Here's an interesting blog entry by Gavin Shearer predicting this way back in January. John Gruber linked to this on his site a few days ago.

http://www.gavinshearer.com/weblog/archives/2006/01/prediction_xp_i.html

Reply

Leopard was due next January, last I heard. It should be demoed at WWDC in August, and maybe a developer preview, but that's a far cry from release.

Reply

I've been talking about Windows overlay virtualization with my coworkers. I have quite a few switchers that would buy a Mac for those few apps and no rebooting. Still, my boss wants to wait a bit for Parallels to get out of Beta and a new iBook.

Reply

I was actually thinking about this the other day, being able to run windows applications on ur mac using a virtualization/emulator program ideally it would be like rosetta where u wouldn't have to boot up the emulator but the program would prob. run faster in the emulator.

Reply

Definitely they should do the Classic thing where you have, say, Word (or whatever) as one app that's showing in the dock, rather than having the Windows file system, Windows window that you have to click inside, and so on. (Well, that could be an option.) If you could, say, run a couple of Windows apps and not really be aware of the fact that they were a different system, that would be ultimate.

Reply

I think everyone is thinking a little too myopically. Honestly, even given John Gruber's salient point of gaining a 1-2 percent "upper crust" market share falls short of long term thinking. Most mac people don't care, or are excited because it is a "nice to have." But, they would buy mac anyway. Honestly, how many people would switch to mac now for the "cool factor," just because it can run windows?...my guess is not many. Most people buy PC's because they are cheap and can get the job done...or they feel they get more for their money.

So, why create Boot Camp and why now? Preface: please, no arguments regarding the 1995 mac clones. This concept is entirely different than licensing. Imagine for a second that apple were to attempt a much bigger grab for market share. What if apple were to purchase a mid-level player in the pc industry? (e.g. someone like gateway). Gateway uses intel chips, just like apple. They also have a 30% market share, and sell 5 million computers per year. Now, imagine a mac for the masses, with a retail presence and pricing that can compete with the rest of the industry. With the bundling of boot camp, apple could easily sell a gateway line that runs OSX and Windows. This won't hurt the brand integrity like the old clones, because it would be gateway branded. Then people would have true choice in operating systems.

So, why am I using gateway as an example? Looking at the market they are the one ideal candidate: 1. they are efficient and small enough for a buy out 2. they have a significant market share in the pc world. 3. they run on intel chips.

Thoughts?

Reply

Buying Gateway?

Um.

Apple is not a software company.

Say it with me: Apple is a hardware company.

Everything Apple does is in the service of selling its hardware. Everything. Final Cut Pro? Sells Macs. iLife? Sells Macs. iTunes Music Store? Sells iPods.

Software is the value-added bonus that *sells the hardware*.

We have to get past the idea that Apple needs to have market share numbers in the region of 20%, 30% or some other magic number in order to be successful...because...

*Apple is a successful company.*

Apple has just posted the best year in its 30 year history for revenue and profits. Apple *is not in danger*. Both of Apple's businesses - which are really the SAME business when you get right down to it - are selling *computers*. One of those computers is called Macintosh. The other is called iPod.

Apple doesn't NEED to turn itself into a software vendor. They really REALLY don't need to do it by sacrificing the Mac business at the specious altar of larger (but vastly less profitable) market share.

There's simply no good reason for Apple to do so at this point.

Apple is not NeXT and not Be. Both of those hardware platforms *never* managed to sell more than a few thousand units in the entire lifespan of their respective companies. Apple sells millions of Macs a year, even without a Gateway to call their own.

There's nothing but risk and no real upside for Apple to bless OS X on a beige-box PC, even if they own the company making the beige boxes (so much for buying Gateway).

Why risk fouling up a business that's *working*? What's the reason to do it? Cheaper Macs?

No thanks.

The Mac premium is nowhere near as expensive as people think it is when you actually compare feature-comparable PC's. The price differential disappears completely at the high end of the market, where Apple actually makes money.

ALL of the bargain basement commodity PC makers are struggling to find a way to make money in the current market. Who did Dell just buy? Alienware. What was Alienware's business model? Forget about the low end commodity market, and make high-end, premium systems for a niche market (gamers in Alienware's case).

Dell just bought themselves a premium hardware maker with a niche market, because *that's where the money is.*

Apple doesn't need - and should stay as far away from as humanly possible - a presence on the absolute bottom end of the market.

Apple has *never* operated this way, and there's simply no good reason to start now.

Reply

I will definitely be buying Mac in the future because Window was something I had to do for work. Now that I can use a Mac for my day to day and still switch to Window for work related. No way will I ever buy a Window again. Sayonara Bill!

Reply

Your right about gateway but that still doesn't address Windows running as classic.
I'm going to use your principle argument that Apple is a hardware company and that it's software is serves the purpose of Value addition to the macintosh platform.
So in going with this line, Windows running as the new classic would agree with your theory right? It is fantastic value addition to the mac platform.

It's not some form of price cutting by Apple. It's an important barrier to switching knocked down by Apple. Which is definitely going to 'add value' to the next mac you buy.

What worries me is that this situation is significantly different from OS 9 running as classic in the new Mac OS X. The multitudes of software running on OS 9 was essentially Mac software by mac developers. Porting their apps to the next revision of the MAC OS is the logical thing to do. Thus classic makes sense as a great transitional tool until the important 'Classic' apps make it to OS X.

Windows as classic is a totally different ball game. Sure Mac on intel is new, and again the classic environment is running an OS that has far more software than OS X. But the similarities stop here. Windows has windows developers using technlogies that are fundamentally different from what is available in OS X. Windows in classic being permanent could be the death of OS X app develpment. For apple to stop this, they need to create an easy path for Windows developers to migrate to OS X. Something like how carbon could be used to port for OS X. perhaps Mono for .NET? Wine for win32?

Have no idea what Leopard is going to bring to the table, but it's definitely going to be very interesting....

Reply

I read Gruber's stuff all the time and even checked out Shearer's posts last week. I wanted to add something but I ran out of time (busy getting engaged =)
Anyway, I was thinking that Apple would really do something more in line with the way Mac OS X handles fast user switching. Obviously, there are advantages to having a VM operate alongside your other open applications (ala Virtual PC), but offering a solution like that (or even something like Classic/Rosetta/Wine) makes it hard to draw the line for consumers as to what is actually an Apple product and what isn't, and therefore, where the product support begins and ends. Switching desktops retains that subtle visual reminder that you are leaving the "walled-garden" and choosing to use unsupported software. It also helps delegate resources like the video and wireless cards b/c either OS could be paused "in-flight" when switching desktops.
Offering a windowed application would clearly be going head-to-head with Parallels, but could also strain the realtionship with Microsoft as it is a clear competitor for VirtualPC. That is, unless Microsoft (or the MBU) is developing it in conjunction with Apple and somehow stands to make something up for the loss of VPC sales. Last I had read, the MBU was still working on developing a whole new version of VPC

Reply

"Gateway uses intel chips, just like apple. They also have a 30% market share, and sell 5 million computers per year."

Gateway has 30% market share??? I'm sure Gateway would be thrilled to hear this, if it were true. Dell has little more than half that. http://www.dellweblog.com/2006/01/20/dell-market-share-report/

Apple doesn't need to buy Gateway. They need to take market share from Gateway. And Dell. And Sony. And that's going to happen.

And Apple does not care about the no-profit "market for the masses." Let the PC makers underprice themselves into oblivion. What Apple needs to do is convince people that better hardware and better software is worth the extra money. Show them that bargain-basement PCs running security-plagued Windows is false economy. Looks great at the cash register, not so great 6 months of horrible-user-experience later.

Who would you rather be: Dell selling 20% of the market with $399 PCs or Apple with 10% of the market selling $1299+ PCs?

Buying Gateway (or any other PC company) would be plain silly.

Reply

#8 / Hansel: no, my comments about Apple buying Gateway don't have any special relevance to Boot Camp or Windows on Intel Macs - but neither does Robb F's post above mine, which is what I was specifically responding to. He wants Apple to buy Gateway, market a line of cheap "Gateway Macs" with OS X preinstalled, as near as I can tell.

None of that has anything at all to do with Boot Camp or Windows, really. I think Gruber is right - Apple wants to sell more Macs, and if it means giving switchers an easy way to run Windows on their new Intel Mac hardware, so be it. It does lower the barrier of entry for folks already considering a switch. Beyond that, it probably doesn't mean much. For folks considering a $350 celeron desktop from Dell or whomever, Apple hardware is still too expensive. The bottom-end Dell or Gateway buyer isn't realistically a Mac customer.

The main point I was trying to make is that THAT bottom end of the market is a business that *nobody* is having much success making money in. Dell, or Gateway for that matter, aren't making enough money on their lowest-end products to keep them afloat, which is why both companies started selling consumer electronics, Dell sells bighuge servers (and just bought Alienware, etc). Apple doesn't need a presence at the very bottom, which is what Robb seems to want (else why buy Gateway?). The Mac mini probably represents the best price Apple can achieve right now and still turn a profit.

In the main, I agree with Gruber's primary point that Apple is a *hardware* company. Nearly all of Apple's revenue and profit comes from the sale of Macs and iPods. Software that runs on those platforms (counting iTMS downloads as software in this case) aren't a major revenue stream for Apple. Yes, iTunes generates an awful lot of attention for Apple right now, but the record labels - not Apple - make most of the money.

Similarly, the $129 you pay for Tiger doesn't come close to reflecting Apple's actual cost of development, even though a nice spike in boxed OS sales the year a new release comes out generates an awful lot of attention on the Macintosh web (and in the Mac press).

Buying Gateway is just another in a long line of suppositions that Apple should license OS X to PC manufacturers. That Apple theoretically owns the cheap PC manufacturer in this latest twist doesn't change the equation, really.

Reply