iPhone OS=Mac OS XI?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Coleco, Feb 18, 2008.

  1. Coleco macrumors member

    Dec 15, 2003
    I think the release of the iPhone SDK will be the first step toward Apple moving toward a complete revision of Mac OS that seizes on the simplicity of iPhone's OS to overhaul the way we view the Mac.

    There's no reason why I would not want an iPhone OS-based appliance of some kind today outfitted with iWork, iLife, Mail and Safari. Such a device would return the platform to the point, click and explore simplicity that made System 6 so great while embracing advances in hardware and software technology that allow us to break the icon/menu pointer paradigm.

    The SDK provides the foundation for other major software developers to start down the path of creating simple, but powerful applications that function using new paradigms that only the iPhone OS allows.

    While I know a lot of people wouldn't like it, I think consumer also would like the idea of an iTunes-like experience when shopping for and installing new apps, games and widgets.

    The current system is too convoluted, too difficult for mass-market consumers to "discover" and try new apps and too open to trojans and other security threats. Perhaps OS XI could open an iTunes-like distribution system that allowed developers simplified ways getting their apps to customers and keeping those apps updated with the latest bug fixes and features.

    Your thoughts?
  2. MisterMe macrumors G4


    Jul 17, 2002
    You are one OS X release too late. The iPhone runs on a version of Leopard. So too does the MacBook Air. Leopard is not the end of an era in the development of MacOS X. It is the beginning of a new era.
  3. Jason S. macrumors 6502a

    Jul 23, 2007
    I believe when OS X was announced they stated that it would be the basis of the Mac OS for the next TWO decades. We still have a long way to go until we see OS 11.
  4. GimmeSlack12 macrumors 603


    Apr 29, 2005
    San Francisco
    So you want it to be like YUM in Linux? Just pick the .rpm you want from the list? I don't know, I don't think the system (OS X) is convoluted, I think it has matured wonderfully. The whole 'point and click' approach is just so archaic, so beginner, and as generations grow with computers around them they will not need to be so dumbed down. At the moment a majority of programs are installed by simply opening a .DMG and dragging the application bundle to the Apps folder. How is that confusing or difficult?

    And what trojans exactly do you speak of? Cause there still has never been anything close to a widely distributed Mac OS trojan/virus/worm/etc. OS 11 would have to start approaching appliance simplicity, in a sense re-inventing what it is that people think of in a computer Operating System.
  5. Coleco thread starter macrumors member

    Dec 15, 2003
    Good points, but....

    I know iPhone shares some elements of Leopard, but it's not Leopard. The way the user interacts with software and the way the software presents itself to the user is completely different. Yes, the foundation is the same, but it's not Leopard.

    As for the trojan issue, I agree there has never been a legitimate threat in the wild, but that hardly means there won't be one.
    From a consumer standpoint I think iTunes has shown how easy media and software (in the case of iPod games and software updates) installations can be. Let's face it, dragging a DMG file to a folder is not the way we should be installing apps in 2008. Is it hard? No. Is it something we shouldn't have to deal with? Yes.

    Consumers win with an easier system. Developers win by making it easier to for customers to purchase their software while providing a consistent, easy-to-understand system for offering updates or upgrades.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't see OS X going away soon. I just think the iPhone SDK opens the door for the Adobes of the world to create new ways for their customers to interact with their software. It also creates the potential for simpler, smaller, more task-specific apps that interact with one another (hey, it's OpenDoc 2010! Ok... maybe not...). Someday that kind of rethinking could bring the next Photoshop.

    I guess my feeling is technology has finally reached the point where the good ideas of the 90s are more plausable and technologically feasible. Ergo Audrey was a good idea. Sony's Be-based appliance was a good idea. The pricing, hardware, software and marketing just weren't up to the challenge.

    Apple's position is unique. It has the brand cachet, credibility as an innovator and a huge built-in audience of early adopters to make a major shift like this possible.

    Anyway, it's fun to speculate....:rolleyes:
  6. shigzeo macrumors 6502a


    Dec 14, 2005
    personally, i love just dragging a file from a self-contained folder to another folder or putting it basically anywhere i want. there is no installer to go through nor stress if the file is moved later on. macos has always been rather easy to navigate but i am so happy that even in 2008, despite how complicated code has become, we can still merely open the dmg file and slide the app to applications folder. nothing could be easier nor more straighforward.

    once run, the app may install preference files but - elegance in simplicity and yet maintaining slight control. osx, you have done this so well.
  7. Muncher macrumors 65816


    Apr 19, 2007
    I think when people say it runs on Leopard, they mean it runs on the same basic OS (Mach/BSD kernel + Darwin + MacOS stuff). It confused me too the first time I heard that. :p
  8. Quillz macrumors 65816


    Jan 6, 2006
    Los Angeles, CA
    Just like how they said the G4 iMac would last for the next decade, right?
  9. scaredpoet macrumors 604


    Apr 6, 2007
    No offense intended, but your take on the situation is overly-simplistic, and completely glosses over what people actually *do* with computers. Sorry, but people don't just shop iTunes and do silly little things with their computers. Some of us actually attempt to do real work on them.

    Your analysis of "OS 11" reminds me a lot of Jonathan Schwartz, who for years has been saying that the desktop computer is dead. A fanciful notion, but it takes for granted the realities of what people still do on their computers. It's probably why his company has been in a financial tarpit for almost a decade.

    For composing music, designing art, writing web pages and documents, and developing software, an iPhone-like interface-on-your desktop simply will not do, and actually would prove to be more cumbersome in a number of ways. No, the iPhone interface is good for its purpose - to be an easy way to interact with a compact mobile device that augments but doesn't replace the desktop computer or its interfaces.

    That doesn't make your argument any more valid. On the other hand, there already have been exploits in the iPhone interface, based on the same security exploit that affected a similar version of Safari on desktop and laptop Macs. And, the exploit for all affected systems was patched at the same time. So much for the iPhone being more secure than the desktop version of Leopard, and in fact this only reinforces that indeed, the iPhone and OS X are at the core one and the same.

    What a bold statement. So what exactly has iTunes brought to the table that makes it any different? You still have to select the object you want and organize it appropriately. You must still initiate an action to "install" the component to the device. And you must still drag and drop to rearrange object. In fact, the only thing iTunes does is in some cases restrict functionality, in that it makes itself the only de facto modification interface for the device and restrcts what a user can and cannot do with their device.

    If iTunes were the holy grail, then there wouldn't be multitudes of iPhone users seeking to Jailbreak their iPhones and avoiding iTunes when possible. And what do they do with their jailbroken iPhones? Some add a Terminal. Others install some of the omitted OS X components. In short, they try to make their phones more Mac-like. Funny that. I guess the iPhone interface isn't what everyone wants.

    Truer words were never spoken. Too bad it's just a generalization and fails to apply to your paradigm. These fanciful notions you have seem to lack any basis in the concrete, and you completely gloss over how to implement this interface. Could it be because you don't know how it would work?

    Sorry, but the LAST thing any user should want is for Adobe to step in and dictate interaction. I'm actually surprised you mentioned them. Adobe's interface philosophy has mutated toa ccept bloat and obfuscation. The utter antithesis of what the iPhone is supposed to be.

    The concepts of the 90s didn't fail because of lack of technology. The concepts failed because there was no concept. People waxed poetic about a techno-utopia without any firm knowledge in how it would be implemented, but as long as gullible VC firms would buy into it, no one had to produce. Then, people got wise when the utopia never came. And so the dot-com bubble burst.

    And while I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, I submit that your treatise suffers from the same problem: long of grandiosity, short on reality.
  10. scaredpoet macrumors 604


    Apr 6, 2007
    You mean like the one I got in my office running leopard? Okay, well it's not 10 years. More like 6. That's still pretty good compared to its PC counterparts.

    Or you can look at it another way: the stuff under the hood of OS X has been around in some shape or form for 39 years. It's older than Apple. And at the risk of sounding as grandiose as the OP, I wouldn't be surprised if it continued to exist in some shape or form long after anyone has forgotten there ever was an Apple.

Share This Page