Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong? 731

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bunk Camp - Apple Gets It Wrong?

Comments Filter:
  • FP? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chode2235 ( 866375 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:22AM (#15105050)
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ReluctantRefactorer ( 223101 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:34AM (#15105125)
      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? (Score:3, Insightful)

        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?

        This is definitely a slippery slope, but I think Apple still has the upper hand. They have shown in the past that they definitely are not willing to compromise just to make their users happy in the short run. 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. T

        • Re:FP? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mdwh2 ( 535323 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:10AM (#15105392) Journal
          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? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by lowrydr310 ( 830514 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:31AM (#15106014)
          How many of those dual-boot users running Windows will actually be running licensed versions?
        • Re:FP? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gig ( 78408 )
          > 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.

          I think it is much more likely that they will fully support Windows XP for quite some time but won't support Vista. They can cannibalize XP, but compete with Vista. It is possible for Apple to create a Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard that is better at running Windows XP applications than Windows Vista is.

          I think what Apple will do over the next few years with I
      • Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by samkass ( 174571 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:55AM (#15105281) Homepage Journal
        Here's [icculus.org] 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? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:18AM (#15105912) Homepage
          Reality check...

          Only corporations and people without a teenage relative pay for Windows.

          Always has been that way, always will.
          • Re:FP? (Score:5, Informative)

            by bman08 ( 239376 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:50AM (#15106173)
            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? (Score:3, Informative)

              by generic-man ( 33649 )
              I can't use the CD that came with my Dell to install Windows on a Mac. Virtually every computer today comes with a restore CD, not a Windows install disc. You need a full install CD to put Windows on a Mac, and that will set you back $200 or more. (You could get an OEM version, but to make that legal wouldn't you also have to buy a piece of hardware and use it with your Mac somehow?)
          • Re:FP? (Score:3, Informative)

            by c_forq ( 924234 )
            I was thinking I was going to rip this apart as I have a legit WinXP CD and key, but then I remember that I obtained that WinXP CD and key from a corporation. I never paid for it, a company I worked for did. Now I think the only flaw is all the people who buy Dells just happen to have a license for the first copy of Windows they got (usually all upgrade are from their teenage relative or that guy they know who is a floor manager at ABC Warehouse).
      • might be the way to go. Parallels.com [parallels.com]
    • Re:FP? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hopefullly I have to boot into windows less and less as time goes on.

      But what's the mechanism by which that happens? Instead of demanding games that run on Mac and effectively being part of an untapped market, you've conceded that people who really want to play games will get dual boot and run them under Windows. That's hardly a strategy aimed at bringing more games ton the Mac.

      A more reasonable expectation is that as time goes on you'll have to boot into Windows more and more, because its share of the mar
      • Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timster ( 32400 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:13AM (#15105408)
        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? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @02:46PM (#15107602) Journal
        Until a year or two ago, whenever a website didn't work in Firefox, if you complained you'd get something from the webmaster saying to use IE for that site.

        Now that 10-15% of internet users are using Firefox, suddenly more and more sites are actually making their sites compatible with multiple browsers - the same ones that a year ago were telling you to fire up IE to see their site.

        Yes, I still have IE, and I could use it to view a site that won't open in Firefox or Safari - but I don't want to. Webmasters have realized that we don't want to use IE, and now that there are enough of us to make a dent in their traffic, they are no longer telling us that we must do something we don't want to do in order to load their site. Because 9 times out of 10, I just won't use the site.

        I see something similar happening in the next couple of years for Macs. People will buy them because they have the option of booting into Windows. But once they get hooked on OS X, they won't want to use Windows if they don't have to. If something requires them to boot into windows, they'll whine about it and in some cases not buy the software if there's something comparable available that doesn't require rebooting. If Mac marketshare can make it above 10%, that's a big enough chunk of users that companies won't want to risk chasing them away by making them do annoying things like reboot to use their software. Even games - I'm sure that there will be people who will say "This better be a really fucking amazing game if I'm gonna boot into Windows for it."

    • Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twistedsymphony ( 956982 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:42AM (#15105182) Homepage
      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? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dslauson ( 914147 )
      As long as you're buying their hardware, Apple doesn't care what OS you're running.
    • Re:FP? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:13AM (#15105412) Homepage
      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? (Score:3, Interesting)

      If you meant Battlefield 1942, then there is a solution to avoid the need to use Boot Camp: Battlefield 1942 for Mac [aspyr.com]. Aspyr has ported plenty of good games to the Mac. If you have a Mac and play games, then I would recommend supporting these guys, since the do a good job porting the games.
      • Re:FP? (Score:3, Funny)

        Or of course he could in fact mean Battlefield 2, which is a) what he said, and b) not available on OSX, so would make sense as an example of a game he could play on a Mac running XP :)
    • it is all about weaning users off of windows

      I'm afraid you're right. I was hoping a future version of BootCamp would take advantage of modern Macs' ability to suspend-to-disk (hibernate) for rebooting into Windows - when you're done reboot into Mac OS and it'll restore itself to where you were.

      But that makes it easier to reboot into Windows, so probably not a direction Apple would want to go.
  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:23AM (#15105051)
    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.


    • I couldnt have said it better myself. Cheers.

      But thats mostly because its still too damn early in the morning...

    • by The Warlock ( 701535 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:34AM (#15105122)
      I love how we always hear "the big secret is Apple has full control of the hardware" even though this "big secret" is "revealed" (usually more than once) every goddamn time an OSX article gets posted.

      (sidenote: my FreeBSD install is pretty fucking stable on commodity PC hardware, why wouldn't OSX be?)
    • A "MAC" is a PC. So they DO sell OS X to PC users, they just also happen to make the only PCs they run on. I would have expected Slashdot to get the naming right, but I guess that was too much to hope for.

      That aside, what you've described is also why Windows has such a huge user base. You can plug in just about any piece of hardware you've got, dig up a driver for it and it works relatively well. Cost/performance ratios are important to a lot of people, they want a lot of bang for their buck. T
    • That's almost right: an important factor is that they put good quality components in the Macs not just any old cheap crud that the wholeseller was selling cheap today (which is what must PC makers do).
    • by ezavada ( 91752 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:47AM (#15105659)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by multiOSfreak ( 551711 ) <culturejam&gmail,com> on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:23AM (#15105052) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by LordNimon ( 85072 )
      Ditto. My mom was going to buy a PC because of a single Windows app she needed to run. She was considering getting a Mac and running VirtualPC, but I knew it would be slow so I was uncertain whether it would really be a good idea. However, thanks to Boot Camp, she is definitely now going to buy a Mac.
    • Same here. The Mac mini is what a lot of people are looking for. A small, silent computer, that doesn't get in the way. I've been thinking of buying one too. I'm kind of tired of my computer being loud, and in the way, I don't have that much living space, and my current tower doesn't really have that much that a Mac Mini doesn't. I'd probably be perfect happy with a Mac Mini, and maybe 1 or 2 external drives
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Someone on here had posted a link to a company that was working on such a product and it wouldn't suprise me if Apple does the same thing just in time for Vista's launch.
  • by Jim in Buffalo ( 939861 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:24AM (#15105060)
    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.
    • Why would you have to use a Mac to speculate on what Windows users are likely to do?

      I think the article is a load of nonsense too, but that's because it's based around the premise that Apple want people to switch to OS X. They don't. They want people to buy their hardware. Catering to Windows users without pressuring them to switch helps them achieve that goal.

  • Well, obviously. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
    Sounds right to me. I wouldn't buy a new system that'd end up forcing me to reboot if I want to access the other half of my applications (and the way it is now I wouldn't boot into OSX in first place). Hell, if I wanted dualbooting there's enough Linux distros for every taste and those don't require completely new hardware to run on. Until I can run all of the applications I use on the same OS I'm not switching.
    • Well then you're not who they're targeting. If you see yourself buying a Mac and then running half of your applications in Windows, then yes, Boot Camp is useless. But a lot of people find OSX to be attractive and would love to use it primarily, but cannot be without a few critical apps that they use every so often (games are the most obvious). Those are the people that Boot Camp was created for, because now they can make the switch and not lose anything.
    • Until I can run all of the applications I use on the same OS I'm not switching.

      See you in the year 3003, when software developers may finally have a clue how to write portable code.

  • Bunk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pdc ( 19855 ) * on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:25AM (#15105062) Homepage
    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 [joelonsoftware.com] for a discussion
    • Re:Bunk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:27AM (#15105079)
      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 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by waif69 ( 322360 )
      Apple is first and foremost a hardware company, they just happen to have a well designed stable OS. Design is something that Apple is known for and they do know how to make good looking machines for their time. No big PC manufacturer does that as well. Boot Camp is for getting people to buy a mac and then find out that if they use OS X more than XP, they will have greater stability without having to give up their precious games or legacy apps that won't run on or be ported to OS X or flavor of *nix.
    • The problem with that thought is that if you think about the windows XP user who wants to try linux they will dual boot it. in 99.9% of cases that user will rarely if ever use linux again after the first try. i know of only two people IRL that have ever tried linux while running windows side by side and decided to go to linux full-time.

      People who are familiar with windows and buy a mac to dual boot will stick with what they know in almost every case. you'll get those .1% of users who switch, but i'd guar
      • Re:Bunk (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Angostura ( 703910 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:07AM (#15105371)
        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.
    • Apple don't need to get people to switch to Mac OS X; they need to get them to buy Apple's computers.

      Or do they? Given the success of the iPod and all its brethren, there's a steady stream of income to support the computer lines while the whole OS X/XP thing gets sorted out. Frankly, the ability to dual boot XP or OS X is not going to matter to the regular consumer, only to the Mac fanatic or the Windows user with Mac curiosity. While dual boot capacity might help make some converts, it's not going to cre

  • It will however... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TERdON ( 862570 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:25AM (#15105070) Homepage
    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.
    • Of course, a much better kind of insurance for not liking OSX would be the ability to try it on normal hardware before you have to shell a couple thousand for a new machine.
  • FTA: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.

    It's not necessarily the applications that will persuade people. He should look at the ipod -- is that the only mp3 player out there or anywhere close to the cheapest? People want Apple's because of the trend and the way the hardware looks.

    • by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:40AM (#15105167)
      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.
  • Last time I heard, Steve Jobs said something like "We are, and always will be, a hardware company." Now I'm not saying that Boot Camp will sell more hardware, but I don't think anybody expects Boot Camp to help sell more copies of OS X. Can you even buy an Intel Mac without OS X? I doubt it.
  • by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:29AM (#15105096)
    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?
    • I agree: I really enjoy using Apple's products, and I think this is getting ridiculous. To be fair, Slashdot is far from the only news source — online or otherwise — that's flogging the bejeezus out of this. The Apple advocate in me thinks the attention is great as it's a sign that once again Apple is the company that's doing new and nifty things that get peoples' attention (or at least they're doing things that get attention, and the newness and niftiness can be debated), but on the other hand
  • by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:32AM (#15105115)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wellington Grey ( 942717 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:34AM (#15105121) Homepage Journal
    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 [wellingtongrey.net]
    • 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.

      Nothing like the magic of software; now you can do the equivalent of buying that cute VW Bug (or Mini if your prefer) and still haul around the girl's soccer team (or sheets of plywood).
  • How else am I going to load MSPaint on my new MAC?

    But seriously, its a start to a having a computer that can and will run anything - so it is a good thing.
  • Whenever I see a writer say about selling OSX for non-Mac hardware, "I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this, as it would dramatically increase its revenue and market penetration," I immediately have grave doubts about his perspicacity. It makes anything else he has to say less interesting.

    That said, I would agree that virtualization -- either from Apple or a third party, perhaps even VirtualPC from Microsoft -- will be a far more useful thing. But it's coming, so why the big deal?

  • No hardware lockin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jridley ( 9305 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:37AM (#15105146)
    I was just arguing with a friend who happens to be an Apple employee about this. I was toying with the idea of building an OS X x86 compatible PC using the HCL on sourceforge. He said that by doing this I was stealing from his livelihood.

    I said "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy OS X. Put it in the stores and I'll pay for it. Keep it locked to hardware and you won't see a dime from me. APPLE is stealing from your livelihood by not selling me what I want."

    I don't want to buy hardware. I have hardware. I want my hardware to be fungible and able to run any OS I care to put on it this week. I want to be able to choose what I want from the vast variety of what's available, and not have to choose from just what Apple thinks will satisfy me. I'm not going to buy hardware that's priced above market for no reason that I care about (I don't care how pretty it looks, and I don't care about some (mythical, as far as I can tell) higher level of reliability. I just want to run the software and OS that I decide to run.

    It's sometimes said that PC users buy machines to run applications; Apple users buy machines to run the OS. I think that Apple is afraid to put the OS on the market standalone, because in lieu of hardware sales income, they would be charging more than MS charges for Windows, and they'd draw comparisons.

    That seems fine to me. It is a better OS, so it's OK for it to cost more.

    Apple has to some extent maintained the "ease of use" paradigm in the same way that GUIs are easy to use; they restrict choice. If you give people less choice, they are less confused. If they want to enter the larger market, they need to figure out how to continue to deliver their historic strengths while moving into a position of giving the users the wider variety of choices that they are used to in other OSs.
    • Repeat after me: Apple is a hardware company. Douchebag ...
    • by birge ( 866103 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:18AM (#15105458) Homepage
      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.

      • by jridley ( 9305 )
        I didn't say I'd actually gone out and stolen the OS. I said I *wanted* to run the OS. But I won't, because I can't get it legally. I'm not going to do it. I'd like to be running OS X but I don't want to buy even more hardware than I already have.

        I realize they don't HAVE to sell it to me. But it seems to me that if a company has a product that people want, they should put a price on it and make it available. If there are externalities to selling the product separately then they should alter the price
      • by jridley ( 9305 )
        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.

        Did I say I'd DONE it? No, I said I WANTED to BUY OS X. I'm not going to move to Mac because honestly I'm not convinced that it can take over all my jobs. I'd like to play with it. If it turns out that OS X can do everything I need, I probably will buy a Mac eventually. But I'm not going to go out and buy a piece of hardware th
    • by mgblst ( 80109 )
      I said "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy OS X. Put it in the stores and I'll pay for it. Keep it locked to hardware and you won't see a dime from me. APPLE is stealing from your livelihood by not selling me what I want."

      I know exactly how you feel. I said the same thing to a mate of mine who had just bought back a new games machine from Japan. I said, "No, I'm perfectly willing to buy this from you. Put it up for sale and I will pay for it. Keep it locked in your house, and you won't see a dime fro
    • by WheresMyDingo ( 659258 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:10AM (#15105846)
      "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.

  • Article advocates apple selling OS to standard PC:s

    Inorder to sell operating system they would need to price it competively, and make it work with wider variety of PC:s instead of limited number of different systems.

    Here's probably how it would look in reality, people who would normally buy apple because of OSX would more often buy OSX and get their PC from some cheaper location. The profit margins for apple computers are good. Then apple would need to multiply its market share in operating systems, in orde
  • by Shimatta1 ( 257977 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:39AM (#15105162)
    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.
  • The author of the article makes the point that he could just keep his Windows PC. This is true, of course. He could just not bother getting a Mac at all, and this sounds like it's his plan.

    Assume, for a moment, that you are interested in a Mac. Since most Macs sold at the moment are laptops, it's fair to assume that you are interested in a MacBook. Now, they are still fairly expensive and so it would be a shame to get one and then discover that OS X isn't all you thought it would be. The ability to ru

  • wrong.com.com.com (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clevershark ( 130296 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:41AM (#15105175) Homepage
    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).
  • FTFA: If Apple wants a significant number of users to sample OS X, Boot Camp just won't cut it. Instead, it's going to have to get off the fence and start selling OS X to PC users, rather than restricting it to the Mac. I don't see any valid reason why Apple isn't doing this

    I mean, when I read a statement like that from an permanent whiner here on slashdot, I can understand it, but when I read it from people who are paid to make insightful commentary, then it just blows my mind. I would love to listen to th
  • by boxlight ( 928484 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:48AM (#15105231)
    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 [slashdot.org].

  • Boot camp is a sales pitch, not a product

    Customer: Tell me about this laptop, its pretty

    Salesman: Its a mac, look how shiney it is.

    Customer: Oh, I don't want one of those, it doesn't run Windows.

    Salesman: It has this clever boot camp thing that lets you put windows on it.

    Customer: Oh, okay, I'll take one then.

    Once the customer gets home and starts using MacOS X, they won't bother with installing Windows.
  • Apple needs to... support a true Mac virtualisation application.

    Like the rumoured [macrumors.com] Chameleon virtualisation application?

  • I mean, stuff like this is annoying enough when you see it moderated +3 Insightful on Slashdot, but now it's getting presented as an informed opinion? Come on.

    Obviously, some people don't care enough about OSX's eye candy, security, stability, etc. to make it worth paying a bit extra for. Even MORE obviously, these people aren't Apple's target market.

    PRE-Boot Camp, Apple has maybe 5% of the overall home PC market, right? So that's 1 in 20 people willing to give up all the games and productivity applications
  • by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @09:53AM (#15105266) Homepage

    I think CNet's coming to the wrong conclusions. Firstly, Apple's never going to license OSX on anything but Mac hardware. Control of the hardware's what gives Apple the ability to keep OSX stable and easy to install, they aren't going to give that up. What they've done with Mac-on-Intel and Boot Camp, though, is made buying Apple hardware safe for Windows users: whether you like OSX or not, you will be able to run Windows on your Intel-based Mac. Boot Camp isn't directly intended to let people dual-boot, it's intended as a warm fuzzy "Look, if OSX isn't for you you haven't wasted the price of that nice shiny hardware you bought.".

    I think Apple fully intends to have good PC virtualization software as well. Intel hardware will make that easier. At that point they've got an attractive path to migrating people off Windows. They'll be able to say "If you buy a Mac with OSX, you can still run all your Windows software as well as you could on your Windows machine. If it turns out you've got one or two programs (like games) that won't run under the virtualization software, you can dual-boot into Windows if you have to. And if OSX just plain won't work for you, you can just wipe it and run Windows all the time and still have the shiny Mac hardware for people to drool over. If you're buying new hardware anyway, how can you go wrong?".

  • by BenDalton ( 573850 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @10:00AM (#15105320) Homepage

    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.
  • by Quinn ( 4474 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @11:06AM (#15105823) Homepage
    Can I get a refund if I buy a Macbook and decide not to run OSX on it?
  • Not just for that (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jasonditz ( 597385 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @12:07PM (#15106325) Homepage
    I'd already switched to a Mac awhile ago (from linux, not Windows), but this has me seriously contemplating upgrading to an Intel chip to take advantage of this. Before I had my eye on getting a cheap high end G5 Powermac when they finally switched those over to Intel. So instead of me being on the secondary market for a lightly used uber PPC Mac in a few months, I'm looking at buying an iMac directly from Apple.

    But I think this guy (and all the people on CNBC who talk about this being "for businesses") is missing the point. People aren't saying "boy, I'd sure like to combine the price of Apple hardware with the stability of Windows", they're saying "OSX is just flat out a better all-around experience for most things, but some app categories are really missing, I wish I could dual boot so I can use a Windows app when necessary".

    Games are the killer app that is keeping a lot of younger users, annoyed by all of Windows' failings, from switching. The young gamer of today could be the head of an IT department in the future, and if he sees OSX as a more productive system for doing actual work, and Windows as basically "something to play games on", that's going to factor in to future hardware purchases.

  • by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Tuesday April 11, 2006 @04:52PM (#15108740) Homepage Journal

    There are two smart things Apple has done with Boot Camp, which should help Mac OS X in the long run:

    • The current release is beta software, and eventually times out (I've read somewhere that it times out in November 2007, but have been unable to find the source of that information. I may be remembering it incorrectly),
    • In order to continue using Boot Camp, you need to buy the next version of Mac OS X.

    A few results of this decision:

    • Apple is selling copies of Mac OS X regardless of whether you're planning on using it or not. If you want to run nothing but Windows on your Mac, you will still need to buy a copy of OS X (in the future) just to gain access to Boot Camp.
    • Presumably once Leopard (OS X 10.5) is released Macs shipping with it preinstalled will come with Boot Camp. However, I wouldn't be surprised if newer version of Boot Camp designed to support future versions of Windows require a new OS X purchase to get the updated Boot Camp software,
    • How will Boot Camp be serviced? My guess will be through the existing Software Update, which requires Mac OS X. As such, it probably makes sense that every Boot Camp user will always maintain at least a small OS X partition on their systems (which may also be necessary to get updated versions of Boot Camp through future new OS X upgrades -- if Boot Camp is upgraded with new versions of OS X, it is possible it will only install when you install the new OS X itself, which will only work if you have a partition to install OS X to in the first place).

    As such, I don't see this as being a big problem for the future of Mac OS X -- if anything, Apple has just hooked in more future OS X customers.

    Now if they would only extend Boot Camp to work with Linux...


"Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer