Apple To Port More Apps To Windows? NEVER!

With the apparent success of iTunes for Windows folks are beginning to opine that Apple should port other applications to the Windows platform. A couple of quick examples: A pot stirrer at AppleMatters thinks a Safari port is in order and a BusinessWeek writer suggests the same treatment for iPhoto. At this point I wonder: What are these folks smoking and where can I get some of that feel groovy stuff? The writers of these missives weren�t selfish Windows users fed up with the shortcomings of said platform (note: I don�t hate Windows, it�s a perfectly serviceable operating system in my opinion) the writers were suggesting that ports of these apps would help move Macs and/or make Apple scads of cash. I think it would be wise to trust Apple on which apps to port, heck they get paid for figuring out questions like this and so far they�re doing a nice job.

iTunes for Windows made sense, it drives the sale of iPods and establishes the AAC format as a major player. Porting Safari doesn�t make sense, it�s free so no big cash influx, all Apple gets out of the deal is added support costs. The author argues that Safari�s superiority will make Windows users jump over to the Mac side. Well intentioned to be sure, but here�s the rub: Many many folks only use their computer for the internet. If you�re one of the many folks for whom a computer is just an internet gateway then having Safari on Windows is tantamount to having a Mac. Sure I like Mail a little better than Outlook, but not enough to base a buying decision on it. Hence by porting Safari to Windows Apple will have basically given a Mac to a vast number of Windows users for free. Or maybe not, most folks just go with whatever comes in the box so I doubt that Safari would make significant inroads into the Windows browser arena. In any event porting Safari to Windows is a lose, lose, lose situation, much like Detroit Lions Football.

But what about iPhoto, surely you could sell iPhoto for a few bucks and add the profit to Apple�s already bulging coffers? It might work but then you�ve given away a good chunk of the reason to buy a Mac. iTunes is great, iPhoto doesn�t do much for me but plenty of folks love it. What percentage of Mac users would jump ship to the cheap PC�s if iTunes and iPhoto were available? As awe inspiring as iMovie is most folks don�t mess with it much because it takes a big investment of time away from the computer (filming and such) with an even bigger investment time if front of the computer. If you�re not messing about with iMovie then you�re not poking around with iDVD and that pretty much kills the digital hub idea. Thus shiny new Apple iMacs have to compete with more cheaply priced (but less able) Windows based machines.

Some might argue that Macs will still sell even with all the apps ported to Windows, heck Macs have cool styling and a rock solid BSD core, right? Well, the two most common lies are �this car�s paid for� and �People buy Macs for the styling�. Very few people buy Macs for the styling. People buy new computers for two reasons: it can do something the computer they currently have can�t OR it can do the same stuff as their current computer only faster. Being faster doesn�t only include clock speed it also includes ease of use. Apple ported programs would be pretty simple to use on the PC (I�d wager) and that kills one more reason to buy a Mac. Not that I�m saying Mac styling is completely irrelevant, it�s a nice feature but it�s not going to get computers out of the back corner of CompUSA and into the Saab on it�s own. And, if we dwell in reality for a moment, how many people really know what an operating system like OS X is really all about? Not many, most people assume it�s a Windows wannabe. Sad but true. The only reasonable conclusion to draw? Apps sell Macs, give away the iApps you might as well forget the Mac.