Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Operating Systems Apple

Developers Expect iOS and MacOS To Merge 436

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i'm-sure-its-been-discussed dept.
AHuxley noticed the frightening little Ars story talking about a certain expectation that iOS and MacOS will merge, leading to a single DRM-locked OS on your MacBook and your iPad. Certainly Apple would love a piece of every app sold. Now I'm sure that this has been discussed over there, but I wouldn't expect it any time soon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Developers Expect iOS and MacOS To Merge

Comments Filter:
  • by _PimpDaddy7_ (415866) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:03AM (#32663818)

    iMerge(TM)

    • by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @10:43AM (#32664928)
      Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.

      Apple isn't going to kill the Imac and Macbook lines, they will simply replace the current NEXT based OS with the future versions of IOS and naturally more complex systems are more prone to unexpected issues. Moving the hardware to ARM is trivial as they've already got the HW expertise and OS to do it. The only thing they need to do is get SW makers to fall in line, MS will with their standard half-arsed attempt at Office:Mac and so will Adobe with CS (Adobe dont have the balls to tell Steve to stuff it). Realistically they just need to add more keyboard and mouse support to the Ipad.

      Apple wants to do this for three reasons.

      1. It just works(TM). Mac OSX can go wrong more then the Iphone. This is because, as fanboys point out OSX is a lot more complex then IOS. Apple does not want users to have to deal with their own problems so they seek to eliminate the chance of it happening. Apple's current strategy is to cut features out that don't work perfectly.
      2. Homogeneity. Apple prides itself on the fact that everything works together, that choices are simple. Having two disparate OS lines is detrimental to the long term success of this goal.
      3. Control. Fanboys may defend Apple's control for various reasons, mostly using cognitive dissonance (it's for your own good and other such excuses) but you cant deny that Apple wants control. They want to stop the hackintosh, they want to prevent more clones and they want to control what the end users experiences.

      This wont happen overnight, not even the RDF turned to eleven could pull that one off. It will happen over time in baby steps and be hailed by the fanboys.
      • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:03AM (#32665162)
        Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop.

        It might, but I would be curious to know whether there was any evidence for this beyond the reported opinion of a handful of third-party app developers. These guys are targeting their products towards Apple's little handheld media boxes (and good luck to them) but their opinion doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

        Personally, I hope it doesn't. OS X is certainly not everything I would like it to be, but it is at least a unix-based platform that is useful for my purposes. I would be quite surprised if Apple were to actually dump OS X, given that maintenance and development of a "real" computer platform on established third-party chipsets must be a comparatively small drain on their resources by comparison with what they surely must devote to their phone and tablet devices.
      • by jbolden (176878) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:09AM (#32665246) Homepage

        I don't think you are a troll just a bit unrealistic. There is a huge difference between what users expect from Cell phone OSes and what they expect from Computer OSes. In particular Computer OSes need to support custom applications easily.

        Apple would lose their place in the IT market, the scientific market, the music market, the video market with a limited lockdown system. They would lose their margins with a high level of control and supervision for a highly capable system. Yes they would love to have the control and the homogeneity. So would Microsoft, so would Linux. Its just that the order on computers is:

        a) features -- can do what I want
        b) reliability -- does what I want consistently
        c) price --
        d) convenience -- does what I want easily.

        For cell phones the order seems to be
        a) basic features
        b) form factor
        c) other features

      • by bonch (38532) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:33AM (#32665594)

        Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.

        How does the speculation of a few developers vindicate you?

        Steve Jobs himself has already addressed this topic and said traditional PCs won't go away. They'll be like trucks; the people who need them will simply be fewer than those who just drive regular cars.

      • by DJRumpy (1345787) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @12:55PM (#32666922)

        Odd. There isn't a single mention of DRM in the entire article. The summary is just an alarmist piece. It's only natural that features from one end up in the other, just as features from Windows end up in Mobile, and I would expect features from Mobile will end up in Windows if they are useful in a desktop environment.

        iOS4 received feature parity with OS X (some 23 features from OS X ported to iOS in addition to IPV6 and DNS functionality). The article fails to mention any of this. It only talks about iOS4 influence on the desktop while ignoring the return path.

        As a Mac user. I'm not concerned in the slightest.

      • by e4g4 (533831) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:16PM (#32667230)
        I'd recommend watching the interview with Jobs at D8 (by Mossberg and some other WSJ journalist), it's available (free) on iTunes. He made an excellent car analogy, equating the PC (as in personal computer, not PC/Mac) to trucks in the early days of the automobile market. Basically - the analogy was that back when automobiles were new, the vast majority of cars were trucks, designed for getting work done. As that technology trickled down into the popular market, the car became more user friendly (automatic transmissions, air conditioning, radio, etc.) and less like trucks. Jobs essentially equated MacOS and iOS with trucks and sedans. Ultimately, his point was that there are still trucks now (implying that Apple has no intention of killing their entry in the PC market). As I see it - Apple would love for MacOS marketshare to stay exactly where it is for the foreseeable future (5%) and replace the other 93ish% with iOS. Jobs is not a fool - he knows that we need trucks; I do not believe that Apple has any intention of killing MacOS.
      • by node 3 (115640) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @01:42PM (#32667590)

        Apple wants to kill the Mac OS desktop. Thus far I've been called a Troll, Naive and Insane. Now I am vindicated as developers have said the same thing.

        Apple doesn't want to kill the desktop, the desktop will be around for quite some time, and they want to be there until the end.

        Apple isn't going to kill the Imac and Macbook lines, they will simply replace the current NEXT based OS with the future versions of IOS and naturally more complex systems are more prone to unexpected issues.

        iOS is Nextstep, just with (mainly) UIKit replacing AppKit (there are more differences between Mac OS X and iOS, but this is main difference in terms of its relation to Nextstep). As for replacing Mac OS X with iOS, this doesn't make any sense. iOS is designed for small multitouch screens. This notion of iOS on the desktop is just as misguided as the idea of an iPad running Mac OS X. It can be done, but it would make the product worse.

        Having two disparate OS lines is detrimental to the long term success of this goal [homogeneity].

        Perhaps, but the gain in homogeneity would not offset the loss in quality of the Mac platform.

        Control. Fanboys may defend Apple's control for various reasons, mostly using cognitive dissonance

        FYI, when you get called a troll, it's for bullshit like this. Calling those who disagree with you "fanboys" makes you a troll, de facto. You may not realize it, leaving you to wonder "what the hell did I say that makes me a troll?" leading you to a conclusion that it must be just a bunch of "fanboys" who just don't want to hear the truth (hence your claim of cognitive dissonance), reinforcing your notion that we're just "fanboys", and therefore our arguments are dismissed out of hand.

        Anyway, my point being, if you don't want to be seen as a troll, drop that word from your vocabulary completely, even when you think that there's a situation where it incontrovertibly applies.

        They want to stop the hackintosh, they want to prevent more clones and they want to control what the end users experiences.

        And this is why you are wrong, whether you get called troll or not. The above, which is pretty much the extent of their "control" is fairly limited, and very weak grounds upon which to base any sort of grand notion that Apple wants to increase control over their users.

        The "control" over the hackintosh is obviously very limited, and not the sort of control which leads to any sort of slippery slope issues. They want you to buy a Mac if you want to run Mac OS X. The Mac and their OS are a whole. You may not like that that's how they see it, and that that's how they go about it, but some sort of overarching "control" it is not.

        As for "controlling what the end user experiences". That's overstating things quite much. They don't want to control what the user experiences, with the fundamental exception that they want to exclude a set of very rational things. Primarily, buggy software, spyware, and ports which fail to make good use of the platform. They don't want control over my experience other than to help see to it that I don't have to deal with such crap. And when us "fanboys" say (as you said in your post) "it's for your own good and other such excuses", what we're saying is that "it makes the product better". That's why we willingly choose Apple products, so we don't have to deal with a bunch of crap. It's also a huge part of why Apple products do so well even when surrounded by competition whose primary advantage is less "control".

        This wont happen overnight, not even the RDF turned to eleven could pull that one off. It will happen over time in baby steps and be hailed by the fanboys.

        It (although not the "it" you've been going on about) will be hailed because it will make our lives better. The "it" won't be locking down the Mac, or replacing M

    • by bonch (38532) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @11:32AM (#32665570)

      leading to a single DRM-locked OS on your MacBook and your iPad.

      There is zero evidence that any such convergence (beyond the fact they already share the same Darwin core and Foundation classes) would be "DRM-locked." You threw the phrase in there as flamebait to ignite discussion. Don't be an alarmist site.

  • More like an option (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gulthek (12570) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:03AM (#32663820) Homepage Journal

    If I were Apple I'd make a desktop iOS a user option like the current Parental Controls. Locking specific users into a walled garden of uncomplicated settings and apps sure would be nice for grandparent support.

    • At Ease (Score:5, Informative)

      by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:06AM (#32663846) Homepage Journal

      If I were Apple I'd make a desktop iOS a user option like the current Parental Controls.

      Apple tried this before; it was called At Ease [wikipedia.org].

      • Re:At Ease (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ephemeriis (315124) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:22AM (#32664006)

        If I were Apple I'd make a desktop iOS a user option like the current Parental Controls.

        Apple tried this before; it was called At Ease [wikipedia.org].

        And it genuinely kicked ass at the time.

        I had a Macintosh Performa 6300 that was being used as a shared family computer back then. At Ease allowed me to set up a relatively safe and secure way to share that computer with our kids, without giving them access to absolutely everything.

      • by AHuxley (892839)
        Did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EWorld [wikipedia.org] or something around that era have a whitelist like network too?
      • by jonwil (467024)

        I remember that software on the school Macs (back when the school HAD Macs)
        And I still remember being able to use some sort of "delete file" option in one of the Microsoft Office for Mac applications to delete the At Ease software file and defeat the software. No clue if they ever solved that loophole.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by dniq (759741)

      There is already a Simple Finder option in the current OSX, which only provides the very basic functionality to the user. My mom is using - and loving - it. No chance to break stuff, and incredibly easy for her to use.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Gulthek (12570)

        Yeah, that's the "current Parental Controls". This would be an order of magnitude simpler. I know, because I setup my grandmother with a Mac and even Simple Finder was too much. Multitasking, settings, windows, etc. Ideally we'd be able to setup a iPad-like screen with big buttons that runs one application at a time with absolutely zero user configuration possible (email accounts and the like having been setup by the admin account).

  • Oh Please (Score:5, Funny)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:05AM (#32663836)
    If it's not one thing it's another. Apple is dying. Apple is dead. Apple can't recover. The iPod can't save Apple. The Mac can't come back. The iPhone can't save Apple. The 'walled garden' will be the death of Apple. The iPad's failure will kill Apple ... and now the MacOS & iOS are going to merge resulting in pushback, backlash and eventually Apple's demise.

    These are different markets and different products. I can't rule out an "Apple appliance" that will serve as a desktop type of computer with iOS running on it ... phasing out MacOS over the next decade? maybe ... but merging the two? Not very likely.
    • Re:Oh Please (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:10AM (#32663872)
      This is the kind of babble we've been hearing about Windows for over a decade here now. I swear even the smallest of issues and another retard is ranting that it's another nail in MS's coffin and that they'll be toppled any day now.

      I swear if I listened to all the fanboi rumblings I would have given up on Windows, moved to Linux and after a few years of frustration from their lagging behind I would now own a Mac.

      I can only imagine what the ravings would have been like had Slashdork been around during the Amiga years.
      • by jimicus (737525) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:17AM (#32663948)

        If you listened to all the fanboi rumblings, you'd have given up years ago and bought an abacus.

        • I did but had to give it up when I could not get the new gaming graphics card I bought to work with it...

      • I thought Apple would release an "iPhone Runtime Environment" application with 10.6 (obviously I was wrong) but I won't rule it out for the future. It would allow Apple to take their 30% cut of people buying additional copies of their iDevice apps so they can run it on their desktops and save/exchange/sync data. Apple's rumored 'Wacom-type' touch pad would work hand and hand with it.

        I don't know if Apple would ever release a Windows version of the iOS runtime. On one hand it would expand the market to inc
        • "I don't know if Apple would ever release a Windows version of the iOS runtime."

          Why wouldn't they? It would be a potential new revenue stream for them, and one which they would have a lot of control over, so if it wound up being unprofitable they could just shut it down. They could even divide the market along "Apple products only" lines -- so that some apps would only be approved for Apple products, and some for Apple or Microsoft (I doubt that libre operating systems will get much support).
    • If you need to relate to past stories then they should be about how Apple restricts developers/users and not the tenacious ramblings of Dvorak and his ilk. Your "and then Apple will die!!!" strawmen add nothing.

      Is Apple showing any signs of dying? No.
      Does Apple tend toward restricting developers in a way considered stifling by many developers? Yes.
      Is TFA unlikely speculation? Possibly, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth thinking about.

    • What you forgot to mention is that there are billions of people who love Apple's 'walled garden' (perhaps 'fenced pasture' would be a better suited term for a prison for a content flock of sheep). It's no longer a niche brand... shouting 'imminent demise' is a bit of early drama...
      • So while for you it might be "a prison" perhaps for Apple's happy customers it's a "playground". Really, just buy what you like and stop worrying about what other people are buying. It's supposed to be all about choice, remember ?
        • by thijsh (910751)
          Yes! Hence the term 'fenced pasture', it seemed appropriately lesser than a 'walled garden' (jumping over the fence is always an option). The term 'prison' only applies to the digital restrictions, software and music for example which are locked up pretty good.

          My point is that there is a valid business for people who don't give a fuck about these digital restrictions and it's a valid choice if you don't. I have no predisposition here, I care equally less for the choice of people choosing Apple as they care
    • by Henriok (6762)
      The difference between all the absurd statements and this new statement is that the former are uttered by competitors to Apple, by "analysts" obviously not familiar to Apple, "journalists" trolling for clicks or by raving idiots. This time it's an analysis offered by Mac developers that's been in the forefront of Mac indie development for ages and is on first name basis with the Mac community and probably have lots of personal friends within Apple. And they are not predicting the demise of anything..
    • Re:Oh Please (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lord Bitman (95493) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:28AM (#32664074) Homepage

      The "walled garden" won't be the death of Apple. The alternative of a similar garden without walls will.

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Let's see, they asked a bunch of IOS developers whether they thought their particular platform of choice was going to take over. Surprisingly, many said yes.

      This has always been an idiotic conspiracy theory and completely forgets that IOS is a cut down version of OS X. Same language, same classes except for a few UI ones. Are the two SDKs going to merge? They already are. IOS is slowly gaining more and more functionality ported over from OS X.

  • You really think that Adobe will want to sell its CS products and give a cut to Apple? HA!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:06AM (#32663842)

    ... they won't even be selling Macs anymore. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin, the big bucks are coming in elsewhere.

    Remember, the name of the company no longer even contains the word "Computer."

  • I believe Sasser sums it up rather nicely: "I could see a gradual, slow merger between iOS and Mac OS X styles and approaches," he said. "It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."

    Apple should learn from Microsoft's mistake of trying to have two rather diverse platforms (Windows and Windows mobile). Granted, Microsoft seems to be moving in a better direction these days with their mobile platform,

    • by AdmiralXyz (1378985) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:19AM (#32663972)
      I'm going to be blunt about this: your comment is completely wrong. It makes perfect sense to have a separate operating system for desktops and mobile devices, because they're two completely different things. Trying to run an OS on one designed for the other leads to frustration and unusability. In fact, I think Windows Mobile failed because it wasn't enough of a mobile operating system: it had things like a desktop, the Start Menu, and full multitasking, which make perfect sense in a desktop operating environment and are a terrible idea on a mobile one.

      iOS and Mac OS X already do share a lot of code already, but that's just code reuse - proper programming practice. They've got two totally different user interfaces and paradigms, each working best for its target device. Trying to run one on the other would be unusable, and say what you want about Steve Jobs, but it will be a cold day in hell before a product comes out of his company that can be described as "unusable". Such a merger is a horrible idea, there's no evidence it is ever going to take place, and this article is just so much FUD to get the Slashdot crowd ranting and raving about Apple's walled garden.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770)

        I guess it depends on which parts you're talking about - a certain OS kernel that runs everything from mobile phones to supercomputers seems to get a lot of praise around here. Presentation can be a rather thin layer compared to everything below you can share.

    • Probably with the DoJ watchdogs on their tail (anemically, but there), Microsoft didn't dare start a Windows AppStore.

      Ironically, it's the linux distributions that have had the 3rd-party software distribution infrastructure for ages. Is anybody selling commercial software running yum/apt repos with SSL client identification required?

    • by M. Baranczak (726671) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:33AM (#32664144)

      "It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."

      It doesn't make sense for Ford to be making both cars and trucks. It means they have to have at least two separate lines for most of the components. They should just merge the two concepts.

    • Except that's not the case. iOS and OS X already share a ton of code, with the exception of the highest-level UI stuff, which Jobs has repeatedly argued is necessary to do separately for each form factor. In order for MacOS and iOS to merge, Apple would have to do a 360 on this policy. Otherwise, they already are more or less the same OS (I'd even argue that they're already more closely related than KDE and GNOME are to each other).

      The "walled garden" approach to the App Store may have had a time and pla

    • by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:44AM (#32664280) Homepage

      "Microsoft seems to be moving in a better direction these days with their mobile platform"

      You haven't been following very closely then, have you? It's a jumbled mess of mutually incompatible systems, all with the label "Windows" on it. They almost seem to be trying to emulate the diversity of Linux systems. Microsoft's mistake, however, isn't with having multiple OSes, but having multiple OSes that are all UI clones of each other (without the common code base) regardless of the platform.

      Jobs and his lieutenants have talked at length about what a mistake it was to try to put desktop Windows (with extensions) on tablets. This is why the TabletPC platform has been such a snoozefest in the market: it's the wrong UI for the hardware. Apple could have released a MacBook Touch (a laptop with a touch screen or a slate, either running OS X) five years ago, but they knew it wouldn't work, so they didn't. The same story applies to Windows Mobile: wrong UI for the hardware. Same outcome: dismal sales for something with the Microsoft brand on it.

      Clearly Apple believes that "iOSX everywhere" is the wrong approach. Adobe CS would make no sense on a phone or slate, and neither would Tap Tap Revenge make sense on a desktop or server. They put a whole lot of effort into developing a new OS for slates and phones, using the parts of OS X that fit that platform, and engineering new parts for the rest. They'd be fools to throw out the parts of OS X that still make all kinds of sense for the desktop or traditional laptop just to merge it with iOS, and I see no evidence that they're fools of that sort.

  • FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:09AM (#32663860)
    If you're uncertain what FUD stands for, please re-read the summary. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
  • I suspect the next few OSX and iOS revisions to start merging and sharing APIs, and maybe OSX will go away, but it won't be replaced by iOS.

    • by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:13AM (#32663910) Homepage Journal
      I'd bet that half of the people reading this Slashdot story are mostly concerned about one feature: the ability to use Xcode and distribute what you make without starting a company and paying $99 per year to Apple. If Mac OS X loses this, watch GNUstep (Free clone of Cocoa's predecessor) suddenly attract a boost in activity.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        "If Mac OS X loses this, watch GNUstep (Free clone of Cocoa's predecessor) suddenly attract a boost in activity."

        A boost, perhaps, but nothing that would even register on Apple's radar.
    • by TheKidWho (705796)

      Yes, this would be interesting. It might even be nice to be able to use certain iOS apps on OS X since many of them are very useful utilities.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      As the usability, complexity and programability of Apple moved to the one button mouse of the Macintosh..
      so will the usability and programability of Macintosh move to the one touch of a 32 in glossy screen.
      Buy the needed app with the functionality you wanted or thought you wanted and rub the screen.
      Relive the first Mac OS days but with many more apps and in full true retina color.
      Buy, touch, type, touch, buy, touch, type .. sleep... touch, type, touch, buy ... work ... touch, type, touch, buy ... sleep
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jo_ham (604554)

      They already share APIs - iOS is heavily based on OS X with a touch UI on top.

      This article is just total FUD. It's the same sort of "analysis" as that story from a couple of months ago how Apple "will definitely" move to an App Store model for OS X. There's just no sense in it at all, given the direction that Apple are taking OS X.

      They forked OS X, for want of a better term, and created iPhone OS (now iOS), and continued development on OS X itself. There is nothing to suggest they will merge the two again.

  • by samsonov (581161)
    I think the mentality of most home users are that they want Apple to tell them what apps can run on their device(s). Let's hope the power users talk some sense into Apple. I for one don't like the idea of only being able to consume apps that are published via the App Store...
  • Will this be like when IcarOS and DaedalOS merged into HeliOS?

  • I was going to make a joke about the change to the name "iOS" meaning that iMacs will also run it on one of the last Apple articles... never thought it would come true. :|

    Then again, I'm not a Mac user, so meh... :p

  • Misleading summary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adamwright (536224) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:16AM (#32663938) Homepage

    The article discusses how developers expect iOS and OS X to merge from an API perspective - cross pollination between the developments (mostly from iOS to OS X) will lead to a unified development environment. This is *not* the same as the DRM/App Store, which is just the distribution method chosen for the iPhone and iPad. There's nothing technical about this - it's a business choice to make this the sole channel, one that doesn't seem to make sense for desktop computing, and one that I doubt they'd pursue.

    Whilst I expect an App Store on the Mac, I would be shocked if it were the only distribution method available. In truth, I suspect we'll see a situation similar to downloading apps via Safari now - the first run, you get a warning about possible unsafe code, you tell it you're fine with that, and then everything carries on as normal. The Mac still represents a vast chunk of their revenue - only marginally less than iPhone in terms of income, and probably more in terms of profit. They're not going to kill a fully functioning golden goose, though I do expect some experimentation with it.

    This experimentation is long overdue. For most people, something much simpler than a full desktop would be ideal - my iPad passes my parental approval filter far more than their desktop computer, the complexity of which causes more trouble than benefit. Now, the iPad is *not* a suitable desktop replacement - using my parents as an example again, there's no really useful document processing, no ability to hook up their TomTom, no easy printing. However, I can certainly see some hybrid iMac/iPad (or Android setup, I don't care who makes it) being a *much* better proposition for them than buying another desktop of the current ilk - be it Windows, Mac or Linux.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "it's a business choice to make this the sole channel, one that doesn't seem to make sense for desktop computing, and one that I doubt they'd pursue."

      Well hang on...why wouldn't the walled garden work for desktop applications? Users do not seem to mind it for the iPad, which is really a tablet computer (I am sure someone will disagree with me, since it is not "marketed" as one), nor do users seem to mind it for video game consoles, nor for a certain large web community. We are already hearing people sa
    • by am 2k (217885)

      Now, the iPad is *not* a suitable desktop replacement [...] there's no really useful document processing

      There's Pages. That should be enough for all of the basic needs. You'll probably have to hook up a real keyboard though.

      no ability to hook up their TomTom

      TomTom offers a fully-featured iPhone app, so no need to hook anything up.

      no easy printing

      Sure there is one way. [wired.com] ;)

  • And if they do that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wiredog (43288) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:18AM (#32663960) Journal

    what will we develop mac applications on? Windows boxes?

  • by Rytr23 (704409)
    Simply garbage, which is not surprising considering the source. That is all.
  • by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:22AM (#32664000) Homepage

    "It doesn't make sense for them to be developing two of everything, one good, one not as good--two calendars, two address books--it's got to merge somehow."

    I can't imagine how a calendar developed for a 2" touchscreen could have the same interface as a calendar developed for a 21" keyboard-and-mouse, and not have it be terrible. Similarly, a copy of Word on the iPhone and a copy of Word on a PC would necessarily need to have very different interfaces... You can't get hover tips on a touchscreen, people don't gesture with keyboards, mice aren't multitouch, and iPhone screens are tiny.

    The idea that you can write one app and have it work on such disparate devices shows a fundamental lack of understanding of good design.

  • What, did you think because the actors changed the play would be different?

  • a certain expectation that iOS and MacOS will merge, leading to a single DRM locked OS on your MacBook and your iPad.

    Without a doubt, Apple will try to make them more similar to develop for. This is plain obvious and the same like for example the Qt toolkit has been adding multitouch support while still being a Win/Mac/Linux GUI toolkit. Or Microsoft making Windows and Xbox360 similar to develop for, if you want another example. This is clearly beneficial both for developer time, a consistent user experience, creating reusable code and more.

    The other part, does the DRM lockdown come to OS X? Well, that's not really a rela

  • Apps will disappear (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kylant (527449) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:25AM (#32664044)
    I believe that apps on mobile phones are a transitory phenomenon. They are/were necessary to make content available on the relatively small screens and to implement touch input (as most websites at the time were built for mouse input). The functionalities of most apps these days can be implemented as websites (HTML, Ajax, ...) and this will be the best solution to fix the compatibility problem (different apps for Android, iOS, Symbian, Windows Phone 7 (?), Bada (?),...) and to avoid vendor lock-in. Will we really need an app to access news content? Will the NYT really build and maintain apps for 4 or more different platforms? I believe what we need are properly coded websites that adapt to different screen sizes and input devices.

    There will probably be a market for high-end applications on your phone (navigation?, media player?) but honestly, how many of those are on your phone?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nyctopterus (717502)

      Nearly all the apps on my iPod touch are games. And no, you cannot currently do what they do this with HTML5 and Javascript (or, at least, they would be very slow to write and have terrible performance).

  • Oh, come on! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by salgiza (650851) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:26AM (#32664052)
    The article is about how some of the APIs (UIKit, mainly) in iOS are probably going to be included in future versions of MacOSX, and suddenly the summary is about MacOSX becoming a big iPhone full of DRM! Slashdot: where not even the editors bother to read the articles! (Either that, or someone hates Apple too much...)
  • by gig (78408) on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:28AM (#32664082)

    The main difference between Mac OS and iOS is you can't code on iOS. It's partly a security feature and partly an anti-complexity feature. iOS is for a non-coding approach to all tasks. You may not know this, but a Photoshop pro writes a ton of code. The home user working with their photos doesn't need to.

    Another feature of iOS is no custom drivers. The USB audio interfaces that work with iOS are the "class compliant" ones that work with the system's universal driver. This provides stability and ease of use, but it limits the quality to consumer-quality 16/44 stereo. Audio pros still need a system to hook on an 8 channel 24/192 interface. OS X has a pro audio subsystem the likes of which you can't find anywhere else. Are we going to just abandon that and tell music producers to use toy Windows? The iPod app on iOS is filled up by people using Mac OS.

    The mouse is going away, no doubt. But you will still have a consumer OS and a pro OS. Web developers need Apache and Ruby and PHP to make websites for iOS users, movie makers and graphic artists need to code workflows, and app developers need to code apps and Apple needs to code OS X itself. The idea that Mac OS can go away is just so fucking stupid and ignorant and disrespectful when you consider how much of our fucking culture is made on Macs.

    Anyone who thinks there is no longer a need for Mac OS is an iPad user. Get an iPad ASAP and enjoy! STFU about Mac OS otherwise. You probably don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

       

  • monopoly and censorship are just some of things that apple will face if they try to do this even right now the FCC does not like the cell phone lock in / lock down.

    But doing this to a laptop / desktop?? M$ was not able to pull this carp with IE and was forced to stop forcing OEM from loading it's os on all systems. and apple things they can force DEV's to pay $99 year just for free apps or $99 /year + 30% for payed apps?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 23, 2010 @09:30AM (#32664106)
  • I don't think IOS will replace Mac OS/X but I am really shocked that there isn't an Mac App store.
    Why and app store?
    Because people would like and use it. Right now if I go to Best Buy or any place else that sells software there may be a small section of Mac software. Also it is expensive to produce retail software. You have to have a pretty box, Press CDs get the stores to carry it... And I will bet you the stores take at least as much as Apple does. Yes you can always put up a website and sell your softw

  • I really don't see this happening any time soon. The biggest reason why Apple puts up the walled garden on the iPhone is because of AT&T. There aren't any such restrictions on the Mac. You can download XCode for free & develop for the Mac freely and distribute it however you like, use undocumented API's, shun the UI guidelines or whatever. It would be cool if there was an application store for the Mac via iTunes to distribute your desktop applications, I'd hope that the same restrictions wouldn't be
  • This makes complete sense. You can use all your iPhone/iPod/iPad apps on your iMac. Your iMac has a multi-touch capacitive screen and accelerometers.

    Oh, wait.

    Apple takes pride in the right interface for the right device. This will never happen.

  • This is a stupid, flamebait, troll's topic. "iOS and OS X will merge, THEREFORE... all apps will be solely distributed by Apple in a walled garden."

    Where's the logical connection there? How do you get from one to another? Why not conclude that since iOS and OS X will merge, the app distribution model will completely open up like on OS X? Mac OS X doesn't even have an activation key, for goodness sake. Apple is the patron of many an open source project, including WebKit which is the most prolific rendering e

  • After reading the article, it seems some developers interviewed by Ars Technicia is speculating that Apple might introduce more iOS interfaces into OS X. However any merger if at all will take a long time. The start of the article however immediately told it may be lacking technical details.

    Though concrete answers are hard to predict, the truth is that the Cocoa APIs are built on the 20+ year-old NextStep and use Objective-C, a language that until recently lacked many features common to modern development environments, such as automatically managed memory.

    You mean like C++ which is still used by many programmers. Yes, there are newer languages out there but many environments like Windows, PS3, etc use C++.

  • This is the same tired /. opinion piece which doesn't really engender much discussion, Apple has made it pretty accessible to make OS X and iPhone/iPod touch apps for about a decade. Any speculation about how locked a hypothetical merged OS would be is silly at best, and just serves as *Nix user FUD.
  • iOs layer in OSX (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fentagh (1839476)
    I wouldn't mind it as a dashboard replacement.
  • ...this new OS would need to be much more than the current iOS. You'd need to be able to *develop* iOS apps on it, for starters.

    Anyway, everybody who thinks that the future will just an extrapolation of the past should think again. Computers *will* change drastically. The traditional PC will sooner or later just be some office machine or developer machine, with most actual users on things that are more like appliances. There is no way around that and the time is ripe for that. Smartphones and tablets will b

An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.

Working...