The Trojan iLife
How many times have you heard the call for iLife to be ported to Windows? In an article Apple analyst James R Stoup wrote on Apple Matters, Should Apple port the iLife suite, he noted me as a supporter of the idea. Just to refresh:
Mr. Howard felt the opposite, that another “halo effect” could be accomplished if people just knew the quality of Apple’s product lines. He based this opinion on the assumption that iLife would face no serious, coordinated competition and that only consumer applications be considered for release.
Those of use who do support iLife on Windows, claim “It would be a Trojan Horse!”. And so it would - of sorts. More like one that’s too big to get through the gates of Troy. So the citizens would have to come to it. Sure the soldiers could still blitz the unsuspecting Trojans, but without getting in the gate, their efforts would mostly be in vain. Likewise iLife on Windows. Most would escape Apple’s effort to entice them to switch.
So, in terms of the Mac, an even more effective Trojan Horse would be one that gets users buying Macs outright, buying a Mac now, not “maybe in the future”. Maybe NOT porting iLife is the answer. I recently I read an article by George Ou on ZDNet, that presented to me the reason why Apple might not have ported iLife. The article is about virtualization but virtualization that is supported by the CPU (unlike say Virtual PC which is solely driven by the software) and says in part:
When I speak of virtualization, I don’t mean the kind of virtualization that makes Rosetta so slow because it has to do costly PowerPC to Intel x86 CPU emulation. I’m speaking of the type of virtualization that’s never been available to Apple before, but is now because of the new Intel CPUs. The new form of emulation is a thin translation layer that minimizes resource overhead… and [can] install multiple operating systems such as Mac OS X for Intel, Windows, Linux, or BSD directly on to the raw hardware
What if you could get “most” to convert? With virtulization you could have Windows, OS X and Linux all running simultaneously, opening up the opportunity to run the best of breed applications, irrespective of platform. And of course, the only machines that could run all the main OSes are Macs.
Does Apple want you to run Windows on Macs?
Apple’s behavior lately would suggest it’s not too keen for you to run Windows on Intel Macs. The mere fact that Apple has gone for an Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI), rather than a BIOS suggests that Apple wants to discourage it for as long as possible. You might argue that Apple did this to be at the forefront of technology, and to not have to upgrade OS X in the future, rendering earlier versions incompatible. Sound arguments indeed, but the prospect of not having Windows XP or earlier versions on Intel Macs was undoubtedly a sweetener.
Longer term though, Apple does not want operating systems on Macs that lead to user comments such as “Stupid computer!” or “Typical Mac!” Do you reckon you might get them if someone was running Windows XP (or earlier) on a Mac? Afterall, people swear at their computer, not at their OS. You hear people all the time say, “I’m no good with computers.” If you’re smart (that excludes me) you should say, “Oh really? Have you ever considered that maybe it’s the OS and the software?” When I had my computer support business I used to respond “It’s not you, it’s the computer.” Wrong again. I should have been saying “It’s the OS. It’s the software.” (In defence of myself, there were sometimes I did point out the poorly designed software.)
I’ve been using Microsoft operating systems for 20 years and I can say they are improving. Vista will be a better operating system than XP. XP was better than 2000. 2000 was better than NT. You can start nit-picking Windows, but you can do the same on OS X. The biggest shock I got when switching to Macs a few years ago was that they weren’t perfect. Funny how I didn’t hear that from Mac users when I was on the other side of the fence…
Vista will have it’s raft of issues. But if you’re Apple, would you prefer that raft or XP’s raft? If you must run Windows on a Mac, I think Apple would prefer it be the one that would least tarnish the Mac’s reputation. And that will be Vista.
Multiple OSes
As one who has run dual boot PCs (Linux and Windows), and am even now running dual OS X installations on my Mac, it is annoying having to reboot to get to the other OS. (If you’re wondering why I run dual OS X, the second one is for testing and reviewing software - plus it’s also useful for testing backups by restoring them. It means I can have a totally sterile environment to test in and I don’t pollute my operational installation with software and/or fragments of software. Which reminds me - Mac OS X needs a decent software uninstaller.)
Virtualization means no reboot. Macs with anything but the latest specifications will probably put the other OSes to sleep in the background, but that won’t be much of an inconvenience unless you want to leave some process running.
So now you’ve got a nice shiny Mac running Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), Fedora (Linux) and Windows Vista. Each running in it’s own space and simultaneously. What more could you want?
Despite this ideal scenario, you will begin to gravitate to one system more than the other two. It will be partly affected by how and where you use your Mac. The ideal isn’t really multiple OSes - that’s the ideal work around. But as you find more and more software is available on OS X that fulfills your needs, you will use OS X more and more, until one day you’ll realise it’s been weeks since you fired up Windows. And it all starts with iLife.
Get back on the horse
Where did we leave that Trojan Horse? Ah! There it is, iLife. I don’t care who you are, there is some element of iLife that you will find useful. If not now, then in the future. The digital life is upon us, and has been for sometime. Whether it’s music, photos or movies we are all getting more and more into the digital recording, storage and management of them. It’s a cliche, but it is the way of the future.
It’s oft acknowledged even in Windows circles that iLife provides the best digital lifestyle management tools. This is an ace in Apple’s hand, one not to be given away easily. But, does Apple merely want to be a software vendor for Windows PCs? That has, is and always will be a real possibility unless Apple can find a way to get more people using Macs.
Contrary to what I might have thought when James wrote that article, I can now see why Apple would want to keep a hold on iLife - it more than any other software provides Apple’s security ticket. As long as Apple has iLife they will keep selling Macs. I had seen it as a Trojan Horse if Apple could get it onto Windows because then Windows users’ data would be Mac compatible and thus enable easier switching. But that was before I was aware of virtualization and the implications of it. Because the truth is, as long as Apple keeps iLife “OS X only”, it will be able to take advantage of the new Intel CPUs and maximize its opportunity to bring new users into the fold.
The Linux crowd will probably be the first to demonstrate this new virtualization working in the wild, but if Apple can be close behind, it can start stuffing that Trojan Horse full of iLife, and maybe this time, it can be just the right size to get in the gate (or Gates).
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I believe virtulization will be a huge benefit for Apple. There are plenty of users of Win only software (AutoCAD for one) who would look at Macs if their software will perform at an acceptable speed.
Apps like iLife and Front Row will remain key selling points for switching to Macs. It allows the salesman to point out that the customer needs to use a Mac to use these apps. A good demo of the apps and the customer walks away with a new Mac.
As for being a software vendor for PCs, Apple is doing that right now in a limited way with REALBasic and FileMaker.
I’m still on the fence of whether or not I’d prefer a Mac with Windows on it, or a PC box with OS X on it. After all, the impediment to purchasing Macs for most is the premium price tag of the hardware. To lure users in, you have to break down that barier. And the component you’re luring them to is the operating system. All of that adds up to putting OS X on a more affordable PC system instead of putting Vista on a Mac.
Frankly, if I could do that, I’d still have a dedicated OS X system without Vista, but on hardware that I could control and afford.
”...or a PC box with OS X on it.”
Like a MacBook, for instance?
The only difference between the two now IS the operating system… and the logo. And the jury is out over the price premium, though I expect when we have a proper range of intel macs out this’ll be completely resolved, i.e. over the next 6 months.
I suspect Apple see iLife as one of the attractions of Macs. Porting iLife might get people ‘hooked’ (i.e. demonstrate the high quality of apple products), but because it then removes one of the reasons to _get_ a mac… I don’t think they could ever do it.
& if apple don’t want ilife running on windows, I’m also not sure how virtualisation is really relevant.
The only difference between the two now IS the operating system… and the logo.
No it isn’t. Can I take any ol’ PC box and install OS X like I can with Windows? No, I can’t. So obviously there’s some major difference there somewhere.
And the jury is out over the price premium,
Only in Mac fantasyland is there still any debate over whether or not Macs are more exspensive. They are. And if you have to have a Mac or you like the design or you just like giving Apple more of your money, fine. But if you can’t afford it and/or don’t want to pay the Apple-tax, it’d be nice to have the option of building your own system and putting OS X on it like you can with Windows.
Forget iLife. If you could allow people to get into the whole OS X shebang by installing it on their existing hardware for the low price of $129, do you think they would? I’d say you’d have a lot more switchers than you do now.
The only reason people would want to run Windows on their Macs is if they need to run an application which requires a Microsoft operating system. I run Virtual PC on my powerbook for some business apps for which there is no OS/X client - but I find it annoying and cumbersome to have to switch between the two user interfaces and I avoid it wherever I can.
Being able to run Windows on a Mac will only be useful for a small number of personal users. Business users are a different question - being able to run Windows apps would make Macs more palatable in the business environment, but I don’t think Apple is, or should be, aiming at business users. Dell, HP, Lenovo and Acer are already slogging it out for market share amid declining margins and a trend for simpler, easier-to-manage, desktops. Apple might find a market amongst professionals, but I don’t see Macs appearing on corporate desktops any time soon - there is simply no reason to choose Apple over Dell for the majority of users who run a few mainframe apps and Office. A plastic Dell does this effectively, and cheaply. A Mac won’t do it any better… OS/X is nice, and less subject to viruses - but only because no-one bothers to write viruses for such a niche market. So strike out business users and you are left with niche markets (publishing, music, film & tv etc) and home users. It is in the latter market that Apple has more chance of success if they can demonstrate that a Mac is discernably better at doing the things home users want to do…
I don’t think this is iLife. I don’t use any of the iLife apps (unless you include iTunes) not because I like other apps better, but because I don’t do the things iLife does. I don’t like iPhoto - i find it counter-intuitive and complicated and I am never sure where it puts my photos or how to avoid duplicate copies. And I need to know where the files are so I can back them up. So I keep my pics in a directory tree which makes sense to me - cumbersome perhaps, but it goes to show Apple can’t please everyone all the time… I don’t want a personal website, am not interested in digital music, don’t burn CDs and don’t make videos or DVDs. And, frankly, I don’t know anyone who does.
Which is not to say that no-one does, only that iLife probably does not have the broad appeal that some Mac supporters think it ought to have… Front Row is nice - but where is the TV tuner?
And iLife on Windows? iTunes on Windows works because the iPod was so successful and most iPod users run Windows. I doubt if Windows users would pay money for iLife - even if it was free there is no obvious link for iLife like there is between iPod and iTunes.
I have been in IT for 30 years, most of it in the Windows World. I have MCSE and HP ASE certifications and my business runs on Windows. But Iast year, after absolutely loving my new iPod, I went out and bought a 17” Powerbook. And I love it - which is remarkable because I don’t easily get excited by technology these days.
But… However nice OS/X is, and however gorgeous my Powerbook is, a Dell would probably do the job just as well - for what I require. I bought my Mac for all the same reasons someone chooses one car over another. It is a personal statement certainly, a design statement perhaps… I liked Apple’s design-driven approach, and my Powerbook works very well. But is it better? Perhaps - but not enough. OS/X & iLife is not another Visicalc.
Which is what Apple needs now - a killer app for home users which MS and Dell can’t easily copy. My money is on digital information management: finding, retrieving, organising, showing and managing the forthcoming explosion of programming. When everything ever made is available for download to everyone, someone has to decide what the kids are going to watch… Apple could get there first - and if they do it is not hard to imagine a Mac in every home…
But it won’t happen overnight… There is room, and the necessity for, Apple to find another iPod.
An Apple cellphone maybe?
You make a lot of good points, Sydney. Is iLife a killer app? I don’t know. I do know that the one app aside from iTunes that I and many othes I know find indispensible is iPhoto. But iPhoto has a FREE equivalent in Windows called Picasa. I prefer iPhoto myself but is it that much better than Picasa to justify switching? Not hardly.
As for what that next killer app will be, it’s hard to say. While the iPod has raked in money for Apple, it hasn’t had the halo effect some would like to believe. I got my sister a Nano for Christmas and she LOVES it, but she has no interest whatsoever in using a Mac.
iTunes has been Apple’s killer app. The simplicity of the iPod is the result of iTunes alone.
And the next killer iLife app will be iChat.
Yup iChat. Every Mac will have iChat installed.
iChat has such potential to really change the way business is done, how families interact, How people keep in touch. iChat brings about social change. And it comes standard in every Mac.
Just as the killer app itunes helped sell more iPods. iChat will help sell future Macs. It just hasn’t reached it’s tipping point yet, but with every new Mac sold that has an iSight built in that day comes closer.
Beeblebrox: But if you can’t afford it and/or don’t want to pay the Apple-tax, it’d be nice to have the option of building your own system and putting OS X on it like you can with Windows.
But I believe making OS X like Windows would mean, bluntly, OS X would be like Windows. So I can’t see that happening.
Also, where you say iPod “hasn’t had the halo effect some would like to believe,” well sydneystephen -in his post just above yours- said he liked his iPod so much he decided to buy a 17” PowerBook, even though he was primarily a Windows guy. So you have to admit it’s having some effect
Chris, your article, even though you were pointing out your change of attitute towards iLife on Windows, it actually sparked an idea in me that has convinced me iLife on Windows would do some good. Ironically.
Let me explain… A big reason people re-buy PCs is because they want their old files to work still. But imagine if iLife became a huge hit in the PC world, even possibly the main applications a large group of people used. Now these people would know that iLife was on Mac (and was most probably better on Macs) so when buying their next computer, those people hooked on iLife might want to go the whole way to an Apple experience with a Mac.
Now obviously that’s just another iPod ‘halo effect’ (which sydneystephen pointed out is having some effect) but enough of these halo effects (aka trojan horses - both the same thing) from different angles, and Apple would have a very big advantage to muscling their way back into the computer world.
BUT, on the other hand, it’s ultimately possible iLife on Windows, while doing some good, could do more harm to keeping Windows users from switching. So who’s to know. But one thing I do know, is, playing with Apple stuff made me want more of an Apple experience, hence me buying a Mac, not the fact that Macs had exclusive stuff, which everyone said was good (although that has become a huge bonus after I realized how good it actually was, after switching.)
iChat has such potential to really change the way business is done, how families interact, How people keep in touch. iChat brings about social change. And it comes standard in every Mac.
You sound like a Mac commercial, if Mac had commercials.
Are you seriously suggesting that people are going to buy a Mac to run iChat? I guess anything’s possible, but that sounds a bit like wishful thinking.
But I believe making OS X like Windows would mean, bluntly, OS X would be like Windows. So I can’t see that happening.
I didn’t say OS X should be like Windows, only that I should be able to install it on any system I wanted.
And I would hope Mac users have a little more faith in OS X being at least as robust as Windows has been on that wide variety of hardware.
Also, where you say iPod “hasn’t had the halo effect some would like to believe,” well sydneystephen -in his post just above yours- said he liked his iPod so much he decided to buy a 17” PowerBook, even though he was primarily a Windows guy. So you have to admit it’s having some effect
Yes, I admit it’s having a MINIMAL effect. I said that it wasn’t having the effect that some would like to believe. And anecdotal examples aside, the numbers simply don’t reflect all that much of a change in marketshare.
Well, Beeblebrox, y’know, I do have some faith in OS X. But the amount of times I’ve read, “a major point to the reason OS X just works is because of tight integration of the software and hardware” is why I think there could be problems trying to build your own Mac with cheap 3rd party hardware.
I am not an expert on OS X, and its workings with the hardware, but this is just what everybody says, and it seems to make sense to me, so this is why I believe it.
In response to my pointing out the iPod -> Mac converter above your post, it was really only to make the point that, of all the few people part of the halo effect, of all of the many Apple websites on the net, out of all of the articles on this site, and out of all the 0.5% of readers who actually post comments here, he had to say that right above your comment on the issue.
I know it wasn’t a huge coincidence, but the chances of that, if the halo effect was “MINIMAL” are hugely unlikely. So I would think it has to be more than a “MINIMAL” effect. I would say ‘significant enough’ effect, personally.
I haven’t really seen many people who believe the halo effect to be any bigger than it is. But I really think the year to consider if there has been a significant rise in Mac sales is 2006, with the switch to Intel nobody will be holding off anymore. So I think this year we will find out for sure.
Well, Beeblebrox, y’know, I do have some faith in OS X.
[...]
I think there could be problems trying to build your own Mac with cheap 3rd party hardware.
So you do have faith in OS X, but you don’t have faith in OS X. Which is it? Would you trust OS X to withstand the wide variety of hardware configurations or not?
I know it wasn’t a huge coincidence, but the chances of that, if the halo effect was “MINIMAL” are hugely unlikely. So I would think it has to be more than a “MINIMAL” effect. I would say ‘significant enough‘ effect, personally.
What in the hell are you talking about? This is your evidence? I brought up the halo effect BECAUSE sydney mentioned it. This wasn’t random chance, and it proves absolutely nothing about the wider issue of people switching to the Mac because they love their iPods.
I haven’t really seen many people who believe the halo effect to be any bigger than it is.
Um, look in the mirror, dude.
But I really think the year to consider if there has been a significant rise in Mac sales is 2006, with the switch to Intel nobody will be holding off anymore.
Mac users say this EVERY year about some product or other being the “one”. Last year it was the Mac Mini “now that Apple has a cheap computer, people have no reason not to switch!”. A few years ago it was the iMac. This year it’s the Intel chip.
But unless OS X can run on ANY Intel chip, and not just the one inside a Mac box, then the switch to Intel doesn’t really mean anything for the average consumer. What do they gain by it? They still can’t run Windows on it and they still can’t run OS X on anything but a Mac. What exactly has changed?
But what if Apple did it this way: OS X by itself for $129. No hardware or driver support, which would depend on the hardware vendors. But you could run Pro Apps and iLife and anything else you wanted on your own custom machine.
Or you could buy a turnkey system, which would basically be what they sell now.
I think you’d draw people in with the low upfront price for the OS. And then once they’ve used OS X awhile, they might be more inclined to shell out some dough for a full Mac system.
In this scenario, the notebooks would remain turnkey systems. They are decently priced for what you get and I don’t know very many people who build their own notebooks anyway.
“So you do have faith in OS X, but you don’t have faith in OS X. Which is it? Would you trust OS X to withstand the wide variety of hardware configurations or not?”
I said “some” because I think it could do a better job than Windows. But as for your question on whether I would trust OS X to withstand the wide variety of hardware - then no, my answer is I wouldn’t.
“What in the hell are you talking about? This is your evidence? I brought up the halo effect BECAUSE sydney mentioned it. This wasn’t random chance”
Firstly, do you wanna freak out maybe a little less? It was only my opinions.
I do believe it’s some evidence, yes! And I knew it wasn’t random chance, which is why I said, “it isn’t a coincidence.” But I really was trying to make my point on a different level, considering the two posts as separate. The fact they’re next to each other I just pointed out as a bonus
I don’t consider myself someone who thinks the ipod halo effect is bigger than it is. In fact, until I read sydney’s story, I thought the figure to be something realistically around, like, 200. It’s only seeing his stark admission of it working on him that’s made me think it could be bigger than I previously thought. I would think it would be good if you could too assess things like that with more of an open mind.
No offence, but for you to believe the iPod halo effect as “minimal” and then to actually see some stranger come and to say he’s part of that, of all the 6.5 billion people on the planet, but then to stick with your original opinion without a second thought just seems a bit stubborn to me.
Mac users likely do say that every year. But correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Mac sales significantly higher in 2005 than 2004, even though there were no significant Mac computer changes or updates (aside from the Mac Mini) PLUS the fact a huge amount of Mac users had admitted to have been waiting until the switch to Intel.
Which was my point, actually. When I said, “2006 should be the year to look at, now the switch to Intel is over.” I meant because nobody would be holding back on purchases this year. - That’s the change from the Intel switch; People held back on buying last year. Nothing else. For all we know, all Mac sales in the last 6 months could have been switchers from the halo effect! That’s why I say we should watch 2006. So, I will resume discussion on the halo effect in 1 years time
I do get what you’re saying about trying to sell PC users on OS X by letting them run a basic version of it. But isn’t it likely people would think just that? That OS X is merely something basic, with no hardware or driver support? There’s two sides to it.
I said “some” because I think it could do a better job than Windows. But as for your question on whether I would trust OS X to withstand the wide variety of hardware - then no, my answer is I wouldn’t.
Well considering that Windows runs pretty darn well on a huge swath of hardware, I’d say you have both a hugely distorted view of XP’s stability and not much faith in OS X.
Personally, I DO have faith that it would run at least as well as long as the drivers were there. In any case, I’d love to try it and see for myself.
But I really was trying to make my point on a different level, considering the two posts as separate. The fact they’re next to each other I just pointed out as a bonus
Oy. Your point continues to bafflingly inane. The posts aren’t seperate. They are next to each other because I was addressing a point he was making about iPods and the halo effect.
And ONE PERSON on an APPLE FAN WEBSITE in a thread about SWITCHERS talking about how he was swayed is next to meaningless.
For example, if I go to the Flat Earth Society website and someone posts on a forum that he thinks the earth is flat (given that a website about that topic is going to attract people who want to discuss that topic) and I say that there aren’t very many people who share that view, I’M CORRECT. And you trying to use those two posts as evidence that the number of believers is more than MINIMAL is simply ludicrous.
“Yes, but the odds of two posts like that next to each other is hugely unlikely unless TONS of people believe in a flat earth!!”
Sorry, but no.
But correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t Mac sales significantly higher in 2005 than 2004, even though there were no significant Mac computer changes or updates (aside from the Mac Mini)
This is just more of you connecting random dots in the atmosphere and trying to make a picture out of it.
Yes, Mac sales were up. So were computer sales all across the board. They go up every year. It doesn’t prove anything whatsoever about the halo effect or any product in particular. Apple is growing and that’s good for them, but so are their competitors.
And the Mac Mini was absolutely a significant change. But even so, you’d have to tie any growth in sales specifically to the Mac Mini to prove any kind of point.
PLUS the fact a huge amount of Mac users had admitted to have been waiting until the switch to Intel.
Aside from this being purely anecdotal, we’re talking about switchers here, not existing Mac users.
I do get what you’re saying about trying to sell PC users on OS X by letting them run a basic version of it.
Who said anything about a basic version? I’m talking full-on OS X with all the bells and whistles and iLife included.
Beeblebrox: “Who said anything about a basic version? I’m talking full-on OS X with all the bells and whistles and iLife included.”
WTF
Beeblebrox: “OS X by itself for $129. No hardware or driver support,”
Then why did you say that? Surely you can forgive me for being confused.