Why Hasn’t Apple Acquired Parallels?
Virtualization is a huge opportunity for Apple. So, the question is: why hasn’t Apple acquired Parallels, which is the virtualization software for Mac OS X? I’m struggling to think of a good reason…
If Leopard had killer virtualization built in, it would be huge news…but, somehow, I don’t think will. If Apple bought Parallels, it could accelerate the integration of virtualization into Mac OS X, which could fuel significant growth in hardware sales for the company; so the acquisition would be far from a zero sum game…
Asam Bashir wrote:
Parallels v 3 is screaming, support for Direct X and Open GL acceleration. It’s really is an amazing product that screen shots will not give justice to, you have to see it in action, especially in Windows coherence mode where you loose the Windows desktop and just get the .exes in floating windows.
The reason Apple hasn’t bought Parallels is simple, it would strain it’s relationship with Microsoft. It would have to deal directly with Microsoft and negotiate bundling of Windows products. Apple has to keep up very good relations with Microsoft and the MacBU, ensuring continued development of Office. If Parallels was integrated into the core of Leopard, then what would stop Microsoft using the argument that its Office.exe product would work fine in Leopard so why bother developing a Mac OS X version.
MS is a monster that needs to be treated with caution, it could turn rabid at anytime.
Jobs had to be very diplomatic in the recent interview with Walt Mossberg, you can imagine what Jobs is thinking behind the scenes but he had to grit is teeth and play the part,
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid958634947
Full hour and half interview video available as 1 GB download in iTunes,
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=256972720
Posted 08 Jun 2007 at 2:34 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Parallels is the clear winner for consumer solutions, but VMWare and Crossover not doing a bad job for enterprise and gamer markets respectively. Virtualization is very advanced and very healthy on the Mac OS X platform….
Posted 08 Jun 2007 at 2:36 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
Quake 4.exe in Parallels,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWU4DTOP9ys
Posted 08 Jun 2007 at 2:42 pm ¶
Asam Bashir wrote:
PS, didn’t hear your views on the slip up by Schwartz publicly stating ZFS+ is option on Leopard,
http://www.sun.com/jsp_utils/rvideo.jsp?video=74cd4547-01df-440b-823d-48878ae34c73
We’ve known that ZFS+ was an option since it was showing up in options (although it was disabled) but the confusion at the moment is if it will be the default file system as stated by Schwartz or just an option. Making it default would cause problems with consumers we think and not Apple style to make such a huge jump as opposed to slow phasing in like the HFS to HFS+ and journeled systems. But as an option, sure to please a lot of sysadmins in Enterprise….
Posted 08 Jun 2007 at 3:11 pm ¶
simon wrote:
Well, I have no idea if ZFS will be the default file system in Mac OS X (and that’s not what I took from Jonathan’s presentation). I guess, if Apple can get their port working well enough, it will be the default. If it doesn’t, it won’t.
There’s nothing intrinsic about ZFS that makes it “unsuitable” as a consumer file system though, I don’t think. It’s easy to confuse particular implementations with intrinsic properties - and I’ve seen a lot of people doing that in recent months. I believe that Apple has written a pretty nice GUI on top of ZFS that makes it rather easy to use (consumers don’t like command line interfaces).
I’d expect Apple to do something interesting in the home storage area if their ZFS implementation is up to scratch, ‘cos it opens up some pretty interesting opportunities for large-scale (multi-TB) storage in the home.
Posted 08 Jun 2007 at 4:02 pm ¶