One OS to Rule Them All (guess which one?) | Hacker News Reader

One OS to Rule Them All (guess which one?)

benparr.com

16 pointsmirceagoia24 comments

Yes, iOS and OS X are basically a single OS. Only they support different hardware platforms, run completely different apps, provide completely different SDKs, have completely different UI guidelines, and serve completely different use cases.

Other than that, who could tell the difference?

The reality is that the AppKit (OS X) and UIKit (iOS) SDKs are actually diverging, not coming together. There isn't so much as a hint of traditional keyboard+mouse UI support in the UIKit SDK, which means that iOS apps are not coming to mouse-driven desktop anytime soon. And while many new AppKit features are inspired by iOS (e.g., view-based table views), the AppKit engineers have made no effort to keep those features source code compatible with their iOS counterparts.

Apple has made it clear. These are two different SDKs on two divergent paths.

Not to mention even the most basic Foundation data structure classes are different. iOS's Foundation comes with less data structures than OS X's and has different performance characteristics tailored to mobile hardware.

"Oh, and one more thing: OS X Mountain Lion boasts complete integration with Twitter, just like iOS. Microsoft will need Facebook integration in Windows 8 more than ever if it’s going to catch up to Apple (remember, Microsoft is a Facebook investor)."

This paragraph really makes my blood boil. I suspect "complete integration" means the same thing it does on iOS, oauth without an NSWebView. What, when I right click I'll be able to tweet the text I've selected? Give me a break.

There is little need for anybody to "catch up" to a feature that everybody already has. Now logging in with twitter is slightly easier and faster. I can hear you already, "twitter integration gives users a default account and eliminates the mental friction of signing into things". I'm sorry, how many programs do you log into daily? You generally log into web apps, and the browser already has pretty good oauth support.

This is a fantastic opportunity for Twitter, I wish I knew how much iOS5 has helped them grow, but I bet being shoved in the faces of OSX users will drive adoption even more. It's also a good move for Apple, they get to say "now we've integrated twitter across both iOS and OSX."

So, it's good for Twitter and good for Apple; Let's not pretend it's good for consumers.

So, it's good for Twitter and good for Apple; Let's not pretend it's good for consumers.

It'll be great for consumers. Instead of having to save, then locate a picture using a Twitter client, they'll be able to tweet the picture from iPhoto or whatever photo app they're using.

Maybe Apple will end up buying Twitter, after all.

Twitter integration will bring close to nothing, because most of the things we do happen in browsers nowadays, and you have tons of plugins or addons to do the job of integrating Twitter or Facebook without leaving your browser and it works just as well.

I can see the need to integrate twitter directly in a phone OS, where you can share pictures directly as you take them with the camera software, but on desktop it does not really have much practical use. And Facebook integration in Win8 ? To further enhance the destruction of privacy and blur the lines between what's on your desktop and what's available to everyone...? I do not see this as adding much value either.

The author clearly fails to point out "what's in it for us?"

I believe that it will be one OS with two or three UIs. For instance, you'll have a device that will look like an iPhone or iPad when you use it like an iPhone or iPad, touch screen, big icon dashboards. When you plug that device into a docking station and monitor, it spits our a more OS X like OS. Though it's still the same OS, just a different view of it, now that you've got more real-estate. I like to think of it as a responsive OS.

For all his alleged fanboyism, Gruber is a good enough student of Apple's business strategy that his analysis as to how Apple isn't merging Mac OS X and iOS is worth a hundred times as much as this ridiculous linkbait.

Somehow I don't see it. I'm going to use a functionally single-tasking OS through a touch interface on a 12 core Mac Pro with dual 27 inch monitors? It seems to me that they are making their full spec OS look a feel a bit more like their mobile OS to help along the halo effect, and make it more comfortable for their mobile users to make the jump to their desktop OS.

I don't like it, but that seems more likely. Also because iOS on the desktop would need a massive amount of expansion to be useful with much of what desktop users need to do--unless you are a very low needs user that runs a web browser and few internet dependent apps. Autocad on iOS? Protools on iOS? Maya on iOS? InDesign on iOS? Illustrator on iOS? I don't know that touch will be very good with the deeper parts of those and many similar apps.

With the Mac App Store in Snow Leopard, or Lion's Launchpad (and touchpad), it seems clear that Apple's been headed in that direction for a while.

What strikes me is how they're doing it iteratively. Not because it's surprising; graceful iteration has been OS X's single best feature for about a decade running. It's just interesting to observe the enormous contrast between what they're doing and the "try and alienate all our users by being as disruptive as possible" approach that Microsoft has chosen to take with Windows 8.

Where is Windows 8 being as disruptive as possible ? You can disable the Metro interface if you want a regular Win-7 desktop experience. You do not HAVE to get a tablet-like interface if you want to use Windows for productivity. On the contrary, Win 8 is not alienating anyone, it gives you the choice. There are very few OS out there which can claim the same thing.

In every previous version of Windows it has also been possible to change the settings to get it to behave much like previous versions.

However, in every previous version it has also been the case that the configuration in question is not terribly discoverable. This situation is compounded by the way that the default settings create an environment that is confusing to people who were used to previous versions of Windows - the result being they feel alienated or intimidated enough that they're unlikely to attempt to discover these changes.

And I don't see much indication that Microsoft will succeed in avoiding this situation. I'm sure they've got UI experts thinking about it, but their marketing department has a solid track record of seeing a good idea paperclipizing it because they think it needs to be more visible.

There will also be, as there have for every other Windows update, many UI changes which may be less advertised than the Metro UI is, but which have just as much ability to alienate users. Ribbons in the Explorer come to mind. (Not that ribbons are bad, mind you, just that an all-at-once switch to them is unnecessarily jarring.) Though I will say that on the other hand it is nice to see that this may be the first major Windows release in a decade to forgo the traditional Reshuffling of the Control Panel.

I see your point, if you are talking about the general population, but for the audience of HN, discovering how to change the configuration to return to a win7-like desktop is no challenge. Plus, I would be very surprised if companies started shipping Win8 with the Metro interface by default. All productivity environments will be set up on the regular desktop version. Frankly, implementing changes while allowing people to use the interface they prefer is not that bad. Ubuntu, for one, is clearly imposing you to use Unity and that's it. Don't like it ? Well, forget about using it then.

Re: Ribbons, I have never liked that very much, however it may be more positive than we think in the end, as it is going to provide visual consistency for users between applications.

A unified OS experience is hardly the same as a unified OS.

If you didn't see this coming I don't think you've been paying attention. If you think the iPad is "just a toy" then you need to hand in your tech pundit credentials. It is far less of a toy right now than the Apple II was at launch, let alone the Altair. The future of mass appeal computing is in a more streamlined experience. Centralized app installation and management using a package manager type system, simplified and more universal user experience metaphors, etc. The PC as it has evolved has done wonders for bringing the power of computers to a level that's manageable by non-expert users, but it has always had persistent fundamental problems that have kept it falling short of that ideal. The mobile experience is another huge leap in that direction. It is not the final step, nor does it necessarily eclipse everything that has been done with other user experiences, but it represents the kernel of the next evolution of personal computers.

Hold on, I thought Gatekeeper would only give you verification that an app is secure, and you would otherwise still be free to install any app you want. Is Apple really restricting you to install only app store and Gatekeeper verified apps?

It's going to allow for three types of permissions: Mac Store apps only, all apps, and Mac Store Apps + identified developers. That last one is the default.

Oh wow. The Orwell reference in the comments to that article are more appropriate now.

The day that OS X will require jailbreaking to customize is the day I give up completely on Apple.

By then, it will be too late.

why the downvotes? That's where I am imagining this going, as well.

No, no, no, no, and no again.

There is a simple preference you can use to disable Gatekeeper entirely.

The default setting is to require that the app either come from the App Store or be signed by the developer (app signing is available through your ADC account)

Disabling it is as simple as changing one setting.

EDIT: If I sound a little frustrated, it's because people keep posting questions like these, and it's getting to the point that it appears rhetorical. Take 3 minutes and read just about any article that covers Gatekeeper and the answers to these questions become abundantly clear.

The repetition of this question, stated in this specific manner, is causing a deluge of rumors and misinformation. I've already been told by two non-tech people, "I heard Apple is making everyone use the App Store in the next version of OS X."

This particular article doesn't say that about gatekeeper though - the GP's question is valid:

If that weren’t enough, OS X Mountain Lion is introducing Gatekeeper, which will, by default, limit the apps you can install to apps from the OS X store or verified Apple developers.

I disagree. The operative phrase here is "by default". Which implies that there is some "non-default" option. The relevant question posed by the GP was this: "Is Apple really restricting you to install only app store and Gatekeeper verified apps?" That question is answered by the phrase "by default". Not entirely unambiguous, so why not take a moment to look in to it.

On the very first page of Google search results for "os x gatekeeper" is the official Apple page, with the screenshot of the preference panel:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html

That's 30 seconds of looking for anyone capable of typing two terms in to Google.

It is the Apple newest OS, which will blur the line between MacOSX and iOS, between desktop and mobile.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com