Boot Camp or Leopard: Think Again!
A few weeks ago, there was an editorial published online that argued how Apple had become the new Microsoft. Several Mac pundits roundly refuted the article was. I’ve got two words for them: “Think again!” Today, Apple released a tech note about Boot Camp that shows that indeed, sometimes, the spots the companies wear are not very different.
Months ago, when Apple announced Leopard’s delay because of the iPhone, users pointed out that the Leopard release would push back beyond the beta’s expiration date. Apple tried to calm the waters by stating that Boot Camp would not discontinue working, and some reports claimed the company was going to issue a final version of Boot camp for Tiger users for $30 after Leopard was released. That’s a fair approach since it doesn’t coerce users into buying Leopard. But today, the Apple tech note that was released stated that the Boot Camp license for version 1.3 or 1.4 of Boot Camp beta would expire when Leopard was released. There was no mention of any other offering from Apple, leaving users with the clear threat of losing Boot Camp accessibility if they don’t buy Leopard. That’s about as “Microsoftian” as you can get.
This probably won’t impact my wife and I since I plan on upgrading to Leopard shortly after its release. Still, what if I decided not upgrade to Leopard right away because it disables some hardware or software I really need? Apple marketed its latest class of Intel powered desktops and portables by lauding their ability to run Windows via Boot Camp or a third party application (like Parallels). Nowhere in their ads did they point out that the ability to run Windows would be compromised if the user didn’t buy Leopard in the future. In effect, by marketing the Intel Mac’s abilities to run Windows and releasing Boot Camp to support it, Apple did establish a reasonable expectation, if not a defacto warranty, that the user could run Windows as well as OS X without having to depend on future upgrades.
As I said, since it is an additional capability, I consider a small charge to maintain it as fair, even though an attorney might argue it needs to be supplied by Apple for free.
If I were in Apple marketing and perhaps in Apple Legal, I’d be arguing for the company to release a version of Boot Camp independent of the Leopard release, even if they charge a few bucks for it. Otherwise, Apple looks like they’re trying to force an upgrade on consumers who may not otherwise want it but are coerced into getting it to maintain their current functionality. If that really is their intent, then they deserve the Microsoft comparison and to be sued.
If they can’t see this coming, then they must be as blind as an iPod Shuffle.
Months ago, when Apple announced Leopard’s delay because of the iPhone, users pointed out that the Leopard release would push back beyond the beta’s expiration date. Apple tried to calm the waters by stating that Boot Camp would not discontinue working, and some reports claimed the company was going to issue a final version of Boot camp for Tiger users for $30 after Leopard was released. That’s a fair approach since it doesn’t coerce users into buying Leopard. But today, the Apple tech note that was released stated that the Boot Camp license for version 1.3 or 1.4 of Boot Camp beta would expire when Leopard was released. There was no mention of any other offering from Apple, leaving users with the clear threat of losing Boot Camp accessibility if they don’t buy Leopard. That’s about as “Microsoftian” as you can get.
This probably won’t impact my wife and I since I plan on upgrading to Leopard shortly after its release. Still, what if I decided not upgrade to Leopard right away because it disables some hardware or software I really need? Apple marketed its latest class of Intel powered desktops and portables by lauding their ability to run Windows via Boot Camp or a third party application (like Parallels). Nowhere in their ads did they point out that the ability to run Windows would be compromised if the user didn’t buy Leopard in the future. In effect, by marketing the Intel Mac’s abilities to run Windows and releasing Boot Camp to support it, Apple did establish a reasonable expectation, if not a defacto warranty, that the user could run Windows as well as OS X without having to depend on future upgrades.
As I said, since it is an additional capability, I consider a small charge to maintain it as fair, even though an attorney might argue it needs to be supplied by Apple for free.
If I were in Apple marketing and perhaps in Apple Legal, I’d be arguing for the company to release a version of Boot Camp independent of the Leopard release, even if they charge a few bucks for it. Otherwise, Apple looks like they’re trying to force an upgrade on consumers who may not otherwise want it but are coerced into getting it to maintain their current functionality. If that really is their intent, then they deserve the Microsoft comparison and to be sued.
If they can’t see this coming, then they must be as blind as an iPod Shuffle.
posted by Andy Foster at
8:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home