The architecture of Adobe's InDesign is an interesting. It consists of a small core application that defines the object model and API's. Everything else (color palettes, menus, functions, etc) is essentially a plug in. The API is fully documented and allows easy extensiblity.
I'd love to see the iApp follow this model. Althought InDesign was developed with this in mind from the beginning. I don't know the history of the iApps and whether they are ports of older software or whether this extensibility concept is one of the design goals.
<strong>Funny, that aside from IE, no one is asking M$ to stop including Media player or M$ paint ???</strong><hr></blockquote>There's a big difference here. I'll try not to go into the whole antitrust issue, but the catch with IE was that it was so tightly integrated with the system that consumers could not completely get rid of it to use a competing brower, ala. Netscape or Opera. Attempts to remove Internet Explorer could often leave the system damaged and unusable. That brings me to this: [quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>When Jobs said iChat was bundled iwth the OS, I said "Doh!" They're pulling a Microsoft!</strong><hr></blockquote>How? Why? Did you say the same thing when Apple started bundling iTunes? Or iMovie? What about things like GraphicConverter and Snapz Pro X that Apple bundles with new systems?
The difference between Apple and Microsoft on this particular issue is that with Apple's system you can trash the bundled software with a single stroke of the mouse and never have to see it again. No one is forcing you to use it. If there are better alternatives, you are free and welcome to install and use them.
Before recently the most important thing about the iApps is that they were for X when nothing else was... but now they're just part of the new "Everything is easier on the mac" mantra.
iApps don't screw with your other Apps or force you to use them... unlike some from M$ AND they are not incorborated in the OS the way that Explorer is.
Comments
I'd love to see the iApp follow this model. Althought InDesign was developed with this in mind from the beginning. I don't know the history of the iApps and whether they are ports of older software or whether this extensibility concept is one of the design goals.
<strong>Funny, that aside from IE, no one is asking M$ to stop including Media player or M$ paint ???</strong><hr></blockquote>There's a big difference here. I'll try not to go into the whole antitrust issue, but the catch with IE was that it was so tightly integrated with the system that consumers could not completely get rid of it to use a competing brower, ala. Netscape or Opera. Attempts to remove Internet Explorer could often leave the system damaged and unusable. That brings me to this: [quote]Originally posted by cdhostage:
<strong>When Jobs said iChat was bundled iwth the OS, I said "Doh!" They're pulling a Microsoft!</strong><hr></blockquote>How? Why? Did you say the same thing when Apple started bundling iTunes? Or iMovie? What about things like GraphicConverter and Snapz Pro X that Apple bundles with new systems?
The difference between Apple and Microsoft on this particular issue is that with Apple's system you can trash the bundled software with a single stroke of the mouse and never have to see it again. No one is forcing you to use it. If there are better alternatives, you are free and welcome to install and use them.
iApps don't screw with your other Apps or force you to use them... unlike some from M$ AND they are not incorborated in the OS the way that Explorer is.
imo, bundling apps gooood...