What We Learn From Leopard's Delay

[peharri]

Same thing happened with OS/2 when they offered the ability to run Windows software -- practically no native software outside of IBM's own (and even then, in some cases, depending on division!) resulted in a user-base with a lot of Windows software. The logical upgrade path end up being to go to Windows, especially when you find updates of software you already own don't work quite right on your "guest API" implementation.

Quite, that really happened, it wasn't because the few months in late 1994, early 1995, when OS/2 began to seriously take off, were not enough time for commercial software developers to build a large body native software.

The same thing, of course, happened to Mac OS X. They rather stupidly included all the Mac OS 9 APIs in a compatibility box called "Classic". As a result, nobody ever developed any native Mac OS X software, and the platform just died. I wonder where it is today?

Seriously, this computer urban myth has to stop. No operating system has ever faced a lack of commercial software because it ran an opposing operating system's software well.

• OS/2 was around for a while, but it was only actually popular for a very brief period, not enough time for developers to catch up before Microsoft threatened IBM over Windows 95 and IBM stopped marketing it.
• Mac OS X and Windows NT (2000, XP, and Vista are versions of Windows NT) both supported the APIs of the operating system they replaced, and both Cocoa/Carbon, and Win32, took off as soon as the developers understood the OS was going to be around and supported for a while, and that the cleanest looking apps would be the native ones.
• GNU/Linux has had Wine for a while, including versions that can be cleanly linked in to programs statically so the end user doesn't even know they're running a Win32 application. Despite this, there's arguably as much or more software for GNU/Linux today (despite its lack of marketshare) than there is for Windows.

What actually matters to developers are:

• Does my app look good on the target platform(s)?
• What target platforms will still be around three or four years from now?
• Will I be able to distribute my software and get back what I'm expecting to get back?

Let's suppose the highly unlikely "Red box" scenario comes to fruition:

Realistically, anything (with the possible exception of games) currently being ported to Mac will continue to be. Anything currently platform specific will stay platform specific. And the new apps will be as evenly divided between the two camps as they always were. The difference will be you'll finally be able to run the platform specific camp's software.

 

[glennyboiwpg]

One last thought on this thread... and i'm surprised that no one has really talked bout this but....

By delaying leopard, their also delaying iwork, and ilife, 2 applications i really wanted to buy. So now I have 3 applications that I have been waiting for, that have been delayed. That really sux!

Last fall I wanted to buy iwork, but knowing that they usually release a new version in janurary, I thought I might as well hold off.

So now I have to look at other software options because apple is betting "the farm" on the iphone, a product that I wont' even be able to buy (cause i'm in canada) until 2008.

But don't you dare be upset about that, because you wasn't here in the "dark times" and Steve knows whats best.

 

[jonutarr]

i learned the the iPhone is my worst enemy and will never buy one


Stick to computer hardware and software apple !!

all these accessories just piss me off

 

[3282872]

A Windows exe running via the emulation of the Window API "with the help of a few Vista DLL's" isn't running "native" under OS X by any stretch of the imagination...

A "native" application would be an app compiled on OS X that directly accesses OS X system libraries.

Wow, people on Macrumors (and the internet in general) love to correct other people (especially with added sarcasm).

 

[MikeTheC]

You know, as I read this, I'm struck by a few thoughts.

I don't honestly think Leopard's October delay is going to harm Apple at all, and if anything it will probably benefit them (apart from any bug fix or other technical merits), and here's why...

If Apple had released Leopard at or around the same time that Microsoft released Vista, Apple would have had a lot more marketing to compete against.

Also, by October the public will have had ten months to sit back and evaluate Vista on it's own merits; and the pay-off for Apple on this is that they'll be able to continue their anti-Vista marketing and really hit the nail on the head for the average person out there instead of sounding like they're just being boastful and arrogant.

It's always useful to let people get a taste of crap before you let them taste the good stuff.

As viruses and other malware comes out for Vista and gets spread around (and by this I'm including remote attacks and other security compromises, etc.) Apple will really be sitting pretty. "Viruses for Vista? You bet. But still no viruses for *our* operating system. Oh, and it *still* doesn't nag the f--- out of you like Vista does."

To me, that seems like a rather effective marketing program.

Of course, I've been a Mac person since 1986, and the only other OS I'd ever seriously consider using is Linux; so make of that what you will. Nevertheless, I think it's going to go well for Apple this time around.

 

[princealfie]

it would be cool to see Leopard for my b-day (oct 7th)... so good choice of month

 

[babyj]

I reckon the main thing we learn from the delay with Leopard is that Apple are convinced that Vista isn't giving Microsoft the edge at the moment. Unless they were certain this was the case they wouldn't of allowed the delay to happen.

The delay is probably a marketing thing more than anything else, dropping Leopard in October will mean plenty of media coverage in the run up to Christmas.