Although I don't blame RS for not compiling UBs yet, I can definitely say that it is a concern for my customers. While it's been mentioned in this thread before, I also don't think it's so much the actual technical aspect of running the apps on Intel Macs, it's more of a PR problem for us RB users.
On the big download sites (eg Versiontracker, Macupdate, etc.), there is a big marketing advantage of having your apps available as UB's - they're labeled as such, get more exposure in their "UB Ready" sections, as so on. There's also the concern that I've heard many times from potential first time customers that if my software isn't a UB yet, that we are lagging behind the curve and they question our commitment to the Mac platform. 99% of the users I have experience with don't know anything about software development, they just care about the end product and what's available right now. The end user doesn't know the reasons behind the compiler switch (and probably doesn't care much either), and the demand for UB apps is heating up pretty quickly. Many of my competitor's products have been compiled as UB's, which I think offers a fairly large marketing advantage in the end user's eye for them, and is starting to prove as a growing major drawback and disadvantage for me. I didn't attend Realworld unfortunately, so it's good to hear that Intel support is a high priority at RS. I for one would put it at my #1 spot for upgrading and hope to see it as soon as possible. I realize the major programming issues on hand for RS, and understand that this takes time, I just hope it's on the sooner end than later...hopefully long before years end (which is what seems to be the release schedule so far), or this will be a long year for some of us. Just my 2 cents... Chad Bullock _______________________________________________ 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>
