OS X 10.7 “Lion”: The King Of The Apple Jungle, The Last Of Its Kind, Or Both?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Apple also has it's own tick/tock of releases, between developer features and end user features - 10.4 and 10.6 being the former, and 10.5 being the latter. Thus, we're probably going to see a lot of new whiz-bang end user features in 10.7.
"Unification" already exists - iOS and MacOS X core OS and kernel code is fairly similar, as is much of the userland API. It's different for obvious reasons (many to do with touch/hardware limitations), and unless those differences go away (which I don't see happening - touch on an iMac form factor = serious arm pain), I don't see much point to the talk of unification.
Does that really happen? And what is awkward about it?
There are other reasons I love this machine but they are largely personal preferences. I for one hate really huge, heavy laptops with wide screens. I like that the Air is very comfortable on my lap. But I also own a desktop, so my laptop can be used as just a laptop and doesn't need to be a desktop replacement.
I also expect they'll provide new ways for developers and/or users to leverage both iOS and OS X; perhaps that's where cloud computing will come into play.
Other than that, I don't think we're going to see any more huge innovations in desktop computing, from Apple or anyone else. All the action is in mobile (and development tools).
Ditto for air flight: from the dawn of aviation to about 1960 or 1970, you see steadily increasing speeds. Today, most planes still fly at about ~500 MPH (I think), just like they used to.
Although there are still lots of micro-innovations going on with cars, rail, and planes, they've basically hit a maximum airspeed.
I suspect something similar might be going on with the current paradigm of desktop operating systems. Since around ~2005 (when Windows XP's service packs finally caught up to virus / worm writers and OS X Tiger brought stability and full text search), nothing in operating systems has made a tangible difference in my life.
Compared to the jump from DOS to Windows 95, or from 95/98 to XP, or the late versions of Mac OS to the early versions of OS X... the current changes in operating systems just aren't that great. Which isn't to say "consumer OSes are dead"—but they've probably hit a spot where the major problems have been solved. The innovations are smaller than universal protected memory, fast, full-indexed search, and the like.
The key words above are "for this paradigm." Mobile represents the next obvious computing paradigm, and that might be a good thing. For better or worse, Microsoft has "won" the desktop and will probably never lose it. The company appears to mostly be competing with itself these days (I say, writing from an iMac).
Multitouch in desktop OSes has been tacked on as a layer over the traditional cursor-oriented APIs, which is why it feels that way when you use it.
Not necessarily. It could also mean one cursor that operates in four spacial dimensions.
It's interesting to see this stated now, right as Google is moving forward with automated cars. Once all highway traffic is automated we can push to much higher speeds safely (and drive much closer to each other).
The next thing is that people get used to more modal, one-at-a-time multitasking systems like Android and then some variant of a netbook UI really hits off, eventually on desktop as well.
This is Apple we're talking about; they love secrecy, don't want nobody to know what they're doing.
Some of the patents they've filed are probably just ideas, some of them make it into products or features, and some are probably red herrings, meant just to throw their competition off.
I see no reason why, having established touch UI patterns on iOS devices, Apple would have any reason not to start introducing such things on the desktop.
And really, have you been in a pickup lately? They have a lot of car like amenities, like antilock breaks, air conditioners, decent stereos, etc.
It's not clear how or whether would add desktop touch features, but they've clearly considered it.
[1] Imagine working whole day having to hold your arms up to operate the mouse cursor. My arm hurts just thinking about it.
Fracturing UIKit isn't unprecedented, it's already done on iOS with the iPad having widgets and features not available on iPhone.
UIKit is cleaner having been redesigned after so many years and with so many other technologies baked (CGLayer & CoreAnimation for example).
AppKit would continue to exist for some time with developers having the option of mixing the two (as not all features will be available at the UIKit layer to start.)
A good example of where UIKit bests AppKit is the seemingly simple "Put an animated progress meter in a table row". This is easy in UIKit because table cells are UIViews. However, in AppKit, a table cell is a NSCell which is -not- a view.
On MacOS nearly everything has a NSView and a NSCell component (i.e. NSButton, NSButtonCell) On iOS there are no cells. (UIButton, no UIButtonCell.)
Other AppKit classes will be implemented using their UIKit counterparts (NSView to UIView, NSWindow to UIWindow).
The result will be a much cleaner development environment for applications that favors animation, multi-touch, and code reuse with the iOS platform.
Even if that's the only new feature in 10.7, I'll be ponying my money up for it. I completely love the SSD in my MBP, but the occasional stuttering does get annoying at times.
* 10.7 "Lion" (obviously)
* iLife 2011 (with FaceTime in iChat), iWork 2011
* New Mac replacing MacBook Air with a swivelling touch screen
* iOS app support on OSX, utilizing said touch screen
If they put iOS support in Mac OS X that would be awesome, but I hope they do it in a way that they are just like other apps on my desktop that can be put in the dock. That way I am much more likely to use the apps.
FrontRow, on the other hand, I use rarely. When I do, I'm glad it's there though
I think it makes sense for Apple as well, since the value proposition for iOS to developers is shaping into an argument that, yes, there are a lot of Android phones out there, but there are a huge number of iPod Touches, iPads - and perhaps now Macs - in the hands of customers that can run the same iOS apps.
* FaceTime on iTunes, for Mac and Windows
* App Store for OSX
* iTunes is available on Windows, thus bringing FaceTime to Windows and making it a serious contender against Skype
* iTunes is widely deployed and this move would greatly expand the FaceTime user base
* iTunes already has your Apple account, which is an email, which is used by FaceTime to make calls (if I'm not mistaken)
* iTunes even has a Social Network :) Maybe you'll be able to FaceTime your favorite artists? A one-to-many call would make more sense here.
Perhaps having FaceTime bundled with iTunes makes more sense. Anyway, speculating about Apple's events is one of my favorite pastimes :)
iTunes already wants to be too much. It has a store (with credit card management), your local music library, a social network, movies that you are supposed to watch via Apple TV, podcast management, the app store, low-level device management, a set of ratings systems for apps and music and movies... It's too much in one package. It violates a lot of good design principles. For example, because it's got so much going on, they can't optimize it for any one task. A lot of people think it needs some decoupling, not extra features.
I think if Apple wants FaceTime to be on Windows and non-iOS phones, they need to promote the protocol and not just one application of that protocol.
I really wonder what this feature could be.
It seems that it would be fundamentally stupid for Apple to try and merge OS X and iOS. They are operating systems that target different types of devices with wildly methods of user interaction.
Do people really see the iPhone and Mac being equivalent devices so soon? Or is this TechCrunch article just full of shit?
As apple have now made a consumer product (iPad) I hope that they will return with an OS more catered to professional need.
Things such as creating workflow history is really something that have taken way to long to get around to.
That's incorrect. Apps that run in the iOS Simulator are compiled to i386 code and run as a native OS X processes. They are essentially OS X apps that link to UIKit instead of AppKit.
Edit: That's not to say Apple couldn't support such a scenario. Many App Store apps are already fat binaries that include ARMv6 and ARMv7 code. No reason why they couldn't include i386 code as well to facilitate running on Mac hardware.
Apple has filed a patent on OS-level advertising. http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/22/jobs-and-apple-seek-patent-...
Integrating iOS apps (where users are already conditioned to being exposed to advertising) with some version of OS X would not be a big leap from a technical or business strategy perspective.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if future versions, maybe even the upcoming release, set up an equivalent situation on the mac platform, now that Apple has a new TV device in addition to the iPhone, iPod, and iPad.
Heck, if Apple decided to be aggressive about getting into the living room and entertainment center, they could launch a box that's basically a souped up Apple TV with something close to an order of magnitude higher performance than an XBox 360 simply by building it around a Sandy Bridge, and have a significant contender in the gaming console market.
There are so many occasions I wish it's there.