Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Rumors, Apple
Apple Gearing up for OS War?
Remember four years ago? I do. Most Mac users were still dawdling along in Mac OS 9, the iPod had just been unleashed upon the world, I was still administering AppleShareIP servers (shudder), and the technical community was unwrapping their shiny Fisher-Price present from Microsoft.However, nothing happens in a vacuum. Significant changes and decisions aren't made overnight and often require years of development, planning, and execution. For instance, Apple has been working on Aperture for 3.5 years; it's not just software that Apple decided six months ago to write. And I'm convinced the announced switch to Intel processors wasn't a decision made recently. Jobs said as much in his keynote that Apple's been compiling versions of Mac OS X on Intel boxes since its first version.
So what's Apple up to? Why the switch to Intel processors? It's not just for faster speed and a better roadmap. It's not just because IBM and Motorola couldn't deliver the speeds they had promised. I'm convinced that Apple's long been planning nothing less than an audacious plan to grow their marketshare. And here's how they'll do it.
First, understand that the average consumer doesn't care what processor
is in their computer, nor do they understand the differences between
families of processors. They barely understand megahertz speeds. The
jargon we're all familiar with (by necessity) is lost to them: CD-ROM,
CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD+R, megahert, gigahertz, kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte,
DPI, TWAIN...we may as well be speaking a foriegn language. And the
manufacturers haven't made it much easier with every season introducing
new trademarked words like Itanium, Celeron, Pentium, G4, G5,
Inspiron...ad nauseam. But here's what the general public does
understand about computers: that software I picked on the shelf there
won't run on this here computer? The consumer is either not going to
buy the software or not going to buy the computer, and with Apple's
smaller marketshare (and accompanying smaller software library),
it's Apple that loses out. So, how can Apple gain marketshare?
Four years ago, I wrote this little journal entry about Apple purchasing Connectix's Virtual PC and integrating it into Mac OS X 10.5 so that no matter what software a consumer purchased, it would run on a Mac computer. And after Apple's Intel switch announcement last summer, I wrote a longer piece focusing on the use of Intel's Vanderpool virtualization technology. The gist of this is that I'm convinced Apple's move to Intel is not just about faster processors, but about being able to offer a Mac that will run natively both Macintosh and Windows software (and by extension, both Mac OS X and Windows OS's). People familiar with the excellent but prohibitively expensive VMWare know how great it is to be able to run, for instance, five iterations of Windows 2000 server on a single box. Wouldn't it be great if you could own a Mac that runs not only Apple's great software offerings (such as iLife) but also all those PC games and financial software! Software emulation of Windows is too slow, but with virtulization technology at the hardware level, the speed hit becomes a non-issue and the software market for Mac users opens up exponentially.
The ironic thing in this scenario is that Microsoft wouldn't actually lose out. If Apple produces a computer that can run both Mac OS X and Windows simultaneously (not dual-booting), there would still need to be some kind of Windows license and payment involved. The losers would be Apple's actual competitors: Dell and the other computer manufacturers. Perhaps there's more than we thought to Michael Dell's suggestion to Apple that they allow Mac OS X to run on his company's computers.
Macsimum news discovered a new patent filed by Apple that seems to support this idea of running multiple OS's on a single Macintosh computer using virtualization technology. Architosh picked up the story and expanded on it and other people have begun offering their own commentary on the idea. Even the Inquirer has begun stirring the rumor pot.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Apple hasn't looked at the consumer market and figured out a way to offer an attractive computer, easy-to-use sofware, and a secure environment that can run virtually any software on the shelf. Maybe the switch to Intel is only about faster processor speeds. And maybe monkeys can fly out of my butt.
Four years ago, I wrote this little journal entry about Apple purchasing Connectix's Virtual PC and integrating it into Mac OS X 10.5 so that no matter what software a consumer purchased, it would run on a Mac computer. And after Apple's Intel switch announcement last summer, I wrote a longer piece focusing on the use of Intel's Vanderpool virtualization technology. The gist of this is that I'm convinced Apple's move to Intel is not just about faster processors, but about being able to offer a Mac that will run natively both Macintosh and Windows software (and by extension, both Mac OS X and Windows OS's). People familiar with the excellent but prohibitively expensive VMWare know how great it is to be able to run, for instance, five iterations of Windows 2000 server on a single box. Wouldn't it be great if you could own a Mac that runs not only Apple's great software offerings (such as iLife) but also all those PC games and financial software! Software emulation of Windows is too slow, but with virtulization technology at the hardware level, the speed hit becomes a non-issue and the software market for Mac users opens up exponentially.
The ironic thing in this scenario is that Microsoft wouldn't actually lose out. If Apple produces a computer that can run both Mac OS X and Windows simultaneously (not dual-booting), there would still need to be some kind of Windows license and payment involved. The losers would be Apple's actual competitors: Dell and the other computer manufacturers. Perhaps there's more than we thought to Michael Dell's suggestion to Apple that they allow Mac OS X to run on his company's computers.
Macsimum news discovered a new patent filed by Apple that seems to support this idea of running multiple OS's on a single Macintosh computer using virtualization technology. Architosh picked up the story and expanded on it and other people have begun offering their own commentary on the idea. Even the Inquirer has begun stirring the rumor pot.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Apple hasn't looked at the consumer market and figured out a way to offer an attractive computer, easy-to-use sofware, and a secure environment that can run virtually any software on the shelf. Maybe the switch to Intel is only about faster processor speeds. And maybe monkeys can fly out of my butt.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
David C. said 1:43PM on 11-09-2005
My favorite post of new TUAW blogger Damien Barrett!
Reply
Don Wilson said 1:52PM on 11-09-2005
"Run all windows software", including viruses.
Reply
MacSlacker said 2:25PM on 11-09-2005
I've gone back and forth as to whether or not Windows virtualization in OS X is a good thing. While it would be great to be able to run more (and [arguably] better versions of) software titles, it would give even more developers an excuse not to develop a true OS X version.
Reply
Aron T said 1:56PM on 11-09-2005
This would jive well with the idea that Apple is a hardware company and not a software company. Apple releasing a system that ran OSX and native Windows apps simultaneously would work very well for their business plan.
Microsoft wouldn't be hurting because they would still get their license money from Apple. The only real losers in the situation would be, as stated above, Apple's direcct competitors. I.e. Dell, HP/Compaq, etc.
If this is the case, we're going to experience some exciting times in the next 6 months to a year
=aron=
Reply
Michael May said 1:56PM on 11-09-2005
Good post - it had Macs, the future, and monkeys, my 3 favourite topics.
Reply
Doug Clinton said 2:04PM on 11-09-2005
I think you're spot on here. There's no way Apple can go head-to-head to compete with Microsoft in the OS market - if MS reeally felt they were a threat they could kill the Mac off in an instant, by withdrawing Office for Mac for a start. But, as you point out, the switch to Intel provides a path to expand their own market share without cutting into the Windows market share. In fact, it actually has the potential to increase Microsoft's market share of other products by makin them accessible to Mac users.
Reply
SP Leung said 2:12PM on 11-09-2005
I have already read something similar to that about 3 months ago.
This guy really have insight into what Apple has been doing.
Check out his article at
http://www.i638.com/ipost.php?go=692~103400
Reply
Damien Barrett said 2:19PM on 11-09-2005
I considered talking about viruses and spyware in the article, but felt it was long enough without adding in that factor. Yes, running Windows on a Mac would introduce new vectors for virus infection and malware, but I'm convinced that Apple could write the OS so that Windows ran in its own sandbox. So that if a virus were to come onboard, it'd affect Windows in it's own sandbox and not affect Mac OS X. Apple's done this before--a Mac OS 9 virus only affecte the Classic environment. I understand that's a simplification, but I don't see why it couldn't work. Intentionally build in protective barriers so viruses don't cross-infect the environments (even if they'd be able to).
Reply
Jay Contonio said 2:25PM on 11-09-2005
Umm no. This is the reason IBM's OS2 died. it ran Windows apps natively. What does that do? Stops developers from writing native Mac apps. Why should they? They can write one Windows app and have it run on both platforms. This is horrible for Apple because most apps won't have native support and will feel like hack jobs under a windows app environment.
This method will kill the Macintosh. Let my powerbook run the Mac OS and Windows seperately. That it what will bring more marketshare. Windows users will want the sexy Apple hardware, install Windows on it, but will have the Mac OS there to toy around with, thus, learning that the OS is by far better and they will switch.
Windows software running under Mac OS is the nail in the coffin for the Macintosh platform. Trust me.
Reply
superjeff said 2:39PM on 11-09-2005
Apple would have to retain some sort of competitive advantage on their own boxes (e.g. native apps running much faster) or make the integration so complete that I don't really know that I'm running Windows... all apps just work. Because, as is stated above, developers will have no incintive to build native apps.
I also wouldn't like shelling out $100 more for my new apple so that it can have a crappy M$ OS on it. They'd better make the Windows license an option if they do this.
Reply
Caleb Dewberry said 2:45PM on 11-09-2005
Jay Contonio makes a really good point imho
Reply
Sean Flanagan said 2:39PM on 11-09-2005
I agree wholeheartedly with Jay Contonio. Anything that allows reputable Windows developers to be complacent about Mac programming is a bad thing. It would create a situation in which resellers and developers alike would push for Apple hardware only because it could run the Windows programs better. Sure, it would be a much easier sell for resellers to potential "switchers" when they say "But it runs all of the programs and files you already have." But "switchers" are not going to bother ever using OS X if they could run Windows (with which they are familiar) and all of the programs they already know. Eventually, OS X would become an annoying glitch with which to deal when an Apple computer is first set up, to developers and users alike.
Besides, when the computing world is clamoring to try to get OS X to run on any ol' X86 box, why would Apple want it the other way around? They have to come to terms with the fact that, to the general public, they are not a hardware company. They are a software and electronics company. The hardware is something that has to be purchased to use the software, not the other way around.
Reply
nezromatron said 2:50PM on 11-09-2005
Nice write up.. I hope it does play out this way. I'm not sure this would really hurt development OS X software.. If anything it would help.. Currently a developer has a choice. Spend money developing for 95% of users or for 5%. Which would you choose? The losers in this situation are OS X users. Stuck with less choice and crummier software.. Quicken for the Mac comes to mind. Outside of the 'creative' realm the Mac is still lacking in support. Even in the creative realm it's lacking.. No 3d Studio, No Acad, etc.. If my company decided to switch to Macs, we couldn't do it. Cause there is nothing to do data modeling or to connect to our databases..
Reply
flipy said 3:15PM on 11-09-2005
great idea!
and that argument against it, that there would be no more apps wrote for mac, i say: ok fine! 'cause the 3rd party apps, run better on windows anyway! and just look at apple, they are writing new apps for them all the time, the only apps they don't write are games, but with this scenario everything would be perfekt! ;)
Reply
Ricky said 3:28PM on 11-09-2005
insightful!
Reply
Robert said 3:49PM on 11-09-2005
I agree that this would not be a threat to Microsoft, at first. But play the scenario out.
Macs gain market share over all other PC manufacturers since they can run everything. The more market share, the more incentive for developers to target Macs natively, not just write Windows apps. Macs don't have to take over the world. Just getting above 20-30% should kick this in.
More and more people have Macs and less and less of them need Windows installed. And then what if Apple beefs up iWorks to the point it can take on MS Office? Or someone (Apple?) puts a true Mac interface on OpenOffice?
After a while MS is the little software company that needs Apple to be nice to them.
Reply
Extensor said 3:39PM on 11-09-2005
I think it would be great to be able to run both OS at the same time. That would really spotlight the differences between them. One is great, the other crashes, has viruses and sucks in general. Who knows, it may bring Windows developers over to our side when they get the opportiunity to play in the Mac sandbox!
Reply
Callum said 3:43PM on 11-09-2005
Nice post, when you say 'simultaniously' do you imagine some form of quick-launch button / key-stroke as in Front Row / Switch-User...
I'd love to be Mac-ing along, feel like some Half-Life 2, hit my F5 button, OSX does some funky fade - and I'm on that Windows thing.
Like Front Row... similarly to front row It'd offer a 10 foot GUI; any closer and I'm going to be sick all over the floor at that "Fisher-Price Present from Microsoft", yikes - why's that start button 20pixels high - answer me! :D
Reply
Daniel said 3:55PM on 11-09-2005
well if you could run Windows apps thru OS X without running a windows os you could remove most if not all of the virus/spyware problems. most of the problems on the windows platform come from the os not the apps, by removing active x, macros, etc from the picture things should go rather smoothly. hell just give me access to all the games I don't need the rest.
Reply
Mike said 4:55PM on 11-09-2005
If they use WINE to run windows apps it won't require a license from Microsoft. It also has the advantage of running windows programs without an actual copy of Windows on the same screen rather than a separate window or screen.
I've found that the DTK will boot X86 Linux, so I'm sure it would also boot Windows.
Reply