Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why no mac software?

Last response: in Cell Phones & Smartphones
Share
June 22, 2004 3:09:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Does anyone here have any idea why Microsoft have decided not to support
Mac and PocketPC? I am aware it is possible to get some compatibility
using 3rd party software, but I find it strange that Microsoft aren't
interested. They release Mac versions of Office and MSN, and Palm have a
Mac version of the desktop software - wouldn't you think they'd try and
be better than their rivals in this respect? Since the Windows Mobile
interface bares a lot resemblance to early versions of Mac OS - many Mac
users such as myself choose it over palm, because of the better hardware
and software for the platform and built in apps like Word and Media Player.
comments?
Marc

More about : mac software

Anonymous
June 22, 2004 6:58:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:09:53 +0100, Marc
<no.s-p-a-m.marcus@imarc.co.uk> wrote:

>Does anyone here have any idea why Microsoft have decided not to support
>Mac and PocketPC?

In an ideal world, Microsoft would offer native Mac support. But even
a large company as Microsoft has to control the way they're spending
their resources. So I think for the same reason PalmSource is dropping
their native support for the Mac, leaving it to third party
alternatives as well
(http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=6547) : too small a
user base to justify the cost of development of a second sync tool.

Esp. since third party solution for the Pocket PC are available now, I
agree with that decision, since I'd much more prefer them to
concentrate on building an Activesync that works better on the Windows
platform than the current one than to spend resources on trying to
persuade < 5% of the desktop computer users to use their tool, when
there's a third party alternative available. And yes, I too am a Mac
OS X user.

Now what would be great is if OEMs would bundle one of the two
existing third party applications (Pocket Mac from
http://www.pocketmac.net and Missing Sync from
http://www.markspace.com) with their Pocket PCs! But also there, I
think it's a matter of justifying the cost of this addition. So if all
Mac users promise to buy the first Pocket PC that comes bundled with
such a sync tool, I think an OEM might be persuaded. ;) 

--
Marlof Bregonje
Microsoft MVP - Mobile Devices
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile
June 22, 2004 6:58:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Marlof Bregonje, MS-MVP/Mobile Devices wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:09:53 +0100, Marc
> <no.s-p-a-m.marcus@imarc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Does anyone here have any idea why Microsoft have decided not to support
>>Mac and PocketPC?
>
>
> In an ideal world, Microsoft would offer native Mac support. But even
> a large company as Microsoft has to control the way they're spending
> their resources. So I think for the same reason PalmSource is dropping
> their native support for the Mac, leaving it to third party
> alternatives as well
> (http://www.palminfocenter.com/view_story.asp?ID=6547) : too small a
> user base to justify the cost of development of a second sync tool.
>
> Esp. since third party solution for the Pocket PC are available now, I
> agree with that decision, since I'd much more prefer them to
> concentrate on building an Activesync that works better on the Windows
> platform than the current one than to spend resources on trying to
> persuade < 5% of the desktop computer users to use their tool, when
> there's a third party alternative available. And yes, I too am a Mac
> OS X user.
>
> Now what would be great is if OEMs would bundle one of the two
> existing third party applications (Pocket Mac from
> http://www.pocketmac.net and Missing Sync from
> http://www.markspace.com) with their Pocket PCs! But also there, I
> think it's a matter of justifying the cost of this addition. So if all
> Mac users promise to buy the first Pocket PC that comes bundled with
> such a sync tool, I think an OEM might be persuaded. ;) 

Thanks for the response. I can see your point, and I think thats why
Apple have worked hard and produced iSync, Safari and iTunes software
because they just can't afford to leave it to other companies who don't
(for whatever reason) take Macs seriously. iTunes is a good example of
something apple made because no 3rd party made a decent effort, and it
was ported to Windows - now many people I speak to regard it as one of
the best bits of freeware available for the Windows platform.

I'm not going to get into the Mac vs Windows thing as I believe both
systems have their pros and their cons - but I do know that the more
software and compatibility Macs have with PDAs, digital camera etc, the
more people will buy them - and then the more manufactures will want to
support them, because more people are buying them - so its a no win
situation. It would be good to have some Mac compatibility out of the
box with no extra cost but unlike Palm many developers package their PPC
applications as Windows exe files. H.P. would have to retrain their
support staff on Unix.But if a smaller company wants to put time and
money into it, why wouldn't a large multinational like Microsoft with
the benefits of "economies of scale" be interested?

Interesting debate, as I think we can all agree that a strong Mac
platform helps towwards better Windows one, and vica verca.

Marc
Related resources
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 8:08:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Shouldn't Apple support the PPC and Palm? You guys choose to use a computer
that you know is extremely limited and yet you blame MS instead of yourself
or Apple.

If Steve Jobs wasn't such a control freak perhaps Apple would have a larger
Market share. I for one like OSX but Ill never buy hardware that's twice as
expensive for half the performance.

Mitch



"Marc" <no.s-p-a-m.marcus@imarc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1087898994.25562.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
> Does anyone here have any idea why Microsoft have decided not to support
> Mac and PocketPC? I am aware it is possible to get some compatibility
> using 3rd party software, but I find it strange that Microsoft aren't
> interested. They release Mac versions of Office and MSN, and Palm have a
> Mac version of the desktop software - wouldn't you think they'd try and
> be better than their rivals in this respect? Since the Windows Mobile
> interface bares a lot resemblance to early versions of Mac OS - many Mac
> users such as myself choose it over palm, because of the better hardware
> and software for the platform and built in apps like Word and Media
Player.
> comments?
> Marc
June 22, 2004 11:12:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Mitch_A wrote:
> Shouldn't Apple support the PPC and Palm? You guys choose to use a computer
> that you know is extremely limited and yet you blame MS instead of yourself
> or Apple.

That's one way of seeing it. Of course no viruses, fewer security holes
and mountains of open source software is another way of seeing it. I'm
not blaming Microsoft for anything, simply asking the question "why
not". They obviously choose to make versions of Word, Outlook, Excel,
Powerpoint, MSN Messenger and Internet Explorer for the Mac for a reason
- so why not PocketPC/active-sync?


> If Steve Jobs wasn't such a control freak perhaps Apple would have a larger
> Market share. I for one like OSX but Ill never buy hardware that's twice as
> expensive for half the performance.

I've found one of the reasons Macs are so reliable is because one
company has control over the hardware and the o/s. Of course this has
drawbacks when it comes to cost - but a lot of the time it isn't as bad
as you'd think. I should know because I'm a student, I'm not rich by any
means but I own a Mac and it still beats my PC that has a CPU with a
clock rate twice that of the Mac. There are things Macs aren't good at,
and anyone like me who likes to internally upgrade machines will know
that. Software usually costs more for the Mac and so does hardware. Of
course Windows software wont work, but in most cases are are
alternitives that are just as good. More often than not I am wishing a
Mac program would be released on Windows rather than vica verca (wipetap
is an example of this) I'm not going to say they're perfect but you are
clearly missinformed when you say Macs are extreamly limited. Thought
I'd do you a favour and inform you :) 

Marc
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 11:12:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Snipped and inserted below.

"Marc" <marcus.no-spam@imarc.co.uk> wrote in > That's one way of seeing it.
Of course no viruses, fewer security holes
> and mountains of open source software is another way of seeing it.

This argument is quite weak and can be easily explained by sheer numbers not
by anything "special" Apple does. I do recall a security flaw recently
though. The mountain of Open source software pales in comparison to their
windows counterparts.

Dont get me wrong, OSX is the best thing Apple has ever done and if he
ported it to x86 architecture Id be the first in line.


I'm
> not blaming Microsoft for anything, simply asking the question "why
> not". They obviously choose to make versions of Word, Outlook, Excel,
> Powerpoint, MSN Messenger and Internet Explorer for the Mac for a reason
> - so why not PocketPC/active-sync?

Youre correct and I retract my "blame" statement.

>
I've found one of the reasons Macs are so reliable is because one
> company has control over the hardware and the o/s. Of course this has
> drawbacks when it comes to cost - but a lot of the time it isn't as bad
> as you'd think. I should know because I'm a student, I'm not rich by any
> means but I own a Mac and it still beats my PC that has a CPU with a
> clock rate twice that of the Mac. There are things Macs aren't good at,
> and anyone like me who likes to internally upgrade machines will know
> that. Software usually costs more for the Mac and so does hardware. Of
> course Windows software wont work, but in most cases are are
> alternitives that are just as good. More often than not I am wishing a
> Mac program would be released on Windows rather than vica verca (wipetap
> is an example of this) I'm not going to say they're perfect but you are
> clearly missinformed when you say Macs are extreamly limited. Thought
> I'd do you a favour and inform you :) 

I should have said "In my experience Macs are too limited and too expensive
for what they offer me and my clients"

Matter of fact I have one client, a dentist that spends thousands of dollars
more on Mac's in his office just to run a Windows emulator so he can run his
EZ dental program. Too funny how a fool and his money soon part :) .

Mitch
June 23, 2004 12:26:04 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

Mitch_A wrote:

> Dont get me wrong, OSX is the best thing Apple has ever done and if he
> ported it to x86 architecture Id be the first in line.

Great OS and cheap hardware would be a dream come true, but Apple would
never do it because it would kill of their harware business. The reason
OSX only costs £99 and Windows costs twice that is because Apple know if
you're buying OSX then you've also baught Mac somewhere down the line,
they get their money that way.

There would also need to be two versions of all applications (one
compiled to PPC, and the other for x86) and I bet after time most
developers would not bother with PPC.

There has been talk of this, and it would be interesting if it ever did
happen but I think Microsoft would withdraw all their siftware if Apple
ever moved intio their Market like that!

Marc
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 4:02:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:08:55 +0200, Mitch_A wrote
(in article <rQYBc.3513$0P.2572@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>):

> Shouldn't Apple support the PPC and Palm?

Only if Apple would think that this ability would sell more
Macs, same as I believe that MS and Palm should only do this if
they believe it would benefit their sales. I think neither is
true, so third party developers will make money, and we have a
solution. I'm happy enough with that.

--
Marlof Bregonje
Microsoft MVP - Mobile Devices
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile
Anonymous
June 23, 2004 9:57:57 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.pocketpc (More info?)

hi,

this is easy to answer; MAC doesn't have a operating system for smartdevice
on the market. So for what should Microsoft release some software ?
This is a decision by MAC, that the wont do nothing for PDA's
HTH
Rainer

sorry for my poor english


"Marc" <no.s-p-a-m.marcus@imarc.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1087898994.25562.0@despina.uk.clara.net...
> Does anyone here have any idea why Microsoft have decided not to support
> Mac and PocketPC? I am aware it is possible to get some compatibility
> using 3rd party software, but I find it strange that Microsoft aren't
> interested. They release Mac versions of Office and MSN, and Palm have a
> Mac version of the desktop software - wouldn't you think they'd try and
> be better than their rivals in this respect? Since the Windows Mobile
> interface bares a lot resemblance to early versions of Mac OS - many Mac
> users such as myself choose it over palm, because of the better hardware
> and software for the platform and built in apps like Word and Media
Player.
> comments?
> Marc
!