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.
I don't wan't OSX to be like iOS.
- Thread starter Skzerk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
1) Why would you want to send messages to a Mac? If you're on a phone, it's a lot easier than texting someone in one app, then opening up an instant messaging app for someone else. Besides, if they have an iPhone, they can use this without paying for texting.
2) "not anymore" - What exactly doesn't work now?
I meant FROM a mac..
Not being picky here. but Apple has radically changed the way OSX has worked from 10.6... This is what i mean. including IOS features, some people may like them, but to me, they would be suited more just for a mobile device/tablet, not just because i don't use them. thats not the point... Its just because there in OS X.
Apple's development platform, Xcode, doesn't run on iOS. Without it, no one can write code for iOS devices. Until we start seeing signs of a complete dev environment on iOS devices, even a private Apple API*, there's no danger of iOS replacing OS X.
At its core iOS is a consumer OS, and consumer OS's need a paired development system/OS, or the consumer content will get stale. I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't want to sell fashionable shiny things equipped with stale content. Who would buy them?
--------------------------
*It's unlikely Apple would ditch all 3rd party devs. That'd kill App store, piss off too many people, and likely push Apple deeply back into the software development business.
@Tech198: Maybe it's just me, but sending messages from a Mac to my friend's iPhone or iPad sounds strangely useful.
Also, again: what exactly doesn't work now? If you don't use the iOS features, it just works the way it always did. The only things I imagine you could be referring to is Autosave and the lack of Exposé (though the latter has nothing to do with iOS). Sorry for being nitpicky, it's just that most things still just work the way they're supposed to.
Actually, you don't even need to pay 99 bucks. At least that's what John Gruber was told:
The way I understood it is that the apps don't even have to conform to App Store rules in order to be allowed by Gatekeeper.
As for Gatekeeper on the iPhone: I'd love that, and see no technical reason they shouldn't be able to port it. I don't think they will, though.
Also, again: what exactly doesn't work now? If you don't use the iOS features, it just works the way it always did. The only things I imagine you could be referring to is Autosave and the lack of Exposé (though the latter has nothing to do with iOS). Sorry for being nitpicky, it's just that most things still just work the way they're supposed to.
Actually, you don't even need to pay 99 bucks. At least that's what John Gruber was told:
(source: http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/mountain_lion, emphasis mine)
The way I understood it is that the apps don't even have to conform to App Store rules in order to be allowed by Gatekeeper.
As for Gatekeeper on the iPhone: I'd love that, and see no technical reason they shouldn't be able to port it. I don't think they will, though.
Gatekeeper isnt something that you would port to iOS anyway - all you would need to do is change the way applications get installed on iOS similar to how jail braking accomplishes the same thing.
However I doubt that Apple is going to do that anymore than I think they will ever make OSX app store only - they have philosophical reasons for doing so based on how the devices operate. its also the same reason why Apple is never going to replace OSX with iOS - the two accomplish different things in different ways. Apple has pretty much admitted as much before. They do not see the one operating system everywhere model of systems that Microsoft has seen Windows doing in the past.
However I doubt that Apple is going to do that anymore than I think they will ever make OSX app store only - they have philosophical reasons for doing so based on how the devices operate. its also the same reason why Apple is never going to replace OSX with iOS - the two accomplish different things in different ways. Apple has pretty much admitted as much before. They do not see the one operating system everywhere model of systems that Microsoft has seen Windows doing in the past.
There is no such distinction in the world of OSes. Consumers OSes can run compilers/linkers/pre-processors just fine. The fact that Apple still hasn't ported XCode over doesn't mean it can't be done with current iOS infrastructure and APIs (in fact quite the contrary, gcc-objc and clang are already available for ARM platforms and XCode is just some big text editor, all APIs required to write one are available on iOS), it just means Apple doesn't think it's worthwhile.
Frankly, as someone who writes code, the last thing I want to do is write code on an iPad or an iPhone.
Remember kids, iOS and OS X share their entire underlying infrastructure, frameworks and APIs. It's only on the surface that they aren't "merged". The OSes are already basically the same OS.
I didn't say they couldn't. I said Apple hasn't moved in that direction with iOS. There's no evidence that they're going to move in that direction. Until they do make that move, the guts of OS X are safe.
As you yourself claim, Apple doesn't think the move is worthwhile.
So what's your point then, that Apple doesn't think it's worthwhile to dump Xcode in favor of an iOS only dev platform? I already said that. That factor should keep OS X safe in some semblence of its present form.
Heck they've even kept their latest authoring venture, iBooks, as a MacOS, not iOS, App. It's pretty clear they recognize that OSX has the advantage over iOS for content development, and that they're not willing to toss that advantage in a quixotic pursuit of OS unity.
Last edited:
My point is that iOS and OS X are already the same OS. The surface might be different, but all the core and underlying structures are very much alike. The "merging" thing is a red-herring, they were and always will be merged.
Bringing protocols/apps from one into the other just makes sense, but to actually try to merge Springboard and Finder or Appkit and UIkit makes little sense as those components are different for a very good reason : They cater to different input paradigms which their respective hardware implements.
A touch screen interface won't ever work right on Macs and a mouse/keyboard one won't on iPads/iPhones. For now, iPads are quite bad at being "desktops" and frankly to code, you need a desktop. Text entry on the iPad frankly sucks. It sucks even more on iPhone. It's good for a quite typing session, but laptops/desktops remain king in this department (yes, I know you can "dock an iPad", but really, I'd rather carry an all-in-one laptop than an iPad, a dock and a keyboard all separate in my bag, so that's not a solution, it's a stop-gap measure).
Forced Cloud
I feel the same way. I find iPhone/iPad's IOS to be very limiting when trying to operate in a multi-window environment. I'm a developer, and I often have 10 or more windows open on the same screen. I want them on the same screen, I don't want to be swiping apps off the screen to see other windows to copy and past stuff.
I will have to wait to see how 10.8 actually works, but I have to say that my heart sank today when I read in Wired that you will need an Apple ID to log in to Mountain Lion. If that is true, I will delay upgrading as long as possible.
Sorry, I don't want to become part of the iCloud every time I log in. I don't really use it. I want to be in control of which apps do log in to my Apple ID. Apple, as well as Google, Facebook and others, have not earned my trust to give them that kind of base access to my computer. Will Apple and other apps be scraping info off of my computer, like my contacts?
Also, some things that they call improvements in Lion weren't improvements to me, like the way iWork handles Versions, or the way Lion boots up with whatever was open when you shut it down. I hate these features, and have yet to find a reliable way around them.
And telling us that if we don't like it we can go back to Microsoft, nostylluan, is pretty disrespectful. Apple needs to hear from everyone. If they don't care, then they are just like Microsoft.
I feel the same way. I find iPhone/iPad's IOS to be very limiting when trying to operate in a multi-window environment. I'm a developer, and I often have 10 or more windows open on the same screen. I want them on the same screen, I don't want to be swiping apps off the screen to see other windows to copy and past stuff.
I will have to wait to see how 10.8 actually works, but I have to say that my heart sank today when I read in Wired that you will need an Apple ID to log in to Mountain Lion. If that is true, I will delay upgrading as long as possible.
Sorry, I don't want to become part of the iCloud every time I log in. I don't really use it. I want to be in control of which apps do log in to my Apple ID. Apple, as well as Google, Facebook and others, have not earned my trust to give them that kind of base access to my computer. Will Apple and other apps be scraping info off of my computer, like my contacts?
Also, some things that they call improvements in Lion weren't improvements to me, like the way iWork handles Versions, or the way Lion boots up with whatever was open when you shut it down. I hate these features, and have yet to find a reliable way around them.
And telling us that if we don't like it we can go back to Microsoft, nostylluan, is pretty disrespectful. Apple needs to hear from everyone. If they don't care, then they are just like Microsoft.
Isn't there a way to disable that one, by choosing "don't restore windows" when shutting down / rebooting? Apparently that choice doesn't get saved and remembered now, but will be in Mountain Lion.
I don’t believe that it is true at all. I haven’t read any article that implies that. Sounds like the wired author didn’t explain things properly. ML is not a cloud OS - there is no reason that you would log on to your computer with an Apple ID - It doesn’t make any sense given how AppleIDs operate to this day. Heck, it’s not needed today. You log on to your computer and it automatically uses your Apple ID for iCloud services. Why would Apple need to change this?
News flash, Apple doesn’t listen to everyone - been that way for many many years. There are tons of examples of many things that people have been asking for and never gets it. Apple does what it want’s to do.
He's referring to this piece :
http://www.wired.com/cloudline/2012/02/icloud-mountainlion/
Pretty sure Wired doesn't quite mean what the poster thinks they mean.
I was more thinking of other articles other than the Wired article. Thats because I was thinking that the article got it wrong or misstated things. I was saying that I havent read that idea in any other article about ML - its something that you expect. I mean, you dont need an Apple ID to use the iPhone - sounds like a big step...
I do agree with you in that the Wired article isnt saying what the poster thinks it is - I think it is talking about the way things is - the Apple ID is part of of the login (in Wired case the credentials maybe the same) and that kicks off the iCloud login (like it is now). Either that or he is confusing the Apple ID with the local login.
Yep, pretty sure the Wired article is talking about the way it is in Lion :
Someone who has ML could confirm if Apple changed the pref for it or not. (no, I do not use iCloud, hence why it has no configuration on my computer).
I think its the same sign-in process - the big deal with ML is that there is more iCloud services. Not much more than that...
Why would you buy a machine with just Intel graphics if you actually cared about performance? Sounds to me like YOUR issue, not Apples.
----------
This about as useless as post gets.
Do you have any concept of how many apps have tried to replicate what Messages does? How many years people have built widgets and apps and integration to try and make this work for people? Its because they want it.
I've wanted to be able to just send a reliable SMS from my Mac for over a decade, and for the last half a decade wished I could somehow coax bluetooth into allowing a message to typed on my Mac and sent through my iPhone...
Now Apple, finally, delivers complete integration and synchronizing of Messages across all devices. Couldn't possibly be happier about that.
You do realise that it doesn't actually send an SMS, right? It's merely the same as those other applications you mentioned, with the additional restriction of only sending to Apple products. .Gmail and Android have basically the same feature. You can go into Gmail (or even iChat/Messages) and instantly send a message to anyone who has set up their android phone with a Gmail account. Even better, they don't have to have an android, it works across many platforms.
The difference is just that Apple combined the applications, used your phone number as your chat account, and made them pretty. Still, it's a very important difference from the perspective of say, the previous poster sending messages to their kids iPhones.
However, I'm unsure how generally useful Messages is on the mac, as it relies on the people in your contact list owning iDevices. This isn't an issue in the iPhone Messages application because it falls back on regular SMS, but on a mac there isn't that option.
iCloud has a similar problem. Having a Mac, Android phone and working on Linux/Windows computers, iCloud applications don't really bring anything of value.
Sorry for the lack of replies, I forgot that I posted this.
I guess in a way what scared me the most is the restrictions from 3rd party applications, and others "add-ons" that are arriving. But there's more than likely going to be an option to turn them off If you don't want them. I kind of came at this from a one sided angle, considering I've only owned OSX on iMacs, not MBP or any other MB, so I really don't really have a need for all the productivity so all this messaging, and programs intended for on the fly users and other stuff doesn't really have much use to me.
Lol, I've never owned a computer running windows in my whole life
.
I guess in a way what scared me the most is the restrictions from 3rd party applications, and others "add-ons" that are arriving. But there's more than likely going to be an option to turn them off If you don't want them. I kind of came at this from a one sided angle, considering I've only owned OSX on iMacs, not MBP or any other MB, so I really don't really have a need for all the productivity so all this messaging, and programs intended for on the fly users and other stuff doesn't really have much use to me.
apple wants to have one single os across all devices. if you feel that is bad for you, go back to microsoft
Lol, I've never owned a computer running windows in my whole life
.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Well, Microsoft is kind of doing the same thing with their Metro interface.
nostylluan said:apple wants to have one single os across all devices. if you feel that is bad for you, go back to microsoft
Well, Microsoft is kind of doing the same thing with their Metro interface.
Some people know operating systems - some like iOS .
I'm yet to see what's wrong with having a unified experience across all devices? Why is it SO bad that iOS features are being added to OS X? It's not like it's turning Macs into big iPhone or something. They're still just as ready to do whatever pros/tech geeks need now as they were before, just with more features.
I thinks what's bothering me is not the iOSification of the GUI (Some of that stuff works really well in Lion, and a proper notification system in Mountain Lion is way overdue). It's more the apparent attempt to establish a walled garden around OSX like the one around iOS.
For a mobile device a walled garden is fine. A mobile device is not a device I want to stress over, I don't want to have to install virus checkers and firewalls on my phone or worry about app installers and what they might be leaving behind when you uninstall them, and all the other baggage associated with the desktop experience, I just want them to work.
The desktop, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. I don't want a walled garden around my desktop! I want to be able to pull in software from whatever source I want and use the machine as I see fit.
The whole Gatekeeper thing, I can understand the logic behind it, but one worrying aspect of the Mountain Lion coverage was the discovery from the Ars article about Growl that access to new APIs added for Mountain Lion is restricted to app-store software.
Wait, what?
If true, then the intent is obvious. Apple want App Store software to appear more functional than non-App Store software. Non-app store software can't use notifications, and probably not game centre, or any other new feature either. In this way they would want to get customers purchasing from the app store and nudge all app distribution to the store, at which point they could eventually pull the plug on other app distribution models altogether.
Given that the App Store has strict rules over what your apps are allowed to do and what they aren't allowed to do, this could seriously hurt all kinds of legitimate apps that do stuff forbidden by app store rules. Virtual Machine software that installs kexts would be out for a start, and if sandboxing really does become mandatory, even apps that browse the filesystem could be out!
Whilst OSX definitely could stand to learn a few tricks from iOS, Apple need to remember that phones and tablets are fundamentally different devices from full-blown computers.
For a mobile device a walled garden is fine. A mobile device is not a device I want to stress over, I don't want to have to install virus checkers and firewalls on my phone or worry about app installers and what they might be leaving behind when you uninstall them, and all the other baggage associated with the desktop experience, I just want them to work.
The desktop, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. I don't want a walled garden around my desktop! I want to be able to pull in software from whatever source I want and use the machine as I see fit.
The whole Gatekeeper thing, I can understand the logic behind it, but one worrying aspect of the Mountain Lion coverage was the discovery from the Ars article about Growl that access to new APIs added for Mountain Lion is restricted to app-store software.
Wait, what?
If true, then the intent is obvious. Apple want App Store software to appear more functional than non-App Store software. Non-app store software can't use notifications, and probably not game centre, or any other new feature either. In this way they would want to get customers purchasing from the app store and nudge all app distribution to the store, at which point they could eventually pull the plug on other app distribution models altogether.
Given that the App Store has strict rules over what your apps are allowed to do and what they aren't allowed to do, this could seriously hurt all kinds of legitimate apps that do stuff forbidden by app store rules. Virtual Machine software that installs kexts would be out for a start, and if sandboxing really does become mandatory, even apps that browse the filesystem could be out!
Whilst OSX definitely could stand to learn a few tricks from iOS, Apple need to remember that phones and tablets are fundamentally different devices from full-blown computers.