D'Arcy Norman notes Business Week Online's article titled OS X: Think Too Different: "Charles Haddad just posted a story on MacOSX, and how developers are avoiding it like the plague. He describes the MWSF keynote, given by an unknown 'black-shirted presenter', as a failure, not capturing the interest of the bored audience..."
by MacNN Staff
Comments
Guess they didnt give this guy enough cookies ;-)
Of course the audience was rather flat about OS X because they have seen much the same several times already and as ever it is the "one last thing" that everyone is waiting for ;-)
That is not to say that mac users are not interested. I think Jobs set out a fair rollout period for OS X and application support. Much the same as for. ummmm... Windiws 2000 etc ;-)
Sure people tend to be nervious about change but since you can run all apps on OSX anyway (in Classic mode) it means that the progressive uptake of apps ported to OS is pretty painless. He also forgot the true performance benefits thats will come 'out of the box' with the OS optimised for Altivec, so faster graphics etc etc....
As soon as idsoftware release an OS X altivec enhanced version of Quake Arena you will have half the Mac community buying it anyhow ;-)....
What Charles fails to realize is that this is Old Hat for The Faithful. We're all VERY aware of all the features of OS X, we're saturated with it. As a matter of fact (correct me if I'm wrong) I believe that this would be the 3rd time ata Major Apple Event, we've seen much the same demo.
Yes, It was exciting at MW '00 to see the new Aqua interface in action with all the cute little animation and bright shiny colors, drop shadows and live draggable windows. It was also nice to see the demo at NY last summer, vastly improved.
But, now it's the third go round...most of you reading this have either seen, purchased, or downloaded the Public Beta or have a DR and have used it for more than a few hours...hands on.
WE ALL KNOW this stuff, so OF COURSE it was a little boring...and of course we were REALLY excited about the Apple Menu and all the other features we *requested*
Obviously, Charles is a columnist (that's the Official Title they give people who right these days), who didn't attend the last 2 Apple events...I daresay he probably prefers his PC over anything Apple offers. ;
I'm begining to think that I should to add Columnists to my ever-growing list of hated professions: Lawyers, Stock Analysts, and Politicians...
You can tell that ol' Charlie wasn't even paying attention to the keynote -- iTunes and iDVD are for Mac OS 9, not OS X....
only the press.
Yes, Steve's fasination with slow motion shrinking windows is pretty boring the 5 time around and when I can do it at home every night.
I read this guy's article, and it reads just like any moron PC journalist's would if they were at MWSF. Then I read his little bio, and it says stuff like how much he loves Macs (he has one, and his wife has three), and how he finds PC's so complicated.
Yet he writes this article about how people were excited about the blue apple icon moving to the corner (no mention of its return to being a menu). He talks about Apple trying to draw people to OS X with iTunes and iDVD (they're for OS 9!). And he doesn't know who the black-shirted guy is!! Even my PC buddies know who Steve Jobs is.
What it all comes down to is that this guy is a second-rate journalist at best. It's a miracle he still has a job. Apparently nobody checks out accuracy or facts where he works.
Either that or he's just a moron.
Jeremy
Cocoa is a new laguage? Huh?!
It's just the API (actually one of several) you can use to program for OSX. The programming language is Java or C (you can even mix).
And yes, Cocoa is easy to learn and use. It's learnin curve is much smoother that that of Micorsoft's MFC or the Java API.
You are right that Cocoa is an API, but it's only accesbile from Java or Objective C. You can't use it from C++ or C. However, developers can easily port their applications to Mac OS X by using Carbon. By using Carbon, 90% of their apps code will remain unchanged.
The columnist said that an MS representative said that they have not even STARTED porting Office to OS X. How could they have demoed Office 2001 running on OS X _natively_ on Wednesday, then??
I wonder how this organization chooses writers. "Oh, you have a PC, you go cover Macworld." Then the guy flies to San Francisco and sleeps through the whole event, then scrambles to find a tape of the keynote and try to glean an article from it, without understanding what is being discussed. I wish my job was that cushy, but then again, people expect me to know what I am talking about...
I suggest everyone write to this bonehead and point out the flaws in his article (yes I know it takes a while to make such a large list.)
Is this guy someone without ears (and brains) or does he actually get PAID to make these remarks?
Exchange this wanna-be journalist's Mac for a Wintel and he wont even notice.
Instead of writing directly to this clueless idiot, I suggest writing to his boss. BusinessWeek has links to respond to articles. There is a Story Feedback page if you want to go for publication and a General Feedback page where you can specify that you don't want your comments considered for publication.
A small note in his defense though is that I believe that the black shirted guy he was referring to was actually not Steve Jobs but one of the guys who runs the demo's at Macworld. After the keynote there are people who run through basically all of the highlights of the keynote on a regular basis on the stage at Apple's booth. But yes, other than that, this guy is pretty much out to lunch.
the Windows weenies are scared, the FUD is out in force already, similiar thing happening to Linux atm
I agree with the writer. Watching the presentation online I had the same impression, not much enthusiasm.
What's this business about MS not even having started to write Office for OS X? That simply cannot be possible given their announcement at MWSF.
I saw the keynote via QuickTime and I was happy about the UI updates in MacOS X; but I didn't go through the roof in joy and excitement! Why, becuase I (like probably most people in the conference) were quite familiar with about 90% of everything that Jobs presented. WE LOVE MacOS X and welcome it. Make no mistake about it.
"great spirits, have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds".....he's an idiot
as a programmer, i understand his remarks about reluctance to learn a new API. especially those of us, like the renowned peter lewis, who use pascal. even linux supports it. macos was written in pascal (and assembler). that's not to say we mustn't move on, just that apple must realise a learning curve is not really that easy to get over when it's a new language as well as a new api as well as a new project builder / IDE. basically i want apple to release the final so i *know* its finalized and i don't have to think about whether they're going to change anything anymore. also the programmers guides aren't that great. i liked inside macintosh. where's inside openstep (oops! sorry, "inside os x")?
i do like osx and prefer it to classic, i just basically have to learn everything from scratch now. that means 6 months delay on my next product. no, i don't want to go the carbon route. reason: it's not the native form of the os application. carbon apps are run inside individual LaunchCFMApp processes using the carbonlib. that means there is an additional interpretation layer of some kind. if i write for osx i want it to be native. i want it to be portable. i want to be able to tar.gz it so i can upload it to an ftp site without it losing its resource fork. i want to be able to copy it from one drive to another using the BSD layer if i so choose (because it's often more efficient given the clumsy slow finder). but if i do that with a carbon or classic app, it gets annihilated. so i see no reason, apart from laziness, to write in anything other than cocoa API. also under the BSD layer, cocoa apps appear by name, not just as "LaunchCFMApp". so you can kill things by name without having to guess (eg., when your mac's GUI is stuck and you need to log in remotely and kill the offending app). lots of reasons to go cocoa, that's why apple's pushing it. in their "inside os x document" which came with my developer cd's (yes, inside os x does exist, it's just not inside macintosh!) - in that booklet, it says they prefer cocoa as it's the native API of the OS. read: faster, filesystem-agnostic, etc, etc. also you can launch cocoa apps from the commandline by changing directory into them and using the usual unix ./appname incantation. so no, i'm not very happy and i agree with many of the remarks made by this so-called "idiot" journalist. i think apple should invest in its developers and give some simple examples for us to try. or persuade metrowerks to pull their fingers out their asses and make a cocoa IDE. (unless i missed the announcement!)
althiugh he is wrong about some things, He's Absolulty right about the developers waiting for a final version toolbox to write for OSX. Most of the time ist's too expensive to invest time in semi finished tools to lean.
Actually Steve said something about 5000 people on the floor, not "Hundreds".
Well, well!
People are eager to bash down the journalist, and not reading very carefully.
MS has not started to port Office to _Cocoa_, though the port to Carbon is well underway, and was demoed.
Cocoa does require you to learn another language: Objective C. (NOT C) Yes, you can use it from Java, but there are limitations involved in doing so. And even Java is still a new language to some developers, as pointed out.
I do agree, however, that lack of enthusiasm was probably more ascribable to boredom over familiar demos than fear about the new OS. That is one mistake the journalist probably made, and I wish he said whether he thought to ASK developers why they reacted with such limited enthusiasm.
He's a troll. He knows that by ripping into MacOS X with unfounded and unreasearched observations he'll accomplish two things: The Windows zealots will eat it up like candy, affirmation of their religion. The MacOS zealots will read it in disgust. He wins on either side, his article gets read, he gets payed. All that matters to the publisher is that the article is read.
In other words: YHBT, YHL,HAND.
"Unknowner presenter in a black shirt"?, My god, if this guy doesn't know who Steve Jobs is, how can we expect hm to know s*** about what was revealed at the Keynote?Jeeze..maybe old Chuck can sick to CES and the other billion morons in the Wintel wasteland.
my favorite jab at job's keynote was posted on (i think) cnet where someone talked about (something like) 'apple was misguiding people into thinking that if they bought the iDVD software they would be able to burn DVDs, but they didnt let people know that they needed a 3500 dollar computer to do it' or something. i hate the damned media. i saw some video of a guy who was interviewing some apple rep at MW about the PBG4, and the most riveting question he could come up with was "ooh, its metal, is it going to get hot?"
Charles Haddad has proven himself to be quite inept in his Apple coverage. In the past, he has extolled the virtues of some rather poor products from Apple and has now, I see, turned sceptical based on ignorance.
As has been pointed out before, Steve Jobs ought not to be applauded for dragging movie windows around. Although it is a clear demonstration of Mac OS X's multitasking abilities, he has been using the same demonstration since Aqua was unveiled -- perhaps before. For Haddad to be concerned about the cold response, perceptibly based on the assumption that it is something new, is just foolish; he doesn't have his facts straight. People cheered when if was first demonstrated, showing a marked enthusiasm for Apple's implementation of a technology, even though it has been used by competitors for years now. If Haddad were in possession of that fact - something that should be common knowledge to any Apple reporter - the entire article would likely be revised.
Haddad is not so new to Mac journalism that he can be pardoned for his inexperience. He has been pumping out fluff articles for at least a matter of months, and his turn towards scepticism only exacerbates the problem, since critical articles beg to be taken seriously. His latest, though, is certainly not worthy of any thought or scrutiny it may invite. I humbly suggest that either he shape up, or stop writing such trash altogether.
I've been a Mac user since 1984, but OS X has finally given me the incentive to dump the Mac and switch to Windows.
Is this kinda article really a suprise to anyone? Business week has had a long history of haveing no clue what apple is doing much less why. And I really wonder if they have any grip on the computer industry. please remeber these are the guys that did the "death of an icon" thing withthe apple logo on the cover. Stupid is as stupid does.
this guy really had no idea what the h*** he was talking about. AT ALL.
I like the idiots "guy in a black shirt" comment. This coming from a Mongoloid who would drop on his knees to kiss "Stupid geek with bad hair cut and worse sweater" a** at a drop of a coin.
I've been talking with people who program on Wintel who are actually looking forward to getting there hands on macs with OSX to program on.
What's with this week? I've read two complete jackass's uninformed remarks so far. Cant we just put them down like the rabid dogs they are?
...about that local sports team...
"Actually Steve said something about 5000 people on the floor, not "Hundreds"."
You thought he was talking to 5000 people? Are you insane? 5000 total at MacWorld - not the "keynote" marketing pitch.
I've had the unfortunate experience of reading Haddad's stuff in the Atlanta Journal Tech section, and it blows, consistently.
I dunno, we use macs for all mission critical things, accoutning, inventory, all business functions, and I am not really interested in moving to OSX until everything is native, not in emulation. Isn't that what these coca and classic labels boil down to? Don't you remember how dang slow everything was on the first PPC Macs when everything was running in 68K emulation for a year or two? Or how buggy everything was? Maybe it will be more stable than I have been lead to believe, I hope so, but I am also worried about the speed hit, all the benchmarks I have seen so far tell me that classic and even carbon apps run slower in OSX than 9.0.4 (so I suppose 9.1).
Cheers,
I was one of the thousands that watched the keynote address, the entire address on the Internet (blessed by a great connection). It sure sounded like people were enthused. Has this guy even compared OS X to Win2000? Win2000 is closer to Mac OS 8.6 than Windows has ever been before. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, well at least in theory. OS X is light years beyond what M$ is offering in functionality, not to mention WOW factor.
And the boxes it will run on are a lot cooler too.
"Classic" applications still run natively on the processor, they just don't have direct access to the hard drive, and there is another level of translation of the API's
but it's not like VPC emulation
based on experience with the public beta, most "Classic" apps are about 90-95% as fast as they would run if you just booted MacOS 9 on the same machine, a few apps actually run faster (not many though)
I'm sure there are a few apps though, that do run slower than the 90% mark, I didn't run into any myself though.
which is a world of difference between early PPC running 68k apps in emulation, where something like Speed Doubler could make a dramatic increase in even the system.
for the most part, you can't tell the difference between carbon & cocoa apps, although for absolute top speed (games/heavy graphics) cocoa will probably be faster.
even if some apps (or even most apps) are running in classic, not having to fully reboot the machine should count for something, if something goes wrong with a classic app, or the classic environment, you force quit it, and start it up again (at least on my iMac DV, this is faster than a full machine reboot by about 30 seconds, and I haven't trimmed down the extensions my classic is using)
There does seem to be a bug with the public beta, and MP G4's and classic, but as far as I know, that's the only one that can actually crash MacOS X (with a kernel panic)
at least according to some of the MacOS X forums, and e-mail lists.
There are another bug or two that can leave the MacOS X GUI frozen, and it can be a problem to fix if you have a standalone machine, but again, this is a bug I haven't run into yet myself (I've been using the Public Beta since September)
I will be much more confident in handing someone a mac running MacOS X than MacOS 9 or earlier any day, once MacOS X is released that is ;)
MacOS 9 or earlier does crash from time to time... MacOS X might crash (or GUI freeze) once a year or so at the most.
Alright, enough with the Columnist bashing for the black-shirted presenter line.
He knows who it was, he was being clever; and if you think about it, he assumes that all the readers know who the presenter was as well.
Yes, he mis-used Language when he should have said API, but the intent was the same. To wit, some developers are not yet comfortable with writing stuff using the cocoa API.
As to folks saying "they can all use carbon", well I am one of those who hopes that most developers DON'T just use carbon. I want my X to fly, and it will do that best with totally re-written, clean code.
That said, he needed to understand that iDVD and iTunes are probably not the only "killer app" that Apple has for OSX. Additionally,he should have recognized that the underpinnings actually open a whole world of *inx based software that will become available, but on the wholethe peice was not totally unfair, it just wasn't fiar in our favor :)
have you looked at any of his past articles? they all slam the mac in one way or another.. maybe he shouldn't be writing their mac articles? why doesn't he just shoot his mac and go buy a pc already! he might be happier.
Here's the email response I sent to him after reading his "article"
"OS X: Thinking Too Different? This article is c***. Why weren't the MW attendees wowed? Because they've all been playing with the public beta for a couple months now and already know 99% of the feature set. Also there were over 5,000 watching that keynote, not hundreds. And frankly I didn't get the same feeling you did when I watched the keynote. These developers actually oohed and aahed just as much, if not more than they have at any other keynote given by Jobs. Oh and regarding developers support for OSX. You're wrong again. Microsoft actually demoed it's office apps on OSX, so I guess they have begun porting them after all haven't they? And *all* of the major developers have promised full support. The fact the Macromedia, Adobe and Microsoft have pledged full support makes it a done deal. Everyone else has no choice but to follow. I realize you journalists are always h*** bent to jump on the Bash Apple Bandwagon. But you never seem to know what the you're talking about when you do. Maybe you should try another line of work, or at the very least report on something you're competent about. This article was of no value to anyone. "
I was about to fire off a response to Mr. Haddad, ripping him that he didn't even recognize the Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Then I realized he was referring to the recurring demos of OS X on the show floor, given by product presenters... not the main keybote by Steve Jobs. (At least, thats the only explanation I cam come up with.) One would think anyone employed by Business Week would recognize the CEO of Apple and Pixar. Unless he was trying to be cute. Who knows. In any case, he still sounds like a dummy.
Mr. Haddad,
Are you kidding me?
"No matter how much the black-shirted Apple presenter trumpeted OS X as "tremendous" and "stunning," the crowd watched in glum silence as he ran the new software through its seemingly awe-inspiring paces"
The only reason there was silence was because everybody has seen OSX before. The bug questions was when do we get the full package, and it was answered with March 2001!
"So, I stayed and watched as Apple presenters ran the demo again and again throughout the day. And nearly every time, the morning's depressing scene was replayed."
Depressing? You are the ONLY person I've heard give ANY sort of negative feedback. I've seen reviews by neutral and windoze cheerleaders give more realistic and inspiring reviews than yours, you a**.
Deeply flawed new OS? When is the last time a BETA of an operating system was released and had NO bug fixes? I have been running OS X beta since the day it came out virtually and I havent crashed it ONCE! USing Classic mode and all! You are a complete MORON.
"But what Microsoft didn't announce but has told some partners is that it hasn't even begun the massive job of rewriting Word, Excel, and Entourage for OS X."
HELLO! The VERY NEXT DAY, Microsoft demonstrated WORD 2001 for OS X and actually released a beta version of Outlook for OS X. While they may not be writing everythng in COCOA yet you are correct, becuase apple even recomended for EXISTING applications to be updated using carbon and only new programs should be written in COCOA. You are truly stupid.
"But, alas, I don't think either iTunes or iDVD will be enough to win a critical mass of followers for OS X"
750,000 copies of iTunes has been downloaded in one week!
"I think Jobs and company are in for the fight of their lives in establishing OS X as the standard in the Mac community."
OS X will be the standard operating system starting in July, and there will be no looking back. That's like saying Apple will be in for the fight of their lives trying to establish the PowerPC chip as the standard for Mac users. If you haven't looked around lately, Apple hasn't shipped a non-RISC chip in YEARS!
My suggestion. Put down the pen, pick up a bottle of sleepng pills. It's idiots like you, who spread misconceptions and lies about the Macintsh, then more drones read it and believe it. go have lunch with Howard stern, he's more your mental and social speed.
Daniel G. Crane II, PE
Mechanical Engineer
Bechard Long & Associates, Inc
dcrane2@bech.com
You are right that Cocoa is an API, but it's only accesbile
from Java or Objective C. You can't use it from C++ or C.
Objective C is a strict superset of ANSI C so you can access Cocoa in C apps by adding some Objective C bindings ... that 's the reason why there is a growing number of GUI frontends to BSD apps appearing on OS X. If you write C interfaces to your C++ code, you can actually provide some support for Cocoa in a predominantly C++ app (but it is a lot of work).
However, developers can easily port their applications
to Mac OS X by using Carbon. By using Carbon, 90%
of their apps code will remain unchanged.
True ... however to be truly useful, an app needs some re-architecting. Take IE for OS X ... it appears to be the barest port to OS X possible. Support for pre-emptive threads has to be added to make the app really fly in our new world of multiprocessing vectorized Macs ... your UI has to be fit-and-finished for Aqua ... so Carbonization isn't just a weekend job.
His headline should have read that he doesn't think at all!! I would like to see the proof that all of these developers who Steve says are interested and working on OSX are really not. Steve Jobs is not an idiot to publicly for the last 2 to 4 years work on a project of this magnetude and clearly post and advertise that over 400 developers are on board with OSX if they really were not. You sir better get some facts before writing this kind of c***!! If people were not interested and boared as you say then why was there a record attendence? Because people were bored? I don't think so! If you can't write anything good then just don't write anything and save us all a lot of this non sense.
...why would he expect all the cheering if it were only a repeat demo? Why should people be expected to cheer at a rerum?
I get a new machine i'll use it. Our planned purchase is a DVD recording G4 sometime after Feb of 2002. I'm not going to beta test anymore bouncing software. I really, really dislike this new OS. I want a blue screen, with right click to open up a menu that's lean and mean.
My prtner and I earn a small country living from helping Mac users config and use their machines. After reviewing the new OSXPRbeta we will no longer offer Mac support.
Bored by this too late development.
Will use DVDR pro and final cut in 2002.
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't remember hearing any annoucement that MS would port office to Cocoa. They said that they were porting it to OSX, but I'm sure they meant Carbonizing it. Completely rewriting Office for Cocoa would take years to get up to the level it's currently at (unless MS devotes half their developers to the project, and we all know how likely that it). Did MS actually announce that they would be rewriting it in Cocoa?
I sent a rather strong-worded letter to that man yesterday and thought I'd actually share it with the group. The letter is being discussed at the following URL. Feel free to join.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000695.html
Cocoa is not a new language; it is an API that can be utilized from Java or C (Objective C is Apple's recommended C, but it is possible to use other flavors of C to call the Cocoa API).
Objective C is not a new language. It is a variation of C that has been available for quite some time.
Java is not a new language. Although not ideal for every application, Java is definitely a programming language worth knowing.
Metrowerks has released their carbonized CodeWarrior 6 last September; although it has excellent support for the Carbon API, it does not yet have Cocoa support. Of course, who would have expected them to have Cocoa support last September before the OS X Public beta was out? Metrowerks is looking at including Cocoa support in future versions of CodeWarrior. Anyone wishing to encourage this to happen sooner rather than later should express this desire to Metrowerks.
Since Carbon compliance is a fairly simple conversion for many apps and because Carbon applications run on both Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X, it is reasonable to expect that most developers will focus on Carbon first. It would be almost silly for someone to release a Cocoa application for sale today since the official release of Mac OS X is not shipping yet. That is why Steve said that July would be the big celebration of OS X; after 3 full months of OS X availability, developers will know how many OS X installations there are and they will be able to easily justify the development of Cocoa apps.
Quote from article: "Apparently, a complete reworking of our beloved old operating system is too expensive, at least for now, so Apple wants us to embrace OS X as an alternative."
I'm not even going to comment on how stupid this guy is.
I dunno about anyone else but I was sold on the Aqua interface from day one. Put OS X in my cart come this March and I will be happy.
Quote from article: "Apparently, a complete reworking of our beloved old operating system is too expensive, at least for now, so Apple wants us to embrace OS X as an alternative."
I'm not even going to comment on how stupid this guy is
I'll comment....
OS X is a complete reworking of "our beloved OS" and the changed items are what was needed to be changed like it being based on a modern substructure that has Preemptive multitasking, protected memory etc. They did this using BSD and adding a GUI that is a natural progression for OS 9. How this ignorant reporter missed all this I will never know BUT I believe that he was no where near San Francisco in January.
I sent him a rather scathing letter and suggested he watch the keynote on Apple's website since he obviously was too hung over to have seen it live. I also gave him the link for the keynote.
Yellow journalism......I recommend his employment be terminated immediately.
Leslie Vandiver
lesliev@macmeisters.com
Was this guy even there? I was...
I seem to recall quite a bit of noise as Steve walked through how they had changed things to respond to user demands. The people around me were vocal and enthusiastic, and I was pretty damn impressed with how they had managed to do things like give people the old finder feel without s******* up what I think is a much better file browsing system...in fact doing so in such a way that I think it improved overall. Other changes and whatnot also seemed to be met with enthusiasm from the crowd.
I wonder if maybe this guy was partially deaf or something.
Dosen't it seem like there needs to be a rating system for writers of articles. Something like a 10 to 1 system. 10 being "knows there stuff" and 1 being "dumb a**". I think he got his info from a second hand observer who read a PC mag. I give him a 1.
I'm looking forward to the changes. I'm gald Apple is starting to listen to us. There products are great. You don't see that much from the PC world. Go Steve!
To "understandable" and the rest who think that carbon is not a native layer of X, that is entirely false.
Carbon is a fully native environment for applicatoin to run under Mac OS X. It has some limitations at the moment, mostly due to the fact that one of it's goals is supporting the classic Mac OS also. It does NOT run under emulation at all. The only emulation in the entire system is the 68k emulator that runs under Mac OS X's Classic layer.
If you see "LaunchCFMApp'" under MacOS X, it is because, at least in beta (I have no idea about final) the OS doesn't understand CFM applications. CFM applications if you don't know are those that are designed to run under the classic macos. If you compile a Mach-O application, then you will see it's name in the process viewer rather than LaunchCFMApp. Mach-O applications can be written to Carbon, Cocoa, the BSD subsystem, or any compination of the three (whithin limits). Mach-O application properly bundled also don't have a resource fork, and so can be dealt with at the command line with if you so desire. CFM Apps will not likely always require resource forks however if certain engineers get their way.
There is a lot of mis-information out there on Classic, Carbon, and Cocoa. As Steve has always shown all three environments are peers as far as running applications. What has possibly been less well shown is that of the three only Classic will not run applications with all the enhancements of X. THAT is why Carbon apps get the Aqua interface and classic apps don't. Apple is trying to garner user support for porting to Carbon/Cocoa as much as developer support. And they have Succeded WELL beyond what this poorly written business week article has shown.
-D. Duncan.
You can burn up to 60 minutes of video onto a DVD.
That's his summary of iDVD. No idea about what it represents for the future. It's like reviewing PageMaker when it first came out, "You can move text around on the page."
Get a clue!
To those waiting for an all-Cocoa set of apps, you have a long wait. Very few commercial programs are going to go Cocoa anytime soon. Why should they? Carbon allows them to work on older and new OSs, computers, etc. Why would a developer shoot itself in the foot and make an OS X only version?
Also, Carbon AND Cocoa are APIs. Both need translation to work with the BSD underpinnings, and both will probably run equally fast. (I say "will" because someone posted some results of his conversion, and found Cocoa much SLOWER than Carbon. Which makes some sense to me). You'd think the way people talk that Carbon was some huge-gigantic resource hogging middle-layer or something.
The 60 minute limitation I belive is temp. I am not sure whether the limitation is technical (with iDVD's easy interface etc) or legal (movie companies worrying it will lead to piracy) but I belive apple wants it gone, so that users can record up to the full capacity of a DVD.
I normally don't respond to Apple-bashing in the press, but this one was so off-base I decided to fire one off to the author. I thought I would post it here just for kicks.
--
Mr Haddad,
There's a simple explanation for the malaise among the Macworld SF audience during the OS X demo. They'd already seen it before. These are hard-core Mac faithful who had already seen OS X demo-ed in New York last year. Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO (not just an anonymous presenter), ran through all the basic features of the new OS for the benefit of those who had not seen the two earlier demos. What the audience did cheer for were the changes that had been made in direct response to user feedback. Apple is very closely in tune with what it's consumer base wants in an OS and OS X is evolving into a fairly strong representation of that. You also make a similarly uneducated assumption about OS X programming environments. While Apple may not have completed a polished suite of development tools for it's object-oriented API, Cocoa, the tools developers need to retrofit their applications to run seamlessly in OS X through the Carbon environment are in place. Briefly, Carbon is the environment best-suited for existing applications to migrate to OS X. Cocoa provides a much more efficient programming environment for writing NEW applications to run native in OS X. This is a distinction that has been made very clear by Apple through many channels, including those earlier demonstrations of OS X that you neglected in your earlier assumptions.
I write you this brief note, not so much to provide you with information that you failed to research, or even to defend Apple per se, but to reprimand you, from a student of journalism to a practitioner, for your negligent and assumptive piece. No matter how popular "Apple is in trouble" may be as an angle, just like any other responsible assertion of journalistic opinion, it must be supported by fact. Distortion of existing facts is one transgression, but ignorance of essential facts should, to a better journalist, preclude writing the story at all.
Yours,
Wilson Miner
platte@ukans.edu
Great response, Wilson!!
But If he was, he may have been sitting in the press section upfront ,where many folks know OSX inside and out, and so the enthusiasm may have been tempered. I doubt he looked behind him at me and the thousands of folks who waited four hours to get inside. Perhaps he has a hearing problem, because he missed all the cheering during the entire keynote speech. He clearly doesnt get it.
Sorry, I to have to say that -- but for a lot of reasons (I don't want to rewrite again here) -- I continue to prefer macOS 9.
I woulkd love a Mac OS 9 + all the memory stuff of X, and some of new features. I understand Haddad, let continue to preach for the old good time...
Cheers,
patrick
ps I'm a mac user (and developer) since 1984
excuse me, but suggesting the author be shot or recommending he take a bottle of sleeping pills is a little over the deep end. this type of behavior suggests fanatacism, or psychosis, and should be taken care of by your nearest psychiatrist (no matter how uninformed and ignorant (not to mention insulting) his article was).
I sent Haddad a long, point-by-point correction of the "facts" in his article. I counted nine but reading this forum it appears I missed one.
Point is, not knowing who Steve Jobs is has got to be either the Gaffe of the Year (and it's only January!) or Haddad's an incompetent writer who has an even MORE incompetent editor working with him.
Save your bitching in this forum and be sure to send letters to BOTH Haddad AND to BW's general or story feedback addresses. We can get this guy replaced if we can make his bosses understand that our ire is NOT that he's anti-Apple, it's that he's INCOMPETENT as a journalist.
I once saw a presentation at the windows camp by some geeky programmer guy with glasses.
I once saw a presentation at the windows camp by some geeky programmer guy with glasses.
And I'm sure he didn't capture the interest of the bored audience either. Except that haircut boy doesn't enthrall an audience when announcing all new products. "Its Windows ME. Look! When your computer crashes, you can return to an earlier time when everything was OK!" (They should have invested the time in making the OS more stable, not easier recoverable. Oh, and the recovery didn't help my brother, who couldn't boot after plugging in a Zip drive).
He said programmers will have to completely rewrite thier code to port it to OSX. This might be true with Cocoa, but Carbon offers an easy way to port classic apps to OSX. He didn't even mention Carbon in the article!
Also, I have programmed in Cocoa/ObjC myself and compared it to programming in C. I have to say I am amazed at how easy it is to create complex apps with Cocoa. This, IMO, will save alot more time then spent learning Cocoa.
yes. i've heard a developer say (an uber apple premier developer) that he was able to make a simple web browser (only HTML-compliant, no JS or anything) in about an hour using Cocoa and PB/IB. impressive.
Cocoa is a beautful API, but if you have a mammoth suite like Adobe or Microsoft, Carbon will let you port in about 6 months. That's good considering the new life this API gives your app.
Microsoft can never crash my system again! mwahahaha
btw, that man should be smacked until steve flies over there personally in his jet and blows his head apart by putting RDF on "kill"
I was there, I can't wait for the new OS to come out but...
Maybe the cause of the lack of entusiasuim is from hearing so much about the software already. I'll be picking up a copy.
Some of you guys should relax. This article, however stupid it might be, won't have a impact in terms of peoples perception of Apple in general. It is not the first time some journalist has written an article of this kind regarding Apple. These comments about sleeping pills etc. displays a certain immaturity widely present in spotty boys devoted to a popular OS (not Mac).
Those of you who still prefers OS9 and hates(?) OSX are welcomed to remain well-seated in the back. OSX delivers the OS of the future. Imagine running the Apache web server with PHP/MySQL, Photoshop, Maya, MS Office, Flash etc on the same computer/powerbook - amazing.
Gimme Carbon and gimme Cocoa - the more the merrier.
/Richard Nees, Copenhagen - Denmark - Europe
We are in an age of idiots. This guy has so much misinformation in his article that it should be considered dangerous. The scary part is that so much of the public reads BS from business week or time or newsweek and believes every word of it. It's like spoon feeding a baby without taste buds. As a result of this mass acceptance of stupidity, we now have W. Bush in office, possibly the most idiotic president in the history of the US (but of course any good front-man lack intelligence--they aren't supposed to question authority).
I've seen so many anti-apple stories like this, just like this, loaded with misinformation and lies. This is why it will always be an uphill battle for Apple.
I wrote a letter to that idiot who wrote the article. I hope that everyone who posts here takes the time to do so, so that this guy knows what an idiot he is.
I hate to say this, but this little punk who wrote this article is on crack or something... isn't osX almost a complete rewrite of the os??? I mean hello, Darwin and BSD in this thang man... Awsome stability, and power that Windows just can't take..He doesn't even get the facts straight. I think we should tell the editor to get some help or something. Or just ignore this freak... and I think the reason the crowd wasn't interested was that Stevie Wonder here has shown us the same freakin thing 50 million times... just to show how much of a pc moron this guy (Whoever wrote the thing) is...
Long Live Apple (And I wan't to lick that Ti!!!!!)
OSX will kill babe~~
I hope that everyone who is writing responses to the lame, misinformed article has sent a copy to the Business Week editors and not just to the author of the article. He could receive hundreds of email messages pointing out his inaccuarcies, but he would have to be even more stupid than we know him to be before he would show them to the higher ups.
So make sure you send your comments to the editors that employ him. Sending them to author is not likely to chang anything, but if his boss is made aware of the errors then he can put the heat on Haddad.
You can send a letter to the editor via the form at
http://www.businessweek.com/letters/respond.htm
Business Week also has their own message board forum at
http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-technology/start/
As much as I like MacNN, discussing Haddad's ineptitude here is not as effective to change as it would be to discuss it in the Business Week forum.
Charles, I'm sure you have quite a pile of mail by now.
You can add this to it. I've never read a more misinformed technology column on ANY subject.
I am a Silicon Graphics UNIX webmaster, not a Mac fanatic. But even I can see that your most recent comments about the keynote address at Macworld (Which I watched for the first time -live on a Compaq PC, as a QuickTime broadcast...) are um, a bit odd.
Are you ok?
Your comments seem little but a very thinly disguised attempt to sensationalize and bemoan Apple's unparalleled foray into the world of UNIX. Every "real developer", even those who you claim are avoiding OS X like the plauge, will tell you that Apple's attempt to marry a UNIX core with well designed hardware and a decent user interface is a Good Thing.
Let's face it Charles, Apple's future is not about those people who already use Macintosh systems, it's about those who are GOING to in the future. Even "die hard" Mac users like you will get used to a new user interface, and I predict the transition for many users will be less painful than the pivotal PowerMac transition 7 years ago.
New software such as Maya (also announced during this speech...where were you?) will bring more people into the Mac universe, including perhaps me once and for all.
And as you said yourself, the old classics will continue to exist for OS X, not to mention the fact that nearly all current PowerMac programs will run perfectly and at full speed under OS X. Also, developers are NOT required to learn the Cocoa environment, but can simply "Carbonize" their current apps with very little time investment.
Now about this:
"Apparently, a complete reworking of our beloved old operating system is too expensive, at least for now, so Apple wants us to embrace OS X as an alternative. "
Dude, what do you think OSX is? It IS a complete re-write of the Mac OS, and obviously more expensive in terms of research, development, and time investment. OSX is not an alternative, it is the goal. Jeez, this is very easy to see, even for someone only slightly interested in Apple.
Also, the "black-shirted presenter" was Steve Jobs....DUH!
Ok, I'm sure you are really getting beat up for this one, so I'll leave the rabid Mac users to fill in the rest...
Seriously dude, just be sure to check your facts before submitting your thoughts to a major publication!
I just finished sending a letter to the editor for Business Week and I also posted the same to their discussion forum (http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-technology/messages?msg=156.1), but I thought I'd share my response here with you all too.
Business Week Online's article titled OS X: Think Too Different: by Charles Haddad (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2001/nf20010118_221.htm) is a shameful example of a total lack of journalistic integrity.
It is not a matter of whether or not anyone agrees with his opinions; his article contains several factual errors. I would think that Business Week has editors and fact checkers
who are paid to verify articles before publication, but apparently they were not doing their job with Mr Haddad's latest article. Although I am not paid by Business Week to do it, I will take a moment to point out a few of his errors here.
Apple is also working the developer community hard, calling even the smallest of them, which the company has long ignored. It's urging them to start rewriting their applications for OS X, which will require them to learn a new computer language Apple calls "cocoa."
There are several errors in the last sentence in the above excerpt of Mr Haddad's article.
1) No one is required to use Cocoa to write applications for OS X.
2) Cocoa is not a programming language.
3) Cocoa is not really even new.
Obviously Mr. Haddad is not familiar with Cocoa since he thinks it is a programming language, but his ignorance of its existence does not make it new. I would think that a professional writer would do a little research on his subject matter before attempting to write an "authoritative" article on the topic, but apparently Business Week does not require their writers to be factual.
The truth is that Cocoa is an application framework, or a set of APIs, that can be used when programming in Java or C (Objective C being Apple's preferred flavor). Although Apple does encourage people to write new OS X applications using Cocoa because of its ease of use factor and because Cocoa takes direct advantage of many of OS X's enhanced features, it is not the only way to write native OS X application. Apple has also introduced a set of APIs called Carbon that allow developers to write applications
that will run natively on Mac OS X as well as Mac OS 9. The perception that Carbonized applications are somehow less native to OS X than Cocoa applications is a misconception that respectable publications should not perpetuate.
And in a huge victory for Apple, Microsoft made it official at MacWorld that it would rewrite its dominant suite of applications in cocoa. . . .But what Microsoft didn't announce but has told some partners is that it hasn't even begun the massive job of rewriting Word, Excel, and Entourage for OS X.
Again we see evidence of Mr Haddad's l
Oops, I guess my message was too long. Well the whole thing can be found in the BWO forum via the link in my previous post. Although you have to click "View Full Message" at the bottom of the truncated post there.
Darn, I forgot to make it a link here
http://forums.businessweek.com/bw-technology/messages?msg=156.1
Hey now everybody.
Haddad's been helping give conctructive criticism to Apple for a while, and as sometimes as off target as it may be, there are a few things to be said about the OSX presentation.
Why didn't he at least announce OS 9.1 as a side note to X? "To add more compatibility with the final Version of OS X we've updated 9.1" Moreover, on that note, why didn't he show the new features of OS X Server? Really, the people who will be using OSX to it's fullest out of the box are those who will be using it to manage other Macs. We've seen the cool aqua fluff. What about the other features? How about a revamped personal web page control panel to use the native Apache with templates downloded from iTools? How about iTools for OSX? What about keychain access? What else is going to be part of the feature set from OS 9 is missing? Given that the feature set is frozen now, OS X should be ready with all these, and Jobs should be showing them off. But he isn't. Is something wrong here?
Personally, I think criticism from an skeptic who doesn't always get his facts right still points to a lot of things missing in that keynote. I mean come on, if you're going to have the power of unix, at least talk about Server.
I am a true die-hard fan of the Mac OS. Unfortunatly, I agree with the writter. Apple is in trouble with the release of OS X. Jobs spent $400 million and doesn't want it to go to waste. I am going to be one of the people that use OS 9.1 forever.
There were flaws in the BuisnessWeek article (especially with regards to Cocoa and APIs), but the essence of what they were saying is true.
If you have a relatively simple Macintosh application with no hardware requirements (imagine SimpleText or a lot of basic shareware products), porting to Mac OS X is not extremely difficult. However, porting to an serious Macintosh application of complexity like Word or Photoshop or any app that requires hardware access using Carbon is not the cakewalk that Steve has tried to say it is over the last few years. They are some of the Carbon APIs that still don't even work on Mac OS X at this point.
Unless the applications and tools you use daily are available on Mac OS X natively, there is little point in upgrading to Mac OS X just to run them in classic with gotchas in some cases.
When Office, Photoshop, Quark, Eudora, Toast, and other serious Adobe and Macromedia apps are running native on Mac OS X, it will be the time to upgrade to Mac OS X. I think that by the time the fall arrives with more serious apps, we will have an updated OS as well it will be a good time.
I want Mac OS X to succeed, but without pervasive number of native apps I use daily there is no point to take on a 1.0 and still incomplete OS. I will wait for the 1.1 release (or whatever is will be called this fall) instead of paying $129 for public beta 2 in March to allow Apple to make money this quarter.
BTW, don't call me a PC apologist. I only own Macs and have done so since 1986.
Mr Haddad, I beleive satifies enough criteria to be considered brain dead.
I couldn't help myself. I had to write this idiot a letter. Here's what I said. It pretty much (respectfully)s sums up what I think.
Dear Mr. Haddad,
I watched the webcast of the presentation of Mac OS X at Macworld SF and I have to disagree with you on a few points and perhaps clarify a few others. For starters, this isn't the first time some of the core GUI features of OS X have been demonstrated by Steve Jobs (your "black shirted Apple presenter" who happens to be the CEO). The solid window dragging and genie effect have been around for months; I use the Public Beta of OS X on my machine right now and thus it is nothing new. The same is true with the other new GUI features and widgets. The reason the Apple Menu was cheered was because it was a new and welcome addition to the OS, along with other features.
As for companies having "to learn a new computer language Apple calls "cocoa."", that is entirely false. Apple has provided developers with another language called Carbon. Carbon allows developers to keep around 95% of their existing code when porting their apps to OS X. The other, small 5% that is rewritten allows for huge advantages: protected memory, pre-emptive multitasking, Aqua GUI, etc. Microsoft, therefore, only has to rewrite a small portion of their Office apps to port them to OS X, something that should be easily accomplished by their projected fall release.
Cocoa, the language you referred to as the only developer language for OS X, is new and different, but, as you can see, is not the only one available. Cocoa is in fact relatively easy to learn. Developers that write apps in Java should have little problem porting those apps wholesale or learning Cocoa.
Apple has done an extremely good job at preparing the community for the release of OS X. Hundreds of developers, including big names like Microsoft, id, Alias/Wavefront, Corel, Macromedia, Metrowerks, Adaptec; the list goes on. And that is a list of developers that have signed on at this point, during the Public Beta stage. I find the future of OS X to be very bright, indeed. New features, a solid OS, and a dazzling, simple GUI tell me that OS X will not be a hard sell at all.
Well, I think the article proves that Charles doesn't have a lot of experience with new operating systems. Well, I do :-) I was a beta tester for Win 3.1. ANd Win95. And WinNT. And Windows 2000 You can imagine what I am testing now... (No, not OS X... the iBook has OS 9 on it... I need at least one machine in the house that "works" ...)
When Windows 95 came out, how long before even Microsoft got true Win95 compatibility into MS Office? Two years!
Windows 2000 came out in ... yeah, right. The apps are just starting to appear now.
I suspect we will see the same thing with OS X. h***: CHarles? Listen old heart, when you are talking about something like Microsoft Office, you're talking 30 million lines of code, give or take a few. You don't port something that size with an overnight recompile! (I wish...)
No, mate: BSD Unix has a very different way of going about its business. Developers are facing something quite close to a clean-sheet for OS X. In fact, they will probably find it easier to port their Windows 2000 code to OS X than it will be to port their OS 9 code. Just a thought...
Now, what would encourage them to go through all this pain? That's right: A nice big fat installed base! Let's just wait a year for OS X to roll out onto all those G3's and 4's and then see what happens. Mac users are a notoriously conservative bunch. They'll take a while to install X.
But Charles, perhaps you might like to lead the way? Pop OS X on one of those four Apples you say you have at home. Pop an nVidia vidoe card in while you are at it.
Then see if you can ever get the kids off it long enough to try it out for yourself. Along the way, you might just discover WHY those software vendors are currently slaving away late into the night over a hot compiler...
Just my thoughts...
The "Black shirted presenter" he refers to IS anonymous. He's talking about the ongoing presentations given in the Apple booth on the expo floor, not the keynote itself.
He probably wasn't allowed in to the keynote... ;-)
I read this article and find don't even know how to approach it. Where was Charles the last 18 months? Had he been at MacWorld instead of troubleshooting his Wind OS PC, he would know that his article is nothing more than a meaningless string of text taking up space on a web page.
First, Mr. Haddad, let me inform you that watching QuickTime movies play while docking should impress you, not faithful Mac Users. We have been seeing this on our desktop computers for quite some time now. (Using OS X Beta). We have seen it so many times, we are now waiting for the Wind OS to adapt or try to adapt it to Wind OS next millennium to be impressed.
OS X is now old news and will remain so, until the final release on March 24. New news is the 1" thick Titanium and the new faster desktop computers with ohhh that DVD burner! The Mac faithful knows how cool the current OS 9 is. It is stable, can be customized in many ways and is a very productive environment. I would like Mr. Haddad to show me where those flaws he claims OS 9 has. Some (like myself) will continue to work with it, but will spend the money on new hardware just to work with OS X. Unlike the users of other platforms, we are not waiting for a useful, rock solid OS to fall from the heavens and save us from our misery. We do welcome and look forward to using the new OS X, but we can well do without it.
Is OS X a tough sell? I don't think so. It is a clear winner. In the Mac community we can create just about any content we want because all the tools we need are out there. We have programs that work under OS 9 to do just about anything. OS X is revitalizing software sales. Large developers like Adobe and Macromedia will have a chance to sell (again) all their major programs. (OS X version) and many developers will have a new chance to bring something to market under the new OS. Mac users would like to use all OS X native coded programs, but don't have to worry about not being productive thanks to the built-in OS 9 compatibility layer. It is going to be a long and smooth road for us Mac users. Also, because of this layer, we do not need MicrobeSoft to give us a new version of their office suite, we can use the old one, however, if it wants new revenues, it can develop it and if it is priced right, OS X users will buy it. Once again I say this... "Apple DOES NOT need MicrobeSoft to stay afloat." (Read my previous article: Good Apple news comes from Gates? (Reality check). With its limited suite of software, Apple now offers another platform do deploy on.
So, what if Apple has not release the tools for developing cocoa Applications yet? You think Apple is going to shoot itself on the foot by releasing software which is not ready for prime time? I do hope to see some bookshelves filling up with cocoa programming books, it is quite hard to get anything on Mac development at the local book stores.
Also, Mr. Haddad, you should be the one drinking some dar
Also, Mr. Haddad, you should be the one drinking some dark coffee before attending an event such as MacWorld, you were obviously too sleepy to get some things correctly. iTunes and iDVD were released by Apple to be used under OS 9, not to lure users to OS X. These were released to bring FREE mp3 manipulation to EVERYONE who in turn would appreciate having a CD burner and to lure users to purchase a new tower with DVD burning capability. Also moving the apple logo to the left top corner was more than a cosmetic change. It is a returned functionality that was performed by Apple in response to public request. The crowd cheered because it shows that Apple is listening.
Developers do not have to write anything new or exiting to lure more users to OS X. We are going to OS X with or without their software, but if they want to make money with old software, they can offer us their OS X versions. We will purchase them because OS X is going to be a reality and we want to take advantage of it.
On a final note: Many may complain about the OS X beta price of ($30) but no one seems to care that Wind OS betas cost more. Some also complain that the planned release price of $129 is a bit tough to swallow, But MicrobeSoft sells their 2000 at almost twice the price and is not even half as good. Software developement is costly and even more when it is a modern OS.
http://www.promac.elite.com.co for more...
The last person doesn't use Windows 2000 on regular basis if he says it is only 1/2 as good as Mac OS X. I have a PC and Mac on my desk at work. I have been running W2K, Whistler and X and I will tell that X is spiffy, but I think that Whistler is a more mature OS that will work better for customers. In fact, W2K will work better for most customers day 1 of X release due to the availability of usable softwaren and hardware peripherals. Sure W2K had problems coming out the door, but that is not now when we are comparing the two.
By the time Whistler ships late this summer and Mac OS X 1.1 comes out as well it will be an interesting time to compare the two OSs for what is better.
Dear Mr. Haddad,
Your article, "Mac OS X: Thinking Too Differently?", covering Steve Jobs' presentation at MacWorld, is alarmist.and opportunistic. It is full of misrepresentations.
"No matter how much the black-shirted Apple presenter trumpeted OS X as "tremendous" and "stunning," the crowd watched in glum silence as he ran the new software through its seemingly awe-inspiring paces."
This was the third time OS X was presented; most of its features already familiar to the crowd. More importantly what was your impression of the demo?
"Come on," he pleaded, as QuickTime movies continued to play even while he dragged them around the screen. "That deserves at least a few oohs and ahs." But the intractable crowd remained silent until he pointed out that the familiar Apple icon -- now colored blue -- had been returned to the far left-hand corner of the screen. At last, they cheered.
Everybody already knew how cool the Quartz engine works, now here was a real surprise to the audience,: the Apple 'menu' has been reintroduced in OS X. You mentioned the superficial elements and missed not only the fact the icon was a functional menu, but more importantly, what its presence indicated to the audience: that Apple is listening to its user's feedback.
It looks like Mac users aren't ready to "think different," as the now-famous Apple ad campaign adjures.
Black shirted-presenter' and now 'adjuration'. Why are you assassinating Apple and Jobs?
In reply to these innacuracies I'll let you mill over David Schultz's article: http://www.applelust.com/HTML/Editorials/html/Archives/ed_political_correctness.shtml. This is his reply to an equally derisive and corrosive article by David Wilson (http://www.latimes.com/business/cutting/features/ces2001/lat_wilson010118.htm).
Given the reach and sway big time journalists like you and David Wilson have I wish you would present things in a more balanced way with less sensationalism.
J. Louis Hales-Garcia
I certainly hope that OSX is more stable that 9.1 I would be a pleasure to run for more than an hour without a crash or other stoppage.
I too wrote a note to Mr. Haddad about his article. However, unlike some of the notes I've seen posted in this forum, I didn't call him names, and I did proofread my note to him before I sent it.
I encourage everyone to write, but if you do please take the time to check your grammar and spelling. There's no faster way to get ignored by a journalist than to look like an illiterate yourself. If you want him (or his editor) to check HIS work, then please remember to check your own, too!
Now, go out there and give 'em h***. But do it with dictionary and style book in hand! ;o)
-- Tim
OR
Network Headlines
Most Popular
MacNN Sponsor
Recent Reviews
iHome iW2 AirPlay speaker
iHome generally isn't known as a luxury brand when it comes to audio, but it is prolific -- the company's docks and speakers are every ...
Logitech Ultrathin Keyboard Cover
One of the iPad's main weaknesses has always been productivity. It's not a question of apps; while it has taken a little time for a na ...
Logitech UE Air Speaker
If maybe a little more slowly than Apple would like, AirPlay is becoming a staple of the wireless speaker market for iOS devices. The ...
Most Commented
Popular News
Joined:
clueless
The person who wrote this article seems pretty clueless. He claims that developers have to completely rewrite their apps in Cocoa for them to be used. Apparently he has never heard of classic or carbon? It really bothers me when people who release bad press don't get their facts straight... :-(
subliminal