Boot Camp: Apple’s Insanely Bad Idea
When Apple released Boot Camp Mac users everywhere breathed a huge sigh of relief. What the zealots never mentioned, the one thing we were most jealous of when looking at our Windows using counterparts, was not being able to run Freecell. Sure, there were Mac versions of solitaire but none were quite as polished as the 2D card game that is the crown jewel of Windows XP gaming. Being able to natively run FreeCell means Mac users can now step into the 21st century with both feet. Minesweeper is, of course, a huge bonus.
Kidding aside, the release of Boot Camp, an Apple produced method to load XP was greeted with jubilation around the web and with a sharp spike in the share price by the financial markets. The immediate upside is easy to see: booting into Windows easily means that people who have computers running both systems can now get by with a single Apple rectangle (Apple makes the most stylish rectangles in the business), Windows users that secretly desired a Mac can go ahead and take the plunge without the fear that they’ve just invested in proprietary hardware that runs an OS they don’t like, and finally Mac users can run the latest games with just a reboot.
On the surface, it seems that the switch to Intel coupled with the release of Boot Camp quashes many of the objections that people have had about Macs in the past. In fact, it even goes a long way towards ameliorating one of the biggest complaints: price. People are generally willing to pay for added utility and Apple has added a lot of utility with the free download of Boot Camp.
Of course, there are a great many things that seem like a good idea at the time that later turn out to be the worst possible move a company could make. Losing a little market share to Pepsi? Screw old Coke, a product adored by millions, let’s revamp the formula! Apple just took one of these steps with the release of Boot Camp.
Why is Boot Camp the Apple equivalent of the New Coke fiasco? Well, because Apple is trading a little short-term gain for a long-term negative. At this moment in time, OS X does have a big lead over Windows XP but Vista is around the corner and it promises to address a lot of the problems found in Windows. So, for the next few months, people might buy a Mac with the idea of using it as a dual boot machine and get slowly but steadily sucked in by OS X’s superiority, but once Vista comes out that will likely change.
In fact, Apple has tried this before. In an effort to stave off dwindling sales Apple once offered Macs with PC cards in them. These were the equivalent of dual boot machines. The theory went that people would buy the machine for their Windows needs, but use the Mac OS more and more as time went by. Finally, unable to resist the allure of Mac OS you’d have a full blown Apple zealot on your hands. The reality was that Mac users bought the machines (they were brisk sellers) and got converted to Windows users. This was when the cutting edge Windows was 3.0, it is hard to imagine that Boot Camp won’t make at least as many Windows converts out of Mac users than the other way around.
Worse still for Apple, this move hurts development for the Mac. Imagine you use AutoCad on a Windows PC. The moments you’re not using AutoCad you’re using your Mac for everything else. You’ve asked AutoCad to make a Mac version, you’ve signed the petition. You’re simply dying for the moment AutoCad comes out on the Mac.
The Mac, you’re aware, has been slowly gaining market share despite the uncertainty surrounding the switch to Itel. At some point, you feel certain, AutoCad will see the light (and dollar signs) and ship a Mac version of the software. You can bury that pipe dream in a shallow grave thanks to Boot Camp. The demands for AutoCad (or any other sufficiently expensive software) can now be dismissed with a simple e-mail including a link pointing to the Boot Camp download. Instead of the Mac software eco system getting more robust with the move, it has been invaded by a destructive, noxious weed that will stifle growth.
That is probably the most troubling thing about the Boot Camp announcement, the deleterious effect on the number of Mac developers. Sure there will always be Mac-only developers and companies that desire access to those with pre-Intel machines will be forced, at least for the next few years, to continue Mac development. There will be a short term benefit but, when considering the long-term ramifications, it is very difficult to see many positives coming out of this move.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
This is the way I see it. If i am not mistaken doesnt Vista need a really expensive computer to run it at full potencial with all the features? If that is the case Job is going to say well you can buy our computer, that already has the same features as Vista or much better feature, plus apple computer looks much better then a pc boc and on top of that you can run windows. Isnt that a good idea?
Let’s be real here:
Someone was going to make this software, whether it was Apple or not. A hack was made almost immediately, and better products were sure to be announced. So, Apple got to the plate first, so they can stake claim to the idea.
Since the success of the iPod, Apple is focused on making mainstream products. They are making a move to attract a greater mass audience. They’ve realized that people aren’t going to switch to Mac hardware because of Mac OS X. Your average Joes don’t understand what an OS is - they either know Windows or they know Mac and they don’t want to have to re-learn anything.
So, how do you get them to switch to Apple hardware? You make the switch painless, in fact, you make it so they don’t have to switch at all. The Mac becomes the next iPod - a must-have toy for yuppies and then maybe the mainstream. The OS doesn’t matter. It’s about the hardware now.
People interested in trying out all aspects of their new toy will give OS X a try. They might like it better, they might switch full time. They might not.
For regular Mac users…
We can now play PC games - the game developer community has proven over many years that they simply are NOT going to port to Mac. Too much hassle for too little return. So, if we can’t bring the games to Mac, then bring the Mac to the games.
For Pro Mac users…
I can use Photoshop et al on my MacBook while I wait for Adobe to release the Universal binaries. Same goes for other Pro apps. Will I buy Windows versions of everything? Um, no, I will borrow.
For Pro PC users (creatives) ...
Windows users can do their day to day business as is - and now they can finally get a taste of Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic, Shake and anything else Apple has up it’s sleeve.
Mac users aren’t going to be lured into switching to Windows. Windows is awful, we know that, that’s why we use Macs. Hence, Mac software companies will still have the same demand they have now—from Mac users. We have always been a niche market and probably always will. But that market won’t go away. As long as there are people to buy the products—software companies will continue making them. They’d be idiotic not to.
You also have to remember that Apple is working directly with Intel—so the machines we’ll be seeing in the future are going to be insane compared to PC offerings. That means that even if people want to run Windows - they are going to want a Mac to do it.
My guess is that boot camp will wind up being a more sophisticated app that (hopefully) allows windows to run within OS X with no performance hit. That would give Apple a clearly superior OS.
If not, they should buy Parallels…
http://www.parallels.com
and make it happen.
AutoCad would never make the investment to make a “proper” version of it’s software for Mac OS. You’d end up with a poorly done port based on Windows, or nothing at all.
And, as someone else mentioned in the blogsphere, Boot Camp opens Apple to retake the education market. Having a lab computer that can run both Mac OS X and Windows would be a huge advantage and cost savings. Imagine running Mac OS X & photoshop during the design lab period, then rebooting into windows to run Auto Cad for the Architectural lab period. No other computer company can sell systems do that.
Article Insanely Flawed!
The direct proportion of marketshare of the Mac will determine Mac applications ported or developed in Mac OS X. Second, Leopard is going to take this another step and offer virtualization so you can run Win apps directely in Mac OS X (much like OS9 Classic). This will rock the business world as now you can have a stable virus free Mail/Browser experience but still use MSIE for business intelligence or other specific apps where MS is needed (one of my main problems with using my Mac in a Windows world).
Also, this eliminates the argument - “Macs can’t play games”. I know 5 people who will now buy a Mac.
This will allow Apple to now create a gaming machine - that is, one targeted under the PowerPC but above the CoreDuo market.
This will create downward pressure on Mac pricing to be more competitive with PCs, but because of volume sales increasing, Apple’s profitibility will continue to grow.
Will allow people to try and play with not only the OS but also to test the remote with Front Row, use iMovie/iPhoto/iDVD, and feel more secure with using mail and Safari.
This is gonna kick some serious booty.
Including hardware upgrades to meet Vista’s supposedly higher demands (I don’t know the specifics).
One of the reasons Apple released Boot Camp might be to draw some attention away from the possibility of running OS X on non-Apple hardware. As I predicted long ago and Boot Camp now affirms, their shorter-term strategy was to eventually let Windows run (unsupported, although some amount will be unavoidable) on hardware they sell rather than licensing OS X to run on other hardware. I’ve never heard a convincing argument why they’d do the latter, certainly not while they’re still in the process of developing/releasing their own Intel-based systems. And being able to market those systems as multi-OS bootable gives them an edge over the competition for customers interested in that option. Now my family will have to endure my “buy a Mac” pitch even more, favorably updated in light of Boot Camp.
I think that Apple released Boot Camp to avoid the potential can of worms that might happen with various hacks. It avoids someone screwing up the users’ Macs.
The real news is Parallels as modernpixel noted. From their website: A sophisticated virtual machine engine that offers broad support of x86-based operating systems, including the entire Windows family from 3.1 to XP and Server 2003, several Linux distributions, FreeBSD, Solaris and “legacy” operating systems like OS/2, eComStation and MS-DOS.
It’s a mind blower and will cause a lot of ulcers for those at MS who think VPC for Mactels will make them a fortune.
Think about it a minute. Who wants dual booting (with all the rebooting) when you can have virtual computers running at native speeds? Throw in little benefits like drag & drop between the desktops and dual booting looks like a 1952 Ford sedan with a stick shift and no air or radio.
Boot Camp is simply there for “safe computing” - no ungainly hacks.
I agree with modernpixel (et.al.) that the logical next step is some form of OS virtualization (e.g. Parallels). That’ll have more mainstream acceptance than multi-booting even though some folks may still want that capability as well. It doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition.
Today’s press release:
Parallels Workstation 2.1 Delivers First Virtualization Solution for Intel-powered Apple Computers.
There are many of us who must unfortunately use wintel machines for business. Virtual PC only goes so far especially when it comes to serial ports / devices and trying talk to pc only controllers, sophisticated POS systems. I believe the higher end of PC users will migrate to Mactels for many reasons and this will increase Apples value.
Besides, now Apple can sell OEM MS XP, etc… which increases their margin on every Mac sold - You get OS X with the machine and for $129(or whatever) you can buy Win XP, then for OFFICE, AUTOCAD or any other Win software at List Price.
Bootcamp should be sold as an add for those who “Need” or “Want” Win XP Pro.
Thank about it, Apple just released a product yesterday via software(MacBook Pro, etc...) that now competes heads up with Dell, Gateway, and every other PC Manufacture and feature for feature(software and hardware) the Mac leads the way.
Not a bad move, Apple.
Many XP users have never tried OS X, but the opposite is not true, I HAVE to use XP at work and really don’t like it. So the idea that OS X users will be lured away to XP/Vista is patently ridiculous! Give me DarWINE so I can run some games and apps that won’t run on my iMac G5 and I’ll be happy. BTW, why is DarWINE taking so damn long anyway?!!!?? Get your arsses in gear boys the party’s going to be over before you even arrive!
Chris, you brought up gaming, and I think that is an excellent thing for Apple with boot camp. Right now, Macs are really not gaming machines. One might point to Bungee and Blizzard games, but those are minimal. Now… when the powermac switches over to intel, my hunch is that it’s going to be the most amazing computer ever. I mean… dual core dual processor 64 bit chips with velocity engine is nuts anyway. You give it to intel with a higher clock speed and the ability to run windows, it can suddenly be seen as a machine with a punch for gaming. That’s something I see. I have always seen the powermac as the “if you can pay for it, you can have all the power you want” pc. That sounds like the gaming audience right now. So slap in windows without the task of emulating, and gamers might start to take notice.
, I HAVE to use XP at work and really don’t like it.
Don’t you work for the Apple store?
I agree with Devanshu. Boot Camp is neither an insanely great or insanely bad. Its primary purpose, IMO, is to allow existing Mac users to run XP-only apps without having to get a seperate XP machine.
I think the implications of Parallel’s virtualisation engine (announced today) are much more intriguing.
Being able to run Windows on Mac will mean more sales of Macs, almost all of which will never run Windows anyway. It is important because it gives people “permission” to buy a Mac. And they want to!
Apple has abandoned the corporate market and is now aimed squarely at the home market - a market in which it has a huge advantage. Its image and products radiate “cool” and Apple can charge a premium because of this.
Boot Camp illustrates a huge level of confidence within Apple - and, let’s face it, we can expect some significant releases from Apple in the time before Vista becomes available.
Oh, and I don’t think we are going to see any Microsoft stores opening around the world.
Beeblebrox is right (and you don’t know how it pains me to admit that) but virtualisation is much more important, especially for the corporate market where Windows applications are essential in many businesses.
But, more importantly, the average home user needs a computer with a browser, an email client, a chat client, an interface to a digital camera, and iTunes. If the occasional Word document or spreadsheet can be created and edited via a browser, then you don’t need Office any more, and OS/X and Windows become more or less interchangeable.
Then it is just a matter of who can add more “cool”, Bill or Steve.
Hmmm. Hard one that…
Chris… have you been off the beer again?