Re: Apple ahead of schedule

"C Lund" <clund@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:clund-CF84D8.09230213082006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, developers who refuse to let their stuff run natively on Intel
macs risk making room for competitors that are either starting from
scratch or are willing to do the ports.
Yes, indeed: developers who make that decision are
clearly leaving the platform. Yet they may do it anyway.

They would find that preferable to making a port?

In many cases it would be cheaper, since they *already have*
a Windows version.

If the Mac market isn't worth the investment, they'll
leave it. That's more likely when Apple makes the
investment required higher.

[snip]
Assuming Rosetta is such a pain to begin with, of course. And if it
is, then the developers will have to choose between losing the
platform or porting their product.

That's the choice.

Mac only developers will likely chose to port, but
they may also chose to devote their development
efforts in the future to Windows, and avoid this
problem.

[snip]
And do
not imagine that Rosetta is forever; if Classic could be
dropped so soon, Rosetta can too.

Of course. On the other hand, Classic wasn't dropped until Apple moved
to Intel...

The message is that you can be one transition behind,
at a penalty, but not two. Two transitions behind
and you just won't run.

[snip]
I think Apple wouldn't think twice about releasing a "Photoshop" of
their own if Adobe decides to drop the platform.

This is a very mature product with a large userbase;
the users would almost certainly stick with Adobe
product.

And if that means Windows, then Windows it is. That's
the way this business always works.

[snip]
How many users will decide to not wait for the Mac/Intel
version of Photoshop, but to buy Photoshop for Windows
today?

Not many, I think.

Why not? I'd expect a lot of this: users who need to
replace their machine can get Photoshop at full speed
on Intel *today*; why should they wait? Why should
they run in emulation?

Sure, some users won't need to replace their machine,
and they may still be there when the Photoshop is out,
with Universal Binary support. But how many that is
depends on how long it takes. If it takes years from now,
a large part of the userbase may be gone.

(If it takes weeks from now... then, never mind)

[snip]


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aqua is a Plastic Cube!
    ... if WPF were put into Apple's old Mac OS X ... the problem this platform has is that it's rather vaguely defined, ... better than it is on X Windows or Windows XP. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Wild speculations about the "other" factors
    ... <SNIP> ... because that's what most>> Windows programmers do. ... No. Cross platform C++ is very much alive. ... How about using the new IDE as a platform that can host many different ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: looking for good C source code
    ... > start out to create a windows program with Win32 and C. ... non-portable code from "official clc-approved ISO Standard C" code. ... come to port the program to a different platform or simply just ... And after the port, they'd still have the portable, standard bit, ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: TIP #172: Improve UNIX Tk Look and Feel
    ... > platform. ... Windows in the same-look-and-feel manner. ... To do a good port, ... But once I do that, as a developer, I can't see how I could ever be ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: Do I need any Visual Basic before learning C++?
    ... >> is to be a Java killer. ... Ok so instead of saying "Not becoming a windows guys" as you have prejudiced ... UNIX platform not only a windows platform. ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)