Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game 418

Posted by Hemos
from the bite-outa-the-apple dept.
ttom writes "OSWeekly.com looks at Microsoft's promotional strategy and concludes that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game." From the article: "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they? By the way, please don't take my sarcastic tone as an expression of my dissatisfaction for the product. I think it's great, and I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp. I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game

Comments Filter:
  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @11:43AM (#16038068) Homepage Journal
    The summary's title is incorrect, its not really MS beating Apple at Apple's game. Selling windows for x86 PCs is MS's game. Summary should read "Why Microsoft is beating Apple at Microsoft's game".

    The article's opening line & premise the rest of the article is based on is incorrect:

    You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before.

    No. Boot camp made a small stir, but the vast majority of people out their still see Mac PCs as very different from WIndows PCs (and don't understand the dual boot process anyway). Macs are still getting far more ipod splashback publicity than they were five years ago.

    A more interesting discussion would be "Why Dell Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game"? After all, two years ago I know I certainly wouldn't have expected to see:

    1) Apple rushing to join an Electronics Industry Code of practice founded by Dell after sweatshop scandal rumours.

    2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

    Both those items are areas I expect Apple's marketing (if not reality) to shine, but instead it's Dell with all the glory.
    • Those are true, but not all that important. Beyond that, if you were looking at the same survey as I was, Lenovo was last. And by the way:

      "Why is Apple beating Dell at its own game?"

      Apple's Mac Pro is cheaper than an equivalent Dell. Dell has even admitted this, a spokesman sagely saying "it is what it is".
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Beyond that, if you were looking at the same survey as I was, Lenovo was last.

        Oh right, my apologies, I should have said "Apple scored abysmally on the same survey, for the same green criteria that Dell came second on".

        "Why is Apple beating Dell at its own game?"

        Apple is beating Dell at its own game - I never said they weren't, but in sacrificing quality (and marketing?) to build cheaper, more Dellish PCs, they've neglected their own game.

        Apple's Mac Pro is cheaper than an equivalent Dell

        Well, if you want t
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Phroggy (441) *
          I do find it interesting that Mac fans always point to Dell as their preferred price comparision. I mean....Dell? Is that really the space Apple is competing?

          Dell is the #1 PC manufacturer, and they advertise pretty heavily. HP is #2, but fewer people think of HP when they think of buying a PC.

          Also, Michael Dell and Steve Jobs have some history.
          • by colmore (56499) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:22PM (#16040116) Journal
            Toyota is the number 1 car manufacturer but that doesn't mean they're BMW or Lexus' primary competition any more so than Futurama was driven off the air by American Idol.

            Apple's cheapest products are midrange in the market, and they shine at the high-end. Apple is competing with Lenovo, Toshiba, and Sony for customers with an eye toward total presentation & overall quality, and a bit more flexibility in the pocketbook.

            There's this silly horse-race attitude in technology commentary, that any company that doesn't have the largest marketshare in their industry is doing something wrong. Typically in any industry gaining the majority means making certain sacrifices (for instance, Microsoft could never break backwards compatibility as often as Apple does -- their huge installed corporate base would balk) Hence there's a lot of money to be made in targeting niches where one size doesn't fit all.

            Apple would have a very rough time becoming Dell and keeping the qualities that make their particular market so lucrative and loyal.
        • by mandos (8379)
          And yet with almost anything but an Apple notebook, you're stuck with Windows. Do you buy a Porsche just to drive it 5mph around the block? No, you buy it because in addition to being shiny on the outside, whats under the hood counts too!
        • by jeffasselin (566598) <cormacolinde@@@gmail...com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @02:17PM (#16038943) Journal
          Well, since we sell HP and Apple where I work, we compared a HP workstation to the Mac Pro. We ended up at the same price for feature-equivalent machines.
        • by Millenniumman (924859) on Monday September 04, 2006 @02:57PM (#16039147)
          I agree that they shouldn't try to compete with Dell, but how have they sacrificed quality or marketing? Their PCs aren't more "Dellish".

          What's wrong with Dell as the price comparison? It is the most common.

          I just did a comparison with Asus. A nearly equivalent MacBook is a few hundred dollars cheaper, albeit without the graphics card. The Asus is lighter, but the MacBook is smaller, and a lot more nicely made. This isn't taking into account OS X, which is the main reason the MacBook is better.

          One thing about Asus that I really despise is all of the different models. They have useless alphanumerical names, and take a long time to look through. Surely a "1.8 GHz AsusBook" would be more helpful than an "ASUS kajf0394jljfsdd09fadfkaj". Car makers (particularly foreign ones) do this too, and it is quite irritating.

          But if I ever want a Lamborghini laptop, I'll buy an ASUS. Hooray for useless models.

          The only real advantage that PCs have for hardware is being able to build your own desktop, and being able to buy really, really cheap (in price, performance, and quality) PCs. The low end ones also have more customization options (which their buyers won't use). These are pretty big advantages for some people, though.
        • by Yaztromo (655250) <yaztromo@NoSPaM.mac.com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:46PM (#16039668) Homepage Journal
          I do find it interesting that Mac fans always point to Dell as their preferred price comparision. I mean....Dell? Is that really the space Apple is competing?

          Well, the reason is simple -- every Mac fan online has been bombarded for years by Windows fans using low-end Dell computers to "prove" that Apple's computers are overpriced. Like here [zdnet.com], and here [zdnet.com].

          Obnoxious Windows zealots have been making such a comparison for years -- do you really expect Mac zealots to stay silent now that the opposite is true?

          Yaz.

    • by Heembo (916647)
      2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

      Hmm, are you talking about : http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/29C5599A-FC D 8-4E30-9AD5-5497999ABA1B.html [roughlydrafted.com]

      Greenpeace did not make me happy in this article. Did you note: ""....the methods used to collect information for their report were sloppy and incompetent."

      Even so, note that 1 in 10 pc users keep their computers for more than five years, and 1 in 3 Mac users keep their computers for more than fifteen years. I gue
    • by DECS (891519) on Monday September 04, 2006 @08:13PM (#16040676) Homepage Journal
      While the Greenpeace "Guide to Greener Electronics" was swallowed whole by the media, it is actually a sham report with little factual basis. In reality, it presents rankings upside down: Lenovo's higher quality business products are more likely to get recycled (and simply last longer), but because the company didn't have a lot of PR about it on their website, they were ranked last. The report also targeted Apple (3rd from the bottom), just months after Apple was recognized by the Sierra Club in its top ten list of Green companies.

      However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.

      If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent. [roughlydrafted.com]

      It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.

      Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple [roughlydrafted.com].

  • by Spazntwich (208070) on Monday September 04, 2006 @11:46AM (#16038083)
    "Apple to drop ad campaign because editor of internet site declares it unsuccessful."
  • by mrshermanoaks (921067) on Monday September 04, 2006 @11:51AM (#16038108)
    Sure, I love running WinXP on my MacBook Pro using Parallels. The real worry is that once you can easily run Windows on your Mac, there will be less incentive to port apps to the Mac side. Publishers will say "why should I put in all that effort when you can run the PC version?" I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.
    • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:00PM (#16038171) Homepage

      I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.

      Ahem... [codeweavers.com]

    • by wp.moore (873460) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:09PM (#16038229)
      While I'm not a Mac user, I agree with your comments. Those of us who remember the OS/2 fiasco will recall the IBM marketing mantra of "A Better Windows than Windows". That strategy back-fired horribly. Put the arguments of technical superiority aside. The users were started asking a very pertinent question. If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps? Bad marketing then, bad marketing today.
      • by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:40PM (#16038423) Homepage

        If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps?

        Maybe because Windows itself isn't working well for you? I have to say that, as the manager of an IT department, I'm tired of being over the barrel with Microsoft. It's restrictive and insecure, and I'm supposed to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade to Vista in order to get an OS which hopefully might possibly work, meanwhile locking myself further into a vendor which has caused me nothing but headaches? No thanks.

        Now, I'm all in favor of people using whatever system works for them, and if Windows does the job for you, more power to you. In my mind, anything that lets me move to OSX, or better yet Linux, is a good thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by vhogemann (797994)
      Where you see less native applications, I see oportunity for new devellopers.

      See, If there are two applications that do the same thing, but one runs under CrossOver/Parallels/BootCamp and the other is native,as a user I'll opt for the native version without any doubts.

      The Mac is a niche market, it's very easy to loose your userbase if you do something stupid, like offering some lame emulated version of you app. Somebody else will be waiting to offer your users a better alternative.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Monsuco (998964)
      This same debate occoured within the Linux camp. People critisized Wine claiming it would mean developers would not port things to Linux if it meant it already worked on wine. The reverse seemed to be true, a few companies have used Wine code (Google recently did so for Picasa) to port their apps to Linux. Linux seems to have far more software avalible to it than Mac though (true, Mac has more commercial software, but when you count all the nativly avalible FOSS software for Linux, Linux has more). Plus mos
      • Your larger point looks pretty accurate to me. People do seem to be more receptive to buying Macs now that they can run Parallels or Boot Camp to use their "favorite" Windows software. It's interesting to note that about 70% of the commercial software I run is made by Apple (Final Cut Pro, Safari, Motion, etc) or Adobe (Photoshop, After Effects, etc). I also use the Omniweb web browser and the TextMate editor, both of which are solidly in the Apple camp, with Cocoa applications that are probably not easi
    • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
      Sure, I love running WinXP on my MacBook Pro using Parallels.

      "Find it useful" - sure - but "love"!? Liar! :D

      -b.

  • Apple Boot Camp Because we have nothing to fear
  • I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04, 2006 @11:55AM (#16038128)
    I have heard people at my business who never before considered a Mac very excited about getting a Mac because they can run that particular Windows software they have to run and have the Macintosh computing experience all at once. The downstairs computer lab has been switched to all Mac as well because of this. There simply is no reason to own a PC anymore. You can get a Mac and have your PC, too. All in one.

    I'd say OSWeekly knows who their biggest advertiser is and are pandering to them.
    • You would still be buying a PC, and even Apple's ad campaign is saying this. A Mac is now more or less a PC now, being based around the same chips and mostly the same wiring of those chips. It has a different firmware but at least any current x86 operating system can be installed on them.
    • There simply is no reason to own a PC anymore. You can get a Mac and have your PC, too.

      Pssst! I have a secret for you... Macs are PCs! That's right; no matter how much their adverts try to create some artificial delineation between them Macs are simply PCs that happen to run a different OS.
  • by MMC Monster (602931) on Monday September 04, 2006 @11:58AM (#16038148)
    Is OSWeekly written by 12 year olds now? That's got to be one of the worst article summaries I have ever read, and I've been reading /. for years...

    Seriously, you have to be slightly brain damaged to think that MS is better at whole-system integration than Apple.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kestasjk (933987)
      Have you ever written a .NET application? If you're into Objective-C, and can integrate with BSD and Core Graphics, then okay, but it doesn't come close to .NET. Whole system integration (especially in the business arena) is what MS does best. Mod me as you will..
      • Sorry I wasn't clear.

        By whole-system integration, I meant from an end-user point of view. You can't go to microsoft.com and order a Microsoft PC that "just works". At least, not yet.

        Apple will sell you the hardware, OS, software, and peripherals. Now that's a system.
      • Really? What about Java? And .NET just sucks at security when services are being run remotely. Look at all the RPC bugs that Windows has. .NET also has a lot less speed then Objective-C, as everything is being interpreted. Objective-C is a much purer OO system then .NET, much closer to smalltalk then C# is.
  • by mgranit11 (862145) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:03PM (#16038188) Homepage
    Take a survey and ask them how many of you paid or for your copy of XP on your Mac (and are not violating MS EULA). Any guesses out there? I will start and say 8%. I think I am high, but figure almost 1/10 users are honest. Most either: 1. Visited there local bay of pirates and downloaded it. 2. Had a copy from a current PC so are in violating the EULA and installing it. 3. Borrowed a copy from the local IT admin and installed it. Most of the legitimate people may have gotten it from work and they have a ELA with MS so maybe they are not violating. I know all of my friends have not paid for a copy of XP running on the Mac or are using a work copy. All of them. They are using it for testing, gaming and occasional software but are not publishing work from it, so MS will not be able to track them down. I bet this over the long term will hurt MS since many people I know used to buy a cheap Dell for testing, which at least had a legitimate OS on it. Now they just need an XP CD, and its different shoving out $200 for a CD vs $400 for an entire computer.
  • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:03PM (#16038190) Homepage Journal
    When was it Apple's game to announce groovy new products, then deliver them behind schedule, bereft of compelling new features, in more confusing variations than a cel phone plan, with hardware requirements that will spur the market penetration of GNU/Linux, and at prices that will surely drive ???profit???.
    • by DLG (14172) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:30PM (#16038350)
      Hard to take seriously someone who gets confused by a "cel phone plan" but here is my apple experience. Wife has a 350mhz G4 tower she is using for whatever, 5 or 6 years. She goes back to school and as a gift I buy her the recently released and pretty quickly available 'mini'. Its pretty cheap. She moves all her stuff including her apps over to the new box. It runs. No problems. The old machine didn't die. We donated it to a theatre production company. In my basement is a working Apple ][+. Thats a 25 year old PC.

      To me, that is Apple. Yes their computers aren't the cheapest, but in 3 years I had to replace my desktop Dell 3 times due to hardware problems. Yes Apple has had hardware problems too, but the quality of hardware IS high, and the Mini is a really nice bit of engineering, as is my Nano.

      Basicly Apple does the same thing as most premium manufacturers. They charge more for a product that is better and sexier.

      If you are confused with Apple's product lines you have never gone to Dell or HP for computers.

      I call you troll:)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Tacvek (948259)
      The parent was not a troll. The parent was describing Vista, and asking: "Since when has Apple's plan been to release something like Vista?" (late, with many feature missing, unreasonable specs, a large number of options, and a fairly hefty price.) It was a little hard to notice it, but the parent does have a point. Apple has a very different business model than Microsoft.

      Now as for vista's versions. Vista actually has fewer versions than XP. The simple fact is that many of XP's versions were rarely heard

  • by EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:04PM (#16038199) Journal
    Are people like Dell, HP and so forth.
    My next laptop purchase is going to be a Macbook early next year. The reason?
    It can run Windows, that simple. There is software for windows that simply isn't available for OS X that I need. Conversely there is software on OS X that I need that I normally run under a VM with Linux. You could say Linux is a loser in this too.

    But Microsoft having the beatdown on them? Nope, Apple see Windows as not going away anytime soon and frankly the majority of OS X users will use OS X the majority of the time. Apple are gaining pc users because of bootcamp.

    I own a homebuilt pc and a Thinkpad, so i'm currently not a mac user and hadn't considered a Mac until the Macbook.

    NB. I haven't read the article as it's not available.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by thammoud (193905)
      You hit it on the head. I wush I had mod points. My next laptop will not be a Dell but an Apple MBP for the same exact reasons that you mentioned. One other strike against Dell is the pathetic support for their consumer unit.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by freedumb2000 (966222)
      I did exactly what you are planning to do. Except, I found real liking for OSX and use it exlusivly now. So Apple just won another user.
  • by Neuropol (665537) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:05PM (#16038203) Homepage
    Perhaps I'm wrong. Why not a boot camp designed for Linux layer compatibility on mac hardware. Sure, Yellow Dog covers that ground and so does Ubuntu, but how about the two underdogs banding together coalition style? Call it some thing like Degobah System. A place where 'warriors' can train. See where I'm going with all these neat marketing ideas?

    We'd all own piles of dog crap too if some one was smart enough to make us all believe we need it.

    -ps: the use of boot camp is cheating, btw, imo. As well, I think Multi-booting is just plain inconvenient. Too much time to take to traverse from OS to OS in time of need. I do it. Done it for years. Linux, Mac, and Windows in many forms on many machines. But it's too time consuimg. A person could be better off owning multiple machines running different platforms. Period. As well have tons less heartaches and oh-shit-this-didn't-work-smacks-to-the-forehead about how much time has been wasted setting it all up only to discover som ething trivial, yet major, like wireless driver failure.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)
      Really, I just hate being bound to an OS at all. In a perfect world, apps would be very cross-platform, so you could choose your OS based on the merits of the OS, not the apps it runs. Of course, this requires that somebody convince developers to clean up their act, which I could only really see happening with OSS, because closed-source vendors have too much stake in locking down the use of their software.
  • by bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:06PM (#16038213)
    on a KeyNote presentation, it will be relevant for some users but the vast majority will likely ignore it. I honestly thought I would install BC when my new mini Core Duo showed up, but I have yet to bother, I would rather use OS X and support OS X developers. I don't think I am in the minority on this topic, I work with several other enthusiastic Mac users and we all view BootCamp as reduction in barriers to switching for some people, nothing more. I've read a lot of comments lately about how "Apple better do this" or else I won't switch, but those people will always find a reason not to buy a Mac so I don't think Apple should expend too much effort to attract them.

    Switching to Intel closed the price, performance and (with BootCamp or Paralells) the application compatability gaps; advantage Cupertino. Apple reported their best hardware sales quarters ever just recently, and I have read some speculation that they sold 50% more MacBooks than they expected this quarter (not sure how true that is but the delays in shipping make it plausible). My local Apple Store is literally jammed all day long, including week days and the wait at the Genius Bar is upwards of an hour most days. I seriously doubt all that bustle is for XP install on BootCamp???

    The only category that might truly suffer from BootCamp existing is game development, porting is expensive and this is the kind of easy way out the big game publishers love.

    On second thought I might install BootCamp with Leopard... if it will let me run Ubuntu?!

  • And the summary doesn't make much sense. Anyone got a mirror?
  • I have absolutely had it with people saying "Apple is dying" or "Steve Jobs is failing" or "OS X is on its way out." Apple are going to be here for a long time. You'll know that they're dead when you can walk up to ten people on the street, say the name "iPod" and get ten blank looks.
  • Considering that there are a number of posts suggesting that the Boot camp will promote switching...

    After having managed a number of labs (some multi-OS, some OS-specific), I can tell you both from the maintenance and user perspectives, dual-booting will never make anyone a "switcher." If anything it will just end-up being a frustration to those who are partial to one of the OSs involved. As for those who are not very computer savvy, they will end-up frustrating tech support and vice versa. Boot camp is not
  • I just installed linux a few weeks ago for the first time. I dual boot Windows still and use it from time to time for certain programs I need or tasks I need to do that I haven't figured out on linux yet. However, overall I'm extremely satisfied with linux and probably wouldn't have tried it if I couldn't dual boot. Allowing windows to boot with OSX will get more people to try out Macs.
  • 1) Does he mean "than ever before", perhaps?

    2) Given the ability to do this has been around for all of, well, 8 months, you think maybe some of this discussion is because it's, you know, like a new thing?
  • by Glock27 (446276) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:30PM (#16038355)
    I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time.

    I believe OSNews has missed the point.

    Apple has always touted OSX as a superior experience to Windows, and is continuing to do so.

    However, it is simply reality that many folks have Windows programs they need to run as well. Between Boot Camp and the various VM approaches Apple now has that option covered nicely.

    Where does that leave Macs exactly? As:

    • The worlds most versatile computers.
    • Powered by a superior, more secure OS.
    • Able to run legacy Windows applications as need be.
    Windows continues to chug along on its own momentum, but I expect Mac sales to do VERY nicely. The vast majority of Mac user time will be spent in MacOS X, I predict. I also predict more and more native MacOS game ports over time, as the userbase swells.
  • Apple laptops = yum (Score:3, Interesting)

    by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Monday September 04, 2006 @12:58PM (#16038522)
    Who else makes a laptop as thin and light as the iBook/Powerbook/MacBook with just the right combo of features? Maybe Lenovo, but those seem to be heavier and just as expensive. Dell? Crap quality - I'm not talking about the batteries (an Apple problem too), I'm talking about the fact that their laptops are just generally flimsy and cheap. Sony? Same, IMHO. Failing Cardbus slots, plastic that you can flex with a finger.

    -b.

  • by bestinshow (985111) on Monday September 04, 2006 @01:01PM (#16038539)
    The ability to run Windows will sell more Mac hardware, which gives Apple more money, and increases their marketshare.

    People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.

    Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.

    As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.

    The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.

    Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.
  • There are many many people, myself being one of them, that would buy an Apple computer IF they ran the software they needed. That software is normally only available for Windows. I now can buy a mac and still use my Windows software that I NEED. My next computer will be a Mac, and I am sure there are many many people out there just like me.
    • by Pop69 (700500)
      I'm kind of intrigued, what is it that you run on windows that you want to run on your mac but can't ?
  • by Infonaut (96956) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday September 04, 2006 @01:09PM (#16038592) Homepage Journal

    The article meanders around without making much of a point, but this seems to be the gist of it:

    They [Microsoft]haven't complained about what's going on, and to be honest, I think these Mac developments have been the best press that they've received in a long time. Negativity is abundant on the PC side of things because of Vista issues, but everyone seems thrilled with Microsoft's appearance on the Mac scene.

    He goes on to say:

    In contrast, Apple doesn't seem to be in any hurry about getting OS X to run on any other machines besides the ones that they make.

    Of course Microsoft is unconcerned, because they make money by selling Windows. They are not a PC OEM. Apple has a different business model. The company makes most of its money selling hardware. The well-integrated OS and hardware are what coax consumers to buy Macs. You can't have one without the other and still call it a Mac. As us old fogies remember, Apple tried letting other companies build Macs, and it was not exactly a rousing success for Apple. Sales of clones ate into Apple's market without building overall market share.

    Boot Camp and the various virtualization technologies are giving Windows users the opportunity to buy Apple hardware and compare the Mac experience with the Windows experience on the same machine, with no special technical expertise required. So far the results have been overwhelmingly positive [apple.com] for Apple. There's a reason Apple was confident enough to bring a x86 processor into Macintosh hardware again (it's been done before [everymac.com]). Apple knows that if customers compare Windows to OS X head-to-head, OS X will gain users. If even a small percentage of new Mac purchasers make OS X the primary OS on their Mac, OS X will gain marketshare.

    So far the strategy appears to be working. The low "green" rating for Apple is unfortunate, but it's not going to keep people from buying Macs. Dell, the company Jobs considers as Apple's biggest rival, isn't exactly kicking ass [msn.com], and Microsoft's troubles with Vista [nytimes.com] are well-known.

    How is it that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game?

  • by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Monday September 04, 2006 @01:16PM (#16038627) Homepage Journal
    Anyone who is buying a Mac just to run Windows is crazy. Why would you pay a premium for Apple hardware only to handicap it by running windows? The only advantages to running Windows is for getting access to programs that don't run on the Mac, other than I feel the user experience on the Mac far outways having to boot into Windows.

    For the average user you have a nice selection of well thought out applications and I system that requires less fighting to get things working. For the developer you have a Unix environment to feel at home in. On the down side is the lack of software like AutoCAD and issues working with Microsoft group ware.
  • by supersocialist (884820) on Monday September 04, 2006 @01:47PM (#16038794) Journal
    Boot Camp is awesome, beyond awesome, but it's highly reminiscent of OS/2 and why OS/2 died: why bother building OS/2 native apps if OS/2 runs Windows apps? Code for Windows and you run on both; code for OS/2 and you're wasting your time! With the rumored native Windows support in Leopard, this could get even worse... eventually next to nothing will come out for Mac OS, which will appear to be a huge black eye for Apple. OS/2 was technically superior, too, but if all your apps are for Windows, why not just run the real thing?

    I miss OS/2. :(
  • by hey! (33014) on Monday September 04, 2006 @03:10PM (#16039212) Homepage Journal
    Each game is a move in the meta game. The move doesn't have to be succesful (e.g., you win). It just has to improve your position in the meta-game.

    Microsoft is a master of meta-game. It starts products and initiatives it intends never to win, or to win and stagnate, all the time.

    Boot camp is a perfect example of a meta-game move. There is no way that users running windows on Mac hardware is good for Apple. But being able to is valuable. Ideally, people decide that getting a Mac is less risky, because they can always boot Windows if they need to, or even switch back. The key question is how confident they are their operating system is superior to Windows. If the answer is "very", then it's on balance a good thing that dual booting is possible. If the answer is "on par", then it's a bad thing.
  • Waste of net space (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rm69990 (885744) on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:59PM (#16039719)
    "You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before."

    Maybe because Macs now use Intel chips and Windows can actually be installed natively on them now? Maybe because Parallels knocks the socks off of MS Virtual PC for Macs in terms of speed, which is only possible with Intel. Of course there is going to be more talk about Windows being installed on Macs, considering it is now fast with virtualization and doesn't require emulation, and also considering it is now POSSIBLE to do so natively. Like, durrrr....

    "some users have shrugged it off and moved on to the Microsoft side of things."

    Of course some are. Unless the author presents statistics stating HOW MANY users have done so, the statement has no real meaning.

    "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they?"

    I'm pretty sure Apple was kind of expecting talk about Windows running on a Mac to increase when they, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, enabled this to be done easily and practically. I somehow doubt Apple expected talk to decrease when they did this. Again, durrrrr.....

    "and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."

    They still are. It still requires a reboot to switch between them (excluding Parallels). Apple has recognized that some users want to switch to a Mac, but still require Windows for one or two applications. They have made it possible for most of these users to switch. (I think Parallels solution is more elegant personally). Apple also recognizes that very very few Apple purchasers are going to dump OS X and run Windows exclusively.

    "Boy, for something that they speak so badly of and accuse of ripping them off, they sure are in a hurry to let you run it side by side with their offering. Why is this? Well, it's all in the numbers."

    Because some people need to run one or two Windows applications, but prefer using a Mac for most things. A good example, there is absolutely NO Canadian Tax software for the Mac that I am aware of, but Parallels/Boot Camp make it possible for a Canadian such as myself to do their taxes on their Mac (such as my Mac Mini). Without access to Quicktax and similar pieces of software, I probably would have stuck with a PC. Boot Camp was actually an intelligent move in my opinion.

    "Apple knows that those who are envious of the Mac hardware will be more inclined to purchase it if they can run Windows (their relied upon operating system of choice). The suits at Apple may try to innocently play this off like you can run Windows and OS X separately and without interference, but you know as well as I do that they're hoping Windows users will begin to spend a little time with OS X, become hooked, and then essentially ditch their former love. It almost sounds like a soap opera when you put it that way, huh?"

    I somehow find it very difficult to believe that Windows users are envious of Mac hardware, which in most cases is over-priced compared to Dell, or even Alienware in the case of laptops. I have yet to meet a single Mac user, including a few Intel owners, who bought a Mac because of the hardware. They all bought it because of OS X. I also was in the Apple store the other day, and they had 3 iMacs, 2 running OS X and 1 running XP Pro. A couple people said "oh cool, they run Windows as well now", and then promptly moved onto the OS X computers to play around with them instead.

    "I've enjoyed watching Microsoft's response to all of this, because there really hasn't been much of one."

    What did you expect them to do, start reselling Mac computers for Apple? Of course they're going to be happy when more Mac users buy licenses for Windows, but there isn't really much they can respond to. Apple still isn't shipping Windows on Macs, and I asked a person at my local Apple store

All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors.

Working...