Prediction: the iPhone will lead to more software on Windows

[Vinnie_vw]

One of the biggest hurdles the iPod had upon launch, was that it was made for Mac-users only. Then iTunes for Windows came and the iPod became a huge hit. I think it is likely that Apple learned from this and is developing software that will integrate the iPhone with applications on Windows.

What applications? Why the ones we're all waiting for: iLife and iWorks. Meaning that with the iPhone, I think that Apple will enter the business-market with fully integrated suites, allowing for Windows-users to do their excel-sheets, docs, presentations, manipulate photo's and listen to music, and transport these onto the iPhone, as well as lead to many a future Mac-sale.

If this were not to happen, I think the adoption-reate amongst windows-orientated businesses would be very, very low.

So in June, I expect there to be little in hardware-announcements, except for the iPhone and 1 big bomb: iLife/iWorks for Windows.

Brilliant, if I say so myself.

 

[TheAnswer]

Except for the fact that their whole ad campaign for the last two years has been about how iLife makes the Mac special. It's been that the PC hates doing these things and that's why they are so much easier on a Mac. The aren't going to throw away all that advertising just to prove themselves wrong. Not to mention the idea of sacrificing Mac hardware sales to pedal $79 software packages to windows users. Not going to happen.

 

[Xeem]

iTunes was made available to Windows because the iPod needed it to sell. The iPhone, on the other hand, would not benefit very much from iLife on Windows because I believe it is targeting the Blackberry crowd, which generally asks only for good calendar and mail synchronization.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

Well I blogged about it here with some more arguments, so you can send me all your love-and hate-comments there as well

As far as Blackberry goes, why target a niche-market if you can target a mass-market? And as far as iLife (if that will happen) eating away at Mac-sales goes, it could be a very limited software that they are selling or giving away with the iPhone.

I also don't see iLife or -works as the one reason why people go to Macs either, at least not my reason. People go for the elegance and integration (I ignore pro-sumers here). So why not give them a little taste of that and make them yearn for the true mac-experience (where they can continue to experience their Windows if they like). I really see little downsides here.

Good point about the calendaring though.

If the iPod got people to use more Macs, imagine what the iPhone can achieve.

 

[MOFS]

One of the biggest hurdles the iPod had upon launch, was that it was made for Mac-users only. Then iTunes for Windows came and the iPod became a huge hit. I think it is likely that Apple learned from this and is developing software that will integrate the iPhone with applications on Windows.

What applications? Why the ones we're all waiting for: iLife and iWorks. Meaning that with the iPhone, I think that Apple will enter the business-market with fully integrated suites, allowing for Windows-users to do their excel-sheets, docs, presentations, manipulate photo's and listen to music, and transport these onto the iPhone, as well as lead to many a future Mac-sale.

If this were not to happen, I think the adoption-reate amongst windows-orientated businesses would be very, very low.

So in June, I expect there to be little in hardware-announcements, except for the iPhone and 1 big bomb: iLife/iWorks for Windows.

Brilliant, if I say so myself.

tbh i think you've got it the wrong way round. I think iWork has been delayed to work on the iPhone, but as a Microsoft Office alternative on it. That way you can put a spreadsheet with the suite without pissing off Microsoft and risk losing Office for Mac. By getting people used to iWork on their iPhones, Apple might be able to install a user base that realises that there is an alternative outside of Microsoft.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

I'm not sure, of course, but my assumption is that iWorks is supposed to work on the iPhone in some way. The question is though, why try to integrate the Apple-software on the iPhone with the mess that is the Microsoft-suite, if instead you can supply users with nice integrated cross-platform software, like e.g. iTunes? The iPod could've also been made compatible with Windows Media Player, hypothetically speaking and ignoring the store for a moment, but they chose to develop an integrated solution for it.

If you look at it from a switcher's perspective, anyone coming to a Mac will automatically buy Office. It's a given. And if I, as a former Windows-user, compare Pages to Word, etc., I am frankly not impressed. But by delivering high-class Office-software (assuming that '07 or '08 delivers significant updates) with the iPhone, you "train" new users to work with Apple-software and undercut a prime MS-product. That's a lot of win for Apple, if you ask me.

As far as iLife and all these labels go, I'm not 100% sure how that will work and it's possible that if all this happens it will be marketed differently, more towards business-use, rather than recreational. I do think that the whole Apple-philosophy is very much based on providing integrated solutions, and not a quasi-fit with what Windows has to offer.

As I mentioned on the blog, I also think it's a way to beat the blackberry's et. all who (at least until recently—coincidental?) remained on their mobile platforms and offer significant advantages over choosing a cheaper phone.

I am, of course, completely taking a business-perspective on this and not that of a Mac-fan. To me this makes strategic-sense, certainly if Apple is aiming at creating a professional product.

 

[ero87]

if an iLife for windows is realeased, vinne_vw, i'll give you my left arm.

no way. see TheAnswer's post.

what WILL happen is we'll see some iPhone halo effect - people will love how powerful and easy-to-use their iPhone is, and will get a mac to match it!

 

[Dunepilot]

iTunes was made available to Windows because the iPod needed it to sell.

Actually I think it was selling fine, but that Apple didn't think MusicMatch Jukebox was sufficiently high-quality to be paired with the iPod in the long-term. Controlling the whole widget and all that. Then there's the iTMS that followed which also couldn't have been done using someone else's software.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

if an iLife for windows is realeased, vinne_vw, i'll give you my left arm.

Does that bet include iWork? And can you keep your watch attached when you send it please. That way, I'll at least make some money. Cash for flesh market has been kind of low these days.

And as far as halo-effect goes. Again, the iPhone is not the iPod, nor is it marketed as such. It is supposed to be a business-phone and businesses like integrated things. They won't go, hey cool phone, can I get a Mac with that? They'll go, cool phone, but does it work with my software? I think we're both wishfully thinking, just my thinking goes in a different direction from yours.

Thanks for your comment, Dunepilot. I actually found it difficult to find out information about it via Google and such. I would sure appreciate if someone has some information about what exactly happened there. I think I picked this anecdote up from Macbreak-podcast up or similar. From my understanding, it was selling fine to Mac-users and had a fairly low adoption-rate amongst Windows-users, until it was made compatible.

Results for the poll are looking good. Talk about reaching the right target-audience. Apple software on Windows? No Way!

 

[Dunepilot]

Here's how it happened:

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/17ipod.html

 

[iscripter]

Not going to happen

Except for the fact that their whole ad campaign for the last two years has been about how iLife makes the Mac special. It's been that the PC hates doing these things and that's why they are so much easier on a Mac. The aren't going to throw away all that advertising just to prove themselves wrong. Not to mention the idea of sacrificing Mac hardware sales to pedal $79 software packages to windows users. Not going to happen.

I have to agree this simply is not going to happen.
Apple will probably partner with the company that makes the Missing Sync software and have them make a sync component for Windows users that they can buy separately or they might even bundle it with the phone.

 

[BlakTornado]

I can't see iLife or iWork being put on Windows but I can see it on the iPhone - iLife Lite and iWork Lite. It would make alot of sense.

Here's my opinion on how it would work: (the following is fiction)

iPhoto - Uses the built-in camera to take pictures and edit them afterwards
iMovie - Makes videos with the built in camera and allows you to do some simple editing afterwards
iTunes - Wouldn't be needed except to (possibly) connect to the store.
Garageband - Record stuff on the go
iWeb - update blogs and stuff when you're not near a computer

The only excluded item would be iDVD which wouldn't have any use on the iPhone.

iWork:

Pages - write stuff down when you need it. Finish the final touches on that report you needed to write for the meeting you're going to be involved with in 5 minutes. (And so on)
Keynote - Finish the presentation you need in the meeting your about to go into at the last minute... and so on. Also, present presentations to colleagues and stuff

End of fiction

So yeah, it would be cool to see something like that with the iPhone...

 

[whooleytoo]

The aren't going to throw away all that advertising just to prove themselves wrong. Not to mention the idea of sacrificing Mac hardware sales to pedal $79 software packages to windows users.

It's not as if they haven't contradicted themselves before. Remember Jobs saying how video on an iPod wouldn't work?

As for hardware vs software sales, it's not as straightforward as all that. If tomorrow 5% of the world went out and bought a Mac with iLife installed, and 95% bought iLife for their PC, I'm guessing Apple would make a lot more money from the PC side.

By and large, Apple has stayed relevant (and indeed thrived) by setting crucial standards in a few areas - QuickTime for media playback/production; AAC with Fairplay for online music sales, the iPod for portable music. None of these products (and the other Apple products that rely on them) would have the same significance if they were Mac-only.

 

[Eraserhead]

Why not port iWork, I think that would just increase the chances of using it, I love iWork, though it's annoying that you have to use a Mac to open the files.

Though Open XML as the default file format would solve that problem too.

 

[GFLPraxis]

One of the biggest hurdles the iPod had upon launch, was that it was made for Mac-users only. Then iTunes for Windows came and the iPod became a huge hit. I think it is likely that Apple learned from this and is developing software that will integrate the iPhone with applications on Windows.

What applications? Why the ones we're all waiting for: iLife and iWorks. Meaning that with the iPhone, I think that Apple will enter the business-market with fully integrated suites, allowing for Windows-users to do their excel-sheets, docs, presentations, manipulate photo's and listen to music, and transport these onto the iPhone, as well as lead to many a future Mac-sale.

If this were not to happen, I think the adoption-reate amongst windows-orientated businesses would be very, very low.

So in June, I expect there to be little in hardware-announcements, except for the iPhone and 1 big bomb: iLife/iWorks for Windows.

Brilliant, if I say so myself.

The problem with iLife is that it is the killer app; the bundle that causes many people to buy Macs. I've personally seen Windows users buy Macs partially because of iLife.

iWork I could see, but I can't see Apple porting a killer Mac-exclusive app to Windows.


Because iWork uses proprietary formats, it makes sense to release it on Windows so that Windows users can open Pages and Keynote documents. iLife? Not so much.

 

[aLoC]

iWork has nothing to do with the iPhone. I think the big Mac app that may move to Windows when the iPhone comes out is iChat.

If the iPhone was as popular as the iPod say, and iChat was the only computer app that let you video chat with someone on one, a lot of people (Windows users) would install it. And then they would find all their friends had done so too, so why not just use it for all IM? (instead of Yahoo, MSN, AOL etc.)

If you want to think of it from a business perspective, the iPhone could be a trojan horse for taking over IM.

Another important point is that if iPhone was really popular, website authors would want to make their sites compatible with it. But it's browser is Safari, so at the same time they would be making their sites Mac compatible.

So suddenly, because of the iPhone, the Mac is a much more viable computer. Out of the box, it's web browser works with every major site, and it's IM app has a huge network.

 

[clevin]

windows platform already have too many similar apps, I don't see how apple can get in. apple's software products for windows normally don't get good reviews.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

Some very good points all. Here are some comments.

Thanks for the link to the story, Dunepilot, but I was thinking of more of an independent account of what happened. Not that the following examples are equal, but looking at Apple for history is kind of like asking Bush what really happened in Iraq. They may tell the truth, but I'd prefer to hear from someone that doesn't have a personal interest in romanticising certain aspects of the story.

Point 2. I think, I'll refrain from arguing for iLife on Windows, as it seems to hit a sore spot with some people. But really, why I abstain is because I'm talking about apps that are aimed at business-users, i.e. the boring accountant-type. iLife is more for a cool, hip, Mac-cat, I guess. That doesn't include me, as it really had nothing to do with my reasons for switching.

Point 3. The iWorks-lite is definitely a strong possibility and actually an underlying assumption of mine. Why sync with something that doesn't exist? That said, I'm not a firm believer in "halo" effect. I think business-users will prefer a flawless integration between the iPhone and their machines, regardless of whether it is a Mac or a PC, not just an elegant phone with that mysterious halo. The iPod would be worthless without iTunes.

Point 3. Is IM the killer-app for business-users? I know I use it in the context of my business-activities, but it's a marginal thing. I put much more value in email, skype, wordprocessing, excel, those kinds of things.

Point 4. My argument is pure speculation and there is one underlying assumption that I must adress. My reasoning very much depends on how easy it is to enter text on the iPhone. There is no point in putting an iWork-suite on PCs if there is no workable iWork on the iPhone.

And maybe Apple's studies have shown that all this "Work" is not the killer-app. In which case, I still think it would be a good venue to enter the PC-market with other apps that convince PC-users how elegant Apple's devices can work with each-other. And no, I don't think the iTunes-interface is enough to convince business-users that this is actually meant to be a serious product.

It would be a plus if Apple would find a way to displace the Office-monopoly, as when you get to the root of it, that really is the only place where the Microsoft-brand is still strong and it does affect the Mac in a significant way. Using a business-device to sneak in some for-business apps would be a unique opportunity.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

This historical account of the iPod seems to be more indepth: iLounge's Instant Expert: A Brief History of iPod.

Particularly this paragraph is interesting:

iPod sales were good but not fantastic until around the May 2003 release of the third-generation iPod, which marked a turning point in the sales history of the device. Prior to that release, Apple’s sales were directed initially towards a relatively small audience of Macintosh users, and even when a PC version of the iPod was released, its FireWire-only design limited its appeal to mainstream PC users.

And this one:

Though the history of the iTunes Music Store dates back only a year, there have been two important positive changes in its sales trends. The first was in October of 2003, starting with the release of the PC version of the Music Store. In December 2003, following a flurry of holiday season iPod purchases and media mentions, the second upward tilt began, dramatically accelerating the pace of iTunes Music sales. Apple hit the 100 million song mark in July, 2004, ahead of some expectations (but later than initial Apple predictions), and 150 million by October, 2004, a dramatically increased pace.

The key to the iPod's success was Windows. I think it will be the same for the iPhone.

 

[siurpeeman]

talks about how iphone is targeted towards business users.

the iphone is a consumer product. it isn't meant to be a blackberry replacement; it's the phone for all of us, not the business user. that said, spreadsheet and document editing isn't vital for everyday people, and an iwork-lite package won't be the killer app for the iphone. people want a phone that will make calls and browse the internet in a seamless package wrapped in os x gui goodness. that in itself should be the draw for windows users to go to the mac, not an iwork port for windows. if iwork does come out for windows, you can have ero87's arm, and you can have my leg.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

Wow, all those body-parts. I'm gonna be rich

As far as your opinion on it being a consumer-product goes, I'm sure many people will disagree, no matter if they agree with me or not.

 

[siurpeeman]

i'm not saying business users won't be interested in the product. they will, and they'll complain to no end that the iphone doesn't do everything they want it to do. but that's because apple is courting the consumer, not the business man.

 

[MikeDTyke]

One of the biggest hurdles the iPod had upon launch, was that it was made for Mac-users only.

<snip>... a load of bull ...</snip>

If this were not to happen, I think the adoption-reate amongst windows-orientated businesses would be very, very low.

So in June, I expect there to be little in hardware-announcements, except for the iPhone and 1 big bomb: iLife/iWorks for Windows.

Brilliant, if I say so myself.

Ok, stop drinking the crazy juice and listen for a second.

Steve showed you the application your going to get on windows for working with the iphone, it's called iTunes. Now whilst i personally think it's crazy to call something iTunes when it plays video, downloads podcasts, sync's email accounts, address books, calendars and photo's from either iPhoto or Photoshop elements. That's Apple's decision.

There may be (hoping) a mini pages/speadsheet application on the iPhone itself, but i'm betting it'll be more of a file viewer for MS format docs than the next great office suite.

M.

 

[Vinnie_vw]

@Mike: You may be right. I did say numerous times that my view depends on certain assumptions.

@siurpeeman: I think that the iPhone-keynote specified that the phone was aimed at the market that used smart-phones, so that's not your typical casual consumer. The price-point would also support that.

 

[slffl]

I think Apple is devling too much into Windows as it is. I'm sure getting the ipod and iphone to work nicely with Windows has taken a huge chunk of resources. And I don't like it. Stick with OSX Apple.