What is ix.Mac.MarketingName?

[Gatesbasher]

If Lion does give you the ability to emulate iOS apps on your Mac....

How do you control them? A touch-screen iMac is a non-starter because of the "Frankenstein Posture", not to mention the smudges on the screen. A touch-screen laptop wouldn't be much better. I don't like the lying-down-iMac like in that recent patent, but maybe that's just me.

The Magic Trackpad is already a touchscreen, just with no display behind it. What if a new one came out with a display and some kind of ARM processor? (It could be an old, really cheap one—the Mac would be doing the heavy lifting.) You could pretend it was an iDevice, download apps for it, interact with them on the trackpad while the main display mirrored what you were doing.

Building the same functionality into laptop trackpads would be a later step, if this caught on, but wouldn't such a Magic Trackpad be an iDevice: "iX", associated with a "Mac", that they just haven't thought up a name for yet? It would debut this summer with Lion, to take advantage of the fusion between iOS and OS X.

 

[MattInOz]

Dude,,...... you didn't get rid of the chin....
You can't mention iMac around here without someone saying.
I hope they get rid of the chin.


ps. Yes I think a touch screen mac is coming but it seriously needs to be a new product not an iMac. Also needs to be much much smaller and lighter like the iMac gets the Air Treatment with say 17 or 20inch screen. No Stand.

 

[inkswamp]

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 )

That's what I'm thinking. I bet the code that generates that list of devices was just cut and pasted from somewhere else and someone got an extra one in there with this mysterious ix.Mac... thing in place as boilerplate code. I bet it means nothing.

However, if I were told it was indeed a new device and had to take a guess, I'd say it's becoming more and more likely that Apple is going to try to leverage the popularity of iOS to sell more laptops. Imagine a laptop with a touch screen that somehow could lay down flat and switch into an iOS mode, not emulated, but the real thing. Basically, it would be a laptop that could convert into an iPad. I can imagine a lot of interest in a single device that can run both OS X and iOS.

 

[GregAndonian]

Ok, here's my theory. I think Apple's "No Blu-ray" stance may play a role here... Perhaps.

The thing I really don't like about Blu-ray being washed away by streaming and downloads is that right now there's no good way for people to share their own videos with people in a way that they'll be able to watch them on the TV in high quality, similar to how they'd watch a Netflix film. YouTube is great if you watch it on a computer, but on a TV device it's not full quality and it's hard to find things.

This is one of the key things I'm waiting for before I embrace the idea of streaming and downloads becoming the norm. Unlike Blu-ray, Netflix streaming doesn't have a recordable format. I was thinking before Apple could be a great candidate to fill this void.

With the new datacenter and the impending FCP X release, the pieces are coming together. Next they release a new version of the apple TV which, among other things, allows users to watch videos that they and others have uploaded- on the TV, in high quality.

THAT would be really cool. I still love Blu-ray. But it would be really sweet being able to upload a short film or video that I made and know that people will be able to watch it on their ix.Mac.MarketingName...

 

[satkin2]

Apps universal between iOS and OSX would make sense, an iWorks suite that you can run on either your Mac and finish on your iOS device, that would be really nice.

I wouldn't be suprised if this was just a coding error, but sometime in the future I can imagine that the ability to run the same apps on both systems will be possible.

 

[kalsta]

Dude,,...... you didn't get rid of the chin....
You can't mention iMac around here without someone saying.
I hope they get rid of the chin.

True enough. But if there was no chin, I may as well have drawn an iPad on a stick, and no one would be impressed by that.

ps. Yes I think a touch screen mac is coming but it seriously needs to be a new product not an iMac. Also needs to be much much smaller and lighter like the iMac gets the Air Treatment with say 17 or 20inch screen. No Stand.

I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers… haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.

I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.

If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.

As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?

 

[shandn]

Ehhhhhh

Are you guys for real?

I'm not really into apple or apple products, but there is no big mystery behind the string ix.Mac.MarketingName (except for 'Mac', that is)

'ix' is and object or a variable in whatever programming language they've written this in.

'Mac' and 'MarketingName' are either methods or keys (in a hash) belonging to the 'ix' variable/object.

Let me illustrate with a simple javascript/JSON variable:

var ix = {
        "Mac":{
               "MarketingName":"Mac"
         },
        "iPhone":{
            "MarketingName":"iPhone"
        },
        "iPad":{
             "MarketingName":"iPad"
        },
        "iPodT":{
            "MarketingName":"iPod touch"
        }
    }

To use marketing name for iPodT in the output, the programmer would write ix.iPodT.MarketingName.


The code for outputing the text where this appears proboably looks something like (depending on what programming language they've used):

'Requirements: Compatible with ' + ix.iPhone.MarketingName + 
' ' + ix.iPodT.MarketingName + ' ' + ix.iPad.MarketingName + 
' and ' + 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' + 
'Requires iOS 3.0 or later.'

Do you notice the bug?

'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is in quotes! The intepreter would think it's a normal string, and therefore fail to render the actual variable, and because of this outputting:


Requirements: Compatible
with iPhone, iPod touch, iPad,
and ix.Mac.MarketingName.
Requires iOS 3.0 or later.




So simple...

 

[KnightWRX]

Do you notice the bug?

So you're assuming that Apple are merging both stores into 1 and that developers have had time to implement universal binaries that run on 2 different frameworks and submitted the result to the app store ?

This is obviously a bug, but it's not what you think it is.

 

[shandn]

So you're assuming that Apple are merging both stores into 1 and that developers have had time to implement universal binaries that run on 2 different frameworks and submitted the result to the app store ?

This is obviously a bug, but it's not what you think it is.

Well, as i said i'm not really into apple products, but i guess apple would instead develop an emulator if something like that were to happen...

Maybe it's a point and click remote thing for apple tv...

 

[Mattsasa]

You guys don't have one?

I've been tweeting from my ix.Mac.MarketingName 4 for months

I know this is a dead thread now, but that was funny

 

[Stetrain]

Hmmm, lots of people seem to assume that "Universal iOS+Mac Apps" means running an iPhone app in a window/emulator on your Mac.

That's not what I meant at all.

Look at Universal iPhone/iPad apps. Same app by the same developer but it presents a different interface for different devices. It also means that buying the app once lets you use it on multiple types of device. Why not let developers do the same thing with Mac apps? Many probably wouldn't want to but it wouldn't hurt to have the option.

Buy X-Twitter-App for $4.99 and you get it on iPhone, iPad, and your Mac!

You aren't running an app with an iOS interface on your Mac, you're running an app with an interface built for running on a Mac.

 

[LightSpeed1]

Duuhh its a Macbook Air iPad hybrid!

Funny.

 

[GregAndonian]

If Lion does give you the ability to emulate iOS apps on your Mac....

How do you control them?

What about a Magic Trackpad?

 

[KnightWRX]

What about a Magic Trackpad?

Trackpads and touch screens are quite different input devices. Touch screen input requires that you actually "touch" what you want to manipulate. With a trackpad, you don't have quite the precision to precisely put your finger on an object on screen, since the object is not displayed on the track pad.

It just doesn't translate that well. Trackpads still very much require cursors, which iOS's UI lacks.

 

[dethmaShine]

Trackpads and touch screens are quite different input devices. Touch screen input requires that you actually "touch" what you want to manipulate. With a trackpad, you don't have quite the precision to precisely put your finger on an object on screen, since the object is not displayed on the track pad.

It just doesn't translate that well. Trackpads still very much require cursors, which iOS's UI lacks.

Then all you need is a cursor overlay; just how you operate in an iOS simulator.

 

[TheUndertow]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I am going with either universal apps for iOS and Mac or appletv. Nothing else makes sense.

Wishing it was the Console that I have in my head, but that may be a little further out.

 

[reputationZed]

I guess we won't know until some Apple engineer forgets one in a bar.

 

[axual]

iGotit

Finally, the long awaited, highly anticipated iDoorknob ... Yes!

 

[Mochi Hana]

Nice.

 

[MattInOz]

I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers… haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.

I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.

If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.

As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?

Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.

This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.

I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.

To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.

As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.

It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.

Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.

 

[Reach9]

Are you guys for real?

I'm not really into apple or apple products, but there is no big mystery behind the string ix.Mac.MarketingName (except for 'Mac', that is)

'ix' is and object or a variable in whatever programming language they've written this in.

'Mac' and 'MarketingName' are either methods or keys (in a hash) belonging to the 'ix' variable/object.

Let me illustrate with a simple javascript/JSON variable:

var ix = {
        "Mac":{
               "MarketingName":"Mac"
         },
        "iPhone":{
            "MarketingName":"iPhone"
        },
        "iPad":{
             "MarketingName":"iPad"
        },
        "iPodT":{
            "MarketingName":"iPod touch"
        }
    }

To use marketing name for iPodT in the output, the programmer would write ix.iPodT.MarketingName.


The code for outputing the text where this appears proboably looks something like (depending on what programming language they've used):

'Requirements: Compatible with ' + ix.iPhone.MarketingName + 
' ' + ix.iPodT.MarketingName + ' ' + ix.iPad.MarketingName + 
' and ' + 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' + 
'Requires iOS 3.0 or later.'

Do you notice the bug?

'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is in quotes! The intepreter would think it's a normal string, and therefore fail to render the actual variable, and because of this outputting:


Requirements: Compatible
with iPhone, iPod touch, iPad,
and ix.Mac.MarketingName.
Requires iOS 3.0 or later.




So simple...

Great post! This clears a lot up actually!
So, we're looking at universal apps for iDevices and Macs? Or a emulator of some sort on a Mac?

 

[kalsta]

Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.

I do get the picture — this concept of 'best of both worlds'. But I think the reality wouldn't be quite as great as you imagine. Mouse input and touchscreen input are quite different things, and you'd be asking developers on this platform to support both with their apps in order for things to work whether the user has the device upright with a mouse plugged in, or horizontal for touchscreen input as you describe. Otherwise the user would be constantly expected to switch between the two for different tasks, and that would make it a nightmare to use.

You mention in there that the 'odd navigation touch command would not be too bad' on a vertical screen, and that may be true. If that is your only expectation, that's fine. So what you probably have in that case is still a Mac running Mac OS X, but with a touchscreen capable of supporting certain touch commands and gestures. Of course, Macs are already capable of supporting various multi-touch gestures through a touchpad (or Magic Mouse or whatever), so it's conceivable that they could add a touchscreen as well, to be used occasionally as the need arises, but I'm not convinced that is going to offer the Mac a whole lot more functionality or that it would justify a whole new marketing name.

See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.

Adding a stylus to the iPad for certain tasks is fine IMO, and far more natural than switching between a real keyboard and touchscreen. Unfortunately, Steve Jobs made that comment which has been interpreted as 'stylus = fail', so you're not likely to see Apple encouraging that any time soon.

To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard.

Sure, the iPad can use a real keyboard, but when you do, it really isn't the same experience that makes the iPad special anymore. It's a compromise in order to salvage some of what makes a desktop machine feel more precise, and that's my point — it feels like a compromise between both platforms, not a new and superior experience. The iPad really shines when you're touching it, because that's what it was designed for.

Yeah okay, so Apple released iWork for the iPad just to show us that they could. I won't be buying it though. It's not what the iPad excels at.

It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.

I think the iPad is already pretty much there when it comes to ease of use (depending on which apps you're using of course). That's why the in-store hands-on display is so effective — anyone from age 3 through to 103 can pick one up and start using it straight away.

Sometimes less is more, and I think that is probably true of touchscreen interfaces, and why the iPad has hit the mark where Windows-based tablet PC's failed in the past.

As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align.

People look at the superficial similarities between Lion and iOS and think the two are merging into one OS. I see it differently. Time will tell.