Objective C is mostly C, with some OOP extensions added in. Sure, the syntax for accessing methods within objects is different, but it's not that much of a leap. OOP concepts can be difficult to get your head around, so just poking around Interface Builder without a formal introduction probably isn't the best approach. But, after wading in with a tutorial or two, it may 'click' with some people. Others may require a book on Cocoa, but even that doesn't seem too unreasonable.
"Look at all the people who came to us when we were selling music at half the price of our competitors! Sure, it was below our cost, but look at the REVENUE! No, I don't know if we can sustain those numbers, but the revenue was SWEET...!"
Well, there's "losing" as in "not in first place", and then there's "losing" as in "relinquishing ground previously held". If we get enough of the latter, then the former is just a matter of time.:-)
"WinFS, I'd be the first to say, is very ambitious. Nobody has ever brought together the world of documents, media and structured information in giving you one simple set of verbs that lets you richly find, move around and replicate those things."
Apple's upcoming Mac OS X Tiger is slated to include similar technology. Apple calls it "Spotlight", and more information is available here. Of course, it's still vaporware until they actually SHIP it , but Apple is scheduled to ship Tiger during the first half of 2005 -- at least a year ahead of Longhorn.
Apple's WWDC is a developers conference. The focus is on getting information to developers so that they can create cool new applications, or add cool new features to existing apps. For example, the most important point that Jobs made about each OS feature was that the corresponding SDK will be available for developers to use.
Sure, a 60 gig iPod would be cool, but WWDC is not the place to announce it.
The reason the "realistic" human graphics are "creepy" is that they aren't quite real enough yet. The brain perceives them as looking human, but their actions/reactions are off, and the characters typically aren't very deep intellectually. Once these obstacles are overcome, bridging the uncanny valley, maybe some of the "creepiness" will go away.
Being able to talk to your computer (or whatever device you happen to be using) looks really cool on TV, but do we really want to be standing around listening to each other yammer on and on to no one?
For me, the ultimate interface would be one that can receive 'thought waves'. Of course, this should require 'active thought', directed specifically to the device - don't want little boxes hanging around just listening to your brain all the time.
It would be a challenge to keep other devices from listening in, either accidentally or intentionally. Some sort of encryption comes to mind, but how would you implement it? Implanting an encryption chip is probably untenable, and an external device to provide the encryption relay makes the problem recursive.;-)
I suppose we could just pair the interface device to the user, similar to pairing a Bluetooth device. Or perhaps someone could offer a course in 'encrypted thinking'?
Underneath it all, getting a computer to do what you want is hard. Having a command line established a certain baseline - no more machine code or breadboards for most people. Having a GUI allows developers (or their IDEs) to absorb even more of this complexity from the 'user experience' - no more command lines for most people.
Proper UI design is the next step. The burden of complexity continues to shift from the user to the developer.
Underneath it all, getting a computer to do what you want is hard. Having a command line established a certain baseline - no more machine code or breadboards for most people. Having a GUI allows developers (or their IDEs) to absorb even more of this complexity from the 'user experience' - no more command lines for most people.
Proper UI design is the next step. The burden of complexity continues to shift from the user to the developer.
You are somewhat correct: Apple is using OSS as the foundation of Mac OS X. But that OSS foundation alone isn't enough to make money. Apple's "value added" components - Aqua, Carbon, etc. - are what makes OS X a marketable product.
Slashdot Mirror
...but property values are sure to go down in and around the flight paths of everyone's PDAs/cell phones/laptops/etc.
Objective C is mostly C, with some OOP extensions added in. Sure, the syntax for accessing methods within objects is different, but it's not that much of a leap. OOP concepts can be difficult to get your head around, so just poking around Interface Builder without a formal introduction probably isn't the best approach. But, after wading in with a tutorial or two, it may 'click' with some people. Others may require a book on Cocoa, but even that doesn't seem too unreasonable.
"Look at all the people who came to us when we were selling music at half the price of our competitors! Sure, it was below our cost, but look at the REVENUE! No, I don't know if we can sustain those numbers, but the revenue was SWEET...!"
Well, there's "losing" as in "not in first place", and then there's "losing" as in "relinquishing ground previously held". If we get enough of the latter, then the former is just a matter of time. :-)
Interesting how MS requires IE for this, while the rest of the world is recommending dumping IE for alternatives like Mozilla and Firefox.
"WinFS, I'd be the first to say, is very ambitious. Nobody has ever brought together the world of documents, media and structured information in giving you one simple set of verbs that lets you richly find, move around and replicate those things."
Apple's upcoming Mac OS X Tiger is slated to include similar technology. Apple calls it "Spotlight", and more information is available here. Of course, it's still vaporware until they actually SHIP it , but Apple is scheduled to ship Tiger during the first half of 2005 -- at least a year ahead of Longhorn.
And, of course, the iTunes Music Store could be the perfect delivery vehicle for eBooks...
Apple's WWDC is a developers conference. The focus is on getting information to developers so that they can create cool new applications, or add cool new features to existing apps. For example, the most important point that Jobs made about each OS feature was that the corresponding SDK will be available for developers to use.
Sure, a 60 gig iPod would be cool, but WWDC is not the place to announce it.
The reason the "realistic" human graphics are "creepy" is that they aren't quite real enough yet. The brain perceives them as looking human, but their actions/reactions are off, and the characters typically aren't very deep intellectually. Once these obstacles are overcome, bridging the uncanny valley, maybe some of the "creepiness" will go away.
:-)
For now, it still looks cool though.
...baked dinosaur.
Linspire pegs all the blame for virus problems on Microsoft and basically says that Linux (well, Lindows anyway) is the cure.
Everyone KNOWS that Mac OS X is the REAL cure.
The waste produced by a fusion reactor is helium - probably the most harmless stuff you can get.
;-)
Is this why aliens have high voices - because their fusion reactors vent a lot of helium into their atmospheres?
Being able to talk to your computer (or whatever device you happen to be using) looks really cool on TV, but do we really want to be standing around listening to each other yammer on and on to no one?
;-)
For me, the ultimate interface would be one that can receive 'thought waves'. Of course, this should require 'active thought', directed specifically to the device - don't want little boxes hanging around just listening to your brain all the time.
It would be a challenge to keep other devices from listening in, either accidentally or intentionally. Some sort of encryption comes to mind, but how would you implement it? Implanting an encryption chip is probably untenable, and an external device to provide the encryption relay makes the problem recursive.
I suppose we could just pair the interface device to the user, similar to pairing a Bluetooth device. Or perhaps someone could offer a course in 'encrypted thinking'?
...used to dig the Channel Tunnel on eBay...
There's a Channel Tunnel on eBay?!?!
Underneath it all, getting a computer to do what you want is hard. Having a command line established a certain baseline - no more machine code or breadboards for most people. Having a GUI allows developers (or their IDEs) to absorb even more of this complexity from the 'user experience' - no more command lines for most people.
Proper UI design is the next step. The burden of complexity continues to shift from the user to the developer.
Underneath it all, getting a computer to do what you want is hard. Having a command line established a certain baseline - no more machine code or breadboards for most people. Having a GUI allows developers (or their IDEs) to absorb even more of this complexity from the 'user experience' - no more command lines for most people.
Proper UI design is the next step. The burden of complexity continues to shift from the user to the developer.
You are somewhat correct: Apple is using OSS as the foundation of Mac OS X. But that OSS foundation alone isn't enough to make money. Apple's "value added" components - Aqua, Carbon, etc. - are what makes OS X a marketable product.
...you're killing our buggywhip sales.