🚀 go-pugleaf

      The fact that Apple has announced the demise of MacApp before
Bedrock is even released is a bad sign.  Remember, Bedrock is still
vaporware.  Before Symantec can deliver a development environment,
they must 1) come up with a usable C++ compiler for the Mac platform, 
something they have not yet been able to do despite acquiring Zortech,
2) integrate that compiler with some kind of environment, probably the
one from Think C, 3) make Bedrock work in that environment, and 4)
produce a manual that makes these tools usable.  

      These tasks may take a few years to complete.  It's entirely
possible that there will be a long hiatus during which there will be NO
commercially supported tools for the development of complex Mac
applications.  This can only accelerate the move to Windows.

      Yes, Symantec could sell Bedrock for use with MPW/C/Cfront,
but that would make the market so small that Bedrock wouldn't sell
through Symantec's dealer channels, just as MPW doesn't sell through
dealers.  Symantec wouldn't derive any marketing advantage from their
established dealer channels, and they aren't set up for high-priced
low-volume products sold through an in-house sales force.  So that
doesn't make business sense.

      It's almost as if Apple were killing off the Mac, like they
killed off the Lisa.  Is Scully really betting the company on 
Power PC, the "strategic alliance" with IBM, and "personal digital
assistants"?  Some published interviews indicate that he is thinking
along those lines.  

      Apple has not yet provided a credible statement of direction 
which would encourage developers to continue investing effort in
its Mac platform.  Perhaps it will do so.  Meanwhile, the Windows
development kit is widely available at low cost.

					John Nagle

In article <1992Dec26.022347.9730@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> 
>       The fact that Apple has announced the demise of MacApp before
> Bedrock is even released is a bad sign....
>
> ... It's entirely
> possible that there will be a long hiatus during which there will be NO
> commercially supported tools for the development of complex Mac
> applications.  This can only accelerate the move to Windows.
> 
>       Apple has not yet provided a credible statement of direction 
> which would encourage developers to continue investing effort in
> its Mac platform.  Perhaps it will do so.  Meanwhile, the Windows
> development kit is widely available at low cost.

well put.  your concerns are widely shared.

i could say a great deal here and land in hot water
(it wouldn't be very constructive anyway).  instead,
all i will say is this:

if you are a developer with concerns (i need to
stress here that they don't have to be just about
development systems), take the time to write a
letter to Roger Heinen, our high muckity-muck and
head panjandrum of engineering.  i hear that roger
likes letters (*don't* e-mail, because he's swamped,
and if it's not worth a postage stamp and a walk to
the mailbox, you're simply not serious).

that's:		Roger Heinen
		Apple Computer, Inc.
		20525 Mariani Avenue
		Cupertino, CA 95014

i imagine that even a short, simple letter like "I'm
concerned about X, Y and Z and I'm moving to Windows
next week.  Sincerely, <yourname>" would make an
impression.

'nuff said.   i gotta get back to my tar-pit....

-- 
landon dyer
apple computer newton team

NOT THE VIEWS OF APPLE COMPUTER

In article <1992Dec26.022347.9730@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
Nagle) wrote:
>       It's almost as if Apple were killing off the Mac, like they
> killed off the Lisa.  Is Scully really betting the company on 
> Power PC, the "strategic alliance" with IBM, and "personal digital
> assistants"?  Some published interviews indicate that he is thinking
> along those lines.  

Well, I've been involved with PowerPC for a long time, and the
platform will run existing binaries in emulation mode (quite well
and fast based on the current tests we've done), as well
as have a new native API that is a refinement of the current one so
there's not a lot of work concerning a port to PowerPC.

I just wanted to tone down the idea that our switch to PowerPC will
somehow obsolete the current and future application base. In other
words expect the Mac to be alive for another 10-20 years or more.

Cheers,
Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
>Well, I've been involved with PowerPC for a long time, and the
>platform will run existing binaries in emulation mode (quite well
>and fast based on the current tests we've done), as well
>as have a new native API that is a refinement of the current one so
>there's not a lot of work concerning a port to PowerPC.

       Remember, Apple claims Mac PowerBooks will run DOS programs, with
fine print at the bottom of the ad saying you need an emulation program
such as Soft PC.  Performance is comparable to PCs of 1985 vintage.
That's "emulation mode", as Apple markets it today.

       So Apple's strategy for the 90s is an all-new machine, an all-new
application interface, and a "penalty box" (a la that of Microsoft Windows) 
for running obsolete (old Mac) applications.  

       With a change that big, the user has to face a major conversion.
So there's a choice: convert to Apple's new line, or convert to something
else.  

					John Nagle
       

In article <1992Dec28.194659.21936@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
Nagle) wrote:
> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:
> >Well, I've been involved with PowerPC for a long time, and the
> >platform will run existing binaries in emulation mode (quite well
> >and fast based on the current tests we've done), as well
> >as have a new native API that is a refinement of the current one so
> >there's not a lot of work concerning a port to PowerPC.
> 
>        Remember, Apple claims Mac PowerBooks will run DOS programs, with
> fine print at the bottom of the ad saying you need an emulation program
> such as Soft PC.  Performance is comparable to PCs of 1985 vintage.
> That's "emulation mode", as Apple markets it today.
> 
>        So Apple's strategy for the 90s is an all-new machine, an all-new
> application interface, and a "penalty box" (a la that of Microsoft Windows) 
> for running obsolete (old Mac) applications.  
> 
>        With a change that big, the user has to face a major conversion.
> So there's a choice: convert to Apple's new line, or convert to something
> else.  

I've been in this business for a long time, and one thing is sure,
if you release a new platform, forget any ideas today that you could 
start from a plain state. You need apps from day one, both new and
old ones. And that's the strategy with PowerPC, and I' still amazed
how well everything works, but just wait for the end result. Unfortunately
I'm not allowed to speak about the current environment, but I'm really
hyped. The end users will *not* see a big penalty in using PowerPC
concerned with the 68k Macs. Remember, we are selling stuff to home
and office use, and not to UNIX administrators :-).

This is the same story with Windows and other platforms, MSoft
tells developers to use the Win32 mode so stuff will run under NT.
I don't see any differences in our strategy. 

Anyway, wait and see before you start critisizing; this reminds
me of Republicans that are already complaining about the presidency
of Clinton :-).

Just another issue concerning food for thought. Does it really
make sense to speed up network connections, for instance? And 
what are the real bottlenecks of the Macintosh today?

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000