4 ms·

If I were head of product development in Apple right now, what I would do is: 1. Change the behaviour of Mac OS X to match Windows in terms of Window Minimizin

If I were head of product development in Apple right now, what I would do is: 1. Change the behaviour of Mac OS X to match Windows in terms of Window Minimizing, access to desktop, file sorting and so on. Simply, make the transition a lot more painless 2. License out Mac OS X for specially designated high end machines by big vendors. For example, make a VAIO version of Mac OS X that works only with those laptop 3. Expand the Apple App store to also become an OS X App store. 4. Add a feature to the iPod and iPhone that only works with Mac OS X. For example, some type of 3D file manager that 'requires' OS X to work 5. Offer some type of open source framework that allows virtualisation across platforms like the iPhone, Web and other OSes

dchest 18y ago
2 — Why? To make ~$129 instead of ~$1000 on every Mac OS X capable machine? 4 — User experience is this feature.
- markessien 18y ago
  They don't make $1000 on a $1090 laptop. The hardware also costs money.
  - dchest 18y ago
    Wow. I don't know the cost of imaginary licensing of Mac OS X too, but you don't argue with ~$129?
    - markessien 18y ago
      I can imagine a scenario where they sell Mac OS X as an extra CD along with the OS, in which case they could indeed sell it for $129 or more.
unalone 18y ago
1. Change the behaviour of Mac OS X to match Windows in terms of Window Minimizing, access to desktop, file sorting and so on. Simply, make the transition a lot more painless You're not a Mac user, are you? Because Apple's popular because it's uncompromising in its features. The things you named, though... are the same. You minimize things the same in both. You access the desktop the same in both. You sort files using very similar systems, though each has its own flaws. 2. License out Mac OS X for specially designated high end machines by big vendors. For example, make a VAIO version of Mac OS X that works only with those laptop Apple already does that - with Apple computers. It's what lets them integrate themselves so tightly. So, now they're going off to Vaio to do... what now? 3. Expand the Apple App store to also become an OS X App store. http://apple.com/downloads http://apple.com/downloads not good enough for you? 4. Add a feature to the iPod and iPhone that only works with Mac OS X. For example, some type of 3D file manager that 'requires' OS X to work So you're asking them to cripple popular software? Because that hurts sales for their best-selling products. That, in turn, will probably hurt Mac sales, due to damaged reputation. A lot of people get iPods then get Macs because the experience is so enjoyable. 5. Offer some type of open source framework that allows virtualisation across platforms like the iPhone, Web and other OSes "Virtualization?" Christ, MobileMe already syncs everything. And the iPhone already runs OS X. What more can they do? (I'm genuinely curious what you mean on this one.)
- markessien 18y ago
  Regarding the fifth item - Apps are going to break the OS boundary. And they won't do it using emulated APIs, but using Virtual PCs within your PC. That is, an x86 instruction set and whatever OS you want running within this virtual machine, and interacting with other apps through some type of environment. Processors are getting parallel and faster, this is already possible right now (I'm typing this from within a Windows XP layer running on top of Mac OS X), but it will become even easier and less problematic very soon. The OS layers are merging. The differences in the OSes are becoming more about eye candy and less about functionality. That will be reflected in the apps. It's silly to invest a million man hours in some huge suite like Office and then all that goes to waste just because another vendor decided to expose the same functionality over different names. Software is going to have to standardize the way all other user tools have standardized. Cars all have the same usage mechanism with different looks. Our OSes are going to go the same way, it WILL happen. Look at Linux - back in 99, it used to handle quite different from Windows. Now most things are the same. The Apps are also going to have to be the same across all the OSes. Some will say that the web is the way to go - but I believe that the iPhone has shown that when people have the choice between native and web, they choose native. Infrastructure does not change that fast, internet speeds are not changing that fast. We are standing on the verge of a reorganisation of software. The big companies are struggling for dominance at this stage by struggling to control the APIs. Soon, it will be possible to write in whatever language and have it compiled to a base API that will run across all the platforms. This move makes sense, and I believe that the easiest way to do it for now will be using x86 instruction emulation - I really don't see any of the big companies giving up their APIs or platforms anytime soon.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Cars all have SIMILAR usage mechanisms, similar to how all word processors have a field for you to type in. But that's as close to standardized as you'll get in either field. Cars all look and act and feel different. So will word processors. Linux's standardization I see as a bad thing. They've copied far too much from Windows. I have Ubuntu running in VM and I dislike that it seems so blandly pasted in. But I still don't understand what you mean when you say that they'll virtualize across platforms. As I said: there are already Apple-owned systems in place that do this. How would your idea be any different?
potatolicious 18y ago
I don't like how you're being downmodded for going against the grain - your post was cogent and appropriate, though I still disagree :) 1 - Mac users like the behavior differences, and as one myself I can say there are many ways where Apple's format is superior to Windows. One of the major complaints for recent switchers is the lack of a "minimize" button, and IMHO this should not be "fixed". The lack of a full-screen button allows people to focus on sharing screen space between apps, which is something Apple does extraordinarily well and where Windows fails horribly. The inter-app cross-compatibility (allowing robust drag/drop features) is key to the Mac platform. 2 - No way. Apple makes most of their money off hardware, OS X is merely a selling point for their laptop and desktop products. Not to mention Apple is in a very good position to push hardware/software synergy like nobody else. I recently saw a demo of the Windows 7 multi-touch features, and the main thing that struck me is: "this is useless, the quality of touchscreen on 95% of tablets out there is not enough to make this useful". Apple is in a unique situation where their hardware can work precisely as well as they need, and vice versa. There's no waiting for either side to catch up like MS does. 3 - Agree, though not necessary. I wouldn't put much effort in it, but rather maybe build something that increases exposure for small-time app builders. App distribution on the Mac platform is already problem-free (unlike Windows, with is myriad of non-standard installers). This seems like a solution looking for a problem. 4 - That's going to piss a lot of people off - and I doubt anybody makes a $1500 purchasing decision based off a single "missing" feature. Can't comment on #5, my brain is too fried :)
- markessien 18y ago
  1 - Mac users may like the difference, but windows users are not familiar with the difference, making it difficult for them to switch initially. It does not matter what is superior - if Mac were to minimize the small differences, it would be way easier for the users to switch. I'm not talking about what mac users are used to, I'm talking about making a switch completely painless. Windows users I've observed who switch to macs don't use this drag/drop thing like you think they do - they continue to use the osx like it were windows. 2 - Hardware costs money, software is free. This is why I say, if they allow Vaio produce hardware that is very similar to the Mac OS X hardware, they can quickly expand their market, while maintaining a high end brand. It's up to Sony then to make sure their hardware always fits. 3 - It's not problem free till I can click and icon on my mac select what I want and click buy. 4 - People will indeed make such a purchasing decision based off 1 feature. All other things balance themselves out, so one snazzy thing makes the world of difference.
schoudha 18y ago
Let's be glad you're not head of product development at Apple.
mhb 18y ago
How about the low-hanging fruit first? The ability to resize a window from any edge or corner and a divider from anywhere along its length seem obvious.
- dchest 18y ago
  There's no "borders" on some windows. How'd you do this?
jksmith 18y ago
The MSFT business scheme all along has been to fuel new PC sales by selling new versions of Windows. Producing a great piece of software was never the intent. The PC manufacturers held up their end of the deal by licensing Windows in large quantities. That business model is mature, played out, and dying. APPL would be making a mistake if it adopted the same model for OSX. They've got to continue milking the superior product for smarter users angle for both OS and hardware if they want to continue gaining market share. Nothing wrong with making OSX a little more WSB I guess, but the value of OSX is that it sells APPL hardware and nobody else's.

dchest 18y ago

2 — Why? To make ~$129 instead of ~$1000 on every Mac OS X capable machine? 4 — User experience is this feature.

markessien 18y ago
They don't make $1000 on a $1090 laptop. The hardware also costs money.
- dchest 18y ago
  Wow. I don't know the cost of imaginary licensing of Mac OS X too, but you don't argue with ~$129?
  - markessien 18y ago
    I can imagine a scenario where they sell Mac OS X as an extra CD along with the OS, in which case they could indeed sell it for $129 or more.

unalone 18y ago

1. Change the behaviour of Mac OS X to match Windows in terms of Window Minimizing, access to desktop, file sorting and so on. Simply, make the transition a lot more painless You're not a Mac user, are you? Because Apple's popular because it's uncompromising in its features. The things you named, though... are the same. You minimize things the same in both. You access the desktop the same in both. You sort files using very similar systems, though each has its own flaws. 2. License out Mac OS X for specially designated high end machines by big vendors. For example, make a VAIO version of Mac OS X that works only with those laptop Apple already does that - with Apple computers. It's what lets them integrate themselves so tightly. So, now they're going off to Vaio to do... what now? 3. Expand the Apple App store to also become an OS X App store. http://apple.com/downloads http://apple.com/downloads not good enough for you? 4. Add a feature to the iPod and iPhone that only works with Mac OS X. For example, some type of 3D file manager that 'requires' OS X to work So you're asking them to cripple popular software? Because that hurts sales for their best-selling products. That, in turn, will probably hurt Mac sales, due to damaged reputation. A lot of people get iPods then get Macs because the experience is so enjoyable. 5. Offer some type of open source framework that allows virtualisation across platforms like the iPhone, Web and other OSes "Virtualization?" Christ, MobileMe already syncs everything. And the iPhone already runs OS X. What more can they do? (I'm genuinely curious what you mean on this one.)

markessien 18y ago
Regarding the fifth item - Apps are going to break the OS boundary. And they won't do it using emulated APIs, but using Virtual PCs within your PC. That is, an x86 instruction set and whatever OS you want running within this virtual machine, and interacting with other apps through some type of environment. Processors are getting parallel and faster, this is already possible right now (I'm typing this from within a Windows XP layer running on top of Mac OS X), but it will become even easier and less problematic very soon. The OS layers are merging. The differences in the OSes are becoming more about eye candy and less about functionality. That will be reflected in the apps. It's silly to invest a million man hours in some huge suite like Office and then all that goes to waste just because another vendor decided to expose the same functionality over different names. Software is going to have to standardize the way all other user tools have standardized. Cars all have the same usage mechanism with different looks. Our OSes are going to go the same way, it WILL happen. Look at Linux - back in 99, it used to handle quite different from Windows. Now most things are the same. The Apps are also going to have to be the same across all the OSes. Some will say that the web is the way to go - but I believe that the iPhone has shown that when people have the choice between native and web, they choose native. Infrastructure does not change that fast, internet speeds are not changing that fast. We are standing on the verge of a reorganisation of software. The big companies are struggling for dominance at this stage by struggling to control the APIs. Soon, it will be possible to write in whatever language and have it compiled to a base API that will run across all the platforms. This move makes sense, and I believe that the easiest way to do it for now will be using x86 instruction emulation - I really don't see any of the big companies giving up their APIs or platforms anytime soon.
- unalone 18y ago
  Cars all have SIMILAR usage mechanisms, similar to how all word processors have a field for you to type in. But that's as close to standardized as you'll get in either field. Cars all look and act and feel different. So will word processors. Linux's standardization I see as a bad thing. They've copied far too much from Windows. I have Ubuntu running in VM and I dislike that it seems so blandly pasted in. But I still don't understand what you mean when you say that they'll virtualize across platforms. As I said: there are already Apple-owned systems in place that do this. How would your idea be any different?

potatolicious 18y ago

I don't like how you're being downmodded for going against the grain - your post was cogent and appropriate, though I still disagree :) 1 - Mac users like the behavior differences, and as one myself I can say there are many ways where Apple's format is superior to Windows. One of the major complaints for recent switchers is the lack of a "minimize" button, and IMHO this should not be "fixed". The lack of a full-screen button allows people to focus on sharing screen space between apps, which is something Apple does extraordinarily well and where Windows fails horribly. The inter-app cross-compatibility (allowing robust drag/drop features) is key to the Mac platform. 2 - No way. Apple makes most of their money off hardware, OS X is merely a selling point for their laptop and desktop products. Not to mention Apple is in a very good position to push hardware/software synergy like nobody else. I recently saw a demo of the Windows 7 multi-touch features, and the main thing that struck me is: "this is useless, the quality of touchscreen on 95% of tablets out there is not enough to make this useful". Apple is in a unique situation where their hardware can work precisely as well as they need, and vice versa. There's no waiting for either side to catch up like MS does. 3 - Agree, though not necessary. I wouldn't put much effort in it, but rather maybe build something that increases exposure for small-time app builders. App distribution on the Mac platform is already problem-free (unlike Windows, with is myriad of non-standard installers). This seems like a solution looking for a problem. 4 - That's going to piss a lot of people off - and I doubt anybody makes a $1500 purchasing decision based off a single "missing" feature. Can't comment on #5, my brain is too fried :)

markessien 18y ago
1 - Mac users may like the difference, but windows users are not familiar with the difference, making it difficult for them to switch initially. It does not matter what is superior - if Mac were to minimize the small differences, it would be way easier for the users to switch. I'm not talking about what mac users are used to, I'm talking about making a switch completely painless. Windows users I've observed who switch to macs don't use this drag/drop thing like you think they do - they continue to use the osx like it were windows. 2 - Hardware costs money, software is free. This is why I say, if they allow Vaio produce hardware that is very similar to the Mac OS X hardware, they can quickly expand their market, while maintaining a high end brand. It's up to Sony then to make sure their hardware always fits. 3 - It's not problem free till I can click and icon on my mac select what I want and click buy. 4 - People will indeed make such a purchasing decision based off 1 feature. All other things balance themselves out, so one snazzy thing makes the world of difference.

schoudha 18y ago

Let's be glad you're not head of product development at Apple.

mhb 18y ago

How about the low-hanging fruit first? The ability to resize a window from any edge or corner and a divider from anywhere along its length seem obvious.

dchest 18y ago
There's no "borders" on some windows. How'd you do this?

jksmith 18y ago

The MSFT business scheme all along has been to fuel new PC sales by selling new versions of Windows. Producing a great piece of software was never the intent. The PC manufacturers held up their end of the deal by licensing Windows in large quantities. That business model is mature, played out, and dying. APPL would be making a mistake if it adopted the same model for OSX. They've got to continue milking the superior product for smarter users angle for both OS and hardware if they want to continue gaining market share. Nothing wrong with making OSX a little more WSB I guess, but the value of OSX is that it sells APPL hardware and nobody else's.