Gary Marshall: iAnywhere? iDoubt it - why Apple won't merge OS X with iOS

Here's an odd one: according to an analyst at JP Morgan, Apple is working on a "converged Mac OS/iOS operating system that allows an iPhone or iPad to dock into a specially configured display to run as a computer."

The analysts have dubbed it "iAnywhere" and reckon we could see it in roughly a year's time because the "iPad has not stepped up to become the next growth chariot." You know things are serious when terms such as "growth chariot" are being bandied about.

Just think. It could be as big as the Motorola Atrix, or Windows RT!

The idea of a converged OS is fun, but it doesn't make a great deal of sense. What problem would it solve? We've already seen what happens when you try to combine desktop and mobile OSes for no good reason: you bring out Windows RT and everybody goes "huh?"

Huh?

I'm not hating on Windows here, but it does demonstrate what happens when you try to make an OS that's desktop and mobile and touch and mouse: it annoys everybody because it's too mobile-y for the desktop users and too desktop-y for mobile.

Microsoft tried it, blew it, and has been backpedalling ever since. Meanwhile Apple's decidedly non-hybrid Macs have continued to take a greater share of the PC market's money.

OS X and iOS are growing closer, but a merger seems unlikely. Here's why.

Different strokes for different folks

I reckon I'm a fairly typical computer user. I have a powerful, big-screened computer for work and for demanding tasks such as music production. I have a tablet for shouting at people on the internet when I'm on the sofa. And I have a phone for shouting at people on the internet when I'm on the bus.

Each device has different priorities. There's some overlap, of course, but generally speaking my computer is all about the power, my phone the portability, my tablet the ability to wage war from my sofa and chuck videos to my Apple TV.

You can take them out of their comfort zones, but that involves compromise: what's just great on a 27-inch screen won't be much fun on a phone, and apps designed for mobile use lack the power you expect from "proper" PCs. I'd no more write a book on an iPhone than I'd use an iMac to Instagram my dinner.

The hardware lines may blur - the rumoured iPad Pro and 12-inch MacBook Pro, if they exist, will have broadly similar specs: flash storage, retina displays, multi-core processors, long battery life - but the software remains separate: iOS on an iMac would dumb it down, and OS X on an iPad would be about as much fun as Windows XP was on Tablet PCs.

If you want to offer the best of both worlds you have three options.

One, you can run two OSes, as an ATIV Q does with Windows and Android (or a Boot Camp-ing Mac does with OS X and Windows).

Two, you can make a dual-mode OS like Microsoft did.

Or three, you can do what Apple's already doing: share data and features, but keep the systems separate. That seems to be working pretty well so far.

It's important to take Apple's pronouncements with a pinch of salt - when Apple says it won't do something, that often just means it isn't doing it right now - but I think Phil Schiller was telling the truth when he ruled out a merger of OS X and iOS.

"You'll see them be the same where that makes sense," he said. "And you'll see them be different in those things that are critical to their success."

Apple, it seems, is still thinking different.

• Apple in 2014: what to expect

New Apple TV could land in April with US cable partner content in tow

The next version of Apple TV may be here as soon as April.

That's the word coming from Bloomberg News sources, who say Apple could "introduce" the refreshed set-top box in two months. The aim is to have it on sale by Christmas, though that release time frame isn't secure.

The reason for its instability? Apple is reportedly working out video content deals with Time Warner Cable in the US and other potential partners. The firms are said to be ironing out agreements with partners on the programming and distribution front.

A deal with Time Warner would mark a first such arrangement between Apple and a pay-TV provider.

While the Cupertino company has most of the key apps on Apple TV locked down, opening its App Store (or creating Apple TV's own) and securing more video content would likely help it compete against the likes of Google Chromecast - which may also be making its way Down Under this year.

And though this news will likely only effect Stateside users, it could open doors for more partnerships between Apple and Australian content providers.

More new Apple TV features

In addition to the new content offerings, Bloomberg's sources revealed the new Apple TV will have a faster processor than its predecessor.

An upgraded interface is also said to be part of the package. The new UI will reportedly make it easier to navigate between various content offerings.

An iOS 7 build uncovered earlier this week revealed "Apple TV 4,1" - a set that looks to be a significant upgrade from the current version, a.k.a. Apple TV 3,2.

The jump to "4" suggests we're in for upgraded internal specs, and a reference to "Game Controller" could mean the new set-top will support a gamepad.

• Stay grounded with our iPad Air review!

New Apple TV tipped for April with cable partner content in tow

The next version of Apple TV may be here as soon as April.

That's the word coming from Bloomberg News sources, who say Apple could "introduce" the refreshed set-top box in two months time. The aim is to have it on sale by Christmas, though that release time frame isn't secure.

The reason for its instability? Apple is reportedly working out video content deals with Time Warner Cable and other potential partners. The firms are said to be ironing out agreements on the programming and distribution front.

A deal with Time Warner would mark a first such arrangement between Apple and a pay-TV provider. While the Cupertino company has most of the key apps on Apple TV locked down, opening its App Store (or creating Apple TV's own) and securing more video content would likely help it compete against the likes of the Roku 3 and Google Chromecast.

More new Apple TV features

Time Warner Cable's live TV and on-demand app, TWC TV, is already on products like Kindle Fire tablets and Roku. It's been rumored for some time that the app would find its way to Apple TV, but that date has yet to arrive.

In addition to the new content offerings, Bloomberg's sources revealed the next Apple TV will have a faster processor than its predecessor.

An upgraded interface is also said to be part of the package. The new UI will reportedly make it easier to navigate between various content offerings.

An iOS 7 build uncovered earlier this week outed "Apple TV 4,1," a set that looks to be a significant upgrade from the current version, a.k.a. Apple TV 3,2. The jump to "4" suggests we're in for upgraded internal specs, and a reference to "Game Controller" could mean the new set-top will support a gamepad.

4,1 and the Time Warner Cable-tied box are probably one in the same, so look for a new Apple TV offering in the coming months.

• Stay grounded with our iPad Air review!

Gary Marshall: iAnywhere? iDoubt it - why Apple won't merge OS X with iOS

Here's an odd one: according to an analyst at JP Morgan, Apple is working on a "converged Mac OS/iOS operating system that allows an iPhone or iPad to dock into a specially configured display to run as a computer."

The analysts have dubbed it "iAnywhere" and reckon we could see it in roughly a year's time because the "iPad has not stepped up to become the next growth chariot." You know things are serious when terms such as "growth chariot" are being bandied about.

Just think. It could be as big as the Motorola Atrix, or Windows RT!

The idea of a converged OS is fun, but it doesn't make a great deal of sense. What problem would it solve? We've already seen what happens when you try to combine desktop and mobile OSes for no good reason: you bring out Windows RT and everybody goes "huh?"

Huh?

I'm not hating on Windows here, but it does demonstrate what happens when you try to make an OS that's desktop and mobile and touch and mouse: it annoys everybody because it's too mobile-y for the desktop users and too desktop-y for mobile.

Microsoft tried it, blew it, and has been backpedalling ever since. Meanwhile Apple's decidedly non-hybrid Macs have continued to take a greater share of the PC market's money.

OS X and iOS are growing closer, but a merger seems unlikely. Here's why.

Different strokes for different folks

I reckon I'm a fairly typical computer user. I have a powerful, big-screened computer for work and for demanding tasks such as music production. I have a tablet for shouting at people on the internet when I'm on the sofa. And I have a phone for shouting at people on the internet when I'm on the bus.

Each device has different priorities. There's some overlap, of course, but generally speaking my computer is all about the power, my phone the portability, my tablet the ability to wage war from my sofa and chuck videos to my Apple TV.

You can take them out of their comfort zones, but that involves compromise: what's just great on a 27-inch screen won't be much fun on a phone, and apps designed for mobile use lack the power you expect from "proper" PCs. I'd no more write a book on an iPhone than I'd use an iMac to Instagram my dinner.

The hardware lines may blur - the rumoured iPad Pro and 12-inch MacBook Pro, if they exist, will have broadly similar specs: flash storage, retina displays, multi-core processors, long battery life - but the software remains separate: iOS on an iMac would dumb it down, and OS X on an iPad would be about as much fun as Windows XP was on Tablet PCs.

If you want to offer the best of both worlds you have three options.

One, you can run two OSes, as an ATIV Q does with Windows and Android (or a Boot Camp-ing Mac does with OS X and Windows).

Two, you can make a dual-mode OS like Microsoft did.

Or three, you can do what Apple's already doing: share data and features, but keep the systems separate. That seems to be working pretty well so far.

It's important to take Apple's pronouncements with a pinch of salt - when Apple says it won't do something, that often just means it isn't doing it right now - but I think Phil Schiller was telling the truth when he ruled out a merger of OS X and iOS.

"You'll see them be the same where that makes sense," he said. "And you'll see them be different in those things that are critical to their success."

Apple, it seems, is still thinking different.

• Apple in 2014: what to expect

Apple wins legal victory against Samsung in South Korea

Samsung lost its bid on Thursday to ban sales of Apple's older iPhone and iPad models in South Korea. A court dismissed a lawsuit, filed in March 2012, claiming the U.S. firm had infringed on three of Samsung's mobile patents.

The lawsuit was another part of Samsung's global courtroom war with Apple dating back to 2011 when the iPhone company first sued Samsung for copying the look and feel of its products.

"We are glad the Korean court joined others around the world in standing up for real innovation and rejecting Samsung's ridiculous claims," Apple Korea spokesman Steve Park said.

A judge at the Seoul Central District Court said that Apple products did not violate Samsung patents on the display of short messages and group messaging features. The court ruled against a sale ban on the products and subsequently threw out Samsung's claim for $95,100 (£58,000, AU$105,000) in damages.

Necessary measures

Samsung said it would carefully review the ruling before deciding on whether to launch an appeal. "We are disappointed with the court's decision …. Apple has continued to infringe our patented mobile technologies [so] we will continue to take the measures necessary to protect our intellectual property rights," Samsung said in a statement.

Similar rulings in the past have gone in Samsung's favour. In August last year the same South Korean court ordered Apple to pay $38,000 (£23,100, $AU42,000) in damages for infringing on wireless technology patents.

Thursday's court ruling comes after a German court in Mannheim dismissed Apple's claim that Samsung infringed on a utility patent. Apple and Samsung have gone to trial twice in the past two years in California, where juries awarded Apple $930 million (£567 million, AU$1 billion) in damages.

• The Apple and Samsung saga has had many clashes before