keltorsori
Nov 2, 11:38 PM
Please keep us up-to-date. I've been waiting for VMware now for months.
shanmugam
May 3, 08:02 AM
sad sad, not the updated iMac :cool:
iEvolution
Apr 22, 12:59 PM
Two companies I really don't care for.
Apple makes some sweet hardware (hence I visit this site) but they seriously lack in the software programming and ethical department.
Samsung makes some crappy TVs (I really don't know why they have such a good reputation for TVs, I've got two of them and they look like crap in comparison to my $400 Emerson), not to mention crappy cell phones that are guaranteed to break in a year. (I've gone through three, 1st the slider started to stick, 2nd one the speaker on it broke, and the 3rd one it would double entry the 6 key when I tried to text).
Good for samsung though for trying to strike back for that ridiculous suit Apple did about the Galaxy.
Apple makes some sweet hardware (hence I visit this site) but they seriously lack in the software programming and ethical department.
Samsung makes some crappy TVs (I really don't know why they have such a good reputation for TVs, I've got two of them and they look like crap in comparison to my $400 Emerson), not to mention crappy cell phones that are guaranteed to break in a year. (I've gone through three, 1st the slider started to stick, 2nd one the speaker on it broke, and the 3rd one it would double entry the 6 key when I tried to text).
Good for samsung though for trying to strike back for that ridiculous suit Apple did about the Galaxy.
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
nowonder24
Apr 28, 11:33 PM
Anecdotal evidence is so exciting!
Exactly my point ;)
Exactly my point ;)
Hisdem
Sep 12, 07:42 PM
Some Adidas stuff and a set of 3 Moleskine Ruled Journals. :cool:
motulist
Aug 16, 04:35 AM
I think I like the brushed metal look much better. :(
My opinion of brushed metal is that it's a very good theme and has big a cool factor, but the clean lines and clarity of the new theme has already won me over. It's not perfect, there are things I'd change, but I think it's a nice step up.
In fact, it reminds me of a super evolved version of OS 9's platinum look, which I really liked.
For those too young in Mac world to remember OS 9's platinum theme, you can see some here in the paragraph titled "Platinum vs. Aqua Interface Pictures" but bear in mind that this interface is VERY old at this point, so you to have think of it in context and not compare it to an interface from 2006.
http://www.ae-data.com/download.html
But why are OS X's UI designers so averse to putting in a line that demarks where the title bar stops and the window body begins?
My opinion of brushed metal is that it's a very good theme and has big a cool factor, but the clean lines and clarity of the new theme has already won me over. It's not perfect, there are things I'd change, but I think it's a nice step up.
In fact, it reminds me of a super evolved version of OS 9's platinum look, which I really liked.
For those too young in Mac world to remember OS 9's platinum theme, you can see some here in the paragraph titled "Platinum vs. Aqua Interface Pictures" but bear in mind that this interface is VERY old at this point, so you to have think of it in context and not compare it to an interface from 2006.
http://www.ae-data.com/download.html
But why are OS X's UI designers so averse to putting in a line that demarks where the title bar stops and the window body begins?
epictempo
Apr 24, 08:29 AM
Competition keeps the prices lowish, but not as low as the junk android handsets and Apple sells unlocked iPhones at full price for those of us with cheap SIM-only plans.
Completely agree, I'm thinking that Apple could single-handedly save Tmo with an iPhone offering just to fuel competition. Android=junk is true, wish I hadn't listened to a few members on here saying how the android system is better for phones. Bought a highly righted android and never the more regretted having got rid of my beloved iP4.
Completely agree, I'm thinking that Apple could single-handedly save Tmo with an iPhone offering just to fuel competition. Android=junk is true, wish I hadn't listened to a few members on here saying how the android system is better for phones. Bought a highly righted android and never the more regretted having got rid of my beloved iP4.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 13, 07:56 PM
I agree this is a silly idea. Who in the world would want the Apple TV integrated into a TV? What happens when an updated Apple TV is released the next year? Toss out the TV and buy another? Most people going in and buying a new large screen HDTV are planning to keep it a lot longer then the peripherals attached to it. If some new device comes out, no problem, just plug it into your TV. The other thing is that the TV market is very a very mature and saturated market with some big well known brands behind it.
I suppose they could make the content device separate like the current Apple TV which can be attached with an HDMI cable. If they do that what is the point of an Apple branded TV which would likely be built by another company like Samsung, LG or Sharp? Styling and a logo with a higher price? Nonsense.
Everything would be streamed. Why would you need to update it beyond it breaking or needing a bigger size.
I suppose they could make the content device separate like the current Apple TV which can be attached with an HDMI cable. If they do that what is the point of an Apple branded TV which would likely be built by another company like Samsung, LG or Sharp? Styling and a logo with a higher price? Nonsense.
Everything would be streamed. Why would you need to update it beyond it breaking or needing a bigger size.
SpyderFCS
May 3, 07:37 AM
The iMac page is updated on the US site.
http://www.apple.com/imac/
http://www.apple.com/imac/
WildCowboy
Oct 18, 07:32 PM
Why, my friend, do you think that a "cash cow" has to be the thing that gains the most revenue/profit? Not sure what dictionary you're using; please let me know.
The MP3 player market is still growing too fast and is too competitive for the iPod to fall into the "cash cow" category. It's margins are on par with those for Macs, meaning that it requires substantial expenditures to maintain its position on the cutting edge. Definitely not a cash cow...it's still a star.
The MP3 player market is still growing too fast and is too competitive for the iPod to fall into the "cash cow" category. It's margins are on par with those for Macs, meaning that it requires substantial expenditures to maintain its position on the cutting edge. Definitely not a cash cow...it's still a star.
belovedmonster
Jul 11, 03:49 AM
For all of those people who are saying "Once it adds X I can finally remove MS from my computer..." have you not considered Open Office? I find its actually better than MS Word in many respects and being open source its totaly free.
A year ago I would of said Apple would never package iWork free with Macs, but the more I see that iWork is hardly setting the world alight the more I think it probably would be a better business model to package it with systems. Im sure they will offset the cost with selling more Macs in the first place but more importantly getting people hooked into buying the update each year ala iLife.
A year ago I would of said Apple would never package iWork free with Macs, but the more I see that iWork is hardly setting the world alight the more I think it probably would be a better business model to package it with systems. Im sure they will offset the cost with selling more Macs in the first place but more importantly getting people hooked into buying the update each year ala iLife.
swingerofbirch
Dec 1, 02:03 PM
I'll say it before, and I'll say it again, this is a critical time for Apple and it's no time to be an Apple apologist. It's time to hold Apple's feet to the fire. Being soft on them isn't helping them. It's just enabling them not to realize their full potential.
longofest
Dec 1, 02:14 PM
Apple definitely needs to get more serious about security. As more people start to buy Macs, more people will start to tinker and find holes. I hope Apple will rise to the challenge.
My feelings exactly. Its bad enough that the vulnerabilities are "easy" to discover and puncture, but as the marketshare goes up, there is no doubt that we are going to get exploited more and more, and I really don't want our OS caught with its pants down by its ankles like Windows.
Apple has a couple of advantages by being Unix based, but because its a hybrid kernel, like LMH said, they also get some inevitable vulnerabilities. They gotta get a bit more serious about auditing their code. For all of the problems MS has had, I will say this. At least they have already had them, and by now have gotten such an auditing system in place that "dummy" vulnerabilities don't get through in releases as easily.
My feelings exactly. Its bad enough that the vulnerabilities are "easy" to discover and puncture, but as the marketshare goes up, there is no doubt that we are going to get exploited more and more, and I really don't want our OS caught with its pants down by its ankles like Windows.
Apple has a couple of advantages by being Unix based, but because its a hybrid kernel, like LMH said, they also get some inevitable vulnerabilities. They gotta get a bit more serious about auditing their code. For all of the problems MS has had, I will say this. At least they have already had them, and by now have gotten such an auditing system in place that "dummy" vulnerabilities don't get through in releases as easily.
goosnarrggh
Dec 4, 07:26 AM
Mac OS X is so stable that I am perfectly comfortable working for an hour in between saving my open files. If I was likely to run into websites that purposely exploited a flaw to crash my Mac, I'd have to change my habits and live more defensively.
Excellent point.
If you use a notebook or a desktop with a UPS, it can be extremely easy to forget about the fact that reboots may happen at any time, even without fautly software getting in the way. (Lately in Nova Scotia, the culprit has been "salty fog" invading our power substations...) Obviously this is a bug that can cause loss of work (and thus loss of money). And obviously the ultimate solution must be a more graceful failure response by the OS.
But a good stopgap measure to protect from the only potential damage which can so far be demonstrated to potentially come from this vulnerability, would be to enable the autosave feature of your software. That measure requires a one-time investment of effort on your part, and subsequently shouldn't have any effect on your work habits. I have never used any reputable productivity software which didn't have an autosave feature.
Excellent point.
If you use a notebook or a desktop with a UPS, it can be extremely easy to forget about the fact that reboots may happen at any time, even without fautly software getting in the way. (Lately in Nova Scotia, the culprit has been "salty fog" invading our power substations...) Obviously this is a bug that can cause loss of work (and thus loss of money). And obviously the ultimate solution must be a more graceful failure response by the OS.
But a good stopgap measure to protect from the only potential damage which can so far be demonstrated to potentially come from this vulnerability, would be to enable the autosave feature of your software. That measure requires a one-time investment of effort on your part, and subsequently shouldn't have any effect on your work habits. I have never used any reputable productivity software which didn't have an autosave feature.
robeddie
Apr 21, 10:22 AM
Or Apple realized most people don't need a backlit keyboard? I honestly don't see a need for one, and I'm guessing most users don't need it. So it was probably a easy option to axe for either space or battery life. Don't expect it to return.
I don't know, it's been on all aluminum models since 2003. After all these years Apple decided no one really wanted it? (A lot of people on these forums obviously wouldn't agree with that).
To save battery life? You can turn it off if you want. Problem solved.
I don't know, it's been on all aluminum models since 2003. After all these years Apple decided no one really wanted it? (A lot of people on these forums obviously wouldn't agree with that).
To save battery life? You can turn it off if you want. Problem solved.
Michaelgtrusa
May 3, 07:47 AM
Looks good.
KPOM
May 3, 07:36 AM
Nice. I can hardly wait for the MacBook Air update coming next, along with (I assume) the Mac Mini and MacBook updates.
i'm not seeing them in the store
It just updated a few minutes ago. Interestingly, a 256GB SSD is a $500 option, while a 1TB HD + 256GB SSD is a $600 option (I didn't realize 1TB drives were so cheap). Anyway, it adds 2-3 weeks to the shipping time. Not that I care, since I'm not getting an iMac (but every new Mac refresh gets me closer to the one I'll actually get - MacBook Air Rev E).
i'm not seeing them in the store
It just updated a few minutes ago. Interestingly, a 256GB SSD is a $500 option, while a 1TB HD + 256GB SSD is a $600 option (I didn't realize 1TB drives were so cheap). Anyway, it adds 2-3 weeks to the shipping time. Not that I care, since I'm not getting an iMac (but every new Mac refresh gets me closer to the one I'll actually get - MacBook Air Rev E).
appleguy123
May 1, 09:15 PM
You mean I'm going to be killed off because the rest of the players are a bunch of deadbeats? Man, that sucks.:mad:
At least you'll set a record at your lynching...
At least you'll set a record at your lynching...
spicyapple
Dec 3, 10:34 AM
Judging by the progression in the poll numbers, looks like FUD is gaining traction.
MacRuler
Apr 15, 07:11 AM
as will most.
this white phone delay seems rather odd.
hopefully those who wanted the color will now finally be able to get one.
you guys do realize that with this product release the wait for the iphone 5 will be a long time from now? people that do have iphones or smartphones can wait. but people with phones that can only make calls and texts and batterys that last for 3 hours. will deffiantly jump on this iphone due to the fact it is "new" i for one will be buying this on verizon on a upgrade plan the day it comes out.
this white phone delay seems rather odd.
hopefully those who wanted the color will now finally be able to get one.
you guys do realize that with this product release the wait for the iphone 5 will be a long time from now? people that do have iphones or smartphones can wait. but people with phones that can only make calls and texts and batterys that last for 3 hours. will deffiantly jump on this iphone due to the fact it is "new" i for one will be buying this on verizon on a upgrade plan the day it comes out.
SirStrumalot
May 4, 01:28 AM
It would be unlikely but cool if they let us upgrade to iOS5 after its unveiling at the WWDC.
JoeG4
Jul 21, 03:35 PM
I don't think it will have virtualization, especially with the way they are supporting Parallels solution itself. I think a dual-boot or a fast OS switching type of solution is much more likely. Somebody around here was suggesting "sleeping" one OS and starting another. That's almost good enough. Afterall Apple does not want you to use Windows, it only wants you to believe you could run Windows if you had to, in order to ease switcher anxiety.
I've been planning a project like this (I finally got it on sourceforge, in fact) - The idea is to make the virtualization system able to hibernate any given OS (or freeze state it) in such a way that it can be restored as the host OS (and vice versa), so that you can give any of your OSes running (virtual or host), the host priorities while all the others become virtual.
OTOH, that could be laggy, and may be subject to limitations within EFI, only time will tell.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/fruitsalad/ <- shameless self promotion XD
I've been planning a project like this (I finally got it on sourceforge, in fact) - The idea is to make the virtualization system able to hibernate any given OS (or freeze state it) in such a way that it can be restored as the host OS (and vice versa), so that you can give any of your OSes running (virtual or host), the host priorities while all the others become virtual.
OTOH, that could be laggy, and may be subject to limitations within EFI, only time will tell.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/fruitsalad/ <- shameless self promotion XD
John.B
Apr 11, 02:20 PM
The people who continually repeat, "There are no Thunderbolt devices" will be crushed, I'm sure. :D
