Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong?

An anonymous reader writes "CNET.com.au has posted a commentary that attempts to cut away the hype surrounding Boot Camp. From the article: 'Boot Camp will do little to coax Windows XP users into switching to Mac OS X. For this to happen, Apple needs to either license out OS X to all users -- not just Mac owners -- or support a true Mac virtualisation application.'"

Comments

FP?

[Chode2235]

I just got the iMac because of bootcamp. Now I will be able to play games (battlefield 2) and run some weird applications that I use. I think the author is missing the point, it is all about weaning users off of windows, not giving them another platform to run windows. I don't boot into windows unless I have to. Hopefullly I have to boot into windows less and less as time goes on.

Re:FP?

[ReluctantRefactorer]

It seems to me that if you play PC games a lot, you'll be booting into Windows more and more as time goes on, since what incentive is there to port PC games to OS X if you can run the PC version so easily on the Mac via BootCamp?

If BootCamp takes off, I predict the already small Mac-native games market will wither even further.

Re:FP?

[twistedsymphony]

Agreed... with boot camp out now I'm considering getting a Mac as my next machine.

I also dis-agree that this would make the mac game library smaller. Sure for a while you'll have Mac users booting into Windows for games and windows users running their OS on Mac hardware. But the reason we don't see games on Mac is because the OS's user base is so much smaller then windows. The only thing it would take to get more games onto OSX is more users... and stuff like this can only help to increase the user base. If the market has a choice of OSs and they lean towards OSX software when they have a choice of getting it for either. Games will follow because they just go to the lowest common denominator. Heck just look at the console market, PS2 gets EVERYTHING simply because it has the biggest userbase, it's certainly not the best in any other category.

Re:FP?

[samkass]

Here's the best analysis I've seen of it so far, written by Ryan Gordon, who's done a zillion Mac and Linux ports of games.

I personally don't think Boot Camp changes the economic equation at all yet. When it comes out of beta and if users are willing to buy a $150 "software dongle for games" (WinXP), then maybe Mac ports will start declining in revenue. On the other hand, if Apple can double or triple their market share by taking away the fear of switching, maybe we'll see more.

Re:FP?

[mdwh2]

They also are willing to drop support of a product just to get users to move to a newer version. Microsoft is just starting to learn this trick, but no one does it better than Apple. This is why there are still more PC's with Windows 98 installed than XP and very few Macs with OS9 installed than OSX.

I suspect that that's more to do with the fact the popularity of Macs has increased significantly since the release of OS X, where as the popularity of Windows 98 versus XP was relatively constant. The extra OS X Macs probably weren't people upgrading from MacOS 9.

I think they'll wait a few months/years to get their sales up, and then cut out the rug and say, we don't support Windows any longer on our hardware. It's a very risky play but I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this.

Possibly, but I don't think it's comparable. They've only done the jumps like 68k to PPC and MacOS to MacOS X by maintaining backwards compatibility. If they just remove support for Windows, without offering any alternative, then people may not be happy at no longer being able to run all those Windows applications and games they have.

Re:FP?

[timster]

The mechanism is that more people will have Macs, and perhaps most of them will prefer MacOS, and so they will prefer to run games in MacOS to avoid the hassle of rebooting. Over time they will prefer not to pay for upgrades to Windows if they only play games with it anyway. As this happens they will look for games in the Mac section of the store first, and that will create an economic incentive for Mac games.

Re:FP?

[mwvdlee]

His misconseptions rely on this single quote from TFA: "Does OS X really offer any applications that would entice me to purchase a new Mac and put up with the tedium of Boot Camp? I doubt it.".
To many currently Windows-dependant people (which includes me), OS X does indeed offer desirable functionality (which also includes me).

I'm not planning to upgrade my PC in the near future, but I know I'll atleast checkout the latest Apple offering when that time comes.

The whole article is based on the idea that people who don't like Mac OS X to begin with, would suddenly like it because of boot-camp. The truth is that this may help users who'd prefer OS X but are bound to Windows for some reason to make the switch gradually.

Re:FP?

[bman08]

You forgot to include people who buy a PC in that category. That's most of the copies of windows, and the overwhelming majority of those are legit.

Re:FP?

[mcmaddog]

You're obviously not speaking from hands on knowledge. People always say that Apple ignores backward compatibility and MS's problems are from it's insistance on providing backward compatibility, but this isn't necessarily true for either one. When Apple switched to the PPC platform almost all 68K programs ran without any problems and often saw an improvement in speed despite running in emulation. When Apple switched to OS X most OS 7/8/9 software continued to run without problems (and even some software going back to the 80's still worked.) Apple waited 3 years before having Macs that couldn't boot OS 9 directly and 5 years to stop pre-installing Classic on new Macs, but still support it under 10.4. When I upgraded my Win98 machine to 2K most of my games that were one or more years old couldn't be played and while I don't own either XBox, but from what I've been reading MS's support for XBox games on the 360 is hit or miss.

  With Apple's switch to Intel the PPC Macs will still be supported under the next OS expected to be coming in December/January which is another 18-24 months of direct support plus 18-24 months security updates after the next-next OS has been released. People buying the Intel Macs are able to run most PPC programs under Rosetta while waiting for the programmers to release universal binary versions.

  Unlike PC manufacturers, Apple tends to support new technologies first and drop legacy hardware sooner, but they can still be used as add-on cards or through USB/Firewire.

A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X

[elrous0]

The reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X to PC users (aside from the obvious ties with their more lucrative hardware business) is that OS X simply wouldn't be as stable or bulletproof in the PC world as it has been in the Mac world.

The big secret is that OS X's stability is based largely on the fact that Apple makes all the decisions on hardware configurations and certification for themselves. In the PC world, XP must be built for an infinite number of possible combinations of hardware components--and hence much of its problems with stability, reliability, etc. For Apple to duplicate this would be very difficult, expensive, and would likely produce results no better (and probably even worse) than XP.

If OS X users want to see the "blue screen of death," just *try* and use an OS that has to be built for an infinite combination of hardware setups, as opposed to a OS built by the same company that makes the hardware.

-Eric

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X

[hcdejong]

Linux has one advantage: many of its developers work for free. Apple would have to pay an army of developers to replicate this effort (mainly to write and test drivers for every piece of obscure hardware under the sun). This'll cost a boatload of money, and will require a Microsoft-sized organisation. Apple simply isn't big enough to pull this off.

Also, Apple will have to do this *before* they start selling the OS to the 'generic PC' market. People will expect OSX Generic to 'just work' like it does on Apple's own computers.

Re:A big reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X

[ezavada]

The reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X to PC users (aside from the obvious ties with their more lucrative hardware business) is that OS X simply wouldn't be as stable or bulletproof in the PC world as it has been in the Mac world.

Nonsense. The reason Apple doesn't want to sell OS X to PC users is because they make much more money selling hardware than software. Apple is in business to make a profit (and fortunately they seem to believe that producing a great product is the right way to do that). They aren't going to intentionally do things that reduce their profits.

Don't forget that Apple has already been down the road of licensing the OS. It nearly killed them. People starting buying Power Computing machines because they ran Mac OS as well or better than Apple hardware, and significantly cut into their sales -- sure they were getting OS license fees, but at the same time it was causing Apple's market share to plumet. Even though between Apple and Power Computing the Mac OS market share was growing, the press saw Apple's market share going down and started sounding the death knells. This helped convince developers and consumers that Apple was irrelevant and (combined with many other factors, including increasing quality of Windows) they were in real trouble. It finally took Microsoft making a deal with Apple to keep producing Office for the next 5 years to reduce the hemoraging enough for a turnaround (which started with killing the licensing and bring out the iMac).

There are some differences today, Apple is hip because of the iPod and OS X, but it would still be a really tough battle to get to the point where OS X licenses replaced the lost revenue from hardware sales. That not to say that this could never happen, but I would say Apple would have to have 10%+ market share and growing before it would be worth the risk.

Anecdotal evidence

[multiOSfreak]

This is purely my own anecdotal experience on the matter, but I've already talked to nearly a dozen X86/Windows PC owners that told me that because of the ability to boot XP, they are now heavily leaning towards buying a Mac Mini or other Apple gear as their next computer.

Nothing to see here, folks, please move along...

[Jim in Buffalo]

That article was written by someone who hasn't been using a Mac lately. Phrases like "I doubt it" and "my Windows machine" are a dead giveaway. Let's hear from someone who knows what he's talking about.

Bunk

[pdc]

Apple don't need to get people to switch to Mac OS X; they need to get them to buy Apple's computers.

Supporting Windows makes it easier for people to decide to try a Mac, because they don't have to worry about losing familiar applications like regedt32 and minesweeper. Apple hopes that they will then discover that they don't need Windows after all.

See http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000000 52.html for a discussion

Re:Bunk

[Tim C]

Apple hopes that they will then discover that they don't need Windows after all.

And even if they don't decide that, they've still bought a Mac...

Re:Bunk

[Angostura]

You're not factoring in the applications.

I originally bought a Mac because I wanted to tinker with Unix and because I wanted to edit family movies and burn to DVD.

The iLife bundle, including iPhoto, Garageband and iWeb are bundled with new Macs and make the machine a nifty appliance. Oh, and it runs a nicer version of Office than Windows (bar Outlook).

So there is plenty to give tinkerers instant gratification.

Compare that with setting up a dual boot Linux machine. I did that once, to play with. Never actually did anything with it though since I didn't have the time to get it properly configured.

It will however...

[TERdON]

convince some users that use (or want to use) both (because they're forced to because of software availability etc) to get rid of their PCs. Not having to buy two computers means they can spend more money on the Apple hardware.

Also, it will be a safe retreat for some one buying a Mac only to find out they didn't like it. Even though you're not totally convinced that you'll like OS X, you always have the possibility to install Windows XP on it instead.

Everybody has an opinion

[AugstWest]

But does Slashdot have to post them all?

Really, we haven't thought of this here on /.

We haven't had dozens of threads debating this very topic already.

Can we please beat this dead horse a little more?

It's not about OS X

[ClosedSource]

Apple isn't in the OS X business, they are in the computer hardware business. If somebody buys an Apple instead of a Dell so they can run an occasional Mac application, Boot Camp is a success.

Of course, many people want to see Windows market share decrease, but that's their agenda, not Apple's.

Missing the point

[Wellington Grey]

I think he misses the fact that some people want to move to OS X but are held back by one must-have application. Boot camp is perfect for these people. My mom, for example, really wants to switch to apple after I let her use my ibook, but she has one program that she needs to occasionally use for work that holds her back. Now she can switch, no problems.

-Grey

Bunk Camp? This guy got off at the wrong exit...

[Shimatta1]

The major premise of the article is rather flawed; Boot Camp wasn't about "luring" in Windows users. Most of those users don't have a choice (e.g. work restrictions) or don't realize that an OS doesn't have to be unstable and/or vulnerable; they think that it's "just the way it is".

What Boot Camp does is remove the barrier to adoption. There are a number of Windows users who would like to switch, but need access to Software X or don't want to give up Game Y, and don't want to maintain two separate computers for those tasks. Now, they don't have to. Sure, rebooting is a pain, but for someone who wants to, say, use their MacBook Pro as a windows machine at work, and as a mac at home, well, they can do that easily enough.

Sure, Virtualization would be better, and I've heard (rumors, rumors, mind you) that it's coming. But Boot Camp, by removing the barrier to switching, is a very good transition state, and an acceptable end state, if Apple chose to leave it at that.

The blue Shimatta1 needs food, badly.

Re:It's Not The Applications That Matter

[EvilSS]

What attracts me to Apple (as a windows user no less) is OS X. Period. Yea, the hardware looks nice but really I could care less. OS X is a very good OS. Take that away and put OS 9 back on and I wouldn't even consider using one.
 
  As far as OS X on non-Mac hardware, well, that would be a dream come true. Not for home users, but for use in business on standardized white boxes from Dell/HP. It's a pipe dream, I know, but it would be nice.

wrong.com.com.com

[clevershark]

Let's remember some of the other things that CNET (the .com.com.com people) thought were "sure things" back in the day -- portals, push (think Pointcast), the Thin Client, etc. For people who only cover tech they're remarkably clueless of the world outside of wintel (and, more often than not, inside of it as well).

Warning: FUD troll

[Quiet_Desperation]

I'm no expert

Expert?! You're barely multi-celled!

Man, I miss Duckman.

Re:How long

[hcdejong]

It's already happened. Parallels has a beta out right now.

not true -- i'm proof

[boxlight]

Boot Camp will do little to coax Windows XP users into switching to Mac OS X

Not true. I need a Windows machine for some software development, but I want OS X the rest of the time. And I don't want two computers on my desk.

The day they announced Bootcamp, I bought a new 20" iMac.

boxlight

Article Author Misses the Point

[BenDalton]

Apple wasn't trying to woo over millions of Windows users to the Mac platform with Boot Camp. Apple's release of Boot Camp serves three purposes for them:

1. By releasing Boot Camp now, and gaining some mainstream press regarding Windows on Mac hardware, Apple has become a thought in the minds of those people who were considering a new PC purchase in the future. Mindshare. This becomes increasingly important if you believe some of the recent rumors stating that Apple will include virtualization software in the next major OS release.
2. By releasing Boot Camp now as a Beta release, Apple feeds the needs and wants of their savvy early adopters. This core group will continue to evangelize for Apple and the new Intel-based hardware. Again, this release appeals to the tinkerer group and will convince a nice small chunk of extra savvy PC users who have considered a Mac recently. This group is small. But, it is also the group that fixes the entire neighborhood's computers. They are the tech advisors.
3. With people actually running Windows on Mac hardware, Apple gains tons of information and feedback. Assuming Apple is planning on including virtualization support in 10.5, this allows them to sure up any driver issues, software support issues, orperformance issues before they make it a core, included part of their OS.

All in all, this move is a VERY intelligent one from Apple. They waited until people had the new Macs in their hands and got a feel for the performance of the hardware/OS combo, and then provided an extra feature. Now with the media buzz and the savvy user community, 10.5 may be a very significant draw for those who don't want to deal with Vista.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:No hardware lockin

[birge]

You sound like a spoiled child. Apple doesn't owe you the ability to do what you want with their IP, and they have good reasons (elucidated in many other posts) for not wanting to have to support their OS on the infinite number of hardware combinations possible.

And you betray a infantile understanding of ethics and morality if you think not getting your way is justification for violating somebody else's IP and wishes for their property.

Re:No hardware lockin

[Anonymous Coward]

Tough Shit. (tm)

Illegal Bundling

[Quinn]

Can I get a refund if I buy a Macbook and decide not to run OSX on it?

Re:No hardware lockin

[WheresMyDingo]

"APPLE is stealing from your [an Apple employee's] livelihood by not selling me what I want [Mac OS X for generic PC hardware]."

In a world where Apple sold you what you want, that friend could likely be out of a job in a few years as Apple starts bleeding like they did in 1997 when they last licensed their OS to third-party manufacturers.

Imagine someone who wants to run Mac OS X in this hypothetical world. That person can:

1. Buy a Mac, or
2. Buy a copy of OS X for generic PC hardware

In case (1), Apple gets, say, $500 profit. In case (2), Apple gets, say, $100 profit. For Apple to make money in a world like this, you'd think Apple would need people to choose option (2) over option (1) by more than a 5:1 margin. You can speculate on whether that would be a fair bet.

But what are the costs to Apple that erode that simple 5:1 formula? Here are the two biggies that come to mind:

• Direct confrontation with Microsoft
• Supporting OS X on generic PC hardware

So when you're done with that, what would the bias have to be for Apple to seriously consider it? 10:1?

There's an excellent blog post by John Gruber at Daringfireball.net entitled "Several Asinine and/or Risky Ideas Regarding Apple's Strategy That Boot Camp Does Not Portend" about this, where I got some of these ideas from.

SchuetzenGrabenVernichtungsPanzerKraftWagen

[onkelonkel]

"I am from germany"

You don't need to tell us. Your charming use of compund nouns (railwayridingsimulations) reveals your nationality most clearly. As a descendant of Germans, I think English would be more fun if we also adopted this form. e.g. My Computingmachinewhichservesfilesforthemostpartporn ographic just crashed again.

Peace, Love, Eisbein and Sauerkraut.