKCD nailed this. by neiras · · Score: 1

    See http://xkcd.com/743/ ...

    People want the safety and security that comes from having a trusted party manage their computers for them... Most normal people just see it as a tool, and if someone else will change the oil and the spark plugs for them, then that's even better.

    A car *is* just a tool that provides mobility. If your car breaks, you fix it or get another and you're right back to driving around. Your car is under your control, the roads are a common asset, and as long as you follow driving laws and have the economic ability to purchase one, you can do what you like with it. This is the ideal situation.

    If your car chose to cease functioning because you fingered the manufacturer's CEO in traffic (thus breaking the no-obscenity clause in the car's TOS) would you be OK with that? Should that TOS even be allowed?

    If cloud infrastructure becomes the norm, and local storage becomes somehow 'second tier' or 'for the poor', the commons of the network will cease to matter, and the very existence of a server on the internet will be subject to, say Amazon's Terms Of Service. See Wikileaks for an example of what to expect.

    It's not hard to foresee a day when ISPs start shutting down access to sites not hosted on approved, "secure" clouds, at least for their basic service tiers. You'll pay extra for the 'full' internet. Most people won't bother because "everything they need is in the cloud", and they'll be happy with the lack of viruses and spam in the walled garden. The lack of IPV4 addresses might be used to drive this. Amazon might give away 'private' Elastic IP addresses to AWS customers, ISPs might pay to route customers to the AWS namespace. Suddenly Average Joe will be demanding lock-in as a feature.

    The proliferation of tablets and dumbed-down, specialized devices with limited or no local storage will only encourage this evolution.

    And it's the same way here, except to a few ultra-paranoids who think that everything is all about "the man controlling our data". Sorry, it just isn't. Apple doesn't give a crap about your data. They're just providing a service that the average guy who isn't a technophile *wants*. And that's why Cloud computing will take off. Technophiles have a 100% track record of being wrong about these things, because they don't understand that almost nobody else values what they value.

    You really are mixing up your arguments, and your smugness is misplaced. This isn't about technophiles versus "normal people", or "ultra-paranoids" versus "average guys". Cloud computing has *already* taken off. We certainly understand that consumers don't value anything but cheapness and convenience. We're Technophiles, not Morons.

    We're waving our hands because we understand the technical and social tradeoffs that are about to be made by our non-technical fellows. We are concerned for society and for everyone's abillity to build and use technology freely.

    Technophiles built the digital ground you stand on. Cloud vendors will probably succeed in baiting Joe User back into an AOL-style walled garden, and you're free to go with him.

    Enjoy your happy slavery while our tiny minority tries to figure out how to protect you from yourself. Or do some thinking, forgo some convenience, and help us help you: don't buy into the cloud if you can help it, even if Jobs makes it shiny.

  74. Bruce McIntosh by BCMcI · · Score: 1

    I could see this being a very useful evolution of either the mac or windows operating systems if it gave us users the ability to instantly and economically access cloud computing power for some of the really computation intensive tasks like Video editing. I would actually prefer it if it were Microsoft because they seem now less intrusive than the new Apple. I am not willing to have anyone control my user experience to the extent that they do.

  75. Nah, it's always a bad thing by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    we all use and depend on the modern desktop computer, and the OS is a pretty basic element of that. At this stage in mankinds' development they qualify as essential infrastructure. Let the gov't (in the form of grants to GNU/OSS developers) drive OS development. Just like they do the roads.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  76. Probably not for the Mac itself... by TellarHK · · Score: 1

    I've been talking about this for around a week now, without reading any of the other online speculation beyond the pieces that seem to fit together nicely. The way Apple seems to be migrating themselves as a company, they're slowly edging into network appliance territory and away from general purpose computing. That isn't to say they're going to drop general purpose systems like the current Mac line altogether, but I suspect they're on target to go ahead and reintroduce a whole new category that those of us who have been around for a long time have seen before as Information or Network Appliances.

    Only this time, they'll have the proper groundwork laid for it to succeed.

    My personal suspicion is that they'll introduce a new Mobile Me experience (Me.com, is it?) and tie that together with a fourth pillar of the company's product lineup, likely something to replace the Mac Mini but limited to App Store software. Of course, the limitation will mean they can make this new product with cheaper parts and at a typically-Apple high margin. Storage will be cloud based as everyone pretty much expects, and it'll share out to iOS devices and full-tilt computers. Though, the latter category might be a while in arriving on the desktop.

    Of all the companies that have tried, or could try, to run a cloud based system introduction, nobody's ever been better positioned than Apple is right now. They've got the hardware, the experience to make the software, and most importantly the mindshare to achieve the kind of critical mass necessary for cloud based systems to be economically viable along with the cash to start it up.

    Privacy and security implications are of course a big question, but the inevitability of this kind of product has been building for a long while.

    I wish I'd had some money for stock. :P

  77. Y'know, I've been on /. long enough by jimicus · · Score: 1

    and I see all sorts of people saying "This is a lousy idea! Anyone who uses it is a fool!"

    I swear half the time what they mean is "This is a great idea! I just wish I had the knowledge to be able to implement it myself!". That or "I don't like the idea of Apple enjoying success!"

    1. Re:Y'know, I've been on /. long enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, if you replaced Apple with Google in the article then you would see many commenters screaming about how great it was, how Apple is behind the times, etc.

      Regardless, something like this might work for "rarely boot" machines, like their latest Air. The thing really only needs to boot the first time or after it has been shut down, which is probably rare.

    2. Re:Y'know, I've been on /. long enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That or "I don't like the idea of Apple enjoying success!"

      I have no problem with Apple's success. They've earned their success.

      ...for the most part.

  78. Solved though... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Apple has already solved that with Time Machine, in that you can just roll back the system a day or so pretty easily.

    Perhaps this cloud thing is just moving Time Machine out into the cloud so you don't even need a HD - other companies are doing large scale backup already, why not Apple to?

    In fact this would be a real boon because even as simple as TM is, people do not check to see if the TM disks are still operational...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  79. Re:The Book of Jobs by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

    You completely forgot that there will be adds you have to click to be able to use the OS, that it will run on a water-cooled laptop that can change the case color and will have a mouse with a rotary dial. Because we all know that Apple actually implements everything it patents.

    --
    Fandroids hate facts.
  80. Mother of All Demos by awtbfb · · Score: 1

    Clearly, GP is not familiar with the Mother of All Demos. The main computer was on the other end of a 1968 modem.

  81. Re:The Book of Jobs by vbraga · · Score: 1

    I have no strong opinions on this point. I'm just a skeptic and a pessimist: since it did not work before, I'm not really believing it's going to work now, if something doesn't fundamentally changed the landscape.

    I always feels like people are trying to build a fancy IBM3270 and are thinking that they invented something new.

    --
    English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  82. Re:The Book of Jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this claim highly dubious, but I'm willing to listen to your evidence.

    Its true! They bought Connectix who did Virtual PC for the Mac in June 1997. Thats the same as doing it yourself right?

  83. Five Simple Words by hacker · · Score: 1
    You Can't Jailbreak the Cloud... at least that's what they think.

    How do you run their CloudOS while on an airplane? In a train tunnel? While disconnected from the Internet itself?

    There's a growing, ignorant view that everyone has access to Internet all the time, and that's simply not true, and in fact, is growing in the opposite direction. Many people are taking their devices with them more and more, and finding that they have less connectivity than they thought they did.

    Home? Yes. Work? Yes. Friend's house? Yes. But all the touch points in-between? No, not likely... so what then?

  84. He is... Steven MacCloud by a_hanso · · Score: 1

    He is... Steven MacCloud of the Clan McCloud. He cannot die, unless you take his head, and with it, his iPower.

  85. Insert "Powers of Ten" shot by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

    This would be a monumentally stupid move. Far too many people use their computers where there is no Internet access let alone one with enough bandwidth to do something like this.
    Furthermore, this will only lead to renting software every effing month.