Banning? I think that seems rather unlikely. To my knowledge Apple's never done anything of the sort on the desktop. On mobile platforms users are more accustomed to having restrictions in place, but if they banned Java on Mac OS the backlash would be immense.
An outright ban does indeed seem remote, but if they start to tie software installation/update/maintainance on the Mac to the Mac AppStore and ban Java apps from the AppStore, the effect on end users' ability to use Java applications is tantamount to a ban.
I wonder if Apple is planning a "superior platform" strategy? If they can move to an App Store being the norm for Mac users and solve lots of deeply ingrained security and compatibility problems in the process, Microsoft/Windows is going to have quite a hard time following. The record for Apple accomplishing big architectural shifts with minimal pain (OS X, PowerPC -> x86) is much better than for Microsoft. (Vista) It would be like a lightly-armed force luring heavily equipped force into boggy ground, where the latter gets stuck in the mud while the former only gets slowed down.
Of course, Debian has done this since the early nineties, and yeah, it is nice to have guidelines (DFSG, etc.) that applications must follow to be a part of the platform. Having one entity responsible for system integration makes for a well-integrated system.
I doubt what Apple comes up with will be as good as Debian, but at least it gives "the masses" the chance to use a well-integrated platform.
I'm thinking about going beyond what even Debian accomplished. As awesome as Debian is, it's based on unix-derived architecture from the 1970's. What about a successor to OS X with capabilities, orthogonal persistence, and no bootup? (App Store requirements and APIs could target easy migration to the new architecture.) Microsoft would have to follow or be left in the dust, but it would be travelling a path Apple is better suited for.
I think of Unix as more of a local-maxima than a fundamental item like the wheel. It's more like the internal combustion engine: there's been lots of technologies proposed that fix problems with it, but it's managed to improve faster than those technologies can gain traction.
Isn't this like saying that we shouldn't use wheeled vehicles anymore, because wheels are a stone-age technology?
No, it's more like saying we should consider pneumatic tires, spring suspensions and ball bearings, despite greased wooden axles and wheels having done such a commendable job over the centuries.
Wheel = OS. I'm not proposing reinventing the notion of OS. I'm proposing using some more of the stuff we've learned and developed in the past 40 years to design and implement it.
