[scratt]

I was just having an idle moment and looking around at some cool new sims and apps being developed.. One of them worth mentioning is Spore, which is still in developement and is really worth a look..

I hope they port it for Mac.. Was my first thought... Perhaps they won't. Perhaps they will just assume by the time it is out that people will all be on new Intel Macs, so why bother. At least with that in mind they can focus on their devlopement and put any thoughts of a Mac port to one side until they are less stretched..

And that's what got me thinking about Boot Camp...

By making Boot Camp available for the new Intel Macs that is going to make a lot of current Mac users want to upgrade so they can use that app, play that game (more likely) that they could only play on a PeeCee before..

It is also going to (at least) delay Mac ports of non-essential software, such as games and so on..

In that sense the Boot Camp thing is as much as a poke in the butt of existing Mac users to get them to go and upgrade, as it is to those who may be thinking about switching.

What does everyone else think?

Another, example that springs to mind.. I so want to check out X3 Reunion (for various reasons) that I was going to put together a PeeCee motherboard type game PeeCee for just that... I will now be spending that money on new Intel hardware from Apple and using Boot Camp. So, although there was never any risk of me defecting, Apple has secured some more of my cash. Smart!

[Wrao]

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I think Boot Camp will invariably lead to reduced porting of software, or delays or anything of that matter. It is very possible of course, but as a software company you can't just assume every mac user is going to be running Windows as well. Even though there are practically no downsides(outside of taking up a lot of space on your HD) Especially since Windows can't be set as the default operating system. Of course, a company is just trying to maximize profits, but they also do not want to alienate their buyers.

Assuming that there is a lull in mac game and software development, I see where you are coming from, but I don't know if Apple is really being that subversive. They know that the majority of mac users are going to be Mac users for life already, and ultimately, they have a vested interest in providing excellent hardware and software to their customers. They are proud of the work they are doing and the fact that there is an incompatibility and a line to cross in terms of support is an unnecessary byproduct of development.

Boot Camp provides more incentive to switch to a Mac. period. Whether it is switching from a Beige Box to an intel iMac or switching from a Mac to another Mac. Having Boot Camp does provide a much larger incentive for a lot of people regardless of what system they are running. Apple wins either way, so they're not complaining, but I don't think it is necessarily that subversive, just a good business move on their part.

[scratt]

I wasn't really meaning they were being sneaky... Perhaps my post came out that way..

At the end of the day if I am thinking of spending a few thousand dollars on something I wasn't planning to buy so soon there must be others.

Apple are very happy to allow parts of their catalog to become obsolete.. My G4 laptop very quickly dropped out of the Pro bracket with the advent of Motion and other apps. I am not bitter at all, don't get me wrong there. But Apple could have built in a lot more backward compatibility into Motion, for example, and chose not to.

So the main thrust of my point is that perhaps this will speed up upgrading, which is an acknowledged wish of Apple's over the years.. We know that they don't want machines to last as long as they do, because their money comes from selling more machines not apps.

At the same time they put out (IMHO) high quality kit which lasts... So planned obsoleteness is perhaps wearing a bit thin, and Boot Camp is a great way to spur on upgrading. Or adds another incentive for those that are still stuck (but happy) in G4 / G5, or even G3 worlds...

[Wrao]

Yeah. I see that, and I agree with you. Already the intel macs offer excellent features over their powerpc counterparts, Boot Camp definitely will seal the deal for many, and I'm sure Apple is very happy about this.

[Doxxic]

I'm getting the feeling that we'll see some more years with very few but very important Mac software developers, being Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Digidesign and hopefully Steinberg.

But that's really pretty much the way it is already.

Now what I *hope* is that:
- Windows is going to run seemingly inside Mac OS X (virtualized), so switchers can go on using Windows while they can get used to Mac OS X in their own pace!
- Some developers notice that some PC programs are being run by Mac users pretty often
- Running on a Mac natively becomes a competitive advantage for these programs
- We get more native mac developers.

What I *fear* is that we end up with even fewer native mac developing companies, because of the resources it takes to port it, while the benefits seem so small.
But I don't expect that it would be that much of a problem, because Mac OS X is an important reason to buy a Mac and in terms of amount of developers it can't get much worse than it is already and it's still very acceptable because of Apple's own great software.

What I'm quite *sure* though is that Apple is going to sell more computers, like Scratt said not only to Switchers, but also to current Mac users. Which is, of course, the most important to them!

[scratt]

In the very long term, of course all of this will become irrelevant...

Apple could make themselves obsolete, or simply a premium PeeCee maker like Bang and Olufsen are used to be for HiFi.

I predict that within 10 years and maybe in as few as 5 we will see more and more OSs being portable a la "Red Box, Blue Box" and so on..

Eventually I think that we may find that everything goes back to Unix style roots and things like Wine, Fink become the norm, as opposed to the cross platform junkies dream..

Or have I gone too far...

[adamb]

Thats the main reason I plan to get a MacBook or MBP in the near future to replace my 9 month old iBook.
I was quite an avid gamer before uni work took over, and now BootCamp has persuaded me to sell my PC (which was ONLY used for gaming after getting the iBook) and get an intel mac. The main reason I would go for an intel mac is so that I can easily boot to XP for a quick game when I feel like it (as well as some of those handy little apps available everywhere for windows, and the fact that I like new toys). This means I'll probably sell my iBook as well as my PC which should just about cover the cost of a MBP if I choose to go for one, so if it was Apple's plan to get people like me to sell their perfectly adequate mac, they have in my case at least succeeded.

[scratt]

Another satisified customer!

And will you take AppleCare with that too, Sir?

[neiltc13]

Boot Camp made me sell my three month old iMac G5 with the iSight for a significant loss and drop the cash on an Intel one. I also just sold my iBook, but it was kinda outdated anyway. Now they better hurry up and start selling the MacBook!

[JayReding]

I'm in the same boat. My PC was ready for an upgrade, and instead I bought an Intel iMac - and gaming was one of the primary reasons for that. The Intel iMac would run BF2 and Civ IV faster than my current machine, but was also portable enough that I wouldn't worry about taking it LAN parties or the like.

Boot Camp made that sale practical, which is why Apple's Boot Camp strategy is looking like quite a success.

Does that mean I'll upgrade more often? Well, given that I'll be spending the next three years in law school (which probably defeats the gaming aspect of the purchase), probably not, but it could incite others to upgrade their Macs more often to keep up with the latest games.

[nota12b]

I made THE SWITCH about 3 weeks before the Intel announcement (and felt a bit like Dr. Mengele for a short time after) to a 12" iBook. I upgraded to a 5400rpm 80G h/d, dropped in a 512Mb ram chip, and for the most part could not POSSIBLY be happier for jumping-ship.
All that said, I have leftover Linux-geek-wannabe parts collecting dust in the basement and a 2800+ 'server' running in the middle of the scrap-heap and I can't WAIT to find somebody that wants to part me from it all so I can run not walk to get MBP and have it ALL with me, all the time.
Anybody wanna buy some parts?

[BarracksSi]

I think it's funny that Windows could become nothing more than a game console.

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi I think it's funny that Windows could become nothing more than a game console.

That's what Boot Camp has always been for me.

"Game Mode"

[BarracksSi]

Tens of billions of dollars in the bank, thousands of software engineers, and worldwide training & certification of bug-fixers...

All to produce an OS that people only use to play Half-Life on their new Macs.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by BarracksSi Tens of billions of dollars in the bank, thousands of software engineers, and worldwide training & certification of bug-fixers... All to produce an OS that people only use to play Half-Life on their new Macs.

At least DirectX is a decent API for it.

[Robo]

My sister now wants a Mac.

I had always thought that the 12" iBook (and now the MacBook) would be perfect for her - small enough to be portable, but capable enough to handle what she would throw at it. She's a writer, and I see her shuffling sheets on her clipboard and I just want to scream that there's a better way.

She's not a technophobe, but I'd feel a lot better with her on MacOS, knowing that she was much more likely not to get a virus and lose all her writing.

I got my Mac, and we played around with Photo Booth, and she was sold.

However, she probably wouldn't get a Mac if it weren't for Boot Camp. She wants to be able to run Windows apps. If I were to ask her which Windows apps she wanted to run that didn't have MacOS alternatives, she wouldn't be able to tell me.

Boot Camp is her security blanket.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Roboman If I were to ask her which Windows apps she wanted to run that didn't have MacOS alternatives, she wouldn't be able to tell me. Boot Camp is her security blanket.

I'm sure that's gonna be the case for many people. Not knowing exactly what apps they're gonna miss, but being able to keep the option in the odd case.

[Corey]

Unless the new machines and Boot Camp cause many people to switch and increase the base dramaticaly, I think it will be bad for application development. It was inevitable that someone would make it work eventually, but I wish it wasn't Apple that did so. Now if they decide it was a bad call and want to do something to cripple it or stop Winblows on the Mac entirely, people who bought machines thinking they could do both will revolt.

In short, I think it will be good for hardware sales, but bad for software; especially complex software. But perhaps Apple just intends to keep making more of their own software to fill the traitors if that's what happens?

[Doxxic]

Originally Posted by Corey Unless the new machines and Boot Camp cause many people to switch and increase the base dramaticaly, I think it will be bad for application development. It was inevitable that someone would make it work eventually, but I wish it wasn't Apple that did so. Now if they decide it was a bad call and want to do something to cripple it or stop Winblows on the Mac entirely, people who bought machines thinking they could do both will revolt. In short, I think it will be good for hardware sales, but bad for software; especially complex software. But perhaps Apple just intends to keep making more of their own software to fill the traitors if that's what happens?

Yes, this is the worst case scenario. But it's not far from the current situation anyway, is it?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Corey Unless the new machines and Boot Camp cause many people to switch and increase the base dramaticaly, I think it will be bad for application development.

This argument has been made a hundred times:

Before Boot Camp, good Mac software has come from Mac-only developers and cross-platform developers who do care about and understand the Mac market and OS. The latter invest in native software because their users aren't content with "buy and install and maintain Virtual PC to use it; by the way, it's slow".

Before Boot Camp, good Mac software will still come from Mac-only developers and cross-platform developers who do care about and understand the Mac market and OS. The latter will continue to invest in native software because their users won't be content with "buy and install and maintain Windows to use it; by the way, you have to reboot".

How has this changed the playing field for developers of good software dramatically? For bad software ports, who will care since practically no one would use them anyway?

Originally Posted by Corey Now if they decide it was a bad call and want to do something to cripple it or stop [Windows] on the Mac entirely, people who bought machines thinking they could do both will revolt.

That would be a PR nightmare. Apple has done some dumb things before, but I can't imagine it would be so shortsighted as to the not realize the consequences of introducing Boot Camp and promising support in the next OS release and the backlash of latter disabling it.

[hobbit.2]

Originally Posted by Brad How has this changed the playing field for developers of good software dramatically?

This has been discussed many times in other forums. The gist: it boils down to the unknown factor whether users will either a) continue to pay for native Mac software or b) prefer to live with the inconvenience of rebooting if it means they can get the software 'for free' (assuming Windows copies are a lot easier to 'get hold of').

If a substantial number of Mac users will opt for b) (as it's definitely cheaper) then Mac copies sold could drop below critical mass and Mac developers would no longer be profitable and as a result close down. Many Mac developers run on very slim margins and a drop in sales of only 10-15% would spell the end for them.

No one at this point knows which variant will play out. And of course the easier Apple or some third party will make it to use Windows software (e.g. use virtualisation which doesn't require rebooting), the more likely variant b) will happen.

But of course the hope is that if more potential switchers are moving to the Mac, knowing they can now run those few Windows-only applications they need, the whole Mac software market will grow and even if many sales are lost to variant b) the new Mac users will more than make up for it.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by hobbit.2 This has been discussed many times in other forums. The gist: it boils down to the unknown factor whether users will either a) continue to pay for native Mac software or b) prefer to live with the inconvenience of rebooting if it means they can get the software 'for free' (assuming Windows copies are a lot easier to 'get hold of').

Sorry, but you can't bring piracy into the equation. If Apple were to base their decisions on concerns that users might steal stuff all the time anyway, they might as well shut down. That said, pirated Mac software exists just as much, so I don't see the big Windows advantage. Sure, it's easier to go to a friend and ask them for {latest version of software X}, but it really doesn't take that much to do just the same yourself with Mac software.

[hobbit.2]

Originally Posted by chucker But it really doesn't take that much to do just the same yourself with Mac software.

Of course you shouldn't take piracy into consideration, but in reality it is a very big problem. Not in the business market but in the consumer market. And that's where Apple plays.

And I disagree with your last statement. I've worked in Apple sales many years and time and again I heard the 'complaint' by potential buyers that they don't know anyone who has a Mac and hence would not be able to 'get' software - whereas everyone and their friend knows someone with a Windows PC who's willing to 'share'.
I lost countless Mac hardware sales because people didn't know how to get 'free' Mac software. And you have to admit that with a 3% market share it is a lot less likely you find someone who also has a Mac. It is at least 30 times (!) more likely you find someone who has a Windows PC.

And statistics in Europe show that copying software is still not considered a crime in many consumers' heads. For hardware one pays, but software is considered free. And hence easy availability of Mac software does make a huge difference in consumer buying decisions.

Yes, this is sad, and it _should_ not make a difference. But in reality it does.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by hobbit.2 And you have to admit that with a 3% market share it is a lot less likely you find someone who also has a Mac. It is at least 30 times (!) more likely you find someone who has a Windows PC.

You're confusing market share and installation base.

[BarracksSi]

I like the "security blanket" idea myself. A lot of people -- namely, more casual computer users -- have an assortment of apps that they're used to, but they're not completely sure that the Mac OS and its applications will serve their needs just as well. Or, they might need something specific that may never have a Mac equivalent.

Of course there will be plenty of people using Windows programs that they've "shared". I don't think that's the bulk of total users, though.

Either way, I think this is that extra push over the edge, encouraging Windows users to upgrade to a new, complete computer (say what you will about the Mac mini, but it's still an accessory/extra computer in non-geeks' minds) that will still run Windows but has the Mac OS that they've been hearing so much about.

Here's a thought -- do such buyers install Boot Camp and XP right away and boot into Windows without ever really using OS X?

[PB PM]

Considering they have to use the Mac to download boot camp, they have to use it for at least a few minutes. In any case who would pay more to get Mac hardware if all they wanted to do was run Windows?

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by PB PM Considering they have to use the Mac to download boot camp, they have to use it for at least a few minutes.

Well, yeah, I know.. lol

In any case who would pay more to get Mac hardware if all they wanted to do was run Windows?

Good point.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM In any case who would pay more to get Mac hardware if all they wanted to do was run Windows?

Paul Thurrott would. He bought his iMac Core Duo to use it on Windows, then sold it (shortly before Boot Camp came out) based on aggravation over lack of Windows support.

[PB PM]

I'm sorry I guess I was thinking of normal people.

[BarracksSi]

Originally Posted by chucker Paul Thurrott would. He bought his iMac Core Duo to use it on Windows, then sold it (shortly before Boot Camp came out) based on aggravation over lack of Windows support.

Wow. That's just... well, that's just plain stupid.

How come I don't have an internet nexus like he does?