Windows option on Macbooks, confirmed.
New BTO on the Macbooks on Tuesday, confirmed. Windows XP is now a $129 option due to the 5 edu major (Ivy League) orders. It was such a big sell that SJ decided to make it available to everyone and turn the tide and turn heads worldwide.
Just a side conversation I heard this weekend having drinks on the Octopus (Paul Allen's Yacht) with SJ, PA, Woz and the crew. Bill didn't make it, he was out for the evening with Melinda at a charity dinner.
Tuesday is a big day for the fruit.
Just a side conversation I heard this weekend having drinks on the Octopus (Paul Allen's Yacht) with SJ, PA, Woz and the crew. Bill didn't make it, he was out for the evening with Melinda at a charity dinner.
Tuesday is a big day for the fruit.
Comments
Cue Rolo!
Boot Camp is beta software that is set to expire (not work) after Mac OS X 10.5 is released. How is Apple going to justify 'renting' the use of this software to run Windows when it has a time stamp on it? Will Apple release a new build of Boot Camp that won't expire? Also, if Apple is selling Boot Camp/Windows XP Home Edition for $129, doesn't that mean that Apple is going to have to support Boot Camp and troubleshoot the hardware drivers for Windows XP?
I don't see why Apple would do this. It just seems like a bad idea to me.
Originally posted by Fran441
I see the original poster has retracted this 'confirmation', but thought I'd make a devil's advocate 'what if' post.
Boot Camp is beta software that is set to expire (not work) after Mac OS X 10.5 is released. How is Apple going to justify 'renting' the use of this software to run Windows when it has a time stamp on it? Will Apple release a new build of Boot Camp that won't expire? Also, if Apple is selling Boot Camp/Windows XP Home Edition for $129, doesn't that mean that Apple is going to have to support Boot Camp and troubleshoot the hardware drivers for Windows XP?
I don't see why Apple would do this. It just seems like a bad idea to me.
apple will give you the option to load xp on your mac but thereafter it is your problem.
The most interesting theory bantered about these days is that leopard will use the windows API's that apple acquired when they settled with microsoft. The incorporation of the api's will allow os X to run the windows .exe files natively.
I don't know if that is a good idea strategically but it is sure interesting.
As for Apple officially supporting the nightmare that is XP. No.
Third party resellers can bundle xp with any new intel mac and set up support networks. It departments can load xp onto your mac and get their stuff going but Apple supporting windows.
Never.
Originally posted by TednDi
apple will give you the option to load xp on your mac but thereafter it is your problem.
That's their current position yes. But the Sales department and the Ideology/Strategy department has to be at war. Windows on Mac sales potentially in the hundreds of millions has to be dangling in front of them, at least in the short term.
I do hope they don't fall into the trap, because it'll mean becoming Gateway or something like that. They need to evolve Mac OS X though. OS X 10.4.x won't cut it.
The most interesting theory bantered about these days is that leopard will use the windows API's that apple acquired when they settled with microsoft. The incorporation of the api's will allow os X to run the windows .exe files natively.
You don't want to run Windows applications on Mac OS X. You want to run Mac OS X applications. The difference is key. It's not the applications. It's the Win32/.NET/DirectX APIs that Apple must have access to.
If in fact Apple has the Win32 source code, Apple can follow a Carbon-like 90/10 strategy where Win32 apps can be recompiled for Mac OS X fairly easily without changing much application source code. This allows Apple to get developers for Mac OS X and to have native looking, native behaving apps.
Just allowing Windows app binaries run on OS X is a road that'll lead to Apple being the only developer of native OS X applications.
THT's method is an interesting one too, but clogging the OS X architecture with Windows API's seems like a dangerously temporary solution. Apple may have had legal access to the Win32 APIs at one time, but Windows applications won't be built on Win32 forever, right? And DirectX is updated all the time. Often times, a new game relies on the latest DirectX drivers.
But maybe the "easy Win32 port" method would work for enough years that by the time Microsoft finally ditches Win32, Apple's market share will have increased significantly. At that point, developers will continue writing applications for the Mac, even if it isn't a quick port...hmm...
I also feel that if Apple is indeed working on some "develop for Mac & PC at the same time" bomshell, Adobe is aware of it and will utilize this method to build all of their applications.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
I still think the safest route to assure development of OS X applications doesn't die would be to bring the Cocoa/Carbon API's to Windows. That way a developer making an application can build their application to run on PowerPC Macs, Intel Macs, and Windows all with the check of a box and a few tweaks.
There's been multiple variations of this already, and I don't see any reason for it to be any more successful today than yesterday. I can't imagine a cross-platform API getting a bigger push than Java, yet it has done virtually nothing to unseat Windows APIs.
Steve Jobs has also already tried such a strategy with OPENSTEP, and I think he recognizes the futility of trying something like this for reasons I get into below.
THT's method is an interesting one too, but clogging the OS X architecture with Windows API's seems like a dangerously temporary solution. Apple may have had legal access to the Win32 APIs at one time, but Windows applications won't be built on Win32 forever, right? And DirectX is updated all the time. Often times, a new game relies on the latest DirectX drivers.
But maybe the "easy Win32 port" method would work for enough years that by the time Microsoft finally ditches Win32, Apple's market share will have increased significantly. At that point, developers will continue writing applications for the Mac, even if it isn't a quick port...hmm...
I think a Carbon 90/10 strategy would have the best chance of success. It got Mac OS 9 app developers to update for Mac OS X! Something Apple couldn't do before. With OS X being <5% marketshare however, getting Windows app developers to move to a new API is economically not viable.
It's all economics, not that this or that API is better. Large applications like Excel, Pro/E, Maya, etc. cost millions of dollars, if not tens of millions, to develop, ship, maintain, and continue to develop. Moving an app from one API to another API is in effect rewriting the application costing millions of dollars and would likely require another team to develop the application for the new API.
What's the advantage for a developer to move their app to another API? There really isn't any. There could be a time where another operating system has >20% marketshare, but it isn't going to be soon. So, the only strategy appears to be make it as easy as possible for the developers a la Carbon.
This strategy may work now because we're at an interesting crossroads in software today. We simply don't need bigger and better software today because most of the usage of a computer is in using web apps. The web browser is virtually the only app I use at home. At work, it's MS Office (including email). Everything else is a niche app.
So, if Apple can create a good Office clone able to transparently use Office files (including Outlook) assuming MS abandons Apple, they've pretty much would have a competitive business product if they can get the big niche apps to port. A 90/10 Win32/.NET environment on Mac OS X could get them to do that for a market with less than 5% marketshare.
This all hinges on Apple have access to Win32/.NET source code though. I kind of doubt MS would let the family jewels out of Redmond, and Cringely was probably just blowing smoke.
I guess it's a matter of what Apple wants to accomplish: keeping current big developers regardless of boot camp or market share, or getting those thousands of tiny niche Windows apps running on a Mac. I think Apple's in a very interesting position right now with the Intel switch. You're right that it's impossible to get developers to voluntarily switch to your development tools when they've got all their codebase invested in something else. But right now, Apple's got all the current Mac developers moving to xCode against their will so they can make PowerPC and Intel Mac Apps at the same time. That's what makes Apple's position so different from all the other attempts to sell developers on a new toolset. Instead of coming in as salesmen on a new developer toolset that promises great things, they announced this Intel switch and delivered the only tools that can get your apps there.
By WWDC this year, every current Mac developer will have finished or be well on their way to using xCode for their Mac development toolset. Assuming for a moment that it's technically and legally feasible, Apple could add a magical 3rd checkbox to xCode that would build a Win32 variant of their application for Windows. Suddenly, all those developers currently building for both Windows and Mac already will no longer need their Windows-only development team. Apple could be essentially tricking developers into a toolset that will render their Windows-onlyl development redundant, and guaranteeing Mac versions of today's applications indefinitely.
The goal of course is to guarantee Boot Camp or low market share never leads a current developer to drop Mac support. It may also have the advantage of attracting new developers when they find out if they build for the Mac, they get their Windows version for free. It'll also lead to more developers learning xCode, because suddenly the job market for xCode programmers will boom. It's the biggest Christmas present Apple could ever give their dedicated Mac developers.