or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs - Page 12

post #441 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
To get to 25% market share they'd also have to be the largest computer manufacturer on the planet. I guess at some point though - 15%? they might be happy enough to licence to other manufacturers though.

Now that they have come out with Boot Camp, my theories are in array.

My thought was that with sales in other divisions rising fast, the hardware sales would become a smaller part of the total. If Apple had done what I had hoped they would do, which was to buy the programs Corel let go, and possibly bought MacroMedia, when they put themselves up for sale, they would bias themselves towards software, multimedia distribution, and consumer devices.

After a couple of years, the computer hardware division might comprise less than 25% of the total. with high profit software sales, and large volume CES devices, they could then think about Licensing the OS to other companies, such as Dell, which has expressed an interest.

This way, even if Apple lost 50% of their hardware sales it would be made up in the much increased royalties from other manufacturers, and the sales of OS upgrades, as well as the increased Mac software that would go with the increased sales of "Mac's". As that loss would be perhaps 10% of total sales, it wouldn't be a problem. The increased sales from everything else that would result would far more than offset it. This would certainly lead to an great uptake in X. Even if some piracy resulted.

The situation today is vastly different that it was when Apple allowed clones, back in the dreary, gloomy days of the early '90's.
post #442 of 511
Quote:
I think Apple is in the business of business. They would love any sales.

Of course but not all growth is necessarily good growth.

More thoughts on this line.

Of course in a very general sense Apple would prefer to sell more computers to the entire computer user base as opposed to selling fewer computers at all.

But there is a plum section of the user base that is more desirable than other sections.

Apple would much more covet a demographic (A) of educated, computer literate, higher income people who would use a Macintosh for more than word processing and e-mail.

The less desirable demographic (B) of less education, not computer literate, lower income people who would mostly use a Macintosh for word processing and e-mail.

Most people would fall into a mix between A and B, but there are a sizable number who would fall into the extremes.

In Demographic A a computer literate person would have a knowledge base to actively decide they want to use the Macintosh. Demographic A is more likely to encourage others to buy Macintosh. Demographic B the choice would not depend on who made the computer or which operating system runs on it. The loyalty of choice would depend on price. Demographic B is also more likely to not understand how to use its computer/software and in a larger number request service from Apple and Apple software developers.

Demographic A would likely pay more money for a better product and buy assorted software and accessories. As well in the future buy new software updates and new accessories as needed. Demographic A will likely buy a new computer in 3 to 5 years. Demographic B cannot afford the best product and cannot buy additional software or accessories. Its likely demographic B would use the same computer with its same software for many years until the hardware no longer functions.

Demographic A is more likely to buy advanced and expensive productivity software that will demonstrate to others the power and functionality of the Macintosh. Demographic B is likely to only use the software that originally shipped with the computer and possibly never learn the full functionality of what they have.

For many many reasons its more lucrative for Apple to have a small Demographic A user base than have a large Demographic B user base.
post #443 of 511
Quote:
You see there is always a reason to keep Macs off the network. This article is written for every IT manager that suddenly is faced with requests to buy new Macs because now they be used with that one piece of PC-only software that has to be available. How do you prevent the invasion of Macs? Call them 'Typhoid Marys' or Trojan horses that go around infecting the rest of the office while the dizzy headed Mac user is happily typing away under MacOS.

You are right in that IT people defy logic in how they will talk about Mac and OS X.

An IT manager could require Mac users to install antivirus software before they are allowed onto the network. Its not that difficult but they will make it so.
post #444 of 511
Quote:
Most of the 250 million computers shipped next year will come with Vista installed.

Vista shipped on a computer next year is the same revenue as XP shipped on a computer this year. I can only see this making a difference if over all computer sales significantly rose next year over this year.

There are few people who do not own computers who can afford and will buy a new computer. Most of the installed computer base will not be buying a new computer next year. That is the real money maker for Vista. If a large number of people who already own computers switched from XP to Vista.
post #445 of 511
Originally posted by melgross
I think you should read this....John is not only an expert in computing (his degrees are in computer cpu, and systems design), but he is a heavy Mac user for a ways back. His articles are always goo. Also, check out the article by Gruber (and join his site!) he refers to. I agree with what he says here.
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/4/8/3524



According to them the target market are those "sitting on the fence", potential high-profit target market. John Siracusa and Gruber do not mention anything about the business market. I agree with both their analyses, and their suggestion of Apple's rationale in this.

I am still excited about the possibilities of penetrating (that sounds a bit rude, huh) the business market through Apple's dual-boot (and hopefully virtualization in Leopard) strategy.

So thanks for the links mate, interesting if Apple is making a big play for BOTH MARKETS - the profitable "sitting on the fence" potential switchers AND the (possibly starting with the smaller ones) business market.

This over the next 5 years could and would as Siracusa and Gruber suggest, make Apple a "special" PC manufacturer, not "different", and maintain their high profit margins.

Very ballsy move by Steve, and if it pays off, like I mentioned, bodes really well for Apple's Mac side of the business.

And again, referring to Siracusa and Gruber, Apple must be extremely confident of taking Leopard up against Vista and essentially demolishing Vista such that people will only use Vista dual-boot (or hopefully virtualized) out of sheer last-resort need. edit: or maybe reasonable co-existence is a possibility
post #446 of 511
Originally posted by melgross
Yup!
..One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.
..When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.
..His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".
..I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.



Yes I would think any business would love more business. But as some have argued, you have to be prepared for that more business. If more business affected your company negatively (say you couldn't keep up with support needs) then more business would actually lead to less business.

So I guess I suggest that Apple would love more business from their target markets and additional business outside their target markets which do not compromise their ability to effectively service the user base as a whole.

To clarify though on the marketshare issue definitely Apple is targeting growing their marketshare. That is pretty much beyond doubt IMHO.
post #447 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
Yup!
..One thing I find myself scratching my head about, is Mac users saying that Apple doesn't need a greater marketshare. That's nonsense. Apple MUST have a greater marketshare.
..When Apple came out with the (then) new G5 PM's, one guy in my usergroup had just bought a 1.6GHZ. I said that I hoped that the increased performance of these machines would lead to adoption by pc users, and so increase Apple's marketshare.
..His response was that he didn't care, and that it didn't matter to him if Apple;'s marketshare went down even further, as long as Apple kept making "great machines".
..I'm always amazed that people who have never had experience in business have so little understanding of the real world.



Yes I would think any business would love more business. But as some have argued, you have to be prepared for that more business. If more business affected your company negatively (say you couldn't keep up with support needs) then more business would actually lead to less business.

So I guess I suggest that Apple would love more business from their target markets and additional business outside their target markets which do not compromise their ability to effectively service the user base as a whole.

To clarify though on the marketshare issue definitely Apple is targeting growing their marketshare. That is pretty much beyond doubt IMHO.

Who has the most support needs? The consumer. Not schools, not business. They have support staff. I'm the support staff for my network at home.

But consumers in general are not so lucky. That's why the genius bar is always full. you don't see business people there, nor school teachers, unless it's for their own machines.
post #448 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by pmjoe
Well, this is pretty useless, neither of the XP licenses/disks I have are Service Pack 2 based. This might have helped me decide to get an Intel Mac mini sooner, so I could get rid of the aging PC I keep around for Windows stuff. I'm not going to buy another copy of Windows just to do it though.

Since this is probably true for most anyone with a system older than a couple years, this doesn't seem like that useful of an approach. Apple ought to be aiming for people with aging XP systems as a way to get them over to Mac OS. People with newer copies of XP probably aren't the ones who will go out and buy a Mac just to run XP on it.

If you are running a box that has windows XP you can slipstream SP2 onto a new disk using the files from your old XP CD. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp
That is a link to the instructions that will guide you through the process. Sort of like the hackers way but you are only replacing files with Microsoft files
post #449 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by backwar
If you are running a box that has windows XP you can slipstream SP2 onto a new disk using the files from your old XP CD. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...slipstream.asp
That is a link to the instructions that will guide you through the process. Sort of like the hackers way but you are only replacing files with Microsoft files

Oh yah that is safety... just put an infected system directly on. *rolls eyes*

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #450 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
Oh yah that is safety... just put an infected system directly on. *rolls eyes*

Do you understand the concept? I don't think you do.
post #451 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Well, I suppose it's better that you shoot things and let your rage out in the virtual world. Personally FPS shooters give me the creeps and make me wonder just what goes on in people's heads if they think going around shooting people's heads off with a BFG is anywhere approaching OK. Sure, it's 'not real' but I've no idea why people would want to do it in the pretend world. Are they all frustrated they can't do it in the real world? Perhaps they should go see a shrink.

If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.
post #452 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Do you understand the concept? I don't think you do.

WEll I guess it would have helped if I read it first....

:P

I thought they were saying to install it first, then add sp2 then put it back on cd then install it on a mac...

whatever

*spits on windows*

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #453 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.

I find those games to be bland and boring. The problem is that other than for the graphics, they are all pretty much the same.
post #454 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I find those games to be bland and boring. The problem is that other than for the graphics, they are all pretty much the same.

These games do take skills though. Not thought skills but training / instinct skills. It's not like unreal or doom from so many years ago where a foot shot == a head shot. Different parts of the body reacts to different shots... etc.

If you don't believe me, argue against the United States Army Corps. The whole reason they made America's Army was for virtual training.

Does it get repetitive? Yah, esp some games more than others. BUT it's fun to see how you react to different situations to get out.

Personally I don't like the whole monster thing. I like the reality of... "what would you do if you were in this situation".

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #455 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
These games do take skills though. Not thought skills but training / instinct skills. It's not like unreal or doom from so many years ago where a foot shot == a head shot. Different parts of the body reacts to different shots... etc.

If you don't believe me, argue against the United States Army Corps. The whole reason they made America's Army was for virtual training.

Does it get repetitive? Yah, esp some games more than others. BUT it's fun to see how you react to different situations to get out.

Personally I don't like the whole monster thing. I like the reality of... "what would you do if you were in this situation".

The Army game is more realistic than almost any of the others. It's not really a first person shooter.

But, the other games are all the same. Get the right weapons, pick this up, pick that up, lose strength, get shields, look around the corner, yawn.
post #456 of 511
Back on topic, this should be good for my sister.

She had kind of resigned herself to buying a windows machine at her lab because there were a couple windows only apps she needs to run. Now a mac is certainly back in the running for her.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #457 of 511
Yah I think to sum all of this up...

This is going to do more good than bad in the short term and long term. Mac users are still giong to demand mac software. Just because they can run windows doesn't mean they are going to / willing to switch. The whole reason they bought a mac in the first place was to USE MAC SOFTWARE / OS. As stated before if a developer simply says "boot into windows" ... mac users won't stand for that and eventually someone will swoop that mac market. I think the only time that argument will fly is with the switchers.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #458 of 511
Quote:
I think the only time that argument will fly is with the switchers.

I don't think it will fly with the switchers, either. They would not have switched if all they wanted to do was run 100% Windows apps. Or so it seems to me.

My take: Apple must have seen that there are a huge number of fence-sitting switchers who are fed up with spyware and whatever other reason.

Get these people over, and the marketshare of the hardware up, and there will be enough of a Mac OS X market for developers to WANT to sell to. This could be very interesting.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #459 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
I don't think it will fly with the switchers, either. They would not have switched if all they wanted to do was run 100% Windows apps. Or so it seems to me.

My take: Apple must have seen that there are a huge number of fence-sitting switchers who are fed up with spyware and whatever other reason.

Get these people over, and the marketshare of the hardware up, and there will be enough of a Mac OS X market for developers to WANT to sell to. This could be very interesting.

That's about it.

If they see uptake on their software go up on the Mac side, they will be convinced to stay. If they see the Mac sales percentage go down, they will have to think about the next step.

The problem is with programs that have a far greater Windows share than Mac share. Depending on how, or even whether, their Mac versions are profitable, they might decide that they will gain enough Mac users coming over to use the Windows version to cover a Mac retreat. If they can eliminate the development costs, as well as the support costs, they might break even.

That's the danger. We shouldn't forget that we have been losing developers even without having Windows work on our systems in an effectively comfortable way. VPC works, but it isn't pleasant.
post #460 of 511
My bad. Editing a lame post.
post #461 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's the danger. We shouldn't forget that we have been losing developers even without having Windows work on our systems in an effectively comfortable way. VPC works, but it isn't pleasant.

But the same token, Windows being on macs should bring new / old developers back over to the mac side. But in all honesty... how many apps are out there that are built on mac and windows? NOT THAT MANY. Sure the big ones... Adobe, M$, etc... I honestly think this will be good, not bad.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #462 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
But the same token, Windows being on macs should bring new / old developers back over to the mac side. But in all honesty... how many apps are out there that are built on mac and windows? NOT THAT MANY. Sure the big ones... Adobe, M$, etc... I honestly think this will be good, not bad.

I'm not thinking that this will be a disaster. There isn't any question but that we will lose a few. But, if things work out right, we will gain more than we will lose.

It's up to the users.

Honestly, too many people complain about developers, both software and hardware, leaving the platform, but won't lift a hand to prevent it. Perhaps I should have said that they won't open their wallets to prevent it.

I've known more than enough people over the years with old versions of a program to get angry when the developer stops producing the program. Perhaps if they weren't so smug about insisting that the old version was just great, and supported the developer with more than words, that developer would still be around.

We all know it's true. Sometimes you just have to go out and buy something, just to show support.
post #463 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
We all know it's true. Sometimes you just have to go out and buy something, just to show support.

Yep

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #464 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
If you pretend to be utterly shocked by violence, maybe you should see a shrink. Virtual violence is great. There is nothing wrong with it and everybody enjoys it on one level or another.

a) I wasn't pretending

b) I never said I was 'utterly shocked', I said they gave me the creeps. I don't find them shocking at all, I find it sad that some people get kicks out of violence, not shocking.

c) I don't enjoy it and I don't agree that everyone enjoys it on one level or another.

And the games are about as interesting as flicking snot at the wall.
post #465 of 511
AUGHHHHHH!!!!

(Edited a bit; perhaps I was a bit rash! But I'm still very concerned.)

Why are people excited about this??

Honestly, what incentive do developers have to develop software for Mac now? There are already companies (Adobe, anyone??) that aren't that happy releasing Mac versions.

Why are we excited about the prospect of running all of our software in a Windows interface? I find this very concerning. Apple is trusting the developers way too much. Platform loyalty doesn't mean a lot to developers... just ask Bungie.

I seriously doubt this bring developers back to the Mac... If anything, less will develop for Mac, because we can run Windows natively. The danger is that few companies will want to bother employing two development teams now. Who could blame them? Waste of money. The only reason to develop for Mac is one of principle. Very few companies care about such things, when it comes down to it.

Apple used to. That's the main thing that has me worried. Apple has always been the one that stuck to its guns, and kept to its principles. This is a major shift, and leaves me to wonder how they want to define what a Mac is.
post #466 of 511
Drama Queen ariveth.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #467 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Damnathan
AUGHHHHHH!!!!

Get yourself aquatinted with all the angles before getting yourself all tangled up. There's plenty here to read and find out why it IS a good thing. I'm tired of explaining it already.
post #468 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Drama Queen ariveth.

Fair point.

I'm just making up for the fact that no one seems very concerned. We're a niche market folks. And it seems to me Apple is making a huge gamble here. Up to now, they've called the shots on their platform. It's a big deal. They're changing the basis of what a Mac is.

Remember cloning? Everyone thought opening up the closed system made great business sense then too.

Having lived through that (and the rest of the mid-90s) as a Mac user, I can't help but be concerned.

I really do hope things turn out well.
post #469 of 511
True words from John Gruber.

The fear that Windows-on-Mac-hardware implies the eventual death or marginalization of Mac OS X is baseless. Sure, third party developers could start using Just boot into Windows as their answer to questions regarding Mac support, but this is no more likely to be popular or successful than it was for developers whose OS X strategy was Just use Classic.

This is a move of supreme confidence Apple relishes the comparison between Mac OS X and Windows XP, and Microsoft has shown enough of Vista via its widely-available beta seeds that Apple quite obviously isnt afraid of that comparison, either.

Windows is so ubiquitous that the vast majority of Mac users are already quite familiar with it; I see no chance that Boot Camp is going to cause any Mac users to realize that theyve been missing out on something better. But from the other side, Apple is confident that most Windows users who give Mac OS X a shot are going to prefer it again, much in the same way that most long-time Mac users preferred Mac OS X to the old Mac OS.

In the same way that Mac users found themselves in a race to go Classic-free after switching to OS X, and that running apps through Classic was viewed from the get-go as something to be done while holding ones nose, so too will Windows be viewed in the post-Boot Camp world.
post #470 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Damnathan
AUGHHHHHH!!!!

Why are people excited about this??

Honestly, what incentive do developers have to develop software for Mac now? There are already companies (Adobe, anyone??) that aren't that happy releasing Mac versions.

Why are we excited about the prospect of running all of our software in a Windows interface? We should be running screaming from this! I mean, the interface is everything!

This will not bring developers back to the Mac... it will mean that *no one* will develop for Mac, because we can run Windows natively. Very very few companies will want to bother employing two development teams now. Who could blame them? Waste of money. The only reason to develop for Mac is one of principle. Very few companies care about such things, when it comes down to it.

Apple used to.

Why oh why is this a good thing?? Are you people excited about pretty Apple hardware running a clumsy MS OS? As long as there's an iPod plugged in, Apple would seem to be okay with that.

I can't believe this is happening.

As stated above.... there is 11 pages here to read... which you obviously didn't, otherwise your post wouldn't have gone that way. I have explained myself,melgross,suni,pb, and many many many others have explained themselves countless times. Please read the thread.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #471 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
As stated above.... there is 11 pages here to read... which you obviously didn't, otherwise your post wouldn't have gone that way. I have explained myself,melgross,suni,pb, and many many many others have explained themselves countless times. Please read the thread.

True, I didn't read all 11, but I read the first few, and was genuinely shocked to see that red flags weren't going up. I was already a bit panicky; as I said, I remember the mid-90s, and I don't want to go there again.

My post was a bit much, I'll admit; I've edited it down. But my concerns still stand. I think we're a bit cocky for such a small minority. I love extolling the virtues of the Mac platform to anyone that will listen.

But, honestly, such things tend not to matter when you're going up against a force as strong as Windows. This decision may pay off, but I don't think this is nearly so sure a thing as you all seem to be convinced.
post #472 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Damnathan
True, I didn't read all 11, but I read the first few, and was genuinely shocked to see that red flags weren't going up. I was already a bit panicky; as I said, I remember the mid-90s, and I don't want to go there again.

My post was a bit much, I'll admit; I've edited it down. But my concerns still stand. I think we're a bit cocky for such a small minority. I love extolling the virtues of the Mac platform to anyone that will listen.

But, honestly, such things tend not to matter when you're going up against a force as strong as Windows. This decision may pay off, but I don't think this is nearly so sure a thing as you all seem to be convinced.

As we've stated in the last 4 pages... there really isn't anything to worry about... the devs need us. No mac user is going to accept the "boot into windows to use our software" excuse. Mac users bought a mac to use a mac. It's only the switcher that need to be worried about.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #473 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
True words from John Gruber.

The fear that Windows-on-Mac-hardware implies the eventual death or marginalization of Mac OS X is baseless. Sure, third party developers could start using Just boot into Windows as their answer to questions regarding Mac support, but this is no more likely to be popular or successful than it was for developers whose OS X strategy was Just use Classic.

Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #474 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.

Screw! I was going to say that.
post #475 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.

Yep. That's the problem I have with Gruber's analysis although I do like his 'Windows as legacy application mode' angle. He seems to think users will always demand Mac apps when IME they don't, they'll just use what's available or what they can get for free.

The problem is, as soon as Apple went down the path with Intel CPUs, it was inevitable that they'd have Windows apps running on the same hardware. Either they've extreme confidence in being able to deliver such a better OS than Windows that users will use OSX, or, there is another part of this story that hasn't arrived yet. I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.
post #476 of 511
I'd rather shoot a bunch of polygons than duck, deer or foxes Some shooters are more interesting than others. Half Life 2 - using the gravity gun to grab energy balls (the energy balls are like flowing up a conduit, they aren't just sitting around) and flinging them at enemy soldiers. Very satisfying. Now, let me say that F.E.A.R. is the gaming equivalent of watching The Ring ... you'd be surprised how cinematically scary a little girl with long hair popping up unexpectedly can be. Tomb Raider Legend - Just started that: sexy chick, a few weapons, platform game elements ala Prince of Persia. Exploring ruins Indiana Jones style. Nice. And they reduced Lara Croft's cup size to something sensible this time. Cute upper-class English accent.

Oh, and hello from Phuket, Thailand.

I agree that some gore is over the top. There are a few scenes of "Rivers of Blood" in F.E.A.R. A bit overdone sometimes. And skeletons drenched in blood. Not for the faint-hearted.
post #477 of 511
Originally posted by aegisdesign
.....I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.



Hmm... you might get shot down on that. But someone should take a poll on AppleInsider forums on who thinks Apple is gonna sell OSX for generic boxes. Personally, if that happens, Hell would be in an Ice Age for long time, having frozen over so many times
post #478 of 511
I still think there is a great risk in this game that Apple plays, it could trigger the fate of IBM's OS/2 again.

But I also can see what Apple is really aiming at with this new approach:

1. A few years back MacOS had a much better market-share, I think it was even up there in the 8%. So, obviously a lot of MacOS-users switched to Windows, probably because of practical compatibility-reasons or key-apps not available for MacOS.. I think Apple aims at rewinning these lost ex-Maclers.

2. There is a huge market-share of ipod-users, and a small part of it is also interested in Apple because of the ipod, and the ability to do Windows and MacOS on the same machine natively, might convince these "design/style-fans" to buy an Apple-machine.

So these effects combined could propel Apple's marketshare to about 10%.

But again even if that would happen, the "IBM-OS2"-fate still lingers at the horizon.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #479 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by aegisdesign
.....I reckon the other part is Apple selling OSX for generic boxes. And yes, I know that's directly in contrast to Gruber, Sircusa et al.



Hmm... you might get shot down on that. But someone should take a poll on AppleInsider forums on who thinks Apple is gonna sell OSX for generic boxes. Personally, if that happens, Hell would be in an Ice Age for long time, having frozen over so many times

And that's why I think they'll do it. It's the logical end point of the path they're on.

Jobs said it himself when he said the hardware wasn't what made the Mac. Software is way more profitable than hardware especially when you're into high volumes. Ask Microsoft. Gruber reckons they won't sell OSX separately as $100 profit from OSX isn't as good as $500 on a MacBook Pro and that they'd have to sell 5x as many copies as OSX to make up for the loss of MacBook Pro sales.

He's wrong. He's presuming users don't like Apple hardware. Apple's hardware is as good or better than many premium brands and stands on it's own merits. People will buy it because it's Apple hardware. People already do this and run Linux on it instead of cheesy Vaios. This is different to the clone era when Apple's horrible beige boxes were not as good as a StarMax or a Power. Today, nobody is even close to an iMac in design. The Mini and MacBookPros are very good.

They have nothing on the low end but Apple doesn't want to compete there anyway. Neither do Dell really. There's marginal profit there. However, they can still sell OSX, iLife, iWork... to the cheap seats. The cheap seats weren't likely to buy Apple hardware anyway. So Apple gains there in software sales. Who knows, perhaps the cheap seats will see the light and buy some decent Apple hardware next time round.

The elephant in the corner is the PowerMac. There's two groups of users there. Businesses will continue to buy Apple kit because they need to know it's fully supported and compatible. Enthusiasts/Semi Pros may build themselves killer beige boxes instead of buying a PowerMac or an iMac but the kind of user that whinges about one being too expensive and the other not expandable are a small subset of computer buyers and one which Apple doesn't cater for today anyway. So they've gained a software sale there too.

So, I don't think hardware sales will drop if they release OSX for other computers and that's why I say they'll do it.

I'll caveat that by adding it relies on 3rd parties producing drivers and Apple setting a certified list of supported hardware. That's no different than Microsoft does with Windows though which if you've been paying attention, the hardware compatibility list for is a lot smaller than previous versions.
post #480 of 511
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
1. A few years back MacOS had a much better market-share, I think it was even up there in the 8%. So, obviously a lot of MacOS-users switched to Windows, probably because of practical compatibility-reasons or key-apps not available for MacOS.. I think Apple aims at rewinning these lost ex-Maclers.

Whereas market share went down, the number of users didn't actually drop much and has been steadily climbing. The problem is, the Windows installed user base grew even faster as PCs became commoditized and cheaper, hence lower market share overall. Apple kept out of the low end commodity PC market because it's not profitable. They were right to.

You've only to look at higher end markets to realize where Apple's market share is with Mac sales accounting for over 25% of Adobe's sales for instance. Mac has market share where it matters. Windows has huge market share in call centres and other drone like business activities where very little 3rd party software is bought.

The OS/2 comparison is bogus. Windows 3.0 was out alongside OS/2 v1.2. 95 alongside OS/2 2.0. Windows had tonnes of applications already and OS/2 didn't. Mac OSX already has tonnes of applications.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's "Boot Camp" beta runs Windows XP on Macs