Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Virtualization Stance Eying Apple?
Pisces writes "Over the past several days, Microsoft has flip-flopped on virtualization in Vista, with one ascribing the change in policy to concerns over DRM. A piece at Ars Technica raises another, more likely possibility: fear of Apple. Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price. 'All of this paints a picture in which Apple could use OEM pricing to offer Windows for its Macs at greatly reduced prices and running in a VM. The latter is absolutely crucial; telling users that they need to reboot into their Windows OS isn't nearly as sexy as, say, Coherence in Parallels. If you've never seen Coherence, it's quite amazing. You don't need to run Windows apps in a VM window of Vista. Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away. VMWare also has similar technology, dubbed Unity.' Is Microsoft terrified of a world where Windows can be virtualized and forced to take a back seat to Mac OS X or Linux?"
...with people using the lower-priced versions of Vista in virtualization environments they don't understand - on any platform - and then expecting support in such environments.
Obviously, there is nothing technical preventing a person from using any version of Vista in virtualization, and nothing at all, including the license, preventing usage of any version of Vista in Boot Camp.
I can't see a scenario where Apple would be interested in becoming a Windows OEM, supporting Windows, etc. Apple is more content with knowing that users in supported enterprise/academic/government environments can get Macs and use nifty technologies like Parallels, VMware, Boot Camp, etc., but isn't interested in getting into the Windows game itself.
One interesting item of note is that at many sites with Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreements, such as our own, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista Enterprise are available essentially for free (just the cost of the media) for all departmentally-owned computers - including usage in virtualization, and including usage on Intel-based Macs.
So there are plenty of environments already that are very much taking advantage of this. Microsoft might not shed a tear if its licensing policy for Vista Home editions makes it a little harder financially for some people to justify the jump to Mac, but I doubt that's their primary focus.
Also, Apple doesn't really want to make it too easy for people to run Windows and Windows apps - just when they really need to. The idea is to bring more users to Mac OS X, so that app developers will bring apps to Mac OS X, which use all the nifty Mac OS X functionality. Who wants to run on a great OS (assuming that's the reason you switch) with all of your apps running in some Windows layer? Besides, many people who think they "need" Windows really don't, but the knowledge that they can run Windows if they needed to gets them over the hurdle. Or maybe the run Windows for a while, and realize they can duplicate everything they need and then some in OS X.
That said, yes, the seamless desktop integration features of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion are really impressive. You can, for the most part, use Windows apps and Mac OS X apps seamlessly, side by side, with Dock integration, and even the ability to specify which kinds of documents open in which environment when double-clicked.
In any event, there are other issues here on both sides.
Yeah. The 50 yr old neighbor of mine was asking me the benefits of running Vista in one VM, Mac OS on the other, while using Ubuntu as her main OS, and then combining that with the power of VM running under Mac to virtually run XP just in case she needs to use an application not compatible with Vista, Mac OS and Ubuntu Linux. Microsoft is worried indeed.
Microsoft makes even more money if Apple puts Vista on every computer. It's an untapped market. Seems like it would be good for Microsoft.
That, and, umm, wouldn't such a move sort of alienate the Developer mindshare for OSX? I guess I don't grok the incentive to help nudge Win32/64 developers to download Xcode and go to town if they see that they can continue to use Visual Studio .NET and just hum along in building apps that compile once but run on both platforms.
Apple (or rather, the friendly folks who make Parallels) could use that as a stop-gap (a couple-years' long one) to get behind pushing WINE, CrossOver, Cedega, etc etc... if indeed that's where they're wanting to go.
I like the angle, it has appeal, but it seems more damaging in the long run than to simply work on increasing marketshare among customers to the point where Windows-only dev shops are forced to take a good hard look at coding for OSX for competitive edge and survival reasons.
Besides... if Apple really wanted to give incentives, they could/should push for building tools that make cross-compiling hella easier, with maybe an IDE that can replace VS .NET on Windows entirely, say, with a modified Xcode that --oh by the way-- has a handy and nearly automatic suite of tools to make compiling OSX apps easier for the dev who uses it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Initially I thought the exact them thing. But consider the consequences over time. With "hidden" virtualization Microsoft doesn't get to control the desktop. They lose one avenue to promote their brand. They don't get to push new products onto customers' desktops. They may lose control over the user's interface to the web (since Macs have a native browser). And if more people buy Macs more developers will make native applications to replace some of the virtualized ones, so over time the virtualized Windows may become almost irrelevant.
Microsoft has always been interested in control. They believe in the long run it sells the most software licenses.
Developers: We can use your help.
I don't know how many times this has been said, but Microsoft is a software vendor, not a hardware one. If they get to sell to Apple users too, then they make more profit. Who cares if Apple sells Vista OEM? The reason Microsoft HAS oems is because they still do make a profit off it. More importantly, this would nearly eliminate reasons for developing software for mac altogether for third party developers - they'll get practically the same penetration if they code just for windows and have Mac users just use Parallels.
I am of the honest opinion that the day Mac starts bundling Vista, or selling it OEM, etc. is the day that Microsoft breaks open bottles of wines and drinks to success.
If anyone is terrified at virtualization, it's Apple. They are the only OS that you can't run in a VM without resorting to 3rd party hacks that may or may not work with your hardware. I had been trying to install OSX in VMware off and on for several years now, to have a place to compile mac versions of some projects I'm working on. Unfortunately I haven't had much luck. The most recent attempt was able to boot up OSX and run it very well, but unfortunately completely missing network support and other such means of communicating back to the host OS, and creating and mounting ISO images of my source tree to compile stuff on it just isn't an option. Were apple to embrace such support, VMWare and similar programs could support it natively. They won't though, because they fear exactly what this article claims MS fears. If you can run Apple software on your non Apple hardware, you have no use for Apple. Only for MS, virtualization isn't as devastating to their business, because they are a software company, and can still sell software, while Apple needs to sell you artificially proprietary hardware, and even though their software is very good, they rely on having you locked in to their hardware.
I don't think they care as long as the get paid. Windows can be virtualized now.
If it became Apple's policy to include Vista with ever computer it would only help Microsoft. The people who would be complaining would be HP and Dell if Apple was getting just as good as a deal as they were.
I think this is a remake of the WIN-OS2 drama (1993).
WIN-OS2 allowed MSWindows apps to run seamlessly on the OS/2 desktop (impressive workplace shell, by the way). The strategy was simple: if users can run their windows apps under OS/2 they will switch to OS/2 easily, and end-up using OS/2 apps because the OS is so superior. So, WIN-OS2 was shipped with every copy of OS/2 as standard.
You remember what happened in the end: people used OS/2 exclusively to run windows apps but at the cost of a bunch of compatibility issues. Eventually, OS/2 apps were never developped, and OS/2 was perceived as just a slow and troublesome version of windows.
Of course, MS had a lot to do with the death of OS/2. But I still think that running Win32 apps on top of OSX will lead to the same fate.
One interesting item of note is that at many sites with Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreements, such as our own, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista Enterprise are available essentially for free (just the cost of the media) for all departmentally-owned computers - including usage in virtualization, and including usage on Intel-based Macs.
Even under the volume licensing agreement, each separate copy of Windows that gets installed still does have to be accounted for, and paid for... just because you're not the one who has to do the accounting and paying doesn't mean that the license is free at all. I'm the one in our company who has to do this job, and I can't seem to get it thru the thick heads of our junior staff here that despite the fact that we have an MS enterprise licensing agreement in place, that it doesn't mean that they can go about willy-nilly installing various MS software anywhere and everywhere they please. It still must be done in a strict accounting and inventory managed way, and each piece of MS software installed onto a pile of hardware must be justified by proper business authorization, and approved by a manager with budget authority *BEFORE IT GETS INSTALLED* because at the end of each fiscal year cycle, we still have to write a check to MS for whatever got deployed.
If my understanding is correct, OS/2 was provided its own implementations of Windows APIs. This is unsustainable and the cost easily overcomes the benefits of the platform. In the Apple scenario, the virtualized environment is the real thing, third parties provide that environment, and Apple continues to develop their platform in blissful ignorance while end-users get a universal platform. I would otherwise be very much inclined to agree with you, but I think these subtle differences will cause a positive outcome (depending on how you look at it).
Why bother.
There are a couple of major problems with this analysis:
:)
> Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price.
Microsoft, in the past and at present, has used OEM contracts as their major tool for consolidating their hold on the industry. Their OEM agreements have contained such provisions as "if you want preferred pricing, you can't sell computers that run any other operating system." Only for very, very large computer makers such as Dell and HP -- where Microsoft wants to be because there's huge volume -- do they relax these demands. The likelihood of Microsoft offering Apple an OEM contract is extremely low if MS thought it would be a threat.
Anyway, it's the business market, not the Joe Pirate market, that MS is concerned about.
> Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away.
Except for, you know, the general crappiness of the apps.
I think what MS fears is what a lot of people already know: the main thing that keeps Apple out of the business market is that there's always one or two apps you need that only run under Windows, or some web site you need to access that only works properly with IE. OSX is more reliable, easier to support, and once you've learned the tools it's somewhat easier to manage configuration over a bunch of machines than Windows. If I could use a Macbook every day and run IE and a couple of other specialty apps alongside my OSX apps, my business' next hardware purchases would be from Apple and not from HP as they have been in the past. We already have no intention of upgrading to Vista until it becomes necessary due to dropped patch support for XP. If this situation arises, Microsoft has lost their monopoly power over the PC OEM's, and the tower crumbles.
Granted, this is more true for notebooks and dekstops than for servers and other infrastructure. But if I was managing a fleet of Macs for my employees, I'd start switching things over from Windows Server to OSX Server, too.
"There is no night so forlorn, no mood so bleak, that it cannot be infused with pleasure by tender meat..." - R.W. Apple
C'mon, if a zaibatsu were capable of being "terrified" (that's a pretty weird concept anyway) it wouldn't be terrified of having its products sold to an audience that would not otherwise buy them. And that's the case here, it's Microsoft penetrating the Mac/linux/BSD software market through virtualization, not the other way 'round.
Is Microsoft terrified of a world where Windows can be virtualized and forced to take a back seat to Mac OS X or Linux?
n ap.html is officially touting DirectX 8.1 which has been experimental forever.
Yes, imho.
And it's interesting that the press release http://www.vmware.com/company/news/releases/fusio
A seamless "Unity for Ubuntu" and DirectX 9.0c would be the final pieces of the puzzle for a lot of folks. It doesn't help the cause for pushing development of native Linux apps. But it would certainly increase the installed base of non-Windows OSes and that's a solid baby step.
Apple is more content with knowing that users in supported enterprise/academic/government environments can get Macs and use nifty technologies like Parallels, VMware, Boot Camp, etc., but isn't interested in getting into the Windows game itself.
This is about ending the Windoze game. Apple is offering a safety blanket so that people can user Apple and other applications without fear of not being able to work with dreaded M$ enslaved coworkers. Their users, in turn, will do what they can to interact in standards based ways like Open Office, Google Office and anything but Office 2007. Being able to run Office 2007 in a virtual machine, minimizes Windoze created hardware problems and eliminates the "networking" game M$ uses to push it's upgrade train.
A better way to end that train is to make government use ODF and return all Office Docs to their source with a note that tells the clueless sender why you can't work with them.
The upgrade train is already fatally damaged. Vista is not selling and both it and Office 2007 have been baned almost everywhere. Google and Sun have useful and free alternatives that won't wreck your work in a few years because neither can decide it's time to overhall things to generate revenue. Apple is happy to join the pack of rebels. The lack of Vista sales is hurting hardware makers enough to discredit the perpetual upgrade train for them. This destroys M$'s ability to manipulate hardware vendors and will ultimately bring about real hardware standards and competition. M$'s days of BIOS sabotage are numbered.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What would these "unfair advantages set long ago" be, in your opinion?
I condemn many things that the USA has done but they have done good things too. In what country of immaculate ethical history do you abide, Sir?
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
How about any empire or monolpoly throughout history. Did the Romans fear the German and French "barbarians"? Did the British Monarchy fear the rebellious colonists in America? Did the Indian Rajas fear the Mogols?
Throughout history empires have crumbled under the invasions and incursions of so called barbarians with greater fighting skills or more drive and energy then themselves. The barbarians take over and become the new empire, new threats arise on the borders, and so on.
The same thing happens in business as new companies arise with new ideas or old companies (Apple) come up with better business models or better products. Its like the old catch phrase for Avis car rental, "Were #2, so we try harder."
The American hubris is that they think they are the greatest and final empire, but sooner or later it will crumble under pressure from outside forces or rebellion from within. Veitnam, 9/11, and Iraq are just examples of how vunerable the American empire is becoming.
All this assumes that users - and support teams - are jumping for joy at the chance to maintain multiple operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets. To anyone but a Geek this can seem sadomasochistic.
God help them if virtualization does not remain transparent.
Not really. It relegates Microsoft to being an API seller. Windows becomes just another cross-platform API. The only difference between using Windows or something like Qt is that your customers have to pay if you use Windows.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I agree that virtualization is the killer strategic App for Apple.
.Mac. But they really need scheduling and calendering and the rest "bundled" into one interface so you can "see your day." I don't think anyone has done this perfectly. But Apple has all the infrastructure to get it done. This, more than Visual Basic, is the major hurdle for Apple in the office.
Yes, some coders will just develop for Windows.
But once people become accustomed to the Mac interface,.. the hurdle of transition is over. Perhaps that is the reason Apple has adopted the iTunes interface into parts of the finder in their Leopard OS. To sync with the iPhone -- you use iTunes. So the customer is already becoming acquainted with the Mac interface on Windows. The Safari browser, I'd expect, will probably be bundled with iTunes in the future. Not that it will blow people away on Windows... but when people are nervous about trojan horses, and are already used to the iPhone... well then, the browser becomes secondary to the services WITHIN the browser that people will become used to with the iPhone (and of course, developers get Safari as a platform to build for iPhone).
Other than Video and 3D games, the performance of a Mac or PC is secondary now to the experience. Even virtualized apps will be fine. But once a person has a Mac -- they are unlikely to go back. And will probably upgrade to the Mac version of the populare applications when they next upgrade. I don't think the thousands of "shovel-ware" applications that Windows brags about, are anything people will miss. They are like the impulse purchases at a shopping checkout counter -- exciting to get, useless to have. And you can still run the things in virtual mode (they don't always run in native Windows -- like about half of my shovel-ware educational apps do now).
But for 90% of the tasks of the average person, they will find the Apple iWork and iLife apps great alternatives.
Though Apple needs to push a cheaper, or even free version of FileMaker -- which would make the average user realize they can use a database and that Access is dreadful.
Apple also bundles QuickBooks NUE... but most people will stay with whatever solution they already have. That's why virtualization is so important.
Apple needs a better "Get started for PC users" automated video to get some people over the hump.
Apple also needs a bit more functionality in Mail.app to compete with Outlook. They already have a superior (more easy to access) webDav solution in
But having used Applescript -- it's "seeming ease with common language" just makes it more of a PIA without making it easier. It has a lot of limitations and a need for a built in interface (that works for novices). That's another Hurdle Apple has not addressed for 3rd-party developers. Scheduling and automating the computer are "pretty good" but really not as reliable as I would like.
But without Microsoft's control; goodbye Exchange. Which is their real cash cow.
>> One very important thing I want to discover about the iPhone is if it will be useful for running KeyNote and Quartz compositions. Why, you might ask? Because with that, I can soup up any PowerPoint presentation and make the iPhone the next presentation system. We have lots of salespeople at my company -- and technolust is important for anyone wanting to make an impression. These people buy Mercedes before houses. So it has to be Uber-cool, which is why many have blackberry phones they can't use.
If I can reformat presenations, to have a simple svideo pin-out from the iPhone to show on any projector, then the perfect communication/sales device will be the iPhone. I've already put up 6 kiosks in a PC-only company because of Quartz Composer. Once you add that to KeyNote, you have the movie-star glitz that will make presentation envy.
Envy sells computers. It will also sell the iPhone if Apple is smart enough to make it accessible to hooking up presentations.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Not if you're paying for a Windows license. I mean, if OSX or Lunix or whatever can't put up a viable application interface, why is 'borrowing' Windows' functionality legitimate? OSX has a perfectly viable application interface. It's just that some developers choose not to develop for it. This process simply allows you to run windows within OSX to get those apps working.
This isn't a situation where Apple is saying "Wow, Vista does cool stuff that we want OSX to do." This is 3rd party developers saying "I'd really like to run XYZ windows app on my Mac."
Again, you're not borrowing or stealing anything from Microsoft. You're paying for a copy of the OS and running it. Where you run it is irrelevant.
If typing "my wrong?" takes you all day, you need typing lessons.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....