Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

expanding the universe

Last night, I popped into MacRumors to see what's up. There's nothing new and exciting there: rumours about potential new iTunes content, rumours about the next hardware to get revved to MacTel, etc. I noticed that they picked up on Adobe's recent FAQ about the MacTel conversion, wherein Adobe states that they'll go Universal on their next release. I didn't think anything of it until I noticed the ratings for that particular posting [1] were overwhelmingly negative. Many of the comments in the thread were amazingly vitriolic, although there were a few voices of reason.

I just don't get the vitriol. Making a Universal Binary is less than trivial, especially when you're dealing with a codebase of an appreciable size. If the code isn't already in Xcode, then there's the additional (and significant) overhead of switching from [whatever they were using previously] to Xcode. This isn't a complaint about Xcode, it's just a fact of life when switching IDEs. If you're going to have to handle that kind of overhead porting code, not to mention that you've already started your development cycle for the next version, of course you're going to release the newest binaries on the next version.

On the other end of the spectrum, I've seen people in other forums starting to get worried about the size of the Universal Binaries, and complaining about the wasted disk space. Maybe I'm just lucky that I have a big hard drive. (Not to mention the terabyte of storage connected to my home server.) But that never even occurred to me as a concern for the transition to the MacTels.

The transition to MacTel is a big one. It's interesting to watch it play out, both in terms of the technical challenges and in terms of the users' expectations of the transition.

[1] If you're not aware, MacRumors allows users to rate postings, a simple binary positive or negative.

Published Monday, February 06, 2006 8:05 PM by nadyne
Filed under: ,

Comments

# re: expanding the universe

I really wasn't surprised by the reactions (I don't agree with the vitriol, but I can see where they're coming from).

At WWDC Jobs stood on stage and announced a very big change. Adobe bounced up on stage immediately and said (to the best of my recollection) "What took you so long?". That set up an expectation in a lot of people's minds that Adobe is making the transition a priority.

And now, a month after Apple *shipped* the first Intel Mac, Adobe puts a PDF up that says they won't be releasing a universal binary for another year. That's pretty much the opposite of the expectation people had, hence the intensely negative reaction.

Compare Adobe's message with Microsoft's: MS has consistently said they're going to support the new machines and that they're working on it. They've just asked for a bit of time since it's a lot of work. A perfectly reasonable stance that hasn't garnered any flak.

Or look at Quark, I can't remember hearing anything from Quark about the transition and they've pretty much proved 'out of sight, out of mind'.

That said, it is a lot of work, and it will take them a while. But to go from "Yes! It's about time!" to "We'll release a new version in a year or so and it'll cost full price," seems like a big change in opinion. Add to that that the black helicopter crowd drawing up conspiracy theories around Lightsource and Apeture, and the 'rumourati' are going to turn on the company.

At least, that's my opinion; I might be wrong.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:49 AM by scotfl

# re: expanding the universe

There are people who really don't get what's involved in this, for just the workflow alone, much less the actual code.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:20 AM by John C. Welch

# It's easy, just a recompile right?

When this whole announcement happened everyone seemed to get all their "it's no big deal" shtick from developers working on Cocoa applications that are in their 1st and 2nd versions of the product. This kind of transition takes time and serious effort. The fact that Apple has been working on it for 5 years before announcing it I think says something about the effort required for large software systems.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:51 PM by David Weiss

# re: expanding the universe

And now, a month after Apple *shipped* the first Intel Mac, Adobe puts a PDF up that says they won't be releasing a universal binary for another year. That's pretty much the opposite of the expectation people had, hence the intensely negative reaction.

Then people need to quit having unrealistic expectations and bogarting the Steve-induced RDF. Did Adobe sim-ship a Carbon version of Photoshop the day Mac OS X Public Beta 2- I mean, 10.0 shipped? No.

Face it- Apple has a history of handing exploding cigars like Intel to developers and thinking it's cute ("Did we say a year? Whoops, we meant 6 months. Sorry."). You sign up for developing for the platform, you realize that every so often you will be Charlie Brown, and Steve Jobs is Lucy with the football. I've seen many Apple technologies pimped to developers die, from OpenDoc to QuickDraw GX to Newton to 3 different search APIs. I had a front row seat during the near debacle of Blue/Yellow Box ("You want to stay relevant on our platform? Rewrite your millions of lines of code in Objective C and ditch the APIs we pimped to you for 15 years! It's easy!"). The fact is that Apple's culture isn't particularly oriented towards developers- that's a core corporate DNA difference from Microsoft (who, if we all recall, started out as a BASIC interpreter company), and if it comes down to it, they WILL eat your lunch for you  (ask the folks at Karelia), or maroon your technology and make you do work over again, developer inconvenience be damned. It's the price you pay for being on the platform, and having Steve Jobs be far more in tune with technological zeitgiest than Bill Gates will ever be.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:23 PM by eponymous coward

# re: expanding the universe

To be accurate, Steve never said there wouldn't be Intel machines UNTIL June 2006. He said that the transition would start BY 2006. There's a difference.

And when it comes to killing developers, MS is far more guilty. But MS DOES take FAR better care of IT than Apple.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006 9:28 PM by John C. Welch

# re: expanding the universe

I wouldn't worry about the size of Universal binaries - someone will come up with a little app to make fat binaries thin, much like the shareware programs that became available during the PPC transition.
Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:08 AM by Asam Bashir

# re: expanding the universe

I find the comments by "eponymous coward" incredibly one-sided. Much of the API chaos occured when Apple's management was in turmoil. What do you expect? Apple isn't a sentient being, it's only as good as the people running it. Things have settled down considerably since 1997.

I also don't agree that Microsoft is somehow more "oriented" towards developers. They are more than happy to compete with third party products if it suits their business goals. The only difference is that Microsoft only has to maintain status quo. Apple's ability to thrive depends on having unique apps like Final Cut Pro, iDVD and so on.

Apple doesn't indiscriminately enter new software markets. Looking back, it's clear that they only enter markets that are underserved or markets that have apps that don't exploit the full potential of Mac OS X APIs. I think that's more than reasonable if your goal is to boost Mac OS X. Apps come and go, but all developers are better off in the long run when Mac OS X's value is increased.
Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:05 PM by Scott Stevenson

# re: expanding the universe

Much of the API chaos occured when Apple's management was in turmoil. What do you expect? Apple isn't a sentient being, it's only as good as the people running it. Things have settled down considerably since 1997.

Right, which is why Adobe and Microsoft got very, very little lead time to find out about Intel.

And why we've gone from AIAT to SearchKit to Spotlight as the Official Apple Search API in the space of a few years.

Are things better? Sure- it's far better than it was a few years ago. No doubt a more successful company instead of an imploding one has helped.

As for my comment on the difference between Apple and MS on developers, I'm going to defer to Joel Spolsky here, who says it better than I can- who also points out that MS isn't as good as they once were...

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Friday, February 10, 2006 2:43 PM by eponymous coward

# re: expanding the universe

Eponymous, you've somewhat missed the point. It doesn't matter how bad or how good Apple's relationship with its developers is. This is an Adobe PR screw-up.

Steve Jobs was on stage saying "Here's the new iMacs, they make your software run 10x faster and glow in the dark! Well, except for Adobe's apps, those suck." Adobe should have come out immediately saying "Yes, they don't work perfectly on the new Macs. We're working on it, but it'll take some time. But! When we ship the Universal Binaries, not only will they be 10x faster, not only will they glow in the dark, they'll give you X-RAY VISION! They'll blow your socks off, they'll be insanely great! They'll be wicked fast! And the first Universal Binary? Lightroom 1.0!"

But they didn't. Adobe let Steve Jobs describe their software as the dog of the platform and then eventually mumbled something about getting around to it sometime.

Yes, it's a huge, complex codebase. Yes, it's a immense task. Yes, it's going to take time. But didn't say that. They didn't say anything.
Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:09 PM by scotfl

# re: expanding the universe

You mean Adobe should have pre-announced features for their next release, well before beta?

Yeah, I notice Apple doing that a lot. Except the opposite of that- more like going after people in federal court for leaks.

Say, what's the Leopard feature set? Oh, wait...Apple hasn't announced it. Maybe they won't actually ship it as a Universal Binary...

How is it Steve regularly pulling the Cone of Silence over Apple and any direction they'll be taking for future products is OK, but Adobe, which committed to the platform back in June at WWDC, has to be more forthcoming than the freakin' platform vendor? Can you say "RDF induced double standard by fanboys who don't understand the problem"?

Again...remind me...was the Carbon version of Photoshop a free upgrade? Wasn't Adobe on stage for THAT WWDC showing off a beta? So why do people think this is different?
Monday, February 13, 2006 5:46 PM by eponymous coward

# re: expanding the universe

Urggggg, stuff Adobe, how lame are they, PS 6 for WindozZZzzzzzzzzzzzee runs well fast with Wine on an Intel iMac. Yahhhhhhhh, so stuff M$ and stuff Adobe I say, jump when Steve Jobs tells you too, or go away and argue amongst yourselves whilst you rapidly loose market share to better products :P
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:23 PM by Asam Bashir

# re: expanding the universe

Obviously Asam isn't out to make others feel loved on Valentine's Day.  Le sigh.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 4:47 PM by nadyne

# re: expanding the universe

Urggggg, stuff Adobe, how lame are they, PS 6 for WindozZZzzzzzzzzzzzee runs well fast with Wine on an Intel iMac.

Do they put drugs in the water over in the UK? Seriously- they have Darwine/Intel up, but, to quote their site:

"It is being released as a DEVELOPER PREVIEW so USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! It is not yet suited for mass distribution or general user use. "

Anyone who would suggest this is anything approaching something you can run Photoshop on is either A) incredibly stupid and uninformed,  B) trolling, or C) both.

jump when Steve Jobs tells you too

Letting someone whose job it is to run some OTHER company to make decisions for yours is the penultimate of stupid.

Read this...

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html

and in the paragraph that starts "Think of the history of data access strategies to come out of Microsoft...", replace "Microsoft" with "Apple", and you've pretty much got how you do software if you're a responsible adult, as opposed to a garden-variety Macslash troll.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 5:16 PM by eponymous coward

# re: expanding the universe

http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/02/14/windows.xp.on.os.x/

that's called putting yer money where yah mouth is, that's how we Mac people solve our problems - we're waiting for various Intel Mac shipments and we'll start using them, and if your product isn't ready, we'll find several alternatives while you loose market share very rapidly - all before you even blink.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:47 PM by Asam Bashir

# re: expanding the universe

Who's losing market share?  The contest is about dual-booting.  If you want to buy a license of Windows and dual-boot your MacTel, I don't see a loss there.  
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:00 AM by nadyne

# re: expanding the universe

Asam, are you STILL whining about Virtual PC for Mactel? For heaven's sake. Give it a rest.

And for God's sake, you'd need basically need an earthquake to swallow San Jose whole to kill off Photoshop. Quark has been fumbling for years (though their latest beta version of Xpress looks pretty slick and may actually make Adobe sweat some bullets) and they STILL have considerable market share in prepress, even with InDesign slowly encroaching. Professional software apps are all about workflow and processes and making those MORE efficient...and changing to the Unviersal Binary of the Gimp or whatever isn't going to help that, in terms of retraining and workflow changes (not to mention the fact that the Gimp, while a nice piece of open-source work, ain't a Photoshop killer, any more than OpenOffice/NeoOffice is an Office killer).
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:08 AM by eponymous coward

# re: expanding the universe

This would be for switchers, who can continue to use there PS 6 and Office 2003 for Windozzzze (sorry can't type it without falling ZZzzzzzzz) which they bought with their wintel box while they get used to Pages 2.0 and Aperature. No one will actually buy a new license if they've got copies of old OS's and apps which they've already paid for.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:02 AM by Asam Bashir

# re: expanding the universe

Aperture isn't a competitor to Photoshop.  They fill very different needs.  Adobe's competitor to Aperture is Lightroom, which is currently in beta.  The Lightroom beta is a universal binary, so there went your argument about losing market share because you're not already at a universal binary.

I might suggest that if you're going to try to debate, you should have some idea of the topic that you're actually debating.  If you think that Aperture is a competitor to Photoshop, you don't have any idea what professionals actually do with these two applications.  
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 11:36 AM by nadyne

# re: expanding the universe

Photoshop professionals will of course keep using native G5 optimized code until a fat binary appears, however, I'm not talking about professionals, I'm talking about switchers from WindoZZzzze. Your average Mr and Mrs 2.5 kids who want to be able to manipulate theirLife without all the virus/spyware/adware fears and would really like to use Mac OS X instead of XP/Vista. This is the year of Mac OS X and the market loss I'm talking about is those moving from Wintel to Mactel. Being able to use their old Wintel programs without needing to pay for new expensive programs would be an important factor for them in the decision to just say no to WindoZZzze...
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:07 PM by Asam Bashir

# re: expanding the universe

You need to stick to one story here.  You've gone from losing market share for apps that aren't universal binaries the instant that new machines were shipped (even though Steve said during the keynote that no-one knew that they were going to make the new MacTels available at MWSF) to talking about switchers.  These two arguments are almost wholly unrelated.

Mr and Mrs 2.5 Kids are unlikely to be using any Adobe products, and certainly not Photoshop.  A switcher who's Joe Average User isn't going to understand the whole thing about universal binaries, so whether something is available as a universal binary isn't going to affect their decision to move to a Mac.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 1:04 PM by nadyne

# re: expanding the universe

My story is simple, Mac OS X will rule the world, there will be millions of switchers this year, and every one of those will be market share lost by WindoZZzzzeeeee in the desktop war. The momentum will be so huge that when Vista finally ships in 2007 no one is going to want it, all those evil IT department heads will have to make everything compatible with Mac OS X and not the other way round.

Got a deadline and my head hurts :((
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:01 PM by Asam Bashir

# re: expanding the universe

Perhaps your head wouldn't hurt so much if you'd give coherency a go.  You started at universal binaries, and you somehow ended up at evil IT department heads, all within six posts.  
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 4:57 PM by nadyne

# re: expanding the universe

I figured it out, actually: Asam is really Tom Yager.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/

So, Nadyne, how's that port of .NET you're collaborating on with Apple coming along? I know the Sooper Sekrit MacBU plans are to have Office for Windows run on a Mac...you can let us all in on it now...

I especially like:

Office 2004 for Mac is a set of MacOS/Carbon CodeWarrior C++ standalone executables, legacy on legacy on legacy, all deprecated by Apple. Through some seriously heavy hauling, Microsoft manages to make this feel (mostly) like OS X software.

Because, you know, it's not like Apple considers Carbon to be a peer to Cocoa as an API set to use...except the opposite of that.

So, yeah, that's my theory- Asam = Tom Yager at Infoworld....
Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:22 PM by eponymous coward

# re: expanding the universe

If that's the case, I have a very high level of respect for the editors (content, not technical) at Infoworld.  Tom Yager can string together sentences that don't make me scratch my head at the grammatical hoops that they jump through, and paragraphs that are internally consistent.  I'm not sure if he could be more wrong about anything to do with Office:Mac if he tried, but if I accept his premises, I can at least see how he gets to his conclusions.
Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:48 PM by nadyne

# re: expanding the universe

Maybe Yager's the 2.0 Turing upgrade to Asam's blog version of being an Eliza chatbot?
Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:20 PM by eponymous coward
New Comments to this post are disabled
 
Page view tracker