Apple Drops the Other Shoe and Does Windows
April 6th, 2006 | by Rob Enderle
A few short months ago, the thought that Apple would use Intel technology and move to Windows was viewed as insane speculation. Since then, Apple has moved to Intel, and today, with the announcement of Boot Camp, Apple appears to be starting to support Microsoft Windows. Accompanying this announcement was the statement, "we have no desire to sell or support Windows." Of course, they have also said in the past that they wouldn't move to Intel (because they had killed the effort to move to that platform years earlier) and that they wouldn't build a flash-based Media Player (because it was "stupid").
You could almost say that when Apple says they aren't going to do something—much like when a board of directors says they fully support a troubled CEO—then the opposite is probably true.
Impact of Moving to Windows
Inside and outside of Apple, there has been a group of folks who maintain that it makes financial sense for Apple to move to Windows (very similar to the way the Intel option was kept alive). Apple currently holds a market share much smaller than its brand and market presence would imply, largely because it doesn't use Windows. For a while, there was a belief that Apple simply couldn't compete with Windows and certainly couldn't trust Microsoft.
However, the iPod demonstrated quite well what could happen if Apple supported Windows; Apple now dominates the MP3 market, most of which is on Windows. The iPod's success also showcased that Apple could go head to head with Microsoft and beat them soundly, since Microsoft's platform had little impact on Apple iPod sales. Based on this, it would seem—assuming Apple wants to become much larger and more powerful—that moving to support Windows could have a massive, positive impact on Apple sales.
Short Term Impact
Right now, the happiest folks are probably those who have had to maintain both Apple and Windows machines. Getting rid of the extra weight, cost, and responsibility should be a big relief for this audience. In addition, people that need to run Windows but also want to carry an Apple can now do it. This will further support the creation of a Lexus-like premium market (much like what Dell started with the XPS lines) and continue to establish Apple as a superior player.
With Windows Vista delayed (and with the Windows hardware OEMs finding it difficult to build a campaign for the 4th quarter), Apple now has the ability to go after this opportunity with what could be the most perfect Windows Vista-ready hardware on the market; in fact, Apple's hardware will probably be the most advanced hardware in the 4th quarter. If Apple plays their cards right, they could peg their manufacturing capacity and take more market share in a single quarter than any vendor has ever taken. It might be a bit of a long shot, but with Leopard supposedly delayed until 2007 it is the best shot they have at taking advantage of the Vista delay.
This is a Test, This is Only a Test — Impact of Disney
Before anyone gets too excited about the chance (which is clearly now a possibility) that Apple would abandon the current MacOS, they must realize that this will serve the function of a market test.
Based on the information Apple will collect from Apple users who load Windows on these new Intel boxes—along with any increase in sales (potentially a big increase, based on initial feedback)—people will soon be able to make an informed decision about their future support of the MacOS and Windows.
This decision could (though I doubt it) be that Apple doesn't do anything different and leaves things as they are, or it could be they spin out the OS group and allow them to try selling to Dell and other companies (kind of like what happened with Palm, which didn't help the PalmOS but did help create Palm Hardware). Apple could decide to adopt the Windows kernel and create a more seamless dual boot (or better single boot environment) or they could simply shift the MacOS group's focus to enhancing Windows on Apple by porting and eventually building better Windows applications.
Whatever decision is made, Apple will have a substantial amount of information (probably by the end of the year) concerning which path would be the most lucrative and successful for the company. Now that Steve Jobs can focus more exclusively on the company—and is clearly hearing from Disney what he needs to do to make his product more attractive to companies like Disney—we can easily guess he is very motivated to make some changes so he can successfully go after what is likely a massive sales opportunity.
A Better, Stronger, More Agile and Probably more Windows Future Apple
It is somewhat hard to make moves like this and I'm sure Steve has learned that there is a rather large dissatisfaction with current PC vendors in the market. Apple has renewed its focus on meeting the needs of an increasingly Windows-centric audience, and it is this audience that Apple will, increasingly, be listening to.
Over time, if a firm listens to its audience—and Apple is clearly listening—it will discover what to change about its company; the end result in this case could be a firm that can go toe-to-toe with the biggest in the PC industry, and, often as not, come out on top.
Balancing between Intel and Microsoft won't be easy, but working with Disney clearly wasn't a walk in the park either, and so far the Intel thing seems to be working out okay.
In the end, we are watching the rebirth of Apple. What happens over the next few months could have a massive impact on current Apple customers, Apple competitors, Microsoft, and the PC market. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, and while Apple's decision will probably upset a lot of Mac loyalists, it also has the potential to make one heck of a market-changing omelet by turning Apple into the power it always had: the unmet potential of becoming.
Post Your Comment...Comments
Bill on Apr 6th, 2006 at 8:45 AM:
I have to admit that I am not a fan of Rob Enderle, but he is on to something here. I like the Mac OS, but for gaming reasons I stay away away from it simple so I do not need to buy two computers. I still love my Mac at the office though.
Any idea what Microsoft thinks about all of this? I am sure its a large opportunity for them here, but will it wind up biting them in the butt too? What about Dell? I bet this is certainly not what Dell wants to see.
Peter Evensen on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:04 AM:
I cannot see Apple dropping OS X. That would be bad for users. Apple and Steve Jobs has too much invested in OS X, as do the many raving Mac fans. (How many true Windows fans are there, anyway?)
Supporting Windows on the Macintel machines, however, opens up new markets for Macs and should make them more appealing to business.
Michael on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:08 AM:
No way will Apple drop their OS, but my guess is that they will in fact offer either dual boot machines, or the option to buy a mac on the Windows platform in addition to their own.
Donny Barko on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:11 AM:
I for one think this is awesome! I love the Apple hardware, but no way would I switch to it and buy all new software. Now if they do this, I can keep my current software and actually get a computer that looks good!
Dale on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:11 AM:
I think Macs are ugly (I know I'm in the significant minority here), expensive and whilst the sfotware is great at doing it's job, can often be a little less flexible compared to most PC apps.
However, the OS itself is fantastic and with a bigger userbase that's a little more demanding with regard to function as opposed to form than the majority of the current Mac crowd, I can can see Boot Camp becoming a winner for the user and Apple.
However, if you wanted me to put my money on something, I'd want VM-Ware version of OS-X running on my current PC.
Joe on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:30 AM:
As a Mac "loyalist" (more like fanatic) and Apple shareholder, I'm knee-slappin' thrilled about this development. Will I have Windows on my machine? Hell, no! I won't allow Microsoft software in the same room as my iBook. But when people are given the opportinity to do a side-by-side (almost) comparison of the two OS's, my money is on OS X. Hope they also make it easy to de-install Windows, 'cause that's going to be happening a lot!
CWC on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:47 AM:
"Before anyone gets too excited about the chance (which is clearly now a possibility) that Apple would abandon the current MacOS,"
Why on earth would you assume we might get excited about Apple abandoning OS X. Do you actually WANT to see a superior OS defeated by an inferior one? Pardon me but your ignorant prejudice is showing. I own many computers on both major platforms. The only thing I'd get excited about is to see the overly complicated, tasteless, Apple-derived, virus ridden, ubiquitous Windows OS lose more ground to OS X.
Philip de Louraille on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:47 AM:
MacOS X (unix really) is superior to Windows in many many ways. Why would Apple abandon it? What has Rob Enderle been smoking again?
What Apple should be working on is a way to run a windows application via a mini virtual environment (akin to running XWindows) so one would be able to boot on OSX and still be able to run a Windows application within OSX.
Now that would be something!
Scott V. on Apr 6th, 2006 at 9:52 AM:
I like how Enderle says its a "possibility" that Apple might drop the OS and everyone jumps on him as if he said Apple "has" done just that. Gimme a break.
Who would have thought Apple would be using Intel technology, or let alone would offer Windows as a dual boot option. If this can happen, then ANYTHING can happen.
Do not be so blinded by your Apple loyalty, it will bite you in the butt and make you look like fools.
Agent Smith on Apr 6th, 2006 at 10:05 AM:
You extremists (fanatics)? are hilarious
Why don't you wake up and smell your latent doubts. Apple in general and it's OS in specific has been trying for years to do anything remarkable, and it hasn't. "Superior OS defeated by an inferior one." Are you joking? You forgot the "LOL." Your little group is the first one who is anal about setting a level playing field for untainted results. Why not apply that here? The winner is superior. What does a left extremist have in common with a right extremist? They're both too far to the side to see the entire picture.
What you need to understand is that both camps are successful. No one will argue that a Mac is faster than a PC/Windoze box in some cases. Becuase 9 dozen things have been optimized for that situation to make it that way. Try to argue with me that it's that way 100% of the time and you'll hear me laughing from here. The comment from the man who said he hopes it's easy to delete windows had me rolling, as well. Are you serious? How insular can a group be?
I've been on windows for years, and I appreciate plenty of what Apple and their products can offer. Will I side with one company over the other? Would you cut one hand off because you use the other more? Sometimes it helps using both at once.
It wouldn't surprise me if history looks back after some number of years and attributes Apple's seemingly endless market-share-floundering to the seemingly endless narrow vision of its very own fan base. After reading countless forums of fanatical "mac enthusiasts," there's no way I'd ever want to be counted in their ranks. So, don't forget, fish don't live in water that's too clear.
dan gaul on Apr 6th, 2006 at 10:20 AM:
I'd love to have a intel mac, but I still can't justify $2000 for a macbook pro, or $1400+ for an iMac. I have a mini already, but it has the motorola proc in it, so I'm out of luck with dual booting.
Rob Enderle on Apr 6th, 2006 at 10:33 AM:
I'll try to deal with a lot of the questions in one post:
On whether folks will move to the MacOS
Interesting question will the users switch to the Mac OS if given the choice to use both? If history is an indicator the answer is no. IBM tried something similar with OS/2 under the belief that if they gave OS/2 away and allowed people to run Windows 3.1 these people would see how much better OS/2 was and switch to it. Instead developers supported the Windows side, users didn't want the aggravation of changing (better or not people don't like change) and the experiment failed. When Windows 95 came out they dropped the support for 32 bit Windows (even though they were allowed by license to use it) and instead of increasing OS/2 adoption this, nearly instantly, killed demand for it in every geography but Germany (the whole German thing is a paper all by itself).
What Microsoft Thinks
As far as what Microsoft thinks, they are clearly mixed in terms of how they feel. On the one hand, the older folks know the OS/2 lesson and likely are anticipating a positive outcome, on the other Apple was the only real competitor they have on the desktop and they have a bigger problem with Anti-Trust right now making a non-Windows Apple more valuable then a Windows Apple. So 2% additional share isn't worth the ongoing pain in the hinny that the EU is right now.
VM-Ware for MacOS on Generic X86
On the VM-Ware comment, the future of the OS is a hypervisor of some kind. While VM-Ware is the leading VM for servers and used on desktops it isn't designed to be deployed in large numbers and it is unlikely it will ever be able to step up to that requirement. However if you want to run the MacOS on your current box, and know what you are doing, it probably is the most reliable way to do that currently in the market. If anyone has done this, I haven't, would love to hear from you.
On Dropping the MacOS and doing "Generic" Windows
I really doubt Apple will drop the MacOS but moving to the Vista kernel, which is the most solid part of Vista right now, could be done. In the embedded space a similar set of financial drivers is allowing Microsoft to carve a broad swath through that market and BSD UNIX (and Linux) use appears to be dropping like a rock (many thought Linux would own this space). With the creative use of emulators and VMs I think this move could be relatively transparent (and easier then the current move to Intel) for current Apple users and allow the Apple market to explode to some large multiple of what it is today.
On whether they will do Windows at all:
Actually, I'm sure you would have said, if they intended to use Intel they wouldn't have spent so much time porting the BSD UNIX kernel to PowerPC.
By the way they started looking at the Microsoft kernel before they started the Intel effort, but only recently did the kernel get to a point (Vista) where the cost made sense.
So, look at the math, for around $20 per machine price to Microsoft for the embedded version of Windows they would get access to over 20 times the number of developers, could successfully go after large business and government, could drop their own software development cost by 2/3rds (either taking the profit or reinvesting in hardware or UI advancements), and virtually eliminate their interoperability problems. Finally, it is the only chance they have of ever becoming larger then Dell, and Steve, for what ever reason, wants to kick Dell's rear.
Oh, and they could give both Windows users and Mac users a UI that they were comfortable with. Clearly they could choose not to do this, but just think what this kind of thing would do to the Apple stock price (it's up 10% just on what they did do). The financial motivation for the execs has to be very compelling.
There is a problem, however, we didn't mention and that is timing. Typically the embedded version of Windows comes out 6 months after the released version and that is not trivial for a company leading on technology. Unless they integrate in Redmond they can't fix this and they remain concerned that Microsoft will steal their stuff if they do that. If this doesn't happen, that will probably be why. But Steve did the Disney deal with Pixar so he appears willing to take big chances these days.
On whether the MacOS is "Superior"
Clearly to loyal Apple users it is, but to the rest of the market (98%) it isn't or they would be using it. It is better at some things but it, in many ways, it is falling behind other UNIX variants in ways that count like security and word is that Leopard is in Vista like trouble. (Apple is vastly less transparent then Microsoft is). By the way, YouTube has a great Video showcasing why some Mac users don't think the Mac is Superior http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgZQ_It0weI&search=... it's actually rather funny. By the way, personally I do like the Mac UI better and think Apple does a vastly better job showcasing hardware performance and making applications easy to learn and use.
paul pitcher on Apr 6th, 2006 at 10:40 AM:
Mac and Win each have there Strengths. Neither is a silver bullet. With boot camp I get the benefits of both. Apple has cleverly built this foundation for years & the capstone is that they will be the only company that I can buy this hardware from. This will 2x Apples market share & give them 10 billion cash. My next laptop will be an Apple. There are a TON of Win users who are Mac fans inside. This allow them the first true option to have there cake & to eat it to.
Fitzwilliam on Apr 6th, 2006 at 11:02 AM:
I've had personal computers since the early 80s (Osborne, XT, AT etc with DOS, Win3.1, 98, XP) so I'm very familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of the Wintel systems. I switched 18 months ago to a Mac. I now have two Macs (iBook and iMac/PowerPC) and one PC/WinXP.
I still use the PC but only for one application (financial/investing app that I've been told will never be ported to the Mac). The dual-boot Mac is appealing but I'm concerned about opening the Mac up to PC virii and spyware. Boot-camp will install Win XP (I assume) with either of the file systems it supports (FAT or NTFS). If FAT is selected can the Mac side reference Windows files (e.g. Xcel files)? Can a Windows virus infection make its way into the Mac partition??
I love the Mac the way it is and would hate to see it compromised. I'm sure Apple has considered these potential problems and hope that Boot-camp is not purely a business decision.
For now anyway I'll keep both OS's in separate boxes.
Arvind on Apr 6th, 2006 at 11:48 AM:
1. Apple should consider making its mac-os desktop open-source. Linux could sure use a better desktop than what's available.
2. If apple becomes another dell or hp, they sure will have to cut prices.
3. People are looking for better looking pcs, and apple has the resources to do well in this area.
4. Trying to port applications etc may be ok, but what steve never gets is that you cant go it alone. Apple obsessively keeps trying to do everything themselves, even though they keep getting burnt. When are they going to learn that most of the smart people always work for other companies? Apple has become like a ferrari that only goes on 2% of the roads - a great computer that runs nothing.
Rob Enderle on Apr 6th, 2006 at 11:49 AM:
I think the likelihood of someone going through the trouble of developing a payload that would execute in Windows but contaminate the Mac partition to be relatively slight.
It would both be difficult and it probably wouldn't have a great deal of impact. More likely, given Mac users tend to be less likely to buy anti-virus software or keep it up to date then Windows users, and are probably less likely to keep up with Windows patches that the Windows side will be more exposed for most.
When ever you are running two Oss you would add the risks of one to the risks of the other but you shouldn't have much of an incremental increase in risk (except now if one hard drive fails it will take out both platforms).
If an attack were to be designed the most successful would likely be one based on rootkits. Rootkits exist for both the Mac and Windows and it might be easier to execute the payload on the Windows side (given users are in Administrator mode) then on the MacOS side. But it would be a slow mover and likely get picked up by Sana security or one of the other firms focused on Rootkits before it got very far.
Interesting thought though and realizing that you will need to run AV stuff on both partitions, but particularly on the Windows side, would be good to keep in mind.
Joe on Apr 6th, 2006 at 12:32 PM:
From Rob Enderle: "On whether the MacOS is 'Superior': Clearly to loyal Apple users it is, but to the rest of the market (98%) it isn't or they would be using it."
Rob, do you honestly think that a large part of the 98% of Windows users use it because they WANT to? No. They're using it because they HAVE to.
A very large chunk of that 98% market share are government (the biggest) and corporate users. Do you know how the government and many corporations buy computers? They decouple the acquisition costs from the operational costs. If they can buy a truckload of Dells for less than a truckload of Macs--and they can--they'll buy the Dells. They ignore how much it will cost to SUPPORT the use of those computers over their operational life.
Study after study has shown that the total cost of ownership over the long haul is less for Macs than for PCs because of less support software (and software support), training, repairs, etc. Until some government/corporate buyers get their heads into the sunshine, Microsoft (and Dell, hp, etc.) will continue to enjoy the profits from the proliferation of mediocre products. For them, inertia is a wonderful thing.
A question for you, Rob: How many of those 98% of Windows users are truly excited about their OS and about using their computers?
Rob Enderle on Apr 6th, 2006 at 1:05 PM:
Let me answer your last question first. About 10% of Windows users are excited about their computers, this represents the performance and performance gaming segment. These people, many who build their own PCs, love modifying and upgrading their PCs and they represent about 5 times the Mac audience and they spend, per person 2x to 3x what an average Mac user does on technology (hardware and software). But, for them, the OS is a component.
Their analog are Linux users who are a smaller group but are probably both more fanatical about their OS then Mac user (if that is possible) and more intimate with it. They can do things on their platforms that Mac and Windows users wouldn't dream (and generally don't want) to do and live for the collaborative aspect of their community and the stuff they do in it. If numbers are to be believed the Linus desktop users are very close in size to the Mac user base and probably more influential in terms of the direction operating systems are going.
As far as want vs. have to. As long as we work for others I'm afraid that the have to thing will be an issue. Company cars are seldom what we want to drive and the PC our company buys us just as probably be a poor shadow of what we would like to own. It's the nature of the beast. However, the things I want to do with home automation, gaming, and even multi-media I can't currently do on the Mac and I "want" to do those things.
So yes for those that "want" to keep their jobs, that "want' to use their favorite software, or who "want" to have a choice of vendors Windows has clear advantages. People have always been able to buy what ever they "want" for home, that market represents about 30% of the PC market right now and Apple has 6% of it. That would suggest, that most folks, don't "want" what Apple has right now even when they make their own decisions.
Ian Bell on Apr 6th, 2006 at 1:47 PM:
Joe,
Remember that the gaming community is largely Windows based and gamers prefer that platform for a couple reasons:
1) 99% of the games out there run on Windows
2) They are able to upgrade their machines
3) More hardware manufacturers support Windows that Mac
As for it being a "have to" type purchase, it's definately a matter of choice. If you could buy a system with better compatibility, which is upgradeable and which costs less for your company, then of course you are going to. Apple products are luxury items that fill a small niche, not a large market. Offering an operating system like Windows opens the door to opportunity for Apple - it makes sense.
I am a Windows user and I am excited about my product. I am sure there are a lot others that are as well. :)
BMC on Apr 6th, 2006 at 3:05 PM:
Adding the ability to run Windows is a great, great, great move for Apple. It means that all the fence-sitters can buy Apple hardware and try out OS X while still feeling safe in their investment in Windows software; it means that more corporate environments can buy Apple hardware; it means that people who need a few Windows apps but prefer OS X for everyday use, can do so without two machines. This translates to more hardware sales for Apple.
And, of course, Apple hopes, more switchers.
But the suggestion that Jobs would ever consider dropping OS X is just plain loony. No, it's just ignorant. Jobs loves his baby, he is obsessed with it, he has given it a powerful engine and polished it to a high gloss.
As a power-user in the sciences, I can tell you that the Unix integration of OS X is key. Windows has no equivalent.
It's a beautiful product with a loyal fan base for a reason. Jobs is not motivated solely by market share (obviously!) - he is much more motivated by the desire to build something great. Of course you need profits to do this. They're doing pretty well there too. What would be the purpose of dropping OS X? None, from the Steve's point of view. Daimler-Chrysler didn't suddenly stop making the Mercedes-Benz.
No one with any real familiarity with OS X would consider this suggestion seriously. So it's just FUD. Or maybe designed to bring hits to Mr Enderle's web site. Or maybe it just is honest ignorance. Either way, there is no way Jobs and Co would consider this. It just makes no sense.
BMC on Apr 6th, 2006 at 3:07 PM:
whoops. sorry for the duplicate post. my bad.
Q. Mesh on Apr 6th, 2006 at 6:45 PM:
I am a PC owner. People forget that if Windows is able to run on a Mac, sooner or later MacOS X will run on a PC. That is what you should be excited about. When that happens, I hope Apple will not put product keys on their OS so that it will spread like wildfire across the PC landscape.
Rob Enderle on Apr 6th, 2006 at 7:12 PM:
OK lets deal with the latest questions:
Will OSX be licensed and spread like Wildfire?
That's sure what we thought about OS/2, Microsoft was still 5 years off from having anything that could compete with that platform and both DEC and Compaq licensed to sell it. And didn't. The problem was they saw IBM as a competitor and refused to actively push it, and did everything they could to talk folks out if it. Did they move some, sure, but it was a small fragment and clearly not enough to save the OS. What many don't know was IBM hardware didn't even like OS'2 because it lowered their margins over their Windows boxes (which is really strange given OS/2 should have been free to IBM). Nature of inter-company billing.
See it doesn't matter how much better a think is, BetaMax was vastly superior to VHS for instance, it matters which one is seen as an industry standard and a hardware company hasn't driven, successfully, an industry standard since the IBM 360. Think about it, not with UNIX, not with Memory Stick, not with Linux. The market just isn't built that way, competition takes hold and the folks you need to support you turn against you when you need them most because they are afraid you will take their business.
Will Apple Abandon OSX if Steve loves it so much?
OK, did someone not read any of the Jobs biographies? Steve is a hardware guy, not a software guy. They even got Microsoft to do some of the software in the early years, but Woz did much of the early software work. Steve tried to turn Pixar into hardware company (and darn near killed the firm), and it wasn't until he failed at hardware he tried software with NeXT and the only thing that worked there was selling the company to Apple which probably bought NeXT as much to get the NeXT team as it did to get the OS. Look at iTunes pricing, the profit is in the iPod not in the software which is free or the service that breaks even. Steve has other folks to do Software, yes he gets into the UI but he is, by no stretch of the imagination, a software guy and there is no evidence he could code to save his life. A software guy would have either done his own kernel or done Linux, he wouldn't have done a rehash of UNIX because he'd know what a problem that would be long term for a commercial product. (If you don't own the kernel you really don't own the roadmap).
So, I think, if it would mean Apple growing 3 or 4x and Steve becoming more wealthy then Michael Dell, he would abandone OSX as quickly as he abandoned PowerPC. He would, however, not abandon the UI and he has shown some expertise in hybrids.
Robert Poole on Apr 6th, 2006 at 7:19 PM:
Scott V. wrote: "I like how Enderle says its a 'possibility' that Apple might drop the OS and everyone jumps on him as if he said Apple 'has' done just that. Gimme a break."
Maybe because he has, in effect. Look at the article. Read between the lines. The sensational headline all but proclaims this -- granted, headlines such as this are designed to generate site traffic, but c'mon, don't be fooled.
The entire article is filled with phrases concerning Apple's "move to Windows." This implies a move away from OS X.
You have to get almost 2/3 of the way through the article before Enderle backs off those claims and writes, "Before anyone gets too excited, ..." and goes on to discuss how this is "just a market test."
I don't buy it. Apple has invested far too much money and time proclaiming the superiority of OS X. And let's face it, Mac hardware without Mac OS is not a good value proposition for a consumer: if a Mac is now little more than a generic PC (albeit with better styling and ostensibly better quality components), the only real differentiator is the user experience. Putting Windows on a Mac makes the user experience no different from any other PC hardware, such as that offered by Dell.
Considering that Apple's hardware is still perceived as being more expensive, why would Apple "switch" to Windows?
Furthermore, how many people will actually run out and buy a full copy of Windows (not an upgrade package, but a full retail package which costs over $140) to use with this dual-boot software? Precious few, since the vast majority of users don't buy their OS, but use whatever OS is pre-packaged with the hardware. Microsoft knows this, which is why Microsoft relies heavily on their OEM partners to bundle Windows with new PCs; that's the only way Windows sales numbers look as good as they do. (Consider that whenever a new Windows OS is released, the sales numbers don't look that good until PC manufacturers start preinstalling that version on their hardware.)
This feature is clearly only intended for those users who need to psychologically justify a Mac purchase by showing unequivocally that a Mac can now run Windows natively. (This also works well to sell an IT department on the purchase of Mac hardware, since many IT departments are Mac-hostile.) I think the people who use this new dual-boot software will be gamers and professional users who need a Windows solution.
However, the real utility will come when you can run Windows and OS X at the same time -- preferably with Windows running inside a virtualization environment a la VMWare. Most of the IT professionals I spoke with yesterday indicated this as their preferred configuration.
Sorry, Bob, you're pretty far off the mark here... but you were good for a laugh this morning, at least!
Robert Poole on Apr 6th, 2006 at 7:19 PM:
Well, it would appear that my previous attempt at commenting was lost in the bit-bucket... one wonders if that was deliberate or not. I have a sneaking suspicion that the comments here are pre-screened so that only the fawning, Enderle-positive comments get shown. Hmmm.
I do wonder if my analysis (which naturally comes to a different conclusion that Mr. Enderle's) will get posted at all. I really don't see how Apple's release of a boot loader for Windows consitutes a market test when (a) the vast majority of users who buy Windows buy it preinstalled on a PC, and "upgrade" their OS when they upgrade their hardware; (b) this dual-boot software requires the purchase of a full version of Windows; and (c), the new Intel-based Macs without OS X have no value proposition, because they are nothing but generic PCs without OS X, so there's nothing to differentiate them.
But that's OK, history will indeed be the judge of who was right.
Billy on Apr 6th, 2006 at 7:19 PM:
As I read through Enderle's article and subsequent comments, I get the impression that he hits the brandy early in the morning before cranking out his opinions. He takes a break in the morning, but then hits the Wild Turkey around lunch time and keeps going.
Seriously, this stuff is great satire. It is meant to be satire, right?
Ian Bell on Apr 6th, 2006 at 7:36 PM:
Hi Robert,
Comments are not deleted unless they are duplicate posts or contain profanity, which your post was neither. So do not worry :)
Rob Enderle on Apr 7th, 2006 at 9:28 AM:
Some interesting thoughts and perhaps some misconceptions in the last set of posts so lets clear up some things.
We are talking about the future and I'm not psychic. However I've been down this path before and I'm using that experience to predict what will likely, eventually, happen. What's the old saying, something like "those that don't learn from history are destined to repeat it"?
What is "Sunk Cost"?
Let's take Robert Poole's comment above that Apple has invested too much money in OSX to abandon it. We could also say they invested too much money in Copland (which was a hole folks poured money in) to abandon it as well or that they so aggressively promoted PowerPC they would never leave it. How much money do you think they put in the Newton? If we could judge Apple's future behavior by their past, and generally that's what analysts do, then they are no more tied to the current code base in the Mac then they have been tied to a number of things they have moved away from.
The Emerging "Lexus" PC Market
Now he says that because Apple's hardware is "perceived" as more expensive suggesting, as has always been the case, that Apple can't compete on an even field with better, more expensive hardware, and a better user use and service experience. He evidently missed the Dell launch of the XPS lines, the entire Lexus thing that happened in the car market, and the recent acquisition by Dell of AlienWare. We know Apple watches Dell closely and if Dell thinks there is a premium Windows market there is every chance Apple, which was historically positioned as the Porsche of PCs, could do very well in it. I do know the company is of two minds, however, on this and a move like this would not be without substantial risk. I honestly don't think the decision has been made yet, but that the data from "Boot Camp" will give Steve what he needs to make it. (Folks should really read the Jobs' bios for a sense on how he thinks).
The iPod Test Case
In addition, the iPod was a very good test case. Here was a product that came out at a price above the market from a vendor, Apple, that wasn't even perceived as being in that business. Apple now owns 90% of the segment after schooling Creative Labs, Rio (who exited), and Microsoft. That probably isn't lost on anyone in Apple particularly Jobs.
Anticipate Pre-Loaded Apple PCs
Now as far as a full copy of Windows. I believe resellers will quickly figure out how to bundle Apple machines with OEM copies of Windows which are vastly less expensive then retail boxes (this is done now on white box hardware) because, I agree, that the majority of folks will not want to pay that much premium nor will they want to load the OS themselves. Now if, as many of us expect, Apple's numbers jump sharply and, as has historically been the case, most are using Windows (the more common product) then Apple will have, much like they got from the iPod (Apple only) returns in their first January with that product data that suggests Windows is more lucrative then OSX for them.
The Big "IF"
This is the big "IF" that goes behind my prediction, "IF" the numbers show that apple could sell 5 to 10X more product and increase margins by 5 to 10% then there is no doubt in my mind they will make the move and I believe that's what the numbers will show. If they don't, and Apple can't compete, then they will either not change or become a CE company and eventually abandon the entire platform (you can't sustain indefinitely at 2% of the market). This, last may be the cost of not doing this which, I believe, is not lost on Jobs either.
My belief is, and it is a belief not a fact, that Apple will conclude (if they haven't already) that this path is a better and more lucrative path for the firm and move away from OSX as it currently is to something more Windows centric. That would be consistent with decisions they have made since Steve took over including his decision to move to Intel.
Defining the Initial Audiance
Robert is right, the initial audience for this product are folks that like Apple hardware and need to run Windows, but many of these folks don't need to run OSX and, if that data is captured, Apple will be left with a clear path. Now I would typically say they wouldn't move aggressively away from OSX, but that would be IBM or Microsoft which are both slower with change. Apple tends to move sharply, once again look at how quickly they have executed on Intel, this could happen very quickly once the data is confirmed.
Now, as far as VMWare, remember Vista was supposed to have a built in virtualization layer at launch and will get it later in its life. Apple has gone down the emulator path which has advantages and disadvantages we'll leave for another time, but in both instances the move between the OSs is not seamless and is very similar to the way it was with OS/2 and Windows. There people lived in the Windows partition and, I imagine, most users will, over time, do the same thing because that's where the majority of applications will continue to be.
Looking back at OS/2, and Apple on Intel Predictions
Of course this is all DejaVu for me, back in 2003 I issued a report indicating that Apple would have to move to Intel and many of these same arguments were used to "disprove" that prediction with less then complementary comments on my drinking habits, intelligence, and long term career. Earlier, in 1995, when I pointed out that IBM was going to abandon OS/2, it was even uglier. I kind of thought folks would, at least, take recent events into consideration and factor that into their own beliefs. The experience, by the way, gives me a certain amount of empathy for the folks who said there were no WMDs in Iraq.
As I say, I've been down this road before and both the destination and the "scenery" seem very familiar.
Move = More Apple Sales
In the end, believe what you want, but whichever way Apple goes it does suggest a stronger argument to buy Apple hardware then has ever before been the case (even if they move away from OSX the hardware will continue). Even if Apple abandoned OSX tomorrow you would probably have 2 years to make the move, and long before then, Apple would have a better migration path to Windows then currently exists so there is no reason for users to abandon OSX now and an even stronger reason to buy Apple hardware then was previously the case.
I'll leave you with one more thing; look at how much Steve Jobs personal net worth jumped on just the chance Apple was moving to Windows. Once again, reread the biographies. This is a multi-billion dollar decision for him personally, honestly, everything else aside, where is his long term motivation to stay with OSX? One more thing, why did Avi really leave?
Something to ponder while I have my morning shot of Jack Daniels.
Billy on Apr 8th, 2006 at 12:41 PM:
Hey, at least you have a good sense of humor. Thick skin, a prerequisite in this line of work.
Daniel Miller on Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:44 AM:
Kind of hard to argue with a writer when he FIGHTS back eh guys? I love it!
P.S. Rob was actually saying good things about Apple which makes it even harder to hate the guy.
Comment on this article
Please keep your comments relevant to this article. Email addresses are not displayed, they are only required to verify you are human.
When you submit your comment, an email will be sent to your email address with a confirmation link. Once you have clicked on that confirmation link your comment will be posted.
HTML is not allowed.

Ian Bell on Apr 6th, 2006 at 8:27 AM:
Using a dual boot configuration like this will allow gamers to make the switch to an Apple product without fear that there will not be any games available for their new system. This is a huge audience that includes early adopters that have a huge impact on product recomendations - just who Apple needs for their PC products.
But in any case, with a dual boot setup, people will be able to transition to an Apple PC product and save a ton of money by being able to use their existing Windows software. That in itself will increase sales.