Sorry Windows users – to get iLife you’ll have to get a Mac

“Sometimes Windows PC users just don’t get it about Apple Computer. If only this brave but crazy company would switch its marvellous software to their platform – thereby saving them the expense of buying a Mac – the world would be a better place, they believe,” David Frith reports for AustralianIT.

“The theme was taken up at a late-night drink-and-discussion session among a group of Aussie journalists attending the recent Macworld Expo in San Francisco,” Frith reports. “A Windows-oriented PC magazine editor, plainly impressed by the latest iLife suite of ‘digital lifestyle’ software unveiled by Apple founder and chief executive Steve Jobs earlier in the day, wanted to know – somewhat truculently – why Apple doesn’t sell a Windows version. ‘It’s great software. Wonderful software,’ he trilled. ‘But, hell, it’s only being offered to 5 per cent of the market. Why can’t Apple see that they’d be much better off selling it to the other 95 per cent as well? I’d buy it tomorrow.'”

“The same theme was taken up recently in Motley Fool, a US investment advice website. Apple should put iLife on Windows pronto, said the Fool, because it would ‘seed ground for growing market share with all kinds of new digital gadgets, such as an iPod movie player, or a digital hub for wirelessly connecting Macs and PCs with stereos and televisions, or an online iMovie store,'” Frith reports.

“Sorry Windows folk: it just won’t happen, even though one of the five software applications that make up iLife – the iTunes music finder and player – is available for both Mac and Windows. Apple applications marketing vice-president Rob Schouten explained why the day after the late-night session,” Frith reports. ‘The magic of the Macintosh is in its software – it’s our major differentiator from the Windows experience. So there will be no Windows version of iLife,’ he said… So, sorry, Windows users – if you want to enjoy the full digital lifestyle, Macintosh-style, you’ll just have to buy a Mac.”

Full article here.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
AP: Apple’s iLife ’04 ‘could even persuade some longtime Windows users to relent and buy a Mac’ – February 05, 2004
Paul Thurrott reviews Apple iLife ’04; calls for ‘iLife for Windows’ – February 04, 2004
The Motley Fool: Apple iLife software suite for Windows? – February 04, 2004


  1. Dave, I’ve been wondering why it can’t remember my name and I have to type it in each time even though I always click “remember me.”

    Great point, though. For actually doing anything that matters (with the possible exception of gaming, which I never thought mattered) there is no real software divide. And to the extent that there is a divide, it’s limited to fringe software (that I really don’t have any use for) and to worms and viruses that are only useful as a source of amusement for those not affected by them.

  2. Jimbo’s point is not a good one at all. iLife is not available to everyone, because not everyone has a Mac. One wouldn’t claim every game title is available to us Mac users, or that Mac owners can use DVD@ccess features, provided we buy a PC. It’s stupid and arrogant.

    But iLife shouldn’t be available to PC users. iTunes and Quicktime are pretty much essential for both platforms given Apple’s business strategies. The rest are what makes a Mac a Mac.

  3. The “remember me” feature hasn’t worked since MDN went down a while back.

    iTunes is necessary to support iTMS and iPod. That’s the only reason it was ported to Windows. The others will also be ported if they are necessary to support an Apple money-maker. If Apple comes out with a camera, look for an iPhoto port.

  4. People clamor for iPhoto for Windows, but what they don’t realize is that iPhoto leans heavily on Quartz, which windows aint got. “Never had it, never will,” as the old 7up ad used to say. I doubt that Long(time-to-wait)horn’s graphics engine will match with today’s Quartz.

  5. Given the cpu and dvd requirements, iLife is actually available to an even smaller “percentage of the market”, no matter how you qualify it.

    iLife for windows would sell like hotcakes, even a bloated version. I bet it was actually a tough call for them whether to produce one or not. On the one hand you make a ton of easy money on software (just like MS), and give windows users a glimpse of the ease and power of well designed software, probably prompting some switching, while on the other hand, by not making it available to windows, you keep the mac covenant intact.

  6. Windows users clamor even more for OS X on X86. Keep dreaming on both counts. I’ll never for the life of me understand why these types don’t just go with an eMac for $799. They’d get it all for not very much money (certainly less than a copy of Win XP Pro, all of the Norton virus crap they have to buy and run, not to mention the productivity hit they take running Windows instead of the superior Mac OS X). You want Mac OS X, iLife and everything else? get an eMac, try it out and you’ll see what we’re talking about and we’ll welcome you with open arms.

  7. I kinda feel bad for the fools who are brainwashed by Microsoft that Windows is the only operating system that they can run. You know I am really starting to believe that smarter people do use Mac’s. Where not easily brainwashed in believing something and we try to pull the rest of the fools out of you security and virus ridden computer life.

  8. Okay – one more time…

    Apple is a HARDWARE company! Period!!
    Apple also develops the software (OS as well as applications) to provide their users with a COMPLETE computer system.

    Porting the OS and aps to the PC hardware would REDUCE Apple hardware sales. It is that simple. Why is this so confusing for some people?

    There is nothing stopping Dell or HP from creating their own OS to work with their hardware, but they choose to go a cheaper route and decided to use the generic MS Windows OS. They got what they paid for.

    Taking the Apple-like concept further…
    If all hardware manufacturers originally had their own OS, then there would be a necessity for each OS to translate (compile) a unified/raw programming language into their own. This would have resulted in all computers being able to run the same (pre-compiled) program. It is like buying a cake mix in a box. You mix it and cook it yourself. This would also have spurred tremendous advancement in CPUs as well as operating systems, as they compete to cook the same raw code better than their competitor. Manufacturers wouldn’t have to wait for Microsoft, which must grunt along trying to please hardware’s least-comon-demoninator. Programmers could concentrate on code, not platform compatibility, and a virus wouldn’t have ANY chance of spreading.

    But, don’t expect such a radical change to a better life. Humans are inherently lazy, and if it weren’t for the occasional hardworking genius, we’d all still be sitting naked in a cave.

  9. What is it with this entitlement trip so many people have these days with just about everything in life?

    Apple doesn’t owe Windows users JACK, yet so many of them whine and cry as if somehow it does.

    As was said, if you want this, and other great far superior software suites from Apple, I am afraid you are going to have to buy the hardware and operating system that makes these great tools possible!

    Its not rocket science!

    OS X + Macintosh hardware = Ease of use – Reliability – Seemless Integration. You take out the first two and add Windows and Intel into the mix and all bets are off. Why is this concept so hard for the Windoze drones to grasp????

    Sheesh! If you want to play… Buy a Mac and STFU!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.