Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Dec 2009 22:16 UTC
Mac OS X Late last night (CET), we reported on the story that the VLC project needed more developers for the Mac version of this popular video player, or else the Mac variant may disappear. Just about every website out there reported on this issue, but it turns out it all got a bit exaggerated (on the internet? Surely you jest...). We spoke to VLC developer Pierre d'Herbemont to clarify the issue, and they've also put up a wiki page about the so-called demise of the Mac version of VLC. He also detailed what, exactly, they meant by "Apple is blocking us".
Thread beginning with comment 400261
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not Mac Enough
by bryanv on Fri 18th Dec 2009 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Not Mac Enough"
bryanv
Member since:
2005-08-26

I'd argue that being native on OS X is about as important as being native on BeOS.

Sure, you can get something else to run, but it'll suck in comparison.

Or to put it in a less gentle way:

You can put Grandma in a dress and take her to prom, but it doesn't mean she's going to get lucky.

Edited 2009-12-18 15:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Not Mac Enough
by Ed W. Cogburn on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Not Mac Enough"
Ed W. Cogburn Member since:
2009-07-24

Sure, you can get something else to run, but it'll suck in comparison.


Unless, of course, there *is* nothing else to run, because none of the relatively few available devs for your platform have yet to get around to reinventing that wheel. Or maybe the 'native' alternatives look real pretty, but suck on features...

If your and the GP's attitude is typical then no wonder VLC is having problems on the Mac side. Apparently, VLC would only be welcome on the Mac if it were a native OSX app.

Typical platform/DE elitism. No different than GTK/Qt fanboys refusing to use Qt/GTK apps just because they don't 'blend in'.

How ironic that 'that other platform' thats kicking all of our asses is controlled by a company that, for whatever reason (by accident or incompetence, you decide), never did get around to establishing a deep, consistent, universal look-act-n-feel (even this company's own apps don't all look/behave the same) and thus their platform never really fell into this elitism trap... and that is probably part of the reason *why* they are kicking our asses. They're too busy cranking out more apps to worry about how things are 'blending in'.

Me? If it works for me, and its better than the alternatives, I'll use it, no matter its origin.

Anyway, ya'll have fun reinventing all those wheels, I've got work to do...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Not Mac Enough
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Not Mac Enough"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Enjoy all the stress from your clunky, mismatched, mess of a UI.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: Not Mac Enough
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 19th Dec 2009 00:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Not Mac Enough"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Sure, you can get something else to run, but it'll suck in comparison.


Unless, of course, there *is* nothing else to run, because none of the relatively few available devs for your platform have yet to get around to reinventing that wheel. Or maybe the 'native' alternatives look real pretty, but suck on features...
"

Sure. And there's a difference between someone who prefers native app (while still being willing to put up with non-native if necessary), and someone who just automatically turns their nose up at any non-native app. The former is a reasonable position, the latter is the very definition of putting form over function.

That's how I read Bryan's post (as an example of the former sentiment), I don't really see where you're getting the platform elitism thing from.

How ironic that 'that other platform' thats kicking all of our asses is controlled by a company that, for whatever reason (by accident or incompetence, you decide), never did get around to establishing a deep, consistent, universal look-act-n-feel (even this company's own apps don't all look/behave the same) and thus their platform never really fell into this elitism trap...


That's a bit of a false dichotomy. For one, there's no shortage of GUI visual inconsistencies to be found on OS X (even among Apple's apps). And given that there are many more applications available for Windows, there's naturally going to be a greater variety of visual appearances.

and that is probably part of the reason *why* they are kicking our asses.


I doubt Microsoft's policies/philosophies on application visuals has much to do with it. If a lack of visual standards makes a platform a success, then Java GUI apps should have overtaken everyone else years ago.

Reply Parent Score: 2