6 ms·

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

39 points by bensummers 16y ago

tzs 16y 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."
- pavlov 16y 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 16y ago
    I think tzs was talking about small programs worth between one dollar and five. Not that specific utility.
    - pavlov 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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 16y ago
        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.
  - wazoox 16y ago
    If you mute your mac sound before reboot, there isn't any startup sound. So this is quite easy to do actually.
thought_alarm 16y 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.
- wvenable 16y 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_alarm 16y ago
    I don't understand how the deprecation of some old, unpopular, unused APIs has anything to do with the Mac App Store.
    - wvenable 16y ago
      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.
jsz0 16y 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 16y 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.
- angusgr 16y 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 16y ago
    Not only that, but they have a pretty consistent system of deprecating then dropping outdated APIs, at least in Cocoa.
  - wvenable 16y 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.
    - angusgr 16y ago
      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.
ggchappell 16y 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.
- tjogin 16y 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.
  - ggchappell 16y 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.
    - tjogin 16y ago
      The Mac App Store will be most helpful to the small unestablished developers, since it will alleviate things like marketing, billing, support, etc. Bigger more established developers (like Panic, Bare Bones Software, Delicious Monster, The Iconfactory, The Omni Group, just to name a few) have already solved these problems (not in perpetuity and not without limit, of course). I don't think that companies like these are going to place the fate of their best-selling software in Apple's hands for the relatively small gains the Mac App Store will provide them. That is not to say that I think they'll stay out of the Mac App Store either, it's just to say that it won't be Mac App Store exclusive. I expect most of them to "try out" the Mac App Store with new software releases of smaller scope, rather than retrofit their best-selling software and offer them exclusively on Mac App Store, with the straightjacket that comes with it. Where they go from there will depend on the results of the Mac App Store. They won't be forced to use it for their key software, so they won't if it doesn't suit their needs. I think the Mac App Store is going to be an absolutely enormous runaway success. But not because you can find already established and popular software on there.

39 points by bensummers 16y ago

tzs 16y 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."

pavlov 16y 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 16y ago
  I think tzs was talking about small programs worth between one dollar and five. Not that specific utility.
  - pavlov 16y ago
    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 16y ago
      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 16y ago
        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.
- wazoox 16y ago
  If you mute your mac sound before reboot, there isn't any startup sound. So this is quite easy to do actually.

thought_alarm 16y 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.

wvenable 16y 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_alarm 16y ago
  I don't understand how the deprecation of some old, unpopular, unused APIs has anything to do with the Mac App Store.
  - wvenable 16y ago
    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.

jsz0 16y 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 16y 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.

angusgr 16y 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 16y ago
  Not only that, but they have a pretty consistent system of deprecating then dropping outdated APIs, at least in Cocoa.
- wvenable 16y 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.
  - angusgr 16y ago
    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.

ggchappell 16y 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.

tjogin 16y 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.
- ggchappell 16y 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.
  - tjogin 16y ago
    The Mac App Store will be most helpful to the small unestablished developers, since it will alleviate things like marketing, billing, support, etc. Bigger more established developers (like Panic, Bare Bones Software, Delicious Monster, The Iconfactory, The Omni Group, just to name a few) have already solved these problems (not in perpetuity and not without limit, of course). I don't think that companies like these are going to place the fate of their best-selling software in Apple's hands for the relatively small gains the Mac App Store will provide them. That is not to say that I think they'll stay out of the Mac App Store either, it's just to say that it won't be Mac App Store exclusive. I expect most of them to "try out" the Mac App Store with new software releases of smaller scope, rather than retrofit their best-selling software and offer them exclusively on Mac App Store, with the straightjacket that comes with it. Where they go from there will depend on the results of the Mac App Store. They won't be forced to use it for their key software, so they won't if it doesn't suit their needs. I think the Mac App Store is going to be an absolutely enormous runaway success. But not because you can find already established and popular software on there.