Jim Andrews
Since the beginning
Works in Victoria Canada

ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jim Andrews does http://vispo.com . He is a poet-programmer and audio guy. His work explores the new media possibilities of poetry, and seeks to synthesize the poetical with other arts and media.
Discussions (847) Opportunities (2) Events (14) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


> i guess i just like arguing with everybody about everything ;-)

O come on, you're a smoothy.

> MS had a company that was aggressively
> developing a browser for their OS and killed it thru their monopoly
> position. Apple had one major contemporary, standards-supporting
> browser on it's OS: Mac IE, and MS was slowly letting it rust away.
> They looked at the other alternatives and chose KHTML over Gecko
> (netscape) for technical reasons only, not because of marketing.

So it's OK for Apple to pursue browser OS-integration but not Microsoft because Microsoft has
95% of the market and Apple only has 5%? I believe the issue is independent of market share,
t.whid, as I've tried to argue. OS-integration of the browser implies eventual monopoly on that
OS concerning browsers, unless the landscape changes in that regard.

> >If it isn't desirable, then both Apple and Microsoft should be taken to court.
>
> it's not a flat field and you ignore that fact.
>
> your logic doesn't seem to take in the fact the MS has a monopoly
> position with it's proprietary software. that Apple, since it owns
> under 5% of the market, isn't accountable to federal anti-trust laws.

Didn't know that.

So it's OK for Apple to pursue browser OS-integration but not Microsoft because Microsoft has
95% of the market and Apple only has 5%? I believe the issue is independent of market share,
t.whid, as I've tried to argue. OS-integration of the browser implies eventual monopoly on that
OS concerning browsers, unless the landscape changes in that regard.

> if MS had created software as good as FCP, FCX, and iMovie it would
> have effectively killed Premiere totally, not just on Windows. MS
> could kill Adobe outright if they wanted too simply because of their
> market position. Apple can't and that's the difference that you like
> to ignore.

Microsoft is an OS/system level company. They don't have the culture to support something like
Premier or Director or Flash or anything particularly creative. If a product isn't geared
primarily toward big business, they don't know what to make of it. But they are often the best
at system design/architecture. It's that fresh Pacific, Seattle air, T.whid.

> >But it is desirable to have at least one OS-integrated browser per
> >operating system, as i argued
> >in my last post.
>
>
> ++
> twhid:
>
> there is an upside to it, i'm not arguing that. MS won't allow any
> competition on their closed software so I guess the majority of
> people will be stuck with the sloppy software that ships with the OS.

O come on. The PC IE4+ is a superior browser. I've suffered several Mac browsers and the ones
I've had experience of stink concerning DHTML and Java.

> At 12:42 -0700 7/10/03, Jim Andrews wrote:
> >T.whid, if Safari becomes a necessary part of the OS installation,
> >as it probably will, then
> >unless specs are developed to allow third party OS-integration of
> >browsers, Safari has an unfair
> >advantage over other browsers that run on the Mac OS. That Safari,
> >as you point out, is
> >customizable does not bear on this question. Safari may be
> >customizable, but that does not bear
> >on the question of whether Netscape or Opera or whatever can be
> >embedded in apps like Safari can
> >be in the Mac OS.
>
> ++
> twhid:
>
> probably, schmobably. i'm sure Safari will come with the OS, but so
> did Mac IE and NS4.x. I don't know if it's 'integrated' into the OS
> as MS claims MSIE is.

As soon as it is shipped with the OS and any app can embed a browser in an app, that would seem
to be the minimal requirement for a meaningful notion of 'OS-integrated browser'. And MSIE is
that way now on the PC.

But that would just be the start.

Don't know if you've used any tools such as Visual Basic or Delphi or Director or Visual Studio
and so on, t.whid? Interestingly similar, they are, actually. Even similar to Dreamweaver, say.
And one can see something like Dreamweaver becoming seamlessly part of something like Flash
and/or Director, or see a new tool that combines a desktop/server app maker like Delphi with the
capabilities of something like Dreamweaver. Probably the .NET Microsoft stuff does precisely
this, but I haven't looked at it.

> there is a different program to browse the file
> system (the finder) so the only thing Safari will be there for is to
> render HTML and Javascript (using the open source code).
>
> what 'unfair' advantage does Safari have? it's rendering engine is
> open source (unlike MSIE) and is sticking with standards compliance
> (unlike MSIE). Webcore's rendering is decided by the standards
> bodies, not by bill gates. It's code can be tweaked by any browser
> developer and built on. that is a HUGE difference from MSIE where
> you're stuck with the way MS wants to do it whether you like it or
> not.

The first, and more or less decisive advantage *over other browsers of the same OS* is when
developers can embed the browser in their apps, but not other browsers.

And other advantages will follow as the OS companies develop services and resources associated
with the browser component that are unavailable when using other browsers.

> MS won the browser war, Apple is simply trying to keep up and make it
> as easy as they can for their other developers. it's obvious that
> Apple is cutting the cord btw them and MS.

Well yes, they have to cut the cord sooner or later. Might as well be now.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


> >I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs
> >about the value of OS
> >integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have
> >against OS integration if
> >Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?
>
> the actions of a monopolist can be illegal where those exact actions
> by a non-monopolist are not. that seems pretty obvious to me.
> Regardless of that, since MS was already integrating the browser
> (which does provide benefits to the OS developer as well as 3rd-party
> developers) Apple really had no choice if they wanted to compete, ie
> offer the same sophisticated HTML rendering as a service of the OS
> like Windows is capable of (whether or not you think MSIE6 is
> sophisticated is another argument).

I think your hatred of Microsoft is fogging your brain, t.whid. Apple does and did have a
choice. If it is technically feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, they could
develop specs to support it, to support multiple OS-integrated browsers.

If it is feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, and Apple doesn't do this, then they
too are a monopolist.

If it isn't feasible to have multiple OS-integrated browsers, then we have the question of
whether it is desirable to have *any* OS-integrated browsers.

If it is desirable, then Apple and Microsoft are doing what one would expect of them.

If it isn't desirable, then both Apple and Microsoft should be taken to court.

But it is desirable to have at least one OS-integrated browser per operating system, as i argued
in my last post.

> Hope you're happy that you'll have to upgrade your entire OS to
> klondike to get new browsing tech on Windows and you won't have the
> privilege of doing that to '05.

One eventually has to upgrade one's system, whether it is Mac or Windows or whatever, when one
cannot do or access what one wants to do or access. I am running Windows 98 and have been since
about 1999. I probably won't upgrade before 2005. And I certainly wouldn't upgrade to a brand
new operating system, would let it go a year or so and let them work it out before upgrading.

> >T.whid argued earlier on the list that Apple's Safari is not
> >pursuing OS integration. They are
> >pursuing OS integration concerning the video editing software and
> >for reasons that are similar
> >to why Microsoft is pursuing OS integration for the browser: toward
> >a vastly superior OS/browser
> >that would, not altogether coincidentally, slit the throats of all
> >competing browsers once and
> >for all. Or at least once more. And the word seems to be that,
> >contrary to what T.whid argues,
> >Apple's 'roadmap to Safari development' does indeed include OS-integration.
>
> It's really easy for you to have me say whatever you want but I don't
> think I said what you're saying I said.

Is Apple pursuing OS-integration of Safari or not?

If it is a necessary part of the OS-installation, then it is. Otherwise, it isn't. But if they
are allowing developers to embed Safari in Mac apps, and other browsers cannot be embedded, then
it soon will be, if it isn't.

Further, any browser that developers can embed in their Mac apps needs to be distributed with
the operating system.

Developers cannot tolerate their applications requiring software, simply to run at all, that is
not shipped with the operating system.

That is the situation currently for Director developers of Shockwave. People have to download a
(I checked) 5mb app, the Shockwave plugin. It poses very real commercial problems for Director
developers that this is the case.

A possible alternative is that developers be allowed to freely redistribute the browser they
embed via CD and so on. Though it isn't an ideal solution, by any means, since the purchase of
software is so strongly involved in download over the Net, these days.

If apps are heading toward browser embedding--and they are--as a typical component of apps, then
the embedded browser needs to be as immediately available to the systems running the app as is a
tree control or whatever.

There are different types of tree controls that one can embed in an app, of course. But the
non-OS ones are something one purchases for special needs and redistributes with the app.

One can see that it is desirable and necessary to allow developers to embed browsers in apps.
Why? Because contemporary apps need to be able to do everything you can do in a browser and also
integrate that with everything you can do in a desktop app. Apps are no longer just standalone
desktop applications that don't connect to the net and to client-server applications on the Net.
The Net is part of ambitious contemporary applications in a necessary way. Both for business
purposes and non-business purposes.

> Since that little
> conversation of ours Safari 1.0 has been released and I simply don't
> know if it's doing anything that a 3rd-party couldn't do (i would
> define unfair OS integration as the app using hidden APIs, or
> changing code in the underlying OS so as to help a certain app (and
> not considering changing code for 3rd-parties). I would like to know.
> In that last conversation, I also outlined how Apple's Safari is
> different than MSIE in that's it's rendering engine, Webcore, is
> open-source under a LGPL license
> (http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/) this actually
> leads to more competition, not less: Developers can build on top of
> Webcore using Apple's webkit SDK, take the code and change it to
> their liking (can't do that with MSIE's rendering engine), or take
> the code and use what they like on an app on another platform (even
> Windows). I think it's fairly obvious how Apple's actions are not
> like those of MS.

T.whid, if Safari becomes a necessary part of the OS installation, as it probably will, then
unless specs are developed to allow third party OS-integration of browsers, Safari has an unfair
advantage over other browsers that run on the Mac OS. That Safari, as you point out, is
customizable does not bear on this question. Safari may be customizable, but that does not bear
on the question of whether Netscape or Opera or whatever can be embedded in apps like Safari can
be in the Mac OS.

> MS let Mac IE rot. Apple had no choice, they needed a better browser.
> It was a technical decision to go with KHTML and not Gecko (I'm
> fairly sure i read this on Safari developer Dave Hyatt's blog, but I
> can't find it right now.)

Mac IE was rotten from the start compared with PC IE 4, as far as I'm concerned. The DOM in Mac
IE sucks. The Java support in the Mac browser is also pretty flaky even still.

Apple needs to take the browser by the reins and go with it like Microsoft is. They are doing
that now, and that's good. It is/will be too important a part of the OS to let it be developed
as a secondary concern, as was the case with Microsoft's dev of the Mac browser.

ja

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


> > http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708
> >
> > The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly
> > into the OS than a third
> > party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties
> > can do the same. OS
> > integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there
> > are protocol layers
> > between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third
> > party software and sometimes
> > bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app
> > waits in line more.
>
> You might notice that in the article, the only place where there is a
> claim that tighter OS/application integration is a benefit, is in the
> quote from Microsoft. I think they are secretly glad that Apple has
> made Safari because it gives them the justification to "integrate" IE.

I would agree that Microsoft has to be happy that Apple concurs about the value of OS
integration; what sort of case would the Department of Justice have against OS integration if
Apple is doing it also? Take them both to court?

T.whid argued earlier on the list that Apple's Safari is not pursuing OS integration. They are
pursuing OS integration concerning the video editing software and for reasons that are similar
to why Microsoft is pursuing OS integration for the browser: toward a vastly superior OS/browser
that would, not altogether coincidentally, slit the throats of all competing browsers once and
for all. Or at least once more. And the word seems to be that, contrary to what T.whid argues,
Apple's 'roadmap to Safari development' does indeed include OS-integration.

Should we distinguish between types of apps that do require OS integration and types of apps
that don't? Once an OS company develops a product with OS integration, unless they are dullards
and develop a piece of crap, the product must eventually rise above all its competition on that
OS owing to processing advantages. Unless the third parties can capitalize on the OS
capabilities as much as the OS-integrated app. That would mean that both apps would be parts of
an installation of the OS. Both would be necessary parts of the installation. OS-integration
means the app becomes part of the services offered by the OS. Like for instance if the browser
becomes part of the OS (which it already is in Windows), then any app running the OS can embed a
browser in the app (which is currently the case with IE). You can see that any app that runs on
the OS should be able to embed an OS-integrated browser in the app.

The question is whether it should have to be the Microsoft browser. Is it technically feasible
to have multiple OS-integrated browsers on the same OS? In such case, the third parties are no
longer simply working on a browser (or whatever) but are working on the OS. They are partners in
the operating system itself. Now we understand all those previously somewhat inexplicable
arguments that popped up a few years ago about Microsoft being scared of Netscape 'because
Netscape was poised to become a competing OS'. Remember those 'crazy' arguments? It isn't that
Netscape had developed an OS. Rather, the browser and its ability to communicate over the Net is
poised to become a big part of OS's.

So OS-integration is a real issue. At least in the case of the browser app. Being savvy
netizens, we all see that the Internet is far beyond the isolated desktop computing environment
in its significance. Computing environments that integrate the processing power of the desktop
OS with the computing possibilities of the Internet are, well, where we are headed.

> I don't think Apple is creating these apps because they believe OS/app
> integration is important. Because Apple has a small market share,
> major developers create applications for Windows, and then port them to
> the Mac. This "Windows first" mentality results in apps that give
> little consideration to the Mac interface, or worse, perform poorly
> (think Premiere). FCP was developed because Premiere stank and Adobe
> didn't seem to care as long as Windows buyers didn't. DVD Studio Pro
> was created because there was nothing else happening and Apple needed a
> companion for the new Super Drives. Emagic Logic was purchased to
> guarantee that Apple's new Audio Units plugin standard would take root
> in the audio community. Safari is a response to Microsoft's lack of
> development on the Mac. None of these apps are more closely tied to
> the OS than any other Cocoa/Carbon application (the APIs any third
> party developer writing specifically for the Mac would use). I wonder
> if this whole OS/app integration issue is bogus; you still have to
> create an application that accesses the lower level system...it's all
> modular. Sure, the OS manufacturer can hide portions of the OS from
> other developers (as MS has been accused of repeatedly), thereby
> placing competitors at a deficit, but removing this barrier does not
> really result in "integration." I suspect that "integration" is simply
> a marketing term to justify an OS manufacturer grabbing a larger piece
> of the pie and maintaining control.

That's well-considered, Jack. I think what I've written, above, addresses some of your points in
a larger context, concerning the browser OS-integration issue, at least. The video editing app
issue interests me less. But, yes, it is going to be up to Apple and friends to offer
alternatives to Microsoft's strong pursuit of a computing environment in which the OS and the
Internet are very strongly linked. Or to do it better. Of course, video capabilities over the
Net are currently somewhat limited by bandwidth considerations. And that isn't going to change
soon, but unless we kill ourselves off, like we might, it will eventually be an issue.

> > .dcr and .fla? Or, in a computing environment basically without
> > browsers, or browsers integrated
> > deeply into the OS, will those multimedia apps be in languages
> > developed that take full
> > advantage of the OS integration with the machine and the net?
>
> I think your right. It's probably inevitable that Microsoft will have
> it's way and "integrate" the browser into the OS. Because they will
> have exclusive control over their application, they will have the power
> to determine file types they support, multimedia capabilities, os
> specific "features", etc. Safari, and other browsers will struggle to
> maintain compatibility with websites that increasingly integrate
> features only available on Windows. Eventually (barring unforeseen
> events), not only will the browser become an extension of Windows, but
> the network itself will become a mere extension of the Redmond
> monopoly. Fortunately, I think there will always be margins or pockets
> of "alternative" environments that are happy to remain
> independent....subbacultcha :-)
>
> Jack

Again, well-considered.

If we look at W3C standards, well, it seems that by the time they're written, they are less
relevant than they were when the spec writing began. For instance, I am not aware of any
standards being written that consider what would make it possible to have multiple OS-integrated
browsers. Private companies with computing vision innovate in advance of standards. DHTML was,
for instance, a Microsoft initiative from the start.

But, you know, like back in the sand box, it's no fun if people don't want to play in yer
sandbox.

And I agree that "there will always be margins or pockets of "alternative" environments". How
independent they will be is another matter; we are already of each other more and less than we
would like, more of microsoft and apple than we would like...hopefully artists will not just
'fill in the forms' created by these behemoths but will strongly shape the computing
environments of the future.

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

Re: The end of Premiere for Mac


http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708

The article notes that Apple is integrating the product more tightly into the OS than a third
party can. That spells doom for competition unless the third parties can do the same. OS
integration offers all the speed and features of the OS whereas there are protocol layers
between third parties and the sweetest spots. This both slows third party software and sometimes
bars it from OS resources or makes those resources such that the app waits in line more.

One can see why this would be a type of application that could be much improved by OS
integration: video+audio is computationally intensive in ways that, say, word processing is not
(unless it's Word for Weirdos or whatever).

In tough times Apple is reaching for its 'inner resources'. They're going for quality in certain
areas like video and browser, fostering competition be damned; they need that video/browser
ground to stand on.

The browser is another app that would profit from OS integration. And that will help things that
run in browsers too--except other browsers. Which will either be dead or will be turned into
niche things probably for certain types of business, like Java became the ecommerce engine.

There may not be any browsers in a few years. Just the desktop and apps that run like desktop
apps though they may be .dcr or .fla or whatever, and will draw on files from the net. Both
Apple and Microsoft are integrating the browsers into the OS's.

.dcr and .fla? Or, in a computing environment basically without browsers, or browsers integrated
deeply into the OS, will those multimedia apps be in languages developed that take full
advantage of the OS integration with the machine and the net?

ja
http://vispo.com

DISCUSSION

The end of Premiere for Mac


In the latest case of an outside developer abandoning the Macintosh
platform, Adobe Systems Inc. announced Monday that the
newest overhaul of its flagship video editing program Premiere would
no longer work on Macs."

"Intentionally or not, "Apple is pursuing a strategy that locks out their third-party software
vendors," said Avi Greengart, an analyst with Jupiter Research."

http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-189w8888&feed=cmt&date 030708

ja