Minor nit for those who don't know: The AirPort utility was not supposed to be dumbed down, this is simply a complete rewrite and they haven't ported all the functionality yet. Apple created a new version of the previous client (5.6) that will run along-side the current version until they can port the remaining functionality.

Two particular nitpicks that come to my mind are reverse scrolling and automatic termination. Reverse scrolling -- drag down to scroll up -- may be natural on a touchscreen, but why bring it to the PC and switch away from the way you had done it before (and everyone else does it)? Automatic termination -- shutting down apps in the background without asking you -- also makes sense on a mobile device, but is just a bad idea for computers.

By themselves, these kinds of things don't mean much, but these sorts of decisions and some coming mntn lion "feautures" seem to show a pretty clear trend of bringing mobile-inspired features to OS X, regardless of whether they make sense in that context.

With respect to scrolling, clearly how everyone else does it doesn't matter to Apple, since they are willing to change the way they have always done it. So why did they do it? Because it makes obvious sense on a touch device, and because there is nothing wrong with it on laptop or desktop. The annoyance lasted about 5 minutes for me.

As for the automatic app management, why doesn't this make sense on OS X? Because that's how it has always been done? Again, not at all persuasive. And honestly, the OS has long been responsible for resource management, why shouldn't it terminate and launch apps transparently?

I think though that you and many others are missing the point about transparently terminating and restarting apps. It is just part of being able to restore ones workspace after a restart, which is itself just part of creating a seamless pervasive personal computing environment.

The author is the one missing the point. Nobody is suggesting that we'll all be using our MacBooks in exactly the same way as our iPads (ie. by touching the screen).

There are, however, obvious ways in which OSX is moving toward an iOS-like environment. The App Store? Sandboxing? The ability for Apple to kill-switch apps?

1) Some of the apps only make sense to appear in OS X. Why shouldn't OS X have a messages app (which actually is just iChat integrated with the Messages protocol)? Or a Notes app? Nothing special here.

2) The notification bar was needed in OS X even before iOS appeared. Even Windows Vista introduced a notification sidebar. So, no surprise OS X adopted one too.

3) Launcher is indeed an idea borrowed from iOS, to add something OS X needed, namely a quick way to launch apps (and that is not by browsing with the Finder in the Applications folder). OS X user used a lot of similar apps, and the folder Dock "stacks" was half-way there.

So: apps and ideas are gonna be exchanged between the two.

The important thing is:

OS X and iOS ALREADY ARE the same OS. The share the same Mach/BSD kernel, the same services, most of the same runtimes, the same filesystem, etc. They are like two different "distros" of the same OS, for a different architecture and with a different UI.

So, whether OS X and iOS are "united into onto" will not be on the OS level (they are already the same kernel etc), but at the UI/runtime level.

At the level, there are some signs that the two Cocoa runtimes are converging (for example, iOS used to not have garbage collection, whereas not it has (sort of, with ARC)).

But there are no signs that OS X UI and iOS UI are gonna get reunited in the most important distinction, the touch UI thing. Apple has added touch gestures through the trackpad, but there won't be a touch screen. The way monitors/laptop screens work it's just not possible to hold your hand and touch one for stretches of time --you can even get cramps. That cannot be changed: it's the laws of how our body works.

What we CAN get, is some kind of laptop with a detachable screen that turns into an iPad --and then supports touch interaction.

Until something like that is available, OS X will not get like iOS UI-wise in the only thing that matters: the touch UI. Borrowing some concepts like notification screen, a launcher, or sheets and stuff, does not matter. They could just as easily have been developed for OS X in the first place.

Keep in mind, with Launcher, you're basically 75% of the way there. The apps are mostly compatible (look at the number of straight ported iOS games on the MAS for confirmation here) with no UI rework done.

Bringing in Notifications brings it to ~%80ish, IMHO. It's becoming that the only real difference between the two systems is Finder.

The games ported from iOS and Launcher, maybe, but most apps are not "mostly compatible".

A few examples: Safari, Mail, Photoshop, iTunes, iPhoto, Pages, Numbers, Garageband, etc. Also everything third party: Chrome, Photoshop, Word, Evernote, etc etc...

Non of those are designed with touch interaction in mind. This shows in the layout of the menus, toolbars and buttons, and is even more evident in the size of buttons and control elements. They are not made to be controlled by a coarse pointer, such as a finger.

Exactly. The ways they differ are nearly entirely those ways in which Apple intends for them to differ. (Or, as in the case of most of the publicized Mountain Lion changes, just hasn't gotten around to adapting recent features from one platform to the other.)

That said, why should an OS release have a "point"?

Besides, you know, advancing the capabilities of the platform, supporting new features, and selling more copies (and hardware units)? You know, like they always do?