Here's some new ammunition for those who think Apple's move to Intel processors is about building computers that can run both Mac and Windows applications.
Apple's U.S. patent application 0050246554 ("System and method for creating tamper-resistant code") describes scenarios in which the user would choose a "first operating system" and a "second operating system" from a set that includes Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, and Linux.
There's also mention of a virtual machine, and the option to choose between "Macintosh computer" and "Windows PC."
I realize that patent applications try to anticipate every possibility, but this is a very plausible strategy for Apple's Intel machines: embrace and extend what its competitors' computers can do.
When Windows Vista ships, Microsoft will encourage users to upgrade. Many home computers will be unable to meet Vista's minimum system requirements. (For example, Vista will need a dedicated video card, not just "integrated video," but many current PCs do not even have an AGP slot.)
Apple has more than a year to come up with a competitively priced computer capable of running both Mac and Windows applications. It could run both systems at once, or -- as the patent seems to suggest -- run one system natively and the other in a virtual machine. (Users could choose which OS should be the dominant or "first" operating system.)
Michael Dell should be concerned. So should HP, Gateway, Lenovo/IBM, and every other Windows PC maker. Apple controls OS X, and does not license it to others. Therefore, only Apple can build a personal computer capable of running Windows and Mac OS X.
Microsoft's OEM partners could ask Microsoft not to license Windows to Apple, or to offer them better license terms, but would Microsoft go for it? I suspect the company's consent agreement with the DoJ would make this difficult if not impossible to do.
Very interesting. Stay tuned...
1. Peter on November 4, 2005 06:00 PM writes...
Personally, I don't see Apple selling Windows. Period.
Sure, you'll be able to buy a Mac that will boot Windows. But you won't be able to buy a Mac with Mac OS X and Windows installed--at least not from Apple. This is probably what those at Apple would call "an excellent third-party opportunity." I wouldn't be surprised if you could order such a thing from CDW, Small Dog, etc. for an extra fee.
Permalink to Comment2. Randy Barber on November 4, 2005 06:14 PM writes...
Of course Apple will not sell Windows--but if they will not prevent Windows from running on the new Macs--they have then opened up their hardware to the world. Brilliant!
Permalink to Comment3. grumpysecretary on November 4, 2005 06:41 PM writes...
My view is that this senario also applies to the server space. While Apple seems committed to PPC for XServe, that does not preclude a new Intel based Apple server line running Apple OSX Server & Novell Linux & or Novell Netware.
A partnership with Novell would be a serious threat to Microsoft, and give Apple an even stronger footing in the server market.
That kind of flexibility would allow IT managers to repurpose a server from general tasks, to say streaming media tasks in no time at all.
Permalink to Comment4. Rod on November 4, 2005 09:14 PM writes...
Very smart analysis. Makes a lot of sense and a terrific strategy too. Now, this doesn't seem to fit whith traditional Apple policy, but this is market war, and Mr. Jobs is a remarkable strategist.
MS has not been able to atract a significant part of Win98 and even Win95 installed base to XP and would be happy to sell them Vista, whether loaded on a PC or on a Mac it won't care.
In this scenario current strong momentum in Mac sales could grow to a small fire if the upcoming Mactel array offers a good price/features balance (Vista included). Many Win95/98 users may finally decide to upgrade to a Mactel if the machines ship with the best of both worlds.
And yes, this should concern Windows PC makers. But in the long term I think Apple is after MS, except this war will not be open... for some time.
Permalink to Comment5. Brian McTavish on November 5, 2005 05:34 AM writes...
Apple won't bundle Windows.
Permalink to CommentIt *will* incorporate WINE-style ability to run Win apps on Mactels into Leopard, eliminating another switcher objection - application lock-in.
One by one, Cupertino's brains are addressing the list of factors preventing switching with pain-free solutions.
A longer shot: six months before announcing the tablet Mac and camphone iPod (built-in camera and WiFi/3G, stealing the camcorder market too) they'll release iChat for Windows, another Trojan horse play.
And longest shot of all, but one that tickles me most. Long-term, US PC manufacture is toast & market growth is in the far east. So - controlled OS licensing to Lenovo to grab the critical China market?
You heard it here first.
6. jonto on November 5, 2005 11:25 AM writes...
I generally agree with Brian, however I disagree with the timeline. Long term? No way...Dell has already begun missing estimates, and the new Lenovo Thinkpads hit US retail shelves via Office Depot tomorrow! (November 5th). Get this...they'll be sold for half of what IBM use to charge for them.
Permalink to CommentGet ready for share to start going east...
7. Christos on November 5, 2005 01:00 PM writes...
If Apple's operating system can run on Intel hardware, the ability to pick which OS to boot into is nothing more than a boot loader program, this has existed for some time. At time of computer booting, you select with OS (out of all the OS's you have installed on your system) to boot into. Further, there is new development in having multiple OS's running at the same time (this is a hardware issue, not an Apple software issue) without having to reboot, and without running any OS's through a "virtual system". With that said, how is Apple doing anything special? It's nothing more than Apple now running on Intel, and capitilizing on what is already available to accomplish (for example I have Windows and FreeBSD [Unix] bootable from the same Intel box currently). So now, one has to purchase Apple hardware and software, as well as purchase Microsoft Windows to load onto Apple hardware. A great move on Apple's part, but the patent is nothing more than Apple covering their arse.
Permalink to Comment8. Johnny Utah on November 5, 2005 01:28 PM writes...
I have this process done on my laptop. It is very simple, its the same as having 2(two) windows load on your boot.ini, but instead you have a MAC / WINDOWS partition.... /kisses&huggs johnny
Permalink to Comment9. Raphael Carrier on November 5, 2005 01:37 PM writes...
you guys all have a part of the good answer but you're missing an important part of the formula wich is the arrival of new virtualization technologies yes you will be able to run windows applications via the new virtual pc wich will NOT be dual boot (see: vanderpool) the new yonah cpu are able to run windows and osx concurently with the new generation virtualization cpus i can just see /Applications (Windows)/ or /Windows directory on our hard drives and the small status icon in the top right corner saying: windows is currently running my bet is that they want to make windows obsolete by squashing it to the state of compatibility mode if you ask me i'd say that trashing os9 compatibility for windows hardware based emulation is a fair trade
Permalink to Comment10. Vickie on November 5, 2005 06:10 PM writes...
I wondered from the beginning, why would they setup the new Intel hardware so it could run Widows. Why not start fresh and make it even better.
Win/Tel hardware has to have compromises for backwards compatibility, and Apple would not need that, unless they want to sell their OS separately to Microsoft's customers. But then they could not sell as much of their high dollar hardware.
This will be fun to watch!
Permalink to Comment11. Ralph on November 5, 2005 09:08 PM writes...
Why would anyone support Apple getting a patent on technology that already exists?
Permalink to Comment12. Jon H on November 5, 2005 10:33 PM writes...
From a very quick look, it just sounds to me like it's a special bootloader which prevents users from installing a different OS and using that OS to reverse-engineer the methods Apple uses to lock OS X to their own hardware.
For example, consider this: Someone gets Linux running on x86 Mac hardware; They then create a thin virtual machine layer which passes everything on to the hardware and appears to be an x86 Mac, using the actual hardware for 100% compatibility.
They install OS X on that virtual machine, and thinking its on the bare Apple hardware, OS X runs. The underlying Linux software meanwhile monitors everything OS X does with the TPM security hardware on the motherboard. Using the information collected, OS X's security is reverse engineered, and cracked.
I could be wrong, maybe this wouldn't work, but it seems like something they'd want to prevent from happening.
In any case, I think it would be silly to hyperventilate about this meaning Apple will support, or sell other OSes for their hardware.
Permalink to Comment13. Jon H on November 5, 2005 10:58 PM writes...
Christos writes: "With that said, how is Apple doing anything special? "
If you check out the patent, it's all about tamper-resistant code. While it mentions multiple operating systems, the patent is about protecting OS X in a multi-OS environment, so that it can't be cracked and made to run on non-Apple hardware.
Running Windows, Linux and other Intel operating systems on Apple hardware is pretty much going to be unavoidable. Apple has said they won't block you from doing so. But if they let other OSes run, they need to establish some means to protect OS X when a different OS is running.
Permalink to Comment14. Jon H on November 5, 2005 11:21 PM writes...
"Microsoft's OEM partners could ask Microsoft not to license Windows to Apple, or to offer them better license terms, but would Microsoft go for it? I suspect the company's consent agreement with the DoJ would make this difficult if not impossible to do."
Apple wouldn't be so foolish as to get entangled with Microsoft by licensing Windows.
Further, bundling OS X and Windows would just cut into Apple's revenues by a couple hundred dollars per machine or so. They aren't going to get it for free from Microsoft. And those revenues would be better spent underwriting the development of Apple products and services, or going to the bottom line as proft.
Or Apple would pass the cost on to the customers, but that would be risky because competing on price will already be more difficult because Apple won't be able to count on a different CPU making it more difficult to directly compare price/performance.
Nope. Anyone who wants to run Windows on their Mac can buy a copy at the store. Or they can wipe their PC's hard drive and use their current copy of Windows (assuming it isn't locked to OEM hardware).
Anyway, bundling Windows would appear to be an admission of weakness and insufficiency. "OS X is our OS, but you can't really get enough done with it, so we have to bundle Windows too."
Permalink to Comment15. Tanner on November 6, 2005 02:03 AM writes...
Windoze sucks. End of story..
Permalink to Comment16. zpok on November 6, 2005 02:57 AM writes...
Apple won't sell Vista. Won't support Vista.
But who's to say they won't add Virtual PC as an installed option? And the MS Mac unit could make that a very good installed option indeed, if VPC is upgraded to Apple's intel specs.
Permalink to Comment17. SpaceMagic on November 6, 2005 06:12 AM writes...
I reckon if Apple shipped Windows with every mac too, more PC people would buy them. Then it's like a trojan horse, because one day a PCer may think, oooh lets try OS X... and of course they'll end up liking it.
A pretty good switching method I think.
Permalink to Comment18. schmooschmacker on November 6, 2005 10:16 AM writes...
why would apple have to liscense or ship Windblows, when any joblow can just buy a copy at Bustybuy or OMax, install it on their mactel and be happy :)
Apple already said they would NOT prevent it from running on mactel hdwr anyways.....
and who the hell wants virtualization anyways, just run the shit natively and be done with it
Permalink to Comment19. revisionA on November 6, 2005 11:25 AM writes...
This is about money, my friends. If the only thing stopping you from switching, is using Windows only programs, not the price... then being able to run windows programs within the osx os, at a good speed even... then the adoption rate of OSX increases, riding the iPod wave... pushing marketshare further.
Add to this, very few PC manuf. can touch Apple's style and ergonomics. Dell's XPS line looks like shite compared to g5's, iAnythings and Powerbooks. OEM manufacturers should be looking at Samsung and Panasonic for their laptop design cues... and hardly anyone but Apple makes a nice looking desktop (you can build your own with a LianLi case btw).
Msoft is stumbling, they fumbled an entire generation of their OS by wasting years on Longhorn. Now they are trying to do what Apple did with the initial version of OSX, like 4-5 years late in the game (IIRC), with hardware requirements that let you know just how inefficient their BEST ideas are.
Sorry, Bill, time to cash out and move on.
Permalink to Comment$
20. Christos on November 6, 2005 01:08 PM writes...
These are interesting perspectives on this Apple patent. I've posted more thoughts about this here:
http://namedb.net/2005/11/06/mactel-strategy-includes-windows-and-linux/
Essentially, I still think this is just simply a way for Apple to cover their butt's, and not the underlying strategy (in the direct sense noted in this blog posting as well as in some of the comments) to overthrow Microsofts slow and heavy handed approach to their new OS. I could see a broader strategy on Apple's part by cleanly providing a method for Windows to be installed on an Apple boxen, but that seems to be a bigger and better plan then just to attack the slow to market Vista.
Permalink to Comment21. bandmassa on November 6, 2005 02:56 PM writes...
Then again, who needs Windows on a Mactel? An Apple version of Wine (www.winehq.com www.darwine.com) integrated into the Finder offers a much more elegant solution.
Permalink to Comment22. Christian on November 6, 2005 07:31 PM writes...
If Apple and Microsoft are smart, which I guess they are, they would strenghten the relationship they already have. Microsoft would let Apple sell computers with Windows preinstalled and Apple would let Microsoft tune Windows for the Mac hardware so that it would run without flaws. A customer would then choose if OS when it buys the computer. With help of Intels new virtualiztion processors you could then run both OS's at the same time.
Permalink to Comment23. Atari on November 7, 2005 03:17 AM writes...
Bandmassa: The answer is *games*. That's the only reason why I would want to run Windows apps on my Mac. Wine doesn't have full blown Direct X support out of the box. We need a Transgaming/Cedega solution, or a virtual machine running XP/Vista.
Permalink to Comment24. Marcel Bresink on November 7, 2005 05:57 AM writes...
I don't agree that this is a smart analysis of the patent. If you really read the patent, you'll notice that it doesn't speak about a "user selecting an operating system". This is Sandy's pure fiction. The patent only says that the *user of the patented method* (which means a developer or an application) could select between different operating systems. This means the described strategy to protect program code can be used in a platform-independent manner.
Yes, this could be a method to protect the boot code of Mac OS X. But this could also be something very different. Did you forget that Apple publishes an application for Windows and for Macs? It is called "iTunes" and it uses a sophisticated DRM mechanism which limits the usage of purchased music in a heterogeneous network of Macs and Windows PCs.
And did you notice that the patent was filed on April 30, 2004? This was the time when Apple changed some technical specifications of iTMS network sharing in iTunes 4.5...
Permalink to Comment25. McGregor on November 9, 2005 11:08 AM writes...
Regardless of what Apple does w/ it's new hardware and tamper-resistant-code, if given the chance to run Windows on my Mac I would have to ask WHY? The only reason I even have a copy of Windows on my desktop is because it is still slow to run Flash in Wine. Other than that you will never see me running Windows. As for my Mac Laptop, I wouldn't mine putting Linux on it but why when its a BSD core and I can just use X11 and fink to get most any Linux program I would need. If anything should come of this it would hopefully be a decrease in the Windows dominace in the desktop market. I for one and tired of fixing infected Windows machines on our network. So I say let Mac move into the windows world and give me some more free time.
Permalink to Comment26. Jon H on November 9, 2005 08:28 PM writes...
Marcel writes: "Did you forget that Apple publishes an application for Windows and for Macs?"
Ah, but the patent mentions Linux as well. While it's possible they would want to cover all their potential bases in the patent, I highly doubt Apple has any intention or desire to produce a Linux port of iTunes, and I'm not sure why it would be necessary to mention Windows and Linux if the patent is about iTunes.
On the other hand, it's entirely likely that people will be installing Windows and Linux on their x86 Macs.
Which is why I think it's basically about protecting the protection of OS X when another OS is running on the machine.
Permalink to Comment27. Valdis on November 15, 2005 09:25 PM writes...
Virtual PC work fine on the PowerPC, it will work great on the Intel Macs and since MSFT now makes VPC you will see a simple integration/interface [remember Mac Switcher?]-- win/win for MSFT/Apple -- lose/lose/lose/etc. for the clones.
BTW, VPC w/OS retails for much more than the similar OS for clones... MSFT will make >> profit with every MacIntel sold!
Permalink to Comment