Xcode, plans for growth, & # of software titles
Sorry if I'm way off base here, but I've been wondering some things (as a non-programmer). Does the switch to Intel also suggest a plan to try to expand the software title base, as well?
It seems to me that when Apple switched to universal binaries, they also may have tightened up programming for the Mac by using its own preferred means? I know nothing about this field and would love to hear what others have to say about the more global implications of making this switch, aside from the obvious.
Is this part of the master plan to making more "good" software titles available for the Mac? -- even maybe as a backup plan should OS X have to be released to the rest of the world (if Mac sales unexpectedly dump)?
I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but Steve has obviously demonstrated a sense of preparing for contingencies.
It seems to me that when Apple switched to universal binaries, they also may have tightened up programming for the Mac by using its own preferred means? I know nothing about this field and would love to hear what others have to say about the more global implications of making this switch, aside from the obvious.
Is this part of the master plan to making more "good" software titles available for the Mac? -- even maybe as a backup plan should OS X have to be released to the rest of the world (if Mac sales unexpectedly dump)?
I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but Steve has obviously demonstrated a sense of preparing for contingencies.
Comments
a) His vision is to provide a person with products they will be glad they purchased even if there is something similar and less expensive. Some people say Apple is a hardware company that uses their software to sell it, some say Apple is a software company that uses their hardware to sell it, but I say Apple sells products (hardware + software = computers/iPods). Just watching his keynote speeches you can tell he believes in the products.
b) The reason OS X was compiled for x86 and PPC from the start was because he remembered the past. First time at Apple it was computers (hardware + software), then at NeXT it was again computers (hardware + software [NextStep]), but then it turned into software [OpenStep], and when Steve came back to Apple he was able to keep his vision of selling computers, but separated the OS from the hardware so it will be easy to change hardware.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
no. universal binaries and the switch to intel/x86 processors will not, in itself, bring more programs. the way modern applications are written, or atleast the majority of user-visible programs, hides the complexity of the processor. when i write a program, except in special cases, i dont have to think about what processor i'm writing on. univseral binaries, themselves, don't promote or considerably contribute to ease of writing code. apple has made it easier to write a program that works "exactly" the same on two different processors (a feat in itself, tho not the first time its happened).
This actually goes along with what I was thinking, but maybe I haven't fully explained myself. By kind of forcing everyone to use Xcode, is Apple improving the quality of programs written for the Mac from third parties while this switch is going on? I ask because the old way (can't recall name of the program) has been discussed as old and out of date/ inferior. Would this have an effect on the final software? I here that M$ Office is made using that coding program (Codewarrior, I think?)---- is this one of the reasons its behavior is sometimes less than optimal on the Mac?
I apologize for my ignorance-- I'm not at all a computer programmer. If there is something I can read that may spare any of you some time, I'd love to be directed...