Would Apple Buy Parallels?


Both Paul Stamatiou and Ronald Heft have thrown out solid thoughts on the possibility of Parallels being bought by Apple.

Boot Camp is lame, Virtual PC never made it off the starting line, and Parallels really has become a core app that Intel mac users have on their machines. It’s made leaps and bounds past anything else on the market and Apple really could use this app in the arsenal to help pull the market share even more.

What are your thoughts?



Phil, can you tell me more about Boot Camp and Labview, does it work well and as you would hope? I am not so concerned about instrument drivers just development of .exe for running in the LV runtime engine on other windows PCs



Once again, let’s say it all together, Boot Camp is NOT LAME! If you need full hardware compatibilty for some software Boot Camp can’t be beat. I use a Windows version of National Instruments program called LabView. There is an OS X version of LabView, but at least at this point you cannot take advantage of a lot of high speed hardware in OS X. For the time being Boot Camp works just swell. At this point Parallels cannot provide the hardware access reqiured, although the improved USB 2.0 support in the latest Parallels beta is impressive.

After I finish my LabView work, I can take a shower and return to the comforts of OS X.


Virtulisation is the future. With processor speeds increasing at the current rate, and the price of memory coming down, we have to do something with all that power.


Boot Camp is NOT lame. Apple are just not mentioning it in their main marketing as its still beta and they obviously dont really want to promote it to everyone.

I dont think Apple will buy Parallels, it doesnt make sense.

Chris Howard

GaryP, in answer to your question, Boot Camp is not lame. Generally speaking, Boot Camp means you can boot your Intel Mac into Windows. What is lame about that? People are only saying it’s lame because Parallels can run Windows inside OS X. But on that premise, any Windows PC is lame.

Lame usually implies limited or under powered. In fact, it is Parallels that is limited, therefore it must be lame.

Boot Camp is excellent if you need the full power of your Mac for running Windows applications. Boot Camp gives you a 100% Windows compatible PC. Parallels is still not 100% compatible – eg no 3D graphics; not all Apple hardware supported; no support for disc burning etc.


I saw Paralells sell a mac this weekend at the Apple store. They guy just said ‘wrap it up’ after the rep showed him it could be done.

As a system selling tool, its faaaaaar better than BootCamp. Why not purchase the company and place it on every Mac sold? As a marketing person myself, I don’t think it deludes the message but instead provides a clear lighted path for those who want/need to keep some Windows apps. They get some familiarity and a taste of the good life OS X offers. No one looses. Well, someone in Redmond does…

Apple has more cash in the bank than most companies in America. Companies, by and large, do not hoard money for no reason. I expect a spending spree (ala Google) to start sometime real soon.

Todd Baur

Secondly, it has nothing to do with Mac OS X and iLife marketing plans. In fact, running Windows on these Macs is a bait-and-switch tactic. A genius one that will work for a lot of people. Not only can you run Windows and all your old apps on the Mac, you have a few choices about doing it.

What I think would be the icing is for Parallels’ imaging tool to become a Windows app that will turn ANY PC into a VM so all ones stuff on the old computer is on the Mac as if nothing happened. If Windows wasn’t such a mess I would think this would be a possibility. I wouldn’t wish that on any programmer, even a C++ GUI expert.


I think it would be mistake to stifle the competition between VMware and Parallels. The market will benefit from Apple NOT providing a virtualization solution at this time. If they bought Parallels, I would expect VMware to throw in the towel. They compete effectively with Microsoft on the PC side because they had a head start. I wouldn’t expect them to do the same for the Mac market.

Richard Neal

Apple themselves seem to think Boot Camp is pretty lame. Look at this Get a Mac ad, read the fine print near the end, and then make your opinion. I don’t think, however, that Apple will buy Parallels, because if you have a problem with an Apple application, Apple’s going to have to help, and a lot of bad things are going to happen. Right now, Apple basically doesn’t have to support people running Windows, because it’s just, well, Windows.


Anything behind the “Boot Camp is lame” comment?

My wife is in the process of setting up Windows XP on her new MacBook Pro and I’m wondering where the lameness will come in. If it’s the completely seperate environment, then maybe there’s a point (although I’d not want the OS X files visible to XP anyway), but I’d like to understand the reasoning here.

Unsupported statements like that just scream “challenge me!”

Chris Howard

Boot Camp is totally misunderstood. Boot Camp is an app that creates a driver disk for Windows. It doesn’t appear to modify the Mac firmware or anything else fancy to enable Windows to be installed. It may have in it’s first incarnation, but I suspect all Intel MMacre now Windows ready off the shelf.

Now, the other thing about Boot Camp is it supports all Apple hardware. Parallels doesn’t. For instance, at this stage Parallels only identifies CD/DVD drives as CD-ROM only. Now that’s lame.


I think Apple should concentrate on aquiring good PC software thats absent on Mac, and re-writing it for OSX. Make some sort of agreement with the original developer or buy the rights to the code, then port it in-house.

Most PC users complain about Macs because they mistakenly think that there is a huge shortage of quality apps for Mac, compared to the PC. What they are correct about is the lack of games. I know people like Aspyr do a great job at porting, but I wish they would crank it up a little…


I don’t know. I agree Parallels has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go. The new integration into mac (making the apps in Parallels part of the mac os x, in a sense) is a little goofy, it could use some work. We need direct3D support. I do a lot of video editing using apps such as After Effects, Premiere Pro, etc… This runs ok, but could be better. No gaming in Parallels because of the lack of graphics support as well. I use boot camp because it runs my windows the way it is supposed to be ran. Maybe if Parallels can accomplish these things, Apple should consider buying Parallels, or if Apple could accomplish these things themselves, well, then there may be something there.

Well, there you go, those are my two cents.


Apple has made it pretty clear that virtualization is not their thing. They might have a more final version of Boot Camp with the next OS, but they are not going to build in virtualization.
This rumour has been around for a while, but it just keeps getting refuted.


Notice the response to virtualization is “absolutely not.” This is not some run around where they are saying “i don’t think we are going to do this” to distract from the fact that they are.


Boot Camp + the new beta of Parallels that will let me boot from my Boot Camp partition = nirvana IMHO. Anyway I am one of those people who 90% of the time would be running Windows either for gaming or 3D software so being able to boot natively is a boon. Also I think that CrossOver is a product that Apple would have more interest in.

Scott Stevenson

I don’t think Boot Camp is lame.

Virtualization is great, but there’s no getting around the fact that running two OSs takes a wee bit of RAM.


I think Todd makes a good point, but the truth is that Apple doesn’t buy much. Aside from a few exceptions — Coverflow, Shake, etc. — their M.O. is to develop in-house.

I think if they did decide to go after the virtualization market, they’d be much more likely to develop their own solution and drive Parallels out of the market, no? Like they did with Konfabulator.

Todd Baur

I would love to explain this in finite detail, but tonight I’ll be concise.


Apple hasn’t shown interest in VM technology, though I think if they were smart and wanted to grow into the enterprise this would be an easy target. It wouldn’t happen on the desktop, Steve is too passionate about Mac OS X to have alternatives running with Apple’s name on it.


Letting me play Half Life 2 at a full 30FPS with high graphics settings is NOT lame.

Comments are closed.