Apple to buy Parallels.

[MRU]

Well that's what I'm speculating.

So with Apple now freely advertising Parallels and seemingly forgetting to mention bootcamp on their revised advertisments, I'm hazarding a guess that it wont be long before Apple buy up parallels completely, and use it as a base for virtualization in its forthcoming 10.5

Apple have a history of buying software companies out like this 'logic' etc... so it's not too far beyond the realms of possibility.

What do you guys/gals think?

Notice on the bottom apple pluging parallels whre it used to say bootcamp now....

 

[mkrishnan]

I think it's possible.... but I also don't think a bootcamp like option will disappear from the way Apple does things unless / until the graphics card and USB type issues are resolved. But it would be pretty amazing if OS X had an out-of-the-box virtualization technology.

As for BootCamp, too, as is, it's a *finished* product, right? I mean it's a beta, but it lacks only really two or three small things, such as iSight drivers. And if it got those, it's basically a done deal. There's nothing to update, because there's nothing else that's not already there.

My personal theory is that the solution Apple will bow with will involve an OS X that can safe sleep, allow a transition to the other OS, and then wake up, so that if hibernation is also used on the Windows side, one can have both OSes retain their states, transition fairly quickly (~10 seconds, or perhaps significantly less if Apple is creative), and have each OS have full system resource access.

 

[Monkaaay]

I wouldn't be too surprised. I think it's a very good assumption.

I'm excited to see what Apple could do with that technology given the fact they've built the underlying operating system it will run on. Consider how deeply integrated they could make virtualization in future OS X releases if they bought Parallels. It would be wonderful if you could switch desktops between two completely different operating systems with the click of a button.

 

[netdog]

I posted the same at Parallels a couple of months ago. Now I wonder if they will make something more like CrossOver, but this is still a possibility.

 

[MRU]

Now microsoft own Virtual PC it would be an ironic twist if Apple do buy parallels, a product 10x better than VPC.

We all know Apple have been saying they will make virtualization a part of leopard, now a company has a strong reliable product that can do the job now, it's probably easier and cheaper just to snap them up and I imagine parallels team is probably very small (15 people tops) so it's a handy way of getting the talent they need to look after that side of leopard OS X.

The more I think about it, the more inevitable it seems.

 

[codo]

But... Realistically - If virtualisation is integrated into 10.5, Apple developers would have to be chugging along by now, surly? If Apple wanted to use Parallels' technology, wouldn’t they have had to acquire them by now or in the very near future?

This makes me think Apple is developing their own, if indeed the said technology is in Leopard.

 

[dmw007]

Apple buying Parallels seems likely a very possible outcome in my opinion.

 

[MRU]

This makes me think Apple is developing their own, if indeed the said technology is in Leopard.

They could be working on it, BUT.... why would apple advertise Parallels rather than Bootcamp?

Why did they release the bootcamp BETA rather than a virtualization BETA?

I think they have seen the work the Parallels teams has done and realised it would be cheaper just to go with what they are doing and invest in a company & team getting it to work NOW rather than keep investing in a team that have yet to realise their brief....

It's not the first time, Apple bought Logic, and with that aquisition we have loads of spin off products in Apples range like Soundtrack Pro & Garageband.

Buying Parallels and just turning the product into a part and parcel of the mac operating system seems guaranteed to me.

 

[codo]

They could be working on it, BUT.... why would apple advertise Parallels rather than Bootcamp?

Why did they release the bootcamp BETA rather than a virtualization BETA?

I think they have seen the work the Parallels teams has done and realised it would be cheaper just to go with what they are doing and invest in a company & team getting it to work NOW rather than keep investing in a team that have yet to realise their brief....

Possibly. But... Boot Camp is a BETA - They may not have wanted to advertise it to the general public at the risk of thousands of technical support issues.

As for not releasing a virtualisation beta - Who knows how they plan to integrate the technology into 10.5. It may be SO integrated into the new operating system; it may not possible to release it as a BETA for Tiger. Maybe they released Boot Camp to boost shares, send a message to PC manufacturers, get the tech pundits foaming at the mouth, get the press writing fabulous articles or entice possible market share.

The functionality of Boot Camp we see now does not rule future functionality in 10.5 – e.g. Virtualisation.

I don’t doubt that buying Parallels sounds very viable - However, it just seems too late if the technology is going to be integrated into an operating system being released within 4-6 months. Surly Apple has been working on this thing for over a year? They are previewing it in a month and a half!

Apple could buy Parallels and offer the software as an extra or just a pre-installed app - But surly not integration into the OS? It just seems too late considering the time and legal malarkey it takes to acquire company.

I hope Apple prove my negative brain wrong, I would love to see it

 

[MacDonaldsd]

I think so, there must be some deal going on anyway between apple and people who make parrallels.

Maybe we will get boot camp and parrallels with 10.5

 

[treblah]

Apple is not going to buy Parallels. If you think Apple does not have the resources to make a virtualization machine for OS X you are…

I think Apple is advertising the easiest and 'best for 99% of the public' solution just to get the word out. Then at WWDC if virtualization is apart of the core OS, Apple will have given Parallels some business before wiping them off the face of the map.

If Leopard does not include virtualization, or if it requires new Intel hardware not yet released, Parallels will still be the best solution for most.

And you people need to realize that BootCamp is nothing more than a GUI for partition resizing and Windows drivers. It is pure marketing. The Beta means nothing. The only thing that would make it 'final' would be updated Windows drivers. You don't even need BootCamp to install Windows to a different partition. The real story of BootCamp was the new EFI with BIOS compatibly layer and now that it is shipping with every new Mac, well you get the picture.

 

[mkrishnan]

Apple is not going to buy Parallels. If you think Apple does not have the resources to make a virtualization machine for OS X you are…

It isn't a resources issue, though. If you think that Apple would not purchase the software for the iPod, but would develop it in-house, as they clearly have the resources...well...erm...unless I'm mistaken, it's outsourced.

If someone has a perfectly good solution, and they're a small company, a deal can make a lot of sense. It avoids patent wrangling, and it makes everyone happy. And Apple can complement Parallels with its vast resources in terms of software designers and engineers....

 

[dejo]

Can the mods change the title of this thread to "Speculation: Apple to buy Parallels?" The original is just plain deceiving...

 

[dongmin]

Can the mods change the title of this thread to "Speculation: Apple to buy Parallels?" The original is just plain deceiving...

Agreed. Demi-Gods should know better than to start a thread with a misleading title like that.

Back on point: I doubt Apple is gonna buy up Parallels any time soon. Parallel's development process was VERY public. If they were in negotiations with Apple, I don't think the process would've been that public.

One other possibility, though, is that Apple will adopt QEMU and take it to the next level. QEMU development really slowed down in the last few months. It may very well be because Apple hired the main developers of QEMU-OSX. Apple has been adopting open standards lately so QEMU is right up their alley. DARWINE is another possibility along those lines. And of course there is the Intel consumer-grade virtualization patent that's been making the rounds.

Boot Camp is a clear clear indicator that they have virtualization-type technologies in the labs. Hopefully, they won't just stop at Boot Camp.

 

[treblah]

It isn't a resources issue, though. If you think that Apple would not purchase the software for the iPod, but would develop it in-house, as they clearly have the resources...well...erm...unless I'm mistaken, it's outsourced.

If someone has a perfectly good solution, and they're a small company, a deal can make a lot of sense. It avoids patent wrangling, and it makes everyone happy. And Apple can complement Parallels with its vast resources in terms of software designers and engineers....

The only way that it would make sense is if Apple all of sudden decided to add virtualization to Leopard. More than likely the engineers have been working on something VMware-ish for Leopard since June '05, if not before.

BTW, the iPod was not outsourced. Tony Fadell shopped the idea to Apple who contracted him to design and create it. AFAIK, all of the software was made in house.

 

[benthewraith]

Agreed. Demi-Gods should know better than to start a thread with a misleading title like that.

Back on point: I doubt Apple is gonna buy up Parallels any time soon. Parallel's development process was VERY public. If they were in negotiations with Apple, I don't think the process would've been that public.

One other possibility, though, is that Apple will adopt QEMU and take it to the next level. QEMU development really slowed down in the last few months. It may very well be because Apple hired the main developers of QEMU-OSX. Apple has been adopting open standards lately so QEMU is right up their alley. DARWINE is another possibility along those lines. And of course there is the Intel consumer-grade virtualization patent that's been making the rounds.

Boot Camp is a clear clear indicator that they have virtualization-type technologies in the labs. Hopefully, they won't just stop at Boot Camp.

Wouldn't it be better to try and find a way to run Windows applications natively in OS X?

 

[wako]

I find it IMPOSSIBLE that Apple will be buying the company who makes Parallels. I can see them partnering up against Microsoft and VMWare, but a complete buy over? Unlikely.

Why? Well Parallels also makes the Software for PC, which are mostly for Servers and workstations. Those three areas are where Apple wont be setting foot in because it doesnt fit Apple's niche. Hence how Xserves flopped and they dont even really bother marketing that anymore.

 

[mkrishnan]

BTW, the iPod was not outsourced. Tony Fadell shopped the idea to Apple who contracted him to design and create it. AFAIK, all of the software was made in house.

I was under the impression that the iPod software was, at least originally, designed by Pixo and PortalPlayer, as stated in the Wikipedia article...and that Fadell and his team served more as integrator and managers....

As for Parallels...I do understand what you're saying about Apple's developmental timescale. If their plan was to roll out some kind of virtualization in Leopard, their timeline could not be consistent with purchasing or teaming up with Parallels. However, even if they don't need much of their code, just from an IP standpoint, teaming up could be a LOT easier for them in the long term, just to get the patents, and then make the Parallels people work on whatever variety of the technology that Apple decides to go with (or even develop an in-house B-plan just in case the Parallels method turns out to be better in the long run somehow).

 

[MRU]

Can the mods change the title of this thread to "Speculation: Apple to buy Parallels?" The original is just plain deceiving...

My grandmother always said, if youve got nothing nice to say, dont say anything at all You wasted a whole post just to bitch about the thread title. Sheesh

Agreed. Demi-Gods should know better than to start a thread with a misleading title like that..

Sometimes a demi-god knows how to post a thread which will spark controversy and discussion

This WHOLE site is MacRumors lad's come on!

-------------------

Back on topic.

In response to WAKO I really dont see why buying them would be unfeasable.
Apple has bought plenty of pc/mac software developers and made them apple only. Emagic for example. They were doing a roaring trade on pc and mac and Apple just snapped them up. And in the process got a bunch of apps from one purchase.

As for 10.5 being too long in development. Maybe, maybe not. If the new os doesnt come out for another 8 months to coincide with Vista (Feb/Maech 07) that leaves plenty of time.

Remember an aquisition like parallels isnt just about buying the product. It's about getting the staff and talent who can manage such an ambitious project. Parallels staff would be a sweet asset to Apple, period...

 

[topgunn]

The reason Apple released Boot Camp is because users were already getting Windows running on their Macs and Apple figured it was for the best if they went ahead and released a "beta" before people really started screwing up their machines.

Apple will not buy Parallels because Apple has something better in store. The agreement made in '97 between Apple and Microsoft allowed both companies access to each others technologies. Microsoft of course got all sorts of goodies for Windows but Apple got something too. In '02, just months before the agreement expired, Microsoft released Windows XP. Apple had full access to ALL of XP's API's, a set of routines that lets an application gain access to lower-level services provided by the OS. If Apple chooses to implement these API's into Leopard, you will not even need Windows (or Parallels) to run Windows applications. They will just work.

"I'm told Apple has long had this running in the Cupertino lab -- Intel Macs running OS X while mixing Apple and XP applications. This is not a guess or a rumor, this something that has been demonstrated and observed by people who have since reported to me," Cringely writes. "Think of the implications. A souped-up OS X kernel with native Windows API support and the prospect of mixing and matching Windows and Mac applications would be, for many users, the best of both worlds. There would be no copy of Windows XP to buy, no large overhead of emulation or compatibility middleware, no chance for Microsoft to accidentally screw things up, substantially better security, and no need to even take a chance on Windows Vista."

The above quote is from this article.

 

[Phobophobia]

How do you know that Apple doesn't have its own virtualization software? They could just be waiting until Leopard is revealed to tell us about it.

 

[wako]

-------------------

Back on topic.

In response to WAKO I really dont see why buying them would be unfeasable.
Apple has bought plenty of pc/mac software developers and made them apple only. Emagic for example. They were doing a roaring trade on pc and mac and Apple just snapped them up. And in the process got a bunch of apps from one purchase.

Im not too familiar with Apples other purchases but it is a huge logistical nightmare to buy a medium sized corporation and then divert all the attention to an Apple exclusive. It is also a bad investment.

A bit far fetched example would be EA acquiring the small developer companies. They buy them over and try to make them work for them only and what they want them to do. In the end the small companies will die within the large company. This happened to the company Westwood, the people who brought us Command and Conquer.

Its a lot of money to buy a company over to specific platform. A partnership between companies is much easier and much more cost effective.

 

[benthewraith]

This happened to the company Westwood, the people who brought us Command and Conquer.

And continuously promise us a Red Alert 3 that is made and then broken each and everyday.

 

[wako]

EA has been promising... Westwood is gone... it was closed and absorbed by EA in 2003

 

[kumbaya]

The reason Apple released Boot Camp is because users were already getting Windows running on their Macs and Apple figured it was for the best if they went ahead and released a "beta" before people really started screwing up their machines.

Apple will not buy Parallels because Apple has something better in store. The agreement made in '97 between Apple and Microsoft allowed both companies access to each others technologies. Microsoft of course got all sorts of goodies for Windows but Apple got something too. In '02, just months before the agreement expired, Microsoft released Windows XP. Apple had full access to ALL of XP's API's, a set of routines that lets an application gain access to lower-level services provided by the OS. If Apple chooses to implement these API's into Leopard, you will not even need Windows (or Parallels) to run Windows applications. They will just work.



The above quote is from this article.

This seems the most likely. So for Tiger and before, we would need to buy Parallels to emulate Windows in OSX, but for Leopard on out, we could just load Windows programmes and go!

But, would that apply to Vista programmes? I get the impression that Vista is nothing more than XP Service Pack 3? Is that right?