Replies to post #72390 on Apple Inc (AAPL)

[Tex]

re software for MS-Windows

I think making it work also depends on performance improvements. Safari has some credible performance claims (though bake-offs are all subject to counter-example), so (a) Cocoa can do it and (b) Apple can optimize effectively for measurable performance. The question is why Apple didn't do performance optimization (or couldn't do it effectively) on Numbers or Pages.

Another complicating factor: Safari doesn't need to access peripherals, and iTunes need only access Apple-supplied hardware. iLife requires talking to cameras (still and video), which might be a problem -- and who knows how much of Vista's DRM-laden infrastructure will poison multimedia handling. I just don't know how big this is, but drivers and third-party support could complicate running of iLife on other operating systems.

On the other hand, if Apple's relationships with the camera makers is such that it can get good info on talking to their drivers on other operating systems, porting should be pretty reasonable. At least now there won't be endianness issues ;-)

I'd like to keep looking at browser share numbers to see how Apple is doing in browsers. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=3 If Apple's move is in part to get ad-supported revenue from search engines, Apple's getting a third of Firefox' share would suggest (without knowing anything about the relative clicking or buying patterns of Firefox v Safari users) about a third of Firefox' ad revenue ... and if that's $100m as reported then Apple's $33m definitely pays for its Safari development effort by now.

Apple probably should expand its software sales as part of its migration enablement strategy and to capture revenue from others' customers, but I'd be embarrassed if they launched Pages at its iWork '06 performance for the rest of the world to see. For short letters it rocks, of course, but I often work on 50p business projects, and even without graphics those are an unworkable crawl on a G5 iMac -- and the G5 iMac is nearly 2GHz and not exactly old (in comparison to my Pizmo, anyway!). Has anyone confirmed iWork '08's Pages is still a pig?

Take care,
--Tex.

[langostino]

"this process was really started by Rob Enderle"


Just NOW thinking about iLife or iWork for Windows? You must have Rip Van Winkled your way though the numerous discussions we've had here (and in former Mac message boards) for years.

Of course your reasoning is spot on, if not exactly new. The core basis for what I originally referred to as the Trojan Horse effect (a couple years later, "discovered" by the analyst community and popular media and renamed the "halo effect") is that the single most effective way to draw "switchers" is to get them to sample the goods. I know very few people who've ever sampled the goods for real, and not been drawn closer to buying Apple products to far greater effect than watching t.v. commercials, reading print ads, or catching a Mac on the cover of Time magazine. (Not that those things are 'bad', per se, they just pale in comparison as effective "switch" motivating tools).

Similarly, the core logic of the vehement anti- reaction with which this concept was originally greeted -- that if Windows users could get use of some of Apple's creative apps on their Windows machines, there'd be no reason for them to switch -- has been proven flatly wrong.

Better late than never, welcome to the party. :-)