I was chatting with my TUAW colleagues this morning about Mac versus iPhone programming. And as per usual with these conversations, we veered in the direction of unfettered speculation. It's an occupational hazard.

As someone who regularly develops on both platforms, I declared that the iPhone represents the future of Mac programming. The iPhone, I posited stated, offers a great new platform without the need to be fully backwards compatible like the Mac. Our own Victor Agreda challenged me to back up that position. After a bit of time and thought, I decided to do so in this post.

My key point is this: Apple's engineers have learned a lot of important design lessons during the history of OS X. When the iPhone debuted, it gave those engineers the chance to rebuild an OS and an API from the ground up. Those engineers could craft a platform and its libraries that built on the Mac's successes without dragging along its less fortunate design decisions. Yes, there were some lemon frameworks that initially made the grade, but over time, Apple has reduced their number.

Even now, Apple continues its iPhone design process, adding new frameworks and APIs at a prodigious rate. The iPhone OS remains a work in progress, developing in ways and directions that the initial release two years ago could not have anticipated. And Apple does this, knowing fully that the closed platform allows them a great deal of design freedom that would not have been possible on the open Macintosh.

Whether you're working with buttons, menus or simple text views, the iPhone development approach simply works better: beautiful 2.0-style properties, consistent API design, better-thought-out object inheritance trees, and so forth. With the iPhone, you see a great new platform evolving without the need to be fully backwards compatible

Snow Leopard, with its minimal API changes has bought the Macintosh a few years of stability. But I think it's time for Apple to rethink the platform as a whole, re-imagining its API through the lens of current iPhone OS development. While Snow Leopard offers Apple the room to stay still for now, I can see Apple moving forward in a separate engineering effort to Cocoa Touch Mac, a hypothetical cross-platform OS that supports general development on iPhone and future Mac devices like my imaginary snow-princess-rainbow-pony-iTablet.

The ghost of NeXT-past, as TUAW-colleague Joachim Bean puts it, still haunts us. It's time to exorcise the unhelpful bits of that pervasive spirit and usher in the new age of the iPhone and its API design examples. Mac OS X is, and has been, a superb development platform. What I'm suggesting is that iPhone OS might just be a better one.

On October 17, 1998 Apple released Mac OS 8.5, the first operating system that ran solely on Macintoshes with PowerPC processors. As far as system software upgrades go, this was the end of the line for any Mac built before the Power Macintosh 6100, introduced in March 1994. Earlier Macs ran on some variation of 680x0 processors and were supported mostly via emulation in a PowerPC environment. Emulation works, but it also slows things down. By 1998, Apple decided it just couldn't support 680X0 emulation for a number of reasons, but chiefly among them was speed.

What happened was just what you would expect. In user groups, USENET and the Internet (which was only starting to explode), apoplectic non-PowerPC Mac owners threatened class action lawsuits and the rending of garments. Of course, most Power Mac users loved the newfound speed introduced in Mac OS 8.5, thanks to code optimized for PowerPC processors and jettisoned emulation support.

It took Apple only four years to introduce the PowerPC chip and make any Mac without it obsolete. Technology moved on.

In September Apple will release Snow Leopard, which will only run on Intel based Macs, thus cutting off PowerPC support. This time it took eleven years from inception to extinction (well, three for the Intel transition), but even so I can hear the hue and cry machine cranking up. Once again, the major reason for dropping legacy support is speed. Technology has moved on.

Whenever something like this happens there is a potential for a marketing meltdown, but this time Apple is doing something brilliant. It is going to sell Snow Leopard for $29. When I saw this on the video stream of the WWDC keynote address my jaw dropped, my eyes glazed and only later did it start making sense to me. Apple first introduced Mac OS X in 2001, and excluding the free update to Mac OS X 10.1 from Mac OS X 10.0, a new version of the OS has been released roughly every 18 months, always at a price of $129. The sales pitch is always the same: with each new version, OS X gets new features and an "enhanced computing experience" which largely depended upon how much you like the new features.

Mac OS X 10.6 will be the fifth major release in eight years, and some users are complaining about feature overload. There will always be users who want four ways to do the same thing, but for others, feature-laden releases are overwhelming and the glimmer and excitement of a new OS X release has faded. What a perfect time to work under the hood, set up the core of the operating system for the future and stabilize what's already there! But of course you can't make everyone happy. I would expect a large group of users to not be mollified by a nicer QuickTime and an improvement to Stacks. In effect, where's the beef? The beef is under the hood this time.

So when do you think Apple will start shipping 3.0? Let us know in the comments and cast your vote in this handy poll.

"Welcome to Audrey." With those three words, I experienced my first Internet appliance. 3Com's Audrey was meant to deliver lightweight "internet snacking" from a user's kitchen, and offered email and internet access, a calendar and contacts database, plus synchronization of up to two Palm devices. It had a touch-sensitive screen, wireless keyboard and a clear plastic stylus that would glow green when new mail arrived.

Unfortunately for 3Com, the Audrey was launched immediately prior to the dot-com collapse, and was discontinued just seven months into its initial run. I picked one up on eBay a few weeks ago for ten bucks, and it's been fun to play with. I can't help but wonder what would have become of it if 3Com had received user feedback and time to develop a second version. We'll never know, but perhaps the Chumby holds hints.

My experience with the Audrey has got me thinking about the inevitable synergy between computers, household appliances and many of the tools we use every day. For instance, my car told me that one of its tires needed air recently. A friend's refrigerator has been beeping to get her attention since Monday (she's a very patient person).

TiVo has completely changed the way I consume TV shows, as the Apple TV has for others. How many of the shows you watch are "time-shifted?" For me it's at least half. As we said in a recent talkcast, the computer and television will eventually merge into a single device. The process has begun for sure, but I don't think it's complete.

But let's get back to the kitchen. Like many of you, that's where my day begins. Upon waking, the first thing I do is make breakfast for myself and the kids. Then I glance at the calendar on the refrigerator, as well as any flyers, etc. that have been posted there. As the pancakes are sizzling, I'll wander over to the computer to give the morning's email a cursory glance, and maybe hop on Newsvine. Then it's back to the stove to flip the pancakes.

Click below to read more....

Since Apple's third quarter conference call, the rumor mill has been grinding its latest batch of corn: or what natives call "the MacBook tablet." The endless list of features, the bad Photoshop: It's already here.

Every time Apple has whetted our appetites for new products, the same people keep predicting a tablet-style device, and, since the Newton, they've yet to be right.

I know tablets are useful to some, but is Apple going to make one? Not just no: Heck no. Picture trying to drive with your hands in front of your face the whole time. If you design with a computer, a tablet of any kind just isn't for you.

Join me for a medium-sized rant about this Mac tablet, why it's a bad for Apple, and why they won't sell it.