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.
What is ix.Mac.MarketingName?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It has gone now, but I found it interesting that it was listing this for my Universal iOS game TiltStorm. It has touch and accelerometer control options, so it wouldn't be suitable as is for a touch control Mac. It is also a portrait orientated game, so isn't going to fill a widescreen monitor.
I think there will be much tighter iOS - OS X integration with Lion. I wonder if it will mean it can run iOS apps, possibly in a virtual environment, with an iOS device acting as the controller. All it would need is an Apple app on the device. The Mac sends the screen image to the device so that you can see where to touch, etc. And gets the control inputs in return.
There would be several benefits. You can run the app at a larger size on the Mac screen. Older devices could possibly run apps at full speed as the bulk of the work is offloaded to the Mac. And you could access all apps in your App Store library while in wi-fi range.
I think there will be much tighter iOS - OS X integration with Lion. I wonder if it will mean it can run iOS apps, possibly in a virtual environment, with an iOS device acting as the controller. All it would need is an Apple app on the device. The Mac sends the screen image to the device so that you can see where to touch, etc. And gets the control inputs in return.
There would be several benefits. You can run the app at a larger size on the Mac screen. Older devices could possibly run apps at full speed as the bulk of the work is offloaded to the Mac. And you could access all apps in your App Store library while in wi-fi range.
On another note - wouldn't you hate to be an Apple content developer? You're working hard, just finishing up on a new piece of code... hoping there aren't any errors.
You put it live, relax, sit back, check out some RSS feeds for a break. The first item:
"What is ix.Mac.MarketingName and what does it mean for Apple's future plans?" Aiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!
Code:
...
[mDeviceList addObject @"ix.Mac.MarketingName"];
...You put it live, relax, sit back, check out some RSS feeds for a break. The first item:
"What is ix.Mac.MarketingName and what does it mean for Apple's future plans?" Aiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeee!
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
My apologies if I'm not the first person to mention this, but what about this article as a candidate piece of hardware?
So since the "ix.Mac.MarketingName" did not appear on some apps that required GPS -- it can be assumed that the new device does not have GPS capability (which could mean an Mac running Lion in a simulation environment -- hence the "Mac" in the name).
However, I also read that apps requiring voice input did not get the "ix.Mac.MarketingName" in their requirements and those that did get it were all universal apps.
Clearly, Macs have voice input capability, so maybe this really is in regard to the AppleTV 2, or possibly even an Apple-branded television like some have suggested recently is coming sooner than we think.
It sure would have been cool if when they accidentally pushed the code forward that used that resource bundle key that they would have accidentally also brought the resource bundle forward that had the actual product name in it. Although, it is possible that the "Marketing Name" has not yet been decided and a code name like "N98" would not have been too informative.
Apple certainly has something big up their sleeve for this year as they have been playing things very close to the vest despite the fact that we all know a huge data center is coming online.
One last guess.... maybe the White iPhone 4 that is on its way is not really an iPhone 4...... Maybe?
However, I also read that apps requiring voice input did not get the "ix.Mac.MarketingName" in their requirements and those that did get it were all universal apps.
Clearly, Macs have voice input capability, so maybe this really is in regard to the AppleTV 2, or possibly even an Apple-branded television like some have suggested recently is coming sooner than we think.
It sure would have been cool if when they accidentally pushed the code forward that used that resource bundle key that they would have accidentally also brought the resource bundle forward that had the actual product name in it. Although, it is possible that the "Marketing Name" has not yet been decided and a code name like "N98" would not have been too informative.
Apple certainly has something big up their sleeve for this year as they have been playing things very close to the vest despite the fact that we all know a huge data center is coming online.
One last guess.... maybe the White iPhone 4 that is on its way is not really an iPhone 4...... Maybe?
So Apple does in fact have a patent or patent application for a hinged iMac that can transition from an upright position to a near-flat angled position for touch-based operation. Several have also done notebook computers with a swivel hinge or a flip screen to make it double as a tablet.
I was about to ask if somebody skilled with an image editor could do a mockup promo page from Apple on the "ix.Mac.MarketingName" -- and low and behold, here it is.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You rock kalsta!
IT's has to be a new product!
1. mac
2.Itv
3.IPad
4.shuffle
5.Nano
6.Classic
7.Itouch
8.Iphone
9. ?
"ix" = 9
The only thing is what could it be?
International Cable/Networking service(internet)
Gaming Console to rival Window Xbox
It's a new product based on numbers but what?
1. mac
2.Itv
3.IPad
4.shuffle
5.Nano
6.Classic
7.Itouch
8.Iphone
9. ?
"ix" = 9
The only thing is what could it be?
International Cable/Networking service(internet)
Gaming Console to rival Window Xbox
It's a new product based on numbers but what?
Just because iOS can be/has been built for x86 doesn't mean you wouldn't need a Rosetta-like instruction translation layer to run AppStore iOS apps. Those apps are all compiled for Arm6/7. Apple could support some sort of Universal binary in the future, but apps in the AppStore would have to be rebuilt by their creators.
App Stores integration
I don't think Apple TV is what the product is, it's too difficult to use some apps only with the IR remote control.
I'm going for an iOS App store and Mac store integration, some of the apps that have been built for iPad could run perfectly on a Mac, and the other way around, plus, Steve even said that they would bring their best technologies "from the iPad to the Mac and with the new multi-touch gestures we believe our Macs will become more intuitive than ever".
This way, all the apps in your iDevices and Macs would be synced at all times.
Either that or Apple's new HDTV with a completely new input method that could let you use iOS apps on your TV properly, but I really don't think this is very likely.
I don't think Apple TV is what the product is, it's too difficult to use some apps only with the IR remote control.
I'm going for an iOS App store and Mac store integration, some of the apps that have been built for iPad could run perfectly on a Mac, and the other way around, plus, Steve even said that they would bring their best technologies "from the iPad to the Mac and with the new multi-touch gestures we believe our Macs will become more intuitive than ever".
This way, all the apps in your iDevices and Macs would be synced at all times.
Either that or Apple's new HDTV with a completely new input method that could let you use iOS apps on your TV properly, but I really don't think this is very likely.
Bet you $100
Whatever "ix.Mac.MarketingName" is, I'll bet a benjamin that Eric Schmidt is clueless about it.
Whatever "ix.Mac.MarketingName" is, I'll bet a benjamin that Eric Schmidt is clueless about it.
hmm..either its a new product they're working on, or possibly an iOS emulator for Mac OS X Lion?
UPDATE there has been news that Apple will release a "smart TV" in the near future, this could be their 9th product (ix)
I'm guessing, in that case, that it only comes in white.
(Only the real Beatles fans will get that one.)
I believe that it isn't suggesting anything at all. When you go to list the devices that your application is compatible with, that is likely just an exposed extra field for if you wanted to include another device that is capable. It is in my opinion, nothing but a little bug. (Though emulating iOS apps om my Mac would be cool )
)