It's my impression that Software begun on Windows are often made for Mac afterwards, yet it doesn't seem to work the other way around, am I wrong? As a Windows user who doesn't have access to Tinderbox etc because it is one of many Mac Softwares that don't crossover to Windows it irritates me that so many Windows software developers seem to bend over backwards to help Mac Users. Thanks.

Some do, some don't. I'm not sure that it's justifiable to generalise.

If there's any truth in the statement, it may be because (in my very anecdotal view) there was a time, probably now in the past, when Apple seemed to make an effort - with "kits of bits" - to encourage a large and disproportionate number of small, one or two-man band developers to enter the application market - disproportionate in the sense that Apple had then and, to a certain extent still has, a relatively small percentage of total desktop and laptop sales. Equally, many of those developers, being naturally "left of field" creative folk, were perhaps slightly more attracted to developing for the Mac platform, then regarded as itself a slightly hippy and rebellious upstart, than for the dominant Microsoft. When the iPad and iPhone arrived, it was only natural that their first inclination was to develop for iOS rather than for Windows, given the similarities between iOS and the Mac platform.

Some of those developers have now started developing for Windows, attracted no doubt by the much greater size of the potential market. But you only have to follow the fortunes of one or two of them and listen to the difficulties, travails and issues they face in developing for a total of what is now three or four plus platforms (including Linux) to understand that those who avoid Windows are certainly not being negligent or deliberately discriminatory. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. But Eastgate, which develops Tinderbox which you mention, is still, like many such developers, pretty much a one-man band. And my understanding is that that one man has been working very hard recently simply on getting Version 6 of Tinderbox for the Mac out of the door.

That's an interesting view -- I would never have had that impression. I live in both the Mac and Windows worlds and I buy lots of software. The only "software begun on Windows" that migrated to Mac that I can think of are the pieces of Microsoft Office. Word and Excel were very early on developed for Mac as well as Windows. Later came Outlook to OS X and later still OneNote. Outside of the Microsoft domain I wouldn't be able to say there is much crossing of the Windows-Mac barrier.

Maybe I shouldn't but I'm excluding Java things like TheBrain because porting from Windows to OS X is **relatively** easier for Java apps.

I do agree with Simon in the other direction: Mac apps rarely get ported to Windows. Scrivener is a major outlier, and there it took years before Keith Blount was satisfied with the Windows version. Tinderbox's internals are so hooked into OS X that I wonder if a Windows version would be any match for what was done in OS X.

I don't know that it's a matter of one group of developers "bending over backwards" and another not. Developers collaborate with one another, but that kind of platform-preference group strategizing doesn't really exist in the software business. I doubt anyone is thinking "well, I'm not going to help those Windows guys over there; I don't care if they helped me". What you see is a combination of market forces (money) and developer time.

Simon Bolivar wrote:

It's my impression that Software begun on Windows are often made for Mac
afterwards, yet it doesn't seem to work the other way around, am I
wrong? As a Windows user who doesn't have access to Tinderbox etc
because it is one of many Mac Softwares that don't crossover to Windows
it irritates me that so many Windows software developers seem to bend
over backwards to help Mac Users. Thanks.

Simon.

It’s my impression that Software begun on Windows are often made for Mac afterwards, yet it doesn’t seem to work the other way around, am I wrong?

What Windows software are you talking about? The only ones I know of are

Microsoft Office
OpenOffice
Mindmanager
Xmind (I think it started on Windows, but as it's Java-based, porting shouldn't have been so hard)
Rightnote
Notecase

From my own vantage point, I'd say this is a misconception. First off, there is not a whole lot of crossover either direction, especially if you remove Microsoft from the equation. Second, it seems to me there is just as much, if not more, software that was first developed on the Mac that was then ported to Windows. For example, the entire Adobe Creative Suite: In Design, Photoshop, Illustrator, etc... Then there is Apple's own database FileMaker. There is a lot more financial allure for moving a successful Mac product to Windows than the other way around.

I can see why Tinderbox would be an example that would stick out, as there was a Windows version promised years ago, and has never happened. I doubt it will, with an iPad version supposedly in the works, and still a lot of work to do on version 6.

Steve

I have to agree. As one who only recently transferred to Mac and worked on PC for years previously, I'm actually quite surprised by how little software the two platforms have in common. There's been a lot of stuff carried over to Windows (mainly as a result of the near-death of Apple a couple of decades ago - viz. Adobe, Quark, Autodesk). But otherwise – nope, not a lot in common at all, really.

Outliner enthusiasts (presumably like most of us here!) will bemoan the fact that so many great outliners/info managers on the Mac have never made it over to Windows. But there are a couple of really rather good apps on Windows I occasionally find myself missing on Mac (the full version of OneNote, for example, including all the nice little folding/tagging touches! Not to mention the more polished version of Microsoft Office – the Mac version is a bit of a kludge. Note all of those Microsoft products were Windows-only to start with).

There have been laudable efforts, like Scrivener and Scapple, two of my favourite cross-platform apps. And, of course, a growing number of task management apps (many of which were designed for either Mac or Windows first of all, but have grown to be cross-platform).

So I don't think there's much evidence of a one-way flow. But if you really want to see something like DEVONthink for PC, it's always worth contacting the developers! DEVONthink Pro Office does, of course, generate websites that can be accessed from any platform. But okay, that's cheating... ;-)

Thanks for the measured responses to my 'impression'. On reflection I retract my comment that software developers 'bend over backwards' for Apple users. Many thanks.

My personal impression is that nowadays most 'software' development by far takes place on the web and/or for mobile devices. Where once try-before-you-buy allowed many independent developers to reach a broad market, this is now happening online / via app stores. But there is a crucial difference: nowadays a large number of 'customers' is not willing to pay at all. So it is more a use-with-no-obligation-to-buy model, based on generating income from the small percentage of users who are willing to pay for premium services--either via subscription (in webware) or via 'in-app purchases' (in mobile applications), as well as via pro versions of 'classic' desktop software.

As a result, it is a numbers' game; the more users one can have, the higher the number that may end up paying. In this context, multi-platform can increase the odds, provided the additional effort is not too great. Thus, multi-platform programming languages/frameworks may provide a significant advantage. The number of cross-platform desktop applications (mainly Windows/Mac but also Windows/Mac/Linux) is, I believe, quite significant, if we don't limit ourselves to information management. A search for "cross platform office suite" should bring several interesting options; in fact it seems to me that there are many more cross-platform office suites than there are for single platforms.

In brief, I think that the question of Windows to Mac or Mac to Windows is becoming more and more irrelevant in comparison with the broader trends out there.

A great question! As the creator of a Mac-exclusive outliner that has been discussed here, I of course wondered about this phenomenon.
In my opinion there are three major reasons that can explain most of it:

1. The technological border

Developing applications for the Mac does not require to use Apples Objective-C language and frameworks - but after all this is the way to go.
While it is achievable to create a decent user experience using cross-platform frameworks that power many applications on Windows anyway, it is in reality not possible to take an Objective-C code base and port it to non-Apple platforms. Even sharing code between OS X and iOS apps can be a great challenge. And why should you start out with something like QT when you have the whole power of Cocoa in your toolbox?

2. The economical incentive

After all, in many cases it comes down to being profitable. At least for smaller productivity applications, Mac users are an audience that likely fits, while it is a bigger risk to assume comparable revenue on Windows. With the Mac App Store, Apple introduced a seamless and cost-effective way to distribute applications to a wide range of the Mac user base - and even with Microsoft catching up in quality of service and user numbers of their store, there is still a long way to go.

3. The cultural origin

Last, there is the thing that makes the Mac a Mac: it is possible to achieve such great design and user experience, which is the reason for many people (including me) to create an application in the first place. This does not mean that there are no plans to develop a version of many apps for Windows or other platforms - but following reasons one and two, it makes the decision a lot easier for many. Especially for independent developers, who create Mac apps mostly for fun and secondly for some earnings on the side, this will break the equation when being asked to design a Windows port.


A Windows version of OutlineEdit has been requested countless times.
But being a passionate creator, I think it is a lot more interesting to look at iOS first - and, of course, making the Mac app better.
There are so many opportunities on today’s post-PC platforms that it is hard to look back at supporting 'just another' desktop.

Best regards,

Robin

Thank you for your thoughts, Robin. It's always helpful to hear from someone who has been there/done that.

As it happens, MLO is considering a Mac app, see here:

"MyLifeOrganized for Mac"

http://www.mylifeorganized.net/announcements/mac-subscribe.shtml

Though, ironically, I abandoned MLO when they first started to go cross-platform. I don't know if it was the aesthetics of the iOS apps that was re-applied to the Windows version or what, but I found that the original Win version was becoming diluted as a result (I was a fairly big fan of MLO before that).

That was interesting, Robin. But just to play devil's advocate (and without in the least wishing you to stop your development work for iOS; I'm one of the people who's been badgering you for an iOS version of OutlineEdit!), I think there's an enormous opportunity for a cunning developer to create a suite of applications for Windows that would take full advantage of the touch-screen experience. Very few Windows Store apps are truly optimised for touch-screen usage in the way that so many great iOS apps are.

Dr Andus wrote:

As it happens, MLO is considering a Mac app, see here:

"MyLifeOrganized for Mac"

http://www.mylifeorganized.net/announcements/mac-subscribe.shtml

Though, ironically, I abandoned MLO when they first started to go
cross-platform. I don't know if it was the aesthetics of the iOS apps
that was re-applied to the Windows version or what, but I found that the
original Win version was becoming diluted as a result (I was a fairly
big fan of MLO before that).

Interesting. I starting using MLO when it launched, and liked it. I abandoned it when I moved to Macs. But if I were the developers behind the software, I'd hesitate to enter the Mac market. Wasn't the intensity of competitive rivalry in a given market one of the five forces in Michael Porter's business classic "Competitive Strategy" that he said would make the market potentially unprofitable and unattractive to new entrants? The Mac market for task management apps is stuffed with strong rivals. Still, Porter's book is nearly 25 years old; perhaps views and analyses have changed.