Why does WotC hate Macs?

[Orius]

Doesn't this thread violate ENWorld's "no religious discussion" rules?

Heh heh.

It's simple economics. DDI isn't likely to get enough subscribers at least initially to warrant the cost of developing a Mac version. If there's enough demand, and it's affordable enough, WotC may consider in the future.

Honestly, Mac users should be used to this by now. That's not a bash, just a simple observation.

 

[Sphyre]

I'll chime in and say "Why does WotC hate Linux users?"

...oh, wait. When I chose to use linux I knew my access to commercial software would be limited. That's why I dual boot. I know some people who triple boot. Seriously, my feelings are not hurt. I've noticed the trend with computers: what's most popular gets the most support. Simple law of economics.

It wasn't always that way. Back when I was in grade school every freaking school that had computers had Macs. We all learned macs back then. The linux community is actually thinking that it may be the next operating system of choice due to the fact that the Ubuntu distribution is getting so easy to use that in most cases it's easier than windows to use, while other parts take a bit of know-how. Add to the fact that it's free, it lowers the bottom line of computer costs. In fact, many manufacturers are loading linux on their machines to get the cost down and sell more.

Seriously, I don't play the victim. I chose to load linux on my machine, much like the OP chose to buy a mac. I knew my choice of OS wouldn't run everything so I dual boot. With Macs using intel processors now, you have the same choice.



(And yes, to the admin who can tell which OS my browser is using, I'm currently in windows in this post)

 

[Graf]

The "Windows-only" decision is a bad one, as people have pointed out before.
While mac users are small, many groups will have one person who is a mac/linux user.

They're cutting those people off completely and permanently.

The problem is mostly that they don't seem to have a particularly strong internal development wing. Gleemax has languished for a year, etc etc.

Given how utterly basic the program they're developing is (just some simple graphics on a grid basically) it'd be easy for them to have developed it multiplatform.

They probably made an initial hire who had very limited experience (can only code in Direct X) and just followed that person through.

Going forward I think they'll ultimately find they have to reverse themselves.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem for WotC is that they have a more or less fixed time table. Blizzard puts out its software "when it's done". They might have internal milestones, but to the outside, they never have a fixed data.
If you can take any time you want, it's possible to support all kinds of systems. If you have a release data, you have to make some shortcuts. You use off-the-shelve solutions, you use existing frameworks that do most of the work for you. And so, you end up with a DirectX solution for your 3D applications. The only way to get this working with Mac or Linux is if you dual-boot or use virtualization software (Parallels for Mac supports DirectX this days. I am not sure if DirectX 8 is enough for DDI, but it might.) This isn't a cheap solution for a customer, unfortunately.

This has little to do with the Safari-Compatibility issue, though. I'd have to check at home if my MacBook has any problems with the site, but I am pretty certain I remember it having no difficulties. But it has been some time since I used it for the site.

 

[MarauderX]

... Apple is more secure and robust...

Ok, this is just conjecture stated as though fact. Threads like this already exist in the software/computer forums.

 

[kristov]

My thoughts:

1) when you go to develop actual software, its not worth the development hours for 10% of the market.

2) when you go to develop a web app (which this is), there is no good excuse - they are just bad programmers and/or lazy

3) wotc has shown they have no idea how to develop quality software
3a) magic - magic, great game, undisputable - one of the crappiest pieces of software ever.
3b) new magic 3.0 - oh my god - you took like 5 years to make this?
3c) the original D&D tools/character generator they made for 3rd edition - once again - does anyone there use software, play games or even browse the web? you can easily find more robust and useful free tools on the internet - these guys tossed who knows how much money down a hole.
3d) check out the article on the news today about why their website is so terrible

Basically, they just dont have quality Software Producers who know what they are doing.

p.s. apple is more secure - thats not conjecture, its a fact. they are more secure because less people are trying to exploit it - so by that virtue, more secure.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Firstly - this thread isn't a generalised rant about WotC and Mac development (you can find other threads about that), so in the interests of helping Breschau to find a resolution to his problem, direct any generalised (e.g. DDI development) comments to a different thread.

Thanks.

Secondly - it is about the specific issue of the Gleemax site not working on breschau's Safari/Mac.

Interestingly it seems that there are at least two other people who are successfully using Safari/Mac.

Thus it would be useful if breshau, Kzach, Shawn_Kehoe (and any others) could report the version number of Safari they are using.

That might give people an opportunity to ensure that they have a version of Safari that works with the WotC sites.

Of course, IMO WotC should ensure that their site works everywhere - at worst that it degrades gracefully with browsers that it doesn't properly support. I'm a web developer and the release of every new browser fills me with mild concern as I wonder what tweaks will be needed to my sites to support the new vaguaries introduced into the browsers. For reference my main site is for physicians, we serve about 3/4 million pages a month and 2% of our visits are from Mac users; 2% doesn't sound like much, but that is thousands of pages every month that need to work properly for a 'minority' group. I imagine that WotC has far more visitors and pages served than us...

Cheers

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ok, this is just conjecture stated as though fact. Threads like this already exist in the software/computer forums.

Security is... sketchy. Macs are relatively secure because few attack Macs. There was recently a contest where people had to hack into a Macbook, a vista notebook and a linux (Ubuntu) notebook. (Wrap-up
The Macbook Air was hacked first, under to strictest conditions for the contest. The Vista notebook fell in the second phase, where common applications could be used (in this specific case, they used an exploit possible due to Adobe Flash). The Ubuntu notebook remains unhacked. I may be of note that while the prizes for the contest weren't bad (the hacked book plus cash), but on the "exploit market", they would be worth even more.
So, as it stands, Macbooks are not more secure by design. They still benefit from the lack of determination for the "serious" hackers.

MacBooks are pretty stable, but so where my last 2 Windows PCs and my work notebook. Many instability issues with Windows seem to come from hardware drivers.
One of the Macs strength definitely is that they only use a very limited set of hardware. It's a lot easier to create the "perfect" drivers for the Mac ecosystem. This gives you less options on how to equip your Mac, but honestly - who cares? I rarely change my system configuration on my desktop PC, and I'll probably never do it for my Notebook (the notebook I used before I got a MacBook Pro seemed impossible to turn apart to change anything. At least my work notebook has easy access to the RAM. But I don't see me or anyone else upgrading its Harddisk or CPU anytime so)

 

[Kzach]

The Macbook Air was hacked first, under to strictest conditions for the contest.

No, it wasn't.

It was hacked on the second day after the restrictions were relaxed to allow puppet access to the machine, ie. the hacker could direct someone to do whatever they asked.

Secondly, they were offering a Macbook Air vs. some crappy PC laptop (I think they were Sony's but still...). Which one do you think got the most attempts? Gee... wonder if it was the expensive, kick-ass, lightest notebook on the planet?

Thirdly, the exploit was through a malicious code that was installed on the computer via browsing to an executable file on the internet that had to be downloaded. Any douche who downloads, installs and runs a file from an unknown or insecure source like that deserves to get hacked.

Fourth, the exploit was in Safari only and was patched within two days (some said two hours, but I personally remember getting the Software Update two days later). Considering Microsoft's track record, I think two days is pretty damn good.

 

[Kzach]

Thus it would be useful if breshau, Kzach, Shawn_Kehoe (and any others) could report the version number of Safari they are using.

Fair enough.

I'm using Safari 3.1.1 (5525.18) on 10.5.2 on an iMac 2.4GHz C2D 20".

I have zero problems loading Gleemax pages from links or browsing Gleemax or anything else with Gleemax aside from the fact that it sucks