macnews.net.tc
2007-04-19
AppleMatters thinks iPhoto for Windows
The matter of Apple's software on Windows comes up a couple of times a year. Sometimes it's Safari for Windows, sometimes iPhoto or iWork (after all, Apple _did_ sell ClarisWorks/AppleWorks for Windows...). But Apple hasn't got much reason to embrace Windows even more. Apple's money is not in selling cheap software for Windows. It's not even in selling cheap software (like iWork and iLife) on the Mac. It's mainly in the hardware. The reason Apple does Quicktime and iTunes for Windows is clear: Those are required for where _more_ money lies: The iTunes Store. (The AppleMatters article mentions that as well.)
The article is based on the thought that Apple wants to _control_ the experience of Apple TV. Why let photos be handled by 3rd party software like Adobe Album or Adobe Photoshop Elements, they're asking. Well: Because they work just fine for this task. When Apple used 3rd party software for controlling the iPod on Windows, that software simply was a sub-par experience for the user. And: Photos are not _the_ integral part of Apple TV, anyway. It's a nice addition. Even more importantly, however: Such a thought would not have come up only with Apple TV, but with the iPod before that. The iPod has had photo capabilities for years now. 4th generation iPod photo, anyone? But Apple's focus clearly is on iTunes here. The halo-effect of iPhoto would certainly not be as big as the iPod's or iTunes' for one. Rather, iPhoto is one of the tools that you get for free with a Mac, and that's one good reason _not_ to make iPhoto for Windows.
Basically, I merely want to state that the linked article is, quite probably, on the wrong track.
"With Apple TV, now it makes sense." - Nope. The Apple TV may sell a few devices, but the iPod has had a big market for years, without Apple creating iPhoto for Windows. No, no, no. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 13:57 [article link]
The article is based on the thought that Apple wants to _control_ the experience of Apple TV. Why let photos be handled by 3rd party software like Adobe Album or Adobe Photoshop Elements, they're asking. Well: Because they work just fine for this task. When Apple used 3rd party software for controlling the iPod on Windows, that software simply was a sub-par experience for the user. And: Photos are not _the_ integral part of Apple TV, anyway. It's a nice addition. Even more importantly, however: Such a thought would not have come up only with Apple TV, but with the iPod before that. The iPod has had photo capabilities for years now. 4th generation iPod photo, anyone? But Apple's focus clearly is on iTunes here. The halo-effect of iPhoto would certainly not be as big as the iPod's or iTunes' for one. Rather, iPhoto is one of the tools that you get for free with a Mac, and that's one good reason _not_ to make iPhoto for Windows.
Basically, I merely want to state that the linked article is, quite probably, on the wrong track.
"With Apple TV, now it makes sense." - Nope. The Apple TV may sell a few devices, but the iPod has had a big market for years, without Apple creating iPhoto for Windows. No, no, no. - posted by Patrick Armbruster @ 13:57 [article link]
