What would you like to see Apple do to better support its independent developer community? Or are they doing just fine?
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 47 of 47.

• relevant slashdot thread ('Casady & Greene Says "Goodnight"')
  2003-07-03 09:59:41  joccam [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/01/1335251&mode=nested&tid=185&threshold=5

• But we can't forget VB
  2003-07-02 13:34:27  sobolak [Reply | View]
  
  
  Apple should be commended for making their tools pleasant and easy to use. This encourages development. I was very pleased when I could download the toolset for free, instead of forking over $$$ for Visual Studio.
  
  This discussion so far has largely focused on consumer software. I think one big factor holding back adoption of Unix (incl. OSX) is the lack of Visual Basic. There is a HUGE amount of code out there in VB, especially in businesses. Having Office for the Mac is great, but if it can't run your company's set of macros or add-ins, it'll be of limited use.
• But we can't forget VB
  2003-08-04 16:21:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  True, VB provides alot for Wintel developers, but couldn't we argue that REALbasic does the same? See www.realbasic.com if you don't know what I'm referring to.
  
  I would argue that RB meets alot of what potential switch VB developers would be looking for in terms of ease of use, general power and more. Not as much in terms of the large project development side, but it seems to be getting there.
  
  Cheers!

• Fresh Tools, Choices Abound for OS X Developers
  2003-07-02 09:17:18  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  Let me refer you to a VERY detailed article in the Software Development Times on this topic of the development environment and tools for the Mac OS X platform. I'm tempted to paste its text here, but in light of copyright issues, I supply only the URL. I highly recommend it.
  
  http://sdtimes.com/news/081/special1.htm

• Seeding
  2003-07-02 08:31:51  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Apple attitude towards its independent software developers is OK in <general>.
  
  But look at this: Mr.Jobs (who is Apple CEO) opened his keynote on WWDC2003 with the statement that there are over 300,000 REGISTERED Apple developers out there, and at the same time only somewhat over ONE percent of them (who attended the conference) would get their hands on the Panther (which is the next MAJOR Release of Mac OS X etc etc) at this time.
  
  That fact alone shows to me that Apple doesn't trust (or/and is suspicious towards) its REGISTERED developers.
  Except that, it is a HUGE missed opportunity on part of Apple to get bugs reports etc from the other 99% of developers. Now check out eBay ( for Mac OS X Panther) to see for yourself how the market reacted to that.
  
• Incorrect info!
  2003-07-18 10:22:28  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Not true: the beta Panther CD's are being shipped to all registered develepors worldwide. Delivery expected within 3 to 10 days worldwide
• Incorrect info!
  2004-05-04 15:32:03  m3talsmith [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's a shame I didn't recieve one of these. Especially since I've been a developer since pre Jagaur.

• What's missing: J2ME
  2003-07-02 06:57:13  elnor [Reply | View]
  
  
  Apple is focusing on "iLife" and all of the digital assets (pictures, music, audio) that it entails. It has also taken wireless technology into the Mac OS X fold. What's missing for Mac developers is a way to record, interact with, and manipulate all of this data on the devices that will be creating it (cellcams and PDAs in particular).
  
  I'd like to see Apple support J2ME development as well as they support J2SE and WiFi/Bluetooth tech.
  
  For more on what's missing and how Apple might go about addressing the issue, please see my related java.net blog entry, "Hey Apple, Got J2ME?".
  
  Thanks for starting the discussion, Tim.
  Bill Day

• Missing the Issue
  2003-07-01 08:58:57  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Almost all of the comments above have missed the core issue regarding Apple's developer relations, not the least of which would be the plethora of comments on market share and capitalism by people who really ought to either take an Economics course or go back and read their textbooks again.
  
  Windows didn't become a popular development platform after Windows had significant market share. Rather the market share came about in large part because Windows was a popular development platform.
  
  There are two things Windows has that even Mac OS X doesn't have, at least yet. The first is a flexible set of APIs that allows me to do things the way I want to. Unicode text imaging is a good example. On Windows, a developer can take as much, or as little, control over the layout of a line of text as she wants. On the Mac, you either eat the whole ATSUI pie, or you eat none of it. Another example is Apple's current preference fo Cocoa. If you want to have access to the new user-defined font groupings in Panther, you have to use the Cocoa font panel. (Well, you could write code that parses the pref files yourself, but that stands a pretty good chance of being broken at the next software update.)
  
  The second thing developers want is a flexible, yet efficient, set of tools. Microsoft's Visual C/C++ doesn't generate the fastest code in the world, but it's acceptable given the ease with which one can use Visual Studio to develop new code. Xcode, on the other hand, appears to be a very fast way to write very slow code. And let's not even get started on Objective-C.
  
  The problem isn't so much a matter of opportunity costs as it is a matter of absolute costs. It just plain costs more to develop new software for the Mac than it does to develop new software for Windows. Apple seems to understand this to a point, but they've not done enough to understand what software developers want in terms of tools and flexible APIs. Until Apple figures this out, people writing software for the Mac will be people who care about the platform as much as they care about writing good software that people will use. That ends up being a relatively small part of the developer community.
• Missing the Issue Indeed
  2003-07-01 20:00:48  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  You say, "Windows didn't become a popular development platform after Windows had significant market share. Rather the market share came about in large part because Windows was a popular development platform."
  
  Let me remind you that DOS was actually a popular development platform as well -- with its freewheeling cowboy days of coding directly to hardware and the like. At that time (in the early days of the Mac platform) Apple offered a much more structured development environment complete with tools and widgets (what the Mac then called the "toolbox") unheard of on the PC; but developers accustomed to the "anything goes" PC world rebelled against that -- and indeed they rebelled against Windows in the beginning for the same reason.
  
  So well before Windows came on the scene, and even in the few years thereafter, the PC (running DOS) ALREADY had greater market penetration. Thus it was never about such things as superior API's. Besides, the Mac had a de facto API which the DOS programmers found restrictive and confining.
  
  Why then did developers go with the PC? Developers were lured to that platform foremost for two reasons: First, while more mature software engineers were using Cobal on mainframes and BLISS on Vaxes, the PC programmers then were young hackers at heart who didn't really understand software development methodology and who resented the Mac as a "closed" system. Second, they were lured by the bigger market which the PC platform represented -- yes, even then.
  
  Years later, when the Mac opened its architecture to some degree and was first to reach a 32-bit platform, few developers were swayed because the motivations above still prevailed.
  
  I don't suggest that OS X is an ideal development platform -- it has some maturing yet to do in this regard. However, of those developers fluent in both Objective C and C++, most I know prefer the former over the latter. And I know a number of programmers who have had it up to here with the Windows registry and consider any Unix-based OS to be a much more open and pliable development platform than Windows ever could dream of being.
  
  Also, just as we never hear much anymore about Active X or other MS-developed technologies, today Microsoft itself downplays C++ in favor of its own .Net (which is an adulteration of Sun's Java). Speaking of which, the OS X platform has robust support of Java, and I expect Apple soon to move to version 1.4.2 now that Sun has released it a few days ago.
  
  In short, I don't find your reasoning very convincing -- because I think it fails to take into account that the PC was the dominant development platform LONG before Microsoft took the DEC Mica project and christened it "NT" and long before Gates knew what an API was.
• Missing the Issue Indeed
  2003-07-03 07:32:18  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  First, the claim that Windows became a popular target platform because DOS was a popular platform before it is patently absurd. The two represent completely different programming paradigms. DOS programmers could have just as easily moved to programming the Mac as the could have moved to programming Windows. Indeed, as you point out, DOS programmers were as reluctant to start coding for Windows as they were to start coding for the Mac. Windows doesn't gain all that much by virtue of having been written to run on top of DOS. People still had to buy new hardware to start writing code for Windows.
  
  Second, the discussion isn't about which platform is "surperior" in some way or another. It's about whether or not Apple have figured out what developers want. The fact that Apple chose Unix as the underpinnings for OS X isn't much of an indication that they have figured this out given that much of the design of Aqua still reflects much the old Apple attitude about their way or the "wrong" way to do things. Nor, for that matter, does the fact that OS X's support for Java is better than Windows' support give any more of an indication that Apple have figured this out.
  
  And, no, I haven't accounted for the fact that the PC, indeed Windows, was the dominant target platform long before David Cutler started making foot-sized holes in the walls of Building 8. I don't quite see how it would be necessary for me to do so in order to substantiate the point.
• Missing the Issue Indeed
  2003-07-01 20:36:27  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Bravo, jmincey! Excellent reply to Mr.Economy.
  
  It seems Apple it doing everything right with respect to developers: free access to up to date documentation, free developer tools, SDKs, etc.
  
  Give it a time. When critical mass of development achieved and Mac OS X matures, it will become a platform of choice on desktop, no question about it.
  
• Missing the Issue Indeed
  2003-07-03 07:41:58  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Apple claim 300,000 registered developers. One wonders what would be a "critical mass of development".
  
  One also wonders what would constitute "maturity" with respect to OS X. Would that, perhaps, have to do with the broad range and flexibility of the APIs one can use to accomplish what one wants from the development point of view? Has anyone actually tried to use Quartz for text imaging?
  
  I find your article wanting for lack of specificity. And, if you really wanted to be insulting, the correct term would be "Mr. Economist."
• Missing the Issue Indeed
  2003-07-03 10:53:29  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Sorry man I didn't mean to insult you. Please forgive me.
  
  About the critical mass and maturity:
  Mac OS X still is catching up with others: they just released Java 1.4, X11 is still coming, Cocoa is strong but still improving, Carbon has been having bugs worked out etc
  If you followed those developments from let's say 2000, you'd see how much Mac OSX changed.
  By critical mass I mean both the coverage of applications range and absolutely killer application (good example for now would be a Clicker)
  
  Good day, man and Peace!
  

• Market Share
  2003-06-30 13:44:19  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  
  Market share IS important. Apple needs to grow the base of machines that people are going to buy software for...
  
  If you are a developer, and it's a choice between Windows, Linux, and Mac, some of the reasoning may go like this:
  
  * Windows - well, I can't stand MS, but the hardware is ubiquitous, everyone has the OS, and the software is literally everywhere. I can grab a copy of CodeWarrior, and get going for not too much money...
  
  * Linux - well, it's free, and the hardware is ubiquitous and cheap, and there's a great developer community.. I may not make any money selling my product, but I'll get to go to some really great parties. Maybe I can do well at consulting on it. Maybe I'll write something fantastic, and then I can do a book on it :-)
  
  * Mac - well, it's sexy. It's Unix++ The hardware is pricey, and even with a $3000+ investment in ADC, I'm not getting much of a price break. My product will show up in some stores, but I better be really good at the download sales (a la OmniGroup, AquaMinds, and Circus Ponies) - I'm taking a big risk to develop something on a great platform that has a very small market share. Gosh, I believe, but I gotta eat too. Can't Apple sell a LOT more of these somehow, so that I have many more potential customers? Oh, do I go with my heart, or my head?
  
  Daniel Smith
  
• Market Share
  2003-07-31 00:16:31  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Since Daniel references us (Circus Ponies) in such a complimentary manner I could not help but chime in with my two cents about the attractiveness of developing a product for the Mac market.
  
  There is another aspect to the market share discussion that tends to get overlooked, and that is the signal-to-noise ratio in each of these markets. The noise level in both the Windows and Linux markets is deafening. There may be vast numbers of users in these markets, but creating mind share is near-impossible on a bootstrap budget.
  
  In addition, in the Mac market, where the majority of users really "get it" about great software, your cost-per-meaningful lead is much lower, especially if you have a great product. As Paul Hawken says, what consumers really want is not actually that complicated a sell. Customers are people with problems. In our case, that problem amounts to the difficulty of staying organized while drinking from the digital fire hose. Give people a great solution to their problem and listen to their input and they will bend over backwards to help you to build a market for your product -- and contribute great product ideas in the process. Word of mouth is still possible in the Mac market.
  
  As far as I am concerned, Apple's #1 job is to build a healthy and thriving market for us to sell into. The customers who buy into the expensive hardware are committed and passionate and are not averse to improving their experience with new software products that get great reviews and offer value for money.
  
  I have learned that you can succeed only if you are fearless of failure. The Mac market's receptivity to new ideas outweighs its size as a platform for building a software business. All the rest is just commentary and scaling your business model to fit what the market can bear. We have no need to be the size of General Motors.
  
  Elizabeth Statmore
  Circus Ponies Software
  
  http://circusponies.com
• Market Share
  2003-07-01 02:44:52  senjaz [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hmm, $900 (10% discount from ADC) for an iBook, $500 for Select membership to ADC. So you don't need to spend $3000 to get into Mac development.
  
  I know PowerBooks are sexy, but if you develop an app to run with reasonable performance on your iBook then you guarantee that everyone else will be able to run it well.
• Market Share
  2003-06-30 15:36:41  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  You are right that market share is important, but that's the last thing you are right about. In your characterization of the three platforms, you are not remotely evenhanded. So to balance your view, I offer my own:
  
  1. A developer can join the legions of those who create products under the Windows platform -- and unless he defines a whole new genre of software unto itself -- he can look forward to utter anonymity by offering one product among hundreds or thousands of competing products.
  
  2. A developer can join the Linux geek community and code server applets, shell utilities, or scripts in Python, Perl, Ruby, and PHP and the like -- and if he never wants a product to get into the hands of an actual CONSUMER -- he can stay in his geek heaven.
  
  3. A developer can join the ranks of those who develop for the Macintosh -- a platform which combines the best of all worlds: (1) a consumer desktop platform with an established and dedicated installed base, (2) Unix-based underpinnings for the hacker in his soul with robust support for Java, (3) the education market where -- despite some declines -- Apple remains very strong, (4) power users, and (5) loyal customers in the Mac's strong niches of music, graphics, video, and prepress. In this environment a developer can truly distinguish himself without getting lost amid thousands of other competitors. Here a developer can reach multiple markets -- home consumer, home office, small business, education, and corporate -- as well as focusing on both client and server applications.
  
  See how easy it is to skew the landscape? Anyone can tilt things to his own point of view. I normally wouldn't describe a developer's options in such biased terms as I have done above, but I do so here for purposes of making a larger point.
  
  Jeff Mincey

• why the emphasis on market share?
  2003-06-30 09:57:42  punkish [Reply | View]
  
  
  this really confuses me. First, who calculates the market share? Second, how do they do it? Do they include computers sold by only the large US retailers? Or, are all the computer manufactures in the world, including the grey-market manufactures and home-hobby kit builders included?
  
  Apple not selling enough computers is not necessarily the reason for low market share. The denominator increasing at a faster rate than the numerator is... Apple Computer is the only one that sells Apple computers. The Windows OS is installed on every x86 computer manufactured by HP, Dell, Gateway as well as sun, moon and stars, and ma and pa, and bill and larry's computer shop.
  
  What matters is that Apple is selling an increasing absolute number of computers. Every Apple computer is an opportunity for a new license for a software. Apple is doing its job. Apple is making a profit (the economic downturn notwithstanding), and Apple is successfully innovating, be it from within, or from absorbing ideas from the outside.
  
  I purchased Apple shares at about $14 and change a couple of years ago... they are now at $19+ because enough shareholders thought the stock's sum of future earnings stream are worth more than it is selling for.
  
  I fail to understand the over-emphasis on market share as an argument to proclaim Apple is going nowhere.
  
  Yes, treading on developers, small or large, toes is a delicate balance. Make the OS too poor and you kill yourself even though the developers have a larger set of problems to address with new applications. Make the OS richer by increasing and improving its capabilities, and you sell more machines and OS copies, but you can possibly end up swallowing a developer's bread and butter. I am sure Apple has done wrong, but a lot less than many other vendors (even non-OS manufacturing software vendors always play this game with their consulting partners). On its part, Apple gives away a rather fine set of developer's tools for free (Visual Studio on Win is close to a $1000 or even more).
  
  Oh well, I am glad someone else is the CEO not me. Even though he makes a lot more in a day than I ever will in many lifetimes, his headaches are a lot more as well.
  
  Back to my Macintosh.

• My thoughts
  2003-06-30 09:35:12  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I wrote them down almost immediately after the keynote in my blog:
  
  http://www.bbrown.info/blogs/bblog/2003_06_22_diamonds.cfm#105641542114957280

• Re-vamp Apple Developer rules and prices
  2003-06-30 07:35:15  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Small developers need hardware price breaks. Apple used to make this much easier.., but a a few years ago jumped the rate to be a hardware-discounted developer. I couldn't afford it any longer, and I definitely develop less on Macs now and have older equipment.
  
  Just imagine a truly accessable teen developer program that let our young geniuses get great Mac hardware for a discount... that would start ripples that would grow into tsunami.

• Things could be made eaiser for budding Mac developers...
  2003-06-30 06:25:01  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I think one of the problems in being a small, early stage Mac developer is that a lot of us have to resort to doing things in our "free" time, while still working another job to pay the bills. There are some things that could help matters, but it's still VERY tough to generate enough revenue to do Mac development full time (at least from my experience).
  
  What could help? Well Apple tapping into a bit of their $4 billion to seed "really great ideas" might help. Think about it, distributing $10 million a year probably wouldn't make a noticable dent in Apple's cash, but it could allow a bunch of Mac developers to break their chains and do their Mac software full time.
  
  Another thing Apple could certainly do to help small developers is leverage the OS X downloads site. Currently, the "New This Week" section often goes for weeks without an update, and lately the software they have been showcasing has not necessarily been of the highest quality. Even so, getting a listing there can lead to THOUSANDS of downloads. If they could make it a more dynamic site, and add an ecommerce piece, it might make it easier for users to find, download and but the software of small developers.
  
  It's a big leap of faith to say that you are only going to do Mac OS X development, especially when the Windows market is so much larger. Anything that could make the decision easier would certainly help.

• I agree with the Devleoper
  2003-06-30 00:59:23  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  It pains me to read dis-information.
  When it comes down to bad info about the Mac or Apple, it bugs me, too.
  The thing is the innovations which made the Mac truly over the top to me mostly came from Apple cribbing smaller shareware or smaller software developers.
  Case in point: Contextual Menus.
  When people rant and rave about Apple's lack of a multi-button mouse, invariably the notion of right-clicking to bring up a menu enters the conversation. The thing is Microsoft didn't invent that, and, Apple didn't copy MS when they introduced the feature in OS 8. They both ripped off another software company.
  Apple continues to do this practice...and maybe given the recent Supreme Court case where the SC decided not to hear a suit on reverse engineering thus letting the lower court decision stand in effect saying that you can't reverse engineer software without violating end user agreements...well, long story short, perhaps small software developers will have a leg to stand on in the future.
  So the makers of Watson, Font utilities tools for X should have the right to innovate and to compete but they shouldn't have to compete with Apple.
  The big A should back down and just encourage innovation to continue and aggregate the fruits so that the software is more visible and accesible to the end users.
  my two cents.
• I agree with the Devleoper
  2003-06-30 08:49:30  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  I have to disagree here. Apple or Microsoft copying contextual menus from some other developer seems entirely fair to me, and not a rip off. This industry progresses by imitation. If companies couldn't copy each others improvements, progress would come to a standstill. And of course, that's just what's going to happen as more and more software ideas get patented.
  

  
  There's a big difference between imitating incremental improvements, though, and going after a complete standalone market that a new company has created. Of course, even that sometimes is necessary for the good of the platform, but in a case like that, I'd say the right approach is for the platform player to try at least to buy the independent developer's idea.
  

  
  Some technologies really belong as part of a platform, so that they can be leveraged by more than one application. Especially in the early stages of a market, some companies introduce software that is really only enough to be "a feature", while others introduce software that can succeed as a standalone application or application family, while others introduce offerings that are broad enough to morph into platforms in their own right, with a secondary developer market.
  

  
  In addition to the scale of what's being copied, you have to look at the competitive situation. For example, it seems to me that Microsoft has often gone after application vendors whose products threaten them in some way. Apple, on the other hand, has tended to add applications into their platform that open up new markets, and actually lead the way for more powerful equivalents to arise in the third party market.
  

  
  There are no hard and fast answers, but there is a desirable attitude. That is, recognize that for a platform to be a success, there have to be opportunities for more than the platform vendor. Work to create those opportunities, knowing that by so doing, you are extending your own work many fold, by encouraging others to invest time, money and creativity building out what you started.

• I agree with the Devleoper
  2003-07-05 03:34:28  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Oh, how the times of changed.
  
  Today, we have patents on "one click" shopping (Amazon), somewhat shifty or ill-defined business models/practices (Priceline, EBay, people suing EBay), obvious applications of existing technology such as translation for instant messaging(Microsoft), etc.
  
  If you copy any of the silly things that are patented today, you will find yourself in hot water really fast. There is no "progress by imitation" anymore. Witness the spate of "pre-emptive patents" that are going through the patent office right now. And if the US adopts the EU's potential rules on software patents, you will see every little thing patented, copyrighted, and otherwise legally protected. All to get a piece of the pie. Of course, unless you are a big player or have a big patent gun, you get the crust and the lawyers get the custard.
  
  Back when Borland invented "right click", times were different. Or at least the Silicon Valley attitude was different, more along the lines of what you are talking about. Borland was not a company that believed in patenting user interface. As we know, Lotus, an East Coast company, was. It took a long involved legal process, but finally it was shown that "command sequences" were not protected under existing law.
  
  Today, if "right click" were still in the process of invention, pretty much any company would rush to get a patent on it. That is simply how the culture of commercial software has changed in the past 10 years (or so).
  
  I say "commercial software" because things are much different in the open source / free software world. The culture in the open source world is similar to how commercial software was 10 years ago. You can imitate, borrow, copy, etc., as long as you attribute properly and give proper respect.
  
  So back to Apple.
  
  Apple is going about copyrighting and patenting the entire "user experience" of the Mac. It is part of their defense against someone copying their work. You can see all of Apple's About boxes have the word "experience" in them with appropriate trademark and copyright symbols. Probably patent numbers are coming next.
  
  Of course, Apple is also going and copying interesting applications, including interface design, from third party Mac developers. And then Apple goes about and copyrights/protects them as part of the Apple "experience".
  
  Inescapably, there is a measure of hypocrisy here. Apple did not even acknowledge that they took some other company's ideas. Or give the companies some token of appreciation. Unfortunately, it comes across as simply another arrogant act from a company that has a big rep for being arrogant.
  
  Just as Microsoft's dominant position and penchant for copying ideas from other good products in the Windows world has had a chilling effect on Windows software, so has Apple's. Why would anyone want to compete with the gorilla?
  
  The unfortunate effect of having a gorilla in your market is that the basic tools that we use everyday do profit from a wide base of evolution. You get only what the gorilla likes -- i.e. what the gorilla things will be good to keep on being the gorilla.
  
  Has there been any significant evolution in the Windows word processor market lately? Spreadsheet market? Browser market? Well, there is no word processor market (ask Corel), no spreadsheet market (ask Borland/Corel), or broswer market (ask Netscape). Oops. There are no real markets for those things any more.
  
  The same lack of evolution that characterizes the Windows platform will soon characterize the Mac platform as well.
  
  Overall, mean angry gorillas that eat all the mashed potatoes induce people to find somewhere else to eat. Or at least find something else to eat. There is a reason open source is so popular and why open source folks fear Red Hat or another big Linux vendor turning into a gorilla. It's no fun trying to eat dinner with a gorilla at the table.
• Pernicious influence of patents
  2003-07-07 13:48:51  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  You make interesting points -- and I just want you to know at least ONE person has read your post, even though it has come late in this thread. Allow me to clarify one point however. Apple actually negotiated a license agreement with Xerox for the UI elements or concepts it took, and later when Xerox saw the market potential of this technology -- thanks to Apple and no thanks to its own vision -- it filed suit and tried to renegotiate. Now I don't know the particulars involved and it may well be true that Apple has some hypocrisy here in any event. But I offer this point nevertheless.
  
  Incidentally, my understanding is that IBM actually owns the patent for "reverse video," even though it doesn't attempt to enforce this patent in the form of licensing or royalties. Many things which were cutting edge concepts at one time become fundamental years later. Hypertext (or hyperlink) technology is but one example. I think it was invented in the late 1960s -- but could you imagine anyone trying to collect on something so basic as that today?
  
  Patents were meant originally to protect intellectual property rights and thereby to encourage innovation. Today, more often than not, I think it has the opposite effect.
  
  Patents are especially destructive in the area of medical technology -- and affect even the work and research done by universities. But, hey, what's a little death from disease compared to the need for a pharmaceutical company's need for more profit?
• I don't agree
  2003-06-30 02:35:31  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Well if the best example you can come up with is contextural menus....
  First of all lets look at a couple of facts: iTunes was Apples rebranding of another product/small developer THEY BOUGHT.
  Secondly Watson is still going strong....I mean so what if Apple came out with Sherlock....do you hear Jobs crowing about Sherlock recently? I've used both and still prefer Watson....with any luck Apple will simply buy Watson and maybe market it as "son of Sherlock"
• All or Nothing?
  2003-06-30 01:15:06  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  The implication of your post (if I understand you) is disturbing. You seem to be saying that Apple's failure to innovate ALL the technology it uses is proof that it innovates nothing. I don't know anyone -- not even the greatest champion of Apple -- who suggests that Apple has innovated every technology it uses. Indeed, NO company can make that claim; and it's a preposterous standard to hold a company to. So, yes, you rightly point out some examples where Apple took the ideas of others and implemented them on the Mac platform. But what would you have Apple do? Would you have it use ONLY those technologies it creates in house? If it did that, then Apple would again be criticized for the "Not invented here" mentality.
  
  Can you spell "No win"?
  
  From my point of view, Apple strikes the right balance between innovation and making the most of existing technology. Apple's innovations include Open Doc, Rendezvous, Firewire (in conjunction with other parties), Truetype font architecture, ColorSync, and many other things. Apple was also a first adopter or one of the first on many other technologies. After all, there is value not only in innovation but also in implementation.
  
  Does Apple borrow some good ideas from other sources? Yes. Does this preclude any innovation of its own? Does it snuff out third-party development? No -- on both counts. These things are not mutually exclusive. So I'm sorry, but I really don't know what point you are trying to make. If it's that Apple is not innovative -- and if your "proof" consists in such things as contextual menus and Sherlock, I'm afraid your logic escapes me.
  
  As for encouraging development, I think we need to recalibrate our expectations of what is fundamental to computer operation (and thus rightly within the domain of a computer company) and what in contrast falls outside that domain. Font management is not a luxury to an OS -- especially not to a platform which serves the graphics niche market. The only reason that third parties developed font management utilities is that in the early years of desktop personal computing, such things were slow in coming from the OS developers themselves. (They had their hands full with other things.) But as the technology matures, these things are becoming more integrated, as they should.
  
  Do you remember the days when third party developers offered file search utilities? Do you think it's realistic that a computer company like Apple should leave this "market" wide open in the name of "encouraging developers"? Do you not think that to search for a file is fundamental to the OS? Well, the same goes for other software that once was a rich source for independent developers -- including disk diag/repair tools, file managers, browsers, batch renamers, archivers and compression tools, and many other things. People have higher expectations today of an OS. I, for one, do not wish to be at the mercy of independent developers for functions as basic as contextual menus or managing my fonts. If developers wish to do Apple one better in these areas -- more power to them. But I don't begrudge Apple one instant for its choice to integrate these things into the OSX package.
  
  Jeff Mincey

• market share
  2003-06-29 19:26:02  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  "As to why Apple's stuck with such a small market share?"
  
  akthough you believe Jobs is a genius, he is horrible at sales or even understanding it.
  You will never succeed when you tell people "how to buy" your product, you just let them buy. This is how Apple does business and why their market share dwindles year by year.
• market share
  2003-07-05 03:53:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Apple's lack of market share is due to how Apple is branded. Part of telling people "how to buy" is part of the Apple brand and culture.
  
  Alas when it comes to market share, there is nothing inherent in Apple's branding that appeals to normal mainstream people.
  
  In reality:
  
  -- Most people don't sip caffe latte with the Dalai Lama or daydream about the works of famous creatives.
  
  -- Most people don't live on trust funds and spend all day making DVD's and playlists for their iPods.
  
  -- Most people don't collect art and do not need their computer to look like a mushroom.
  
  -- Most people are not involved in some sort of counter-culture dissent movement.
  
  Apple is a cult. Their lack of market share is not a bug, it is a feature. Apple's brand does not support massive scaling of the customer base -- because the additional cult-compatible customers simply don't exist.
  
  By Apple's own count, there are 7 million OS X users. That's a number, that as percentage of total personal computers in use, is very close to either 0% or 1% of the market. It's the fringe.
  
  And Apple, to their credit, is somehow managing to survive out there. Somehow reminds me of a bunch of rag-tag hipsters and artistes "fleeing the tyranny of the Cylon empire". God bless them.
• Better Mousetrap
  2003-06-29 19:36:06  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  Huh? This "build it and they will come" philosophy doesn't work. The world is full of people who built a better mousetrap only later to be disappointed and confused when the world didn't then beat a path to their door. The lesson? Building a better mousetrap is not enough; instead you must get the word out. You must promote your product.
  
  Many people still operate under the mistaken impression that there is no file compatibility between the Wintel and Mac platforms. This is just one of many misconceptions that effective marketing must combat. Thus Apple is right to aggressively market its products -- both to developers and consumers alike.
  
  Jeff Mincey

• "Bare Knuckles world"
  2003-06-29 17:43:33  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Discussing concepts of business as community is hardly a joke. We are moving toward a better world no matter how much hostility you have toward creative thinking. Jobs is smart enough to care about this, but Apple must come first.

• Diversify, diversify, diversify
  2003-06-29 16:10:00  ablair [Reply | View]
  
  
  The developer who wrote in has a few good points, notably that Apple cannot do it all alone. The pervasive "not invented here" culture of the 90's at the company seems to be almost gone, and good riddance. Adopting other technologies where they are clearly better frees Apple to do what they do best: make functionality available to the user, easily.
  
  The idea presented of Apple providing seed funding for encouraging important products sounds good but in practice would be problematic unless handled delicatly. Much of what we could want on the platform is available already in commercial software somewhere (albeit less easy to use & more expensive, often on another platform) and what would developers think of Apple directly seeding their competition? Specialized software functionality not commerically available has often been started already in open source projects (though frequently underdeveloped, and not easy to use) - should Apple fund seed projects that offer the same functionality as these too? Instead of this, the best answer is to spend some resources in key open source projects themselves, which they appear to be doing (and probably getting the most bang for their buck in the process). Key developers making mature apps already widely adopted (eg. AutoCAD, ArcView) can only be encouraged to port versions over, there is little use re-iventing very complicated wheels. If they don't, then committing resources to a competing commercial or open source app already started is the prudent alternative. Such a project reducing the risk from legal actions for anti-competitive practices seems a bit far-fetched though: Apple is in little danger of significant actions. At least until they have over 50% market share (and this will never happen, and dosen't need to).
  
  Are there examples of such seed programs on different platforms, and what has their success been like?
  
  And I agree, the community idolizes a very human, very fallible Steve Jobs too much. Luckily others respect him enough to give him influence, which he uses to the betterment of the platform (eg. recently with the large labels & iTMS).

• Get the drugs out of your system
  2003-06-29 15:34:03  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  What would you like to see Apple do to better support its independent developer community? Or are they doing just fine?
  
  The debate is laughable.
  
  What would you like to see Microsoft, or Sun, or Oracle do? Better yet, do you think that any executive at any of the aforementioned corporations gives a rip what you think about their business decisions? Businesses exist to make money so they can continue to exist. Executives
  work for businesses to protect the bottom line and thereby contribute to the continued existence of the business, and their continued relationship with the business. It sounds simplistic and harsh but it's factual.
  
  Business is economic warfare, and always has been. Do you explain Gates' behavior by speculating that he has a brain tumor? If so, close this window now and go read a spiderman comic. Apple is no different than any other American technology company and if you look close enough, you will see Apple is no different than any other successful American business, technological or not.
  
  Business is not a socialized handout program. Those of you who have grown up with two decades of government subsidized artificiality, wake up. I am no fan of Gates but his points to the graduating high schoolers were realistic and are valid today. Adjust your thinking before you find yourself flipping burgers. Do not expect any business
  to give you anything.
  
  Start thinking about what you have seen businesses do, and think about the likelihood they will continue in that behavior. For example: Expect businesses with armies of lawyers to steal your ideas. Assuming you are
  an independent developer, consider that the schoolyard bully just punched you in the mouth and even if you tell your teacher, her hands are tied because she didn't see anything. Your word against the bully's. Expect that if you make the mistake of using anything that said business considers to be of value, even if it promotes the business, you will be met with legalized violence. The lucky ones only receive threats and humiliation. The list goes on and on. The business world is about survival of the fittest and always has been. Do you not remember reading about robber barons in school?
  
  I have said this before: Forget Jobs, Gates, Ellison, etc. There is not 5 cents difference between any of them. Think instead about why there are only 3 American automakers or 1 steelmaker or a few airlines or a couple of computer makers. If you can figure it out, you might be able
  to reconcile your fantasies with reality, and take the first step towards operating in the bare knuckles world of American business.
  
• Stale (and Erroneous) Lecture on Capitalism
  2003-06-29 17:11:54  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  If Apple Computer's foremost objective were pure profit, then it would get out of the computer business altogether. (Or are you under the impression that the technology industry has the highest profit margins and brings the greatest revenue of any other industry?)
  
  Hey, of course Apple wants to make a profit -- and no one in this "laughable" debate denies that. But this reality -- (that Apple acts in its own interests and seeks to gain profit for itself and its shareholders) -- is not at odds with a program to support developers for the Macintosh. Quite the contrary -- they go hand in hand. Or do you really think Apple would not benefit in the least by having a vibrant and creative and healthy developer community for the Macintosh?
  
  Jeff Mincey
• Stale (and Erroneous) Lecture on Capitalism
  2003-07-01 07:33:39  dogzilla [Reply | View]
  
  
  >>If Apple Computer's foremost objective were pure profit,
  >>then it would get out of the computer business
  >>altogether. (Or are you under the impression that the
  >>technology industry has the highest profit margins and
  >>brings the greatest revenue of any other industry?)
  
  Interestingly, things like the iPod and the Apple Music Store seem to indicate that Apple is trying to get out of the computer business, or more correctly, to leverage its brand's reputation for quality and user-friendlness to broaden it's base beyond the personal-computing market and morph into somthing more like an American Sony or Samsung.
  
  As for the rest of this debate: it seems to me that Apple has always given developers plenty of opportunity to fill holes in the platform. How long and hard was Apple pushing developers to move away from OS9 and onto OS X? Those small developers that took a chance and committed have succeeded. Those that hemmed and hawed in the face of opportunity didn't.
  
  It sounds to me like some developers are beginning to demand that Apple reduce the risk of being in business in a Capitalist environment. Get with the program, folks - it's called competition and you (as a small developer) have strengths and weaknesses that aren't the same as those of a huge company like Apple. Play to your strengths, avoid your weaknesses, work hard, and do some basic research for crying out loud (ie: if you're worried about Apple stepping on your toes, don't focus your energies on extending a service Apple already provided for free, as Watson did).
• Stale (and Erroneous) Lecture on Capitalism
  2003-07-06 13:31:22  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  "iPod and the Apple Music Store seem to indicate that Apple is trying to get out of the computer business"
  
  It is sad that you missed the whole point of iPod and AMS. It's not to get out of the computer business but rather to give you a reason to buy a Mac.

• ideas for supporting Mac developers
  2003-06-29 15:16:31  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  To better support its developer community, I would very much like for Apple "somehow" to become more involved in the local college system.
  
  For example, here in Silicon Valley, the UC Santa Cruz Extension (ucsc-extension.edu) provides a wealth of classes geared towards the workinging professional, with a substantial number of classes in computing.
  
  There are several tracks for UNIX and Java development, and over the past several years many classes in Windows app development have been added. No such track in Mac OS X development yet exists.
  
  I believe having a track in Mac OS X development is important because many people cannot take off a full week for each of Apple's on-site classes. Supporting the education system has several obvious benefits, including more and better-trained developers, each creating more and better-quality applications, many of whom would then register with the Apple Developer Connection.
  
  
  As for the bundled apps that Apple includes, I am all for it, especially with their approach to Address Book and to iCal. In these instances, Apple is using a documented XML file format, so developers can leverage this in their own apps, and the consumer wins because they can choose the app -- or apps -- that work best for them, with no data migration!
  
  Of course, this is not always true, and sometimes a developer may feel their time has been wasted. (I'm thinking here of Cocoa eFax.) This is unfortunate, but hopefully the developer will have improved their skills through their effort, and can apply these to the next app.
  
  
  I wonder also if it would be useful to have a web site where users could register the kind of app they are looking for, and a price they would be willing to pay for said app. Other consumers could say "me, too" (to help track demand for the app), and note their price point. Developers could interact anonymously with these users, to get to the essence of what is really desired.
  
  This would help in addressing what consumers (perhaps even in very specialized industries) really want, instead of what developers think they could use.
  
  Apple's role in this? As much or as little as they want. I was just on a roll. ;-)
  
  --Glenn

• Visionaries and hogs
  2003-06-29 14:57:43  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I don't doubt that both Gates and Jobs would hog the potatoes. They are more alike than people think. Jobs is often credited as a visionary while Gates is considered a plodding behemoth.
  
  Fact is, Gates is a visionary in his own right. He fully understood that the most ubiquitous OS, not the best OS, would rule the world. He got it. Jobs didn't.
  
  OS is one place where quality does not reign supreme. No matter how good Apple's OS is, it will continue to lose market share. Inertia drives OS adoption, not quality, because most people are fearful of not being compatible with what most people use. Conformity and fear a are powerful carrot-and-stick combination.
  
  --Roger Mercer
• Re: Visionaries and hogs
  2003-07-10 14:35:43  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Roger Mercer, you've had the smartest response out of everyone here. Compatibility is stronger than quality, because everyone has a different taste of how they like their software served.It doesn't feel safe to have Apple single handedly running everything. There have to be many hands in the cookie jar (Third parties) doing the same applications in different styles or only a minority will feel safe. That's why PC and Microsoft have the majority of the market. The user feels comfortable with the highest amount of compatibility (safety).
  
  Herman
• Different Perspective
  2003-06-29 15:19:08  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  You make valid points regarding the psychology behind the purchase of computer platforms. But if what you say is true, then any strong-arm monoplistic practices by Microsoft should have been utterly gratuitous. After all, who chases after someone who is already running toward him anyway? Therefore, in seeking to explain the success and market dominance of Microsoft, I think you need to give more credit to its Draconian (and illegal) practices of the past (and present).
  
  You lose me also when you say that unlike Gates, Jobs has failed to understand that ubiquity -- not quality -- is what will rule the world. The problem here is that you predicate this statement on the assumption that Gates and Jobs have shared the same goals. They haven't and they don't.
  
  Make no mistake -- I'm sure Jobs would like to see significant gains in market share for Apple. But I see no evidence on his part of any aspiration for complete market dominance. It's one thing to want to be a major player; it's quite another thing to want to be the ONLY player. Jobs falls in the former camp while Gates falls in the latter.
  
  I think what rings Jobs' bell is developing new technology and wowing the market with it. Of course he wants his products to be a success, and of course he wants to see healthy profits for Apple. And he's a tough CEO -- no question about it. But inside him beats the heart of someone who can still get excited over new technologies -- and I see no evidence of this from the cool-tempered Gates.
  
  I differ with you also in respect to the idea that the market share of all non-Wintel platforms will continue to shrink. Notwithstanding the "buyer psychology" you cite, there will always be a place for a few other players in the industry. Indeed, while in some quarters Apple's market share might be decreasing slightly (even as its installed base is not), the market share of non-Wintel computers IN GENERAL is actually increasing or at least holding steady -- what with the prevalance of Linux. Besides, the very fact that these alternatives still survive in spite of the Microsoft-Intel monopoly is testimony to this.
  
  Jeff Mincey

• Be grateful Apple is still here
  2003-06-29 13:52:54  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  If Steve Jobs hadn't come back to Apple, and put his genius to work, Apple would just be another Amiga. Think about that before complaining that Apple stole your idea or whatever.
  
  Essentially, the only advantage Apple has over Microsoft is that Apple controls the entire widget - hardware + OS + addons. And this allows Apple to make strategic decisions that are not possible on Windows - like the iPod. However, in order to capitalize on this advantage, Apple needs to move fast, and cannot wait around for some developer (i.e. Adobe) to bring out a needed product (i.e. Photoshop Album).
  
  On the other hand, screwing some hotshot developer isn't a good idea either (i.e Watson). However, it is possible that Sherlock validates and expands the market and helps Watson in the long run.
  
  

• Apple as Technology Company
  2003-06-29 13:23:10  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  By way of addendum to my previous post, may I echo the sentiments of Tim O'Reilly that Apple is indeed a true technology company in a rapidly shrinking field. Even HP, which acquired the great technology assets of DEC (in its acquisition of Compaq) today seems bent more on emulating the assemblers like Dell than on maintaining its existing products (to say nothing of innovating further). Perhaps the most sophisticated of all UNIX implementations -- Tru64 (the former OSF/1) -- is left languishing, and the same is happening to the brilliant and once cutting-edge Alpha chip and technology. HP wants to throw all this away in favor of HP-UX, Windows XP, and Itanium.
  
  So who are the true innovators left? Who is left to take risks by being first either to create or integrate a technology? IBM is still one company left which does true R&D. The troubled Sun is also one such example. But Apple is certainly another deserving member of this group. And to dispute (or minimize) this on grounds of some developer-relations minutiae is myopic and petty.
  
  Jeff Mincey

• Not Steal from them
  2003-06-29 13:09:47  jonknee [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'd say a good rule of thumb is not to steal ideas... Remeber the Sherlock/Watson thing? FontBook looks pretty familar. I realize that no matter what Apple makes it will step on toes, but they at least bought SoundJam when they made iTunes.
  
  Making Web Kit easy to use in Cocoa apps was a really good move too... Can't wait for the new version of NetNewsWire.

• better support of the community
  2003-06-29 13:08:42  esc [Reply | View]
  
  
  Apple probably doing dozens of things right and dozens of things wrong when it comes to developers.
  
  I would like to see more support and focus on very small firms that have good ideas ... perhaps something like the SBIR grant structure.
  
  Really small firms (1 to 5 people) have severe cash flow problems in the early phases and most of them never survive. One can imagine small competitive grants based on proposals, code samples and early versions of the software. Fifty grants on the order of $20k each would probably result in at least ten or twenty interesting products that survive. I would propose the grant review be done by an external group of volunteer experts from the developer and user community. (say academics for the developer community to minimize conflict of interest).
  
  There are many other areas, but in the spirit of keeping this short, I'll quit here.

• Apple's Developer Strategy
  2003-06-29 12:58:30  jmincey [Reply | View]
  
  
  It's quite ironic that this developer chooses THIS particular time to fault Apple for its developer relations/policies -- because in fact Apple has made great strides in this regard and has reached out to developers in ways it has not done historically.
  
  Moreover, this individual is focused exclusively on the SCOPE of Apple's own development efforts and how it may impinge on the third-party developer community -- and while this is certainly an issue, it's a tiny fraction of Apple's overall strategy for developer relations. (I'm surprised he said nothing about Sherlock's supposed co-opting of Watson -- as symptomatic of the problem.)
  
  Don't get me wrong; Apple could certainly improve its support, services, and outreach to developers. But it sounds to me as if this individual simply wants Apple to play venture capitalist to his own ambitions. Not only that, but apparently he wants Apple to curtail (if not cease) development of products which he feels are better left to a vibrant community of independent developers. Fine -- but he provides no examples.
  
  Am I to infer that scads of third-party developers have been champing at the bit to develop a web browser but have been inhibited in this effort by Safari? Or are there hordes of developers eager to create an MS-Office alternative but who are held in check by rumors of Apple's own productivity suite? Were many developers planning to challenge CodeWarrior were it not for Apple's newly announced Xcode?
  
  Please. This individual has his cause and effect reversed. Developers are not intimidated because Apple is developing software applications; rather Apple is developing applications because the developers were not stepping up to the plate or they were sitting on their hands. Apple has a precarious market share, (though strong in key niches), and in light of that it's right to be proactive and seize control of its own destiny. Not to mention that there is no profit in web browsers, office suites, or OS X development tools to begin with (unless you are Microsoft or Metrowerks).
  
  As for the iApps, the digital hub concept is synergistic and critical to Apple's marketing and its niche consumer markets. Apple cannot leave this to the random independent motivations in the developer community.
  
  I don't necessarily oppose the establishment of a fund -- provided their are strict and well-defined eligibility criteria and controls -- but I think there are more important things Apple can focus on here. Foremost:
  
  1. Apple now has an infrastructure -- via its Apple stores -- which it can use to foster many regional developer-support seminars (after retail hours of course). A national conference makes a big splash -- but regional workshops could serve a different (and very important) function.
  
  2. Apple could also more aggressively discount hardware and software resources for developers -- both current and new, (again, provided the right controls and safeguards are in place).
  
  3. Apple can bring OSX more in compliance with Posix and UNIX conventions -- as it is working very hard to do. And it can create an Aqua window manager on top of the X11 infrastructure.
  
  Apple is reaching out to developers as never before. It is doing so via the open source community and in many other ways. But Apple has a lot on its mind right now. In order for the Macintosh to be a viable platform in the next few years, it must have the basics in place -- web browser, office suite, development tools, consumer apps. Without this nailed down, even the most robust third-party developer support will be utterly moot.
  
  Jeff Mincey

• Important subject going forward.
  2003-06-29 10:02:15  joccam [Reply | View]
  
  
  As a prospective developer and mac enthusiast, I believe Apple's conflict of interest is crucial. I do believe Apple is also in the unenviable position of needing to support their own platform (and end users with apps) while also trying to (in good faith) support established and budding developers on the platform. Until they get critical mass (and growing market share), the conflict will be touchy.
  
  Office software is probably the most crucial app(s) for Apple. Plenty of rumors suggest Apple has a killer office app in the works. Given the Safari success and IEMac demise and the vulnerable position Apple is in with regards to MSOffice, I think there's a reasonable argument that Apple would be irresponsible (to shareholders et al.) if it didn't have an Office substitute (seriously better than AppleWorks) as a contingency plan. Whether they should release it until necessary or dire circumstances... that's another question.
  
  The most obvious recent example of reckless endangerment or negligence on Apple's part would be the Sherlock/Watson debacle from 2002. I'm not familar with the details, but I gather that Watson was an award-winning app for the Mac, but Apple folded very similar web services features into their bundled, revised Sherlock. As I recall, Apple says they had the feature in the works before Watson's release, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. However, I *do* believe Apple should have a developer friendly strategy to deal with such catch-22's. The obvious one would be to 'buy-out the app' of the victim developer as a sign of 1. goodwill, 2. user compatibility (if appropriate), and 3. the common sense to promote the best of the best in the developer community. Apple could think of the buy-out as seeding a proven developer with $1-4m dollars; perhaps there's a string attached that the monies be used for OSX development. I'm sure the Watson group would gladly have fired up for more development.
  
  This may sound gratuitous, but I know an small insurance company which bought out its competitors in just such a way as it was sucking away clients, and the goodwill was tremendous. With a proper approach, such a technique could be a winning technique for driving app development in a friendly coopetitive fashion.
  
  -=- Devil's Advocacy -=-
  
  On the other hand (and extreme, e.g. MSOffice & Watson, examples aside), I also think Apple developers have it pretty good. The new Apple WebKit looks gorgeous. Granted, browsers are free, but that technology is strong for many applications and is a huge leg up to small developers.
  
  Furthermore, Apple's apps are not bullet proof. Apple creates good first generation apps, but the freebie apps are often not industrial strength; little bugs often go unfixed across multiple releases, larger data sets become unwieldy. There is plenty of room for improvement at least for niche needs. I'm not sure how that adds up to building a thriving company on niches Apple already develops, but there's definitely *some* room even in the Apple fulfilled categories (e.g., Apple's FCPro is serious upgrade to iMovie for example; other app categories could be filled by 3P).
  
  This is my 2c so far, but I'd love to read further insights or perspectives on this important subject.
  
  -=-
  
  P.s., here's to hoping the new G5 machines lead to market share growth for Apple and Mac community.