What you say has some truth to it, but the converse is also true.
Xcode will let me do certain things now (and start making money now)
that REALbasic will not and may never do. Yes, Apple is trying to
make money, but so are the rest of us. Often that means supporting
new features, eye candy, interface additions, etc... You're right
that no one likes to be at the mercy of another company, but right
now that's how it feels with REALbasic + MacIntel compiles. All I can
say to customers is the same thing REAL says: "some day". Further,
REAL also needs to make money, and as such, it feels like Win32 and
VB refugees get the largest amount of attention these days. At least
with the Apple solution, it feels like Apple user's needs are being
met. If you don't believe me, witness the umpteen third party
solutions and "solutions" for various OS X technologies that are
still not properly supported in pure RB: toolbars, irregularly-shaped
windows, composite window issues (windows have been messed up in one
way or another since RB 1.0! ), spell check, etc... I could buy the
argument that Apple has first dibs on their own technology and RB has
to play catch up, but so many things have already been implemented in
plugins or declares by third parties. That makes it seems like REAL
figures "why bother, someone already made it".
On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:38 AM, Lynn Fredricks wrote:
I have a growing fear of xCode - about its serious disadvantage for
developers from a business perspective.
CodeWarrior was from a third party, and it behooved the third party
to be as
backwards compatible as possible with older hardware configurations
-- why?
It's what customers wanted, so they could continue to ship apps
that work
with the old hardware out there. Metrowerks didn't sell the boxes
to run the
software, so what did they care?
Apple has a very clear objective. It isnt to spread love of the
Mac. It is
to make money. To make money, they have to sell as many new boxes
as they
can. If software remains generally backwards compatible, then often
a few
upgraded parts will add a year or few to the life of the use of your
computer.
Now here's xCode, which is a very nice environment. They don't make
money
off of it directly. So how is it a profit center? By enhancing the
sales of
other products Apple makes. Apple has access to its own technology
before
anyone else does (much like MS has access to Windows features to
benefit
their Office sales - or that MS can modify Windows to satisfy the
Office
group), allowing it a certain out-of-the-gate benefit for its own
software
titles it does charge for. But that isnt nearly the problem that is
created
by being able to control your minimum system requirements if you
want to
support new features, or even old features if they decide to do so.
There's
very little money for Apple to make off of supporting an old G3
iMac, unless
it is to say "sorry, wont run -- by a new iMac!"
No company (or individual) likes to be at the mercy of another.
Apple did
experience that when they turned to the PPC processor and
Metrowerks saved
their bacon. What concerns me is that in taking care of this, as a
business
owner I no longer have control over a very important aspect of
products I
sell.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
