Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jan 2012 15:13 UTC
Mac OS X "It's no longer possible to write a single app that takes advantage of the full range of Mac OS X features. Some APIs only work inside the Mac App Store. Others only work outside it. Presumably, this gap will widen as more new features are App Store-exclusive, while sandboxing places greater restrictions on what App Store apps are allowed to do." Anybody surprised by this, here's the clue stick. Please proceed to hit yourself with it.
Thread beginning with comment 504725
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: No MacOS X for me.
by d3vi1 on Thu 26th Jan 2012 15:40 UTC in reply to "No MacOS X for me."
d3vi1
Member since:
2006-01-28

I imagine that Apple's dreamworld is similar to what Games Console developers enjoy. Where every single application has to go through a certification process, after being able to get an approval from the console vendor.


That's not the point of the change. The point is that they want control over the APIs that are being used. They want to be able to deprecate Carbon and UNIX APIs in favor of Cocoa. They want people to use ONLY the new APIs that are 99% share-able with iOS and that are not difficult to maintain in the following years.

Microsoft's difficulty is that their APIs are 20 years old and they can't clean up their act.

I like the idea to keep the APIs used to only the newer ones. That means that apps are written better and the OS is legacy free.

The APIs that are App Store only are App Store related so those don't really count.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by moondevil on Thu 26th Jan 2012 15:57 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"I imagine that Apple's dreamworld is similar to what Games Console developers enjoy. Where every single application has to go through a certification process, after being able to get an approval from the console vendor.


That's not the point of the change. The point is that they want control over the APIs that are being used. They want to be able to deprecate Carbon and UNIX APIs in favor of Cocoa. They want people to use ONLY the new APIs that are 99% share-able with iOS and that are not difficult to maintain in the following years.
"

There are other ways of doing it, like when they dropped support for Carbon in Lion.

No need to have certain APIs AppStore only.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: No MacOS X for me.
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jan 2012 02:06 in reply to "RE[2]: No MacOS X for me."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

There are other ways of doing it, like when they dropped support for Carbon in Lion.

No need to have certain APIs AppStore only.


When did they drop support for Carbon in Lion? last time I checked Microsoft Office 2011 was still a predominantly a Carbon application along with Adobe's Creative Suite too.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by Beta on Thu 26th Jan 2012 16:00 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The APIs that are App Store only are App Store related so those don't really count.


iCloud API is not App Store related, though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: No MacOS X for me.
by henderson101 on Thu 26th Jan 2012 23:53 in reply to "RE[2]: No MacOS X for me."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

iCloud API is not App Store related, though.

Yes it is. iCloud is tied to the AppStore on both iOS and OS X. The mechanism, by definition, is curated. The fact is that there is no way that Apple is going to let unsanctioned apps put data on their iCloud servers, nor should we expect them to. They are not Dropbox, after all, nor do they claim to be.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by BrianH on Thu 26th Jan 2012 16:15 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
BrianH Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft's difficulty is that their APIs are 20 years old and they can't clean up their act.

I like the idea to keep the APIs used to only the newer ones. That means that apps are written better and the OS is legacy free.


Microsoft is cleaning up their act with the new WinRT APIs in Win8. Metro apps will only have limited access to legacy APIs, only the safe ones. No matter how Metro apps are written - native, .NET, Silverlight, HTML/JS - they will all use the same WinRT code, perhaps with idiomatic wrapper APIs but the same code.

I haven't heard one way or the other whether Win8 desktop apps can use WinRT yet, as the non-UI APIs should apply to desktop apps too. That would be nice to see, and a desktop-usable subset of WinRT might be portable to Win7 as well.

Metro is just surface stuff. The big change is WinRT.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: No MacOS X for me.
by kaiwai on Fri 27th Jan 2012 02:42 in reply to "RE[2]: No MacOS X for me."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft is cleaning up their act with the new WinRT APIs in Win8. Metro apps will only have limited access to legacy APIs, only the safe ones. No matter how Metro apps are written - native, .NET, Silverlight, HTML/JS - they will all use the same WinRT code, perhaps with idiomatic wrapper APIs but the same code.

I haven't heard one way or the other whether Win8 desktop apps can use WinRT yet, as the non-UI APIs should apply to desktop apps too. That would be nice to see, and a desktop-usable subset of WinRT might be portable to Win7 as well.

Metro is just surface stuff. The big change is WinRT.


Microsoft touted WinRT as a 'native subsystem' in its own right since it was launched it has since my shown that this so-called 'native subsystem' is in actual fact little more than a shim sitting on top of win32 given the number of WinRT frameworks that are still referencing back to GDI for starters (haven't Microsoft heard of their own in house built API's known as DirectWrite/Direct2D?).

Then there is the issue of the desktop - the desktop isn't going anywhere but when are Microsoft going to provide a native alternative to the 30 year old common control and dialogues that are sitting on top of old legacy API's such as GDI? it has been almost 5 years and Microsoft still has no road map to move away from the old and move to the new.

Lets get one thing straight, I am not expecting them to throw away backwards compatibility but what do expect at the very least is for Windows to have a clear line drawn in the sand between what is legacy and what is the future (so developers know what parts of their own software stack need to be moved over to the new API's) and more importantly for all the built in applications of Windows to be moved over to the new API's. Sure, have common control and dialogues dll's for backwards compatibility but there is no reason why explorer.exe shouldn't be making a single reference to these legacy API's nor should there be a reason for internet explorer to make any reference or Windows Media Player etc. etc.

It is time that Microsoft got its act together because so far to me it appears that everything they've done so far is half assed and half baked - a friday job where the absolutely minimal amount of works is done in a hope that no one will noticed the rotting piles underneath the whole edifice.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by karunko on Thu 26th Jan 2012 17:09 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

I like the idea to keep the APIs used to only the newer ones. That means that apps are written better and the OS is legacy free.

But also that older applications won't work any longer, so I'm not sure this would be such a good idea.

Maybe this won't seem a big deal to people used to the $0.99 apps, but other people have made quite an investment in software, you know? Not to mention that some applications are no longer maintained and won't receive an update -- and can't be easily replaced anyway.


RT.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: No MacOS X for me.
by lucas_maximus on Thu 26th Jan 2012 19:24 in reply to "RE[2]: No MacOS X for me."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

But also that older applications won't work any longer, so I'm not sure this would be such a good idea.

Maybe this won't seem a big deal to people used to the $0.99 apps, but other people have made quite an investment in software, you know? Not to mention that some applications are no longer maintained and won't receive an update -- and can't be easily replaced anyway.


RT.


Apple don't tend to care. They care about getting cash off of you quick. TBH if you want a cross platform app ... make it some sort of HTML 5 thing.

Apple are doing quite well especially in the business sector.

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/01/26/good_technology_shows_apple_d...

Pretty much every upper management I know is requesting iPads and iPhones. While Android is outselling iOS ... most of the people that are using their devices on the net are using iOS devices.

BTW I have worked at one large UK charity and now a large UK gambling company.

Edited 2012-01-26 19:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: No MacOS X for me.
by d3vi1 on Sun 29th Jan 2012 22:22 in reply to "RE[2]: No MacOS X for me."
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

But also that older applications won't work any longer, so I'm not sure this would be such a good idea.


Yes, because history has shown that old apps run perfectly on new software and hardware. I personally have a big problem with legacy applications. They always keep some other bigger projects from evolving because they require some ancient part of the infrastructure that is in dire need of an upgrade to still be compatible. Wether we're talking about TLS/SSL3 support, NTLMv2, case sensitivity in file systems or many others you're looking for trouble if you don't use somewhat recent software.
All software products make assumptions about the environment that are not always going to be valid. Old games didn't check the DirectX version on your computer, they only checked if you ran Windows 98 or NT. The end result was that they refused to install on Windows XP, that had a newer DirectX, but was detected as Windows NT.
Old software can come with a 16bit installer that doesn't run on a 64-bit Windows. Old software may not be compiled for 64-bit, so we need to drag a copy of all our libraries in both 32-bit and 64-bit. I would love to see 9 years after the first AMD64 chips came out that we can have a Windows or MacOS without any 32-bit components.

Maybe this won't seem a big deal to people used to the $0.99 apps, but other people have made quite an investment in software, you know? Not to mention that some applications are no longer maintained and won't receive an update -- and can't be easily replaced anyway.

Virtualize! Make a VM with whatever version of the OS you need and run it anywhere you want. Can't your MacBookPro with quad-core, 8-16GB of RAM and SSD handle a lousy VM?
I'm running 5-6 VMs regularly on my laptop and it still feels snappy.
I've also found VMs to be more reliable than installed OSs. It seems that the never-changing virtual hardware has better drivers than regular hardware. You can't realistically expect that the NVidia drivers that support hundreds of video card configurations and chips are as reliable as a VMWare driver supporting only one virtual VGA card.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by f0dder on Thu 26th Jan 2012 18:57 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
f0dder Member since:
2009-08-05

How's the kool-aid tasting today?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by MORB on Thu 26th Jan 2012 19:14 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
MORB Member since:
2005-07-06

That's not the point of the change. The point is that they want control over the APIs that are being used.

Hahahahaha
You actually believe this


They obviously want to have tight quality control over applications. The downside is that developers freedom is considerably reduced.
I don't really mind though, as long as apple doesn't do all it can to make itself impossible to avoid the way microsoft did.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No MacOS X for me.
by r_a_trip on Fri 27th Jan 2012 11:11 in reply to "RE: No MacOS X for me."
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

I like the idea to keep the APIs used to only the newer ones. That means that apps are written better and the OS is legacy free.

The other side of that coin is an endless treadmill of buying new software when the API Gods deem the next set of culling necessary. Plus accepting that persons other than you decide what is possible when and where on a device you own and not you yourself.

Cushy convenience or empowering self-determination. Tough choice.

Reply Parent Score: 2