Apple Announces WWDC 2013 Scheduled for June 10-14, Tickets on Sale Tomorrow

I think it means grouped app icons will show as a stack on IOS devices (heck, maybe even OS X). Tap the stack, and the stacked icons will expand to show the underlying icons which make up the group. Sort of like Photos on the iPad. An album is represented by a stack of pictures. When you tap the stack, the icons expand outward from the stack, allowing you to choose a particular photo from the album for viewing. Pinch the expanded photos, and they collapse back into the stack. Maybe they are doing the same with groups of apps. This would also potentially allow more apps to be in a group if they make the expanded icons scrollable.

You saw it here first, folks!

Can someone please explain the MMXlll below the WWDC

edit: oh 2013 ok never mind.. not that interesting

saha-med said:

can some1 enlighten me....

Since apple will release WWDC video after the event, whats the point for developers to pay so much to go for the event?

Click to expand...

I think it is best expressed in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE

here is hoping

mac pro before or during.

Are You Kidding Me?!?!?!?

Sold out in 3 minutes. I couldn't even get my credit card information added fast enough.

The artwork looks like the iOS icons but in multiple colors...so...

Now iPad and iPhone will come in new colors? Finally a blue iPhone!

I think it looks like a watch face and then you add in the font and it looks like roman numerals on a clock.

The more time that goes by, the more I agree with John Gruber on last week's podcast that the whole watch thing could be a head fake to keep the competition off of the trail.

There just doesn't seem to be enough significant evidence at this point that they are really working on a watch. Given the fact that Cook was very adamant about TV being "an area of extreme interest" in the NBC interview, I think they are having everyone look left while they sneak around the right with something else.

Patriot24 said:

The more time that goes by, the more I agree with John Gruber on last week's podcast that the whole watch thing could be a head fake to keep the competition off of the trail.

There just doesn't seem to be enough significant evidence at this point that they are really working on a watch. Given the fact that Cook was very adamant about TV being "an area of extreme interest" in the NBC interview, I think they are having everyone look left while they sneak around the right with something else.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, why would you want a watch if you already have the more capable iPhone on you?

----------

I would like to see iOS like icons on my OS X iMac...

My first thoughts when seeing the logo was:

"It's a watch" Perhaps the new Iphone, strapped on to your arm.

Looking forward to (hopefully):
Macbook Airs with Retina
iWatch

That is all.

----------

Razeus said:

Furthermore, why would you want a watch if you already have the more capable iPhone on you?

Click to expand...

Displays Text MSGs. E-mails. Skip music. Album Artwork. Twitter. Facebook etc.

Seriously? It's not meant to replace the iPhone.

----------

miniroll32 said:

Considering this is a developers conference, anyone expecting the 'Apple TV', iWatch or a new iPhone to be announced is living in Cloud 9. It's entirely possible that the MacBooks will be updated, but they will likely have silent upgrades on the website rather than a stage announcement.

The talk will all be about iOS and OS X - if one is going to undergo dramatic changes, then the other will need to follow suit.

Click to expand...

Macbook Airs were announced at last years WWDC.

Smeaton1724 said:

Can someone shed light on the benefits of going if everything is thrown up online anyway?

Click to expand...

Why get outside for anything when you can youtube most things? Why watch a play, when you can have it recorded and watch it at home?

Apart from the obvious answer, this is a conference, not a keynote. And it's a conference for developers. Thousands(?) of developers get together, can exchange thoughts, knowledge, networking etc etc. And they get to meet Apple engineers with all that comes with. Great tips, opportunity to share ideas.

You can just think about the possibilities!

It's 100%... without a doubt... referencing an iWatch.

How anyone else sees something different is beyond me.

People in this thread are missing a fundamental point. Why didn't they just use "WWDC 2013"?

WHY did they choose Roman numerals specifically?

It's easy. A quick look over at Wikipedia will show you just how important Roman numerals have been to clocks all throughout history.

They could've just used 2013. They didn't. That was done purposely and I came into this thread excited at how everyone would finally realize it was all about an iWatch. Instead there's like 4 people in this entire thread who saw what I did.

As far as the multiple colors go... I think it's also a nod to a variety of iWatch colors.

The different shape? A possible face for the iWatch. Clean and colorful.

The only thing I'm not sure of is WHY the colors are transparent. Maybe that was the only way they could show off the palette in a simple fashion?

Or maybe the face on the iWatch will have the ability to change colors?

Last year I was almost screaming the same exact sentiment. The 2012 WWDC logo absolutely referenced the Retina display. All of those colorful "squares" were popping off the logo in an attempt to convey the importance of pixels.

Make NO doubt about it... this is the year of the iWatch. And it will be announced at WWDC "MMXIII".

This is the new iPhone. Believe the hype.

MythicFrost said:

Analyised logo... figured out main event...

OPAQUE IPHONE

cuz the colours are opaque

boo yah

Click to expand...

???

o·paque [oh-peyk] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, o·paqued, o·paqu·ing.
adjective
1. not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.

I guess your post was a joke?

powers74 said:

???

o·paque [oh-peyk] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, o·paqued, o·paqu·ing.
adjective
1. not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.

I guess your post was a joke?

Click to expand...

Ha, my bad -- mixing up opaque and transparent.