4 ms·

I think it's fair to say that iPhone runs an OS that is related to Mac OS - but it's not really fair to say it is a Mac OS, since you can't run Mac OS apps on i

by 10ren 18y ago

I think it's fair to say that iPhone runs an OS that is related to Mac OS - but it's not really fair to say it is a Mac OS, since you can't run Mac OS apps on it. (That is, maybe it is a Mac OS, from an implementation point of view, but not from a usage-as-a-platform point of view.) If you could run Mac OS apps on it, then that would increase the value of the iPhone platform in proportion to all those apps. The reason I mention Windows is just because it has many more apps on it, and in this sense, it increases the value of the platform more than Mac OS. But the problem isn't in getting Mac OS to run on it (that's easy). The problem is that it isn't fast enough. It's not even fast enough to run Java or Flash apps (both Sun and Adobe wanted to port them, but Apple said no - I am certain this is because the user experience couldn't be very good, because too slow. And user experience is what Apple is great at, and what people buy it for). I should say that this is no criticism of Apple - they've done an astonishing job of getting performance out of a slow processor, and it's the kind of thing that impresses me very much. Sadly, that skill isn't needed when the processors get fast enough - for example, at one time Woz worked miracles to make the Apple work; and across the street Bill Gates went through contortions to squeeze a programming language into 8K. But today, neither Apple desktops or Bill Gates struggle for minimal implementations. And that's what's exciting to me about the iPhone as a platform - it is that time again, when those skills are valued. It's just that sadly, it won't last, according to Moore's Law. Why do you think that the reason earlier Windows mobiles failed was because the UI was too Windows-like? Screen real-estate is a problem, but it's not that hard to change a UI. Consider: what Apple can do, others can copy. There are many possible reasons for a tech failure, and, forensically, it's hard to know for sure what they really were - but one reason is that processors were tremendously less powerful just a few years ago. PS: I don't want to pick at typos, but I read your "APIs are nut (sic) supported" as "API nuts are supported", thinking that you meant "nuts" as a slang for the internal connections (like plugs, sockets etc). But I realize you just meant "not supported".

berntb 18y ago
Sigh, yes I am of course aware of the speed limitations. I agree, Moore's law will probably work well for mobile phone-sized devices. The point is still that "traditional" computer UIs don't work on a phone sized screen; the XP applications (you talked about originally) just needs to be rewritten. Which would take away much of the advantage of getting XP on them. I read enough reviews of the early Win mobiles that I won't even want to try. But maybe a head mounted display/EyeTap could work for full-sized apps? (I guess I should run this through a spelling checker, but I won't bother, since you say you don't want to pick at typos...)
- 10ren 18y ago
  The point is still that "traditional" computer UIs don't work on a phone sized screen; the XP applications (you talked about originally) just needs to be rewritten. Which would take away much of the advantage of getting XP on them. Ah, now I understand what you're saying. Yes, some apps need 17" screens; but most don't. Many older apps were designed with small screens in mind (an extreme example is VGA). And some don't use a UI at all such as compilers, TCP/IP implementations, databases - you might say they're pointless to have in an iPhone, but I think partly that's because an iPhone can't yet do them well. Having access to all that is part of the value of a platform. I think the few apps that would need to be rewritten are apps that you wouldn't want to use on a iPhone display anyway (or, you would plug the iPhone into a HD display when you wanted to use them - I do this with my eee PC). But my counter to this still holds true: netbooks with tiny screens have been wildly successful with Windows XP. One solution the eee PC uses is to scroll across a larger area (iPhone does this too). It's awkward, but it works. However, it's very uncommon to have to do it (in my experience). It's still a minus, and you wouldn't want to run photoshop on it. Another solution is finer resolution - so that the device size remains small. Of course, you need good eye-sight. But the obvious solution is projectors. There's already a couple of handheld ones (I think maybe one's in a phone?). Resolution and battery life are issues; I don't know how long they'll take to improve enough (batteries don't follow Moore's Law). Arguably, this would be a different category of device from a "phone" in terms of uses, so maybe it's not reasonable to compare. Head-mounted display could work too, but it seems one of those very cool ideas known for a very long time but which don't seem to be popular even when we have the tech (like video conferencing). BTW: A spellchecker wouldn't catch not vs. nut.
  - berntb 18y ago
    Of course I'd want a compiler and bash in my iPod Touch! But that won't sell any large number of phones. (Netbooks have keyboards and much larger screens. Different niche.)
    - 10ren 18y ago
      you might say they're pointless to have in an iPhone, but I think partly that's because an iPhone can't yet do them well. I meant that you might say they're pointless for iPhone sales. It's not just for developers, but also for the products that are easier to create with them (if you had a database sitting there, extensive libraries etc). Imagine if you could use an iPhone as a desktop PC, in the same way that many people dock laptops dock into a display and keyboard, and it was powerful enough to run all the apps that most people use. I'm thinking of how the mainframe was replaced by the mini, by the workstation, by the PC... But I didn't realize the size difference was quite so dramatic. The display of the smallest netbook is almost 50% larger than a whole iPhone in both directions. netbook display 93 x 153 iPhone 62 x 115

by 10ren 18y ago

berntb 18y ago

Sigh, yes I am of course aware of the speed limitations. I agree, Moore's law will probably work well for mobile phone-sized devices. The point is still that "traditional" computer UIs don't work on a phone sized screen; the XP applications (you talked about originally) just needs to be rewritten. Which would take away much of the advantage of getting XP on them. I read enough reviews of the early Win mobiles that I won't even want to try. But maybe a head mounted display/EyeTap could work for full-sized apps? (I guess I should run this through a spelling checker, but I won't bother, since you say you don't want to pick at typos...)

10ren 18y ago
The point is still that "traditional" computer UIs don't work on a phone sized screen; the XP applications (you talked about originally) just needs to be rewritten. Which would take away much of the advantage of getting XP on them. Ah, now I understand what you're saying. Yes, some apps need 17" screens; but most don't. Many older apps were designed with small screens in mind (an extreme example is VGA). And some don't use a UI at all such as compilers, TCP/IP implementations, databases - you might say they're pointless to have in an iPhone, but I think partly that's because an iPhone can't yet do them well. Having access to all that is part of the value of a platform. I think the few apps that would need to be rewritten are apps that you wouldn't want to use on a iPhone display anyway (or, you would plug the iPhone into a HD display when you wanted to use them - I do this with my eee PC). But my counter to this still holds true: netbooks with tiny screens have been wildly successful with Windows XP. One solution the eee PC uses is to scroll across a larger area (iPhone does this too). It's awkward, but it works. However, it's very uncommon to have to do it (in my experience). It's still a minus, and you wouldn't want to run photoshop on it. Another solution is finer resolution - so that the device size remains small. Of course, you need good eye-sight. But the obvious solution is projectors. There's already a couple of handheld ones (I think maybe one's in a phone?). Resolution and battery life are issues; I don't know how long they'll take to improve enough (batteries don't follow Moore's Law). Arguably, this would be a different category of device from a "phone" in terms of uses, so maybe it's not reasonable to compare. Head-mounted display could work too, but it seems one of those very cool ideas known for a very long time but which don't seem to be popular even when we have the tech (like video conferencing). BTW: A spellchecker wouldn't catch not vs. nut.
- berntb 18y ago
  Of course I'd want a compiler and bash in my iPod Touch! But that won't sell any large number of phones. (Netbooks have keyboards and much larger screens. Different niche.)
  - 10ren 18y ago
    you might say they're pointless to have in an iPhone, but I think partly that's because an iPhone can't yet do them well. I meant that you might say they're pointless for iPhone sales. It's not just for developers, but also for the products that are easier to create with them (if you had a database sitting there, extensive libraries etc). Imagine if you could use an iPhone as a desktop PC, in the same way that many people dock laptops dock into a display and keyboard, and it was powerful enough to run all the apps that most people use. I'm thinking of how the mainframe was replaced by the mini, by the workstation, by the PC... But I didn't realize the size difference was quite so dramatic. The display of the smallest netbook is almost 50% larger than a whole iPhone in both directions. netbook display 93 x 153 iPhone 62 x 115