Could Apple be moving to a spectrum of operating systems?

It's interesting that Microsoft has abandoned their XP Tablet Edition in favor of rolling this functionality into the core operating system. The inclusion of touchscreen API's in Windows 7 now makes it a pretty fundamental os feature, there really isn't anything special about a tablet PC aside from the hardware capabilities.

Apple obviously needs to do something to support tablet functionality, it really depends on how they would market such a device. If it was me, it would run a simplified GUI shell when the tablet is undocked and when you place the machine into a base station it then functions as a full Mac. This simplified shell might resembled the iPhone and of course once it docks you have a standard OS X desktop.

My money is on a hybrid, if Apple just releases a Tablet running on the IPhone OSX it is going to fail.

As an iPhone developer, I've noted that Apple hasn't made a new beta release available since 3.1.2 (which is no longer beta). Normally, a new beta would almost immediately appear once the previous one went public.

Since there has been no 3.1.3, or 4.0 - except a few reports of seeing it in the wild (in server logs) - this indicates to me that the next update to the iPhone (baring any small incremental updates for bug/security fixes) - will probably be a 4.0 version.

Why is there no developer beta? My guess is that 4.0 contains some pretty massive additions, capabilities, and changes, and that Apple wants these to remain secret for as long as possible.

I am personally betting on an integrated iPhone/Magic Slate environment.

I am so sick of hearing about this fucking tablet.

The iPod Touch is the only iPod with a named OS. Other iPods rather have "firmware" which is slightly different for different iPod version. But all of these firmware versions are probably members of the OS-X family as well.

Apple is very strict in applying OOP programming and principles like "Model View Controller". It allows them to keep their code base relatively small while serving a wide variety of applications. If you look at it like that there really is only one OS-X, which is the master code base in Cupertino. (like "Model" in MVC)
But there is a wide range of appliances that each use a specific subset of the master code base. The subset is determined by the needs of that specific appliance (like "View" in MVC). So yes, very likely the Tablet will be another variety in the OS-X family.

This was my exact thought when the buzz around the apple tablet started. i figured apple would make a hybrid OS X that ran iphone apps but had the coputer aspect like a mac.

I wouldn't call it a "spectrum" of OSes. There's OS X and there's iPhone OS. Both have SDKs and run on different hardwares.

OS X server has no different SDK or anything different under the hood, and the older versions don't count if Apple stops supporting them. AppleTV is hardly an OS, unless you want to get nitpicky and start counting their old printer firmwares as OSes too.

Please god no - not another e-mate 300 *sob* not again . . .

"Discreet" versions? Yes, reasonably. Discrete? Much less likely.

Lifted from Wikipedia, Occam's razor: “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,” is the principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.”

The current differences between OSX/Mac and OSX/iPhone and OSX/iPod exist to adapt basic functionality to device-specific requirements. Per Sir William, why would Apple maintain separate code bases, etc., causing huge support costs and lack of flexibility down the road? Has Apple forgotten how it brought a full-featured computing/phone environment to market precisely because it could leverage its OSX work?

You have to laugh at the reviews of the Pre and Android how they are slow and battery life is bad because background apps chew up so many battery-draining CPU cycles, and yet those same reviewers knock the iPhone for not allowing these usability-destroying features. Take Apple at its word: user-controlled multi-tasking is prohibited precisely and only because you just can't squeeze all that into a device with decent CPU and only a 1150 mAh battery.

You may even recall some early speculation that Apple would put in TWO batteries -- what could be less Apple-like??? -- so that the phone would still work after the tiny computer battery was exhausted.

Apple will continue to branch out in interesting ways (I hope!) and new devices will have new capabilities, probably exquisitely paired to the usage and hardware. This talk about artificial limitations and clunkiness is pretty unlikely to ever take place in an Apple device.

I have a question and opinions might be shared. Everybody talks about the iphone, but will this device be for sure connected through a cellular network or will it be a hydrib between an iPod touch and a Mac, that can only connect through wifi? If it requires an extra contract and monthly fee, i'm not sure i'm up for it. I give AT&T enough money each month. If there's no way to combine the two (because there's no way that this device can replace an iPhone, it would just complement it. As portable as it might be, i can't transport a 10" device wherever i go as i do with my iphone). I would be in favor of a wifi only device, that could eventually tether with the iPhone to use it in remote locations.