IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> foobar2000 General Forum Rules

This is NOT a tech support forum.
Tech support questions go to foobar2000 Tech Support forum instead.

See also: Hydrogenaudio Terms of Service.

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Let us finance a Mac version
ZeeJ
post Nov 22 2013, 17:30
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



Hi there!

I know that a Mac version of foobar2000 has been requested far too many times.
I know the story that foobar2000 depends a lot on Windows API.

But, since I moved to the Mac platform, I can totally understand all those people who kept asking for this.
In Appleland, there's nothing even close to foobar2000 functionalities.
iTunes is simply terrible!

So, my simple question (which I think it hasn't been asked before) is:
How MUCH will it cost to develop a Mac version of foobar2000?
Name it and I know a lot of people (including me) who will finance it!

Please, just please, consider doing it. crying.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
marc2003
post Nov 22 2013, 20:45
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 4330
Joined: 27-January 05
From: England
Member No.: 19379



this subject has been done to death. it is not going to happen. and i don't think your pockets are deep enough to make a difference. tongue.gif

and there must be other alternatives to itunes when using OSX?? dry.gif

This post has been edited by marc2003: Nov 22 2013, 20:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jarsonic
post Nov 22 2013, 21:12
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 196
Joined: 30-September 01
From: C-ville, VA
Member No.: 83



QUOTE (marc2003 @ Nov 22 2013, 15:45) *
and there must be other alternatives to itunes when using OSX?? dry.gif


...like, oh, I don't know, this fork of Cog being developed by kode54... wink.gif


There's also stuff like Vox.

This post has been edited by kode54: Nov 23 2013, 01:22
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZeeJ
post Nov 22 2013, 21:26
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



QUOTE (marc2003 @ Nov 22 2013, 16:45) *
this subject has been done to death. it is not going to happen. and i don't think your pockets are deep enough to make a difference. tongue.gif
dry.gif


My pockets are not deep enough for sure.
But, consider all the Mac users who ask for this from time to time.
Also consider that OSX users are used to spend money on apps they love, certainly more than windows users do.
Now do the math gently and realize that the answer can't be a simple NO.

And yes, I tried Cog, including this fork by kode54.
It's good, but can't be compared to foobar2000.
FYI, I also tried Sonora, Vox, Enqueue, Ecoute, Clementine and even foobar2000 through WINE (bad performance).

I REALLY want to contribute for this.
To finance the development, to pay for the app - let's think about this for real, guys.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
godrick
post Nov 22 2013, 21:31
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 304
Joined: 31-December 10
Member No.: 86948



foobar2000 in Win 7 via a Boot Camp partition on a Mac running Lion or Mavericks works great for me.

This post has been edited by godrick: Nov 22 2013, 21:32
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
andrew_berge
post Nov 22 2013, 21:41
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 17-November 09
From: Canada
Member No.: 75012



QUOTE (ZeeJ @ Nov 22 2013, 16:26) *
To finance the development, to pay for the app - let's think about this for real, guys.

We can think about it all we want, but only the developer can put it into action.
Also, it's not just about money, it's about time. How much time would developing a Mac version take away from the Windows version? How much time does the Developer want to spend on a port he won't use (assuming he doesn't have Mac)? Not to mention he has a life, other things he wants to do other than program.

This post has been edited by andrew_berge: Nov 22 2013, 21:45
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZeeJ
post Nov 22 2013, 22:10
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



QUOTE (andrew_berge @ Nov 22 2013, 17:41) *
QUOTE (ZeeJ @ Nov 22 2013, 16:26) *
To finance the development, to pay for the app - let's think about this for real, guys.

We can think about it all we want, but only the developer can put it into action.
Also, it's not just about money, it's about time. How much time would developing a Mac version take away from the Windows version? How much time does the Developer want to spend on a port he won't use (assuming he doesn't have Mac)? Not to mention he has a life, other things he wants to do other than program.


I know there's much more than money involved here.
But Peter has been developing foobar2000 in Windows all these years for free. A 100% financed Mac version can't do much harm.
Please add a Mac machine, the effort and the time spent to this bill, and let's hear about the possibilities (not alternatives).
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
db1989
post Nov 22 2013, 22:18
Post #8





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 5159
Joined: 23-June 06
Member No.: 32180



QUOTE (andrew_berge @ Nov 22 2013, 20:41) *
Also, it's not just about money, it's about time.
This.

It is also about desire or the lack thereof. If money were the only barrier to this possibility, the developers could have requested donations to surmount it long ago. Whilst I cannot speak for them, I suspect the fact they have not made any such request is very indicative.

This post has been edited by db1989: Nov 22 2013, 22:18
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Nov 23 2013, 01:22
Post #9





Group: Admin
Posts: 4504
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



Fixed your link, jarsonic.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
frogworth
post Nov 23 2013, 05:26
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 30-December 09
Member No.: 76511



I use foobar2000 in Windows in VMware rather than Wine. It works fine for me, always has. I'm still using XP as the guest OS though, as Win7 always had glitchy sound. Will get around to trying Windows 8 soon I guess.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Nov 23 2013, 07:33
Post #11





Group: Admin
Posts: 4504
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



Incidentally, if you ever get around to using a Windows VM for running Windows games, I recommend Parallels Desktop for that. Unlike VMware Fusion 5, Parallels 8 Desktop actually managed to produce a near native experience running a number of games, such as Borderlands 2, which I ran in the VM because the Mac port ran behind in multiplayer compatibility a number of times. And some games, like Cube World, actually run smoother in the VM than in wine, even after I've applied the necessary fixes to even get the game running. And Parallels 9 Desktop claims to improve graphics performance even more, but I have yet to really test it. Maybe soon, next time I need to play Killing Floor, because the Mac port has been horribly broken ever since it was released in 2010.

I also use that same VM for all my Windows software development. I had already moved my then-native development into a virtual machine because I didn't want to clutter up my newly reinstalled system with Visual Studio yet again. And although Parallels 9 did manage to hose my year old Windows 7 VM with a Parallels Tools update that froze the machine and refused to install ever again, it gave me inspiration to roll a new Windows 8.1 VM. Besides, I keep all my VM source code and build products on a separate 8GB NTFS drive image, originally to facilitate easier swapping between different virtual machines, but it came in handy getting back up and running with a fresh machine.

Although you'll probably love my story of how I got it up and running again. First I went straight for Parallels' handy auto download link for Windows 8.1 Preview, which I let it install with the stock key. Then I finally booted into that and installed Visual Studio 2012, along with the latest Update 4. Then I noticed I was running Preview instead of the final release of 8.1, so I fed it one of my purchased 8 product keys, which I had to reactivate over the phone. Then I opened Windows Store and opened the web page with the link to open the 8.1 update in the Store, and let that fetch and install. Then I was helpfully notified that Windows 8.1 would keep my settings and profile, but delete all my installed software and shove it into a Windows.old directory. Great. So I let that run, booted into the new system, then used the Disk Cleanup Wizard to erase the old installation data. Then I finally reinstalled Visual Studio and the update, which had to re-download. Finally, I also had to install Git and PuTTY, which I use for my source control.

Amazingly, after all that, it was a snap to update a component based on a library for which I had fixed a pretty serious crash bug. Of course, then I was told I did it wrong, and should have waited for that library's original developer to find and fix the bug correctly. I later applied the correct fix from them, and pushed that up. Another day in the life of a multi-platform developer.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
q-stankovic
post Nov 23 2013, 13:57
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 1718
Joined: 28-May 06
From: Düsseldorf
Member No.: 31251



QUOTE (ZeeJ @ Nov 22 2013, 18:30) *
In Appleland, there's nothing even close to foobar2000 functionalities.

Jriver MC was ported to MAC, so yes: you have powerful capabilities in regard to playing and managing music - even foobar2000s titleformatting have its counterpart there. However, since it is a program that offers even more (Media Center, video playback and much more) you will have to pay for a license


--------------------
german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZeeJ
post Nov 23 2013, 15:21
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



Ok, I haven't tried ALL the alternatives out there.
I'll give JRiver a try, and I'll look up for Parallels Desktop and VMware too.

But, my question remains unanswered.
It's hard, it's messy, but I wanna hear if the Mac version is really possible or not.
Let's find a way to make this real, please.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Nov 24 2013, 05:40
Post #14





Group: Admin
Posts: 4504
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



A Mac OS or even Linux version would currently require a total rewrite of PFC¹ and a total rewrite of all subsystems of foobar2000 which are based around Win32 API. This includes all of the carefully designed GUI code.

Do remember that the GUI code will also have to be redesigned from scratch, rather than built against some portable multi-platform framework. Or at least, lots of Mac users would probably like it that way, as they tend to prefer something which is truly native to something that clashes with the native look and feel.

Boom would be more likely to be ported first, if at all, since its GUI is much simpler, and the player does not support user components.

Also remember that all user plug-ins would need to be rewritten against a rewrite of the player, and that the respective authors would need to maintain binaries of their components for all platforms, or else some users will be left out in the cold.

This whole Mac (and possibly Linux) porting effort sounds like something that's better left for a foobar2000 2.0. Another major rewrite.

¹: A PFCv2 was already developed to compile with Clang and GCC, independent of foobar2000, for some other projects done on the side. That was already a sizable undertaking, and that was nothing compared to the herculean effort of rewriting the entire player for Unixish operating systems, never mind getting all of the third party developers on board and remaking all of their stuff for two or even three operating systems.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aztec_mystic
post Nov 24 2013, 09:23
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 28-March 13
Member No.: 107425



QUOTE (q-stankovic @ Nov 23 2013, 13:57) *
However, since it is a program that offers even more (Media Center, video playback and much more) you will have to pay for a license

^^^That's some questionable logic right there.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
marc2003
post Nov 24 2013, 10:06
Post #16





Group: Members
Posts: 4330
Joined: 27-January 05
From: England
Member No.: 19379



the logic might be questionable but it doesn't change the fact that people can charge anything they like regardless of the feature set.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZeeJ
post Nov 24 2013, 20:36
Post #17





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



Thank you for the detailed information, kode54.
I can't say I understood it all, but I'm sure that's a quite complex job doing the port.

But, I'll be optimistic here and reafirm my will to contribute for this porting process, including financially.
Given the mature state foobar2000 is in Windows now, I think it can grow even more, in Unix systems.

I don't know what plans do you have for the future of foobar2000, but, maybe, we can shape the foobar2000 v2.0 right now...
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
q-stankovic
post Nov 24 2013, 22:11
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 1718
Joined: 28-May 06
From: Düsseldorf
Member No.: 31251



QUOTE (aztec_mystic @ Nov 24 2013, 10:23) *
QUOTE (q-stankovic @ Nov 23 2013, 13:57) *
However, since it is a program that offers even more (Media Center, video playback and much more) you will have to pay for a license

^^^That's some questionable logic right there.


No, it's not about logic, but experience that - if the scope of features reaches a certain level and the program is not open source - you will have to pay. No more no less.

This post has been edited by q-stankovic: Nov 24 2013, 22:12


--------------------
german support forum: www.foobar-users.de / user: qwert73
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aztec_mystic
post Nov 25 2013, 11:10
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 28-March 13
Member No.: 107425



QUOTE (q-stankovic @ Nov 24 2013, 22:11) *
No, it's not about logic, but experience that - if the scope of features reaches a certain level and the program is not open source - you will have to pay.

In the previous post, you formulated it as an implication (but the conclusion doesn't follow). Your experience is also questionable. For example, Opera is proprietary software with a ton of features (probably, it has more source code than Jriver MC) yet remains free-of-charge. Lotus Symphony is, without doubt, a much more complex software package than Jriver MC yet remained freeware over its entire product life.

If you want to consider what the data has to say, I would look into a different direction. Overall, OS X has a smaller market share than Windows. Furthermore, it seems that a sizable subset of Mac users want products that are simple and "just work", nothing which has thousands and thousands of configuration options like foobar. Thus, the market potential for foobar2000 on the Mac platform is probably smaller than its market potential on Windows.

Now, why would the devs port foobar to the Mac and make it for-pay? Devs opted for a freeware software license on the Windows platform. If you wanted to monetize the product by moving to a different license, wouldn't the first step be to make the Windows version for-pay? To me, that would seem like a lot more obvious than to port a version for the smaller OS X market and make that for-pay.

This post has been edited by aztec_mystic: Nov 25 2013, 11:13
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZeeJ
post Nov 25 2013, 15:33
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



I didn't say devs should make a for-pay port of foobar2000.
They can maintain the freeware license, regardless the platform, if they want to.
By financial support, I meant paying the costs (pointed by kode54 and andrew_berge) like the time taken from the windows version and even a Mac machine for the devs. I meant help in accelerating this whole porting process.
To make this profitable is an option for Peter and the other devs, not me.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Wander
post Nov 25 2013, 16:08
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 25-May 11
From: Germany
Member No.: 90967



As others already pointed out, it's probably not money that keeps the devs from porting foobar2000 to OS X, but time and maybe a lack of interest. And there's very little we can do about both.

So I guess you have three options:

1) Wait for a statement of the developers and if they like your idea you're lucky, if they don't like it, pick either 2) or 3)
2) Find an alternative that suits your needs (maybe JRiver Media Center or running foobar2000 with Wine) and if there is none...
3) ... help developing one, e.g. by contributing to projects like Clementine, DeaDBeeF and so on
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ZeeJ
post Nov 28 2013, 19:30
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-March 10
Member No.: 79371



Still no official statement?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Canar
post Nov 28 2013, 21:14
Post #23





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3327
Joined: 26-July 02
From: princegeorge.ca
Member No.: 2796



QUOTE (ZeeJ @ Nov 28 2013, 11:30) *
Still no official statement?
You must be new around here.


--------------------
∑:<
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kode54
post Dec 2 2013, 01:30
Post #24





Group: Admin
Posts: 4504
Joined: 15-December 02
Member No.: 4082



QUOTE (ZeeJ @ Nov 25 2013, 06:33) *
even a Mac machine for the devs

The dev already has a Mac, so that's not one of the barriers for entry.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st April 2014 - 11:49