iPhone UI is "liquid", keyboard rocks: Chicago Sun Times article.
Pretty good article in the Chicago Sun Times from a journalist who got to play with the iPhone. Very good article and he seems to ask some good questions. Including:
1. 3rd party apps
2. Browser plugins
3. OS X details
5. Apple will keep a very tight rein on software development.
I asked point-blank if third parties would be able to write and distribute iPhone apps and was told, point-blank, no.
However, it appears that there'll be some third-party opportunities. I'm going to take a guess that iPhone software will be distributed the same way as iPod games: no "unsigned" apps will install, but apps will start appearing on the iTunes Store after successfully passing through a mysterious process of Apple certification -- one that ensures that they meet a certain standard of quality and won't, you know, secretly send your credit-card info to Nigeria.
The lockdown on software is an area of ongoing suspicious interest. I noticed that the iPhone's pre-release browser was missing some plug-ins. I asked if Real and Macromedia et al. would be writing media plug-ins for the iPhone's Web browser, and was told that no, the browser would ship with plug-ins, but Apple would be writing them all in-house. Odd, that
6. The iPhone runs the same OS as the Macintosh. And not in the way that Windows Mobile is, I suppose, technically, if you want to split hairs about it, classified somewhere in the Microsoft Windows phylum.
Nope, everything I've learned (both in official briefings and "you and I never spoke, all right?" sort of discussions) says that it truly does run Leopard, the upcoming 10.5 OS that will be released for the Macintosh late in the spring.
Those spiffy UI animations, for instance, come courtesy of Leopard's Core Animation suite.
So will it run Mac software? Nope. The iPhone runs OS X, but it's an iPhone, not a Macintosh. And it stands to reason that the OS on the iPhone doesn't include any bits that it doesn't need.
And no, the iPhone's Widgets aren't the same as the Mac's Dashboard widgets. But they do use DashCode and other desktop widget tech, so who knows? I'm really hoping that widgets will be more open to third-party developers than apps.
- 01-18-2007, 05:03 PM #2
- 01-18-2007, 05:26 PM #3
- 01-18-2007, 05:56 PM #5
Actually the article sounds like it was written by someone on treocentral.com..like maybe in the iPhone thread lol...not sure how informative tit was comapred to Pogue's article (well ok if you read Pogue's you learnt nothing new here except it's a scaled-down jaguar and not tiger - just an opinion i guess)..that may have been more objective.
- 01-18-2007, 06:30 PM #7
They keep calling it full OSX, but I wonder how much is common between the two OS's. They dont have the same apps, they dont run the same code (e.g. widgets). The OS is less secure than OSX. The UI is completely different.
How much is really the same between the two?
- 01-18-2007, 06:31 PM #8
2. They can't run the same code again because of the arm. Although I question that they arent the same "code" persay.
3. You have no evidence to support that it is less secure.
4. It is a phone. They made a new UI for the phone. They werent going to throw a keyboard and mouse at the thing.
The things that are the same are most likely the kernel. Mac OS X specific tech. I really don't know.
But they obviously don't need the whole OS. That would be a waste. As the iPhone wouldn't utilize most of it.
What is the point of arguing what it is anyway? Why would they feel the need to lie? This is what I am talking about. You have nothing better to do then doubt what is in the phone. Ridiculous man. :shake:
- 01-18-2007, 07:39 PM #10
- 01-18-2007, 07:42 PM #11
If the API remained the same and fully intact, the apps can simply be recompiled. If not they would need to write little mobile versions of Itunes and Notes and Calculator etc.
It must be less secure if, according to Jobs, 3rd party apps need to be tightly controlled to prevent them wreaking havoc. Or does OSX also need apps pre-approved by Apple?
Again, I suspect there is much less OSX in there, and certainly not enough to call it full OSX.
- 01-18-2007, 07:48 PM #12
There is really no way of knowing except either having the code or believing Apple. Such is the advantages of a closed and tightly controlled system.
- 01-18-2007, 07:56 PM #13
You've prejudged the OS a lot, before testing it completely, is what I meant.
When the test unit comes out for display in Apple stores, I'm going to look at it myself. I also want to test the thickness and screen to see if they're too delicate. And see just how good or bad the interface really is. This is why I haven't made any real judgements about these, except I believe protection maybe necessary due to thinness and the screen.
- 01-18-2007, 07:58 PM #14
Familiar apps? It is a phone. Last time I checked a Mac was not a phone. They do share the widgets which look pretty much identical.
You can't drag and drop. Ok we know this. No command prompt. Sorry.
Besides, developers will be able to make apps. At that point we will know won't we?
I am sure the details will come out rather quickly when it releases. Won't matter to know though.
- 01-18-2007, 08:10 PM #17
- 01-18-2007, 08:21 PM #18
- 01-18-2007, 09:05 PM #19
Give me break. An OSX that runs on a different CUP is not the same OS. None of the current OSX existing app can run on it.
Unless it comes with a software emulation layer like the "classic" environment that let you run universal binary. Why keep insist that it's OSX. Steven Jobs can brand anything OSX, it's Apple's own brand.
- 01-18-2007, 09:07 PM #20
- 01-18-2007, 09:50 PM #21
Here's what the author said:
" The iPhone runs the same OS as the Macintosh.Nope, everything I've learned says that it truly does run Leopard"
Then he goes on to say:
"The iPhone runs OS X, but it's an iPhone, not a Macintosh. And it stands to reason that the OS on the iPhone doesn't include any bits that it doesn't need."
What is sounds like to me is that it is based on the same structure as the Leopard. Same FRAMEWORK. It makes perfect sense, its like "Leopard Lite," OSX without the elements of the OS that wouldn't be beneficial to this device. So both are right, it IS leopard OS but it is not the EXACT leopard thats on a Mac.
Whats important is what they deem OS X. OS X isn't the apps it can run. It is a set of things like core animation, quartz, core image, etc.
If Apple has those things then writing apps for it will be nearly identical, it will just have to be compiled for the CPU in it.
No one has to insist it is OS X. Apple says it is. If you want to prove them wrong, buy an iPhone when it comes out and strip it off and you tell me what it is. Until then, save me the semantics.
- 01-18-2007, 10:03 PM #23
- 01-18-2007, 10:36 PM #24
I can't believe people are making this out to be such a big deal. And what does it matter anyway? Least of all to you and the people who are determined that the iPhone and Apple are no good.
For those that want to listen and believe what I have to say, read on. The rest of you can go about your business, comfortable with the fact that I have no idea what I am talking about.
Apple's OS is built in a modular, layer based fashion.
Here are the layers:
Application Services | Graphics & Multimedia
The base layer (Core OS) is what sits directly on top of the hardware. Certain aspects of this will change based on the CPU the OS is sitting on (Power PC chip, Intel chip, or Samsung ARM chip)
The next 2 layers stay the same, regardless.
The top layer, the user experience, is obviously different for the new iPhone. This is where much of the innovation is that is so noticable.
So in breaking it down it seems the only point of contention is the Application Environment layer. I think if people understand that even in the fully capable "Mac OS X", there are different environments here. Now it might be easier to grasp the concept of OS X sitting on the iPhone and in turn officially being able to call it OS X.
Some of the different application environments for OS X are Carbon, Cocoa, Java and X11.
Does it make more sense now?
Now it would stand to reason that this is where the iPhone form of OS X differs because as everyone knows, we cannot run the Mac OS X desktop apps on the iPhone. So there has to be some new application environment here that is probably really similar to Cocoa, only smaller.
This serves to explain how the OS can be called "OS X".
- 01-19-2007, 12:54 AM #25