MBA’s are not known for their ability to run a company properly. This is a very poor calculation, as you are not just losing revenue you are losing goodwill and turning your advocates into detractors. Not to mention the market share of Catalina over Mojave…īased on the cost of supporting more macOS versions and the number of PL4 users on macOS Mojave, we still decided to drop macOS Mojave support, even if it means losing some customers. So, my question to you is, what do think DxO should do? Spend enormous resources on supporting legacy 32 bit code, or move on with the majority? Unfortunately, not being a megalithic company like Adobe or such, we ended up folding it with the loss of over two years effort and money. Our choice was to either do that or fold the project before it even go to see the light of day. In order to revive that app, we would have had to rewrite, from scratch, several thousand lines of code, translating from one language to another. Why? Not because my code was incapable but because it relied on a cross-platform external library, written in a 32 bit only language that we couldn’t recompile. I just tried to run the iPad app that I created back then in Xcode on Catalina and it wouldn’t even compile. So we have had 7 years to plan for that inevitable day. We were warned that, if we didn’t provide 64 bit apps, they would not be approved for the App Store. But this will mean load of conditional code to cope with having to support both M1 and Intel for things like DeepPRIME.Īs it is, Mojave is the last version to run 32-bit code and that has meant, up until now, DxO has had to write conditional code in some places where necessary, just to cope with a non-64 bit platform.Īnd this has been the breakpoint for a lot of software, not just PhotoLab - the need to continue to support conditional code, going forwards, is an unnecessary burden.ĭon’t forget, Apple signalled the move to 64 bit as far back as 2014 (to the best of my memory) when I was working on an app for macOS and iOS.

Dxo photolab m1 native