MS could kill the MBU, but they couldn't give a copy with every Mac. Apple would have to agree to that.
But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.
Wouldn't that negate the idea behind placing (advertising) a copy of Office inside every Mac? The idea is to show users that they have that piece of software available if they want to use it, after all, it's only a trial version. It's just a way to advertise a product.
While the average Windows loser certainly needs support, they may not necessarily go to MS for it.
How many of us have been called up by relatives and friends (and friends of friends' distant cousins 18x removed!) to sort out PC problems?
In fact, I'd suggest that's why Windows got where it is today: critical mass amongst the users. If most people you know have Windows and can help you out, you're far more likely to get a Windows machine.
Maybe I should start telling people to call up MS instead of having me fiddle around with their machines. However, I don't think the call center could not handle the volume! They'd need to bring in India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Indian sub-continent to handle the number of problems my relatives have with Windows.
When we purchase windows machines for work we get support from the hardware maker, Dell in our case. Since Apple is on record as saying they aint supporting windows (wise move on their part), who does? Based on my experience with windows, I'm gonna go out on a limb a say that a large percentage of users will need a liitle help.
Saw your other comments about MBU and think they are good points.
When we purchase windows machines for work we get support from the hardware maker, Dell in our case. Since Apple is on record as saying they aint supporting windows (wise move on their part), who does?
When you purchase a windows machine from Snork Electronics -- a beige box, motherboard, etc -- where do you get your support? When you buy a used windows machine from Gary on eBay, where do you get your support?
There are lots of people with Windows machines that don't get manufacturer support. Windows, as a piece of software, is supposed to be supported by its maker. Microsoft.
I bet Dell offers Windows support as a customer service perk to make customers feel better about buying a Dell. (If it's true, it's a very admirable policy.)
Apple buyers have never had to deal with the concept of hardware and operating system being from two different places. (Except for the brief reign of clones.)
Wouldn't that negate the idea behind placing (advertising) a copy of Office inside every Mac? The idea is to show users that they have that piece of software available if they want to use it, after all, it's only a trial version. It's just a way to advertise a product.
there's a big difference between advertizing something, and giving away something for free.
I'm not advocating this, you understand.
I'm just making what Anders suggested, actually possible.
Dual boot and esp. virtualization has a positive side and a negative side to it. The positive is easing the switch process, thus adding more Mac users. The negative side is the potential loss of developers ("we work on Macs. Just open your Windows on your Mac and use our program through that").
Each player can "rock the boat" with the tools they have. Apple can try to make Mac OS X much more attractive than Windows, for the user but esp. for the developer. They can have cross OS developer tools etc, enforcing the positive side and minimizing the negative side.
MS can do the opposite with the tools they have. If they provide Windows with every Mac (probably the way melgross suggest) and make you open it every time you want to use Word, Excel etc. it would be much easier for other developers to drop direct Mac OS X support since most users already have Windows open on their computer all the time. Then when people need to buy their next computer some will go non-mac, because one of the two main point of buying a Mac (great OS and pretty hardware) suddenly became a non issue.
Well I think Apple will never offer Windows alongside OS X preinstalled (I don't even think they will sell it seperately). To my mind Apple is now trying a variant of what Microsoft did during the "browser wars". Apple sells you a computer that will run Windows at native speed alongside OS X (giving you - the Windows user - the cozy feeling you can go back without extra cost). But when you start your new shiny machine up, you are going to see OS X (preinstalled).
Now you bought an Apple and you heard a lot about their software (iPod, iTunes anywhere) so you give it a shot. Now you see you can do with the Mac, whatever you could do with you PC - mail, browser, iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb ...
So why bother downloading some software to get into the hassle to install another operating system; you can mail your friends, you even get iChat AV with a camera included, you can phone your friends, you can do all you have allways done.
This is a clear shot at the consumer, and you don't want your customer to move back.
That scenario where developers would stop making apps for the Mac because the Mac can now run Windows is very, very, very unlikely to happen because if that where true then those developers would already have said "just get a PC if you want to use our apps because we make no money making apps for the Mac." Developers know that Mac users want Mac apps and that they will favor apps that run on Mac OS X.
There is far more to gain from the ability to run Windows virtually on the Mac than to continue not to. About 95% more!!!
I bet Dell offers Windows support as a customer service perk to make customers feel better about buying a Dell. (If it's true, it's a very admirable policy.)
Dell gets a super sweet deal on Windows licences because they agree to support the software. MS learned a long time ago that the most expensive part of their business was support. Now, OEMs give support (arguable) with the systems they sell and MS is off the hook. Of course, you can get support from MS, but it will cost you. I think even if you build a system yourself and buy Winhose (thought up that one all by myself :-p) retail, you don't get much - if any - free support from MS. No big deal for them cuz that is a very small segment of the market and if you built your own system, you probably won't be calling for support anyway.
Personally I don't blame Apple one bit in creating a seperate boot environment for OS X, and XP. When an OS has as many security, design, and virus woes as Windows I would keep the contaminants as far away from my clean running OS as possible.
Because from then out (after the osses are conjoined at the head) you won't know where all the new problems are originating from, as well as hacking breeches, and viruses. Maybe OS X will be affected by an MS virus / fault.
In other words I can guarantee that Apple will be blamed as well as MS for new problems arising from this "Simultaneous running of osses."
Meanwhile, Apple's release of Boot Camp finally explains the disagreement Apple and Microsoft were previously rumored to have had over the way Windows should be supported on Intel Macs.
The disagreement explains Boot Camp. Not the other way round.
If Boot Camp had been sure to be released, Apple wouldn't have cared if Microsoft would release VPC Intel or not, so there would have been no disagreement.
Therefore, if there has been a disagreement, Boot Camp must be a reaction to the disagreement.
For that reason, considering the time it's going to take Adobe to release Photoshop for Intel, and considering that there's a good chance that Boot Camp is indeed a reaction to MS's doubts about releasing VPC for MacTel, we can be rather sure that Apple is currently considering a competitor to Photoshop as well.
Yeah, stop tink hehe. Misspelling Windows dozens of ways is old. Anyway, I don't get the part about OEM versions of Windows won't work, they need to be full retail? Why? I thought OEM was the same exact data as retail just under different licensing. I paid full price for Windows 2000, never again.
Quote:
Anders
Actually it would make good business sense for MS to kill MBU and deliver a copy of Windows with every mac.
Not unless virtualization is offered AND Windows is rootless. Yup. Just like running X11 or Classic. If Windows ran rootless ontop of OS X it would be acceptable, barely. I don't like looking at a Windows UI on OS X just like I don't like seeing X11 widgets on OS X. But running MS Apps inside a window or dual booting wouldn't work for the average user.
Your argument would be better without the name adjustments. MS is very likely to be happy to supply Windows for Apple users. After all, they considered Softwindows and VPC to be computers, for the purpose of giving a license to users. They also said, just the other day, that they would be very happy to give Apple a license to sell Windows.
And, if you bothered to read this entire article, you would have seen the part at the bottom.
I agree (in regards to the name adjustments). If you "bothered to read" my other post, you would have seen at the bottom....
Quote:
My apologies for my adolescent tendencies, reinforced by years of keeping the companies
--> Windows <--
network up and running.
And I actually did read the entire article and it was no bother at all, in fact I enjoyed and found it interesting enough to comment on it.
I don't think Apple will ever license to sell Windows, but who knows. I think Apple is interested on increasing OS X market share. If Apple sold systems with a copy of Windows then there would be a 1 to 1 OS ratio and Apples market share wouldn't change with those systems sold. (Is this fuzzy math)?
In regards to "the part at the bottom" ...
...thus my mentioning many virtulization solution becoming available in the future in my post. These including VMware ports and other open source efforts as well as virtulization in the CPU itself. I haven't heard any news as to how well these solutions work yet and Apple has never said they will supply a virtualiation option other then dual boot.
Not unless virtualization is offered AND Windows is rootless. Yup. Just like running X11 or Classic. If Windows ran rootless ontop of OS X it would be acceptable, barely. I don't like looking at a Windows UI on OS X just like I don't like seeing X11 widgets on OS X. But running MS Apps inside a window or dual booting wouldn't work for the average user.
Full screen mode. And it doesn´t have to be perfect, actually it would be better for the outlined strategy if it wasn´t perfect or good but merely good enough for people not to migrate to another office suite.
Full screen mode. And it doesn´t have to be perfect, actually it would be better for the outlined strategy if it wasn´t perfect or good but merely good enough for people not to migrate to another office suite.
This would be the best solution for the end user, but I think this wouldn't be acceptable for MS. Not that they say "you can't do that", unless there is some sort copyright violations with these virtualization option. MS could however apply pressure on Apple in other ways... like threatening to stop development for IE or something...
Bloody hell have none of you tried Parallels' software yet? How does it compare to VPC? Try it man and let us know how it goes....!!!!! Let's bring some usefulness to these forums
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Actually it would make good business sense for MS to kill MBU and deliver a copy of Windows with every mac.
MS could kill the MBU, but they couldn't give a copy with every Mac. Apple would have to agree to that.
But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.
Originally posted by melgross
MS could kill the MBU, but they couldn't give a copy with every Mac. Apple would have to agree to that.
But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.
Wouldn't that negate the idea behind placing (advertising) a copy of Office inside every Mac? The idea is to show users that they have that piece of software available if they want to use it, after all, it's only a trial version. It's just a way to advertise a product.
Originally posted by michaelb
I'm going to agree and disagree...
While the average Windows loser certainly needs support, they may not necessarily go to MS for it.
How many of us have been called up by relatives and friends (and friends of friends' distant cousins 18x removed!) to sort out PC problems?
In fact, I'd suggest that's why Windows got where it is today: critical mass amongst the users. If most people you know have Windows and can help you out, you're far more likely to get a Windows machine.
Maybe I should start telling people to call up MS instead of having me fiddle around with their machines. However, I don't think the call center could not handle the volume! They'd need to bring in India, Pakistan, and the rest of the Indian sub-continent to handle the number of problems my relatives have with Windows.
When we purchase windows machines for work we get support from the hardware maker, Dell in our case. Since Apple is on record as saying they aint supporting windows (wise move on their part), who does? Based on my experience with windows, I'm gonna go out on a limb a say that a large percentage of users will need a liitle help.
Saw your other comments about MBU and think they are good points.
Originally posted by backtomac
When we purchase windows machines for work we get support from the hardware maker, Dell in our case. Since Apple is on record as saying they aint supporting windows (wise move on their part), who does?
When you purchase a windows machine from Snork Electronics -- a beige box, motherboard, etc -- where do you get your support? When you buy a used windows machine from Gary on eBay, where do you get your support?
There are lots of people with Windows machines that don't get manufacturer support. Windows, as a piece of software, is supposed to be supported by its maker. Microsoft.
I bet Dell offers Windows support as a customer service perk to make customers feel better about buying a Dell. (If it's true, it's a very admirable policy.)
Apple buyers have never had to deal with the concept of hardware and operating system being from two different places. (Except for the brief reign of clones.)
:d
Originally posted by iPeon
Wouldn't that negate the idea behind placing (advertising) a copy of Office inside every Mac? The idea is to show users that they have that piece of software available if they want to use it, after all, it's only a trial version. It's just a way to advertise a product.
there's a big difference between advertizing something, and giving away something for free.
I'm not advocating this, you understand.
I'm just making what Anders suggested, actually possible.
Dual boot and esp. virtualization has a positive side and a negative side to it. The positive is easing the switch process, thus adding more Mac users. The negative side is the potential loss of developers ("we work on Macs. Just open your Windows on your Mac and use our program through that").
Each player can "rock the boat" with the tools they have. Apple can try to make Mac OS X much more attractive than Windows, for the user but esp. for the developer. They can have cross OS developer tools etc, enforcing the positive side and minimizing the negative side.
MS can do the opposite with the tools they have. If they provide Windows with every Mac (probably the way melgross suggest) and make you open it every time you want to use Word, Excel etc. it would be much easier for other developers to drop direct Mac OS X support since most users already have Windows open on their computer all the time. Then when people need to buy their next computer some will go non-mac, because one of the two main point of buying a Mac (great OS and pretty hardware) suddenly became a non issue.
Now you bought an Apple and you heard a lot about their software (iPod, iTunes anywhere) so you give it a shot. Now you see you can do with the Mac, whatever you could do with you PC - mail, browser, iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb ...
So why bother downloading some software to get into the hassle to install another operating system; you can mail your friends, you even get iChat AV with a camera included, you can phone your friends, you can do all you have allways done.
This is a clear shot at the consumer, and you don't want your customer to move back.
There is far more to gain from the ability to run Windows virtually on the Mac than to continue not to. About 95% more!!!
I bet Dell offers Windows support as a customer service perk to make customers feel better about buying a Dell. (If it's true, it's a very admirable policy.)
Dell gets a super sweet deal on Windows licences because they agree to support the software. MS learned a long time ago that the most expensive part of their business was support. Now, OEMs give support (arguable) with the systems they sell and MS is off the hook. Of course, you can get support from MS, but it will cost you. I think even if you build a system yourself and buy Winhose (thought up that one all by myself :-p) retail, you don't get much - if any - free support from MS. No big deal for them cuz that is a very small segment of the market and if you built your own system, you probably won't be calling for support anyway.
Because from then out (after the osses are conjoined at the head) you won't know where all the new problems are originating from, as well as hacking breeches, and viruses. Maybe OS X will be affected by an MS virus / fault.
In other words I can guarantee that Apple will be blamed as well as MS for new problems arising from this "Simultaneous running of osses."
Originally posted by melgross
But, they could give a copy to everyone who sends them a receipt, and proof off the box, that they just bought a new Mac.
Would this run against anti-trust laws and would MS want to risk a battle with the justice department?
Meanwhile, Apple's release of Boot Camp finally explains the disagreement Apple and Microsoft were previously rumored to have had over the way Windows should be supported on Intel Macs.
If Boot Camp had been sure to be released, Apple wouldn't have cared if Microsoft would release VPC Intel or not, so there would have been no disagreement.
Therefore, if there has been a disagreement, Boot Camp must be a reaction to the disagreement.
For that reason, considering the time it's going to take Adobe to release Photoshop for Intel, and considering that there's a good chance that Boot Camp is indeed a reaction to MS's doubts about releasing VPC for MacTel, we can be rather sure that Apple is currently considering a competitor to Photoshop as well.
Originally posted by backtomac
Would this run against anti-trust laws and would MS want to risk a battle with the justice department?
I don't see why it would. It's just an offer. You would have to be proactive. there is no law saying that they can't give it away.
There's even talk of MS BUYING Apple. The conversation is whether that would trigger anti-trust, and the answer isn't clear!
Anders
Actually it would make good business sense for MS to kill MBU and deliver a copy of Windows with every mac.
Not unless virtualization is offered AND Windows is rootless. Yup. Just like running X11 or Classic. If Windows ran rootless ontop of OS X it would be acceptable, barely. I don't like looking at a Windows UI on OS X just like I don't like seeing X11 widgets on OS X. But running MS Apps inside a window or dual booting wouldn't work for the average user.
Originally posted by melgross
Your argument would be better without the name adjustments. MS is very likely to be happy to supply Windows for Apple users. After all, they considered Softwindows and VPC to be computers, for the purpose of giving a license to users. They also said, just the other day, that they would be very happy to give Apple a license to sell Windows.
And, if you bothered to read this entire article, you would have seen the part at the bottom.
I agree (in regards to the name adjustments). If you "bothered to read" my other post, you would have seen at the bottom....
My apologies for my adolescent tendencies, reinforced by years of keeping the companies
--> Windows <--
network up and running.
And I actually did read the entire article and it was no bother at all, in fact I enjoyed and found it interesting enough to comment on it.
I don't think Apple will ever license to sell Windows, but who knows. I think Apple is interested on increasing OS X market share. If Apple sold systems with a copy of Windows then there would be a 1 to 1 OS ratio and Apples market share wouldn't change with those systems sold. (Is this fuzzy math)?
In regards to "the part at the bottom" ...
...thus my mentioning many virtulization solution becoming available in the future in my post. These including VMware ports and other open source efforts as well as virtulization in the CPU itself. I haven't heard any news as to how well these solutions work yet and Apple has never said they will supply a virtualiation option other then dual boot.
Originally posted by IonYz
Not unless virtualization is offered AND Windows is rootless. Yup. Just like running X11 or Classic. If Windows ran rootless ontop of OS X it would be acceptable, barely. I don't like looking at a Windows UI on OS X just like I don't like seeing X11 widgets on OS X. But running MS Apps inside a window or dual booting wouldn't work for the average user.
Full screen mode. And it doesn´t have to be perfect, actually it would be better for the outlined strategy if it wasn´t perfect or good but merely good enough for people not to migrate to another office suite.
Originally posted by Anders
Full screen mode. And it doesn´t have to be perfect, actually it would be better for the outlined strategy if it wasn´t perfect or good but merely good enough for people not to migrate to another office suite.
This would be the best solution for the end user, but I think this wouldn't be acceptable for MS. Not that they say "you can't do that", unless there is some sort copyright violations with these virtualization option. MS could however apply pressure on Apple in other ways... like threatening to stop development for IE or something...
Originally posted by tink
MS could however apply pressure on Apple in other ways... like threatening to stop development for IE or something...
Well, that pressure tactic didn't work, huh?
No idea if you're being sarcastic, but if you didn't know:
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/product...ternetexplorer
Originally posted by audiopollution
Well, that pressure tactic didn't work, huh?
No idea if you're being sarcastic, but if you didn't know:
http://www.microsoft.com/mac/product...ternetexplorer
Viva la sarcasm.