MacHeist: I'm Officially Jealous

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.macheist.com/' target='_blank'>http://www.macheist.com/</a><br /><br /></div><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1239036435.usr1.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>I'm a sucker for software. Sure, slick hardware is fun, but at the end of the day when you're looking at a netbook, laptop, desktop, or smartphone, so much of what you do with it is based on the software running on it. Software matters - that's why I spend a lot of time writing about software, criticizing software to make it better, and getting excited when new versions of software is released (Windows included). The above screenshot is of a special event called <a href="http://www.macheist.com/" target="_blank">MacHeist</a> - this is the third event of its type, and as you can tell from the screenshot, it's a software bundle. For the price of $39 USD, Mac users get a software bundle worth $981. The reality is that most people aren't going to use every application in that bundle, so the value is subjective at best, but if you're someone who was looking at BoinxTV or Kinemac and were put off by the price, this is a great deal. The fact that 25% of the proceeds go to charity is also impressive. <MORE /></p><p>The reason I bring this up is not that I'm jealous of a cost-saving bundle; it's that as I looked through those applications, I was impressed over and over with the clever applications that the developers came up with. There are some really neat applications! The design - the visual flair - of many applications on the Mac are hard to miss. With a few rare exceptions, so many applications on Windows are just fugly. Looks alone do not make a useful application, but if two apps have the same basic functionality, and one has a great user-interface, I know which one I'm going to take. Why don't we see better-looking, easier-to-use applications for Windows? Why don't developers care about the user interface of their applications as much as they care about the back-end code?</p><p>I've seen this scenario play out on Windows Mobile and the iPhone as well - it seems like the iPhone has incredibly creative developers making apps for it, and on the Windows Mobile side...not so much. Sure there are some stand-out developers on the Windows Mobile side of things, but it's seems like the iPhone attracts creative developers that design great-looking applications.</p><p>So what's the deal here? Is it because Apple is a company focused on aesthetics and looks that they naturally attract developers who have the same priorities? Or is it that the Mac, and the iPhone, as development platforms have better templates/presets to guide developers in creating applications? I suspect it's the former, though the latter comes into play on the iPhone in a big way - I've had Windows Mobile developers tell me how easy it is to create certain UI elements on the iPhone and on Windows Mobile it takes 100x more effort.</p><p>Anyone have any insight to share with me?</p>

[Jaxbulls]

I agree that Apple is focused as a visual company and attracts people like that. The apps in the mac developer world are heralded when they have great UI design and can be mercilessly criticized when they don't or go against Apple's UI guidelines.

Another angle is that mac developers as a whole seem to want to use the latest and greatest technology to make their apps. For example, I bought this bundle just for the new Espresso web developer app that was alone worth the bundle. This app requires the latest version of MacOS. Being a Windows Vista user at work I can't think of an app that runs only on the latest version of Windows. This may be great for knowing that the app you bought will work on XP but as I'll mention this can hinder the progress in making better Windows apps.

Secondly, when Vista came out they showed their new frameworks for developing Windows Vista apps that just looked awesome. I cannot name a single app that has actually come out using these frameworks. Yahoo was developing an IM client specifically for Windows Vista and the screenshots looked so much better than any software yahoo had come out with before on Windows. Yahoo has since discontinued development and no final version was ever released.

This I think is the problem. Microsoft has laid the groundwork to make better apps, better looking apps and apps that make use of newer technology. However, Microsoft hasn't been able to get developers to abandon legacy Windows OS's in order to use the newer and better tech.

[Jason Dunn]

Some great thoughts, thanks for sharing Jaxbulls!

For example, I bought this bundle just for the new Espresso web developer app that was alone worth the bundle. This app requires the latest version of MacOS.

Wow...that's kind of crazy! That's not the first time I've heard that lately either - that would be like a developer releasing an app only for Vista SP1, and SP1 was something that Microsoft charged for. It's one thing to push the development envelope, but it's surprising to me that developers would chose to limit their potential audience and revenue stream by coding for a subset of the OS X-using population.

Secondly, when Vista came out they showed their new frameworks for developing Windows Vista apps that just looked awesome. I cannot name a single app that has actually come out using these frameworks. Yahoo was developing an IM client specifically for Windows Vista and the screenshots looked so much better than any software yahoo had come out with before on Windows.

You're probably thinking of WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) - and yes, there were some super-impressive demos of what that technology can do. I've only seen one WPF application: Corel DVD Copy 6. It's a very nice looking app, though it kind of fails on the back end for a few reasons (I never did review it because I spent so long trying logging the flaws in it). So while there are some bigger companies making nicer looking apps, when it comes to the shareware/indy developers, I've never seen them use that sort of technology.

It seems like Microsoft needs to make a big developer push to get more people on board with their newer development technologies...

[Janak Parekh]

Wow...that's kind of crazy! That's not the first time I've heard that lately either - that would be like a developer releasing an app only for Vista SP1, and SP1 was something that Microsoft charged for. It's one thing to push the development envelope, but it's surprising to me that developers would chose to limit their potential audience and revenue stream by coding for a subset of the OS X-using population. Well... sort of, yes. New OS adoption on the Mac is much higher, and you typically start seeing some latest-OS-only apps about a year after the OS's release. Developers also aggressively use the newest APIs. Moreover, both new apps and Apple's apps typically require you to be running the latest point release of the OS (whichever one you have).

I think part of the reason this is the case is that OS upgrades on the Mac are more incremental and correspondingly very easy (as is also the case with iPhone, which is equally important). All that said, most mainstream software on the Mac typically support two OSes (currently Leopard and Tiger). That's still a lot less than Windows; Panther (roughly the Windows 2000 equivalent) is effectively a dead OS, some people run it, but you won't be running the most recent software on it.

One other reason worth mentioning is Apple is much more aggressive at killing old APIs. When Apple transitioned from OS 9 to OS X, they ran OS 9 in a sandbox, and then threw it out wholesale; there isn't much in the way of OS 9 APIs in OS X. Compare this to Windows-land, where you can still run Windows 95 apps on Vista.

So while there are some bigger companies making nicer looking apps, when it comes to the shareware/indy developers, I've never seen them use that sort of technology. Interestingly, it's almost backwards in Apple-land. Apart from Apple, many of the mainstream vendors (Microsoft, Adobe) tend to use old, staid UI toolkits, whereas the independent developers tend to use the newest APIs. There was a series of articles on Ars Technica by Peter Bright (longtime Windows developer) comparing the developer experience between Apple and Windows, and one thing that was pointed out is the Apple APIs are typically cleaner and more consistent. There's about 10 ways to do any one thing on Windows, thanks to its legacy support.

--janak

[ptyork]

I think you've both hit on the two biggest thing: that the majority of UX folks are drawn to Mac and that XP is still the default windows client OS. There are a few Vista-only WPF apps that are pretty nice (see thirteen23's blu twitter app for example), but for the most part, people just aren't willing to ignore 75% of their market potential.

Also, I think that most Mac users expect to PAY for their nice little utilities. Most PC users expect to get them for free (and again, if it is a paid app, who is going to develop solely for Vista).

Finally, the wonderful days of bazillions of little utilities are also coming to an end. Most of the effort seems to be in creating compelling web-based apps in DHTML/AJAX, Silverlight, and Flash.

Believe it or not, MS puts a lot of effort into trying to recruit and train folks on making compelling apps. They have an entire conference dedicated to this (MIX) and give away all of the tools to make this possible (well, Expression Blend isn't free, but isn't necessary since it is just a more UX focused version of Visual Studio focused on Silverlight). I really think that they just can't get past the failure that is Vista (which I use and like). Here's hoping Win 7 will make it viable for developers to invest in UX.

I have both platforms and actually prefer the Windows world for productivity and customization (I'm a developer and a teacher and need to exist almost 100% in the Windows world). However, it is hard to deny that Mac brings a lot to the table. If I could get a decent version of MS Office and Visual Studio for the Mac, I'd be there. As is, I'll be forced to use it as a secondary OS. I did, however, spring for this bundle...to hard to pass up.

Speaking of bundles, it just takes a willing soul to put forth the effort to negotiate with application developers and to assemble these things. The Mac world has at least two a year (MacHeist and MacUpdate). AFAIK none for the PC world. Jason, you could be that willing soul...

[Jason Dunn]

Well... sort of, yes. New OS adoption on the Mac is much higher, and you typically start seeing some latest-OS-only apps about a year after the OS's release. Developers also aggressively use the newest APIs. Moreover, both new apps and Apple's apps typically require you to be running the latest point release of the OS (whichever one you have).

Makes me wonder though why Apple doesn't release patches going back a couple of OS releases to flatten out the bumps of not having the right APIs. I don't think most people upgrade to get the new APIs, they upgrade to get the new features.

I've heard Apple's OS release strategy described as "a subscription operating system", and that seems pretty accurate. Given their "family pack" pricing though, it's not such an awful thing - it's fairly affordable on a per-Mac basis. If Microsoft is going to maintain their acceleration of their OS development cycle (Windows 7 came out pretty quick) they're going to have to re-think their consumer pricing model.

[Janak Parekh]

Makes me wonder though why Apple doesn't release patches going back a couple of OS releases to flatten out the bumps of not having the right APIs. I don't think most people upgrade to get the new APIs, they upgrade to get the new features. They do release patches and updates. Tiger is still fully supported (and, e.g., Safari 4 runs on Tiger as well as Leopard). But there are new APIs in Leopard (as there are in Vista), and if developers think that there's enough adoption to become Leopard-exclusive, that's their prerogative.

I've heard Apple's OS release strategy described as "a subscription operating system", and that seems pretty accurate. Because releases are so frequent? <shrug> I for one am glad that Apple is doing that. I've generally been happy with the money I've spent on OS upgrades.

Given their "family pack" pricing though, it's not such an awful thing - it's fairly affordable on a per-Mac basis. It goes even further -- Apple now offers a "Box Set" which includes the latest iLife, iWork, and Leopard. The math on that box set imply that the OS upgrade is essentially thrown in for free.

--janak

[doogald]

It goes even further -- Apple now offers a "Box Set" which includes the latest iLife, iWork, and Leopard. The math on that box set imply that the OS upgrade is essentially thrown in for free.

Snarky me was thinking that it was iWork that they threw in for free . . .

They actually sell a family pack of the box set for $229, so you can install Leopard, iWork and iLife on up to five Macs in the household for just $60 more than the single license box set.

[electrollama]

I've developed for Windows in various languages and on the Mac, and the Mac APIs really make things easy that can be a real drag on the Windows side (at least with the tools I've used, I don't claim to know them all...).

For example, the standard Cocoa string class has a method [NSString stringWithContentsOfURL:(URL)]; In a single line of code, you can have your app connect to a website and save the contents in a string!

The UI stuff is great too, with the iPhone SDK, to have ANY interface element switch from one thing to another with a high quality 3D transition you do sometihng to the effect of (not the actual code, I can't remeber it offhand... I assure you it's only about 5 straightforward lines though):

[UIAnimation begin];
[UIAnimation setTransition:flipFromLeft];
[oldView remove];
[view addSubView:newView];
[UIAnimation commit];

That's it! you have a professional animation that eases in and out, does all the appropriate shading, and is smooth as silk. That's just one example... The whole thing is like this. Coding this stuff is fun, it's no wonder apps go over the top on UI!

BTW Jason, how are you finding the iPod Touch (aside from the App store)? Any chance of a review? I was a dyed in the wool WM guy that kept waiting for the perfect PPC... then when it finally came, it turned out it had an Apple logo on it... go figure. I'm curious to hear your honest opinion, given your affinity for MS products.

[Jason Dunn]

BTW Jason, how are you finding the iPod Touch (aside from the App store)? Any chance of a review?

I'm not sure I'll be reviewing it to be honest, but I am enjoying using it for the most part. I'll definitely write something about it at some point. The worst part is iTunes - I haven't synched it with iTunes since I first got it, I dislike the software so much. And the fact that the power drains from it so quickly (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f384/ipoc-touch-2g-standby-time-suckage-93286.html) when it's in standby bugs me quite a bit. But the browser is top-notch, the app store is friggin' awesome, and the speed/fludity of the user interface and overall experience really impressed me.

As a stand-alone media player/PDA, the iPod Touch is an impressive item. It's just such a shame it's shackled by the craptastic iTunes. :(

[Janak Parekh]

As a stand-alone media player/PDA, the iPod Touch is an impressive item. It's just such a shame it's shackled by the craptastic iTunes. :( To each their own. ;) I love the iTunes integration - it works great for me and I've never had a better sync experience. The automatic backups are great, too. :)

I can't speak towards your battery drain -- it's a little surprising it drains that quick, but I recharge my iPhone every night, so I can't say for sure. One thing to check, though, is if you return to the home screen before suspending the Touch. Some third-party apps can drain the battery if they're poorly written even if the unit goes into suspend.

--janak

[electrollama]

I'm not sure I'll be reviewing it to be honest, but I am enjoying using it for the most part. I'll definitely write something about it at some point.

I look forward to reading your posts. I understand where you're coming from, but every time I read about your complaints about a PC/WM phone I always think: Jason needs to get a Mac/iPhone ;)

The worst part is iTunes - I haven't synched it with iTunes since I first got it, I dislike the software so much.I find I rarely sync as well... not so much because I don't like iTunes, but because I don't need to. An app called Simplify Media lets you listen to all your music from your PC over the air, and e-mail/calendar/contacts all go thru Exchange/IMAP. You can download/stream podcasts right on the device, so there's not much reason to sync.

And the fact that the power drains from it so quickly (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f384/ipoc-touch-2g-standby-time-suckage-93286.html) when it's in standby bugs me quite a bit.Not sure about that... if you have push enabled, it might be the culprit. I've never been able to live without mine for 5 days in a row!

[Jason Dunn]

I love the iTunes integration - it works great for me and I've never had a better sync experience. The automatic backups are great, too.

It's the same old problem as before: all my music lives on a Windows Home Server, and iTunes won't monitor a folder, so I can't get new music easily onto it. Doesn't matter much to me at this moment because my Zune is a much nicer device for music, but it's frustrating that Apple's myopic view of how things should work continues.

[Janak Parekh]

It's the same old problem as before: all my music lives on a Windows Home Server, and iTunes won't monitor a folder, so I can't get new music easily onto it. Doesn't matter much to me at this moment because my Zune is a much nicer device for music, but it's frustrating that Apple's myopic view of how things should work continues. I don't doubt it's frustrating for you, but of course Apple is targeting the 99% of people whose use cases are far simpler than yours. ;) If you are stuck inside on a rainy day at some point, try making a small iTunes library and syncing just to experience the average end-user's perspective. It's noticeably more limited than MS's sync options, be it WMP, ActiveSync, etc., but I have to admit, there's something to be said for simplicity and its corresponding extreme reliability. The notion of "failed syncs" is something I've not missed.

Also, I would debate the Zune is a "much nicer device for music"; I would consider the music featureset of the two to be very similar. But whatever works best for you. :)

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

I don't doubt it's frustrating for you, but of course Apple is targeting the 99% of people whose use cases are far simpler than yours.

Yeah, you're right, I have more than one computer in my home and I want all of them to be able to access the same music library. That's HUGELY complex and in no way indicative of what normal users would do. I'm sure that everyone else in the world only has one computer. What the heck was I thinking?? :D

[Janak Parekh]

Yeah, you're right, I have more than one computer in my home and I want all of them to be able to access the same music library. That's HUGELY complex and in no way indicative of what normal users would do. I'm sure that everyone else in the world only has one computer. What the heck was I thinking?? :D Well, upon rereading, my post may have come off as, well, rather Jobsian. That wasn't my intent. I guess what I was trying to say was: Apple decided to go for the simplest (minimal, limiting, what have you) experience, but made it reliable. I think Microsoft's flexibility is very valuable, but I'd like to see some more work on the reliability side. :)

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

Apple decided to go for the simplest (minimal, limiting, what have you) experience, but made it reliable. I think Microsoft's flexibility is very valuable, but I'd like to see some more work on the reliability side.

I think you might be confusing the reliability issues you used to experience with Windows Mobile with what I'm talking about. I can assure you that as someone who listens to music all day via the Zune desktop software, or via Windows Media Player, there's absolutely no reliability issues when it comes to listening to music across a network when the music is hosted on my Windows Home Server, or synching that music to my Zune.

I can fully appreciate your scars from years of using ActiveSync :( but that's not what I'm talking about here.

[Jason Dunn]

...every time I read about your complaints about a PC/WM phone I always think: Jason needs to get a Mac/iPhone

I can't see myself getting an iPhone, but I've toyed with the idea of getting a Mac more than once. I'm not using my MSI Wind for much right now, so I've been thinking about picking up a copy of OS X and hackintoshing it. There's so much stuff about the Apple ecosystem I really dislike though, I'm not sure I'm willing to join that club. ;)