Steven Sinofsky says the Mac will be the ultimate developer PC within 2 years

Avatar
90

“In two years there is only ARM hardware and in 4 Intel will be ancient memory. The ecosystem will have rolled over. And Mac will be the ultimate developer PC.”

https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/1276589588308357120?s=20

Comments (112)

112 responses to “Steven Sinofsky says the Mac will be the ultimate developer PC within 2 years”

  1. Avatar

    oscar999

    I bet Paul has something to say about that and about the messenger of it. ;p

  2. Avatar

    ianw789

    The thing I have not figured out out is why developers who are so religiously keen on open source and its supporting principles so often also are in love with Apple's walled garden approach to hardware and the OS.

    • Avatar

      james.h.robinson

      In reply to ianw789:

      I think there is a perception that Mac OS is build on "open source" BSD and is basically Unix, and is therefore "cool."

      • Avatar

        ianw789

        In reply to james.h.robinson:

        Based on all the comments here I think I get it now. Apple legally built its closed platforms on open source BSD, which has some technical merit. Therefore their enthusiasts get a hall-pass on consistency of principles and (if they wish) can preach open-source goodness while loving a very highly restrictive hardware+OS platform.

        To those who take exception to my provocative conclusion, please skip the technical merit of BSD and explain: Am I wrong about open source principles being in conflict with Apple's "no other hardware; no virtualization" policy?

    • Avatar

      Paul Thurrott

      I think the word you're looking for is hypocrisy. The open-source underpinnings of Mac OS X are a distant memory. It's not like anyone could use the open-source versions of its kernel and Darwin core and build anything, let alone anything that resembles macOS today. This was BS from Apple in 2001. Today, it's not even part of the conversation.
    • Avatar

      ponsaelius

      In reply to ianw789:

      I think it's because MacOS is client side. Most new stuff is web based or cloud service based. Any client would do. The nature of the MacOS is less important than the availability of tools


      If you use Microsoft services then their applications are on the Mac and you can connect to Office 365 via a browser. Only PowerShell could be a problem - I haven't checked if there is a Mac PowerShell for Admins.

      • Avatar

        Paul Thurrott

        PowerShell (as opposed to Windows PowerShell) is cross-platform: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/install/installing-powershell-core-on-macos?view=powershell-7
    • Avatar

      curtisspendlove

      In reply to ianw789:

      The thing I have not figured out out is why developers who are so religiously keen on open source and its supporting principles so often also are in love with Apple's walled garden approach to hardware and the OS.


      It largely depends on what the level or degree of “open source” the person subscribed to.


      There are quite a lot of definitions...kinda on a spectrum, I guess.


      There is OSS, FOSS, FLOSS, free software, and a couple others. Most of it has overlap, but not completely.


      For instance, someone may not want to run pfSense on their network because it doesn’t fit their preferred licensing level. These people might choose to run an alternative such as OPNsense.


      Others might make an exception because it is very good and well supported (but it has the potential of locking you in a little box, which many people fundamentally disagree with).


      Personally, my dear, I don’t give a damn. :)


      I like Apple because I like using their products and because their systems work in ways I enjoy. (I simply run into far less friction and dissonance in this “restricted”, “walled garden” than I do with any other platform. It may be a walled garden, but for me it is a gorgeous, Japanese Zen garden.)


      Also, with virtualization and containerization technologies, it matters way less than it used to.


      For those that really do care, they can generally assemble a pretty solid stack nowadays that matches their preferred licensing expectations.


      It may not ever be the Year of the Linux Desktop for the mainstream, but for anyone already tech-savvy (or willing to learn a bit), Linux is a very excellent option.


      Or, you can run VMs and/or containers on top of macOS, Windows 10, etc and get a “best of both worlds” result.


      Edit: in regard to hardware, it is *very* difficult to get a purely open source hardware system that supports all the nice modern amenities. In fact, this is the exact reason why most distros have a “download and install 3rd party drivers and software” checkbox during the installation wizards.


      I was curious if I could build a *perfect* Linux rig. Turns out it is pretty much the same as the *perfect* Windows rig, but with the extra step of hunting down (and possibly troubleshooting) some proprietary drivers. ;)


      So the *perfect* Linux rig for me ended up being a 480GB SSD so when Windows 10 decides to clobber my grub config every few months it is easier to restore my Manjaro partition.

      • Avatar

        ianw789

        In reply to curtisspendlove:

        Interesting perspective - thanks. My perspective is that the main threats to the tech ecosystem are the dominance of a walled garden or monoculture. Network effects are powerful in this space. Witness Microsoft of the 90's, Facebook's efforts to make their ecosystem be "the internet" for the masses, Amazon's strength, Google's search dominance, etc. Apple's hardware & OS systems push in a similar direction.

        As tech enthusiasts, should we not be pushing more for more open, inter-operable and non-proprietary platforms rather than being cheerleaders? Do you not cringe even a bit about the bigger picture while "not giving a damn"? :-)

        • Avatar

          curtisspendlove

          In reply to ianw789:

          As tech enthusiasts, should we not be pushing more for more open, inter-operable and non-proprietary platforms rather than being cheerleaders? Do you not cringe even a bit about the bigger picture while "not giving a damn"? :-)


          I really don’t. There is always going to be a need for OSS/FOSS/FLOSS (etc) and most of those movements are still going pretty strong.


          The major problem with all of it is still funding. I contribute to some open source, and I enjoy that. I financially support some open source, and I consider that something that needs to happen as well.


          If I had a main concern, it isn’t a company like Apple creating a closed ecosystem. One can always choose whether to purchase from a given closer ecosystem (and all companies have closed ecosystems, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise).


          (Don’t believe me, ask a random Android user how many apps they buy outside of the device’s main “App Store”. I have a hard time even explaining the concept of the Google Play Store to my muggle friends and family. It may technically be an “open system” but hardly anyone actually uses it that way.)


          My main concern is the trend (across the industry) of OSS projects being “sold off” to the biggest wallet. And *that* is a problem more and more pervasive.


          But even then, developers have to eat and so do their families. So I don’t blame the acquisitions and mergers.


          This area, however, is where I *do* have a concern with our corporate overlords. Some are significantly “better” stewards than others.


          Compare and contrast, for instance, the acquisition of GitHub (Microsoft) vs Dark Sky (Apple).


          I have no problem buying proprietary hardware and having an ecosystem come along with it. But I don’t like how Apple subsumes most of the tech they buy into their ecosystem and clobbers its use outside the ecosystem.


          I’d much rather see them, for instance, support an open weather API and compete on the grounds of a superior product for their own first-party integrations of the tech.


          But honestly, I really don’t think it matters overall that much. There will always be alternatives for those that want them.


          As tech enthusiasts, we absolutely *should* push for open, interoperable platforms. But again. Who builds them. What is the incentive? The “human factor” is, as always, the main factor.

    • Avatar

      daniel7878

      In reply to ianw789:


      I don't know where I got this from a long time ago.. but this was always my favorite blurb about open source...


      The "why isn't open source dominating the world?" question is in the same vein as a devout religious person asking "why doesn't everyone worship my obviously real god?" It's predicated on the notion that non-believers accept your interpretation of reality, and are consciously rejecting the 'right' path. No, they don't even exist in that reality -- many don't even know what FOSS is, and it's not necessarily right for them.


  3. Avatar

    will

    I have been in IT for a couple of decades now, started with a Mac in school and used PCs at home and at most of my jobs. I manage a Windows network that is connected to Office 365 and we have around 20 server VMs running various applications. Office, Teams, OneDrive are all being heavily used now and Windows is humming along. Now in the position I am in I have a choice want to use and I have used both; MacBooks, Surface devices, Dell laptops, Lenovo laptops, various desktops even a Mac mini. I have used them all and find pluses and minuses with both, but for my main system I have a MacBook Pro. I use and iPhone and an Apple Watch and the complete eco system just works for me.


    I have Windows running in a VM should I need to use any windows apps, but my goal and belief for any application we use is it would work on any system (if possible). Office for the Mac is great, and the new Outlook for Mac, while not 100% parity with Windows is a great step forward. There are features in it that do not current exist in Windows and even more is coming. But that is not the main point, I can do ALL of my IT work in Mac and just swipe over to a Windows VM if needed, or any VM for that matter.


    We have some people that have Macs for work and personal use and it keeps me up to date and honestly, the ecosystem just works well together. Take a photo and it is on my desktop. OneDrive works on all devices and I am not limited by what I do. It is not 100% perfect, nothing is, and yes it can be a walled garden at times but even Windows systems have limitations. It works for me, it is super fast, great battery life, and a VERY consistent UI and only gets even better with Big Sur....I mean seriously it is a good looking OS (not counting that battery icon)


    Do I think it will be the platform of tomorrow, hard to say, but Apple has a plan and Microsoft....well I am not really sure what the plan is outside of cloud services, and maybe that is ok.


    PS - I do think Apple is behind when it comes to some of the cloud services they offer. iCloud is great for backups and syncing data, but the online apps really could use some TLC. Plus I like Spotify cause the music choices are better and it works on everything.


    PPS - I also use Outlook.com as my primary email due to what I said above and I have an Office subscription. Plus I like my email address there more :)

    • Avatar

      wolters

      In reply to will:

      As a consumer, I'm about done with Microsoft. As an IT Director and Professional, I am hinging my bets that becoming certified in Microsoft 365 and backing it up with a good programming language is the direction I want to go. I have an opportunity to make a roadmap to Apple but the Microsoft fan in me is resisting.

      • Avatar

        will

        In reply to wolters:

        As a user of Microsoft 365, I am not sure what getting certified would do for me at all. The platform is ALWAYS changing with structure changes, UI changes, and feature changes. So while a certification is good is have, and there is a lot there to know, having experience and keeping up with the changes is very good.


        There is also a lot inside of Office 365/Microsoft 365 that is just a PIA to work with. I understand it might be built for massive enterprise groups, but the navigation and UI is lacking. Not to mention some areas that you would think would be helpful are actually not.


        Like I said, use both and call it good! :)

    • Avatar

      james.h.robinson

      In reply to will:

      Just out of curiosity, can you use Excel Power Pivot on a Mac? Or for that matter, Power BI? If not, I need Windows.

  4. Avatar

    illuminated

    On the other side I could claim that Intel CPUs and 32-bit app support would last for at least 50 more years. Just look at Visual Studio which is still stuck in 32-bit land. They were able to compile 64-bit code from 2005 or so yet 15 years later studio is still 32-bit. If it cannot move to 64 bits on intel platform it would never move to ARM and there are many developers who use visual studio.

  5. Avatar

    yaddamaster

    I switched over to a Macbook for my primary dev machine at my work. Work.mistake.ever.


    It's a beautiful piece of hardware. It's a slick looking OS and doesn't have the frankenstein/dr jeckyll-mr.hyde personality the Windows 10 has with throwback bits.


    But dear god almighty, OSX is a piece of crap to work with on a day to day basis. I don't care what anyone says - Windows 10 is simply intuitive. Window management on OSX just sucks. Waaaaaay too many bizarre modal dialogs, sub windows, no idea where settings are stored. It just sucks.


    I only went to Mac because my company will spring for a 3-4k Macbook for developers but gives you a piece of crap 1k Dell for developers. It's the most bizarre situation.


    As I type this on my beautiful Surface Pro. God, I love this machine.

    • Avatar

      behindmyscreen

      In reply to yaddamaster:

      you are literally complaining about how two platforms are slightly different and you are not used to the change.....It's not like Windows has some massively more naturally intuitive design. you are just used to it's slight differences.

    • Avatar

      darlingtonpear

      In reply to yaddamaster:

      Yes, enforced computers for technical people is a mistake.

      Once i head from an electronics manufacturing company that the directors demanded EVERYONE uses apple macs because they are more reliable. They believed this would keep production equipment running better.


      The R&D department sunk huge amounts of man hours as they had to try niche and specialised software on various janky setups in virtual machines. The problem is trying to get electronics development/production tools hardware to 'pass though' from macOS to the virtual machines. It was such a waste of time... and less reliable.

      • Avatar

        behindmyscreen

        In reply to darlingtonpear:

        That has so much to do with stupid people telling IT what needed to happen rather than the IT staff directing the need based on what systems needed to be supported.


        Having your office staff use Macs is one thing...trying to use them in a highly integrated manufacturing system is just stupid if that system is not built to support anything but windows.

    • Avatar

      Vladimir Carli

      In reply to yaddamaster:


      this is just a matter of familiarity. I switched back and forth a few times because I could not stand apple hardware but really struggled adapting to windows software. Now I use a combination of MacOS and Windows. It's difficult in the beginning but after a while you learn them both. The differences in productivity are related to what you do.

      I like windows being so open, the possibility to mix and match your preferred hardware, including pretty exoteric or high end stuff. But I find MacOS to be better for the built-in indexing features, I find always everything with spotlight but i struggle a lot with windows search. Moreover built-in applications in MacOS are much better as well as third party applications, at least for my needs. When using windows i deeply miss a good PDF reader with editing capabilities, file preview and even a good e-mail client. I know these problems can be solved with third party tools or web apps, but it's not the same thing. Something similar applies to the iWork suite, which is a big plus for people who don't want to pay additional subscriptions to Microsoft 365 for software they use at 10% of their capabilities. Basic/intermediate photo and video editing, even music production are all given for free with MacOS. On windows you have to struggle with expensive and overbloated additional software. These are the things that consumers love about the Mac. It provides a lot of included tools that are good enough for the casual user. I understand that businesses that buy thousands of computers for their employee don't care about all this but then let's admit that the target is different. It's not about one being superior to the other.

    • Avatar

      oscar999

      In reply to yaddamaster:

      Very true and i have the same experience with macOS. Its Ux are archaic and counter-intuitive, everything feels backwards.

      A slick look doesnt make up for a archaic window management or the fact that you have to use the terminal for something as trivial as show hidden files or the downright stupid idea dating from the 80´s that if you click to close a program in macOS, you really just closed the window of it, not the program.





      • Avatar

        quackers82

        In reply to oscar999:


        Erm since MacOS 10.12 you can just press Shift+CMD+ . when in Finder, no need for a terminal command.


        Windows feels counter intuitive when you use macOS daily. The big difference is the MacOS has had a consistent UI for 20 years, Windows is just turning what worked well into a big mess and alienating its users, like the Settings app compared to Control Panel making Windows worse, Settings is not an improvement its backward.


        Microsoft use to make decent UI's with bad engines, then in last 10 years they have made better engines with the most dire UI's ever. Mac gives you decent UIs and decent engines.

      • Avatar

        lvthunder

        In reply to oscar999:

        I think a lot of it depends on what you learned first. And just user preference.

  6. Avatar

    nine54

    In reply to Waethorn:


    So it’s different is what you’re saying. Sony doesn’t get any props for using BSD. Apple gets props and the benefit of perception: Windows = bloated and archaic; OS X = stable and efficient because of BSD kernel. Extra geek cred for including a bash shell. Yet, how old is BSD? And how old is Windows?

  7. Avatar

    ponsaelius

    Mac on Arm seems to be changing the value proposition. The idea that Windows, a 30+ year old OS, has had several attempts to come into the requirements of a mobile world but has failed will be a strong driver. As application development has moved to mobile and web services it means Windows is not the number one choice.


    There is still plenty to like on Windows but I think the clock is ticking. In particular with consumers who have little in the Microsoft ecosystem to choose from.

  8. Avatar

    naddy69

    Um, NOTHING is an “ancient memory” after 4 years. Is this guy high? Or just stupid?


    Intel will always be used for servers, where battery life is not an issue. ARM Macs will be more successful than ARM Windows, because Apple has dedicated developers who will follow. Developers who HAVE followed thru two previous architecture changes. Windows tried 20 years ago, running on Power PC and Itanium and others, but no one cared because the apps were not ported.


    Not to mention that Apple’s silicon is way better than Qualcomm’s.

    • Avatar

      wright_is

      In reply to naddy69:

      Except the fastest computer in the world at the moment is ARM based, several companies make ARM server chips and even Microsoft has ARM servers on Azure to rent.

    • Avatar

      Paul Thurrott

      ARM is already making inroads in datacenters because of the power savings. The number one and two costs in any datacenter are power/electricity and cooling, and ARM chips save money in both areas. And no one can state categorically that Apple Silicon is better than Qualcomm. Apple has done somewhat better than Qualcomm in benchmarks only. iPhones do not outperform Android flagships in real world use, nor do they get better battery life. Opinion <> facts.
  9. Avatar

    ebockelman

    Is he calling it out so we can appropriately give him attribution for ruining what was great about Windows?

  10. Avatar

    VancouverNinja

    In reply to shameermulji:

    That's obvious isn't it?


    Current market share for MacOS still makes it clear that it is a single digit midget. The convo is not about Apple's earnings it is about the ability to turn a decent profit (if at all) for the average developer on MacOS. It is simply not there for the average developer.

  11. Avatar

    innitrichie

    The Apple clique have grown to love quoting Sinofsky, and he's grown to love publishing thoughts that secure him even more of their adulation. He only gets more ridiculous each time.

  12. Avatar

    nine54

    In reply to Waethorn:


    Interesting. Never thought of Linux license from that perspective.


    I just agree with others that it seems like tech enthusiasts who like Mac OS feel compelled cite its BSD roots to maintain their tech bona fides.

  13. Avatar

    olditpro2000

    In reply to Waethorn:


    I believe Nintendo does the same for the Switch.

  14. Avatar

    olditpro2000

    In reply to Waethorn:


    XNU is the kernel for macOS (and iOS et al.). Darwin is the OS underpinning. Both are open source.

    • Avatar

      ianw789

      In reply to OldITPro2000:

      macOS and iOS ??? ... oh I see .... you mean XNU and Darwin. Kinda irrelevant, isn't it?

      (Edit: Maybe I misconstrued your answer's context. If so, apologies for the cheeky reply.)

      • Avatar

        jimchamplin

        In reply to ianw789:

        You did miscontrue it.


        macOS, iOS, watchOS, and tvOS are all built on the same UNIX. It's a FreeBSD-derived userland atop the XNU kernel. The high-level libraries that make macOS, iOS, watchOS, and tvOS what they are are built out from the classic NeXTStep libraries.


        These libs once ran on Windows NT.


        Apple's software stack is insanely flexible. Way more than you imagine.

  15. Avatar

    Paul Thurrott

    Yeah, but Steven Sinofsky is a freaking idiot so who cares what he thinks?


    Seriously. This guy single-handedly destroyed Windows. No reason to pay attention to anything he says now.

    • Avatar

      darkgrayknight

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      Yeah, I really don't get why anyone thinks he has an idea of what developers will want to use? There is no way I'm moving to macOS much less an Arm processor to develop on. Power usage is not my priority while building software. I want it to compile faster and not be slow at all. As for the software I'm writing, maybe I'll need it to run on an Arm, but I would probably want it to run on many different processors.

      • Avatar

        VancouverNinja

        In reply to darkgrayknight:

        Being pragmatic I pointed out to one of our lead developers that he could actually go all in on a new iMac as it would allow him to run both Android and iOS mobile emulators at the same time while developing in VS. That idea lasted less than 15 seconds after I brought it up. I just don't know serious devs that prefer developing on a Mac over a PC; I don't see that changing for Apple's new architecture.


        The one way Apple has been winning devs over is many cannot afford an awesome PC dev rig and an awesome Mac - so they end up having to pick one (the Mac) if they need to compile for iOS - Apple has forced the dev community into a corner.

        • Avatar

          curtisspendlove

          In reply to VancouverNinja:


          I just don't know serious devs that prefer developing on a Mac over a PC; I don't see that changing for Apple's new architecture.


          Just because you don’t know them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. ;)


          Edit: I will also point out that I’m in several hobbyist groups such as Raspberry Pi enthusiasts. Much of the Pi community are interested in Apple moving to ARM and (particularly) what it might mean to have one of the biggest players in tech embracing the architecture.


          Apple, love ‘em or hate ‘em, are really good at driving the media and the industry.

          • Avatar

            VancouverNinja

            In reply to curtisspendlove:

            I am hearing the opposite. I guess the difference is real business dev efforts vs enthusiasts? But Apple is making this ARM switch about them and not the dev community. What's the upside?

            • Avatar

              Paul Thurrott

              There are huge upsides. Immediately, all iOS and iPad apps will run natively on macOS, giving developers another platform to target with zero effort and, with a bit of effort, another platform they can adapt their apps for its unique functionality. In the future, this could lead to macOS apps---like Xcode---running on iPad Pro, which would be a unique take on two things: The portable Mac and a touch-based Mac.
              • Avatar

                curtisspendlove

                In reply to paul-thurrott:

                There are huge upsides.


                Agreed. However I do think it is mostly a boon for those already in the Apple ecosystem.


                I’m stoked. I think that touchscreens will come to ARM Macs. I’d also like to see the Touch Bar go away and the APIs seamlessly work against a “hot-area” or such of the main touchscreen.


                I’m even more excited for the other stuff though. Touchscreens would be useful sometimes, but an integrated 5G modem, for instance, would be awesome.


                I’m also hoping that this helps push the industry forward where cloud providers are a bit more incentivized to offer cloud VMs running on ARM, etc.


                That said, I’m inherently skeptical, so I’m certainly not getting rid of my Intel systems any time soon.


                There will definitely be some trade offs. Whether anything I need will be killed remains to be seen.

            • Avatar

              curtisspendlove

              In reply to VancouverNinja:

              I guess the difference is real business dev efforts vs enthusiasts?


              Heh. I think you’re going to need to define “real business” because I expect we could go back and forth linking news article after news article and the needle will still remain the same.


              :: shrug ::

          • Avatar

            Paul Thurrott

            Mac is already the preferred platform for many developers, especially web devs. And you need a Mac to develop for Apple's platforms. Kind of makes it the obvious choice.
      • Avatar

        behindmyscreen

        In reply to darkgrayknight:

        you have no idea how fast Apple's processors will perform in a software development workflow.

    • Avatar

      BigM72

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      I think it was telling how quickly he went all-in on using Apple products once he left Microsoft. No intrinsic interest in using Windows for him.

      • Avatar

        SenorGravy

        In reply to BigM72:

        I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but it always really bothered me to see all the Microsoft guys using Macbooks and iPhones. Especially the Windows Phones guys. I mean...COME ON!!!! Show some freaking enthusiasm and loyalty to your product. The PM of the Camaro Team at GM would never pull up to his office in a Ford Mustang. Maybe I'm wrong...

        • Avatar

          Paul Thurrott

          This position only highlights that you didn't get the memo. Microsoft is cross-platform, as it should be. And yes, you're wrong about car guys. Not continually testing what the competition is doing is the surest and fastest path to failure. Former Ford CEO Alan Mulally used to drive a different car every single day, for a time, for example.
      • Avatar

        Paul Thurrott

        Exactly. In case the Apple envy wasn't obvious. He'll always be a wanna-be.
    • Avatar

      willr

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      Exactly. Sometimes I just wonder how on earth did he get to such a high position in Microsoft? Honestly there are 20 year old tech youtubers that would have done a much better job than Sinofsky

    • Avatar

      klhyvcfxe2 vtni56y

      In reply to paul-thurrott:


      Amen to that! I actually own a 2013 iMac because of him. I had never had any interest in Macs, but when he doubled down on Windows 8, I figured Windows was effectively dead and decided to move totally to the Apple ecosystem. I bought the iMac for home, and I requested and got a Macbook Pro at work.


      I switched back after he got fired and MS pivoted. I can't help but wonder how much he did for Apple for a couple of years there. I know I wasn't the only one.


      • Avatar

        VancouverNinja

        In reply to klhyvcfxe2_vtni56y:

        Apple has basically killed the Mac themselves over the last 5-8 years. The current market share is very low today and while they will pick up a decent amount of consumers with "now you can run your iPad apps on you computer" it will not do much for business. For all we know their market share could still continue downwards.

  16. Avatar

    garythornberry

    The attitude of Apple people, plus the cost of Apple products, will keep Windows going. Who wants to go over to the enemy?

    • Avatar

      behindmyscreen

      In reply to garythornberry:


      cost? I mean....If you care about cost then you should be buying a chromebook. Once you get past that level of computer you have well performing Macs right next to PCs.

    • Avatar

      Paul Thurrott

      When you view the world like this, you can't change or evolve. Apple isn't an "enemy," they're one of a few personal computing platform makers, and they have pros and cons just like Google and Microsoft. Microsoft certainly doesn't view them as the enemy.
      • Avatar

        nine54

        In reply to paul-thurrott:


        Microsoft used to view Apple as the enemy, at least in the pre-antitrust days. It viewed everyone as enemy. And you could argue that had it continued viewing Apple, and later Google, as enemies, it might not have ceded the mobile and tablet markets to them.


        The reality is that these companies are so big and complex that they're bound to have some lines of business that are competitive and some that are cooperative. What enables a general "coexistence" is different business models: Apple = devices and consumer services; Microsoft = enterprise software and cloud computing; and Google = ad technologies and user data.


        This doesn't mean they don't view each other as potential threats. Microsoft was caught flat-footed with mobile, and Apple's first-mover advantage was a threat to Microsoft's desktop dominance. It was a threat not because iOS directly challenged Windows; rather, because smartphones threatened the desktop paradigm. Microsoft could continue dominating the desktop market, but the desktop would become less and less relevant over time with a market size far smaller than mobile. It's only a matter of time before the next such paradigm shift, and any of these companies could find themselves outmaneuvered.

    • Avatar

      anderb

      In reply to garythornberry:

      My current and previous employer have both, in the last few years, brought in a "Macbooks for developers, Windows laptops for the Microsoft Office jockeys" policy. The Mac is increasingly being seen in corporations as the device to use if doing internet/cloud development and if you want to attract younger developers. I'm now not allowed to use Windows at work even if I really wanted to.

      • Avatar

        VancouverNinja

        In reply to anderb:

        We have been forced to buy new Apple equipment or we cannot compile for iOS. It's pathetic - I figure Apple has forced many 100's of thousand Mac purchases over the last decade they would have never had due to not allowing emulator testing on PCs for iOS. Yet Microsoft and Google do not impose this requirement if you develop on a Mac. It is really bizarre that such an anti developer move is not recognized for what it is.

        • Avatar

          Alastair Cooper

          In reply to VancouverNinja:


          There are cloud products that you can buy, where you are renting the Mac hardware and you then work with your Windows or Linux client.


          I couldn't say how that compares cost-wise to buying Macs outright.


          Either way, Apple's practice of limiting iOS development to the Mac is pretty restrictive. I think they can only really get away with it because of their minority market share, or else it might be deemed anti-competitive.

          • Avatar

            curtisspendlove

            In reply to Alastair_Cooper:

            Either way, Apple's practice of limiting iOS development to the Mac is pretty restrictive. I think they can only really get away with it because of their minority market share, or else it might be deemed anti-com.


            Remind me, again, how it is that you run the *actual* *real* version of Visual Studio in any platform except windows?


            How would I write a UWP app on my Mac or Manjaro boot?

  17. Avatar

    kitron

    In reply to shameermulji:

    Yep ancient history in the Apple world but don't see PCs and Intel all dying in the next 4 years.


    • Avatar

      behindmyscreen

      In reply to kitron:

      I don't know....Windows won't but Intel could. Pressure in the data centers (and soon the desktop) from ARM, pressure on the desktop from AMD. their entire microarchitecture built on processing algorithms that are not safe in a shared data center environment.....

  18. Avatar

    Winner

    Yeah, Steve has a great track record. Look at Windows 8 and how it was received to know that.

    • Avatar

      bschnatt

      In reply to Winner:

      Maybe I'm just a nutjob, but there were many things I liked about Windows 8. My favorite one was the menu that you could pull from the right side (forgot the name of it - charms bar?). A dedicated sidebar with a Share button and a Settings button in the context of the app you were using? Genius.


      I also liked being able to create a massive Start screen (categorized and all), and the ability to pinch it to see a "micro-view" which made it very easy to pick a different section of the Start screen (i.e., like zooming out in Google Maps so you can pick a different city far away). Again, genius.


      Finally, I liked being able to swipe up on the Start menu to see the complete list of installed applications (in alphabetic order) .


      Yeah, the whole double-swipe in from the left to see all running apps was kind of weird, but overall, people didn't give Windows 8 a chance. There were some intuitive features in it...

      • Avatar

        boots

        In reply to bschnatt:

        The Charms bar was not genius. It was a weird mix of App-specific and System-wide icons.

        It was bad enough that Metro apps had their Toolbars hidden behind a right-click, but then they had even more tools hidden in a second place, the Charms bar, which was hidden behind some awkward mouse gesture. That's not genius, that's just stupid.

        • Avatar

          bschnatt

          In reply to Boots:

          Let me fix my earlier statement: It was genius -- when used in tablet mode with your fingers. Yes, it was awkward using it with a mouse. I guess I should have qualified that...

          • Avatar

            boots

            In reply to bschnatt:

            The Charms bar may have been easier to get to with touch, but it wasn't any easier to discover.

            Why have primary functions, such as a Search icon for the App Store, hidden away in a swipe out Toolbar instead of just being at the top of the app?

            Why have 2 different hidden places to get to different tools for Metro apps?

            Metro IE had 2 different places to get to its settings. Some of its setting were in its normal, drag up, Toolbar (spanner icon), and the rest were in the Charms bar.

            How is any of this genius?

            Windows 10 does this so much better, nothing is hidden away. It doesn't have a Charms bar because it was never needed to begin with, it just made Windows 8 harder to use.

        • Avatar

          txag

          In reply to Boots:

          I could never hit the Charms target In just one try with the mouse. It was the strangest GUI element I ever saw.

        • Avatar

          Paul Thurrott

          Yeah, that it was non-discoverable was among its many sins.
      • Avatar

        BigM72

        In reply to bschnatt:

        If it was just a tablet system, sure. But he forced it onto everything including desktops and non-touch laptops. He ripped out the start menu code so it wasn't like a hidden option you could turn back on (and the Windows 10 start menu is quite slow to paint).


        His other big mistake was creating a totally new framework and API set rather than leveraging the existing work Windows Phone team had done with developers. This burned developers a lot too.

  19. Avatar

    madthinus

    That tweet will not age well.

  20. Avatar

    codymesh

    this guy is running his mouth again.

  21. Avatar

    miamimauler

    In reply to OldITPro2000:

    I haven't been to that site for a while but I remember Bott being quite the MS fanboy. You wouldn't know it by that article though.


    He's critical of MS's lack of effort in letting UWP fail, the Surface Pro X lack of performance, the Store's lack of apps and MS's efforts in general with Windows on Arm.


    Actually, he makes many similar points that Paul has been making for a while now.



Leave a Reply