Think about it, IF they were to buy into 700MHz you would need a cross-platform lite OS which would work with TV, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPod and future devices. OSX is really, OS 10 and there are only 5 iterations left.
IF all of this were coming about as OSX was being introduced as 10.1, then I would definitely jump on the OSXm(obile) bandwagon.
Why would an iPhone/iPod touch-integrated OS X that isn't sold separately need a special name? It's Mac OS X, just like the Apple TV-optimized version is.
Calling it OSX Mobile is a cop-out. Its mobility is not its shining point of differentiation. It's the touch interface. "Touch OSX" separates logically and linguistically from "Mac OSX". "Touch OSX" is also a command, an invitation to experience the difference. Clearly the best choice.
Calling it OSX Mobile is a cop-out. Its mobility is not its shining point of differentiation. It's the touch interface. "Touch OSX" separates logically and linguistically from "Mac OSX". "Touch OSX" is also a command, an invitation to experience the difference. Clearly the best choice.
That's exactly why it will still be called "OSX" as touch will be integrated back into the mainline. Right now touch is the differentiator, but don't expect that to last.
How about X-Men, no no, that's taken. How about TouchU!? No, okay. How about GenXer? Nope. How about Ten2Go? How about OSwee? (wee - as in little) - a take from Nintendo Wii... How about nliteten? (take from the word enlighten). How about TabbyPower? (take on Apple's OS Big Cat names like Tiger, Leopard etc to a smaller verson cat like Tabby)
Apple needs to differentiate their OS just like MicroSoft. Apple needs to create branches of it's OS so it can justify future hires to fill that new building they're constructing in Cupertino. As MS has shown, confusing the customers with multiple OSs is the way to huge profits.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
It's already called 'OS X'
It's already called 'OS X' as compared to 'Mac OS X' for the Mac. As it's essentially the same codebase, that's what it should be called too...
OS X for iPhone or OS X
OS X for iPhone or OS X Portable or Mobile OS X
Call it "OS X mobile",
Call it "OS X mobile", that's pretty much what it is. Right? ...
OSeXy
OSeXy
Cool name! Like it a lot.
Cool name! Like it a lot.
The right name is: Pod OS X
The right name is:
Pod OS X
+1 Pod OS X
+1
Pod OS X
iOS.
iOS.
just 'touch'
just 'touch'
I voted for Touch OSX, but
I voted for Touch OSX, but really it should be called OS X Touch.
It does what it says on the tin.
It's OS X + Touchscreen capabilities.
Simple really.
M.
agreed on OSX touch
agreed on OSX touch
Diet OSX
Diet OSX
iWorld
iWorld
eWorld was such a success,
eWorld was such a success, why not?!
"Just OS X" would be my
"Just OS X" would be my option
Mo-X
Mo-X
I find myself continuosly
I find myself continuosly referring to my iPod Touch as "iTouch". I think that pretty much sums it up.
Touch X
Touch X
Almost...Any apparatus based
Almost...Any apparatus based on OS X and Touch technology should be referred to as "XTouch" cf. XServe the server technology based on OS X.
AppleM (m) Think about
AppleM (m)
Think about it, IF they were to buy into 700MHz you would need a cross-platform lite OS which would work with TV, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPod and future devices. OSX is really, OS 10 and there are only 5 iterations left.
IF all of this were coming about as OSX was being introduced as 10.1, then I would definitely jump on the OSXm(obile) bandwagon.
Leopard Cub
Leopard Cub
Why would an iPhone/iPod
Why would an iPhone/iPod touch-integrated OS X that isn't sold separately need a special name? It's Mac OS X, just like the Apple TV-optimized version is.
Calling it OSX Mobile is a
Calling it OSX Mobile is a cop-out. Its mobility is not its shining point of differentiation. It's the touch interface. "Touch OSX" separates logically and linguistically from "Mac OSX". "Touch OSX" is also a command, an invitation to experience the difference. Clearly the best choice.
Calling it OSX Mobile is a
Calling it OSX Mobile is a cop-out. Its mobility is not its shining point of differentiation. It's the touch interface. "Touch OSX" separates logically and linguistically from "Mac OSX". "Touch OSX" is also a command, an invitation to experience the difference. Clearly the best choice.
That's exactly why it will still be called "OSX" as touch will be integrated back into the mainline. Right now touch is the differentiator, but don't expect that to last.
Apple OS
Apple OS
why not just call it Leopard
why not just call it Leopard for Devices yet have everyone just call it leopard?
How about X-Men, no no,
How about X-Men, no no, that's taken. How about TouchU!? No, okay. How about GenXer? Nope. How about Ten2Go? How about OSwee? (wee - as in little) - a take from Nintendo Wii... How about nliteten? (take from the word enlighten). How about TabbyPower? (take on Apple's OS Big Cat names like Tiger, Leopard etc to a smaller verson cat like Tabby)
OS X Ultimate Mobile 4 Biz,
OS X Ultimate Mobile 4 Biz, that's the ticket!
Apple needs to differentiate their OS just like MicroSoft. Apple needs to create branches of it's OS so it can justify future hires to fill that new building they're constructing in Cupertino. As MS has shown, confusing the customers with multiple OSs is the way to huge profits.
How 'bout • MobiOS X
How 'bout
• MobiOS X (pronounced "mobius," from mobile OS X)
• TranspOS X (pronounced "transpose x" from transportable OS X)
• Xport (portable X)
Call it simply MOBILE X
Call it simply MOBILE X