Should Apple promote the capabilities of Boot Camp?
I guess this will be answered as soon as Apple shows off Leopard later this year, but I'm a little ... disturbed ... by all these guys on AI touting Boot Camp as a possible huge boost to Apple's sales (by skeptical users just running Windows anyway) and a solution to those last remaining switchers that are still on the fence.
Let me explain. Suppose Toyota, probably the leader in hybrid car technology, made a fully hydrogen-powered car. Let's say they spent a year selling this car, showing commercials, mailing flyers, and creating a website to fully publicize the advantages of hydrogen. Now, imagine that for the next model year Toyota made the same car, only alternatively powered by gasoline if needed. I can't help but think there'd be some sort of outcry of "Wait, we're going backwards? You just spent a year showing us how great not having to rely on gas is, how much more often we'd have to fill a gasoline tank versus a hydrogen tank, and how much time and money we save because we get to pass up Chevrons and Shells and Diamond Shamrocks, and now we can use gas? Why would we want to?"
I think Apple needs to be very cautious, and needs to tread lightly, about how to advertise Boot Camp. If you're not careful, people could be running Windows as their primary OS, and before they know it they've removed the need for a Mac at all. I've even heard guys on this board recommend this very thing! I mean, it's kind of cool to play games or that one essential app that isn't available for the Mac, but please, let's keep the Mac pure! Keep Boot Camp a fledgling beta!
Or am I just making much ado about nothing?
Let me explain. Suppose Toyota, probably the leader in hybrid car technology, made a fully hydrogen-powered car. Let's say they spent a year selling this car, showing commercials, mailing flyers, and creating a website to fully publicize the advantages of hydrogen. Now, imagine that for the next model year Toyota made the same car, only alternatively powered by gasoline if needed. I can't help but think there'd be some sort of outcry of "Wait, we're going backwards? You just spent a year showing us how great not having to rely on gas is, how much more often we'd have to fill a gasoline tank versus a hydrogen tank, and how much time and money we save because we get to pass up Chevrons and Shells and Diamond Shamrocks, and now we can use gas? Why would we want to?"
I think Apple needs to be very cautious, and needs to tread lightly, about how to advertise Boot Camp. If you're not careful, people could be running Windows as their primary OS, and before they know it they've removed the need for a Mac at all. I've even heard guys on this board recommend this very thing! I mean, it's kind of cool to play games or that one essential app that isn't available for the Mac, but please, let's keep the Mac pure! Keep Boot Camp a fledgling beta!
Or am I just making much ado about nothing?
Comments
Overall, a PC user that buys a Mac to run windows is not a loss, but a partial gain. There are people who will pull a mac out of a box, laugh at OS X, stick in a windows disk and reformat the whole thing without looking back. But there are the rest who will use it a few times out of curiosity. That's a potential switcher. 8) I think it is a great statement from Apple: OS X is no longer this buggy, gnarly, OS it used to be, and this product is ready to stand up against the de-facto standard.
Originally posted by Ebby
Overall, a PC user that buys a Mac to run windows is not a loss, but a partial gain.
The risk is OS X software development. Some software developers -- already too many who don't bother with anything but Windows software -- might be even more inclined to develop for Windows only if they can rationalize that Mac users can run their software under Windows, using Boot Camp or Parallels.
I think that has already happened for the most part. It is up to the consumers to demand/request mac versions so developers know there is a worthwhile Mac audience.
Oh, 100% my opinion. I could be wrong.