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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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*

Do you understand the concept? I don't think you do.

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.

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*

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

My bad. Editing a lame post.

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.

Yep

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.

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.

Drama Queen ariveth.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quite misleading. Classic was dying. WIndows is not.

Screw! I was going to say that.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.