Will Apple really delay Leopard to accommodate Vista integration?
By Triston McIntyre
Digitimes, a technology news site, believes that Apple will delay the release of its much-anticipated new operating system, Leopard, until October. As Apple has revealed their intentions to integrate a program similar to Boot Camp that will allow users to run Windows along with Leopard, Digitimes claims Apple will need substantially more time to refine Vista integration.
As Apple has spent oodles of money on their most recent marketing campaign of winning Windows users over to Mac, Digitimes says that “industry sources” feel that an April release of the new Leopard OS would be too soon to really ready the Leopard Boot Camp system for flawless Vista integration.
Though OS-X has had no troubles with XP, there have been a few complications with Vista integration (which have a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft doesn’t want their users switching to Mac), and those “industry sources” believe that Apple will need more time to prepare Boot Camp for Vista.
I feel otherwise. First, Apple is not known for pushing back releases of their products; to the contrary, most Apple fans wait for Apple Keynote addresses with baited breath, knowing that Steve Jobs loves springing new surprises on the Mac community frequently.
Second, if Vista had only been in development for a relatively short time, and developers had not had access to the beta builds for the last umpteen months, perhaps Apple would need more time to scramble for proper Vista integration. As it stands, Vista has been around, more or less, for quite a while now, and you can bet that as Apple loves to be ahead of Microsoft, they’ve had their developers perfecting Boot Camp integration for some time now.
Third, delaying the release of Leopard would only be a hindrance to Apple; many Mac fans have been waiting with baited breath for the newest version of OS-X, and though Apple does want PC users to make the beautiful switch to Mac, I highly doubt they would inconvenience current users in hopes of winning a few more PC users down the road.
Consider this: if Apple was to delay Leopard for 6 months to integrate Vista, they would not win any more new customers in that time period, and would lose face to current Mac users; if they release it as scheduled, they’ll keep the Mac community happy, and they will continue to steal PC users at the steady rate they already have been.
I’d be interested to speak with these industry sources, because the marketing behind delaying Leopard for Vista integration seems all wrong.
UPDATE 1: Not to toot our own horns, but TUAW has confirmation from Apple that they will not postpone the release of Leopard past their intended release date.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, March 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
under
Read more entries by Triston McIntyre.
Stumble It!
March 23rd, 2007
lol, no way would apple follow in microsofts footsteps and delay for months… even if there current OS is miles ahead of vista anyways…
(i’m personally sticking with win xp for whenever i’m forced to us pcs… vista runs way slower and has constant security alerts… really a downgrade in my oppinion)
March 23rd, 2007
“As it stands, Vista has been around, more or less, for quite a while now, and you can bet that as Apple loves to be ahead of Microsoft, they’ve had their developers perfecting Boot Camp integration for some time now.”
If that’s the case, why is it that Apple still isn’t able to officially support Vista with Quicktime and iTunes?
March 23rd, 2007
Mark,
That is a fairly simple question to answer, especially if you’re Apple. I don’t know if you’ve ever run quicktime and iTunes on a PC, but they run substantially slower than on a Mac. If you hold the industry-leading applications, why rush to support a competing operating system? If you want seamless Quicktime and iTunes, you buy a Mac. That, in essence, is why Apple has never been quick to enhance or support Windows’ endeavor to integrate Apple applications. Just good business :)
March 24th, 2007
It’s “bated breath,” not “baited.”
March 24th, 2007
Thanks, mom. Always nice to have a grammatical checkup. ;)
March 24th, 2007
Ummm vista already runs on a Mac with Boot Camp or Parallels. This story is total BS. Anyone with a lick of knowledge or sense knows this. As for the quicktime remark someone has made there are plenty of windows apps not ready for vista. I wonder if this is an Apple issue or a MS issue?
March 24th, 2007
You’re right, it does run. That isn’t really the thing being disputed; Microsoft doesn’t want Vista running perfectly on Macs, and to some degree it doesn’t. There are Vista GUI integration issues and other small nuisances that haven’t been ironed out to run flawlessly as of yet. You could also be right about Windows being the source of the problem for Quicktime and iTunes; why allow for great integration of a competitor’s product? Unfortunately, I would think it more likely Apple would try to make it more difficult for their apps to run in Windows, because it would be more beneficial for Windows if Apple apps ran smoothly; that way they wouldn’t lose customers to Apple who wanted better quality iTunes and quicktime, and that happens. Thanks for the comment
March 24th, 2007
“industry sources” = Balmer’s minions
spread the FUD among potential switchers
March 25th, 2007
The Mac runs on the same Intel hardware that runs Vista. In-fact I saw a demonstration by MS running Vista on an iMac in Europe on the web.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/microsoft-demos-vista-on-an-imac-231555.php
Why they didn’t choose one of their own hardware partners is beyond me. Quicktime is a platform. It is not just for playing back media (like MS solutions have been for years) Apple’s customers for iTunes are cross-platform. So Apple would take the chance of loosing a large portion of it’s customer base for the iPod & media for the reason that you state? Your argument makes absolutely no sense at all. How exactly does Apple’s apps running badly on any platform instill confidence in Apple. That is a ridiculous statement. It seeems to me MS has more to lose here if things work well. Let’s look at the fact that their licensung agreement does not allow anyone to run anything but Vista ultimate in virtualization. Here is a good article that pretty much explains why this is all a bunch of BS:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/5209A3EE-03DE-42CA-8A27-55DBF41C6F5D.html
March 25th, 2007
“Consider this: if Apple was to delay Leopard for 6 months to integrate Vista, they would not win any more new customers in that time period”
That’s a bold statement.
And a stupid one, too. I was lured here by a link on slashdot, but I think I’ll be letting adblock handle this site from now on.
March 25th, 2007
Yo Mamma,
If you feel the comment was out of line and incorrect, you are taking it out of context. The intent behind the sentence, which you seem to have misread, is that if Apple was to choose to delay Leopard for 6 months in hopes that they might win more PC user votes later down the road, they wouldn’t be winning any new customers (ABOVE AND BEYOND that which Apple is steadily winning anyway) during that six month time period. As I stated, Apple is surely winning customers on a daily basis; that isn’t a fact worth debating. The point being made is that Apple would not position themselves to gain a higher stream of converted customers in that 6 month time frame than if they were simply to release Leopard at the scheduled time.
In regards to your opinion that the statement is stupid; I would say that if you misinterpreted the question, who’s comment is then stupid? ;)
March 25th, 2007
Joe; why on earth would Apple go out of its way to ensure seamless integration of its applications in Windows? If you’ve ever owned a Mac, you know what I am referring to when I say, YES, Apple applications do run on alternate platforms, however, they perform better on Macs. Why? Dunno. My guess is Mac software is designed to perform better on Macs; a novel concept. I never said that Apple apps running poorly on Windows instills confidence in Apple. Apple does work hard to ensure their products run on Windows, and that those users are happy. Try the same things on a Mac, and they run better.
October 31st, 2007
how about an UPDATE #2 – correcting the record – that you were plain wrong about the release date ?