On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Mayo, Bill <bem...@pittcountync.gov> wrote:
> I just find your constant need to insult and belittle people to be
> childish and annoying.
While I readily admit that I do toss in the occasional snide remark,
I was unaware that I was constantly -- or even regularly -- insulting
and belittling people. If that's the case, I sincerely apologize.
Additionally, I offer to provide a personal and on-list apology to
anyone who felt insulted by something I wrote.
I can see how some of my snide remarks could be taken as insulting.
I generally thought I was making them in the spirit of "good-natured
banter" for comic relief, but I can see how that could be lost in
email. On this list, I will attempt to curtail snide remarks made
towards private individuals, including list members.[1] I would also
request anyone who feels I go stray to please call me out (on-list or
off).
[1] I reserve the right to make snide remarks directed at products,
companies, public figures, situations, etc. If that's still too much
for your tastes, we'll just have to agree to disagree about what
constitutes "insulting".
> In regards to how you have diagnosed Apple's problems, were you using
> Macs at that time?
I was supporting them professionally. Does that count as "use"?
I recall users upset that:
* Macs were slow or unusable when something else was running
* Mac computers crashed a lot
* Mac networking was unstable
* Windows computers had more software available
* Windows computers crashed less often
Note that this was in professional settings, such as engineering or
publishing. Home users often have a different take on things; I'm not
qualified to speak to how home users perceived Macs at the time.
> But you are completely incorrect that Mac OS X was what turned Apple around.
> Instead, it was the first iMac, which ran the "toy" OS. It was YEARS before
> Mac OS X shipped, let alone became usable (with 10.1)--long after Apple was
> back in the black.
In my analysis, I didn't really see Apple start to gain serious
market attention again until Mac OS X. Perhaps iMac was good for
Apple's finances because it was cheaper to make, but that didn't put
them on the path they are on now. Perhaps my analysis is simply
incorrect.
But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that Mac OS X had
nothing to do with Apple's success, and that the biggest problem was
that third-party development tools were the single biggest
contributing factor to Apple's near-death. In that case, how do you
explain the widespread availability of third-party development tools
and software being available for Mac OS X *not* causing the downfall
of Apple again?
> If you make a cross-platform development
> tool, how many resources are you going to devote to implementing a feature
> that is only on one platform?
Presumably, if there is any demand for the feature, the
cross-platform developer will implement it, or the app developer will
jump ship and implement native code on the popular platform.
> If the feature is not available in the development environment, it
> cannot be incorporated into the resulting application.
We have the following possible scenarios:
A1. Cross-platform tools are not available
A2. Cross-platform tools (third-party or not) are available
Given A1, application developers must target the platform natively.
They have no choice. So developers face the question: Is there is
enough demand to warrant re-implementing everything from scratch? Two
possible outcomes:
B1. There is enough demand; develop natively
B2. There is not sufficient demand; do without
Given A2, application developers have a new choice: Implement
natively anyway, or use a cross-platform tool. If they already have
working code for the cross-platform tool, that's an easy choice, but
re-implementation is still an option
Now let us suppose a new, unique feature appears on the native
platform. The developers now face the same question ("Is there
sufficient demand?"), and have the same two possible outcomes (B1 and
B2). However, there is a third possible outcome:
B3. Successfully convince the cross-platform tool developer to support
the feature
To review: Given A1, we have B1 and B2. Given A2, we have B1, B2, and B3.
So I see the entire "third-party tools will kill Apple" argument as
based on faulty logic.
Respectfully submitted,
-- Ben
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
