Jump to content

iLife for a PC


32 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

There is no denying that we all wanna knwo whats going on in the "What If..." section of the Apple campus. Well "What If..." Apple is thinking of bringing iLife to us poor basturd who stil run MS OS's...

T'would become a market leader in consumer design software, and would give Apple and even greater margin in the software stakes, and could even be a direct "SYKE" (think thats the correct word) to MS showing them that if they want to take over the personal computing industry, they can.

We have all heard, well i assume we have all heard the great news that Microsft lost 1% of market share IN A MONTH, maybe iLife would push that a little further when people realise iLife is harder to use than a Mac! and its pretty easy to use iLife...

Just wanna know your Opinions on this. ^^^Bit of a waffle, isn't it....^^^

should apple port its small apps to MS....

 

Think Mark ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more apps Apple ports to Windows, the more Windows "just works". I can see why Apple would want to port iLife to Windows, to help it grow as a product and gain market share, but on the other hand, I'm sure they're also afraid of bringing too many Apple apps over to Windows that people wont have any reason to use OS X, since they can already find all their favorite iApps on Windows. :hysterical:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo... :D:wallbash:

If Apple does this it might even hurt them some! The reason being like erei33 said, Safari and iTunes for Windows aren't even CLOSE is smoothness, and "Just Working-ness" than the Mac OS X versions. If people try out the Windows iLife versions, and they suck, then they will get a bad idea about the Mac OS X versions. And anyway, iLife is a main selling point for Apple Consumer Computers, every box broadcasts the fact that it comes pre installed with iLife. Bottom line APPLE DON'T PORT ILIFE, IT COULD RUIN YOU!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually agree fully...

But why is it that iTunes and safari, which i think runs OK on SOME machines in my house, are so {censored}e on windows?

i wonder if there is any way we could actually destroy MS? could apple buy them out? or maybe silence them, that would REALLY be giving MS their own medicine then!

 

Think Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If iLife for Windows is anything like Safari or iTunes for Windows, I don't want it.

 

Agreed. Switching back and forth between Windows Vista and my 10.4.11 Hackintosh, Safari and iTunes are really crappy in Redmond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more apps Apple ports to Windows, the more Windows "just works". I can see why Apple would want to port iLife to Windows, to help it grow as a product and gain market share, but on the other hand, I'm sure they're also afraid of bringing too many Apple apps over to Windows that people wont have any reason to use OS X, since they can already find all their favorite iApps on Windows. ;)

 

</run_on_sentance>

Agree 110%

It's not just OS X but all the apps that make Macs special and appealing to joe user.

For the most part I think a large percentage of users could care less what OS is running as long as it performs like they want and it has the appropriate selection of useable apps. You give them iLife for Windows, why would they switch.

 

(There's a reason there is no MS Office port for Linux.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find iTunes to run at the same speed on both my mbp and pc. (10GB+ music library at 320kb/s ripped from cd's)

 

Safari i think you'll find is still a beta, so don't get bashing that too much just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A huge point has not been addressed: the money can make on iLife ported to Windows is not so much just the cost of the software.

 

But in addition to introducing a mac-like experience to soccer-moms and other fokls who might otherwise be afraid to 'try something different', it also provides the very lucrative bonus of all of the high margin photo developing tools that iLife has built in.

 

Has anyone here printed one of those little 'books' you can make with iLife '08?? I paid like $30 for a softcover magazine-like photo book detailing my recent trip to NYC. It was a blast to put it together, and each and every girl (and most guys) I have shown it to quickly get weepy/envious when I show it to them and they beg for me to show them how they can do so. It won't be my last 'book' print. And best I can tell, the only (at least the best) way to publish said book is by using Apple's publishing.

 

So, port iLife to Windows provides 1) a doorway to introduce Mac's to non-mac users (which will inevitably sell more macs), 2) additional revenue stream for a product that already has all the D&E dollars spent on it, and 3) provides recurring high-margin income.

 

I think its a no brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find iTunes to run at the same speed on both my mbp and pc. (10GB+ music library at 320kb/s ripped from cd's)
iTunes ran decently on my old HP, but it sure as hell runs faster on my MacBook. Except when adding to the library, that takes forever. It was real quick on the HP. (25+ GB music library)

 

A huge point has not been addressed: the money can make on iLife ported to Windows is not so much just the cost of the software.

 

But in addition to introducing a mac-like experience to soccer-moms and other fokls who might otherwise be afraid to 'try something different', it also provides the very lucrative bonus of all of the high margin photo developing tools that iLife has built in.

 

Has anyone here printed one of those little 'books' you can make with iLife '08?? I paid like $30 for a softcover magazine-like photo book detailing my recent trip to NYC. It was a blast to put it together, and each and every girl (and most guys) I have shown it to quickly get weepy/envious when I show it to them and they beg for me to show them how they can do so. It won't be my last 'book' print. And best I can tell, the only (at least the best) way to publish said book is by using Apple's publishing.

 

So, port iLife to Windows provides 1) a doorway to introduce Mac's to non-mac users (which will inevitably sell more macs), 2) additional revenue stream for a product that already has all the D&E dollars spent on it, and 3) provides recurring high-margin income.

 

I think its a no brainer.

The only thing is, how well is it really going to work in Windows? I mean seriously, it's Windows. I've only had a child's handful of programs work flawlessly in Windows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, port iLife to Windows provides 1) a doorway to introduce Mac's to non-mac users (which will inevitably sell more macs), 2) additional revenue stream for a product that already has all the D&E dollars spent on it, and 3) provides recurring high-margin income.

 

I think its a no brainer.

1) If the best Apple apps are ported, why switch?

2) You're talking about changing from a Cocoa based app to a using whatever the API is called in Vista. Sure core functionality may be the similar but still a fair amount of work.

3) Apple still is foremost a hardware company. Do you want to risk even higher returns from hardware sales for a higher quantity of lower profit software sales?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Vista rip-off doesn't count.

well, i don't consider it a rip-off... Give lil' billy Willy his credit. it took him a good 45 minutes to port iLife 06 to Vista, then change its theme.

Took him a day to make a new chess board for Vista too...OS X Version was too darn good!

but, if you have a tablet PC, and your running WMM in vista, smack the side of your tablet, and there is iMovie. :P

 

Think Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this thread and your thoughts interesting. Here's my replies:

 

1) If the best Apple apps are ported, why switch?

 

Because you can't get 'em to switch if you don't give them a reason. I liken it to a drug dealer giving away free samples, only in this analogy, the dealr gets paid full retail and continues to make money off of the poor sap regardless of whether he buys (a Mac) or not.

 

2) You're talking about changing from a Cocoa based app to a using whatever the API is called in Vista. Sure core functionality may be the similar but still a fair amount of work.

 

Maybe so, but I just really believe it is worth it. It would be the marketing equivalent of Pepsi allowing one sip of every bottle of their soft drink to be Coke. At the end of the drink, I know I'm gonna be thinking - man, that Pepsi tastes horrible compared to that one sip of Coke I just had!

 

3) Apple still is foremost a hardware company. Do you want to risk even higher returns from hardware sales for a higher quantity of lower profit software sales?

 

Back to answer #1 - Yes - they are primarily a hardware company, and I cannot think of a better way to get a feel for a mac in a zillion users' hands then by releasing iLife to the masses. See, I believe very few folks are gonna throw their current machine in the garbage to go buy a mac. It takes lots of hinting and prying to force them to simply consider a Mac the next time they go to replace their machine. ILife on their current machine will be a constant , tangible reminder of why they should make the switch, and it is easier to sell product with a tangible then it is to sell a product on hype, or perception.

 

Aside from that, while I can't back it up with hard data, I would have to challenge the idea that their hardware has higher margin than does the software. But the strategy would be to sell more software (to Windows users) in order to sell more hardware (to soon-to-be NON-Windows-users).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. Switching back and forth between Windows Vista and my 10.4.11 Hackintosh, Safari and iTunes are really crappy in Redmond.

 

Do you guys just mean speed or in interface (on iTunes)? Reason I ask is that for the life if me I can't find a difference at all in the interfaces.

 

As to speed, on music they both work the same, butyeah, on VIDEO files, for Windows iTunes sucks. My desktop Windows XP machine listed below in my sig can play iTunes video OK, but it's a bit jumpy. My Vista laptop (which has plenty decent enough horsepower) below can't play an iTunes video even watchably. It's like they are playing at 5 fps. That's with the newest iTunes, newest Quicktime, all Windows updates, and the newest drivers I can find. The Hackintosh plays them just fine (the G4 I've not tried video on, but it does fine for music).

 

Safari I played around with briefly but quickly lost interest. I don't even use it on the Macs (I still prefer Firefox, even over Camino because of a few interface issues and the plugins situation).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would suck, just like as previously stated, safari and itunes on windows. I mean come on. I can convert a song in windows itunes to 128kbps mp3 from 320kbps mp3 vbr @ 36.7x. Same song, settings, etc on os x: 51.3x. now, ilife for linux? I'm interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more apps Apple ports to Windows, the more Windows "just works". I can see why Apple would want to port iLife to Windows, to help it grow as a product and gain market share, but on the other hand, I'm sure they're also afraid of bringing too many Apple apps over to Windows that people wont have any reason to use OS X, since they can already find all their favorite iApps on Windows. :P

 

</run_on_sentance>

 

 

lol i agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took him a day to make a new chess board for Vista too...OS X Version was too darn good!

A lot of Linux distrobutions include Chess, surely those are also OS X rips. Also, Microsoft didn't develop the 'Chess Titans' thats included with Vista: Oberon Games did.

Safari and iTunes don't suck on Windows because it's Windows, they suck on Windows because they're {censored} ports. They don't fit in with Windows's GUI at all, and overall are so much slower than their Mac counterparts. iTunes on my Mini G4 runs faster than iTunes on Vista, Apple really needs to fix that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...