Why Boot Camp doesn't mean the end of software for Macs

Technically this gives Windows XP/Vista a market share 100%. But it will greatly increase Mac OS share 8-10% late 2007. Developers will go after 1. Market share, 2. A group of people willing to pay for shareware and applications. Mac users for the most part make up that later group. The dual boot option will not really work that well in the long run. Classic died out for me because I was just sick of running one program in classic. Quark. So I switched to a comparable page layout program that had a Mac OSX version, Indesign. The same will occur on the Mac. And Apple should make a version of AutoCAD for the Mac. Give me a good Mac OSX version and I'll give it a try. Do you really think that people are going to want to use Windows office after they have used Mac office. Or Keynote?

It makes sense. People had already cracked the system so that they could boot Windows, so it's good for Apple to simply make this feature it officially available. Remember they make more money with hardware than with software.
It's also a clear attack to the Wintel market: this is going to bring a lot of switchers, in times that see Microsoft struggling with delays on Vista.
Good job, Steve!
Now bring the new iBooks.

@Jon

"The number of Macs sold may be higher --- but there are more computers sold total."

This is true but every cash register sold counts as another Windows PC sold.
There are millions of "cash registers" sold every year that will never buy a single piece of software.

Of computers that are actually sold to consumers, Apple has had a significant increase in marketshare over the late 90s.

The other thing you are forgetting about is DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!

Yes SOME companies are going to decide to not to port software to the Mac. But the developers at those same companies are going to go home and buy a MAC. Guess what they will be doing in their free time? DEVELOPING, DEVELOPING, DEVELOPING! DEVELOPING, DEVELOPING, DEVELOPING! Guess which OS they will be doing it for?

Market share may be lower than in the mid 90's but the installed base of Mac users is 3 to 5 times larger than it was in the mid 90's. Even a 'moron in a hurry' can see that a 3 to 5 times installed base means 3 to 5 times more potential software customers.

Besides ported software is crap anyway. I would rather run a Windows version in an emulator safely hidden from infection.

who care? Photoshop running great on Mac

CK:"in fact there is more Mac software than ever before today because of Apple's growing marketshare"

CK, do you just pull the things you say out of your a--. That is simply not true at all. The Mac marketshare today is smaller than it was for most of the '90's, including the late 90's. Go look it up. The number of Macs sold may be higher --- but there are more computers sold total. It is hard to take your analysis seriously when you get things like this dead wrong.

YOU SHOULD ISSUE A CORRECTION (and not just a lame hidden one but acknowledge it).

Moreover, there are going to be plenty of companies that need Photoshop now, and want to upgrade to Intel Macs, who will dual boot and use Photoshop for Windows -- they will then get used to it and probably will not pay to then get an OS X version when the new version comes out but just pay an upgrade fee for the Windoze version.

Also, of course, software companies want to make money. But do you have ANY DOUBT that there are some companies who yesterday were considering ports to OS X, but who just decided that the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits because they can just sell the same software to OS X users who dual boot??

No problem at all! As a recent switcher I had a Mac and Windows PC together on the same workplace before. After unhappily working together I chipped the DOSbox outof the window(s) I am now Mac ONLY. Sure sometimes I miss some of the Win tools.

Indeed I think it is a brilliant step: remember it is a dual *BOOT* set-up so you cannot use Windows and Mac OS X together. Nobody will invest a lot of effort in making Windows XP running TOGETHER with OS X after Bootcamp's release. In the end every Bootcamp user will not bother using XP anymore and Mac OS X will have won the day...

#2
I think that the name is appropriate, as apple has promoted a computer environment opposite to Big Brother as depicted in the 1984 commercial. Boot camp implies the other option that users now have, Apple or "Big Brother"

That is the way I interpret it.

Actually on-topic:
Yes, you have a point, C.K., BUT many companies are also stupid. I can just as easily see some CFO oversimplify the situation and say that they could cut development costs in HALF if they only had ONE OS to develop for. Companies like making more money, but they like spending less money almost as much!

Yes, any sane person would know that if we own a Mac, we'd prefer the Mac version of a product... but look at the game develpoment world. In one fell swoop, they just got all the cutting-edge Mac users as potential customers, and they didn't even have to raise a finger! What makes you think they'll go through any effort at all to develop for the Mac now?!

I make a conscious decision to use Macs cause of the user interface workflow. I can't survive without Expos頡nymore. I love the way the hardware works, obviously. People are kidding themselves that anyone chooses Macs cause they are in graphics arts or crazy fanatics.

This is just a precursor to Darwine.