Virtualization Made Mac What it is Today
Posted by Bob Warfield on February 18, 2011
Sam Diaz is writing about Apple’s latest Draconian App Store subscription policies and how they’re not a bad thing. Forrester CEO George Colony says Apple is headed for a repeat of their defeat at the hands of Windows with these policies:
We know what happened — the world has had to use a lowest-common denominator PC operating system for decades, with excursions into wonderful places like Vista. This time around, Apple’s hostile position could result in a 2014 App Internet market that looks something like this: 80% Android, 10% Apple, 10% Other.
Colony’s concern is that this is the formative time for app consumption and app markets. It’s too early to exert a monopolist’s egregious tax on those markets. People aren’t locked in enough yet.
Diaz has a counter-argument:
Here’s the thing: Colony says that like it’s a bad thing. Say what you will about Apple’s share of the PC market – but the fact is that Apple’s lineup of Mac computers are far superior to anything that’s running Windows. And increasingly, quarter after quarter, the company notes that its share is growing and that about half of the Mac purchases in a single quarter have been by consumers who switched from Windows.
My problem with Sam’s argument is that none of that shift started happening until Virtualization meant you could have your Mac cake and eat some Windows software too. It isn’t really clear they’re leaving the door open to do that with their App Store policies. This isn’t about not only having Apple wonderfulness PLUS everything else in the world when Apple doesn’t happen to have the right answer. It’s about ONLY having the Apple wonderfulness and being glad of it, dammit.
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens come the June 30 deadline for compliance with the new policies. We will no doubt get hints along the way. As an iPad user who set aside his Kindle but still constantly reads using the iPad’s Kindle app, I’m keenly interested.
During his last go-round with book publishers and Amazon, Steve Jobs largely managed to get book prices on Kindle raised. That may turn out to be the result here too. Kindle charges a “publishing expense” fee back to the book publishers. So far it covers the wireless costs for Kindle’s built-in Sprint modem. Perhaps Amazon will decide to roll the iPad 30% into that fee, making books sold there dramatically less profitable for publishers. There would be a certain poetic justice in that. The publishers leaned on Jobs to break one walled garden only to see another spring up immediately in its place. What are they going to do about this one?