PDA

View Full Version : Should Apple Port the iLife Suite?


MacBytes
Dec 23, 2005, 10:19 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Should Apple Port the iLife Suite? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051223111924)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

yellow
Dec 23, 2005, 10:23 AM
Hell no.

That's just one of the many reasons that you should be running a Mac. Why give this away? That's just stupid.

JDOG_
Dec 23, 2005, 10:31 AM
What a rather boring article...no offense to the author. I'm sure they took their time on it.

No mention of windows movie maker app to compare to iMovie. And why sell this to PC users? I'd think they's start selling Final Cut Pro and Aperture to people before porting iLife.

Yes iTunes was better than WMP when they first introduced it, but lets not forget Apple didn't just port iTunes to the PC to sell more iPods, they did it to get more iTMS customers as well.

mkrishnan
Dec 23, 2005, 10:36 AM
I personally don't think it's worth the benefit... when Apple ported iTunes, it got a lot of flack because early versions of iTunes/Win ran poorly or unreliably on a lot of existing Windows installs... That's okay, because iTunes was necessary to grow the iPod and iTMS phenomena, and although it had to run on lots of different Windows computers, it only used one kind of iPod. With the rest of iLife, I think there are too many hardware profiles in the Windows world, and its less likely that Apple would be able to offer the kind of seamlessness that exists on Macs.

Well, that's my opinion, at any rate. Although Picasa seems to be a relevant counterexample in terms of iPhoto being doable. I have only seen Picasa once, and I was impressed, although I'm not sure how easy it is to configure cameras on it (and if it meets the zero-config level of iPhoto).

devman
Dec 23, 2005, 10:38 AM
Hell no.

That's just one of the many reasons that you should be running a Mac. Why give this away? That's just stupid.

agreed. well said.

xtbfx
Dec 23, 2005, 10:42 AM
Well, I must be one of the 'stuck up' Mac users because Windows users shouldn't get iLife. It's part of the Apple Culture and you can't just ship it over to Windows.

Let them get a Mac if they want it so bad.

nuckinfutz
Dec 23, 2005, 10:43 AM
No Porting iLife is not worth the increase in sales

The assumption made in the article is that since iTunes saw success from being ported iLife would also find that same success. This is a fallacy. iTunes is a delivery conduit for pre-recorded media. iLife is a management and creation suite. You cannot expect the same results when comparing the two.

The problem with cross platform applications is that they can never fully exploit the hardware. If Apple makes iLife for windows then they must program to a lowest common denominator codebase and then toss on platform specific features later. This is not good for you and I if we wish to have an application that is Mac through and through.

I disagree that there are no equivalents in the PC world. Picase is probably better than iPhoto as of today with RAW support and excellent performance.

Fruity Loops has been PC only for years and isn't as slick as Garage Band but is mature and tested.

Premiere Elements from Adobe handles video editing just fine and burn DVDs to boot.

I think iLife needs to be focus on highlighting Macintosh technologies. I think dreams of iLife dominating the PC landscape are coming from Mac users with no experience or knowledge of the many applications available to a PC user.

I will acknowledge the excellent price of iLife. It's definitely a steal of an application that we should be happy to enjoy on our own as Mac users.

iHateWindows
Dec 23, 2005, 11:08 AM
Hell no.

That's just one of the many reasons that you should be running a Mac. Why give this away? That's just stupid.

I second that.

mjstew33
Dec 23, 2005, 11:19 AM
It's not worth it, if they want the iLife suite so bad - get a effing Mac mini. This is one of the damn advantages of the Mac! They can't just give it to everyone, this is part of the reason I'm still on the Mac!

Apple's been pissing me off lately. nah, I take that back. These rumors have been pissing me off lately. :rolleyes:

Norse Son
Dec 23, 2005, 11:36 AM
Porting iTunes to Windows did help broaden the appeal of the iPod & iTMS. However, didn't Apple reach 100 million iTMS downloads just on the Mac USA version (were there UK, French & German iTMSs)? However, with the iLife suite there were few, if any, legit options for the other apps. No, in the inclusive/integrated world of the MacOS, Apple was the only company that could (would, for that matter) release such a comprehensive & elegant suite of media tools.

But port it to Windows?!?!?

Not to sound like a Mac Snob, but with more Windows users switching to Mac I have seen a... hmmm... (delicate wording necessary)... Oh, screw it, I'll just say it... Windows users have been used to paying dirt cheap prices for second rate, garage-built hardware, cobbled together with software patches up the ying-yang, and having dozens of mediocre choices in each software category - "Viruses, schmiruses; my PC eats them for breakfast!" So, here's the elitist rub - Have others noticed a slight "dumbing down" of the intellect in forum threads around the Mac web?

"Have not!", "Hav two!", "Yur pc'z a peace of ,crap then!" "Yeh? Wel, you Mac snobs are all th same. Think your better then the rest of us Windows people... At least i can built my pc from skratche. How xpan-dabbl is y'ur Mac!"...

And, no, I wasn't too far off the mark judging by some forum posts I've read... I'm not perfect, and the "U" key on my laptop occasionally sticks, but I do try to lend intelligence to my posts, with thought-through research to back up my opinions.

I don't want to see iLife on Windows, because people who made the choice to use Windows do not appreciate the benefits associated with a (short term) premium on the Mac. I expect elegant hardware & software "solutions" from Apple, as well as 3rd-party developers. "Solutions" is the key word, because it empowers you to complete a task. The interaction between myself and the applications, interpreted by MacOS X, is intuitive, because Apple requires developers to "respect" the look & feel.

I will pay a premium for that, but a majority of Windows users, let alone those switching to the Mac, did not learn to use a pc that way. So I think they should be perceptive to what makes a Mac different from a Dell, HP, Gateway, eMachines, ACER, "Bob's LawnMower Repair's Green Dragon PC-Extreme", etc. - an overall quality of computing they can only get on an Apple Mac running MacOS X...

If Apple really wants to convert Windows users they should stock Best Buy, Circuit City, Frys, Comp USA, etc. with the mini, iBook and iMac; and pay the salaries for knowledgeable sales people who only deal with Macs, know what they're talking about, and can ably demonstrate the "non-inflated" benefits of the total MacOS X experience over Windows... Imagine Apple working to actually promote the Mac, not just the iPod. That would do more than "iLife for Windows" to encourage intelligent crossover decisions.

Call me intelligent for my computing choice, but never a snob.

Sun Baked
Dec 23, 2005, 11:57 AM
I'd say port it to Windows, but make it run only on a Mac. ;)

Something nifty for Windows users buying the MacIntels and a bit easier for the dual boot crowd.

Jimjiminey
Dec 23, 2005, 02:36 PM
Then what would be the point of buying a mac?

Sure OSX is more secure, Blah, Blah, Blah, but the general public could care less. You buy a mac for the programs, like iLife, and FCP or FCE or Logic Pro.
You sure don't buy it based on security, ease of use, game play, or processor speed. While those things are great and amazing reasons to purchase a mac, when I mention them, people's eyes glaze over. I show them what I can create, and they are amazed. (I always end it with "You can't do that on a Dell!)

You use the sizzle (iLife-pro apps, Frontrow) to sell the steak (G5 or iMac/Mini)

J

Lacero
Dec 23, 2005, 02:39 PM
Apple should on port apps if it helps to sell their closed, proprietary hardware, such as the Itunes/Ipod combo, otherwise, I say screw PeeCee users running Micro$haft's Winblows. I love my MAC! :D ;)




Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

~Shard~
Dec 23, 2005, 02:41 PM
Nope - it wouldn't run properly/as well on Windows, and then Windows users would complain about it and wrongly give it a bad name. Keep it Mac! :cool:

dubbz
Dec 23, 2005, 02:47 PM
Apple should on port apps if it helps to sell their closed, proprietary hardware, such as the Itunes/Ipod combo, otherwise, I say screw PeeCee users running Micro$haft's Winblows. I love my MAC! :D ;)

My head just imploded.

Edit: More:

I kinda figured they ported they ported iTunes to Windows because they wanted something better for for iPod owners who's running Windows, as well as giving access to the Music Store. Makes sense, ya know?

QuickTime ported because they wanted to spread their favored format(s) (and the same, to some point, could probably be said for iTunes too).

The other apps doesn't make as much sense, I think...

Peace
Dec 23, 2005, 03:03 PM
There are also a lot of other bundled apps designed for Windows.This port would be useless for Windows users imho.

sjk
Dec 23, 2005, 03:39 PM
Nope - it wouldn't run properly/as well on Windows, and then Windows users would complain about it and wrongly give it a bad name.Yeah, like they already do (sometimes justifiably) with iTunes on Windows. Even though it's Apple's app I seriously doubt it'll ever be as good for me as running it on OS X. Same would be true with any other iApps on Windows.

Fender2112
Dec 23, 2005, 04:32 PM
I think porting just iPhoto could be a very strategic move. Dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of them and lead them to the promised land. Ooo Yeah!

amin
Dec 23, 2005, 04:59 PM
[QUOTE=Fender2112]I think porting just iPhoto could be a very strategic move. Dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of them and lead them to the promised land. Ooo Yeah![/QUOI don't think iPhoto would create very many converts. For the average person, Picasa may even be a better choice!

Loge
Dec 23, 2005, 06:03 PM
No they shouldn't. Such resources would be better spent developing and improving software for OS X. iTunes was an exception justified on the basis of iPod sales, and that the alternative iPod compatible jukebox software for Windows was generally considered inferior.

Fender2112
Dec 23, 2005, 06:05 PM
I think porting just iPhoto could be a very strategic move. Dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of them and lead them to the promised land. Ooo Yeah!I don't think iPhoto would create very many converts. For the average person, Picasa may even be a better choice!
I'm not familiar with Picasa, so I'll accept your statement. Perhaps iMove might serve the purpose. The purpose being ... Apple should port one other program, not the whole suite. Something that Apple can afford to use as a teaser to lure Windows users into the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

If all else fails, Apple could just port OS X to Windows. :eek:

~Shard~
Dec 23, 2005, 06:12 PM
I think porting just iPhoto could be a very strategic move. Dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of them and lead them to the promised land. Ooo Yeah!

I don't think iPhoto would make that much of an impact. And remember that iTunes was already made available to the PC crowd, and due to its implementation it simply does not run as well on Windows, which has given it some negative press as a result. We don't want Widows users to be getting these types of bad impressions and misconceptions when it comes to iLife, or else then they'll never convert! :) :cool:

iMeowbot
Dec 23, 2005, 06:16 PM
The iTunes port made sense, Apple had products and services to sell that needed it. What cash stream might iLife have attached, .Mac? That can't be worth the probable dent in Mac hardware sales, unless they were itching to get out of the PC business.

s10
Dec 24, 2005, 01:47 AM
Itunes on PC made sense as Apple needed to give the same user experience to PC users (iPod+iTunes) in order for the iPod to become as successful as it is now.

Seasought
Dec 24, 2005, 04:21 AM
Those against
Porting the iLife suite dilutes the Mac platform

*waves hand*

mdavey
Dec 24, 2005, 05:35 AM
I think porting just iPhoto could be a very strategic move. Dangle a nice juicy carrot in front of them and lead them to the promised land. Ooo Yeah!

I think that iChat AV would be a better choice. Especially if they iChat enable the iPods using wifi or bluetooth (or the mythical iPhone is ever released).

pth-webdev
Dec 24, 2005, 06:30 AM
I was about to mention iChat when I noticed there was another page and the only message there beat me to it.

I read a rumor that iSight will go to USB, so porting iChat could drive iSight sales in a similar way iTumes drives iPod sales. Plus, you get better interoperatability between people on different platforms.

Personally, I expected iPhoto to be ported soon after the iPod-photo was introduced. I am still wondering why this didn't happen.

As for iTunes, I read that people comment about it not working well. I recommended it to a Windows user once and later he told me that he dumped all other apps and is now solely using iTunes. He even got others to make the same switch. I am not a Windows user myself (I am a programmer who, on the Mac, also creates Windows software and I use my laptop-pc to for testing only. Sometimes I try a Windows app, but I seem to dislike using them.)

If another app is ported, it would generate publicity, which is good. As was mentioned earlier: if the new machines are dual bootable, then having a several apps on both sides would make it more useable. So it makes sense to port to Windows but restrict it to Apple hardware. An interesting idea.

Yvan256
Dec 24, 2005, 09:28 AM
Should Apple Port the iLife Suite?

Absolutely not. That's one of the main selling points for new users. And if Apple makes iLife available for Windows, you can be sure that most people will get it "for free" instead of buying it (IMO it's more common for Windows users to pirate software compared to Mac users).

Not only would Mac sales drop, but the ratio of pirating could be so high that iLife for Windows sales wouldn't offset the lost Mac sales.

Yvan256
Dec 24, 2005, 09:43 AM
The purpose being... Apple should port one other program, not the whole suite. Something that Apple can afford to use as a teaser to lure Windows users into the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field.

If all else fails, Apple could just port OS X to Windows. :eek:

You have no idea how huge the iTunes following is, especially for Windows users. It's often referred to as "the best program I have ever used".

iTunes is enough of an incentive for buying a Mac. It was for me, anyway. And iLife was enough for my brother (who bought a Mac mini "just to edit movies", and now only uses his PC as a video playback device in the living room). :D

macnulty
Dec 25, 2005, 02:48 PM
Follow the logic:

Port iTunes to Windows to sell more iPods,

Port iLife to Windows to sell ?

~Shard~
Dec 25, 2005, 11:41 PM
Follow the logic:

Port iTunes to Windows to sell more iPods,

Port iLife to Windows to sell ?

More Macs? Is that it? Do I get a cookie? ;) :D

balamw
Dec 26, 2005, 12:52 AM
You have no idea how huge the iTunes following is, especially for Windows users. It's often referred to as "the best program I have ever used".
Worked for me. For all its quirks and things that don't quite work the way you expect, it's still very good.

I started using iTunes, fell in love with it, bought my first iPod, and then came back to the fold with my iBook.

However, I don't think porting iLife to Windows is a good idea. iChat might work in the same way iTunes did, but iPhoto/iMovie/iDVD/GarageBand would all seem a bit out of place on XP.

B

mlrproducts
Dec 26, 2005, 01:26 AM
Apple users would, of course, point out that the “experience” would be better on a Mac but would that really matter to the majority of consumers? I don’t think it would.

And I think that proves that the author is an idiot. Ummm.... the whole idea behind iLife IS THE EXPERIENCE YOU IDIOT! Running seamlessly, without problems.

If Windows users wanted iLife with a lesser experience they would just use the BLOODY WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER AND MOVIE MAKER!!!

Geez, if we take a Corvette and put a 2 liter 4 cylinder in it with automatic tranny and make an Eddie Bauer edition, perhaps it really wouldn't matter to the majority of consumers as well.... nimrod. MEOW!

p0intblank
Dec 26, 2005, 03:28 AM
No way. The iLife Suite comes with every Mac exclusively and should stay that way. After all, could you imagine hearing about GarageBand on a Windows machine? It just doesn't sound right... :shiver:

Lacero
Dec 26, 2005, 03:55 AM
No way. The iLife Suite comes with every Mac exclusively and should stay that way.
I agree. Could you imagine what would have happened if Apple didn't port iTunes, part of iLife, over to Windows? It's bad enough we had to go with a multi-button mouse. This is ruining everything that Apple stood for! :mad:

Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

shamino
Dec 26, 2005, 10:33 AM
This would only make sense if apple wants to abandon the Mac hardware business and become a software company. Now, some (IMO, stupid) pundits claim that this is exactly what Apple wants - hence the reason to ship Intel boxes that (they claim) will be commodity PC's that you and I could build for $500 worth of parts at a flea market.

But for all the rest of us that know better, porting iLife would be completely dumb. It would take one of they key reasons for switching to Mac OS and eliminate it, eliminating lots of Mac hardware sales.

Unless they expect all these Windows-iLife users to be running windows on Mac hardware (a pipe dream, if I ever heard one), such a port would be self-destructive to the entire company.

This article sounds like yet another case of a Windows user pretending that his personal wishes would be best for Apple. I have no doubt that tons of Windows users would love to own a software suite like iLife, but that, by itself, doesn't mean it would make any sense for Apple to actually produce the product.