Design Element
Comment on "Follow-Up to "Secret Ingredient""
by Dan Price — Sep 06
I'm a bit conflicted on this. Yes, Apple did replace the operating system architecture, but they had to bring the old APIs forward to support Photoshop, Illustrator, Office, Internet Explorer, and so on. That's where Core Foundation came from. It wasn't easy.

Yes, but that's the point. When OSX was released, Apple portrayed the old Carbon APIs as merely a bridge to Cocoa. But to keep their existing developers sweet, Apple had to keep updating Carbon to bring it in line with Cocoa.

Now you imagine this same scenerio x 100, plus the cost of dropping support for 6-year old operating systems in the enterprise market. Technologies like the COM model, the Registry and VB. That's where you have Microsoft. Afterall, it's not like MS have a huge amount of competition. Why risk it all with 'innovation'? :)

MJ makes a good point of the design-by-committee culture at MS. There have been many calls to 'downsize' MS in recent years. Ironically, had they been forced to do this with the anti-trust case, they might be in a better position now.
Back to "Follow-Up to "Secret Ingredient""
Design Element

Copyright © Scott Stevenson 2004-2015