Thudfactor

My brother’s “comments here”:http://www.thudfactor.com/textpattern/1116/rhapsody-finally-upgrades about lack of Macintosh support for iTMS alternatives had me thinking again: why _isn’t_ there more support for the Apple OS? I used to blame it on MacOS being a “minority operating system,” but I’m beginning to think it goes deeper than that.

It is true that MacOS has a much smaller market segment than the Windows suite. But the market is even further reduced by Mac loyalists’ reputation for being fiercely dedicated to the Apple brand and eager to jump on folks who have criticism (no matter how well-founded). Not only do you have to compete with Apple, you have to compete with the Cult of Apple. Having once been a part of that cult, I can tell you that’s no mean feat.

I am not a big-time application developer, but the sense I get from walking around an Apple store and looking at all the Apple branded software (iTunes, GarageBand, iPhoto, so forth and so on) is that Apple is cool if not downright hostile to outside ideas. Apple’s lawsuits — the “look and feel” lawsuits of the 80s and the “media leak” lawsuits of the 21st century — suggest that their hostility can be pretty darn hostile indeed. Even if, as in the latter case, the targets are enthusiasts instead of not competitors.

Apple, of course, is also in the hardware business. And as they’ve demonstrated with the iPod that gives them significant ability to shut out competition. Rhapsody *might* be able to come up with a way to make Rhapsody To Go work on iPods, but I’m betting they won’t — because they know Apple can release an update to iPod software and shut them out again. No one wants to invest in a service only to have it “nationalized” by the hardware manufacturer. While this kind of behavior from Apple certainly protects their market share in the short run, it stifles innovation, which in turn stifles the *spread* of their product, holding down market share over the long haul. Fewer options means fewer choices, which means fewer needs Apple’s products satisfy.

All of this behavior is technically within Apple’s rights. They are — especially under this administration — free to litigate and intimidate and otherwise monopolize however they can, even if it is at odds with the marketing image they want to project. But I don’t think it’s very _wise_, because as a result the MacOS gets ignored. An important part of being a “monopoly” is making sure you have both the market share and the political clout to stay one, and I don’t think Apple is anywhere close to either. They’re riding high with the iPod now, but they’re also ticking off vital partners by their unwillingness to share the iPod by, at the very least, making the iPod compatible with other formats or allowing the licensing of their DRMed AAC format. While Steve Jobs is screaming “my ball, my game, my rules,” other companies are _colluding_ with each other to make their own game.

So, from a “should we develop for Mac” standpoint, here’s what I see:

* Small market.
* Difficult market to penetrate.
* Apple likely to get peeved if I compete with their service.
* Apple’s means of competition include both lawsuits and sudden OS changes.
* Remember the Mac Clone makers? Remember how fast they were put out of business? That could be us.

In other words, if I was a large software manufacturer I think I could be forgiven for fearing I’d lose my investment down an Apple Stealth Upgrade.

None of these are trivial concerns. Almost all of them have nothing to do with an anti-Apple superiority complex; they have everything to do with Apple’s unwillingness to play nicely or by anyone else’s rules. So instead of asking people why they don’t have a Mac version, I think it’s worth asking Apple: why don’t people feel comfortable writing for Macs?