Purview of WWDC

Mr. Peabody · September 20, 2007 – 21:19 EST #2
I really appreciate the perspective that you offer in your article, it comes as confirmation of some suspicions I’ve had, and enlightment about the state of the art.

I have come away with mixed feelings about the developmental life-force that was Apple, and the more solid, more predictable, more obvious thing that Apple has become, from the perspective of those of us on the receiving end of these technologies. It seems that survival had to play a big role in what Apple has become, and is spurred on in no small part by the fact that in one-two decades a single software company pretty much took over the world – or at least the important parts of it.

I find it kind of interesting to think about what Apple might become if they ever succeed in getting a significant foothold in the market place – I wonder if that kind of empowerment, combined with the necessary resources, might push them back into a kind of renaissance, developmentally. I like to think there would be a marked difference in a world co-dominated by Apple as compared to what MS has done with their singular dominance.

Oh well, I guess all we can do about that now is wonder – dare we dream.

IN RESPONSE TO:

ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR OUTLINER

by Ted Goranson, tgoranson@atpm.com

Some Perspectives on the Worldwide Developers Conference

This month, Ted Goranson returns! (For a bit.)
No, this is not an interesting ATPO-type column…not even the long-promised “end all” massive survey of features in writing applications.
This month is a sort of opportunistic column. It’s a report on WWDC, the yearly Apple worldwide developers conference. At the end there’s a small offer to have readers review the upcoming, more traditional ATPO column on writing features.
I recently went to WWDC (dub dub dee cee). It’s been held every year in early June (except last year) or thereabouts since 1983. This is my first one since before the Jobs era really began. I’m not one that counts two Jobs eras, since he wasn’t all that giant an influence the first time around. That notion is sort of the centerpiece of my report.
…
Here’s a summary of the big results…
Apple is a bona fide force in the market now as seen outside of the community. Their products are the coolest and most useful. We all like that, to be part of the winning team. But to be a genuine part of that team, you really do need to do things the Apple way. There are fewer viable choices than there were even a year ago.
Many of the people that I talked to were in the business of making things that would be disruptive and revolutionary in their areas. So the innovation is there, but instead of being led by Apple, it’s being led by the developers using Apple tools.
A key development is happening in the Mac user interface, and I’m a bit sad about it. Someone a few years ago had the clever idea that the design of the machine and the visual design of the software should have something to do with each other. So when we got colorful round, wet plastic Macs, we had a user interface with those same features. When we got brushed aluminum Macs, the user conventions adapted. It’s a wonderful idea, to have this seamlessness between the inside and outside of the machine. I am convinced it subliminally mattered to many folks who use their Macs for creative work.
But we ended up with a jumble of conventions (even with Apple-supplied applications) and nothing was working now, so they just jettisoned the experiment and made decisions based on cognitive science. Good, everyone’s glad. But that diversity seemed as if it was the very last vestige of competitive internal forces within Apple, and I was sad to see it go away at WWDC. It’s being partially replaced by what may be a stronger inside-outside metaphor: that page-flipping feature that was in iTunes covers and now will be in the Finder. It’s a good substitute in terms of the ambiguity of inside and outside spaces, but I don’t see an immediate convention for ATPO-type applications to usefully leverage. I imagine many will use it anyway.
In fact, I think we will see three rather distinct categories of Mac applications from here on. That will be true of the applications ATPO has covered, of the writing applications ATPO is looking at now, and of the media-rich versions of those that probably form the future of both. This last category is where I am working. You know how in early ATPO columns I made a big deal out of whether something was Carbon, Cocoa, or Java? I think in the future that will morph to these three categories. They are:
1. Applications that follow the Apple lead in nearly every way possible. Apple has certain ideas about user interface, metadata management, Web interaction, text and media display and so on. These frameworks are getting more and more mature and complete. They make it possible for developers to rely on Apple for many things and concentrate on novel and useful things instead.
2. Applications that strike their own path but heavily leverage Apple frameworks. These will be mostly Cocoa programs, and integrate with some services like scripting and media handling. But the main architecture of the application is outside the Apple norm. That means they will be less likely to be “me too” in appearance and functionality, less likely to advance quickly in terms of features, but more likely to offer something unique.
3. Applications that mostly do it their own way. Of course, these can still be good Mac citizens, but for various reasons they “roll their own.” Naturally this includes the big, legacy companies like Microsoft and Adobe and some of the multi-platform vendors. But it also includes disruptive new visions that haven’t been accommodated by Apple’s narrowing (albeit deepening) focus.
I’ll ask you to fill in examples. At first I thought of doing a mini-ATPO to illustrate these categories. That would be nice, but as this column is already late, we may do it after this monster column on writing tools.
The ATPO Writing Survey
Yes, I am writing a survey of writing application features. These types of columns take hundreds of hours. I am still soliciting input and advice and now have a new request. When I have a reasonably complete draft, I’d like some of you to review it for correctness and completeness. If you are interested in this, let me know by direct e-mail. Thanks.

Copyright © 2007 Ted GoransonUTed Goranson is senior scientist of EchoStorm, working with intelligent video.)