1. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    ^Remember Lady, Macs can now run Windows via the mac os (x10?) op system so you would be able to run your windows based software programs.

    regards
    Yeah but Windows on Apple hardware? I don't know if I can bring myself to do it.
    01-30-2007 12:37 AM
  2. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    Clearly you're not in the commercial software industry - it's a significant excuse. Profitability with a Windows software package has no bearing on how that software will be accepted on a Mac - even with the traditional Mac software additional markups. It's generally more profitable and less risky to focus on one platform - and Windows is the dominant platform to focus on. And it's not as it a program written for Windows is easily ported over to OSX.
    I have several CDs where the software is for both platforms OR they just made a seperate program period. Maybe smaller companies can't afford to do it, I'll give you that. But some of the bigger companies are finally coming around. They don't use that excuse anymore.
    01-30-2007 12:51 AM
  3. Tastypeppers's Avatar
    Hey everyone, I forgot to turn on the <irony> tags when I said "PCs are better than Macs". It was a joke. Sorry for the pathetic attempt at humor.

    It was a poke at the hysterical/religious fervor with which the iPhone topic is attacked. Or the PalmOS/WM operating system hoo-hah that goes through here.

    Right. We've squared that up. Poo, meet fan. Fan, meet poo. Everyone as you were. Back at it.
    01-30-2007 01:11 AM
  4. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    Well it was better than the same 3 or 4 people fervently arguing for or against the iPhone.
    01-30-2007 01:17 AM
  5. oalvarez's Avatar
    ^Lady, i see you purchased? a new 750. congrats if so. i sent mine back, still too big, not much better than what i currently use (for my needs).

    my friend, OSX10 can run Windows XP which means you can load any/all of your Windows based software (xp compatible if not more) on the Mac. You simply boot into Windows when starting up your Mac (instead of booting into the Mac OS).

    i think you understand what i'm trying to say, i'm sure you knew this before (or at least had an idea of it).

    regards
    01-30-2007 07:47 AM
  6. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    I have several CDs where the software is for both platforms OR they just made a seperate program period. Maybe smaller companies can't afford to do it, I'll give you that. But some of the bigger companies are finally coming around. They don't use that excuse anymore.
    What you're often seeing are companies that started off writing Mac-only software, but re-hosted to PC to make more money (Adobe comes to mind). The vast majority of the Windows software developers never go near the Mac - it's just not a profitable venture. Or are you describing your latest AOL CD?

    If you're looking for a longer software company list, those companies that used to write for the Mac but no longer do (or went out of business all together) is a long and distinguished one.
    01-30-2007 08:40 AM
  7. specimen38's Avatar
    That's not entirely true. Microsoft (of all companies) is repeatedly on record saying Macintosh software sales of MS Office is one of their most profitable products. Also, remember MS Word was on the Mac years before it came to PC. The profit margins on that 4% are high.
    I suspect with only a ~4% of the worldwide OS market (compared to Windows ~86%), Mac commercial software development remains a shaky business proposition at best.
    01-30-2007 10:45 AM
  8. archie's Avatar
    I suspect with only a ~4% of the worldwide OS market (compared to Windows ~86%), Mac commercial software development remains a shaky business proposition at best.
    Is that why Adobe see 30%-40% of their profits from Mac software? Once they release Universal Binaries, you will see this number shoot up.
    01-30-2007 11:31 AM
  9. archie's Avatar
    What you're often seeing are companies that started off writing Mac-only software, but re-hosted to PC to make more money (Adobe comes to mind). The vast majority of the Windows software developers never go near the Mac - it's just not a profitable venture. Or are you describing your latest AOL CD?

    If you're looking for a longer software company list, those companies that used to write for the Mac but no longer do (or went out of business all together) is a long and distinguished one.
    There are over 60,000 developers for Mac OS X. They are all listed on Apple's website. And as you can imagine, there are at least that many applications. You should check it out sometime.
    01-30-2007 11:40 AM
  10. archie's Avatar
    Clearly you're not in the commercial software industry - it's a significant excuse. Profitability with a Windows software package has no bearing on how that software will be accepted on a Mac - even with the traditional Mac software additional markups.
    Wait, let me just get this straight. You ARE saying that companies like Adobe and Microsoft markup their software packages for the Mac, right? Tell me, is it because they have to take the extra time to port the app to Mac?
    01-30-2007 11:44 AM
  11. mobileman's Avatar
    That's not entirely true. Microsoft (of all companies) is repeatedly on record saying Macintosh software sales of MS Office is one of their most profitable products. Also, remember MS Word was on the Mac years before it came to PC. The profit margins on that 4% are high.
    Would love to see a link because I find this highly unlikely
    01-30-2007 12:14 PM
  12. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    That's not entirely true. Microsoft (of all companies) is repeatedly on record saying Macintosh software sales of MS Office is one of their most profitable products. Also, remember MS Word was on the Mac years before it came to PC. The profit margins on that 4% are high.
    Word for PC Initial Release: 1983
    MacIntosh (the computer) Initial Release: 1984
    NOTE: High profit margins on a small market = overall low earnings. Woo hoo!
    Wait, let me just get this straight. You ARE saying that companies like Adobe and Microsoft markup their software packages for the Mac, right? Tell me, is it because they have to take the extra time to port the app to Mac?
    They gouge the consumer because they can. Windows users have come to expect the lower prices on software with the same capability due to economies of scale in production and smaller margins in a more competitive environment.
    There are over 60,000 developers for Mac OS X. They are all listed on Apple's website. And as you can imagine, there are at least that many applications. You should check it out sometime.
    Given Apples' small worldwide computer market share, a lot of those folks must be starving...or serving fries with that order in their "bread-winning" job.
    Is that why Adobe see 30%-40% of their profits from Mac software? Once they release Universal Binaries, you will see this number shoot up.
    Hmmmm.....
    About 20% of Adobe's total revenue comes from the Macintosh platform, Ross MacMillan, a Jefferies & Co. analyst, says. The rest comes from software for Microsoft's Windows PC operating system.
    ...which is certainly telling since Adobe started out as a purely Mac software house.
    01-30-2007 05:14 PM
  13. archie's Avatar
    Word for PC Initial Release: 1983
    MacIntosh (the computer) Initial Release: 1984
    I think what you meant to say is that Excel came out first for the Mac. Then later on the PC.

    NOTE: High profit margins on a small market = overall low earnings. Woo hoo!

    They gouge the consumer because they can. Windows users have come to expect the lower prices on software with the same capability due to economies of scale in production and smaller margins in a more competitive environment.
    That's what I thought. This kind of thinking is incorrect. Thank you for restating and unintentionally proving me correct below.


    Hmmmm.....
    Originally Posted by Investor's Business Daily, Oct 06
    About 20% of Adobe's total revenue comes from the Macintosh platform, Ross MacMillan, a Jefferies & Co. analyst, says. The rest comes from software for Microsoft's Windows PC operating system.
    ...which is certainly telling since Adobe started out as a purely Mac software house.
    Now consider the fact that not one of Adobe's applications has been written as a Universal Binary. This will change in the coming months and the pent up demand from the last year will be unleashed and sales will go back to the 30%-40% and probably approach 50% or more in comparison to your 20% quote from just this last fall.

    Oh, by the way, can you point me to a website maybe that actually has a Mac program listed for more than the PC version? Maybe some place like PCMall/MacMall, Best Buy... whatever, anything.
    01-30-2007 05:44 PM
  14. bloodycape77's Avatar
    Yeah but Windows on Apple hardware? I don't know if I can bring myself to do it.
    I do it all the time I have vista running on my macbook pro. Besides is not really Apple hardware it is more like intel hardware the same one you can like find on a Toshiba or Hp.
    01-30-2007 06:52 PM
  15. specimen38's Avatar
    WRONG!
    Word for PC Initial Release: 1983 Incorrect! Multi-Tool Word (not Word for PC) was released in 1983 for DOS. There was no such thing as "Word for PC" in 1983. MacIntosh (the computer) Initial Release: 1984
    NOTE: High profit margins on a small market = overall low earnings. Woo hoo! Sounds like you're clueless about Mac profitability -- ask your God-Microsoft for the answers to the hard questions. Vista has to be your savior. Book: Vista for Dummies, I presume is your Bible.
    01-30-2007 08:23 PM
  16. specimen38's Avatar
    Microsoft profitability alluded to twice in this article. The word "lucrative" is used.

    This is no big secret mobileman. Sorry I didn't have time to find your more links, but I seen it in print few other times. A few years back one of Microsofts Execs appeared in cameo during Steve J's keynote fawning and exclaimng the enormous benefits of doing business with Apple.


    Would love to see a link because I find this highly unlikely
    01-30-2007 08:54 PM
  17. specimen38's Avatar
    Let's get back to talking about iPhone. Windows won the per unit/WinOS versus MacOs war back in the 90s. However, looking at a pre-release of Vista, Apple won the UI design hands down.
    01-30-2007 09:15 PM
  18. Kupe#WP's Avatar
    WRONG! + blah blah blah
    LOL - Multi-tool Word was renamed to simply "Word" in 1984. Are you really going to be that obtuse? Or should I let you continue to feel good about your "successful" Google search?
    Sounds like you're clueless about Mac profitability -- ask your God-Microsoft for the answers to the hard questions. Vista has to be your savior. Book: Vista for Dummies, I presume is your Bible.
    Umm - "Mac" profitability, from an Apple stock viewpoint is mediocre. The iPod is the rainmaker and makes Apple such a stock favorite now. Not sure what you mean about Vista - as far as I've seen, it's unproven (and not officially released for at least a couple more hours). Does it somehow threaten you? Not me - but that's probably because I prefer Linux and OSX.
    I think what you meant to say is that Excel came out first for the Mac. Then later on the PC.
    I guess you meant to shift the discussion to Excel for some reason ... since nobody else was talking about it.
    Now consider the fact that not one of Adobe's applications has been written as a Universal Binary. This will change in the coming months and the pent up demand from the last year will be unleashed and sales will go back to the 30%-40% and probably approach 50% or more in comparison to your 20% quote from just this last fall.
    Isn't this the second year in a row (or is it the third now) where the Universal Binary prediction has been made? The Adobe revenue % figure I quoted was for the entire preceding year - more like a trend than a spot check. Perhaps this year you'll be right in your prediction (well not your's actually - but it's certainly popular on Mac fanboy sites) and we'll all get rich on our Adobe stock (Apple stock too since it will should help boost Mac sales)! Personally I'm tired of waiting for Adobe to get their act straight ... and glad their CFO finally quit.
    Let's get back to talking about iPhone. Windows won the per unit/WinOS versus MacOs war back in the 90s. However, looking at a pre-release of Vista, Apple won the UI design hands down.
    Did you say talk about the iPhone?
    01-30-2007 10:12 PM
  19. oalvarez's Avatar
    still looking forward to buying and trying out the iphone

    01-30-2007 11:46 PM
  20. mobileman's Avatar
    Microsoft profitability alluded to twice in this article. The word "lucrative" is used.

    This is no big secret mobileman. Sorry I didn't have time to find your more links, but I seen it in print few other times. A few years back one of Microsofts Execs appeared in cameo during Steve J's keynote fawning and exclaimng the enormous benefits of doing business with Apple.

    "Lucrative" is a big difference than what you originally said. You claimed "Macintosh software sales of MS Office is one of their most profitable products". Again, I highly doubt that statement.
    01-31-2007 11:03 AM
  21. oahu's Avatar
    I am reading this thread and found it very interested.

    Here is some info:
    AOL was inhouse at Apple before it was given away and rename, being an Apple developer I remember Apple attempts to support this online product and deciding to let it go.
    Adobe was inhouse before letting it go on its own.

    There are a lot of software and hardware products that most people do not know that Apple had its hand in.

    As far as windows is concern - Lets remember Gates made no bones about using Apple ideas and code for windows, after all he said why re-invent the wheel. I believe that is why he renew his agreement with Apple a number of years ago on the use of Code.

    I laugh when I hear friends of mine tell me they would not touch a Mac and yet they love windows.

    Anyway, I thought this would be of interest or maybe not!
    01-31-2007 12:41 PM
  22. specimen38's Avatar
    Dude...don't minimize lucrative. Google for yourself and you wii learn the truth.
    01-31-2007 01:42 PM
  23. mobileman's Avatar
    Dude...don't minimize lucrative. Google for yourself and you wii learn the truth.
    I am not minimizing lucrative....dude. Lucrative is not what you originally claimed. Lucrative is a HUGE difference to being "one of the most profitable" as you claimed. I dare say Mac Office is not even close to one of the most profitable MS products.
    01-31-2007 02:19 PM
  24. specimen38's Avatar
    I am not claiming anything. These are Microsoft claims. Look at the Steve J's keynote from 2001 or 2002. YouTube it! Report back after you watch it. Beside, the word "lucrative" is nothing to sneer at. It apparently means one of the most profitable. Of course, Microsoft has many profitable businesses. Apple is certainly not one of the least profitable, as evidenced by the usage of the word lucrative.
    I am not minimizing lucrative....dude. Lucrative is not what you originally claimed. Lucrative is a HUGE difference to being "one of the most profitable" as you claimed. I dare say Mac Office is not even close to one of the most profitable MS products.
    01-31-2007 03:26 PM
  25. mobileman's Avatar
    I am not claiming anything. These are Microsoft claims. Look at the Steve J's keynote from 2001 or 2002. YouTube it! Report back after you watch it. Beside, the word "lucrative" is nothing to sneer at. It apparently means one of the most profitable. Of course, Microsoft has many profitable businesses. Apple is certainly not one of the least profitable, as evidenced by the usage of the word lucrative.
    Im not in the mood to YouTube a keynote adress from 5 years ago. If "lucrative" to you means "one of the most profitable", then you need a business lesson.
    01-31-2007 04:20 PM
188 12345 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD