[jmincey]

iSunfish, I don't think Microsoft is concerned about "control" in this regard. Instead, I think it sees this as a win-win proposition. Whether a Mac user buys Virtual-PC and runs Windows under that or instead he buys a copy of Windows itself to run directly on an Intel-based Mac, Microsoft is getting revenue and adding to its market share numbers either way you slice it.

[wdonegan]

Re: is Apple a hardware or software company?
Apple is neither...Apple is a DESIGN company that produces both hardware and software.

[kenaustus]

MS is going to support anything that will sell Windows. The fact that VPC comes with the top level of Office is a good indication that they consider it important. More important is to deliver VPC 8 before someone works out how to run Win apps on a Mac without buying Windows.

[jmincey]

"is Apple a hardware or software company? Apple is neither...Apple is a DESIGN company that produces both hardware and software."
This is not so. You have it backwards. Apple is a hardware and software company that performs design in the process of developing its hardware and software products.
In determining what business a company is in, one is essentially posing this question: What does this company sell and what can I purchase from this company? Very well then, can you purchase design services from Apple? If you wanted to contract with a "designer," would you find "Apple Computer" in the listings? Of course not. You can't make a contract with Apple to do "design work," so let's not get cute with words.
Apple has great expertise in design -- no question about it. But just because a company designs its own products doesn't mean it is therefore a design company. So by the measure of the question I pose above, Apple is both a hardware and software company. This is the business it is in. This is what Apple sells and derives revenue from. This is not only what its products consist of but in fact what its products ARE.
Now in the course of developing these products Apple invokes a number of skills -- design being one. Apple also employs engineering and marketing. But this does not mean that if you require design, engineering, or marketing services, you could then give Apple a call and expect them to make you an offer.
In establishing what a company is all about, people often confuse means and ends. For Apple, design is a means and not an end. For a design company, design is the end itself. This is the difference.

[jdb8167]

In reply to:

---

Since VirtualPC is already available for x86 PC's running Windows, is it really going to take "a lot of work to rebuild for an entirely new architecture"? Or are they just exaggerating in order to cover their rear ends?

---

I think you underestimate the difficulty of virtualizing an operating system. First, it is more likely that they would start with the PPC OS X version of VPC and remove the PPC to x86 interpreter. The code that virtualizes Windows under Windows is probably going to be vastly different than the code to virtualize Windows under OS X.
I think it is much more likely that there is little expertise on Microsoft's side in the underlying code in OS X VPC since they didn't write it originally. Making minor changes and bugfixes is a whole different proposition from ripping the guts out of the code to make it work in Intel Macs.
edit: Thinking about this, I bet it would be trivial to update VPC for OS X to work on Intel Macs. I bet the easiest way to do it is to just port the interpreter to x86. Interpret x86 instructions on a x86 platform. I doubt they would ship such a thing though. It would be widely ridiculed and rightly so. But that might be the first step to getting a working version of VPC for Intel OS X.

[time_bomb_W]

Any words on dual boot OS X and Windows on these new Macs?

[pfindon]

I wish Apple and Adobe could make a similar deal whereby Adobe agrees to develop its apps for the Mac, indcluding FrameMaker, for the next five years.
But then, Photoshop has always been slow to start.
Paul

[frankie]

Still no, not really. Hardware is where the fat bulk of Apple's profit comes from. OSX and the iApps exist to help sell Macs. The music store exists to help sell iPods. That's the bottom line.

[jmincey]

"OSX and the iApps exist to help sell Macs."
What is .Mac? What is iTMS? What is iTunes? What is Filemaker? What is Final Cut Pro? What is iLife and iWork?
I don't know where you've been for the last decade, but margins on computers are terrible. To be sure, Macs carry margins which are generally better than the rest of the industry, but only marginally so (if you will pardon the pun). The real money is in software or small consumer items -- such as the iPod.

[d00d]

The real money is in software or small consumer items -- such as the iPod.
If that's so, why bother selling hardware now that the Intel migration is complete? Why try to lock consumers into Apple hardware?

[jmincey]

"Why try to lock consumers into Apple hardware?"
Well, there may come a time when Apple shrink-wraps OS X for use on the Intel/AMD market broadly. But for now the most compelling answer I can see to your question is simply that (1) there IS money to be made by selling hardware -- having low margins is not the same thing as having NO margins and (2) Apple needs to establish itself as a viable computer company on the Intel architecture before throwing it wide open (if ultimately it ever does). If Apple threw it open right away, then there would be a possible rush to OS X and support for the Mac as a hardware product would dry up -- because Apple can't begin to out-Dell Dell at the low margin business.
Once Apple convinces a substantial segment of the Intel market that it makes computers which add value and which are on par with (if not superior to) the computers of the better known Intel family -- such as HP, Sony, Dell, Gateway, Acer, etc. -- then it might consider opening it up. And at that point it could have two reliable revenue streams -- OS X as a stand-alone product and of course the Mac itself.
I'm sure Apple realizes it's only a matter of time before OS X is hacked anyway -- but now is the opportunity to position Intel-based Macs in the market, so Apple is making the most of it.

[d00d]

Yes, but if the real money as you say, is in the software, why not just dump the hardware business? Wouldn't they multiply OS X sales by orders of magnitude and make more money?

[jmincey]

Actually, I think there is great potential there as a matter of fact. It's a risky proposition to be sure, and it would be quite the bold move, but then Jobs is precisely that -- a bold leader who does take risks. So we shall see.
For now, though, I don't see this as necessarily an either-or proposition. Selling OS X as a stand-alone product to Intel-based hardware platforms doesn't preclude selling the Mac. There will always be a market for Apple-designed computers so long as Apple bundles its iLife software and has bold and innovative form factors. But, yes, the margins on software are higher as a rule, and there's gold in them thar hills.

[Nobody]

This is the move to boost Mac OS X market share and make it the leader OS out there:
1 - Apple allows Mac OS X ro run on selected PCs like Dell and HP.
2 - Apple allows Mac OS X to tun on any PC.
3 - Apple fully opens Mac OS X (as Linux).
4 - Apple gives Mac OS X for free (as Linux).
In a few months-years, Mac OS X market share climbs from 4% to 99% worldwide!!!
Now, think about the implications... Apple makes much more money than today selling specially-designed Macs (remember that the market is then not a mere 4% but a 99%), much more iPods, and much more copies of their software titles (Pro appliations, iLife, etc). Even special editions of Mac OS X with extras at a reduced price of $10 (besides offering the bare bones free edition).