PDA

View Full Version : Steve Ballmer about Apple


MacBytes
Apr 30, 2006, 06:24 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Steve Ballmer about Apple (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060430192454)
Description:: Steve Ballmer was interviewed by German newspaper "Die WELT" and answered questions about Apple and his thoughts about running Windows on a Mac.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Blue Velvet
Apr 30, 2006, 06:32 PM
Ballmer: No, we prefer real PCs.

Ballmer: No question, it would have been better if the iPod would have been a Microsoft invention.






:D

Oryan
Apr 30, 2006, 06:46 PM
Ballmer: No question, it would have been better if the iPod would have been a Microsoft invention.

I seriously hope that is a (twice) translation error, but I have a feeling it isn't.

kugino
Apr 30, 2006, 06:48 PM
Ballmer: Apple didn't invent anything new. They just combined existing technologies in a smart way.

hmmm...has MS invented anything new...EVER!?

Willis
Apr 30, 2006, 07:23 PM
Steve is a nut case. he doesnt even allow his children to use google :confused:

plus the videos on the net with him jumping around like hes on drugs. who hired him?!

wowoah
Apr 30, 2006, 07:29 PM
Steve is a nut case. he doesnt even allow his children to use google :confused:

I don't know that that makes him a nutcase. Would you let your kids buy a Krispy Kreme donut if you owned a Dunkin Donuts? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

pilotgi
Apr 30, 2006, 07:31 PM
Steve Ballmer is a college buddy of Bill Gates. I seriously doubt he would even be a good McDonalds manager if he was on his own.

MrCrowbar
Apr 30, 2006, 07:35 PM
Steve Ballmer is a college buddy of Bill Gates. I seriously doubt he would even be a good McDonalds manager if he was on his own.

True. The "I love this company" and "Developers developers developers etc." guy... But hey, Bill Gates made it in business, believe it or not.

winmacguy
Apr 30, 2006, 07:54 PM
Ballmer: Apple didn't invent anything new. They just combined existing technologies in a smart way.

hmmm...has MS invented anything new...EVER!?
Almost. They put out an operating system for cheap personal computers for everyone.

Keynoteuser
Apr 30, 2006, 07:57 PM
Yeah, I want a phone/camera/palm/music/game player...NOT. I use my iPod for listening to music that now playing videos on a connected TV. I don't want to play games on it, I don't want to answer it when it rings, and I don't even put my contacts on it even though I can.

I think whatever they make will tank.

dpaanlka
Apr 30, 2006, 07:59 PM
Almost. They put out an operating system for cheap personal computers for everyone.

Didn't they actually buy most of DOS from Digital Research or some other company that no longer exists?

andcraig
Apr 30, 2006, 08:05 PM
I actually kinda wonder what a music player would be like if the hardware and software were made by Microsoft.
Its normally that Microsoft makes the software and then another company makes a poorly designed player to go along with it.
Microsoft's hardware division has shown itself fairly competent (as far as they've been allowed to..in keyboards and mice), they should let them try some other things

IJ Reilly
Apr 30, 2006, 08:06 PM
Didn't they actually buy most of DOS from Digital Research or some other company that no longer exists?

Seattle Computer.

sarcosis
Apr 30, 2006, 08:11 PM
M$ bought DOS at a discount and then tweaked it a bit and then sold it. Bill Gate's isn't the best tech guy in the world, but he knows enough about computers and innovation to make good business decisions. Gate's is a business man plain and simple.

IJ Reilly
Apr 30, 2006, 08:32 PM
M$ bought DOS at a discount and then tweaked it a bit and then sold it. Bill Gate's isn't the best tech guy in the world, but he knows enough about computers and innovation to make good business decisions. Gate's is a business man plain and simple.

Not exactly. Microsoft bought Q-DOS, a 16-bit CP/M clone, which they rewrote to meet IBM's schedule for the release of the PC. The "tweak" took about a year; but without Q-DOS, Microsoft can't fulfill their promise to deliver the OS to IBM, because they would have needed to start from scratch.

The world is full of smart businesspeople, but lucky is even better.

mkaake
Apr 30, 2006, 08:36 PM
All I can see when I hear ballmer's name is him sweating like a pig, walking back and forth on stage, yelling "Developers, developers, developers!" <pause> repeat x 10 until people start making noise

Though I did find it funny he said he thought it would have been better if microsoft had invented the ipod, and then went on to say it wasn't an invention...

mjstew33
Apr 30, 2006, 09:26 PM
I seriously doubt he would even be a good McDonalds manager if he was on his own.
I just gotta say this-

I mean I know that most of us here do not like Microsoft, which is understandable, but I just think some people take it to an extreme. Maybe cool it down a little? ;) :cool:

IJ Reilly
Apr 30, 2006, 09:40 PM
I just gotta say this-

I mean I know that most of us here do not like Microsoft, which is understandable, but I just think some people take it to an extreme. Maybe cool it down a little? ;) :cool:

Why? Gates isn't half as good as most people think, and Ballmer has no demonstrated talent for anything, that I've ever seen. Both of them were phenomenally lucky to get where they are today. It might help if more people knew that.

xsedrinam
Apr 30, 2006, 10:06 PM
I don't know that that makes him a nutcase. Would you let your kids buy a Krispy Kreme donut if you owned a Dunkin Donuts? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
If they chose to try one, yes, I would. Which probably goes to illustrate the antithesis of how monopolists and their fan boys tend to reason.

dontmatter
Apr 30, 2006, 10:06 PM
Ballmer: No question, it would have been better if the iPod would have been a Microsoft invention.


Please, stop freaking people- this is out of context. The question was about how he feels about apple's domination of music over microsoft.

Phobophobia
Apr 30, 2006, 10:15 PM
Why? Gates isn't half as good as most people think, and Ballmer has no demonstrated talent for anything, that I've ever seen. Both of them were phenomenally lucky to get where they are today. It might help if more people knew that.
Right now they're lucky. Wait a few years. :)

IJ Reilly
Apr 30, 2006, 10:23 PM
Right now they're lucky. Wait a few years. :)

Optimist. I've already been waiting for 20 years.

No matter, if you have enough dough it doesn't much matter if you're good.

Will_reed
Apr 30, 2006, 11:17 PM
Ballmer: No, we prefer real PCs.

Ballmer: No question, it would have been better if the iPod would have been a Microsoft invention.






:D

You gotta love how arrogant steve balmer is.

avus
Apr 30, 2006, 11:24 PM
Apes NEVER evolve, I guess. I love the way he is defying Darwinism all by himself ;)

dshootist
May 1, 2006, 12:03 AM
I actually kinda wonder what a music player would be like if the hardware and software were made by Microsoft.
Its normally that Microsoft makes the software and then another company makes a poorly designed player to go along with it.
Microsoft's hardware division has shown itself fairly competent (as far as they've been allowed to..in keyboards and mice), they should let them try some other things

here's a glimpse from ifilm of what the packaging would look like. hilarious:D
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2704424

druggedonions
May 1, 2006, 01:46 AM
Why? Gates isn't half as good as most people think, and Ballmer has no demonstrated talent for anything, that I've ever seen. Both of them were phenomenally lucky to get where they are today. It might help if more people knew that.

What's Steve Ballmer got a talent for?
Well apparently he has a good throwing arm and strong vocab skills. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/05/chair_chucking/) But we knew about the vocab skillz. (http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html);)

What I loved about the article is at the end of Ballmer's answer to "Is Apple unbeatable?" He says
I think, everybody deserves some competition.
Eh!?! Is this the same guy that works for the company that gave Netscape and RealPlayer some competition.
It would seem he's got a sense of humour.:rolleyes:

Analog Kid
May 1, 2006, 02:59 AM
Ballmer: No, we prefer real PCs.

I don't understand that response at all... What makes for a "real PC"? Same CPU, same chipset, same graphics, slightly different BIOS. You'd think he'd be all for the last 5% of the market loading Windows, and Office, and Exchange, and...

Unless, of course, he was afraid of what a side-by-side comparison would show... Ballmer's not the type to show fear though.

I don't know that that makes him a nutcase. Would you let your kids buy a Krispy Kreme donut if you owned a Dunkin Donuts? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Right. Isolating yourself from consumers is a much better strategy. Plausible deniability when you say "I don't know of anything they do better than us". When you know there is nothing to learn from your competition, why would you look?

wedge antilies
May 1, 2006, 04:59 AM
Optimist. I've already been waiting for 20 years.

No matter, if you have enough dough it doesn't much matter if you're good.

Yeah look at Mark Cuban.:rolleyes:

Blue Velvet
May 1, 2006, 05:04 AM
Please, stop freaking people- this is out of context. The question was about how he feels about apple's domination of music over microsoft.

Exactly. Which is why it gave me a small amount of schadenfreude.

Besides, who exactly would it have been better for?
When the boot's on the other foot, all we get is whining.

Bad Beaver
May 1, 2006, 06:32 AM
Yeah, the developer's video... good times. Ballmer reminds of Baron Vladimir Harkonen. Every time.

backupdrummer
May 1, 2006, 08:33 AM
I am not about to claim that Gate and Balmer were simply lucky in growing MS into one of the largest companies in the world. They are both very capable business men that had a little luck along hte way (like most successful people).

That said, over hte past 2 years many of the interviews that they have both given, especially Balmer, have had a feeling of fear in them. It is rather obvious that Microsoft knows they are at a vulnerable point in thier life and that they really are in need of some positive press. It is rare that you see a glowing article about them anymore.

2007 will be an important year for MS and will either show that they are still a contender or that they have become so large that they have lost touch with the market.

IJ Reilly
May 1, 2006, 10:42 AM
I am not about to claim that Gate and Balmer were simply lucky in growing MS into one of the largest companies in the world. They are both very capable business men that had a little luck along hte way (like most successful people).

I will so claim. Microsoft has had a tremendous amount of luck along the way. The biggest single stroke of luck was Compaq figuring out how to legally reverse-engineer the PC's ROM-BIOS. Without that, clones don't happen, and neither does Microsoft (they have maybe one good customer, IBM, not an entire industry). Even a mediocre businessperson could turn that happenstance into a big business. And so much of what Gates & Co. did afterwards to solidify their position was illegal, it hardly makes sense to call them good businesspeople.

srobert
May 1, 2006, 11:35 AM
Ballmer: No, we prefer real PCs.

Ballmer: No question, it would have been better if the iPod would have been a Microsoft invention.


Ok, I'll bring this one out of retirement from the mothballs of my iDisk. I thinks it's warrented:

http://homepage.mac.com/srobert/.Pictures/WepPicPosts/ballmer.jpg

steve_hill4
May 1, 2006, 12:40 PM
Yeah, the clones were crucial to Microsoft's success. Without them, they would have ended up producing software for Macs and other OSes running on machines made by others, (you would have had IBMs running OS/2 and so on, no clear OS leader).

Ballmer had little part in Microsoft's success, Gates did most of the donkey work. As much as I dislike them, I admire Gates and hate Ballsmer.

shelterpaw
May 1, 2006, 12:53 PM
I actually kinda wonder what a music player would be like if the hardware and software were made by Microsoft.
Its normally that Microsoft makes the software and then another company makes a poorly designed player to go along with it.
Microsoft's hardware division has shown itself fairly competent (as far as they've been allowed to..in keyboards and mice), they should let them try some other things
You're right, they've done a good job in that area. I also think he's right about integrating the devices. Once flash memory becomes cheap enough and the capcity to put quite of a bit of information, then we'll have a new ballgame.

The integrated camera's in cell phones suck at this point and the music players and phone combinations can't hold enough music. Once those problems are ironed out, we'll see some great devices and since Apple has a great foothold in that area, I can see them leading the way to some top end devices. MS will have a lead in the OS PDA area over Apple. I belive this will create a divide amongst consumers.

Analog Kid
May 1, 2006, 10:48 PM
Ok, I'll bring this one out of retirement from the mothballs of my iDisk. I thinks it's warrented:

Thank you for that. Remember that will make it much easier to deal with this man.

Seasought
May 2, 2006, 11:30 AM
I decided to watch some of these videos of Steve Ballmer I keep hearing about.

Boy was that a mistake. Nothing like the charisma of a balding, overweight, sweaty, screaming old man to get the inspiration going early in the morning. :eek:

The interview wasn't that great in my opinion.

iGary
May 2, 2006, 11:33 AM
http://www.lane.ca/images/steve_ballmer.jpg

How about some antiperspirant, Steve? :rolleyes:

balamw
May 2, 2006, 11:48 AM
Yeah, the clones were crucial to Microsoft's success. Without them, they would have ended up producing software for Macs and other OSes running on machines made by others, (you would have had IBMs running OS/2 and so on, no clear OS leader).
Yup, besides the BIOS cloning, the other thing that made the clones really possible was the ISA bus, while IBM was busy trying to get people to adopt MCA which was proprietary and hard to develop boards for ISA took off and the era of AT clones and add-on boards was born. Note that I credit a similar hardware openness for part of the success of the Apple ][ series computers.

On topic: Ballmer has no demonstrated skills, while Gates at least has a vision which often coincides and/or is stolen from Apple: "digital convergence". They differ primarily in haw they have chosen to approach this.

Apple's emphasis has always been make it easy for the user, while Microsoft always seems to build in just enough options to make something hard to decipher.

How about some antiperspirant, Steve? :rolleyes:
Or at least adopt the other Steve's wardrobe choices, the sweat would be less apparent on a black mock turtleneck. :p

B

IJ Reilly
May 2, 2006, 12:02 PM
Yup, besides the BIOS cloning, the other thing that made the clones really possible was the ISA bus, while IBM was busy trying to get people to adopt MCA which was proprietary and hard to develop boards for ISA took off and the era of AT clones and add-on boards was born. Note that I credit a similar hardware openness for part of the success of the Apple ][ series computers.

The entire PC architecture was generic off-the-shelf components, except for the BIOS, which IBM copyrighted. They did this not because they wanted to create an "open" architecture, but because they wanted to bring the PC to market within a year. They didn't have time to design more proprietary features for the machine. IBM didn't release MCA, which was an effort to reclaim the PC architecture, until the PS/2. By then it was far too late.

jdechko
May 2, 2006, 12:18 PM
Ballmer: No, we prefer real PCs.

Yeah, I thought that statement was quite silly. We all know that PC technically stands for personal computer which most (read: non-server class) computers are. The commonly used term PC really refers to a WinTel box or really a non-Apple computer. Seems silly on Ballmer's part.

yellow
May 2, 2006, 12:22 PM
Ballmer: Which company would be able to compete with Apple at these days? It can only be Microsoft or Apple stays without any serious competitor. I think, everybody deserves some competition.

Kind of contrary to how Microsoft's policies are for small software competition and the Chinese population at large? I wonder how often Bill Gates reads what Ballmer spits out and toys with the idea of getting Ballmer fired?

Last straw, clean out your desk monkeyboy.

Ballmer: Honestly, I don't think that it is that important. Actually, it is relatively expensive if a user gets a separate Windows OS for his Mac. Not a lot of people will do this.

Depends on your definition of "a lot". Microsoft's or Apple's?

balamw
May 2, 2006, 12:26 PM
They did this not because they wanted to create an "open" architecture, but because they wanted to bring the PC to market within a year.
I didn't say they wanted to, but they did use an open hardware standard. The short project duration was also why they went outside (to MS) for the OS instead of developing their own. If IBM's contract with Microsoft for PC-DOS had stopped them from selling DOS to anyone other than IBM, things might have been very different... Of course the other leg in the stool was Lotus. Had Lotus not been synonymous with IBM PC as far as business was concered the clones might not even have been enough to make it the dominant platform.

BTW Apple was able to shut down the Franklin and other Apple ][ clones by proving that they had copied the firmware rather than reverse engineering it like Compaq ultimately did for the IBM-PC. This led to the "Stolen from Apple" icon code in the first Macs. http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Stolen_From_Apple.txt

Imagine a world without Lotus 1-2-3 and a closed IBM-PC architecture and OS. Where would we be now?

B

iPhil
May 2, 2006, 12:33 PM
http://www.lane.ca/images/steve_ballmer.jpg

How about some antiperspirant, Steve? :rolleyes:


i'd say he's medium rare on the outside and ice-cold inside :eek: :rolleyes: :eek:

Blue Velvet
May 2, 2006, 12:34 PM
Yeah, I thought that statement was quite silly. We all know that PC technically stands for personal computer which most (read: non-server class) computers are. The commonly used term PC really refers to a WinTel box or really a non-Apple computer. Seems silly on Ballmer's part.

Although on the surface it sounds silly, it's really a clever piece of marketing spin. It implies that Macs aren't real computers, that they're insubstantial toys not fit for real-world tasks.

It may sound stupid to us but there's a logic of sorts behind it.

yellow
May 2, 2006, 12:34 PM
Imagine a world without Lotus 1-2-3 and a closed IBM-PC architecture and OS. Where would we be now?

If either led to a world without Lotus Notes...

I submit, rainbow-happy-grinsaminute-world!

http://www.skinbase.org/files/shots/Sunset22.jpg

balamw
May 2, 2006, 12:52 PM
If either led to a world without Lotus Notes...
ROFL. Is MS Exchange that much better?

B

yellow
May 2, 2006, 12:58 PM
ROFL. Is MS Exchange that much better?

I don't know.. can you search and have it look in the body of an email for text? Cause Lotus Notes can't.. and it's 2006.

Another piece of bloatware brought to you by IBM. Add it to the pile with Tivoli and UltraBuilder.

Prefer POP/IMAP clients.. crazy me. But I'm not one of the corporate Captains that got into bed with Lotus Notes a bushel of years ago and are willing to go down with the ship..

IJ Reilly
May 2, 2006, 01:19 PM
Imagine a world without Lotus 1-2-3 and a closed IBM-PC architecture and OS. Where would we be now?

A better place, I think, with more variety and competition. The way this market developed is a freak of nature.

The only point where I depart is over whether the IBM-PC was designed as "open" architecture. If it was, it was only by accident, not intent, which to me makes a world of difference. IBM thought the copyrighted ROM-BIOS was enough to keep their architecture proprietary, which is another word for closed.

IJ Reilly
May 2, 2006, 01:20 PM
i'd say he's medium rare on the outside and ice-cold inside :eek: :rolleyes: :eek:

Could we please refrain from quoting back those sweaty Ballmer images? I'm about to lose my appetite for the rest of my life.

iPhil
May 2, 2006, 01:32 PM
Sorry IJ for that.. i don't wanna take blame for your untimely death ;) :o

IJ Reilly
May 2, 2006, 01:55 PM
Sorry IJ for that.. i don't wanna take blame for your untimely death ;) :o

It's too late. :(

balamw
May 2, 2006, 02:45 PM
The only point where I depart is over whether the IBM-PC was designed as "open" architecture. If it was, it was only by accident, not intent, which to me makes a world of difference. IBM thought the copyrighted ROM-BIOS was enough to keep their architecture proprietary, which is another word for closed.
Ah the endless catch 22. Which came first the chicken or the egg.

I agree with you that the IBM PC was not designed to be cloned and they were counting on the ROM to be the lock as it had been for Apple, and that the the use of pre-existing/non-proprietary hardware for the IBM-PC was driven by the "Holy Mackerel! Unless we get into this market we won't sell any more typewriters or mainframes, get something out there in a year!" (Aside: This is the same kind of thinking at IBM that IMHO has brought them to form an alliance witht the Linux community over the past few years).

Expansion buses in particular are a tricky area in computers, since you actually want them to be open/documented/easy to deal with so that third parties can be able to design add-on cards for your system or why bother having the port? (As IBM found out with MCA).

The clones were only posible because of three gaffes by IBM in their mad rush to not get forgotten. The hardware was "open" in the sense that IBM used pre-existing stuff and didn't have a lock on it. The BIOS routines were simple and could straightforwardly be reverse engineered, unlike the later and much more complicated Mac firmware which included QuickDraw and much, much more. This was again driven by the deadlines and their desire to support both PC-DOS and CP/M-86, which would flesh out the OS. The contract for PC-DOS didn't restrict Microsoft's right to sell a fully compatible OS as long as they simply sold it under a different name. With those three things, the clones were born. Had any one of them been a taller mountain to climb, it probably wouldn't have gone down the way we all know it did.

I'm also torn on the variety and competition aspects. Had IBM not lent credibility to computers as business tools and the clones taken over the world, I would guess that computers might still just be a hobby rather than a mega-industry. :(

B

FF_productions
May 2, 2006, 03:31 PM
Bottom-line, Ballmer is a dumb ass. I love his videos and they will never get old. If Microsoft invented the iPod, the world would end.

IJ Reilly
May 2, 2006, 04:08 PM
I'm also torn on the variety and competition aspects. Had IBM not lent credibility to computers as business tools and the clones taken over the world, I would guess that computers might still just be a hobby rather than a mega-industry. :(

B

I think it would still have been huge, if not bigger. The technology was ripe, it was only a matter of products coming onto the market. Apple had already succeeded with the II, which proved the market for desktop computers. IBM did lend credibility with the PC, but they'd already done so in the couple of years they controlled the PC market before the attack of the clones. The clones destroyed what would otherwise have been a diversified market, and diversified markets always produce more innovation and better prices. (I always bristle when someone tries to tell me that generic PC architecture is so wonderful because it's resulted in cheap hardware. Cheap compared to what?)

Instead, we ended up with a hardware monoculture, and even worse, an OS monoculture. Nobody knows what might have happened had the playing field been more level, but I think we can get a very good idea from looking at just about any other product market we care to consider.

Seasought
May 2, 2006, 06:02 PM
How about some antiperspirant, Steve? :rolleyes:

I think he is beyond antiperspirant. No, we must clog those pores directly...perhaps some lead paint. :D