A reminder to all: PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!
Thank you.
On another note, PCs are better than Macs. Discuss.
Thank you.
On another note, PCs are better than Macs. Discuss.
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.For some reason, many developers think everyone is on Windows only. :thumbsdn:
I'd have moved to Mac long ago IF software developers at the time weren't so slow in realizing people actually use Macs.
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.Several companies have made both Windows and Mac versions. That's no longer an excuse.
^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
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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.