Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,027
17,410


ThinkSecret claims that Apple will be pulling poor sales performance software items from their stores to free up space for higher profit items.

Beyond this, as of July, Apple is planning on pulling non-Universal binary software to provide customers with a more consistent software experience. Owners of the new Intel-based Macs will have much better performance with Intel native (Universal) applications than with PowerPC native applications.

Apple, however, will make an exception with Microsoft and Adobe software -- as neither company is expected to have native versions of their software available by that time.
 

Josh396

macrumors 65816
Oct 16, 2004
1,128
0
Peoria/Chicago, IL
Kind of an interesting approach I guess. I would have expected maybe a section for non universal applications but I guess this is their way of trying to force some companies to switch over to Intel much sooner.
 

ScottB

macrumors regular
Jul 13, 2005
176
0
Britain
I guess that's one of the advantages of controlling both the software and hardware. Surely there must be software that's hard to make universal other than Microsoft and Adobe products, at least that's sold in boxes.
 

raster

macrumors regular
May 15, 2005
101
0
West
Apple ought to pull all Adobe products NOW. And make it impossilbe to run the old crap on intel macs
Then Adobe will have to stop piddling around
 

-Jeff

macrumors member
Feb 18, 2005
47
0
That makes sense. Mac store customers should be able to look for a software title and just buy it knowing that it will perform at its best. There shouldn't be any opportunity to accidently buy a non-universal app and suffer a performance hit.
 

Josh396

macrumors 65816
Oct 16, 2004
1,128
0
Peoria/Chicago, IL
raster said:
Apple ought to pull all Adobe products NOW. And make it impossilbe to run the old crap on intel macs
Then Adobe will have to stop piddling around
I was thinking the same thing. It really would force Adobe to get moving along but if they're currently working on CS3 which will be Universal it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to them depending on how soon they can get it out the doors.
 

raster

macrumors regular
May 15, 2005
101
0
West
Josh396 said:
I was thinking the same thing. It really would force Adobe to get moving along but if they're currently working on CS3 which will be Universal it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to them depending on how soon they can get it out the doors.
Money Talks
Some people at Adobe might have to postpone the Summer vacations, but the whip would be crackin'
 

nicksoper

macrumors member
Mar 6, 2006
91
0
Cape Town
-Jeff said:
That makes sense. Mac store customers should be able to look for a software title and just buy it knowing that it will perform at its best. There shouldn't be any opportunity to accidently buy a non-universal app and suffer a performance hit.

I completly agree, actually to the point where they should put (especially on adobe products) big red stickers on saying this is not a universal product and will run slower than it should on an intel machine.

I'm not getting an intel mac until all the adobe/and former macromedia apps are intel opomized.

EDIT: One voice - power to the people and all :)
 

cnakeitaro

macrumors 6502
Jan 16, 2006
277
0
Virginia Beach
I do agree that poor performance software should be yanked even if it's universal, but whats the sense in yanking PPC apps when Apple who started all this can't even get their Universal apps out by the time they do this.
 

Kelmon

macrumors 6502a
Mar 28, 2005
725
0
United Kingdom
This strikes me as being somewhat premature but something definitely needs to be done to ensure that consumer confusion is mitigated as much as possible ("Hey, why does program A run like crap on my Intel iMac?"). However, given that most of the Mac world will be running PowerPC-based systems for some time to come, and that the migration of Apple's own lines of computers is far from complete, it seems a bit early to be preventing their user base from being able to access existing titles that will run great on most people's Mac.

A bit of a double-edged sword issue, I think.
 

celebrian23

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2006
1,186
0
Under the sun
The average customer doesn't want to have to search the package looking to see if the product is universal or not. I think this is a good idea.
 

Doctor Q

Administrator
Staff member
I think "more consistent software experience" is a cover phrase. If software works the same across all Mac models, with the only difference being performance, and if Apple insists on "consistent performance", then Apple should sell only one model of computer. That would certainly make the customer experience consistent. Back in reality, some applications are more processor intensive than others, so performance improvements are more important to those than to others.

A more likely reason for a universal-binary push in the retail channel is that it is another way Apple can give a nudge to software vendors who haven't gone universal yet.
 

MarcelV

macrumors 6502
Jul 12, 2004
317
0
I really disagree with most of you. This is absolutely ridiculous from Apple. First they state they will support the PPC platform for the next years, now stop selling 'PPC only' software?
If that happens, it will be the last time I bought software from Apple. There are enough alternatives where to buy the stuff these days. There is really nothing hard to build multiple departments within their store, one for universal software, one for PPC software and if they like an 'Intel' only one.
And no, it does not confuse consumers when you mark it clearly!
 

wookitus

macrumors newbie
Jan 7, 2004
25
0
raster said:
Money Talks
Some people at Adobe might have to postpone the Summer vacations, but the whip would be crackin'

Why do you guys think Adobe can just pull a universal binary Adobe Suite out of its rear? This is going to take quite some time considering putting all that work into a universal binary just to release a free patch isn't going to be very cost effective. They have to wait until the next release to make financial sense out of it.
 

512ke

macrumors 6502a
Sep 10, 2003
576
186
Adobe is Apple's competitor. Does it really make sense for Adobe to offer new versions of its programs as Universal Binaries? I mean, I'm dying for it to happen... but if I were Adobe, wouldn't just want Apple to tank?
 

tk421

macrumors 6502a
Dec 7, 2005
655
2
Los Angeles
raster said:
Apple ought to pull all Adobe products NOW. And make it impossilbe to run the old crap on intel macs
Then Adobe will have to stop piddling around

Yeah, right. I use Adobe products nearly everyday at home and at work. And they are all on PPC processors and will be for a while at least. If Apple wants to pull non-Intel software, they should at least wait until their pro-level desktop has been out for a while.
 

JW Pepper

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2002
219
5
I understand what Apple is trying to do. It doesn't want customers to buy PPC software and put it on their Intel Macs and have a bad impression of their new machines. However, I thnk it is wrong and pulling Adobe off the shelf will do Apple more damage than Adobe and will not result in products being made available any faster. In fact Adobe could hurt Apple if it abandond the platform, the same is true of MS Office.

Personally I feel a bit cheesed off at this moment because I paid for DVDSP3 and there was/is no upgrade path and if I move to an Intel Mac I have to dump the programme. It is slow enough as it is without making it worse by running it in Rosetta.
 

narco

macrumors 65816
Dec 9, 2003
1,155
0
California.
This will just ensure that the lagging developers will quickly get their software universal. After all, I don't see why it's taking them so long -- I thought Steve said it's just 2 lines of code and you can change it in 5 minutes blindfolded with over mittens on.

Fishes,
narco.
 

tk421

macrumors 6502a
Dec 7, 2005
655
2
Los Angeles
512ke said:
Adobe is Apple's competitor. Does it really make sense for Adobe to offer new versions of its programs as Universal Binaries? I mean, I'm dying for it to happen... but if I were Adobe, wouldn't just want Apple to tank?

Only occasionally. There is no Apple equivalent to Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, or Indesign. Apple makes some great products and so does Adobe. I think most creative professionals use both.
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,889
518
cnakeitaro said:
I do agree that poor performance software should be yanked even if it's universal, but whats the sense in yanking PPC apps when Apple who started all this can't even get their Universal apps out by the time they do this.

Which Apple apps won't be universal by then? Shake? Final cut studio is supposed to ship this month, are there any remaining non-universal ones after that?

I don't have any problem with Apple doing this, software developers need a good kick in the rear. Plus, they have a limited amount of shelf space, since they can't stock everything, might as well feature UB stuff.
 

Peace

Cancelled
Apr 1, 2005
19,546
4,555
Space The Only Frontier
narco said:
This will just ensure that the lagging developers will quickly get their software universal. After all, I don't see why it's taking them so long -- I thought Steve said it's just 2 lines of code and you can change it in 5 minutes blindfolded with over mittens on.

Fishes,
narco.


Thats funny..;)

My personal opinion only..Apple needs to realize that their engineers have been using XCode a lot longer than most developers.I'm sure some developers are slacking but there's a lot that are working their arses off to get UB's out.
 

suntzu

macrumors regular
Sep 20, 2003
145
0
raster said:
Apple ought to pull all Adobe products NOW. And make it impossilbe to run the old crap on intel macs
Then Adobe will have to stop piddling around

To be honest I think Adobe has been screwing around for awhile now. The reason Adobe products like Photoshop aren't going to be available for some time is that Adobe wants to rebuild the entire program to take advantage of how OS X and Vista deal with graphics.

Since OS X has been using Quartz for a while now they have no excuse for not at least building a non-universal binary that implements the features they were promising. They should have had two teams developing two versions of Photoshop like Apple had two teams working on the Interl OS X software and PPC software.

And now that Vista is delayed, Photoshop probably will too.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.