[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I have a fairly solid understanding of how APIs work; the developers I work with are integrating them into our applications all the time.

Consuming APIs is completely different from producing APIs.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Consuming APIs is completely different from producing APIs.

Correct. And, would you say that the client-side iCloud applications (including the OS) are consuming APIs or producing them?

Yes, Apple is producing the APIs as well, but that's server-side, and it's pretty rare that an API cares about the OS that it's being consumed by, and there would be very few reasons for it to care; half the reason for using APIs is to be as versatile as possible (eg: enabling Windows to access the API as well). The API should only care that the client-side application has the right end-points. And, end-points are fairly easy to integrate into an application that's already designed to consume server-side services.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Correct. And, would you say that the client-side iCloud applications (including the OS) are consuming APIs or producing them?

Yes, Apple is producing the APIs as well, but that's server-side, and it's pretty rare that an API cares about the OS that it's being consumed by, and there would be very few reasons for it to care; half the reason for using APIs is to be as versatile as possible (eg: enabling Windows to access the API as well). The API should only care that the client-side application has the right end-points. And, end-points are fairly easy to integrate into an application that's already designed to consume server-side services.

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, we're all just speculating; however, my suspicion is that the client-side implementation of iCloud involves more than simply consuming their new server-side APIs that they've already created.

I do think that everyone is right that it would probably be trivial to integrate iCloud syncing of calendars and contacts; however without actually knowing the technical details even that can't be said for sure.

But, as has been stated repeatedly, the most important consideration here is that there's no good reason for them to continue to update and add new features to legacy versions of their OS and plenty of good reasons for them not to do so.

These two factors —technical difficulty (even if it's not that severe), and lack of sufficient justification to make the investment— combine to make it simply a bad idea to add even limited iCloud support to Snow Leopard. This is simply the way that software is developed: new features go into new versions while old versions get only absolutely necessary updates (like security patches and truly problematic bugs), and even then only for a limited time. This is no different form how Ubuntu, Microsoft, Sun, Debian, or anyone else operates.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I've been using Apple stuff for over 22 years now, and all I can see is that Apple's business decisions over the past fifteen years have resulted in the most awesome products of theirs I've yet to use.

If that's apologism, well, yeah, I guess I'm an apologist.

You just made me feel old. I just realized I have been using Apple stuff for 18 years now... 1993 was the first time I touched a Mac

[Athens]

I would also like to point out that iCloud is a Free service. Its hard to justify spending resources on a OS that is no longer sold for a free service. Now if iCloud had some $$$ figure attached to it, then sure I could see resources being spent on Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard to make it so more people would "buy" icloud but its not the case.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

You just made me feel old. I just realized I have been using Apple stuff for 18 years now... 1993 was the first time I touched a Mac

Shit, 18 years as an Apple user makes you feel old? I've been using since my dad got a 128k Mac in 1984...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I have a fairly solid understanding of how APIs work; the developers I work with are integrating them into our applications all the time.

No; you have a fairly solid understanding of how third-party developers interface with APIs.

That has absolutely nothing to do with how APIs are built and integrate with the underlying operating system.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I would also like to point out that iCloud is a Free service. Its hard to justify spending resources on a OS that is no longer sold for a free service. Now if iCloud had some $$$ figure attached to it, then sure I could see resources being spent on Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard to make it so more people would "buy" icloud but its not the case.

You can point it out, but it is still hilariously false. Apple continues to develop several free products that run on operating systems no longer for sale: the current version of Safari runs on Snow Leopard and Win XP, and the current version of iTunes runs on Win XP and on Leopard on a PowerPC G4!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You can point it out, but it is still hilariously false. Apple continues to develop several free products that run on operating systems no longer for sale: the current version of Safari runs on Snow Leopard and Win XP, and the current version of iTunes runs on Win XP and on Leopard on a PowerPC G4!

Correct. iCloud may not have a direct cost to the customer, but it is certainly positioned as an added value to upgrading.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No; you have a fairly solid understanding of how third-party developers interface with APIs.

That has absolutely nothing to do with how APIs are built and integrate with the underlying operating system.

The API doesn't live in the OS; the OS accesses the API on a remote server just like any other app. The only difference in this case is MacOS and Apple apps have a home field advantage allowing them proprietary access (rightfully).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The API doesn't live in the OS; the OS accesses the API on a remote server just like any other app. The only difference in this case is MacOS and Apple apps have a home field advantage allowing them proprietary access (rightfully).

Disclaimer: I am not a developer.

My understanding is that an API itself ABSOLUTELY lives in the OS. This particular API's job is to interface between user-level applications and a remote database/service. But the API itself definitely lives at OS-level.

Can a developer briefly verify that I'm not full of shit on this, please? (Or correct me if I am )

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The API doesn't live in the OS; the OS accesses the API on a remote server just like any other app.

No, that's incorrect, there are APIs on the client as well, most notably those related to file access. It's not just a server protocol that any computer can use.

One of the key aspects is automated conflict resolution which means that the (client) OS needs to have some notion of versions. iCloud keeps and manages all versions, but the apps resolve conflicts, i. e. they need to be able to access and understand versions in order to resolve conflicts. There are APIs that allow developers to choose a certain scheme (e. g. latest version or merging).

You need to rewrite the parts that have to do with file access in Address Book and iCal, for instance. And you need to teach Snow Leopard the notion of versions. I'm sure it's technically doable, but then you end up with OS X 10.6 + 0.5. Or alternatively, you end up with a half-baked implementation.

[magus1962]

ICloud has been extremely disappointing, especially for contacts. I was under the impression that with IOS5 that you did not need a computer, this proves to be false. I spent several hours on the line with Apples tech support about their cloud server issues. The cloud does not allow you to delete groups and actually kept duplicating one group over 50 times. Apple has no clue how to fix the problem, they suggested several less then stellar work arounds. I pointed out that I was not satisfied with a work around rather a fix is in order.

[Spheric Harlot]

Oh. That does indeed suck.

It is, of course, completely unreasonable to expect phone support to fix and issue that can only be fixed by delving into code.

But that you fought through it with them means that they're aware of and can pass on the issue.

What workaround did they suggest?

[Athens]

im not happy with iCloud either. They should have made mobileme free and went with that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Troubleshooting iCloud is a different subject, though.

[OreoCookie]

I'd also say, we should discuss that in a different thread. If anyone wants to start a new thread on iCloud trouble, feel free. If there is enough material, we may also make it a sticky.

[Spheric Harlot]

Spot-on (though ostensibly written from a different perspective):

Latest Version - Matt Gemmell

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Spot-on (though ostensibly written from a different perspective):

Latest Version - Matt Gemmell

It might be spot on for right now, but I don't think what is being observed here is in anyway sustainable. I just hope Apple appreciates this luxury and sees it as a temporary thing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Why do you think that using new features to sell new hardware/software is an unsustainable business model?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Why do you think that using new features to sell new hardware/software is an unsustainable business model?

I was speaking more to the concept of being able to only support the most recent and last OS version.

[Spheric Harlot]

So was I.

Why is that unsustainable?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So was I.

Why is that unsustainable?

Because people's upgrades patterns have a lot to do with the newness of this technology and the excitement around it. It also has something to do with our culture and proclivity towards low cost gadgetry.

When iOS has matured such that updates to it are about as exciting as Windows or Office updates (or even OS X updates) and there is far less of a compelling reason to upgrade, people won't be upgrading as immediately.

FFS, there are still people using IE 7. These people will eventually be using what we call smart phones and tablets today.

[Spheric Harlot]

I see.

So if there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Lion (as per your example), why does this thread exist?

Catering to only the latest version of an OS is sustainable because that is what drives OS adoption in the first place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I see.

So if there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Lion (as per your example), why does this thread exist?

Catering to only the latest version of an OS is sustainable because that is what drives OS adoption in the first place.

This thread exists because we are Mac geeks.

Sure there are plenty of of non-Mac geeks who will upgrade, but there are also plenty that are no doubt happy to stick with Snow Leopard or Leopard, Leopard which is quite old now. In Windows there are plenty of people still using Windows XP.

You also have to keep in mind the relatively short period of time between iOS 4 and 5. If this interest in upgrading was consistent across platforms there would be 90%+ of users on Lion and Win 7.

[Spheric Harlot]

I'm asking you to consider that somebody found iCloud as a feature compelling enough to complain that it's not available for his obsolete operating system.

This alone may not be enough to drive him to upgrade.

But six other applications he wishes to use that are only supported under 10.7 WILL push him over the edge at some point, and he will either become really annoyed and jump ship (yeah right), or upgrade.

IOW, it's a self-feeding cycle: Developers only supporting the later versions automatically mean that more people will upgrade to later versions, which means that there is less incentive to invest into supporting older, obsolete products.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I'm asking you to consider that somebody found iCloud as a feature compelling enough to complain that it's not available for his obsolete operating system.

Somebody who is very plugged into the world of being a Mac user. Joe Numbskull iPhone owner who is not a geek, doesn't spend much time with their computer probably has no earthly clue what iCloud is.

IOW, it's a self-feeding cycle: Developers only supporting the later versions automatically mean that more people will upgrade to later versions, which means that there is less incentive to invest into supporting older, obsolete products.

I don't disagree with this, but my point is that the extent in which this is so is not sustainable. It will eventually take longer between releases, or else developers will have enough incentive to support older and older iterations as time progresses. The speed in which people upgrade will eventually slow down just as it has for desktop operating systems.

What may change this if the perception of painless upgrades becomes socially prevalent and it is so convenient to upgrade that it is almost more convenient to upgrade than it is to ignore being nagged, but it is only a matter of time before an iOS update really bites people in the ass to the point where they think twice about upgrading the second the update is available. Some might say this has already happened with the battery thing, possibly.

[Spheric Harlot]

"some say".

As always, there is a tiny fraction with real problems.

And iCloud is geared specifically to non-propellerheads. Anybody with an iOS device newer than mid-2009 will at least have heard about it, as will most anybody who uses iPhoto (update notice) or iTunes (for Mac or Windows). They may not know exactly what it does, having clicked by, but they'll have read the term.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"some say".

As always, there is a tiny fraction with real problems.

And iCloud is geared specifically to non-propellerheads. Anybody with an iOS device newer than mid-2009 will at least have heard about it, as will most anybody who uses iPhoto (update notice) or iTunes (for Mac or Windows). They may not know exactly what it does, having clicked by, but they'll have read the term.

And it may or may not sink in and compel them to investigate.

You don't have to defend iCloud or Apple as it seems you are doing (and often do), I'm just speaking to general computing trends. Time will tell if I'm right, but I think history is on my side.

[Spheric Harlot]

Only XP is on your side.
(and Internet Exploder, but let's not even get started on that...)

Don't paint me into a corner by telling I'm "defending" anything but my own reasoning.

You say that the rate of upgrading has slowed, and I see zero evidence of that - quite the contrary, in fact. And upgrades being automatic and free on iOS means that the default *is* the latest OS for most customers on that platform.

On the "real computer" side, Apple is helping with making upgrades sub-$30, and not back-porting applications and features to obsolete systems.

What evidence do you see that upgrade speeds are slowing?