Since they plan to sell music and don't want iTunes/iPods to be able to use the service, they might scheme the evil plan to get every single mac user who wants to buy their music to move not only to Intel but to Microsoft Windows ? But on the other hand, what difference make a couple of more users who steal Window and are unhappy with it....


volker

Wow. That's an amazing comment by Anderson - "we have business priorities... delivering the best experience to Windows customers."

I assume Anderson works at Microsoft.

I wonder how Anderson's quote sits with Mac BU management. I recall Rick Schaut of the Mac BU arguing on his blog that management were committed to the Mac BU. John Welch argued the reverse given the Mac BU was moved to the home entertainment division, and their lack of support for the enterprise on the Mac platform.

Given Anderson's quote, it certainly seems Microsoft's commitment to the Macintosh is only based on what they can get out of it.

"Given Anderson's quote, it certainly seems Microsoft's commitment to the Macintosh is only based on what they can get out of it."

Is this not the case for all companies? I get the impression that the Mac BU had a free reign for a while, doing what they wanted to do, regardless of the profitability. But Apple's recent focus on developing it's own applications has hurt 3rd party developers. With iLife, iWork and all of the rest, Apple is becoming more self-sufficient and less reliant or 3rd parties, which is bad news IMHO for developers everywhere.

Shareware people can at least aim for the niche areas that Apple misses, but big businesses can't survive on that.

I would think their logic has something to do with that the more recent versions of WMP for Windows are all bound to their operating system's DRM. It's pretty clear how this is going to shape up -- MS'S DRM, Apple's DRM, Google's DRM, and never the three shall meet. It's been a long time since WMP on Mac OS X could play any reasonable share of the Windows Media files out there.

For media consumers and producers, this isn't going to change much, producers will still have to offer a couple of different file formats to reach as many users as possible, and consumers will have to have a couple of different players.

It could have something to do with the Office agreement, sure: "We'll develop Office for your OS, but we still hate you."

Apple is becoming more self-sufficient and less reliant or 3rd parties, which is bad news IMHO for developers everywhere.

I guess it's bad in the sense that there's more competition, but it's certainly better for the Mac as a whole. Apple's software sells Macs. In the long run, this helps all Mac developers. Aside from selling the individual packages, Apple's bigger goal is to elevate Mac OS X and make it clear that it has title you can't get on Windows (otherwise why only charge $79 for iLife)?

I think it's clear that Apple made the right move with Final Cut Pro, for example. That application is selling Macs. It also raised the bar for all pro media apps in the process.

It's not really rocket science to figure out which things they're likely to get involved in. I don't think we're going to see a Delicious Library competitor anytime soon.

This is just IE all again. They make a crappy product, forget all about it and one day say that "hey, we don't actually want to develop that any more". Which basically does not come as news to anyone who has been been forced to use the product and begged for updates.

I must appreciate the fact that Microsoft offers (and paid for it) a replacement product for mac users, a replacement that is both faster and more Mac-like. I only wish they had done it sooner.

++karma[MicroSoft];

This is just IE all again. They make a crappy product

MacIE wasn't a crappy product when it was created. In fact, it was the first to actually get CSS right. More importantly, it was on Mac OS X practically from day one. Unfortunately, it was not just a Carbon app but one of the earliest Carbon apps, meaning it really needed a revamp that it never got.

On top of that, its development folks were reallocated to other projects of questionable merit. In the long run though, it may have been for the best because it means we ended up with Safari.

A read an article recently (I forget where, sorry) which expressed concern about the current Mac situation, not least with MS. On the one hand, Apple is more successful than ever before and the shareware market (for the most part) is more vibrant. But you can count the number of large companies developing for the platform on one hand - MS, Adobe, Quark, Macromedia, no wait! Adone bought Macromedia...you run out pretty quick.

The transition to OSX effectively killed many key players (Norton, Symantec, Alladin, Metrowerks) and by filling the gap with it's own stuff, Apple is not inspiring competition. Audion anyone? No doubt, the Intel transition will put additional pressure on many 3rd parties who may decide it's not worth porting older apps.

As far as developers are concerned, there are less jobs now outside of Apple of than there were 10 years ago. Lot's of one-man ops with intuitive shareware, but is that enough in the long term?

MacIE wasn't a crappy product when it was created. In fact, it was the first to actually get CSS right. More importantly, it was on Mac OS X practically from day one.

Yes, I agree. MacIE was very good on OS 9, both feature and GUI wise. Maybe it's just me, but I found the OS X version much too slow. Obviously I can't tell how much of it was because of OS X and how much on MacIE, but the end result was not too shabby.

But you can count the number of large companies developing for the platform on one hand ... The transition to OSX effectively killed many key players (Norton, Symantec, Alladin, Metrowerks)

There's no inherent value in large companies making Mac software. The products are more expensive and their people are harder to reach. I only care about the big companies if they have something of value to offer. What of Symantec and Aladdin's stuff truly makes sense on Mac OS X?

As for Metrowerks, that's a separate issue. Yes, Apple had Project Builder from the start, but I've always heard mumblings that Motorola was miffed that it had to stop making StarMax machines.

Big names just don't have the pull that they used to. Instead of thinking of it in terms of brand names, my question is which apps do you want?

additional pressure on many 3rd parties who may decide it's not worth porting older apps

That's pretty vague. Like who? Adobe certainly needs the revenue, and Quark and Microsoft have already signed up. What other big companies are there?

"There's no inherent value in large companies making Mac software. The products are more expensive and their people are harder to reach. I only care about the big companies if they have something of value to offer. What of Symantec and Aladdin's stuff truly makes sense on Mac OS X?"

That's quite a statement! Ok, perhaps it a profile thing. Working for a software company, I feel that the apparent lack of even medium-sized mac-focused companies is a turn-off to Windows developers who might otherwise provide a mac version of their product. And there are still areas where the mac is very weak next to the PC.

Aladdin was once the de-facto compression standard on the mac, and I still don't find OSX's built-in zip compression to be very good. But OSX killed it, just like XP killed WinZip. Symantec is now a major anti-virus utility on the PC. I hate Windows, but I think the smug complacency towards malware in the Mac community is disturbing.

"That's pretty vague. Like who? Adobe certainly needs the revenue, and Quark and Microsoft have already signed up. What other big companies are there?"

The only company I can think right now which may not make the Intel transition is Microspot, a long-time CAD maker. I met up with them at the UK Expo; they're still using OS9-error technologies (i.e QD3D) and have downsized considerably.

The bottom line is, I'm concerned that so much rests on the backs of the shareware community. I don't want Apple to go back the 'Not invented here' mindset of the old days, by trying to attack every market by itself.

Aladdin was once the de-facto compression standard on the mac

Which I don't think is a good thing. It's not free and it's not an industry standard. I don't think a compression format is something that really benefits from being unique.

I think the smug complacency towards malware in the Mac community is disturbing.

Well, that's certainly the agenda that a number of journalists are pushing, but I'm not sure how many of them understand the mechanics of the thing or how Mac OS X and Windows differ in philosphy. In any case, I'm not sure Symantec is the one I'd choose to write good Mac software.

The bottom line is, I'm concerned that so much rests on the backs of the shareware community

I guess I don't see why. Not that bigger 3rd part developers are useless, but I don't get what the big deal is. What have Adobe, Microsoft or Quark done to inspire recently?

From what I can see, they're mostly running off their respective brand names and existing code bases. They're charging a heck of a lot of money for it too. Look at Lightroom. It's a Mac-first, Cocoa-based product from Adobe and it can't touch Aperture.

I have a lot more faith in individuals and smaller companies to make great good decisions and great products at this point.

I don't want Apple to go back the 'Not invented here' mindset of the old days, by trying to attack every market by itself.

I think we're pretty far from that. Their focus is mainly pro and consumer media apps. This are areas they can offer real value above and beyond what Windows can do.