Will Apple Go All In?

Mac fans desperately want a major Apple win. The tough part of wanting a Mac win is knowing just who the competition is. In the past the major opponents were: Dell, Microsoft and Intel. Obviously, Intel is off the list of companies that should be rent asunder so that leaves Dell or Microsoft. Microsoft is hated by Mac fans because of the widespread, and mostly true, notion that they ripped the Windows interface straight from the original Mac OS. Dell is despised because they sell mounds and mounds of computers. Mac fans in general would like to see both companies reduced to smoldering heaps but, if pressed to choose, most would opt for the burnination of Microsoft over Apple. Here it should be noted that yearning for others to fail isn’t nearly as healthy as hoping for your team to succeed but wishing ill on the competition, unfortunately, seems to be a fact of life.

At this point it is necessary to address Apple’s recent patent filing. The request for patent outlines a method whereby a user could specify three operating systems for the computer to use when booted. For example, you could choose OS X, then Linux then Windows or any combination thereof (OS 9 did not make the cut). It must be noted that this is just a patent filing so reading too much into the legal maneuvering could be an unproductive exercise, after all people will patent about anything if they think it could possibly make a buck down the road. With the idea firmly in mind that there is every chance we are wasting our time let us look a little harder at the issue and see who are the likely winners and losers if the Apple patent is implemented.

Microsoft, as always, wins big. Microsoft winning is no surprise, those guys never lose because they never quit. The reason they win in this case is because to get full operating system functionality you’ll have to pony up for a copy of Windows. Exact profit margins are hard to come by but it would be one of the safest wagers of all time if you gamble that the profit on a copy Windows sold by your local retailer is substantial. So, to Microsoft, the notion of a multi boot Mac must be pretty exciting, they suddenly have access to a market which they never had access to before.

Is the news better for Mac fans that wish to see Dell go the way of Gateway 2000? While the bad news about Dell will likely continue with or without the introduction of multi OSed Macs (there are just so many computers you can sell after all), it won’t be because of new machines introduced by Apple. If you look at what Dell is best at you’ll note they are very good in an area where Apple is performs extremely poorly (perhaps purposely): selling computers that seem to cost next to nothing. That won’t change, people who buy cheap Dells will continue to buy cheap Dells particularly when faced with the knowledge that their Mac purchase will entail an additional purchase of a copy of Windows OS. However, Apple could put a dent into Dell’s recent foray into stylish computers… Uh, scratch that, upon review, Dell and stylish go together like bleach and ammonia.

Even though Dell and Microsoft will likely initially emerge from the Intel switch unscathed or improved there is a hard to resist feeling that Apple is going to pick up a passel of sales from somewhere. They’ll be producing a machine that can run any semi popular operating system and a machine like that will certainly, one would think, be more appealing to the technically aware masses than a computer that is locked into a single (or dual) operating system. Honestly, it seems like a no brainer: if you want to run Mac OS X and Windows you’d be foolish not to pay the moderate premium for a Mac that can accommodate your needs! There will likely be a bump in sales of the new Macs and people will glom onto the sales spike as proof positive that the Mac is ready to retake lost ground and, possibly, a whole lot more. That is the happy scenario; in the gloomy scenario the artificial sales spike is the beginning of the end.

How could a machine that features greater platform utility be either the salvation or long awaited deathblow for Macs? While the scenarios seem diametrically opposed, the answer is simple: It all depends on laziness and parsimony. The notion of seamless multibooting is fine on the surface but requires a lot out the user. Imagine a user who wishes to use AutoCad on the new Intel powered Macs but wants to use OS X for internet connectivity because of security concerns. In the multi boot scenario the user will have to quit AutoCAD and restart the computer just to jump on the net. That behavior isn’t likely to last, soon they’ll be using that computer only with Windows. Admittedly, that is an extreme case but think of all the software that requires Windows that any switcher will likely bring with them. They’ll buy the computer with intentions to go OS X but in the end, most of them will just stay with Windows. Once someone decides to just stick with Windows the allure of the multi boot Mac is gone, the next computer they buy will be a Windows box. As comforting as it might be to think that even short exposure to the vaunted Mac ease of use will convert users en masse history does not bear this notion out. Apple has produced DOS compatible Macs before and they were, predictably, great sellers but users spent all their time in the Windows environment so repeat business was less than stellar.

Basing Apple’s failure on the laziness and aversion to adaptability of previous Windows users neglects the cheapness factor. People generally don’t like to spend money on computers but they positively loathe spending money on programs. Apple has a clear advantage in this case. You can do a lot with a Mac straight out of the box using only Apple applications. So while the switcher may intend to get around to buying a copy of Windows it will likely be the case that before the part with the cash they decide they can live with what Apple gives them with the price of admission. Or, put more succinctly, laziness works both ways.

Multiboot boxes would be a huge gamble for Apple, made possible only by the success of the iPod. Still the bet wouldn’t be the equivalent of a string of numbers on a lottery ticket, the wager is more along the lines of going all in with a pair of jacks. There are many ways to lose that hand but there is a decent chance of winning as well. The strategy, if followed, is well founded even if it results in an ultimate failure. If the goal is retaking a significant segment of the computer market Apple’s bold moves are required.