I never meant they would literally say it. I'm saying thats what they will think. Why bother, they can run it now if they want anyway. So keep sending the same generic email saying "We have looked into the matter, but have no intension of doing a Mac port at this time."
Blah Blah Blah
Technical guy.
Softimage.
Say it, think it, whatever. They still have to be pretty dim to use dualboot as an excuse, when they've had so many, much more compelling excuses before.
I think Tulkas makes a pretty convincing argument. I wouldn't say I was worried about the future of Apple hardware, but certainly uncomfortable with the uncertainty of it all. Tulkas does a nice job of spelling things out in a way that seems highly plausible.
If a developer says "hey, users can just boot their Macs into Windows, so I can avoid doing a Mac version", they are either a) retarded or b) looking for an reason to not do the Mac version. In either case, they already have a better reason for not doing Mac version for Mac users...that reason is cheap Windows PCs. If all they need is to say "you can already use it", they already have that excuse.
Everything you say is true. However, there are those developers who use the existence of virtual machine technology as an excuse not to develop for the Mac. You may find one such developer here. One antedote to these developers is to concentrate on the task and not the tools required to complete the task. If you do this, you will likely find alternative Mac-native tools that will perform the same function as the Windows-only app that you are pining over. In my experience, the Mac tools often do a superior job and are less expensive. In the case of my posted link, the MacOS X-native alternatives are free.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
rebooting is a pain, and no intelligent developer is going to say "hey, people can reboot their Macs into Windows, so they don't need a Mac version". None. Before they get to that point, they would have already found far more intelligent and compelling reasons not to do Mac software, i.e. cheap PCs, tiny Mac marketshare, dominance of Windows etc.
Unfortunately, intelligence is often not the deciding factor. Internal company politics can be much more important.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
If Macs being dual boot is the straw that broke the camels back for their Mac development, they are pretty slow learners.
Agreed. This whole fixation with running Windows on a Mac so misses the point. Based on what we know now--strongly suspect, anyway--the Windows experience on Intel-based Macs will be substantially better than it is on PPC-based Macs. That said, the success or failure of Mac on Intel will be determined by the quality of its Macintosh experience, not the quality of its Windows experience.
Everything you say is true. However, there are those developers who use the existence of virtual machine technology as an excuse not to develop for the Mac. You may find one such developer here.
Virtual machine or virtual environments are a much different situation for Apple than alowing dual boots. I agree that anything that allows users to run Windows apps at full speed within their Mac environment, presents a risk to Apple, and has to be treated as such. I would still hold that even that will be too confusing for some users.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
One antedote to these developers is to concentrate on the task and not the tools required to complete the task. If you do this, you will likely find alternative Mac-native tools that will perform the same function as the Windows-only app that you are pining over. In my experience, the Mac tools often do a superior job and are less expensive. In the case of my posted link, the MacOS X-native alternatives are free.
Unfortunately, intelligence is often not the deciding factor. Internal company politics can be much more important.
That said, the success or failure of Mac on Intel will be determined by the quality of its Macintosh experience, not the quality of its Windows experience.
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM". I know I will use it when I get an x86 Mac. Apple needs to make sure that writing Mac native software is a good experience and rewards the developer. They could provide support for porting it to Windows, for example. Another possibility would be to support Microsoft's .NET fully so that Windows apps built using that technology don't just run on the Mac, but they are "native" and leverage the Apple GUI and other technologies.
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM". I know I will use it when I get an x86 Mac. Apple needs to make sure that writing Mac native software is a good experience and rewards the developer. They could provide support for porting it to Windows, for example. Another possibility would be to support Microsoft's .NET fully so that Windows apps built using that technology don't just run on the Mac, but they are "native" and leverage the Apple GUI and other technologies.
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM".
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.
Furthermore most Mac users bitch when we get badly ported Windows apps with a Windows feel. and many buys apps that integrates well with Mac OS X and have just that Mac feel they like - do you really think they will buy Windows apps and running them in a native VPC?
They would probably have bought a Windows machine in the first place.
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.
Furthermore most Mac users bitch when we get badly ported Windows apps with a Windows feel. and many buys apps that integrates well with Mac OS X and have just that Mac feel they like - do you really think they will buy Windows apps and running them in a native VPC?
They would probably have bought a Windows machine in the first place.
Tell me the difference between Maya, or Photoshop on windows, and on OS X? There isn't any. Other than I'd rather be running May aon a Athlon, than on a G5.
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.
That potential loss has to be weighted against the very significant cost of porting to OSX. Consider that OSX users today are a tiny percentage of all computer users. As if that wasn't bad enough, after Apple starts selling X86 machines it will take several years before a sizable fraction of OSX users are actually using X86 machines. People aren't going to dump their perfectly good PPC machines for X86 ones overnight.
If I am a Windows developer who has been avoiding OSX for all these years, VirtualPC running at native speed is a very powerful reason for continuing to avoid OSX even as OSX market share grows. If I am a Windows developer who has already ported to OSX, VirtualPC running at native speed could make me reconsider having native OSX support.
Now, if Apple used the nuclear option (offering OSX86 for all modern X86 hardware), that could make OSX irresistible to even the most hardcore Windows developers out there.
... Consider that OSX users today are a tiny percentage of all computer users.
This is fundamentally flawed thinking in several ways. The percentage of users is irrelevant. The only relevant percentage is the percentage of buyers in your market.
I continue to fail to see the reasoning behind this argument. If people are switching away from Windows the last thing they want to have to do is reboot to load software. It defeats the whole purpose of switching and is a royal pain. VPC and other virtualisation software will sell better but companies aren't going to stop porting just because Macs could run Windows simply because it'll be too much of a hassle for people to want to. I expect all current major developers will switch and customers will have the benefit of being able to switch to Macs and not run the risk of being without windows apps. I expect this will help Apple if anything. If marketshare rises so will the number of developers.
Actually, for switchers, I would assume that having the POTENTIAL at least to boot Windows will be quite an attraction, especially for those who have already spent major $$$ to buy Windows apps (ie: Photoshop, MAcromedia Studio etc.). It's easier to justify switching to a new OS if you don't have to also have to buy new versions of all the apps at the same time too.
Actually, for switchers, I would assume that having the POTENTIAL at least to boot Windows will be quite an attraction, especially for those who have already spent major $$$ to buy Windows apps (ie: Photoshop, MAcromedia Studio etc.). It's easier to justify switching to a new OS if you don't have to also have to buy new versions of all the apps at the same time too.
Absolutly, it will be a selling point for users. But, for a developer to design their business plan around that is very weak. Being able to boot into another environment is great; being forced to boot into another environment to run a particular app is inconvienient to say the least.
It's akin to being able to shop across state lines to save on taxes. That ability of consumers doesn't mean that producers will stop selling into your state because you could just go for a day trip and pick up their product.
This is fundamentally flawed thinking in several ways. The percentage of users is irrelevant. The only relevant percentage is the percentage of buyers in your market.
The percentage of OSX users is relevant because only they will want to buy the OSX version of my software. If I am already selling software for Windows, adding an OSX version will increase revenues by a tiny percentage because the total pool of potential buyers will only increase by a tiny percentage in many cases. So it is that tiny percentage of potential revenue increase that needs to be compared to the potentially significant cost of porting to OSX.
I can capture some of the potential OSX revenue without having to spend one dime in porting if I tell OSX people to get a copy of VirtualPC. If I am the only Windows developer asking OSX users to get VirtualPC then maybe you are right in thinking that many would look for alternatives, it all depends on how compelling my Windows product is. However, chances are there will be other Windows developers telling OSX users to get VirtualPC. In particular, Microsoft itself might at some point start telling OSX users the same thing. So, chances are my product won't be the only reason to get VirtualPC, and that makes it much more likely OSX users will decide to get it.
Absolutly, it will be a selling point for users. But, for a developer to design their business plan around that is very weak. Being able to boot into another environment is great; being forced to boot into another environment to run a particular app is inconvienient to say the least.
It's akin to being able to shop across state lines to save on taxes. That ability of consumers doesn't mean that producers will stop selling into your state because you could just go for a day trip and pick up their product.
So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest. And knowing now that more users have access to their apps with no work on their part isn't going to compell them to start now.
So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest. And knowing now that more users have access to their apps with no work on their part isn't going to compell them to start now.
bingo. You are 100% right, it has nothing to do with dual boot or not. As you say, if they arenot doing it now, they obviously didn't have any interest.
Now, looking at it from the point of view of a devloper that is actually seriously considering Mac software, dualboot macs would make nil difference. Not a moments consideration. Virtual environments, or native support would definately cause second thoughts, and should. But dualboot? Not even close.
One thing to consider is whether or not Microsoft cares to rewrite VPC; it most certainly will not fall under the requirements for Rosetta, and probably isn't transitioned to XCode already; even if it were, it is currently designed to translate x86 code to PPC code. No doubt a lot of the abstract work has already been done in VirtualPC for the various versions of Windows, but I'm not sure how much that will really help Microsoft.
And the effort isn't the only gotcha. Will Microsoft justify the development of a project that could potentially help drive their customers away? Only time will tell.
As far as emulation as an arguement against software porting; I think it's only a valid arguement for those developers that do not utilize Apple's technologies to make better products; and those whose software is unimportant enough for the 10-20% performance hit to be important. To quote economic reasons would generally mean that the developer wasn't commited to producing and improving a product of value to Mac users in the first place, generally.
Microsoft could make VPC transparent and run Windows apps seamlessly like Classic. This would definitely hurt Apple as an "emulated" app may be good enough at that point.
I personally would want native apps and I think these VPC apps would look weird, weirder than Classic apps mixed in with OS X. In fact I'd want VPC to emulate a standalone windows box just as it does now, this way its a far more valuable and authentic test environment.
bingo. You are 100% right, it has nothing to do with dual boot or not. As you say, if they arenot doing it now, they obviously didn't have any interest.
Now, looking at it from the point of view of a devloper that is actually seriously considering Mac software, dualboot macs would make nil difference. Not a moments consideration. Virtual environments, or native support would definately cause second thoughts, and should. But dualboot? Not even close.
I already did. My opinion is different than yours. We disagree, but you don't speak for all developers, so stop pretending you have a clue as to what all developers are considering. All of them don't think they same way about the "Apple switching to intel" issue I can guarantee you that. Although, I have spoken to a few, being that I am in a position to do so, and none seem to share your opinion on this issue. So pipe down.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
I never meant they would literally say it. I'm saying thats what they will think. Why bother, they can run it now if they want anyway. So keep sending the same generic email saying "We have looked into the matter, but have no intension of doing a Mac port at this time."
Blah Blah Blah
Technical guy.
Softimage.
Say it, think it, whatever. They still have to be pretty dim to use dualboot as an excuse, when they've had so many, much more compelling excuses before.
The future holds all the answers.
Originally posted by Tulkas
If a developer says "hey, users can just boot their Macs into Windows, so I can avoid doing a Mac version", they are either a) retarded or b) looking for an reason to not do the Mac version. In either case, they already have a better reason for not doing Mac version for Mac users...that reason is cheap Windows PCs. If all they need is to say "you can already use it", they already have that excuse.
Everything you say is true. However, there are those developers who use the existence of virtual machine technology as an excuse not to develop for the Mac. You may find one such developer here. One antedote to these developers is to concentrate on the task and not the tools required to complete the task. If you do this, you will likely find alternative Mac-native tools that will perform the same function as the Windows-only app that you are pining over. In my experience, the Mac tools often do a superior job and are less expensive. In the case of my posted link, the MacOS X-native alternatives are free.
Originally posted by Tulkas
rebooting is a pain, and no intelligent developer is going to say "hey, people can reboot their Macs into Windows, so they don't need a Mac version". None. Before they get to that point, they would have already found far more intelligent and compelling reasons not to do Mac software, i.e. cheap PCs, tiny Mac marketshare, dominance of Windows etc.
Unfortunately, intelligence is often not the deciding factor. Internal company politics can be much more important.
Originally posted by Tulkas
If Macs being dual boot is the straw that broke the camels back for their Mac development, they are pretty slow learners.
Agreed. This whole fixation with running Windows on a Mac so misses the point. Based on what we know now--strongly suspect, anyway--the Windows experience on Intel-based Macs will be substantially better than it is on PPC-based Macs. That said, the success or failure of Mac on Intel will be determined by the quality of its Macintosh experience, not the quality of its Windows experience.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Everything you say is true. However, there are those developers who use the existence of virtual machine technology as an excuse not to develop for the Mac. You may find one such developer here.
Virtual machine or virtual environments are a much different situation for Apple than alowing dual boots. I agree that anything that allows users to run Windows apps at full speed within their Mac environment, presents a risk to Apple, and has to be treated as such. I would still hold that even that will be too confusing for some users.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
One antedote to these developers is to concentrate on the task and not the tools required to complete the task. If you do this, you will likely find alternative Mac-native tools that will perform the same function as the Windows-only app that you are pining over. In my experience, the Mac tools often do a superior job and are less expensive. In the case of my posted link, the MacOS X-native alternatives are free.
Unfortunately, intelligence is often not the deciding factor. Internal company politics can be much more important.
That said, the success or failure of Mac on Intel will be determined by the quality of its Macintosh experience, not the quality of its Windows experience.
Agreed.
Originally posted by Programmer
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM". I know I will use it when I get an x86 Mac. Apple needs to make sure that writing Mac native software is a good experience and rewards the developer. They could provide support for porting it to Windows, for example. Another possibility would be to support Microsoft's .NET fully so that Windows apps built using that technology don't just run on the Mac, but they are "native" and leverage the Apple GUI and other technologies.
bingo
Originally posted by Programmer
Forget dual boot -- that isn't even remotely interesting to most users. Even virtualization allowing two OSes to run simultaneously isn't interesting. A virtual machine like VirtualPC, but using the native instruction set, is much more compelling and this is the potential danger to MacOSX. This integration will easily be good enough that people will use it and developers with not much attachment to the Mac will say "use the VM".
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.
Furthermore most Mac users bitch when we get badly ported Windows apps with a Windows feel. and many buys apps that integrates well with Mac OS X and have just that Mac feel they like - do you really think they will buy Windows apps and running them in a native VPC?
They would probably have bought a Windows machine in the first place.
Originally posted by JLL
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.
Furthermore most Mac users bitch when we get badly ported Windows apps with a Windows feel. and many buys apps that integrates well with Mac OS X and have just that Mac feel they like - do you really think they will buy Windows apps and running them in a native VPC?
They would probably have bought a Windows machine in the first place.
Tell me the difference between Maya, or Photoshop on windows, and on OS X? There isn't any. Other than I'd rather be running May aon a Athlon, than on a G5.
Originally posted by JLL
And tell their potential customers to go out and buy a VPC + a Windows license? Suddenly their app is much more expensive, and many will probably look elsewhere.
That potential loss has to be weighted against the very significant cost of porting to OSX. Consider that OSX users today are a tiny percentage of all computer users. As if that wasn't bad enough, after Apple starts selling X86 machines it will take several years before a sizable fraction of OSX users are actually using X86 machines. People aren't going to dump their perfectly good PPC machines for X86 ones overnight.
If I am a Windows developer who has been avoiding OSX for all these years, VirtualPC running at native speed is a very powerful reason for continuing to avoid OSX even as OSX market share grows. If I am a Windows developer who has already ported to OSX, VirtualPC running at native speed could make me reconsider having native OSX support.
Now, if Apple used the nuclear option (offering OSX86 for all modern X86 hardware), that could make OSX irresistible to even the most hardcore Windows developers out there.
Originally posted by Tidris
... Consider that OSX users today are a tiny percentage of all computer users.
This is fundamentally flawed thinking in several ways. The percentage of users is irrelevant. The only relevant percentage is the percentage of buyers in your market.
Originally posted by Telomar
I continue to fail to see the reasoning behind this argument. If people are switching away from Windows the last thing they want to have to do is reboot to load software. It defeats the whole purpose of switching and is a royal pain. VPC and other virtualisation software will sell better but companies aren't going to stop porting just because Macs could run Windows simply because it'll be too much of a hassle for people to want to. I expect all current major developers will switch and customers will have the benefit of being able to switch to Macs and not run the risk of being without windows apps. I expect this will help Apple if anything. If marketshare rises so will the number of developers.
Actually, for switchers, I would assume that having the POTENTIAL at least to boot Windows will be quite an attraction, especially for those who have already spent major $$$ to buy Windows apps (ie: Photoshop, MAcromedia Studio etc.). It's easier to justify switching to a new OS if you don't have to also have to buy new versions of all the apps at the same time too.
Originally posted by mynamehere
Actually, for switchers, I would assume that having the POTENTIAL at least to boot Windows will be quite an attraction, especially for those who have already spent major $$$ to buy Windows apps (ie: Photoshop, MAcromedia Studio etc.). It's easier to justify switching to a new OS if you don't have to also have to buy new versions of all the apps at the same time too.
Absolutly, it will be a selling point for users. But, for a developer to design their business plan around that is very weak. Being able to boot into another environment is great; being forced to boot into another environment to run a particular app is inconvienient to say the least.
It's akin to being able to shop across state lines to save on taxes. That ability of consumers doesn't mean that producers will stop selling into your state because you could just go for a day trip and pick up their product.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
This is fundamentally flawed thinking in several ways. The percentage of users is irrelevant. The only relevant percentage is the percentage of buyers in your market.
The percentage of OSX users is relevant because only they will want to buy the OSX version of my software. If I am already selling software for Windows, adding an OSX version will increase revenues by a tiny percentage because the total pool of potential buyers will only increase by a tiny percentage in many cases. So it is that tiny percentage of potential revenue increase that needs to be compared to the potentially significant cost of porting to OSX.
I can capture some of the potential OSX revenue without having to spend one dime in porting if I tell OSX people to get a copy of VirtualPC. If I am the only Windows developer asking OSX users to get VirtualPC then maybe you are right in thinking that many would look for alternatives, it all depends on how compelling my Windows product is. However, chances are there will be other Windows developers telling OSX users to get VirtualPC. In particular, Microsoft itself might at some point start telling OSX users the same thing. So, chances are my product won't be the only reason to get VirtualPC, and that makes it much more likely OSX users will decide to get it.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Absolutly, it will be a selling point for users. But, for a developer to design their business plan around that is very weak. Being able to boot into another environment is great; being forced to boot into another environment to run a particular app is inconvienient to say the least.
It's akin to being able to shop across state lines to save on taxes. That ability of consumers doesn't mean that producers will stop selling into your state because you could just go for a day trip and pick up their product.
So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest. And knowing now that more users have access to their apps with no work on their part isn't going to compell them to start now.
Originally posted by onlooker
So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest. And knowing now that more users have access to their apps with no work on their part isn't going to compell them to start now.
bingo. You are 100% right, it has nothing to do with dual boot or not. As you say, if they arenot doing it now, they obviously didn't have any interest.
Now, looking at it from the point of view of a devloper that is actually seriously considering Mac software, dualboot macs would make nil difference. Not a moments consideration. Virtual environments, or native support would definately cause second thoughts, and should. But dualboot? Not even close.
And the effort isn't the only gotcha. Will Microsoft justify the development of a project that could potentially help drive their customers away? Only time will tell.
As far as emulation as an arguement against software porting; I think it's only a valid arguement for those developers that do not utilize Apple's technologies to make better products; and those whose software is unimportant enough for the 10-20% performance hit to be important. To quote economic reasons would generally mean that the developer wasn't commited to producing and improving a product of value to Mac users in the first place, generally.
I personally would want native apps and I think these VPC apps would look weird, weirder than Classic apps mixed in with OS X. In fact I'd want VPC to emulate a standalone windows box just as it does now, this way its a far more valuable and authentic test environment.
Originally posted by Tulkas
bingo. You are 100% right, it has nothing to do with dual boot or not. As you say, if they arenot doing it now, they obviously didn't have any interest.
Now, looking at it from the point of view of a devloper that is actually seriously considering Mac software, dualboot macs would make nil difference. Not a moments consideration. Virtual environments, or native support would definately cause second thoughts, and should. But dualboot? Not even close.
I already did. My opinion is different than yours. We disagree, but you don't speak for all developers, so stop pretending you have a clue as to what all developers are considering. All of them don't think they same way about the "Apple switching to intel" issue I can guarantee you that. Although, I have spoken to a few, being that I am in a position to do so, and none seem to share your opinion on this issue. So pipe down.