MacResearch

A couple of weeks ago I commented on this site the simultaneous news of MestreNova appearing and the future of iNMR being unclear. Now the misleading news has remained in the headlines (in the second page, but still in the headlines) and my comment remains hidden. I feel that my version has the right to be published with the same emphasis and for this reason I am writing today. I say that that the news reported by drc is misleading because:

- A program for NMR processing under Mac Os X already exists (and there's only one native product).
- There are also many cross-platform programs for NMR processing. It's not like ten years ago, when to write a cross-platform product you had to write it twice (nearly...). Today a cross-platform product is written once and compiled n times. It works, but can't respect Apple's human interface guidelines and can't give the same user experience as an authentic OsX application.
- If the MacResearch visitor reads that a cross-platform product, which hasn't been released yet!, "is the ideal tool for the less expert NMR user", what will she conclude?

The situation is painfully absurd, because it was Dr. Cobas himself, the president of Mestrelab, to encourage myself, two years ago, to write iNMR and when I say "encourage" I mean that he also gave me all the material support. They had already started the MestreNova project, but we all concluded that MestreNova and iNMR could be sold simultaneously (not to the same customer, of course...). Two years after, we do still think in the same way, and we are doing our best to deliver two innovative products. If the makers of MestreNova are doing their best to let iNMR survive, why MacResearch does its best to let iNMR die?

I am not saying that drc did anything wrong. I am aware of myself being the main responsible. First of all because the iNMR site looks old. I am fond of that vintage HTML look, but agree that it gives the impression that the site has never been updated in the last five years or so. I promise I will soon switch to XHTML and CSS. Then I am also responsible for not having explained the situation beforehand.

drc and the other friends at MacResearch spend their time writing tutorials, which are more useful, and when it comes to write the reviews, which are less, they have no time. Instead of writing his own vague impressions, being not an user, drc wisely preferred to report MestreLab's own words. Unfortunately he didn't enclose them between quotation marks. You must know that, in the Windows world, Mnova is facing large and established corporations (like Varian, Bruker, Jeol, ACD..) and MestreLab is forced to use that hyperbolic language to protect its investment from competition (and they invested really a lot). Not only should their words be quoted, but also put in context: Mnova is giving for the first time, to the Windows users, some features that Mac users have been enjoying since 1995. You are ridiculous in reporting the same words to a long time Mac user. If Mnova (being inspired by MS PowerPoint) is easy to use, what about iNMR, which was inspired by Apple's Preview ?

It's not my intention to bore the non-chemist reader. I shall not explain why we chemists are so obsessed with nuclear magnetic resonance. Let me turn to general considerations. When I buy a Mac application for my iMac, I am encouraging programmers to write other Mac-specific products. When I want my Department to buy a new iMac, I'll probably need to state that the program I plan to use is not available for any other platform. There are, therefore, two valid reasons for a Mac lover to buy an application written for the Mac, before even discussing the intrinsic qualities. Obviously the latter are essential. It remains to see if you are looking for simplicity, for power or for both.

What's an iApp? Everybody has a different answer. With a dose of good will, we can probably agree on the following definition: an application with a genuine Aqua interface; appealing; easy to use; with a small price; coming with only the features you need and nothing more. iNMR can't enter into this definition for a couple of reasons: before distributing a free product, it is a necessity that prior sales have already compensated the investments. Translation: before distributing a free edition for the students, it is imperative that the industry had already purchased hundreds or thousands of copies. From my point of view, there are no Macs in the industry. In the last 15 months we only sold one copy of iNMR to the industry. I have therefore the necessity first to set an higher price (Mnova academic costs 9% less than iNMR, but they can compensate with an... astronomical industrial price), and then to add features that justify this price. I put this financial considerations at the bottom of my story, because of their unimportance. If you have no money, you can't afford a MacBook Pro, but if you have already invested a certain figure in hardware, you are going to invest an equivalent figure in software to keep the balance.

MestreLab and Nucleomatica believe into both Mnova and iNMR, because historically the Mac has been an incubator of new ideas. The users' base is still giving strong support and I am convinced that all MacResearch members will.