I’ll be updating the Macbook today. Yosemite is in!
Tag Archives: apple
The Tabtitlebar – Where Apple and Google went right, wrong or M.I.A.
This will be short.
Already, skirmishes of opinion over Apple’s interpretation of Google Chrome‘s tabtitlebar – or the positioning of the tabs in the title bar of the browser in order to utilize screen space for webpages – have erupted on various news sites and blogs. Even on OS X, the jury over Safari 4‘s user interface design is divided; on the Windows port, most who express favor with Safari 4’s user interface design are usually users of Windows Vista, so the main supposition is that those who have the most trouble with the tabtitlebar are Windows XP users; oh, and (on a cross-platform basis) people who simply like more screen real estate for pageviewing.
Of course, Google Chrome Beta (Google’s first browser, and currently Windows-only) was the first notable web browser to publicly promote the UI infusion, and it was not without its initial criticisms for that same reason (among others, including the option of sending anonymous usage and crash data to Google). Safari 4 Beta, on the other hand, marks a first for Apple in its legendary user interface history, and may also begin a user interface trend for Apple throughout its Mac OS X applications (Finder, Mac OS’s file navigation app, is hinted to have tabs in early alphas of Snow Leopard, OS X’s 6th iteration, so it may well take up Safari 4’s tabtitlebar feature).
Many have written about problems with this emerging user interface widget, which utilizes the operating system’s window manager by embedding navigation between tabs within the title bar (mostly on Windows). Personally, I think it is a good idea due to a month or so of using Google Chrome (I also find the process-per-tab idea to be a good idea), but problems still linger with both implementations as far as I’m concerned.
- Speed: Chrome is far better in the speed department than Safari as far as opening, closing and navigating between tabs is concerned (again, maybe because of the process-per-tab idea). The Windows port of Safari 4, like its Mac port, does not allow an option (AFAIK) for using middle-click to close tabs; left-clicking to close tabs in Safari 4 on WinXP feels like chipping into brick. The responsiveness to clicking buttons to close and open tabs is horrendous on this platform.
- Tab navigation and perception: In this area, I’ll say that Firefox 2.0+, despite its own speed and resource management issues, did a better tour-de-force at tab navigation than Opera, Chrome or Safari, by allowing one to scroll through as many tabs as one may please without the tabs being scrunched up in the tab area. All the other browsers, even Chrome and Safari, continue to maintain the metaphor of the "limited tab area", with Safari 4 doing worse by maximizing the view of the tab of the current page in view at the expense of other tabs-in-waiting.
Yes, Firefox actually did something that I’ve come to appreciate (and wish that they could extend into a much wider territory of tab navigation; getting rid of the tab-specfic close button in 3.0 remains questionable, IMO).
There is room for improvement for Safari and Chrome in this combination of two user interface metaphors. In fact, there’s room for improvement for most of Apple’s software ports to Windows, but I highly doubt that Apple is willing to consider such ideas as unscrunching the tabtitlebar for tabscrolling or giving separate processes to each tab, just as how I doubt that Microsoft will do the same with IE8 or IE9.
Being a closed, unique community: a rant on “corporate exceptionalism”
This guy has a point, albeit founded upon shaky premises. Apple, as a company, possesses much more of a closed mentality than Microsoft in regards to how it relates to open source projects, at least as far as legally tying hardware to software is concerned.
However, I think it has already been pointed out in that post’s comment section that Apple contributes to, and uses, a number of open-source projects.
But I think that, while I find the premise of Apple being an "open-source enemy" to be presently and patently flawed, the company’s practices in regards to software do need to be assessed from an FOSS standpoint.
Apple makes use of a number of FOSS packages and contributes back to them. However, the company makes sure to use FOSS strategically, by only using FOSS packages that can boost Mac OS X from the ground up but gradually decreasing the usage of FOSS at the higher-level, more-visible layers of the operating system. One of the few visible FOSS components of OS X is the WebKit framework (used by Safari and Dashboard for web rendering), which is derived from several projects of the more Linux-friendly KDE.
Otherwise, Apple tries to use as many proprietary bits in OS X as possible; a prime issue (and one that even I’ve expressed concern about) is how X11-native applications, when ported to OS X’s (closed-source) pet API and toolkit, have to be derived as forks of the main branch of the application in order to "integrate" with the predominant look-and-feel of the operating system and GUI. Camino was derived from Firefox in this manner, as was Adium from Pidgin.
Even third-party closed-source programmers have to face this hurdle, as porting an application or application suite between Win32 and Cocoa (or Carbon) usually results in the distributors stating that they will not be able to deliver the next release of a software suite for one platform (usually, the one that goes lacking is OS X).
I particularly notice that, when an application has finally been rewritten for installation on OS X to fit in the user interface of OS X, the developers (and sometimes Apple) will state "such-and-such-app comes to the Mac."
Comes to the Mac? It was recoded for Aqua to Apple’s HUG, not brought to some obscure hardware platform!
And I think that is the answer: by keeping the toolkit closed-source and keeping the operating system (upon which the toolkit is dependent) tied exclusively to Apple’s Mac-branded hardware, Apple is attempting to give off that idea that an originally-cross-platform software application has been ported not just to a proprietary toolkit, but to an entirely-different hardware platform. It is a matter of image control, whereby Apple seeks to maintain and preserve this ideal image of a distinct and unique computing platform that is exclusive toward all other platforms. Even the transition from IBM’s PPC to Intel x86 didn’t dissipate or dent this image, as the maintenance of the hardware lock-in+toolkit dependency would ensure that anything for OS X would also be for "the Mac".
Personally, this would lead me to assume that Apple is a hardware company with a higher degree of exceptionalism for its own operating system and application software.
It reminds me of how Macromedia (now merged into Adobe Systems since 2005) was an application software company that had a higher degree of exceptionalism for its own webware and file formats.
The trouble of this approach is that, if another company with the same approach (in this case, Microsoft, an operating system company that had a higher degree of exceptionalism for its own application software, webware and file formats) and a larger size and budget to grow on, decides to edge into your market (.NET 3.0, with the much-touted Silverlight, XAML and other such graphic niceties), what are you to do? How do you react, and with whom should you ally? Macromedia, which already had Flex, Flash, AIR, MXML and other resources, was bought by long-time rival Adobe (which was previously touting SVG as a competitor to Flash prior to the acquisition), with a gradually-open (and open-source-friendly) approach being adopted by Adobe in order to compete for influence with Microsoft in the multimedia production arena.
Apple, however, doesn’t need fear any such competitive threat from Microsoft or Adobe. At present, no other desktop computing hardware distributor has such a high degree of exceptionalism for its own operating system and application software as does Apple.
Many in both the FOSS and Windows user communities view any higher degree of exceptionalism for a company’s own proprietary trimmings as "arrogance", "pomposity", "bigotry", "ignorance", "hypocrisy", etc. But any company, IMO, would take such an approach if they could afford losing potential sales opportunities; Adobe and Microsoft have historically taken such an approach towards their own stacks as well.
Plus, a higher exceptionalism for your own stack often results in loyal, high-paying customer bases, rumor communities and vigilant keyboard armies. Apple, Adobe and Microsoft all have such customer bases and fandoms, all of which are accused of being as shrill and arrogant as the companies to which they give such fealty, devotion and attention.
So a better question to ask of Apple would be this: "is Apple’s corporate exceptionalism a bigger open source enemy than Microsoft’s corporate exceptionalism?"
And my answer would be "Yes. Yes it is."
Mark Shuttleworth gets some serious iMac envy
….Or, why Canonical (or the Ubuntu Foundation) should hook up with an All-in-One PC maker like Acer-Gateway or Averatec.
Mark Shuttleworth yesterday voiced his desire to help get Desktop Linux to, or past, the same design landmark currently held by Apple’s Mac OS X. He also predicted that the same would be accomplished within the next two years.
Now one can laugh at this, and maybe even make a few jokes about how Ubuntu’s trademark brownish-beige look and feel is easily dispelled by Mac OS X’s trademark bluish/ivory look-and-feel.
I personally don’t think that a desktop Linux distribution like Ubuntu should be so easily discounted as an operating system and software platform in comparison to Mac OS X. However, I contend that Ubuntu’s success as a competing operating system and software platform against Mac OS X should be judged, or at least reviewed and assessed on how well either operating system fits into and utilizes an All-in-One PC.
The reason why I place the All-in-One PC in such a higher regard in comparison to the more diverse monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower combo that is sold by most desktop PC vendors as far as comparing Ubuntu to Mac OS X is because Mac OS X, since its introduction around 2000/2001, has historically been designed around the iMac, the AIO PC that was inaugurated in 1998 as the flagship product of the “new, improved” Apple. Even as Apple had introduced other desktop and laptop computers which had less of a hardware focus around the OS X GUI (including the current Mac Pro and Mac mini), the Mac OS X user interface has almost always been designed around the iMac in all generational iterations of the computer.
For instance, if you look at the iMac page on Apple.com, you can see how the GUIs of all the applications displayed on the screens of the row of iMacs are designed to take up the entirety of the screen. In fact, since Apple had first started to sell the flat-screen iMacs (starting with the iMac G4 of 2002), the screen real estate taken up by whole applications has almost always been advertised on the iMac page of Apple.com. The current iterations of the other desktop and laptop products from Apple are not advertised in a similar fashion on their own respective front pages on the website; the GUI’s design is not “front and center” on those pages.
So I honestly think that Mac OS X’s UI is designed to fit best on an iMac, with all the other installations of OS X on the other Mac desktops and laptops being a second-best consideration for Apple until recently. This All-in-One GUI-design mentality is also carried over to the iPhone OS, as the iPhone OS is designed more for the iPhone (an “All-in-One” candybar mobile device where, again, the screen is all that matters for user interaction) than it is for the iPod touch (and, if it decides to add another mobile pocket device, maybe a clamshell, to the line-up, Apple will still preinstall the iPhone OS onto the device without any significant changes in the design of the GUI or the functionality of the OS). A sign of this is the fact that the iPod touch still has some camera functionality akin to the iPhone, even though the iPod touch doesn’t have a built-in camera.
Meanwhile, Windows on the desktop isn’t and never has been designed with such a focus on the All-in-One desktop computer form factor; instead, it has been traditionally designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor.
Desktop Linux, as well, has been historically designed around the monitor-mouse-keyboard-tower metaphor, at least because the cheaper desktop computers have followed such a hardware design for expandability and upgrading purposes. Thus, Ubuntu has followed in like manner.
However, because it isn’t created and provided by one single vendor, nor are the offered looks determined by one single vendor, it may be possible for desktop Linux distributions like Ubuntu and its own spinoffs can be designed and themed for best fit and access on an All-in-One PC’s display.
If a Linux distribution (or more specifically, dare I say, an Ubuntu spinoff) can be designed and themed to be accessed specifically on an All-in-One PC like Gateway’s One, Sony’s Vaio L or Asus’ EEE Monitor, I think that it may become the pinnacle of free software UI design for both desktop and laptop computers.
Anyone who may want to consider such an idea should at least consider the user interface of the “made-for-EEE PC” Linux distributions like Xandros and eeeXubuntu, and then try to apply the user interface with major modifications for access within an AIO PC.
So this, I believe, is what Canonical must consider if it wants to compete with Apple in the area of user interface design. It must look at and study the hardware form factor that Apple uses to design the user interface of Mac OS X (the iMac) and then apply an AIO-centric design to Ubuntu that definitely outranks and outmaneuvers the Mac OS X-on-iMac user experience.
If it can do that, then Apple will be forced to compete against desktop Linux on the desktop and laptop front, particularly to retain their high-profile image as a computer company.
No More Apple Computer
Today, Apple’s dropped the “computer” from their name. They’re now known officially as Apple, Inc.
Also, they’ve announced the much-anticipated iPhone (to be released in June).
And, finally, they’ve announced Apple TV, formerly known as iTV.
Oh, and they’ve revamped their entire website. It’s mostly in black, but methinks that they did a half-job with it.
Now, for my piece.
Apple has done alot within the 10 years since Steve Jobs was brought back to the company. They went for a brand new operating system and a brand new microprocessor architecture. They’ve also jumped into the media business feet-first, and have made quite a splash into the telephone industry as of today.
So I wonder: does this most recent keynote denote a move away from the Macintosh line of computers?
OK, that’s a bit far-fetched, and flamebaiting.
But look again at what Apple has done in the second Steve Jobs period, and the side-effects of these actions.
- They moved from PowerPC to Intel, with full knowledge of the possibility of Mac OS X being reverse-engineered by so-called “hackers” to run it on other, non-Apple computers which share the exact same hardware architecture.
- Numerous users on public forums have expressed their desire to use Mac OS X without paying the premium for the hardware.
- Apple is no longer just a computer company, as noted by the aforementioned name change.
- Apple, as of today, is competing directly with Microsoft (and Sony) in the home entertainment hardware department: Apple TV vs. Xbox 360, iPod vs. Zune (btw, I’m certain that Steve Jobs, being the co-founder of Disney’s new animation department, has long held a foray into the media carriage industry as a goal for Apple.)
So, my theory is that
- Apple will recognize a market which only the operating system, sans the hardware, can appeal to.
- Apple will gradually license Mac OS X to other computer companies.
- They will, just as gradually, phase out the Macintosh computer line before, at least, the end of the decade.
Simply put, Apple, in the most ironic twist in computer history, will become the new Microsoft, and vice versa.
Flame me now, please.
===
In other news, Yahoo demoed its custom-made Messenger for Vista earlier this week at CES.
