Why would they tell this information to someone who is presumably not savvy in these areas? Why would he even care if cocoa applications could run on windows? Why do we? If this is all it is, then whoop-dee-doo. And what does this have to do with 10.2? I'm a little skeptical...
[quote]But you better believe that an up-to-date version of Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) does indeed exist, with all the frameworks and goodies, and as I see it, Apple is more than ready to do something with it right now. Steve's done it before, he'll do it again.<hr></blockquote>
BlueGecko has been talking about this recently on orangeinsider. Coming from him, this rumor has a lot more credibility to it....
[quote]Mac OS X on Intel. A shareholder raised this in a question, prompting audience laughter and the response from CEO Steve Jobs that the company has "no plans." When the shareholder noted that it could be beneficial to the company, Jobs replied, "That is an opinion."<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Why would they tell this information to someone who is presumably not savvy in these areas? Why would he even care if cocoa applications could run on windows? Why do we? If this is all it is, then whoop-dee-doo. And what does this have to do with 10.2? I'm a little skeptical...</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, he was (and is) under the impression that all of the questions about Apple's products, OS X, all of the things I've already mentioned, etc etc, were for the purpose of a little market research. Maybe that's why the whole "PC users, tell us what you think." campaign existed, though I hope it's for something more, like making a promotional video about PC converts to show at a MacWorld or something, or learning how to market to these folks better.. Though really, I guess that's just what they are doing. You don't often find PC to Mac converts at just any focus group... I guess it's not so far-fetched. In any case, it's pretty obvious to me that Apple was just gauging what he thought on these things. Why else would they ask him.. what he thought.. heh.
He is VERY savvy in both Windows, UNIX, system administration, networking, OS X, and perl or shell scripts or something like that. If nothing else, he would be a possible end user for either Yellow Box or a marketed Intel/x86 version of Mac OS X (Server included).
He loves quite a few Mac applications, and the "Mac experience" in general (I'd say he's hooked )... I guess that would be the reasoning? I'm not sure. I really see little NEED for a Yellow Box in the first place, but that's just me.
[tangent]
But really, it already exists... it's called WebObjects. Sort of. WebObjects isn't really based on an up-to-date version of Cocoa, but rather obj-c and NeXT; it is mainly geared for web backends, and thus doesn't have/need any of the frameworks that really make the Mac experience in OS X. So really, it's not all that far-fetched as it may seem.
[/tangent]
This also has nothing at all to do with 10.2, with the possible exception that it all may released (or at least the pieces of the puzzle will fit together) at WWDC. The only reason I'm saying this is because I made a comment aboutmy friend having discussed "other things you guys wouldn't believe," Amorph replied and drew a conclusion, and I replied, and it went from there.
<strong>But you better believe that an up-to-date version of Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) does indeed exist, with all the frameworks and goodies</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd expect them to have a proof-of-concept Yellow Box, but certainly not a shipping product. There is a big difference between code that shows you that something can be done, something that developer can work with or a product that is suitable for consumers. If they would have created something more than an early prototype it would have been shipped to outside programmers and we would have heard about it. This is not a product that you can finish in isolation (just like MacOS X was available to programmers for two years before it was finished).
<strong>Why would he even care if cocoa applications could run on windows? Why do we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Programmers care because this enables them to ship one product for more than one platform. If they can use the great developer tools on OS X to quickly develop an application, they will hopefully decide to make their next app cross-platform and not Windows-only. It will also enable Mac-developers to get more income by selling their product to Windows-users as well. This will hopefully make it more viable to be a Mac-developer (something that many people want to do, but can't because the market is often too small for a Mac-only product).
So in the end, you may expect more applications. I hope you care about that. The viability of this might be a problem though, but I sure would appreciate a new Yellow Box.
Programmers care because this enables them to ship one product for more than one platform. If they can use the great developer tools on OS X to quickly develop an application, they will hopefully decide to make their next app cross-platform and not Windows-only.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
That's the promise, but in reality nobody who wants to sell their product in a competitive marketplace is going to have it run on top of an additional layer of code. The only reason NeXT did it was that their own system was doing so poorly - they were desperate for developers and the company tanked anyway.
[quote]<strong>
It will also enable Mac-developers to get more income by selling their product to Windows-users as well. This will hopefully make it more viable to be a Mac-developer (something that many people want to do, but can't because the market is often too small for a Mac-only product).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What ever happened to the great promise of GNUStep or whatever it's called? You know - the thing Cocoa developers trot out when people complain Obj-C isn't cross platform. If people want to run on Windows so badly, perhaps they should start contributing code.
[quote]<strong>
So in the end, you may expect more applications. I hope you care about that. The viability of this might be a problem though, but I sure would appreciate a new Yellow Box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm.. doubtful. I think what we'd see is developers who now program on OS X able to offer their programs on Windows (to the puzzlement and general indifference of the average user) at the cost of a great deal of Apple's money to get (and keep) it working. It'd be like welfare for Cocoa programmers.
<strong>But really, it already exists... it's called WebObjects. Sort of. WebObjects isn't really based on an up-to-date version of Cocoa, but rather obj-c and NeXT; it is mainly geared for web backends, and thus doesn't have/need any of the frameworks that really make the Mac experience in OS X. So really, it's not all that far-fetched as it may seem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WebObjects 5+ is 100% Java. No more obj-c, no more mem-leaks
WO only contains the base classes of Cocoa. Things like NSString, NSData and other basic stuff. It's quite inconsequential when compared to the full Cocoa API. It's the stuff that isn't really that hard to make cross-platform and tells us nothing about the viability of a new Yellow Box.
<strong>That's the promise, but in reality nobody who wants to sell their product in a competitive marketplace is going to have it run on top of an additional layer of code. The only reason NeXT did it was that their own system was doing so poorly - they were desperate for developers and the company tanked anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about Java? The Java Virtual Machine is a layer above the OS as well. More and more developers are using it.
<strong> [quote]What ever happened to the great promise of GNUStep or whatever it's called? You know - the thing Cocoa developers trot out when people complain Obj-C isn't cross platform. </strong><hr></blockquote>
People are still developing it. But it's extremely hard to independently reimplement an API. It's much easier for Apple.
BTW, GNUStep has nothing to do with obj-c being cross-platform. That solely depends on the support in compilers like gcc.
[quote]<strong>If people want to run on Windows so badly, perhaps they should start contributing code.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not a very constructive comment. Just because people would like something to exist doesn't mean they should have the skill or inclination to create it themselves.
[quote]<strong>I think what we'd see is developers who now program on OS X able to offer their programs on Windows (to the puzzlement and general indifference of the average user) at the cost of a great deal of Apple's money to get (and keep) it working. It'd be like welfare for Cocoa programmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hear about quite a few programmers that are interested in OS X, but can't affort to program for OS X (only). Don't you think that a Yellow Box might get them to use Cocoa for their apps? If so, they'd be stupid not to release an OS X version. That's a clear win for Apple.
Your comment about welfare seems a bit ignorant. Is it welfare when Apple helps developers by making it easier to create apps? That will increase the income of Cocoa programmers as well and thus draw more programmers to OS X. Ultimately the only question is whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. I have my doubts, but that doesn't mean that a Yellow Box is not desirable in itself.
PS. why would the average user be puzzled and indifferent? Are they confused because Photoshop runs on Windows and MacOS?
Programmers care because this enables them to ship one product for more than one platform. If they can use the great developer tools on OS X to quickly develop an application, they will hopefully decide to make their next app cross-platform and not Windows-only.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's dilemma with enabling Cocoa to compile and create cross-platform apps -- to try to put it as concisely as possible -- is:
Extremely attractive, advanced, free (if you're using OS X), cross-platform development solution,
encouraging the likelihood of more Mac applications in the future.
Coupled with Objective C++, this could be very compelling.
v.s.
A collection, small but excellent, of innovative Mac-only applications that Apple can boast about, and use to bolster the Mac advantage.
e.g. if 'Watson' (and others) were available for PC, what can Apple use to convince people to make the switch over to Macs?
It's a tricky problem.
The only upside in support of Yellow Box is that Apple will continue to release their own Mac-only apps, the iSeries, for consumers, and Final Cut Pro, etc., to make the (very strong, I think) software case for buying a Mac.
With Yellow Box, that decision looks more political than ever. But what isn't in OS wars...
What about Java? The Java Virtual Machine is a layer above the OS as well. More and more developers are using it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It fills the same niche that the YB would, except it's more portable and still more bloaty. I can just barely see the case for enterprise programs written with Java (the poor users don't know it doesn't have to be that slow) but anything written natively will run circles around it.
<strong> [quote]
That's not a very constructive comment. Just because people would like something to exist doesn't mean they should have the skill or inclination to create it themselves.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, but wishing for something doesn't mean it's going to happen.
<strong> [quote]
I hear about quite a few programmers that are interested in OS X, but can't affort to program for OS X (only). Don't you think that a Yellow Box might get them to use Cocoa for their apps? If so, they'd be stupid not to release an OS X version. That's a clear win for Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're assuming that the applications they bring will be so important that they'll cause enough sales to offset the very substantial development costs associated with doing something like the YB would entail. I just don't see it.
I also don't think Apple is so desperate for developers that they have to spend that much money trying to scare some up. Well, maybe Cocoa developers - it's been nigh on impossible to get any of the major development houses to take it seriously.
[quote]<strong>
Your comment about welfare seems a bit ignorant. Is it welfare when Apple helps developers by making it easier to create apps? That will increase the income of Cocoa programmers as well and thus draw more programmers to OS X. Ultimately the only question is whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. I have my doubts, but that doesn't mean that a Yellow Box is not desirable in itself.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The only way it would pay off is if it convinced the major developers who are now determined to use Carbon to switch to Cocoa. That means Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, etc. The payoff would be they could take the money they're using on Carbon to spend getting Cocoa to work in XP. The main difference is they control the underlying code in OS X whereas in XP they'd have to try to work around whatever MS is doing. This would virtually assure that anything running on the YB would be a second class citizen. I mean, look at how popular that strategy was for NeXT.
[quote]<strong>
PS. why would the average user be puzzled and indifferent? Are they confused because Photoshop runs on Windows and MacOS?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would they care, is what I mean. There are lots (and lots) of native API Windows programs that have had to survive a *much* more cut-throat market that would have a competitive advantage. What is the compelling selling point for a YB program? If you have no other choices (like on OS X sometimes the only thing to do is use a Java program or VPC) then I suppose a YB program would be great, but given a native alternative it isn't going to be much of a contest.
This sort of thing happening is probably pretty remote - and it seems a bit like the beginning of the end a la NeXT and history repeating itself. A better business case can be made for OS X on x86 but even that should cause Jobs and crew to wake up at night in a cold sweat with it's similarity to past unhappy events.
<strong>[Java] fills the same niche that the YB would, except it's more portable and still more bloaty. I can just barely see the case for enterprise programs written with Java (the poor users don't know it doesn't have to be that slow) but anything written natively will run circles around it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Java is hardly slow on a modern machine with a modern JVM. And the slowest component is the GUI, so it's perfectly sensible to use it for server-side enterprise programs. A bit of slowness is a small price to pay for the portability, stability, fast development, good features and big libraries. Besides, why don't we program in machinecode if speed is the only thing that counts?
Yellow Box might offer the same, but with a good and fast GUI. Sounds perfect for everything but games. Although the front end for the popular game Operation Flashpoint is written in Java.
[quote]<strong>Sure, but wishing for something doesn't mean it's going to happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can always ask for it or be asked about your preferences. It's part of the consumer-producer relationship to take interest in each other.
[quote]<strong>You're assuming that the applications they bring will be so important that they'll cause enough sales to offset the very substantial development costs associated with doing something like the YB would entail. I just don't see it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I merely pointed out the possible benefits of a Yellow Box. As I said, I have severe doubts about the costs/benefits. But I wasn't discussing that in the part of my post that you refer to. Apple didn't ask about that, only if the quizzed guy would like a Yellow Box. The costs is something only Apple can estimate with any reliability, so why do you even try to reach a conclusion whether the benefits will outweigh the costs that you know little about?
[quote]<strong>The only way it would pay off is if it convinced the major developers who are now determined to use Carbon to switch to Cocoa. That means Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, etc. The payoff would be they could take the money they're using on Carbon to spend getting Cocoa to work in XP. The main difference is they control the underlying code in OS X whereas in XP they'd have to try to work around whatever MS is doing. This would virtually assure that anything running on the YB would be a second class citizen. I mean, look at how popular that strategy was for NeXT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They aren't going to rewrite their software for Cocoa (that's totally unrealistic). Apple doesn't need them to do so since the software already runs on a Mac. Apple wants companies to develop new applications on (and for) a Mac. This includes thousands of small apps that currently get written in tools like VB or Access. Getting those to run on a Mac will allow many people to migrate over the Mac. And Java isn't a second-class citizen on Windows, so why would the Yellow Box automatically be inferior? Lastly, stop comparing this to NeXT, you couldn't reach 5% of the market by coding for it.
[quote]<strong>Why would they care, is what I mean. There are lots (and lots) of native API Windows programs that have had to survive a *much* more cut-throat market that would have a competitive advantage. What is the compelling selling point for a YB program? If you have no other choices (like on OS X sometimes the only thing to do is use a Java program or VPC) then I suppose a YB program would be great, but given a native alternative it isn't going to be much of a contest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The boxed program would be developed faster and otherwise has the same hurdles to take as a Windows program. I don't see why it would lose out to a native alternative. There's enough crap on the Windows-platform. On the Mac a program has to be good or it won't sell enough copies. On Windows, a mediocre program can easily get along with a small marketshare. Even the shareware is better on the mac (see the Ambrosia games for instance).
[quote]<strong>This sort of thing happening is probably pretty remote - and it seems a bit like the beginning of the end a la NeXT and history repeating itself. A better business case can be made for OS X on x86 but even that should cause Jobs and crew to wake up at night in a cold sweat with it's similarity to past unhappy events.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sigh, OS X on x86 is suicide. But I'm not going to discuss it again.
Comments
BlueGecko has been talking about this recently on orangeinsider. Coming from him, this rumor has a lot more credibility to it....
[quote]Mac OS X on Intel. A shareholder raised this in a question, prompting audience laughter and the response from CEO Steve Jobs that the company has "no plans." When the shareholder noted that it could be beneficial to the company, Jobs replied, "That is an opinion."<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Why would they tell this information to someone who is presumably not savvy in these areas? Why would he even care if cocoa applications could run on windows? Why do we? If this is all it is, then whoop-dee-doo. And what does this have to do with 10.2? I'm a little skeptical...</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, he was (and is) under the impression that all of the questions about Apple's products, OS X, all of the things I've already mentioned, etc etc, were for the purpose of a little market research. Maybe that's why the whole "PC users, tell us what you think." campaign existed, though I hope it's for something more, like making a promotional video about PC converts to show at a MacWorld or something, or learning how to market to these folks better.. Though really, I guess that's just what they are doing. You don't often find PC to Mac converts at just any focus group... I guess it's not so far-fetched. In any case, it's pretty obvious to me that Apple was just gauging what he thought on these things. Why else would they ask him.. what he thought.. heh.
He is VERY savvy in both Windows, UNIX, system administration, networking, OS X, and perl or shell scripts or something like that. If nothing else, he would be a possible end user for either Yellow Box or a marketed Intel/x86 version of Mac OS X (Server included).
He loves quite a few Mac applications, and the "Mac experience" in general (I'd say he's hooked
[tangent]
But really, it already exists... it's called WebObjects. Sort of. WebObjects isn't really based on an up-to-date version of Cocoa, but rather obj-c and NeXT; it is mainly geared for web backends, and thus doesn't have/need any of the frameworks that really make the Mac experience in OS X. So really, it's not all that far-fetched as it may seem.
[/tangent]
This also has nothing at all to do with 10.2, with the possible exception that it all may released (or at least the pieces of the puzzle will fit together) at WWDC. The only reason I'm saying this is because I made a comment aboutmy friend having discussed "other things you guys wouldn't believe," Amorph replied and drew a conclusion, and I replied, and it went from there.
<strong>But you better believe that an up-to-date version of Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) does indeed exist, with all the frameworks and goodies</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd expect them to have a proof-of-concept Yellow Box, but certainly not a shipping product. There is a big difference between code that shows you that something can be done, something that developer can work with or a product that is suitable for consumers. If they would have created something more than an early prototype it would have been shipped to outside programmers and we would have heard about it. This is not a product that you can finish in isolation (just like MacOS X was available to programmers for two years before it was finished).
[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
<strong>Why would he even care if cocoa applications could run on windows? Why do we?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Programmers care because this enables them to ship one product for more than one platform. If they can use the great developer tools on OS X to quickly develop an application, they will hopefully decide to make their next app cross-platform and not Windows-only. It will also enable Mac-developers to get more income by selling their product to Windows-users as well. This will hopefully make it more viable to be a Mac-developer (something that many people want to do, but can't because the market is often too small for a Mac-only product).
So in the end, you may expect more applications. I hope you care about that. The viability of this might be a problem though, but I sure would appreciate a new Yellow Box.
<strong>
Programmers care because this enables them to ship one product for more than one platform. If they can use the great developer tools on OS X to quickly develop an application, they will hopefully decide to make their next app cross-platform and not Windows-only.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
That's the promise, but in reality nobody who wants to sell their product in a competitive marketplace is going to have it run on top of an additional layer of code. The only reason NeXT did it was that their own system was doing so poorly - they were desperate for developers and the company tanked anyway.
[quote]<strong>
It will also enable Mac-developers to get more income by selling their product to Windows-users as well. This will hopefully make it more viable to be a Mac-developer (something that many people want to do, but can't because the market is often too small for a Mac-only product).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What ever happened to the great promise of GNUStep or whatever it's called? You know - the thing Cocoa developers trot out when people complain Obj-C isn't cross platform. If people want to run on Windows so badly, perhaps they should start contributing code.
[quote]<strong>
So in the end, you may expect more applications. I hope you care about that. The viability of this might be a problem though, but I sure would appreciate a new Yellow Box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm.. doubtful. I think what we'd see is developers who now program on OS X able to offer their programs on Windows (to the puzzlement and general indifference of the average user) at the cost of a great deal of Apple's money to get (and keep) it working. It'd be like welfare for Cocoa programmers.
<strong>But really, it already exists... it's called WebObjects. Sort of. WebObjects isn't really based on an up-to-date version of Cocoa, but rather obj-c and NeXT; it is mainly geared for web backends, and thus doesn't have/need any of the frameworks that really make the Mac experience in OS X. So really, it's not all that far-fetched as it may seem.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WebObjects 5+ is 100% Java. No more obj-c, no more mem-leaks
WO only contains the base classes of Cocoa. Things like NSString, NSData and other basic stuff. It's quite inconsequential when compared to the full Cocoa API. It's the stuff that isn't really that hard to make cross-platform and tells us nothing about the viability of a new Yellow Box.
<strong>That's the promise, but in reality nobody who wants to sell their product in a competitive marketplace is going to have it run on top of an additional layer of code. The only reason NeXT did it was that their own system was doing so poorly - they were desperate for developers and the company tanked anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about Java? The Java Virtual Machine is a layer above the OS as well. More and more developers are using it.
<strong> [quote]What ever happened to the great promise of GNUStep or whatever it's called? You know - the thing Cocoa developers trot out when people complain Obj-C isn't cross platform. </strong><hr></blockquote>
People are still developing it. But it's extremely hard to independently reimplement an API. It's much easier for Apple.
BTW, GNUStep has nothing to do with obj-c being cross-platform. That solely depends on the support in compilers like gcc.
[quote]<strong>If people want to run on Windows so badly, perhaps they should start contributing code.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's not a very constructive comment. Just because people would like something to exist doesn't mean they should have the skill or inclination to create it themselves.
[quote]<strong>I think what we'd see is developers who now program on OS X able to offer their programs on Windows (to the puzzlement and general indifference of the average user) at the cost of a great deal of Apple's money to get (and keep) it working. It'd be like welfare for Cocoa programmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hear about quite a few programmers that are interested in OS X, but can't affort to program for OS X (only). Don't you think that a Yellow Box might get them to use Cocoa for their apps? If so, they'd be stupid not to release an OS X version. That's a clear win for Apple.
Your comment about welfare seems a bit ignorant. Is it welfare when Apple helps developers by making it easier to create apps? That will increase the income of Cocoa programmers as well and thus draw more programmers to OS X. Ultimately the only question is whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. I have my doubts, but that doesn't mean that a Yellow Box is not desirable in itself.
PS. why would the average user be puzzled and indifferent? Are they confused because Photoshop runs on Windows and MacOS?
[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
<strong>
Programmers care because this enables them to ship one product for more than one platform. If they can use the great developer tools on OS X to quickly develop an application, they will hopefully decide to make their next app cross-platform and not Windows-only.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple's dilemma with enabling Cocoa to compile and create cross-platform apps -- to try to put it as concisely as possible -- is:
Extremely attractive, advanced, free (if you're using OS X), cross-platform development solution,
encouraging the likelihood of more Mac applications in the future.
Coupled with Objective C++, this could be very compelling.
v.s.
A collection, small but excellent, of innovative Mac-only applications that Apple can boast about, and use to bolster the Mac advantage.
e.g. if 'Watson' (and others) were available for PC, what can Apple use to convince people to make the switch over to Macs?
It's a tricky problem.
The only upside in support of Yellow Box is that Apple will continue to release their own Mac-only apps, the iSeries, for consumers, and Final Cut Pro, etc., to make the (very strong, I think) software case for buying a Mac.
With Yellow Box, that decision looks more political than ever. But what isn't in OS wars...
[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
<strong>
What about Java? The Java Virtual Machine is a layer above the OS as well. More and more developers are using it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It fills the same niche that the YB would, except it's more portable and still more bloaty. I can just barely see the case for enterprise programs written with Java (the poor users don't know it doesn't have to be that slow) but anything written natively will run circles around it.
<strong> [quote]
That's not a very constructive comment. Just because people would like something to exist doesn't mean they should have the skill or inclination to create it themselves.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sure, but wishing for something doesn't mean it's going to happen.
<strong> [quote]
I hear about quite a few programmers that are interested in OS X, but can't affort to program for OS X (only). Don't you think that a Yellow Box might get them to use Cocoa for their apps? If so, they'd be stupid not to release an OS X version. That's a clear win for Apple.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're assuming that the applications they bring will be so important that they'll cause enough sales to offset the very substantial development costs associated with doing something like the YB would entail. I just don't see it.
I also don't think Apple is so desperate for developers that they have to spend that much money trying to scare some up. Well, maybe Cocoa developers - it's been nigh on impossible to get any of the major development houses to take it seriously.
[quote]<strong>
Your comment about welfare seems a bit ignorant. Is it welfare when Apple helps developers by making it easier to create apps? That will increase the income of Cocoa programmers as well and thus draw more programmers to OS X. Ultimately the only question is whether the benefits will outweigh the costs. I have my doubts, but that doesn't mean that a Yellow Box is not desirable in itself.
<hr></blockquote></strong>
The only way it would pay off is if it convinced the major developers who are now determined to use Carbon to switch to Cocoa. That means Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, etc. The payoff would be they could take the money they're using on Carbon to spend getting Cocoa to work in XP. The main difference is they control the underlying code in OS X whereas in XP they'd have to try to work around whatever MS is doing. This would virtually assure that anything running on the YB would be a second class citizen. I mean, look at how popular that strategy was for NeXT.
[quote]<strong>
PS. why would the average user be puzzled and indifferent? Are they confused because Photoshop runs on Windows and MacOS?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why would they care, is what I mean. There are lots (and lots) of native API Windows programs that have had to survive a *much* more cut-throat market that would have a competitive advantage. What is the compelling selling point for a YB program? If you have no other choices (like on OS X sometimes the only thing to do is use a Java program or VPC) then I suppose a YB program would be great, but given a native alternative it isn't going to be much of a contest.
This sort of thing happening is probably pretty remote - and it seems a bit like the beginning of the end a la NeXT and history repeating itself. A better business case can be made for OS X on x86 but even that should cause Jobs and crew to wake up at night in a cold sweat with it's similarity to past unhappy events.
<strong>[Java] fills the same niche that the YB would, except it's more portable and still more bloaty. I can just barely see the case for enterprise programs written with Java (the poor users don't know it doesn't have to be that slow) but anything written natively will run circles around it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Java is hardly slow on a modern machine with a modern JVM. And the slowest component is the GUI, so it's perfectly sensible to use it for server-side enterprise programs. A bit of slowness is a small price to pay for the portability, stability, fast development, good features and big libraries. Besides, why don't we program in machinecode if speed is the only thing that counts?
Yellow Box might offer the same, but with a good and fast GUI. Sounds perfect for everything but games. Although the front end for the popular game Operation Flashpoint is written in Java.
[quote]<strong>Sure, but wishing for something doesn't mean it's going to happen.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can always ask for it or be asked about your preferences. It's part of the consumer-producer relationship to take interest in each other.
[quote]<strong>You're assuming that the applications they bring will be so important that they'll cause enough sales to offset the very substantial development costs associated with doing something like the YB would entail. I just don't see it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I merely pointed out the possible benefits of a Yellow Box. As I said, I have severe doubts about the costs/benefits. But I wasn't discussing that in the part of my post that you refer to. Apple didn't ask about that, only if the quizzed guy would like a Yellow Box. The costs is something only Apple can estimate with any reliability, so why do you even try to reach a conclusion whether the benefits will outweigh the costs that you know little about?
[quote]<strong>The only way it would pay off is if it convinced the major developers who are now determined to use Carbon to switch to Cocoa. That means Adobe, Microsoft, Macromedia, etc. The payoff would be they could take the money they're using on Carbon to spend getting Cocoa to work in XP. The main difference is they control the underlying code in OS X whereas in XP they'd have to try to work around whatever MS is doing. This would virtually assure that anything running on the YB would be a second class citizen. I mean, look at how popular that strategy was for NeXT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They aren't going to rewrite their software for Cocoa (that's totally unrealistic). Apple doesn't need them to do so since the software already runs on a Mac. Apple wants companies to develop new applications on (and for) a Mac. This includes thousands of small apps that currently get written in tools like VB or Access. Getting those to run on a Mac will allow many people to migrate over the Mac. And Java isn't a second-class citizen on Windows, so why would the Yellow Box automatically be inferior? Lastly, stop comparing this to NeXT, you couldn't reach 5% of the market by coding for it.
[quote]<strong>Why would they care, is what I mean. There are lots (and lots) of native API Windows programs that have had to survive a *much* more cut-throat market that would have a competitive advantage. What is the compelling selling point for a YB program? If you have no other choices (like on OS X sometimes the only thing to do is use a Java program or VPC) then I suppose a YB program would be great, but given a native alternative it isn't going to be much of a contest.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The boxed program would be developed faster and otherwise has the same hurdles to take as a Windows program. I don't see why it would lose out to a native alternative. There's enough crap on the Windows-platform. On the Mac a program has to be good or it won't sell enough copies. On Windows, a mediocre program can easily get along with a small marketshare. Even the shareware is better on the mac (see the Ambrosia games for instance).
[quote]<strong>This sort of thing happening is probably pretty remote - and it seems a bit like the beginning of the end a la NeXT and history repeating itself. A better business case can be made for OS X on x86 but even that should cause Jobs and crew to wake up at night in a cold sweat with it's similarity to past unhappy events.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sigh, OS X on x86 is suicide. But I'm not going to discuss it again.