Apple announces Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple announces Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion
http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/
370 comments
I really like where Apple is heading with OSX. With iCloud and a common set of features/services iOS and OSX are developing a very symbiotic relationship. It kind of confuses me to see people saying Apple is trying to turn OSX into iOS. It's really the exact opposite from my perspective. They are evolving OSX to be part of a future where SmartPhones/tablets are a major part of how people use technology. There has to be some degree of feature/usability parity for these devices to co-exist happily. Why should my $500 iPad have AirPlay and not my $1500 Mac? If I like using the Reminders app on my iPhone why shouldn't I have it on my Mac? I've yet to see any good argument against these features that doesn't rely pretty heavily on nostalgia or fear of change.
The tie-ins to the closed Apple ecosystem are really startling. Take someone like myself. I have no iOS devices and have friends on various operating systems and services. Perhaps I'm a minority, but this is how it breaks down for me.
iCloud - not useful, no iOS devices.
Messages - not useful, too Apple centric, I already use Adium to interface with several non-apple services.
Reminders - not useful, wont' sync to my phone. I already just use CalDAV via iCal for this.
Notes - not useful, wont' sync anywhere, I already use the much better Evernote.
Notification Center - maybe, but it only works with App Store apps of which I have few. I used to use Growl from the command line to notify me when long running computational jobs were completed, but if it's locked to App Store apps I suppose I won't be able to use it for that.
Share Sheets - maybe, but I already use Sparrow instead of Mail and Chrome instead of Safari. I use another photo hosting site that isn't Flickr and don't use Twitter.
Twitter - don't use it.
Game Center - not at all a compelling feature for me.
AirPlay Mirroring - don't have an Apple TV and prefer more open platforms for this.
Gatekeeper - this is a good idea in principle, remains to be seen if it gets in the way.
The exclusive partnering and increasingly closed Apple ecosystem is really showing. Maybe I'm a very small minority, but this direction is not in the slightest bit thrilling to me. Where are all the options to plug your own services into the system?
iCloud - not useful, no iOS devices.
Messages - not useful, too Apple centric, I already use Adium to interface with several non-apple services.
Reminders - not useful, wont' sync to my phone. I already just use CalDAV via iCal for this.
Notes - not useful, wont' sync anywhere, I already use the much better Evernote.
Notification Center - maybe, but it only works with App Store apps of which I have few. I used to use Growl from the command line to notify me when long running computational jobs were completed, but if it's locked to App Store apps I suppose I won't be able to use it for that.
Share Sheets - maybe, but I already use Sparrow instead of Mail and Chrome instead of Safari. I use another photo hosting site that isn't Flickr and don't use Twitter.
Twitter - don't use it.
Game Center - not at all a compelling feature for me.
AirPlay Mirroring - don't have an Apple TV and prefer more open platforms for this.
Gatekeeper - this is a good idea in principle, remains to be seen if it gets in the way.
The exclusive partnering and increasingly closed Apple ecosystem is really showing. Maybe I'm a very small minority, but this direction is not in the slightest bit thrilling to me. Where are all the options to plug your own services into the system?
Does Mountain Lion allow you to make apps full-screen on non-primary displays? This is the main problem I have with Lion.
Agreed. I was more than a little annoyed to discover that I couldn't watch iTunes Store movies full-screen on my HD TV through an displayport-to-HDMI adapter after upgrading to Lion. I actually gave some thought to going back to Snow Leopard but that seemed more bother than it was worth so I started renting movies on the Xbox 360 instead.
[deleted]
I just installed the preview myself, and the answer is yes! It still gives the other displays a linen background and renders them useless, though.
Open letter to every UI designer trying to change 30+ years of usability of desktop interfaces, mouse actions and shortcuts behavior to 'iPad style' that has been out all of 3 years: DON'T!!
Is it really true that Apple didn't realize it's already used this cat in an OS X release?
OSX 10.1 Puma.
Puma, Cougar, and Mountain Lion are names for the same species of cat (Puma concolor).
OSX 10.1 Puma.
Puma, Cougar, and Mountain Lion are names for the same species of cat (Puma concolor).
The release code words are just that: code words. They're not meant to represent some kind of underlying biological reality. OS X 10.1 was not code-named "The biological species Puma concolor", and OS X 10.8 is not code-named "The biological species Puma concolor".
The code-names "Puma" and "Mountain Lion" are distinct words, ergo they represent different releases. That in biology these words refer to the same species of cat is utterly irrelevant.
The code-names "Puma" and "Mountain Lion" are distinct words, ergo they represent different releases. That in biology these words refer to the same species of cat is utterly irrelevant.
OS version update for something that Windows would call an 'optional update'. Way to squeeze every drop of PR out of a few new icons Apple!
[deleted]
Any evidence in the preview that they plan to have 3G in their laptops?
Already?
they are adopting a 1-year release cycle.
Fascinating. I'm still on 10.6: no compelling reason to upgrade.
By the time I _do_ upgrade I'm in for some future shock: like dropping a Victorian gentleman into Haight-Ashbury in 1968.
By the time I _do_ upgrade I'm in for some future shock: like dropping a Victorian gentleman into Haight-Ashbury in 1968.
Is the messages beta download broken for anyone else? I would really like to send iMessages from my Mac.
Wow, that snuck out without much advanced fanfare (or I missed it).
I first glance, the main (in fact only) feature seems to be porting several iOS apps and features (notes, reminders, game center, etc.) to Mac OS X, and syncing everything together with iCloud.
There is also a Growl clone. Surprised this took so long. Then again, I personally don't like Growl, so I hope nothing depends on it being turned on.
I notice that, so far, there doesn't seem to be any new 'technologies', just (mainly) ports of iOS apps.
Looks very ho hum to me, but then again I have an android phone, so iOS syncing doesn't really interest me.
I first glance, the main (in fact only) feature seems to be porting several iOS apps and features (notes, reminders, game center, etc.) to Mac OS X, and syncing everything together with iCloud.
There is also a Growl clone. Surprised this took so long. Then again, I personally don't like Growl, so I hope nothing depends on it being turned on.
I notice that, so far, there doesn't seem to be any new 'technologies', just (mainly) ports of iOS apps.
Looks very ho hum to me, but then again I have an android phone, so iOS syncing doesn't really interest me.
Growl gets a lot of things wrong and stagnated for years with (until recently) no sign of improvement. It was ripe for disruption. Maybe Apple's implementation will be less depressing.
There is also a Growl clone. Surprised this took so long. Then again, I personally don't like Growl, so I hope nothing depends on it being turned on.
It seems that Apple adopted a similar model as Notifications Center on iOS in that you can decide on a per-app basis what they can do: banner, badge, sound… See this MacWorld's screenshot: http://images.macworld.com/images/article/2012/02/notificati...
It seems that Apple adopted a similar model as Notifications Center on iOS in that you can decide on a per-app basis what they can do: banner, badge, sound… See this MacWorld's screenshot: http://images.macworld.com/images/article/2012/02/notificati...
Feature rundown:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/features.html
One of the more interesting bits is at the - they're supporting a bunch of China specific services.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/features.html
One of the more interesting bits is at the - they're supporting a bunch of China specific services.
Very interesting. From the features list at the bottom:
*It’s a new Mac experience in China. OS X Mountain Lion brings all-new support for many popular Chinese services. And they’re easy to set up. Mail, Contacts, and Calendar work with QQ, 163, and 126. Baidu, the leading Chinese search provider, is a built-in option in Safari. The video-sharing websites Youku and Tudou are included in the new Share Sheets, so users in China can easily post videos to the web. They can also blog with Sina weibo, the popular microblogging service. And with improved text input, typing in Chinese is easier, faster, and more accurate."
*It’s a new Mac experience in China. OS X Mountain Lion brings all-new support for many popular Chinese services. And they’re easy to set up. Mail, Contacts, and Calendar work with QQ, 163, and 126. Baidu, the leading Chinese search provider, is a built-in option in Safari. The video-sharing websites Youku and Tudou are included in the new Share Sheets, so users in China can easily post videos to the web. They can also blog with Sina weibo, the popular microblogging service. And with improved text input, typing in Chinese is easier, faster, and more accurate."
I'm surprised there wasn't a China Twitter equivalent baked in. Or do they just use Twitter?
is there a specific reason they needed to update the entire OS for this ? Most of the new features are actually apps, and the rest wouldn't really justify a major version change.
In these events they talk about the new features as they're the most recognisable for press, often examples of what some of the new APIs are capable. (Features, which could of course have been programmed to run atop 10.7 Lion.)
E.g. growl does system wide notifications, but it's not built-in, and Apple like to control these things so they may more easily interface them with other Apple devices. (E.g. Apple could very easily make their Apple TV notify the user's iPhone when a new TV episode has been downloaded, or even schedule it onto their Mac.)
With that in mind Apple have a history of meshing the experiences across their devices, the messages app is a recent example.
E.g. growl does system wide notifications, but it's not built-in, and Apple like to control these things so they may more easily interface them with other Apple devices. (E.g. Apple could very easily make their Apple TV notify the user's iPhone when a new TV episode has been downloaded, or even schedule it onto their Mac.)
With that in mind Apple have a history of meshing the experiences across their devices, the messages app is a recent example.
Don't forget all the API changes that present themselves with each new major version. For example, Notifications, GameCenter and Twitter are all new core libraries on the Mac that are accessible to developers.
Well, Ubuntu does this every 6 months. They also pick another silly name every 12. Maybe Ubuntu is becoming the role model here?
The major difference is that with Ubuntu, apps and the OS/desktop share the same release cycle.
I hope that could be decoupled, making life easier for application authors: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_l...
I hope that could be decoupled, making life easier for application authors: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/application_quality_assurance_in_l...
Ubuntu updates are free, though.
What they cover for the general public is usually only the most visible features. There's additional new stuff under the hood, which will be available for 3rd party developers to use in their apps.
The benefits might not be apparent immediately, but they'll start showing up in apps written to take advantage of 10.8's features. Some improvements in the frameworks will effect existing apps that use those frameworks.
The benefits might not be apparent immediately, but they'll start showing up in apps written to take advantage of 10.8's features. Some improvements in the frameworks will effect existing apps that use those frameworks.
This is an early preview. We don't know about all the new APIs and changes under the hood. Presumably there is a lot going on with the additional iCloud support.
One of these years Apple is going to discontinue carbon API support and go 64-bit only. I doubt this release is it, but those kinds of under-the-hood features are not the kinds of things that you would talk about at this point. We'll learn more at WWDC.
One of these years Apple is going to discontinue carbon API support and go 64-bit only. I doubt this release is it, but those kinds of under-the-hood features are not the kinds of things that you would talk about at this point. We'll learn more at WWDC.
No mention of an OpenGL update. Still waiting out this stone age here...
They didn't mention any low-level API changes, which could either mean there are none or they just didn't mention them.
Apple, as usual, really seems to be getting it right. The feature list looks super promising as a nextstep (sorry, had to) in unifying mobile with desktop. It's nice to see that the desktop OS is not being abandoned but instead updated to better reflect a consumers preference for mobile (with good reason). Microsoft has also got it right by tying their Metro interface in Windows 8 to the Windows Phone OS. The attempt, however, falls short in that it is not really unifying the two platforms but instead providing a common interface and feel. In order to truly unite desktop with mobile, I believe you need to go beyond providing a common interface and really integrate the components so they exist to the user simultaneously instead of in parellel. This is just another verification (and in my opinion, a big one) that mobile is taking the reigns and is the future.
Right, so they've completely trashed the interface.
It looks like an enormous distraction box. They should top it off with a widget for HN ;)
It seems like the OS is either defaulting to allowing only only App Store applications or at least only (Apple-)signed applications: http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html
It's still possible to turn this off, but I have a feeling that we should enjoy our freedom to run GNU grep instead of BSD grep for as long as it lasts.
It's still possible to turn this off, but I have a feeling that we should enjoy our freedom to run GNU grep instead of BSD grep for as long as it lasts.
Read what Gruber writes about that Gatekeep feature:
My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion:
My favorite Mountain Lion feature, though, is one that hardly even has a visible interface. Apple is calling it “Gatekeeper”. It’s a system whereby developers can sign up for free-of-charge Apple developer IDs which they can then use to cryptographically sign their applications. If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. In effect, it offers all the security benefits of the App Store, except for the process of approving apps by Apple. Users have three choices which type of apps can run on Mountain Lion:
* Only those from the App Store
* Only those from the App Store or which are signed by a developer ID
* Any app, whether signed or unsigned
Gruber was telling that the Apple ID was going to be free. It isn't. It requires a Mac Developer account as far as I could understand it.
When I was 15 I wrote a Taskbar dialer for Windows 9x and later NT (this was in the modem days. Of course I haven't updated it in ages and the only reason my old webpage is still there is because I found it by accident in an old backup, but here is a google search for it: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask).
I published that on the various download pages and it was good enough to even be featured in dead-tree publications.
Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
With this rule in place I would never have been able to publish that dialer. I would never have felt how it is to make something that others can use and find useful. I would never have ended up where I am today.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
I might be an old fart, but this is far from acceptable.
When I was 15 I wrote a Taskbar dialer for Windows 9x and later NT (this was in the modem days. Of course I haven't updated it in ages and the only reason my old webpage is still there is because I found it by accident in an old backup, but here is a google search for it: https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=RasInTask).
I published that on the various download pages and it was good enough to even be featured in dead-tree publications.
Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
With this rule in place I would never have been able to publish that dialer. I would never have felt how it is to make something that others can use and find useful. I would never have ended up where I am today.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
I might be an old fart, but this is far from acceptable.
Hold on, XCode is free (without a developer login) you could install that and write the app.
You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did.
And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher.
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it. You have a smaller audience yes, but you can still do what you did.
And while this doesn't stop Malware, it does raise the bar a little higher.
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
>"You can then publish it on websites exactly as you did and those who choose the appropriate security setting can run it."
The need for a non-default security setting in order to run the software is a pretty big difference.
Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings - thereby allowing Apple to unilaterally delete your application from your customer's computers without recourse - may only raise the bar a bit.
However, it is an entirely different development ecosystem from the one described. Microsoft couldn't delete your application or block customer's access to it arbitrarily back in the 90's.
If iOS is a precedent, the probability of Apple changing the terms of service in regards to their developer agreement in ways which have adverse effects on the saleability and distribution of existing applications is significant.
The need for a non-default security setting in order to run the software is a pretty big difference.
Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings - thereby allowing Apple to unilaterally delete your application from your customer's computers without recourse - may only raise the bar a bit.
However, it is an entirely different development ecosystem from the one described. Microsoft couldn't delete your application or block customer's access to it arbitrarily back in the 90's.
If iOS is a precedent, the probability of Apple changing the terms of service in regards to their developer agreement in ways which have adverse effects on the saleability and distribution of existing applications is significant.
> Requiring a developer license to work with the default security settings
Gruber's article says signing will be free. No paid developer program membership required.
Gruber's article says signing will be free. No paid developer program membership required.
TFA says the default security setting DOES run any signed app. The two non-default settings are tighter (App Store only) and looser (any app).
Out of interest how would you feel about it if developer licenses were free for students?
I would be much happier (to the effect of actually seeing more good than bad in this restriction) if getting that ID was a matter of filling out a form an passing a turing test - so, for example, if any apple ID could be used to get a signing certificate, that would be much better.
(edit: this is not about the money. It's about they way of payment (minors don't have credit cards) and the required paperwork that, among other things, require you to be an adult)
I would be much happier (to the effect of actually seeing more good than bad in this restriction) if getting that ID was a matter of filling out a form an passing a turing test - so, for example, if any apple ID could be used to get a signing certificate, that would be much better.
(edit: this is not about the money. It's about they way of payment (minors don't have credit cards) and the required paperwork that, among other things, require you to be an adult)
That's interesting. My feeling is that the problem her is with the Apple Developer network rather than the functionality - I think the functionality just highlights the problem.
Personally I'd like to see the price on Developer licenses dropped and made free for full time or part time students. I think it would make commercial and PR sense for Apple too - show that they are developer friendly and make the Mac attractive as the machine of choice for the next generation of programmers (who will then also be a shoe in on coding iOS apps).
Personally I'd like to see the price on Developer licenses dropped and made free for full time or part time students. I think it would make commercial and PR sense for Apple too - show that they are developer friendly and make the Mac attractive as the machine of choice for the next generation of programmers (who will then also be a shoe in on coding iOS apps).
Historically, Apple has rarely provided free software, hardware or services to the education market. It appears to me that their strategy since the Apple II days has generally been to monetize the education industry to the highest level the market will allow. They may offer small student discounts off of list price on college campus bookstores, but I suspect it increases sales more than enough to raise profits.
I'm willing to bet that Apple is going to allow free certificates without having to pay a cent when Mountain Lion launches; Apple already did this for Safari Extensions, for example. (Safari Extensions must be signed, but anyone can request for a cert.)
It's also interesting that Apple is using the word "the _new_ Developer ID" in their developer site[1].
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/
It's also interesting that Apple is using the word "the _new_ Developer ID" in their developer site[1].
[1]: https://developer.apple.com/technologies/mountain-lion/
A license is $99. If you can afford a Mac to develop on your can certainly afford a $99 license.
They reason the have the fee is to keep out people who aren't serious about development. If they didn't have it for example the forums would be overrun with people who just signed up to get the latest OS beta complaining about bugs (this is already a problem at $99).
People can still develop and distribute apps without ever signing up with Apple. This restriction is a good protection step for users imo.
They reason the have the fee is to keep out people who aren't serious about development. If they didn't have it for example the forums would be overrun with people who just signed up to get the latest OS beta complaining about bugs (this is already a problem at $99).
People can still develop and distribute apps without ever signing up with Apple. This restriction is a good protection step for users imo.
You shouldn't have to prove that you're "serious about development" by paying money to write and distribute software. How many developers started as hobbyists?
Charging $100 just to be capricious is not a good move and is certainly not a good omen for OS 10.9 "Tabby" wherein you can be almost certain they will remove the option to run unsigned software (for your own protection, of course! You don't want to pay Apple $100? What are you, poor? The computer cost $1000! $generic_strawman_argument!)
Charging $100 just to be capricious is not a good move and is certainly not a good omen for OS 10.9 "Tabby" wherein you can be almost certain they will remove the option to run unsigned software (for your own protection, of course! You don't want to pay Apple $100? What are you, poor? The computer cost $1000! $generic_strawman_argument!)
You don't need to pay ANY money to write software for the Mac. Xcode is free. You don't need to pay any money to distribute software for the Mac. Distribute it through your own website. You need to pay to sell through the Mac App Store. I also presume you need to pay if you want it signed. Well that's a privilege. It helps you prove to potential customers your app is safe. You benefit from it so you should have to pay for it.
If you develop an app with the purpose of selling it on the Mac App Store for profit $100 should not be a problem for you.
If you want to distribute it yourself, go ahead. Apple is not charging you.
If you develop an app with the purpose of selling it on the Mac App Store for profit $100 should not be a problem for you.
If you want to distribute it yourself, go ahead. Apple is not charging you.
Well you can solve that by charging for access to the beta program surely?
Yes, but Apple doesn't want to allow people to pay to get into a Beta. They want only devs taking part. A fee to enter the dev program seems like the best solution to me. Honestly they should increase it to $199 to help weed out the app spammers.
There's enough money in app spamming that it would have to be a lot higher than that to put them off.
As a rule the people who act like arseholes have at least as much money as those who don't, I don't think it's going to put them off.
I agree a nominal fee is reasonable as it puts another barrier in their way (you can check for duplicate memberships off the same card for instance so they have to get multiple cards) but the actual financial amount isn't a major barrier I don't think.
As a rule the people who act like arseholes have at least as much money as those who don't, I don't think it's going to put them off.
I agree a nominal fee is reasonable as it puts another barrier in their way (you can check for duplicate memberships off the same card for instance so they have to get multiple cards) but the actual financial amount isn't a major barrier I don't think.
That's a good point. It would help get the beta testers out of the forums though :) Every time a new iOS version starts testing the forums are overrun with people who have x bug and don't understand what beta means. I wish there was a way for Apple to prevent a lot of the App Store spam. I wouldn't be against them becoming more curated (i.e. only apps they deem useful and quality get it). Or have a special section in the store labeled 'crap'.
I'm not sure that charging more is the solution, there's no shortage of people with more money than sense!
I don't see why Apple don't invite the developers of high-ranking iOS apps to an early-access program in order to keep their best apps up to date, and not invite anybody else to the beta.
I don't see why Apple don't invite the developers of high-ranking iOS apps to an early-access program in order to keep their best apps up to date, and not invite anybody else to the beta.
I don't see why Apple don't invite the developers of high-ranking iOS apps to an early-access program in order to keep their best apps up to date, and not invite anybody else to the beta.
Because every publisher, not just the "blessed" ones, has software in the store that could be negatively impacted by a new iOS release's changed APIs. And every publisher has potential use cases for new features Apple adds in a new iOS revision.
Apple ships major iOS releases at the same time as shipping the newest iOS device. They want a customer to unwrap their new device and have free roam of the store to download/buy as much as they can. They want the software to use the new features in iOS and they don't want their customers downloading crap that is broken.
And as a developer who isn't even close to "high-ranking" (My one paid iOS app maybe pulls in $50 on a good month) it's still not fair to me for someone to one-star my app and say "doesn't work on iOS 6" even when I've had no chance to test it before general release.
Because every publisher, not just the "blessed" ones, has software in the store that could be negatively impacted by a new iOS release's changed APIs. And every publisher has potential use cases for new features Apple adds in a new iOS revision.
Apple ships major iOS releases at the same time as shipping the newest iOS device. They want a customer to unwrap their new device and have free roam of the store to download/buy as much as they can. They want the software to use the new features in iOS and they don't want their customers downloading crap that is broken.
And as a developer who isn't even close to "high-ranking" (My one paid iOS app maybe pulls in $50 on a good month) it's still not fair to me for someone to one-star my app and say "doesn't work on iOS 6" even when I've had no chance to test it before general release.
An Apple ID is indeed free. I've had an Apple ID for downloading Xcode for years now. At the moment the only way to get an app signing key is by purchasing a $99 license (which also gets you publishing privileges in the App Store) but it is extremely likely that in the future getting a signing key will be completely free and will not require a $99 license fee. It won't get you App Store submittal and won't get you publishing on the App Store, but I think that is fair.
Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
The computer isn't free either. And you can always build and distribute without the ID or the certificate. This is just for distribution through the App Store or to users that have it set to only allow signed apps.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
"No" to the last question, maybe. On the other hand, it stops tons of malware. Signed binaries is considered one of the most successful anti-malware strategies by security experts. Are you saying otherwise?
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
You present an edge case ("I need to build and distribute my software to OS X users AND I want those users to not only allow signed apps BECAUSE I can't fork $100 dollars for a developer certificate").
If that kind of thing discourages you from "getting to the career of your dreams" what to say about the hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of toil needed to become a doctor, a lawyer, not to mention the hard learning needed to become a professional programmer.
The computer isn't free either. And you can always build and distribute without the ID or the certificate. This is just for distribution through the App Store or to users that have it set to only allow signed apps.
Does this stop malware? Does this stop fraudulent call centers? Does this stop malicious people from telling people to turn it off and then still installing the malware? No.
"No" to the last question, maybe. On the other hand, it stops tons of malware. Signed binaries is considered one of the most successful anti-malware strategies by security experts. Are you saying otherwise?
Does it stop people like me from ever getting to their career of their dreams? Likely.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
You present an edge case ("I need to build and distribute my software to OS X users AND I want those users to not only allow signed apps BECAUSE I can't fork $100 dollars for a developer certificate").
If that kind of thing discourages you from "getting to the career of your dreams" what to say about the hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of toil needed to become a doctor, a lawyer, not to mention the hard learning needed to become a professional programmer.
> On the other hand, it stops tons of malware. Signed binaries is considered one of the most successful anti-malware strategies by security experts. Are you saying otherwise?
As you've decided to pick anonymous security experts, I thought I'd chip in. I don't know if I'd call myself an expert but I've over a decade in industry breaking systems, fixing software and booting out bad guys, I'm speaking at BlackHat EU next month and I co-founded a security conference so I guess that means I'm not a complete security chump. I can categorically tell you that signed binaries are only part of a strategy, and not necessarily the best one at that. If your goal is to increase the cost of exploitation then signing can help, but so can a decent access control model (into which signing becomes a part thereof).
To put it another way, it's possible to defeat applocker (windows binary signing), iOS code signing on iOS 5.0.1, the XBox and Xbox 360's code signing restrictions, the PS3's code signing restrictions, and more recently, an analysis of RSA keys showed that between 2 and 4 out of every thousand keys are insecure due to weak randomness[1].
The bottom line is that code signing, like placebos only work if you believe them to unless they're backed up by something more solid to augment them and they form a stronger coherent strategy.
At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store as they know "it's safe". Even though we know it doesn't mean anything[2] to the end user in reality. The real thing that Apple will do is further on the line when they decide to make it so that you can only run signed apps (and this is at least the direction apple are taking) through their app store.
Your edge case point applies to countless open source developers, including those that worked on the original FreeBSD code that went into Darwin. Apple are of course, under the licences they've inheritied allowed to implement code signing, but please don't think this is an anti-malware measure, it isn't. It's about control of distribution. Anyone that wants to bypass code signing on an Apple product will find a way to do it.
[1] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/crypto_security/ [2] - http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/02/15/what-ios-apps-are-g...
As you've decided to pick anonymous security experts, I thought I'd chip in. I don't know if I'd call myself an expert but I've over a decade in industry breaking systems, fixing software and booting out bad guys, I'm speaking at BlackHat EU next month and I co-founded a security conference so I guess that means I'm not a complete security chump. I can categorically tell you that signed binaries are only part of a strategy, and not necessarily the best one at that. If your goal is to increase the cost of exploitation then signing can help, but so can a decent access control model (into which signing becomes a part thereof).
To put it another way, it's possible to defeat applocker (windows binary signing), iOS code signing on iOS 5.0.1, the XBox and Xbox 360's code signing restrictions, the PS3's code signing restrictions, and more recently, an analysis of RSA keys showed that between 2 and 4 out of every thousand keys are insecure due to weak randomness[1].
The bottom line is that code signing, like placebos only work if you believe them to unless they're backed up by something more solid to augment them and they form a stronger coherent strategy.
At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store as they know "it's safe". Even though we know it doesn't mean anything[2] to the end user in reality. The real thing that Apple will do is further on the line when they decide to make it so that you can only run signed apps (and this is at least the direction apple are taking) through their app store.
Your edge case point applies to countless open source developers, including those that worked on the original FreeBSD code that went into Darwin. Apple are of course, under the licences they've inheritied allowed to implement code signing, but please don't think this is an anti-malware measure, it isn't. It's about control of distribution. Anyone that wants to bypass code signing on an Apple product will find a way to do it.
[1] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/crypto_security/ [2] - http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/02/15/what-ios-apps-are-g...
"code signing […] only work if […] they're backed up by something more solid to augment them and they form a stronger coherent strategy."
You mean things like sandboxing and blacklisting? Or do you think this is not (an attempt at) a coherent strategy?
"At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store"
It also (even if ever so slightly) decreases the attack surface. It is harder to infect executables if the OS checks the hash of the code every time it is run. Finally, it gives Apple a handle for disabling malware, once it has detected it. That will not prevent malware from infecting systems, but it can make it less likely that machines will keep getting infected for years after the time.
You mean things like sandboxing and blacklisting? Or do you think this is not (an attempt at) a coherent strategy?
"At this stage all code signing settings will do is encourage developers to get Apple IDs and for customers to use the App store"
It also (even if ever so slightly) decreases the attack surface. It is harder to infect executables if the OS checks the hash of the code every time it is run. Finally, it gives Apple a handle for disabling malware, once it has detected it. That will not prevent malware from infecting systems, but it can make it less likely that machines will keep getting infected for years after the time.
The computer isn't free either. And you can always build and distribute without the ID or the certificate. This is just for distribution through the App Store or to users that have it set to only allow signed apps.
The latter is the default. So for other people to use this application I wrote as a minor, my users would have to change the setting.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
This would not have stopped me, but imagine what kind of an ego-boost it is for a 15 years old sufferer of heavy bullying due to overall geekyness to see his home-grown application not just be used by other people but actually getting mentioned in paper publications.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Honestly, without that ego boost when it happened, I don't know where I would stand today, if at all.
But this is my story. I have a feeling that I'm losing objectivity here due to heavy emotional involvement. I'll be quiet in this topic from now on and just turn that switch off for myself, hoping that there will be a switch to turn off in the future.
The latter is the default. So for other people to use this application I wrote as a minor, my users would have to change the setting.
Well, if you are that easily discouraged, then maybe that career wasn't really for you, anyway.
This would not have stopped me, but imagine what kind of an ego-boost it is for a 15 years old sufferer of heavy bullying due to overall geekyness to see his home-grown application not just be used by other people but actually getting mentioned in paper publications.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Honestly, without that ego boost when it happened, I don't know where I would stand today, if at all.
But this is my story. I have a feeling that I'm losing objectivity here due to heavy emotional involvement. I'll be quiet in this topic from now on and just turn that switch off for myself, hoping that there will be a switch to turn off in the future.
Users don't even have to change a setting. They Ctrl-click, and select "Open". One time. On the first launch of the unsigned app. And it's done.
The latter is the default. So for other people to use this application I wrote as a minor, my users would have to change the setting.
Yeah, but should users configure their systems to the distribution convenience of some developers?
Or should Apple keep signed apps forever away from OS X for the same reason?
Or should they introduce them, but make unsafe apps the default, and thus render them useless for non security minded people?
All of those options seem a little strange to me.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Yes, but consider some other things:
a) nowadays computers are a dime a dozen and more kids have access to them than ever.
b) nowadays there are tons of compilers, programming environments, most of them given away for free and/or open sourced.
c) nowadays a kid can make a web app and reach millions of people worldwide. There are tons of ways to put it up even for free.
d) nowadays there are even kids making iPhone/iPad/Android apps, and some have reached hundreds of thousands of users.
e) the sound/graphics/processing capabilities of modern machines were unheard of in those times.
f) High Level languages like Python/Ruby/Javascript trump anything available at the old times for kids (mostly stuff like Basic, Logo, etc). Especially in the libraries department.
Yeah, but should users configure their systems to the distribution convenience of some developers?
Or should Apple keep signed apps forever away from OS X for the same reason?
Or should they introduce them, but make unsafe apps the default, and thus render them useless for non security minded people?
All of those options seem a little strange to me.
Nowadays I couldn't even get /permission/ to try because these various developer programs require you to be an adult due to various organizational issues.
Yes, but consider some other things:
a) nowadays computers are a dime a dozen and more kids have access to them than ever.
b) nowadays there are tons of compilers, programming environments, most of them given away for free and/or open sourced.
c) nowadays a kid can make a web app and reach millions of people worldwide. There are tons of ways to put it up even for free.
d) nowadays there are even kids making iPhone/iPad/Android apps, and some have reached hundreds of thousands of users.
e) the sound/graphics/processing capabilities of modern machines were unheard of in those times.
f) High Level languages like Python/Ruby/Javascript trump anything available at the old times for kids (mostly stuff like Basic, Logo, etc). Especially in the libraries department.
>Back then I had no permission to use a computer ("they make you stupid" was my parents argument) and certainly no credit card to pay anybody to do development - and even then, as a minor I would probably never have gotten that certificate.
Yes but things change. Old fart or not, you're into technology, we all have to realize things change!
Yes but things change. Old fart or not, you're into technology, we all have to realize things change!
And he's saying that this change is for the worse. He has made substantive arguments, and you have responded with a useless platitude.
$100 does not stop anyone from realizing their dreams. Teenagers know how to make extra cash. $100 is less than 2 days work at a minimum wage job.
I would much rather have teenagers work to be able to pay $100 to distribute signed applications than make it free for anyone (malware makers) to distribute signed apps.
The trade off isn't even close here. It's free to develop the app, and even distribute it outside of the app store. If you want to go into the app store, you'll need $100, which helps keep software more secure for millions of people.
I would much rather have teenagers work to be able to pay $100 to distribute signed applications than make it free for anyone (malware makers) to distribute signed apps.
The trade off isn't even close here. It's free to develop the app, and even distribute it outside of the app store. If you want to go into the app store, you'll need $100, which helps keep software more secure for millions of people.
Some teenagers cannot legally work.
Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware.
Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs?
I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling.
I wonder how difficult it will be to get developer IDs. Might be a market for them.
Will be fun to uninstall a developers software from every machine by stealing his cert, releasing some malware signed with it, and then waiting for Apple to push out a revocation cert.
Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs?
I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling.
I wonder how difficult it will be to get developer IDs. Might be a market for them.
Will be fun to uninstall a developers software from every machine by stealing his cert, releasing some malware signed with it, and then waiting for Apple to push out a revocation cert.
>Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware.
Or, the signing key will be stolen, like it always is.
I'd wager that blackhats around the world are currently tendering to cartels for this contract as we speak.
Or, the signing key will be stolen, like it always is.
I'd wager that blackhats around the world are currently tendering to cartels for this contract as we speak.
Neither of these will work, because (a) the signing key is per-developer and (b) the entire point is that when your malware is found to be signed with key X, key X is revoked and your software no longer runs. That's the purpose of the system...
He's referring to the master key, which will be used to sign the per developer signing keys. If that is stolen, then it will be possible to sign arbitrary signing keys and issue arbitrary revocation certificates.
>He's referring to the master key
Yeah, that.
Yeah, that.
[deleted]
So the signing key for $COMPANY will now be worth money for extorsion.
And is, again, instantly revokable. It'll be annoying if it's stolen, but you just revoke it, give the company the new one, and update the app in the app store (or your download, if you're not in the store). This is arguably far better than being unknowingly hit by malware.
If you are worried about that then just allow apps from the Mac App store? For many people that will be a good choice.
Malware writers will just get free ids and sign their malware. Will all of these OSX devices be regularly polling Apple to get a list of revoked certs?
Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was:
a) a trojan (you had to install it yourself)
and
b) only affected like 10 users
Yes, the first problem will be to create some malware from OS X first. You know, the biggest success so far had been that Mac Defender, that was:
a) a trojan (you had to install it yourself)
and
b) only affected like 10 users
Depending what you call malware - some people feel that an application which silently uploads your address book is functionally equivalent, and there have been plenty of these available on all platforms.
I discovered where your confusion came from:
"I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling."
You mistakenly read that as if I wasn't talking about malware that exists today. No. There are two situations:
"I guess this would be useful to prevent malware being installed, but it's not going to be massively useful to remove already installed malware. Especially if that malware can interrupt the polling."
You mistakenly read that as if I wasn't talking about malware that exists today. No. There are two situations:
1.) revocation cert issued before malware installed
2.) malware installed before revocation cert issued
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?
The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are signed first. Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
EDIT: After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
The current app eco-system doesn't allow them to just switch off the ability for people to install arbitrary apps. They need to get themselves into a situation where the vast majority of apps are signed first. Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
EDIT: After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
> If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this?
Presumably, in order to keep the problem small. If OS X grows in marketshare, it will become an increasingly attractive target for malware developers. If the default is that the majority of Apple users only run signed applications (this also means that the certificate wasn't revoked), then the number of possible "users" for your malware is greatly reduced, making OS X a much less attractive target platform for malware developers.
> After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
If you are a legitimate developer, then there's no reason not to (assuming it actually is free and easy, which isn't clear). As a malware developer, there's little point; as soon as the developer ID is being used for malware, Apple will revoke the corresponding certificate, and your malware won't run.
Presumably, in order to keep the problem small. If OS X grows in marketshare, it will become an increasingly attractive target for malware developers. If the default is that the majority of Apple users only run signed applications (this also means that the certificate wasn't revoked), then the number of possible "users" for your malware is greatly reduced, making OS X a much less attractive target platform for malware developers.
> After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?
If you are a legitimate developer, then there's no reason not to (assuming it actually is free and easy, which isn't clear). As a malware developer, there's little point; as soon as the developer ID is being used for malware, Apple will revoke the corresponding certificate, and your malware won't run.
They don’t want to be forced to play catch up like Microsoft had to. It’s not that hard to figure out.
[deleted]
> If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this?
Because they're not thinking about their current problems, they're thinking about their upcoming problems.
Because they're not thinking about their current problems, they're thinking about their upcoming problems.
If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?
I don't understand the question. Apple has been improving OS X security mechanisms in every OS X update. From "address space layout randomization" to the "first run warning". This is another step in the same direction.
Are you implying that Apple should only do something about OS X security AFTER malware on OS X get's to be a problem? Because, I'd rather they do it BEFORE.
And I fail to see how pro-actively making an OS more secure is "security theater".
Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
Of course. I miss the irony here. Signed applications are touted by security experts as a highly successful security measure. Are you suggesting it is otherwise or are you just confusing the potential of misuse of that feature with that feature being meaningless?
* After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?*
Yeah, why? Surely not for the $100 it takes.
SSL certificates cost money too, but I don't see anybody suggesting running your web app in plain HTTP is better, or that paid certificates hamper secure web application development.
I don't understand the question. Apple has been improving OS X security mechanisms in every OS X update. From "address space layout randomization" to the "first run warning". This is another step in the same direction.
Are you implying that Apple should only do something about OS X security AFTER malware on OS X get's to be a problem? Because, I'd rather they do it BEFORE.
And I fail to see how pro-actively making an OS more secure is "security theater".
Then it will be a lot easier for them to require apps to be signed. For your own protection of course.
Of course. I miss the irony here. Signed applications are touted by security experts as a highly successful security measure. Are you suggesting it is otherwise or are you just confusing the potential of misuse of that feature with that feature being meaningless?
* After all, if developer IDs are so easy and free to get, and will make it easier for people to install your app. Why wouldn't you get it signed?*
Yeah, why? Surely not for the $100 it takes.
SSL certificates cost money too, but I don't see anybody suggesting running your web app in plain HTTP is better, or that paid certificates hamper secure web application development.
I stated what malware writers will do.
You then replied by being sarcastic about how malware isn't really a problem.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
Now you're ranting about how malware could become a problem as if this is somehow news to me.
I'm sure you had a point.
You then replied by being sarcastic about how malware isn't really a problem.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
Now you're ranting about how malware could become a problem as if this is somehow news to me.
I'm sure you had a point.
I stated what malware writers will do.
No, you stated what you THINK they will do.
For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem.
Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?
Third, even if they somehow get through the second caveat above, revocation would just be a step away.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
No, you said that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
As if defending against POSSIBLE FUTURE malware is a "security theater" or a strange notion.
No, you stated what you THINK they will do.
For one, most Macs are updated very often, what with Software Update and Mac Store updates. So updating a black list of applications wouldn't be a problem.
Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?
Third, even if they somehow get through the second caveat above, revocation would just be a step away.
I then asked a rhetorical question about why would they be doing this if not to defend against malware.
No, you said that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
As if defending against POSSIBLE FUTURE malware is a "security theater" or a strange notion.
"No, you stated what you THINK they will do."
I didn't think I would have to point out that I'm not psychic, and that it was only an opinion/prediction. I will try to be more clear in future.
"Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?"
Sorry. I forgot that identity theft was impossible, and not rampant and easy and used as a matter of course by malware authors.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
I didn't think I would have to point out that I'm not psychic, and that it was only an opinion/prediction. I will try to be more clear in future.
"Second, they cannot just get a certificate, because they will have to interact with Apple and the developer program. You know many malware writers that want to give their details away?"
Sorry. I forgot that identity theft was impossible, and not rampant and easy and used as a matter of course by malware authors.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
The last three lines of your comment are complete nonsense. You have failed to parse and understand what I wrote.
Yeah, because it is so off base, right, you writing:
"If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?"
And me translating the above as you saying that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
Yeah, because it is so off base, right, you writing:
"If malware on OSX is as small a problem as you're suggesting, why is Apple bothering with any of this? Is it to wrestle further control of the app eco-system on OSX? Or is it just security theatre? Or both? Something else?"
And me translating the above as you saying that if they don't do it to defend against ALREADY EXISTING malware then it's either a security theater or a mystery to you why they'd do it.
I was attempting to prompt you into retracting your ridiculous statement about malware not being a problem. I wish I hadn't bothered now. I'll leave you to it.
I was attempting to prompt you into retracting your ridiculous statement about malware not being a problem.
Ridiculous how?
It's perfectly valid, as in: VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FEW OS X users ever had problems with malware. Less that what would be statistical noise. On top of it, all the cases of OS X malware, had been trojans. So, 99.9999% got scratch free, despite not even running any antivirus or anything.
So, an ACTUAL, EXISTING problem, it is NOT.
Now, a POSSIBLE, FUTURE problem, yeah, it can be.
Ridiculous how?
It's perfectly valid, as in: VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY FEW OS X users ever had problems with malware. Less that what would be statistical noise. On top of it, all the cases of OS X malware, had been trojans. So, 99.9999% got scratch free, despite not even running any antivirus or anything.
So, an ACTUAL, EXISTING problem, it is NOT.
Now, a POSSIBLE, FUTURE problem, yeah, it can be.
You thought I was talking about malware that exists today. I wasn't. That's why your response made no sense. I was talking about in the future, when malware is installed before revocation certificates are pushed out.
This is why it looked like you were the one that was ignoring the future likelihood of malware on OSX, not me.
Go back to your first comment in this thread, and look at my most recent response to it. Then read my original comment. The problem here is that you simply misunderstood my initial comment, and replied to something which I did not say.
This is why it looked like you were the one that was ignoring the future likelihood of malware on OSX, not me.
Go back to your first comment in this thread, and look at my most recent response to it. Then read my original comment. The problem here is that you simply misunderstood my initial comment, and replied to something which I did not say.
[deleted]
Read what Gruber writes about that Gatekeep feature:
Read what the world's biggest Mac-shill has to say to defend the world's least open company and biggest patent-troll?
Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll go for something open and free, and you wont get anything like that out of Cupertino.
Read what the world's biggest Mac-shill has to say to defend the world's least open company and biggest patent-troll?
Thanks, but no thanks.
I'll go for something open and free, and you wont get anything like that out of Cupertino.
>you wont get anything like that out of Cupertino.
You do know the core OS, Darwin[0], is open source? See also http://opensource.apple.com/ You may have even heard of a little rendering engine named WebKit that Apple helped create.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
You do know the core OS, Darwin[0], is open source? See also http://opensource.apple.com/ You may have even heard of a little rendering engine named WebKit that Apple helped create.
[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)
I'm wondering if Apple have described the circumstances, apart from the malware scenario, in which they would revoke a developer ID and the associated signing certificate?
Also, do users get the choice to accept a certificate revocation?
Also, do users get the choice to accept a certificate revocation?
It preserves the freedom for developers to ship whatever they want, though I wouldn't say it benefits them.
But it's within the realm of possibility for Apple to start refusing support to users who disable GateKeeper. I would disable it anyway, but how many other users would?
But it's within the realm of possibility for Apple to start refusing support to users who disable GateKeeper. I would disable it anyway, but how many other users would?
That middle option, the default, is Developer Signed applications. Apple keeps the keyring and can torch the developer's key if they go rogue, but the developer does the signing.
The model essentially matches Debian package distribution.
(And as mentioned by oomkiller, this won't go down to unix, it is just the "application" launching.)
Edit: pilaf's reply got down voted into oblivion. What he suggests is flawed because applications are not in your PATH. But in the spirit, your application could write malware into somewhere on the PATH, and could find an exploit to get the setuid bit turned on. As soon as someone realizes this, Apple should kill your signing key thereby blocking the distribution vector. It will not help in cleaning up the mess. The victim is still looking at an "erase disk, reinstall, restore backup DATA ONLY!" recovery as they should anytime they lose control of a machine.
The model essentially matches Debian package distribution.
(And as mentioned by oomkiller, this won't go down to unix, it is just the "application" launching.)
Edit: pilaf's reply got down voted into oblivion. What he suggests is flawed because applications are not in your PATH. But in the spirit, your application could write malware into somewhere on the PATH, and could find an exploit to get the setuid bit turned on. As soon as someone realizes this, Apple should kill your signing key thereby blocking the distribution vector. It will not help in cleaning up the mess. The victim is still looking at an "erase disk, reinstall, restore backup DATA ONLY!" recovery as they should anytime they lose control of a machine.
So I call my malware 'ls', set it to suid root and have my victims double click that? Fine. Thanks.
This is a scary preview of Apple's vision of desktop computing (which we all anticipated with the App Store being brought over from the iPhone world to the desktop):
The safest place to find apps for your Mac is the Mac App Store. That’s because the developers who create them are known to Apple, and the apps are carefully reviewed before they’re accepted in the store.
As I've had no reason to upgrade my home PC from 10.6 to 10.7, EOL for 10.6 will probably be when I ditch the Mac and just dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's really amazing how much Apple has changed since the pre-OSX days.
The safest place to find apps for your Mac is the Mac App Store. That’s because the developers who create them are known to Apple, and the apps are carefully reviewed before they’re accepted in the store.
As I've had no reason to upgrade my home PC from 10.6 to 10.7, EOL for 10.6 will probably be when I ditch the Mac and just dual-boot Linux and Windows. It's really amazing how much Apple has changed since the pre-OSX days.
I hope you realize that Debian and Ubuntu and most of the large distros already have this: Known, vetted packages, signed and trusted, distributed through a central database. Frankly, I think it's a great idea. People in general shouldn't be downloading and executing random binaries on their machines. I think it would be great if the major distros also refused to install unsigned binaries without explicitly being told to allow it.
With Debian and Ubuntu, there is no difficulty installing arbitrary unsigned packages, putting your own binaries on and running them, etc. There is a source that the community recommends, but that's all it is -- a recommendation.
That's not the case with OSX, as far as I can tell.
That's not the case with OSX, as far as I can tell.
> With Debian and Ubuntu, there is no difficulty installing arbitrary unsigned packages, putting your own binaries on and running them, etc.
Changing a single setting in the Preferences app (once!) is "difficult" now?
Changing a single setting in the Preferences app (once!) is "difficult" now?
I actually think that the distros should be more aggressive about this, and do what OSX seems to be doing: Don't allow unsigned packages to be installed without a flipped switch. Why? Because anyone who can't figure out how to flip that switch shouldn't be installing unsigned binaries, in my opinion.
In regards to OSX, the argument seems to be that this is a step towards not even having the switch there, and yes, they may be headed that way which is unfortunate. I think that's a mistake that would end up biting them if they tried it, but maybe I'm naive. I still think being more aggressive in only allowing signed binaries by default is a good approach, even for open source systems.
In regards to OSX, the argument seems to be that this is a step towards not even having the switch there, and yes, they may be headed that way which is unfortunate. I think that's a mistake that would end up biting them if they tried it, but maybe I'm naive. I still think being more aggressive in only allowing signed binaries by default is a good approach, even for open source systems.
I don't think that's a very good comparison. A project in the Mac world begins and ends its life as a .app. This effort by Apple means that the vast majority of users will only see "approved" software. In the Linux world, most software begins as a .tgz, and earns packagers as it becomes more popular.
There are only a few things really keeping a package out of the main Debain repositories: Being "non-free" (which takes it out of "main"), being clearly malicious, and not attracting enough interest to have a maintainer/packager.
I think we've seen with the iPhone that Apple has very, very different criteria. Further, Debian hosts something in the ballpark of 20,000 packages: I seriously doubt we'll ever see such diversity for the Mac, especially with their developer fees.
The other force driving me away is their refusal to accept GPL3 software. I don't like having to build things myself that every Linux distribution provides so easily.
There are only a few things really keeping a package out of the main Debain repositories: Being "non-free" (which takes it out of "main"), being clearly malicious, and not attracting enough interest to have a maintainer/packager.
I think we've seen with the iPhone that Apple has very, very different criteria. Further, Debian hosts something in the ballpark of 20,000 packages: I seriously doubt we'll ever see such diversity for the Mac, especially with their developer fees.
The other force driving me away is their refusal to accept GPL3 software. I don't like having to build things myself that every Linux distribution provides so easily.
Well, it's down to who decides that an app is trustworthy. In the open source world, this is done through vetting by the community, whereas in Apple's case they can afford to hire people to do it. I agree that the community approach is likely to be better, but I don't think the Apple approach is inherently evil, just inefficient.
The stated goals of Apple for gatekeeping apps are practically the same as signing packages in the distros: To protect unwary users from installing malicious or broken applications. I think that's a worthy goal.
The stated goals of Apple for gatekeeping apps are practically the same as signing packages in the distros: To protect unwary users from installing malicious or broken applications. I think that's a worthy goal.
> In the Linux world, most software begins as a .tgz, and earns packagers as it becomes more popular.
But _normal_ users, that is not-very-technical people using Linux as a desktop, _never_ see that tgz. They wouldn't even know how to install it.
But _normal_ users, that is not-very-technical people using Linux as a desktop, _never_ see that tgz. They wouldn't even know how to install it.
In Debian and Ubuntu, i can easily add new signing keys for individual people. This way I can ensure all software distributed by ubuntu and from $PERSON is accepted. Can you do likewise with new OSX?
the apps are carefully reviewed
Carefully reviewed to ensure they don't upload your whole address book.
Carefully reviewed to ensure they don't upload your whole address book.
For some reason I doubt that this runs all the way down to the UNIX level of things. It's probably just the restriction to only run signed .app bundles, and maybe signed installer packages. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Will someone from Canonical team up with someone like Samsung to create a kick-ass, no hassle Linux laptop with a decent battery life? I've got money I'm dying to give you!
2012 will be the year for Linux on the desktop!
Apple has a top dog and a few bosses. Who exactly will co-ordinate 1,000 OSS projects to give you a hassle free experience?
There ARE ways to make a kick-ass, no hassle Linux OS, even better than OS X and more open (and still open source).
But all of them involve throwing top dollar into it, starting a few projects from scratch, forking a few existing ones and stoping the bazaar-style, design by committee, approach. You should only rely on upstream bazaar-style approach for the userland (like OS X does) and server backend stuff, not for visible UI, no core components, no libraries.
Canonical, and all other Linux companies, always just wanted to act like integrators, instead of creators. Except maybe in a few select areas.
There ARE ways to make a kick-ass, no hassle Linux OS, even better than OS X and more open (and still open source).
But all of them involve throwing top dollar into it, starting a few projects from scratch, forking a few existing ones and stoping the bazaar-style, design by committee, approach. You should only rely on upstream bazaar-style approach for the userland (like OS X does) and server backend stuff, not for visible UI, no core components, no libraries.
Canonical, and all other Linux companies, always just wanted to act like integrators, instead of creators. Except maybe in a few select areas.
As a developer and anti-corporatist I think this is a thread to our freedom and will eventually result in the MacAppStore being a giant rip-off for developers.
However, as a son of parents who don't understand the difference between their Apple account and their Google account and call him because a webpage tells them that they have a virus and should download some shady program right now, I can appreciate this security measure.
Nothing surprised me nearly as much as Gatekeeper. A middle ground for security, rather than attempting to further sweep every developer into the App Store? It's impressive to see Apple pursuing a pragmatic balancing act instead of simply staying a course of consolidation.
I wish anything that uses Growl can use notifications out of the box. it's just not going to happen is it?
I hope it'll be a free update.
You mean like how every other update was free?
It will cost $29
It will cost $29
Yes, with the difference that the other OS X updates were not just a bunch of iOS Apps ported to the Mac, that why I paid for them and that's why if Mountain Lion is release with a price tag over $0 I'll keep using Lion (and hopefully this will incentivize Apple to make a real OS X update somewhere in 2013-2014).
He meant like every iOS updates were free.
It will be free
I hope it'll be $29, because that's near enough to free, and I like the idea that Apple has a financial incentive to continue supporting their existing customers.
Then I will keep using Lion in hope they release a real OS X update sometime in the future for which I would pay play gladly as I've been doing with all the previous updated, because right now Mountain Lion is just a bunch of iOS Apps ported to OS X.
I'm sorry, but IMO the value of this update is $0.
I'm sorry, but IMO the value of this update is $0.
"Real" updates used to cost $130. Now we get a couple updates for $30. In the long run, you're likely paying less for new features than you used to.
[deleted](2)
I'm not sure if this matters or not, but the submitted title calls it "Mac OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion", and 10.8 is indeed the version number I would expect; yet this number is nowhere to be found, neither on Apple's page nor in Gruber's announcement. Instead, it's just called "OS X Mountain Lion" everywhere. I wonder if they dropped the version number, or are downplaying it? But for what reason?
I saw a screenshot of the "About This Mac" screen that displayed 10.8 as the version number. I believe it was on the TechCrunch article.
This is the article your talking about:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/os-x-mountain-lion/
But they've already had a "Puma" release. Will "Cougar" be next?
Side note: panthers are technically black leopards or jaguars.
Side note: panthers are technically black leopards or jaguars.
But where is the Mac Touch hardware ? you could see for a while where touch was it and we have these nice laptops and big iMac displays but we will use a mouse ?! I really want my next imac to be a docking station with a tear away tablet
Windows 8 is definately banking having this sort of hardware in laptops and displays being available. You dont do Metro on the desktop unless you think that kind of hardware will be available in some form at launch. Metro with a mouse is hideous, even for Microsoft...
Windows 8 is definately banking having this sort of hardware in laptops and displays being available. You dont do Metro on the desktop unless you think that kind of hardware will be available in some form at launch. Metro with a mouse is hideous, even for Microsoft...
You'd have to either make your operating system work very well with both touch and mouse/trackpad/keyboard (very difficult), treat touch as a gimmick (as with those Windows 7 HP iMac-like things with touch screens), or make touch (which is ergonomically highly problematic on anything but a smallish tablet) the first-class citizen.
I don't think the technology exists to make large tablets ergonomically feasible. In order for the tablet portion to be light enough to casually pick up and carry around, it would have to be not much larger than an iPad, which is to say, less than half the smallest reasonable screen size for a desktop.
-I'd probably pay $30 for the Airplay feature alone.
-I don't know how Apple thinks they can push these web-enabled apps that only work on their platforms. A chat app that basically only lets you interact with Apple customers is kind of comical.
-Gatekeeper won't win over any Apple critics, but it's actually more flexible/open than what a lot of people feared was coming (ie "App Store apps only").
-Notifications and system-wide share buttons are nice touches. I wonder if the share button will be limited to a few Apple-approved services.
A chat app that basically only lets you interact with Apple customers is kind of comical. – would be. Thankfully you probably know people with AIM, XMPP, or SMS chat identities. And iChat works with those too.
From the official Apple pages: Messages supports iMessage and instant messaging services such as AIM, Jabber, Google Talk, and Yahoo! Messenger.
From the official Apple pages: Messages supports iMessage and instant messaging services such as AIM, Jabber, Google Talk, and Yahoo! Messenger.
Related to this, all my friends and family are already using an Apple product (referring to either iPhone, iPad or a Mac, or all inclusive). Really, everyone I know is. A chat app (and any other) that let me interact with them is perfect.
"A chat app that basically only lets you interact with Apple customers is kind of comical"
Ehm, it's iChat linked to iMessage. It still supports chatting over gmail, yahoo etc.
Ehm, it's iChat linked to iMessage. It still supports chatting over gmail, yahoo etc.
You can get the Messages application in beta form here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/messages-beta/
[deleted](5)
Expectedly, but somewhat of a bummer, it requires Lion :(
How is the iCloud focus going to effect corporate adoption? If you are a large company can you host your own iCloud service on company resources? Does/will apple provide a sas70 for big corporate users?
"OS X Mountain Lion arrives this summer. With all-new features inspired by iPad, the Mac just keeps getting better and better."
Am I the only person that doesn't want an ipad on the desktop?
Am I the only person that doesn't want an ipad on the desktop?
No, no one wants that (I hope). Read the Gruber preview and you'll feel more at ease. OS X and iOS are not merging. He describes Mountain Lion as "a series of steps toward defining a set of shared concepts, styles, and principles between two fundamentally distinct OSes."
http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/mountain_lion
http://daringfireball.net/2012/02/mountain_lion
I asked a few friends and couldn't get an answer. What features have been taken from OSX and put into iOS?
It seems to me that contrary to Gruber's claim, OSX is moving towards iOS and iOS is moving towards its competition.
It seems to me that contrary to Gruber's claim, OSX is moving towards iOS and iOS is moving towards its competition.
What features have been taken from OSX and put into iOS?
Oh, not much--just the whole kernel, userland, graphics layer, and half of the Cocoa API.
EDIT: Also, Spotlight.
Oh, not much--just the whole kernel, userland, graphics layer, and half of the Cocoa API.
EDIT: Also, Spotlight.
Features, not specs.
OS X Safari tabs were added to the iPad version of Safari in iOS 5.
Most of the rest of the features that people are listing don't seem right, like both iOS and OS X have a search called Spotlight but they aren't very similar in UI.
Most of the rest of the features that people are listing don't seem right, like both iOS and OS X have a search called Spotlight but they aren't very similar in UI.
The ports of iWork and GarageBand felt like that to me. iOS changing from a web-driven OS into something that can be much better compared to a desktop machine.
This strikes me as more of a transition period. Eventually mac sales will be controlled completely via the app store and its highly structured sand boxed environment. Gatekeeper allows runtime control. Icloud replaces the local file system. The style guide moves to the ipad side. And in a few years the mac just fades away...
I read the Gruber article too and I'm not totally at ease yet. In terms or UI I don't mind the new look of things but I do worry about things like iCloud. It's a really excellent idea but I'm not sure if I want my file system in the cloud. Not for security but just for control. I've been in love with the Mac for over five years now and I'm starting to worry. What if I want a different cloud file system other than iCloud? What if I want no cloud file system? Sure, right now it's no problem but what about the future?
It's no secret that Apple is basically creating a hardware software empire where everything from the physical computer to the peripherals to the software and even web services are all Apple. I've been fine with that because the Mac never tried to force things on me. I've always had the option to use a different email client, Dropbox, music player, etc. without any trouble but I'm afraid Apple will move OS X in the direction of Windows where the OS assumes you're going to use its preferred software and services and if you don't it either makes it a hassle to use alternatives or it continuously throws up those annoying notifications.
All that aside, I'm most afraid for how friendly it will be to developers. Snow Leopard was the last OS X that was perfect for me as a developer. In Lion I have to deal with things like LLVM as the default compiler outdated command line tools, some Ruby gems give me problems, the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I know that developers and power users are in the minority and that for average folks who are all about media and entertainment with a little work thrown in Mountain Lion will be aweso,e out of the box. I'm glad they're making such an awesome system for those people but I feel like they're leaving developers out and not even giving us a way to switch off some of those default behaviors.
I'm only 25 but I feel like I sound like the old guy who thinks things were better "back in the old days". Maybe I am just resisting a good thing and I hope I learn to love it.
It's no secret that Apple is basically creating a hardware software empire where everything from the physical computer to the peripherals to the software and even web services are all Apple. I've been fine with that because the Mac never tried to force things on me. I've always had the option to use a different email client, Dropbox, music player, etc. without any trouble but I'm afraid Apple will move OS X in the direction of Windows where the OS assumes you're going to use its preferred software and services and if you don't it either makes it a hassle to use alternatives or it continuously throws up those annoying notifications.
All that aside, I'm most afraid for how friendly it will be to developers. Snow Leopard was the last OS X that was perfect for me as a developer. In Lion I have to deal with things like LLVM as the default compiler outdated command line tools, some Ruby gems give me problems, the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I know that developers and power users are in the minority and that for average folks who are all about media and entertainment with a little work thrown in Mountain Lion will be aweso,e out of the box. I'm glad they're making such an awesome system for those people but I feel like they're leaving developers out and not even giving us a way to switch off some of those default behaviors.
I'm only 25 but I feel like I sound like the old guy who thinks things were better "back in the old days". Maybe I am just resisting a good thing and I hope I learn to love it.
I believe your concerns are completely warranted. Lion was a a significant step in the wrong direction, and this sounds like an enthusiastic leap along the same unfortunate lines.
Sort of tangental, but I know the command line tools are not GNU but are they otherwise outdated? I used to install various GNU coreutils packages but decided they weren't really adding anything and in some cases (ls) they were removing functionality.
> the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I don't believe that is true, unless you're having problems with a specific editor?
> the system won't allow you to save hidden files (i.e. ".htaccess") and the list goes on.
I don't believe that is true, unless you're having problems with a specific editor?
Open Xcode 4.4 (just works with Mountain Lion), go to preferences -> downloads, and install the new command line tools.
You're not. The continuing IOSification of OSX is something that has been bugging me too and part of why, to date, I've yet to upgrade to Lion. It looks like Apple wants to create a more iOS-like approach across all its products, which is fine if you buy into the whole ecosystem.
It also seems there's a trend here, with Apple bringing iOS increasingly into OSX and Microsoft bringing Windows Phone into Windows 8, the only operating systems which still are aimed primarily at computer users are Unix or Linux based.
It also seems there's a trend here, with Apple bringing iOS increasingly into OSX and Microsoft bringing Windows Phone into Windows 8, the only operating systems which still are aimed primarily at computer users are Unix or Linux based.
At the end of the day, the Mac is still the developer platform for iOS Apple has been really good to Mac developers, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon (it is totally against their interest in having a great apps ecosystem on iOS).
Lion is great. Swiping between full-screen desktops is a huge productivity boost. Touchpad gestures instead of hotkeys to bring up Expose is awesome. Yes it's iOS-ified, but it takes the good things from iOS that fit naturally with the touchpad.
At the same time, the UNIX guts of OS X keep getting better. Grand Central is an awesome API that you can use from C. 64-bit support is almost seamless. You can swipe just fine between full-screen terminal windows. Xcode keeps getting less shitty, LLVM and LLDB keep getting better. Objective-C keeps seeing feature and performance improvements. The API's keep being improved.
People are afraid that the gains for iOS means losses for OS X, but all I've seen so far are gains for OS X, largely focused on revamping the UI to take full advantage of the multi-touch capabilities of modern Mac hardware.
Lion is great. Swiping between full-screen desktops is a huge productivity boost. Touchpad gestures instead of hotkeys to bring up Expose is awesome. Yes it's iOS-ified, but it takes the good things from iOS that fit naturally with the touchpad.
At the same time, the UNIX guts of OS X keep getting better. Grand Central is an awesome API that you can use from C. 64-bit support is almost seamless. You can swipe just fine between full-screen terminal windows. Xcode keeps getting less shitty, LLVM and LLDB keep getting better. Objective-C keeps seeing feature and performance improvements. The API's keep being improved.
People are afraid that the gains for iOS means losses for OS X, but all I've seen so far are gains for OS X, largely focused on revamping the UI to take full advantage of the multi-touch capabilities of modern Mac hardware.
> "Xcode keeps getting less shitty"
Are you kidding? XCode 4 is one of the most unstable pieces of software that Apple has ever released. It crashes all the time and is borderline unacceptable as an IDE.
Check out: https://twitter.com/search/realtime/xcode%20crash
Are you kidding? XCode 4 is one of the most unstable pieces of software that Apple has ever released. It crashes all the time and is borderline unacceptable as an IDE.
Check out: https://twitter.com/search/realtime/xcode%20crash
I have yet to use Lion, so I cannot comment if the iOS metaphor suits the personal computer, but I am all for the vendors trying something new. The desktop metaphor has been used for multiple decades now, with very little variation. While it has proven to work well, is it the best we can do, or are we stuck with baby duck syndrome?
98% of the time for me at least Lion remains near identical to previous OS X versions from a UI perspective (with the exception of full screen which was just a glaring omission from all previous version IMHO).
The "Back to the Mac" line might be good marketing but massive over sell if viewed as literal truth. What they did was identify a few holes in the UI (for instance that you might not have every application you wanted in your dock but that going through your applications folder was a pain) and fill them with iOS-ish solutions.
But if you don't want them, you don't use them, they've not taken any of the old stuff away.
The "Back to the Mac" line might be good marketing but massive over sell if viewed as literal truth. What they did was identify a few holes in the UI (for instance that you might not have every application you wanted in your dock but that going through your applications folder was a pain) and fill them with iOS-ish solutions.
But if you don't want them, you don't use them, they've not taken any of the old stuff away.
Why in the hell would navigating a bunch of sequential screens full of huge icons be less of a pain than an applications folder? Thank god for application launchers in any case.
And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows. This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows. This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
> Why in the hell would navigating a bunch of sequential screens full of huge icons be less of a pain than an applications folder? Thank god for application launchers in any case.
Because you can organise them, group related stuff together and so on as opposed to having a single long list. I admit that I don't really use it (I prefer stacks in the dock) but it's better than the application folder.
> And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows.
Fair enough, I didn't really use Spaces previously so I'd not noticed the changes, though I'm not sure what you mean about the fade in. Mine transitions very quickly between spaces with no fade in.
> This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
Can you explain this? Simple and intuitive are good. How is that stupid.
Because you can organise them, group related stuff together and so on as opposed to having a single long list. I admit that I don't really use it (I prefer stacks in the dock) but it's better than the application folder.
> And they did screw with the old ui stuff in Lion. For example, they completely fucked up Spaces when they merged everything into Mission Control. It now takes twice as long to move between spaces; you're treated to a stupid iOS-style "fade in" animation, wasting even more of your time; the steps to move a window between spaces is now more complicated; and they removed rows. Why? I assume they wanted to make it look exactly the way it does on iOS, where you just have a horizontal series of windows.
Fair enough, I didn't really use Spaces previously so I'd not noticed the changes, though I'm not sure what you mean about the fade in. Mine transitions very quickly between spaces with no fade in.
> This is simple and intuitive. It's also stupid as hell.
Can you explain this? Simple and intuitive are good. How is that stupid.
This worries me too, and I hope it doesn't go too far. However I am using Lion and in general I don't really notice it in this OS.
In fact, other than the reverse scrolling behaviour (which would be easy to revert if I cared) I rarely notice any difference in behaviour between my Lion laptop and my girlfriend's Snow Leopard laptop.
In fact, other than the reverse scrolling behaviour (which would be easy to revert if I cared) I rarely notice any difference in behaviour between my Lion laptop and my girlfriend's Snow Leopard laptop.
the good thing is you can always use Windows or Linux.
"Inspired by" doesn't mean "equal to"... I don't see any evidence that those features turn your mac into an ipad.
Last time they took inspiration from iOS we ended up with "Launchpad", an inverted scroll-wheel, and the god-awful "restart all applications after reboot"-nuisance that cannot be fully disabled.
Thanks but no thanks.
Thanks but no thanks.
You like restoring all your applications by hand every time you have to run Software Update?
Yes, because then they don't all start at once, fight for RAM and swap around while leaving my computer a useless lagging mess when I just want to open a browser. It's probably okay in some cases, but it shouldn't be the default. Instead of prompting before shutdown, it could display a dialog on boot with a list of applications that had been running. Click on one to restore it, and have a "Restore All" option at the bottom.
I'm a huge fan of the inverted scrolling, though.
I'm a huge fan of the inverted scrolling, though.
I noticed on my old MacBook there was a considerable delay relaunching apps, but with my new one, between more RAM and the SSD it's pretty instantaneous, as is the restart itself. I was always careful about quitting apps to free up RAM on the old machine though, but just relaunching Chrome and bringing all my tabs back up was enough to do the same thing.
Honestly, yes.
This is a much smaller burden to me than having to wait for OSX to launch all sorts of random apps after every single reboot. Most of which I simply close right away anyway because there's no point in having them clutter my screen until I actually need them again.
This is a much smaller burden to me than having to wait for OSX to launch all sorts of random apps after every single reboot. Most of which I simply close right away anyway because there's no point in having them clutter my screen until I actually need them again.
I reboot because I want a clean slate. Otherwise, I put the machine to sleep.
Or when you need to restart the machine because of a low-level software update... or because something has gone wrong with the software or the hardware.
Interesting. When I want to quit applications, I quit applications. When I'm done running the machine for awhile, I sleep it. I only ever reboot because of software update anymore.
Well, to add insult to injury, resume plain out doesn't work as soon as you leave the beaten path ever so slightly.
I.e. I really don't need iTerm to resume because it can't restore my sessions anyway. And even most regular apps fail to resume for me because almost all of my files are on a network share that OSX fails to auto-mount.
I.e. I really don't need iTerm to resume because it can't restore my sessions anyway. And even most regular apps fail to resume for me because almost all of my files are on a network share that OSX fails to auto-mount.
There are better solutions than restarting applications in that case -- specifically, c/r solutions aren't too hard, and require no work from app developers to support.
I would love it if it restored things to the proper desktop. When it actually matters (i.e.: you have multiple desktops setup with different browsers for different purposes, making re-opening them all in the proper place a pain) it is useless.
When I restart an operating system, I expect it to do exactly that: bring my system back up in a state where nothing except the core os is running.
For the record, neither the iPhone nor the iPad restarts applications after reboot; the only applications that are started when the device boots are MobilePhone, sometimes MobileMail, and any app marked with "run in the background" permissions that explicitly request it for scenarios such as VoIP (e.g. Skype, so it can sign in to the service on boot).
You can effectively disable the restart all applications behaviour by doing this: http://osxdaily.com/2011/08/25/disable-reopen-windows-when-l...
It would be nice if there was a proper system preference though.
It would be nice if there was a proper system preference though.
Launchpad is great and the scrolling behavior makes total sense. We also got fullscreen mode, which is the first multiple desktop like thing I've ever gotten used to using (even after years of using Linux, where I could never make use of virtual desktops because I couldn't remember what windows had gone where). The iPad-inspired improvements in Lion were probably the biggest jump in my desktop productivity since I got a Mac to begin with (around 10.4).
I bought my first mac this fall. I can honestly say I love Launchpad and the inverted scroll wheel. Don't be afraid of a lil change.
It's not change but in the case of Launchpad poor implementation. No control over what gets added without a 3rd party utility, no admin interface for serious arranging and even if you do wipe the database and manually add icons, it still winds up reseting once you install an application after the fact. Try installing Adobe CS to see how badly messed up it can get.
I wonder if this is a glimpse of what it's like to not have SJ being around to say "this is shit!" and make them do it better.
On inverted scroll, it's great until you have to use someone else's mac or a PC then it just gets painful.
On inverted scroll, it's great until you have to use someone else's mac or a PC then it just gets painful.
Tim Cook said the other day that the iPad is helping the Mac gain marketshare. That tagline is telling all of the iOS users. You liked your phone? Why not try a computer that integrates with it perfectly.
Since os 8.something I've always felt that my mac is a workhorse. It's like I've had to have a mac, I a professional designer damnit.
But this update feels like it's creeping towards a heavily consumer facing product. My workhorse is being swapped for a show pony...
(no doubt it'll still do the job, it just a totally unfounded feeling I have)
But this update feels like it's creeping towards a heavily consumer facing product. My workhorse is being swapped for a show pony...
(no doubt it'll still do the job, it just a totally unfounded feeling I have)
Why is it that a consumer product can not also be a workhorse?
I have been running Lion and do not feel that it makes my computer less of a workhorse. I dont think that ML will make it less of a workhorse. I see this update as adding a bunch of stuff, some of which will be useful to developers, and not removing anything that made me fall in love with my Mac as a dev platform.
I have been running Lion and do not feel that it makes my computer less of a workhorse. I dont think that ML will make it less of a workhorse. I see this update as adding a bunch of stuff, some of which will be useful to developers, and not removing anything that made me fall in love with my Mac as a dev platform.
For similar reasons that automatic transmissions aren't used in racing cars
As a non-Mac-user, I've always had the impression (from Apple and the general public) that Macs are consumer-oriented devices (or at least non-corporate machines). The only significant impact they've had in business in my view is for creative professionals like yourself, and only because for a while Adobe tools worked better on Mac (which may or may not be the case anymore).
Schools used Macs because they were cheap (for the schools). Creatives used Macs because the tools were better. 99% of the other Mac users used Macs because it was more consumer friendly than the business-oriented Windows. Apple has never been in the business of catering to business.
Schools used Macs because they were cheap (for the schools). Creatives used Macs because the tools were better. 99% of the other Mac users used Macs because it was more consumer friendly than the business-oriented Windows. Apple has never been in the business of catering to business.
But this update feels like it's creeping towards a heavily consumer facing product.
Two questions:
1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
2) what exactly do you see this update taking away from you?
Two questions:
1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
2) what exactly do you see this update taking away from you?
1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
Anybody reading this page is likely to be told they aren't a "consumer." I was having that problem with Ubuntu Linux, for goodness' sake, though in Linux they call it a "Real Person(tm)" instead of a consumer. As in, "Of course XYZ doesn't work out of the box if you run an alternative window manager, because a Real Person doesn't run alternative window managers, and Ubuntu is for Real People."
Based on that, I think it's a valid concern that in focusing on "consumers" or "normal people" or however you want to put it, Apple might fail to take care of the artists, designers, and musicians who have historically been a strong part of its user base. One consistent goal for the Mac has been to be a computer for people who don't want to learn how to use their computer. That could be interpreted to exclude designers, artists, musicians, and so on, because they use very sophisticated software tools with steep learning curves. It would be very easy to lose sight of the distinction between people who enjoy having a sophisticated understanding of their computer (nerrrrds! not a high value or high prestige market) and people who have to use sophisticated software to get their work done (artists, designers, directors, musicians -- a high prestige, trendsetting market.)
Anybody reading this page is likely to be told they aren't a "consumer." I was having that problem with Ubuntu Linux, for goodness' sake, though in Linux they call it a "Real Person(tm)" instead of a consumer. As in, "Of course XYZ doesn't work out of the box if you run an alternative window manager, because a Real Person doesn't run alternative window managers, and Ubuntu is for Real People."
Based on that, I think it's a valid concern that in focusing on "consumers" or "normal people" or however you want to put it, Apple might fail to take care of the artists, designers, and musicians who have historically been a strong part of its user base. One consistent goal for the Mac has been to be a computer for people who don't want to learn how to use their computer. That could be interpreted to exclude designers, artists, musicians, and so on, because they use very sophisticated software tools with steep learning curves. It would be very easy to lose sight of the distinction between people who enjoy having a sophisticated understanding of their computer (nerrrrds! not a high value or high prestige market) and people who have to use sophisticated software to get their work done (artists, designers, directors, musicians -- a high prestige, trendsetting market.)
> 1) you think you are different than a consumer how?
For me the distinction is this. If a feature is being taken from a consumer (e.g., me as a consumer), I say bummer and find a new hobby. No Apple remote and Front Row anymore? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
If I use a feature in a professional workflow and it disappears, then I want at the very least a big fat warning before upgrading, but it'd be better if nothing disappeared altogether; or alternatively, if I could stay on the older version.
The current trend with Apple is to radically drop features that are only used by <n% of users and to always require the latest OS for everything. You cannot sync contacts off a 32-bit Mac anymore because MobileMe is running out and Lion/iCloud is 64-bit only. And on my 64-bit machine, I only found out that iSync was gone after I upgraded and held a (replacement) dumbphone in my hand.
Or look at OS X server, which I am happy I didn't buy. The reviews on the MAS are devastating and I was wondering if it would ever rise from beta software quality. If you relied on OS X server, well joke's on you.
That said, I think 10.8 in particular is only 10.7 with lipstick to directly compete against Windows 8. (Notice even the version numbers?) But 10.7 did cause lots of damage.
For me the distinction is this. If a feature is being taken from a consumer (e.g., me as a consumer), I say bummer and find a new hobby. No Apple remote and Front Row anymore? Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
If I use a feature in a professional workflow and it disappears, then I want at the very least a big fat warning before upgrading, but it'd be better if nothing disappeared altogether; or alternatively, if I could stay on the older version.
The current trend with Apple is to radically drop features that are only used by <n% of users and to always require the latest OS for everything. You cannot sync contacts off a 32-bit Mac anymore because MobileMe is running out and Lion/iCloud is 64-bit only. And on my 64-bit machine, I only found out that iSync was gone after I upgraded and held a (replacement) dumbphone in my hand.
Or look at OS X server, which I am happy I didn't buy. The reviews on the MAS are devastating and I was wondering if it would ever rise from beta software quality. If you relied on OS X server, well joke's on you.
That said, I think 10.8 in particular is only 10.7 with lipstick to directly compete against Windows 8. (Notice even the version numbers?) But 10.7 did cause lots of damage.
The current trend with Apple is to radically drop features
Such as?
Such as?
So you think OS X server and iSync that I just mentioned were peanuts? Keychain syncing? Xcode is a mess too, Xcode3 is barely supported on 10.7 and breaks when you upgrade your device, and Xcode4 is not backwards compatible with anything.
I kind of do, yes.
OSX Server gained a simple user interface mode but otherwise is basically the same thing and now it's only $50. Just install the Server Admin package. It's exactly the same as 10.6 You can do HTTPD, VPN, POP/IMAP mail server, net boot, software update server, DNS, DHCP, etc. From what I can tell all the same functionality is there. Maybe there are some small things missing?
iSync is a relic of a bygone era that hasn't seen any updates in many years. There are better tools available like The Missing Sync. This company focuses on making a really good tool for the small number of people who need it. Apple can't cater to every niche. If they can't do it right they shouldn't do it at all IMO.
Keychain syncing is one thing I would agree on. I found it very useful. I suspect it will be coming back in the future. Apple may not have been totally comfortable with managing the keychains of 100 million people quite yet.
I don't think these changes have anything to do with iOS-ification or whatever. They were going to happen either way.
OSX Server gained a simple user interface mode but otherwise is basically the same thing and now it's only $50. Just install the Server Admin package. It's exactly the same as 10.6 You can do HTTPD, VPN, POP/IMAP mail server, net boot, software update server, DNS, DHCP, etc. From what I can tell all the same functionality is there. Maybe there are some small things missing?
iSync is a relic of a bygone era that hasn't seen any updates in many years. There are better tools available like The Missing Sync. This company focuses on making a really good tool for the small number of people who need it. Apple can't cater to every niche. If they can't do it right they shouldn't do it at all IMO.
Keychain syncing is one thing I would agree on. I found it very useful. I suspect it will be coming back in the future. Apple may not have been totally comfortable with managing the keychains of 100 million people quite yet.
I don't think these changes have anything to do with iOS-ification or whatever. They were going to happen either way.
OS X server was definitely peanuts: they never took it seriously as a product and it's an expensive area to be in. The “support“ process was basically gated by you telling your Apple rep how many Macs you couldn't buy until a bug was fixed.
Put another way, in 2009 at MacWorld there was unanimous consent among my fellow IT track speakers that anyone with non-trivial needs should be using Linux servers for Mac clients, due entirely to the obvious low priority of the server product. Making it a $50 app store add-on is the first step in simply acknowledging that Apple is really a consumer product company and unwilling to devote the significant resources needed to stay competitive in the traditional IT market.
Put another way, in 2009 at MacWorld there was unanimous consent among my fellow IT track speakers that anyone with non-trivial needs should be using Linux servers for Mac clients, due entirely to the obvious low priority of the server product. Making it a $50 app store add-on is the first step in simply acknowledging that Apple is really a consumer product company and unwilling to devote the significant resources needed to stay competitive in the traditional IT market.
I'm not happy with the way things are headed either and you make some good points but I think you were out of line with the version number comment. Apple isn't trying to compete with Windows, at least not in the way you're implying. They're a whole different animal and they're setting the pace for everyone else, not the other way around. In any case, as far as version numbers go, OS X jumps one full decimal with each major release. Mountain Lion being 10.8 is not marketing (if it is it has nothing to do with windows) its pure coincidence. If anything Windows is using version numbers for marketing purposes. Win7 came out when OS X 10.7 was out and if I'm not mistaken, Windows is actually at version 6.2 if I remember right. If you don't believe me then open up a DOS prompt and ask it yourself.
1) When I started on mac it was targeted at (mostly) professionals in desktop publishing etc. So it was more B2B than B2C. I accept that this has been changing for a long time already, probably since OSX. Now I am a consumer, that's my point.
2) Nothing. But now I'm buying a consumer product to do my work. It's like Iron Maiden using Garageband, or Philip Halsman using Instagram. (not that I would compare myself to them, but you get the idea)
2) Nothing. But now I'm buying a consumer product to do my work. It's like Iron Maiden using Garageband, or Philip Halsman using Instagram. (not that I would compare myself to them, but you get the idea)
It feels to me like the problem people have here is pretty much all in the marketing. You still have all the features and more from when you considered it a creative professionals machine, it's just the feel imparted by the focus and marketing is different.
it's even more than that. they made (are making) the tools so accessible to everyone, that what was once considered a craft (fine tuning a $50,000 recording desk) has now been reduced to a few settings on an $800 laptop.
That's just way of the world, I'm not complaining, it's great to get these creative tools to as many people as possible. But my original point still stands.
Of course you still have to have a tallent to make anything of these tools, no matter how point-and-click they are, even so they're robbing me of that feeling of achievement and pride that I had in being able to handle a tool that not many could... and yes, I'm aware that I'm beginning to sound like an old man.
That's just way of the world, I'm not complaining, it's great to get these creative tools to as many people as possible. But my original point still stands.
Of course you still have to have a tallent to make anything of these tools, no matter how point-and-click they are, even so they're robbing me of that feeling of achievement and pride that I had in being able to handle a tool that not many could... and yes, I'm aware that I'm beginning to sound like an old man.
It took me a while to get used to Lion's reverse scroll, which in retrospect seems like a layup for this release, but I've come to enjoy it.
Took me about a week and a half to get over that mentally. Now I can't use my girlfriend's computer who is still on Snow Leopard.
Yeah. I fiercely admire Apple for having the balls to fix what was obviously backwards but heavily entrenched in the minds of the public. They almost always do the Right Thing.
It's not just your girlfriend's computer that will be a problem for you -- it's _any_ other computer.
Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Apple to do this. I find it very un-intuitive. Even if the design of the way windows scroll was ultimately an arbitrary decision, it's ingrained now. I think it was silly to change it.
Personally, I think it was a big mistake for Apple to do this. I find it very un-intuitive. Even if the design of the way windows scroll was ultimately an arbitrary decision, it's ingrained now. I think it was silly to change it.
What's un-intuitive about it? On touchscreen—you move your finger up, content moves up. On Lion—you move your finger up, content moves up. Took me 40 minutes to get used.
No your not. I want my stuff to sync without issues like my notes, contacts, mail but I don't want my laptop/desktop to feel like my phone. Example: Launch pad, is anyone really using this?
I never use Launchpad, but I'm glad it's there since I've always had trouble explaining the Applications folder vs the Dock to people, and Launchpad solves that very nicely for non-technical people (especially ones with iPhones/iPads).
Nope, and you don't have to. But for those users that are new to the platform (and I have watched quite a few) it makes them feel at home. They instantly know where to look for their apps, they can re-arrange them however they like. It is not for those of us who grew up on Mac OS, then Mac OS X, Linux and Windows, it is for those that have had an iPad or an iPhone and know there is a single location (home) where all your apps are. Launchpad fits that bill nicely.
I use it. Sometimes I actually forgot what apps I have installed or forget the names of them if I don't use them frequently. If my hand is already on the trackpad I just have to pinch in and there they are. Quicker than going to the Applications folder.
I've been using OS X for years as my main OS, and I do occasionally use launchpad. I've got a boatload of stuff installed and I don't always remember what I have. Launchpad provides a nice way of viewing all the apps.
I don't use it everytime I launch somthing (I use alfred for that), but to refresh my memory every now and then.
It doesn't work exactly like I would like it too, but it's not bad, and it's very out of the way if you don't like it.
I don't use it everytime I launch somthing (I use alfred for that), but to refresh my memory every now and then.
It doesn't work exactly like I would like it too, but it's not bad, and it's very out of the way if you don't like it.
I actually like the idea of it being both (and and ipad becoming a desktop) Launchpad for ipad like utility, the normal desktop for desktop things, have both on both systems. Lets be honest here, we are moving away from a central computing device model, to a model with many peripheral devices. I'd like it if they all acted the same, and were capable of displaying the same content, as well as providing the same ability to create.
Is there any specific reasons you wouldn't want AirPlay, Notes/Reminders/Messages, notifications, etc? It seems to me those are all very good features to add to OSX that happened to debut on iOS first.
Seriously. The last thing I want is my Macbook Pro to behave like my iPhone.
I love them both, but they are drastically different products and uses.
I love them both, but they are drastically different products and uses.
I feel the same way. But what in Mountain Lion sounds anything like that?
All I see is popular out-of-the-box iOS apps/features being brought to the out-of-the-box OS X experience.
What power users don't already have growl, dropbox, a dedicated notes app, a dedicated reminders app, an integrated chat client, etc?
These Mountain Lion features are only iOS-like inasmuch as iOS had them out-of-the_box, while OS X users looked to third parties to provide them. If you ask me, Mountain Lion sounds like a more reasoned approach to "bring what works about iOS to OS X" than misfires like "Mission Control".
All I see is popular out-of-the-box iOS apps/features being brought to the out-of-the-box OS X experience.
What power users don't already have growl, dropbox, a dedicated notes app, a dedicated reminders app, an integrated chat client, etc?
These Mountain Lion features are only iOS-like inasmuch as iOS had them out-of-the_box, while OS X users looked to third parties to provide them. If you ask me, Mountain Lion sounds like a more reasoned approach to "bring what works about iOS to OS X" than misfires like "Mission Control".
Exactly. Apple isn't trying to replace OSX with iOS. If anything, they want the two to talk to each other better. And, perhaps OSX could benefit from some of what they've learned developing UIs for the iPad.
Apparently those of us who feel this way are dwindling in number.
[deleted](2)
Am I the only one afraid of upgrading my Mac in fear of breaking my Ruby gems, MySQL drivers, C libraries, ImageMagick, environment variables, iOS libraries, provisioning certificates, etc?
The walls are slowly going up around the garden...
I'm most alarmed with this restriction:
iCloud document storage and Notification Center. Both of these are slated only for third-party apps from the Mac App Store. Many developers, though, have been maintaining non-Mac App Store versions of their apps. If this continues, such apps are going to lose feature parity between the App Store and non-App Store versions.
This will affect software from companies such as Adobe where custom installers are necessary and/or the economics of taking a 30% App Store hit is not necessary when they can already reach their customer base. The move strikes me as anti competitive.
iCloud document storage and Notification Center. Both of these are slated only for third-party apps from the Mac App Store. Many developers, though, have been maintaining non-Mac App Store versions of their apps. If this continues, such apps are going to lose feature parity between the App Store and non-App Store versions.
This will affect software from companies such as Adobe where custom installers are necessary and/or the economics of taking a 30% App Store hit is not necessary when they can already reach their customer base. The move strikes me as anti competitive.
According to the screenshots, the spotlight icon is no longer on the top right, getting shuffled over to the left by presumably a new icon to invoke notification center.
That's a really bad choice. The corners are the click targets fastest to reach (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fittss_law ), and demoting searching in favor of 'reading messages that have popped up before' doesn't strike me as quite well-balanced.
That's a really bad choice. The corners are the click targets fastest to reach (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fittss_law ), and demoting searching in favor of 'reading messages that have popped up before' doesn't strike me as quite well-balanced.
Command-Space opens spotlight, and if you're gonna search, you might as well already have your hand on they keyboard.
I actually like it better -- I'm much more likely to activate notifications with a mouse, so I'd much rather have that be the "bigger" target.
I actually like it better -- I'm much more likely to activate notifications with a mouse, so I'd much rather have that be the "bigger" target.
It gets worse; can also call it up with a two-finger swipe to the left. Not sure why they're so intent on overloading that gesture.
Two fingers in SL:
* Scroll.
Two fingers in ML:
* Scroll
* or back/forward
* or Notification Center
Two fingers in SL:
* Scroll.
Two fingers in ML:
* Scroll
* or back/forward
* or Notification Center
It looks like the two fingers have to come in from the right side of the scroll area (like pulling down on the top of the screen--the right side in this case), so it's distinct from the other meanings.
I'm looking forward to the day when I don't have to worry about my file system and apps just know what files it needs or can view.
iCloud seems to be moving things in that direction.
iCloud seems to be moving things in that direction.
The thing I'm by far the most excited about is AirPlay Mirroring. If I'm reading this correctly, I'll be able to mirror anything from my Mac to my TV using an Apple TV. This will be great for watching Internet videos, going through my iPhoto library with my wife, looking at home videos, etc. All without needing a stupid cable from my couch to my TV.
The deeper iCloud integration is also intriguing. I assume this means proper syncing between documents on a Mac, iPad and iPhone. This will be a huge feature, and is currently a major stumbling block with iCloud. I want my documents to sync to my mobile devices.
Those two features alone are pretty big. Beyond that, I'm interested to here about the new APIs and anything else that has been changed under the hood.
OS X Lion has always been a little bit buggy (the latest release is pretty solid, however). I wonder if Mountain Lion will be like Snow Leopard where it tightens up a lot of things under the hood and gives us a better realization of the OS.
I'm excited for Gatekeeper for my parents and other people I know that aren't that tech savvy. This could save me a lot of headaches.
The deeper iCloud integration is also intriguing. I assume this means proper syncing between documents on a Mac, iPad and iPhone. This will be a huge feature, and is currently a major stumbling block with iCloud. I want my documents to sync to my mobile devices.
Those two features alone are pretty big. Beyond that, I'm interested to here about the new APIs and anything else that has been changed under the hood.
OS X Lion has always been a little bit buggy (the latest release is pretty solid, however). I wonder if Mountain Lion will be like Snow Leopard where it tightens up a lot of things under the hood and gives us a better realization of the OS.
I'm excited for Gatekeeper for my parents and other people I know that aren't that tech savvy. This could save me a lot of headaches.
Just last night I found a post on TUAW about something called AirParrot (http://www.airparrot.com), which provides similar functionality. I've been looking for something like that for a while, so jumped at the chance to download it (cost me $9.99). It's in beta, and the developer makes no secret of that. It does not pipe audio, and has a few other quirks but I managed to: run a powerpoint presentation, run civilization v, and play some youtube videos from my machine to my appletv. I have no affiliation with the developer, but i must say - to pwthornton's point above, it's pretty effing cool to airplay out of your mac. I bet the official release from apple will be that much better too.
I would like AirPlay mirroring the other way around too -- let my iPad / iPhone cast to my Mac. Very useful for presentations and iOS product demos.
From a work perspective, this will be an awesome feature. We currently have a heap of screens with "Wireless Presenter" software running on them which isn't that easy to get going.
AirPlay Mirroring sounds like it could be a solution for that provided you could choose the Apple TV you wanted to connect to (There'd be at least 200 screens in my office).
AirPlay Mirroring sounds like it could be a solution for that provided you could choose the Apple TV you wanted to connect to (There'd be at least 200 screens in my office).
A minor warning: I installed Mountain Lion yesterday on my 1+ year MacBook Pro (core 2 duo, not i5 or i7) and Air Play doesn't seem to work - no icon on menu bar. This makes sense because i5 has some instructions for better video compression. Hopefully older Macs will be supported as the software is tweaked. Otherwise, I like Mountain Lion.
I am excited as well in AirPlay Mirroring so i watched several times in the demo. It seems video plays with Quicktime. So lot's of video formats are not compatible like mkv's, iso's etc...
If somehow i am able to mirror VLC i will run and buy Apple TV at once.
If somehow i am able to mirror VLC i will run and buy Apple TV at once.
If you install Perian, Quicktime supports expands to include many more formats
http://perian.org/
But I agree and would welcome the support for VLC too!
But I agree and would welcome the support for VLC too!
Perian has never worked for me. I can't get Xvid or MKVs to play in QT. VLC is the only player I've found for OS X that actually plays everything.
I already have Perian. It's not supported well imho. Just try to open a 8gb mkv and it broke QT.
It didn't break Qt, it broke Perian.
That being said, I've got a couple of 8GB MKV's and they all work perfectly. So caveat emptor and all that ... :P
That being said, I've got a couple of 8GB MKV's and they all work perfectly. So caveat emptor and all that ... :P
lot's of video formats are not compatible
This will airplay pretty much everything you throw at it: http://beamer-app.com
This will airplay pretty much everything you throw at it: http://beamer-app.com
thanks, didn't know this one. If only it could play burned dvd's like ISO files.
Still, VLC integration is a must. With no compromise.
Still, VLC integration is a must. With no compromise.
From what I can see it's just screen sharing isn't it? Play something in VLC in fullscreen and you're fine. They use Quicktime for the demo because it's an Apple product but I don't believe it's a limitation.
If Apple have to throw Quicktime under the bus to sell more Apple TVs and Macs I think they'll happily do it.
If Apple have to throw Quicktime under the bus to sell more Apple TVs and Macs I think they'll happily do it.
What you are saying is true, however it is a rather messy solution. Assuming that the next AppleTV will support 1080p output you could not just mirror your screen to get the best quality. The source film is in 1080p, gets scaled down to screen res. which is transmitted to the AppleTV and then gets scaled up to 1080p again - resulting in a easily visible quality loss.
I hope they treat the screen as a "second screen" which is mirrored...
I hope they treat the screen as a "second screen" which is mirrored...
This says it will display whatever is on your screen, but if you're using itunes, drm will kick in.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/16/2801047/mac-os-x-10-8-moun...
http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/16/2801047/mac-os-x-10-8-moun...
Looking at Apple's page, it seems like it doesn't only mirror output of apps such as Quicktime, but is able to do desktop mirroring, so you can play videos in VLC and mirror the entire screen.
And that's the point the Apple TV goes from a hobby to a major product.
Spending a £1000 on a Mac - I reckon another £100 for an Apple TV with that functionality as the hook is a pretty easy up sell.
Spending a £1000 on a Mac - I reckon another £100 for an Apple TV with that functionality as the hook is a pretty easy up sell.
It is unfortunate that AppleTV's video output (out-of-the-box) still does not support true 1080p resolutions and everything is upscaled from 720p.
I expect to see a 1080p Apple TV this year, since the A5 and upcoming A6 can both do 1080p video. The current Apple TV is A4 based, which is limited to 720p. With the new iPad having a resolution above 1080p, Apple finally has a reason to have 1080p iTunes content.
Beyond that, Apple may not have wanted to take A5 chips away from the iPhone and iPad to sell in Apple TVs. Now that all of the new iPads and iPhones will be A6 based this year, Apple will have more supply of A5s for other devices.
None of this helps people who already own an Apple TV, however
Beyond that, Apple may not have wanted to take A5 chips away from the iPhone and iPad to sell in Apple TVs. Now that all of the new iPads and iPhones will be A6 based this year, Apple will have more supply of A5s for other devices.
None of this helps people who already own an Apple TV, however
Prediction: Apple is the company that takes TV past 1080p into much higher resolution displays (when they actually release an Apple TV). Movies are already shot at much higher resolution, and Apple will introduce Apps (subscribe to a show or network, for example).
If that happens, then I predict the end of all-you-can-eat Internet. ISPs are kvetching enough about Netflix as-is.
And hopefully after that, GoogleISP will launch on all of their dark fiber.
I will buy a new one. :)
The iTunes Store only supports 720p right now anyway, so in the Apple ecosystem it doesn't make sense to worry about 1080p. I imagine this will change soon though. (A5 based AppleTV + iTunes Store upgrades)
This may be a bandwidth issue. I remember my friend having major issues streaming 1080 to his tv box over wifi. He had to get an N router just to support it. This may be a compromise.
Blu-Ray tops out at 48Mbit, and ATSC is less than half that. Your friend was most likely having signal quality issues, not bandwidth issues.
word on the street is that will change before summer.
I would disagree. Neat as Airplay is, it isn't going to move Apple TVs.
Apps and/or Content deals with video distributors (Comcast/Verizon/etc) are going to be where it turns the corner. I suspect the whole hobby has been in a holding pattern while Apple has tried to line up the content deals and that the fallback plan is to just enable Apps and let the chips fall where they may. [1]
That's probably even the stick they'll use to get the cable companies to the table: Either they sign up and get preferential treatment in the interface, or they get shoved into being a dumb IP pipe that much faster.
[1] Delaying as the internals for an Apple-quality, app-running, 1080p set-top box get cheaper and cheaper hasn't hurt, I'm sure.
Apps and/or Content deals with video distributors (Comcast/Verizon/etc) are going to be where it turns the corner. I suspect the whole hobby has been in a holding pattern while Apple has tried to line up the content deals and that the fallback plan is to just enable Apps and let the chips fall where they may. [1]
That's probably even the stick they'll use to get the cable companies to the table: Either they sign up and get preferential treatment in the interface, or they get shoved into being a dumb IP pipe that much faster.
[1] Delaying as the internals for an Apple-quality, app-running, 1080p set-top box get cheaper and cheaper hasn't hurt, I'm sure.
I don't know how many purchases it will really drive. You can do all those those things with an Apple TV and an iPhone today, and almost all of them with just an Apple TV.
I am most excited about AirPlay Mirroring as well. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple pulls some BS like it only works with 2012 Macs.
Accidentally bans ultrabooks in the process.
http://mashable.com/2012/02/15/apple-patents-macbook-air/
http://mashable.com/2012/02/15/apple-patents-macbook-air/
Just a design patent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent], nothing to see here. Don't make your ultra book look like an air and you are fine. (Hint: pay attention to materials, radiuses, colors, and angles.)
How close you can get involves how much tolerance you have for litigation and risking a loss.
How close you can get involves how much tolerance you have for litigation and risking a loss.
That's no accident. And why should somebody be allowed to make a laptop that looks exactly like an Air?
I for one welcome our new OS-level code signature verification overlords. May they smite evil and incompetence swiftly and brutally...except when 'evil' is defined by foreign governments, domestic law enforcement, or fair competition with built-in features.
With great power comes great "you guys better not fuck this up."
With great power comes great "you guys better not fuck this up."
"If an app is found to be malware, Apple can revoke that developer’s certificate, rendering the app (along with any others from the same developer) inert on any Mac where it’s been installed. "
Yeah, it's not a great reach to think that in five years there will be no Option 3 and malware will include any program that the government of the nation that your computer is in deems undesirable. Apple and Microsoft will likely be forced to have such capabilities by various national governments.
Yeah, it's not a great reach to think that in five years there will be no Option 3 and malware will include any program that the government of the nation that your computer is in deems undesirable. Apple and Microsoft will likely be forced to have such capabilities by various national governments.
If you think it's that possible then why not contact your congress person/senator and have them look into this? In fact, talk to them about drafting a law against not being able to install software of your choosing on a machine you buy. Or, at the very least, a law for being able to take your data with you when you decide to leave a platform. This wouldn't help China, Iran, Syria, etc. but it would at least give US citizens some protections.
Personally, I'm not very afraid of option 3 ever going away but I also am ready with a FreeBSD VM instance.
Personally, I'm not very afraid of option 3 ever going away but I also am ready with a FreeBSD VM instance.
"Log out, stage left!"
Sorry folks, Couldn't resist.
Sorry folks, Couldn't resist.
Is it just me or is the iMessage Beta icon very very similar to the HipChat icon? :)
http://cl.ly/3m060G3x1o2X3I1u3I1D
http://cl.ly/3m060G3x1o2X3I1u3I1D
Messages (iChat) has been around far longer than HipChat.
Messages is great, but is there a way to get every iMessage duplicated across iPhone / Mac? Otherwise you send an iMessage, close the mac, grap the iPhone and go away, but never get the reply back. And so forth.
Thats the way it works. My iPad, iPhone and now Messages Beta display every message
At least 2 weeks ago I also was not seeing that behaivor. I had to unpaid my iPad because I was missing vital messages on my iPhone. Its possible that my iPhone was out of service at the time. But that shouldnt matternn
The worrying thing about Apple's Gatekeeper feature isn't that they may impose their moral opinions on apps, but that governments and corporate entities will have the ability to pressure Apple into disabling apps which aren't actually malicious, i.e. Tor & BitCoin.
Whether or not it can be disabled is irrelevant. I don't want to have to instruct my customers about how to essentially jailbreak their Mac just to use my app.
And will it just be .app applications which need to be signed, or will it be all binaries, e.g. Vim and Apache?
Worrying times indeed. I don't particularly want to use Linux, cause I really love OS X's elegance, but I can see switching being a real possibility over the next few years if Apple continues the trend of forcing iOS's walled-garden on OS X.
Whether or not it can be disabled is irrelevant. I don't want to have to instruct my customers about how to essentially jailbreak their Mac just to use my app.
And will it just be .app applications which need to be signed, or will it be all binaries, e.g. Vim and Apache?
Worrying times indeed. I don't particularly want to use Linux, cause I really love OS X's elegance, but I can see switching being a real possibility over the next few years if Apple continues the trend of forcing iOS's walled-garden on OS X.
notes and reminders are features?? sigh... I miss steve...
I hope it doesn't turn out to be Mountain Goat. Lion broke my external displays working properly while in clamshell (closed laptop) mode.
Conveniently, if I connect it to an Apple display, it's magic, but somehow not.
Conveniently, if I connect it to an Apple display, it's magic, but somehow not.
Wow. It's the reverse digital hub strategy. The peripheral devices (iPod, iPhone, iPad) are now more popular than the Mac. So, rather than sunset the Mac, Apple makes it so that if you own own of these devices, a Mac will be the default choice.
how much you think you should pay? 1000$????? 500$????? nooooooo!! only 99$, you get a clock, paint and even reversi! for only 99$!!
The only thing that I really dislike about iCloud is sharing a computer (with your wife/family).
Our family room computer is a mac mini that is logged into one user account all of the time. It is shared by myself, my wife and my kids. The iPhoto on that account is set up to use my iCloud account. If my wife wants to get her photos (iPhone) downloaded from iCloud she has to log over to an account that only exists for this purpose.
So I'm sure the whole documents, todos, calendar and everything else on 10.8 is going to be a similar pain in the ass for people sharing one computer.
We have to manage three AppleIDs. My iCloud account, her iCloud account and we share an AppleID for purchases from the App Store. They need to fix this for multi-Apple families.
Our family room computer is a mac mini that is logged into one user account all of the time. It is shared by myself, my wife and my kids. The iPhoto on that account is set up to use my iCloud account. If my wife wants to get her photos (iPhone) downloaded from iCloud she has to log over to an account that only exists for this purpose.
So I'm sure the whole documents, todos, calendar and everything else on 10.8 is going to be a similar pain in the ass for people sharing one computer.
We have to manage three AppleIDs. My iCloud account, her iCloud account and we share an AppleID for purchases from the App Store. They need to fix this for multi-Apple families.
Why don't you use multiple user accounts on your Mac Mini? That's pretty much what it is designed for.
I agree. For those who want one account for everyone then just register all your devices. If you want everyone in your household to have separate accounts then just have different logins...
I'm all for OS X adopting more and more of iOS because it's great for the user experience. However as a hacker it feels wrong to have a computer that is as locked down as iOS devices. BUT Apple showed me that they are listening and still want to cater to developers when they announced GateKeeper (http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html).
I have a few friends who are switching to Unix instead of Mac OS X because of the direction it's going. For me, it's going to be all about how much Apple allows developers to innovate on their platform. We'll see what happens, but GateKeeper is a good sign.
I have a few friends who are switching to Unix instead of Mac OS X because of the direction it's going. For me, it's going to be all about how much Apple allows developers to innovate on their platform. We'll see what happens, but GateKeeper is a good sign.
I agree that I don't like where it is going, but we aren't really the target audience.
I was looking to get CrunchBang Linux running on my MBP, but realistically the battery life change will make the device hard to justify. If I am going to go back to 2-3 hours of battery life, I'm probably going to have to change my hardware setup to get a Thinkpad with a pair of nine cells.
That said, I can't even flip my virtualization set-up, because I doubt that it is going to be smooth sailing (license-wise and technically) running a copy of OS X in VirtualBox or VMware.
I was looking to get CrunchBang Linux running on my MBP, but realistically the battery life change will make the device hard to justify. If I am going to go back to 2-3 hours of battery life, I'm probably going to have to change my hardware setup to get a Thinkpad with a pair of nine cells.
That said, I can't even flip my virtualization set-up, because I doubt that it is going to be smooth sailing (license-wise and technically) running a copy of OS X in VirtualBox or VMware.
Can anyone comment on any differences in Mission Control (e.g. Spaces) between 10.7 and 10.8 beta?
Sigh.
Others have hinted at this, but I'll say it outright: I've been a pretty solid Mac user/developer for 25 years (with a 3-year interlude on Windows + ThinkPad towards the end of classic MacOS, when the lack of true multitasking and a "real" operating system just got unbearable).
I suppose it's inevitable, but I really hate to see the Mac become just another part of the whole iOS ecosystem.
There's nothing specific I can point to, but it does feel like the end of general-purpose computing for those of us who really like Apple hardware.
Edit: Perhaps I'm wrong, and the cloudification is happening everywhere: with Chromebooks/Chrome OS, with Win8, etc. So maybe this is the inevitable regardless of which platform(s) one enjoys.
Linux, here we come? ;-)
Others have hinted at this, but I'll say it outright: I've been a pretty solid Mac user/developer for 25 years (with a 3-year interlude on Windows + ThinkPad towards the end of classic MacOS, when the lack of true multitasking and a "real" operating system just got unbearable).
I suppose it's inevitable, but I really hate to see the Mac become just another part of the whole iOS ecosystem.
There's nothing specific I can point to, but it does feel like the end of general-purpose computing for those of us who really like Apple hardware.
Edit: Perhaps I'm wrong, and the cloudification is happening everywhere: with Chromebooks/Chrome OS, with Win8, etc. So maybe this is the inevitable regardless of which platform(s) one enjoys.
Linux, here we come? ;-)
I'm feeling the same malaise. I want to blame it on the Mac App Store, XCode dropping GNU GCC, Gatekeeper, etc. feeling like a slowly tightening noose, but honestly, I don't think that's it. After all, I'm willing to put up with the same sort of signed software model on Android.
Still, if someone can point me to a hassle-free Linux laptop in a MacBook Air form factor, I'll jump ship in a heartbeat.
Still, if someone can point me to a hassle-free Linux laptop in a MacBook Air form factor, I'll jump ship in a heartbeat.
Nothing exciting. Let me quantify this before I get shot by the Apple fanboys. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy either but I am not buying the hype and feature sheet.
Example:
1. iCloud. Have Windows Live ID and Live Mesh integration in windows for nearly 3 years now. Works across mobile devices already.
2. Messages. Windows Live Messenger has social integration already which is on par with this.
3. Reminders. Windows Live calendar does this and gives you alerts through windows live messenger and email.
4. Notes. NOTHING on this planet compares to Microsoft's OneNote.
5. Notification center. Windows live has one built in that you can integrate with. Oh and you also have the system tray.
6. Share sheets. Windows has had "sent to" since about 1996.
7. Twitter. Windows live integration.
8. Game center. We have shops for that and Steam and all sorts. It's an open market.
9. Airplay mirroring. Woo yay etc. Windows media player (!) does this with my Sony Bravia with no complaints. I can right click a video file and select "play on Bravia" and it appears on it straight away. This required NO CONFIGURATION and no special boxes. Both have wireless cards in them. No store or DRM available or required.
10. Gatekeeper. Windows firewall is actually on par with this and is an application AND/OR system level firewall. Microsoft security essentials is the rest.
11. Chinese features. Windows is the mainstream OS in china for a reason (i.e. excellent language support).
The only thing above that cost anything is Windows (which cost effectively nothing as it came with the PC) and OneNote (which cost me 200GBP) and included Word, Excel and Outlook as well. Oh and the nice Acer TimelineX machine only cost me 400GBP, TV cost 300GBP so total 900GBP
Compare that to a MacBook which cost more than that to start with at 999GBP.
Oh and I don't have to pay 99GBP to write software that works on it. Visual Studio is free.
Doesn't add up.
Hmm.
Example:
1. iCloud. Have Windows Live ID and Live Mesh integration in windows for nearly 3 years now. Works across mobile devices already.
2. Messages. Windows Live Messenger has social integration already which is on par with this.
3. Reminders. Windows Live calendar does this and gives you alerts through windows live messenger and email.
4. Notes. NOTHING on this planet compares to Microsoft's OneNote.
5. Notification center. Windows live has one built in that you can integrate with. Oh and you also have the system tray.
6. Share sheets. Windows has had "sent to" since about 1996.
7. Twitter. Windows live integration.
8. Game center. We have shops for that and Steam and all sorts. It's an open market.
9. Airplay mirroring. Woo yay etc. Windows media player (!) does this with my Sony Bravia with no complaints. I can right click a video file and select "play on Bravia" and it appears on it straight away. This required NO CONFIGURATION and no special boxes. Both have wireless cards in them. No store or DRM available or required.
10. Gatekeeper. Windows firewall is actually on par with this and is an application AND/OR system level firewall. Microsoft security essentials is the rest.
11. Chinese features. Windows is the mainstream OS in china for a reason (i.e. excellent language support).
The only thing above that cost anything is Windows (which cost effectively nothing as it came with the PC) and OneNote (which cost me 200GBP) and included Word, Excel and Outlook as well. Oh and the nice Acer TimelineX machine only cost me 400GBP, TV cost 300GBP so total 900GBP
Compare that to a MacBook which cost more than that to start with at 999GBP.
Oh and I don't have to pay 99GBP to write software that works on it. Visual Studio is free.
Doesn't add up.
Hmm.
Don't fall into the trap of comparing Apple's feature list with that of other vendors. Apple makes these lists of new features to compare one version of OS X to the last, but they don't make those grids full of green check marks and red X's to compare their products to competitors'.
There's a reason for that. New features might provide a reason to buy a $29 OS X upgrade, but they don't represent the reason people choose Mac over Windows. I choose Mac over Windows because the entire user experience is friendlier, more polished, and better integrated. It's the details of how the features are implemented and the way they work together that make for a superior product.
There's a reason for that. New features might provide a reason to buy a $29 OS X upgrade, but they don't represent the reason people choose Mac over Windows. I choose Mac over Windows because the entire user experience is friendlier, more polished, and better integrated. It's the details of how the features are implemented and the way they work together that make for a superior product.
It's only integrated if you use it in the way that Apple expect you to. Otherwise, the coupling and integration between the applications is horrible. And yes I know about Automator.
I don't have time to refute all of your claims, but:
>>> 1. iCloud. Have Windows Live ID and Live Mesh integration in windows for nearly 3 years now. Works across mobile devices already.
It works across mobile devices, poorly. I think iCloud is a much better user experience, and has better app support even being the newer product.
>>> 2. Messages. Windows Live Messenger has social integration already which is on par with this.
Windows Live Messenger is not on par with this. iMessage will work across many platforms. Using Messenges you can chat with someone who thinks you are texting them.
The list goes on... The point is, yes, Calendar applications have been around for a while. Reminder apps have too. All of these things are offered in lots of ways on lots of platforms. What Apple is succeeding at doing (albeit slowly) is simplifying and improving software offerings in all of these existing domains.
>>> 1. iCloud. Have Windows Live ID and Live Mesh integration in windows for nearly 3 years now. Works across mobile devices already.
It works across mobile devices, poorly. I think iCloud is a much better user experience, and has better app support even being the newer product.
>>> 2. Messages. Windows Live Messenger has social integration already which is on par with this.
Windows Live Messenger is not on par with this. iMessage will work across many platforms. Using Messenges you can chat with someone who thinks you are texting them.
The list goes on... The point is, yes, Calendar applications have been around for a while. Reminder apps have too. All of these things are offered in lots of ways on lots of platforms. What Apple is succeeding at doing (albeit slowly) is simplifying and improving software offerings in all of these existing domains.
I think iMessage on Mac will be somewhat crippled relative to on an iPhone, ss there is no fallback to SMS. That makes sense, and also is what Apple says on its site:
"it lets you send unlimited messages to anyone on
a Mac or an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch running
iOS 5."I think you need to do a bit more research. I haven't used Live in a while so I'll only answer some of your points:
2. Messages integrates with iMessage which allows any iOS device (over 100mil) and now any Mac to message each other free. WLM is IM. There is a subtle but important difference I think.
4. I agree, OneNote is fantastic. But the Apple Notes app is not designed to complete with OneNote.
5. Don't put the system tray forward as a positive thing. System tray is terrible. 8. A better comparison would be Xbox Live (which is better than Game Center).
9. Airplay mirroring allows you to mirror the entire screen not just video. You can do games, apps etc.
You don't have to pay 99GBP to write iOS/Mac apps. It's 59GBP for a developer membership. And the IDE Xcode is 100% free to anyone. Visual Studio is not free. It's several thousand dollars. Visual Studio Express is free.
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/list/size....
2. Messages integrates with iMessage which allows any iOS device (over 100mil) and now any Mac to message each other free. WLM is IM. There is a subtle but important difference I think.
4. I agree, OneNote is fantastic. But the Apple Notes app is not designed to complete with OneNote.
5. Don't put the system tray forward as a positive thing. System tray is terrible. 8. A better comparison would be Xbox Live (which is better than Game Center).
9. Airplay mirroring allows you to mirror the entire screen not just video. You can do games, apps etc.
You don't have to pay 99GBP to write iOS/Mac apps. It's 59GBP for a developer membership. And the IDE Xcode is 100% free to anyone. Visual Studio is not free. It's several thousand dollars. Visual Studio Express is free.
http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/en_US/list/size....
This post reads a little like saying about the iPhone release "my phone already can make calls, run apps, I can type notes and e-mails, add to my calendar, check the weather, etc."
It totally misses the point.
It totally misses the point.
1. iCloud. Have Windows Live ID and Live Mesh integration in windows for nearly 3 years now. Works across mobile devices already.
So you have a Windows Phone for 3 years? Impressed. Must be a hard time.
2. Messages. Windows Live Messenger has social integration already which is on par with this.
Like chatting with Jabber/Gtalk buddies?
4. Notes. NOTHING on this planet compares to Microsoft's OneNote.
Bloat-wise, sure. For the rest of us who prefer simplicity, SimpleNote/Notation Velocity wins. But I still envy Notes. Why? Because it is synced automatically across all your iOS/OS X devices. You don't even have to keep any app open.
9. Airplay mirroring. Woo yay etc. Windows media player (!) does this with my Sony Bravia with no complaints. I can right click a video file and select "play on Bravia" and it appears on it straight away. This required NO CONFIGURATION and no special boxes. Both have wireless cards in them. No store or DRM available or required.
What about showing your working desktop fullscreen to do a demo on your Bravia?
11. Chinese features. Windows is the mainstream OS in china for a reason (i.e. excellent language support).
Don't get me started on this. It has nothing to do with language support.
So you have a Windows Phone for 3 years? Impressed. Must be a hard time.
2. Messages. Windows Live Messenger has social integration already which is on par with this.
Like chatting with Jabber/Gtalk buddies?
4. Notes. NOTHING on this planet compares to Microsoft's OneNote.
Bloat-wise, sure. For the rest of us who prefer simplicity, SimpleNote/Notation Velocity wins. But I still envy Notes. Why? Because it is synced automatically across all your iOS/OS X devices. You don't even have to keep any app open.
9. Airplay mirroring. Woo yay etc. Windows media player (!) does this with my Sony Bravia with no complaints. I can right click a video file and select "play on Bravia" and it appears on it straight away. This required NO CONFIGURATION and no special boxes. Both have wireless cards in them. No store or DRM available or required.
What about showing your working desktop fullscreen to do a demo on your Bravia?
11. Chinese features. Windows is the mainstream OS in china for a reason (i.e. excellent language support).
Don't get me started on this. It has nothing to do with language support.
OneNote only comes with Microsoft Office. Which you can also purchase for Mac. Xcode is free. A developer code signing certificate costs money whether you buy it through Apple or Verisign. Want to release trusted apps on Windows that don't throw up scary looking security warnings to your users that download them? Guess you'll need to pay $299 a year to Verisign or some other CA for that privilege.
Gatekeeper is actually a cool feature because now any developer will be able to release signed applications without going through the app store approval process. If they do nasty things, their certificate gets revoked. You get the benefits to the user of running signed/trusted code, and the benefits to the developer of deploying for free, without app store approval.
Gatekeeper is actually a cool feature because now any developer will be able to release signed applications without going through the app store approval process. If they do nasty things, their certificate gets revoked. You get the benefits to the user of running signed/trusted code, and the benefits to the developer of deploying for free, without app store approval.
Mind you though, to spare some confusion, there is no OneNote for mac, even though mac has a special edition of Word that implements a few of the features of OneNote.
> A developer code signing certificate costs money whether you buy it through Apple or Verisign.
According to Gruber, signing OSX apps will be free (which is sensible: it's really a service to Apple)
According to Gruber, signing OSX apps will be free (which is sensible: it's really a service to Apple)
> Oh and I don't have to pay 99GBP to write software that works on it. Visual Studio is free.
Not sure what you're talking about, XCode is free. Visual Studio is $799.
Not sure what you're talking about, XCode is free. Visual Studio is $799.
He's referring to the fact you have to pay $99.00 to distribute your apps on the App Store.
The IDE's on both OS's are irrelevant arguments. There are free versions of Visual Studio as well that work just as nice as the Professional editions. Those editions are for corporate enterprise architect roles etc.
The IDE's on both OS's are irrelevant arguments. There are free versions of Visual Studio as well that work just as nice as the Professional editions. Those editions are for corporate enterprise architect roles etc.
If you think Visual studio express works as well as pro, or that pro and the like are only for corporate enterprise architects and e like. You've clearly never used visual studio pro. Profiling and x64 support are two trivial examples of what's missing, both of which are features included in the free Xcode.
x64 is only an issue if you do native interop.
Profiling is solved by using ANTS profiler.
Profiling is solved by using ANTS profiler.
> x64 is only an issue if you do native interop.
I'm specifically speaking on my personal experience with Visual C++, in which x64 is much more important. Additionally I'm unsure if native interop can be done at all with Express editions, since there is a seperate Visual Studio Express for every language.
I'm certain .Net languages have other limitations using the Express editions.
> Profiling is solved by using ANTS profiler.
If we are expressing equivalency with every free non Microsoft product with the similar Visual Studio pro feature the whole Discussion is moot, because you'll be able to find a Mono or GCC, or some other tool that has the same feature checkpoint. But that doesn't change the fact that Visual Studio Express doesn't have profiling among other things.
I'm specifically speaking on my personal experience with Visual C++, in which x64 is much more important. Additionally I'm unsure if native interop can be done at all with Express editions, since there is a seperate Visual Studio Express for every language.
I'm certain .Net languages have other limitations using the Express editions.
> Profiling is solved by using ANTS profiler.
If we are expressing equivalency with every free non Microsoft product with the similar Visual Studio pro feature the whole Discussion is moot, because you'll be able to find a Mono or GCC, or some other tool that has the same feature checkpoint. But that doesn't change the fact that Visual Studio Express doesn't have profiling among other things.
[deleted]
And us corporate solution architects tend to use ArgoUML if we have to delve into that crud.
VS Express is actually pretty much fine for 90% of development work. If you are in a TDD environment, you don't even need the unit test stuff as NUnit ships with a GUI test runner.
VS Express is actually pretty much fine for 90% of development work. If you are in a TDD environment, you don't even need the unit test stuff as NUnit ships with a GUI test runner.
You have to remember, Windows Live Essentials (what they call it) doesn't come standard with windows. You need to download it. That said, Apple has long been aiming at standard users and not power users. Apple knows that everything that power users need power users will make themselves or they will find.
i/OS/X is geared toward the average consumer. ie. someone who knows nothing about how it works and probably won't find a feature if it isn't on the desktop.
Don't confuse "features" with selling points.
i/OS/X is geared toward the average consumer. ie. someone who knows nothing about how it works and probably won't find a feature if it isn't on the desktop.
Don't confuse "features" with selling points.
I believe Microsoft doesn't add this by default, because otherwise it would get into trouble with cartel authorities.
You are probably right. I prefer an additive process i.e. install what I want from a clean install.
Every time I grab a Mac, I have to remove all the crap from it (Garageband, iPhoto etc). It's easier to drop the restore CD in and reinstall it from scratch without all the junk (and don't tell me to just leave it there as it takes up valuable space on an Air SSD).
Every time I grab a Mac, I have to remove all the crap from it (Garageband, iPhoto etc). It's easier to drop the restore CD in and reinstall it from scratch without all the junk (and don't tell me to just leave it there as it takes up valuable space on an Air SSD).
First, deleting iLife apps is as simple as dragging the particular app you don't want to the Trash and then emptying the trash, no significant uninstall process required. I'd hardly call that a significant issue to whine about.
Second, you claim you have an Air and that you're dropping in a restore CD. Does not compute.
Easy with the hyperbole.
Second, you claim you have an Air and that you're dropping in a restore CD. Does not compute.
Easy with the hyperbole.
USB CD drive. TBH we lost the little restore stick in the sofa!
I'm not particularly excited about this release, but I gotta think you'd have been better off not calling out the word fanboy here at all, because you really really come off as a Windows fanboy, much more so than any of the responses to you come off as any kind of fanboy, and frankly more than I've seen anywhere in quite some time.
Sorry that was a "sarcastic" intent of the post i.e. to do the comparison as per Mac users do usually on here.
In actual fact I sit in front of a Linux machine neatly occupying the neutral zone :-)
In actual fact I sit in front of a Linux machine neatly occupying the neutral zone :-)
12. iPad. Windows has had tablets since 2001.
The focus on feature-by-feature comparisons is why Apple is cleaning everyone's clock. I wrote this 2 years ago when the iPad came out (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1025200):
-------
In my head, I call this the "blender" comparison that many technophiles seem to use.
Want to compare two meals? Put them in the blender and analyze the nutritional content of the resulting goop.
What? You don't compare food by spec sheets? (Calories, vitamins, carbs, proteins). What are these subjective "texture, taste, style, temperature, presentation" variables you care about? They offer little or no nutritional difference!
The focus on feature-by-feature comparisons is why Apple is cleaning everyone's clock. I wrote this 2 years ago when the iPad came out (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1025200):
-------
In my head, I call this the "blender" comparison that many technophiles seem to use.
Want to compare two meals? Put them in the blender and analyze the nutritional content of the resulting goop.
What? You don't compare food by spec sheets? (Calories, vitamins, carbs, proteins). What are these subjective "texture, taste, style, temperature, presentation" variables you care about? They offer little or no nutritional difference!
>4. Notes. NOTHING on this planet compares to Microsoft's OneNote.
Scrivner and Evernote do compare, actually. That being said, OneNote is one of the least appreciated MS products.
Scrivner and Evernote do compare, actually. That being said, OneNote is one of the least appreciated MS products.
Airplay mirroring. Woo yay etc. Windows media player (!) does this with my Sony Bravia with no complaints.
Cool story bro, mind sharing how you can use WMP to mirror your whole display? You know, for things like presentations, VLC, games?
Cool story bro, mind sharing how you can use WMP to mirror your whole display? You know, for things like presentations, VLC, games?
I'm not an apple fanboi, and all those new osx 8 features don't really vibe with my needs. but osx=> unix (more or less), windows ~= unix. That's game over in my book.
The next time Apple does this style of announcement, I'm inclined to believe that they may release the info themselves half an hour or so before their embargo ends. The first I heard about this, before there were any changes to the Apple site, was a tweet.
So i need to reboot my Mac after installing the Messages demo? Can't remember ever seeing that with an Apple product other than Xcode.
iTunes updates often require a reboot. Previous iWork installs have also.
Most of the time, an actual restart is not required, just logging out and then back in.
Most of the time, an actual restart is not required, just logging out and then back in.
Does anyone else see Notes as an Evernote killer?
I know it's not a popular opinion, but yet again I feel like Apple has decided to simply keep status quo with Mac OS X, which is very much the same Mac OS X we got from about 10.3 onwards (Panther, wasn't it)?
Think about how different Ubuntu is now since then. Windows 8 is a real risk-take from a company that does not take risks (whether they were forced to do so or not is another argument). Mac OS X is... Mac OS X again.
I've been using Mac OS X since 10.2, and I will get another Apple machine for my next one, but I really don't know why they bother putting anything out if they're just going to phone it in each time. Pretty much everything added to Lion I really don't care for, and what they did add was minimal anyway.
I wonder if they really have the vision and the tenacity to actually move things forward, or whether iOS and Mac OS X are going to remain the way they are until the company can't take it anymore. They need a software person like hardware needs Johnny Ive. Someone to put their foot down, say "we're doing this" and follow through.
The next 10 years of Mac OS X cannot be the same as the last 10 years, can it?
Think about how different Ubuntu is now since then. Windows 8 is a real risk-take from a company that does not take risks (whether they were forced to do so or not is another argument). Mac OS X is... Mac OS X again.
I've been using Mac OS X since 10.2, and I will get another Apple machine for my next one, but I really don't know why they bother putting anything out if they're just going to phone it in each time. Pretty much everything added to Lion I really don't care for, and what they did add was minimal anyway.
I wonder if they really have the vision and the tenacity to actually move things forward, or whether iOS and Mac OS X are going to remain the way they are until the company can't take it anymore. They need a software person like hardware needs Johnny Ive. Someone to put their foot down, say "we're doing this" and follow through.
The next 10 years of Mac OS X cannot be the same as the last 10 years, can it?
Mac OS is at a point where they simply can't take these drastic jumps that you may see in the competition. For one, they're now at a yearly cycle. Two, the audience has expanded and continues to expand it's user base.
OS X's yearly cycles allows them to take a loyal user base who will upgrade and gradually introduce them to paradigm shifts, like cloud storage. Apple is taking calculated steps to make sure any of their risk taking features are done right and presented to the consumer correctly so they're adopted. I think they definitely have the vision. Something they do even better is have the patience to make sure their vision comes to fruition (mostly) correctly.
I can understand your point, but I'm not sure what progress you want. I'm more inclined to say that you're a segment that Apple doesn't quite need.
OS X's yearly cycles allows them to take a loyal user base who will upgrade and gradually introduce them to paradigm shifts, like cloud storage. Apple is taking calculated steps to make sure any of their risk taking features are done right and presented to the consumer correctly so they're adopted. I think they definitely have the vision. Something they do even better is have the patience to make sure their vision comes to fruition (mostly) correctly.
I can understand your point, but I'm not sure what progress you want. I'm more inclined to say that you're a segment that Apple doesn't quite need.
It seems to me that Apple doesn't think that the Mac is a segment it needs at all.
I would place money on Apple killing the Mac within 10 years, moving all consumers to iOS (which, let's face it, they're doing all by themselves), and releasing Xcode onto a Linux distro and wash their hands of desktop computing once and for all.
Apple clearly doesn't see a lot of future in the desktop, and that may well be right.
I would place money on Apple killing the Mac within 10 years, moving all consumers to iOS (which, let's face it, they're doing all by themselves), and releasing Xcode onto a Linux distro and wash their hands of desktop computing once and for all.
Apple clearly doesn't see a lot of future in the desktop, and that may well be right.
What is it you're wanting?
A feeling that I'm not buying the same OS each year.
Personally, I think Microsoft's strategy of bringing back the hybrid desktop/tablet, where you can do tablet-type things on the road/in bed, then drop it into a dock and go back to mouse and keyboard for work, is pretty sound now. I like what they've done with Windows 8. I like that they're trying.
What do I want from Apple? Probably something I don't know I want. I want to be able to drop an iPad into an iMac enclosure and have a hybrid work area. I want iCloud to be more than some weird, feature-free Dropbox (the new organization structure sounds like a misery for anyone with more than a handful of files). I want them to fix Finder and rethink the Dock.
But this is like asking what I want from an iPhone before I ever saw one, and I think most people's ideas of what they wanted were so wildly off, and then Steve comes out and says "You want this" and he's right. That's what I want from them, to know me better than myself.
Personally, I think Microsoft's strategy of bringing back the hybrid desktop/tablet, where you can do tablet-type things on the road/in bed, then drop it into a dock and go back to mouse and keyboard for work, is pretty sound now. I like what they've done with Windows 8. I like that they're trying.
What do I want from Apple? Probably something I don't know I want. I want to be able to drop an iPad into an iMac enclosure and have a hybrid work area. I want iCloud to be more than some weird, feature-free Dropbox (the new organization structure sounds like a misery for anyone with more than a handful of files). I want them to fix Finder and rethink the Dock.
But this is like asking what I want from an iPhone before I ever saw one, and I think most people's ideas of what they wanted were so wildly off, and then Steve comes out and says "You want this" and he's right. That's what I want from them, to know me better than myself.
How would you improve Finder?
I'm surprised that there's still no mention of a Mac version of iBooks...
It's amusing that Gatekeeper's icon looks a lot like Microsoft Security Essentials, but that (and Messages) is probably my main draw - gotta keep the parents safe on their respective all-important iOS and OSX life-centers.
I wished they'd fix bugs in lion before releasing the next version. Bluetooth problems, wireless connection (mostly with new MBA's, etc ) - there are huge threads on both these issues in the Apple forums. Among many others.
The magic of Mac is that it's BOTH a great developer / hacker machine (POSIX/BSD + GNU tools with great hardware, power mgmt, etc), and a great machine for people who don't know how to use computers.
It's inevitable that the layer for non-techies feels more and more integrated with iOS.
Will we ever lose access to the do-anything BSD box underneath? That will be a sad day for me - Windows+cygwin is an abomination.
It's inevitable that the layer for non-techies feels more and more integrated with iOS.
Will we ever lose access to the do-anything BSD box underneath? That will be a sad day for me - Windows+cygwin is an abomination.
I can't imagine Apple ever removing the open Unix access in its OS X server due to so many customers relying on it (though I can't really imagine them removing it in the normal OS X either, but who knows). Maybe power users will just have to upgrade to OS X server on their laptops, like Windows NT Workstation.
Yawn. A whole OS upgrade to move a few iPad apps to the desktop? Apps I don't even use on my iPad. Hopefully there will be more than this.
I guess I am looking at Lion and Mountain Lion and not seeing a place for someone who works outside of the Apple target audience. I like the way I use mac books, which is "skin over Unix with usable UX and a mighty fine piece of HW".
I think it's time I started looking at high-end Linux laptops...
I think it's time I started looking at high-end Linux laptops...
So does this imply touchescreens with the iOS Gaming Center to come?
The Messages beta has significantly impacted my productivity in one day. I no longer have to look down at my phone to text while I'm at my desk and instead can chat with my SO all day while I work, and the them it appears like a text message.
I really hope they don't try to converge the interfaces too much. The design elements in Lion that were very iOS-like were IMHO the worst.
The thing is: pads and phones are fundamentally different kinds of devices. Their UI paradigm is designed around frequent but brief and relatively shallow interactions, while a PC is for deeper longer-term interactions. Trying convergence here seems like something very easy to botch horribly.
The thing is: pads and phones are fundamentally different kinds of devices. Their UI paradigm is designed around frequent but brief and relatively shallow interactions, while a PC is for deeper longer-term interactions. Trying convergence here seems like something very easy to botch horribly.
Agreed. You really can't have a hybrid of the two. It ends up being neither fish nor fowl -- a suboptimal experience in either form. Either rip off the band-aid, and go swiftly but painfully through the transition to pure-iOS on everything, or keep OSX and iOS relatively separate (if, perhaps, working gradually toward more interoperability).
My guess is that Apple is waiting for the day when cloud computing is the standard, and there is no longer a great deal of need for the hardware-based functionality or design of a laptop. When that day comes, a simple iOS-style interface might be fine for everything. In the meantime, however, there are still plenty of distinct use cases for Macs and iDevices. Arguably, we're still in the awkward adolescence of cloud computing. We know it's going to grow up quickly, but that day isn't quite here yet.
(And let's not forget that Apple is a hardware company and, accordingly, is probably hesitant to hasten the demise of any of its key hardware lines).
My guess is that Apple is waiting for the day when cloud computing is the standard, and there is no longer a great deal of need for the hardware-based functionality or design of a laptop. When that day comes, a simple iOS-style interface might be fine for everything. In the meantime, however, there are still plenty of distinct use cases for Macs and iDevices. Arguably, we're still in the awkward adolescence of cloud computing. We know it's going to grow up quickly, but that day isn't quite here yet.
(And let's not forget that Apple is a hardware company and, accordingly, is probably hesitant to hasten the demise of any of its key hardware lines).
In Microsoft's case, they're building a completely new UI for both PC and Tablet form factors in Windows 8, and from trying the Developer Preview, it seems to work OK on PC (although it does need a lot of tweaking)
First off- I think Gatekeeper will further lure the average user into a false sense of security. Second, Apple needs to simplify how users are identified when communicating with iMessages. Third- it's curious that they didn't have a formal announcement.