It is far more likely that Mac's will be switched to run IOS rather then OSX in order to homogenise the environment.
Umm, and they'll create dev tools on iOS? Or they'll create a Windows development stack? Neither seems very workable. In any case, they will certainly pull bits between the OS's but since they already have an application signing framework in use on OS X now, I don't really see iOS as the easy path here.
OS X and OS X server will be merged into a server/high end desktop only available on machines starting at US$4K+.
Workstation and server seem less compatible.
Remember the people that use OSX for very technical purposes are in the extreme minority.
True, but they develop the software that makes it usable to everyone else. I'd say the percentage of users of OS X that are highly technical is probably higher than that on Windows, at least my experience in the software development industry. Thus, making things harder for OS X developers hurts Apple proportionally more than the same change to Windows would hurt MS.
Such a tiny segment of less then 3% of the market it's not even worth mentioning.
For the aforementioned reason, I disagree.
Mac users are primarily designers...
Umm, no. Mac users are primarily home users, not professional computer users of any sort.
...who believe the FUD that Win/Linux cant do graphics...
I prefer to do graphics work on OS X, but others have different preferences. I don't know anyone fearful or uncertain about doing graphics on Windows, although some are certainly apprehensive about doing it on Linux (as many people are so unfamiliar they don't know if adequate applications exist). Perhaps you're misusing the term "FUD"?
...then[sic] people who hate windows.
The interesting thing about both Linux and OS X is that users generally choose the OS intentionally based upon factors they feel differentiate it. Windows users often don't even know OS choices exist or consider comparing them. That makes the Mac market more reactive to changes in the product, more likely to "switch" to something if they aren't getting what they want.
These people will not swtich so long as Apple makes sure there is some kind of photoshop available (I believe there already is an IOS version).
Umm, Photoshop express for iOS is a Web app version of their consumer application. It's not really suitable for professional graphics work and it would be hard to make it so.
Steve doesn't care about the/.er who claims he'll switch if Mac goes IOS, they are happy to sacrifice you to maintain the purity of the platform.
Jobs certainly doesn't care about small niches like Slashdot users, but it still seems unlikely Apple would merge the OS's anytime in the foreseeable future. He's not stupid enough, however, to make things hard for developers, since it is apps that sell hardware, and selling hardware that makes Apple money. big part of the new App store is about making things easier on the majority of app developers so they make more apps and sell more apps and attract more users to drive hardware sales.
Basically, I think you have incorrect ideas because you approach the topic with the thesis that Jobs wants to lock things down, instead of Jobs wants to make money... and sometimes locking things down facilitates that. Starting from a business model perspective makes it a lot easier to understand and predict what directions Apple takes.
First, the Java port in use includes a lot of Apple know-how that is not generally available (such as private interfaces) to make Java integrate well rather than using just X11.
Apple already deprecated the java-cocao API over a year ago. What non-public interfaces are you talking about?
Second, it belongs to Apple, so Oracle would either have to receive a copy of Apple's implementation or start again with all the UI and platform native code.
This is a valid concern, but not much more than the difficulty of people trying to maintain a JVM when they aren't Sun/Oracle. One could argue that Sun/Oracle is more capable of creating a good JVM for OS X than Apple is.
Third, distribution would move outside Apple's update mechanism so keeping it patched and secure would be difficult - a new installer and update mechanism will be needed.
This is just an assumption. Apple pulls in tons of OS components made by third parties. The slow part isn't Apple pulling things like this in, not compared to the rate of creating an updated JVM to follow whatever Sun released in the past. It's possible Apple would not be willing to pull in an Oracle made JVM and keep it up to date, but that's just speculation at this point.
Fourth, the new AppStore rules will make sure there's negligible demand for consumer Java on the Mac.
I don't think the new store will remove the demand for java apps any more than it is already broken. I know I avoid java apps on OS X because they tend to suck and don't act like native applications or give me access to functionality supplied by the OS. Frankly, it's so bad right now, any change is welcome because it provides the possibility that things will improve. Maybe this will work out and Oracle will supply a JVM that is reasonably up to date and functional and performs well. If they don't and it is a disaster, I don't really feel that I'm much worse off than the current situation.
Okay just some random conjecture: Imagine you've got a program called "Opera Browser" and you are Not distributed through the app store. That means you won't be able to use the LaunchPad and 1-Click Updates.
Yeah, so what's the problem? Opera can:
provide their app through Apple's store, basically for free;
continue offering it as they do now;
create or work with another group to create an alternative app store with update capabilities to compete with Apple's store.
In short, Apple's adding a feature that makes software better. They do it all the time. You could just as easily say, Apple added system services to OS X and if Opera doesn't use them (still don't last I saw) they couldn't use features of other programs like the grammar checker, thesaurus, language translation services, etc. That's just the way things are if developers don't want to use some parts of the OS, then they don't.
I'm betting on mandatory code signing for applications outside the Mac App Store, making freeware impossible and shareware only available if the App Store censor allows it by 10.9.
That seems highly unlikely. Rather, they'll likely require code signing for apps in the app store as well as more and more of the code Apple ships themselves. Eventually, Apple will probably start using ACLs to provide more and more vocal warnings to users who try to run an unsigned application for the first time. Eventually, OS X may not even run unsigned apps by default, requiring the user to resort to manually whitelisting unsigned apps.
And I must say, they should have done it years ago.
At that point the web browser starts to become less important as newspapers can be accessed by (paid-for) apps.
Seriously? You really think the whole paid app for newspapers thing is going to work and that newspapers will be making apps for every platform instead of just Web pages? It seems unlikely to me.
There was never a Linux distro that blocked all software installation other than from its official repositories. In Apple's case, we've all seen iOS.
Umm, there have absolutely been Linux distros that block installation of software from non-official repositories
In colloquial use, "Linux" in the context it was used by GGP clearly did not refer to Android and other such applications.
What? Why not? They were comparing Linux to iOS. Both are used for mobile applications and both are OS's with variants that target other platforms. Android IS a Linux distro.
If a particular company selling Linux-based products (such as Android) with locked repositories was getting a similar repository for their desktop solutions, I'd sure as hell assume that they plan to lock that down as well.
Why? If Toyota sells a large truck with a diesel engine do you assume they are going to put large diesel engines in every kind of automobile they make, even when it does not seem to make financial sense? Why would you assume a company will apply the same limitations on all their products even when in different markets? That's just, well stupid.
That's not to say Apple won't eventually make a new version of OS X that can't easily install software from anywhere other than their store... just that there is no evidence that is the case and significant reason to think otherwise.
Ultimately, I think the point is that all reasons that Apple (and fans) has listed so far for iOS "walled garden" - including app store lockdown - are not form-factor dependent...
That's a fine assertion, but you need to support your hypothesis with a lot more than just an assertion. Apple has, to date not locked down their desktop OS, nor has any other vendor. Apple has said they aren't going to. There doesn't seem to be a business case for it either that I see. Apple makes it's money selling hardware which is way they're running this store and offering it for free for free applications. So, what have you got? Explain the business case you think Apple will follow here.
...if OS X is locked down just the same as iOS is. Geeks (including myself) would be unhappy, for sure, but geeks are the minority.
I frankly don't like the idea of their store either, but at least Canonical doesn't have Apple's history, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, making it easy for developers to sell and update software and users to install on the OS you're trying to promote is a terrible idea. And people wonder why Linux on the desktop adoption is so low.
I always thought stores sold stuff. The Ubu Software Center is just a GUI to a repository, not my idea of a store.
The new Mac store and the Ubuntu software center both are offering both payware and freeware. They are very, very comparable. In fact, Ubuntu's new package management features were inspired by the iPhone store.
There was never a Linux distro that blocked all software installation other than from its official repositories. In Apple's case, we've all seen iOS.
Umm, there have absolutely been Linux distros that block installation of software from non-official repositories, both Android phones and other appliances. That doesn't mean any specific Linux use will block installation, although certain vendors and certain appliance types make that more likely.
It is different because with most package management systems on linux you can subscribe to repositories from lots of different sources, when you run your update check, it will check all of them in one go, and when you search for new software, it will search for it in all of them.
This is true, but most users never add repositories and they typical user doesn't really know how. Also, since most package managers (sans ubuntu'sSoftware Center) don't handle commercial payware well at all, developers and users are used to bypassing it. The difference is really that Linux package management is optimized for FLOSS software while Apple's new package manager seems to be optimized for mac specific software payware or freeware, with the potential of FLOSS being difficult.
I'm not sure anecdotes are useful. The small dev shop I was working in today has maybe a dozen Macs for development and testing. None have bootcamp or Windows of any flavor. That's what the Windows boxes are for. So unless someone has actual numbers on how many Macs have Windows of some flavor, I guess I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.
That's funny, the only number I've ever heard as an estimate for Valve's percentage was from an industry insider who did not know but said "probably around 30% for big titles, more for small titles". So my question to you would be, why are you pretty sure? Do you have a source? Are you just guessing and if so what are you basing that guess on?
What Steve Jobs is introducing is a bit like that except that you need a separate interface for each different app store you subscribe to (Apple, Steam's Valve, etc) and it has the facility to support payment for the software being downloaded.
How is that different? There are several different package managers on Linux, each supporting different types of packages, as well as many, many apps that can only be installed by running a binary installer you get from a Web site, or a custom installer for that company's apps. As for supporting payment for Apps, it was introduced into Ubuntu's default package manager 10 days ago.
Then why does every iPod get more difficult to open up?
Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with installing alternate OS's.
More difficult to replace the battery?
Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with installing alternate OS's.
More difficult to jailbreak?
Because jailbreaks rely upon security holes and as systems mature they tend to have fewer of them.
If Apple really didn't care what people did with their devices after they bought them, then why does Apple claim that jailbreaking their devices is _illegal_, even though the courts (despite heavy resistance from Apple) have said it isn't?
Your tense is wrong. Apple CLAIMED it was illegal and then the courts ruled otherwise. But of course Apple also never, sued a single person for jailbreaking an iDevice so if Apple does care, why didn't they take action at least against one of the projects enabling people to do this?
"Apple says it’s unlawful to jailbreak, but has not taken legal action against the millions who have jailbroken their phones and used the underground app store Cydia."
How does that support your opinion that Apple gives a rat's ass about jailbreaking, since they've taken no legal action ever, to stop it?
What about the encrypted firmware on iPods? Now you can't run Rockbox...
Yeah, they added a hardware hash to the database, but that doesn't actually stop you from installing a different OS on the device, you just have to give up using iTunes for it or break the encryption (potentially illegal depending upon jurisdiction).
Apple has everything to gain by allowing users to run Windows on their Mac products. This is not true of the iOS devices. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by promoting such things.
Umm, they gain a hardware sale and they don't have to promote it, just not actively go out of their way to stop it.
Just because they haven't found a way to crack down on it doesn't mean they like it, approve of it, and won't try to prevent it in the future.
No, it doesn't mean they won't take that action, only that there is no evidence to support the assertion that they will take that action. They haven't done anything about users doing damn near the exact that thing with regard to iPhones and Android. Therefore, why would anyone think they're going to do something about iPads?
Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the iOS line is as a hardware shopping portal to the various iStores and for iAd.
You are incorrect. The primary purpose of iOS is to sell portable hardware, you know the portions of Apple pulling in about 50% of their revenue. They make relatively little on iStores (5% if we're really generous) which exist to promote and sell hardware as well, as stated by Jobs and several other Apple execs and backed up their statements to their shareholders (where it would be criminal to lie) and their financial filings. As for iAd, it might make money some day, but it is an add-on idea, and certainly not the plan for their primary revenue stream anytime soon unless you have some astounding numbers the rest of us do not. It's mostly there to woo developers and get more commercially developed apps on the iPhone which, in turn, sells more hardware.
Hack the device to run ChromeOS or Android and all that lovely revenue flies out the window.
The percentage of users that will ever install a different OS on any device is tiny, not worth bothering about, but even if it weren't, that's still a hardware sale and Apple isn't selling devices below cost like game console makers have in past. They're no about to discourage people from giving them cash for hardware in the hopes that these same people will ignore all Apple's competitors in the market and give them money anyway. That is, as I originally stated, idiotic.
Nevertheless, the iPad and iPhone are locked-down devices...
If by locked down device, you mean "can't run other OS's because of some hardware lock" no that's not true. Nor has Apple stopped anyone from installing other OS's on the iPhone or iPod touch, except in that they patched some security holes that had been used as a method to easily install those OS's from within iOS.
...I think the submitter is still right.
Gee that's great, but how about a logical reason why you think they're right. Since Apple has done nothing about the iAndroid project installing an alternative Linux based OS from Google on the iPhone, why exactly do you think they'll do something about a different project installing an alternative Linux based OS from Google on the iPad? What exactly is the difference between those two scenarios that makes you think they'll take that course of action? Seriously, do you have any reasoning here?
n the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone.
Yeah, and Bill Gates is famous for programming Windows, that doesn't mean it actually happened. Apple locks down their app store service and ties their OS to that service, but they haven't done anything about people jail breaking those devices so that they can use other services and other software, or dual boot other OS's. They just don't support those devices under the warranty, as one would expect.
This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.
Why not? Did you even read my post? Apple hasn't stopped anyone in the iAndroid project from installing or even dual booting Android and iOS. That lets people run unapproved apps too. Why would you think they'll take the unprecedented step for ChromeOS and the iPad? How is it any different?
If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).
They've never cared and no, it isn't popular and probably never will be. Jailbreaking or installing alternate OS's is always rare. Hell installing an alternate OS on off the shelf desktop systems is rare. That will almost certainly always be the case because it takes people knowing and caring enough to make the effort. On top of that, they have to be people who for some reason bought a device with Apple's iOS instead of the many with the OS they've decided they want.
Once you've given Apple their money, they don't care what you do with your device so long as you don't expect them to support it and honor the warranty on a device where you've bypassed their security, update, and QC systems. They've never, ever cared. And yet people like you keep insisting they somehow do, based upon a complete inability to distinguish between hardware (iDevice) and a software service (ITunes Store).
it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.
You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis? That is exactly the level of openness Apple has consistently shown to be in their "playbook".
Seriously, the only thing that would make someone think this sensationalist hypothesis might be true is if one paid attention to previous sensationalist hypothesis but did not pay attention when they were proved completely wrong. Apple locks down their services and keeps a lot of their "secret sauce" code closed and is very secretive about it. Apple is secretive about upcoming projects. There are good business reasons for all of the above. Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?
While I'm glad we can find some common ground here, I stand by my point regarding security through obscurity....you would know that most are not interested in learning about the details of technology and will not retain any specific information that you give them about it due to that fact.
You misunderstand me. I don't think "educating users" is a viable alternative to obscuring functionality. I'm talking about improving interfaces so that they actually tell the user in plain english (or whatever language) what the ramifications of selecting an option are, and those selections are actually granular and well formed so that one of them is the option the user wants (like run the software but don't trust it, let it start serving e-mail or look at my address book, or overwrite my files, or use all my network bandwidth, or modify my OS).
Regarding CLI file system navigation, setting aside the speed issue (which I think I'll agree to disagree on that barring a race:) while that's great for *NIX systems, using Windows CLI is a bit of a different story.
I created the directories you mention and timed myself. I'm about twice as fast using the CLI for that task. As for your argument about the difference between Windows and UNIX CLI's, that's not an argument that GUIs are superior, simply that CLI's (like any interface) can be done poorly. Heck you could make the same argument about trying to use Vista via the GUI and thus conclude GUI's suck compared to OS X's CLI.
Actually the main point about GUI administration on servers I was making was really more dealing with OS X server...
I actually like OS X's integration of GUI and CLI, like that when I move a directory via the GUI, my terminal windows figure it out immediately. Still, for rapid completion of tasks, a CLI interface is usually going to be faster for significant subset of tasks, even if there is more of a learning curve to figure it out.
I guess my point is if the GUI gets to the pont where it is designed well enough to be able to duplicate the majority of the functionality of the CLI then I don't see the inherent evil in switching and sticking with using just a GUI.
Both interfaces have their advantages, but for users that perform tasks highly skewed towards one interface or another, certainly there's nothing wrong with using that interface. I don't think many people would argue it is evil to not use a CLI, just that for some tasks it's painful because of the limitations of that type of interface.
...but frankly I've never understood how typing cd ~/Desktop/ToBeInstalled/GIMP/Docs/ is supposed to be more efficient than pointing and clicking four times with a mouse?
I'm one of those people who lives in both worlds, GUI and CLI depending upon my needs... but I actually can navigate that directory structure faster using the CLI than the UI. Hitting a few characters then a tab and a slash is really, really fast compared to moving a mouse cursor and clicking, even assuming a responsive GUI (and GUI's still slow down a lot under load on most systems).
Trying to Admin a network sitting around typing in obscure commands all the time strikes me as way more lazy than using a quick get in and get out approach via a GUI but good luck trying to convince the hardcore programmer crowd of that.
Executing commands and changing configurations either using the CLI or GUI can be frustrating due to the obscurity of many commands and interfaces. Switching between various versions of Windows and trying to find even basic configuration settings can be extremely painful... just as painful as trying to parse slightly out of date man pages using a very unintuitive text editor that doesn't support scrolling text, from within a terminal window. GUI interfaces tend to be more learnable because there are fewer permitted combinations (only so many many things to click on instead of combinations of letters to type). CLI interfaces tend to be more portable across OS versions and even OS's (install the right shell on Windows and the "ping" command will work on most any OS you can find).
Don't get me wrong, CLI is a necessity on the client side as it prevents users from getting in and royally screwing up stuff that they shouldn't be trying to play around with
I disagree. I don't think obscurity is a good mechanism for protecting users from making poor decisions. Making interfaces easier and more informative is the key, but that's hard so most people punt and make things hard to use instead.
easy to use is too often equated as dumbed down, perhaps it's important to remember that while they can overlap at times, those two adjectives can be worlds apart...
Absolutely! Usability and functionality can certainly co-exist.
A significantly better question is, why don't they have even one programmer-friendly hardware button?
Because they decided agility in hardware design of iOS devices was a more important business benefit than exposing hardware buttons to developers. You may not like that decision and it may have been the wrong decision, but it's certainly an understandable one to anyone who can look at things from someone else's perspective.
First, Apple requires that apps use the published APIs according to their guidelines so things don't break as hardware changes. Apps that won't work on the new version because the switches have changed are a no-no..
That already happens. Owning an ipod Touch there are many applications which I cannot download because they utilize the microphone (even in applications where they microphone is a very minor and optional part of the app), things are already broken with certain hardware changes.
You're missing an important distinction. While having bought a low-end system you can't buy all the software in the store, if you upgrade to a newer version of that system or buy a higher end version of their device, none of your apps break and stop working. You just have more choices. If Apple let people use the hardware buttons in arbitrary ways, that means they have to commit to having those hardware buttons on every version of their phone going forward until they're ready to let software break. They make next to nothing selling software and a huge amount selling hardware so you can see why they might be reluctant to put themselves in the position where if users buy new hardware they lose functionality.
A "no-no" that is trivial to patch. Nothing to see there.
Having to patch apps, means Apple relies upon third party developers to fix things before they sell new hardware. What if that company went out of business? Then Apple is selling new hardware and users are stuck choosing between upgrading and losing apps they use or sticking with legacy hardware. Apple doesn't want to be in that situation and I don't blame them one bit. That's why this is part of the developer agreement to sell through Apple's store and developers knew that going in.
Are you and adult? Because I am and I would like the things I buy for my personal use to be useable in ways beyond what the original designer intended.
So go ahead. What's stopping you? Heck, blow away iOS and install a Linux distro if you want. Just don't expect to dictate to Apple or any other company what they sell in their store, a service they provide. Start your own freaking store and put whatever you want in it, you wouldn't be the first person to do so.
I am capable of choosing for myself whether I would like the convenience of using the paltry number of physical controls on an iWhatever for whatever purpose a developer might enable.
Then why are you whining?
That is the whole point of TFA -- people should be able to choose for themselves.
Yes people, including people running a store. Why should you dictate what quality of goods someone else sells in their store to work with the devices they sell? The problem with juvenile rants like the one in this article is they are on par with the Tea Party rants about "rights". It's all from the perspective of the one person. You want the right to choose what other people do, like what Apple sells and you think your rights are more important than everyone else's.
You completely miss the point in your idiotic rant. They just don't want to control what they sell. They want to control it AFTER you buy it. If I buy it, it's mine. I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with it.
And how, exactly, are they stopping you form jailbreaking it or installing Android on it?
Apple is controlling what you do with their services, provided with the device. They're not stopping you from hacking it or installing your OS of choice. I mean hell, do you complain Tesla Motors is controlling their cars after they sell them to you because their dealerships and warranty programs don't sell or support aftermarket laser cannon turrets? There's an easy solution, go to a different company for your aftermarket services or buy something else in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
It is far more likely that Mac's will be switched to run IOS rather then OSX in order to homogenise the environment.
Umm, and they'll create dev tools on iOS? Or they'll create a Windows development stack? Neither seems very workable. In any case, they will certainly pull bits between the OS's but since they already have an application signing framework in use on OS X now, I don't really see iOS as the easy path here.
OS X and OS X server will be merged into a server/high end desktop only available on machines starting at US$4K+.
Workstation and server seem less compatible.
Remember the people that use OSX for very technical purposes are in the extreme minority.
True, but they develop the software that makes it usable to everyone else. I'd say the percentage of users of OS X that are highly technical is probably higher than that on Windows, at least my experience in the software development industry. Thus, making things harder for OS X developers hurts Apple proportionally more than the same change to Windows would hurt MS.
Such a tiny segment of less then 3% of the market it's not even worth mentioning.
For the aforementioned reason, I disagree.
Mac users are primarily designers...
Umm, no. Mac users are primarily home users, not professional computer users of any sort.
...who believe the FUD that Win/Linux cant do graphics...
I prefer to do graphics work on OS X, but others have different preferences. I don't know anyone fearful or uncertain about doing graphics on Windows, although some are certainly apprehensive about doing it on Linux (as many people are so unfamiliar they don't know if adequate applications exist). Perhaps you're misusing the term "FUD"?
The interesting thing about both Linux and OS X is that users generally choose the OS intentionally based upon factors they feel differentiate it. Windows users often don't even know OS choices exist or consider comparing them. That makes the Mac market more reactive to changes in the product, more likely to "switch" to something if they aren't getting what they want.
These people will not swtich so long as Apple makes sure there is some kind of photoshop available (I believe there already is an IOS version).
Umm, Photoshop express for iOS is a Web app version of their consumer application. It's not really suitable for professional graphics work and it would be hard to make it so.
Steve doesn't care about the /.er who claims he'll switch if Mac goes IOS, they are happy to sacrifice you to maintain the purity of the platform.
Jobs certainly doesn't care about small niches like Slashdot users, but it still seems unlikely Apple would merge the OS's anytime in the foreseeable future. He's not stupid enough, however, to make things hard for developers, since it is apps that sell hardware, and selling hardware that makes Apple money. big part of the new App store is about making things easier on the majority of app developers so they make more apps and sell more apps and attract more users to drive hardware sales.
Basically, I think you have incorrect ideas because you approach the topic with the thesis that Jobs wants to lock things down, instead of Jobs wants to make money... and sometimes locking things down facilitates that. Starting from a business model perspective makes it a lot easier to understand and predict what directions Apple takes.
First, the Java port in use includes a lot of Apple know-how that is not generally available (such as private interfaces) to make Java integrate well rather than using just X11.
Apple already deprecated the java-cocao API over a year ago. What non-public interfaces are you talking about?
Second, it belongs to Apple, so Oracle would either have to receive a copy of Apple's implementation or start again with all the UI and platform native code.
This is a valid concern, but not much more than the difficulty of people trying to maintain a JVM when they aren't Sun/Oracle. One could argue that Sun/Oracle is more capable of creating a good JVM for OS X than Apple is.
Third, distribution would move outside Apple's update mechanism so keeping it patched and secure would be difficult - a new installer and update mechanism will be needed.
This is just an assumption. Apple pulls in tons of OS components made by third parties. The slow part isn't Apple pulling things like this in, not compared to the rate of creating an updated JVM to follow whatever Sun released in the past. It's possible Apple would not be willing to pull in an Oracle made JVM and keep it up to date, but that's just speculation at this point.
Fourth, the new AppStore rules will make sure there's negligible demand for consumer Java on the Mac.
I don't think the new store will remove the demand for java apps any more than it is already broken. I know I avoid java apps on OS X because they tend to suck and don't act like native applications or give me access to functionality supplied by the OS. Frankly, it's so bad right now, any change is welcome because it provides the possibility that things will improve. Maybe this will work out and Oracle will supply a JVM that is reasonably up to date and functional and performs well. If they don't and it is a disaster, I don't really feel that I'm much worse off than the current situation.
Okay just some random conjecture: Imagine you've got a program called "Opera Browser" and you are Not distributed through the app store. That means you won't be able to use the LaunchPad and 1-Click Updates.
Yeah, so what's the problem? Opera can:
In short, Apple's adding a feature that makes software better. They do it all the time. You could just as easily say, Apple added system services to OS X and if Opera doesn't use them (still don't last I saw) they couldn't use features of other programs like the grammar checker, thesaurus, language translation services, etc. That's just the way things are if developers don't want to use some parts of the OS, then they don't.
I'm betting on mandatory code signing for applications outside the Mac App Store, making freeware impossible and shareware only available if the App Store censor allows it by 10.9.
That seems highly unlikely. Rather, they'll likely require code signing for apps in the app store as well as more and more of the code Apple ships themselves. Eventually, Apple will probably start using ACLs to provide more and more vocal warnings to users who try to run an unsigned application for the first time. Eventually, OS X may not even run unsigned apps by default, requiring the user to resort to manually whitelisting unsigned apps.
And I must say, they should have done it years ago.
At that point the web browser starts to become less important as newspapers can be accessed by (paid-for) apps.
Seriously? You really think the whole paid app for newspapers thing is going to work and that newspapers will be making apps for every platform instead of just Web pages? It seems unlikely to me.
There was never a Linux distro that blocked all software installation other than from its official repositories. In Apple's case, we've all seen iOS.
Umm, there have absolutely been Linux distros that block installation of software from non-official repositories
In colloquial use, "Linux" in the context it was used by GGP clearly did not refer to Android and other such applications.
What? Why not? They were comparing Linux to iOS. Both are used for mobile applications and both are OS's with variants that target other platforms. Android IS a Linux distro.
If a particular company selling Linux-based products (such as Android) with locked repositories was getting a similar repository for their desktop solutions, I'd sure as hell assume that they plan to lock that down as well.
Why? If Toyota sells a large truck with a diesel engine do you assume they are going to put large diesel engines in every kind of automobile they make, even when it does not seem to make financial sense? Why would you assume a company will apply the same limitations on all their products even when in different markets? That's just, well stupid.
That's not to say Apple won't eventually make a new version of OS X that can't easily install software from anywhere other than their store... just that there is no evidence that is the case and significant reason to think otherwise.
Ultimately, I think the point is that all reasons that Apple (and fans) has listed so far for iOS "walled garden" - including app store lockdown - are not form-factor dependent...
That's a fine assertion, but you need to support your hypothesis with a lot more than just an assertion. Apple has, to date not locked down their desktop OS, nor has any other vendor. Apple has said they aren't going to. There doesn't seem to be a business case for it either that I see. Apple makes it's money selling hardware which is way they're running this store and offering it for free for free applications. So, what have you got? Explain the business case you think Apple will follow here.
...if OS X is locked down just the same as iOS is. Geeks (including myself) would be unhappy, for sure, but geeks are the minority.
So how will that make Apple more money?
I frankly don't like the idea of their store either, but at least Canonical doesn't have Apple's history, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, making it easy for developers to sell and update software and users to install on the OS you're trying to promote is a terrible idea. And people wonder why Linux on the desktop adoption is so low.
I always thought stores sold stuff. The Ubu Software Center is just a GUI to a repository, not my idea of a store.
The new Mac store and the Ubuntu software center both are offering both payware and freeware. They are very, very comparable. In fact, Ubuntu's new package management features were inspired by the iPhone store.
There was never a Linux distro that blocked all software installation other than from its official repositories. In Apple's case, we've all seen iOS.
Umm, there have absolutely been Linux distros that block installation of software from non-official repositories, both Android phones and other appliances. That doesn't mean any specific Linux use will block installation, although certain vendors and certain appliance types make that more likely.
It is different because with most package management systems on linux you can subscribe to repositories from lots of different sources, when you run your update check, it will check all of them in one go, and when you search for new software, it will search for it in all of them.
This is true, but most users never add repositories and they typical user doesn't really know how. Also, since most package managers (sans ubuntu'sSoftware Center) don't handle commercial payware well at all, developers and users are used to bypassing it. The difference is really that Linux package management is optimized for FLOSS software while Apple's new package manager seems to be optimized for mac specific software payware or freeware, with the potential of FLOSS being difficult.
I'm not sure anecdotes are useful. The small dev shop I was working in today has maybe a dozen Macs for development and testing. None have bootcamp or Windows of any flavor. That's what the Windows boxes are for. So unless someone has actual numbers on how many Macs have Windows of some flavor, I guess I don't see the point of continuing the conversation.
I'm pretty sure they don't charge 30% either.
That's funny, the only number I've ever heard as an estimate for Valve's percentage was from an industry insider who did not know but said "probably around 30% for big titles, more for small titles". So my question to you would be, why are you pretty sure? Do you have a source? Are you just guessing and if so what are you basing that guess on?
What Steve Jobs is introducing is a bit like that except that you need a separate interface for each different app store you subscribe to (Apple, Steam's Valve, etc) and it has the facility to support payment for the software being downloaded.
How is that different? There are several different package managers on Linux, each supporting different types of packages, as well as many, many apps that can only be installed by running a binary installer you get from a Web site, or a custom installer for that company's apps. As for supporting payment for Apps, it was introduced into Ubuntu's default package manager 10 days ago.
Then why does every iPod get more difficult to open up?
Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with installing alternate OS's.
More difficult to replace the battery?
Irrelevant, it has nothing to do with installing alternate OS's.
More difficult to jailbreak?
Because jailbreaks rely upon security holes and as systems mature they tend to have fewer of them.
If Apple really didn't care what people did with their devices after they bought them, then why does Apple claim that jailbreaking their devices is _illegal_, even though the courts (despite heavy resistance from Apple) have said it isn't?
Your tense is wrong. Apple CLAIMED it was illegal and then the courts ruled otherwise. But of course Apple also never, sued a single person for jailbreaking an iDevice so if Apple does care, why didn't they take action at least against one of the projects enabling people to do this?
"Apple says it’s unlawful to jailbreak, but has not taken legal action against the millions who have jailbroken their phones and used the underground app store Cydia."
How does that support your opinion that Apple gives a rat's ass about jailbreaking, since they've taken no legal action ever, to stop it?
What about the encrypted firmware on iPods? Now you can't run Rockbox...
Yeah, they added a hardware hash to the database, but that doesn't actually stop you from installing a different OS on the device, you just have to give up using iTunes for it or break the encryption (potentially illegal depending upon jurisdiction).
I don't know why you were modded flamebait.
Apple has everything to gain by allowing users to run Windows on their Mac products. This is not true of the iOS devices. There is absolutely nothing for them to gain by promoting such things.
Umm, they gain a hardware sale and they don't have to promote it, just not actively go out of their way to stop it.
Just because they haven't found a way to crack down on it doesn't mean they like it, approve of it, and won't try to prevent it in the future.
No, it doesn't mean they won't take that action, only that there is no evidence to support the assertion that they will take that action. They haven't done anything about users doing damn near the exact that thing with regard to iPhones and Android. Therefore, why would anyone think they're going to do something about iPads?
Let's not forget that the primary purpose of the iOS line is as a hardware shopping portal to the various iStores and for iAd.
You are incorrect. The primary purpose of iOS is to sell portable hardware, you know the portions of Apple pulling in about 50% of their revenue. They make relatively little on iStores (5% if we're really generous) which exist to promote and sell hardware as well, as stated by Jobs and several other Apple execs and backed up their statements to their shareholders (where it would be criminal to lie) and their financial filings. As for iAd, it might make money some day, but it is an add-on idea, and certainly not the plan for their primary revenue stream anytime soon unless you have some astounding numbers the rest of us do not. It's mostly there to woo developers and get more commercially developed apps on the iPhone which, in turn, sells more hardware.
Hack the device to run ChromeOS or Android and all that lovely revenue flies out the window.
The percentage of users that will ever install a different OS on any device is tiny, not worth bothering about, but even if it weren't, that's still a hardware sale and Apple isn't selling devices below cost like game console makers have in past. They're no about to discourage people from giving them cash for hardware in the hopes that these same people will ignore all Apple's competitors in the market and give them money anyway. That is, as I originally stated, idiotic.
Nevertheless, the iPad and iPhone are locked-down devices...
If by locked down device, you mean "can't run other OS's because of some hardware lock" no that's not true. Nor has Apple stopped anyone from installing other OS's on the iPhone or iPod touch, except in that they patched some security holes that had been used as a method to easily install those OS's from within iOS.
...I think the submitter is still right.
Gee that's great, but how about a logical reason why you think they're right. Since Apple has done nothing about the iAndroid project installing an alternative Linux based OS from Google on the iPhone, why exactly do you think they'll do something about a different project installing an alternative Linux based OS from Google on the iPad? What exactly is the difference between those two scenarios that makes you think they'll take that course of action? Seriously, do you have any reasoning here?
n the PC, I can see what you're saying. On the phones, not so much. In fact, they're rather famous for not allowing you to do what you want with your phone.
Yeah, and Bill Gates is famous for programming Windows, that doesn't mean it actually happened. Apple locks down their app store service and ties their OS to that service, but they haven't done anything about people jail breaking those devices so that they can use other services and other software, or dual boot other OS's. They just don't support those devices under the warranty, as one would expect.
This particular alternate OS will allow people to run non-approved apps. Apple is not going to allow that.
Why not? Did you even read my post? Apple hasn't stopped anyone in the iAndroid project from installing or even dual booting Android and iOS. That lets people run unapproved apps too. Why would you think they'll take the unprecedented step for ChromeOS and the iPad? How is it any different?
If they haven't done something to stop Android on the iPhone it's either a) the new unlocking rules or b) it's not very popular so they don't care (yet).
They've never cared and no, it isn't popular and probably never will be. Jailbreaking or installing alternate OS's is always rare. Hell installing an alternate OS on off the shelf desktop systems is rare. That will almost certainly always be the case because it takes people knowing and caring enough to make the effort. On top of that, they have to be people who for some reason bought a device with Apple's iOS instead of the many with the OS they've decided they want.
Once you've given Apple their money, they don't care what you do with your device so long as you don't expect them to support it and honor the warranty on a device where you've bypassed their security, update, and QC systems. They've never, ever cared. And yet people like you keep insisting they somehow do, based upon a complete inability to distinguish between hardware (iDevice) and a software service (ITunes Store).
it's not necessarily true that Apple will allow iPads to run other operating systems going forward. That's typically not a level of openness found in the Apple playbook.
You can run Windows or linux on Mac computers and Apple has done nothing to hinder that. Apple for a time shipped trusted computing modules in their machines and haters went crazy about how Apple was locking them down. The end result, Apple didn't use it at all for locking anything down and simply made it available to developers doing encryption. There's been a working version of Android in the iPhone since April and Apple has done nothing about it. Why then would anyone claim Apple is going to try to stop people from running ChromeOS on iPads? Is there even a shred of evidence to support this bizarre hypothesis? That is exactly the level of openness Apple has consistently shown to be in their "playbook".
Seriously, the only thing that would make someone think this sensationalist hypothesis might be true is if one paid attention to previous sensationalist hypothesis but did not pay attention when they were proved completely wrong. Apple locks down their services and keeps a lot of their "secret sauce" code closed and is very secretive about it. Apple is secretive about upcoming projects. There are good business reasons for all of the above. Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about what a small percentage of hackers do after they've paid Apple for the hardware. Why would they? Does anyone even have a plausible possibility?
While I'm glad we can find some common ground here, I stand by my point regarding security through obscurity. ...you would know that most are not interested in learning about the details of technology and will not retain any specific information that you give them about it due to that fact.
You misunderstand me. I don't think "educating users" is a viable alternative to obscuring functionality. I'm talking about improving interfaces so that they actually tell the user in plain english (or whatever language) what the ramifications of selecting an option are, and those selections are actually granular and well formed so that one of them is the option the user wants (like run the software but don't trust it, let it start serving e-mail or look at my address book, or overwrite my files, or use all my network bandwidth, or modify my OS).
Regarding CLI file system navigation, setting aside the speed issue (which I think I'll agree to disagree on that barring a race :) while that's great for *NIX systems, using Windows CLI is a bit of a different story.
I created the directories you mention and timed myself. I'm about twice as fast using the CLI for that task. As for your argument about the difference between Windows and UNIX CLI's, that's not an argument that GUIs are superior, simply that CLI's (like any interface) can be done poorly. Heck you could make the same argument about trying to use Vista via the GUI and thus conclude GUI's suck compared to OS X's CLI.
Actually the main point about GUI administration on servers I was making was really more dealing with OS X server...
I actually like OS X's integration of GUI and CLI, like that when I move a directory via the GUI, my terminal windows figure it out immediately. Still, for rapid completion of tasks, a CLI interface is usually going to be faster for significant subset of tasks, even if there is more of a learning curve to figure it out.
I guess my point is if the GUI gets to the pont where it is designed well enough to be able to duplicate the majority of the functionality of the CLI then I don't see the inherent evil in switching and sticking with using just a GUI.
Both interfaces have their advantages, but for users that perform tasks highly skewed towards one interface or another, certainly there's nothing wrong with using that interface. I don't think many people would argue it is evil to not use a CLI, just that for some tasks it's painful because of the limitations of that type of interface.
...but frankly I've never understood how typing cd ~/Desktop/ToBeInstalled/GIMP/Docs/ is supposed to be more efficient than pointing and clicking four times with a mouse?
I'm one of those people who lives in both worlds, GUI and CLI depending upon my needs... but I actually can navigate that directory structure faster using the CLI than the UI. Hitting a few characters then a tab and a slash is really, really fast compared to moving a mouse cursor and clicking, even assuming a responsive GUI (and GUI's still slow down a lot under load on most systems).
Trying to Admin a network sitting around typing in obscure commands all the time strikes me as way more lazy than using a quick get in and get out approach via a GUI but good luck trying to convince the hardcore programmer crowd of that.
Executing commands and changing configurations either using the CLI or GUI can be frustrating due to the obscurity of many commands and interfaces. Switching between various versions of Windows and trying to find even basic configuration settings can be extremely painful... just as painful as trying to parse slightly out of date man pages using a very unintuitive text editor that doesn't support scrolling text, from within a terminal window. GUI interfaces tend to be more learnable because there are fewer permitted combinations (only so many many things to click on instead of combinations of letters to type). CLI interfaces tend to be more portable across OS versions and even OS's (install the right shell on Windows and the "ping" command will work on most any OS you can find).
Don't get me wrong, CLI is a necessity on the client side as it prevents users from getting in and royally screwing up stuff that they shouldn't be trying to play around with
I disagree. I don't think obscurity is a good mechanism for protecting users from making poor decisions. Making interfaces easier and more informative is the key, but that's hard so most people punt and make things hard to use instead.
easy to use is too often equated as dumbed down, perhaps it's important to remember that while they can overlap at times, those two adjectives can be worlds apart...
Absolutely! Usability and functionality can certainly co-exist.
A significantly better question is, why don't they have even one programmer-friendly hardware button?
Because they decided agility in hardware design of iOS devices was a more important business benefit than exposing hardware buttons to developers. You may not like that decision and it may have been the wrong decision, but it's certainly an understandable one to anyone who can look at things from someone else's perspective.
First, Apple requires that apps use the published APIs according to their guidelines so things don't break as hardware changes. Apps that won't work on the new version because the switches have changed are a no-no..
That already happens. Owning an ipod Touch there are many applications which I cannot download because they utilize the microphone (even in applications where they microphone is a very minor and optional part of the app), things are already broken with certain hardware changes.
You're missing an important distinction. While having bought a low-end system you can't buy all the software in the store, if you upgrade to a newer version of that system or buy a higher end version of their device, none of your apps break and stop working. You just have more choices. If Apple let people use the hardware buttons in arbitrary ways, that means they have to commit to having those hardware buttons on every version of their phone going forward until they're ready to let software break. They make next to nothing selling software and a huge amount selling hardware so you can see why they might be reluctant to put themselves in the position where if users buy new hardware they lose functionality.
A "no-no" that is trivial to patch. Nothing to see there.
Having to patch apps, means Apple relies upon third party developers to fix things before they sell new hardware. What if that company went out of business? Then Apple is selling new hardware and users are stuck choosing between upgrading and losing apps they use or sticking with legacy hardware. Apple doesn't want to be in that situation and I don't blame them one bit. That's why this is part of the developer agreement to sell through Apple's store and developers knew that going in.
Are you and adult? Because I am and I would like the things I buy for my personal use to be useable in ways beyond what the original designer intended.
So go ahead. What's stopping you? Heck, blow away iOS and install a Linux distro if you want. Just don't expect to dictate to Apple or any other company what they sell in their store, a service they provide. Start your own freaking store and put whatever you want in it, you wouldn't be the first person to do so.
I am capable of choosing for myself whether I would like the convenience of using the paltry number of physical controls on an iWhatever for whatever purpose a developer might enable.
Then why are you whining?
That is the whole point of TFA -- people should be able to choose for themselves.
Yes people, including people running a store. Why should you dictate what quality of goods someone else sells in their store to work with the devices they sell? The problem with juvenile rants like the one in this article is they are on par with the Tea Party rants about "rights". It's all from the perspective of the one person. You want the right to choose what other people do, like what Apple sells and you think your rights are more important than everyone else's.
You completely miss the point in your idiotic rant. They just don't want to control what they sell. They want to control it AFTER you buy it. If I buy it, it's mine. I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with it.
And how, exactly, are they stopping you form jailbreaking it or installing Android on it?
Apple is controlling what you do with their services, provided with the device. They're not stopping you from hacking it or installing your OS of choice. I mean hell, do you complain Tesla Motors is controlling their cars after they sell them to you because their dealerships and warranty programs don't sell or support aftermarket laser cannon turrets? There's an easy solution, go to a different company for your aftermarket services or buy something else in the first place.