

Jean-Louis Gassée (ex-Apple, ex-Be): Apple’s Next Macintosh OS - bensummers
http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/10/31/apple%E2%80%99s-next-macintosh-os/

======
thought_alarm
OS X is a solved problem.

I think all of Apple's R&D efforts are now focused squarely on iOS and mobile.
So when Apple reached into their bag of tricks for the next version of OS X
and the next Mac hardware, all they had was iOS stuff. That's the new MacBook
Air, that's OS X Lion.

It's convergence, but only on a purely superficial level. A Mac is still Mac,
OS X is still OS X. I don't see Apple wasting engineering resources on
changing the Mac into something it's not.

Real convergence will come from iOS working its way up, not OS X slimming its
way down.

~~~
wvenable
Actually, the Mac app store is demonstrating Apple slimming OS X down. The OS
X had had a ton of compromises in it's design including the Mac-like UI
(rather than a NeXT-like UI), the Carbon API, and a Java API. These are being
stripped away.

~~~
thought_alarm
I don't understand how the deprecation of some old, unpopular, unused APIs has
anything to do with the Mac App Store.

~~~
wvenable
Deprecation of old APIs doesn't have anything to do with the app store -- but
you can't get your app in the store if you use a deprecated API.

There are plenty of apps that exist and run right now (Minecraft, for example)
that can't go into the app store. So you can think of the app store as sort of
a platform "ideal" for Apple even while they leave the old APIs around.

------
ggchappell
Some things mentioned here concern me greatly.

I do welcome the UI possibilities. UI innovation was languishing for a decade,
as companies essentially spent their time tweaking the 1984 Mac and 1993
Mozaic UIs. And then Apple changed all that. Good for them. Bring some of that
to the Mac; I'm all for it.

On the other hand, the trend toward the computer being something that some
company controls, and I am allowed to use as they see fit, is not something I
want to be a part of.

I recently bought a home computer. I run Linux on my office desktops & laptop,
but, after much reflection, I decided I could not inflict even the relative
friendliness of Ubuntu on my family. So we got an iMac. Great machine. We love
it.

But now it's looking like, in a few years, there might be _no computer at all_
that my family would enjoy using, and that I would allow in the house. Not a
pleasant thought.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Two things:

a) there's a lot of supposition in the whole "Apple is going to lock the Mac
down" line of thought.

Personally I think it's unlikely they will simply because I think it would be
a bad decision commercially. I can see an OS that is more restricted by
default but software developers, designers and corporates simply won't accept
heavy restrictions and will look elsewhere if the changes impact them.

Regardless though, it seems odd to me how worked up people are getting about
something which is, at best, a prediction about something which might happen
two or three years (at the earliest) down the line.

b) I love the idea that you might not allow a more locked down Mac into the
house despite the implication that your family would enjoy and benefit from
it.

Surely you judge each device on it's merits? Personally I'll accept the
restrictions of the iPad because I have no need for it to be more open than it
is but I won't accept those same restrictions on a computer.

You shouldn't impose your needs for a compute on your family and more than it
would be reasonable for a professional chef to insist that their son or
daughter had a professional standard cooker or knives when they're completely
excessive for what they do?

~~~
ggchappell
> there's a lot of supposition in the whole "Apple is going to lock the Mac
> down" line of thought.

True. Actually, I doubt they will lock it down.

However: Apple's online stores, beginning with iTunes, and heading into the
various app stores, have been a huge success, and, from a business standpoint,
they would be foolish not to do something almost identical for the Mac. (I
know they're going to do it; it's the "almost identical" part that I'm
pointing out.)

And then, of course, from developers' point of view, Apple has created
something wonderful. It is now possible to sell a file for $1/copy, never deal
directly with end users, and make decent money at it. So given a Mac app
store, developers signing on is obvious.

The result is that, even if the OS itself is not locked down (which, as I
said, I consider unlikely), we end up with a situation in which getting
quality software requires giving Apple control of your machine.

That is what I consider unacceptable. Quality software is why I bought a Mac.
Linux's opennness, scriptability, etc., is great, but there is nothing on
Linux with anywhere near the polish and usability of iMovie, GarageBand, etc.
Nor will there be for some time, I think. And when that kind of thing moves
over to the we-run-your-computer world, then I don't see any options left for
a home computer I'd be willing to buy.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
In what way are you giving Apple control of your machine?

It's an install and download mechanism which you can use or not use.

~~~
ggchappell
If that's all it is, then I'm happy.

But I doubt it will be. For example, Apple's current app store is not merely
an installation mechanism; it also allows them, to disable apps they don't
want running on your machine. And after 30 years of flailing around, Apple has
finally found a business model that works for them. I expect them, therefore,
to copy as much of it as they can on the Mac.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Every time I run an install from a bit of software I've bought whether it be
on CD or download, it could do pretty much anything it wants given (many of
them demand root access). Apple or Microsoft could already use software
updates to disable anything they don't like if they wished (and could probably
do it far more subtly by introducing a minor incompatibility in the OS). How
is this any different?

The reason they don't completely screw people's machine isn't technical, it's
commercial, it would be utter suicide. That applies to Apple as much as anyone
else and the app store doesn't change that (the kill switch for iOS has never
been used in the three years it's been there).

~~~
ggchappell
The difference is a contractual one. If I bought some program, and an Apple
software update deleted it, I might sue them. And I might win. But if Apple
uses the iOS kill switch, then they are within their rights.

The difference is similar to that between a plumber I call in now & then to
fix some pipes, and a plumber who gets a key to my house, and my written
permission to do anything he wants, whenever he wants. Both of them have the
capability to rearrange my plumbing in any way they want. But the latter is
scarier.

------
tzs
This perfectly explains why the Mac App Store is going to be a huge success:

"A few days ago, I downloaded a neat little utility to silence the startup
sound on my new 11” MacBook Air. How much did the developer make? Zero, it’s
freeware; the programmer didn’t want to spend the time and money to set up a
commercial site. How much would I have paid for it from a Mac App Store? Less
than $5, more than 99 cents."

~~~
pavlov
But would Apple allow such a utility on the Mac App Store?

It seems to me that silencing the startup sound is essentially tampering with
the Apple-designed user experience, which may not be looked kindly upon.
(Also, it seems like the kind of thing that may require private API access,
which is explicitly forbidden on the Mac App Store.)

~~~
maw
I think tzs was talking about small programs worth between one dollar and
five. Not that specific utility.

~~~
pavlov
Well, sure. But I think it's telling that the only mentioned example of a Mac
app that would benefit from this "iOSization" is one that so clearly breaks
the iOS walled garden model.

~~~
thought_alarm
That kind of utility usually works by simply muting the volume on shutdown.
It's not a nasty hack, and I think it's presumptuous to assume that it would
be excluded from the App Store.

~~~
pavlov
The Mac App Store has the following rule:

"Apps must be self-contained, single application installation bundles, and
cannot install code or resources in shared locations."

I don't see how the utility in question could be a single app bundle (no
daemon, no startup script, etc.) and still perform its job of muting the
volume on startup.

------
megaman821
The burden of the past isn't really as big as he makes it out to be.

Apple made Rosetta to run older apps and Windows 7 includes Windows XP in a
virtual machine in business SKUs.

Also, Intel chips haven't really implemented x86 instructions for a very long
time. Most of the chip runs micro-instructions that are derived for a x86 to
micro-instruction translation layer.

~~~
angusgr
Apple hasn't just done Rosetta, they have a consistent pattern for "the burden
of the past". A new technology bridges back to the old architecture or API,
and then cuts it off after a transition period:

    
    
      Universal Intel & PowerPC binaries
      Carbon & "Classic mode" on OS X
      Fat Binaries (68k & PowerPC)
    

AFAIK Microsoft only really adopted this approach more recently, in the
Windows 7 tech you mention. Prior to Windows 7 you had the backwards-
compatibility burden sometimes running all the way back to Windows 95, maybe
even Windows 3.1+Win32s.

~~~
wvenable
The Windows XP for Windows 7 isn't even really required -- Windows 7 will
still happily run most Windows 95 applications and even 3.1 apps (if not
running 64bit).

I think if Microsoft mostly targeted consumers, rather than businesses, they
would take the same approach to compatibility as Apple. But a large amount of
Windows sales results from selling to corporations that have hundreds of
critical legacy applications. They simply won't upgrade if their apps won't
run. However, on my desktop, I doubt I'm running a single application that's
more than 3 years old.

~~~
angusgr
I see, thanks. It always seemed odd to me that they took that approach to
solve the problem. Simply because so many minor tweaks to APIs do cause
problems with old apps, or cause massive headaches when various quirks have to
be maintained for decades.

Whereas a "Classic mode", "WINE", or "Virtual Machine" style mode would seem
to solve the backwards compatibility thing in a much more containable way -
apps still run, the old APIs stay frozen in the custom environment but
deprecated/removed outside, new developments can use new APIs without being
saddled with the old.

Even though the compatibility environments have to be kept around forever, now
you've only got a few API interfaces to renovate (connecting the classic
environments to whatever new Windows APIs exist), instead of thousands.

I guess it's not as simple as that, though.

------
jsz0
I really like the way they're trying to blend everything together with Mission
Control. There are certain types of apps that would work better if they were
more iOS-ish but I definitely don't want to give up my traditional desktop
apps either. If they can offer the best of both worlds it's going to really
change the way we use desktop operating systems I think.

