The choice of OpenGL vs. DirectX is made by the game developers, not the OS vendors. If a developer is not using OpenGL now, why would it change.
Didn't mention games. I was more generally referring to the health (or lack thereof) of the API on the Windows platform.
Quote:
I think that you need to get over this obsession with the survival of FireWire. FireWire is an integral part of the HDTV landscape. HDTV equipment sales are going through the roof. With it, the number of available FireWire ports is skyrocketing.
Didn't infer that it was doomed; it never took hold in the first place. Not to undermine my own point, but Firewire has far less of a future in the consumer electronics markets compared to HDMI. I was talking about content creation. Prosumer video hardware is fairly locked into Firewire. It's the larger middle-space of consumer camcorders that might switch to USB2 instead(some already are). And that would be another example of better technology being supplanted by cheaper lower end tech.
Quote:
Have you every connected an iPhoto-compatible camera to a Windows XP computer? If you had, you would know that you don't need the "horrendously bad photo apps" to get your photographs. Downloading your pictures is handled by a Windows utility. You need one of those bad apps only if you have a cheap-a$$ camera whose manufacturer refuses to support the USB automount feature. My experience with such cameras is that they use non-removeable storage so that card readers are useless with them.
Why just yesterday one of my users calls me about this very thing. He had an Olympus something-or-other (with a removable card) and what does he need? Lo, it's Olympus' imaging software.
Anyway, it's not just PnP, but the "whole widget" experience that Picasa approaches compared to iPhoto.
Quote:
Now get this: iWork does not compete with anything that Microsoft offers for the Mac. Well, Keynote is a superior replacement for PowerPoint, but Apple makes nothing to compete with Word and nothing to compete with Excel. iWork is geared toward the home and school user whereas Office is geared toward users in the--well--office.
And by "compete" do you mean "feature bloat to an equal size to justify the $500 USD price tag"? 'kay. From my experience, Word is most often used as a typewriter app. "Words, words, words." My users would be broadening their years of experience by using columns or (gasp!) a table. Pages does something significant: it eliminates the distinction between MS Word and MS Publisher. Layout is layout and yet Apple has managed with Pages in its 1.0 version what Microsoft hasn't managed in the past three versions. And for $500 for the privilege.
Didn't infer that it was doomed; it never took hold in the first place. Not to undermine my own point, but Firewire has far less of a future in the consumer electronics markets compared to HDMI. I was talking about content creation. Prosumer video hardware is fairly locked into Firewire. It's the larger middle-space of consumer camcorders that might switch to USB2 instead(some already are). And that would be another example of better technology being supplanted by cheaper lower end tech.
Didn't imply. The writer implies; the reader infers. At any rate, HDMI is not in competition with FireWire. A downstream technology, HDMI supercedes DVI. FireWire is upstream in the HDTV dataflow. It allows data to be uploaded from original sources such as miniDV cameras to your set top box or video editor and uploaded back to them. It is the difference between a fuel hose and a drive shaft.
Quote:
Originally posted by sCreeD
Why just yesterday one of my users calls me about this very thing. He had an Olympus something-or-other (with a removable card) and what does he need? Lo, it's Olympus' imaging software.
Anyway, it's not just PnP, but the "whole widget" experience that Picasa approaches compared to iPhoto.
I have an Olympus camera, an E-20N. I have connected my camera to my sister's Windows XP laptop and downloaded pictures with nary a hiccup--well, almost. The point is that I did not need to install the software that came with my camera on my sister's laptop. XP recognized the camera as a new device--a camera. It started up a utility that is part of the XP file browser to download my pictures. It is true that Windows 98 needs Olympus's software, but not XP.
Quote:
Originally posted by sCreeD
And by "compete" do you mean "feature bloat to an equal size to justify the $500 USD price tag"? 'kay. From my experience, Word is most often used as a typewriter app. "Words, words, words." My users would be broadening their years of experience by using columns or (gasp!) a table. Pages does something significant: it eliminates the distinction between MS Word and MS Publisher. Layout is layout and yet Apple has managed with Pages in its 1.0 version what Microsoft hasn't managed in the past three versions. And for $500 for the privilege.
Now you are changing your story. We are not talking about needs here. One of the concepts of the Office bundle is to get people to buy software they don't need. Of course Word is overkill for most users. But that is not the point. The point is that business buyers may purchase something other than Word, but it will be closer to Word than to Pages.
Hasn't really worked in the past did it? Quicktime, AppleWorks, and iTunes didn't bring more to the Mac.
Well, Quicktime for windows is crap, I'm not sure why anyone would use AppleWorks anyway, and I do believe that iTunes is helping a little. But bring some serious apps like iLife over and it may be a different story.
This is great, because it'll also allow for Mac and PC software to be bundled in the same box more easily and with less cost, since porting will be pretty much nonexistent.
This would be a great move. I don't see how it threatens sales of Apple hardware at all - if anything, it should increase it, as the apps would be there.
- Current Windows developers have only the Windows market to sell to. With Yellow Box, all they have to do is dump Visual Studio and use the free Xcode, which itself would be a Yellow Box app, so it would run on their Windows boxes. Then with one compile, they can sell to everyone.
- Current Mac developers would start writing more apps, as Xcode would let the Windows market buy their app also, with no extra work or porting. The Mac would be the only platform that would run everything, so smart developers would use Xcode and compile their apps there to get the largest possible market. They could write CAD apps and others that they were afraid would not have the market to make a profit if Mac-only.
Users would not mind abandoning Windows for OS X if parity of applications was not an issue.
- Current Windows developers have only the Windows market to sell to. With Yellow Box, all they have to do is dump Visual Studio and use the free Xcode, which itself would be a Yellow Box app, so it would run on their Windows boxes. Then with one compile, they can sell to everyone.
Probably not a likely scenario for two reasons:
1. Microsoft Visual Studio is loved by developers. I don't know why. I have never used it. But it is I guess.
2. These developers are already selling their product to 95-98% of the market. It seems unlikely many will switch to gain access to the remaining 2-5%.
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
- Current Mac developers would start writing more apps, as Xcode would let the Windows market buy their app also, with no extra work or porting. The Mac would be the only platform that would run everything, so smart developers would use Xcode and compile their apps there to get the largest possible market. They could write CAD apps and others that they were afraid would not have the market to make a profit if Mac-only.
This is the more likely sceanrio.
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
Users would not mind abandoning Windows for OS X if parity of applications was not an issue.
You have to remember, it isn't just the availability of the applications. Afterall, most major things (and a lot of the minor one's too) anyone needs/wants to do has an available Mac application. It is the cost of switching (machine...buying all new apps...etc.)
1. Microsoft Visual Studio is loved by developers. I don't know why. I have never used it. But it is I guess.
Apple's success does not depend on developers who love Microsoft Visual Studio who use it to develop the next version of their entrenched products. Apple will be successful if it brings new developers who write new applications into the market. Xcode will give these new developers considerable cost and time-to-market advantages over the old guys.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
2. These developers are already selling their product to 95-98% of the market. It seems unlikely many will switch to gain access to the remaining 2-5%.
The status quo developers will continue to sell to status quo customers. The status quo will not change itself. New developers will first have to satisfy the unserved and underserved.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You have to remember, it isn't just the availability of the applications. Afterall, most major things (and a lot of the minor one's too) anyone needs/wants to do has an available Mac application. It is the cost of switching (machine...buying all new apps...etc.)
If you go after new customers in new markets, that is not really much of a problem. Lest I seem just a bit like Pollyanna, the Windows world has a large fraction of users who upgrade software only when they get new computers. And they get new computers on a fairly regular basis--every 2-3 years. Also, Microsoft is about to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista. Any kind of change represents opportunity to those who are prepared to take advantage of it and who are willing to do so.
Comments
Originally posted by Dave K.
Hasn't really worked in the past did it? Quicktime, AppleWorks, and iTunes didn't bring more to the Mac.
You can also leave off QuickTime.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
The choice of OpenGL vs. DirectX is made by the game developers, not the OS vendors. If a developer is not using OpenGL now, why would it change.
Didn't mention games. I was more generally referring to the health (or lack thereof) of the API on the Windows platform.
I think that you need to get over this obsession with the survival of FireWire. FireWire is an integral part of the HDTV landscape. HDTV equipment sales are going through the roof. With it, the number of available FireWire ports is skyrocketing.
Didn't infer that it was doomed; it never took hold in the first place. Not to undermine my own point, but Firewire has far less of a future in the consumer electronics markets compared to HDMI. I was talking about content creation. Prosumer video hardware is fairly locked into Firewire. It's the larger middle-space of consumer camcorders that might switch to USB2 instead(some already are). And that would be another example of better technology being supplanted by cheaper lower end tech.
Have you every connected an iPhoto-compatible camera to a Windows XP computer? If you had, you would know that you don't need the "horrendously bad photo apps" to get your photographs. Downloading your pictures is handled by a Windows utility. You need one of those bad apps only if you have a cheap-a$$ camera whose manufacturer refuses to support the USB automount feature. My experience with such cameras is that they use non-removeable storage so that card readers are useless with them.
Why just yesterday one of my users calls me about this very thing. He had an Olympus something-or-other (with a removable card) and what does he need? Lo, it's Olympus' imaging software.
Anyway, it's not just PnP, but the "whole widget" experience that Picasa approaches compared to iPhoto.
Now get this: iWork does not compete with anything that Microsoft offers for the Mac. Well, Keynote is a superior replacement for PowerPoint, but Apple makes nothing to compete with Word and nothing to compete with Excel. iWork is geared toward the home and school user whereas Office is geared toward users in the--well--office.
And by "compete" do you mean "feature bloat to an equal size to justify the $500 USD price tag"? 'kay. From my experience, Word is most often used as a typewriter app. "Words, words, words." My users would be broadening their years of experience by using columns or (gasp!) a table. Pages does something significant: it eliminates the distinction between MS Word and MS Publisher. Layout is layout and yet Apple has managed with Pages in its 1.0 version what Microsoft hasn't managed in the past three versions. And for $500 for the privilege.
Originally posted by sCreeD
....
Didn't infer that it was doomed; it never took hold in the first place. Not to undermine my own point, but Firewire has far less of a future in the consumer electronics markets compared to HDMI. I was talking about content creation. Prosumer video hardware is fairly locked into Firewire. It's the larger middle-space of consumer camcorders that might switch to USB2 instead(some already are). And that would be another example of better technology being supplanted by cheaper lower end tech.
Didn't imply. The writer implies; the reader infers. At any rate, HDMI is not in competition with FireWire. A downstream technology, HDMI supercedes DVI. FireWire is upstream in the HDTV dataflow. It allows data to be uploaded from original sources such as miniDV cameras to your set top box or video editor and uploaded back to them. It is the difference between a fuel hose and a drive shaft.
Originally posted by sCreeD
Why just yesterday one of my users calls me about this very thing. He had an Olympus something-or-other (with a removable card) and what does he need? Lo, it's Olympus' imaging software.
Anyway, it's not just PnP, but the "whole widget" experience that Picasa approaches compared to iPhoto.
I have an Olympus camera, an E-20N. I have connected my camera to my sister's Windows XP laptop and downloaded pictures with nary a hiccup--well, almost. The point is that I did not need to install the software that came with my camera on my sister's laptop. XP recognized the camera as a new device--a camera. It started up a utility that is part of the XP file browser to download my pictures. It is true that Windows 98 needs Olympus's software, but not XP.
Originally posted by sCreeD
And by "compete" do you mean "feature bloat to an equal size to justify the $500 USD price tag"? 'kay. From my experience, Word is most often used as a typewriter app. "Words, words, words." My users would be broadening their years of experience by using columns or (gasp!) a table. Pages does something significant: it eliminates the distinction between MS Word and MS Publisher. Layout is layout and yet Apple has managed with Pages in its 1.0 version what Microsoft hasn't managed in the past three versions. And for $500 for the privilege.
Now you are changing your story. We are not talking about needs here. One of the concepts of the Office bundle is to get people to buy software they don't need. Of course Word is overkill for most users. But that is not the point. The point is that business buyers may purchase something other than Word, but it will be closer to Word than to Pages.
Originally posted by Dave K.
Hasn't really worked in the past did it? Quicktime, AppleWorks, and iTunes didn't bring more to the Mac.
Well, Quicktime for windows is crap, I'm not sure why anyone would use AppleWorks anyway, and I do believe that iTunes is helping a little. But bring some serious apps like iLife over and it may be a different story.
- Current Windows developers have only the Windows market to sell to. With Yellow Box, all they have to do is dump Visual Studio and use the free Xcode, which itself would be a Yellow Box app, so it would run on their Windows boxes. Then with one compile, they can sell to everyone.
- Current Mac developers would start writing more apps, as Xcode would let the Windows market buy their app also, with no extra work or porting. The Mac would be the only platform that would run everything, so smart developers would use Xcode and compile their apps there to get the largest possible market. They could write CAD apps and others that they were afraid would not have the market to make a profit if Mac-only.
Users would not mind abandoning Windows for OS X if parity of applications was not an issue.
Originally posted by lundy
- Current Windows developers have only the Windows market to sell to. With Yellow Box, all they have to do is dump Visual Studio and use the free Xcode, which itself would be a Yellow Box app, so it would run on their Windows boxes. Then with one compile, they can sell to everyone.
Probably not a likely scenario for two reasons:
1. Microsoft Visual Studio is loved by developers. I don't know why. I have never used it. But it is I guess.
2. These developers are already selling their product to 95-98% of the market. It seems unlikely many will switch to gain access to the remaining 2-5%.
Originally posted by lundy
- Current Mac developers would start writing more apps, as Xcode would let the Windows market buy their app also, with no extra work or porting. The Mac would be the only platform that would run everything, so smart developers would use Xcode and compile their apps there to get the largest possible market. They could write CAD apps and others that they were afraid would not have the market to make a profit if Mac-only.
This is the more likely sceanrio.
Originally posted by lundy
Users would not mind abandoning Windows for OS X if parity of applications was not an issue.
You have to remember, it isn't just the availability of the applications. Afterall, most major things (and a lot of the minor one's too) anyone needs/wants to do has an available Mac application. It is the cost of switching (machine...buying all new apps...etc.)
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Probably not a likely scenario for two reasons:
1. Microsoft Visual Studio is loved by developers. I don't know why. I have never used it. But it is I guess.
Apple's success does not depend on developers who love Microsoft Visual Studio who use it to develop the next version of their entrenched products. Apple will be successful if it brings new developers who write new applications into the market. Xcode will give these new developers considerable cost and time-to-market advantages over the old guys.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
2. These developers are already selling their product to 95-98% of the market. It seems unlikely many will switch to gain access to the remaining 2-5%.
The status quo developers will continue to sell to status quo customers. The status quo will not change itself. New developers will first have to satisfy the unserved and underserved.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You have to remember, it isn't just the availability of the applications. Afterall, most major things (and a lot of the minor one's too) anyone needs/wants to do has an available Mac application. It is the cost of switching (machine...buying all new apps...etc.)
If you go after new customers in new markets, that is not really much of a problem. Lest I seem just a bit like Pollyanna, the Windows world has a large fraction of users who upgrade software only when they get new computers. And they get new computers on a fairly regular basis--every 2-3 years. Also, Microsoft is about to switch from Windows XP to Windows Vista. Any kind of change represents opportunity to those who are prepared to take advantage of it and who are willing to do so.
I'm inclined to believe him more than an anonymous post artfully placed to MacBiddiedoo.