| |
Messages 18-17 deleted by topic administrator between 07-22-2006 09:27 AM and 07-21-2006 08:58 AM |
|
Veronica
01-26-2005
10:45 AM ET (US)
|
You can easily make $1,000 a day and start making money within only ONE HOUR OF PURCHASE.
Offer is nearing termination. Go to:
http://hop.clickbank.net/?justiceof/mmitums
|
|
Edward C
07-09-2003
11:59 AM ET (US)
|
As Apple puts out more and more applications, they must be watched closely lest they get themselves into a Microsoft-style conflict of interest wherein they leverage their intimate knowledge of the OS to put the squeeze on everyone else. I haven't noticed this happening at Apple as yet, at least not intentionally. (I think at M$, it has been company policy!) M$ was accused of creating an environment in which it was impossible for a third party browser to compete with Explorer. They built it right into the system, and who could compete with that? Apple is also building Safari technology into its next system release, but there is one crucial difference in their approach: they are releasing the APIs to third party developers, who will be able to put Safari features into ANY application. I heard the Omni Group is already working on a version of OmniWeb which builds on the Safari browser engine. I hope this is a sign of things to come, and that Apple will make their iApp technologies more accessible to outside developers. Edited 07-09-2003 12:04 PM
|
|
John H
07-09-2003
01:58 AM ET (US)
|
Lets take a slightly different view of the subject for a second: Apple is not bundling free iApps to compete with 3rd party developers. Apple is bundling free iApps to compete with Microsoft. For the health of the platform Apple needs to make the out-of-the box user experience better than that of a PC. It is important to the home-user digital-hub strategy to appear to have a better value than a Windows PC. They have succeded, the free crap the Microsoft and other PC developers create as free products are just that, crap.
You stated: "But behind the scenes other software vendors like Adobe are deciding not to compete with Apple's free apps..."
I ask what other software vendors like Adobe? There are very few software vendors as important as Adobe. You could say Quark, Macromedia or somebody like Bias Inc. for sound, but none of those companies are leaving soon.
Adobe is only dropping or not creating the cheap applications that compete against iApps like Photoshop Album. They made a wise business decision that they couldn't create something for little enough money that would directly compete against iPhoto.
They didn't drop Photoshop Elements or Photoshop because they can scale the resources and get a return on investment. They would never get a return on investment with a new version of Premier FCP and FCP Express are just too good.
This doesn't mean Apple has killed the market for multi-media developers on the Mac. In fact there are many successful developers that create plug-ins or add-ons for iMovie. Each of the iApps has its own little ecosystem of developers creating such add-ons and plug-ins. It is likely that if the iApp had been created buy a third party that architecture wouldn't be there.
You correctly stated: "...an Apple-created browser is being used as an excuse by Microsoft to discontinue development of Internet Explorer."
You are correct it is an excuse. You did fail to mention that Microsoft also axed the stand-alone Windows version a week before. Every PC pundant skips this point as well.
Microsoft killed IE for Mac because it intends to burying IE so freakin deep into Longhorn it is indistinguishable. Stand-alone version of a browser hurt their claim that the browser should be buried in the OS. So remember the next time you want to upgrade you PC browser it will cost you the price of the OS.
Additionally the Dot-Com days of free crap are over. It is time to spend development resources and stuff that can sell. M$ makes money on Office it exists, they make no money on Outlook Express it doesn't.
As a software developer I see the Mac market like an emerging wide open ecosystem like the wild west. It is possible for relatively small development houses to make it big and have an impact. (Omni Graffle, Salling Clicker, or Spring) On the PC side it is way too crowded with crap that anything cool and unique will just get buried in the crowd.
So lets not complain that Apple made something really really good in order to keep up with and ahead of the Jones' or the Gates'.
|
|
Mark in MD
07-08-2003
08:30 PM ET (US)
|
How can you compare FCP/X to a freely bundled app? Apple charges for FCP/X. They are competing with developers like Adobe. Adobe is free to compete on price and performance.
MS IE is free, and has not improved much in years. In this light, MS comments about Safari making IE non-viable ring pretty hollow. Apple responded to a Mac-market need for a better browser. I bought and used iCab for years, but Safari made me drop in in about 2 days. They had many years to make it a great app that Mac users would find as a good alternative to IE.
|
|
Randy Hudson
07-08-2003
08:06 PM ET (US)
|
So what has Apple done for developers?
They BOUGHT the code that became Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes. From developers. They apparently liked Emagic's Logic and other products enough that they bought the whole company.
The Macs I've bought have come with licensed copies of Pangeasoft games, OmniOutliner, OmniGraffle, and GraphicConverter. (They've also come with FAXstf, which I never managed to get working, so I'm not too bent out of shape to find out that faxing is built into Panther.)
They've touted various 3rd party software prominently and extensively on their site, including GraphicConverter, iView MediaPro, OmniWeb, and -- yes -- Watson. (Oh yeah, and MS Office, InDesign, Quark Xpress in the majors.)
Most of all, they're trying really hard to sell a lot of Macs, which helps create more of a market for developers' products. And I don't doubt that the iApps have helped them make some of those sales.
I do see the issue you're raising. In the Adobe Premiere story, I don't see a line being crossed: I see sour grapes.
|
David Rogers  07-08-2003
07:33 PM ET (US)
|
Rob and Peter,
Each of you seems to presume that each bundled application is a lost sale to a third-party developer, and that is simply not the case.
Apple's font management application is probably in response to the complaints I've read many times that font handling in OS X is too cumbersome. Now, either Apple could have built better font handling into the OS from the beginning, in which case the third-party apps would have seen even less demand, or Apple could simply ignore the complaints and point to third-party applications as a solution. I don't think that's an appropriate response either.
I'll speculate here, as I have little experience in either the problems of font handling in OS X, nor what Apple's utility will do in Panther; but my guess is they've created a relatively lightweight application that will address many of the criticisms, but will leave plenty of room for developers to offer better solutions to people for whom font management is a serious issue. Will those developers lose some sales? Perhaps, but consider, OS X has been out for a couple of years now with the same "bad" font management. Anyone who has had serious issues with it has probably already purchased a third-party alternative to address those shortcomings. The advent of Quark on X may represent a sales opportunity as some shops finally switch over to OS X, but how many of them will be content with what Panther offers is difficult to guage. As in Sherlock/Watson, it may look bad, but looks are often deceiving.
Rob, you make reference to Apple having advantages third-party developers don't have in actual development. I haven't seen that offered as a serious charge anywhere before, a la MS using undocumented Windows APIs to create Office. I believe some of the iApps are actually contracted out rather than developed within Apple itself. I seem to recall iCal was a contract job. The only complaint I've seen raised in a serious fashion is that Apple's bundling of "free" applications closes doors for other developers. I'm repeating myself, but I think there are really only three applications where that charge can be legimately made, iTunes, iMovie and iDVD. But each of those applications is a core element of Apple's strategy of developing consumer-level digital content creation tools. iTunes was essential to faciliate the DRM issues attendant to the Music Store/iPod and there simply was no benchmark consumer DV-editting software, DVD-creation application. iPhoto is a lightweight application and it competes with a number of other free applications. Every other "free" iApp competes with other, third-party, free applications, as well as with some commercial applications. Complain to MS about Outlook Express, complain to Mozilla.org about the e-mail client in Mozilla and Netscape and so on.
There are some segments of the market where it is simply not wise to try to compete without a compelling solution that will motivate people to pay for something that is often "good enough" and "free."
|
Rob McNair-Huff 07-08-2003
06:14 PM ET (US)
|
Al, at the beginning of the switch to Mac OS X I agree wholeheartedly that Apple had to develop programs like Mail.app and a few others in order to show that the new OS was usable for doing real work right now. But I am not so sure that is the case now.
It is a catch 22 - if Apple didn't develop software for Mac OS X, no one would switch. Now that people are and have switched (although this percentage is still woeful), other companies may be looking more favorably at Mac OS X as a market. But if Apple may muscle in on their product, why even bother?
Apple deserves credit for creating iChat AV and charging for it, and this is what they should do with the rest of their iApps from here on out. If the program is worth something, charge for it. After all, I can't imagine that the $129 fee for upgrading to Panther will cover not only the cost of upgrading the OS but also the development of new iApps...
|
Rob McNair-Huff 07-08-2003
06:09 PM ET (US)
|
Peter, excellent point. I have had the same worry that Apple will tackle a software category under Mac OS X, create a free iApp that everyone uses, and then opt down the road to stop development on the program. Since no one wants to compete with Apple's software, due to the advantages they have working with their own OS (sound familiar?), then there would be a new void in that software category, and the developers that once would have thought of developing software for the Mac have moved on to greener pastures in the Windows world, where sub-par software stands to make a lot more money than a great shareware app can make on the small Mac platform. Why would they even bother to look back and develop for the Mac?
Biting the hand that feeds ya...
|
|
Al Willis
07-08-2003
06:06 PM ET (US)
|
But the point remains that as long as Apple develops its own software for Mac OS X, many others are not going to continue development of their products for Mac OS X. In the end, what this means for Mac OS X users is less choice and the chance that there will be less innovation in the Mac OS X marketplace.
I see it differently. I see Apple creating apps in particular areas that fill a need that's not being met (or met well) by 3rd parties. Video editing is so important that Apple decided that it needed to be in control on its own destiny by buying Final Cut, for example. Final Cut has probably sold many Macs, because Final Cut can do things that Premier can't.
At lots of places, if the choice came down to running Premier on a Mac or a Windows machine, many places would choose the Windows machine because it's "cheaper". If someone needs what Final Cut can do, that person buys a Mac and that's the whole point.
I don't feel bad at all when Apple puts out something that's better than the mostly mediocre stuff that's out there and that Mac users should feel lucky that the vendor even has a Mac version.
If Apple didn't produce apps like iTunes, Keynote, iMovie, iDVD, who else actually would have done that? Apple is actually showing 3rd parties what they should be doing, but aren't, mainly because they don't want to make their applications too Mac-specific because they want to create the lowest common denominator product that they can run on Macs and PCs.
By their actions, Apple is being clear: that isn't going to cut it.
So, until the economy picks up and companies start investing in developing new applications, in my view, Apple doesn't really have much of a choice but to create some of these applications to keep the Mac momentum going.
|
|
Tem K
07-08-2003
05:57 PM ET (US)
|
iApps have, so far, been considered by many (in forums and the Press) to be benchmarks in their respective markets.
This is not such a bad thing.
When a developer has something to take apart and improve (right in front of him/her) then there is a chance for innovation. And I think this is good.
Adobe has committed itself to the Wintel platform with Premiere, and it seems that Avid is also committed more to Wintel than other platforms. It really seems like good financial sense since the Final Cut offers are hard to beat.
Also, the iApps are not really free, it takes something to make something. Apple invested money into OS X, new software and hardware, that I bought. That money was reinvested into better programs and offered as free upgrades (downloads) back to me. It is a kind of commercialy supported socialism in that way, but I don't mind paying for the improvements, because my experience has been improving since day one.
I have not tried Linux and don't have time to familiarize myself with how to make it work simialr to my Mac OS X set-up at home, maybe if I was still a student or independently wealthy then it would make sense to indulge in Linux.
I could probably save myself a buck or two now days, but I just don't have that kind of time anymore, unfortunately.
3rd party software has also been improving, just not always as quickly as some of Apple's iApps have been. There are plenty of opportunities for software developers, they need to be as innovative or more so than Apple. The Mac OS X platform doesn't need more than three good word processors, so developers should consider other computing needs and interests.
For example, I bought a $10 shareware App to sync phone numbers between my Motorola 120e with Address book, the cable cost me $25 with shipping! Apple doesn't provide all solutions to all of its customers, not even M$ has done that succesfuly.
Apple seems to be filling the obvious holes. It is up to independent developers to take the next step.
|
|
Peter
07-08-2003
05:51 PM ET (US)
|
Dave Rogers, consider Panther:
Font Management: Whoops--there goes Suitcase.
File Vault: I think they may be stomping on someone here, but I'm not sure who.
Secure Erase: Sorry Norton.
VPN: Lots of people getting hurt on this one.
This makes software companies nervous--why should we run the risk of spending money to develop a product when Apple may come along and stomp us out of existence. I'd also point out that, even if Apple charges for the software, it's still difficult to compete with Apple-branded software. For those of you long-time Mac users out there, that's why Apple spun-off Claris.
I admit, I don't see a good solution here. In some ways, Apple is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they depend on their third-party developers, they risk their future on some other company's business plan. Hypothetical example: Suppose InDesign had waited a couple of years to ship on Mac OS X because Adobe didn't want to apply the developers to move it to Mac OS X because they were working on something else? Where would Mac OS X sales be?
It's a tightrope that Apple is walking, I'll admit. If they do too much of it, they risk driving developers away. If they do too little, they risk losing sales because they solutions aren't available.
I'm just beginning to worry that they're starting to bite off too much.
|
Rob McNair-Huff 07-08-2003
05:44 PM ET (US)
|
Dave,
You raise a good point about my using OOo. I also use AppleWorks, I own an older copy of Nisus, and I would consider trying and likely buying any other writing app that could replace Word. Right now, none of those options let me do high-end editing and use features like tracking changes in documents. Once they do, I will bail on OOo. I use it because there simply isn't another option, other than forking out $300 for Word, which I refuse to do for a number of reasons, not the least of which is my situation in this current economy.
As a reminder, I did buy a copy of Office v.X that my wife Natalie uses for her work on writing our book. We can't both work in Office at the same time with MS software, and I really can't see paying $300-400 for another copy.
Yes, I know people get tired of hearing the argument that Apple is canabolizing software categories in the Mac OS X marketplace. But the truth remains that this is what is happening today. It's great for having cheap apps from Apple in the short term, but what my concern is and always has been is what will the Apple market look like in the long term? Will Apple's market become less and less viable because Apple is the only company making hardware and software for the platform? It seems like a valid concern...
|
|
Thad Hoffman
07-08-2003
04:28 PM ET (US)
|
As a long time Premiere user, it hasn't been kept up to snuff. Awkward interface, buggy.... Avid had better offerings in this area.
Apple bought Final Cut from Macromedia. Apple needed an OS X version of a pro quality video editor to keep the pros on the platform during the transition... Look how long photoshop took to come out? They had to do something. In doing so, they helped out Mac software maker Macromedia :-)
Anyway, if people made as big a deal out of MS doing the exact same thing to it's developers, maybe the justice dept would have been more effective. MS has arms into everything, mortgage software, auto sales, email, web browsers, video, office apps, databases, admin tools, dev tools, chat clients, cell phones, cars, appliances.
Apple has a handful of really decent apps. Final Cut isn't free either, like most of the press is making out.
Apple OS has always shipped with audio, video, text apps... Apple Audio CD Player, Apple Video Player (or whatever the little capture app is called that came with my 7600 av machine), quicktime, preview, text edit. So the apps have gotten better, so has the os, so have the computers, so have the 3rd party tools....
I don't use sherlock or watson, I use Mozilla because it is the only Mac browser that supports the client objects I need, I use BBEdit and Macromedia Dreamweaver/Fireworks, don't use iPhoto or iMovie. Have been playing with iChat but use AIM just as much, I use iTunes, but I paid for SoundJam when it was out. Nothing beats iTunes anyway :-)
Anyway, point being. Yeah free is cool, but bottom line is I am going to use what best serves me and my needs. Mozilla is doing that better than Apple (currently), BBEdit does it better than anyone, and in some places Apple's apps.
People need to stop worrying about the sky falling.
Spring, Tinderbox, Mozilla, the future is bright on OS X, lots of room for people to play.
|
|
Dave Rogers
07-08-2003
02:58 PM ET (US)
|
I read this argument over and over again, but I don't think it really holds water.
Let's run down the iApps:
iPhoto: It's nice, it's free, and it ties right into Apple's store for prints and books, and .Mac for web pages. What does it compete with? iView Media Pro, which is a commercial app, but also free applications like Kodak's EasyShare, which is a near-clone of iPhoto and ties into their Ofoto service (surprise!), in addition to the free applications that came with my Canon digital camera, as well as, to a certain extent, my copy of Graphic Converter that came with my G4. I have no fewer than four applications to manage my photo collection, all of which were "free."
iTunes: Now we know what Apple had in mind when it bought the leading music-listening application in-house. Main feature: Linkage between iPod and the iTunes Music Store. If you make music players, I don't see how you can compete with Apple on the Mac platform in this case, but I also don't see how we're suffering either.
Quicktime Media Player: Free unless you want the Pro version, then it's 29.00. I can also use Real and Microsoft's applications, both of which pay scant attention to Mac users. I suppose we should be grateful we get any attention at all.
iMovie/iDVD: If you're building hardware with an emphasis on digital media creation and have a small segment of the software market, you're probably going to have to go in-house to develop a compelling application in an area where there are no clear leaders or any applications at all. I think Apple did Mac users and Apple shareholders a service with these applications.
iCal/Address Book/iSync: Most people who write about them( the PIM apps) don't seem to like them. I use them and don't have any heartburn with either one. iCal has some nice calendar-sharing features that may figure into how events are organized in my extended family. Before iCal and Address Book, I used Palm Desktop and I still do to some extent. I've got Entourage, and it's supposed to be sweet, but I don't use it. The only other PIM I've ever paid for was WebArranger which was awesome. I think people who are serious about PIM applications either use Entourage or buy one of the other two leading apps, Now, Chronos Personal Organizer, or the new entry Daylite. I don't see iCal and Address Book seriously competing with these applications. They address different customers' needs.
iChat: What third-party developer is squeezed out because of iChat? You can still use Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, ICQ, Fire, and whatever else may be out there. iSight/iChat AV may change that for those folks with broadband connections, but again, I don't see a market for commercial development by third parties, given the availability of other "free" alternatives.
Mail.app - It's not the greatest e-mail application. If you have greater needs, there are alternatives - like Entourage. It's fine for me. Before Mail.app, Outlook Express was (is) free, Netscape/Mozilla include a free e-mail client. You can use a web client for free.
Sherlock - this is allegedly the smoking gun. Supposedly, Watson is being harmed by Sherlock. I think the allegation that Apple "stole" Watson's idea is weak. I think I could be considered in the lower tiers of the "power-user" ranks for Macs. I've used Sherlock consistently for only one thing, and that's been to check on movie schedules. I wouldn't have paid for Watson to do that. I use Omni's free OmniDictionary to look up words, and everything else they offer I can do from my browser pretty effectively for my needs.
Safari - MS bailed on Explorer, and I think I recall Opera made a similar statement. I think that was just an excuse in each case. I think the only folks who were really being economically challenged by Safari were Omni, and it looks as though they're using Apple's tools to compete with Apple. Good for them! Given the number of free "good enough" browsers out there, it's probably a tough market for anyone.
.Mac - formerly free, now it's not, and Apple took a pasting from the people who misunderstood the terms of the agreement. I paid for .Mac, I host my little weblog there, and I like iDisk, the mail web client and iSync. I've had very good reliability and I'm going to renew.
I've also paid for a lot of software for my Macs in the last year or so. I bought Tinderbox, NoteTaker 2003, Notebook, LaunchBar, Corel Graphics Suite 11, Microsoft Office X, quite a few games and probably a few utilities I can't recall at the moment. Where Apple has delivered first-class applications (iMovie/iDVD and iTunes) there were either no compelling third-party applications in the space, or they were essential to another part of Apple's overall strategy. Where Apple wanted to enhance the out-of-the-box experience for new users, it bundles lightweight, easy to use applications that meet the needs of many people and mostly compete against other "free" applications that aren't as well optimized for the Mac. Sherlock/Watson may look like Apple hurt one of its developers on the surface; but again, I think the claim is weak. If you love what Sherlock does, then chances are you'll find Watson does it better and you can buy it. If you don't love what Sherlock does, chances are you wouldn't have bought Watson anyway.
If you want to make money developing for the Mac, you have to focus on areas where there isn't already a great deal of "free" competition, or you have to deliver an application that is clearly superior to what Apple and the other "free" vendors offer. Tinderbox is a great example.
As I recall you use Open Office, doesn't that work against Mac developers like Nisus, or MS? How do you rationalize your taking up the cause against Apple on the basis of iApps, while using free open-source applications?
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
2153
(Unique:
929
) / Subscribers:
0 | What's this?
