Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: mac
Be Patient With Your Developers
Smaller companies are getting quite a lot of flak though.
Just over 5 months after the first Macintel started shipping and we now have two thirds of the entire mac line up with Intel inside, with just the Xserve and Power Mac still to switch over, likely at WWDC. But for developers the past few months haven’t been quite so rosy. While Apple made it sound like all you need to make an application a Universal Binary was to click a check box and recompile the reality is very different.
Companies like Adobe and Microsoft have largely got off the hook over how long it is taking them to release universal versions of their apps, mostly because Apple said that Carbon projects would take longer and that people accept that these applications have lots of code. They are also receiving relatively little flak for the decision to charge for these universal versions.
Smaller companies are getting quite a lot of flak though. Most people think that smaller companies all make Cocoa apps, which is flaw number one. Many companies write cocoa apps but quite a few need to call carbon code or even delve down into the depths of assembly language. Carbon code takes more tweaking than Cocoa to make universal and assembly language has to be pretty much re-written.
The next complaint is over upgrades. Some people complain when I developer says that you’ll have to pay $5-20 for an upgrade to the latest version of their software to get a universal version. For one, this is less one tenth of what many people are prepared to pay for upgrades to software from big companies. They think that making universal binaries is easy as pie and only take 5 minutes to do, when in fact that it can take weeks, if not months of hard work. It is not hard to see why developer may want to charge for upgrades to some of their products to get universal compatibility, especially if a major version was already in the works.
The final complain is about the time it is taking. As I have said before, users think that these smaller companies have smaller pieces of software and therefore should be able to release universal binaries quickly. They also fail to remember that many of these smaller companies usually only have 1-5 programmers, possibly dealing with multiple applications. This is compared to the bigger companies that may have teams over 10 times that size working on just one application.
So, reader, I ask you to have patients with smaller developers in futures. They try their hardest to provide you with the best applications they can with limited man power. This doesn’t just count with the PPC to Intel. Sometimes OS upgrades can be as much of a hassle. Don’t pressure them into releasing upgrades, or you may end up with a half finished buggy version and a developer who’s fed up. If you want to do anything, offer to help with the likes of testing, more often than not the offer will be greeted with open arms.
 |
19 | 1559 |
| comments | views |
thinkback
But many small developers use Xcode already. Just having your app in Xcode doesn’t make it easier to make a universal version. Some companies can move their apps to Xcode and make them universal quicker than some small developers who have developed in Xcode from the start can. It all depends on the complexity of the application
|
| May. 17, 2006 | |
| 1:14 am |
I ask you to have patients with smaller developers in futures.
Usually when I ready something, the first thing that bugs me is spelling mistakes, especially if it is a statement.
I support the small companies if they can make good products and can compete.
when I ready something
I typed too fast, should be “READ”!
UGH, can’t edit.
But many small developers use Xcode already. Just having your app in Xcode doesn’t make it easier to make a universal version.
It doesn’t? It’s just as hard making an Xcode application Universal as a Carbon application?
I understand what your point is—don’t have unrealistic expectations about how long it takes to make applications Universal.
I’m totally with you on that and have been since the day this whole thing was announced because I remember the PPC transition and the OS X transition.
In any case, I think all of the small applications I use are now Universal (Default Folder 3, Transmit, Acquisition).
Major applications that I use that are not Universal are: Microsoft Office; Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, GoLive, Flash.
| May. 17, 2006 | ||
| 9:04 am |
The distinction isn’t Xcode vs Carbon, it’s Cocoa vs Carbon, both can be written (and for intel macs HAVE to be written) in Xcode. The best example of differences are probably the app I wrote, iWriter, vs say, Rogue Amoeba. I could recompile with just a click of a check box, like Apple claimed, because I was just using standard cocoa stuff. Rogue Amoeba had a bit longer of a journey because they had to deal with code they’d written that didn’t go through Cocoa.
You see, the benefit of Cocoa vs Carbon is that Cocoa protects the developer from pretty much anything system level. If Apple changes architecture then Apple changes the code under cocoa to make it work. Carbon lets you get to a much lower level and so in some places it is more platform dependent
|
| May. 17, 2006 | |
| 9:54 am |
The distinction isn’t Xcode vs Carbon, it’s Cocoa vs Carbon, both can be written (and for intel macs HAVE to be written) in Xcode.
Oh yeah, that’s right. Xcode can do Cocoa and Carbon.
What I meant was Xtools Cocoa/Carbon versus Metrowerks Carbon.
I’m going by memory from watching Jobs’ keynote at WWDC 2005 where he said the key was Xcode. He said Xcode Cocoa was the easiest. Xcode Carbon required more tweaking. He said Metrowerks Carbon required a move to Xcode first…
Thanks for the info.
| May. 17, 2006 | ||
| 10:25 am |
What I meant was Xtools Cocoa/Carbon versus Metrowerks Carbon.
Xcode Cocoa/Carbon, not Xtools.
| May. 17, 2006 | ||
| 10:25 am |
Shouldn’t you be yelling at Apple for giving users the impression that they have now… the one that is causing all the complaints? If Apple would have just told it like it is then this wouldn’t be happening right now.
People wouldn’t be bitching at Adobe and Microsoft because it’s taking them 2+ years to make a universal binary.
If people in the press would hold Apple more accountable to this kind of stuff then they wouldn’t do it all the time. They only do it because the press takes it hook, line, and sinker, causing Apple’s stock to rise and when inevitable problems crop up the media puts the blame somewhere else.
Shouldn’t you be yelling at Apple for giving users the impression that they have now… the one that is causing all the complaints? If Apple would have just told it like it is then this wouldn’t be happening right now.
They did. Steve Jobs’ said Carbon applications in Metrowerks have to be moved to Xcode first.
People wouldn’t be bitching at Adobe and Microsoft because it’s taking them 2+ years to make a universal binary.
Kuaidang, we have well established that you are completely full of shit and pull stuff out of your ass all the time. You have no clue how long it is taking them to make a Universal version. I don’t know about Microsoft, but Adobe’s next version will be Universal. That’s exactly what I would expect.
But you completely ignore all of the applications that are Universal right now. Cinema 4D is Universal. Do they have some magic wand that Adobe and Microsoft don’t have? Or is it that Adobe and Microsoft are choosing to use Universal as a feature as incentive for people to pay them for an upgrade? How is that Apple’s fault?
They only do it because the press takes it hook, line, and sinker, causing Apple’s stock to rise and when inevitable problems crop up the media puts the blame somewhere else.
Versus you who always blames Apple for other company’s problems.
IBM yield problems? Apple’s fault. Proved wrong.
OpenGL performance slow? Apple’s fault. Did you hear Cinema 4D’s OpenGL performance on the Mac is now faster than Windows with an update to Cinema?
| May. 18, 2006 | ||
| 8:37 am |
If this turns in to a debate about anything besides “Be Patient With your Developers”, then so help me I will move it to the forums and tell Pilky to delete the comments here.
Carry on with your on-topic comments.
| May. 18, 2006 | |
| Liam | 9:17 am |
Kuaidang, we have well established that you are completely full of shit and pull stuff out of your ass all the time. You have no clue how long it is taking them to make a Universal version. I don’t know about Microsoft, but Adobe’s next version will be Universal. That’s exactly what I would expect.
LOL! You call me full of it in the same post as you saying you proved that “IBM’s yield problems” weren’t Apple’s fault? LOL!
The guy from Motorola even detailed Apple’s chip buying stratedy and why it caused such problems but somehow you proved that wrong, huh? I guess the fact that IBM had such yeild problems with the Xbox 360 is your proof, huh? But wait, IBM wasn’t causing the yield problems of the Xbox 360… it was a memory chip made by someone else like I said it could be… and you laughed at.
And even during the memory problems, IBM shipped more chips to Microsoft in a month than they shipped to Apple in a year. And they make AMD processors without problems as well. Hell, Apple even had supply issues with the first Intel Macs because they didn’t order enough supply… Dell sells something like 10 times the computers Apple does and they didn’t have any supply problems with Core Duo’s. HP too.
You’re the biggest b.s.er around.
OpenGL performance slow? Apple’s fault. Did you hear Cinema 4D’s OpenGL performance on the Mac is now faster than Windows with an update to Cinema?
OpenGL performance slow? Apple’s fault. Did you hear Cinema 4D’s OpenGL performance on the Mac is now faster than Windows with an update to Cinema?
Only on an Intel Mac(in 32bit only) not on a PC with proper drivers. Apple’s video cards don’t even use the same firmware as typical PC cards. It’s been proven that using different drivers with Bootcamp increases the performance dramatically… specifically look for the modified catalyst drivers (called Omega) or the FireGL drivers. The video card in the Mac is actually a FireGL and not a Radeon, hence the slower clock speed and dual-link capability that Mac “radeon’s” have and PC radeon’s don’t. Use the Windows FireGL drivers and the PC wins no contest despite the firmware differences.
But yeah, you trying to deflect the blame for the Mac transition away from Apple is shady at best. They knew about the transition long before anyone else (5 years of preparation) and had access to Xcode 2.0 long before anyone else, and probably use Xcode and Cocoa just as much as anyone else and it still took them 10+ months after the WWDC to make FCPS go universal.
But you completely ignore all of the applications that are Universal right now. Cinema 4D is Universal. Do they have some magic wand that Adobe and Microsoft don’t have? Or is it that Adobe and Microsoft are choosing to use Universal as a feature as incentive for people to pay them for an upgrade? How is that Apple’s fault?
How is it Apple’s fault? It’s their transition that they randomly sprung on everyone. It’s their lack doing that caused all of this:
Photoshop on Intel from the horses mouth:
http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/ma cintosh_and_t.html
Versus you who always blames Apple for other company’s problems.
Blame Apple for problems with their own vertically integrated platform? No way… what a concept.
You call me full of it in the same post as you saying you proved that “IBM’s yield problemsâ€? weren’t Apple’s fault?Â
Yes, and you said you were wrong after reading the link I gave you that you keep forgetting about. You know, the one where the IBM executive talks about their yield problems.
Only on an Intel Mac(in 32bit only) not on a PC with proper drivers.
So now you are blaming the drivers and not the OpenGL. Like I said, it’s the application. Cinema 4D was updated and “poof” their OpenGL performance increased greatly.
They knew about the transition long before anyone else (5 years of preparation) and had access to Xcode 2.0 long before anyone else, and probably use Xcode and Cocoa just as much as anyone else and it still took them 10+ months after the WWDC to make FCPS go universal.
You are full of shit. You don’t have a clue how long anyone has been working on anything nor is it relevant to your claims that Apple pulls some kind of crap on everyone, which you have yet to explain.
Did you know the DoJ anti-trust case has nothing to do with MS Office? LOL!
t’s their transition that they randomly sprung on everyone.Â
Random? Nah. Motorola and IBM’s ability to compete in the processor arena isn’t random.
You have no point here. You are grasping for straws.
That leaves doing the work for real - taking the whole application over into XCode and recompiling as a Universal Binary. And that’s no small task.
Exactly what Jobs said at WWDC when he announced the Intel transition.
Blame Apple for problems with their own vertically integrated platform? No way… what a concept.
Exactly, you have no point here. You are just spreading crap, as usual, and hoping it sticks. You are back to giving me a link to some blog in an attempt to make a point.
Make a specific point and back it up with logic and evidence. You are trolling here.
| May. 18, 2006 | ||
| 7:54 pm |
I just want to reiterate:
If Apple would have just told it like it is then this wouldn’t be happening right now.
They did. Watch the 2005 WWDC keynote QuickTime and then come back and admit you were wrong, again. Go ahead.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/
Skip to time 27:00. “And in Metrowerks, the first thing you have to do is move to Xcode...and in Metrowerks, again, we don’t know [how long to go Universal] you’ve got to get to Xcode. The key here is getting to Xcode.”
IBM yield problems that you claim Apple made up:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/04/21/H Nibm_1.html
http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/04/16/powe rpc.yield.problems/
http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1099/040720ibm90nm/
http://www.reed-electronics.com/electronicn ews/article/CA417058.html
But wait, IBM wasn’t causing the yield problems of the Xbox 360… it was a memory chip made by someone else like I said it could be… and you laughed at.
I never claimed IBM was to blame for Xbox shortages. I said it would be funny if they were. You are misrepresenting, again. Feel free to quote the thread or point us to it to prove me wrong.
| May. 18, 2006 | ||
| 8:37 pm |
If that’s they way you guys want to play it, I’ll show you to your room.
|
| May. 18, 2006 | |
| Liam | 9:30 pm |
Oops, forgot to say this:
KD, Mac Fan, you are to argue about the PowerPC shortage and OpenGL performance in the topic I linked to. Failure to comply will result in me asking Pilky to remove the off-topic comments. I figure that it’s finally time to make this routine.
|
| May. 18, 2006 | |
| Liam | 9:32 pm |
Kuaidang, Mac Fan, listen to Liam, unless you two learn to play nice together you’ll have to go and sit in the naughty corner, ok?
|
| May. 19, 2006 | |
| 10:00 am |
KD, Mac Fan, you are to argue about the PowerPC shortage and OpenGL performance in the topic I linked to.
Liam, I respectfully want to point out that “Apple’s hosing everyone and they get a pass from the media” isn’t really about patience with developers either, which is where this started.
If people in the press would hold Apple more accountable to this kind of stuff then they wouldn’t do it all the time. They only do it because the press takes it hook, line, and sinker, causing Apple’s stock to rise and when inevitable problems crop up the media puts the blame somewhere else.
That is pure flame-bait and if you nip it in the bud and delete it from the thread early on, you won’t get flames. And if you do that, he won’t do his drive-bys anymore.
| May. 19, 2006 | ||
| 1:03 pm |
1.
I understand what you are saying, however developers are competing against each other. The consumer doesn’t have to be patient if your competitor has a universal version out. I can just buy it and not wait for you.
Apple has been telling developers to use Xtools for years now. If some developers continued to use the old tools, that’s their problem, not mine. If you are using Xtools, it is much easier to create a Universal binary, right?
We went through this twice before—once to PPC and again to OS X. Software developers like to use this as a feature and they wait until their next version comes out. I have no problem with that. For Adobe, that will be CS3 next year. I don’t know about Quark.
How much market share did Quark lose to Adobe by taking too long to get an OS X version of Quark out?