Apple to charge Tiger users for final Boot Camp release?

If we are to believe the "recent report MacScoop has obtained", Apple is getting greedy. It seems the company want more than just $1.99 for the software update that enables 802.11n wifi on its Intel Macs. Apple is supposedly planning to charge Mac OS X Tiger users for the final version of Boot Camp, expected to be released this Spring, along with Leopard. Final pricing was unclear, but speculation is around a $29 price tag.

Boot Camp, Apple's boot manager software that allows dual-booting of Windows and Mac OS X, will be one of the many features included in Leopard. So of course, many Tiger users will upgrade to Leopard anyways, and this shouldn't affect them. Nonetheless, what about those who aren't ready for Leopard?

News source: MacScoop

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Free mp3's brought to you by: Zune

Next Story

Floola 0.27 Beta

70 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

You don't need Boot Camp to run Windows on a Mac. All Intel Macs have firmware that handles the actual dual booting.
Boot Camp is a user-friendly setup wizard which makes things as easy as possible, but it isn't something you can't live without if you want to run Windows. Is it that hard to understand?!

Plus this isn't the first time Apple charged people for new features: Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar users could buy the iChat AV upgrade for €29,95, while Mac OS X 10.3 Panther came with it out of the box. Exact same story.

Gotta love how some people here still act like it's a totally new thing Apple pulls off. A company charges for it's services, get over it.

.Neo said,
Gotta love how some people here still act like it's a totally new thing Apple pulls off. A company charges for it's services, get over it.

it's that whole obsolescence thing... first they crapped on your hardware, now they're doing it to your software.

if people are soooo bothered by it, they could always run linux!

ikyouCrow said,

it's that whole obsolescence thing... first they crapped on your hardware, now they're doing it to your software.

How exactly did Apple "crap" on your hardware and now software?

.Neo said,
How exactly did Apple "crap" on your hardware and now software?

you can run os9.1 on a 6230CD but you can't run os9.2. i had two of those with s-video out and everything and apple was pretty much "screw that, buy this machine for a $1000 more". and this was back when macs were hella more expensive than regular pcs.

then they make you buy brand new hardware to run osx. i'm not saying that you can run osx on a 6230CD but the fanboys will have you think you can run osx on the oldest mac without any kind of delays/hanging/etc.

only the first version of osx would run on the old beige boxes, but after that you have to dig into your wallet again to run the "service packs" apple makes you pay for.

that was my reason for switching, affordable hardware with a better upgrade path and free "service packs".

queue the kerosene... i'm ready to get flamed.

This is perfectly acceptable in my book. Apple did the same thing with iChat in 2002 or 2003 (I forget which year exactly). You can't expect Apple to give Tiger users one of Leopard's biggest features for free.

If they were to give the Boot Camp software away for free to Tiger users but still make Leopard users pay for it, that would cause a whole heap of trouble. Same thing with those who are going to be buying Macs with 802.11n and those who've already got the capabilities in their Macs. Those who bought their Macs recently with 802.11n in them will have to pay for it, just like those buying new Macs once 802.11n is finallized.

Haha, I have to admit that Mac users seem to be way more forgiving of Apple when it comes to this sort of thing. Heck, people were up in arms about Microsoft making DirectX10 Vista-only.

This is how owning a Mac has always been though. If you want the latest software, you update to the latest OS. If you want to guarantee all the programs released for the Mac will work on your computer, you've got to update to the latest OS. It's not like Apple just started doing this.

Well, the Bootcamp beta does the trick so anyone who wants this free should get it now. If they are actually gonna charge for it ofcourse.

Term of License. The term of this License shall commence upon your installation or use of the Apple Software and will terminate automatically without notice from Apple upon the next commercial release of the Apple Software, or September 30, 2007, whichever occurs first. Your rights under this License will also terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

hhhmmmm if only there were dozens of 3rd party alternatives that were free and didnt require the latest updates and firmware.....

I'd like to reiterate this is a rumor. Until there's a price tag on it, I don't see the point in getting all worked up or changing buying decisions. It's not like the beta versions of the XP drivers will stop functioning once final arrives.

I was thinking of buying a mac, but now I'm starting to wonder...

I mean, sure, Windows is like 200-250$ to buy but it's once per 7-8 years...

aStRaLgOd said,
I was thinking of buying a mac, but now I'm starting to wonder...

I mean, sure, Windows is like 200-250$ to buy but it's once per 7-8 years...

Windows 95 - 98 (3 years)
Windows 98 - 2000 (2 and a half years)
Windows 2000 - XP ( 3 years)
Windows XP - Vista (3 and a half years)

NeoXY said,

Windows 95 - 98 (3 years)
Windows 98 - 2000 (2 and a half years)
Windows 2000 - XP ( 3 years)
Windows XP - Vista (3 and a half years)

You might want to recount those years to vista :P

NeoXY said,

ERUUUMM...

4...I'm sorry :laugh:


You're still one off. Windows XP was released Oct 21, 2001. Vista was RTM around Nov 2006 with a general release Jan 30, 2007. That's a bit over 5 years.

NeoXY said,

Windows 95 - 98 (3 years)
Windows 98 - 2000 (2 and a half years)
Windows 2000 - XP ( 3 years)
Windows XP - Vista (3 and a half years)

You forgot Windows ME

thenay said,

You forgot Windows ME ;)

No. There wasn't an ME. It didn't exist! It never existed I tell you! *fetal position*

Wasn't ME like $50 as an upgrade, though? It say between 98 and XP, same level as 2000, so we'll just ignore it for this....

lerum said,

You might want to recount those years to vista :P

He might want to rethink all the dates, or buy a calculator... XP was 2002.

NeoXY said,
No. There wasn't an ME. It didn't exist! It never existed I tell you! *fetal position*

damn, dude! i feel that, but...
therapy! :P

the old ****...

look at the forums, there is a couple of topics that have arguments against your "non-upgradable"-statement and others, so stop this crap in here, please. thanks.

I think azz0r_wugg is right. 50% profit for the iPhone and now this? Apple is and has always been greedy for profit, and if Microsoft tried to pull stuff like this there would be 40+ comments on this post about how "evil" they are...

typical mac user behavior.

enzo said,
I think azz0r_wugg is right. 50% profit for the iPhone and now this? Apple is and has always been greedy for profit, and if Microsoft tried to pull stuff like this there would be 40+ comments on this post about how "evil" they are...

typical mac user behavior.

Oh you must be kidding. Because Apple computers like everyone else is devoted in making top grade technology and than selling it at a price where they can't break even? Give me a break, a business is in business to make money. You wanna know how much it cost Apple to make an iPod? Wanna ask Nike how much it cost them to make a pair of shoes in a thrid world country before selling it to you for $150? Wanna ask how much it cost Tommy Hilfiger or American Eagle to make that $100+ pair of jeans? Give me a break. What if its a business strategy? Why should Apple spend their time and resource to develop something and give it away for free?

You people complaining about the price tag must be delusional. As if the company owe you something and must give you free software to keep you on board. If you don't want it, don't buy it and move on. I'm sure Apple (or any other company) don't need business from people that bitches about everything that cost money.

And you continue to defend apple. I highly doubt you'd make the same arguments for Microsoft if they were doing the same thing.

enzo said,
And you continue to defend apple. I highly doubt you'd make the same arguments for Microsoft if they were doing the same thing.

In fact I would. Just get over it, there is no "evil" computer corporation thats out there to get the world. Everyone needs to bring bacon on the table and if they have technology to share, and there is a demand for it, a transaction of money is as basic as it gets. Business 101. Microsoft charges $400 for Windows Vista, do you see me bitching about that? Microsoft will charge you another $300 for Office 2007, do you see me bitching about that? As a graphic designer I spend over $3000 for Adobe Creative Suite and another $1000 on Macromedia software, do you see me bitching about that? Apple will charge 29 for a piece of software that will open up ENDLESS possibilities on your Mac by allowing you to run Windows software and you bitch about it why? Because you were able to use a unstable, uncompleted version for free?

I'm not defending Apple here, I have been a MS beta tester for a LONG time but I also enjoy working on my Mac, the 29 dollar fee is simply what Apple is asking in return for the service they are providing to you. I don't see a problem? If you want to talk about evil corporations, talk about how Enron cheated billions out of their own employees retirement funds or talk about what some companies are willing to do to gain profit. Don't bitch at a company who is simply trying to sell a piece of software.

You don't understand my argument or the argument of the original poster. I'm not "bitching" as you say about the price of any product. Obviously a business has to make profit-inducing decisions if they want to continue to thrive as a business. I'm addressing the fact that there is a general bias against Microsoft, and a bias for Apple (especially from its users) that makes them seem like a much better company that's always doing the right thing.

enzo said,
You don't understand my argument or the argument of the original poster. I'm not "bitching" as you say about the price of any product. Obviously a business has to make profit-inducing decisions if they want to continue to thrive as a business. I'm addressing the fact that there is a general bias against Microsoft, and a bias for Apple (especially from its users) that makes them seem like a much better company that's always doing the right thing.

Sure I do, I got it right here...

"I think azz0r_wugg is right. 50% profit for the iPhone and now this? Apple is and has always been greedy for profit,"

No problem here if no one is a fanboy... If I understood the above post properly, which I imagine I have, it is your negative bias against Apple that have made my argument true...

Sure, it's fine if you want to quote the part of my post that helps you and ignore the rest. Whatever helps your argument. Apple is often defended for practices that would be denounced had they come from other companies. That's all I'm saying.

enzo said,
Sure, it's fine if you want to quote the part of my post that helps you and ignore the rest. Whatever helps your argument. Apple is often defended for practices that would be denounced had they come from other companies. That's all I'm saying.

I just simply don't understand why Apple is getting slapped on the wrist for this by some of the posters in here, I mean Microsoft had OneCare, had a beta for a long time, than the software went gold, charged money, no one really say "denounced" the company? I mean MS started charing for Windows 98 Second edition and no one had any comment? I mean MS was sued by the EU for monopoly, MS gave the EU a lot of money and made the whole thing go away and no one really took out their pitchforks and stakes, when a study showed that the corporate ladder of MS favored white male instead of any other race, no one even really talked about it...I mean whats the deal here? Alot of companies that does alot of things that deserved to be talked about and slapped on the wrist for it, but yet no one does...Apple chrages for boot camp and they are the evil of the world?

The EU suit was a shadow-story of the American antitrust case, they just came to the decision that Microsoft was monopolizing the software market a little later than the US did. And with every other thing you mentioned there, I remember there being quite a bit of anti-MS outcry in comments and blogs and in general. And I'm not saying Apple is evil. They are a company just like any other company, doing what they have to do to thrive and succeed. But when stock options internal investigations happen the most important part of the news is that Steve Jobs was acquitted of all charges, and you see articles already calling LG's prada an "iPhone look-alike" even though it was created first, and then when Microsoft decided to enter the market with Zune you heard a hundred voices calling it a flop, and simultaneously "iPod is king," it just gets tiring after a while. And you're right, this article is probably a bad example of any of this since it's only based off speculation anyway. I just feel in general the balance too often weighs on apple's side. And yes, I was a little quick to back up azz0r_wugg even though I'm sure there actually are some ways to upgrade apple software.

NeoXY said,

....
Apple will charge 29 for a piece of software that will open up ENDLESS possibilities on your Mac by allowing you to run Windows software and you bitch about it why? Because you were able to use a unstable, uncompleted version for free?
....

i think that the problem here is that blanka and others who publicly "did it first" would've made it available for free (had they kept working on making it commercial-level stable). kinda makes apple look sneaky by saying it in all their adds that macs can run windows, where the add should read: "macs can run windows... if you have leopard or buy bootcamp".

this will be marketed as a standard feature once it hits v1.final, and it wouldn't be false except that it will only be applicable for new machines and people who buy the upgrade.

I guess it helps justify purchasing Leopard, if one of the central features is going free for a previous OS, it makes that feature worthless.

Yea, not really too surprised. It's not just a partition manager, as it comes with all the drivers for windows xp aswell no?? Most people will upgrade to leopard anyway, it's a good way to force them.

MioTheGreat said,
Then they're charging for drivers? Wow....That's a low I don't think any hardware company has ever hit....

HP charged users for a scanner driver that would work in Windows 98...But i agree, this seems like an underhand way to force users to upgrade.

i think its okay. not nice, of course. but as far as i know you need to pay for parallels aswell, and boot camp is parallels but with native windows support, dont **** me on this one.

29$ is okay, its not that much and keeping in mind that atm its just a beta version, which are to be purchased after final release usually (most of the time)...

of course it kinda sucks, but i would pay, if i really needed windows.

I don't understand!

I mean, Boot Camp is just a pretty partition manager right? It's the firmware update that was released at the same time that allows users to boot the XP installation cd. I have assumed that this firmware has been on all Macs distributed since, but is this not the case?

If it is, nobody *needs* to buy anything when they could just partition manually like I do.

It's not as simple as manually partitioning, Boot Camp is a lot more than a partition manager. The Intel Macs use EFI instead of a BIOS. Windows cannot work without a BIOS. Boot Camp emulates BIOS for operating systems that do not support booting from EFI. It also provides drivers for all of the hardware on the system. You can't boot Windows on an Intel Mac without Boot Camp.

I have EFI on my office system, Windows 2003 64-bit, Windows 2003 32-bit, XP, Vista all work fine.
Intel's EFI includes a 'compatibility support module' to ensure all that even DOS works properly with EFI.
Looks like Macs was purposely shipped with limited EFI module so they can sell an "upgrade" to people.

kill said,
Boot Camp emulates BIOS for operating systems that do not support booting from EFI.

Boot Camp does not, it's the BIOS compatibility layer in the EFI that does this. Which you can use without Boot Camp. I know this because I'm sitting here in XP on my iMac without OS X on the hard drive anywhere :p

Granted, drivers may be an issue but as the hardware is standard equipment, most it could be done without Apple's help (Video / Sound / Network etc).

Simon said,
Boot Camp does not, it's the BIOS compatibility layer in the EFI that does this. Which you can use without Boot Camp. I know this because I'm sitting here in XP on my iMac without OS X on the hard drive anywhere :p.

Apple does not ship any of it's computers with the compatibility layer installed. You can't buy a Mac, put in an XP cd and install. You either need Boot Camp which provides it or you can go and find the pieces by hand and install them (and probably void your warranty in the process.) Oh and Boot Camp is also a pretty boot loader.

kill said,
You either need Boot Camp which provides it or you can go and find the pieces by hand and install them (and probably void your warranty in the process.)

I seem to remember when Boot Camp was first released, I downloaded it and installed from within Tiger, and upon running it, was informed that I needed a firmware update, which I had to download and install myself. Boot Camp had nothing to do with that apart from giving me a link, I did not have to find anything by hand.

The process for me was:

1) Install EFI update to allow BIOS compatibility
2) Use Boot Camp to create a driver cd
3) Boot from Windows XP cd, clear the hard drive and create one big NTFS partition
4) Install Windows
5) Install drivers
6) Use my iMac as if it was any other PC with Windows XP

If Macs are currently being shipped with an EFI without BIOS compatibilty then fine, but that wouldn't make any sense at all

Express said,
I have EFI on my office system, Windows 2003 64-bit, Windows 2003 32-bit, XP, Vista all work fine.
Intel's EFI includes a 'compatibility support module' to ensure all that even DOS works properly with EFI.
Looks like Macs was purposely shipped with limited EFI module so they can sell an "upgrade" to people.

lol what. No. Your motherboard has EFI but it's disabled in favor of a BIOS compatibility layer. Otherwise half of the OS' you listed wouldn't boot on it. Macs shipped with an EFI module without a BIOS compaibility layer, and later added it in a firmware upgrade. You can install Windows without bootcamp as long as you have the upgrade and don't mind nuking your OS X partition. BootCamp is a drive CD and a partition manager, nothing more.

That said, it's completely fair for Apple to charge for BootCamp. It's not necessary, it's just really helpful.

They're only doing this to force users to upgrade to Leopard..

Enough people will be upgrading to Leopard anyways, why force the ones who aren't?