Mario Bautista
Wil Shipley recently announced that his esteemed app, Delicious Library, would no longer function due to Amazon. Though it hadn’t been actively developed for some time, this news shocked many in the Mac community. Indeed, this software represented something special, even historic: a truly beautiful native Mac app that was successful, created by an independent developer. It even inspired a nickname for some developers: “The Delicious Generation”.
Let’s revisit a bygone era when Mac apps were the best and most beautiful in the world.
The Significance of Delicious Library
Delicious Library was a software with a simple concept: it allowed users to catalog their possessions, be it books, DVDs, CDs, and more. Essentially, it was just a database. At that time, some people used Excel files or a FileMaker database to accomplish the same task. What set Delicious Library apart was its ability to inject fun into every aspect of its use, starting with its name.
Another charming aspect was its attention to detail: every pixel was meticulously crafted to make the app both visually appealing and satisfying to use. Even the beta version icon was exquisite.
For instance, notice the slight reflection on the CD case:
Or the difference in size between paperback books and hardcovers (with the fold near the spine).
Where using Excel or a database manager felt tedious, entering a new book into Delicious Library was a delight. You could enter products by scanning their barcodes with your webcam (a novel feature at the time), and all the information (name, author, publication year, image, etc.) was automatically populated. This was much simpler, more efficient, and more enjoyable than entering data into a spreadsheet. Not to mention, viewing the virtual shelf in Delicious Library was far more appealing than looking at an Excel table.
When Delicious Library was released and began to gain traction, it inspired many developers. This popularity demonstrated that a well-designed independent software, even at $40, could find a market, provided it had inspired design and extraordinary attention to detail.
Quality Mac Development Tools
Delicious Library was primarily developed by a single person, showing that it’s possible to create a complete, high-quality software without a large team. This raises the question: how could such a software be developed by such a small team? To answer that, a bit of history is necessary.
When Apple acquired NeXT in 1997, it was primarily for its NeXTSTEP operating system, which would become Mac OS X. However, NeXT also had other critical software that would be ported to the Mac, like Interface Builder (for developing application interfaces), Project Builder (later renamed XCode for programming), and libraries such as AppKit and Foundation. These tools, although used by few (except by icons like John Carmack and Tim Berners-Lee) due to the commercial failure of NeXT machines, were considered the best in the industry. They were primarily based on the power of object-oriented programming, enabled by the use of the Objective-C language. Thus, everything in Mac OS X was designed to simplify development with well-thought-out libraries like AppKit and generally Cocoa.
Appeal for Independent Developers
Mac OS X therefore had some of the best development tools on the market. They also enabled small teams to develop high-quality software easily and compete with much larger teams. Moreover, after a rocky start, Mac OS X became increasingly stable and efficient.
From 2003 onward, the Mac platform gained increasing popularity. One of the main reasons was the success of the iPod, especially once it became compatible with Windows. The iPod served as Apple’s Trojan horse, drawing many customers to the Mac, won over by the simplicity and quality of the MP3 player from Cupertino.
Another factor in Apple’s favor was Microsoft’s struggles to develop a successor to the aging and insecure Windows XP. Moreover, when its successor, Windows Vista, finally hit the market, it convinced no one. Worse, some users were so dissatisfied with the latest system from Redmond that they switched to Mac.
A crucial factor was Apple’s decision to switch to Intel processors in 2006, making it possible to run Windows on Macs if needed. This convinced many customers to buy a Mac, as they could use all their Windows software with Boot Camp or a virtual machine if necessary. In short, everything was pushing the Mac platform to be attractive in the mid-2000s.
With a booming platform, it attracted the interests of many. Numerous independent developers began to master the tools offered by Apple and programmed quality applications without needing a large team. Add to this that the Mac has always attracted creative users, which is true for independent developers who would go out of their way to create a beautiful icon for their application. This was possible thanks to an icon size of 512 x 512 pixels starting in 2007 with Leopard (which would increase to 1024 x 1024 with Lion in 2011, which is still current). Remember, the iPhone, which came out at the same time as Leopard, had a lower screen resolution (320 x 480) than a Dock icon…
There was a magical window between 2005 and 2010 when numerous independent applications emerged on Mac, demonstrating the system’s superiority over its competitors.
Examples from the Golden Era
We could mention, for example, the applications developed by Panic, like the FTP client Transmit and the software CandyBar (which allowed users to change their system icons), or the development software Coda.
The photo editing software Acorn, released in 2007, has just released its eighth version.
Another photo editing software, Pixelmator, also launched in 2007 and was recently acquired by Apple.
We must also mention NetNewsWire, an RSS feed reader released in 2002. It became the most popular RSS feed reader in 2005, across all platforms (before being overtaken by Google Reader, which came out later in 2005).
Another high-quality independent application still in existence today is Things, a task manager released in 2007.
I could go on for a long time with Skitch, Sketch, Coversutra, AppZapper, Tweetie, and its cousin Twitterrific…
Okay, one last example for the road: Disco. It was an application that simply allowed you to burn CDs or DVDs. It was ultimately just an interface using DiscRecording.framework but with a neat twist: generating dynamic smoke during the burning process. Simple, effective, pretty, and fun.
What do all these applications have in common, if not that they were developed by independent developers? They are all beautifully designed applications with meticulous attention to detail. Each had a stunning icon, and they intelligently used the latest APIs provided by Apple. I discovered many of them at the time thanks to the MacHeist contest, which allowed many applications to be purchased at a low price through numerous bundles.
The Factors Behind the Decline
Why did this virtuous ecosystem come to a halt around 2010? There are several reasons for this. The first is the arrival of the iPhone in 2007 and especially the App Store in 2008. For those who remember, the App Store was seen as a real El Dorado with simple apps that could make their developers millionaires.
Consequently, many Mac developers started creating apps for the iPhone which became very profitable over time, eventually becoming much more than on Mac. As a result, they gradually favored iPhone development over Mac.
Furthermore, the new smartphone became Apple’s priority. The Mac received less investment (for example, Leopard was delayed to finalize the first iPhone operating system). This also had consequences for development tools, which were no longer the best in the market and were often buggy on Mac, even today (try developing a SwiftUI application on Mac and you’ll see what I mean…).
This shift in priority was felt everywhere. Take the Apple Design Awards, which were a way for Apple to promote developers on Mac and communicate about best practices. However, in 2009 and 2010, there were no Apple Design Awards for Mac… And since 2015, no Mac-exclusive application has received an Apple Design Award. The iPhone has overshadowed everything else.
Another reason for the decline of independent applications on Mac is the increasing complexity of software. Today, Apple pushes for multi-platform iOS/macOS/iPadOS, etc. We have new technologies such as Catalyst, which allows an iOS/iPadOS app to run directly on Mac, or SwiftUI, which enables the development of an application on all systems using just one library (whereas previously, AppKit was used on Mac and UIKit on iPhone). Users now have much greater needs than they did 10 years ago with apps available everywhere (smartphone, tablet, online, and computer), which synchronize and save their data. This makes development by a small team all the more challenging.
Finally, with Jony Ive becoming head of software design in 2012, there was a style change in the systems. Goodbye skeuomorphism and hello to flat design with little contrast. While skeuomorphism was a bit overused at times, it offered the opportunity to have apps with character and especially different from each other. It allowed for adding many details with textures to simulate, for example, a shelf or a poker table. By opting for a flat design under Jony Ive’s direction, the Mac lost a bit of its personality. In the end, there is little difference with Windows and Android: a simple, even simplistic, and even sad design across all platforms.
Electron Has Taken Over
In recent years, to address the need to develop an app for each platform, one solution has prevailed: Electron. Simply put, this allows an app to be developed once and then run on all systems (something Sun sold us with Java 30 years ago…). Electron is actually the Chrome engine, and the apps are web apps. For example, 1Password, which was one of the flagships on Mac being exclusive to the platform, switched to Electron. After years of developing a native app, the developers resigned themselves to switching to Electron due to the Windows version, avoiding two different developments (and saving money).
Today, high-quality, native applications are rare. Electron reigns supreme. One can imagine hordes of Mac users using multi-platform or non-native apps based on Electron like Visual Studio Code, Slack, Discord, Notion, WhatsApp, Figma, and Teams. The list is extensive.
Why is this harmful to the user? First, because Electron is very resource-intensive, both in terms of RAM and disk space (each app includes the Chromium engine and dependencies, a real waste). The apps are also less well integrated into the system and its native features (try right-clicking or scrolling, and you’ll see the difference with a “real” Mac app). They also give a strange feeling of using a separate app compared to native ones. Lastly, they pose serious problems in terms of accessibility, a strong point of Apple systems, not using the tools provided by Cupertino.
