Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Considering Rebranding Mac OS X Under New 'iOS' Umbrella?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iOS sounds ridiculous. And yes, I'm still fond of "Powerbook". I prefered that marketing name over Macbook. ack.
it does make sense and it is about time.
OS X has been there since 2002. they might continue to increment untill OSX 10.9 but what then.
however rebranding it to iOS doesn't make sense unless they want to implement it on the smaller desktops as well (mac mini, lower iMac version, etc.) this would mean a Mac OS will be improved for high-end Mac's,
i kind of like this scenario.
let's keep it simple
iOS for iPhone, iPod, iPad (rename the iPod touch to iPad Nano
) perhaps (iMac) iMac Nano (aka Mac Mini)
Mac OS for Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, and high-end iMac...
not puss-iCat?I bet 10.7 will be named Persian Cat or perhaps Pus*y Cat
right then..
1/ 99.9% like it...really? I can find you literally hundreds that don't.
2/ Discounted price? where? Its cheaper to buy albums from Amazon new or pre-owned than it is to buy from iCon and the music is better quality and more useable.
3/ It does the artists a disservice to buy songs per track when often, artists, eg. Pink Floyd write an album as a body of work. Soundbites may be popular but they aren't fair or right.
4/ iTunes has very little to do with iPod success and lots to do with being cool and fashionable. That will change in time. Anyone series about music or music quality... professionals.... don't use iPods or iTunes. The David Beckham wannabe's ? Sure..
5/ Movies,TV shows have all being a relative failure on iTunes because a/ its hard to be able to watch them on a big screen and b/ other distro channels are cheaper and easier. I know no one who buys films on iTunes but lots of people who buy DVDs and then rip them to MP4 to watch on the bus or train....It is not a mainstream, viable option for Video.
6/ Nothing on iTunes is cheaper, writing in capitals doesn't make it so. When there is no overhead for transport, packing, materials etc. Then it should be half the price of the physical product.
7/ Apple has driven the digital distribution method, and as downloading music has grown, so has piracy, in a big way. If you could count piracy as a vendor then where would it be in the top 5? 1st? .... probably.
Apple is appealing to the lowest common denominator, the dumbasses if you will (not personal to you) the people who can't be bothered.
I feel sorry for people who use them...I really do.
Are you kidding?
Hasn't that been clear for some time already?
10.10. But at the rate OS X releases are coming, that's something they wouldn't have to face until around 2017.
it does make sense and it is about time.
OS X has been there since 2002. they might continue to increment untill OSX 10.9 but what then.
however rebranding it to iOS doesn't make sense unless they want to implement it on the smaller desktops as well (mac mini, lower iMac version, etc.) this would mean a Mac OS will be improved for high-end Mac's,
i kind of like this scenario.
let's keep it simple
iOS for iPhone, iPod, iPad (rename the iPod touch to iPad Nano
perhaps (iMac) iMac Nano (aka Mac Mini)
Mac OS for Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, and high-end iMac...
I'd say that's not what I call "keeping it simple". You would have some Macs running iOS and some running Mac OS, even some with the same name… eh?
Let's keep it _really_ simple:
iOS for touchscreen handheld mobile devices (iPhone, iPod, iPad...)
Mac OS for Macintosh computers (notebooks and desktops)
Oops, that's how they have it today.
1. May have been a little exaggerated.
2. Owl City- Ocean Eyes (Deluxe Edition) Amazon: 14.99 iTunes: 11.99
Jay Z- The Blueprint 3 Amazon: 12.99 iTunes: 10.99
Metallica- Death Magnetic Amazon: 13.53 iTunes: 8.99
Taylor Swift- Fearless Amazon: 12.99 iTunes: 11.99
Clearly, Amazon is not cheaper, and that's not including shipping. Also keep in mind that iTunes is instant; you have to wait for Amazon to ship.
3. It does artists a disservice to buy one track only? Excellent Argument. What's really a disservice is that they want me to buy entire albums when I only want one song.
4. In February, iTunes hit 10 Billion song downloads. Correct me if I'm wrong but only iPods are compatible with iTunes. At 260 million iPods sold, that's 38.5 songs per iPod downloaded from iTunes. 10 Billion songs just from iPods, I'd say that iTunes has really put the iPod ahead of thousands of competitors. That's going to change? To what? People are magically going to want to start going and buying albums at the store? C'mon, we both know that that's not going to happen. iTunes will only continue to get bigger as more people buy iPods. Anyone serious about music quality doesn't use iPods. Well that's probably majority of the population.
And what the hell is a David Beckham wannabe?5. I have to agree that Movies aren't the most successful part of iTunes.
6. Please refer to #2. Everything is cheaper. What you think it should be is irrelevant. I can burn the songs that I downloaded from iTunes to a CD, and there, you have a digital copy and a hard copy for less than retail.
7. Again, irrelevant. You yourself pointed out that you can rip physical CD's to your computer. You can pirate that just as easy as a digital download.
"Apple is appealing to the lowest common denominator, the dumbasses if you will (not personal to you) the people who can't be bothered."
Yup, all 260 million of us.
It happens. I thought I was the only one missing the weight of 500 CDs, good to know I'm not alone.
Obviously, it's way easier to carry an iPod, which I also do, by the way.
But I prefer buying the CD, then rip it if I need to. You can't do it the other way around; I mean, yes, you can burn the CD, but using a song that was compressed in a lossy format. And once again, most of the times the CD is cheaper.
Clearly this explains why lossless 24/192 @ 24Mbps is so popular on BD movies...
What lossy bitrate are you talking about?
That would be a lot of wasted bandwidth for two audio tracks
Only ~9Mbps is relevant to stereo music. This compares to the ~1.4Mbps for CD audio. I won't speak for the other poster, but I can speak to the popularity. There are in every aspect of technology, people who buy based on specs and features alone. They convince themselves they can tell the difference.
Given current storage technology, 9Mbps for each song would not be a practical way for most people to store their music collection. You would need a terabyte of storage for every 4000 tracks. It would be a step backwards to start carrying around disks again, especially since less than 2% of the population could likely tell the difference between the audio on a Blue-ray disk and the audio in the itunes store (on consumer audio equipment). I am fairly certain less than .1% could possibly distinguish between BD Audio and CD audio on any standard consumer audio device. CD Audio is recording a 16 bit sample 44100 times per second and BD Audio is recording a 24 bit sample ~192,000 times per second. While it is saving a lot of information, there are innumerable factors on both the recording and the playback side that would impact the quality. Mo'bigger is not always better. (Think megapixels...)
1. May have been a little exaggerated.
2. Owl City- Ocean Eyes (Deluxe Edition) Amazon: 14.99 iTunes: 11.99
Jay Z- The Blueprint 3 Amazon: 12.99 iTunes: 10.99
Metallica- Death Magnetic Amazon: 13.53 iTunes: 8.99
Taylor Swift- Fearless Amazon: 12.99 iTunes: 11.99
Clearly, Amazon is not cheaper, and that's not including shipping. Also keep in mind that iTunes is instant; you have to wait for Amazon to ship.
3. It does artists a disservice to buy one track only? Excellent Argument. What's really a disservice is that they want me to buy entire albums when I only want one song.
4. In February, iTunes hit 10 Billion song downloads. Correct me if I'm wrong but only iPods are compatible with iTunes. At 260 million iPods sold, that's 38.5 songs per iPod downloaded from iTunes. 10 Billion songs just from iPods, I'd say that iTunes has really put the iPod ahead of thousands of competitors. That's going to change? To what? People are magically going to want to start going and buying albums at the store? C'mon, we both know that that's not going to happen. iTunes will only continue to get bigger as more people buy iPods. Anyone serious about music quality doesn't use iPods. Well that's probably majority of the population.
5. I have to agree that Movies aren't the most successful part of iTunes.
6. Please refer to #2. Everything is cheaper. What you think it should be is irrelevant. I can burn the songs that I downloaded from iTunes to a CD, and there, you have a digital copy and a hard copy for less than retail.
7. Again, irrelevant. You yourself pointed out that you can rip physical CD's to your computer. You can pirate that just as easy as a digital download.
The AAC files from itunes are not encumbered by DRM and many devices can play them.
I'm not sure where all of you are getting that physical CD's are cheaper, I fail to see the truth in that. There may be exceptions, but if you actually look, iTunes albums are generally the same price or more often than not less.
1. May have been a little exaggerated.
2. Owl City- Ocean Eyes (Deluxe Edition) Amazon: 14.99 iTunes: 11.99
Jay Z- The Blueprint 3 Amazon: 12.99 iTunes: 10.99
Metallica- Death Magnetic Amazon: 13.53 iTunes: 8.99
Taylor Swift- Fearless Amazon: 12.99 iTunes: 11.99
Clearly, Amazon is not cheaper, and that's not including shipping. Also keep in mind that iTunes is instant; you have to wait for Amazon to ship.
3. It does artists a disservice to buy one track only? Excellent Argument. What's really a disservice is that they want me to buy entire albums when I only want one song.
4. In February, iTunes hit 10 Billion song downloads. Correct me if I'm wrong but only iPods are compatible with iTunes. At 260 million iPods sold, that's 38.5 songs per iPod downloaded from iTunes. 10 Billion songs just from iPods, I'd say that iTunes has really put the iPod ahead of thousands of competitors. That's going to change? To what? People are magically going to want to start going and buying albums at the store? C'mon, we both know that that's not going to happen. iTunes will only continue to get bigger as more people buy iPods. Anyone serious about music quality doesn't use iPods. Well that's probably majority of the population.
5. I have to agree that Movies aren't the most successful part of iTunes.
6. Please refer to #2. Everything is cheaper. What you think it should be is irrelevant. I can burn the songs that I downloaded from iTunes to a CD, and there, you have a digital copy and a hard copy for less than retail.
7. Again, irrelevant. You yourself pointed out that you can rip physical CD's to your computer. You can pirate that just as easy as a digital download.
"Apple is appealing to the lowest common denominator, the dumbasses if you will (not personal to you) the people who can't be bothered."
Yup, all 260 million of us.
1. You reckon? in fact I'd say it was a minority that liked iTunes
2. Your arguments are shocking...in one post you say its the end of the record store but now are referencing Amazon an online store? And one other point, I'm not US based so..
www.hmv.com a major high street store that I literally walk past on my way to work.
Fearless - HMV £4.99 iTunes £5.99
Metallica Death Magnetic - HMV £4.99 iTunes £7.99
Jay Z Blueprint 3 - HMV £2.99 iTunes £5.99
3. I think, in fact I know that a lot of artists, if you only liked one song would say you shouldn't buy the album. It is a good argument, stupid soundbite nation.
4. Lazy stupid people will do what lazy stupid do, fact of life... look at Mcdonalds etc..
5. Really I'm shocked.
6. No they are provably NOT cheaper and the quality is worse..! What was your point again? Ah yes...as per my other posts you have none.
7. Possibly, but there is no proof. 260 million dumbasses??? Oh yes at least that many, look at you lot.... you voted Bush Jr in twice.. what other proof is there?
people do what is easier for them I accept that but it doesn't change the fact that iTunes customers are paying way over the top for an inferior quality product. Like I said lazy and stupid.
Hmm...paying over the top for a worse product, now where have I heard that before? ***looks at Apples' desktop computers***
ahhh...
Well you're wrong considering iTunes is the biggest music retail store in the US. It beats Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Target, and all other physical media stores.
1. You reckon? in fact I'd say it was a minority that liked iTunes
2. Your arguments are shocking...in one post you say its the end of the record store but now are referencing Amazon an online store? And one other point, I'm not US based so..
www.hmv.com a major high street store that I literally walk past on my way to work.
Fearless - HMV £4.99 iTunes £5.99
Metallica Death Magnetic - HMV £4.99 iTunes £7.99
Jay Z Blueprint 3 - HMV £2.99 iTunes £5.99
3. I think, in fact I know that a lot of artists, if you only liked one song would say you shouldn't buy the album. It is a good argument, stupid soundbite nation.
4. Lazy stupid people will do what lazy stupid do, fact of life... look at Mcdonalds etc..
5. Really I'm shocked.
6. No they are provably NOT cheaper and the quality is worse..! What was your point again? Ah yes...as per my other posts you have none.
7. Possibly, but there is no proof. 260 million dumbasses??? Oh yes at least that many, look at you lot.... you voted Bush Jr in twice.. what other proof is there?
people do what is easier for them I accept that but it doesn't change the fact that iTunes customers are paying way over the top for an inferior quality product. Like I said lazy and stupid.
Hmm...paying over the top for a worse product, now where have I heard that before? ***looks at Apples' desktop computers***
ahhh...
1. You would be wrong.
2. Good for you?
3. There have always been singles. This whole argument only came about because record labels lost control over what the singles were. Now people only need to buy the three or 4 good songs off the album. If you want to sell full albums, put in the effort to make an album that has 10-15 songs people want to hear.
4. Huh? Why are they stupid? Oh I see it coming up in your line six!
5. They are getting better though. The price has been coming down, rentals are much less than most ppv in the us and it is nice to be able to have them portable.
6. Lesser quality. I suppose on the studio monitors you must use for your critical listening. The audio quality of either format is subject to the original recording process. For most popular music today it is impossible to distinguish the difference between 256kbps AAC (44.1) and 16/44 CDs on consumer audio equipment. This does not make people stupid, it makes them practical.
To practically play music in a portable format, 256bit AAC files is a good alternative. There are better ways, but there are tradeoffs. Space is not unlimited, particularly in mobile devices. I do not want to carry 1,000 CDS when I travel. I suspect in the next 5 years, 500GB+ small form music players will be common and you will see a lot of people using 16/44.1 audio uncompressed. Most people will use it because that will be the format it is available in.
7. I see you realized how weak all your other arguments were and decided to try and distract from them with an odd political statement. ( I know this is the part where you come back and say it was a joke, see the smiley, blah blah blah). You should review the TOS for this site since you clearly violated it twice in your response.
Interesting that you seem to be completely against all Apple products. This simply makes you lost.
1. You reckon? in fact I'd say it was a minority that liked iTunes
2. Your arguments are shocking...in one post you say its the end of the record store but now are referencing Amazon an online store? And one other point, I'm not US based so..
www.hmv.com a major high street store that I literally walk past on my way to work.
Fearless - HMV £4.99 iTunes £5.99
Metallica Death Magnetic - HMV £4.99 iTunes £7.99
Jay Z Blueprint 3 - HMV £2.99 iTunes £5.99
3. I think, in fact I know that a lot of artists, if you only liked one song would say you shouldn't buy the album. It is a good argument, stupid soundbite nation.
4. Lazy stupid people will do what lazy stupid do, fact of life... look at Mcdonalds etc..
5. Really I'm shocked.
6. No they are provably NOT cheaper and the quality is worse..! What was your point again? Ah yes...as per my other posts you have none.
7. Possibly, but there is no proof. 260 million dumbasses??? Oh yes at least that many, look at you lot.... you voted Bush Jr in twice.. what other proof is there?
people do what is easier for them I accept that but it doesn't change the fact that iTunes customers are paying way over the top for an inferior quality product. Like I said lazy and stupid.
Hmm...paying over the top for a worse product, now where have I heard that before? ***looks at Apples' desktop computers***
ahhh...
Actually, your argument is laughable. You mentioned Amazon first, hence the reason that I used it as a reference point. Your example of CD prices proves your argument correct, but so does mine. So far, a wash. Yes, we are lazy and stupid. That's why while you go out and purchase entire albums at the store, we simply hit download on the song we want straight from the device. What's that make you? Ignorant and stupid. As many have pointed out, the difference in quality isn't audible to the human ear. And anyway, do you really listen to your iPod and think, "The sound quality is horrible!". If you do, it might be time for some new headphones. Your cute little remarks about the U.S's laziness and stupidity show just how ignorant, rude, and immature you are. That's called trolling and as the other poster said, it's against the Terms of Service. And since apparently you don't care for Apple's computers or consumer devices, what exactly is your purpose for being on this forum in the first place?
Remember when Steve said there would be no app store for Mac OS? Does that still apply if the name gets changed?
Food for thought:
Microsoft planning 'Windows Store' App Store for Windows 8
http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-planning-039windows-store039-app-store-for-windows-8
Food for thought:
Microsoft planning 'Windows Store' App Store for Windows 8
http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-planning-039windows-store039-app-store-for-windows-8
do you want to go out and do some basic maths and stats?
here let me help... (all figures estimated)
US market share
1/ iTunes 27%... (http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/24/itunes-share-of-the-us-music-market-swells-to-26-7/)
2/ Physical Media sellers combined (i.e. Best Buy, Walmart, Target combined) 64%
3/ Other digital download services 9%
can you tell me where the majority of music is sold?
is it digital distribution or physical copies?
come on now.... its easy...
hint look for the biggest number
Everyone who doesn't have an iPad yet should boycott it. If you buy an iPad, you are helping to support a walled environment where Apple is completely in control. You can only download apps that have been approved by Apple, in the app store, developers cannot charge more than $1.99 if they want their app to sell, many features of the iOS have been locked down by Apple, and the iOS is a mobile OS, not a full-featured OS. If Apple kills Mac OS X, the only full featured operating systems will be Windows, Linux, and a bunch of crappy open-source OSs. In the 1983 Apple Keynote, Steve Jobs himself talked about how IBM was trying to create a walled environment where only IBM would shape the future of computing and how Apple was the only form of resistance. Now Apple is trying to do exactly the same thing. For the sake of developers whose apps don't meet Apple's criteria, for the sake of open computing, and for the sake of Mac OS X, the best full-featured, open OS, boycott the iPad!
1/ Stats don't lie...see above.
2/ Thanks, not better but different.
3/ Condescend much? How many records have you sold? Most artists would say theyDO provide a full albums worth of tracks. They would also say they prefer to sell albums than individual tracks.
4/ Quantity of sales i.e. market share doesn't equal 'the best' hence the McD reference.
5/ No, not really
6/ It makes them lower their standards due to the lies of one companies spin. Eventually dumbing down will have consequences. Shouldn't need to be practical...
7/ Weak argument?? I have people on this site arguing with me that iTunes has a majority share in US music sales!!! Basic Maths says hi!!!It would be impossible for me to have a weak argument here. No jokes or smileys..
Bush jr = odd political statement..... hey we would agree on something! Don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that all the world (bar you guys) thought he was a joke.
Apple do good things and bad things.
I think the iPad is possibly the biggest revolution seen in computing since Windows 3.1. Awesome product.
You can't really see the cabinet with the crossover in this photo, but this is how I have it set up. My new recording studio setup is based off the Roland piano (my MBP sits on the upper right side and the PreSonus and Midi-Man on the left and I connect my guitar there as well). This way I can preview music I write on the Carvers as well. Besides, the Roland has real weighted hammers with grand sized keys so it makes a heck of a full size midi controller.
Clearly this explains why lossless 24/192 @ 24Mbps is so popular on BD movies...
What lossy bitrate are you talking about?
BD has room to spare to it makes sense to hype as high of specs as they can since it's a "wow" factor, especially to those that don't know any better. But quite frankly, many high-end audio enthusiasts will buy any snake oil you might want to sell them. I remember when painting the edges of CDs with a green marker was popular (supposedly reduced jitter...lol). 24/192 or 24/96 makes sense for recording...well at least the 24 part for headroom. I record at 24/96 in Logic 9.1. But then I can make an MP4 with 24-bit resolution, so why not, really.
I was talking about 256kbit AAC. I did an A/B job with numerous songs before I decided to go ahead and use the AAC database as my primary one and leave the Apple Lossless for archival purposes. It just made more sense since I couldn't hear a single difference and this way I can sync mobile, etc. without having to reload the iTunes database.
Attachments
1. Yea, all of the other stores combined does not count as majority market share.
3. Again, what does the artist's opinion have to do with the fact that people only want some of the tracks of an album. "Well, the artist said that he thinks we should buy the whole album, so we are no longer selling individual tracks."Umm, of course the Artist wants us to buy the whole album, he makes more money!
4. In this case it does. The reason people use iTunes is for convenience, it's convenience is better than any other medium for getting music. Hands down.
6. It lowers the standards due to the lies of one company? At least 3-4 people have said that the difference is unnoticeable! You were clearly beaten on the quality argument. You are the only one arguing that CD's have noticeably better quality over digital format.
7. Wake up! iTunes has the majority sales in the U.S. If not, what does? Record stores? Wal Mart? Amazon? Maybe the three of those combined.
Clearly your little joke was a poke at more than George Bush. And for the record, I voted for Gore and Kerry, thanks.
Yeah, the iPad really isn't that revolutionary. The technology used in the iPad has been around since the original iPhone and tablet PC's have been around for years. These damn iToys keep taking away from Mac development. Hence the actual topic of this thread.
Please look up the definition of "majority" - it means at least "more than half".
Itunes may be the largest individual vendor, but it has less than 50% of the music market - it fails the simplest test for "majority".
Hmmm, clearly there are learning issues in 'the land of the free and home of the brave'
lets try majority again, we'll never crack the other stuff if you can't grasp this.
*deep breath*
http://www.yourdictionary.com/majority
iTunes plus other Digital downloads = c. 35% of the market
where are the MAJORITY of the music sales then?
start simple eh..?
Which is ironic given that the original Mac was a closed system hardware-wise and Jobs had to be dragged into giving it a SCSI bus to open it up to third-party peripherals. I think he has always wished for a product that Apple controlled entirely and with the iPad he sees the realization of that goal.
Of course the app store is the crowning achievement because it's not just the control it gives Apple but the continuing revenue stream. The fact that now you don't just sell a product, but you sell a product that keeps people coming back to spend more dough that you get a percentage of. And now iAds promises even more of a cut from purchases ordered online from the original product. No wonder Macs look like yesterday's technology to Mr. Jobs; they're not just "trucks" from a technology standpoint, as he recently remarked, they're also only one-time revenue generators. Extending the app store to Macs must look mighty inviting.
Perhaps "inviting" to Jobs, but I would think that most Apple computer users would consider the idea repugnant.
At least, "repugnant" if the Mac Application Store mimics the walled garden approach of the Iphone App Store.
As long as you could buy applications from anywhere and install them on your Apple - who cares if Apple has a store that sells applications blessed by the Holy See of Cupertino?
An Apple application store as part of an open market for Apple applications would be fine. If you buy through the Apple store, you'd expect a higher level of quality (much like downloading a WHQL driver for Windows gives better confidence in the level of QA that a driver has undergone).