P.S. Rob was actually saying good things about Apple which makes it even harder to hate the guy.

We are talking about the future and I?m not psychic. However I?ve been down this path before and I?m using that experience to predict what will likely, eventually, happen. What?s the old saying, something like ?those that don?t learn from history are destined to repeat it??

What is ?Sunk Cost??

Let?s take Robert Poole?s comment above that Apple has invested too much money in OSX to abandon it. We could also say they invested too much money in Copland (which was a hole folks poured money in) to abandon it as well or that they so aggressively promoted PowerPC they would never leave it. How much money do you think they put in the Newton? If we could judge Apple?s future behavior by their past, and generally that?s what analysts do, then they are no more tied to the current code base in the Mac then they have been tied to a number of things they have moved away from.

The Emerging ?Lexus? PC Market

Now he says that because Apple?s hardware is ?perceived? as more expensive suggesting, as has always been the case, that Apple can?t compete on an even field with better, more expensive hardware, and a better user use and service experience. He evidently missed the Dell launch of the XPS lines, the entire Lexus thing that happened in the car market, and the recent acquisition by Dell of AlienWare. We know Apple watches Dell closely and if Dell thinks there is a premium Windows market there is every chance Apple, which was historically positioned as the Porsche of PCs, could do very well in it. I do know the company is of two minds, however, on this and a move like this would not be without substantial risk. I honestly don?t think the decision has been made yet, but that the data from ?Boot Camp? will give Steve what he needs to make it. (Folks should really read the Jobs? bios for a sense on how he thinks).

The iPod Test Case

In addition, the iPod was a very good test case. Here was a product that came out at a price above the market from a vendor, Apple, that wasn?t even perceived as being in that business. Apple now owns 90% of the segment after schooling Creative Labs, Rio (who exited), and Microsoft. That probably isn?t lost on anyone in Apple particularly Jobs.

Anticipate Pre-Loaded Apple PCs

Now as far as a full copy of Windows. I believe resellers will quickly figure out how to bundle Apple machines with OEM copies of Windows which are vastly less expensive then retail boxes (this is done now on white box hardware) because, I agree, that the majority of folks will not want to pay that much premium nor will they want to load the OS themselves. Now if, as many of us expect, Apple?s numbers jump sharply and, as has historically been the case, most are using Windows (the more common product) then Apple will have, much like they got from the iPod (Apple only) returns in their first January with that product data that suggests Windows is more lucrative then OSX for them.

The Big ?IF?

This is the big ?IF? that goes behind my prediction, ?IF? the numbers show that apple could sell 5 to 10X more product and increase margins by 5 to 10% then there is no doubt in my mind they will make the move and I believe that?s what the numbers will show. If they don?t, and Apple can?t compete, then they will either not change or become a CE company and eventually abandon the entire platform (you can?t sustain indefinitely at 2% of the market). This, last may be the cost of not doing this which, I believe, is not lost on Jobs either.

My belief is, and it is a belief not a fact, that Apple will conclude (if they haven?t already) that this path is a better and more lucrative path for the firm and move away from OSX as it currently is to something more Windows centric. That would be consistent with decisions they have made since Steve took over including his decision to move to Intel.

Defining the Initial Audiance

Robert is right, the initial audience for this product are folks that like Apple hardware and need to run Windows, but many of these folks don?t need to run OSX and, if that data is captured, Apple will be left with a clear path. Now I would typically say they wouldn?t move aggressively away from OSX, but that would be IBM or Microsoft which are both slower with change. Apple tends to move sharply, once again look at how quickly they have executed on Intel, this could happen very quickly once the data is confirmed.

Now, as far as VMWare, remember Vista was supposed to have a built in virtualization layer at launch and will get it later in its life. Apple has gone down the emulator path which has advantages and disadvantages we?ll leave for another time, but in both instances the move between the OSs is not seamless and is very similar to the way it was with OS/2 and Windows. There people lived in the Windows partition and, I imagine, most users will, over time, do the same thing because that?s where the majority of applications will continue to be.

Looking back at OS/2, and Apple on Intel Predictions

Of course this is all DejaVu for me, back in 2003 I issued a report indicating that Apple would have to move to Intel and many of these same arguments were used to ?disprove? that prediction with less then complementary comments on my drinking habits, intelligence, and long term career. Earlier, in 1995, when I pointed out that IBM was going to abandon OS/2, it was even uglier. I kind of thought folks would, at least, take recent events into consideration and factor that into their own beliefs. The experience, by the way, gives me a certain amount of empathy for the folks who said there were no WMDs in Iraq.

As I say, I?ve been down this road before and both the destination and the ?scenery? seem very familiar.

Move = More Apple Sales

In the end, believe what you want, but whichever way Apple goes it does suggest a stronger argument to buy Apple hardware then has ever before been the case (even if they move away from OSX the hardware will continue). Even if Apple abandoned OSX tomorrow you would probably have 2 years to make the move, and long before then, Apple would have a better migration path to Windows then currently exists so there is no reason for users to abandon OSX now and an even stronger reason to buy Apple hardware then was previously the case.

I?ll leave you with one more thing; look at how much Steve Jobs personal net worth jumped on just the chance Apple was moving to Windows. Once again, reread the biographies. This is a multi-billion dollar decision for him personally, honestly, everything else aside, where is his long term motivation to stay with OSX? One more thing, why did Avi really leave?

Something to ponder while I have my morning shot of Jack Daniels.

Comments are not deleted unless they are duplicate posts or contain profanity, which your post was neither. So do not worry :)

Seriously, this stuff is great satire. It is meant to be satire, right?

Maybe because he has, in effect. Look at the article. Read between the lines. The sensational headline all but proclaims this — granted, headlines such as this are designed to generate site traffic, but c'mon, don't be fooled.

The entire article is filled with phrases concerning Apple's “move to Windows.” This implies a move away from OS X.

You have to get almost 2/3 of the way through the article before Enderle backs off those claims and writes, “Before anyone gets too excited, …” and goes on to discuss how this is “just a market test.”

I don't buy it. Apple has invested far too much money and time proclaiming the superiority of OS X. And let's face it, Mac hardware without Mac OS is not a good value proposition for a consumer: if a Mac is now little more than a generic PC (albeit with better styling and ostensibly better quality components), the only real differentiator is the user experience. Putting Windows on a Mac makes the user experience no different from any other PC hardware, such as that offered by Dell.

Considering that Apple's hardware is still perceived as being more expensive, why would Apple “switch” to Windows?

Furthermore, how many people will actually run out and buy a full copy of Windows (not an upgrade package, but a full retail package which costs over $140) to use with this dual-boot software? Precious few, since the vast majority of users don't buy their OS, but use whatever OS is pre-packaged with the hardware. Microsoft knows this, which is why Microsoft relies heavily on their OEM partners to bundle Windows with new PCs; that's the only way Windows sales numbers look as good as they do. (Consider that whenever a new Windows OS is released, the sales numbers don't look that good until PC manufacturers start preinstalling that version on their hardware.)

This feature is clearly only intended for those users who need to psychologically justify a Mac purchase by showing unequivocally that a Mac can now run Windows natively. (This also works well to sell an IT department on the purchase of Mac hardware, since many IT departments are Mac-hostile.) I think the people who use this new dual-boot software will be gamers and professional users who need a Windows solution.

However, the real utility will come when you can run Windows and OS X at the same time — preferably with Windows running inside a virtualization environment a la VMWare. Most of the IT professionals I spoke with yesterday indicated this as their preferred configuration.

Sorry, Bob, you're pretty far off the mark here… but you were good for a laugh this morning, at least!

I do wonder if my analysis (which naturally comes to a different conclusion that Mr. Enderle's) will get posted at all. I really don't see how Apple's release of a boot loader for Windows consitutes a market test when (a) the vast majority of users who buy Windows buy it preinstalled on a PC, and “upgrade” their OS when they upgrade their hardware; (b) this dual-boot software requires the purchase of a full version of Windows; and (c), the new Intel-based Macs without OS X have no value proposition, because they are nothing but generic PCs without OS X, so there's nothing to differentiate them.

But that's OK, history will indeed be the judge of who was right.

Will OSX be licensed and spread like Wildfire?

That?s sure what we thought about OS/2, Microsoft was still 5 years off from having anything that could compete with that platform and both DEC and Compaq licensed to sell it. And didn?t. The problem was they saw IBM as a competitor and refused to actively push it, and did everything they could to talk folks out if it. Did they move some, sure, but it was a small fragment and clearly not enough to save the OS. What many don?t know was IBM hardware didn?t even like OS?2 because it lowered their margins over their Windows boxes (which is really strange given OS/2 should have been free to IBM). Nature of inter-company billing.

See it doesn?t matter how much better a think is, BetaMax was vastly superior to VHS for instance, it matters which one is seen as an industry standard and a hardware company hasn?t driven, successfully, an industry standard since the IBM 360. Think about it, not with UNIX, not with Memory Stick, not with Linux. The market just isn?t built that way, competition takes hold and the folks you need to support you turn against you when you need them most because they are afraid you will take their business.

Will Apple Abandon OSX if Steve loves it so much?

OK, did someone not read any of the Jobs biographies? Steve is a hardware guy, not a software guy. They even got Microsoft to do some of the software in the early years, but Woz did much of the early software work. Steve tried to turn Pixar into hardware company (and darn near killed the firm), and it wasn?t until he failed at hardware he tried software with NeXT and the only thing that worked there was selling the company to Apple which probably bought NeXT as much to get the NeXT team as it did to get the OS. Look at iTunes pricing, the profit is in the iPod not in the software which is free or the service that breaks even. Steve has other folks to do Software, yes he gets into the UI but he is, by no stretch of the imagination, a software guy and there is no evidence he could code to save his life. A software guy would have either done his own kernel or done Linux, he wouldn?t have done a rehash of UNIX because he?d know what a problem that would be long term for a commercial product. (If you don?t own the kernel you really don?t own the roadmap).

So, I think, if it would mean Apple growing 3 or 4x and Steve becoming more wealthy then Michael Dell, he would abandone OSX as quickly as he abandoned PowerPC. He would, however, not abandon the UI and he has shown some expertise in hybrids.