Jean-Louis Gassée (ex-Apple, ex-Be): Apple’s Next Macintosh OS

http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/10/31/apple%E2%80%99s-next-macintosh-os/

by bensummers • 16 years ago

39 34 16 years ago

tzs• 16 years ago

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."

pavlov3• 16 years ago

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• 16 years ago

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

wazoox2• 16 years ago

If you mute your mac sound before reboot, there isn't any startup sound. So this is quite easy to do actually.

thought_alarm3• 16 years ago

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.

wvenable4• 16 years ago

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_alarm3• 16 years ago

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

jsz0• 16 years ago

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.

megaman821• 16 years ago

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.

angusgr3• 16 years ago

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.

texel• 16 years ago

Not only that, but they have a pretty consistent system of deprecating then dropping outdated APIs, at least in Cocoa.

wvenable4• 16 years ago

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.

brudgers3• 16 years ago

> "Microsoft only really adopted this approach more recently"

Microsoft shifted away from backwards compatibility with Windows XP Professional x64 (ok actually the Itanium version). With Vista, 16bit code was broken (ie some Win9x and WinMe).

Microsoft's current approach to backward compatibility is radically different from Apple's. Microsoft allows Windows to run in virtual machines. If you want to run Windows 95, just fire up your favorite virtual machine (Virtual PC, VMware, etc), create a machine, and load Win95 from your CD.

Microsoft released the first version of Virtual PC several years ago at no cost. It runs under all versions of XP, Vista, and Seven. Windows Seven Professional includes a built in copy along with XP so that an existing licensed copy of XP isn't required.

wazoox2• 16 years ago

  > the backwards-compatibility burden sometimes running all  
  > the way back to Windows 95, maybe even Windows 3.1+Win32s.

Chen's wonderful blog (the Old New Thing) talks about this, like the backward compatibility hack in windows 95 to support BUGS in 3d party DOS/win3.1 programs like Lotus 1-2-3 or SimCity. No doubt many of those hacks have been ported to following windows versions.

ggchappell6• 16 years ago

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.

tjogin2• 16 years ago

It's just a thought though. A fantasy born out of hysterical rumor mongering. Apple has in no way indicated that the future of the Mac is locked down in such a fashion. It's all fear, uncertainty and doubt.

ggchappell6• 16 years ago

No, I don't think the Mac will be locked down.

I do think the good software is going to start being app-store-only, and that will require giving Apple full access to my machine. Good software is why I got a Mac. Not being able to get good software without giving Apple the ability to delete files of mine that they don't like, is why I might not get another.

We'll see.

Tyrannosaurs3• 16 years ago

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?

ggchappell6• 16 years ago

> 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.

Jean-Louis Gassée (ex-Apple, ex-Be): Apple’s Next Macintosh OS

Related Stories