hello this blog posting has me concerned
please read and let me know if I am miss hearing or miss reading this
Thu, 03 Aug 2006
What Does Virtualization Really Do To The Mac World?
Here's Some Hot Air...
Everyone's all geared up for the Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) next
week, including us here at Rogue Amoeba.
Mike Ash
will be representing the team out in California, so if you see a guy in a
Rogue Amoeba shirt who looks like
this,
buy him a beer. That, or tell him I said "Get back to work!".
Anyhow, several developers are posting predictions/wild-ass guesses about
what Apple will introduce or at least show off at WWDC. Brent had some
interesting thoughts
about the basic UI direction of OS X, most of which I find myself concurring
on. Gus also posted
some thoughts
that are worth looking over.
I suppose I might as well share my insider knowledge with you. Rosy though
the transition has seemed, Apple is actually deeply unsatisfied with Intel
(I
think Steve's dissatisfied with Intel's wretched product names). Because of
this, Apple's switching to
SPARC.
I know, I know, it sounds crazy. But you'd have said the same thing about
the Intel switch just last year! SPARC brings us back to the glory of RISC,
and
it's open source (open source hardware!), that's very hip right now. Best of
all, instead of
Sun buying Apple
a la 1996, Apple will be the savior to the few dozen remaining Sun fans,
helping the company limp along for a few more years after the
Microsoft money
runs out.
...And Here's A Cold Splash Of Reality
In all seriousness though, we have done some thinking about what will be in
10.5, and perhaps the biggest change could relate to Windows, Boot Camp,
Parallels,
and true virtualization (where Windows apps "just work" on OS X). "Super
Rosetta", as Gus put it in his aforementioned post.
If virtualization is part of Leopard, it's interesting as a user and fairly
frightening as a developer. While tippling with
Daniel Jalkut
earlier this week, the topic of virtualization came up and got me thinking.
Virtualization would instantly bring a huge number of "Windows" applications
to the Mac platform, but there are two very important things it would not
do.
1) Virtualization would not initially bring (m)any new users to the
platform.
If suddenly a Macintosh computer looks like a Mac and acts like a Mac but
also runs Windows software, that's certainly appealing to lots of people.
However,
meaningful new user growth on the OS X platform from that would take a lot
of time. Meanwhile, the existing Mac user base would suddenly have a lot
more
software to choose from, while developers still had roughly the same size
user base to fight over.
2) Virtualization doesn't instantly bring Mac software to Windows.
That seems obvious, but it's still important, because it means that Mac
developers see no up front gains from virtualization. I'd also go so far as
to say
you'd never see Mac apps virtualized on Windows. Unlike Apple bringing
Windows software to the Mac, Microsoft would gain very little from having
Mac apps
on Windows.
So it really seems that virtualization would primarily benefit Mac users and
Windows developers. Mac users suddenly have a lot more software overall and
many more choices for any one type of application. Windows developers
suddenly gain millions of new potential customers. Admittedly, a fair chunk
of these
people will sneer at the thought of soiling their Macs with Windows
software, but many more will not. After that, one must wonder for how long
it would
be viable for Adobe to produce Windows and Mac versions of Photoshop. Does
both the quantity and quality of Macintosh software eventually drop due to
virtualization?
It certainly seems possible.
In short, if high-quality virtualization (read: as seamless as Rosetta)
occurs, developers all over the Mac will be left with a lot of new
competition and
the same size user base. Over time, that base would (hopefully) increase,
but would everyone survive? Would the new users purchase true Mac software
or
stick with the software they used back on Windows? I don't know, and I don't
think anyone can claim he does. I do know that the whole thing is very
interesting
and more than a little bit scary.
Posted by Paul on
Thu, 03 Aug 2006
in
Article
with
5 comment(s)
Tue, 01 Aug 2006
Five For...
Frank Petrie's all over the web (in addition to helping run a
MUG in South Jersey),
currently writing for
Macsimum News.
He's started a quirky little vodcast (that's video podcast, for those not in
the portmanteau know dubbed the Video Sandbox for Macsimum, and I foolishly
agreed to do a self-interview. Frank sent me five questions which I read
aloud and answered, recording on a built-in iSight at glamorous SeaTac
airport.
Check out Video Sandbox episode 23
right here,
and a free Ammo
plush toy
to the first person who spots the factual error in my segment.
Update: The direct RSS feed for the Video Sandbox is
http://phranky.libsyn.com/rss.
Posted by Paul on
Tue, 01 Aug 2006
in
Linked
with
73
hank smith
amateur radio call sign:
KE7IEF
email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
msn messenger:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
aim:
hanksmith5
skype:
hanksmith5
