The entire debate is silly, but fun. I doubt anyone outside the mac community, or possibly even the mac dev community, is having this debate. And, after thinking about it, it comes to the duck test.
Does it walk like a duck? Does it talk like a duck? If so, it's a duck.
Does the iPhone act like a Mac? No. Do you consider going from a powerbook to an iPhone the same as going from a PowerPook to a MacBook Pro? No. Is there more mac programs that you can run on an iPhone than you can run on Windows? No.
The fact that it's got similar code is important, yes, but consider how similar our DNA is to a banana's.
Conversely, we didn't debate transitioning to 68K to PPC, or MacOS 9 to Mac OSX, or PPC to Intel as much. Because, despite the widely different underlying architectures, they passed the duck test.
Apple's been strongly insisting that the iPhone isn't a computer, much less a Mac. On the other hand, they've called it a phone and iPod, despite neither of those using Cocoa or OS X before. Because it acts like a phone, and acts like an ipod.
by Blain — Jul 02
Does it walk like a duck? Does it talk like a duck? If so, it's a duck.
Does the iPhone act like a Mac? No. Do you consider going from a powerbook to an iPhone the same as going from a PowerPook to a MacBook Pro? No. Is there more mac programs that you can run on an iPhone than you can run on Windows? No.
The fact that it's got similar code is important, yes, but consider how similar our DNA is to a banana's.
Conversely, we didn't debate transitioning to 68K to PPC, or MacOS 9 to Mac OSX, or PPC to Intel as much. Because, despite the widely different underlying architectures, they passed the duck test.
Apple's been strongly insisting that the iPhone isn't a computer, much less a Mac. On the other hand, they've called it a phone and iPod, despite neither of those using Cocoa or OS X before. Because it acts like a phone, and acts like an ipod.
Quack.