A note from Subband Software, former developer of MacAmp, cropped up recently: “Thanks to everyone who supported us over the years. iTunes just got to be far too big, far too free, and far too bundled with the OS.” The editorial is going on giving more examples how Apple is taking away market from the small developers by embedding such user software on OSX (e.g. iPhoto, iMovie etc). In the past we talked about it regarding the Watson application and its competition with Sherlock 3. Update: One of the two developers (the most commited one) of Chimera is thinking of dropping out: “I’m torn about what to do with Chimera. It’s obvious it will only ever be a marginal product on a even more marginal platform. AOL and Netscape have no interest in supporting it. Who aspires to be number two in an already over-commoditized space? Working my ass off for 3% just isn’t any fun any more. Safari has already won, the rest is just to see by how much.” In the meantime, Safari tops 1 million downloads.More over, Safari is not out for more than 15 days yet and it is already the No1 browser of choice among many OSX users. Now think when Apple brings Safari to stable status, add tabs and incorporate it with the OS. The rest 6 browses on OSX will have no major future (Apple’s userbase is just 2.3% leaving no major profits to the rest of the players in the “background”). Doesn’t this story sound a bit like IE, Windows and Netscape?
You can’t of course blame Apple for offering for free very nice software. But this “kind” gesture towards its users, kills many developers. And a platform, sooner or later is as good as dead when it loses its developers. Maybe this is why Apple wanted to originally charge for the 3/4 of the iLife applications? (now they only charge for the iDVD)
I’m not being a Troll by stating a fact that I have personally tested. You were critising iApps for being slow, but you don’t use them, so why are you criticising?
I used iApps and couldn’t understand how you concluded that I don’t use them. I call you a troll because I don’t think it worths to discuss with you. You have a preset mind, most probably you make up lots of stuff in your mind, make weird claims. It is not that you will ever say, oh yeah that’s right or I see your point. Your statements are mostly sort of propaganda. Eventhough Apple makes the worst software ever, you will deny it. You will most likely never accept anything said here. You are also using tactics, like “hey don’t personally attack, discuss the issue, don’t call everybodyelse a troll”. I don’t attack you, I don’t call anybody but you a troll, I discuss the issues. The fact is that, you are the one who is not serious. How can I take you seriously, when you call me a troll, but then critize me of calling you a troll when I say you are a troll. What kind of a mindset is that?
Related with the technology in IE, yes Mac IE doesn’t have certain features, but my point was that the technology is available in IE and Microsoft knows how to implement that. When I check out the technology for writing software, here is what I see. Microsoft is number one. I like open source a lot, but it is quite obvious that Microsoft has a unified solution. When you implement for Windows, you have every tool you need. With open source, you have to pick up the solutions from here and there, and when you finally build the final product, you will bump in to GPL and other licensing issues. So what happens is that, many developers develop for Microsoft, and that’s the reason why most other platforms are really quite weak compared to Windows.
iApps are not that revolutionary. What is good about them is the interface. However, some few people (mostly Mac zealots) try to boost the credit these apps really deserve. There are better apps, for example, Adobe Photoshop Album is far more better than iPhoto. It is only 50$, and if you go and find such programs, the total money you will end up paying will be cheaper because Apple itself is quite expensive. Just because some Mac zealots don’t know any PC software doesn’t mean that the only app they saw in their Macs are the only software available for the job. There are plenty of enough PC software which is better than any iApp out there. Nobody can compare iCal with Outlook. Nobody can compare iChat with MSN Messenger, or AOL Messenger. Nobody needs iSync, since it really doesn’t add much value if you don’t have a .mac account. All other synching software is already available.
<< You have a preset mind, most probably you make up lots of stuff in your mind, make weird claims.>> I hate pointing this out, but it seems you do too. If you come here to talk about the issues, then why this attack on Scott, if you come here to talk about the issues?
One eternal advantage Windows still seems to have is the backward compatibility developers can rely on to have their SW run forever. Maybe the .Net, Palladium stuff will end that. As a user I also appreciate being able to run my own & other SW that is aging. None of my Mac code has run on new Macs for yrs.
Oh come on, you’re joking right? I can currently run Macintosh software published in 1986 on my modern Mac, running the latest MacOS X on a completely different CPU architecture. Are you telling me you can run Windows software that’s seventeen years old under Windows XP? In fact, I wouldn’t doubt being able to find titles published in 1984 that still run. Do all programs still run? No. Do all programmers follow the rules? No.
Anonymous: People critique Apple’s OS usage and/or strategy, but people fail to commend them for how well they have balanced closed and open source code.
Whenever they use open source projects, they always consider “time-to-market”. In other words, there wasn’t any point for Apple to reinvent the whell when stuff like BSD and KHTML is out there.
As for software they made and released under open source, it is normally done so their competitors can adopt it faster (for example, Apple would gain a lot if Microsoft and Linux support Rendervous).
wombat: Oh come on, you’re joking right? I can currently run Macintosh software published in 1986 on my modern Mac, running the latest MacOS X on a completely different CPU architecture.
That is due to Mac OS 9’s backward compatiblity. OS X is totally different. How many apps broke when Apple released 10.2? A lot, not just those utilities. Even SDL games crashed. Besides, can you use that app from 1986 without opening OS 9 via Classic? Nope. I can run WordStar without opening Windows 9x or DOS on Windows XP.
wombat: Are you telling me you can run Windows software that’s seventeen years old under Windows XP?
If many reported WordStar working, I wouldn’t be suprised if other apps that old or even older that can work under Windows XP.
I know that Usenet news isn’t the most reliable source around, but Google’s search engine seems to indicate that WordStar for Windows was published in late 1991, not 1986. Previous versions would have been for DOS. I can easily see WordStar for DOS working (under DOS) on newer OS’s, since it doesn’t use any GUI API’s. That’s due to DOS’s backwards compatibility. I’d be curious if WordStar for Windows (3.0) actually runs under XP. Further, I’d wonder if any apps written for Windows 1.0 or 2.0 run under XP, especially since that was before overlapping windows.
Granted it’d be impressive if 68K NeXTStep apps could run under OS X, but I can’t see that there was much call for that, given that NeXT abandoned the 68K some years before Apple bought them.
I”m not familiar with the 10.1 -> 10.2 issues, but I know that Microsoft has a history of breaking API’s, even doing so to intentionally cause compatibility problems with competitors.
” Whenever they use open source projects, they always consider “time-to-market”. In other words, there wasn’t any point for Apple to reinvent the whell when stuff like BSD and KHTML is out there.”
That’s the benefit to Apple; I love it. But you discount what get’s contributed back? That’s obnoxious. Over at KDE, I actually see people complaining that Apple stuck them with a year’s worth of fixes–well, if they could have kept it a secret, maybe that would be different. But can you really suggest that KHTML isn’t going to be much, much better now that Apple needs to get Safari up to snuff. Have you done any tests between Konq and Safari? Safari is much better.
Not to mention submissions to CUPS, OpenDirectory, releasing OpenPlay, and CDSA. OpenPlay and CDSA being completely Apple and still having little support outside Apple. Could this benefit OS if they chose to use these projects? Absolutely.
“As for software they made and released under open source, it is normally done so their competitors can adopt it faster (for example, Apple would gain a lot if Microsoft and Linux support Rendervous).”
Is that a bad thing? How long has UPnP been limping along? Years! Rendezvous has a good groundswell of support now. And OS isn’t going to affect MS’s decision to adopt any of this stuff. Can Linux benefit from CDSA, OpenPlay, OpenDirectory, improved CUPS, KHTML, KJS, etc… Absolutely!
So what’s the point? Because it benefits Apple, it doesn’t benefit Open Source? Please… You just a hate-a!
P.S. Let’s note that Rendezvous is an open IETF standard that anyone can implement. The Rendezvous SDK that’s under the APSL is only useful to plug devices and services into OS X. If Linux and Windows want to support it, they go back to the IETF standards and develop their own SDK to plug devices into ZeroConf.
You didn’t follow the posts well enough. If you do, you will see that scott called me a troll, and appleforever called me an idiot. I found it your accusation quite awkard. These are two mac zealots that I know of here from the past posts, and I don’t talk to them directly, since I found it quite unnecessary. Related with issues I have enough posts related with issues here if you haven’t noticed them yet. Please examine the situation well enough before accusing someone, unless you will be in the same position as scott and appleforever.
There are people who claim that an editor or this site is anti-Apple. I don’t see any reason for anybody here to argue with them that that’s really not the case. We don’t have time to deal with these type of stupid stuff.
Safari is the browser of choice among OS X users only because Apple released it, and Mac die hard fanatics will take any crap from Apple be it good or bad. I still like Safari, but it’s not better than Chimera at all. I don’t like to see the Chimera team falling apart when it’s such a good browser. If there is one really good product that came out of the Mozilla project, that’s Chimera. The rest I don’t care about.
Besides tabs, one of my favorite features in Chimera is that when you click on the maximize button, it elegantly stretches the window to take all the available space minus the menu bar and the dock, and usually it accurately calculates the dock size. Mac apps have that stupid behaviour of simple changing size when you click the maximize button, both in OS X and 9.
I hope the Chimera people stays there fighting for it.
Sebastian
Have you done any tests between Konq and Safari? Safari is much better.
Don’t think so. Safari’s version of KHTML is certainly faster than the mainline Konqueror version, but is a little behind in rendering ability. Some things got broken in the effort to make KHTML faster, and the focus of development on the two branches has been different since they diverged a year ago – the Konqueror developers have concentrated more on rendering bugfixes, the Safari team on speeding things up.
As an example, the famous ComplexSpiral CSS demo is slightly broken in Safari, but works perfectly in Konqueror. Multiple stylesheet support is not right in Safari, but works fine in Konqueror. XML+CSS rendering is not working properly in Safari, but works in Konqueror. Much faster and more IE-compliant table rendering is in Konqueror, but has only just been incorporated into Safari and hasn’t seen the light of day yet.
Hopefully there will soon be a common codebase for the two fairly soon so that these issues are null and void – you will be using exactly the same rendering engine whether you use Konqueror or Safari, but even as things are now, the differences are slight.
P.S. I haven’t heard any bitching about Apple having to keep their changes secret for a year – sure there were one or two comments that they wished it hadn’t had to be that way, but the KHTML developers are used to developing everything out in the open, and still they understood the circumstances and welcomed Apple’s contributions.
> But Microsoft didn’t get in trouble.
Yes they did. The company image’s got damaged. Now even housewives know that MS is an evil company.
Picasa is obviously an iPhoto copy (right down to the placement of the control that sizes the thumbnails!), and it looks like they did a really good job. Here’s why iPhoto is still better:
(1) iPhoto is free. Picasa is $30. And then they will hit you up every year for an upgrade fee of $30, I guarantee you (just like Quicken, Delorme and the rest of them).
(2) With iPhoto, there is no need to find out about the program. Or select among multiple programs, to find one that really works as advertised. Total PC beginners are often remarkably ignorant about where to find 3 party apps. Even if they find them, how do they choose one? On the PC, there’s a bewildering array of software choices for every category including photo editing/mgmt. Free stuff comes on the CD with the camera. Maybe we should use that? There’s a bunch more on cnet. And at bestbuy. How do you evaluate all this and pick the best one? Takes time and time is money. Also, you can make a bad choice and then have to switch – more time wasted. Compare with iPhoto – it comes right in the box, no installation, no time. Just use it and go.
(3) iPhoto 2.0 is now integrated with apple’s music, dvd burning and movie software (which can make excellent use of photos actually). You know, iTunes, iMovie, iDVD. all of which are excellent programs. No more exporting and importing required.
(4) the apple programs operate similarly – once you learn how to make a playlist in iTunes, it’s very intuitive to make albums in iPhoto, calendars in iCal, address groups in Address book, etc.
(5) network effects – because iPhoto is so great and “everyone” on the mac is using it, there’s a lot of info on the net about how to use it, there’s books, there’s people writing extensions to it, etc. On the PC side, Picasa is still only going to have a small percent of the windows market, and there will be a plethora of other products, diminishing the network effects. For example, Picasa may be great, but Adobe also now has an iPhoto copy and just by virtue of its market presence, name and deals with camera makers who put the Adobe program on the driver CD, could stall Picasa from getting as much market share as it deserves.
There’s also network effects on iMovie and iTunes and iDVD, which iPhoto benefits from because it is integrated with them.
(6) iPhoto has better online integration (with .mac). Put a webpage up, announce it to friends and family with an email (from within iPhoto). Benefits #3 and #6 also work together. Create a movie using iPhoto-stored and edited stills in iMovie, then send it up to .Mac.
(6) superior tech support. Tech support with these cheap (sub $50) windows programs is notoriously bad or will cost you $$ – because of high labor costs (providing real tech support for free rapidly removes any profit on the program). In contrast, with Apple, just buy a mac and get Applecare. They will answer any question regarding an Apple product for 3 years, including iPhoto. And they won’t play the blame game (“it’s MS, Dell’s, Canon’s fault”). You have one-stop support shopping.
(7) superior and free training. 85 million people live within 15 miles of an Apple store. They have free iPhoto classes. The other night, I stopped in my local store (5 minutes from my house!) and five people were getting hands on instruction in iPhoto. Try that with Picasa.
(8) there still appears to be missing features in Picasa – book creation among them. Also, you still have to install the camera drivers I assume. Apple makes sure these are built-in to OS X.
(9) still fewer chances for glitches with iPhoto. Picasa may be the best written program in the world. But there’s still multiple other people and products involved – MS’s windows, someone else’s email program. You have to hope it works together. Most of the time it probably does. But sometimes it won’t. That “sometimes” is far less often on the mac because one company is making the whole shebang.
There’s another problem with the PC world always having to copy Apple. It’s called always being behind. As you copy, Apple moves onto the next thing. Don’t you get tired of always being behind?
I was used to winamp 2.x back in my win98 days, and when I tried winamp 3.x at a friend’s pc… ICK! It just sucked big time! No more plugins, no more mp3 to wav, bloated interface, etc. etc.
Maybe that’s the reason why winamp downloads dropped.
Straight from the front page of MacAmp’s website.
Subband Software, Inc has come to the end of its journey. Unfortunately, our products will no longer be updated or supported.[i]
[i]Thank you to everyone, and keep supporting shareware!
I don’t support shareware. Its too risky. This is why open source is the better choice. If MacAmp were open source, it would live on even if the original developer decided not to continue. Then iTunes would have some competition.
“Your statements are mostly sort of propaganda.’
Sergio, not at all, just my humble opinion, I just take offence at being called Troll, fool, closed minded because I have an opinion.
“These are two mac zealots that I know of here”
I’ve only posted here once before about Mac, I don’t think that makes me a zealot (or if I am it happened when I wasn’t looking!). I just think that they deserve fair comment. As I’ve said before I’m an IT manager, and I run a 100% PC windows-based organisation, which I think entiltles me to a point of view on MS, licensing etc (I have a Mac & PC at home).
“It is not that you will ever say, oh yeah that’s right or I see your point.”
Apart from the last post where I agreed with Eugenia? If you look at the posts you’ll find I often agree. My comment on you was throwaway “slow apps” comment, which in my experience is not justified.Tell you what, lay off the Troll comments and I will too !
🙂
Anonymous: But you discount what get’s contributed back? That’s obnoxious. Over at KDE, I actually see people complaining that Apple stuck them with a year’s worth of fixes–well, if they could have kept it a secret, maybe that would be different.
It makes little difference to Apple if they didn’t contribute back KHTML or not, because KHTML is under the LGPL which means legally it is meant to be always open source. Plus, it also benefits Apple that KDE uses these fixes and merge them into KHTML’s main tree because KHTML developers can produce more things that would be benefitial to Apple.
You don’t think what Apple contribute back code to open source projects, like KDE and FreeBSD, due to the kindness of their hearts? You’ve gotta be kidding.
Anonymous: Not to mention submissions to CUPS, OpenDirectory, releasing OpenPlay, and CDSA.
The prior two still doesn’t contradict my first senario, and the same goes to OpenPlay and CDSA. Would Apple benefit with other parties, especially Linux, and even more especially Windows adopt OpenPlay and CDSA? hell yeah!
Anonymous: Is that a bad thing?
Never said it was. What I was saying that Apple’s releasing of it wasn’t a act of charity, rather one of business decission.
Anonymous: So what’s the point? Because it benefits Apple, it doesn’t benefit Open Source? Please… You just a hate-a!
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Let me rephrase to you. In the same way Microsoft’s donation of software to India wasn’t sincere but rather one based on business, the same here. I’m just against giving Apple a sainthood because of their great acts of “charity”.
umf: Yes they did. The company image’s got damaged. Now even housewives know that MS is an evil company.
Housewifes in Malawi believe vampires exist merely because that’s what the press have been telling for ages. When I explain things to anyone who is relatively not familar with the case and only know what the press tells them, their view on Microsoft change either for the worse or for the good, depending on their political leanings (leftist or rightist or centralist).
appleforever: Picasa is obviously an iPhoto copy (right down to the placement of the control that sizes the thumbnails!), and it looks like they did a really good job. Here’s why iPhoto is still better:
Through my brief usage of Picasa, I found its UI to be very different from iPhoto in many many ways. But frankly, so?
appleforever: (1) iPhoto is free.
Only if you buy a really expensive new Mac. Or else, it is $50 with iMovie, iDVD and iTunes. So much for free.
appleforever: (2) With iPhoto, there is no need to find out about the program. [blah blah blah]
Still doesn’t make iPhoto better technically. I never say Picasa was better in terms of market audience, did I?
appleforever: (3) iPhoto 2.0 is now integrated with apple’s music, dvd burning and movie software (which can make excellent use of photos actually).
I actually found the integration quite lame. I think it is much easier opening seperate apps in Windows and doing it as oppose of integrating it ala iLife. Besides, MS’s latest Plus! does exactly this.
appleforever: (4) the apple programs operate similarly
I had no trouble making albums in Picasa. Neither did my mother, albeit my mother didn’t really see any need of such a app.
appleforever: (5) network effects [blah blah blah]
Then shoudln’t we all use Windows because it has a greater network effect? Actually, I found a lot of materials concerning Picasa.
Even TechTV have some articles over it.
appleforever: (6) iPhoto has better online integration (with .mac).
At this moment i realize you never actually used Picasa before.
appleforever: (6) superior tech support.
Until recently, Apple didn’t provide tech support for iPhoto, except free materials over the web. Besides, how would you know whether Picasa’s support is worse or better?
appleforever: (7) superior and free training.
If my mother, of all people, can figure out both iPhoto and Picasa, I see little use of this.
appleforever: (8) there still appears to be missing features in Picasa
Confirmed that you never used Picasa before. Albeit you can’t send the book straight from the app to printing, it matters little to a lot of people because they have their own printing services.
appleforever: (9) still fewer chances for glitches with iPhoto
You mention chances. Yet I found a lot more glithces with iPhoto, especially with 1.0. But none with Picasa.
And I used Picasa more, in hours, than iPhoto.
Besides, more than half of your points have little to do with the product but rather it’s market presence.
appleforever: There’s another problem with the PC world always having to copy Apple. It’s called always being behind. As you copy, Apple moves onto the next thing. Don’t you get tired of always being behind?
Picasa brought about a lot of interesting ideas that 2.0 copied, aren’t you tired of being behind? What about WMP9? Brought a lot of ideas that QuickTime is still struggling to implement? Or Outlook Express vs. Mail.app (except in virus and spam).
IPhoto 2 is going to be a free download, not $49 unless you want to buy iLife on a CD.
Also, I found this on Picasa’s website:
Q. Can I install my purchased copy of Picasa on more than one computer?
A. According to our end user license agreement you may only install Picasa on one computer at a time. If you would like to install it on more than one computer, you would need to purchase another serial number. The end-user license agreement is displayed when you install Picasa. You must agree to the license agreement in order to proceed with the installation.
You can download as many copies of iPhoto 2 for free as you want.
You have no answer to the out-of-box iPhoto advantage. This is actually the biggest advantage for users.
Similar operation of apple programs – yes, but now that your mom learned how to make albums in Picasa, can she make a playlist in windows media player the same way, or a group of addresses the same way?
Windows the OS does have greater network effects. However, when it comes to this application — ie doing actual work with photos — the mac solution has greater network effects.
Supposed integration in Microsoft Plus Digital Media Edition – First of all, I have heard that these apps are just a collection in a box, not that the MS movie or photo app can draw on each other, like in the new iPhoto and iMovie. But even if they can, Picasa is not part of this. Picasa seems to be the best iPhoto equivalent on the PC. Thus, you have to use the inferior MS photo product in the Plus package in order to get the “integration” (which I have not heard even exists).
I never said I used Picasa. But the creators of Picasa are not running an online service like apple. At least there is no sign of one at their website. So I don’t see how the program can connect to an online service and set up a slideshow or movie or webpage of photos as easily as iPhoto/iMovie and .mac. — literally in one click. Also I saw no reference to these features on Picasa’s website. Please explain how this is done in Picasa.
Tech support – all I know is that on apple products, you call them and they figure out the problem. On most cheap apps like Picasa, free phone support is not available. And every time I go to an ISV for tech support over email, I am dissatisfied and frustrated and it’s slow. That bad experience never happens with apple tech support on the phone. And they won’t tell you to call MS or dell or someone else. Why should I take a chance on Picasa? Experience tells me to skip it and use the apple solution which is nearly always problem free or if there’s a problem, I know for sure I will get good tech support.
by the way, even without applecare, you can go to the local apple store and get some free support.
Free iPhoto classes – you said your mom has no need for a Picasa or iPhoto. Therefore, she really isn’t using the app and has no need for knowing how to use it well and fully. Plus, your mom isn’t the whole world. My sister is excited about iPhoto and taking classes. She really needs them, believe me. No free classes available for Picasa
A book – can you press a button in the program and order a book that is shipped to you with Picasa? Let me know.
Your experience with glitches on iPHoto versus Picasa is just the experience of one user. A particular user can have no or lots of glitches. What matters is what happens across a wide number of users. I can’t prove there will be more glitches with Picasa and windows than the super integrated experience on the mac where one company made the hardware, the OS, the apps (all of the integrated ones) and the integrated online service. However, common sense tells you this will be so and it’s consistent with what people experience. But I can’t prove it. there’s no statistics, you know.
Picasa only came out in Sept 2002. iPhoto 2 was shown at Macworld on Jan. 7, 2003. Apple was certainly already working on (if not already written) the new features in iPhoto 2 before Picasa was even released. Also, the main new feature in iPhoto 2 is the iTunes, iMovie, iDVD integration, which Picasa totally lacks.
The other new features in iPhoto are just image editing enhancements that exist in a lot of programs (no innovation in Picasa in putting these in) — Apple probably left them out of version 1 of iPhoto only to not piss off Adobe. Now they are working them in slowing. It’s politics, no slow innovation.
You’re right that Quicktime is having to catch up with the superior DRM in WMedia. MS is helping us out so much by being the “leader” here.
We always had Outlook Express prior to Apple mail so we were never “behind” Now we’re ahead. Apple mail is better integrated with the Apple chat and web browser.
From a recent fortune article on Apple:
“While there are many video editors, photo managers, and MP3 jukeboxes for Windows PCs, and they continue to improve, iLife keeps the Mac comfortably ahead in terms of features and, especially, ease of use.”
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,409285,0…