Eudora Going OSS

[Ashley Aitken]

Hi again Scott (et al.),

On 14/10/2006, at 11:55 AM, Scott Stevenson wrote:

> On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:23 PM, Ashley Aitken wrote:
>
>> I was just trying to say that Camino is/was an app that is/was  
>> trying to be a "good MacOSX app" but can't/couldn't compete with  
>> Safari for a number of reasons, as indicated.
>>
>
> What APIs does it need that it can't have?
>

I don't know, and either did they, probably.  That's the whole  
point ... along with the fact that the L&F and integration on MacOSX  
is still a moving target (with some uncertainty as to where it is  
going).


>> Why not? How can [Camino] not be in competition with Safari?
>>
>
> Why do you think they are? They're both free and both engines are  
> open source. Maybe there's a light rivalry but that's different  
> being in competition.
>

Ok, I see what you mean, because they are both free.  Surely though,  
they are in competition for downloads, mind-share, momentum, ...  If  
they charged for Camino would they be in a better position -  
competition wise?


>> There are all sort of advantages of being part of the mothership  
>> (e.g. new widgets, hidden optimisations).
>>
>
> Apple isn't the only one who's allowed to make new widgets. In  
> fact, it's pretty easy to do so. I'm not sure what you mean by  
> hidden optimizations. That implies some pretty underhanded tactics.
>

Sure, but most other apps would be crucified if they didn't follow  
the Cocoa standard.  Apple even gets a stiff deal on this (from me  
and others, as you have seen from the response to  iTunes latest  
changes).

Hidden optimisations: they can do things with private APIs, new APIs,  
get changes made elsewhere in the OS to assist, long before anyone  
else even knows about them (if they ever do).

Underhanded?  No.  Advantage?  Yes.


>> Sure, I know it was successful, but that's because it is not a  
>> core app that Apple has muscled in on.
>>
>
> Muscled in on? I just don't think we see this the same way. From  
> what I can see, Apple only entered markets that were not already  
> well-served by a third party, or if the third party didn't use all  
> that Mac OS X had to offer. I think that's a very reasonable approach.
>

But this is my point, Camino was trying to serve the Web browser  
market and use all that the MacOSX had to offer.  I was my browser of  
choice before Safari came along.  However, I claim it was/is/would be  
harder for them than Apple.

Again, two developers from a third-party company - two developers  
within Apple.  Surely you must agree that the Apple developers have  
an advantage, I would say significant, but I am happy to leave it as  
some advantage?  (and I see you agree below, I believe).


> The fact that Apple does this means Mac OS X users have the best  
> possible options, meaning more people are likely to buy Macs over  
> Windows, meaning Mac developers have more people to sell to.
>
>
>> If Apple chose to release a Delicious Library
>>
>
> Apple hired Delicious Library's UI designer, fwiw:
> http://mikematas.com/
>

Sure, another reason a third-party company can't compete ;-)


>> In summary, I was just trying to say that Apple has an unfair  
>> advantage over smaller software companies (and probably larger  
>> companies)
>>
>
> They certainly have an advantage but how is it unfair? The  
> advantage exists because they spent the last 10 years building a  
> platform that they designed (that frankly, early on, a lot of  
> people didn't believe in). Certainly they're going to have more  
> expertise but it's not undue.
>

I meant unfair advantage in that it makes it difficult for other  
companies, not that it is an "morally bad" thing.  It just makes it  
harder for small companies to compete for these same core products.

I'm not one who is confident that a third-party company will ever be  
able to develop a mail application better than Apple's.  I know  
people criticise Mail.app a lot (and I do too) but it would be very  
hard for another company to compete with Mail (IMHO).

Of course, different people like different apps, but with regards to  
MacOSX L&F, integration, ... Apple defines this (and so leads ...) I  
think.


>> and the larger companies generally need to make sure their apps  
>> are cross platform (which is harder to do well).
>>
>
> I disagree. That's a decision for each organization to make for  
> their own reasons. There's nothing that makes it more necessary for  
> bigger company.
>

A bigger organisation like Adobe or Microsoft generally needs a  
bigger market ... more sales?

Having to be cross platform and match exactly the L&F of each  
platform and provide full integration is (clearly) harder than just  
matching the L&F of one platform and providing full integration for  
one platform.

Let me try my summary again.  Apple (and Apple developers) have an  
easier job than third-party Mac-only or third-party cross-platform  
software development companies and thus an advantage.

Cheers,
Ashley.

--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
mrhatken at mac dot com
Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!)