 |
by John Martellaro
April 24th, 2006
Whenever Apple releases a new product, observers, writers, and analysts tend to see the item in very narrow terms. A good case in point is the recent release of Boot Camp. To be sure, Apple is gauging the response to this product, but if the degree of general excitement and Peter Oppenheimer's comments in the link above are any indication, Apple will be pleased with the results of the downloads.
Apple does this a lot. Testing the market waters is important for Apple because, first, they've been running very lean since 1997, and second, Apple just hates to be embarrassed. When a company is as image conscious as Apple, they just can't afford to waste time looking bad by dabbling in a technology that's going nowhere.
The other thing that Apple does very well is to try to understand the customer needs and to leverage off of those needs by building an ecosystem around successful products -- like the iPod.
As a result, I tend to see Boot Camp as a likely beginning -- just step one in a sequence of well-planned phases that will ignite another fire. Bear with me a minute while I backtrack just a bit, because, in fact, it all started with Virtual PC.
When I was with Apple, I can tell you that Virtual PC was problematic for many users. I don't mean the very technical customers, but rather, the every day consumers that I would engage. When they would ask me about running Windows software on a Mac, subtle issues arose. You could see their eyebrows furrow. There were just too many knowledge gaps for the average Mac user.
First, the customer had to do a two stage install. They were almost always intimidated by this prospect. Second was the price: more than $200 to get XP included. Third, the emulation speed gave them pause. The perceived difficulties just built up and often killed their interest. To be sure, many astute users purchased, installed, and ran Virtual PC with ease, but for many others, it was a project that was just too imposing.
When Microsoft purchased VPC from Connectix, that just made matters worse because it put the fate of this valuable tool in the hands of the same company that makes Windows, and the same company that Apple goes up against in many competitive business situations. So little gotchas would crop up in VPC and be slow getting fixed.
Apple, I think, has been very unhappy with the user experience of VPC, and it seems like a natural progression, now that they have Intel-based Macs, to fix that problem.
I can foresee several possible next steps after Boot Camp that would extend over the next four or five years. This is all speculation merely to remind us how Apple can be very good at extending and fueling a favorable trend.
Phase 1. Boot Camp puts Apple back in control of the Windows enabling factor on Macs. Even though the install process is similar to VPC, Apple gets to design that process and Microsoft can no longer fiddle with VPC to their advantage. It's a baby step. Apple can advertise, manage, and control the environment in which a standard version of Windows installs, but, of course, without having to support Windows. Good start.
Phase 2. Leverage the marketing. Windows installs and runs on Intel Macs thanks to Apple's genius and hard work. Apple provides the solution. Not Connectix. Not Microsoft. Apple is your solution, and it's free in Leopard. Essential PR for the future.
Phase 3. Once customers are aware that Windows is a no-brainer on an Intel Mac, Apple can start to manage the hardware and software infrastructure in which Windows resides. As customers are well exposed to the idea that Apple is the enabler of Windows on Macs, then a virtualization system can be introduced, touted as a great improvement, which runs Windows along side of Mac OS X instead of dual boot. Apple can continue to control the messaging on this which is important. Whether Apple will use the Parallels system or one of their own will be a technical/cost/benefit/legal analysis for the executive team to make. Apple is then poised to build tools (Apple's solution again) that manage Windows as it runs along side of Mac OS X.
Going a step farther, still in accordance with Apple's stated policy: "We have no desire and no plan to sell or support Windows," Apple could nevertheless encourage Apple VARs to pre-install Vista making it even easier for the consumer. (Not much encouragement seems required.) In fact, this has already started with XP and Boot Camp.
A side note here. Apple touts itself as the company that ignited the personal computer revolution. It just has to frost Steve's freezer that the company that holds 90% of the PC market in operating systems has so badly handled the security and reliability of Windows. Let's face it, with the emerging VM rootkits, Windows users are headed for further pain and suffering. Wouldn't it be nice if Apple could fix this problem, make the PC safe again, but at the expense of the PC industry?
It can.
Phase 4. Next, attack the problem of the security infrastructure of Windows. Since Mac OS X can take care of itself fairly well, Apple could build tools that protect Windows: scan for kernel changes, VM rootkits, modified files, malware, and so on. (Technically, this isn't support. Just good housekeeping.) If Windows becomes badly damaged, blow it out and reload a protected image from disk. As John Gruber put it so brilliantly, Windows Vista, becomes a ghetto OS. Like Classic, continuing to quote Gruber, Windows is "something to be done while holding one's nose." It's protected by Mac OS X and lives on under the supervision of and at the pleasure of Mac OS X. (Apple might have to build its own virtualization system to achieve this technical feat.)
Now the fire is blazing.
Ongoing Economic Warfare. Don't forget that every PC has a copy of Windows XP for which the manufacturer paid Microsoft. The best data I could find on what Microsoft charges OEMs suggests that it averages about $50 for Windows XP Home. Let's use Dell as an example. Dell has about 17% of the worldwide market of 57 million PCs sold last quarter, which comes to about 9.5+ million units. So Dell alone is paying, very roughly, just under two billion dollars to Microsoft each year. I could be off by +/-50% but probably not by an order of magnitude.
Now we're several years down the road. Customers who are thinking about buying a PC have a choice.
- Buy a standard PC with, for the sake of marketing-speak, a "naked" copy of Windows.
- Buy a Macintosh on which one can install (or have pre-installed) a "protected" copy of Windows.
Not only is Dell sweating the fact that they sell PCs that are "naked," but, unlike Apple, they get to pay Microsoft two billion dollars a year for the privilege. That's sure to start at cat fight.
Phase 5. Plan B. All of the previous phases have the individual paying, in general, full retail for a copy of Vista or getting it pre-installed by Apple VARs for somewhat less. This will appeal to Microsoft and sustain their willingness to go along with Apple boiling their OS frog.
Let's take a guess and say that in the future the average price Microsoft gets for each Vista on Mac is $100. If, say, 20% of every Intel Mac ends up with Windows, and Apple is selling 7 million Macs a year in 2010, the Microsoft revenue will be about $140 million. Nothing to walk away from, but let's say they do. Let's say, under pressure from the other PC OEMs, Microsoft fiddles with Vista to make sure it won't install on an Intel Mac somehow. Could happen.
Then Apple might invoke Plan B. In four years, it may be realistic to think in terms of a robust Darwine for Vista. This is a software tool that allows Windows applications to run without the Windows OS. Again, a decision on whether Apple leverages off the current Darwine or brews their own version will be made in Apple's best interests. Microsoft could also try to counter this by technical or legal means. Things are murky at this point.
By then, however, the damage will be done. Mac OS X will have built its reputation as the savior and protector of the ghetto-ized Windows. (Again, I give credit to John Gruber for inventing this term.) It will affect the politics of the day.
None of the other PC OEMs is going to put up the resources to duplicate what Apple has achieved. They'll beg Microsoft to produce a "protected" version of Vista. Or they'll beg Apple to license Mac OS X. (Which Apple still won't do.) It'll be a critical point for the PC industry and Microsoft.
Opportunities for Apple will abound.
Now all this has been speculation. The time-line could be off, and Apple could possibly accelerate it as the market permits; or, different technologies could come along at different paces with different maturity dates to shuffle the order or delete some of these phases. Politics, partnerships, and mergers could shuffle the deck.
I don't have any inside knowledge; I just know that these kinds of technologies ignited by Boot Camp can often lead to projects in which Apple systematically develops technologies whose collective impact doesn't seem apparent at the outset. I've described just one possible scenario. The goal here is insight and perspective, not to predict the future.
The work of Steve Jobs isn't over yet, but one has to believe that events similar to the above could finally lead to fueling the fires of the final stage of the PC revolution. And then Steve can finally retire.
John Martellaro is a senior scientist and author. A former U.S. Air Force officer,he has worked for NASA, White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Apple Computer. During his five years at Apple, he worked as a Senior Marketing Manager for science and technology, Federal Account Executive, and High Performance Computing Manager. His interests include alpine skiing, SciFi, astronomy, and Perl. John lives in Denver, Colorado.
Send polite comments to , or post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From Hidden Dimensions
- Apple's Values and the Movie Moguls - September 11th
- My Tour of Duty at Apple, Part II - August 30th
- Apple, The Cluetrain and The Money - August 22nd
Hidden Dimensions Archives
Observer Comments
High hopes abound in the Mac camp these days, and I also hope things unfold as many are speculating. But one factor seems to be overlooked, and it's the factor that has relegated the Mac to the closet for the past decade or more. That factor is the unsophisticated nature of the typical computer buyer.
While Apple fans view this as a victory for Apple, I imagine many Windows pundits will promote it as a "final victory" for Microsoft. They will say (and write in the press) that Microsoft now owns another 5% of the market, has won the OS wars, Apple has finally "seen the light," etc., etc. Just look at the crazy articles already being written written by well-known Windows columnists.
Apple users will try to respond (as they always have) with technical discussions of just why Apple's approach is better, the benefits of running Windows in a virtualization mode, etc., etc., but this will depend on a number of things that history has shown aren't true:
1) the average consumer will understand
2) the average consumer will care
3) the average consumer will want to learn enough and take the time to install Windows properly
In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if the public perception is the opposite of the Mac user perception, and Apple is seen as just another (higher-priced) PC vendor. Apple may lose the unique mindshare that is starting to grow. I hope it doesn't happen this way, but you have to admit that the danger is there.
I think you could be right, but the timeline will contract, if you search the web dilligently, you will find references to Apple utilizing Xen in Tiger.
Xen is an open source virtualization solution for Intel's vanderpool technology. Somee people have reported that xen works very well, with only a 1 or 2 percent speed hit. In fact it can sometimes run "guest" OSes faster that when that OS is native - strange as it may seem.
Unfortunately, I have to believe that OS X's greates security boon is the fact that it just isn't being attacked. The more OS X stands out in the spotlight, the greater market share Apple gets through it's business processes, the more hackers are going to 'take the challenge' of getting into the Mac.
I don't want that. I'm not so sure Apple's ready to invest the kind of money needed to make an OS that secure either. And furthermore, I don't think it would be a wise idea to challenge hackers by issuing the 'protected' Window's standard. Sounds dangerous to me.
It was fun while it lasted, but I think the carefree days of not worrying about malware are quickly coming to an end. The Intel migration, despite bringing numerous benefits to the platform, will probably usher in the need for vigilance on the Mac platform once again.
The growing use of root-kits to gain access to a machine is the reason for my doubt. They run beneath the OS layer and can easily be modified for various OSs, but are locked to a specific instruction set. Now that we're all riding on x86, we're all in the same boat for this new breed of malware.
Hang on to those PPC machines, even if you go with Intel for future purchases. They may prove to be a valued platform from a time past, at least for the near future.
The ultimate trojan horse against Windoze, built by SJ & Co.?
QuoteGuest wrote:
Personally, I think Apple is working toward circumventing windows altogether to allow Windows apps to open directly under the mac OS - no XP needed, no tech support of Windows needed.
Security problems a long way toward being solved. Vista unnecessary.
Jamie
is that it comes from a rational, intelligent person. One that assumes that other people behave in a rational intelligent way as well. There is no reason to think that consumers or OEMs will start begging for security ... or even if they did that MicroSoft would even care. One of the hallmarks of MicroSoft's business model is that they sell crap and don't bother to update anything unless they absolutely have to. Look at IE.
Thats the problem when smart people try to predict how consumers will react. They make the mistake of thinking they will do so in a smart way. MicroSoft would have never been a sucess if this was really true.
Columinst Cringley said he knew for a fact that Apple had Windows applications running on OSX without emulation or virtualization by incorporating Window's API's into the Mac OS. If true, that would be the best solution altogether. This is not hard to beleive because Apple had access to all of Microsoft's technology for five years as a result of the technology sharing agreement between the two companies.
I, however, think that of all things. this could threaten development on the Mac. This would be cool though.
Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:28 pm Subject: Two things here...
First, any kind of Darwine implementation has the potential of allowing bad .exe files to do bad things to Mac OS files. Unless Darwine has a way to run on HFS+, all the mallware out there is ready to do same damage it would to XP or Vista. Therefore, virtualisation is the best way to go. It gives users ability to run XP/Vista stuff with their noses pinched, while thoroughly enjoying their Tiger/Leopard experience.
Second, we must keep in mind that this cannot possibly cause an increase in back-switchers, i.e. people who will now abandon Mac OS. Loyal Mac users are staying with the platform. Anyone who's ever tried Mac stayed with it (insignificant miniscule number of people notwithstanding). That means, in addition to the loyal base, the current crop of switchers, lured by the iPod halo, frustration and exasperation from Win malware world, we are looking forward to all those who had perfect excuse (can't run my AutoCAD, Corel Draw, Lotus Notes Designer...). They're all welcome. They will quickly become part of the loyal fan base that is small but very vocal (as IBM/Lotus said in their press release about Lotus Notes universal binary), and a vocal fan base means more universal binaries from more vendors.
not anyone of the os's, mac osX, linux or windows, is supreme. each brings different things to the table. the thing is to learn what to take from them all. and we'll see if the kernal change will help speed up osX. but i am waiting to buy a mac book pro so that i can triple boot, not just dual. and i wouldn't want emulation of either linux or windows. plus i run windows now and have no security issues, not now, not ever. its only the noobs that do. and most noobs wont or dont know what dual booting is.
I've been watching by the sidelines for over 20 years and have endured every "Apple is Dead" comment from PC using associates you can imagine. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I feel strongly that Apple will prevail in the end and once again become the prominent force in the computing industry as it once was a long time ago in 1979. Apple computers are all I've ever know. I used a "PC" for the first time in 2001. It was not a pleasant experience to say the least. I've heard so many tales about PC users switching to the Mac in the past few years that it makes me wonder why they never looked for an alternative to begin with. I just don't get it. Why the masses of humanity on this globe chose to use the Microsoft Operating System.
Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:18 am Subject: ...and...you were going to tell us something we didnt know?
I think your time line is too long.
I think Apple is ready to do all of this right now..
They are just rolling things out in a controlled/dramatic way.
I also think you took a long, long time and a lot of typing to tell us something we all already know/heard/read.
Thanks, though.
PS: I won't be happy going back to Macs until they come STANDARD with two -- or more -- buttoned mice.. I know I can go attach one, but I want it standard.
WHAT is the reason again that I'd want to flip back and forth between Windows and OS X??? There's nothing I prefer to do on OS X and believe me I have massive access to OS X machines and Windows machines.. and, GOD FORBID, but Mac OS X Servers...which are from hell.
I dont like to pay needless $$$ to have a prettier 'box' with lots of rounded edges and 'brilliant' variations on how to load a CD.. I dont need to start a rock band in my garage...so, the Garage Band software is just wasted space on my hard drive..
I DO need awesome graphics, thats a given.. So, I guess, right there you have me on the....oh, wait....no, what am I saying... There's nothing I can't do with graphics on a cheap, fast PC that I can do on a Mac ... Hmm.
Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:49 am Subject: No Windows on a Mac as Standard
Apple cannot include Windows functionality as standard either in OSX as a virtual machine or included API or via Boot Camp. If Macs were to ship being able to run Windows programs out of the box, then no Windows developers will write for the Mac as they can tell customers to run the Windows version since every new Mac would be able to. This would happen. It has happened in the past to another system that could run Windows apps out of the box. The developers said to run the Windows version.
Boot Camp lets you put Windows on the Mac without Apple having to include it. Thus neatly skirting the Mac running Windows out of the box. Later, virtual machine technology in 10.5 could boot that Windows partition up into a nice safe virtual machine, again without Windows itself being supplied by Apple as a default functionality.
Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:12 am Subject: Positioning Mac OS X
Quoteu2mr2os2 wrote:
If Macs were to ship being able to run Windows programs out of the box, then no Windows developers will write for the Mac as they can tell customers to run the Windows version since every new Mac would be able to. This would happen. It has happened in the past to another system that could run Windows apps out of the box. The developers said to run the Windows version.
...as a genreal rule, Windows developers don't write Mac OS X software. They are Windows developers.
-K
I've never used OSX but hear good things about it. And not just from the Apple Zealots. Even if you can effectively run Windows in a VM on Apple, it still won't be as popular as other systems simply due to cost.
Ok, say you can buy a Dell with Windows for $600.
Ok, say you can buy a Mac for $1200.
I'll risk the security and stability problems ANY DAY for half the price and so will almost everyone else.
Same old story from Apple, tooooooo expensive!
Tue Apr 25, 2006 5:52 am Subject: Apple will have XP API, Vista will die in the pram
I'm not sure why you think that Apple will not try to leverage the XP API under Mac OS X first, so as to quelch Vista ever emerging. Darwine is one option, Cringely's rumour of Apple's own secret implementation is another. Have a look:
http://braintickle.blogspot.com/2006/04/darwine-on-mac-os-x.html
Why not WINE ? Darwine is the PPC+Mac windows api porting effort for PPC version of Windows - incidently that had very little software for it, and a slow intel emulation
I'd wager that apple might drop a donation (or buy out a commercial wine port) to the wine project and include that within next years release of OSX for intel.
Mucking about with VM stuff isn't the mac way of doing things imo
Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:45 am Subject:
QuoteS: I won't be happy going back to Macs until they come STANDARD with two -- or more -- buttoned mice.. I know I can go attach one, but I want it standard.
They have for the last year.
QuoteOk, say you can buy a Dell with Windows for $600.
Ok, say you can buy a Mac for $1200.
Ok, say you can buy a Mac for $600. It's called the Mac Mini. Been around for a while, too.
QuoteGuest wrote:
WHAT is the reason again that I'd want to flip back and forth between Windows and OS X??? There's nothing I prefer to do on OS X and believe me I have massive access to OS X machines and Windows machines.. and, GOD FORBID, but Mac OS X Servers...which are from hell.
I dont like to pay needless $$$ to have a prettier 'box' with lots of rounded edges and 'brilliant' variations on how to load a CD.. I dont need to start a rock band in my garage...so, the Garage Band software is just wasted space on my hard drive..
I DO need awesome graphics, thats a given.. So, I guess, right there you have me on the....oh, wait....no, what am I saying... There's nothing I can't do with graphics on a cheap, fast PC that I can do on a Mac ... Hmm.
Yes, Yes, and you are the only person that Apple would want to buy a Mac. :\
I think Apple is looking to get out of the PC business altogether. Their PC sales have been dwindling, (market share, I know they have increased volume of sales, but market share overall is going down, not up). Apple has come out and released boot camp allowing you to install XP on their hardware, this marjonalizes their hardware. Now you can run XP on their hardware.
Part II, Apple has given MS a set of API's to include in Vista, this allows Vista to natively run OS X software. Now they have just marjonalized their OS. What does that leave that is special about an Apple PC, besides it's overpriced price tag? Nothing.
Apple wants to ditch PC's and focus on Ipods and Itunes, the ONLY business units making money.
QuoteGuest wrote:
I won't be happy going back to Macs until they come STANDARD with two -- or more -- buttoned mice.. I know I can go attach one, but I want it standard.
Actually, I didn't let that stop me, I bought the Kensington wireless keyboard (comes with the two button mouse). Why do you need it to come STANDARD?
I am a Senior Art Director, and have been working in the Graphic Arts industry for the past 20 years. The Graphic Arts industry has billions of dollars invested in the hardware and software that Apple provides. As I have told many clients and business associates in the past, Apple is not going to die or stop creating hardware or software. The speculation of Apple's demise or change in business model is ridiculous!
The Mac is all I have ever known. To my bewilderment throughout the 1980s and 90s, the world around me and outside of the Graphic Arts industry chose the Microsoft product over the Apple product. This fact alone disturbs me to my very core. And those of you who state that Apple products are still too expensive, is an outrageous claim. The life span of an Apple product is 5 times that of a PC. I still use an older Mac in a heavy production environment that was purchased in 1999. I can not say that of any PC purchased 6 years ago.
Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:39 pm Subject: Re: I think you are completely backwards here
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
I think Apple is looking to get out of the PC business altogether. Their PC sales have been dwindling, (market share, I know they have increased volume of sales, but market share overall is going down, not up). Apple has come out and released boot camp allowing you to install XP on their hardware, this marjonalizes their hardware. Now you can run XP on their hardware.
Their market share has been increasing, not decreasing. Even the MS pundits admit to that.
QuotePart II, Apple has given MS a set of API's to include in Vista, this allows Vista to natively run OS X software. Now they have just marjonalized their OS. What does that leave that is special about an Apple PC, besides it's overpriced price tag? Nothing.
Huh? Where are you getting that little gem from? Must have hurt pulling that out of certain regions of your anatomy.
QuoteApple wants to ditch PC's and focus on Ipods and Itunes, the ONLY business units making money.
Making things up again, are you? Apple has a very high margin (compared to the rest of the computer industry) on their hardware. It makes quite a bit of money for them. iTunes, on the other hand, is not a big money-maker. It exists to sell iPods. But in and of itself it is a low margin business.
You need to make up better "facts" than that to be even remotely believable.
I know there's been less press on this than Boot Camp, but to me it all seems to flow: Yellow Box
I think what Apple is trying to do is just raise the awareness of the Windows/OS X pairing on the same hardware - kind of a "planet convergence" approach.
Ultimately, I don't think the Windows API is going to have anything to do with it. The Cocoa API will.
I think the developer is the missing piece to all this. XCode + Yellow Box = Universal Binaries that run everywhere.
Eventually, people (consumers) will begin switching in higher numbers for ALL the reasons we already know about: security, iPods, iLife, sleek hardware, etc.
The beauty is that, over time, "switching" will truly become a non-issue; the apps people used on Windows become the same ones they use on their Mac. (iLife for Windows? It could happen...)
"Switching" has always been about what's better. The only way market share will grow is when enough people WANT it to. Apple will continue to make smart moves in that direction: Front Row, iPhone, .Mac, etc.
The "just works" element will win. By and large, people don't care who they buy their toys from as long as their new toys work with their other toys. Few toys work as well together as Apple's.
It will be a slow creep, but it will happen.
Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:33 pm Subject: re: all about developers
QuoteGuest wrote:
Eventually, people (consumers) will begin switching in higher numbers for ALL the reasons we already know about: security, iPods, iLife, sleek hardware, etc.
(1) Security: The reason Macs have been secure is becuase no one cares to hack the mac. Now that XP will be running on macs via intel, a birth of root kits and viruses will be born to the macs.
(2) iPods, iLife: If you are refering to iTunes and pod/vid casts then I want you to realize that all of that can be done on PC.
(3) Sleek: The reason apple has so little of the market share is becuase most sales of computers is done to companies. Just to let you know, a company doesnt buy a laptop becuase it thinks it is neat or sleek. Only people of ignorance will by a computer by how it look opposed to how well it runs.