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
I must agree and elaborate on jimrgraham’s comment. Because Mac is such a small percentage of the market, mathematically it has to gain market share. It is true that most Mac users have tried Windows XP, but this doesn’t apply the other way around. When given a choice to run either OS on the same machine, the better OS will prevail (OS X, of course), and as the Windows software ages, all replacement software with be Mac… until Windows is a distant memory for the user. Who still boots into Classic?
UNLESS the fact of having windows readily installable on macs causes more development to be for windows, or less for OS X.
I’m thinking games here really, since good mac software will always have a devoted and profitable market. But I can’t see this move improving the state of game porting to the mac, though short-sighted I may be.
(NB: I do agree RayCon that the marketshare effects of this can only be positive. But true multi-platform support (eventually virtualised) opens the door to a host of speculations and possibilities with respect to the way software is developed and run.)
the average home user needs a computer with a browser, an email client, a chat client, an interface to a digital camera, and iTunes...OS/X and Windows become more or less interchangeable.
This would be plenty true if it weren’t for one thing: price.
Most of these arguments about XP users getting a Mac so they can have both options forget (or don’t want to believe) that Macs cost more.
You can get a fast machine to do all of those things you mentioned for about $400. And if all you want to do is browse the interweb and check e-mail and you’re presented with a fancy $600 Mac Mini or a $400 eMachine, the average consumer will pick the eMachine.
I think dual-booting a Mac into XP is targeted at a very specific market. There might be some movement on the margins, but I’d be really surprised if this had any significant effect on marketshare.
Now virtualisation on the other hand...
I don’t like the whole idea of Boot Camp - but it seems that the whole idea is a ploy to increase market share. It might work. There is something I really don’t like about the whole direction of the new Intel machines, though. I am probably a small minority, but I don’t give a crap about gaming, FrontRow, iSight, or booting Windows. I do care about simplicity and speed, and with the new Intel machines it seems like I have to pay for a lot of things I don’t want. Given the current direction of things, maybe in a year or so from now when I am ready to replace my Powerbook, a Merom powered HP laptop running Vista will be the best fit for simple and fast, if the Macbook Pro costs $1000 more and does everything from booting Windows to running my social life.
^ Read that mans post (modernpixel, unless somebody else posted before this one) It makes more sense than the actual article. In fact, probably the most intelligent points I’ve yet seen on this.
Also, tundraboy: “And with Vista delayed and Leopard coming out August.. .”
It’s been announced for August?? I must have missed the press release! Anywhere I can read up on this guys? kthnx
Many PC makers feel they have to stick with BIOS as a way to boot the machine and here we have Apple showing that EFI-based machines can be used just as easily.
The difference is not just something geeks will appreciate, it is something that even regular users might see as important. With EFI, drivers are something that the OS uses, not something that the OS needs to provide. This should lead to much cleaner installations and perhaps even less vulnerability, since the drivers are better protected. So, we Mac users have an advantage when running the same XP because our hardware is more modern.
The largest group of new Macintosh users is probably scientists: running their unix applictions alongside Office and email was the main reason. People will want to do the same with apps written for Windows.
Bootcamp is an interesting move to make people think about their next purchase. Someone who is going to buy their computer at a supermarket probably won’t be using it much anyway. They won’t switch, but with Apple as a well known brand, many might consider it.
EVERY Microsoft product is the greatest product ever.
Until it actually comes out.
What I don’t get is, the author seems to feel that, when Windows Vista comes out, everyone will see that it is better and switch to Windows. And this, in his eyes, is a bad thing.
This is ridiculous. If Windows Vista happens to come out and is fabulously better than OS X (which seems preposterous, btw), then at least we can all boot it on our new Intel Macs, and the customer wins. We all get to use the superior operating system. Why is this a bad thing?
I agree that Dual Boot hurts Apple. I use Linux, but in my case dual booting prevented me from adopting Linux 2 years sooner because of the inconvenience.
The problem with dual booting is that it’s a pain, and it pushes people to just stay in the 1 OS that allows them to do everything. Because nearly EVERY type of application is available for Windows, it’s hard for Mac OS or Linux to compete (even if Mac’s web browser is superior to IE, for example).
I eventually switched to Linux full time because I now run Windows in VMWare—it seems like Apple and Mac users could benefit similarily by using an alternative to Dual Booting.