[Nobody]

And while searching for web client stats I came across this amusing tidbit from one of the heavyweights in the web server stats space: http://news.netcraft.../2004/12/07/mac[/u]enthusiastsiteshostedonlinux_freebsd.html
I presume that when they say FreeBSD they mean the standalone FreeBSD, not the FreeBSD that's running under the hood on OS X.

[Jason Snell]

Let's be honest. When a company announces it's leaving the Mac, and then decides to cite its reasons, there's only one thing to expect: sour grapes.
After all, when was the last time you read a MacCentral story that said, "Company X announced today that it's leaving the Mac market due to an overwhelming dislike from the Mac community for its continuously mediocre products. 'Our competitors kicked our butts, so we're giving up,' said Company X CEO Guy Smiley."

[jmincey]

Good point, of course, and I have no doubt that some mediocre Mac developers have deluded themselves (as their "reason" for ceasing Mac development) with excuses and falsehoods such as what are cited in the article above. But it still doesn't explain why in press releases a company can't put their best face forward and at least appear to have class. There are any number of things a company could say:
"We have long served the Mac community and we appreciate its support over the years, but for reasons of strategic business direction we are shifting our focus and as a result..."
It's just not that hard to exit with grace and class. Burning bridges and acting petulant is foolish, and I feel confident you would agree.

[Jason Snell]

Indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if people acted with class more often?

[Nobody]

Pray tell, what are the falsehoods cited in the article?

In reply to:

---

with excuses and falsehoods such as what are cited in the article above

---

[Nobody]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black; the following articles might be food for thought:
Why a Great Machine has Such a Small Market Share
How NOT to Advertise the Mac

In reply to:

---

Wouldn't it be nice if people acted with class more often?

---

[Jason Snell]

Wait, am I the pot or the kettle?
Watch who you call a kettle.

[jmincey]

"Pray tell, what are the falsehoods cited in the article?"
You're kidding, right? Are you under the impression that the quality of System 7, 8, and 9 was superior to that of OS X? Do you consider that the quality of OS X 10.0 is superior to that of 10.1 and that succeeding versions of OS X are declining in quality with each iteration (rather than gaining in quality)?
Are you under the impression that the number of Macintosh users, (i.e. the installed base), is shrinking?
If your answer to the above is in the affirmative, then it's no wonder you pose this question to me.

[Nobody]

Come out of the imaginarium and reread his announcement. Where does he say that previous versions of Mac OS were better than newer ones? The only thing I see is that he says
Apple's seeming lack of concern about compatibility across its product versions and the alarming problem with its software quality (over 100,000 new bugs reported during the months of October & November, 2004 alone) has combined to render Mac OS software development unprofitable for us.
(Which is a rather startling figure, and I wonder where he gets it.)
As for the "shrinking number of Mac users" he could be talking about users of his product, but I'd guess he's more likely talking about the Mac market share, and unless I've been living under a rock and have missed the announcements, I've yet to hear any about the Mac market share rising (or even staying steady). In comparison to the rising number of Linux and Wintel users the number of Mac users is shrinking, proportionally, although not absolutely.
I don't understand how his imprecise use of terminology makes it necessary to call him a liar.

[jmincey]

"Where does he say that previous versions of Mac OS were better than newer ones?"
Ah, more of the "Where does the article say..." routine. Don't be so literal. The article doesn't have to SAY this in order to MEAN it.
Anyway, since this was a long-time developer of the Macintosh platform back in the days of System 7-9 -- and never was there any complaint about bad quality. Nor did we hear from this developer about bad quality during the early versions of OS X. It's only now, when the developer is fleeing the Mac platform, that there is this sudden complaint about quality.
OS X has bugs -- like any software -- but even so it's far superior to OS 9 (on balance), in quality, stability, and in many other respects. Why, then, did we not hear from the developer about "quality" concerns during the OS 9 days? My point, if it still eludes you, is that in light of the foregoing this complaint by the developer is bogus. The real issue lies elsewhere -- flagging sales, lack of need for a product of this type on a UNIX platform, or any number of other things.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

Ah, more of the "Where does the article say..." routine. Don't be so literal. The article doesn't have to SAY this in order to MEAN it.

---

That's a hoot! What a great response! Now you're free to interpret whatever anyone says in any way you want them to "mean it." I love it.
I don't doubt that flagging sales is a big part of his abandonment of the Mac platform. With Windows having over 95% of the personal computing market share, and with Linux growing and having passed the Mac in market share, only the truly fervent developers are sticking with the Mac.

[jmincey]

My previous post is poorly written because I was in a rush and changed part of a sentence at the last minute (without recasting the entire thing), and so it doesn't even hold up grammatically. Be that as it may, "interpretation" is what we ALL do. Sometimes a literal interpretation is correct. Sometimes it is NOT. When an actor tells another actor to "shake a leg," this is not an exhortation to move a limb of the body. So you give ME a hoot -- if you think that the only interpretation which is correct is the literal one or indeed that people who take things literally are not interpreting in the first place.
Now getting back to the matter at hand, this developer cites Apple's bad quality as one of the supposed reasons for leaving the Mac platform. And yet this developer never cited this issue during the days of System 7, 8, and 9 -- even though the quality of the Mac OS at that time was much worse. So it doesn't take a genius to conclude that this "quality" issue is utterly bogus and that it need not be spelled out literally.

[Nobody]

So it sounds like you have an archive of this guy's previous announcements and any personal correspondence with other developers or whatever he's written to others to be able to speak so authoritatively on his history of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Mac OS quality, and all the way back to System 7 no less. Interesting.
Or maybe it's that since you've given yourself free license to reinterpret what he's written maybe you can "read between the lines" as it were and have special powers and can see into the past from what he's written in this announcement.

In reply to:

---

And yet this developer never cited this issue during the days of System 7, 8, and 9 -- even though the quality of the Mac OS at that time was much worse.

---

[jmincey]

No, not at all. It's quite simple, really. It's called deductive reasoning. I'll break it down for you inasmuch as this concept appears to elude you.
This developer cites bad quality as reason for leaving the Mac platform under OS X 10.3. But in previous times, under a different Mac architecture (System 8/9), the developer was quite happy to stay with the Mac. Conclusion: The developer regards the quality of the past to have been superior to the quality of the present -- OR, company is blowing smoke and this talk of bad quality is a feeble and false excuse. (Or the company sees Apple's quality has having been bad all along and only recently got religion on this point and has since decided to "raise its standards" by going exclusively with Windows.)
It appears, lumpyoatmeal, that unless something is spelled out in black and white you don't accept it. But deductive reasoning and logic is a perfectly valid tool.