Why aren't more games and software ported to Mac?

[RiverRunner]

As has been said already: volume, volume, volume.

It’s worth pointing out, though, that back in the dim mists of prehistoric time – maybe ten or fifteen years ago, I don’t remember exactly – Apple really cheesed off a bunch of the major game companies. Apparently, they didn’t go as far as active discouragement of games for the Mac, but it wasn’t too far from it. (This was a really strange thing, since one of the main reasons for having an Apple II was games. It appears that the upper management didn’t want the Mac to be considered a “toy.”)

At one point, they made noises about doing better by the software companies, but nothing changed for a good while. More than one company decided it wasn’t worth the hassle.

Apple has since realized it had done a Bad Thing and has become a lot more supportive of the gaming companies, but they lost some ground at a crucial time.

Mainly, though, the problem all along has been: volume, volume, volume.
RR

[Morbo]

*Originally posted by transitionality *
Microsoft loses its shirt every time it ports Office to Mac, but it must continue to do so in order to stave off accusations about its desktop monopoly.

This is absolutely, unequivocally, patently false.

Microsoft makes hundreds of millions of dollars on Mac Office, including versions that are over three years old. The Mac Business Unit’s existence has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a “desktop monopoly.” Never has. Never will. If Apple goes under, Microsoft will continue to make new versions of Mac Office software to run on existing machines. Because it makes money.

Further, Microsoft does not “port” Office to the Mac, it is a Mac-only product created from the ground up for the Mac OS. Any feature that exists in the Windows versions is recreated from scratch. Not ported. Other features exist only on the Mac platform. No Office Application has been “ported” to the Mac since Word 6.0 over eight years ago.

Need a cite? I have been a Developer in the Mac Business Unit of Microsoft since 1993. You could say I’m more aware of how and why we’ve been doing business for the last ten years.

Please do not engage in wild, unfounded and baseless speculation in General Questions.

[transitionality]

*Originally posted by Dooku *
Microsoft makes hundreds of millions of dollars on Mac Office, including versions that are over three years old. The Mac Business Unit’s existence has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a “desktop monopoly.” Never has. Never will. If Apple goes under, Microsoft will continue to make new versions of Mac Office software to run on existing machines. Because it makes money.

I understand that this is the official Microsoft party line. I don’t expect a Microsoft employee to admit to business conduct motivated primarily by the desire to counter accusations of illegal behavior. But your analysis is both misleading and simplistic.

Every developer man-hour being spent on developing a Mac product is a developer man-hour not being spent on shipping Longhorn in time, or completing that companywide security audit that was supposed to have been finished a long time ago, both of which are costing Microsoft far more money than any money that Mac products might bring. There’s a severe opportunity cost there.

**
Further, Microsoft does not “port” Office to the Mac, it is a Mac-only product created from the ground up for the Mac OS. Any feature that exists in the Windows versions is recreated from scratch. Not ported. Other features exist only on the Mac platform. No Office Application has been “ported” to the Mac since Word 6.0 over eight years ago.

**

You’re using “port” in its strict, software-developer context of making a product work on a platform by taking the original codebase, reusing batches of code, and rewriting other batches of code which don’t work due to hardware or compiler incompatibilities. I’m using “port” in the more general, publicly understood sense of shipping a franchise product on a platform other than the one with which it is usually associated. In this latter sense, a Game Boy Street Fighter title would be called a port although, clearly, no original arcade code or art or music could possibly fit into the tiny device that is Game Boy. It’s all reimplementation, possibly with some features added or excluded. Reviewers and the public would still call it a port.

[Mister_Rik]

In that case, then Office for Windows is the port. Microsoft Word et al was originally created for the Macintosh.

[Morbo]

*Originally posted by transitionality *
I understand that this is the official Microsoft party line. I don’t expect a Microsoft employee to admit to business conduct motivated primarily by the desire to counter accusations of illegal behavior. But your analysis is both misleading and simplistic.

No, it’s not the “official party line.” I frequently disagree with our “party line” and have said so on the SDMB many times. However, you are simply wrong. The Mac team was not created specifically to counter any such allegations.

If you are to say things like that in General Questions, you must back them up. So I ask you: May I see a Cite that proves that the Mac Business Unit was created to counter accusations of illegal behavior? Other than your opinion, of course.

BTW, I feel you should know that Word, XL and PowerPoint were all Mac products before they were Windows products. But you see, we did that ON PURPOSE so that we could more steathily trick our accusers, whoever they are / were. :rolleyes:

Every developer man-hour being spent on developing a Mac product is a developer man-hour not being spent on shipping Longhorn in time, or completing that companywide security audit that was supposed to have been finished a long time ago, both of which are costing Microsoft far more money than any money that Mac products might bring. There’s a severe opportunity cost there.

Speaking of misleading and simplistic…

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that if Longhorn is behind schedule then Microsoft could or should remove me from what I’m doing and start having me fix Longhorn bugs? Like we’re all in some room making toys and I can just move over to the other table and start working over there? I don’t even know where to begin in telling you how absurd that is.

Do you have the slightest idea how software companies work? Or do you think that I am an expert in writing COM code, Windows code, proprietary PowerPoint, Word, Excel and Escher code, Longhorn, MSN, Windows IE, Mac IE, etc and can just spin around in my chair and start working on something else? Do you think that Apple developers are experts in all hardware, software and OS code and can be jerked around from one project to the next willy-nilly to get things going on schedule? That’s pretty damn funny.

You’re using “port” in its strict, software-developer context of making a product work on a platform by taking the original codebase, reusing batches of code, and rewriting other batches of code which don’t work due to hardware or compiler incompatibilities. I’m using “port” in the more general, publicly understood sense of shipping a franchise product on a platform other than the one with which it is usually associated. In this latter sense, a Game Boy Street Fighter title would be called a port although, clearly, no original arcade code or art or music could possibly fit into the tiny device that is Game Boy. It’s all reimplementation, possibly with some features added or excluded. Reviewers and the public would still call it a port.

That in no way shape or form describes how Mac Office applications are implemented - we do nothing with the “original codebase” whatever that means. We reuse no batches of code. We rewrite no batches of code. Whatever meaning you’re trying to infer by using the word “port” is erroneous.

And since these applications were created on the Mac before they were, uh, “ported” to Windows, this makes no sense anyway.

Really, are you going to actually try and debate with me about this? I WORK there. I’ve been doing this for TEN YEARS. I know EXACTLY how and why we do our business. You are simply spouting unfounded accusations and ignorance - please stop.

[bernse]

I don’t expect a Microsoft employee to admit to business conduct motivated primarily by the desire to counter accusations of illegal behavior.

I too would like an explanation for that (putting it mildly) accusatory statement. Countering accusations of Illegal behavior?

[manhattan]

And I absolutely insist on it. transitionality, you are instructed to a) explain what the hell you’re talking about in that abomination of a sentence and b) prove it. Or retract it.

[AHunter3]

What Dooku says.

And also:

does anyone see this trend ending with Macintosh eventually just allowing Windows to be put on its computers?

No one is standing at the Cupertino, uhh, …gates (sorry)… and refusing Microsoft the opportunity to write and release a version of Windows that will run on Apple hardware. As a matter of fact, there was once a project in the works called CHRP (common hardware reference platform) which was going to be a standard for machines produced by Apple, IBM, conceivably Compaq, etc – machines adhering to this standard would run MacOS, AIX, OS/2, and Windows NT. The NT for PowerPC was actually completed I believe but not compiled for CHRP which never quite came of age (Dooku may be able to correct me or provide details as necessary).

If Microsoft were to release XP for AppleG5 all the software that runs on XP would have to recompiled to run on the AppleG5 version. Such is the case with versions of Windows that run (or ran?) on the Alpha-processor platform. You can’t just stick some x86-PC Windows software on an Alpha box and expect it to run just because a version of Windows NT is sitting there serving as the OS.

Also similarly (and yet different): Linux can be and has been ported to run on the Apple boxes. The software that will run natively under Red Hat Linux for the PC won’t just install and run on a Mac LInux distro. The different part is that so much of this software is available as source code, and therefore geeks aplenty jump in and help compile it. This is ALSO true for running native Unix apps under MacOS X in the X11 environment. But commercial app vendors who write software for Windows, e.g., Microsoft themselves, Corel, Lotus, Jasc, and those game vendor mentioned above, have to do it themselves. A zillion geeks will do that kind of thing for free and that equals software, but commercial companies don’t tend to make money by releasing their source code for geeks to play with.

So back to Microsoft porting refining updating and supporting a version of XP to run on Macs: most Mac users wouldn’t buy it and run it because we have apps for our hardware that run under the Mac platform but the new platform would lack them; most vendors would not port their XP-PC apps to XP-Mac with such a tiny user base; most Windows users would not buy Macs to run Windows on because their old Windows apps would be incompatible, the new platform would have few apps…it’s a chicken and egg proposition.

Meanwhile: we aren’t hurting for software aside from games and niche stuff. We do all right.

[Morbo]

*Originally posted by AHunter3 *
As a matter of fact, there was once a project in the works called CHRP (common hardware reference platform) which was going to be a standard for machines produced by Apple, IBM, conceivably Compaq, etc – machines adhering to this standard would run MacOS, AIX, OS/2, and Windows NT. The NT for PowerPC was actually completed I believe but not compiled for CHRP which never quite came of age (Dooku may be able to correct me or provide details as necessary).

CHRP… ::shudder:: Seeing NT try and render on a PowerPC was…interesting. Suffice it to say that there would have been performance problems.

Compiling is the big problem, as AHunter3 mentions. We’ve got the VirtualPC folks in my group now, and they encounter this problem more than most devs. When Apple introduces a new machine (like the G5) it represents a tremendous amount of work for them.

(occ, you should revisit VirtualPC - their latest version is light years better in terms of performance than a simple emulator. We released a free bare-bones PC emulator called RDC [Remote Desktop Client] which gets the job done if you desperately need an emulation).

And thank you manhattan.

[transitionality]

*Originally posted by Dooku *
If you are to say things like that in General Questions, you must back them up. So I ask you: May I see a Cite that proves that the Mac Business Unit was created to counter accusations of illegal behavior? Other than your opinion, of course.

Gladly.

Microsoft revived Apple from its death bed in 1997 with an injection of $150 million and a promise to develop Office for the Mac for five years.

In October 2000, Microsoft paid $135 million for 25% of Corel, the loss-making Canadian company whose WordPerfect Office was competing with Microsoft Office.

Give me one good reason why Microsoft would invest in its direct competitors, except to create an illusion of competition in the marketplace.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that if Longhorn is behind schedule then Microsoft could or should remove me from what I’m doing and start having me fix Longhorn bugs? Like we’re all in some room making toys and I can just move over to the other table and start working over there? I don’t even know where to begin in telling you how absurd that is.

What I’m saying is that every dollar that Microsoft is paying you to develop Mac products is a dollar that Microsoft is not (and could be) paying another developer who could be working on Longhorn.

It’s not absurd at all if you don’t automatically harbor the assumption that your interlocutor is less smart than you are. There is an opportunity cost to Microsoft developing Mac software, but the strategic returns are critical enough to make it worth their while.

**

That in no way shape or form describes how Mac Office applications are implemented - we do nothing with the “original codebase” whatever that means. We reuse no batches of code. We rewrite no batches of code. Whatever meaning you’re trying to infer by using the word “port” is erroneous.**

I explained two connotations of the word port, one used by developers, one used by reviewers and the general public. Mac Office is not a port per the first connotation, it is a port per the second connotation.

**

And since these applications were created on the Mac before they were, uh, “ported” to Windows, this makes no sense anyway.
**

Note where I say “platform with which it is usually associated”. If you sample a thousand random people right now, most people will associate Microsoft Office with the Windows platform. These days, people usually associate Microsoft Office with Windows. Maybe ten years ago, they would have associated it with MacOS. That doesn’t matter. We live in the present.

[bernse]

Thats the best explanation you can give?

I see nothing in that (other than your warped explanation of why MS investing in Corel, there is nothing shady with that whatsoever) that there is illegal behavior going on.

Please.

[transitionality]

The development of Office for Mac is not illegal. It’s fodder to be used as defense against accusations of having maintained an illegal monopoly.

Reread what I wrote. I never said that developing Office for Mac was illegal. You’re setting up strawmen.

[keithnmick]

There is some truth in what transitionality says - if Microsoft were to stop making Office for the Mac it would seriously hurt Mac sales, and there is a small danger of that happening if Linux continues growing and Microsoft decides to produce a version of Office for Linux (please let’s not discuss the likelyhood of this).
Here’s a BusinessWeek article discussing it:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2003/tc20030618_7983_tc056.htm

and I quote:

"I’m having trouble seeing why Microsoft would continue throwing a significant amount of resources -– the Mac BU has 150 coders – at a computing platform with a market share of only 5% of the installed PC base, according to Apple itself. Software works as a business when it scales to larger numbers of buyers. That’s because once a program is developed, the cost of selling an extra unit is virtually nil.

So selling to smaller markets means, necessarily, smaller profits. As Microsoft seeks to squeeze out more income with Linux slowly eating at the edges of the desktop market and overall tech sales stagnant, support for Apple will look less like a viable business and more like foolish charity."
The above article can also be related to the OP - games are less plentiful on the Mac for the same reason, as listed, less profit. While it is true that a lot of the good games make it across, there are some very notable exceptions. Half Life being a good example (and the best game I have ever played).

There are software houses that make a living out of porting games to the Mac though, and if you can dominate a Niche market, that’s can be comparable to being competitive in the mainstream.

[Dreaming_of_Maria_Callas]

*Originally posted by AHunter3 *
A zillion geeks will do that kind of thing for free and that equals software, but commercial companies don’t tend to make money by releasing their source code for geeks to play with.

Sun and IBM sure hate to disagree with you there…

UnuMondo

[compton_homie]

http://gamespy.com/instapoll/poll.asp?poll_id=2632&maxwidth=300&dontvote=true:p

[transitionality]

*Originally posted by UnuMondo *
Sun and IBM sure hate to disagree with you there…

Sun and IBM are hardware and service companies. They give away free software to motivate purchase of their overpriced hardware and support contracts.

This is no different than when Sony sells PS2’s below cost to motivate purchase of its overpriced PS2 games, or when Gilette gives away free razors to motivate purchase of its overpriced blades.

Corel, Lotus, Jasc and yes, Microsoft, are all software companies. (Actually, I’m not sure if Corel even exists anymore. But that’s besides the point.) They can’t give away software, except when they do so in order to illegally leverage their monopoly and bankrupt a competitor (See Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson’s undisputed Findings of Fact) and even then, they can’t do it in general and forever. If a software company keeps giving away all its software, money will run out at some point, and before that happens, shareholders will sue.

[Morbo]

*Originally posted by transitionality *
Microsoft revived Apple from its death bed in 1997 with an injection of $150 million and a promise to develop Office for the Mac for five years.

The Mac Business Unit had already existed at that time. In fact, the Mac Business Unit has existed since 1987. You’re implying that this unit was created specifically at this time - we had already released several versions of Mac Office.

To say that Apple was on its “deathbed” is ridiculous, but so is every other wild claim you’ve made. I guess you don’t see the poor logic in stating that a company on its deathbed could be revived for $150 million dollars.

[quote]
In October 2000, Microsoft paid $135 million for 25% of Corel, the loss-making Canadian company whose WordPerfect Office was competing with Microsoft Office.

Do you suppose if anything ILLEGAL was discovered about this investment that the Canadian Government might have had an issue with it?

Give me one good reason why Microsoft would invest in its direct competitors, except to create an illusion of competition in the marketplace.

Uh…money? Because we made several million dollars off Mac Office and wish to continue to create that revenue stream? Do you think we are the only software company that invests in other software companies? Do you know how frequently this goes on?

Is that the full extent of your proof?

Well I’m satisfied. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Mac Business Unit’s creation was motivated primarily by the desire to “counter accusations of illegal behavior.”

I await your retraction.

It’s not absurd at all if you don’t automatically harbor the assumption that your interlocutor is less smart than you are.

I made no such claim to my superior intellect, simply that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Since what you’re talking about happens to be what I do for a living, and since I’m here to fight ignorance, I can’t allow you to continue posting your nonsense as fact.

For example:

What I’m saying is that every dollar that Microsoft is paying you to develop Mac products is a dollar that Microsoft is not (and could be) paying another developer who could be working on Longhorn.

You seem to think that Microsoft can simply go pay someone to join the Longhorn team and start fixing bugs rather than pay me to develop Mac products so that they can ship on time. That there is a 1-1 correlation to developing one product instead of another. Wrong.

• Product cycles that have been developed by a specific group cannot simply go get a “free agent” to help speed them along. The code is entirely too complex for someone fresh off the street to step in and just start working.

• Getting a product released on time cannot be directly attributed to the number of developers on that project. There are dozens of different groups involved, some of which have nothing to do with the development cycle.

• Developers are not hired labor that can be placed into whatever open position exists and ordered to start building products. You do realize that there are several hundred different types of programming languages, tools, etc?

So, to sum up, you have failed to “prove” anything to back up your inflammatory post about my unit being created to counter accusations of illegal behavior, and you are wrong about your quaint notion that one product’s release date can be affected by the number of developers paid to work on it. I ask you again: please stop.

[bernse]

*Originally posted by transitionality *
**The development of Office for Mac is not illegal. It’s fodder to be used as defense against accusations of having maintained an illegal monopoly.

Reread what I wrote. I never said that developing Office for Mac was illegal. You’re setting up strawmen. **

You’re saying I’m setting up a strawman? You’re doing just fine on your own, pal.

Reread what I wrote. I never said MS developing Mac Office was illegal. Please, show me where I said that.

You are however alluding to MS’s investment into Corel as illegal. (I assume that is where your illegal statement is pointed, no?)

In October 2000, Microsoft paid $135 million for 25% of Corel, the loss-making Canadian company whose WordPerfect Office was competing with Microsoft Office.

Give me one good reason why Microsoft would invest in its direct competitors, except to create an illusion of competition in the marketplace.

Good reason #1 - Its an investment. The same reason MS invested in Apple and didn’t do its part to let it die. Corel sold and developed more than Wordperfect.

IIRC, it had to pass regulatory approval in Canada and the US. It passed.

Get over it. Its not illegal and you made a baseless bold statement.

[transitionality]

*Originally posted by Dooku *
**The Mac Business Unit had already existed at that time. In fact, the Mac Business Unit has existed since 1987. You’re implying that this unit was created specifically at this time - we had already released several versions of Mac Office.
**

Not implying that the Mac Business Unit was founded with that specific intent – but specifically that Microsoft’s continued and fervent support of the Mac platform, particularly right before, during, and after the antitrust trial, was motivated thereby.

**

To say that Apple was on its “deathbed” is ridiculous, but so is every other wild claim you’ve made. I guess you don’t see the poor logic in stating that a company on its deathbed could be revived for $150 million dollars.
**

Apple doesn’t have 50 billion in the bank.

**

Do you think we are the only software company that invests in other software companies? Do you know how frequently this goes on?
**

I do. It’s not frequent at all. Companies do not, in general, invest in their direct competitors. (They cross-license patents, but that’s different.) Feel free to provide counterexamples.

**

You seem to think that Microsoft can simply go pay someone to join the Longhorn team and start fixing bugs rather than pay me to develop Mac products so that they can ship on time.
**

This is a strawman. Microsoft could have chosen, at the time of your hiring, to instead hire a developer with the necessary skillset that would be useful for development of products such as Longhorn, which were definitely planned years in advance.

Throwing more developers at a project that’s already running behind schedule doesn’t make it ship any sooner, but investing more in the development of a project beginning at the design stage does make it ship sooner. You’re assuming the former strawman.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

This has gone far enough.

If you want to debate Microsoft’s motivations, we have a forum for debates. This ain’t it.

This is closed.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator