205479
story
Comments: 238 +- Apple: Microsoft's Virtualization Stance Eying Apple? on Tuesday June 26 2007, @08:41AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicapple.gif); width:52px; height:64px;
apple
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicit.gif); width:75px; height:61px;
it
Pisces writes "Over the past several days, Microsoft has flip-flopped on virtualization in Vista, with one ascribing the change in policy to concerns over DRM. A piece at Ars Technica raises another, more likely possibility: fear of Apple. Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price. 'All of this paints a picture in which Apple could use OEM pricing to offer Windows for its Macs at greatly reduced prices and running in a VM. The latter is absolutely crucial; telling users that they need to reboot into their Windows OS isn't nearly as sexy as, say, Coherence in Parallels. If you've never seen Coherence, it's quite amazing. You don't need to run Windows apps in a VM window of Vista. Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away. VMWare also has similar technology, dubbed Unity.' Is Microsoft terrified of a world where Windows can be virtualized and forced to take a back seat to Mac OS X or Linux?"
Related Stories
IT: Microsoft Flip-flopping on Virtualization License 304 comments
Technology: Virtualization May Break Vista DRM 294 comments
Fortune finishes the great quotations, #12
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write the instructions.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:2, Informative)
Obviously, there is nothing technical preventing a person from using any version of Vista in virtualization, and nothing at all, including the license, preventing usage of any version of Vista in Boot Camp.
I can't see a scenario where Apple would be interested in becoming a Windows OEM, supporting Windows, etc. Apple is more content
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How hard would it be for the indian support rep to add 'virtual' to their instructions? "Have you restarted your virtual computer?" "I'd like you please to reinstall your virtual operating system now."
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares about what's licensed or not. Do you really think that 99.999% of buyers of a VISTA box will care or even look at what their box or dialog presents about agreeing to this or that? They will just install it if it will install. Unless MS can come up with a technical block that will prevent the program from working correctly in a VM, they can print the Harvard Law Library on their boxes for all the difference it would make. MS or anyone's licensing terms don't mean squat in the real world that everyone except lawyers inhabit, especially to consumers. If I were running a big business, I might pay just a tiny bit of attention to such "licenses".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For a Windows user, it doesn't work like Office on Windows, especially things such as keyboard shortcuts, and Microsoft is busy pruning functionality such as VBA from it (no more macros, which are pretty much essential for lots of business use unfortunately).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
iWork isn't a replacement for Office unless you do page layout and Power Point. Keynote (part of iWork) blows Power Point out of the water, not just for effects but also how good it looks on screen. Keynote is of the best kept secrets of the Mac. When I do a Keynote presentation, people run up to me afterward and want to know how I did it instead of asking about the topic. They're universally amazed at how great it looks and runs, the way media is mixed in and the gorgeous transitions. Keynote will also imp
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they mind if people could easily run their (legacy?) Windows apps on a Mac?
If I could get my Windows apps running on a Mac for little more than the cost of the Mac alone, it'll bring me one step closer to dropping Wintel altogether; migration just got easier.
Parent
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Funny)
disguised as cute little music players and phones.
Parent
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it kind of is. A Mac, even with the intel processor, doesn't feel like a PC at all. I used PCs for the last 20 years and finally got around to buying a Mac (Mac Book Pro) and the overall difference is significant. No more fussing with video drivers. No more butt ugly BIOS POST screens and BIOS config screens with options that almost nobody uses. I can boot off just about anything. Can put my computer in "target firewire" mode so it can act as an external hard drive to another computer. And many other things that, while sometimes possible with PCs, just work with a Mac. And the OS is integrated with the hardware features like neither Windows nor Linux could never quite manage.
It all comes at a price of fewer choices, of course. But after 20 years of PC "choices," I'm ready to settle down on something that just works elegantly and seamlessly. Macs are just SO MUCH more pleasant to work with.
-matthew
Parent
Somebody sure as hell has to pay... (Score:2, Informative)
Even under the volume licensing agreement, each separate copy of Windows that gets installed still does have to be accounted for, and paid for... just because you're not the on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even with the new license and Parallels fees (around $180 a machine), and higher costs of Macs, we're having an upsurge in Mac purchases. Other cool thing about Parallels is that it allows any X-86 OS, except OS X, to run with out
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, MS is an unique position in the software industry. They can make TCO arguments based, not on the supportability of their products, but on the customers' sunk costs.
That said, I think Windows running on a VM is probably stabler and less costly to support than Windows running on real hardware.
At first blush, features like Parallel's Coherence would seem to be bad for the Mac platform and good for the Windows platform. Not only is there another windows license sold, licenses of Windows based software gain at the expense of Mac based programs.
This is where DRM comes in, I think.
Microsoft understands the value of owning the platform. Virtual Windows on Macs helps them in their traditional businesses, but it undermines their desire to gain control over digital entertainment in the same way they control office automation. Control of de facto DRM standards would be yet another proverbial "license to print money".
People using Macs with cheap copies of virtualized Windows literally side by side with Mac apps is not good for this plan. They will never be a huge market, but they could be influential.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great point about DRM. I agree that is why Microsoft is so embracing DRM
And Apple is offering DRM-free music for a little more money.
The Window of opportunity is closing. But Apple, Amazon, WalMart and many other companies are offering video downloads. Will people go for a platform, that allows them to keep and manage content and perhaps look at other people's conten
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Presumably, Parallels has properly debugged the drivers for their VM's virtual hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think Apple gives a shit. If you bought their hardware, they're happy. The OS X platform is Apple's way of being able to deliver value such as iLife that they don't trust Microsoft to deliver on their own (and they haven't), but if you're still willing to buy Apple hardware even though you're using Windows on it, Apple wants you as a customer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't having another OS basically virtualize Windows and run applications like it essentially be a form of theft?
Not if you're paying for a Windows license.
I mean, if OSX or Lunix or whatever can't put up a viable application interface, why is 'borrowing' Windows' functionality legitimate?
OSX has a perfectly viable application interface. It's just that some developers choose not to develop for it. This process simply allows you to run windows within OSX to get those apps working.
This isn't a situation where Apple is saying "Wow, Vista does cool stuff that we want OSX to do." This is 3rd party developers saying "I'd really like to run XYZ windows app on my Mac."
Again, you're not borrowing or stealing anything from Microsoft. You're paying f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I know the University pays for the volume licensing agreement. Jeez.
What I mean in this context is that the users/departments get it for essentially free (to them), and doesn't impact their budget in the same way other software does when they get thirty licenses of Windows Vista Enterprise for the cost of one set of media. In other words, the cost does NOT impact them when the make decisions. They see Windows and Office as basically being "free", and therefore wouldn't consider the potential cost i
Half empty, or half full? (Score:2)
Is Microsoft terrified of a world where Windows can be virtualized and forced to take a back seat to Mac OS X or Linux?"
This is the "half-empty" view. The "half-full" full is that Microsoft welcomes such virtualization in the sense that it's product will be on more computers than ever before and may even have the *gasp* opposite effect of what people think... That is, maybe someone switches back to Windows after running it in a virtual machine. Even at discounted OEM prices, it is still generating revenue that otherwise would not have been there.
Re:Half empty, or half full? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has always been interested in control. They believe in the long run it sells the most software licenses.
Parent
Re:Half empty, or half full? (Score:5, Insightful)
All this assumes that users - and support teams - are jumping for joy at the chance to maintain multiple operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets. To anyone but a Geek this can seem sadomasochistic.
God help them if virtualization does not remain transparent.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, some coders will just develop for Windows.
But once people become accustomed to the Mac interface,.. the hurdle of transition is over. Perhaps that is the reason Apple has adopted the iTunes interface into parts of the finder in their Leopard OS. To sync with the iPhone -- you use iTunes. So the customer is already becoming acquainted with the Mac interface on Windows. The Safari browser, I'd expect, will probably be bundled with iTunes i
No more than Apple is... (Score:2, Interesting)
MS makes even more money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MS makes even more money (Score:4, Insightful)
In the short term. In the longer term, it could be very bad indeed.
Microsoft's power, and profits, come from the fact that they have a stranglehold on the market. They really can't afford to let anyone get too much traction in their own market - as soon as they loose the stranglehold things could turn very ugly very quickly for Microsoft, because it will mean they won't be able to dictate price to the market, the market will dictate to them and that will mean plunging profits.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, as others pointed out, Apple developers may decide to use Windows as their native platform since their apps will run seemlessly on both Macs and Windows, a much bigger market.
That's assuming most Apple users will be buying Windows and some solution to make it integrate well. I don't think that is a reasonable assumption. Most of the people running Windows in an emulator are doing so because they are migrating away from Windows, or because they just need one or two apps. A few developers might drop support for the Mac, but they'd also lose that market share rapidly to someone whose software will run natively and will use all the features of OS X. The situation would be differen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The market segment is abysmally small. It just isn't worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that's right, five percent of the top end of a huge market, any business would be dumb to go after that...
Re:MS makes even more money (Score:4, Insightful)
In the short term sounds good for Microsoft. But in the long term, no.
Here's the scenario that Microsoft is afraid of: Computer user buys a Mac with Mac OS X and Windows. Yes, Microsoft got paid for the copy of Windows. But the user is now living in a Mac OS X world, logging into Mac OS X, using Mac's browser, Mac's Mail.app, iLife and so on. Windows has been delegated to the status of virtual machine, there only to support the running of Microsoft Project and the few other Windows only apps.
Over time, the user is focused more on the OS X software updates, the new OS X features, and the new OS X applications. Windows has become less important -- almost irrelevant, certainly out-of-mind for him.
Five years later, time to buy a new computer. He gets a new Mac. Doesn't even think about getting Windows this time -- or just decides to continue to use the old five year old copy of Windows from his previous Mac. Windows, for him, has become a legacy product.
Bill Gates has *always* said that Windows can be obsolete in five years.
boxlight
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OEM versions of Windows generally cannot be legally transferred to a different computer.
The issue in the long run will be how much the user is using Windows-only software. The situation probably won't change unless more Mac software pops up to replace the key apps. I can't see it happening in a few years, especially for games. If the user actually noticed he was using much more Windows apps than Mac apps, t
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
That, and, umm, wouldn't such a move sort of alienate the Developer mindshare for OSX? I guess I don't grok the incentive to help nudge Win32/64 developers to download Xcode and go to town if they see that they can continue to use Visual Studio .NET and just hum along in building apps that compile once but run on both platforms.
Apple (or rather, the friendly folks who make Parallels) could use that as a stop-gap (a couple-years' long one) to get behind pushing WINE, CrossOver, Cedega, etc etc... if indeed that's where they're wanting to go.
I like the angle, it has appeal, but it seems more damaging in the long run than to simply work on increasing marketshare among customers to the point where Windows-only dev shops are forced to take a good hard look at coding for OSX for competitive edge and survival reasons.
Besides... if Apple really wanted to give incentives, they could/should push for building tools that make cross-compiling hella easier, with maybe an IDE that can replace VS .NET on Windows entirely, say, with a modified Xcode that --oh by the way-- has a handy and nearly automatic suite of tools to make compiling OSX apps easier for the dev who uses it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My experience with it (in versions 2.1 and 3.0) was that it was SHIT. Running simple applications, in some cases even those which came with Windows, would make it crash and the whole thing would blow up at once and take out all of your windows apps.
OS/2 died because it was too expensive, because it had too-high system requirements, and because it had an interface that is horribly unintuitive if you are used to mac and/or window
Terrified? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am of the honest opinion that the day Mac starts bundling Vista, or selling it OEM, etc. is the day that Microsoft breaks open bottles of wines and drinks to success.
Yep, I called it (Score:2)
Well, not exactly...
Haha (Score:3, Insightful)
Well Played (Score:2)
obFuturama...
i think ars is way off here (Score:5, Interesting)
> Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price.
Microsoft, in the past and at present, has used OEM contracts as their major tool for consolidating their hold on the industry. Their OEM agreements have contained such provisions as "if you want preferred pricing, you can't sell computers that run any other operating system." Only for very, very large computer makers such as Dell and HP -- where Microsoft wants to be because there's huge volume -- do they relax these demands. The likelihood of Microsoft offering Apple an OEM contract is extremely low if MS thought it would be a threat.
Anyway, it's the business market, not the Joe Pirate market, that MS is concerned about.
> Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away.
Except for, you know, the general crappiness of the apps.
I think what MS fears is what a lot of people already know: the main thing that keeps Apple out of the business market is that there's always one or two apps you need that only run under Windows, or some web site you need to access that only works properly with IE. OSX is more reliable, easier to support, and once you've learned the tools it's somewhat easier to manage configuration over a bunch of machines than Windows. If I could use a Macbook every day and run IE and a couple of other specialty apps alongside my OSX apps, my business' next hardware purchases would be from Apple and not from HP as they have been in the past. We already have no intention of upgrading to Vista until it becomes necessary due to dropped patch support for XP. If this situation arises, Microsoft has lost their monopoly power over the PC OEM's, and the tower crumbles.
Granted, this is more true for notebooks and dekstops than for servers and other infrastructure. But if I was managing a fleet of Macs for my employees, I'd start switching things over from Windows Server to OSX Server, too.
Yes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, imho.
And it's interesting that the press release http://www.vmware.com/company/news/releases/fusio
A seamless "Unity for Ubuntu" and DirectX 9.0c would be the final pieces of the puzzle for a lot of folks. It doesn't help the cause for pushing development of native Linux apps. But it would certainly increase the installed base of non-Windows OSes and that's a solid baby step.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it became Apple's policy to include Vista with ever computer it would only help Microsoft. The people who would be complaining would be HP and Dell if Apple was getting just as good as a deal as they were.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WIN-OS2 allowed MSWindows apps to run seamlessly on the OS/2 desktop (impressive workplace shell, by the way). The strategy was simple: if users can run their windows apps under OS/2 they will switch to OS/2 easily, and end-up using OS/2 apps because the OS is so superior. So, WIN-OS2 was shipped with every copy of OS/2 as standard.
You remember what happened in the end: people used OS/2 exclusively to run windows apps but at the cost of a bunch of compati
An important nuance. (Score:3, Insightful)
If my understanding is correct, OS/2 was provided its own implementations of Windows APIs. This is unsustainable and the cost easily overcomes the benefits of the platform. In the Apple scenario, the virtualized environment is the real thing, third parties provide that environment, and Apple continues to develop their platform in blissful ignorance while end-users get a universal platform. I would otherwise be very much inclined to agree with you, but I think these subtle differences will cause a positiv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So it was much closer to full virtualization than you think.
In any case, what really matters is no
Re:Terrified? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What would these "unfair advantages set long ago" be, in your opinion?
I condemn many things that the USA has done but they have done good things too. In what country of immaculate ethical history do you abide, Sir?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So you have a more plausible explanation for the bizarre EULA flip-flopping? I do, but it is in ADDITION to their OS X worries...with virtualization users are able to bypass the DRM that keeps Vista proprietary. In other words, MS is trying to be like Apple, by making a closed architecture (and hoping it improves the functionality of their machines, like a Mac), but is failing, because they have a poor track record of successfully c