András Puiz's Profile

1. It was never directly developed by Apple. It was a third-party product whose developer Apple bought and re-named Claris, then FileMaker, Inc. 2. It's a technology. A format, a wrapper, a player, an authoring solution, a plug-in, several things. Digital cameras and camcorders use it as well. What you're thinking of is the QuickTime Player application, it's merely one component. 3. How about putting it like this: iPhoto isn't worth much without integration with the rest of iLife? You can use your photo library in iMovie, iDVD and even GarageBand (podcasts). You can use songs from iTunes as soundtracks for your iPhoto slide shows. In itself, iPhoto doesn't really do much. Its key value is in its integration. 4. The iTunes Store is at least breaking even, nobody seriously believes that they sell a billion songs at a loss each. I think iLife, even as a paid upgrade, harldy breaks even, if at all. It's more like a marketing tool to sell more Macs. Putting its parts, with the sole exception of iTunes, on Windows PCs wouldn't help Apple's bottom line at all. Its potential "halo effect" is highly questionable. 7. Well, if the user isn't satisfied with the software on Windows that's available for preparing and managing the photos, Apple can always tell him or her to get a Mac for that precise reason. Trying to bribe users to switch by offering free lunches that make their stay on Windows actually more acceptable (and thus eliminating a reason for switching) is still not something I'd find very likely.