4 ms·

And here we can find the real locus of the dispute: "...although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two we

And here we can find the real locus of the dispute: "...although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5." If Adobe didn't drag their feet for so long on the CS products, I think the other reasons wouldn't have mattered as much.

vetinari 16y ago
Reminds me, how long it took Apple to move Finder and iTunes to Cocoa? (Answers for those that don't keep score: 10.6 and not yet). You have to remember, that Apple tried multiple rewrites of MacOS in 90' and OSX was yet another 'this time it will work out, I promise' project. If you were Adobe, would you bank your company on yet another promise? I know I wouldn't.
- astrange 16y ago
  What promise do you mean? Cocoa has existed for 10 years now. It was never going to go away at any point. Finder was kept in Carbon as a demonstration that large codebases ported from OS 9 would still be supported (it would take quite some time to rewrite them, after all). iTunes's lack of a rewrite is probably due to having to run on Windows without having to immediately do the extra work needed to port Safari, but at this point it doesn't really have an excuse. At least it supports background scrolling, so it's still beating Word...
  - vetinari 16y ago
    Apple had several failed attempts to establish new APIs/OSes in 90's (OpenDoc, Taligent). Why would anyone rational believe, that another project (OSX) is going to be success? So during introduction of OSX, Apple had to include Carbon there, if they wanted to have ISV support for their new OS. Nobody was going to put significant effort to port entire codebase for new, unproved OS+frameworks+language put out by someone who has history of failures. And do not forget, that Adobe CS is much larger project than Finder, iTunes and Quicktime together.
tptacek 16y ago
Unfortunately, Adobe's track record of delivering solid Mac software dovetails with Apple's other stated issues. The fact that Adobe didn't step up with Creative Suite and Flash Player on the Mac lends credibility to Jobs' concern that Flash-for-native-apps would leave them captive to Adobe's schedule.

vetinari 16y ago

Reminds me, how long it took Apple to move Finder and iTunes to Cocoa? (Answers for those that don't keep score: 10.6 and not yet). You have to remember, that Apple tried multiple rewrites of MacOS in 90' and OSX was yet another 'this time it will work out, I promise' project. If you were Adobe, would you bank your company on yet another promise? I know I wouldn't.

astrange 16y ago
What promise do you mean? Cocoa has existed for 10 years now. It was never going to go away at any point. Finder was kept in Carbon as a demonstration that large codebases ported from OS 9 would still be supported (it would take quite some time to rewrite them, after all). iTunes's lack of a rewrite is probably due to having to run on Windows without having to immediately do the extra work needed to port Safari, but at this point it doesn't really have an excuse. At least it supports background scrolling, so it's still beating Word...
- vetinari 16y ago
  Apple had several failed attempts to establish new APIs/OSes in 90's (OpenDoc, Taligent). Why would anyone rational believe, that another project (OSX) is going to be success? So during introduction of OSX, Apple had to include Carbon there, if they wanted to have ISV support for their new OS. Nobody was going to put significant effort to port entire codebase for new, unproved OS+frameworks+language put out by someone who has history of failures. And do not forget, that Adobe CS is much larger project than Finder, iTunes and Quicktime together.

tptacek 16y ago

Unfortunately, Adobe's track record of delivering solid Mac software dovetails with Apple's other stated issues. The fact that Adobe didn't step up with Creative Suite and Flash Player on the Mac lends credibility to Jobs' concern that Flash-for-native-apps would leave them captive to Adobe's schedule.