Apples Windows emulation issue

ok, this is one issue about apple windows emulation that needs to be cleared up. NOW. i have heard all of the below arguments, from various sources, countless times. and they annoy me to no end, every time i see them. so i will take this opportunity to try and end these types of posts for good. here. now. forever. feel free to add, if you wish.

first, the basic argument: if apple integrates MS windows emulation on the mac, all mac development will stop. developers will simply write windows versions, since it's all compatible. examples such as IBM's OS2 are often used.

below are examples of the same arguments (the similar quotes are grouped. my response is below them).

ok, here's the problem with that argument - if windows apps don't take full advantage of the mac hardware, most developers would make versions that DO take full advantage. developers do not want their apps to be perceived as slow. conversely, if the windows apps only run slightly slower/less efficiently than native apps, or if they run just fine, and developers STOP developing that program, then there is no issue for the user. because the apps run well. here is the key - if they DON'T work well, then most developers will fix them until they DO. no issue for apple. no issue for developers. no issue for consumers.

i get a feeling that any new forms of emulation will be FAST. but not nearly as fast as running native apps. and if it IS as fast (and smooth etc), then there is no issue (see my above reply).

OS2 did not have the vastly superior advantages that OS X has over windows. even if OSX ran mainly Windows apps, as long as it ran them well, there would be no issue. however, it is very likely that most titles WILL need to be optimized. think of the OS-9/classic situation - the apps run acceptably, but native apps run so much more nicely. developers COULD have just written for OS9, but they didn't (ignore quark). they wrote for OSX. in fact, we have many more apps now. windows apps need to run no better than legacy apps run in classic. even worse is acceptable.

hopefully, X-Code and other mac tools will fill Visual Basic and Real Basic markets. note my previous points, too.

i think that the EXPERIENCE of running a native app will be far superior to that of running a windows app in 'classic' type mode. development will not cease. as for apple's profit centers, most of apple's programs are the first of their kind, or the best, or the most seamless solution to their particular market. after all, apple uses the superiority of it's software as incentive to switch - they are ALREADY competing with those other apps.

if the windows apps run as good, or better (doubtful), then why will you care if a version is native? in this case, the emulated app is equal to, or SUPERIOR to the native app. so the customer gets a better deal. HERE is what i think will happen: if some amazing new emulation comes to the mac, it will operate at approx. 70-80% efficiency. it will show Windows apps without aqua (like in classic). there will be limited functionality with the OS and other native apps. it will be a useful feature, but using such an app will slightly dampen the user experience. they will wish that they had a native version. EXACTLY like the 'classic' situation. and, just as with classic, developers will see this as incentive to make native OSX apps. even though classic runs OK.

no, they will not stop making OS X. An OS is not defined by what apps run on it natively: the sole purpose of an OS is to act as a bridge between the user and the hardware, and to be in charge of the system. Because OSX is superior to Windows in this respect (and many more), there will not be any decrease in the OSX user base, for the simple reason that the users now will have a way to run all of the windows software, in an environment far better than windows itself. why would anyone reverse switch from mac to windows when their mac runs more software, in a better environment? therefore, people will still buy OSX. and therefore, apple will keep developing it.

i honestly think that in this situation, most developers would still make make OSX versions, for all of the reasons i mentioned above.

sorry for the long post, but i felt the need to vent my frustration. please tell me your thoughts.

 

classic uses OSX as the operarating system. most of the Windows UI elements would not exist within such an environment. although i do understand what you are saying about different 'looks' of different programs. note that classic os9 has a different (and less attractive) look than OS X, but the idea is to allow the user to use the software, even if it is a less enjoyable experience. this is why apple tried to stop OS9 aqua skins - they wanted to keep Aqua as an incentive for developers to make OS X native apps, as well as an incentive for consumers to buy native apps.

in the same way, this windows emulation environment could be seemless (no separate window, unlike Virtual PC). i mean, using Windows programs without running windows itself. you know how many windows XP programs look similar? (i mean the standard XP theme). this is part of the windows OS, as are most 'save' dialogues etc. in apple's version, this type of thing could be handled in a different way - a different 'skin' than the XP theme, along with modifications which bring Windows programs (within this environment) into step with Apple's human guidelines. many windows programs link to resources that are within the OS itself. apple could take advantage of this, and simply replace the core UI files with their own, and build "Classic Windows" around this.

 

surely there's some way to strip the functions of a program away from it's UI, and give it a new, nicer 'wrapper'. like skinning, but different. for this 'classic windows' layer, if a program wants to save etc, the actual function (saving) is sent through the mac system, and the appropriate files are used to generate the on screen appearance. as for classic being phased out, my point is that there was no major problem with running classic apps (GUI wise), it was just a slight inconvenience. and your analogy actually works - apple wants people to switch to mac versions as quick as possible (see the parallel: because OSX apps had features that classic lacked, users demanded OSX versions of their classic apps).

 

very few real programs are written in Java. Limewire does not count. web based Java scripts are far more common, and are free. the developer makes no more money after the initial job is completed (ie his client (a company etc) pays them).

so it is not in the developer's best interest to be standard compliant, as they will not get payed more.

no one pays to view html, so there is no major loss for a developer if a site is not compliant with 5% of the market.

Buymucic.com is not an example, as they made a futile effort to ban mac users. it was a symbolic gesture. they KNEW that they could not compete with iTunes on the mac, and that the mac market had no room for them anyway. so instead, they went out of their way to make their site NOT complient on macs, because it did not affect sales. this situation is very rare.

however, most developers actually SELL their software to users. Most users read reviews about an app before they shell out money. if a developer of a mac program stops making mac versions, and if the windows version is also 'buggy' on the mac, people will not buy it.

 

the issue is whether or not existing OSX apps will cease development or not. you see, every developer working on OSX apps right now sees incentive to keep developing. despite our small market share.

as for the example of apple.com etc, note that apple does not make money off people VIEWING a page, they make money off people buying products. no doubt, any company would like to see a 5% increase in sales by having all platforms website compatible, but that is an issue with the COMPANY, not the DEVELOPER. the developer does not care one bit about his client's profits - he just wants to get paid. however, in cases where an application developer works for a company (say, Adobe), it IS in the developer's best interest to make good software on all supported platforms. the company makes money PER COPY SOLD, so they would care a great deal if no mac users buy their products (if they are buggy etc). this is why the software situation is so different to web development. web site developers do not operate on a commission. they are paid hourly, or for a final product. application developers (or their companies) ARE directly affected by product sales.

note: websites with Ads are an exception to my above example, but this does not refute my point.

 

ok, why do companies like Luxology get so exited about the G5? because it is fast, and it makes their software look REALLY great. developers almost always like to show their apps running well, taking advantage of system resources. aqua. crash proof workflow. protected memory. why else would anyone bother writing apps for OSX? why not just stick with OS 9? in fact, why bother upgrading versions at all on the mac? after all, it's just "a little extra gravy for the developer." but no. developers actually began rewriting their programs. and now we have more than ever.

understand that even if the option to run windows on the mac was available, the majority of current Mac OSX developers would keep making native apps.