[waffffffle]

We all know that Apple will never open up Mac OS X to other hardware manufacturers for the purpose of building PCs around the Mac OS. However I think Apple should open up the OS for use as an embedded platform. I think OS X would make a compelling embedded platform and here's why:

• Scalable: while it can't run on palm-grade processors it can run on lowly 400 MHz G3s with decent responsiveness.
• Stable: OS X is much more stable than windows CE
• Graphics: OS X has the best built in graphics capabilities of any OS that I know of. Windows CE and Linux can't touch the graphics features, font smoothing, compositing, colors, etc.
• Video and Audio: Like graphics, OS X's audio and video capabilities (thanks in part to QuickTime) are top notch.
• Unix-based: Inherent advantage for certain purposes, most notably network and internet applications.
• APIs: Apple's APIs are also top notch, on par with the best from Microsoft.

So why am I bringing this up? Because I have an idea for a couple of embedded devices that would benefit from development on Mac OS X:

First, imagine having an OS X-based computer in your car dashboard. Imagine the computer runs your stereo (iTunes-based) and integrates with your cell phone over blue tooth. With this device you can have .Mac contact syncing. When within the range of wifi it can download news items and speak them to you using Apple's text-to-speech when driving. When you receive a phone call the music pauses and the name and picture of the caller is flashed on the 8" touch screen color display and you choose to answer the phone by touching the screen and have your conversation over speakerphone (the device acts as a bluetooth headset of sorts, through the stereo speakers and a mic). When you end your call the music picks up where it left off. I feel like the possibilities for this device are endless. Having a Mac in your car with a clean touch screen interface would be really groundbreaking.

Second, a device that I have experience creating, a touch screen jukebox (read about my academic project last fall here. OS X presented the best platform for this kiosk system but I could never produce these things in mass quantity since an entire PowerMac would be required.

I feel like Apple should offer some sort of embedded hardware kit that includes just a motherboard with a G3 or G4 processor, and the standard suite of ports (FW, USB, ethernet, display, etc). Developers could use the kits to produce full hardware units or just develop on one. The units would not include any drives but would have the ATA ports to add them.

I seriously would have a field day with this and Apple could make a fortune by licensing the hardware to other manufacturers or selling the kits at $500 each (with large bulk discounts).

Right now I want to attempt to create both of these devices but right now the only way to do it is to take apart a PowerBook and hope that it will still function while not in its case.

So what does everyone else think about this?

[ShotgunEd]

Bad Idea.

We'll all be surfing for porn while driving down to the shops.

And what about moving the steering wheel to the top right to expos� those oncoming cars?



Nah, cool idea.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by ShotgunEd:
Bad Idea.

We'll all be surfing for porn while driving down to the shops.

And what about moving the steering wheel to the top right to expos� those oncoming cars?



Nah, cool idea.

Even though you're joking, those are issues that the device designers have to deal with. I read that in certain states there are laws about the size of displays in cars.

[utidjian]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
So what does everyone else think about this?

Already been done, see:

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/ibm/
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/pr...iQ/intro.shtml

Those are made to run Linux on PPC but I am sure they can be fiddled to run Mac OS X.

The main problem I see is that regardless of how cheap Apple licenses Mac OS X to the embedded OS people it will still cost more (per unit) than Linux. Most embedded solutions, by their very nature, do not require a full Mac OS X. An appliance does not need the full Mac OS X GUI... nor even a small part of it. Might just as well use plain old Darwin for PPC. A kiosk (depending on what it is for) really doesn't need a full GUI either. If it does... just bolt an eMac to a pedestal.

[milhous]

Mmmmm. An Apple blade server would be HOT! The xBlade!

Plug and play blades for SSL acceleration, proxy server, load balancing, and everything else!

27 posts to go...

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by utidjian:
Already been done, see:

http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/products/ibm/
http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/pr...iQ/intro.shtml

Those are made to run Linux on PPC but I am sure they can be fiddled to run Mac OS X.

The main problem I see is that regardless of how cheap Apple licenses Mac OS X to the embedded OS people it will still cost more (per unit) than Linux. Most embedded solutions, by their very nature, do not require a full Mac OS X. An appliance does not need the full Mac OS X GUI... nor even a small part of it. Might just as well use plain old Darwin for PPC. A kiosk (depending on what it is for) really doesn't need a full GUI either. If it does... just bolt an eMac to a pedestal.

Those aren't Macs. It's not really an OS X platform.

What I'm saying is that if Apple would offer an embedded OS X version that would allow the developer to only install the necessary components, that would be great. Darwin isn't enough. Darwin doesn't include quartz or cocoa or QuickTime or much of the great stuff that makes OS X a good platform for certain embedded devices.

An eMac on a platform won't work in my car. Infact it would suck as a jukebox since an LCD display would be ideal for a touch screen system (CRT touch screens lose calibration extremely easily).

[Chuckit]

Any device into which OS X was embedded would need a minimum Rage Pro graphics card, wouldn't it?

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Any device into which OS X was embedded would need a minimum Rage Pro graphics card, wouldn't it?

Possibly. I'd be interested to see if this is a limitation that can be gotten around.

[ambush]

of course the core (darwin) is usable (well on specific procs...)

most of the rest would have to be rewritten tho.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by ambush:
of course the core (darwin) is usable (well on specific procs...)

most of the rest would have to be rewritten tho.

I'm talking about using a PowerPC as the embedded processor on an Apple-built or Apple-licensed motherboard. Motorola and IBM both make embedded versions of the PowerPC.

[Superchicken]

I think this would be a super smart idea. Apple could work with the higher end Auto makers on designing it. I don't know so much about making a kit for people, but I think Apple could make a killing by building in interfaces for things like BMWs and stuff, think about it. I think if Apple could stand to put their things inside other people's machines and not control the look of the exterior they could do really well. Think about it, touch screen with any part of OS X that would be useful for a Car. Have features like, if Car is parked then you can play DVDs, you could have tons of sweet stuff with OS X, although I think a HD might be scary in a Car.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

The mach kernel makes great sense as an embedded os... I'm sure it would work great for network devices... especially since many routers today use the G4 processor as the network processor. In fact I have a friend who writes code for them: www.lvl7.com

Micro kernel's make sense for this application since the actual kernel can be contained in l2 cache and no externel (system) memory is needed... unlike monolithic kerenels.

[Gavin]

I don't think some of you quite get what 'embedded' means. It's not about cramming a mac in your car. It has to do with a minimal system that does a single function. Like run a cell phone, a DVD player, or your wireless router.

Anyway it already exists. I'd guess the ipod already runs such a system. They use PPCs to run robotic arms, electronic transmission, antilock breaks, active suspensions, etc.

There are already OSs for this stuff but an embedded version of darwin might make it a little easier for car manufacturers to write future software You could use Xtools to write your airbag deployment system. On the other hand it might just add complexity that gets in the way, slows things down and add more points of failure. We could see Apple at the congressional hearings for the next Ford recall.

Here's some technology:

http://www.mot-sps.com/webapp/sps/si...?nodeId=02Wcbf

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...eId=02WcbfNZnL

http://www.ddjembedded.com/

[utidjian]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
Those aren't Macs. It's not really an OS X platform.

I know they are not Macs. But they are small form factor (embeddable) PPC platforms. Apple doesn't actually make such a thing unless you can get them to release iMac or laptop system boards.

What I'm saying is that if Apple would offer an embedded OS X version that would allow the developer to only install the necessary components, that would be great.

You can strip out a lot of stuff from Mac OS X already. Though there is no set of guidelines for what is or is not strippable.

Darwin isn't enough. Darwin doesn't include quartz or cocoa or QuickTime or much of the great stuff that makes OS X a good platform for certain embedded devices.

What, specifically, is there about Quartz and/or Cocoa or "great stuff" that makes them so suitable for an embedded device? Why not just license QuickTime for an already embedded platform?

The current QuickTime control GUI would suck for installation in, say, a car. For the kids in the back seat you would need a very simple interface with either nice big touch screen buttons or a set of simple console buttons. Perhaps something as simple as an iPods controls are... or even a remote.

An eMac on a platform won't work in my car. Infact it would suck as a jukebox since an LCD display would be ideal for a touch screen system (CRT touch screens lose calibration extremely easily).

True... it would be a bit bulky in a car. ;-)

If all you want is a basic jukebox then there are already cars that one can simply plug an iPod into. A BMW is one. It integrates with the cars existing stereo controls.
There have been cars with hands free cell phones for at least 15 years that are integrated with the stereo system. My father had one in his Sterling. It had some problems... when the windows were rolled down the mic would pick up a lot wind noise... had to roll them up. One also has to get the passengers to quiet down.
If you want text-to-speech news it has been around almost as long as radio. A radio announcer reads it for you.

Safety design... anything that might cause the driver of a vehicle to remove their eyeballs from the road ahead for longer than a quick glance or their hands from the steering wheel or their attention from operating the vehicle is fundamentally a bad idea. Many countries, states and even towns have various laws regarding cell phone usage in a moving vehicle. Some require the use of hands-free equipment and some even ban any usage except in emergencies.

Many cars have a subset of sound system controls on the steering column already... along with cruise control, turning indicators, headlight controls, windshield wipers/washers, horn, gear shift... air-bag... a busy place.

HUDs (Head Up Displays) have been around since 1988. Since the advent of cheap and bright LED displays I think we will see a lot more of these in the luxury and mid-priced cars in the near future.

Again, what would the Mac OS X GUI bring to a driver (or passenger) of a vehicle that would not also distract them from the safe operation of the vehicle?

[MacGorilla]

Mac OS X and Darwin's very nature make embedded use very unlikely. First, Darwin can only be stripped down to 5mb. While this sounds small, in the embedded space, thats huge. QNX, for instance, which runs on many platforms including PPC, can be stripped down to 320k with a full gui. Second, Mac OS X is designed to be general purpose while in the embedded space you usually run only one or two apps that have to have extreme fault tolerance and uptimes in the decades. This isn't isn't a design flaw, its jut the nature of the two different market.

The mach kernel is just that...a kernel. By itself it can't run anything.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by utidjian:

I know they are not Macs. But they are small form factor (embeddable) PPC platforms. Apple doesn't actually make such a thing unless you can get them to release iMac or laptop system boards.

That is why I am saying Apple could offer an OS X embedded development platform and supply or license their boards for this purpose

You can strip out a lot of stuff from Mac OS X already. Though there is no set of guidelines for what is or is not strippable.

With Apple's offical support this process could be much better.

What, specifically, is there about Quartz and/or Cocoa or "great stuff" that makes them so suitable for an embedded device? Why not just license QuickTime for an already embedded platform?

Quartz transparency for one. Second is Quartz font smoothing. Have you seen the GUI on some of the embedded devices out there? They're pretty atrocious. Apple's graphical APIs can help to create superior interfaces. QuickTime alone is not enough. We all know QuickTime is vastly superior on OS X. Licensing QuickTime to bring it to an embedded platform would be a pain and it would probably just as bad, if not worse, than the Windows version.

The current QuickTime control GUI would suck for installation in, say, a car. For the kids in the back seat you would need a very simple interface with either nice big touch screen buttons or a set of simple console buttons. Perhaps something as simple as an iPods controls are... or even a remote.

First of all, of course the current QuickTime Player application would not be the actual media player for a car. Have you ever heard of QuickTime skins? They've been around since version 5 and allow for much more customization. A QuickTime skin and/or a Dashboard-like interface would provide a nice large graphical touch screen interface.

True... it would be a bit bulky in a car. ;-)

This is why an OS X embedded platform is good for this.

If all you want is a basic jukebox then there are already cars that one can simply plug an iPod into. A BMW is one. It integrates with the cars existing stereo controls.

You're missing the point here. Have you seen how the iPod BMW system works? It's a hack. Yes, you can use the steering wheel controls to control the iPod, but you still can't see the track names on the display. You are limited in the number of playlists you can use. It basically is just fooling the stereo into thinking that the iPod is a CD changer, which is pretty weak in my opinion. Instead imagine an entire stereo system powered by a Mac, with a clean, car-friendly interface. That would be a much nicer solution.

There have been cars with hands free cell phones for at least 15 years that are integrated with the stereo system. My father had one in his Sterling. It had some problems... when the windows were rolled down the mic would pick up a lot wind noise... had to roll them up. One also has to get the passengers to quiet down.

Bluetooth simplifies this process. So far, the only similar system that I know of is available from Acura, where you don't even need to connect your phone to your car with any wires, Bluetooth handles it all. Have you ever tried BluePhoneMenu for Mac? If you have a bluetooth phone give it a try. This is the concept that I want to bring to a car. It is very nicely done, displaying a transparent, large alert over your screen when you receive a call and you can choose to answer or decline the call from the screen. Instead imagine doing this on a dashboard touch screen. Even better, imagine the system speaks to you the name of the caller using Text-to-Speech or a recorded sound. (There would also be a few multipupose buttons under the screen, and one could serve as a large "answer" button to aid the process and not require the driver to ever look at the screen.)

If you want text-to-speech news it has been around almost as long as radio. A radio announcer reads it for you.

Can you hear MacNN headlines on the radio? I don't think so. One of the advantages of the internet is that you can check the news that you want, and via RSS you can basically create your own newspaper. If you combine text-to-speech you now have your own news radio show to listen to in the car. There is software right now that does this for your iPod. I think an integrated system for your Mac in the car (imagine it knows what time in the morning to pull the headlines via your home's wireless network from your garage.) These are things that can best be done on the Mac platform due to the great technologies alreay built into the Mac OS.

Safety design... anything that might cause the driver of a vehicle to remove their eyeballs from the road ahead for longer than a quick glance or their hands from the steering wheel or their attention from operating the vehicle is fundamentally a bad idea. Many countries, states and even towns have various laws regarding cell phone usage in a moving vehicle. Some require the use of hands-free equipment and some even ban any usage except in emergencies.

I completely agree. This system would help facilitate hands free use since it wouldn't require an earbud. I can't tell you how many times I am driving in my car with my phone in my pocket and I get a call, but I can't talk immediately since I first have to get my phone out of my pocket, then fumble with the earpeice cable. What if your phone never needed to leave your pocket? Bluetooth integration gives you this feature. We almost have it now with the current Mac OS. The only component missing is the feature to allow the Mac to act as a bluetooth headset, essentially the mic and the speakers of the phone, which I believe will come soon.

Many cars have a subset of sound system controls on the steering column already... along with cruise control, turning indicators, headlight controls, windshield wipers/washers, horn, gear shift... air-bag... a busy place.

Very true, but I am not talking about essential vehicle systems. I am talking about your entertainment and communications, which the Mac would handle best. Ideally this would also include a navigation system (think of how great those ugly maps would look if they were rendered using Quartz).

HUDs (Head Up Displays) have been around since 1988. Since the advent of cheap and bright LED displays I think we will see a lot more of these in the luxury and mid-priced cars in the near future.

Again, very true. What I am saying is that if Apple made this platform available, car manufacturers could build their systems on top of OS X and create more robust and full featured systems than what they could accomplish using other embedded platforms.

Again, what would the Mac OS X GUI bring to a driver (or passenger) of a vehicle that would not also distract them from the safe operation of the vehicle?

The idea is not to use the Aqua GUI, in fact that would be stupid. Instead think of a Konfabulator widget, which can have any sort of GUI at all. Think of one fullscreen widget that would provide touch screen access to all of the functions you would need (radio, mp3s, navigation, phone, etc). Quartz would make a superior GUI possible, NOT Aqua. Aqua is for a PC interface while a car interface would have to be very different.

[waffffffle]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Mac OS X and Darwin's very nature make embedded use very unlikely. First, Darwin can only be stripped down to 5mb. While this sounds small, in the embedded space, thats huge. QNX, for instance, which runs on many platforms including PPC, can be stripped down to 320k with a full gui. Second, Mac OS X is designed to be general purpose while in the embedded space you usually run only one or two apps that have to have extreme fault tolerance and uptimes in the decades. This isn't isn't a design flaw, its jut the nature of the two different market.

The mach kernel is just that...a kernel. By itself it can't run anything.

I agree. Maybe calling this concept an embedded platform isn't the best idea. OS X is certianly a poor choice for a battery powered device. It would, however, be a great choice for a device that has a decent power source, and is smaller than a breadbox (kiosk, car system, etc). I guess these could be considered large embedded devices, but they are usually considered embedded nonetheless.

The general purpose aspect of OS X is what would make it great for these concepts. The problems with many embedded systems is that new applications need to be developed for the platform and they are often inferior to their mature desktop counterparts. For these systems, the applications are almost there, the largest task is integrating them under one interface. I have experience doing this, and while it is not a trivial task, it is preferable to building everything from scratch.

[Brass]

Don't know about embedding OS X in cars, but maybe they could start by embedding iTunes in cell phones, or something like that

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Brass:
Don't know about embedding OS X in cars, but maybe they could start by embedding iTunes in cell phones, or something like that

Thats a great idea. Wonder when they'll do it?

[Brass]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Thats a great idea. Wonder when they'll do it?

If only they could get a deal worked out with a cell phone company by yesterday.

I wonder if Motorola could this any better than they could produce PPC chips?

[waffffffle]

I'm bringing this thread back now due to the release of the Mac mini, which is essentially the embedable Mac I was hoping for. There is already much talk of putting a Mac mini in your car, and there is plenty of hardware issues to discuss with that, but my primary concern is creating the software interface.

A few years ago some guy put a PowerBook G3 into his Pathfinder and called it Pathintosh. He uses a custom full-screen skin for SoundJam in OS 9 to give him touch-screen control of the music. Ideally, we could discuss working on creating a similar interface to iTunes in OS X.

Konfabulator seems like the best way to go about this to me since there is so much UI flexibility with it. Dashboard would be great except that you need to invoke dashboard, which pulls you out of the UI, and I'm not sure that is ideal for this.

This Mac mini is basically what I've been waiting for. Now it is possible to create OS X-based devices and may actually lead to profitable businesses by companies who gut Mac minis and create other devices out of them. If there is readily available software for some of the more popular uses, like in-car entertainment, then a business could charge $1000 for the whole package and make some good money.

This is all very exciting and I think we'll begin to see people trying to create all sorts of nifty things out running OS X, without the consent of Apple. If enough of these devices get popular Apple may realize that they can make a lot of money by licensing both the software and hardware necessary to create OS X-based devices, and facilitating the development process.

[ReefHobbyist]

I would love to see a dual tuner DirecTV unit with build in OS X based TiVo TiVo runs Linux on a PPC chip now. Would be great if they could move to OS X with a G4 processor at least.

[Millennium]

The Mac Mini may be able to be put into a car, but it remains a full-on personal computer, not an embedded device. Embedded systems are much smaller, lighter (in terms of weight and in resources) and cheaper than even the Mac Mini. Even gaming consoles don't count, especially not the current generation (to say nothing of the next). An iPod is a good example of an embedded system, and it's on the higher end of things.

As it stands, OSX is still way too resource-intensive to run on such systems. Darwin might work out all right -I don't know- but your average embedded device still can't have the kinds of resources you need to run the OSX GUI.

In many ways, embedded programming is like the programming of days gone by, where you had to deal with very limited resources and relatively slow machines. Even OS9 is still too top-heavy for most modern embedded systems (though System 6 might work, if it were more stable). There is talk of using Linux as an embedded system -some enterprising folks have even ported it to the iPod- but truth be told it's still somewhat too resource-intensive also.

Check this out. It's a build-your-own game console, and also program-your-own. Sadly, the development kit only works for Windows right now, but a Linux effort is underway and once that's done a Mac effort can't be far behind. It also gives a very good idea of exactly what programming for an embedded system is still like today.

[IamBob]

Should probably link to the Guide to Creating Kiosks on Mac OS X.

[waffffffle]

If the term embedded bothers you then don't refer to it as that. I am talking about using OS X where embedded systems exist today, like car stereos and DVRs. If OS X isn't embedded enough for you then we can call it "lightweight" or "stripped-down" or what have you. The whole idea is to bring the advantages of OS X to other devices besides computers. Apple is leading the way with OS X-based computers, but I feel like hobbyists could do some amazing things by harnessing the capabilities of OS X for other uses. Ideally all components that aren't necessary for the particular function will be stripped out to cut the footprint of the system.

In terms of what hardware it can run on, it can run on a Mac mini, which is good enough in my mind. Now that we have some small inexpensive hardware to experiment with, the possibilities are truly endless.

The Mac mini can certainly act like an instant-on embedded device. It only has to boot up once (so does the iPod). Unfortunately Apple doesn't support any sort of hibernation with the Mac mini (they used to on older PowerBooks and iBooks but never in OS X to my knowledge). I'm sure external battery power can be used with the system to provide better power management so that when the power is cut, the unit will go to sleep and use the battery power to preserve the system while the car or other host device is off. This isn't all that complicated to do and I'm sure as time goes on and more and more people put Mac minis into their cars the process and functionality will improve.

[mcsjgs]

More embedded means more pervasive Apple presence in industry, no?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
If the term embedded bothers you then don't refer to it as that. I am talking about using OS X where embedded systems exist today, like car stereos and DVRs.

Most DVRs aren't embedded systems; they're full-blown computers (albeit more specialized than your average PC). Car stereos are another matter, and these are true embedded systems. They don't run OSX, and they don't even run Linux. Truth be told, most of them run a tiny operating system known as TRON.

Ideally all components that aren't necessary for the particular function will be stripped out to cut the footprint of the system.

The problem comes with the components which are necessary for the OS itself to function. Although it's theoretically possible to fit OSX on a gigabyte of flash memory, that doesn't leave you any space for anything else, and you're out $100. That's too expensive for most embedded systems, and I haven't even mentioned memory and processor requirements.

In terms of what hardware it can run on, it can run on a Mac mini, which is good enough in my mind.

Then you don't understand the requirements of embedded systems well enough.

Now that we have some small inexpensive hardware to experiment with, the possibilities are truly endless.

If you call the Mac Mini "small" and "inexpensive" to an embedded systems developer, I can guarantee you will be laughed out of the room. Mac Minis are a nice add-on to stuff for relatively rich folks, but if you want to get to a "Mac everywhere" point then you'll need something at a tenth of that price, and even that will be too expensive for most mass producers to even consider.

OSX is not suitable for embedded systems. That's OK; it doesn't try to be. It doesn't compete in this market, nor does it need to.

[waffffffle]

As I said, forget the word embedded then. I'm not talking about running OS X on your wrist watch. I'm talking about bringing the OS to places where a full OS like OS X has never been used before.

Price right now is not the primary issue. First hobbyists really need to show the world what OS X can do in other spaces. Then we can worry about convincing Apple to start licensing it or even modifying it to work on other hardware. For now the issue I'm talking about is gutting a Mac mini and using it for other purposes.

As for your assertion that the hardware would make the device too expensive, not so. Right now we're at the very beginning. Prices will come down. Remember, a Treo still costs about $700 without the carrier subsidy, same goes for the best smartphones. And we don't necessarily need to boot this thing off a compact flash card (although that would certainly be cool, and I think it is already possible within the OS, it was certainly possible in OS 9). For a car, booting once off the hard drive should be fine. Performance will be acceptable and the car will provide enough power while running for the drive to operate.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
Prices will come down.

No, they won't. That's the sad part, but Apple won't allow that.

Apple's business model isn't centered around computer models, like most other computer manufacturers. It is centered around price points. When a particular model becomes so old that its prices cease to be worth it to enough people, Apple retires the model and replaces it with a new one, upgraded just enough that people consider it "worth it" again.

Look at Apple's past pattern of behavior. They never lower prices on computers unless they absolutely have to; they prefer to upgrade hardware and retain the same price if they possibly can. The lowest-end of their pro line will cost you about $2000 when all is said and done. In 1991, the lowest end of their pro line cost you -guess what?- about $2000.

For a car, booting once off the hard drive should be fine. Performance will be acceptable and the car will provide enough power while running for the drive to operate.[/B]

And if the battery dies, or the car gets in an accident? Even the shock of a speed bump can seriously damage a machine unless great care is taken to mount it in a shock-resistant manner. Let's not forget the soaring temperatures of hot summer days with the car left in the parking lot; this must be dealt with as well (excessive heat can wreak havoc on a machine's stability).

[utidjian]

Originally posted by waffffffle:
As I said, forget the word embedded then. I'm not talking about running OS X on your wrist watch. I'm talking about bringing the OS to places where a full OS like OS X has never been used before.

An embedded device is a limited purpose device. Embedded devices run a dedicated OS. They are not designed so the user can load in whatever programs even if the system is capable... but that is not how embedded devices are designed and not how most people in the target market will want to use them. A Tivo barely fits the definition of an embedded device... the target market for Tivos does not want to load a wordprocessor or todo list into their Tivo. You can get a Tivo (look on froogle.com) for under US$100 these days.

Mac OS X is a general purpose operating system. It is designed to run on a general purpose hardware platform. It is designed so the user can buy, download, or write their own programs and use it to the limit.

Price right now is not the primary issue. First hobbyists really need to show the world what OS X can do in other spaces. Then we can worry about convincing Apple to start licensing it or even modifying it to work on other hardware. For now the issue I'm talking about is gutting a Mac mini and using it for other purposes.

A hobby for people to gut a $500 box and make it less useful than it already is does not create a market for such boxes. Sure some people will do it... we are certain to read about it on slashdot, accelerateyourmac, etc... Someone in Japan probably can't wait to get one and make the case clear and stuff it full of LEDs. Far more likely (and useful) is that someone will make it a file server (perhaps add a fat firewire drive) much like the Cobalt Cubes of 7 years ago. But it is a waste of $500 when one can get the same for less.

As for your assertion that the hardware would make the device too expensive, not so. Right now we're at the very beginning. Prices will come down. Remember, a Treo still costs about $700 without the carrier subsidy, same goes for the best smartphones.

Will they come as low as $100-$200? Can you strip the mini down to the size of a Treo? Can you strip Mac OS X down to the size of something that will fit in a Treo/PocketMac kind of device? How small can you make the OS and the apps?

And we don't necessarily need to boot this thing off a compact flash card (although that would certainly be cool, and I think it is already possible within the OS, it was certainly possible in OS 9). For a car, booting once off the hard drive should be fine. Performance will be acceptable and the car will provide enough power while running for the drive to operate.

A car is an extremely harsh environment for anything electronic. Temperatures range from well below freezing to almost boiling. Then there is the problem of shock and vibration. Not a good environment for an HDD. It will take considerable R&D to develop a system that is ruggedized for this type of environment. If the system gets flaky a hobbyist can put up with that (only themselves to blame) but a consumer will not.

If you want to see what the competition looks like take a look at http://www.linuxdevices.com Yes they have a wristwatch that runs Linux (I first saw a prototype that had a voice controlled GUI demoed in 1999). The Tivo is only the most popular and well known Linux based "appliance". There are dozens of other devices many of them way cheaper than the retail cost of Mac OS X OS... let alone the hardware to run Mac OS X on.

I got my first two iMac 17" FP G5s about 2 weeks ago. First thing I did was flip one over, undo the three captive screws and take the back off. Very very nice! From my point of view it seemed that one could lose the video subsystem, PS and other stuff and mount a 6-8 of these in a rack vertically. Much more compact than the Xserve. Now that I have seen the Mac-Mini it would be even more feasible to make a very nice blade server. Be nice when they have G5 Mac-Minis.

[IamBob]

I think it's a good idea to explore where OS X can go outside of its traditional role as a Desktop (or Server) OS. Why not? Machines capable of running OS X are cheap anymore. What has the Mac mini done (or what will it do) to the prices on ebay? You could probably get a crate-load of old G3 iMacs for pennies...perfectly suitable for an embedded (I'm not listening!) device.

These guys just need something to rag on and a place to show off how smart they are. Forget them.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by IamBob:
I think it's a good idea to explore where OS X can go outside of its traditional role as a Desktop (or Server) OS. Why not? Machines capable of running OS X are cheap anymore. What has the Mac mini done (or what will it do) to the prices on ebay? You could probably get a crate-load of old G3 iMacs for pennies...perfectly suitable for an embedded (I'm not listening!) device.

These guys just need something to rag on and a place to show off how smart they are. Forget them.

And your overwhelming experience in this field is...?

[IamBob]

And your overwhelming experience in this field is...?

I never said I had any, nor was I pretending to. I wasn't even implying...Which field are we talking about exactly?

What kind of experience do I need in order to say that I think it's ok "to explore where OS X can go outside of its traditional role as a Desktop (or Server) OS"?

[IamBob]

MacMiniAuto

It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

[Gavin]

Pretty interesting thread. It got a little pedantic over the term 'embedded' but oh well.

Scientific American had a TV show on PBS about smart cars recently. The researchers building and testing the systems had a computer and peripherals (mics, speakers, etc.) built into the car. The software that ran it was also built in. So the system was not easily upgradable. It had a (mediocre) voice recognition system, a talking map, etc.

I think the system that runs things and that you interact with needs to be portable, modular, upgradable. Not something you get from Ford that you're stuck with for the life of the car.

I like the idea of having a modular skeleton system that is controlled by ANY system you want. You add your own computer. Or your own system that lives on your iPod.

Compare a tivo to Myth TV on your own box. You can hack the interface to be anything you want. It has all kinds of modules like local web traffic cams and movie times. Imagine dashboard on your TV. Have the map of Gramma's flight in p.i.p. while you watch the game. No monthly fees and two years from now you can still have the latest goodies. An on board car system should be like this.

I'm pretty psyched about having a mini as my Media Center machine. It just needs a built in TV card. I can connect the 500GB drive over firewire and get a bluetooth remote.

[Gavin]

With a real computer in your car the cars on the road could spontaneously set up a wireless network. Every car is a node and a relay. Roadside businesses join in and now the whole traffic grid is on the internet.

The computer and the wireless card is all the infrastructure required. No government involvement is needed at all. (OK, maybe there is a radio interference issue, etc.)

The computer could connect to a new class of 'car peripherals' like proximity detectors, GPS, mechanical status info, burglar alarms, driver monitors (to wake you up if you fall asleep).

Drivers could share real time traffic condition info and GPS data. You would know instantly how all the roads were moving in real time. Your car's computer assembles the info to your personal settings with no service provider needed.

Businesses could send messages alerting passers-by to deals, opt-in of course. Your computer filters out the junk and you tell it to inform you only about the deals on teriyaki, because that's what you're in the mood for. So on your drive home from work the Commuter Dating Service hooks you up with a girl who is willing to meet and split the two-for-one deal, you seal the deal with iChat. Then your pre-set script erases the log files so your wife won't find out!

[Richard Edgar]

With a real computer in your car the cars on the road could spontaneously set up a wireless network. Every car is a node and a relay. Roadside businesses join in and now the whole traffic grid is on the internet

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'packet collision.'