Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wvenable 3346 days ago
Adobe effectively forced Apple to build the Carbon API for OS X delaying the release by a year or more.
1 comments

Apple used Carbon for a lot of its own built-in apps, such as Finder, didn't it? (edit: and iTunes)

(Almost?) all other other major vendors at the time used it heavily too: Microsoft Office until 2011, FileMaker until 2010.

If Apple released the OS a year earlier, but without any available third-party software (waiting for almost-rewrites to happen), would they really have been better off? At this time they were on life support and would have had difficulty convincing third-party vendors to invest heavily in their platform, or to convince users to adopt it without any major applications available.

In either case, Adobe's sway clearly declined over the years, as Apple cancelled the 64bit version of Carbon while Adobe was still heavily built around it, forcing Adobe to switch (and an awkward year or two when the Mac, but not Windows, versions were stuck with 32bit memory limitations)

> Apple used Carbon on a lot of its own built-in apps (such as Finder), didn't it?

Apple wrote the Finder in Carbon as a dogfooding exercise, to prove to third party developers that Carbon was a first-class fully supported framework. The Finder has since been re-written in Cocoa.

> Apple used Carbon for a lot of its own built-in apps, such as Finder, didn't it? (edit: and iTunes)

iTunes needed to support both Mac OS 9 and X, so Carbon made much more sense than writing all of the UI code twice. Also, it started as SoundJam MP, which was written for Mac OS 8, so Carbonization was much less work than a Cocoa rewrite.

Right, but the same logic applied to any popular app with users still on Mac Os.