But the same token, Windows being on macs should bring new / old developers back over to the mac side. But in all honesty... how many apps are out there that are built on mac and windows? NOT THAT MANY. Sure the big ones... Adobe, M$, etc... I honestly think this will be good, not bad.
I'm not thinking that this will be a disaster. There isn't any question but that we will lose a few. But, if things work out right, we will gain more than we will lose.
It's up to the users.
Honestly, too many people complain about developers, both software and hardware, leaving the platform, but won't lift a hand to prevent it. Perhaps I should have said that they won't open their wallets to prevent it.
I've known more than enough people over the years with old versions of a program to get angry when the developer stops producing the program. Perhaps if they weren't so smug about insisting that the old version was just great, and supported the developer with more than words, that developer would still be around.
We all know it's true. Sometimes you just have to go out and buy something, just to show support.
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
a) I wasn't pretending
b) I never said I was 'utterly shocked', I said they gave me the creeps. I don't find them shocking at all, I find it sad that some people get kicks out of violence, not shocking.
c) I don't enjoy it and I don't agree that everyone enjoys it on one level or another.
And the games are about as interesting as flicking snot at the wall.
(Edited a bit; perhaps I was a bit rash! But I'm still very concerned.)
Why are people excited about this??
Honestly, what incentive do developers have to develop software for Mac now? There are already companies (Adobe, anyone??) that aren't that happy releasing Mac versions.
Why are we excited about the prospect of running all of our software in a Windows interface? I find this very concerning. Apple is trusting the developers way too much. Platform loyalty doesn't mean a lot to developers... just ask Bungie.
I seriously doubt this bring developers back to the Mac... If anything, less will develop for Mac, because we can run Windows natively. The danger is that few companies will want to bother employing two development teams now. Who could blame them? Waste of money. The only reason to develop for Mac is one of principle. Very few companies care about such things, when it comes down to it.
Apple used to. That's the main thing that has me worried. Apple has always been the one that stuck to its guns, and kept to its principles. This is a major shift, and leaves me to wonder how they want to define what a Mac is.
Get yourself aquatinted with all the angles before getting yourself all tangled up. There's plenty here to read and find out why it IS a good thing. I'm tired of explaining it already.
I'm just making up for the fact that no one seems very concerned. We're a niche market folks. And it seems to me Apple is making a huge gamble here. Up to now, they've called the shots on their platform. It's a big deal. They're changing the basis of what a Mac is.
Remember cloning? Everyone thought opening up the closed system made great business sense then too.
Having lived through that (and the rest of the mid-90s) as a Mac user, I can't help but be concerned.
The fear that Windows-on-Mac-hardware implies the eventual death or marginalization of Mac OS X is baseless. Sure, third party developers could start using ?Just boot into Windows? as their answer to questions regarding Mac support, but this is no more likely to be popular or successful than it was for developers whose OS X strategy was ?Just use Classic?.
This is a move of supreme confidence ? Apple relishes the comparison between Mac OS X and Windows XP, and Microsoft has shown enough of Vista via its widely-available beta seeds that Apple quite obviously isn?t afraid of that comparison, either.
Windows is so ubiquitous that the vast majority of Mac users are already quite familiar with it; I see no chance that Boot Camp is going to cause any Mac users to realize that they?ve been missing out on something better. But from the other side, Apple is confident that most Windows users who give Mac OS X a shot are going to prefer it ? again, much in the same way that most long-time Mac users preferred Mac OS X to the old Mac OS.
In the same way that Mac users found themselves in a race to go Classic-free after switching to OS X, and that running apps through Classic was viewed from the get-go as something to be done while holding one?s nose, so too will Windows be viewed in the post-Boot Camp world.
Honestly, what incentive do developers have to develop software for Mac now? There are already companies (Adobe, anyone??) that aren't that happy releasing Mac versions.
Why are we excited about the prospect of running all of our software in a Windows interface? We should be running screaming from this! I mean, the interface is everything!
This will not bring developers back to the Mac... it will mean that *no one* will develop for Mac, because we can run Windows natively. Very very few companies will want to bother employing two development teams now. Who could blame them? Waste of money. The only reason to develop for Mac is one of principle. Very few companies care about such things, when it comes down to it.
Apple used to.
Why oh why is this a good thing?? Are you people excited about pretty Apple hardware running a clumsy MS OS? As long as there's an iPod plugged in, Apple would seem to be okay with that.
I can't believe this is happening.
As stated above.... there is 11 pages here to read... which you obviously didn't, otherwise your post wouldn't have gone that way. I have explained myself,melgross,suni,pb, and many many many others have explained themselves countless times. Please read the thread.
As stated above.... there is 11 pages here to read... which you obviously didn't, otherwise your post wouldn't have gone that way. I have explained myself,melgross,suni,pb, and many many many others have explained themselves countless times. Please read the thread.
True, I didn't read all 11, but I read the first few, and was genuinely shocked to see that red flags weren't going up. I was already a bit panicky; as I said, I remember the mid-90s, and I don't want to go there again.
My post was a bit much, I'll admit; I've edited it down. But my concerns still stand. I think we're a bit cocky for such a small minority. I love extolling the virtues of the Mac platform to anyone that will listen.
But, honestly, such things tend not to matter when you're going up against a force as strong as Windows. This decision may pay off, but I don't think this is nearly so sure a thing as you all seem to be convinced.
True, I didn't read all 11, but I read the first few, and was genuinely shocked to see that red flags weren't going up. I was already a bit panicky; as I said, I remember the mid-90s, and I don't want to go there again.
My post was a bit much, I'll admit; I've edited it down. But my concerns still stand. I think we're a bit cocky for such a small minority. I love extolling the virtues of the Mac platform to anyone that will listen.
But, honestly, such things tend not to matter when you're going up against a force as strong as Windows. This decision may pay off, but I don't think this is nearly so sure a thing as you all seem to be convinced.
As we've stated in the last 4 pages... there really isn't anything to worry about... the devs need us. No mac user is going to accept the "boot into windows to use our software" excuse. Mac users bought a mac to use a mac. It's only the switcher that need to be worried about.
The fear that Windows-on-Mac-hardware implies the eventual death or marginalization of Mac OS X is baseless. Sure, third party developers could start using ?Just boot into Windows? as their answer to questions regarding Mac support, but this is no more likely to be popular or successful than it was for developers whose OS X strategy was ?Just use Classic?.
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.
Yep. That's the problem I have with Gruber's analysis although I do like his 'Windows as legacy application mode' angle. He seems to think users will always demand Mac apps when IME they don't, they'll just use what's available or what they can get for free.
The problem is, as soon as Apple went down the path with Intel CPUs, it was inevitable that they'd have Windows apps running on the same hardware. Either they've extreme confidence in being able to deliver such a better OS than Windows that users will use OSX, or, there is another part of this story that hasn't arrived yet. I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
I'd rather shoot a bunch of polygons than duck, deer or foxes Some shooters are more interesting than others. Half Life 2 - using the gravity gun to grab energy balls (the energy balls are like flowing up a conduit, they aren't just sitting around) and flinging them at enemy soldiers. Very satisfying. Now, let me say that F.E.A.R. is the gaming equivalent of watching The Ring ... you'd be surprised how cinematically scary a little girl with long hair popping up unexpectedly can be. Tomb Raider Legend - Just started that: sexy chick, a few weapons, platform game elements ala Prince of Persia. Exploring ruins Indiana Jones style. Nice. And they reduced Lara Croft's cup size to something sensible this time. Cute upper-class English accent.
Oh, and hello from Phuket, Thailand.
I agree that some gore is over the top. There are a few scenes of "Rivers of Blood" in F.E.A.R. A bit overdone sometimes. And skeletons drenched in blood. Not for the faint-hearted.
.....I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
Hmm... you might get shot down on that. But someone should take a poll on AppleInsider forums on who thinks Apple is gonna sell OSX for generic boxes. Personally, if that happens, Hell would be in an Ice Age for long time, having frozen over so many times
I still think there is a great risk in this game that Apple plays, it could trigger the fate of IBM's OS/2 again.
But I also can see what Apple is really aiming at with this new approach:
1. A few years back MacOS had a much better market-share, I think it was even up there in the 8%. So, obviously a lot of MacOS-users switched to Windows, probably because of practical compatibility-reasons or key-apps not available for MacOS.. I think Apple aims at rewinning these lost ex-Maclers.
2. There is a huge market-share of ipod-users, and a small part of it is also interested in Apple because of the ipod, and the ability to do Windows and MacOS on the same machine natively, might convince these "design/style-fans" to buy an Apple-machine.
So these effects combined could propel Apple's marketshare to about 10%.
But again even if that would happen, the "IBM-OS2"-fate still lingers at the horizon.
.....I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
Hmm... you might get shot down on that. But someone should take a poll on AppleInsider forums on who thinks Apple is gonna sell OSX for generic boxes. Personally, if that happens, Hell would be in an Ice Age for long time, having frozen over so many times
And that's why I think they'll do it. It's the logical end point of the path they're on.
Jobs said it himself when he said the hardware wasn't what made the Mac. Software is way more profitable than hardware especially when you're into high volumes. Ask Microsoft. Gruber reckons they won't sell OSX separately as $100 profit from OSX isn't as good as $500 on a MacBook Pro and that they'd have to sell 5x as many copies as OSX to make up for the loss of MacBook Pro sales.
He's wrong. He's presuming users don't like Apple hardware. Apple's hardware is as good or better than many premium brands and stands on it's own merits. People will buy it because it's Apple hardware. People already do this and run Linux on it instead of cheesy Vaios. This is different to the clone era when Apple's horrible beige boxes were not as good as a StarMax or a Power. Today, nobody is even close to an iMac in design. The Mini and MacBookPros are very good.
They have nothing on the low end but Apple doesn't want to compete there anyway. Neither do Dell really. There's marginal profit there. However, they can still sell OSX, iLife, iWork... to the cheap seats. The cheap seats weren't likely to buy Apple hardware anyway. So Apple gains there in software sales. Who knows, perhaps the cheap seats will see the light and buy some decent Apple hardware next time round.
The elephant in the corner is the PowerMac. There's two groups of users there. Businesses will continue to buy Apple kit because they need to know it's fully supported and compatible. Enthusiasts/Semi Pros may build themselves killer beige boxes instead of buying a PowerMac or an iMac but the kind of user that whinges about one being too expensive and the other not expandable are a small subset of computer buyers and one which Apple doesn't cater for today anyway. So they've gained a software sale there too.
So, I don't think hardware sales will drop if they release OSX for other computers and that's why I say they'll do it.
I'll caveat that by adding it relies on 3rd parties producing drivers and Apple setting a certified list of supported hardware. That's no different than Microsoft does with Windows though which if you've been paying attention, the hardware compatibility list for is a lot smaller than previous versions.
1. A few years back MacOS had a much better market-share, I think it was even up there in the 8%. So, obviously a lot of MacOS-users switched to Windows, probably because of practical compatibility-reasons or key-apps not available for MacOS.. I think Apple aims at rewinning these lost ex-Maclers.
Whereas market share went down, the number of users didn't actually drop much and has been steadily climbing. The problem is, the Windows installed user base grew even faster as PCs became commoditized and cheaper, hence lower market share overall. Apple kept out of the low end commodity PC market because it's not profitable. They were right to.
You've only to look at higher end markets to realize where Apple's market share is with Mac sales accounting for over 25% of Adobe's sales for instance. Mac has market share where it matters. Windows has huge market share in call centres and other drone like business activities where very little 3rd party software is bought.
The OS/2 comparison is bogus. Windows 3.0 was out alongside OS/2 v1.2. 95 alongside OS/2 2.0. Windows had tonnes of applications already and OS/2 didn't. Mac OSX already has tonnes of applications.
Comments
Originally posted by emig647
But the same token, Windows being on macs should bring new / old developers back over to the mac side. But in all honesty... how many apps are out there that are built on mac and windows? NOT THAT MANY. Sure the big ones... Adobe, M$, etc... I honestly think this will be good, not bad.
I'm not thinking that this will be a disaster. There isn't any question but that we will lose a few. But, if things work out right, we will gain more than we will lose.
It's up to the users.
Honestly, too many people complain about developers, both software and hardware, leaving the platform, but won't lift a hand to prevent it. Perhaps I should have said that they won't open their wallets to prevent it.
I've known more than enough people over the years with old versions of a program to get angry when the developer stops producing the program. Perhaps if they weren't so smug about insisting that the old version was just great, and supported the developer with more than words, that developer would still be around.
We all know it's true. Sometimes you just have to go out and buy something, just to show support.
Originally posted by melgross
We all know it's true. Sometimes you just have to go out and buy something, just to show support.
Yep
Originally posted by Placebo
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
a) I wasn't pretending
b) I never said I was 'utterly shocked', I said they gave me the creeps. I don't find them shocking at all, I find it sad that some people get kicks out of violence, not shocking.
c) I don't enjoy it and I don't agree that everyone enjoys it on one level or another.
And the games are about as interesting as flicking snot at the wall.
(Edited a bit; perhaps I was a bit rash! But I'm still very concerned.)
Why are people excited about this??
Honestly, what incentive do developers have to develop software for Mac now? There are already companies (Adobe, anyone??) that aren't that happy releasing Mac versions.
Why are we excited about the prospect of running all of our software in a Windows interface? I find this very concerning. Apple is trusting the developers way too much. Platform loyalty doesn't mean a lot to developers... just ask Bungie.
I seriously doubt this bring developers back to the Mac... If anything, less will develop for Mac, because we can run Windows natively. The danger is that few companies will want to bother employing two development teams now. Who could blame them? Waste of money. The only reason to develop for Mac is one of principle. Very few companies care about such things, when it comes down to it.
Apple used to. That's the main thing that has me worried. Apple has always been the one that stuck to its guns, and kept to its principles. This is a major shift, and leaves me to wonder how they want to define what a Mac is.
Originally posted by Damnathan
AUGHHHHHH!!!!
Get yourself aquatinted with all the angles before getting yourself all tangled up. There's plenty here to read and find out why it IS a good thing. I'm tired of explaining it already.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Drama Queen ariveth.
Fair point.
I'm just making up for the fact that no one seems very concerned. We're a niche market folks. And it seems to me Apple is making a huge gamble here. Up to now, they've called the shots on their platform. It's a big deal. They're changing the basis of what a Mac is.
Remember cloning? Everyone thought opening up the closed system made great business sense then too.
Having lived through that (and the rest of the mid-90s) as a Mac user, I can't help but be concerned.
I really do hope things turn out well.
The fear that Windows-on-Mac-hardware implies the eventual death or marginalization of Mac OS X is baseless. Sure, third party developers could start using ?Just boot into Windows? as their answer to questions regarding Mac support, but this is no more likely to be popular or successful than it was for developers whose OS X strategy was ?Just use Classic?.
This is a move of supreme confidence ? Apple relishes the comparison between Mac OS X and Windows XP, and Microsoft has shown enough of Vista via its widely-available beta seeds that Apple quite obviously isn?t afraid of that comparison, either.
Windows is so ubiquitous that the vast majority of Mac users are already quite familiar with it; I see no chance that Boot Camp is going to cause any Mac users to realize that they?ve been missing out on something better. But from the other side, Apple is confident that most Windows users who give Mac OS X a shot are going to prefer it ? again, much in the same way that most long-time Mac users preferred Mac OS X to the old Mac OS.
In the same way that Mac users found themselves in a race to go Classic-free after switching to OS X, and that running apps through Classic was viewed from the get-go as something to be done while holding one?s nose, so too will Windows be viewed in the post-Boot Camp world.
Originally posted by Damnathan
AUGHHHHHH!!!!
Why are people excited about this??
Honestly, what incentive do developers have to develop software for Mac now? There are already companies (Adobe, anyone??) that aren't that happy releasing Mac versions.
Why are we excited about the prospect of running all of our software in a Windows interface? We should be running screaming from this! I mean, the interface is everything!
This will not bring developers back to the Mac... it will mean that *no one* will develop for Mac, because we can run Windows natively. Very very few companies will want to bother employing two development teams now. Who could blame them? Waste of money. The only reason to develop for Mac is one of principle. Very few companies care about such things, when it comes down to it.
Apple used to.
Why oh why is this a good thing?? Are you people excited about pretty Apple hardware running a clumsy MS OS? As long as there's an iPod plugged in, Apple would seem to be okay with that.
I can't believe this is happening.
As stated above.... there is 11 pages here to read... which you obviously didn't, otherwise your post wouldn't have gone that way. I have explained myself,melgross,suni,pb, and many many many others have explained themselves countless times. Please read the thread.
Originally posted by emig647
As stated above.... there is 11 pages here to read... which you obviously didn't, otherwise your post wouldn't have gone that way. I have explained myself,melgross,suni,pb, and many many many others have explained themselves countless times. Please read the thread.
True, I didn't read all 11, but I read the first few, and was genuinely shocked to see that red flags weren't going up. I was already a bit panicky; as I said, I remember the mid-90s, and I don't want to go there again.
My post was a bit much, I'll admit; I've edited it down. But my concerns still stand. I think we're a bit cocky for such a small minority. I love extolling the virtues of the Mac platform to anyone that will listen.
But, honestly, such things tend not to matter when you're going up against a force as strong as Windows. This decision may pay off, but I don't think this is nearly so sure a thing as you all seem to be convinced.
Originally posted by Damnathan
True, I didn't read all 11, but I read the first few, and was genuinely shocked to see that red flags weren't going up. I was already a bit panicky; as I said, I remember the mid-90s, and I don't want to go there again.
My post was a bit much, I'll admit; I've edited it down. But my concerns still stand. I think we're a bit cocky for such a small minority. I love extolling the virtues of the Mac platform to anyone that will listen.
But, honestly, such things tend not to matter when you're going up against a force as strong as Windows. This decision may pay off, but I don't think this is nearly so sure a thing as you all seem to be convinced.
As we've stated in the last 4 pages... there really isn't anything to worry about... the devs need us. No mac user is going to accept the "boot into windows to use our software" excuse. Mac users bought a mac to use a mac. It's only the switcher that need to be worried about.
Originally posted by TenoBell
True words from John Gruber.
The fear that Windows-on-Mac-hardware implies the eventual death or marginalization of Mac OS X is baseless. Sure, third party developers could start using ?Just boot into Windows? as their answer to questions regarding Mac support, but this is no more likely to be popular or successful than it was for developers whose OS X strategy was ?Just use Classic?.
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.
Originally posted by Anders
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.
Screw! I was going to say that.
Originally posted by Anders
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.
Yep. That's the problem I have with Gruber's analysis although I do like his 'Windows as legacy application mode' angle. He seems to think users will always demand Mac apps when IME they don't, they'll just use what's available or what they can get for free.
The problem is, as soon as Apple went down the path with Intel CPUs, it was inevitable that they'd have Windows apps running on the same hardware. Either they've extreme confidence in being able to deliver such a better OS than Windows that users will use OSX, or, there is another part of this story that hasn't arrived yet. I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
Oh, and hello from Phuket, Thailand.
I agree that some gore is over the top. There are a few scenes of "Rivers of Blood" in F.E.A.R. A bit overdone sometimes. And skeletons drenched in blood. Not for the faint-hearted.
.....I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
Hmm... you might get shot down on that. But someone should take a poll on AppleInsider forums on who thinks Apple is gonna sell OSX for generic boxes. Personally, if that happens, Hell would be in an Ice Age for long time, having frozen over so many times
But I also can see what Apple is really aiming at with this new approach:
1. A few years back MacOS had a much better market-share, I think it was even up there in the 8%. So, obviously a lot of MacOS-users switched to Windows, probably because of practical compatibility-reasons or key-apps not available for MacOS.. I think Apple aims at rewinning these lost ex-Maclers.
2. There is a huge market-share of ipod-users, and a small part of it is also interested in Apple because of the ipod, and the ability to do Windows and MacOS on the same machine natively, might convince these "design/style-fans" to buy an Apple-machine.
So these effects combined could propel Apple's marketshare to about 10%.
But again even if that would happen, the "IBM-OS2"-fate still lingers at the horizon.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by aegisdesign
.....I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
Hmm... you might get shot down on that. But someone should take a poll on AppleInsider forums on who thinks Apple is gonna sell OSX for generic boxes. Personally, if that happens, Hell would be in an Ice Age for long time, having frozen over so many times
And that's why I think they'll do it. It's the logical end point of the path they're on.
Jobs said it himself when he said the hardware wasn't what made the Mac. Software is way more profitable than hardware especially when you're into high volumes. Ask Microsoft. Gruber reckons they won't sell OSX separately as $100 profit from OSX isn't as good as $500 on a MacBook Pro and that they'd have to sell 5x as many copies as OSX to make up for the loss of MacBook Pro sales.
He's wrong. He's presuming users don't like Apple hardware. Apple's hardware is as good or better than many premium brands and stands on it's own merits. People will buy it because it's Apple hardware. People already do this and run Linux on it instead of cheesy Vaios. This is different to the clone era when Apple's horrible beige boxes were not as good as a StarMax or a Power. Today, nobody is even close to an iMac in design. The Mini and MacBookPros are very good.
They have nothing on the low end but Apple doesn't want to compete there anyway. Neither do Dell really. There's marginal profit there. However, they can still sell OSX, iLife, iWork... to the cheap seats. The cheap seats weren't likely to buy Apple hardware anyway. So Apple gains there in software sales. Who knows, perhaps the cheap seats will see the light and buy some decent Apple hardware next time round.
The elephant in the corner is the PowerMac. There's two groups of users there. Businesses will continue to buy Apple kit because they need to know it's fully supported and compatible. Enthusiasts/Semi Pros may build themselves killer beige boxes instead of buying a PowerMac or an iMac but the kind of user that whinges about one being too expensive and the other not expandable are a small subset of computer buyers and one which Apple doesn't cater for today anyway. So they've gained a software sale there too.
So, I don't think hardware sales will drop if they release OSX for other computers and that's why I say they'll do it.
I'll caveat that by adding it relies on 3rd parties producing drivers and Apple setting a certified list of supported hardware. That's no different than Microsoft does with Windows though which if you've been paying attention, the hardware compatibility list for is a lot smaller than previous versions.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
1. A few years back MacOS had a much better market-share, I think it was even up there in the 8%. So, obviously a lot of MacOS-users switched to Windows, probably because of practical compatibility-reasons or key-apps not available for MacOS.. I think Apple aims at rewinning these lost ex-Maclers.
Whereas market share went down, the number of users didn't actually drop much and has been steadily climbing. The problem is, the Windows installed user base grew even faster as PCs became commoditized and cheaper, hence lower market share overall. Apple kept out of the low end commodity PC market because it's not profitable. They were right to.
You've only to look at higher end markets to realize where Apple's market share is with Mac sales accounting for over 25% of Adobe's sales for instance. Mac has market share where it matters. Windows has huge market share in call centres and other drone like business activities where very little 3rd party software is bought.
The OS/2 comparison is bogus. Windows 3.0 was out alongside OS/2 v1.2. 95 alongside OS/2 2.0. Windows had tonnes of applications already and OS/2 didn't. Mac OSX already has tonnes of applications.
Originally posted by sunilraman
And they reduced Lara Croft's cup size to something sensible this time. Cute upper-class English accent.
I'm English. All women are like that around here. Really, they are.
Right, where's my gun, I've PC gamers to shoot...