Prediction: Mac OS and iOS Will Converge Into One OS

[MICHAELSD]

Mac OS and iOS are becoming more similar with each release. I believe we'll reach a point where the operating systems serve such a congruent experience that they'll converge to become one, especially as it can no longer be said that a consumer needs a full-blown computer for a smooth experience or professional-grade performance.

Similar to the switch to Intel from PowerPC, eventually I foresee all manufacturers switching over to a mobile architecture. I do believe in their quest to make devices as thin as possible all Macs will include AX chips, providing incredible battery life and form factor.

This may not even come in the next decade, but I believe iOS will down the line effectively replace Mac OS as they become one.

 

[garirry]

This is dangerous, because Mobile = Locked down OS, you're society's slave WHILE Desktop = Free OS, you do what you want. iOS is too locked to become one with OS X. I think that they'll just start working with each other more and more.

 

[pdjudd]

Apple has hinted that the two Os’s have enough differences that merging them together would be not ideal.

From Here:

“It’s obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a piece of hardware, but is that a good experience?” Federighi said. “We believe, no.”

“We don’t waste time thinking, ‘But it should be one [interface]!’ How do you make these [operating systems] merge together?’ What a waste of energy that would be,” Schiller said. But he added that the company definitely tries to smooth out bumps in the road that make it difficult for its customers to switch between a Mac and an iOS device—for example, making sure its messaging and calendaring apps have the same name on both OS X and iOS.

The two OS’s are built and designed around two very different input methods. It’s not going to happen.

 

[roadbloc]

Heh. That would really be conceding that Microsoft's strategy was right on the money all along. Which I personally think it is, but many people disagree and Apple are probably best continuing their two OS strategy that allows them to maximize on profits. Many people think Apple have one ecosystem. They don't, they have two, iOS and OS X, both weakly connected with iCloud.

 

[east85]

I doubt we will see this happen anytime soon. Tim Cook has reiterated in interviews a few times that iOS and OS X are designed for their respective devices. They view each device as a tool and optimize software for that tool.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Apple has hinted that the two Os’s have enough differences that merging them together would be not ideal.

From Here:



The two OS’s are built and designed around two very different input methods. It’s not going to happen.

Apple changes their minds all the time.

While I agree it won't happen anytime soon, I believe at some point in the future (be it ten years or fifty years away) there will only be one Apple OS.

 

[JamesPDX]

No new Mac Pro in 2015 or 2016 will be the signal that there will be one iOSx to rule them all. Write it down.

 

[roadbloc]

Apple changes their minds all the time.

While I agree it won't happen anytime soon, I believe at some point in the future (be it ten years or fifty years away) there will only be one Apple OS.

If they want the best marketing from this, they'll be doing it right now. It would make their next operating system called iOS X.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Hmmm... just one  OS.

I assume Apple is looking at iOS for the future of all devices.
But "classic" OS requirements / needs / wants / etc. are just too strong from the current installed base to exit OS X ATM.

If Apple were to suddenly abandon OS X in favour of iOS on desktops and laptops, there would be huge outcry.

It will be a transition that wil have to go so gently.... not like Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X. (even that led to a huge outcry from die-hard Apple-fans).

Once the future paying-users (i.e. the future Apple-customers) are used to a locked-down OS (trust me, the current young users of iPads don't understand the need for an "open" OS, as it only complicate matters) the old generation of keyboard-users and double-clickers can cling-on to the nostalgia of classic operating systems.

OS X is now about 15 years old. "Classic Mac OS" was 15 years old when it received it last update (9.2.2.). 3 years later it was pronounced dead.

I do think Microsoft is right that having one OS is the best strategy.
I think Apple will pursue this strategy as-well, though ever so gently for the current OS X users....

 

[garirry]

Hmmm... just one  OS.

I assume Apple is looking at iOS for the future of all devices.
But "classic" OS requirements / needs / wants / etc. are just too strong from the current installed base to exit OS X ATM.

If Apple were to suddenly abandon OS X in favour of iOS on desktops and laptops, there would be huge outcry.

It will be a transition that wil have to go so gently.... not like Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X. (even that led to a huge outcry from die-hard Apple-fans).

Once the future paying-users (i.e. the future Apple-customers) are used to a locked-down OS (trust me, the current young users of iPads don't understand the need for an "open" OS, as it only complicate matters) the old generation of keyboard-users and double-clickers can cling-on to the nostalgia of classic operating systems.

OS X is now about 15 years old. "Classic Mac OS" was 15 years old when it received it last update (9.2.2.). 3 years later it was pronounced dead.

I do think Microsoft is right that having one OS is the best strategy.
I think Apple will pursue this strategy as-well, though ever so gently for the current OS X users....

No, there are still more than enough people on this planet who would NEVER be able to use a locked-down OS, for businesses, for productivity, for professional use... The iPad has never and will never be anywhere close to a home computer. So this solution is impossible. If Apple decides to kill iOS and use a touch-enabled OS X, then that makes more sense. Also, the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X would be much less harmful than OS X to iOS, because there were very few apps back in the day for the classic OS compared to what exists on OS X. Millions of programs will have to be re-written, and in the end, Apple is going to lose a massive amount of customers, money, and they aren't going to win anything.

 

[MICHAELSD]

No, there are still more than enough people on this planet who would NEVER be able to use a locked-down OS, for businesses, for productivity, for professional use... The iPad has never and will never be anywhere close to a home computer. So this solution is impossible. If Apple decides to kill iOS and use a touch-enabled OS X, then that makes more sense. Also, the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X would be much less harmful than OS X to iOS, because there were very few apps back in the day for the classic OS compared to what exists on OS X. Millions of programs will have to be re-written, and in the end, Apple is going to lose a massive amount of customers, money, and they aren't going to win anything.

This will happen once the vast majority of apps, professional or otherwise, already have full versions that run on iOS. All iOS is really lacking is the file system on Mac, which is an easy fix.

 

[MacsRgr8]

No, there are still more than enough people on this planet who would NEVER be able to use a locked-down OS, for businesses, for productivity, for professional use... The iPad has never and will never be anywhere close to a home computer. So this solution is impossible. If Apple decides to kill iOS and use a touch-enabled OS X, then that makes more sense. Also, the Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X would be much less harmful than OS X to iOS, because there were very few apps back in the day for the classic OS compared to what exists on OS X. Millions of programs will have to be re-written, and in the end, Apple is going to lose a massive amount of customers, money, and they aren't going to win anything.

There are more apps written for iOS than OS X. There a more iOS devices in use in enterprise and education than OS X devices.
It's not using a locked-down OS (that is a "tech-geeky" thing) that prohibits users using Pro-apps. It's the power of today's desktop classed CPU / GPU that prohibits the use of Pro-apps.
What's the difference between the Android, iOS, Windows mobile, etc. versions of Office 365 opposed to the desktop versions?
Once Apple, Microsoft, Samsung <you name it> have the mobile devices close to par with "conventional" mobile devices (notebooks) regarding raw CPU / GPU processing power, it's the apps that will define the market and the usage of them.
Why not have an iPad Pro with A16XX chip and wireless connectivity with a 60" 8K screen and a keyboard making use of Final Cut Pro / Avid / Adobe etc. software possibilities?
Why *must* the OS be open?

 

[MICHAELSD]

There are more apps written for iOS than OS X. There a more iOS devices in use in enterprise and education than OS X devices.
It's not using a locked-down OS (that is a "tech-geeky" thing) that prohibits users using Pro-apps. It's the power of today's desktop classed CPU / GPU that prohibits the use of Pro-apps.
What's the difference between the Android, iOS, Windows mobile, etc. versions of Office 365 opposed to the desktop versions?
Once Apple, Microsoft, Samsung <you name it> have the mobile devices close to par with "conventional" mobile devices (notebooks) regarding raw CPU / GPU processing power, it's the apps that will define the market and the usage of them.
Why not have an iPad Pro with A16XX chip and wireless connectivity with a 60" 8K screen and a keyboard making use of Final Cut Pro / Avid / Adobe etc. software possibilities?
Why *must* the OS be open?

Hell, why not have an iPhone with an A16 chip hooked up to an 8k display and forgo the Mac altogether?

 

[MacsRgr8]

Hell, why not have an iPhone with an A16 chip hooked up to an 8k display and forgo the Mac altogether?

Yep...
If the technology is possible, why wouldn't that be the ideal situation?
One device that absolutely does everything, once it's "connected" to the right peripherals.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Yep...
If the technology is possible, why wouldn't that be the ideal situation?
One device that absolutely does everything, once it's "connected" to the right peripherals.

I foresee one device will be the gaming console, computer, and mobile device.

An iPod
A breakthrough Internet communication device
A revolutionary mobile phone

 

[MacsRgr8]

LOL...

L'histoire se répète

 

[organic bond]

I doubt we will see this happen anytime soon. Tim Cook has reiterated in interviews a few times that iOS and OS X are designed for their respective devices. They view each device as a tool and optimize software for that tool.

Exactly, and on top of that they have just released tvOS, which confirms the strategy. They're not going to release an unified OS.

 

[phrehdd]

Apple certainly can make some style and theme similarities but that is as far as it should go. However, if that day comes, I'll be very happy to leave the Apple camp and go on with Linux and other serious operating systems. SaaS and PaaS are popular but doesn't negate the use of real computers at home.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Exactly, and on top of that they have just released tvOS, which confirms the strategy. They're not going to release an unified OS.

The release of tvOS and keeping OS X means they are continuing the current strategy.
That doesn't mean that Apple won't merge them years later. This discussion is about the future: i.e 5 - 10 years later on.

 

[phrehdd]

C:\
cd software directory
C:\software directory
software exe

Yep, we have come a long way to drag cursor and click (grin)

 

[firewood]

They are already the same, if you look at most frameworks and OS calls. The only major differences are :

- the very different UI frameworks, which should be different, since no one wants to carry a mouse or separate trackpad to use their iPhone,

- and the security model, since power users sometimes need to be able to trash their file system in ways that the vast majority of consumers should not, who also need to be kept from violating FCC (et.al.) regulations.

 

[Tech198]

It defiantly looks that way from the iPad Pro and the Apple pen.

While iOS is more secure than the desktop, Apple is opening it up more and more with extensions, and other third party support. (developers taking advantage of TouchID)

I can see a point where the iPad pro and Apple pen may start seeing more OS X.

Weather that will happen, its something else. but why wouldn't it ? There is zero reason not to, apart from security maybe. but even that can still be controlled to some length.

 

[username:]

Why do we ignore the interface so much when we talk about the OS?

iOS is great for the touch interface. Touch is a great way to interact with content.

OS X is great for the keyboard and mouse interface.

Nobody has yet really smoothly linked these two interfaces together. To me touch screens are still awkward when used with keyboard and mouse. See the Surface, they are trying to bring the two together but it is still an awkward device and awkward to use. It is also confusing for developers.

Apple avoids awkward. They like the "perfect solution" or the simple intuitive solution. Just bringing a touch screen to a Mac would be awkward and hard to understand.

The issue is, how will we interact with computers in the future? Keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, they are all great, but how do they fit together? What is the ultimate interface? And now we have wearables to consider as well.

I believe Apple is right to keep the interfaces seperate. It allows for "perfection" with interactions. Mac apps dont have to worry about being touch friendly, and iOS apps have to be touch friendly, they can't take shortcuts and say "well this wont work with touch, we'll just make the user use a mouse." Such as with some apps on the Surface.

tl;dr - They really are two seperate interfaces, touchscreen and mouse. Can they work together effectively? Doubtful.