Slashdot Mirror
Could Apple Kill Off Mac OS X?
Barence writes "When Steve Jobs announced last night that he was 'going to demote the PC and the Mac to just be a device,' it was the clearest indication yet that Apple is phasing out Mac OS X, argues PC Pro's Barry Collins. 'Over the past couple of months, there have been continual rumours that Apple is testing the iPad's A5 processor in its MacBook range, suggesting Apple believes iOS could stretch further than smartphones and tablets,' Collins argues. Plus, Apple would take a 30% cut on all Mac software if it mandated downloads via the App Store only. 'The only part of Apple's portfolio where iOS doesn't make sense is in the high-end. Yet, Apple's already discontinued its Xserve range of servers and... it's almost exclusively fixated on the consumer market,' he argues."
Leave my fucking PC alone, thank you.
I can't see an iOS based IDE working.
Personally, I think this would be a pretty stupid move for Apple. If something like this ever were to happen, count me out -- I would no longer buy any Apple laptops or desktops.
at 30% say good buy to office and adobe software on the mac.
As well of alot of free mac software.
Jobs comes across as the greediest villain (black turtleneck sans fluffy white cat) since the early days of Bill Gates...
Loading...
Apple is not going to kill of Mac OS X. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: Mac OS X's future is on high end workstations, targeting the professional and power user markets. Apple's consumer strategy will be centered on iOS.
Palm trees and 8
Or, should I say "linkbait" instead.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Yes, TFA seems to say the same thing, except with a more negative attitude about Apple's interest in the high end workstation market.
Palm trees and 8
Jobs' arrogance is repulsive.
So we have a Windows columnist suggesting that Apple is going to kill off OSX?
Sure it could happen.
This is akin to Microsoft killing off Windows.
Sure it could happen.
Monkeys might flight out of my butt.
Have you seen the list of features in Lion? Half of them are basically turning Mac OS X into iOS Lite.
For example: Full screen apps. Like iOS, you can still run multiple apps - but you can only see one of them at a time.
For example: the Launchpad. This is literally the iOS Home screen.
For example: touch gestures. Safari is being redesigned to look and act like Mobile Safari. The scrollbar is gone, replaced with the little gray thing Mobile Safari does. The zoom in/zoom out feature is reworked to zoom the entire page like Mobile Safari does.
They're already positioning their App Store as the only official way to get software for Mac OS X.
It's no longer a question of "can they" it's a question of "when will they."
The Apple cannot do this - they have too much to lose. All the "creatives" who use macs are their greatest evangelists and if Apple takes their "toys" away, they will turn to foes. There won't be a single Apple device appearing casually in movies & TV shows as the angry Final Cut editors will airbrush them out.
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
In Bill Gates' book from 1995, "The Road Ahead", he discusses how computing switched from "mainframe"-type applications where the bulk of the storage and processing was done by a centralized system, and how that was falling out of favor for a more distributed desktop PC environment. He further predicted this model would eventually revert back to the "mainframe" (now known as "cloud").
Steve Jobs must have read this book.
Locking down a device is one thing, but locking out all other software on what is still a personal computer would provoke rumours of monopoly, I rectum.
Every time these "Future of the Mac" I predict that there will come a time when EVERYTHING from Apple will be just as locked down as the iPhone/iPad, and every time I get laughed at for saying it. Yet with every announcement, Apple moves closer and closer to phasing out their last open platform.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
My first thought was that this is all part of his rather unhealthy hatred toward Adobe. It is another way to attack them. Now I am beginning to wonder if he really just hates the idea that anybody would actually do anything that is intellectually active on his hardware. Getting rid of OSX is another strike for passivity!
I think this conclusion is a bit hard to reach. the comment about "demoting" the mac is no indication whatsoever about the future of OSX. the comment was made entirely in the context of cloud computing and where the "truth" is stored. not saying that apple won't perhaps phase out OSX, just that this keynote was no evidence of it.
I personally don't think they will remove it. I can see them bringing the two OS's closer together in look and feel, but I think they will remain distinct for sometime to come at least.
Yes!!!
No!!!
Maybe!!!
I figured this might be coming. Between Windows 8 trying to become a cell phone UI and Apple's brilliant idea to place an eject key on its keyboards instead of a forward delete key, it won't be long before a PC is completely gimped and useless to anyone that produces anything. Apple hit it big with its touch screen UI. So big that they're going to impale themselves on it.
hey slashdot, give me my 5 minutes back!
The usual place I see Macs is when I head down to the graphics studio or Marketing departments at work- those guys use Macs as their all-purpose computers to make use of their (I'm told) top-quality or industry standard graphics and media editing software.
I can't really imagine those guys (or our procurement) switching to a form factor other than big-screen desktop machine or high-end laptop. That means the only way Mac could be "phased out" for them would be if iOS could work as a drop-in replacement, with no loss of features or software suite. Seeing as iOS is just Mac optimised for a different form factor and with a different software suite, I'm not sure I can really see the point in doing that. It would be an awful lot of leg-work just to end up where they already are.
... But I would bet that every bit of market reashearch they've done on it says it's a hands-down bad idea. If it will be somebody's primary computer, it needs to be more flexible than iOS. I could see it competing with chomebooks, though.
Simple logic: Lots of people would stop buying Macs if Apple killed MacOS X. Nobody would suddenly start buying Macs if Apple killed MacOS X. Some people would stop buying Macs if they thought that Apple would eventually kill MacOS X. For these three reasons, it is totally unreasonable to believe that MacOS X is going. Because this believe is totally unreasonable, the only people making that claim are either total idiots, or they are trolls. Or both.
(Those idiots who think Apple only cares about iPhones and iPads should realise that Apple is the worlds most profitable PC maker, making more profits from building desktop computers and laptops than anyone else, including HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba and so on)
At 30% why would office and Adobe software be a good buy? Extra cheap or something?
Apple just recently announced Final Cut Pro X, they've revamped XCode, and they're heavy into LLVM and clang. Doesn't seem like they're ditching the Mac any time soon. An iPad with iMovie is fine, just like Garageband is fine (and a lot of fun to use!), but for my next $100 million dollar blockbuster, I'm going to want more robust tools.
All the content consumed on an iphone, ipad,etc., has got to originate from somewhere, and I think apple would be happy to have both ends of the spectrum: the content producers and the content consumers.
"When Steve Jobs announced last night that he was 'going to demote the PC and the Mac to just be a device,' it was the clearest indication yet that Apple is phasing out Mac OS X, argues PC Pro's Barry Collins
In context, this was while hyping a cloud computing solution that at the moment is a little more than shared storage. To me this isn't a very clear indication of anything except increased interoperability with a cloud service, possibly for automatic synchronization of settings and access to the same documents and media. I'll take that to mean that there is no clear indication yet that Apple is phasing out Mac OS X.
How would that not be any more egregious then what MS was convicted for.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
This is total linkbait. Just like the one from pcworld asking whether OS X Lion could be Apples Vista. This article has no research behind it whatsoever, I do not understand how this trash can get on slashdot, it annoys me. A single quote: "iOS is mainstream: Mac OS X isn’t and likely never will be." Based on what research?!?! Just yesterday at the keynote, they announced that the OS X platform has risen to new heights and the PC market has shrunk. Android is gaining on the smartphone market. Why the hell would they bet everything on one horse if they have two that perform perfectly well?!
But if you really think about it, it's not a terrible idea. It doesn't work for the /. but for the typical user, it makes sense. For most, a computer is a consumption device. Make a decent word processor that works for it, and some cheap-ass photo resizing software, and the average user wouldn't miss out an a thing, and they'd love it. With the App store being an integrated part of it (I imagine they will make it impossible or highly difficult to install outside software), and Steve-o and the gang now control the approval and distribution of virtually all Mac software and take a 30% cut of everything. From a business standpoint, it won't hurt their desktop sales one bit (probly give them a bump), it'll lower OS dev costs, and it will give them a huge revenue stream coming through the App store. I have no doubt they'll maintain some sort of "Pro" version for the tech savvy crowd, but it'll be second seat to the "iOS" version. My $.02
Of course they're not going to kill it off. The only people suggesting as much are paranoid Apple haters. If nothing else, Apple will need OS X to enable developers to build applications for iOS devices.
I knew as soon as I heard Steve Jobs say those words about demoting the PC that they would be taken entirely wrongly by some people. But all that he meant is that they're extracting a feature (the storage hub and interconnect of all iDevices) from the PC and moving it to iCloud. He only meant that iCloud sees the PC as "just another device" that isn't given special treatment above and beyond what iOS devices are given. But even then he went on to contradict that statement by revealing the particulars of the implementation. iOS devices will not store all information (songs, photos, etc) that OS X computers will.
In shortthere's nothing to see herejust a misinterpreted phrase from a 2-hour presentation that mistakenly confirms the paranoid beliefs of people who want to see Apple in a negative light. There's no logical reason to believe what the story claims. Apple knows that it needs OS X to maintain its developer community. They know that without the developer community, people would abandon iOS. So until developers can do everything they need to do to create apps for iOS on iOS itself, OS X isn't going away.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
What I believe Jobs meant was that he wanted to demystify the idea of having a home computer. It should be thought of as a simple staple of the household much like a radio, television, or microwave oven. And be as easy to use. Then again, how much were microwaves when they first came out and how long before they became as popular as televisions?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
Apple have now fallen so far up their own ass under Steve Jobs the only way they're going to get out of the hole they're digging is for Jobs to die or Apple get rejected by the market. Whatever magic Jobs had has been crushed under the weight of his own too narrow focus and insecurities like Gordon Brown. iCloud is the new phoney election.
Apple are just too expensive, elitist, and closed off. They're riding the iTunes cash cow like Labour did with the financial services sector but that's a bubble waiting to burst. If Apple don't rediscover their own roots (and I think it's almost certainly too late now) then Apple will have just become another corporate peddling cans of baked beans and handed the industry to Microsoft. Again.
It's unbelievable that someone as clever as Jobs could make a dummy like Ballmer look smart but that's what he's doing right now. Jobs is now so out of original ideas and lost touch that everything from now on is just an ego saving exercise. Maybe he's spent too long in the boardroom or living a life of aesthetic luxury but Jobs doesn't connect with the regular guy. He doesn't represent aspiration anymore and has just become a tease. A what might have been.
> As well of alot of free mac software.
why would free mac software be driven away?
Opening the app store on my hackintosh it displays info about what I already have installed, even though all software was downloaded else ware. It would not surprise me if they leveraged this info to project additional profits when selling directly through the app store.
Apple has also said repeatedly that the same UI for touch does not work for desktops.
Demotion to a peer means OS X is EQUAL TO iOS, not deprecated.
What a piece of nonsense.
OS X is the backend of the entire Apple world. While you could theoretically run things like iTunes on an iOS device as an app, where do you think all those apps come from? Hint: They don't grow on trees.
There is no 30% cut if people don't have development machines. And that means Xcode, and engines and frameworks. And that means a general-purpose OS. Namely, OS X.
Really, how dumb do you have to be to think that a car company is going to sell its future models without engines just because they focus on the design of the body and the exquisite interior?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Because damnit man, 30% of nothing is a hell of a lot of something, and would bankrupt those poor developers.
After all, we all know there's no free programs on iOS.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
Remember that when the original iPhone came out, Jobs told us it would run OS X. It *does* run many of the same components. What is the actual difference? Mostly cosmetics, which it looks like Lion is taking care of now.
Basically: they are already the same product, just with different names.
I don't know whether OS X will live forever, but I'm sure that the end of Xserve isn't a sign of it going away. I know a lot of Mac people, but I've heard very few of them admit to having an Xserve, and none of those people were glad that they had it. It seemed very much a solution looking for a problem and no one actually wanted one. Basically, if you were big enough to actually need one, you were big enough to order a Dell or HP and install Linux or Windows yourself to get the same features.
Again, I have no idea what the future holds for OS X (but I can't imagine The Steve cutting off the oxygen to the high end). Regardless, pruning unsuccessful and unwanted products from their lineup is no indication that Apple is trying to get rid of their popular ones.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
At some level what Apple is doing does make a lot of sense. Does it really make sense to have two different APIs, one for mobile devices and one for traditional computers? At least for the general consumer apps, it probably doesn't make much sense in maintaining two separate Mail apps, Photo apps, etc. For the average non-technical user, having a consistent UI is probably a good thing. I haven't seen any indication that Apple is going to discontinue Mac OS, or lock it down to prevent users from installing their own software. A lot of the article is pure speculation and fear mongering.
so does this mean Apple will die along with Steve Jobs ? who wants an OS that restricts you to do your biddings ?
R.I.P. Apple
I think they are devolving into two markets, consumer and pro. I think the Mac Books and iMacs may be destined to run a form of pumped up iOS but it'll never work for the workstations. They are grabbing more and more of the office and pro market which Microsoft always dominated so I can't see them abandoning the markets just as they are achieving their goals. The Pro market doesn't change as fast as the consumer market, I still miss XP and even have fond Win 2000 memories. The pro market mostly needs upgrades under the hood not more bells and whistles. I can see Lion being a final version of the pro software with yearly updates. That would free them to make all the consumer level hardware to adopt more iOS features. Too much of that will cost them the pro and office market. Lion looks like it's keeping a balance. Actually the final product may be more of a melding than a take over. Microsoft seems to have drunk the KoolAide with Windows 8 and appears ready to abandon desktops before they even prove there's a market in desktops with an iOS interface. Lion looks less oppressive. You've got to remember Microsoft and Apple have two different philosophies when it comes to OSs. Microsoft is very in your face with the OS and they are far more concerned with you using their OS than using software with their OS. Apple as always approached it from the angle keeping the OS in the background freeing you to use your applications. Lion appears to be intended to help you organize your icons and get you into your application quickly. Win 8 seems to want you to spend your day browsing photos and the web through it's own applications. I'm sure that Windows devotees will claim the opposite is true but I'm a heretic personally and have no preferences. 90% of all computers I've owned have been PCs with a couple of Amigas and Linux systems mixes in there but with a growing number of Macs. I've had enough trouble with Vista and Windows 7 to focus more on the Macs. I can't abandon Windows due to half the software I use being Windows only. I'm writing this on a Mac running Windows 7 but with graphics software Windows isn't a 100% stable on Mac hardware so I'll always have a mix it's just likely to be 3/4 mac and the rest PCs with maybe a Linux machine in the mix. Use what works folks. Don't be afraid of the changes in Mac I'd be more concerned with what's happening with Windows 8. It feels like some one tried to build an Enigma machine off a photograph of the outside of the box. They really need to ignore what Mac is doing and come up with something that works rather than feeling like Mac's table scraps. I always said that Vista felt like they picked out everything that sucked about OSX and turned it into an OS. With Win 8 they seem to be trying to become an outright iOS clone. Something even Mac isn't doing. Here's one for the future, if they do turn the consumer computers into giant iPads will they abandon the "cat names" and switch to something like bird names to signify a transition to a new OS?
What the article plainly ignores is that OS X is the de-facto development environment for the Web Services industry. Most if not all web development shops are based on OS X for their development platforms. It's this core base of web developers already on OS X that caused the App Store to be the success it is today.
Take away OS X and shoving iOS down everyone's throats would be a sure fire way to drive developers AWAY from Apple's offerings and TOWARDS Ubuntu + Windows + Parallels for the majority of the web developer user base where only iPhone/iPad developers (read 2 or 3 tops even for a large shop) would be the only ones using Apple "computers" for development. At that point Ubuntu will see a HUGE increase in use causing Android and Java App development to sky rocket, while the iPhone/iPad development will simply stagnate before a long decline into eventual irrelevancy.
-- That is if the predictions of this article are indeed true --
I don't think they are though. I do believe that the iMac and Macbook will go the route of iOS. However, xCode is far too reliant on OS X to be moved into iOS -- and it will be a cold day in hell that Adobe, Auto Desk and other high end software manufacturers give up 30% of their profits to Apple, aside from losing their core developer base, they's lose their core designer base as well.
So no -- a move to iOS for their professional line makes no sense, since iOS requires developers and those developers are reliant upon xCode to deliver apps. And Apple can not simply just up and kill off it's professional line. Because of this reality, I believe that Apple will continue to deliver OS X Server on the Mac Mini Server and OS X on Mac Pros and MacBook pros for the foreseeable future -- read as long as Apple exists.
However, all their consumer-level products WILL be transitioned to iOS, where those users will happily play with Final Cut Express, PhotoShop Elements and iWork along side their Fart apps and Farmville.
Imma let you finnish Apple, but OSX had the best MacDefender of all time!
He didn't say they would "kill" the OS, just "demote" it.
You see the handwriting is on the wall. The PC-based operating systems is becoming irrelevant. OS-X, Windows, Linux, call all do the types of things that most people want. There will always be a need for a specially configured PC for certain applications (S/W dev., CAD, etc.). But for the masses, it won't really matter that much, especially if the apps you need will run in a browser.
Does anyone know anyone that uses "Starter Edition"?
Okay, so maybe it's not at all similar. In some ways it is. Extremely limited "consumer oriented" OS. Locked down in ways which prevent the end user from "hurting themselves."
I can't say that it's a failure, but I can say I have never seen anyone using it or buying it.
But I imagine the Apple user elite corps will cheer this as only "apple users can be apple users" again. There were a LOT of upset people when Apple lowered the bar for entry into their realm. Now they want to create a "real apple users" and a "cheap apple users" division. Kinda like the difference between biker gang member and "harley club" member.
Maybe that year is getting closer to us if Apple and Microsoft jump over their respective cliffs. At least Microsoft is offering a classic desktop option in Windows 8, but who knows if that will still be available in Windows 9.
The beauty of Linux is that the GUI and the OS are separate so you can run any GUI you wish on top of the OS. You want tablet UI? Go with Unity or Gnome Shell. You want a more traditional GUI? Go with KDE, XFCE, LXDE, or Enlightenment.
I really hate this trend of writing off desktops and being so focused on mobile and tablet devices. I seriously think people are overestimating mobile devices and underestimating desktops.
Now that the Mac line is finally starting to make inroads in the corporate area, even saying that will hurt corporate adoption. Major companies do not want devices that connect to the "cloud", unless it's their in-house cloud. One of the great strengths of the Blackberry, and part of the reason for its business popularity, is that you can run your own Blackberry server, and the crypto keys are held within your own organization. If your business data is in the "cloud", it's probably being read by the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security, the intelligence services of China and Russia, your "cloud" vendor, and the Russian Business Network.
Maybe Jobs is just losing it.
Just getting segregated, high end vs low end. It is Google trying to kill off traditional OS's, with cloud software, Apple is still pushing traditional software. Oh ya... They still make a hell of a lot of money off of Mac sales, and they are a hardware company after all.
In the end it's simple: if Apple can continue to make (enough) money selling computers (with OS X), they will. And, let's face it: for the majority of users a computer (Windows or Mac) is indeed just another device, and a harder to use one at that when compared to their smartphone or tablet. The Linux crowd may be different. In fact, most people (read consumers) do not even need a computer and are just fine with the iPad/tablet, especially if you can link it to a keyboard if you really need to. Maybe rather than say the future of OS X is in the high-end, call it the professional/proficient users.
So, will OS X go away? Maybe, but likely only if people stop making good software for the Mac, and/or if Apple starts to force us to 100% into the Appstore. The latter I can see happen, and it would certainly piss me off enough to return full-time to a *nix. Get free GNU s/w through the Appstore???
For now people should at least think twice if they want to hang their hat on software that only runs on Mac. Best stick with stuff that runs on all (Mac, Win, *nix), or at least can be easily enough ported. That's what I transition to.
And I still will use my Mac for now. Why: because it makes some of the useful stuff easy, and it still lets me do anything I want/need to do whenever I whip out my *nix hat yet are too lazy to do it over in Linux.
I don't think they'll "kill off OS X", any time soon but I do think we're going to see fewer and fewer general purpose PCs/Macs for consumers and more specialized devices. Other than enthusiasts and people in the industry, most folks won't think of the particular OS a device runs as an entity distinct from the device itself.
You could just have an iOS app or web interface to a virtual desktop in the cloud. That would be essentially like the sunray system only on a more versatile appliance platform.
No need to actually have the desktop running on the desktop except for cases where you had to run off line or high throughput graphics had a latency issue.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
free software dev will have to pay $99 year + Xcode fees.
app store censorship will lock apps as well.
and open source will die on mac then.
If it's true, Windows would become an elitist OS. The majority of the consumer market doesn't want to hack around with the OS, they just want stuff that works and is easy to use. iOS does all that. You'd have the majority of the Windows PC market shift over to iOS computers, leaving Windows to be used in the corporation and by those users that still want an operating system they can hack around with. (Of course Linux and FreeBSD already allow you to tinker and have that elitist factor, but I doubt you'll see a mass migration of those types of users to an unbroken iOS PC. I'm sure they'll be jailbreaking the iOS PCs like crazy)
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Will iOS run Photoshop? No. Okay then.
Since Apple currently offers you the choice of a tablet starting at $499 and laptops starting at $1199 (or something like that) and since the choice is already between a tablet iOS device with a subset of functionality, vs. a laptop or iMac with greater "professional" level functionality, then all you've done here is out yourself as a troll, or waste electrons on the internet. Which is it?
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
What if Apple gave you the following choice:
Would you shell out the $3500 to get Mac OS X? The way I see it, that is the choice you will have in the near future: iOS for a "consumer" level computer, and Mac OS X for high end "professional" level computers.
And what if the choice was a tablet included a virtual OSX desktop in the cloud for $100/year with no need to buy or install any software updates.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In a 1997 interview with Ric Ford of the Macintouch website, Steve Jobs said that he would; "milk the Macintosh for all it's worth and then kill it." A citation would be nice if someone would like to search for it in the wayback machine. I came up blank on this so this is just from memory...
Sig this!
With portable devices becoming more and more powerful, convergence of mobile and desktops operating systems is inevitable. Microsoft is moving in this direction also; Windows 8 will look a lot like Windows Mobile. There's increasing little difference between Android and ChromeOS. The question is not whether OSX gets killed; the question is, will whatever replaces it be relatively open like OSX, or locked down like iOS? Will there be room in this brave new world for a generic personal computer that can run multiple operating systems?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
This is a troll article and it has attracted a huge number of trolls to the comment section.
I read the internet for the articles.
I can't see an iOS based IDE working.
First off, start at the basics: iOS isn't going to "replace" OS X, because they share the same codebase. I know some people here will balk at this description, but iOS is nothing but OS X optimized for mobile touchscreen devices. They're basically the same operating system. This is why it's so easy to incorporate iPad software into Lion. This isn't a situation like Microsoft had, where their early mobile operating systems... Win CE... were from a completely different codebase than the NT-based PC systems. So a PC-type desktop OS isn't going to disappear from Apple's product line.
Second, while I see the corporate appeal to Apple in forcing customers to their own home-brewed "A" based CPU's (and the friction they've had with Intel lately), even if they do this, it doesn't necessarily mean a "PC" is really disappearing from their product line. If it's got a USB port and a video miniport, then you can essentially make it a PC. I don't see the A processors being powerful enough for real desktop use, but that could change in the near future. I could also see Apple abandoning the truly professional-grade workstation market if they're going to focus completely on consumer devices.
But to sum it up, even as radical as Steve Jobs can be at times (remember, he wanted the first edition of the iMac to ship without a keyboard until wiser heads talked him down from that ledge), I just don't see him completely eliminating all desktop options. Some form of real desktop computer from Apple will continue to be on the market. Reduce consumer choices in that regard, yes... he'll do that in a heartbeat and demand that you love him for it. But eliminate the option itself? No.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
This just further enforces that Apple is aimed at producing devices for "dicking around"....and actually being profitable...Good job America...
Actually, with every announcement you've been demonstrated to be wrong. Mac OS X isn't going anywhere. Apple has quite clearly been working very hard to bring some of the best ideas from iOS to the Mac OS X platform. They also introduced a nascent third platform, iCloud. If there was news of a platform's demise to be read between the lines at the WWDC 2011 keynote yesterday, it's more likely to be the demise of Windows as a consumer OS.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Anyone remember Simple Finder, from the OS 7/8/9 days? Everything old is new again...
"If I were running Apple, I would milk the Macintosh for all it's worth - and get busy on the next big thing. The PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago."
Steve Jobs, Fortune Magazine, February 19, 1996
Which is exactly what he did with the iPod, and then the iPhone. But note there is nothing there about killing the Mac; He will continue milking it as long is it keeps giving milk. His comment was about not sitting on the success of the Mac, nor will he sit on the success of the iPhone; he will keep moving to the next big thing.
Are you asking if there will be an architecture change for OSX, or if OSX will go away? Those are two different questions.
Will OSX go away? Not any time soon. I'm with thousands of developers @ WWDC now, and there's proof that Apple is standardizing and merging plenty of xcode APIs to work on both platforms (and in turn both architectures), but there's an overwhelming gap that would need to be filled first. The OSX desktop used to be the place that served up content for mobile devices, but Apple has noticed with mobile becoming more and more capable for productivity, the reliance on the desktop is a bit outdated and legacy.
What is more likely is that more and more OSX + iOS components are merged over time, and a unified experience between platforms emerges from the two. At that point, architecture becomes relatively insignificant.
All of my PC's are just devices. Apple products are more of a lifestyle than "devices"... you have to buy a combination of Apple devices and overprices Apple subscriptions for mediocre Apple services and continuously replace those Apple devices as Apple pushes out newer models and discontinues support for older ones. If I want to play music, I have music files, and I play them wherever, however I'd like on any device. If I were an Apple customer, I'd have to convert my files into an Apple approved format, use Apple's atrocious software, iTunes to upload my music to my Apple device. I mean, if you're a regular rat on the treadmill of work/spend/work/spend, then maybe being tied into a company like Apple is great. For those of us who want to just use whatever devices as we see fit, Apple laughably bad. And while yes, phasing out OSX in favor of iOS would be the ultimate victory for vendor lock in, and a huge cash cow for Apple, it ain't gonna happen.
I don't respond to AC's.
I think this doesn't have anything to do with ditching Mac OS X.
We'll see a slow shift now. people dont want excessive computing power in their pockets but instead a cloud-connected device.
Thus the new market will look like this:
Notebooks will fall further than now. (a tablet or smartphone seems to be more interesting to those people formerly interested in notebooks)
Netbooks/tabletbooks/smartphones will gain more marketshare. This is the next-gen TV: a turn on and consume product.
Somebody still needs development environments for productive work. This will end up being high end notebooks or workstations. Because of the term productive, prices will go up here I assume.
I think Apple sees it differently. They're getting a lot of new people buying Macs, these people are buying Macs, because they bought an iPhone/iPod and liked the experience. I don't think Apple is phasing out Macs, I think they are just moving it in a direction that all these new users will be more comfortable with (and this market just happens to out-weight the professional market by huge margins). And in the meantime, old existing users are being forced into the new direction as well. In the long run its good for the platform, but some people are sure to complain because it is CHANGE and some people just don't like that.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Killing OSX off would be a stupid move. But thats not to say they won't introduce a 13 inch tablet with an "A5" or an "An" chip in it. Tablets stop making sense when the use scenarios for it don't make sense. iPads are already too big to easily carry around, what stops them from getting bigger? Or growing an attached or attachable keyboard. At that point its not Apple killing off OSX, its Apple customers deciding which product to buy.
I posted this and this a few weeks ago here and got bashed left and right about how Apple would never do this, that the Post PC era and Steve Jobs "sent from my IPad" sig is a marketing ploy, and OS X would live forever.
It's amazing how much just one keynote changes everything.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
You mean by making it cheaper?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What happens when you get to version 10.9.9.9.9.9? No more OS X!
Remember when you have to code your own apps or type one out? or even punch cards or switches The dumbing down of user interface's natural progression is the lockeddown user-centric apps of iOS Just as loading programs from floppy or cd-roms seems quaint now, finding, downloading and running apps from outsidethe walled garden will soon be too. Sure you might be ableto do more by writng/loading your own apps,the convenience will win out Hopefully there'll still be linux for tinkerers
People like Mr. Gates, &/or Mr. Jobs? Or rather, Apple &/or Microsoft (toss in the likes of Oracle, IBM, etc./et al - titans of the software &/or hardware industries)??
They really don't PREDICT anything - their word makes it "law". They have the power to TURN markets any direction they like pretty much & all for the "dead-presidents/coins"!
Think about it...
(Especially when they leave security vulnerabilities in the last versions, look @ Win2k - they stopped supporting it, with KNOWN issues in it... if you're concerned about security issues?? You MUST upgrade/update!)
Guess what THAT does guys - yes, that's right: It creates more income for them, GUARANTEED (well, almost).
20 yrs. from now, once the "cloud's burned out" (I first heard the term in the early 1990's in fact, using IBM midrange stuff @ the time (OS/400))? They'll change us back to clientserver again, just to make us spend!
Good trick if you ask me!
APK
P.S.=> Imo, & no offense to those 2 gents I noted? They're businessmen, first & foremost, with 1.000's of stockholders they DO answer to, & before YOU as the single person customer: Accept it!
(Sure, they cater to you as well as customers, but nowadays, that seems to take the "back seat" to the demands of the market itself, the "legal craptable" imo, & quite evil)
Thus, the stock market & shareholders (especially preferred stock ones on the boards of directors) - hey, they are 1,000's of bosses!
So, it's truly in their best interest it seems to answer to THEY, first... how do you do that though, once a market has reached "saturation"?
Well, easy: "Change the rules" & "environment" when needed, such as going from mainframes to clientserver models, & back again - to generate revenue, once again!
Pretty simple trick, IF you think about it... as it keeps you, the customer, chasing the carrot in front of your nose like a donkey (& spending)!
Those guys, & their peers (in gov't. & banking too)?
They don't *THINK* 1-5 yrs. ahead, they think DECADES in advance & how to keep themselves wealthy!
Do I agree with it? No, not really, but who am I?? apk
Considering the keynote started off with OS X Lion - I think its a bit of stretch to take one sentence and yell "OMG, They are killing OS X!". Umm the dedicated the first half of the keynote to it - did you miss that part?
Cringley had a post on this today as well:
http://www.cringely.com/2011/06/iclouds-real-purpose-is-to-kill-windows/
He looks at it as an intentional strategy to harm Microsoft, and he has a good point about the business aspects of the announcement.
I know it's hip to be an Apple user now these days and all the cool kids are rocking their iDevices, but a good majority of graphic designers/artists use the platform and I while it's cool to watch netflix in bed on an iPad, it's irrelevant when you have to start using InDesign, Illustrator and Photoshop, though I imagine Illustrator and Photoshop wouldn't be as big an issue to use on a tablet as InDesign would be.
Ave Molech Setting
The original post and this thread. Ain't gonna happen - but its never to late to put some FUD out there if you're a *Windows*-centric magazine and need to appeal to your demographic.
At this point, I'm not sure Apple needs MS Office anymore. They're pushing the iWork suite pretty hard and with the "your documents are ubiquitous on all iDevices" functionality that they introduced yesterday, iWork is actually superior to MS Office in some ways. I think it's their clear intention to attack MS Office at this point. You can see that when, in the keynote, they specifically mentioned that when you send someone your document, you're only sending the latest version of it and not a version with the full revision history. That was a clear allusion to the many incidents where data was leaked because it was hidden in the in-file versioning capabilities of MS Office documents.
Adobe's creative suite is important, but it's not completely irreplaceable. If it stopped being available for Mac, Apple would buy the company making the closest replica or fork Gimp (ala WebKit) and bring it up to the level of Adobe's products.
I actually think the two more important pieces of software for Apple to continue to have developed for their platform are Flash and Silverlight.
As well of alot of free mac software.
So...your assertion is that Apple taking 30% of sales will deter people from offering software for free? There's a failure to understand basic multiplication inherent in that statement.
I fully expect Macs to move in this direction. This is something both Apple and many, if not most, consumers want. Apple wants the added level of control and profitability this model offers. Consumers evidently find the app model very appealing. No thought required on their part. And even if overall productivity suffers most wont care because of the gimmick of a new way of interacting with your computer
Of any industry I can think of the design industry is the most entrenched in the Apple world. Despite that designers will eat all this right up. The design industry is probably one of the most predictably industries out there for consumption. They eagerly lap up whatever is shiny and new with little regard for whatever it's the right decision. The constant fear of falling out of touch is what keeps them on the Adobe upgrade treadmill. Most never touch the additional functionality the new versions offer, but they've got to get it the day it's released. So if Apple tells them there's a new way of doing things they're going to buy right into it. And unfortunately, anyone in the industry who doesn't buy into it is inevitably dragged along kicking and screaming.
I really wouldn't be surprised if they abandon any OSX variant altogether. Apple is not the type to support multiple platforms and they absolutely have a penchant for forcing sudden change on everybody.
And the sad thing here is that the classic windowed-OS is probably the most efficient out there, well, second to a command prompt. But a windowed environment provides the most flexibility. Everything else I've used adds a layer of complexity. Smartphone and tablet interfaces are great, but for that particular form-factor. Tying to do on-screen precision work via gestures all day long does not make for a particularly productive or comfortable experience. Like anything new, people have to wear themselves out on a new concept before it starts being used more sensibly.
Apple is building a bridge between OS X and iOS. First of all, clang, LLVM, XCode, and the rest of it can all be run on iOS with just a little effort on Apple's part, second of all OS X now boasts more integration with iTunes and the App Store than ever before. With iCloud coming down the pike now, you really have very little attachment to your PC/Mac at all as all your data is remotely stored and synchronized to iOS devices. Clearly Apple is working hard to build a bridge, and with their total vertical integration, they have the power to phase out legacy software (unlike Windows/Microsoft). Clearly they are setting themselves up for phasing out something, and do you think its going to be OS X or iOS? All these arguments that 'they can't do that because application X's users will revolt' are missing the point: iOS can run that also. Ever since hearing about the iPad its been obvious that killing off OS X, or turning it into a professional distribution of iOS is where they were going to go. I for one would be completely unsurprised by any of this.
Take things way out of context much. He was talking about iCloud and the cloud becoming the central repository instead of having everything tied to your PCs. These "Pros" seem to have a serious problem with comprehension.
If I jailbreak my iPhone I can SSH into, run Apache, set it up as a router, do anything I want b/c it's a fully functional copy of Unix. Apple can dumb down the interface on OS X/XI as much as they want as long as I can:
1. Still get a shell prompt
2. Still have root access
Now, if I have to root my desktop/laptop... well then I'm going to get upset.
This is just, frankly, idiotic. Its not even anything *new* in its idiocy -- there have been NO signs that Apple is going to ditch OSX, there's not even any actual reasonable signs that they are even thinking of locking up OSX like they do with IOS.
The Mac is profitable for them; its very profitable for them, even. Yes, IOS is significantly bigger -- but Mac is a GROWING business. Its growing better then the PC business and has been for quite awhile now.
Will there be cross-polination between the platforms? Absolutely.
But IOS devices are not even remotely viable Mac replacements: and there's absolutely nothing that has come out of Apple which indicates they think otherwise.
IOS devices are application appliances: they're locked up not just because Apple are greedy bastards and want a piece of every pie, and not only because Apple are control freaks who know better then you what you want. They're locked up because it lets them create an excellent experience AS an application appliance: you can't choose the wrong set of apps and run them in the wrong way and have your battery life get destroyed, for instance.
You can't choose the wrong set of apps and have them lock up and crash out your device; you can't choose the wrong set of apps and get malware eating at it.
You also can't choose to do some thigns you may want to do-- granted. And for those who care, there are other devices you can choose to use instead. But for a lot of people who want to just use the thing, and who want to just immerse in the usage of whatever apps they want (that are available on the App Store), the experience is superb and effective.
But a computer isn't just an application appliance. There's a lot more to it, and there's obviously GROWING demand for Mac computers despite the huge growth and record-breaking sales of the application appliances. The models can coexist happily together just fine.
There are some people who can do everything they'd ever want to do with just an IOS5 device, and never get a computer. But there are plenty who will always see the IOS device as a companion to the computer, and not just a replacement of it.
And its not just "consumers" vs "creatives", as quite a few people have shown the app appliance can be a very effective tool at creating certain types of things. But not everything, so there's some truth to those groups. Its also not purely power vs simple users, but ther'es some truth to those groups, too.
It doesn't have to be one world or the other.
And did I mentino? Mac business is doing better then ever? Its GROWING? And its PROFITABLE?
You have a link, right?
I started using Macs so I could use Logic Studio for music. OS X is the best way to make music in a UNIX environment and it's audio drivers are far superior to Windows. Sadly, I will switch to Windows if they try to make Macs into nothing but a desktop phone. I'll switch to Cubase, Pro-tools, whatever. I only use Macs for the "Pro-ness". The Apple consumer toys just disturb me.
They have never had a $500 laptop - instead they gave us a a $500 tablet, and guess what? It does everything the person shopping for the $500 laptop wants
I'm an atypical user. I bought a $400 Dell laptop so I could code on it on the bus. Apple would never let me code on an iPad.
There are some interesting tools, but iOS cannot do everything that one can do on the Mac.
One of these things that iOS can't do is XCode. I don't see XCode coming to iOS in the foreseeable future. Otherwise, the App Store wouldn't have the prohibition on user-scriptable applications that resulted in a Commodore 64 game getting pulled from the App Store just because the user could reboot the emulated C64 into the REPL of ROM BASIC.
If they did, OS X or Mac OS in general, would be a distant memory. Instead, they found a niche and have stuck with it. Same with Linux. Linux remains around the same percentage of users it has for years, yet it's not considered dead. Apple has a diversity of products that help it stay healthy financially. They don't need to overtake Windows as the dominant consumer OS to do well.
So, like the previous person said, it'd only hurt them in killing off OS X because it is quite popular among the niche market that use it. They can lose those customers for good. They have no reason to discontinue it. Otoh, with iOS they're working in new markets that aren't dominated by Windows or another operating system yet.
I doubt anyone will read this, as it's WAY down on the list and a lot has already been said. But with that out of the way...
1) Is a laptop with an A4/A5 style CPU and iOS a good idea?
Yes. It would be awesome to have a machine that can run 15 hours on a battery charge and do all the basic "hanging around on the net" stuff like web browsing, IM, simple games, etc.
2) Should this iOS laptop/desktop replace current Macs?
NO! iOS is too limited to replace Mac OS X, especially right now. I don't know about most people, but when I sit at a computer I'm frequently doing several things at a time. I have IM windows open, shells to everywhere, web browsers, mail client, IRC, Twitter, etc. All going on at once, all in separate windows so I can follow one thing while I do another.
3) Is there room in the marketplace for both tablet-based and regular computers?
YES. Different users have different needs. Macs are selling well and making Apple money. iOS is also selling well and making Apple money. There's no reason to discontinue or merge them.
Apple has been known for making rash, emotional decisions that don't make sense. (Read about the Apple II for the most famous example) I really hope they don't make one now.
1. No.
2. iOS *IS* Mac OS X, a subset thereof
3. iOS still needs a desktop machine to develop for...and everyone in Apple management would have to be replaced by robots before they'd allow that to be on a Windows box!
4. Steve doesn't like multiple OSes. I can definitely see Mac OS XI being an integration of the mobile and desktop/server version of the OS, but not the desktop OS going away completely...that's a Google dream, not an Apple dream.
Um, no.
That's ridiculous overkill. 24 bit, 44 or 48 KHz per channel is more than enough, unless (a) you're making recordings for dogs (and destined for audio systems designed for dogs) or (b) you're making recordings of bats and plan to play them back with an SDR. There are no, repeat zero, audio sources that provide legitimate 24-bit resolution, that is, 8 million nonlinear levels +/-, and the number of listeners who can perceive anything at all over 20 KHz are mostly not old enough yet to buy high end media. The only even slightly valid argument for recording over 20 KHz is to allow for down-mixing of additional products that occur in extremely "hard" playback environments into the normally perceptible audio range but (a) the results of this process are completely unpredictable and (b) therefore undesirable, and (c) such an environment means the listener has a seriously crappy audio setup anyway so why would you take the care to propagate super-audible content into their space anyway?
If you're making recordings at 96 bit / 192 Khz, then you have well and truly overdosed on the koolaid. Speaking as an engineer (EE), a signal processing fella, a musician, and a studio owner.
Want to make awesome recordings? The first thing to do is learn to slap the hands of almost anyone who even reaches for a compressor. Compression should only be used to limit rare non-musically critical peaks so as to gain space for the vast majority of the dynamics, not as a tool to crowbar the entire recording against the rails. Learn to manage microphones and microphone technique. Of course, this means you can't make recordings for pop markets, as they all have to be against the rails or "they're not loud enough" (LOL) but if you've been working at 192 khz/96bit, surely you weren't doing that anyway, right?
The second thing to do is learn to isolate a tonal space for instruments and voices so you don't end up with mush.
The last thing to do is bring up the whole mix so that it rests against the top rail -- without compressing it. Once it's there, stretch any true silence down, taking the noise with it if practical to do so.
Master those three steps, and given that you have decent performance captures, you can make great recordings. No need to record many bits of irrelevant, non-musical information, or to sample at rates required for 96khz playback.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I haven't used any of their stuff. Their gui and the user experience has been outstanding for years. Their backend has been ok (just ok); its a proprietary version of unix, and that has kept a lot of wolves from the door. Now instead of going toward the server, they are abandoning it and the pc and going for the gadget market: smart phones and tablets. Its up to them. If they want to abandon the PC, then the can. Its unfortunate because they were handing microsoft their hat in that space. What happens to applications like GarageBand(tm) and FinalCut(tm)? You might be able to pull GarageBand(tm) onto an Ipad, but there is just way too much processing going on with FinalCut(tm). I don't think there is any 3D animation software for Apple, and if there is, it won't be for long. You need kicking hardware to make it fly. If they want to stack their A5 processor against an Intel CoreI7 well go ahead. Apple is new to this game, Intel isn't. Ultimately the decision is up to Steve Jobs, and he isn't likely to take advice from anyone (me, you or anyone else).
Is this not similar to what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8?
Several months ago, and again about six weeks ago, I unleashed a torrent of flames directed at me for suggesting that Apple was going to do exactly this. The names I was called, the screaming, the explosion of vitriol were over the top. Apple would never, ever put a laptop or an iMac behind the walled garden. They would never, ever take away users' ability to install whatever software they wanted from whatever source on their desktop or laptop. It was unthinkable and to suggest such a thing was completely idiotic.
The line for Mac fans big enough to apologize forms right over here. I accept in advance.
I'll say it again: by the end of 2012, there will be Apple desktop and laptop computers that are behind the walled garden. There may still be certain high-end machines, like the Mac Pro and (maybe) the MacBook Pro that will still be available "unlocked" but Apple's future is locked down tighter than a drum. The innovative company that brought regular users Hypercard and other roll-your-own capabilities, that made a "computer for the rest of us" that gave you a box that would set your creativity free, has turned into a company that will make fewer and fewer machines that allow a user to make stuff on their own.
You are welcome on my lawn.
'We know what you need better than you do.'
'Who needs competition when we know best'
'All your apps, music, and video belong to us'
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Seemed like the logical step for them to take now that they are getting viruses (trojans, I know...). Lock the device down until it can't be hacked, or used effectively
> and every time I get laughed at for saying it.
Quite rightly so.
Who builds the operating system used on more personal computers than any other? Microsoft just previewed "Windows 8" and guess what? It has a UI that's a LOT more like what they're doing with their Windows Mobile phones.
So in that respect, it's not simply an "Apple thing" that they'd make their OS more and more like the one used in their mobile devices.
I don't think you can read into all of this that it's the END of the personal computer, or the end of an operating system like OS X.
What you DO have is a lot of demand for a new, easier way to interact with all of this stuff. People who traditionally found computers too hard or confusing to use are suddenly getting the hang of using things like the Apple iPad or their new smartphone, and finally joining the ranks of those of us who communicate regularly via email, Facebook, Twitter, IM, and so on. So rather than stay content with that "digital divide" -- they're trying to unify the environments. A full-blown computer will always be more capable than a stripped down environment made for smaller screens and very portable products -- but it can't hurt to put a front-end on both, so the typical user can actually get around and run software on EITHER one after only learning ONE way of doing it.
I'm a recent Apple retail employee, and based on what I saw in the stores, I can tell you that Apple still makes plenty of money selling a whole lot of MacBooks and iMacs. To describe that OS-X-based product line as "kind of muddling along" is completely inaccurate. The iOS devices sell a lot too, but the 10-year-old expectation that people were going into those glass-and-white stores at the mall mostly to buy iPods is very out of date, and the new assumption that the only thing those stores are selling in quantity are iPhones and iPads, is equally mistaken. Sit outside an Apple store and count how many boxes with the word "Mac" on them are carried/trolleyed out the door in an afternoon. It's a lot.
What could happen is for OS X and iOS to blend into a single OS. They have enough code in common for that to be possible, but it would still require them to have distinct user interfaces, for the simple reason that the physical interface is different. A computer with a keyboard does not work the same as a computer with a touch screen, and a screen that fits in your pocket requires different interaction methods than one one your wall, and Apple has demonstrated that they understand that (just like Microsoft demonstrated that they did not, when they introduced Windows Tablet Edition and earlier versions of Windows Mobile to work just like standard Windows).
OS X could be (and eventually will be) terminated, but not until a successor has been developed that fulfills the needs that OS X currently fills. iOS (at least as we know it today) is not that OS. If Apple is testing MacBooks based on the A5, that's far more likely an indicator that they're thinking of porting OS X to run on that chip for hardware/architectural reasons, not that they're thinking of turning the MacBook into an iPad with a built-in keyboard as a strategic software move. At Apple the hardware serves the software, not the other way around.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
it was the clearest indication yet that Apple is phasing out Mac OS X
Which is why half the announcement was the big, shiny new Mac OS X Lion. Derp.
argues PC Pro's Barry Collins
Who?
I don't think mac developpers and this includes a few big name companies, would like
to develop their apps on touchscreens or on an OS as limited as iOS.
Plus there are huge sectors (art, photo, layout) , which would be standing out with
their cocks out in the rain if this was the case , industries they would have a hard
time getting back into if they drop them.
This is bullshit by a bullshit speculator/futurist.
Few of the creatives who evangelise Mac products use the Mac Pro. I used to work for a publishing firm, less than 10% of the folks there had Mac Pros and they were mostly the moron managers who had them as status symbols. The vast majority of work on all the publications they worked on (and anyone who reads comic books most likely has quite a few of their titles in their library) were drawn, laid out and proofed using Mac Minis and iMacs. And not even the high end ones either.
Apple has already ported Mac OS from PPC to x86, they may be porting it to ARM this time, I can see some great benefits on the long run.
.. is the day I adopt Windows as my desktop again. It would be painful, but there is no way I'm turning my desktop into a giant iPad.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Apple is selling Mac Mini's with OSX Server now.. They're not getting rid of OSX. They're just solidifying their foundation for iOS devices.
Sky isn't falling.
It is more about reducing the role of the desktop/laptop computer as the central storage repository.
This doesn't make any sense. How are developers going to develop for iOS? on an iPad? be real
So OS X will be moving into the market that IRIX and SunOS left behind?
It has already. OS X (in the media/scientific world) and Linux (in the technical world) are pretty much what killed IRIX and Solaris as desktop platforms.
Well i remember an article in Sound on Sound (the recording industry bible) about how high end studios (Abbey Road, Air one etc) where getting worried that apple would screw them over and abandon the high end and leave them with a load of obselete gear - which I suspect is why protools has now done a port for PC's
I don't think they'll miss you. Lets face it, people like yourself who make informed decisions about such things are not a major component of Apple's consumer base!
awesome point.. macs thrive on people who have excess money to shell out on new upgrades and there hardware needlessly made "outdated"
Oh, get a life. I'm not a programmer and don't run CAD programs or other programs with a need for a big, fast CPU. So, I use an iMac and it does everything I want it to do and much more. Every 3 years I replace my computer with the newest model. I can afford it and it's a business deduction as well. I'm a retired business standards consultant who now keeps web sites online and I make a 6 figure income doing it. While I do fit the profile of having a lot of "excess" money (not to mention no debt and my houses are paid off (no mortgages)), I have that excess money precisely because I *do* make informed decisions. If you're not making a six figure income (and my bet is you aren't) maybe it's you who needs to become better at making "informed decisions".
has removed from the Mac line?
Just one. Anything will do. Any one capability that Apple has removed to show that they are moving closer to phasing out their open platform? Any statements about their future intention to remove the ability to write or run arbitrary code on Mac's? Any active steps towards restricting a developers capability at all?
Any economic justification for why that would make sense for them? (keeping in mind that Macs are a $5B/quarter business right now). Do you have anything at all to justify your prognostication except that you really really wish it was true?
The problem with the Mac OS has always been the corporate culture of Apple.
I've been using mac's since the very beginning. The day all of my software has to go through an Apple app store is the day I switch to Linux.
San Francisco Photographers
I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to destruction of OSX. If you know the context, he was demoting the desktop from the role of central file syncing hub and putting iCloud in its place. This would put files in the cloud. He doesn't talk about destroying the node though(OSX)! At no point did he roll out some sort of evil destruction plan for OSX or imply it...really this is speculation gone a mock. :)
About the actual Macs themselves, I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to the destruction of the Mac platform. Apple makes a lot of money on Macs; not as much as they do with iOS devices, but still quite a bit. There will be more and more borrowing done between the platforms(which I think are essentially, at the core, the same, but with different physical interfaces and support different parts of Cocoa), but this doesn't mean the destruction of either. There are just some things that will always work better on a desktop than on a touchscreen. E.g., I have no idea how I'd use XCode on an iPad. The typing on an iPad is fine for some things, but I couldn't imagine typing programs on an iPad. On the other hand, there are other things which work better on touch screens. We can have both and Apple seems to be fine with that and profiting from that distinction. I'm pretty sure the iBook and powerbook are secure in their existence for quite a while
The only way I can see OSX going away is through a new version coming out with a completely new name. I am getting sick of all of the vast array of cat names for OSX! I always forget what cat we're on, the order of previous cats and the name of the cat-to-come. Renaming the OS would be problematic on several levels though. OSX was quite a different OS from OS9 though. It was NeXT-based(Unix), took NeXT's APIs(renamed Cocoa), and then added support for Carbon and made it nice and usable; it definitely deserved a new OS branding, because it was so different from OS9. There have been a lot of features added and refinements done since 2001, but I wouldn't call them a new OS, neither does Apple really, as they are just newer and newer "versions" of the OS, OSX. So, unless there is something very new and different coming, I don't know if they'd rename it.
I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to destruction of OSX. If you know the context, he was demoting the desktop from the role of central file syncing hub and putting iCloud in its place. This would put files in the cloud. He doesn't talk about destroying the node though(OSX)! At no point did he roll out some sort of evil destruction plan for OSX or imply it...really this is speculation gone a mock. :)
About the actual Macs themselves, I have no idea how we get from iCloud synchronization to the destruction of the Mac platform. Apple makes a lot of money on Macs; not as much as they do with iOS devices, but still quite a bit. There will be more and more borrowing done between the platforms(which I think are essentially, at the core, the same, but with different physical interfaces and support different parts of Cocoa), but this doesn't mean the destruction of either. There are just some things that will always work better on a desktop than on a touchscreen. E.g., I have no idea how I'd use XCode on an iPad. The typing on an iPad is fine for some things, but I couldn't imagine typing programs on an iPad. On the other hand, there are other things which work better on touch screens. We can have both and Apple seems to be fine with that and profiting from that distinction. I'm pretty sure the iBook and powerbook are secure in their existence for quite a while
The only way I can see OSX going away is through a new version coming out with a completely new name. I am getting sick of all of the vast array of cat names for OSX! I always forget what cat we're on, the order of previous cats and the name of the cat-to-come. Renaming the OS would be problematic on several levels though. OSX was quite a different OS from OS9 though. It was NeXT-based(Unix), took NeXT's APIs(renamed Cocoa), and then added support for Carbon and made it nice and usable; it definitely deserved a new OS branding, because it was so different from OS9. There have been a lot of features added and refinements done since 2001, but I wouldn't call them a new OS, neither does Apple really, as they are just newer and newer "versions" of the OS, OSX. So, unless there is something very new and different coming, I don't know if they'd rename it.
Disclaimer: I own every fucking Apple product made in the last 10 years. And 2 of some of them.
I use my iPad2 all day long - listening to music, playing games, taking notes, managing my OmniFocus todo lists, reading Slashdot.. you know, the usual. I have often thought "Could this replace my Macbook Pro?", and the answer is always "no!".
It isn't fast enough. It doesn't have tab from field to field, even with the external keyboard. While the apps that it does run are nice, they are not nearly as full featured as their "real" Mac based counterparts. There is no file system, so you can't manage your documents in a hierarchy like you can on a "real" Mac. Apparently this is what Apple wants to kill anyways... who needs folders, right? Well, I do. I like folders, and the iPad doesn't have them. There is no external storage, other than a very awkward (not to mention slow) interface to iDisk and/or Dropbox. And finally, there is no way to use my Magic Trackpad with the device... I constantly have to reach up and touch the screen when I am using the external keyboard.. and you know, after 15 minutes, my arm feels like it wants to fall off. ;-)
And there's one more thing... I can't install apps other than what Apple says is ok to install on the iPad. Until they give me full control over the device, it'll just be a toy that is good at managing todo lists and playing games.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Shouldn't it read, "When will linux kill off OS X?" ? The server offering was a disaster, and they really aren't doing much with Darwin - let's face it Aqua is a desktop only a fanbois could love, with its early 80s ergonomics.
Think UNIX ... Apple.
Think Different ... Apple.
Think One ... Apple.
-
...why not keep both and develop a kind of common hardware reference platform...
Advice: on VPS providers
some people don't get it. steve was talking about demoting it to "just a device" in terms of content sync. NOT from being a general purpose machine to something else. i swear, some people have no fucking idea, no comprehension skills or are just trolling, and poorly.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
OS X isn't going away any time soon, but I can see the two converging at some point in the future - a PC or Mac made into a tablet with a keyboard & mouse attached is just a screen with the PC built in, plus you score a touch-screen out of it. It's far more convenient for a home environment - no bulky PC taking up space, less (or no) cabling, you can pick it up and carry it anywhere.. And most importantly it can spend most of its life on the couch or coffee table and there's practically no startup time, it's always at your fingertips.
iOS has demonstrated that most people are happy to use apps full-screen, and most apps can be made to work that way. Look at Xcode 4 - most everything happens in that one window. If apple implement the OS X API as a layer on top of iOS, there's no reason iOS can't run Mac apps with some minor UI tweaks.
Low-powered ARM processors are probably a bit underpowered for video editing and the like, but that's not to say that the multi-core variants won't be up to scratch in the future. They don't need to be as fast - but fast enough, which is already the case for most typical home and business applications.
Steve officially re-dubbed it OS X some years back. Before he went back to Apple, SJ told Wired the first thing he'd do if we were do go back to Apple would be to eliminate the Macintosh. Flash forward a year and hello iMac and the rest is history.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
Its bloody simple.
The proles will get shiny new iOS based hardware, well locked down, and will consume stuff for the greater profit of Apple, its the razor/blade paradigm (or should I say printer/cartridge here?). Developers and creatives (the Party members) will pay business rates for OS X kit and pay an added premium to download their software for the greater profit of Apple. And there will probably be restrictive covenants on dev kit too...
At present, the Apple hierarchy are having collective wet dreams thinking of how they can control their consumers and make them jump through arbitrary hoops, all for the greater profit of Apple.
Steve Jobs is WATCHING you!!!!
SJ SJ SJ SJ!!!
This is a linkbait post with a shocking title but no substance or insight. Slashdot is rewarding bad journalism by linking to it (and wasting readers' time).
In other news, Mac OS X Lion is set for release in July. Who the fcuk writes this stuff?
What is the counter argument exactly? That their Mac UI guidelines are never going to change for the rest of time?
The Mac's OS will continue to evolve, taking as much as possible of the good stuff from iOS or wherever else it can find it.
Will future versions be more touch orientated? Yes
Will future versions be focus more on the AppStore? Yes
Will future versions prevent you running Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, or XCode? No
No one cares if it is marketed as iOS, OS:X, OS:XI or FishFood.
That's the kind of thinking that has cost Microsoft their empire. Those two UI libraries are there because of the fundamental difference between interacting with a desktop and a tablet or phone. To think that there is redundancy there, is to no understand the fundamentals of UI design, don't you think?
Evidently I think not, but I suppose you're trying to be sarcastic. I really don't think the quality of Microsoft's software has anything to do with the rise *or* fall of their empire, but that's a debate for another day.
The two UI libraries are most likely there because they wanted to start from scratch without all the baggage of the desktop, exposed file system, window furniture etc. and wanted to pick and choose what to take from OS X. Some of that is stuff which does not fit a touch UI (window close buttons, overlapping windows), the vast majority of the stuff in UIKit is not related to touch. They could (and probably will) build a revised desktop foundation on top of iOS, and I think the UI changes in OS X are to prepare the users for this. iOS for example has the concept of windows, although these are not really used presently in iOS, and pretty useless on a small device screen, I wonder why?
Building a touch OS on Mac OS would in my opinion be much harder, because lots of assumptions are baked in to cocoa which would make it hard to then try to add touch events etc. and hard to avoid developers porting crap from the old APIs. They could have done it, but obviously felt a rewrite was worthwhile (which is what UIKit mostly is - a rewrite of AppKit with hooks suitable for a touch UI and a lot of the cruft removed). I imagine there were lots of reasons for that decision, but it being impossible to base a touch OS on AppKit because of fundamental UI differences was not one of them.
So you seem to be mistaking the visual and top-level differences between iOS and Mac OS UIs for a fundamental difference in underlying toolkits - there is a lot of redundancy between any two given app toolkits, and in particular between these two, as you'd know if you'd worked with them rather than pontificating on the fundamentals of UI design. For example, we have UIWebView -> WebView, UIView -> NSView etc, etc and there is in fact a huge amount of redundancy and a huge amount of almost identical code. That doesn't mean Apple was wrong to develop UIKit in parallel, or that they didn't need to start again to reinvent their interface, but it does mean it will be painful for them to develop in future as every addition (like WebView) has to be added twice to the API, documented twice, and every developer has to learn two sets of APIs. I suspect eventually over the next 5 years or so they'll do away with the older API, as they have done with the Toolbox APIs, Carbon, QT, Java, etc. And end users won't really notice or care. For some developers like Adobe it will be a painful transition though.
IOS = Windows XP Home Why would people want to limit themselves for their desktop computer?
~ChibiSkuld~
You think Apple's gonna let developers write all the apps for iOS by tapping millions of lines of code into a touchscreen keyboard on an iPad? Design icons for iOS on an iPhone?
a desktop OS, and a real desktop OS are just as much Apple as ever. WWDC 2011 just reaffirmed that. Anyone (pcworld, cnet, zdnet, paul thurrot) who thinks otherwise probably views this world from 10 feet away by flipping channels with a remote. E.g., consumes content — doesn't create it.