Worried!

[anubis]

The other day I was reading an article (don't remember where) about Windows on Macs. The story said something about how now Mac users will now be able to enjoy all of the games that are available for Windows without having to wait a year or more for the game to the ported to Mac (not to mention all of the games that never get ported). Macsoft, the porter of many Mac games, was worried that Windows on Mac will cut deeply into their revenues because if Mac consumers can simply buy the Windows version now, then why would they pay for a Mac port a year from now? Macsoft apparently is foreseeing the complete and total end of the Mac game market, which even now is barely profitable.

And that got me thinking, and worried. If Windows can be run on the Mac, then what's to keep Adobe and other major developers from completely dropping Mac versions of their products? That is, if Mac users can simply run the Windows version of Photoshop while booted in OS X using Windows Virtualization, then what incentive is there for Adobe (or anyone else for that matter) from going through all the trouble, money, and resources producing Mac-specific versions of the same software that may only represent 1-5% of total sales?

Now ideally, that wouldn't necesarily be a problem, especially if the Windows Virtualization is completely transparent (i.e. double-click on a .exe Windows executable and it opens without any indication that Windows is in any way involved). But unfortunately, I foresee that Windows apps will look like Windows apps. That is, apps will no longer have that great Aqua look and feel, but instead will just look like the regular bland Windows apps we're all familiar with running in a window in OS X. That's bothersome, because one of the great things about OS X is that (typcially) Mac developers are very concerned about the look and user friendliness of their products, unlike Windows developers whose apps are typically blunt and ugly. But, if there's no motivation to produce Mac versions any more, then we may be stuck with ugly Windows versions.

Unfortunately, what I forsee is a future in which companies whose Mac software sales only make up a small portion of their revenues will completely stop Mac development with the idea that Mac users can and will simply purchase the Windows version and run the software with Windows virtualization on their Macs. Unfortunately, that will mean that Mac users will no longer be able to enjoy the cut-and-polished Mac versions that we've come to enjoy.

What do you guys think?

 

[CanadaRAM]

I believe you are accurate on all points.

Some small players will see this as their cue to drop Mac development.

But that's nothing new -- companies have exited the Mac market for years without this particular excuse.

 

[grapes911]

...then what incentive is there for Adobe (or anyone else for that matter) from going through all the trouble, money, and resources producing Mac-specific versions of the same software that may only represent 1-5% of total sales?

Very well thought out. I just see one problem in your post. Taking Photoshop for example, Macs don't represent 1-5% of Photoshop sales. Macs represent almost 40% of Photoshop sales. I find it hard to believe that Adobe would end OS X support.

 

[JayMak]

Its a good point, also consider those of us who own Photoshop for Windows, we are not about to buy the Mac version now, same for MS Office, etc. In fact those thinking of switching have less reason to now.

People who want a Mac Mini for its size and silence to run XP are not likely to use OS-X much at all.

OS-X to the casual XP user is similar to Linux, running built in apps is fine, but often trying to accomplish something is frustrating compared to XP if your used to using XP all the time.

 

[whyrichard]

Even though point in this argument, and also in similer arguments posed elsewhere in this forum, are logical, I somehow doubt developers will drop the mac platform in serious numbers. Mac will thrive.

... for the most part. Alias I'm concerned about, makers of maya, recently bought up by autodesk, the makers of one of the most stubbernly antimac (?) architecture and design suites.... what will become of maya? maya is/was an important program to have supported in the mac environment... maya 7 was out for mac long before it was out on pc! and supposedly their response to the question "when will maya come out in universal binaries?".... was only "no comment".

i am afraid that maya might be a gonner on the mac.



r.

 

[anubis]

Very well thought out. I just see one problem in your post. Taking Photoshop for example, Macs don't represent 1-5% of Photoshop sales. Macs represent almost 40% of Photoshop sales. I find it hard to believe that Adobe would end OS X support.

Ahhh, OK, thanks for the correction there. I just typically assume that since Macs have about 5% of market share, then Mac versions make up 5% of all software sales. But, 40% does make sense for Photoshop, so that's a good point. But what about other developers?

 

[Kernow]

I can see your point, but there seems to be an assumption that all Mac users will also be running Windows on their machines, and that the two OSs will be interchangeable. It would be interesting to find out how many people will actually use the dual boot facility. I know that when I move over to Intel, I will not bother to go to the expense of buying a copy of Windows.

 

[grapes911]

It would be interesting to find out how many people will actually use the dual boot facility.

That's a good point. Many people on MacRumors have tried it, but I don't think that this is the norm. Let's face it: If you are on these forums then there is a pretty good chance that you are at least part geek and are required to try stuff like this.

 

[CanadaRAM]

I find it hard to believe that Adobe would end OS X support.

They did with Premiere -- at the first sign of competition...

 

[grapes911]

They did with Premiere -- at the first sign of competition...

I can't deny that. But the only competition in this case is with themselves: Photoshop for OS X vs. Photoshop for Windows.

 

[CorvusCamenarum]

I can see your point, but there seems to be an assumption that all Mac users will also be running Windows on their machines, and that the two OSs will be interchangeable. It would be interesting to find out how many people will actually use the dual boot facility. I know that when I move over to Intel, I will not bother to go to the expense of buying a copy of Windows.

I have to concur with that. I'm in the camp of those who has no use for Windows. While I do enjoy the occasional game, I couldn't justify spending $300 (guesstimate) on a Windows license just so I can play games from time to time. I could go out and purchase a console for far less than that.

 

[balamw]

I couldn't justify spending $300 (guesstimate) on a Windows license just so I can play games from time to time.

Your guesstimate is about 2-3x too high. You can get the OEM version of Windows XP home for < $100, XP Pro for ~$150. Much closer to console price.

B

 

[Morn]

I don't think so. Mac users will pay for mac versions of software to avoid a reboot (most probably already own some windows box anyway, this is really less of a big deal for developers than it is made out to be). Plus this is bound to add to apples market share because it's going to create more switchers. I think macsoft can look forward to making more money.
I'd be more worried about virtualization. Boot camp isn't really that much of a difference from what we have already from the developers point of view. And that is that many people will have a mac and a pc anyway. Mac users will keep booting into OSX for the same reason that they use their mac to begin with.

 

[esaleris]

I'd like to point out that, first of all, nobody's going to pay a 20% premium to run Windows. That's just stupid. No matter what the case looks like, no matter what the screen looks like, you're not going to pay $300-400 more for a similarly equipped Mac to run Windows - it just doesn't make sense.

So empowering people to run boot camp supplements running the one thing that makes Macs Macs - OS X. So at this point, Apple has already sold you on the hardware and the software.

Now, too many people are considering OS X and Windows XP contemporary. I beg to differ. Windows is a fundamentally unstable system. Not because it's just MSFT, or whatever, but because it's got 20 years of legacy development wrapped in. That backwards compatibility leads to a lot of problems - you can't completely fix flaws, and you constantly maintain APIs and bloat that complement compatibility. Those Windows 3.1 programs STILL run on Windows. OS X, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept (2001 if you don't consider NeXTSTEP). If you look at Rosetta and such, it's a compartimentalized program that is utilized by the system to be backwards compatible. Windows, on the other hand, is, at its most elementary level, an evolution of the old code, not a completely different code-base. So OS X doesn't have a lot of coding baggage, and in addition, has recently grown a lot in terms of user applications like iLife.

The point I'm trying to make is that OS X is a different "animal" if you will. When you buy into OS X, you are buying into security, you're buying into stability, and you're buying into the iLife applications. That alone has carried Apple so far, so the release of a solution to allow you to revert to a system where there are a lot of issues isn't going to hurt your sales.

As the "shininess" of Boot Camp wears off, I think you'll see that because of this, people prefer to stay in OS X.

 

[Morn]

Nonsense, Windows XP is a very stable, it has a modern hybrid protected memory kernel like OSX and is largely unrelated to windows 9x aside from having the same API. Although all the 3rd party drivers do affect stablity some what, it's not so much affected by legecy.
Security though, not only is XP the largest target but it's the most fundimentally insecure due to a lack of security features.
OSX has a much better UI and better security.

 

[gwimby]

I'd like to broaden the picture a little bit here:

Dual booting is nice, but its a pit-stop in the progress of technology (In this particular case anyway)
With the rise of virtualization in the next 1-3 years you'll run any OS at full speed alongside, inside, outside, where ever next to nearly any other OS.
You won't be tied down to choosing at boot which OS you'll be working in.
You will have both booted at the same time and tab between the two like you do a app today, or, run one within a window of the other. *nix, OSX, Win, it won't matter.

And as far as major companies maintaining support for one platform or another, they won't.
A company will put out a single universal version of their app that will naitivly run on nearly any major platform. (x86 that is)
Also, some bigger companies may even have self launching apps that act as their own OS [self-executing applications]
I suspect MS and Apple will even develop the ability to run "legacy" software from alternate platforms (todays winXP apps and universal binary apps) naitivly on the others OS.

These OS and applicationi advances will go hand in hand with other advances like multi-core cpus and hybrid HDDs that incorporate multi GB flash "caches" that will dramatically lower "boot" times and reduce the need for restarts in portables.

At least, thats what I expect in the next 1-5 years.