Andy Ihnatko's rumor might be true after all.. - Page 7

Excellent find, Marvin!

Assuming Ireland's not just having some fun with us, it really seems like this is the biggest possibility right now. As I said before, obviously a HUGE game changer, assuming it works as seamlessly as we would hope.

Note those finds are from late 2007, so in true Apple fashion this would be something they've been experimenting with for years.

One outstanding query on my part would be about the prospect for the future if Apple went down this path. If they built in some kind of compatibility layer for Win XP and even Vista, but then could not continue it for Win7 and/or beyond, it could turn into a bit of a complicated mess for end-users. In the long run it might be better to just not get into the area at all, rather than get expectations up and not be able to deliver.

Thoughts?

Now this could actually work!
Snow Leopard natively running any 32bit Windows application - without the need for a Windows license.

1.) Might not impact Apple software market that much

If Apple touts the 64bit card for native Mac applications, there's still a market for Mac specific apps - anything that's 64bit.
Even on the Windows side everyone is moving to 64bit. Assuming that Apple's MS license doesn't cover 64bit code, it would be easy to see that this would not run all new 64bit apps, but would give users a nice transition to run most of their older 32bit Windows apps.


2.) Windows games support (?)

I would assume most Windows games are still 32 bit, even latest releases.
The Mac gaming market is not that huge, and most of the newer titles are actually cross-compiled games, not natively programmed for OSX and hence often slower than the Windows verison on comparable Windows machines. Perhaps Snow Leopard is able to actually run original 32bit Windows games faster than those cross-compiled 'Mac' games.

This could potentially destroy the nascent Mac gaming market, but it would in one fell swoop remove the 'not enough games on the Macs' argument.

But I'm only speculating here, not sure that compatibility layer would run games sufficiently well.


3.) Microsoft Office

Apple constantly has this fear of Microsoft stopping development of MS Office for Mac. Now imagine that would go away completely as users could always run the Windows version.
Sure eventually most Windows PCs would be 64bit and then we're back where we started, but it will be a while until MS can offer a 64bit only version and no longer offer backwards compatible 32bit versions.
Especially since most netbooks are 32bit, MS Office 32bit will be around for quite some years.


4.) Business users

Many corporations use custom developed Windows software. To run these on a Mac each user would have to also own a license of Windows and a license of Parallels or VM Ware. With several dozen or hundreds of machines this gets expensive fast - also in support costs. Apart from the fact that the hardware already needs better specs to run virtualization software.

Now imagine they could just buy a low end Mac and their proprietary software would still just run!

A huge stumbling block removed from Macs not being adopted in the business world.


As long as Apple can sell this as 'migration argument' where old, 32bit legacy applications would run - while modern software would all be Mac-only and 64bit, I don't see this too much of a danger for Mac software developers.

This could work.

It's still a risk though.
What if only 90% of the Win software works? Most of these arguments wouldn't really be full arguments.
What if OSX just becomes another 'ancient Windows platform'.

This is the crux of the whole argument, I think. I mean, this is why CrossOver hasn't taken off. It is totally BADA** for stuff like running Office (If you haven't tried it believe me it works and is much much better than Parallels) but it's extremely touch and go with anything else, as a result you can't just recommend it to people unqualified like you can with Parallels.

This actually doesn't sound bad. Think of how many Windows users plan on buying a new computer to take advantage of 64 bit computing - This could actually be a solid opportunity for switchers.

Wouldn't such a scenario push win32 development as the default cross-platform development method? Want a program running on mac and windows, develop a win32 app. The opposite way would just be as interesting (providing a compatibility layer to run OS X apps on windows). Or even better, let linux GTK/QT apps run natively, being friends with the open-source community is a good thing.

Also, Apple is working hard to ge a unified look in OS X, and now they are letting ugly windows apps run accross their system?

I really can see the use and the profit (buy a mac, and u get both worlds natively). Nevertheless, to me thats not a game-changer and I sincerely hope this is not the big thing. To me this brings nothing 'new', it brings old stuff a different way. I'd be more impressed if they came with the whole 'home-server' idea, way more useful!

They only have a license for stuff up to 2002 so they can't go beyond XP. For most things they wouldn't need to though. It was a cross-license too so Microsoft have some of Apple's stuff. This may explain why Vista has some things similar to OS X. I'm not sure how much stuff each of the cross-licenses cover.


Yep, it sort of defeats the purpose of the 10 or so good Mac games there are but can bring in thousands. I'm not sure how low level they could go though regarding drivers and things. Crossover for example doesn't touch things like USB support and optical disc protection.


I see it as being like PPC OS X's classic environment. A way to offer compatibility while people migrate their software to a newer operating system. It would only matter if the 10% of software left was stuff worth running. For example, I doubt that NTFS filesystem software is needed. If there was an important software package like AutoCAD that didn't run, just like Crossover, Apple could put more attention into making specific apps work. Crossover had special effort put in to make Half-Life 2 run and you can tell as it runs almost perfectly, whereas other, simpler but less important games don't.

Most manufacturers aim for XP compatibility as they are aware of the problems with Vista so very few software packages are Vista-only. The same kinda goes for stuff pre-XP. If they nail XP compatibility, it covers a huge amount of software.

Bingo. They don't need to have full on compatibility with Vista apps, they only have to have *legacy* compatibility for Win32 apps, to remove a huge barrier to adoption for a large number of folks tied to Windows.

With MS deprecating Win32 in favor of .NET, they're moving on as well. Providing a Win32 foundation would no longer create a "Well, we'll just use Win32 and get both platforms" situation, as the MS ecosystem doesn't really want to support them either.

But, for those corporations or installations that have that one legacy custom app that they can *NOT* do without (and there are a huge number of them), if Apple can say "No problem, keep using it", then those companies now have another option to consider. That alone would be a big deal - if even 5% of those decided to switch, that's new market.

Not to mention all the folks who have hung onto an old PC just to run that odd app or game...

If running Windows apps in Os X is what Ireland is talking about and it is correct, I just want to go on record that I predicted this back in 2004.... http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=46136 I think I may have even posted more about it earlier, but God its embarrassing to reread old threads. In fact the very first rumblings of this go all the way back to Steve's return. MacWeek reported it was one of the goals the board had for Rhapsody.

I think we agree then, software companies in general do indeed have higher gross margins, hence, Apple's margins may indeed be higher on software than on their hardware.


It almost seems that Apple's strategy is just that. let Apple desktop sales decline to a point that they exit the market and eventually only allow selected OEMs to manufacture desktops that are licensed to run Mac OS. Nawww, it only seems that way, I just can't see Apple doing this. yet ?

Yes.

It would completely undermine OS X as a software development platform.
You could achieve perfect compatibility by stopping OS X development completely and switching the Mac over to Windows.

There is very little prospect for an increase in market share based on being a hardware vendor. Especially when the vehicle is Apple's highly profitable top-end hardware.
In software however, the prospect for growth is massive.

C.

Just letting Windows apps run on OSX straight-forward doesn't really seem like such a good idea to me...

Making cross-platform coding easier however, would benefit the Mac. But seeing as Apple is heavily pushing towards Cocoa with it's own developers, I don't know... Perhaps a Win32/.NET C#-Cocoa binding layer or something like that?

The fabled 'Red Box' Windows compatibility layer, kept haunting the Apple world since the days before OSX.

If Apple truly has a license to use Win32 code, that license's value is fading fast. 5 or 10 years from now, it is hardly worth anything. Making use of it now is better than tomorrow.

However, the main concern was always: will this kill OSX software development.
And it would.

But since Win32 is even fading in the Windows world it is a 'killer with a built-in timer'. And as such becomes merely a migration assistant for legacy Windows code.

And that is the only way Apple can play this safely.


In a worse-case scenario Microsoft as a result will push 64bit application development even more and business will be faced with either migrating to Apple or sticking with Microsoft and then migrate to 64bit. Since 64bit Windows software development is probably an easier migration path from 32bit Windows software than once migrated to Apple having to learn Apple software development - chances are most businesses will go the 64bit Windows route, and the effectiveness of this 'Red Box' in OSX will fade quickly.

For this to really work Apple should think another step ahead and provide easy software development / migration tools too. Making a case that starting a software project in OSX is easier than transition 32bit Windows code to 64bit Windows code. If that is ever achievable...

Please, stop talking. You make no sense. And you just keep repeating the same ridiculous things again and again in the face of proof after proof.

It could be more of a development layer than runtime.

This is how WINE achieves the best compatibility.

Instead of developers licensing tools from Transgaming or whatever setup they use, Apple could bundle the same thing as part of XCode.

Huge companies have a ton of legacy code mired with all sorts of Windows specific code. The effort/reward ratio for doing a solid port to the Mac is probably too high for a lot of companies to bother about.

Adding API compatibility removes a lot of effort. It means we can expect simultaneous Mac/Windows game releases for all future games as it will mean little more than a compile on any Mac with XCode.

This wouldn't encourage users who already have a code-base built for the Mac to switch to Windows APIs, especially big companies who know the importance of native code and code that isn't run from a compatibility layer, which has no guarantee of future support and feature development.

As for new developers, it may discourage them from bothering with Mac-specific development but who's to say the alternative wouldn't simply have been no Mac compatibility at all?

I would rather be able to run 3DS Max through a compatibility layer than under VMWare, Parallels or Bootcamp and be able to use Photoshop for the Mac alongside.

As people have seen from the games that already use Transgaming's Cider, you really don't notice that you're not running a native Mac app. It's true that games are different as they tend to have custom interfaces built on the graphics layer but I don't see why Apple couldn't override the interface calls to native ones so that Windows apps just appear to be Mac apps.

Move window-level menus up to the main menu when that window is in focus and add aqua/marble theme to the windows and run all the processing code through the compatibility layer.

Apple has addressed the needs of switchers who require some Windows compatibility.

It is called Boot Camp.

Furthermore VMWare, Parallels and Crossware have added their versions. And Microsoft have kindly provided a Mac native version of Office.
The Mac is awash with Windows welcome mats.

If Mac sales are being held back by the lack of even more Windows compatibility then OS X should be abandoned. Because after all - according to Meelah - Apple is a hardware company.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1925239,00.asp

I don't believe that's the right way forwards.

OS X needs to attract more developers, not less. And that means it's far more important to get OS X programs onto more PCs -than get Windows programs running on Macs.

OS X needs to be installed on more computers than the handful of boutique lines that Apple sells.

Dissatisfaction in Vista, plagues of Windows worms and a stagnating PC desktop market are all reasons for Apple to undertake an aggressive OS land-grab.

C.

Not really because you have to run Windows and buy a Windows license to run Windows software. As I say, a lot of companies have a ton of legacy code that they are in no hurry to port to Mac APIs so the deal is that Mac users will likely never get these apps without Windows API compatibility.

Mac users want some Windows software but not the Windows OS baggage and filesystem that comes along with it.

OS X has been out for 9 years now and still no sign of certain major industry-standard apps coming over. Do we just wait until they decide to hire Cocoa developers? We could be waiting indefinitely.

Look at the amount of Carbon apps vs Cocoa, if Apple don't make the development environment attractive, why should developers move? Part of the problem is pushing Objective-C. Relatively few developers are familiar with this language so it's not getting a rapid uptake. I'm sure iphone development will help but that's a very new platform.

Take for example, DirectX and OpenGL on Windows. You could have said that Microsoft including OpenGL APIs would automatically mean DirectX development would die out. Far from it. If DirectX offers more features or better development, developers will go for it to make their software the best. If developers find that Objective-C/Cocoa development isn't good for them, give them the option to use other APIs.

Eventually, we will all likely run apps with operating systems running transparently in the background and you won't even care if it's Linux, Windows or Mac APIs because in the end, it's all about the apps.

Think more strategically. Apple has no desire to help users troubleshoot installing crappy windows software on OS X. Leave that to Parallels, etc., and open source efforts are also catching up. There's no need for Apple to make a contribution here.

Coding with Xcode and Objective-C is already far superior and streamlined compared to Windows, especially when you consider all of Apple's Core functions (CoreAudio,CoreImage,CoreData,CoreAnimation,etc.).

Whether you like it or not, Microsoft is catching up to user interface features in OS X. Apple needs to trump Windows in their home court.

What Apple needs to do is make it easier for people to be able to justify purchase of their hardware. WebKit is one example where, by Apple making it easy for developers to take advantage of their efforts, Apple has repositioned itself as the leader of mobile web browsing.

what Apple will do, what the "big" thing is that will jaw drop your socks off is open up their ability to seamlessly deliver any and all Xcode applications to Windows for all OS X Developers. This will have several effects:

1) Open up a huge consumer market for OS X Programmers, dramatically snowballing the growing developer community
2) Help move Xcode toward the centerpoint of OS software development, giving apple more power similar to the WebKit story
3) Bring more programmers to Xcode, thus selling more Macs (Xcode will remain OS X only, for both technical and strategic reasons)
4) The user experience will still be superior on OS X since Apple can integrate things like AddressBook, iCal, etc. which will not be available for integration on Windows. So certain features will be "Mac Only". This will help to stimulate consumers to upgrade to Mac hardware.

Apple will be positioning Xcode to be the centerpoint for all OS deployment: OS X, iPhone, Windows, YourFavoriteOSHere.

step 5) Profit.

Apple has been moving in this direction for a while now, and we all know Xcode already has this ability (as done for iTunes & Safari). All Apple has to do is flip the switch to enable it for all developers.

It's minimal effort on their part, while still protecting the Apple brand and helping them to redefine the user experience on all platforms. Apple will gain greater mind share among user interface development, while continuing to patent these conventions, thus further protecting their brand. The fact that developer software can run on other platforms will only make dynamic use of CoreFeatures in OS X that much harder to give up by switching back to Windows-only development. Developers will see how much more dynamic their applications can be in OS X, and more people will be hooked on OS X development and never look back...

Anyone who calls themselves a programmer can figure out Objective C in an afternoon. And Cocoa is a massive plus over MFC.

The reason developers are attracted to a platform is the REVENUE THEY MAKE from creating software. Development happens for commercial reasons.

The biggest deterrent to Mac development isn't the API.

It's the market share.

C.

Rumors of the so-called YellowBox technology has been floating around for a few years now. It could certainly attract some developers and allow them to write one program - and reach a much much wider audience.

But I don't see how you get to...


It benefits developers more than it benefits Apple. Apple will only profit if computer buyers switch to Mac. And with YellowBox - it could argued that the reason to switch is a bit less.

Perhaps if Apple opened an AppStore and this included Windows executables. It might generate a revenue.

C.

when is this due to hit? Snow Leopard is ready by all accounts. It will hardly be this month given there's a lead in time to apple events to give the press notice etc.

No, you're wrong, I never said that. I said Apple makes their money off of hardware, not that they're a hardware company. They use cheap/free software to differentiate their package and get people to buy the hardware+software package. They sell computers as a complete appliance, not as individual components, but the majority of their profit margins comes from the hardware sale.

You seem to be arguing with yourself, because you've obviously missed the point completely.


Seriously? You quoted John Dvorak? Dear God.


This is how it works:

More software on OS X--> More people can switch --> People buy Mac hardware --> Apple makes money.

You are proposing to cut the third link in the chain, in order to make the first link stronger? Okay, maybe it would work (ignoring all of the other reasons everyone has already mentioned and you consistently ignore), but their still is no link between 1 and 4 without drastically changing Apple's business model to something like MS's (which is by the way laying off $5000 because of poor profits on their OS sales. hmmmm......

Apple has this funny thing called patience. Also long term vision. Bringing new developers into the fold will undoubtedly sell more hardware, which is not so much of a revenue stream because developers are not as numerous as consumers.

However, where Apple will cash in is in their service-based model called the Apple Developer Connection. If they double or triple their developer numbers over the next five years, with each of these developers paying a subscription of $1500 PER YEAR (which is almost entirely profit since Apple develops XCode on it's own anyway), that will be some serious cash coming their way.

Additionally, Apple fostering a happy and healthy developer community will pay off for them in other ways, such as having a much more broad availability of quality applications, creating it's own Halo effect, which will bring many more consumers into the fold.

Programs like Papers and others are almost single-handedly making switchers. If we had another dozen or so killer-apps in new markets Apple will reap serious benefits.

The current maturity of OS X is such that YellowBox is now done (again e.g. iTunes and Safari running on Windows) and it will be minimal effort for them to integrate it into XCode proper for all developers, while also not cannibalizing their other revenue streams or endangering their current business model(s).

This can't be done because the libraries have to be installed before the apps will run on Windows. For example, apps that depend on Core Image don't have these libraries bundled with each application. This means that people would be distributing apps that won't work unless users install the libraries required for the app to run.

They also have to keep them updated, Apple does this by bundling them with OS updates. They can't do this sort of thing on Windows as reliably.

Plus this means that Windows users may get access to apps that were previously Mac-only and therefore a selling point for the platform. Exclusive software is one of Apple's biggest selling points as meelash points out.


I think both are problems. As I say, it's an effort/reward ratio. What's the sense in putting in so much effort to maintain 2 code-bases and learn a new development environment (it doesn't take an afternoon to completely change the way you write code) for such a small target market?

If they remove all or most of the effort it takes to port code (as evidenced by Cider for porting games), companies are more willing to bring apps to the Mac, even if they are done in a way that isn't a true port. At least the software can be used under OS X.

This compatibility layer needs to be made otherwise it badly affects the viability of using OS X in certain lines of work. One is games development (no 3DS Max), another is architecture (no AutoCAD), another is finance (no Quickbooks for certain countries - the UK being one of them).

There's no technical reason this couldn't be done. As Apple updates the library, the developer will just update Xcode and rebuild the app and automagically have an app with updated libraries.

Apple does this kind of thing with their own software. Just checking another box for the target to be a Windows application will bundle an .exe with all required libraries. This is how iTunes and Safari work on Windows. It may add bloat to each software but hard drives are much cheaper/GB now. If this is really a problem as you posit then Apple could release a core runtime of libraries that would enable all of these YellowBox apps to run. It's called quicktime. It's why you have to install quicktime when you install iTunes and Safari on Windows.

I can see the ad now.

The all new Mac OS X - compatible with 99% of all know Windows Viruses.

C.

I'd rather Apple have a business model like Microsoft (software) than a business model like Dell (hardware). Why? Because Microsoft makes more money on a typical Dell sale, than Dell does.

Desktop computer sales are flatlining. Computer hardware manufacture is largely a commodity business with nosediving profits.

Apple plays against this smartly by having great software and design, which add value to their computers and create a much bigger margin.

BUT.

That super-high margin turns Mac into a niche product; A premium brand for discerning consumers. The very mechanism that is keeping Apple's profit margin high - is creating a price ghetto which keeps their market-share low.

That low market share does not harm their hardware business. But it does undermine the viability of the OS X software platform. And its attractiveness to developers.

Apple is Lexus - but could grow more profitable by becoming Toyota Lexus. Yes, retain the boutique hardware, but go head to head with Microsoft by letting the Leopard off the leash.

C.

I don't buy that argument, because Apple is at 8% market share and already has 25% of the cash flow of Microsoft.

Ireland has gone missing. It is because we hit the nail on the head? What is he to say?

Good intel not only works on existing pieces of data but on missing pieces of data. Since Ireland has gone missing, I think we are onto something...

A company with hardware and OS but no apps goes no where. But Apple has plenty of apps so actually they don't need hardware. Still, they will keep it though for breaking in cutting edge technology.

I think Apple should license OS X for PCs. It will effect their bottom line in the short term but open up their revenue long term. This is the transition they warned us about.

That combined with iWork for cheap (or at least no copy protection) and Snow Leopard running Windows natively without needing Parallels or its equivalent, will kill MS. Exchange support too will pull people away from MS.

Apple will then market Snow Leopard as "A Leopard that can change its spots!" I could also see Snow in reference to "Hell freezing over". So much for Snow Leopard having no new features.

Jobs sent the goon squad after him.

So...err....

More WINDOWS software on OS X --> (even less reason to write OS X software) --> No reason to switch at all. If you love Windows so frikkin much just buy a frikkin Dell ---> People buy PC hardware instead ---> Apple loses money.


C.

I'm not sold on the need for Yellow Box on OSX, but I think people are taking the threat of Windows API compatibility too seriously.

Any move by Apple to use Windows APIs would certainly see Windows apps running in their own box or 'lesser window environment', making Cocoa apps look and feel far superior.

The OS would almost certainly sense which Windows apps were being used, and tie that information into an App Store, offering suggestions for buying similar Mac-native software at significantly reduced prices.

Mac developers would have fun beating their Windows counterparts into the ground.

Yes, Apple punches above its weight - but you are comparing Apples to Lemons here.

Apart from the 360 - MS is basically a pure software business. Not a Hardware/Software/Music/Phone business.

For the comparison to be valid you should probably remove Apple's music and phone revenues.
And also remove the computer hardware sales too. Microsoft does not sell a lot of hardware.

Just for a moment forget those other businesses and look at the OS business. For every single PC sold on the planet - MS makes around $170 OEM profit. That's more profit than the poor computer manufacturer makes. If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share.

And the OS X revenue does not stop there. Apple is great at getting customers to pay for near annual...
Mobile Me accounts
OS Updates
iLife Updates
iWork Updates

C.

That's because MS makes far more money on Office than Windows. Apple, nor anyone else, has anything that would topple the Office empire. People forget that Office is really the crown jewel of Microsoft and probably why an OS X version exists.

Last I recall, the OEM price of Windows was around $50 and not many people buy upgrades.

If Apple has all the source code for Windows, then wouldn't it have the ability to probe the source code for flaws? They could then create viruses to hack away at MS. Or just give a bunch of hackers the source code and they would gladly do the dirty work. Apple doesn't even have to reveal it was them behind the leak. Maybe that is why Windows is such a security nightmare.

Apple would also have the ability to refine Windows to run more efficiently and faster. Thus, their version of Windows could actually run better then that from MS. That would be an incentive to use Apple's Windows rather then Microsoft's.

If Apple had OS X take advantage of the GPU and multiple CPUs and it offered significant speed increases, then that is a big reason why people would want to run OS X native apps.

If Apple then created developer tools to develop apps for Mac, Windows, and the iPhone, then everybody would want to use their tools. The app would then truly be an universal app.

Just some thoughts...

*facepalm*

Yes, because that wouldn't draw a single law enforcement officer or lawyer after them, would it?

Nope, no risk there at all, nosiree...


I'm nearly 100% that the cross-licensing was for the IP, not the copyright. ie, they had access to the API, not the source code. Big gulf of a difference between the two.


The last two... not bad. Not that I think it'll *happen*, but...

Did somebody say it would be new software?

Should we be thinking of something completely different... maybe an OpenCL play?

There's no reason to think it's anything really as no one has provided any information that's believable or meaningful beyond the realm of 'it will rain somewhere in the world today'. The concept that Apple will produce software in the future is pretty much a certainty.

What you are seeing above are suggestions of what software Apple could deliver that would be quite useful. Hardware stuff has been covered so many times before (tablet etc) that it's getting tiresome rambling about it over and over. It's ok talking about hardware and then have Apple deliver something but to wait month after month and still no Mac Mini update, well what's the point? It's way past time for Apple to deliver something.

You just proved what all of us have been saying for three pages now! Your logic is that Apple makes much more profit than MS because MS doesn't sell the hardware. Subtract the hardware and Apple is doing worse than MS.. But that also proves that the hardware has much higher profit margins. Why in God's name would Apple want to " remove Apple's music and phone revenues. And also remove the computer hardware sales too" to get *down* to Microsoft's level when they can obviously do much better financially, and at the same time satisfy their loyal customers more with their current business model.

"If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share." But since MS has 9 times OS X's marketshare and make much less profit, how would that be a good thing if it came at the expense of Mac hardware sales?