Don't quit your day job and become a marketing consultant. I'm not saying that it can't be done or won't happen, but with the lame slogans you've given us, neither side will buy it and your "10.5" will be a bigger flop than the newton.

You ignored the basic advantage of dual-boot machines-- would be switchers can buy a mac with the peace of mind that they could "revert" to windows if they wanted to.

that damn judge's ruling. The situation would be very different today if the judge had ruled differently.

Quote

Tiger wrote:
that damn judge's ruling. The situation would be very different today if the judge had ruled differently.

Yeah, we'd all be using OS 9 since "OS X Vista" was just pushed back once again.

Face it, being a huge monopoloy in the computer world demands many things from a company and there's no way Apple would have been able to change as much or move as fast as they have recently. The switch from Classic to X? The switch from PPC to Intel? iLife programs that work well with each other? iPods that are easy to use?

I'm afraid that this alternate-universe-Apple you long for would have been unable to do any of these things any better than Microsoft can now.

People look at Apple's size like it's a curse, but I think it's their best strength. Granted, they could stand to be better...I'd love a world with a 25% Mac market share. I think they could be that big and not change their nature. But I'd be worried if Apple ever got larger than that.

EDIT: As for the article...well, I don't think so. OS X is Apple's baby. It's what they're all about. I could imagine seeing OS X on a Dell long before I could see the opposite happening.

"executives that want the swank look of Macs on their desktop. I mean what posh techy or executive could resist those shiny pretty boxes"

your strategy is failed already, perhaps apples biggest failure after allowing clones.

in form of the Cube which no one bought for a variety of reasons, chief of which it was too expensive to those same people you are targeting to justify,

Never mind it was perhaps there coolest looking computer ever made, it was too much money even for those swanky executives during dot come boom years.
Each of your swanky duel boot macs with windows on pre-installed will be about an extra $200 in M$ licensing...


" At first they would dual boot in secret"

that is really pretty silly. no adult would have to boot in secret, certainly none whose opinion matters in purchasing. no cash cows of untapped market share have you, young sky walker.


those very same corporate america types, who dont really make a lot of hardware decisions in all honesty, most are lucky to be able to check email, but if they were, they would go with cheaper dell for everyone but themselves, afterall, thy would want to look good, not anyone else.

And that rare corporate CEO who need to look all swanky, and can make purchasing decisions, is not a huge market at all if you were honest. And there is a good chance if they are smart enough to know what OS X is, and like the boxes, they already have one.

Interesting. I don't see dual-booting really taking off in the Business world even among the "posh techy or executive". Perhaps a Virtual PC like program that runs on top of OS X and tightly intigrates things like data transfers between the OS's would do the trick. Really, who wants to use a swap drive?

Quote

Guest wrote:
Interesting. I don't see dual-booting really taking off in the Business world even among the "posh techy or executive". Perhaps a Virtual PC like program that runs on top of OS X and tightly intigrates things like data transfers between the OS's would do the trick. Really, who wants to use a swap drive?

You don't get it. To even have a HOPE that an IT departant will consider purchasing a mac, it must come Windows ready. Without that, it's a non-starter. And some places have a windows only policy. A techy user that wants to get to use a Mac at work would have the option of dual booting if to hide that they were using a "non approved" operating system. But to get the mac through the door, it better come with windows or the IT department (at least where I work) will veto it being brought in.

No way Apple will sell Windows. No way, forget it, move on. Commodity hardware — which is all a Windows-running Mac would be — is a cutthroat business, useful perhaps for folks who want to get rich, not at all for someone interested in changing the world.

"Apple will sell a lot more machines to executives that want the swank look of Macs on their desktop. I mean what posh techy or executive could resist those shiny pretty boxes?"

Are you nuts? Corporations don't buy shiny boxes, and most executives are less sophisticated about technology than their own grandkids; they use whatever tower or laptop their IT department plops on their desks.

There is no way Apple is going to (re)claim the enterprise market by tricking anybody. If it ever happens, it will be because Apple did the slow, painstaking work of building a product so superior to Windows that Microsoft's entrenched position is no longer strong enough to protect it.

Quote

John Kheit wrote:
The marketing slant will be something like, "people love how our machines look, they work well, and they will make the best Windows boxes out there for those that need to work in Windows; but of course they run even better with OS X and they can do that too."

Oh my god you didn't just say that. Are you a Mac user? So now we're back to the whole people buy Macs cause they look cool thing? What is this, 2001? I could have sworn it had something to do with hardware/software integration and controlling the entire experience. Remember?

Also in your analysis of theories on why Apple joined BAPCo, you left out the most likely theory. That given both OS X and Windows run on the same processor architecture now, it would be more feasible to create a set of valid cross-platform benchmark tests that would allow... um... oranges to oranges comparisons.

No you don't get it. There are actual IT deptartments that use Macs and PCs.

Quote

Guest wrote:

it will be because Apple did the slow, painstaking work of building a product so superior to Windows that Microsoft's entrenched position is no longer strong enough to protect it.

Um yea, that really worked out that way the first time for microsoft and apple. The strategy of being better failed, I say let's go for tricking them strategy that seemed to work out a bit better for microsoft.

Quote

Guest wrote:
No you don't get it. There are actual IT deptartments that use Macs and PCs.

Yea, all 2 of them. Talk about living on planet macboy.

We can call the new machines preloaded with Windows MacTrojans. Make your own jokes.

It’s all about Dharma (aka Yellow Box), with a Cocoa runtime which runs under Windoze. All this other speculation is silly.

@Small White Car: Even if Apple had a much larger marketshare, they could – and i think would – make drastic changes like the Classic -> MacOS X. Apple isn’t afraid to move ahead. It’s all part of the package you buy when you purchase the Mac ticket. M$’s failures are M$’s alone; no need to find external forces driving them. They have a history of making poor choices, pure and simple.

iTunes and QuickTime. Using iTunes to sneak QT into WinTel computers is a much purer Trojan horse analogy. The shiny goodness of iTunes and the integrated ITMS requires the underlying tech of QT, which in turn allows the DV standard of H.264 to make an end run around Windows media players. With M$ busy trying to plug the holes in their OS, the end run looks like a complete success. With the purchase of El Gato Apple is poised to bring a digital media solution to the family room entertainment focal point, the televison. If, and it's a big if, M$ can get Vista out in a stable and secure release, they may be able to retain the business markets, but the home entertainment market will belong to Apple and whoever joins them in the coming revolution.

One of the guest posts has hit the nail on the head.

A lot of doors are currently closed to Apple due to policy decisions. Being able to run Windows removes some of them. Being able to run Windows in a supported way (rather than some hacked drivers) removes even more.

It would certainly put me in a position to request that my next machine at work be a Mac - and I'd recommend our sales staff should also have them so they can use Keynote. And that is how it will start.

90% of people are not interested in OS-X per se, but if Sales can knock up a better looking presentation onto a DVD using iLife, then they will. It's called having a killer application.

Also, unlike individual users who would have to pay extra for a Windows licence on a Mac, most businesses have bulk licences. (We end up paying for Windows twice - once for our site Windows Professional licence, and once for the copies of XP Home that come with the cheap hardware we buy - and immediately wipe).

Quote

Biff wrote:
Oh my god you didn't just say that. Are you a Mac user? So now we're back to the whole people buy Macs cause they look cool thing? What is this, 2001? I could have sworn it had something to do with hardware/software integration and controlling the entire experience. Remember?

Also in your analysis of theories on why Apple joined BAPCo, you left out the most likely theory. That given both OS X and Windows run on the same processor architecture now, it would be more feasible to create a set of valid cross-platform benchmark tests that would allow... um... oranges to oranges comparisons.

I suggest you read Wikipedia's (or anyone else's) definition of what a devil's advocate is. Here's part of it:

Quote

Wikipedia wrote:
In common parlance, the term has come to mean a person who argues a position that they do not necessarily believe in, simply for the sake of arguing; or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in to another debater. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.

Apple's support had been questioned recently and has always been a little shaky, but at least OS X "actually works" so there are few times users need to call for support. Can you imagine the nightmare of troubleshooting a Dual-boot scenario? Not to mention even getting most users to figure out which OS they're using right now? "OK, do you see the work "Start" in the lower left or do you see an apple in the upper left? OK, now click on start, the "All Programs", then.........

No way, Josie!

Why is so much attetion being paid to dual-boot? Have any of you actually tried it? OK, I'm using iDVD, boot into OS X. Oh, now I need to run Access. Power down. Reboot. Choose Windows. Oh, now I need to check my mail and load my iPod. Power down. Reboot. COME ON!
Perhaps one of the reasons (besides power and heat) that Apple is suddenly keen on Intel is the VT technology. PowerMacs and MacBooks that can run Windows (and Linux, for that matter) inside of the stability of OS X at near full speed is the real holyy grail. No rebooting. Just run Access. Just run AutoCAD. With VT - the environment can be seemless. Work out a few graphics issues and you'll even co-mingle the windows. I've been waiting for this since 1992!

Quote

Guest wrote:
Why is so much attetion being paid to dual-boot? Have any of you actually tried it? OK, I'm using iDVD, boot into OS X. Oh, now I need to run Access. Power down. Reboot. Choose Windows. Oh, now I need to check my mail and load my iPod. Power down. Reboot. COME ON!
Perhaps one of the reasons (besides power and heat) that Apple is suddenly keen on Intel is the VT technology. PowerMacs and MacBooks that can run Windows (and Linux, for that matter) inside of the stability of OS X at near full speed is the real holyy grail. No rebooting. Just run Access. Just run AutoCAD. With VT - the environment can be seemless. Work out a few graphics issues and you'll even co-mingle the windows. I've been waiting for this since 1992!

Because you need to show that the machine boots in and runs windows xp for corporate IT to ok the purchase. Plain and simple. Your hand waving to the contrary makes no difference. That's the policy.

It lets IT do it's checkmark for windows booting. Then after the machine is on the desk, someone can set it up to also boot to mac os when no one is looking.

I find this speculation very interesting. I have been wondering how Apple convinced MS to "promise" Mac Office support for 5 more years. Behind the scenes they tell MS that they will sell high-end boxes with windows pre-loaded. MS thinks they have won ("Apple is now shipping OUR OS - we win!"), IT depts start shipping macs to businesses with windows all preconfigured with all the goodies they like, and boom - Macs are back on the desktop in the big market. Meanwhile, corporate users everywhere are booting into OSX everyday, and the IT depts start looking like the maytag repairman.

Maybe. It's fun thinking about anyway.

flypod

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple's support had been questioned recently and has always been a little shaky, but at least OS X "actually works" so there are few times users need to call for support.

To the contrary, Consumer Reports has consistently found that Apple has the best support of any computer company. It's usually not even close.

If Apple preloads Windows on their Macs, Apple will die.

The whole point of a Mac, and the reason people have been switching, is that it's an alternative to Windows.

If they can suddenly boot between Windows and OS X, then no developer has any reason whatsoever to support OS X anymore, and Macs will become nothing more but stylish Windows boxes at a premium that happen to have a minor, secondary OS that isn't even compatible with Windows, so what's the point?

It'd kill the Mac platform dead by turning it into a Wintel machine.

If the next OS X has native support for Windows applications, though, it'll be huge boost to Apple and a fatal blow to Microsoft.

Quote

Guest wrote:
If Apple preloads Windows on their Macs, Apple will die.

The whole point of a Mac, and the reason people have been switching, is that it's an alternative to Windows.

If they can suddenly boot between Windows and OS X, then no developer has any reason whatsoever to support OS X anymore, and Macs will become nothing more but stylish Windows boxes at a premium that happen to have a minor, secondary OS that isn't even compatible with Windows, so what's the point?

It'd kill the Mac platform dead by turning it into a Wintel machine.

If the next OS X has native support for Windows applications, though, it'll be huge boost to Apple and a fatal blow to Microsoft.

A masterpiece in circular reasoning and drawing conclusions from thin air. Why would the developers bother making mac software if you can run windows software in a virtual emulator in OS X? The same "reasoning" you use for developers not bothering applies to both cases.