Bloomberg floats Apple rumor, TechCrunch throws hissy fit

Is Apple really creating a one-app-fits-all operating system? Let’s not wait to find out before we overreact.

From Mark Gurman’s Apple Plans Combined iPhone, iPad & Mac Apps to Create One User Experience posted Friday on Bloomberg News:

Starting as early as next year, software developers will be able to design a single application that works with a touchscreen or mouse and trackpad depending on whether it’s running on the iPhone and iPad operating system or on Mac hardware, according to people familiar with the matter…

From Danny Crichton’s Apple’s Design Delirium posted Saturday on TechCrunch:

That would be a product disaster… I get that the company wants to reduce friction for developers, and that should always be applauded. But Apple is delirious if it thinks that all of these devices can substitute as one. It needs to keep its focus on where its products are differentiated — and that is in differentiated design, particularly in software.

My theory: Crichton’s threw his hissy fit so he could quote Paul Jones’ blistering assessment of Apple’s declining software quality:

OpenGL implementation has fallen behind the competition, the filesystem desperately needs updating, the SDK has needed modernizing for years, networking and cryptography have seen major gaffes. And that’s with regards to the under-the-hood details, the applications are easier targets: it’s tragic that Aperture and iPhoto were axed in favor of the horrifically bad Photos app (that looks like some Frankenstein “iOS X” app), the entire industry have left Final Cut Pro X, I dare not plug my iPhone in to my laptop for fear of what it might do, the Mac App Store is the antitheses of native application development (again being some Frankenstein of a web/native app), and iCloud nee MobileMe nee iTools has been an unreliable and slow mess since day one.

Ouch.

5 Comments

  1. David Emery said:

    If I had to guess, we’ll get a set of libraries that run iOS applications within the context of a Mac OS X window (each app gets its own OS X window). Now the interesting thing is whether that happens through (a) recompilation and Fat Applications (like Apple had during the PowerPC-Intel conversion); (b) emulation of the A series chip on Intel (kinda like how Java runs in its Java Virtual Machine); or (c) a dedicated A series co-processor (if you’re really old, you might remember the DEC personal computer that had both an 8088 and a Z80 in it 🙂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_100 )

    2
    December 23, 2017
    • David Drinkwater said:

      I remember the DEC Rainbow. For me, it was “Dad’s computer”. I played around with Apple ][‘S during that time frame, doing some (*very*) basic BASIC coding. People still talked extensively about MS-DOS and even COBOL in those days. I know people still talk about MS-DOS (some of our age-old instrumentation at the office even requires it), but the rest of that stuff is just myth and legend for most people. “The computer” has come a long way since then, regardless of what a girl in an iPad commercial might say.

      1
      December 24, 2017
  2. Gregg Thurman said:

    I remember DEC’s Alpha chip. At the time it was blazingly fast. DEC tried to get MSFT to port to it but MSFT refused. Apple wanted it but DEC refused thinking the Mac market to small. Ultimately DEC was sold to Compaq (I think) before Compaq was sold to DELL. Now DELL has gone private to avoid public eyes. What a bunch of very bad decisions by supposedly bright people.

    The irony is that today Apple is bigger than DEC, COMPAQ and DELL were (combined) at their highs.

    0
    June 13, 2018
  3. Gregg Thurman said:

    Oh, forgot, good for Gurman.

    I wonder what Paul Jones (seeking freelance work) thinks of Apple’s move away from OpenGL.

    0
    June 13, 2018

Leave a Reply