Should Apple Port the iLife Suite?

Discussion in ' News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 23, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. Moderator emeritus


    Oct 21, 2003
    Portland, OR
    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.
  3. macrumors 6502a


    Nov 19, 2003
    What a rather boring 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.
  4. Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    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).
  5. macrumors 65816


    Apr 19, 2004
    agreed. well said.
  6. macrumors regular


    Nov 18, 2003
    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.
  7. macrumors 603


    Jul 3, 2002
    Middle Earth
    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.
  8. macrumors 6502

    May 11, 2005
    I second that.
  9. macrumors 601


    May 29, 2005
    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:
  10. macrumors regular

    Norse Son

    Dec 13, 2005
    Under Uncle Sam's Thumb
    Bread to the Masses?

    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.
  11. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    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.
  12. macrumors newbie

    Aug 21, 2003
    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)

  13. macrumors 604


    Jan 20, 2005
    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 [​IMG]
  14. macrumors P6


    Jun 4, 2003
    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:
  15. macrumors 68020


    Sep 3, 2003
    Alta, Norway
    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...
  16. macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    There are also a lot of other bundled apps designed for Windows.This port would be useless for Windows users imho.
  17. sjk
    macrumors 6502a

    May 2, 2003
    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.
  18. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 11, 2002
    Charlotte, NC
    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!
  19. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 17, 2003
    Boston, MA
  20. macrumors 68000


    Jun 24, 2004
    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.
  21. macrumors 6502a


    Aug 11, 2002
    Charlotte, NC
    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:
  22. macrumors P6


    Jun 4, 2003
    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:
  23. macrumors G3


    Aug 30, 2003
    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.
  24. s10
    macrumors regular

    Apr 8, 2002
    Los Angeles
    exactly iMeowbot

    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.
  25. macrumors 65816


    Nov 3, 2005
    Those against
    Porting the iLife suite dilutes the Mac platform

    *waves hand*

Share This Page