“Apple’s iPods ship with virtually nothing on them,” Richard Edwards writes for The Butler Group. “What a waste of space!”
Here’s what Apple should do:
1. Follow Novell’s example and build a 60-day evaluation version of an OS X virtual machine that will execute and perform well on Intel’s latest chips.
2. Stick the virtual machine (along with the VMware Player) on every iPod with enough storage.
3. License HP to build MacPCs ready for the big rush.
4. Offer Windows XP users a discount voucher to purchase the full virtual Mac software.
5. Sell more iPods.
6. Sit back and count the money.
Full article here.
Advertisement: The New iPod with Video. The ultimate music + video experience on the go. Buy it now at the Apple Store. From $299. Free shipping.
iPod’s empty drives could be used more efficiently for promotion and software distribution, that’s a fact. But, why would Apple want to attempt to support all of the Wintel box assemblers’ and peripheral makers’ hardware variations in the world? It would be a mess. Like Windows.
That’s not the sort of first impression Apple would want to give the world about the Mac.
We still think Apple will eventually do something that allows Windows to run on Intel-based Macs – preferably in a protected “box” within Mac OS X. Think Virtual PC in reverse, but with both operating systems running natively on x86, instead of one running with dog-slow emulation. As an added bonus, before users realize they don’t need Windows, at least they’ll be able to run it more safely, as it’ll be better-protected by Apple’s Mac OS X. As we asked via headline in June, “Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows?” For more detail, read our “Take” from “How Apple can win the OS war” from last Wednesday.
Related articles:
How Apple can win the OS war – October 19, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back – June 07, 2005
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004
Ampar has it right. Use the iPods to advertize by including a brief, easily-deletable quicktime tour of the world of Macs – Shiny, flashy, cool music, etc. – including software and hardware offerings, and let it go at that.
MDN Word ‘lot’ – That would make a lot more sense.
Um, guys, there already *is* a MacOS X teaser associated with the iPod, whose ulterior motive is to introduce windoze users to the Mac UI and help push them over into the Macintosh world.
It’s called iTunes…
I’d rather you read my lips — nobody wants to watch video on a 2.5-inch screen — than read my mind.
Thin and handsome Steve has a plan that’s gonna pickle fat and ugly Steve and his neurotic sidekick. The Less said the Better. Now hush, you puppies.
The flash based Nano cannot be used as a boot drive. The old mini and the new vPod could.
uh, because Apple doesn’t make OSX to run on PCs, and they probably never will.
besides, this is not a new idea, PC-moron tech writers have been saying this for years, they just don’t understand how OSX and Apple works.
the Mac is a hardware/software combination, something that is, apparently, beyond the comprehension of PC users.
MDN take: “why would Apple want to attempt to support all of the Wintel box assemblers’ and peripheral makers’ hardware variations in the world? It would be a mess. Like Windows.”
Not really. Windows is bad not because they are supporting every device in the world, but rather because it is written by M$, a company seemingly incapable of writing good code. Unix and Linux have been supporting a plethora of hardware for years with both style and grace. Apple is certainly capable of doing it if they wanted to. They just don’t think they should, and i think they’re right about that.
Bottom line is they don’t have to license MacOS X, and doing so would not be profitable for them in the long run (and probably not even the short run, as many seem to think). Apple is on the right track, with an effective strategy (except they need to advertise better than they do). No radical changes are needed and those who suggest otherwise “just don’t get it.”
MDN take: “We still think Apple will eventually do something that allows Windows to run on Intel-based Macs – preferably in a protected “box” within Mac OS X. Think Virtual PC in reverse, but with both operating systems running natively on x86, instead of one running with dog-slow emulation.”
Think “Apple Wine” (i.e. a version of Wine done by Apple?), or think Crossover:
http://www.winehq.com/
http://www.codeweavers.com/
http://darwine.opendarwin.org/
Thanks, Grrrilla.
Something like this on every video-capable iPod:
http://www.apple.com/retail/vr/
Optional to view and easy to delete.
They should put PDFs of *Woz’s* red book!!
booting OS X for sixty days from an iPod would fry it. Apple would face another suit then.
“Why doesn’t Apple ship a 60-day evaluation copy of Mac OS X for Intel on every iPod?”
Two reasons:
1. Drivers. It’d be a waste to try to make OS X compatible with every stupid PC configuration (a factor that helps make Windows the mess that it is). Nothing would turn off a potential switcher faster than an OS X demo being incompatible with their PC.
2. Hackers. The code would have to be internally clipped somehow, otherwise the time limit WILL be cracked. Hardly seems worth the risk. Maybe Apple could work some compiler magic so the demo would only run the apps bundled with it (i.e. an iLife Demo).
Anyway, I also support the mentioned idea of bundling demo videos with the iPod (esp. now that we’re going video, makes perfect sense). Showcase the entire experience, from the Apple Store, to Mac hardware, to OS X, to iLife. Show them that it really can be easy as an iPod.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Robert X Cringely said it before http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050825.html
I’ve read the full article (http://www.cbronline.com/bgblog.asp)and in the last paragraph he makes the point:
“The big question in my mind, however, is this: Is Apple brave enough to give it a try? Even if the idea were to flop, it would be a huge spoiler as Microsoft readies Vista for launch next year. And remember this, Microsoft does offer Virtual PC for the Mac!”
I don’t think Apple IS brave enough. Anyone out there using Virtual PC for the Mac? Is it any good?
That’s a great idea!
OSX is darwin. You can run it on an intel today. You won’t have Aqua (its the interface, KDE) but it shows support isn’t the problem. System requirements From APPLE’s website.
IDE:
Only the PIIX4 IDE controllers have been found to work.
Attached devices must be UDMA/33 compatible or better.
Ethernet:
Intel 8255x 10/100 ethernet controllers are supported.
Video:
You must have a VESA 2.0 compliant video card. Almost all
modern graphics cards are VESA 2.0 compliant. However, emulators
such as vmware do not have VESA 2.0 compliant emulated video cards.
Successfully tested hardware:
All 440BX motherboards tested have worked with their internal
IDE controllers.
IBM ThinkPad A21m (with onboard Intel ethernet)
Known to not be supported:
All AMD and VIA based systems.
Apple could do what the writer proposes but will they? (hopefully)
mw= opened- have we opened our minds to all the possibilities?