Writes Scott Gilbertson at Wired: “At last count there are only thirteen people that agree with my hypothesis that Apple will buyout Parallels virtualization software and start bundling Vista with new Macs.”
I’m a tad distressed that even thirteen people agreed with this hypothesis, but that’s the glory of the Internet, ain’t it? You can find people who agree with pretty much anything. Unfortunately, while Gilbertson points to a number of true statements in his article, putting them together is like building a wall by stacking brick on top of brick, with no mortar—it’s pretty easy to knock it over with a good shove.
Brick 1: Apple likes to buy/steal existing technologies (see SoundJam, Cover Flow, Dashboard).
Leaving aside the Dashboard/Konfabulator controversy, sure Apple likes to buy existing technologies. But for every one they do buy, there are hundreds—nay, thousands—that they don’t. Why buy Parallels when they’ve publicly stated several times over that Boot Camp is how they’re choosing to handle it?
Brick 2: Just because they’ve said they have no interest in virtualization in Leopard doesn’t preclude virtualization in a later version; besides, they’re always denying stuff (like an Intel-native version of OS X).
This is a slippery slope argument, culminating in the belief that we should belief nothing that comes from Steve Jobs/the Apple executive team. While I’m way ahead of you there, sometimes a denial is just a denial. Sure, virtualization might show up some day, but with a third party doing it so well, and competition in the space is only getting fiercer, why should Apple get involved? They’ve played their hand with Boot Camp (see Brick 1); I don’t think they necessarily want to spend any more R&D on running Windows than they already have.
Brick 3: And I quote “So why do I think Apple will buy Parallels? For one thing Parallels keeps cranking out free updates which mean either they’re really cool, or they have some funding from somewhere. Development is expensive and companies rarely give it away.”
Apparently, Gilbertson missed the whole “Parallels is owned by a big software virtualization company” story. Moving on.
Brick 4: Mac users want to run Vista because it’s pretty.
Despite the fact that I’ve lined my nest with tinfoil and bits of string I’ve collected, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most Mac users aren’t about to switch up merely because of “teh shiny.” The best article on Mac-Vista switching I’ve read so far was Joe Hutsko’s piece on MSNBC and he (spoiler alert!) ended up switching back to the Mac, after realizing that his attraction to Vista was nothing more than its novelty. I think many of us are curious to see what’s good in Vista, and what’s not so good, but at the end of the day, most of us will stick with OS X.
Brick 5: Ah, the heart of the argument. Apple is a hardware company, so Apple can sell more hardware by bundling Windows and OS X together, at last—the Reese’s Pieces of computers.
This old chestnut is the inverse of the even-older chestnut that Apple is a software company, and so should license their OS to generic PC makers. Look, Apple is not a hardware company. They’re not a software company. They sell hardware, software, and everything in between: the experience. The mortar, if you will—something that Gilbertson’s shown that he doesn’t quite grasp.
Furthermore, they sell it well: more than six 1.6 million Macs last quarter (Update: memory blip, sorry about that). Less than most PC makers? Sure, but with far higher market growth than their competition if you want to look at the numbers. And while they can always use more hardware sales, they’re making more and more of their money from the iPod, and the iPhone is likely to only increase their non-Mac revenue. As I’ve said before, the Mac is no longer under the pressure of having to be the workhorse of Apple’s lineup.
I’ll say that while there’s no reason for Apple to be the one bundling Windows with Macs, it doesn’t stop other retailers from doing it. The benefit’s already there; Apple doesn’t need to bring it in house. If anything, it seems like it would be far more overhead than it’s worth for them.
Brick 6: Having built the first wall as high as possible, Gilbertson decides to start a second wall by saying: if not Parallels, how about WINE?
WINE is a very cool technology—if you’re not familiar with it, it’s the basis of CrossOver. It lets you run Windows apps without having to install Windows. But its compatibility is often limited, and it requires a decent amount of work to make sure that apps work correctly, forcing the developers to focus on the big-name apps, things like Internet Explorer and Office. Both of which have superior, native OS X corollaries. Again, it’s a lot of work for very little return. Most things that Windows can do, OS X can do as well, if not better.
As I said above, Apple’s in the business of selling experience. They spend a lot of money developing their hardware and software to give their users the best possible experience. I certainly don’t think they’re about to compromise that vision just to make a few more bucks on hardware sales that, let’s face it, they don’t really need anyway.
People don’t seem to get, especially in today’s materialistic world, is that a lot of Apple’s value—what they sell, what their consumers get—is intangible. Microsoft appeals to the wallet, but despite owning 95% of the marketplace, it will never win consumers’ hearts and minds. Apple understands that there’s value in that; don’t let anybody tell you different.
“So why do I think Apple will buy Parallels? For one thing Parallels keeps cranking out free updates which mean either they're really cool, or they have some funding from somewhere. Development is expensive and companies rarely give it away.”
Easy... Parallels is the second-best selling Mac application in the market, right behind - yes, you've guessed it - Microsoft Office! There's a lot of money to be made from Parallels. And there's a lot of competition from VMWare on the horizon too.
Which should makes us fear that sooner or later, Apple will be in the same position Microsoft is and start bullying its customers.
I guess I'm glad Ubuntu is shaping up well for that event.
Is apple a hardware company? no.
Is apple a software company? no.
apple is a consumer electronics company.
Actually Apple sold ONE POINT SIX million macs last quarter, not six million. I agree about the bricks falling down fairly easily, though...
Furthermore, they sell it well: more than six million Macs last quarter.
Huh? They sold about 5.6 million last year, of which 1.6 million were in the December quarter.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results.html
Whoops, my memory transposed 6.1 million and 1.6 million. Corrected. Yet another good thing about the Internet: people tell you when you screw up. :)
What I would like to see from Apple, is them partnering with existing open-source projects.
In the virtualisation arena, there is XenSource.
It's positioning itself as an enterprise level solution for running virtual servers within servers.
I would personally love to be able to run a few Windows reliant services on a Xeon based Xserve, while the majority of the services are ticking away happily on Mac OS X Server.
The key point is, that Apple don't have to develop this stuff in-house. By partnering with other developers, they can ensure it is available as an option.
I use Vista on Mac OS/X so that I can fire up a Windows pane like a browser on OS/X for those remaining Windows application functions that I can't do on the Mac.
With parallels its easy.
Check it out over at http://rashbre2.blogspot.com