I'm beginning to question Apple's methods

[J. Baker]

While I do think Apple has/had a great OS, I beginning not to enjoy programming on their platform. It was all great until OS X 10.7. Let me explain...

The introduction of "sandboxing" broke a lot of apps and totally disabled things like keyboard emulation. Now in order to make apps work again, you have to add extra code in order for apps to behave or work like they did before sandboxing. So now this extra code (things like NSFilePresenter) kind of breaks their security issues and now you have this extra bulk of code in your apps. I find it unnecessary to write code for security and then write code to break the security so an app can function.

Now there's the "retina" feature supported by some newer Mac's. While I thought the resolution of a monitor set the detail of a display, Apple wanted to polish it more with more code and very large images. For retina a display, the app has to use images twice it's size even though the monitors resolution isn't as high in resolution. All this does is demand more of the cpu, memory and graphics card. Also, your app is now much larger then what it should be. All for what? A seemingly better display?

On top of that, now there's talk of once again switching from Intel in the future. It appears Apple is going to make it's developers once again port their hard work in the future.

Anyway, I'm now questioning whether or not to continue development for Mac after my license is up. Which I did just recently renew, so I have time to think about it. I'm just tired of technology constantly changing every few years and it seems it's happening much faster then it use to. It would be ok if it was for the better but not stupid new ideas and so companies can keep drying out our pockets every year.

Maybe I'm just burn out at the moment or I just got comfortable from the Windows 95 to/slightly beyond the XP period where apps were mostly compatible?

[wilbert]

For iOS you need a normal and a @2x image and the OS itself selects the right one depending on retina support or not.
Isn't this the same for OS X ?

Changes to restrictions are indeed a problem.

[J. Baker]

For iOS you need a normal and a @2x image and the OS itself selects the right one depending on retina support or not.
Isn't this the same for OS X ?

Changes to restrictions are indeed a problem.

Yeah you do need both on Mac too. That is, if you want your app to be compatible for the new retina Mac's. I just find that running an app/game with images that are twice the normal viewing size, not efficient at all and bulky. I just don't get it I guess.

[IdeasVacuum]

I just don't get it I guess

It's a scam, that's why - other devices have far better resolution and Apple Marketing have invented Retina to try to hang onto their reputation for quality.

[wilbert]

It's not twice the viewing size; it is the viewing size if I understand correctly.
There's a difference however between logical pixels and real pixels. On a retina display, there are four real pixels in one logical pixel (2x2).
You are right that it requires more from the computer but the gpu of a retina device should be fast enough to handle that.
But like you said, it does make the application size bigger.

[Polo]

I think moving Macs to Retina display is great, I've seen those Macs at the Apple Store and the quality is a very good improvement. Obviously it is far too expensive right now for me to buy one, but I think it's a good decision from Apple.

As per the Sandboxing/"security" thing they introduced in Lion/Mountain Lion, I'm still not sure it's a good thing, I haven't got a developer account and never really looked into it. I still enjoy coding on OS X, especially with PB 5.00 now

[J. Baker]

It's not twice the viewing size; it is the viewing size if I understand correctly.
There's a difference however between logical pixels and real pixels. On a retina display, there are four real pixels in one logical pixel (2x2).
You are right that it requires more from the computer but the gpu of a retina device should be fast enough to handle that.
But like you said, it does make the application size bigger.

Interesting wilbert, I haven't read that about retina pixels. I guess I'll have to look it up and read it, in order to understand the "logical pixel" better.

[J. Baker]

Ok, just looked it up. Here is what "retina display" is...

It's basically a new technology that enabled to create smaller pixels on an lcd screen. Therefor the dpi/ppi is much higher. That's pretty much it.

So I guess Apple called it "retina display" as its pixels per inch is closer to what the human eye sees. For me, this means nothing more then a higher resolution but with a fancy name. So why Apple just doesn't call its display by it's resolution size instead of 2X is beyond me. Maybe I still have more to understand and read.

[Polo]

Ok, just looked it up. Here is what "retina display" is...

It's basically a new technology that enabled to create smaller pixels on an lcd screen. Therefor the dpi/ppi is much higher. That's pretty much it.

So I guess Apple called it "retina display" as its pixels per inch is closer to what the human eye sees. For me, this means nothing more then a higher resolution but with a fancy name. So why Apple just doesn't call its display by it's resolution size instead of 2X is beyond me. Maybe I still have more to understand and read.

It's a bit more than that, as it's a way to display things at the same size on screen, with more pixels used (thus the need to have x2 images to enhance the quality

[spacebuddy]

If they do decide to switch to another architecture, you are looking at 3-5 years from now.