Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 13th Jan 2007 23:36 UTC
Some more information about the Apple iPhone is keep hitting the web: the ARM CPU is apparently made by Samsung, applications will only be developed by third party companies that have a license agreement with Apple and make sure they follow specific guidelines (and possibly the apps will only be available by iTunes) while other sources say that the iPhone indeed runs a modified version of Darwin with a few OSX components (incorrectly reported by Slashdot today that it's not). Desktop OSX apps won't run on the iPhone of course. David Pogue also has two FAQs on the product (1,2).
Thread beginning with comment 201486
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Incorrectly reported by Slashdot
by enegeo on Sun 14th Jan 2007 02:20
in reply to "RE[5]: Incorrectly reported by Slashdot"
Member since:2006-03-06
If you take a look at the iPhone section of the Apple website you would notice that in every page it's cited as "OS X".
Now, go to the "Mac OS X" section and find some place where it is cited as simply "OS X" (without the "Mac").
It's just a little difference to all of us, but I'm sure that Apple marketing guys did it with a reason behind.
Besides, it's a prototype so things can change.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-04
Well of course it doesn't run a full version of OS X. I never disputed that, and I do call bullshit on Steve. In-fact, I specifically said that the iPhone and desktop versions of OS X would be different. What I'm saying is that you seem to be believe that "It doesn't have the same core as OSX". You've failed to prove that, and unless you work at Apple, you are simply unable to.
You also stated that "Well next time someone tries to tell me my OpenBSD box is behind OSX, I'll just say it IS OSX." That is a horrible example. A trimmed down version of OS X is still OS X in my mind. A completely different system, such as OpenBSD, which isn't released by the same company is not an adequate example, at least in any sane person's mind.
Also, who defines what OS X is? If you're arguing that a slimmed down OS X is not OS X, then this argument amounts to little more than a semantics debate, and is utterly pointless.