Often times smaller teams are more productive and better than large teams, collaboration is cleaner and more accountability
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's WWDC 2014 to Focus on OS X 10.10 as Apple Pulls Resources from iOS 8 to Help
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Often times smaller teams are more productive and better than large teams, collaboration is cleaner and more accountability
Did the same thing. My macbook pro had been upgraded from Leopard to Mavericks without ever clean installing. Doing a clean install has done wonders and so should upgrading my ram from 4gbs to 8 gbs with a solid state drive too.
I am loving Mavericks for sure!
Where exactly does Apple put all these new people? You need real estate for that. Unless you want even more engineers scattered all over random buildings in Cupertino. As far as what Apple should focus on, I think one product (iPhone) generating such a large percentage of revenue is worrisome. The more Apple can diversify the better.
But then your family will only buy one iPad?
And what if 2 people want to use the same iPad at the same time? Or if the only iPad in the house breaks then no one gets to use the iPad anymore.
Multi-user support should come in the form of enterprise and education tools. Not an end-user feature.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. With declining iPad sales in particular, Apple needs to come out with more competitive alternatives in markets they do not yet dominate, the obvious being the PC market.
Apple can only do so much price wise since they need to keep high margins, so they need to differentiate themselves with superior software. IOS is already a very successful OS in terms of profits, so for the time being they would be beating on a dead horse.
Frankly, Apple needs to get more resources so they don't have to move resources from one OS to the other. Somebody is going to quote me and say that since IOS is their cash cow they need to keep focus on it, and I'd be inclined to agree with them. It's simply that they placing their limited resources where they can in order to hopefully continue to improve their profits. Over the long run, this is not the type of choice Apple should need to be making.
I do not understand why Apple needs a new version every year.
They could add functionality to existing versions using updates.
They could change the look of things by adding skins and allow users to customize things.
If something is perfect now, improving it will only cause trouble.
What happened? Don't you like stitched leather?
OK, dear customer, how about a free skin of brushed metal? Or a free skin with any color you like?
They could add functionality to existing versions using updates.
They could change the look of things by adding skins and allow users to customize things.
If something is perfect now, improving it will only cause trouble.
What happened? Don't you like stitched leather?
OK, dear customer, how about a free skin of brushed metal? Or a free skin with any color you like?
But then your family will only buy one iPad?
From a business standpoint, just “forcing” a family, or business to purchase more than one could/would be short sighted.
It might dissuade them against any purchase, or to consider an alternative. Keeping a customer, even on just one iPad may mean they eventually buy another, and/or a Mac, and/or lots of media, an AppleTV, etc. Losing a single sale and future sales because 2 Kindles made more sense is something Apple wants to avoid.
Plus, with the penetration into the corporate market - where shared devices are very common - it would be a huge value.
I believe we’re going to see a unified storage model soon, and very possibly in iOS8. Not an exposed F/S (I still contend that’s not needed for 90% of the use cases), but a common repository, where an app can request access (like photos), and there’s a content type registration (not unlike the current “Open In...” API), _maybe_ a catalog-like view of the files.
I'd be thrilled if they introduced a new file system, HFS+ really is so far back in some areas, it doesn't even offer native sparse files, hard-links are really faked, and when you compare it to modern things like ZFS or BTRFS it just isn't funny.
They share some similar characteristics, but thats not the same thing as saying they are mostly the same thing. Thats like saying oh I play basketball like lebron, we are mostly the same thing. Absolutely not, there are distinct differences that make them very different.
But not to seem like I am jumping on you, no hate here. Respect the comment for sure.
I'm not sure this changes anything to be honest...
iOS8 is probably mature enough to present decent demos, while it's not the case for OS X 10.10. None of these versions are going to be released on WWDC, because developers haven't had the chance to test their apps on these platforms.
The finalization work will be during the summer, and they can move the resources they want from a project to another, and everything can change during the betas, mind you.
--
BTW, I'm not a fan of flat designs. Skeuomorphism used to be what made Apple differenciate itself from the competition. If Xcode 5 is a preview of what flat OS X will look like, I'm staying on Mavericks.
iOS8 is probably mature enough to present decent demos, while it's not the case for OS X 10.10. None of these versions are going to be released on WWDC, because developers haven't had the chance to test their apps on these platforms.
The finalization work will be during the summer, and they can move the resources they want from a project to another, and everything can change during the betas, mind you.
--
BTW, I'm not a fan of flat designs. Skeuomorphism used to be what made Apple differenciate itself from the competition. If Xcode 5 is a preview of what flat OS X will look like, I'm staying on Mavericks.
I want to see a redesigned interface, that would be nice. Windows 8 has a minimalist interface that is looking better than OS X right now. I hope Apple does not insert graphic elements that make it too heavy, though. iOS became pretty heavy itself, and I hope it does not happen with OS X too.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There was a great effort to bring ZFS to OS X about 4+ generations ago. It was a project and I think Apple even announced it as an upcoming feature of one of the OS X updates. But then it got scrapped when a company (I think Oracle) bought another company (I think Sun) and ZFS or ZFS patents were transferred in that exchange.
I'm with you though. Back then ZFS looked like a great step forward from HFS. Too bad it didn't make it.
That's fine, respectful comments are always welcome, even when they respectfully disagree
But how big are the differences really?
The kernel is basically the same, the Unix-environment is the same (even though it won't be as complete on iOS as on a Mac), and the Objective-C stuff beneath the GUI layer is the same.
I would see the energy-saving enhancements to Mavericks as joint work on a joint kernel, no?
Of course the GUI layer is completely different, with UIKit throwing out a lot of legacy issues and showing more up-to-date approach to some things, and there are differences in the Objective-C runtime, AFAIK there's no garbage collection on iOS, you can only do RC/ARC, but that might well be a common feature in the runtime that's just disabled in iOS for energy saving reasons.
Then again it's not so easy to look into everything, for example one could question whether the device-wide search in iOS is based on the Spotlight technology, or whether something completely different is going on.
What is even more scary is that you will be forced* to upgrade to this new OSX even if it's hideous and so focused on consumers (who should be using iPads) that productivity for professionals is sacrificed. Unless this update comes with a free, larger monitor, the increased useless white space is going to reduce my ability to get actual work done.
* Apple has now established the precedent that only the latest major revision receives security updates. Not cool when a new version comes out every single year and upgrading is both risky (compatibility) and costly (unbillable hours wasted).
Exactly, if it was a good idea back then, it's bound to be a good idea now, and they had plenty of time to develop or buy or whatever some other modern FS.
----------
You read too many rumours
How can you call something you haven't seen hideous? Maybe people should wait until they see something/use something before passing judgment on it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I understand that but Apple is a big, cash-rich company. To bring one group of programmers working on one system into another group of programmers working on another system will require lots of communication & coordination to integrate the new contributors. Since Apple's solution is to "throw more people" at this problem, if both teams were already staffed up for such surges in need, that temporary integration communication & coordination wouldn't be needed: the ideally-sized team for the surge would already be in place and already working on finishing up the software.
Does that mean there would be times when either or both teams would be "fat" (overstaffed)? Yes. But that could encourage faster, bigger developments in non-surge times rather than have the extra talent sit idly by awaiting a surge or crunch-time need.
More simply, if I have 2 teams of 10 people working on something and one team needs more help temporarily, I can certainly take a few from one team and shift them into the other. That may even be the most cost efficient way to do things. However, whatever that first team is working on is probably going to suffer since I'm taking resources from them to help team #2.
If this happens one time, no big deal. If it happens more than once, I should start noticing that maybe my talent staffing requirements are too tight. If so, I should staff up- even overstaff a bit- so that I can keep all talent focused on both goals rather than slow progress on one for the other. I may not be able to do that (overstaffing) if I'm cash pinched but Apple is far from cash pinched.
