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.
That's really great that you have had the opportunity to speak to to an actual developer
I would question the intelligence of a single developer that would consider Windows on Macs to be even remotely a deciding factor to their decision to continuing or starting a Mac version.
As far not not speaking for all developers, perhaps you shouldn't make statements like "Nobody will bother to port their apps to native Mac OS if you can run both. How will Apple get any new possible developers with this switch if they really don't need to port anything."
You sure seem to be speaking for all developers. Besides, you have yet to articulate in any reasonable manner, why a dualboot Mac would hurt Apple in any way. You claim it, can't explain it.
Please explain the excuse your 'developer friends' gave you for dualboot being a factor in their decision not to do a Mac version of their software. As you say "So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest.", which seems reasonable and fairly obvious. I would love to hear their explaination. Truly.
Now, I can and have explained why I think that dualboot will not be a bad thing. I can tell you, that as long enough of our customers need and buy a Mac version of our software, we will continue developing it. I can tell you that our customers would just about shit and my managers would piss themselves laughing if I said "let's drop Mac development, because they can just reboot into Windows". Sure, someone may someday convince the powers that be that we should drop Mac development (we contract it out anyway), but it will be for a viable business reason. Dual boot is not a factor.
Oh, and before you say you meant only new Mac software would be affected..as when you mentioned using dualboot as a possible reason for SoftImage not doing XSI for Mac...someone should wake them up over there and tell them their Linux version was a waste, because their Linux customers can just reboot into Windows they want to use their software....
So, and i'm honestly not trolling, why does it matter if the mac games market dies?
Games are a very different class of app
They don't use the mac gui, or have to be especially protected from viruses..
If close to realtime emulation works, how is there any downside to having access to the PC games library, how would i even know it wasn't a native game port?
No fun for game porters i know, but having one platform to write for would be good for the wobbly PC games market
Can you not realize that all do not share your opinion? Just because you want something your way it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'm sorry.
I expect people to disagree with me. That's part of what makes these forums. But, when someone starts telling me to pipe down, and generally trying to speak down to me because I present counter arguements to theirs, their arguements start to look pretty weak. We're done.
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. ...
You seem stuck on the notion of the "tiny percentage." The developers who are making money selling Windows software are not making money because of Windows's overall marketshare, but because they cultivate the market of potential buyers of their products. In a like manner, there are developers doing quite well selling Mac software because they cultivate their markets. The "tiny percentage" argument is valid only if you rely on random chance to drive your sales. Some of the biggest software titles on the market today were developed on the Mac. If you have a good product that satisfies a need, you will succeed. If you put crap on the market, then you will probably fail--as well you should.
You seem stuck on the notion of the "tiny percentage."
Yes I am because it is important. No matter how well you market an OSX product, the maximum number of product copies you can sell is limited to a certain percentage of the total number of OSX users. The more specialized you product the smaller that certain percentage is going to be. The tiny OSX market share is the primary reason why some Windows developers aren't interested in porting to OSX. If your Windows product is so generally useful that most or all OSX users would want to buy it, then the tiny OSX market share is probably more than enough to justify the OSX port. Unfortunately many specialized but useful Windows products aren't that lucky.
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.
Nobody seems to be considering the possibility of reverse-migration. As in, people see pimped Apple hardware, using all the latest and greatest (and I'm not talking rage 128 and 500mhz G4s here) in sleek, slim, tech little slabs of metal with a glowing Apple logo on it, and think about getting one... you know, just to run windows on. So they buy one, and boot it up, and see this OS from the future, that is a little different from Windows but really easy to use. It's all just so... pimpin'!
So they partition their hard disk and install Windows alongside OS X. Over time, and after playing with OS X, the time they spend in Windows/OSX goes from 90/10 to 10/90. All their old, shitty windows software works; they aren't having to dive into the deep end so to speak. But the allure of OS X is too great.
This ESPECIALLY applies to geeky types who want to triple boot Linux, Windows XP and OS X. Guess which one they become more and more drawn to? OS X. Because it has the Unix underpinnings and core utilities, and a plethora of free software, such as Apple's port of XFree. Windows for games and maybe Office. OS X for everything else.
And those geeky types? They tend to be developers. Get my drift?
The people who are writing Mono (Open Source implementation of Microsoft's C#) write their code on powerbooks. They boot into linux when necessary but spend most of their time in OS X.
Yes I am because it is important. No matter how well you market an OSX product, the maximum number of product copies you can sell is limited to a certain percentage of the total number of OSX users. The more specialized you product the smaller that certain percentage is going to be. The tiny OSX market share is the primary reason why some Windows developers aren't interested in porting to OSX.
But as he said: looking at the overall market share is just wrong. Who cares if Macs have a 3% total market share if 70% of your potential customers use Macs.
There's a lot of silliness going on here. Dual boot/VPC is a win/win situation for Apple; which is why they will take a neutral stance (and behind the scenes make sure that works OK). It will enable Apple to offer some extremely compelling hardware and marketshare can only go up.
It will have very little effect on developers - for Windows only dev's it will be entirely invisible to them. Dev's under pressure for a Mac port will either see the business argument or not. Saying 'run it under VPC' is an affirmation of the status quo not a negative. For many companies in the creative markets the Mac sector usually accounts 25 - 40% of their sales (Alias, Adobe, Macromedia, Newtek, etc.) Its a market that's knowledgable, high-profile and loyal and most dev's do not regret the move. Apple must of course continue to develop (and simplify) X-Code and the abstraction of the Core Technologies (there's some fantastic stuff for audio developers in Tiger for instance)
Dual boot/VPC will NOT encourage any healthy dev's to abandon the Mac. History has shown time and time again that particular move to be the first steps toward oblivion.
Who cares if Macs have a 3% total market share if 70% of your potential customers use Macs.
Of course. Any developer in that situation must have ported to OSX a long time ago. However I though we were talking about developers who haven't ported to OSX yet.
By the way, on what sofware categories would a Windows/OSX developer find 70% of potential customers on the OSX side?
Boo-hoo! This guys have the temerity to claim that MacOS 9 was a better environment for them than MacOS X. At any rate, I think that the response by Ed Campbell which immediately follows really says everything that needs to be said.
And oddly they mention Qt which is indeed cross platform. It's sad they see 16% as not enough, but reading between the lines they are dropping Mac development because it's too hard.
At any rate, I think that the response by Ed Campbell which immediately follows really says everything that needs to be said.
Actually I think the comparison to GM closing plants is absurd. A much better comparison would be to a car maker that drops a particular car model that is a money looser or barely profitable.
CodeWeavers Inc. on Wednesday announced plans to support Intel-based Macs. CodeWeavers makes CrossOver and CrossOver Office. The software allows Linux users to use software designed to work on Windows operating systems without needing to have Windows installed. What?s more, CodeWeavers offers custom software porting services based on CrossOver.
so if i want to run a program that relies on IE (a teleradiology program)will ithe above program --run it and where is virtual PC??? i need windows only for this program. i'd love to boot windows/IE on a mac.
Actually I think the comparison to GM closing plants is absurd. A much better comparison would be to a car maker that drops a particular car model that is a money looser or barely profitable.
You never quit, do you? The fact is that a lot of developers make money catering to Mac users and a lot of other developers lose money catering to Windows users. The thing that separates the successful developers from the unsuccessful ones is the same things that separate success from failure in any market. If you identify a need and satisfy it, you win. If you don't, you lose. There are, of course, those businesses that scavenge their markets like those sidewalk jewelers who sell Rolax watches.
1337_5L4Xx0R nailed it. If anything, a Mac that can boot Windows eases the transition for Switchers. Instead of being forced to buy all their software over again, they can just start by buying a couple of their most often used apps for OS X and running the rest in Windows. This is perfect for Apple, because it seems, based on my experience, that one's affection for OS X grows over time. After a little while these new switchers will be erasing their Windows partition and going for broke with OS X software. And for those few switchers who decide they like using Windows better, for whatever reason, they only lost a few hundred bucks on the Apple premium, and they can go back to Windows and still run it on hardware that both looks cool, and performs.
With a MacIntel, switching is no longer a major life upheaval. This is a HUGE win for Apple.
As for OS X apps disappearing because we'll be able to boot Windows on a Mac, that's just...insane. Why do Mac users spend hundreds of dollars extra to use computers that are usually slower than Wintels and have less compatibility with work and friends? Well there's lots of reason, but the primary one is OS X! Mac users buy Macs because they don't want to use Windows, and it's not an idle choice, it's a costly sacrifice to go the route of using OS X.
Will some boneheaded developer pull OS X support because Mac users can "just boot into Windows"? Maybe. But then another developer will move in to fill the void. It is highly unlikely that a company with a large OS X market presence, such as Adobe, will just give up the market because they feel like it.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what some developers think. Give me a couple days and I can round up a dozen freaks who will tell you the sky is falling. Just because developers are not of one opinion on this doesn't mean there is no truth; it means some developers are right, and some are wrong. Just because someone is a talented h4XX05 doesn't mean they're a good businessman, in fact the reverse is often true.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
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.
That's really great that you have had the opportunity to speak to to an actual developer
I would question the intelligence of a single developer that would consider Windows on Macs to be even remotely a deciding factor to their decision to continuing or starting a Mac version.
As far not not speaking for all developers, perhaps you shouldn't make statements like "Nobody will bother to port their apps to native Mac OS if you can run both. How will Apple get any new possible developers with this switch if they really don't need to port anything."
You sure seem to be speaking for all developers. Besides, you have yet to articulate in any reasonable manner, why a dualboot Mac would hurt Apple in any way. You claim it, can't explain it.
Please explain the excuse your 'developer friends' gave you for dualboot being a factor in their decision not to do a Mac version of their software. As you say "So what? If they are not develping for OS X now they obviously didn't have interest.", which seems reasonable and fairly obvious. I would love to hear their explaination. Truly.
Now, I can and have explained why I think that dualboot will not be a bad thing. I can tell you, that as long enough of our customers need and buy a Mac version of our software, we will continue developing it. I can tell you that our customers would just about shit and my managers would piss themselves laughing if I said "let's drop Mac development, because they can just reboot into Windows". Sure, someone may someday convince the powers that be that we should drop Mac development (we contract it out anyway), but it will be for a viable business reason. Dual boot is not a factor.
Oh, and before you say you meant only new Mac software would be affected..as when you mentioned using dualboot as a possible reason for SoftImage not doing XSI for Mac...someone should wake them up over there and tell them their Linux version was a waste, because their Linux customers can just reboot into Windows they want to use their software....
Games are a very different class of app
They don't use the mac gui, or have to be especially protected from viruses..
If close to realtime emulation works, how is there any downside to having access to the PC games library, how would i even know it wasn't a native game port?
No fun for game porters i know, but having one platform to write for would be good for the wobbly PC games market
Originally posted by Tulkas
[B]That's really great that you have had the opportunity to speak to to an actual developer
Can you not realize that all do not share your opinion? Just because you want something your way it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'm sorry.
Originally posted by onlooker
Can you not realize that all do not share your opinion? Just because you want something your way it doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'm sorry.
I expect people to disagree with me. That's part of what makes these forums. But, when someone starts telling me to pipe down, and generally trying to speak down to me because I present counter arguements to theirs, their arguements start to look pretty weak. We're done.
Originally posted by Tidris
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. ...
You seem stuck on the notion of the "tiny percentage." The developers who are making money selling Windows software are not making money because of Windows's overall marketshare, but because they cultivate the market of potential buyers of their products. In a like manner, there are developers doing quite well selling Mac software because they cultivate their markets. The "tiny percentage" argument is valid only if you rely on random chance to drive your sales. Some of the biggest software titles on the market today were developed on the Mac. If you have a good product that satisfies a need, you will succeed. If you put crap on the market, then you will probably fail--as well you should.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You seem stuck on the notion of the "tiny percentage."
Yes I am because it is important. No matter how well you market an OSX product, the maximum number of product copies you can sell is limited to a certain percentage of the total number of OSX users. The more specialized you product the smaller that certain percentage is going to be. The tiny OSX market share is the primary reason why some Windows developers aren't interested in porting to OSX. If your Windows product is so generally useful that most or all OSX users would want to buy it, then the tiny OSX market share is probably more than enough to justify the OSX port. Unfortunately many specialized but useful Windows products aren't that lucky.
Originally posted by Xool
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.
Like WINE for OSX?
So they partition their hard disk and install Windows alongside OS X. Over time, and after playing with OS X, the time they spend in Windows/OSX goes from 90/10 to 10/90. All their old, shitty windows software works; they aren't having to dive into the deep end so to speak. But the allure of OS X is too great.
This ESPECIALLY applies to geeky types who want to triple boot Linux, Windows XP and OS X. Guess which one they become more and more drawn to? OS X. Because it has the Unix underpinnings and core utilities, and a plethora of free software, such as Apple's port of XFree. Windows for games and maybe Office. OS X for everything else.
And those geeky types? They tend to be developers. Get my drift?
The people who are writing Mono (Open Source implementation of Microsoft's C#) write their code on powerbooks. They boot into linux when necessary but spend most of their time in OS X.
Originally posted by Tidris
Yes I am because it is important. No matter how well you market an OSX product, the maximum number of product copies you can sell is limited to a certain percentage of the total number of OSX users. The more specialized you product the smaller that certain percentage is going to be. The tiny OSX market share is the primary reason why some Windows developers aren't interested in porting to OSX.
But as he said: looking at the overall market share is just wrong. Who cares if Macs have a 3% total market share if 70% of your potential customers use Macs.
It will have very little effect on developers - for Windows only dev's it will be entirely invisible to them. Dev's under pressure for a Mac port will either see the business argument or not. Saying 'run it under VPC' is an affirmation of the status quo not a negative. For many companies in the creative markets the Mac sector usually accounts 25 - 40% of their sales (Alias, Adobe, Macromedia, Newtek, etc.) Its a market that's knowledgable, high-profile and loyal and most dev's do not regret the move. Apple must of course continue to develop (and simplify) X-Code and the abstraction of the Core Technologies (there's some fantastic stuff for audio developers in Tiger for instance)
Dual boot/VPC will NOT encourage any healthy dev's to abandon the Mac. History has shown time and time again that particular move to be the first steps toward oblivion.
Originally posted by JLL
Who cares if Macs have a 3% total market share if 70% of your potential customers use Macs.
Of course. Any developer in that situation must have ported to OSX a long time ago. However I though we were talking about developers who haven't ported to OSX yet.
By the way, on what sofware categories would a Windows/OSX developer find 70% of potential customers on the OSX side?
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...c_development/
Originally posted by Tidris
Here is one Windows developer complaining about the tiny OSX market share:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...c_development/
Boo-hoo! This guys have the temerity to claim that MacOS 9 was a better environment for them than MacOS X. At any rate, I think that the response by Ed Campbell which immediately follows really says everything that needs to be said.
Originally posted by Tidris
Here is one Windows developer complaining about the tiny OSX market share:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...c_development/
And oddly they mention Qt which is indeed cross platform. It's sad they see 16% as not enough, but reading between the lines they are dropping Mac development because it's too hard.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
At any rate, I think that the response by Ed Campbell which immediately follows really says everything that needs to be said.
Actually I think the comparison to GM closing plants is absurd. A much better comparison would be to a car maker that drops a particular car model that is a money looser or barely profitable.
CodeWeavers Inc. on Wednesday announced plans to support Intel-based Macs. CodeWeavers makes CrossOver and CrossOver Office. The software allows Linux users to use software designed to work on Windows operating systems without needing to have Windows installed. What?s more, CodeWeavers offers custom software porting services based on CrossOver.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...over/index.php
Originally posted by Tidris
Actually I think the comparison to GM closing plants is absurd. A much better comparison would be to a car maker that drops a particular car model that is a money looser or barely profitable.
You never quit, do you? The fact is that a lot of developers make money catering to Mac users and a lot of other developers lose money catering to Windows users. The thing that separates the successful developers from the unsuccessful ones is the same things that separate success from failure in any market. If you identify a need and satisfy it, you win. If you don't, you lose. There are, of course, those businesses that scavenge their markets like those sidewalk jewelers who sell Rolax watches.
With a MacIntel, switching is no longer a major life upheaval. This is a HUGE win for Apple.
As for OS X apps disappearing because we'll be able to boot Windows on a Mac, that's just...insane. Why do Mac users spend hundreds of dollars extra to use computers that are usually slower than Wintels and have less compatibility with work and friends? Well there's lots of reason, but the primary one is OS X! Mac users buy Macs because they don't want to use Windows, and it's not an idle choice, it's a costly sacrifice to go the route of using OS X.
Will some boneheaded developer pull OS X support because Mac users can "just boot into Windows"? Maybe. But then another developer will move in to fill the void. It is highly unlikely that a company with a large OS X market presence, such as Adobe, will just give up the market because they feel like it.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what some developers think. Give me a couple days and I can round up a dozen freaks who will tell you the sky is falling. Just because developers are not of one opinion on this doesn't mean there is no truth; it means some developers are right, and some are wrong. Just because someone is a talented h4XX05 doesn't mean they're a good businessman, in fact the reverse is often true.
http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?o...ticle&sid=4759