[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by dviant The only way this makes this makes sense to me as a planned move is that Apple is gearing up to take on Microsoft head-on, running side by side, confident that OS X will blow it away. The move from PPC to x86 and now being able to run Windows on the same hardware has eliminated all barriers of meaningful comparison. It is no longer Apples to Oranges, it is Apples to Apples. I think it's a fight they could win, but my fear is that Apple will continue to be complacent in marketing OS X, simply sitting on it's collective hands waiting for consumers to "get it" while it's developer base suffers a war of attrition.

You're absolutely right in that Apple needs to come out with guns a blazin' with Leopard. With the delay of Vista...and now BootCamp, they are in a postion previously thought impossible. I never believed Jobs' honestly meant what he said when he claimed the OS war was over.
No, OSX won't overtake Windows...but the day of 10% marketshare is certainly attainable.

I'm sure Jobs will make mention of BootCamp when they unveil Leopard. But, I can't see him harping on this as a major selling feature.

[ghoti]

He, I just used this announcement to give our IT guy the go-ahead for my office iMac. I had put that off until April 1, and they had also checked back because some of the applications that are used here (especially the Novell client) aren't universal yet. But now I just said "Well it can always boot Windows! Buy it!"

On the other hand, it certainly is worrying. It was probably an inevitable step after the Intel switch, but it may cost them dearly. We'll see ...

[scratt]

Another thing just occurred to me.

Vista is going to be a steaming pile of crud. But either way prisioners of M$ are faced with the upcoming task of chaging OS if they want to move with the times...

Even changing to a familiar OS from a company you trust can be a tad frazzling. For example the move from OS 9 to OS X for us lot.

If I was sitting with a PeeCee loaded with XP software and contemplating my next move and I had always been curious about switching I would now be pushed over the hill and make that decision.

I could dive in at the deep end on a Mac and experience this wonderful thing called OS X that I have heard about, with the safety blanket of XP and all my old stock of apps etc.

And I could once and for all avoid what happened to me with XP when I first adopted that, and I am very worried might happen to me when I have to change to Vista.

So, if I was an unfortunate XP PeeCee user I think I might just be about to abandon ship and join Apple...

Moreover, if I have thought of that as an abstract from my happy position sat infront of a Mac you can guarantee that a lot of 'prisoners of M$' are thinking of that too....

EDIT - In summary: I think market share may increase, and people may attribute that to M$ and XP and BootCamp. But I think in time those people that make the decision to 'bridge' will continue to migrate to a completey Apple experience and become fully fledged 'switchers'

[torifile]

The thing is, it's not as if this WASN'T going to happen eventually. We all knew it was a matter of time before Windows was running natively at full speed. If having Apple provide the ability is a liability, certainly having it come from a third party would have been a bigger one.

[Mac+]

Yeah that's true. I think what scratt says is true also. This has been quite well timed when you look at how all the pieces have fallen into place.

[spotcatbug]

I'm wondering if Apple will be positioning OS X (beginning with Leopard) so that they (Apple) won't care if developers decide not to have an OS X version of their software. That is, the Windows versions of the apps will run so nicely within OS X that full-on ports won't be necessary. Maybe little tweaks will be needed in the Windows versions to make them "Mac OS X Compliant," but full ports won't be required.

Then, after much hand waving, OS X will be the new, better Windows.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by JK47 Now the pros can move to an Intel Mac - if they have a XP license and a Windows version of Photoshop.

This actually makes businesses with site licenses a more attractive market for Macs than the average consumer who may not want the expense of buying a newer version of XP!

To the doomsayers I would add:

How is this going to make Apple just a high-end PC maker?
How is this going to slow down OSX innovation?
How is this going to make XP any better as an everyday OS?
How is going to make XP andy less buggy and virus laden?
How is this going to make anyone move from OSX to XP?

What this will do is double Apple's share in two years and level a playing field that will force Apple to make OSX even better to use than XP no matter what M$ tries to do. We already have proof that a hacked MacBook Pro can run XP faster than Dell laptops. We have proof that customers would like a virus "free" alternative. We have a huge installed iPod user base. As M$ transitions to Vista and everyone is forced to upgrade to do anything with all of the bloatware, they will have finally a real choice to make!

What it won't do is get Windows-only developers to add Mac development unless Xcode (as described above) is cheap and easier and has ULTRA Universal binary capability.

It won't make switchers of ma and pa Kettle who only can afford a $400 PC with monitor since this basically makes a Mac at least twice as expensive with higher priced hardware and the Windows disc.

The big risk is the developer community in one or two years down the road. I'd like to hear from Adobe NOW about their upgrade plans and I'd love to see them on-stage at WWDC! As a matter of fact, that may need to be about 50% of the keynote is all of the big developers on stage with Steve pledging undying loyalty and describing how OSX innovation makes their apps better on a Mac.

It is a risk, but Steve had to move to closer to the middle of the market. Apple had to do this and it had a 6 month window (pun) to do it.

[MacGregor]

Originally Posted by chartpacs I don't use Framemaker, but a lot of people have been lamenting Adobe's decision to stop developing the Mac version. Maybe this announcement will offer some hope. As for me, I would prefer to have Windows run in a separate window in Mac OS X, to check websites in Windows browsers. It would be counterproductive to keep rebooting.

So what do you do now? Run a Mac and a PC?

Apple wants you to buy two Macs.

[psmith2.0]

This is all some decade-long, devious (and brilliant!) master plan!

For your consideration:

1. Steve returns check
2. The iMac check
3. OS X, Unix-based check
4. The iPod (trojan horse extraordinaire) check
5. iLife (digital music, photo and video for the masses) check
6. iTMS check
7. iTunes for Windows check
8. DVI displays check
8. $499 Mac check
10. Switch to Intel processors check
11. Windows booting on Macs check, as of today
12. Undermine the dominance of Windows currently underway/in progress
13. World Domination™ pending



Five years from now, we won't recognize the world!



And here I was, being all impatient and mad that Apple didn't advertise.

Seems they didn't have to, as they had their eyes on BIGGER goals than selling a few iMacs.

[sirnick4]

I think a little pee came out. . .

[jbsengineer]

Sweet. Hibernation works!

[bassplayinMacFiend]

pscates,

Make that a $599 Mac.

[Edit]
IntelliMacs still shipping within 24 hours (except for base model mini, 1-2 days for that).

[MacGregor]

Yes, and productivity has always been the order of the day for smart creative shops. The extra $200 invested in a Mac vs. PC is made up in the first week of using the machine! So why would any creative shop want to change to a PC unless Adobe forced the issue. By then if Adobe wanted to force 30-40% of its installed base to change operating systems, Apple and others will have PhotoShop and CS "clones" ready to go.

The problem that PhotoShop and such have is that each new version becomes less of an improvement and other cheaper programs get closer and closer to their level. Unless Adobe comes up with holographic media tools, there are plenty of photo editing programs and workflows available, and Apple itself has 3D and video markets well in hand. Aperture/iPhotoEditor and Pages have one more year to be prime time, once that happens all they have to do is make them 100% compatible to Photoshop and Word and who would miss the PC versions?

Standards must be made standard and let the apps slug it out!

PS I think the China, India, European markets will be a major battle ground for this, since the installed user base is relatively small and the vast masses haven't decided on their platform yet.

[AsLan^]

As we know Apple compiled OSX on Intel for years in secret. Is it possible that all their are apps are able to be compiled for Windows?

That way, if suddenly all the developers dry up, Apple can transition to the skinned Windows OS (suggested by Dvorak) and if the developers don't dry up then they would have sold that many more macs due to this feature.

I suspect that they're hoping people will primarily boot OSX and only boot windows for specific programs, after a while the thought of booting Windows will seem like a chore (like it is to us dual booting linux users).

Apple has proved by the switch to Intel that they like to keep their options open so I'm sure even if the developers all wanted to switch to Windows development, they would have a plan for that too.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 This is all some decade-long, devious (and brilliant!) master plan! For your consideration: 1. Steve returns check 2. The iMac check 3. OS X, Unix-based check 4. The iPod (trojan horse extraordinaire) check 5. iLife (digital music, photo and video for the masses) check 6. iTMS check 7. iTunes for Windows check 8. DVI displays check 8. $499 Mac check 10. Switch to Intel processors check 11. Windows booting on Macs check, as of today 12. Undermine the dominance of Windows currently underway/in progress 13. World Domination™ pending Five years from now, we won't recognize the world! And here I was, being all impatient and mad that Apple didn't advertise. Seems they didn't have to, as they had their eyes on BIGGER goals than selling a few iMacs.

As we have discussed before I think we could be going down a dangerous path overall with this.
In the short term it will all be fun and games, but I think the final cost may be that we lose the Apple we know and love..

I see a lot of these developements in the short term as being beneficial. BootCamp, the iPod, switching to Intel.

In the end I think they will ruin Apple. If nothing else Apple and other machines and OSs will converge and in the end using a computer will be like shopping today.... Lot's of big malls all over the world and ne'r a unique thing in any of them to choose from.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by AsLan^ As we know Apple compiled OSX on Intel for years in secret. Is it possible that all their are apps are able to be compiled for Windows?

Not really. As a developer yourself, I'm surprised you would mention this.

It's relatively easy for Mac OS X to run on Intel. The parent OS to Mac OS X, NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, ran on Intel machines. Apple actually had to port it to PowerPC! Since then, Apple has done a fantastic job of abstracting software with various frameworks so only a relatively small portion of low-level code actually had to be custom-tailored for Intel.

Porting whole Mac OS X applications to Windows, however, is an entirely different monster. That would entail rewriting a much larger portion of the code as nearly everything would have to be ported to a different API and programming language and would have to include new replacements for the Mac frameworks that don't exist on Windows.

That, of course, assumes we're talking about native self-contained ports like iTunes for Windows without the use of Yellow Box.

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by Brad Not really. As a developer yourself, I'm surprised you would mention this. It's relatively easy for Mac OS X to run on Intel. The parent OS to Mac OS X, NeXTSTEP/OpenStep, ran on Intel machines. Apple actually had to port it to PowerPC! Since then, Apple has done a fantastic job of abstracting software with various frameworks so only a relatively small portion of low-level code actually had to be custom-tailored for Intel. Porting whole Mac OS X applications to Windows, however, is an entirely different monster. That would entail rewriting a much larger portion of the code as nearly everything would have to be ported to a different API and programming language.

Well that's where Cocoa for Windows would come in, I thought Apple had a Yellowbox project that was basically Cocoa for Windows. There's also GNUStep which seems to have some Windows support. It's not inconceivable that they've been maintaining it through the years for just such an occaision.

EDIT: I just reread your post and see that you mentioned Yellowbox. I was unaware that iTunes was a native port without Yellowbox but the main point of my post was that Apple is an agile company and everything isnt always as it seems. I'm sure they would be delighted for more developers to start using Cocoa, but I'm sure they have a contingency if that doesn't happen.

[Brad]

You posted while I was editing.

Of course, unless major changes have been made, such a Yellow Box scenario rules out Carbon apps like Final Cut.

And we're getting off-topic and such a tangent should be placed in a new thread if anyone is interested in continuing down this road.

[billybobsky]

I am worried... But microsoft cannot let macos die and while gates and ballmer may be itching to pull out the tactics it used on ibm's os/2... the established anti-trust case law against them is a large and ominous and will weight at least somewhat in their decision to kill apple.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Actually, all the underpinnings of Cocoa and Core* would have to be remapped to the Win32 API. The source code on top (if Apple did the API port well) wouldn't have to change at all. The developer may need to just recompile the executable. So Apple could make it just as easy to build Windows apps as it is to build universal binaries.

You have to think Apple has this stuff hanging around somewhere. iTunes on Windows runs and acts just like its OS X counterpart (except for menu placement) including Bonjour support. Somewhere in the bowels of iTunes for Windows are static APIs to make OS X & Windows simultaneous development easier. I'd almost bet much of the Cocoa frameworks could be found in the Windows iTunes .exe file.

[JK47]

This offering will have me seriously considering a Mac for my next computer purchase. The ability to boot Windows would allow my family to migrate away from Microsoft at our own pace. Very nice.


This quote was taken from a user that posted on Paul Thurrott's WinInfo. This is the kind of effect Boot Camp will have. It's SUCH a sense of security that switchers will now not only be influenced by the iPod Halo Effect, but now they can fall back on Windows if need be. Brilliant move, Apple!

[Brad]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend I'd almost bet much of the Cocoa frameworks could be found in the Windows iTunes .exe file.

Do realize that iTunes is:

1. Carbon, not Cocoa.
2. Ported from the OS 9 app SoundJam and is very self-contained.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by JK47 This offering will have me seriously considering a Mac for my next computer purchase. The ability to boot Windows would allow my family to migrate away from Microsoft at our own pace. Very nice. This quote was taken from a user that posted on Paul Thurrott's WinInfo. This is the kind of effect Boot Camp will have. It's SUCH a sense of security that switchers will now not only be influenced by the iPod Halo Effect, but now they can fall back on Windows if need be. Brilliant move, Apple!

Not only that, but Apple's Intel offerings are fast! The whole "underpowered for a greater price" argument just can't be leveled against the new IntelliMacs. So if someone (for some ungodly reason) just kept the Apple to run only Windows they still have bought (as of today) a state of the art computer.

[Sargasm]

All this makes me really sad that users who can't afford to upgrade to the intel macs, such as myself, are left behind in the dust.

I hope the PPC version of OSX Leopard isn't in any way lacking in quality from the intel version.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by neumac My gut reaction is that this is a big gamble on Apple's part. It may greatly reduce the pressure on developers to create Mac software. As people have noted, why would Adobe spend the resources to develop universal binary versions of its apps; users can just boot in Windows. As good as Mac OS X has become, without third-party software it is of limited utility. Apple may be banking on its own software suite to carry the day, but I think that there is a great deal of uncertainty about which way this will go in the long run.

I think your analysis is dead on. Maybe Dvorak wasn't as crazy as we thought.

What about Microsoft? Why would they continue to develop Office? I know about their pledge, but what's the point now? They can just say run it on our own OS to Mac users.

This is a sad day.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by Brad Do realize that iTunes is: 1. Carbon, not Cocoa. 2. Ported from the OS 9 app SoundJam and is very self-contained.

I did not know that! *Waaaaaaaaaahhhhh, thud*

Still I think there may be enough existing code (GNUStep?) and whatever Apple has in its skunkwords to make YellowBox (maybe rename it YellowSubmarine after the Apple vs. Apple cases?) possible in a reasonable timeframe.

[709]

Um. I think people are forgetting that you've still got to purchase XP if you want to run the damn thing.

Unless MS bundles it with Office I really can't see them going that route.

Originally Posted by Mac Donald This is a sad day.

When people start saying Dvorak isn't crazy....yes, I have to agree.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald I think your analysis is dead on. Maybe Dvorak wasn't as crazy as we thought. What about Microsoft? Why would they continue to develop Office? I know about their pledge, but what's the point now? They can just say run it on our own OS to Mac users. This is a sad day.

I would hope Apple laid out there BootCamp plans to the MS MacBU before they released the "We're continuing OS X Office development" statement.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Originally Posted by 709 Um. I think people are forgetting that you've still got to purchase XP if you want to run the damn thing. Unless MS bundles it with Office I really can't see them going that route.

Unless you already have a non-OEM copy. If you do, you can install XP on your Mac, then call MS for a new activation code.

[709]

Well of course. But I'd consider that a purchase (even if it was previous to this announcement).