Apple's Focus on iPhone OS 4 Diverting Resources From Mac OS X 10.7?

[hal1984]

As a human factors guy, and I know a number of people who echo this sentiment, I feel that while OS X may be built on some robust technology (Quartz, QuickTime etc etc), it is a usability nightmare. From accidentally launching docked apps, to constantly re-sizing windows to annoyingly small file select dialogs to a lack of creative 'Microsoft Notes / Courier' like next gen interface technology etc etc. (I know many who MUCH prefer the snappy spacious nature of OS 9 - myself included.) Stability is the only real benefit of OS X.

As I stated on my blog over a year ago, Apple should focus on turning 'iPhone' OS into their primary OS - with tight cloud based architecture and semantic file storage and sharing technology. Using creative apps on iPhone OS is, no matter their initial simplicity, an order of magnitude more intuitive and fun than any OS X equivalent.

I for one would pay big money for a multi-touch 27" 'iMac Touch' with an MS Courier like GUI for spontaneous accurate creativity and productivity.

No matter what Apple have invested in OS X, they have to consider the future. It is just not good enough from a usability angle.

So toast me!

I think the best decision is to adapt the iPhone OS interface paradigm, but not relegate the Mac OS X technology to benefit the iPhone OS X software stack. The iPhone OS simply does not takes advantage of the hardware of a personal computer.

How useful is the iPhone OS 4 multitasking API on a computer with 8GB of RAM/nearly unlimited virtual memory over a SSD drive and a Sandy Bridge CPU?

For OS X 10.7+, Apple needs to introduce the next things:
-Up to time OpenGL implementation.
-Security technologies as ASLR, to improve the system security.
-Start taking advantage of the Mach microkernel, or, if it's a bit outdated, replace it with a open source modern one. (This maybe a feature most suitable for a major new version, like Mac OX XI)
-A built-in system to remove the additional software installed by some applications.
-A new high reliability/performance optional filesystem like ZFS.

 

[fps]

Security, security, security... Did I say security? I'm sick and tired to see OS X being hacked in less than 30 mins everytime there's a hacking challenge! It seems OS X is always the 1st platform to fall...

Also Brtfs may be a file system to look at for Apple (considering ZFS seems to have all sort of legal issues and the Oracle/Sun situation doesn't help). I'm sure they could work with the Open Source community like they do with Webkit.

And give me a finder that doesn't suck... Tabs, integrate Macfuse, etc...

 

[REM314]

Seriously? With all of Apples money they can't hire two teams for the two projects?

<Insert multitasking pun here>

 

[wrldwzrd89]

<snip>
For OS X 10.7+, Apple needs to introduce the next things:
-Up to time OpenGL implementation.
-Security technologies as ASLR, to improve the system security.
-Start taking advantage of the Mach microkernel, or, if it's a bit outdated, replace it with a open source modern one. (This maybe a feature most suitable for a major new version, like Mac OX XI)
-A built-in system to remove the additional software installed by some applications.
-A new high reliability/performance optional filesystem like ZFS.

-Agreed on OpenGL.
-ASLR already exists, but to your point it's not particularly well implemented.
-What do you mean, exactly, take advantage of? The Mac OS already uses Mach system calls for a lot of its internal workings - we just don't see any of this going on.
-Agreed. Perhaps the receipts the Installer writes could invoke an uninstall mode if opened in Installer, rather than the current behavior of just telling you it's a receipt and exiting.
-HFS is getting long in the tooth; that I agree with. The only problem is that there is no obvious candidate to replace it with right now. ZFS looked really promising until licensing issues did it in.

 

[Rocketman]

For OS X 10.7+, Apple needs to introduce the next things:
-Up to time OpenGL implementation.
-Security technologies as ASLR, to improve the system security.
-Start taking advantage of the Mach microkernel, or, if it's a bit outdated, replace it with a open source modern one. (This maybe a feature most suitable for a major new version, like Mac OX XI)
-A built-in system to remove the additional software installed by some applications.
-A new high reliability/performance optional filesystem like ZFS.

What the heck? Why wait till OSX XI or even OSX 10.7? Why not 10.6.4? Seriously. The numbering scheme is partly marketing and partly a way to differentiate if the kernel and a significant portion of the resources are 32 bit or 64 bit or multi-processor aware.

So simply have OSX 10.6.5 accept all three for backward compatibility. Run some stuff in a sandbox resembling 10.4.11, another sandbox resembling 10.6.3, and yet another bleeding edge sandbox with 10.7.001 crashomatic.

That way the people who want to get real work done, can. The folks that want to do application requiring multi-processor and media centric stuff can, and those that want to develop stuff for the "next thing" can.

Apple already includes programming environments on CONSUMER installs on every machine.

Then we have iPOS 4.x and beyond. What we saw at first with OSX and iPOS was a divergence born out of hardware necessity. That is going to reconverge as soon as Apple releases its third generation portable chip. It will be GPU aware, possibly equipped. It will be multi-processor. It will be the mother of all energy misers, and it will be quite capable of doing anything a MacPro can do today.

So all this talk about the details misses the point. Apple is bringing a large subset of desktop capabilities to your hand or purse. Apple is continuing to support the Macintosh, because that is its legacy. But aside from some processor bumps to keep up with HD everywhere, there is not much more to do there. The Mac has arrived. It is a mature product line.

But you know what's really cool about that? The Mac will still be the Mac 5 years from now, but a large portion of the 80% of users who have not joined us yet, will. That's great for Apple sales. They can pretty much cruise on its Mac legacy (with considerable ongoing development) while market share organically increases due to portable device mind share and ubiquity. Buy AAPL.

Rocketman

 

[xgman]

Apple should just sell the OS and desktop ends of their business. They are morphing into a toy company. As much as I like toys, it is still sad to see this happening.

 

[jaw04005]

Jobs: Not to worry [about iPhone taking resources from Mac OS X]

From 9 to 5 Mac:

A worried Canadian reader sent Jobs the following email to Steve Jobs:

I was wondering, is it true that the iPhone 4 is cutting into OSX development causing a delay, as a big Mac user, this is of huge concern to me. I just hope your balancing development and working as much as you can. Is OSX development still a huge priority? I have a worry that Apple is branching away from computers and not updating their computer customers as much.

Jobs:

No. Not to worry.

While not a definitive answer on when we'll see 10.7, it seems that Jobs still values the Mac platform. An extended wait until 10.7 would seem to go against that sentiment.

http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-10-7-mac-hardware-543850803

————————

Jobs is on a role with the e-mails.

 

[xgman]

From 9 to 5 Mac:

A worried Canadian reader sent Jobs the following email to Steve Jobs:

I was wondering, is it true that the iPhone 4 is cutting into OSX development causing a delay, as a big Mac user, this is of huge concern to me. I just hope your balancing development and working as much as you can. Is OSX development still a huge priority? I have a worry that Apple is branching away from computers and not updating their computer customers as much.

Jobs:

No. Not to worry.

While not a definitive answer on when we'll see 10.7, it seems that Jobs still values the Mac platform. An extended wait until 10.7 would seem to go against that sentiment.

http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-10-7-mac-hardware-543850803

————————

Jobs is on a role with the e-mails.

Not to worry? You are reading a lot into basically nothing.

 

[jaw04005]

Not to worry? You are reading a lot into basically nothing.

I’m not reading into anything. It’s an article over at 9 to 5 Mac and the first real response we’ve gotten with regard to the topic of this thread.

 

[drmacnut]

All Things Come To An End

I'm sure what Steve said in his short reply ("No. Not to worry.") about continued Mac and OS X development is true. It's true at least in the near term. But I think if we project forward another decade and imagine what the digital landscape will look like, I am not sure that Mac OS X as we know it will be there for portable devices. I think a descendant of iPhone OS will be there, and will be on all portables and on the majority of Apple's desktop machines too (descendants of iMac).

In the year 2000, we had no clue about the upcoming iPod and what it would herald in other devices produced this past decade. iPod Touch was initially a natural descendant from iPod, because of the interest in having a device that could not only play music and audiobooks, but also video. Multi-touch made the Touch possible, and also allowed for a completely new way to interface with a phone: thus came iPhone. iPhone apps and app store was born because multi-touch devices were so well embraced by all of us!

The recent iPad is a decendant of the iPhone and will take us into a decade where portable Macs will eventually morph into what will be the decendants of today's iPad.

I do not think that desktop Macs will follow the same route. Using multi-touch on a desktop machine is still not possible - we have not found the true manner of such interaction. Furthermore, a certain segment of content producers will still need to produce; and scientists will still need to crunch numbers; and so on. So an OS X-style OS will still need to be there for desktops. Tech geeks like us will still want that style of machine and OS also because we love to play deeper than most in the technology.

Anyway, all good things come to an end. iPod is dead in reality already - mostly manifested as an app on touch devices! What we see physically are the last vestiges of it: shuffles and nanos for example.

It is good for Apple to be thinking more about iPhone OS and its future now. OS X is mature and will only need to be in maintenance mode and updated as new hardware requires.

This next decade leading up to 2020 lies in devices following the lead of iPad, in the same way that the last decade followed iPod. We have no clue what is going to happen - not even Apple knows, for sure.

 

[ipadking]

.....
I do not think that desktop Macs will follow the same route. Using multi-touch on a desktop machine is still not possible - we have not found the true manner of such interaction. Furthermore, a certain segment of content producers will still need to produce; and scientists will still need to crunch numbers; and so on. So an OS X-style OS will still need to be there for desktops. Tech geeks like us will still want that style of machine and OS also because we love to play deeper than most in the technology.

.

I think Apple knows there's not much money in the current desktop OS, i.e., its open, anyone can write app and its not controlled. Yes, content producers and scientists need them, but pretty low volume in those markets. Also, as the iPhone OS get's more desktop OS features, we'll have something in the middle of the current iPhone OS and desktop OS. I don't see why there won't be apps for content producers and scientists on the Ipad/iPhone/Touch.

 

[kingtj]

The future .....

It's pretty tough to guess what the future will bring 10 or 20 years ahead....

But I'm not really convinced that we'll see some sort of shift to all "mobile" systems. The idea of a "desktop computer" has a lot of value, because many people don't really WANT a given computer to get moved around much. (In a typical office/corporate setting, for example - you're more concerned about theft of a PC than you are portability. Employees come in to the office to work, and the computer is a tool provided for their use and configured specifically for that environment. It's meant to stay there.)

Even for the "home user", a portable machine involves numerous compromises - some of which can't really be resolved. EG. If you want a big screen display, a laptop has limits before the size of the display makes the computer impractical as a portable. If you want multiple hard drives with some sort of RAID configuration? Again, it quickly becomes impractical in a lightweight, mobile device. And sure, you can attach external hardware to some sort of docking station ... but then you're looking at added expense and either a proprietary solution (dock only works with that one specific make/model of portable), or one that has inherent "bottlenecks" to performance (a standard USB port replicator that has to push the display graphics over the cable along with everything else).

Currently, we're seeing a lot of people pushing the whole "cloud computing" model as the answer. Put all the power in rack-mounted server-class systems in a building someplace, and let the user use a portable device as little more than a "dumb terminal" to the server. But that only solves your data storage capacity/backup issues and your processor power issues. It won't magically give your 13" notebook a 30" display. And it *also* assumes you have fast, reliable Internet connectivity at all times. If not? You've got an unreliable computer on your hands.

Apple may LIKE building proprietary, mobile gadgets and devices that give them control over the applications that go on them.... but that model doesn't scale past a certain point, IMHO. It works best for specialty products (like game consoles or phones). I think they can keep up the R&D on the Mac OS X side of things and keep producing hardware people are wowed with enough to pay a premium for. If they choose not to, because it's more difficult than the alternatives? That's their decision to make -- but can't see it happening, given their corporate culture and history.

I think Apple knows there's not much money in
the current desktop OS, i.e., its open, anyone can write app and its not controlled. Yes, content producers and scientists need them, but pretty low volume in those markets. Also, as the iPhone OS get's more desktop OS features, we'll have something in the middle of the current iPhone OS and desktop OS. I don't see why there won't be apps for content producers and scientists on the Ipad/iPhone/Touch.