Comments on: Compete With What? Official blog of Red Sweater Software Fri, 09 Oct 2015 20:11:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mark Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:39:03 +0000 If the windows devs do raise their game and manage to bring mac style to their apps, surely this is good for the market and what is good for the market is good for the consumer.

However if you’re asking windows devs to actually develop a stylish version to run under emulation, whilst you may not have to redevelop code because of whatever lepoard voodoo is taking care of that, you’re still going to have to bring a second UI. Is this then still asking them to run parallel development which they’ve been avoiding all along anyway.

If they don’t think the mac platform is a worth market to develop an entire second package, will they merely for a different UI ?

By: Rhonabwy » Blog Archive » my WWDC predictions Fri, 04 Aug 2006 06:47:42 +0000 […] I suspect Paul is overly concerned in his fears about what Virtualization will do to the platform, I’m a little more with Daniel in his opinions. Of course, what I want it for is to run a light linux system to check through my own release processes… Yeah, I’ll get a copy of Windows on there somewhere, but frankly, that’s not as important to me. Karen on the other hand… she’s really excited about it – but at this point I think she’d be just as happy with Boot Camp. […]

By: Daniel Jalkut Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:56:44 +0000 Lately, my feeling has been that Adobe is dropping the ball. As I play around with various Mac OS X “native” applications that are capable of pushing PDF to the clipboard, for instance, I’m increasingly annoyed by the fact that Adobe apps of all suspects are slow or incapable of correctly accepting PDF pastes. I recently wrote a Nodebox-based script to copy graphics to the clipboard as PDF. I thought I’d use Photoshop to composite the final result, but it was way too slow and unfriendly. I finally opened the base image in Pages of all thing, and pasted my PDF clipboard annotations in without fuss.

This is actually a great example of how everything “old” is falling behind and everything new, compatible with Apple’s development standards, is moving ahead. I long for a Cocoa-savvy equivalent to Photoshop. It’s getting creakier with every passing day.

By: Chucky Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:54:24 +0000 I agree with Simone that this is a moot point.

However, were it actually to occur, the effects would be far more dire than Daniel realizes. The destruction of OS X would be much slower than the destruction of OS/2, because of the base of loyal users. But effective built-in virtualization would make Windows software a hit with new users, and cross-platform versions of big commercial software would die off pretty rapidly.

Over time, many OS X users would be running many Windows apps. And because of this, the competitive advantage of native software would massively erode.

The real danger for OS X developers would be what would happen in 3 years, not in 6 months.


I think this is unlikely to happen not only because of Schiller’s statement, but also because of what Steve values. Determining WSV is a crucial element in Apple predictions. And I don’t think Steve is interested in seeing the extinction of all of his Mac OS / NeXTSTEP / OS X gui heritage, even if you could make the (debatable) argument that it would make financial sense for Apple.

By: Adrian Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:50:13 +0000 I think Nathaniel has missed Dave’s point…

What would happen for example, if Adobe (or Microsoft) decided not to develop a native version of something like Photoshop (or Office), instead figuring that as they have no real competition people will still be forced to use their software whether it is native or not… I think it is probably at that end of the market that this biggest concern lies…

In my field there are lots of (crappy) apps with no Mac equivalents so even though it I hate using them the advent of Windows-on-Mac is a very helpful thing… just as long as the gamble pays off.

By: Nathaniel Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:05:29 +0000 I don’t think it’s much of a risk, much less anything like OS/2. The problem with OS/2 was that aside from a few major applications and utilities, there were no native applications available for most users to compare. So they wound up running Windows apps and never saw any advantages that native apps could bring.

The Mac is as much the opposite of that situation as could be possible. There is no other non-windows system that has as many fully-finished, polished and well-integrated apps as the Mac OS. It will be easy for users to download a Mac program and a Windows program and run them side by side and if they both have comparable features, the value of a native app will be clear.

The only situation where users won’t do this, and where developers might make windows-only software is in areas where nobody makes Mac software anyways. If you have the choice between a Windows app and no app at all, of course the choice is clear — just as it was with OS/2. But if you have the choice of a native app vs a non-native app, you basically have the existing situation with much Java software.

If the Java app is dramatically better than a native app, or if the Java app is the only solution avilable, obviously you’ll use it. But if both java and native apps are avilable with similar feature sets, the native app almost always wins in the market. There’s no reason to expect this situation would be any different at all if we replaced Java with Win32 apps.

By: Jeff Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:50:59 +0000 One key thing to remember is that virtualisation will *not* re-layout any dialog windows that an application creates. Its not possible for the system to magically switch a Windows BUTTON control with an OSX button control without the dimensions changing, or the look and feel being crap.

Native Mac applications will look like production software, Windows apps will look like either (a) Windows apps or (b) really badly written shareware (you know the kind I mean)

By: Simone Manganelli Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:47:27 +0000 Interesting and intriguing argument. The point, however, is moot, because Phil Schiller has already publicly denied that Leopard will include virtualization technology, saying it would expend way too many resources.

By: Dave Parizek Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:49:29 +0000 While it may work out great, it is a huge huge huge gamble though. If it gives some of the major developers an excuse not to develop separately for the Mac, and /or if it discourages (even a bit) innovative independent Mac development, then instead of increasing market share it could decrease it! –Even to the point making such a decision could lead to the demise of the Mac. Making a double or nothing bet seems like a stupid move for a company riding high like Apple right now. Why take such a risk? The risk / reward scenario doesn’t seem sensible to me.

If it does work to increase market share, then the best products will win, giving Mac developers an advantage, and an opportunity to maybe double their market. One of the advantages of developing on the Mac will get harder – marketing – maybe – because of all the extra noise. One of the things I hate about Windows is just that finding software that does what I want is so much harder just because you have to wade into so much more noise = super time consuming and annoying…

By: amaksym1 Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:26:56 +0000 Compete With What?…