Microsoft's Shifting Strategy in Response to Apple

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

AllthingsD republishes (http://kara.allthingsd.com/20080723/microsoft-ceo-steve-ballmers-full-memo-to-the-troops-about-new-reorg/) a memo from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to all Microsoft employees detailing an update in their corporate strategy. Ballmer specifically mentions Apple and their recent success:Apple: In the competition between PCs and Macs, we outsell Apple 30-to-1. But there is no doubt that Apple is thriving. Why? Because they are good at providing an experience that is narrow but complete, while our commitment to choice often comes with some compromises to the end-to-end experience. Today, we’re changing the way we work with hardware vendors to ensure that we can provide complete experiences with absolutely no compromises. We’ll do the same with phones—providing choice as we work to create great end-to-end experiences.Ballmer details how Apple has found success in an "end-to-end" model by providing the customer with a full experience by designing both hardware and software. Walt Mossberg had previously articulated this basic difference (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114729881894749433-ORYg5V1P3c0KNb715LUzZq56SQ4_20060609.html) in strategy between the two companies.For many years, there have been two models of how to make computers and other digital devices. One is the component model, championed by Microsoft. The other is the end-to-end model, championed by Apple.Microsoft, of course, saw huge success in the component model in the personal computer market by supplying Windows to thousands of competing hardware developers. Microsoft has tried to apply this same strategy to music players and mobile phones, but now acknowledges this had come with some user experience compromises. Some of this shift in strategy has already been seen in their Xbox 360 and Zune products where Microsoft is the sole vendor.

Ballmer, however, believes that Microsoft will be able to extend a "no compromises" end-to-end experience while retaining a commitment to choice. He specifically mentions phones as a target.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/24/microsofts-shifting-strategy-in-response-to-apple/)

[Eidorian]

I always called the Xbox the "Microsoft Mac" given the control over the experience end to end.

While I do enjoy the lack of digging for drivers and such for my Mac, it's rather annoying to have severely limited model choices.

[edesignuk]

So Ballmer isn't quite as dumb as he looks, eh?

[ArmyKnight12]

very interesting.

[kabunaru]

While I do enjoy the lack of digging for drivers and such for my Mac, it's rather annoying to have severely limited model choices.

What Mac(s) do you have?

Just get a Mac Pro with a Quadro FX 5600 and that will last you a long time. :rolleyes::D

[whooleytoo]

Which just kinda reiterates what we already know.

Apple are a great solutions company. Not hardware, not software. The entire solution - which is why the iP3G is such a great device. Great design (Apple), great OS (Apple), great development tools (Apple), great browser (Apple) great online store (Apple) etc...etc..;)

[Sky Blue]

It says a lot about Apple's success that Microsoft are shifting their strategy.

[Eidorian]

What Mac(s) do you have?

Just get a Mac Pro with a Quadro FX 5600 and that will last you a long time. :rolleyes::DI've brought this up before but all Apple needs to do is add more little radio button build to order options. I'd give up CPU clock speed for a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

It's like Apple doesn't want my money...

I don't have a problem with longevity it's hardware choices.

[Rojo]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

[notjustjay]

Yeah, Apple and Microsoft need each other to be at their best, much like a good superhero needs a good villain.

Each should continue trying to out-innovate the other, and ultimately the world wins.

[andrewdale]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

My thoughts exactly. It's always good to have solid competition. Look and Canon and Nikon.

[Zargot]

Interesting read...

I hope they do well, forcing Apple to keep innovating to remain the media darling they are now.

[IJ Reilly]

What this really comes down to is that Microsoft's success with the so-called "component model" was a fluke, an historical anomaly. It would be difficult to find another example of where it worked well for anyone else at any other time, including for Microsoft. They are just learning this it seems, having failed to implement it successfully in other markets. I think they're going to continue to struggle to get the same "seamless experience" out of the Windows PC market that Apple offers. They just don't have that sort of control over the OEMs -- in fact, they have less control today than they did just a few years ago. They're going to continue to jawbone the issue, but produce little. That's my prediction.

[stefman]

I'd be curious to see how Microsoft is going to implement this new strategy.

Maybe it'll go the way of the zune after a couple of years.

[Digital Skunk]

Steve Ballmer is on the same tier as the CEO of Palm, an idiot and lacking the knowledge and wherewithal to monitor the market and adapt to changes.

Old farts that have fallen out of the tech world and inundate us with outdated technology that caters to outmoded market segments.

I may not be a huge fan of the iPhone, but it has changed the market substantially, while those that were flourishing in it tried their best to give users a better device with crappy OS.

Ballmer will fail at much of what he tries to do with Microsoft, though I do hope that the next version of Windows gives Apple a run for it's money, and makes me consider buying a PC.

[Beric]

I've brought this up before but all Apple needs to do is add more little radio button build to order options. I'd give up CPU clock speed for a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

It's like Apple doesn't want my money...

I don't have a problem with longevity it's hardware choices.

Yeah, I totally agree. There just aren't many BTO options at all. I too want a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

[Queso]

Microsoft don't outsell Apple 30-1. Apple currently have a 4% worldwide share, meaning that even if every piece of PC hardware sold is running Microsoft (which it isn't) the maximum ratio is 24-1.

[Mattjeff]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

I agree completely! Apple is missing a chunk of its quality control and friendly support.

[kabunaru]

Ballmer will fail at much of what he tries to do with Microsoft, though I do hope that the next version of Windows gives Apple a run for it's money, and makes me consider buying a PC.

Are you getting bored with Macs now or are you starting to dislike Macs? :confused:

[Digitalclips]

And Ballmer usually gets it right, right? :rolleyes:

[angela44angela]

Makes me recall an article from about two years ago:

Apple's End-To-End Model Leads to Innovation and User Experience (http://switchtoamac.com/site/apples-endtoend-model-leads-to-innovation-and-user-experience.html)

Funny to see Ballmer using the same words :)

[Eraserhead]

very interesting.

I have to admit I'm surprised that they've actually done this.

This means that Microsoft thinks Apple is a direct threat to their core business which has never been true of any company since Netscape.

[Dustman]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

Apple is doing the best they've ever done. Other than MobileMe, they're rock solid and let us remember that the 1% failure rate for MobileMe is hardly a disaster. Competition is always good though, but it seems like Apple's on their way to taking over the computer industry to me? ;)

[Digital Skunk]

I've brought this up before but all Apple needs to do is add more little radio button build to order options. I'd give up CPU clock speed for a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

It's like Apple doesn't want my money...

I don't have a problem with longevity it's hardware choices.

Agreed as usual E. I'd really kill for a MacPro without the Xeon chips for $600 less. Or a 13" notebook with a dedicated GPU for the sake of having one.

Or better yet! How about those radial buttons that give me the options of NO HDDs, RAM, etc. in the system so I can get them somewhere else.

[bigmc6000]

So he wants to redefine what end-to-end means? MS can't be an end-to-end system because they aren't an end-to-end system. Until MS starts making their own computers they can't be an end-to-end system. Ballmer just wants to make it look like they are trying because if all you're doing is working with Dell/Acer/HP/Toshiba/etc on making sure THEIR products work then you'll NEVER be an end-to-end company.

Eh well - it's not exactly like ballmer has ever been a master of the English language anyway. *squirt*

[BongoBanger]

And Ballmer usually gets it right, right? :rolleyes:


Actually, he does. Firing Johnson is a very good move.

[Eidorian]

Or better yet! How about those radial buttons that give me the options of NO HDDs, RAM, etc. in the system so I can get them somewhere else.Dell comes pretty close to barebones on their workstation configurations. CD-ROM drives until Vista was out, 1 GB of RAM, and 80 GB SATA drives.

[IJ Reilly]

Funny to see Ballmer using the same words :)

Not to me. The man isn't exactly an original thinker. I more wonder if Ballmer has finally realized that Microsoft's success with the "component model" market can't be duplicated.

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

Steve B, you don't sell PC's, so how are you outselling Apple 30-1?

[sushi]

It says a lot about Apple's success that Microsoft are shifting their strategy.
True.

My thoughts exactly. It's always good to have solid competition. Look and Canon and Nikon.
Yes it is.

Yeah, I totally agree. There just aren't many BTO options at all. I too want a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.
If you want a dedicated GPU, you can get a MBP.

Microsoft don't outsell Apple 30-1. Apple currently have a 4% worldwide share, meaning that even if every piece of PC hardware sold is running Microsoft (which it isn't) the maximum ratio is 24-1.
Wouldn't that be 25-1? What am I missing?

[Schizoid]

Steve Ballmer often quotes the rather dubious, "we sell 200 million PCs while Apple sells 10 million" figure

What he means is, "There are 200 million PCs out there that are forced to run Windows as they don't have an alternative"

[Consultant]

MS was able to feed people their poorly made copycat because people don't know any better 10-20 years ago. Some people today still don't know the difference, but more and more people are beginning to know there are actually options on the market that perform a better job than MS products.

Now people have smarten up, for example over the past decade, people recognized how crappy MS's "Plays for Sure", etc files are (that's why MS couldn't make any progress into the media player market despite giving their codes to all the audio players), more recently people realized how crappy Microsoft's Zune are (even the MS advocate who got 3 Zune Tattoos is switching to another player http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5890154), and people are starting to realize the what a poor experience Windows provides.

So he wants to redefine what end-to-end means? MS can't be an end-to-end system because they aren't an end-to-end system. Until MS starts making their own computers they can't be an end-to-end system. Ballmer just wants to make it look like they are trying because if all you're doing is working with Dell/Acer/HP/Toshiba/etc on making sure THEIR products work then you'll NEVER be an end-to-end company.

Eh well - it's not exactly like ballmer has ever been a master of the English language anyway. *squirt*

They tried to make an end to end system. It's called the Zune. MS can't even get a music player right.

[Breegy]

Omg.

Is that bald guy in the first link Ballmer?

I never knew what he looked like.

He's ****** creepy.

[brasscat]

Microsoft don't outsell Apple 30-1. Apple currently have a 4% worldwide share, meaning that even if every piece of PC hardware sold is running Microsoft (which it isn't) the maximum ratio is 24-1.

Plus Monkey Boy is talking about operating systems. Microsoft isn't outselling Apple with *their* hardware. It's not really fare to compare companies this way (who's outselling whom), since the companies' models are not exactly equivalent.

[powermac_daddy]

i think MS needs some kick ass product designers. then... apple will be in trouble.

[sushi]

Steve Ballmer often quotes the rather dubious, "we sell 200 million PCs while Apple sells 10 million" figure

What he means is, "There are 200 million PCs out there that are forced to run Windows as they don't have an alternative"
Selling PCs vice selling an OS is completely different IMHO.

On a side note, Microsoft does make some great keyboards and mice.

[Surely]

Competition is good.

I hope they do a better job than Zune vs. iPod.

Lately, Microsoft seems like a giant, uncontrollable flock of birds that keeps changing leaders and directions. Just flying around in circles.

[IJ Reilly]

So he wants to redefine what end-to-end means? MS can't be an end-to-end system because they aren't an end-to-end system. Until MS starts making their own computers they can't be an end-to-end system. Ballmer just wants to make it look like they are trying because if all you're doing is working with Dell/Acer/HP/Toshiba/etc on making sure THEIR products work then you'll NEVER be an end-to-end company.

Exactly so. The Microsoft we know today was the product of an historical quirk, an accident, which made them think that this so-called "component" model was a work of their genius and could be implemented in other markets. Now after literally decades of trying, they appear to be giving up and accepting that they have to design products more like Apple does. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

There's your answer for why the XBOX is so popular and accessible. It's one of the first "IT Just Works" products MS has ever released. There's nothing wrong with the closed experience, to a point. The iPhone's lock in, and lack of open software is really pushing it, though. Once you cross the line into the iPhone becoming a computer, which I think we have, the artificial limitations become harder to swallow.

I always called the Xbox the "Microsoft Mac" given the control over the experience end to end.

[Eraserhead]

Microsoft don't outsell Apple 30-1. Apple currently have a 4% worldwide share, meaning that even if every piece of PC hardware sold is running Microsoft (which it isn't) the maximum ratio is 24-1.

I believe Apple only have a 3.5% worldwide share at the moment. Linux has about a 0.5-1% non-server share. And the server market is worth only about 3% so Microsoft have at least a 92.5% share, probably at least 93.5% including Windows server. Which is 27-1.

If you ignore the server market Apple has a 3.6% share, Linux has a still has between 0.5 and 1% of the market, giving Microsoft 95.4% of the market, but that still is only 26 or 27-1.

I know other Unix OS's do have users but the numbers are so small outside of servers they aren't worth including.

There's your answer for why the XBOX is so popular and accessible.

The thing is is that its only ahead overall of the PS3 in the US, and is currently being outsold everywhere by the PS3, not to mention the Wii.

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

Apple is doing the best they've ever done. Other than MobileMe, they're rock solid and let us remember that the 1% failure rate for MobileMe is hardly a disaster. Competition is always good though, but it seems like Apple's on their way to taking over the computer industry to me? ;)

Oh please, be real. Apple will never "take over" anything but a small (but nonetheless sizeable) portion of the industry. They'll be big in homes and small biz, but they'll never be more than a fringe in the corporate world, which is a HUGE segment of the market.

[CWallace]

Microsoft cannot move to an "end-to-end" process with any level of seriousness since it is that component model that keeps hundreds of millions of Windows license fees flowing into Microsoft's coffers. Plus I don't believe Microsoft can even if they wanted to and could generate a schema that would make them as much or more money. The Windows codebase is too scattered to allow it, I expect.

But if companies are willing to work very closely with Microsoft to create a version of Windows that is "fully certified" to work with some of their hardware in a coherent and optimized way likely would have value - especially with corporate/enterprise/public sector companies who currently spend significant amounts of money on in-house support staff to keep their Windows installations working.

[diamond.g]

I have to admit I'm surprised that they've actually done this.

This means that Microsoft thinks Apple is a direct threat to their core business which has never been true of any company since Netscape.

And we all know how well that went for Netscape.... :(

[slapppy]

I don't get it. Apple has a tiny 8% share of the market. Why is MS so obsessed with trying to kill Apple. They have a government approve monopoly why bother with Apple?

[nick9191]

Microsoft don't outsell Apple 30-1. Apple currently have a 4% worldwide share, meaning that even if every piece of PC hardware sold is running Microsoft (which it isn't) the maximum ratio is 24-1.
Which isn't true anyway.

The average consumer will only buy a computer at the most every few years, hence why Apple's marketshare is still low. However if you actually look at the amount of units being sold, Apple are the second or third largest OEM in the world, with about a 30% share in the consumer market, note I said consumer market.

[Virgil-TB2]

Two things are interesting about this to me:

The first is that Balmer pretty much states flat out that they are working on a phone product, when previously, MS had categorically denied that they were working on a phone, or had any intentions of working on a phone, multiple times.

The second is that this is not Balmers "voice." The man can hardly talk intelligible sentences in real life, no way he wrote this thing himself. So it's kind of funny that the big man has his secretary or whatever help him with his emails. ;)

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

I have to admit I'm surprised that they've actually done this.

This means that Microsoft thinks Apple is a direct threat to their core business which has never been true of any company since Netscape.

And we all know how well that went for Netscape.... :(

Well to be fair, Netscape was a much smaller company than Apple, with no real income stream, and a product that can be given away for free with very little cost to the distributor. MS can't exactly give Windows away. And even if they did, Apple still makes hardware people want.

[K-Funk]

Wouldn't that be 25-1? What am I missing?96/4=24.

[rxse7en]

If their End-to-End Zune model is indicative of their direction on the personal computer then they are sunk. They are just too large and unfocused to make Apple's model work for themselves. Zune has stagnated and the end user has been ignored.

[Beric]

If you want a dedicated GPU, you can get a MBP.

Actually, I can't. It's beyond my price range, too big of a screen, a way faster processor than I want, ect. ect. ect.

I really DO need a Macbook with dedicated graphics.

[thecartoonguy]

Yeah, Apple and Microsoft need each other to be at their best, much like a good superhero needs a good villain.

Each should continue trying to out-innovate the other, and ultimately the world wins.

LOL that was the best example I have heard yet. Well done

[HiRez]

How are they going to create a good "end-to-end" experience when they can't even get one piece (the OS) right? You think Apple had problems with the Mobile Me update? Wait until you see Microsoft try to implement something like painless syncing. Or a good mobile web browser (Gosh, how how are we going to fit all 600 toolbar icons into Mobile IE?). Or a retail experience that doesn't look like Walmart and smell like Ballmer? I hope they really do something good, but confidence is low...extremely low.

Epic fail.

[jmsait19]

I've always thought MS would be much better off if they just dumped the current Windows code/architecture/whatever-you-call-it, similar to what Apple did with OS9. Then start with a completely fresh plate and phase it in, similar to what Apple did with OSX.

OSX wouldn't be what it is today if it were just build on top of OS9 and I think a similar strategy could work for MS.

[Doctor Q]

Can Microsoft create the "wow factor" for a phone, as Apple has done? They can imitate the iPhone as well as the others who have done so, and add new types of Windows integration, plus a radio, "squirting", and other features to help them sell it. Maybe offer it in 5 lovely shades of brown. :rolleyes:

But... Do they need the wow factor to be successfully? Maybe not. Whenever Microsoft says "jump", a large number of consumers jump, so some sales are automatic.

[BenRoethig]

So Ballmer isn't quite as dumb as he looks, eh?

Its amazing how much smarter you get when you have a reality check and your seemingly invincible position is suddenly challenged. I just fear that like Admiral Yamamoto we have not awakened a sleeping giant. Apple is not flexible enough to deal with a Microsoft that has its act together.

[Phil A.]

Omg.

Is that bald guy in the first link Ballmer?

I never knew what he looked like.

He's ****** creepy.

If you think he's creepy in a picture, I daren't think what you'll make of him dancing ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc):eek:

[Rojo]

Other than MobileMe, they're rock solid and let us remember that the 1% failure rate for MobileMe is hardly a disaster.

First of all, we all know it's probably way more than 1% affected. Of the 12 people I know who have MobileMe (including me), ALL had major issues in the beginning, and 9 are still having problems. No one's lost ALL their mail (thankfully), but many have lost full folders, or several contacts/calendar appointments, etc. It's the unreliableness that's scary.

And even if it WAS just 1%, or even 0.5% of users -- it's STILL a disaster, when you consider it's people's VALUABLE information being lost/affected. If it was just a software bug, that would be completely different. Who cares? Happens all the time. But because it's people's livelihood on the line, it will continue to be a disater until it's fixed.

[BenRoethig]

I don't get it. Apple has a tiny 8% share of the market. Why is MS so obsessed with trying to kill Apple. They have a government approve monopoly why bother with Apple?

Because they can understand that if positions change and Apple begins to realize what they have and start thinking big picture Microsoft has a major fight on their hands.

[tallyho]

The second is that this is not Balmers "voice." The man can hardly talk intelligible sentences in real life, no way he wrote this thing himself. So it's kind of funny that the big man has his secretary or whatever help him with his emails. ;)

What about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZlv4xNGfKM)?

Or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvbWLfr-Z4s)? :D

[esaleris]

I love Ballmer's 30-to-one statistic.

And how much is that in discretionary buying? Sure, my company buys PCs out the wazoo. Doesn't mean I prefer using one. I would be willing to bet it's more like a 8-to-1 statistic, if you take out the corporate and academic world.

[TheSlush]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

Competitive pressures are not the engine of Apple's quality.

"Competition is good because it pushes Apple" -- this Economics 101 idea is always being touted throughout the MacRumors forums. I think it's worth saying that competition is not what drives Apple/Steve Jobs. They want to make the best products. Not "slightly better than the other guy" products, the best ones. They are not driven by what's out there, or with keeping up with the Joneses. They do not "get nervous" when a competitor adds some feature or reduces the price of something. They do not "worry" that their products have to be up to par with everyone else's. They do not improve a product to compete, they improve it to make it better. Sure, Apple has to play in the same market like everyone else and I'm not suggesting they can totally defy the laws of competitive economics... but I am suggesting that it's not what drives them, and it's not what inspires them, and I don't believe it's what constitutes their decision-making.

Competition is relevant for all those companies' missions of delivering "better." But competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission of delivering the BEST. If they were the only computer company on earth with a 100% monopoly, I believe they/Steve would still be constantly improving their products in trying to deliver the best. That is what drives them.

[IJ Reilly]

If their End-to-End Zune model is indicative of their direction on the personal computer then they are sunk. They are just too large and unfocused to make Apple's model work for themselves. Zune has stagnated and the end user has been ignored.

Somebody gets it.

Not only are they too large and unfocused (thank Ballmer for that), they really have no experience with making the end-to-end model work for them, and too little control over the OEM hardware market to implement the strategy, even if they had one, which apparently they don't. All talk no action. Classic Microsoft.

[stagi]

If you think he's creepy in a picture, I daren't think what you'll make of him dancing ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc):eek:

Great video. :)

[nick9191]

I love Ballmer's 30-to-one statistic.

And how much is that in discretionary buying? Sure, my company buys PCs out the wazoo. Doesn't mean I prefer using one. I would be willing to bet it's more like a 8-to-1 statistic, if you take out the corporate and academic world.
More like 4 to 1 in the consumer market.

Mac sales will take a long time to reflect on the whole world as general users only buy a computer every few years tops. However near 30% of computer sales in the consumer world are macs.

[rxse7en]

Why does Microsoft have to change anything? Why not spin-off a Mac-like subsidiary that provides a complete hardware/software solution? Allow the enterprise to continue with Windows and generic boxes and create a whole new platform like they've done with Zune for consumers?

[IJ Reilly]

Why does Microsoft have to change anything? Why not spin-off a Mac-like subsidiary that provides a complete hardware/software solution? Allow the enterprise to continue with Windows and generic boxes and create a whole new platform like they've done with Zune for consumers?

For the same reason Apple doesn't license OSX to other hardware manufacturers. Because then they'd be competing with themselves.

[elppa]

So Microsoft is going to borrow/mimic/copy Apple's strategies.

PC Warned us about this at MacWorld '08 (http://bigtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/01/15/live-steve-jobs-keynote-at-macworld-2008/).

PC says 2008, though, will be a great year. “What are you going to do?” Mac asks. “I’m just going to copy everything you did in 2007.”

[Virgil-TB2]

I don't get it. Apple has a tiny 8% share of the market. Why is MS so obsessed with trying to kill Apple. They have a government approve monopoly why bother with Apple?Because Balmer's an idiot and the investors have blinders on? :)

Seriously, I think people are missing the main point that this memo reveals.

It's clear that instead of cutting off the under-performing bits of the company and focussing on what they do well, (do they do anything well?), Microsoft is again focussing all it's energy on non-profitable competition with "fantasy" competitors.


Apple is actually not in the same business as Microsoft, but MS (Balmer) thinks they "have to defeat" Apple on the iPhone front now?

Google is also not in the same business as Microsoft, but MS (Balmer) thinks it's worthwhile spending billions to "defeat" them also?

Microsoft will eventually have to re-structure and re-organise if it wants to compete with anyone and that usually involves cutting away the fat and focussing on the core business. That means Office and Windows, period.

"Goodbye X-Box, search, Zune, ZunePhone and about 30% of our workers" is what Blamer needs to say, but he never will. Whomever replaces him in the next year or so, will probably announce the cuts as the first order of business. What better evidence that Balmer is balmy than the fact that he actually thinks MS will make an "iPhone killer" phone, based on the horrific failure of the Zune, and that this will turn his company around? The man is delusional and irresponsible as a CEO.

Let's hope he stays a long time! :)

[andiwm2003]

I love Ballmer's 30-to-one statistic.

And how much is that in discretionary buying? Sure, my company buys PCs out the wazoo. Doesn't mean I prefer using one. I would be willing to bet it's more like a 8-to-1 statistic, if you take out the corporate and academic world.

well for MS it doesn't matter if people buy because they want windows or because their boss tells them to want windows.

anyway, i wonder what these numbers are based on: software, hardware, xbox, ipods, macs, zune, MS office, exchange server, msn, mobileme. That are very diverse markets.

i guess it's a rough estimate how many people use MS products versus Apple products. if it's that then 24-1 or 30-1 doesn't matter.

microsofts main problem is that they can't introduce new standards and structures because old software will be imcompatible and they would lose their customer base. so with every product they have to compromise. (e.g. apple can tell people to switch to intel programs or live with rosetta slowness.)

[Eraserhead]

The average consumer will only buy a computer at the most every few years, hence why Apple's marketshare is still low. However if you actually look at the amount of units being sold,

The figures I'm quoting *are* the number of units being sold.

Apple are the second or third largest OEM in the world, with about a 30% share in the consumer market, note I said consumer market.

More like 4 to 1 in the consumer market.

Except that neither of those are actually true. Worldwide according to both IDC (http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21349408) and Gartner (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=724111) they aren't in the top 5.

And even in the US, which is Apple's strongest market, they only have a 12% share of the consumer market.

[Unspeaked]

For those of you pointing out how stagnant, over-extended and unorganized Microsoft is: while this may be true, it should be noted that Microsoft does not have to be anymore successful in order to thwart a competitor's success.

It's not a zero sum game, in other words.

[trip1ex]

MS's model worked great when day to day apps were greatly improved by faster processing power. That just isn't the case anymore. The industry has matured a bit.

You don't need a new machine to run Office or get on the 'net.

Plus computers tend to have way way more features than consumers use. People just don't need that.

And so reliability and ease of use are more important now.

Good luck to MS on providing an end to end experience when the number of hardware combinations out there are probably in the tens of thousands and that's before we talk about all the versions of Windows and startup programs out there.

[Eraserhead]

Apple is actually not in the same business as Microsoft, but MS (Balmer) thinks they "have to defeat" Apple on the iPhone front now?

They do. Within 5 years Apple could easily be selling 200 million iPhones a year, unless someone steps up to the plate and competes with Apple. If that is android then there are 200 million phones running an open-source OS in daily and obvious use, so Microsoft *does* have to compete here.

If Apple's selling 200 million iPhones and say 20-30 million Macs a year that gives them almost as large a share on both OS's as Microsoft Windows will have.

[NAG]

I think Ballmer is just talking up the Zune Phone they're probably making. They did the same thing with the Zune. They make their own unit and make it incompatible with everything they did before to call it an end-to-end strategy then they throw in something silly like a billion junk online music stores or something to claim they allow choice.

For the phone they'll probably again do the own unit that is incompatible with winmo to some degree and then throw it at every mobile provider under the sun to claim they provide choice.

There you go, MS's strategy that will save them to some degree. The Just Good Enough™ strategy.

[savanahrose]

So he wants to redefine what end-to-end means? MS can't be an end-to-end system because they aren't an end-to-end system. Until MS starts making their own computers they can't be an end-to-end system. Ballmer just wants to make it look like they are trying because if all you're doing is working with Dell/Acer/HP/Toshiba/etc on making sure THEIR products work then you'll NEVER be an end-to-end company.

Eh well - it's not exactly like ballmer has ever been a master of the English language anyway. *squirt*


That is just about what I got out of the article. It sounds like MS is going to start making their own computers so that they can compete with Apple. I see failure in their future.

[rxse7en]

For the same reason Apple doesn't license OSX to other hardware manufacturers. Because then they'd be competing with themselves.
It's going to require something that extreme. They had to do the same thing when they launched Zune, no? Kill their other drm-ladened musing offerings?

Besides, they can keep doing what they are doing and the spinoff could be a high-end platform that can coexist with Windows, but be something more elite in a closed, MS-controlled environment.

For those that haven't seen it, even Zune's most die-hard fan has now abandoned ship: http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/23/zune-guy-fed-up-with-zune-seeks-to-cover-up-tattoos/

[agreenster]

So Bill Gates has been out of the office for, what, 10 seconds now and all Ballmer can do is pee his pants and send a email to his employees saying to replicate Apple's business model?

Too bad Apple's business model is constantly flexing and changing...

i think MS needs some kick ass product designers. then... apple will be in trouble.

If it were that easy, MS would have dominated years ago. They HAVE good designers, but they also have a typical, overgrown corporate environment that takes a good idea and bastardizes it until its a fraction of what it used to be.

For example: http://www.todaysbigthing.com/2008/07/23

What Apple has, is a focused, brilliant leader who has uncompromising sensibilities and knows exactly what he wants, and guides (harshly at times) his team to make THE thing he wants. That is an environment and a success story that is extremely hard to replicate. (though MS has their share of successes too....)

[dsnort]

So Ballmer isn't quite as dumb as he looks, eh?

He couldn't be.

Sorry, it was too easy.

[Clive At Five]

Well, it makes sense... The world of consumer electronics is becoming a lot less "Wild West" where roughians patch together solutions to try to make things work well together. We're reaching an age of unification... hardware and software becoming one. I think the iPhone is probably the best example I can think of.

It at least a good sign that Microsoft is sensing this and is moving with the trend. I wish them the best in their realignment. Competition is very good for all end-users.

-Clive

[Digital Skunk]

Dell comes pretty close to barebones on their workstation configurations. CD-ROM drives until Vista was out, 1 GB of RAM, and 80 GB SATA drives.

I remember those days too. Getting an XPS system for around $1000 simply because the case cost $600. Filling up the internals along the way. That was the case with the G4/G5 towers or yore. For $1500/$2000 respectively you could get a barebones tower with just enough CPU but a lot of expansion.

Actually, I can't. It's beyond my price range, too big of a screen, a way faster processor than I want, ect. ect. ect.

I really DO need a Macbook with dedicated graphics.

I love the way some people think they can justify up selling you on a system.

Everyone could use a MacBook with dedicated CPU, or there is still that need for a 13.3" MBP.

[sushi]

96/4=24.
Doh! Thanks.

well for MS it doesn't matter if people buy because they want windows or because their boss tells them to want windows.
So true. Fortune 500, governmental agencies and the military -- the three largest computer purchasing segments in the US -- purchase PCs running Windows.

Until this changes, Windows will dominate. Face it, folks want to use what they are comfortable with.

[Nieval]

First the zune and now this, am i the only one who finds it pathetically sad that microsofts attempt at being innovative is really just imitating apple? Which in a sense means they're already a step behind before they've even hit the ground.

[dstrauss]

I don't get it. Apple has a tiny 8% share of the market. Why is MS so obsessed with trying to kill Apple. They have a government approve monopoly why bother with Apple?

Microsoft is like the great cattle barons of the old West...they weren't greedy, they just wanted all the land contiguous to their ranches.:D

[madmaxmedia]

Steve Ballmer is on the same tier as the CEO of Palm, an idiot and lacking the knowledge and wherewithal to monitor the market and adapt to changes.

Old farts that have fallen out of the tech world and inundate us with outdated technology that caters to outmoded market segments.

I may not be a huge fan of the iPhone, but it has changed the market substantially, while those that were flourishing in it tried their best to give users a better device with crappy OS.

Ballmer will fail at much of what he tries to do with Microsoft, though I do hope that the next version of Windows gives Apple a run for it's money, and makes me consider buying a PC.

I completely agree with your assessment of Ballmer. The problem is not even that Microsoft is a bad company, the problem is that Microsoft is a public company (which means certain expectations from investors) that has to deal with a lot of legacy issues (which means certain expectations from customers).

But instead of dealing with it honestly and objectively, Ballmer says they're going to implement some sort of 'no compromises' solution. That's impossible. You can't be all things to all people, all of the time. If they would only make some realistic choices, Microsoft could thrive again (it's not like they're losing money, they're just not achieving the same growth they used to.)

Exactly so. The Microsoft we know today was the product of an historical quirk, an accident, which made them think that this so-called "component" model was a work of their genius and could be implemented in other markets. Now after literally decades of trying, they appear to be giving up and accepting that they have to design products more like Apple does. Good luck with that, is all I can say.

Any company with the size and success of Microsoft cannot just be considered a historical quirk. If anything, objectively speaking I would consider Apple a historical quirk, a company whose success largely rests upon the back of one man- Steve Jobs- a man who won't be at Apple forever.

But in the end, models are only a rough approximation of reality. The reality is Apple has executed much better than Microsoft the last few years, regardless of their operating and design models.

Competition is relevant for all those companies' missions of delivering "better." But competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission of delivering the BEST. If they were the only computer company on earth with a 100% monopoly, I believe they/Steve would still be constantly improving their products in trying to deliver the best. That is what drives them.

No. Competition always drives companies and individuals to reach heights they never thought possible. Competition is what drives Apple to not only create the best products, but at the best possible price points they can deliver. Competition also drives companies internally. Competition also provides an inspiration or starting point for your new products. Apple didn't invent mp3 players, or mp3's for that matter. They didn't invent the GUI either, the inspiration came from another company which could be regarded as a competitor.

A certain degree of complacency is inherent in human nature.

If a company (any company) essentially existed in its own vacuum, it wouldn't be nearly as successful due to the direct/indirect influences of other companies or competitors.

[IJ Reilly]

It's going to require something that extreme. They had to do the same thing when they launched Zune, no? Kill their other drm-ladened musing offerings?

And look how well that worked out. It was just another signal that partnering with Microsoft is a dangerous game. This is a company that eats its young.

[TheSlush]

I don't get it. Apple has a tiny 8% share of the market. Why is MS so obsessed with trying to kill Apple. They have a government approve monopoly why bother with Apple?

I think some of it is the brand. Microsoft's/Apple's marketshares are inversely proportional to their brand images in the marketplace. To some extent, "brand Microsoft's" constantly-bruised corporate ego leads to more of their attention on shiny, loved "brand Apple" than Apple's marketshare warrants.

[Mac21ND]

Somebody gets it.

Not only are they too large and unfocused (thank Ballmer for that), they really have no experience with making the end-to-end model work for them, and too little control over the OEM hardware market to implement the strategy, even if they had one, which apparently they don't. All talk no action. Classic Microsoft.

Totally agree. The only fronts where they have some success are their silo divisions, such as the xbox. I don't count Zune in there because their software is too tied to the OS to be completely independent of the typically problems they have.

I happened to be reading the MiniMicrosoft blog today; which is always fun to see how disorganized they are internally. Good, but sad, read into what could be.

[Rojo]

Competitive pressures are not the engine of Apple's quality.

"Competition is good because it pushes Apple" -- this Economics 101 idea is always being touted throughout the MacRumors forums. I think it's worth saying that competition is not what drives Apple/Steve Jobs. They want to make the best products. Not "slightly better than the other guy" products, the best ones. They are not driven by what's out there, or with keeping up with the Joneses. They do not "get nervous" when a competitor adds some feature or reduces the price of something. They do not "worry" that their products have to be up to par with everyone else's. They do not improve a product to compete, they improve it to make it better. Sure, Apple has to play in the same market like everyone else and I'm not suggesting they can totally defy the laws of competitive economics... but I am suggesting that it's not what drives them, and it's not what inspires them, and I don't believe it's what constitutes their decision-making.

Competition is relevant for all those companies' missions of delivering "better." But competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission of delivering the BEST. If they were the only computer company on earth with a 100% monopoly, I believe they/Steve would still be constantly improving their products in trying to deliver the best. That is what drives them.

I don't think Apple is striving to be #1 in sales, or is trying to have the products with the most features. And yes, you’re right -- they ARE striving to put out the best products.

BUT -- to say that they are devoid of ANY competitive qualities whatsoever is not only naive for anyone to say, but it would be absolutely foolish for them as a business.

Apple is seen in such high regard BECAUSE of their quality products and services. When huge missteps like MobileMe happens, it creates a much bigger PR nightmare than if it was MS who unveiled it (where people would probably be shrugging as if it was the norm). Apple needs to stay competitive in order to keep their integrity and good name in good standing. They can’t afford more disasters like MobileMe and firmware 2.0 and the iPhone activation mess (which yes, I know -- is not their fault, but it unfortunately happened at the same time as all of their other problems, and the general public just clumps it all together).

If MicroSoft really DOES step up their game, and delivers quality products that gain people’s respect (it remains to be seen, of course), you better believe it will hurt Apple. When people have a choice of switching to an unknown company that’s getting lots of bad press (warranted or not), or sticking with something familiar that’s suddenly doing well -- what do you think they’ll choose?

Apple DOES need to be competitive in order to keep their respect intact. And I believe that they ARE competitive, by striving to be the best. There's no way they could have gotten this far if they hadn't been...

[FX120]

Competitive pressures are not the engine of Apple's quality.

"Competition is good because it pushes Apple" -- this Economics 101 idea is always being touted throughout the MacRumors forums. I think it's worth saying that competition is not what drives Apple/Steve Jobs. They want to make the best products. Not "slightly better than the other guy" products, the best ones. They are not driven by what's out there, or with keeping up with the Joneses. They do not "get nervous" when a competitor adds some feature or reduces the price of something. They do not "worry" that their products have to be up to par with everyone else's. They do not improve a product to compete, they improve it to make it better. Sure, Apple has to play in the same market like everyone else and I'm not suggesting they can totally defy the laws of competitive economics... but I am suggesting that it's not what drives them, and it's not what inspires them, and I don't believe it's what constitutes their decision-making.

Competition is relevant for all those companies' missions of delivering "better." But competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission of delivering the BEST. If they were the only computer company on earth with a 100% monopoly, I believe they/Steve would still be constantly improving their products in trying to deliver the best. That is what drives them.

Yeah, because we've never seen any evidence of any Apple product being pushed out before it's ready. And Apple isn't interested in making money as a corporation, no their just a charity...

This sort of blind view about Apple is quite possibly what is driving their ability to shovel us all **** right now.

[clevin]

96/4=24.
or 96/3=32
So Bill Gates has been out of the office for, what, 10 seconds now and all Ballmer can do is pee his pants and send a email to his employees saying to replicate Apple's business model?

Too bad Apple's business model is constantly flexing and changing...


Apple's restricted model has been there for 20 years, change? maybe cosmo changes, nothing to the core.

I doubt M$ is abandoning open hardware model, Thats still 90% of the market, what Ballmer is probably thinking, is just to spend some $$$ to expand, on top of its current model, a model with restricted hardware/softwares like apple did with macs.

I think The netbooks, such as MSI, EEE, etc, are all very close to this model, and M$ is said to optimization winXP for them. I would imagine this is what they are trying to go. Maybe with some high-end types as extra to increase competition with macs in rich market.

Yeah, because we've never seen any evidence of any Apple product being pushed out before it's ready. And Apple isn't interested in making money as a corporation, no their just a charity...

This sort of blind view about Apple is quite possibly what is driving their ability to shovel us all **** right now.

absolutely, apple's quality control is in the toilet, hardware, software, and online service. I can't believe somebody would still blatantly making false claims in face of mobileme fiasco, with RSS, discoloration, iPod Touch color issue, iMac LCD issue, with 10 month premature leopard.

Just this type of lacking any real criticism from the users, that encouraged apple kept putting out these obviously not ready product. This needs to stop.

[KingRocky]

There is NOTHING that Microsoft can do that will EVER make me go back to Windows as my primary operating system. Windows is fundamentally flawed in its design - just look at the number of blue-screened self-checkout machines, airport notice boards, etc.

When a 14 year-old kid can bring down the entire network from one PC at his middle school, you know that there's a fundamental problem.

The only way that Microsoft can escape its bad image is to do a complete ground-up redesign, like Apple did with the OS9 - OS X switch. The entire system needs to be locked down - hard.

But it doesn't matter to me as I won't ever buy a PC again.

[NAG]

Any company with the size and success of Microsoft cannot just be considered a historical quirk. If anything, objectively speaking I would consider Apple a historical quirk, a company whose success largely rests upon the back of one man- Steve Jobs- a man who won't be at Apple forever.

I agree that Microsoft is not a quirk because they're not. Their day in the sun may be coming to an end, at least in their current form (not saying they're going to die, that is silly). But I wouldn't go so far as to say Apple is the quirk. Companies that are driven to success by a strong leader are not a quirk. In fact, that is usually how things happen. Visionaries bring success, not committees. Committees are good at refining the status quo. Overly large committees are too scared to offend anyone that they usually screw up whatever they're delegated. Overly stupid visionaries think they're perfect and drive themselves into the ground.

[Marx55]

The component model only works if you have a monopoly, thus maintained by inertia and user ignorance. The end-to-end model requieres state-of-the-art and quality, awesome user experience and ease of use. Something that Microsoft cannot even dream of. That is why the day 25% of people use Mac, Windows will be history in three years.

[gmfeier]

Two words: "Zune Phone" - for some reason, I find that extremely funny.

[clevin]

The component model only works if you have a monopoly, thus maintained by inertia and user ignorance. The end-to-end model requieres state-of-the-art and quality, awesome user experience and ease of use. Something that Microsoft cannot even dream of. That is why the day 25% of people use Mac, Windows will be history in three years.

Thats total imaginary statements with absolutely no logic behind it. If anything, component model invites competition.

[maelstromr]

How are they going to create a good "end-to-end" experience when they can't even get one piece (the OS) right? You think Apple had problems with the Mobile Me update? Wait until you see Microsoft try to implement something like painless syncing. Or a good mobile web browser (Gosh, how how are we going to fit all 600 toolbar icons into Mobile IE?). Or a retail experience that doesn't look like Walmart and smell like Ballmer? I hope they really do something good, but confidence is low...extremely low.

Epic fail.

Great point. While the last week or two has been a little disappointing, as far as I understand it a very small percentage of users continue to have mobile me mail troubles, and from my perspective the whole launch went relatively well. Three weeks from now will these hicups be remembered, let alone commented on?

Over a year since Vista launch and M$ just recently commented that it is finally ready to be competative. They have a LOOONG way to go before seriously competing with Apple's quality, AND (not or) Apple has a long way further to fall.
:apple:

[Mac21ND]

Two words: "Zune Phone" - for some reason, I find that extremely funny.

Zune Phone = The original Motorola Rokr with iTunes.

[IJ Reilly]

Any company with the size and success of Microsoft cannot just be considered a historical quirk. If anything, objectively speaking I would consider Apple a historical quirk, a company whose success largely rests upon the back of one man- Steve Jobs- a man who won't be at Apple forever.

Microsoft really is the product of an historical quirk, several really. The key quirk was IBM losing control of the PC hardware platform. Microsoft wasn't responsible for this development, Compaq was. Microsoft just happened to be perfectly positioned to reap the rewards of the PC clone industry -- which IBM certainly never intended to develop, and nobody, Microsoft included, anticipated. This quirk created the very unusual split between the hardware and OS manufacturers, or the "component model" as we're calling it today. Microsoft has been trying for decades to duplicate the success of this model in other markets, with a notable lack of success. Others have also tried and failed. This doesn't come as much of a surprise to those of us who know that its success in the PC market was the result of a series of historical accidents which are unlikely to occur again.

[clevin]

Great point. While the last week or two has been a little disappointing, as far as I understand it a very small percentage of users continue to have mobile me mail troubles, and from my perspective the whole launch went relatively well. Three weeks from now will these hicups be remembered, let alone commented on?

Over a year since Vista launch and M$ just recently commented that it is finally ready to be competative. They have a LOOONG way to go before seriously competing with Apple's quality, AND (not or) Apple has a long way further to fall.
:apple:

you should read reviews of mobileme, its bad beyond hiccups.

PS. Vista sold 180millions and has 18% market share now. How much does leopard has?

[zal]

In my opinion, Microsoft (the enterprise) has become too much bulky and will have hard time achieving their new goal.
Apple shouldn't be afraid.

[surferfromuk]

I basically read this ;

Apple have shown us a way we can make more money but more important than that get more marketshare. If we emulate Apple as well as keeping our current model then maybe we can take some of Apple's business and stop people leaving the windows platform since that is what they appear to be liking. 100% market or die is our new motto...it doesn't really matter if we lose a few billion a year doing it - we'll just buy the last 8% of the market with the money we make from the first 92%...

People who think this guy is just a fool are only half-right. He's a powerful fool with such incredible power and money that he can basically wreck an entire industry trying to get what he wants..

Let's face it they've already killed Vmware...

[madmaxmedia]

Yeah, I completely agree with you there. I didn't mean that I really considered Apple a quirk, but that you could call either company a quirk and perhaps there was more reason to consider Apple one than Microsoft.

But in the end, all the talk of models and such is not as important as what the company actually produces, and how good their products are. The Zune is a great example of this IMO- Microsoft got all gung-ho about using Apple's integrated iPod model, except they apparently forgot they needed to create a great player to actually succeed.

Your point about successful companies being led by strong visionaries is also very good. I love my Apple stuff but try not to get religious about Apple the company, or about Microsoft. Microsoft is still one of the great success stories of the modern age. It's a shame really, they still have the resources and position to have a resurgence. They even have some really smart people at the top, but at the very top is where things fall down. That blather from Ballmer about 'no compromises' is the perfect example. Either its crappy-disguised PR spin which indicates no real goal or message, or Ballmer actually believes it which means Microsoft will spin its wheels for another 5 years. Great design and execution always involves hard choices, not trying to have everything.

I agree that Microsoft is not a quirk because they're not. Their day in the sun may be coming to an end, at least in their current form (not saying they're going to die, that is silly). But I wouldn't go so far as to say Apple is the quirk. Companies that are driven to success by a strong leader are not a quirk. In fact, that is usually how things happen. Visionaries bring success, not committees. Committees are good at refining the status quo. Overly large committees are too scared to offend anyone that they usually screw up whatever they're delegated. Overly stupid visionaries think they're perfect and drive themselves into the ground.

[clevin]

I basically read this ;

Apple have shown us a way we can make more money but more important than that get more marketshare. If we emulate Apple as well as keeping our current model then maybe we can take some of Apple's business and stop people leaving the windows platform since that is what they appear to be liking. 100% market or die is our new motto...it doesn't really matter if we lose a few billion a year doing it - we'll just buy the last 8% of the market with the money we make from the first 92%...

People who think this guy is just a fool are only half-right. He's a powerful fool with such incredible power and money that he can basically wreck an entire industry trying to get what he wants..

Let's face it they've already killed Vmware...
I doubt $$$ can buy those 2% core mac users, I mean, they survived OS classic 6,7,8,9!

But I think your analysis is about right.

[dl13]

Here we go again. Microsoft trying to take over a market that Apple has found success/domination in and will end up coming up short again. The Zune phone will be another one of Microsoft's interesting failures. Hopefully they can bring something to the phone market that'll put Apple on its heel and bring us something completely astonishing.

[roland.g]

30-1 PCs to Macs huh. M$ sells an OS, but doesn't sell any PCs.

Zunephone = fail.

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5A347 Safari/525.20)

It says a lot about Apple's success that Microsoft are shifting their strategy.

I agree. It is interesting to see MS taking notice.

[neverusedq]

This is no new news... Gates and Balmer sung this song saying the same thing back in Windows 98, when they claimed the whole OS would have a web-interface experience... More recently Ballmer bounced around the stage saying how Windows Vista was going to be the ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE and this innovative new feel for the user.... right.

Ballmer's goal is to sell Microsoft. Do you really think he's going to get on stage and say yea ok, Apple builds the better interface and the better architecture and they can support the system from any of its 360 degree angles? No... he's going to paint the new Windows 7 with so much eye candy that your eyes will rot in their sockets.

If Ballmer REALLY wanted to give the user an experience they'd never forget, they'd fix the system instead of changing it around, tricking people into believing it's a brand new Windows, when in fact it's been the same thing since the Windows 95 era. I rest my case.

[glennyboiwpg]

Or better yet! How about those radial buttons that give me the options of NO HDDs, RAM, etc. in the system so I can get them somewhere else.

Wow... you don't get it do you. The whole point of apples success is the end to end control, gives you a great experence == success.

Is it perfect? No. Does it suck not having the choices... yeah.


BUT ITS THE WHOLE POINT! Start throwing in different mother boards, HDS, graphic cards, etc and then all of the sudden OSX will start crashing and you'll be the first to say: "WOW apple quality has taken a turn for the worse".


Cake... Can't have it and eat it too my friends.

[DarthTreydor]

zune phone?!?!

Bwahahahahahaha!

Nice try M$

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, I completely agree with you there. I didn't mean that I really considered Apple a quirk, but that you could call either company a quirk and perhaps there was more reason to consider Apple one than Microsoft.

I've already describe the historical quirks which were so clearly responsible for Microsoft's success. If you are going to make this argument, you need to name similar historical quirks that were responsible for Apple's success. Good luck.

[madmaxmedia]

Every situation is unique, and could thus be considered a quirk. Every business opportunity is different. Another industry will not have the same circumstances, but there will probably be another set of quirky circumstances present.

I do agree with you however. Especially when you consider that Bill Gates/Microsoft didn't even write the original IBM DOS. Other companies could then jump in and try to copy Microsoft's 'model', but at that point the game had changed, simply by the presence of Microsoft. Similarly, Microsoft tried to copy Apple's model and failed, because the circumstances were no longer the same- why buy the Zune system when there's already a great iPod system that works?

Microsoft really is the product of an historical quirk, several really. The key quirk was IBM losing control of the PC hardware platform. Microsoft wasn't responsible for this development, Compaq was. Microsoft just happened to be perfectly positioned to reap the rewards of the PC clone industry -- which IBM certainly never intended to develop, and nobody, Microsoft included, anticipated. This quirk created the very unusual split between the hardware and OS manufacturers, or the "component model" as we're calling it today. Microsoft has been trying for decades to duplicate the success of this model in other markets, with a notable lack of success. Others have also tried and failed. This doesn't come as much of a surprise to those of us who know that its success in the PC market was the result of a series of historical accidents which are unlikely to occur again.

[/dev/toaster]

Funny, I was _just_ thinking about this the other day. Microsoft spent so much energy going after Google they forgot about Apple for a while. They screwed up Vista because they were more intrested in getting their search engines up and running or buying Yahoo.

Honestly, I am not worried at all. Ballmer is incompetent at best and everything he says only makes me think of chair throwing and the developers dance remix.

If Bill Gates said it, I _might_ be _slightly_ worried. Sorry Microsoft, you are a dying breed. Finally people are waking up that your products are crap.

Linux = Server world
Mac = Desktop world
Microsoft = The AOL of desktops

Zune phone ?! LOL, Microsoft ... you just don't get it do you.

[Beric]

Wow... you don't get it do you. The whole point of apples success is the end to end control, gives you a great experence == success.

Is it perfect? No. Does it suck not having the choices... yeah.


BUT ITS THE WHOLE POINT! Start throwing in different mother boards, HDS, graphic cards, etc and then all of the sudden OSX will start crashing and you'll be the first to say: "WOW apple quality has taken a turn for the worse".


Cake... Can't have it and eat it too my friends.

Uhhh...

Macs use standard PC parts. They don't use some special, "high-quality" components". Just the same parts you see in a standard PC. Putting your own parts in should be absolutely no problem, and if you mess something up, clearly it IS your own problem.

And I personally would love to see more user customization available. Popping in your own parts that are exactly what you want would be great.

[madmaxmedia]

I've already describe the historical quirks which were so clearly responsible for Microsoft's success. If you are going to make this argument, you need to name similar historical quirks that were responsible for Apple's success. Good luck.

Well, how about the strange set of circumstances that brought Jobs back to Apple in the first place? Had they bought Be instead of Next, I think everything changes. And the decision to buy Next was made by one Apple's worst CEO's, Gil Amelio. What if Next was actually more successful than it was? Next might never have been up for acquisition. Etc...

Or the fact that had Apple actually been able to bring a half-assed Copland to the market, they would have never resorted to buying an outside company for a new OS? Copland was an even worse mess than Vista, but fortunately the phoenix rose from the ashes.

Or the fact that Apple didn't develop the original iPod interface to begin with, that someone else brought the design to Apple? I don't give Apple any less credit for the iPod because of that, they recognized and jumped on an opportunity. I would say the same largely goes for Microsoft.

Every success represents some combination of skill and serendipity. I'm not sure why Microsoft's success is only the product of historical 'quirks', but Apple's must be totally the opposite.

[FuuFuu]

Yeah, Apple and Microsoft need each other to be at their best, much like a good superhero needs a good villain.

Each should continue trying to out-innovate the other, and ultimately the world wins.

really sums up what i wanted to say. its a good thing that microsoft is up to the challenge. to me, it feels like the mistakes apple has been making was because they don't have anyone to beat up on. microsoft has been a disaster lately.

[Popeye206]

Blah, blah, blah... MS will do this, and MS will do that. More MS spew.

Basically, I've seen MS make lofty claims like this over and over. They are powerful, smart and have very deep pockets, but lets face it. MS has to make many fundamental changes to match what other more innovative companies are doing... like Apple.

Apple is not god... they make mistakes too and have bumps in the road, but overall, if you look at how much they give us in a year vs other companies... and the fact that EVERYONE tries to copy them and fails for the most part, Apple is a force that will be hard to stop. Innovation. Quality, service and that ever lingering "wow factor" is hard to overcome.

Remember... MS was going to own the browser market with IE, they were going to take over publishing with MS Publisher (what product is that???), they were going to take over the search engine market with MSN, they were going to "blow our socks off" with Vista...

Need I say more?

MS lacks one thing that can't steal from others... Vision.

:)

[shabbasuraj]

ZUNE PHONE?

iPhone KILLLLLLLLLLARRRRRRRR











flop/

[Peruchito]

Competitive pressures are not the engine of Apple's quality.

"Competition is good because it pushes Apple" -- this Economics 101 idea is always being touted throughout the MacRumors forums. I think it's worth saying that competition is not what drives Apple/Steve Jobs. They want to make the best products. Not "slightly better than the other guy" products, the best ones. They are not driven by what's out there, or with keeping up with the Joneses. They do not "get nervous" when a competitor adds some feature or reduces the price of something. They do not "worry" that their products have to be up to par with everyone else's. They do not improve a product to compete, they improve it to make it better. Sure, Apple has to play in the same market like everyone else and I'm not suggesting they can totally defy the laws of competitive economics... but I am suggesting that it's not what drives them, and it's not what inspires them, and I don't believe it's what constitutes their decision-making.

Competition is relevant for all those companies' missions of delivering "better." But competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission of delivering the BEST. If they were the only computer company on earth with a 100% monopoly, I believe they/Steve would still be constantly improving their products in trying to deliver the best. That is what drives them.

smartest thing i heard in a while here. and very true.

[gifford]

My thoughts exactly. It's always good to have solid competition. Look and Canon and Nikon.

Everyone always says this.

I dont think apple could work much harder than they do, they are stretched pretty thin already. Sure they can hire in more people as they now have the cash, but REALLY talented people dont grow on trees however much cash you have. Ask Microsoft.

EDIT: the quote in the post above this, sums up what i was about to explain.

[madmaxmedia]

Honestly, I am not worried at all. Ballmer is incompetent at best and everything he says only makes me think of chair throwing and the developers dance remix.

If Bill Gates said it, I _might_ be _slightly_ worried. Sorry Microsoft, you are a dying breed. Finally people are waking up that your products are crap.

One thing that Apple users/enthusiasts still need to get used to is the idea that, really, even if Microsoft starts putting out good product, Apple users still have nothing to worry about. ;)

A few years ago things were different, Apple was struggling to remain relevant and maintain solid financial ground. But currently the only people that have to worry about that are Apple stock investors. But Apple the company will be around for a long time regardless of what Microsoft does.

[(L)]

They are definitely conscious of Apple and especially the image that Apple has created for itself, and I'm no Microsoft fan, but it seems more like a response to their own failures in certain markets. The statement also seems contradictory -- is it a move to end-to-end, or not? They want to try to make a grayer gray area?

The irony is that Microsoft is not about choice. They're about lousy software.

[Popeye206]

really sums up what i wanted to say. its a good thing that microsoft is up to the challenge. to me, it feels like the mistakes apple has been making was because they don't have anyone to beat up on. microsoft has been a disaster lately.

I think Apple has been making mistakes, and in the big picture they are minor in most cases, because they are working hard to stay on the bleeding edge of innovation... everyone is after them right now and they need to move fast to stay ahead. The good part... when Apple messes up... it usually does not take months or years to correct the problem... usually its much faster than that and they usually toss us bone along the way.

[Whiternoise]

Sounds good to be honest. Instead of bitching about it all the time, perhaps Apple fans will learn to appreciate Windows for improving.

Look at it this way, if MS improved a lot, so they had minimal driver issues, everything pretty much worked, etc. Apple would have to seriously start working. Because to be quite honest they're coasting at the moment.

Leopard is just a lot of new features, and they've had to devote an entire OS release to add performance increases and stability.

It's like AMD-ATI vs Nvidia, no good slagging one of them off because they're the company that makes yours improve when they bring out better products.

The good part... when Apple messes up... it usually does not take months or years to correct the problem... usually its much faster than that and they usually toss us bone along the way.

Try telling that to the notebook users on these forums.

And before you tell me it's an isolated problem, remember that it's the same thing with all products. Many people are happy with XP and Vista, many people are happy with OS X in it's various forms. But it's no secret that Apple hasn't exactly gone out of it's way to solve all the issues that people have. And they've only got themselves to blame - as it's their hardware, no one elses. It will be a sad day when MS brings out their own hardware - better that they try to make a unified platform for windows, instead of all the mishmash of hardware you can buy.

And to be fair, neither does Windows. If they don't fix it there's usually a free fix somewhere that will.

[rxse7en]

And look how well that worked out. It was just another signal that partnering with Microsoft is a dangerous game. This is a company that eats its young.

So true. Guess I'm just saying, don't be surprised if MS grabs a high-end PC maker and starts creating their own end-to-end environment. There's room in the MS ecosystem to support it. Whether MS can pull it off is a whole other story.

I've been following Zune since launch and it's AMAZING how they've fumbled that business. They REALLY had a shot at grabbing some of that iPod pie in the beginning--HUGE fanbase, innovative hardware, industry connections, Xbox ecosystem, etc. But it seems that their enthusiasm perished along with the sales figures. I can see them doing the exact same thing for the PC market. Very saddening to see their die-hard fanbase turn on them this early in the game.

[zacman]

PS. Vista sold 180millions and has 18% market share now.

Exactly, Vista is Microsoft's best selling OS ever released.

Springer recently announced that they will switch to Macs. This news was spread over all Mac sites like a huge win for Apple. Though almost never these sites reported that Springer also said in an interview that most of these Macs will run Windows and that they only choose the Mac hardware because of its design and for marketing reasons.

[TPALTony]

I don't get it. Apple has a tiny 8% share of the market. Why is MS so obsessed with trying to kill Apple. They have a government approve monopoly why bother with Apple?

Because apple has MIND share right now. People looking to buy a computer THINK of Apple. They never used to. You ignore that problem and before you know it they have 15% market share, then 25%, then oh #$#@ we're not even the majority any more! That would take a long time to happen, but as business strategy goes, Apple are worth paying attention to. They have gotten the complete experience RIGHT for the majority of people. iTunes and iPod for instance. How many cars can you buy that are "zune ready"? Versus iPod ready? They are leveraging that and getting computer traction (particularly with intel switch.) They are beating up on Vista and getting away with it because no one is bothering to answer... Apple has Microsoft on the ropes in terms of consumer perception. Size is irrelevant to that.

Mind share today is market share tomorrow, if you deliver on your promise...

[ssteve]

Yet another original idea from Redmond......................;) I really wish Apple could be more like Microsoft....:rolleyes: Maybe someday..... LOL

[Aznsensation45]

LMFAOOO!!! a zunephone... lol. your a funny one Ballmer...

oh. by the way. i got my new iphone yesterday..it's tight :D

[137489]

Interesting....

End-to-end huh.

hmm - little PC hardware companies going out of business due to MS saying, sorry your hardware is not up to our requirements; therefore you can no longer legally run Windows on your machines. MS starts suing clone makers.

hmm - Microsoft being sued again by all the PC makers they stop doing business with.

Microsoft sued by all the companies and servers who build computers in-house or order special components.

lets face it, I do not see this as flying. People are switching to Apple, because Apple does it right. Microsoft changing strategy in the midst of a vista flop and still behind on Windows 7?

Also, will this start driving up the cost of a PC, making a mac look even better? Especially if Apple starts lowering prices?

This is going to be interesting to watch, as it develops........

[IJ Reilly]

Every situation is unique, and could thus be considered a quirk. Every business opportunity is different. Another industry will not have the same circumstances, but there will probably be another set of quirky circumstances present.

Every success represents some combination of skill and serendipity. I'm not sure why Microsoft's success is only the product of historical 'quirks', but Apple's must be totally the opposite.

Sure, but I think you're missing the point. Where is Microsoft if Compaq doesn't figure out how to legally clone the IBM-PC hardware? Are they anything even remotely like the company they came to be? Of course not. Even more importantly, this was the birth of the so-called "component model," on which Microsoft's entire success was constructed -- and which it turns out had only one really successful implementation, for historical reasons which are unlikely to be duplicated ever again. You might ask yourself how that came to be, especially since Microsoft seems to be struggling currently with how to move beyond this very limited model.

We can also stand back and appreciate the irony. For years Apple was goaded into attempting the "component model," and when they did, it was a huge failure which nearly sunk the company. Now we see Microsoft trying to figure out how to implement the far more traditional "end-to-end" model that Apple has used successfully to build their business.

[iSlave]

ZunePhone???? Fakkk Orrrrffff!!!! Wahahahahahahahaha!!

[twoodcc]

haha, wow, you just gotta love Ballmer. we'll see what microsoft does

[babyj]

Seems like a normal press release from Ballmer - all hot air and ideas with little in the way of substance. It would be good news for everyone if they could match the 'end-to-end experience' that Apple do, but this will be a major task and you have to wonder how much success they are likely to have.

On a hardware front they need to work harder to ensure compatibility, maybe some kind of certification process with a requirement of the vendor to provide updated and fully working drivers within certain time frames. Maybe a similar process for ready built systems which actually means something, unlike the 'Vista Ready' fiasco that hit a lot of people.

The software side of things will be even harder. They need to start with core functionality in Windows and then find some way of forcing software houses to write better software. Though I haven't used Windows since XP so I don't know what things are like now, they may of improved.

If Microsoft can start competing on the main selling points Apple have, it will push Apple to innovate further - which would be excellent news for Apple users. Though to be fair, Apple have been doing a pretty good job without any real competition with their model.

[Virgil-TB2]

They do. Within 5 years Apple could easily be selling 200 million iPhones a year, unless someone steps up to the plate and competes with Apple. If that is android then there are 200 million phones running an open-source OS in daily and obvious use, so Microsoft *does* have to compete here.

If Apple's selling 200 million iPhones and say 20-30 million Macs a year that gives them almost as large a share on both OS's as Microsoft Windows will have.I meant "not in the same business" as in Microsoft is not a hardware company, not a media device company, and has never made a phone before.

It's reasonable to suggest (as you do) that because they have a software product that runs on phones they should compete on that playing field, but after so many years and so many versions of Windows Mobile, a counter argument to be made is "Why are they even in this business?" (phone software). Microsoft only "has to" compete in this market if you buy into that crap about how they must dominate any and all computing related markets. Only Microsoft believes in that imperative, so only from their point of view do they "have to."

By any rational measure, Windows Mobile is a failure, and has had many kicks at the can sort of speak. The rational choice for a company with it's fingers in so many markets would be to drop Windows mobile completely.

It's as if Toyota decided it wanted to compete in the electric train market as well as cars, tried to make a good train many many times over a ten year period and failed every time. Then they announce that they need to drop a few more billion on it because they don't think they can leave this market to "their competitors." The key point is that there are no competitors, because they were never *really* competitive in the market.

In the same way, Microsoft thinks it has to "win" in this and many other markets, when in fact they aren't really competitive in the first place. It would be more accurate to look at these kinds of ventures as "failed attempts at entering a market" as opposed to failing to compete in a market they are in. They never got out of the gate on a lot of this stuff and some of their best "successes" were purchased, not earned.

It's time for MS to wake up and smell the coffee, and admit that they have failed in some areas, cut them away, and move on with what they do best.

[(L)]

Sounds good to be honest. Instead of bitching about it all the time, perhaps Apple fans will learn to appreciate Windows for improving.

Look at it this way, if MS improved a lot, so they had minimal driver issues, everything pretty much worked, etc. Apple would have to seriously start working. Because to be quite honest they're coasting at the moment.


I don't fully disagree with you, but you know Apple IS making a giant new campus, right? Even if Windows redid everything, Apple can't just wave a magic wand and knock it up a notch -- in a sense expanding like they are is one way of working harder, but it's not like they've been consciously slacking.

[ProwlingTiger]

Zune phone? Do they still even make Zunes? Oh thats right, I forgot Gamestop now sells them....or rather displays them, as I cant imagine them selling any.

Microsoft will never get its user experience right.

[Breegy]

What I don't understand is: why is Microsoft and Ballmer so worried and so dead set on beating out competition? If they really are 30-1, why should they care?

That's like Wal-Mart being worried that my local Sweetbay is going to run it out of business.

They just want a monopoly over the market. It's stupid. It's not like the Gap is trying to get kids to stop shopping at American Eagle. We can chose what we want and everyone should be happy. Maybe they're worried because Apple is more customer-friendly and not so evil-seeming, like the cashiers at American Eagle are friendly, and the ones at the Gap are airheads (not judging where you shop, just a random store comparison:rolleyes:). Bill Gates was a good guy and he did a lot to help charities and will continue to, but now that he's leaving, I think Microsoft is in for some rought times ahead. But if the ratios is really as Ballmer describes it, why is he even bothered?

I think someone is on an ego-trip because some better quality product maker is making him self-conscious.

[importluva]

Competitive pressures are not the engine of Apple's quality.

"Competition is good because it pushes Apple" -- this Economics 101 idea is always being touted throughout the MacRumors forums. I think it's worth saying that competition is not what drives Apple/Steve Jobs. They want to make the best products. Not "slightly better than the other guy" products, the best ones. They are not driven by what's out there, or with keeping up with the Joneses. They do not "get nervous" when a competitor adds some feature or reduces the price of something. They do not "worry" that their products have to be up to par with everyone else's. They do not improve a product to compete, they improve it to make it better. Sure, Apple has to play in the same market like everyone else and I'm not suggesting they can totally defy the laws of competitive economics... but I am suggesting that it's not what drives them, and it's not what inspires them, and I don't believe it's what constitutes their decision-making.

Competition is relevant for all those companies' missions of delivering "better." But competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission of delivering the BEST. If they were the only computer company on earth with a 100% monopoly, I believe they/Steve would still be constantly improving their products in trying to deliver the best. That is what drives them.

You argument is fundamentally flawed. Business management 101 will tell you that the purpose of a business is to make profit, not necessarily to be the best. Apple is a business like any other and that is their biggest purpose.

Apple is successful because they know which segments of a market they want to target to make the most profit. They are subject to pressures from competition just as much as any other company and a lack of competition will do to them what happened to microsoft.

In other words, their best interests now happen to coincide with what is good for the markets but that will not always be true.

[AppleNewton]

and his figures seem slightly jaded considering a number amount of people run Windows XP/Vista on their MAC.

:p

[Agathon]

I wouldn't worry about this. Microsoft are constitutionally incapable of producing anything decent. Even the Xbox 360 is marred by the fact that the hardware is poorly ventilated.

[BongoBanger]

Because apple has MIND share right now. People looking to buy a computer THINK of Apple. They never used to. You ignore that problem and before you know it they have 15% market share, then 25%, then oh #$#@ we're not even the majority any more! That would take a long time to happen, but as business strategy goes, Apple are worth paying attention to.

Doubt it. Despite an intensive advertising campaign, MS shooting themselves in the foot and Vista being savaged by the tech press they increased market share by a mere 4% in the US and about "5 globally. Most people still don't think Apple and probably never will.

They have gotten the complete experience RIGHT for the majority of people. iTunes and iPod for instance. How many cars can you buy that are "zune ready"? Versus iPod ready?

Their iPod ready because it has 70% of the market. If they didn't the auto manufacturers wouldn't care.

They are leveraging that and getting computer traction (particularly with intel switch.) They are beating up on Vista and getting away with it because no one is bothering to answer...

Until now.

Apple has Microsoft on the ropes in terms of consumer perception. Size is irrelevant to that.

Nope. It's taken a bit of a kicking but, as mentioned, Apple's capitalisation of this has been underwhelming. In addition, Apple are creating their own problems now and not receiving good press for it.

Mind share today is market share tomorrow, if you deliver on your promise...

To a limited degree. It's not enough by itself though.

[madmaxmedia]

Sure, but I think you're missing the point. Where is Microsoft if Compaq doesn't figure out how to legally clone the IBM-PC hardware? Are they anything even remotely like the company they came to be? Of course not. Even more importantly, this was the birth of the so-called "component model," on which Microsoft's entire success was constructed -- and which it turns out had only one really successful implementation, for historical reasons which are unlikely to be duplicated ever again. You might ask yourself how that came to be, especially since Microsoft seems to be struggling currently with how to move beyond this very limited model.

We can also stand back and appreciate the irony. For years Apple was goaded into attempting the "component model," and when they did, it was a huge failure which nearly sunk the company. Now we see Microsoft trying to figure out how to implement the far more traditional "end-to-end" model that Apple has used successfully to build their business.

I don't miss your point, or even really disagree with you. My perspective is a bit different, but I don't think we are seeing different things. I posted some examples of what I thought were fortune rather than skill for Apple.

I just don't think the component model is more a quirk than any other particular 'model'. I distrust anyone who touts any 'model' as some sort of template for success. Models are what analysts come up with after the fact, to explain why company A succeeded or company B failed.

Your example of Apple copying Microsoft and licensing their OS is very apt. I think Microsoft turning around and copying Apple with the Zune represents the same flawed thinking. In both cases, the 'model' didn't work because fundamental situations were no longer the same, and just as importantly the actual products were no better than before. That's where the sh$t hits the fan.

I don't think Microsoft succeeded because of their model any more than you do, which is to say I completely agree with your statement that any revisionist history of patting yourself on the back for developing some sort of new model or worse yet, a 'paradigm', is for the birds (or for press releases.) But I don't consider Microsoft's success a 'fluke' either. Rarely does anyone have it that easy in business, that they can become hugely profitable through absolutely zero effort or work on their own.

[pkr]

A big part of the computer market has changed; its less about just selling/having a computer and more about the experience. Apple saw this coming and established their strategy from the get-go. Balmer has sorta, kinda figured it out.... but confesses that he's still a sucker for the old days. As for "no compromise" ... he's full of ***** - it ain't gonna happen - that's just the b.s./salesman in him talking.

[madmaxmedia]

It's time for MS to wake up and smell the coffee, and admit that they have failed in some areas, cut them away, and move on with what they do best.

I think one of their biggest problems is that they don't even know what they do best anymore.

They have an extremely talented work force, with absolutely horrible leadership. Gates was no visionary, but Ballmer is a change in an even worse direction.

[Agathon]

Business management 101 will tell you that the purpose of a business is to make profit, not necessarily to be the best.

People who believe that are setting themselves up for failure or mediocrity. Great businesses focus on making great products. People want great products. They don't care whether you make a profit or not.

[toujames]

Zune phone Vs. Iphone: the iphone will probably have some features that the zune phone wont have and some features that the zune phone has that iphone doesn't. Anywho, your choice got harder just like the PS3, Xbox, and Wii. :D

[dsachdev]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

Why not look towards Ubuntu as great choices moving forward rather then Microsoft?

[Eraserhead]

By any rational measure, Windows Mobile is a failure, and has had many kicks at the can sort of speak. The rational choice for a company with it's fingers in so many markets would be to drop Windows mobile completely.

I see your point that they haven't done well in the phone market so far.

However I think Microsoft will find it difficult to compete successfully in their core market (Desktop computers) if they don't have a strong product in the mobile phone market. Applications on the iPhone will generally work better with the Mac giving it a "killer feature" over Windows.

I think competing in the mobile space is more important than the Zune, and the Xbox and the Live stuff. The difference with Google (for example) is that they are an advertising/internet company and its difficult to see how that can easily directly compete with Microsoft Office/Windows.

It's as if Toyota decided it wanted to compete in the electric train market as well as cars, tried to make a good train many many times over a ten year period and failed every time.

To give it an analogy the iPhone is more like a Hybrid Car than a train.

[sanford]

I will never understand, never, ever, why MS, with the resources they have, they don't say, Okay, we've had a good run, our attempts at expansion have failed either outright or financially, we need to focus on our two triumphs: maintain Windows OS dominance in medium-to-large business computing environments; and leverage the large installed base of Xbox 360 into a profitable GAMES division (media service via Xbox Live being a perk, a necessary me-too, not an attempt to beat Apple in the media distribution and presentation racket).

Ballmer should remember that Apple is now winning over Microsoft in mindshare, but hey did not win on the Mac, they did even win with Mac OS X, they won going into areas MS has either not entered, entered only as a vendor of proprietary formats and software, or had merely "dabbled" in, again providing only, say, smartphone OSes to multiple hardware vendors with a symbiotic approach to the market, lacking a cohesive strategy for dominating that market by, for example, creating a gotta-have-it OS update for a hardware vendor willing to exclusively commit to Windows Mobile.

Basically, either go to ground or go somewhere new. (No, Ballmer, giant Minority Report touchscreens do not count as "somewhere new". The Japanese made a killing taking other societies' companies technological innovations, and miniaturizing and refining them to the point these things were convenient, sometimes virtually transparent, and widely affordable. This doesn't work in reverse. Taking existing technology and putting it in giant, ridiculously expensive and impersonal devices that require paying a couple of hefty guys to relocate is not a viable business model today.)

But Ballmer sends out a memo that should be entitled, not Zune: The Phone, but Zune: The Philosophy. Synonymous with Project Crash & Burn. Go to ground or go somewhere new, Ballmer, or you will lose the family farm, son.

[bytethese]

I've brought this up before but all Apple needs to do is add more little radio button build to order options. I'd give up CPU clock speed for a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

It's like Apple doesn't want my money...

I don't have a problem with longevity it's hardware choices.
Yeah, I totally agree. There just aren't many BTO options at all. I too want a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

Isn't that an option on the Macbook Pro? Just buy a MBP instead of a MB. :)

[tsice19]

If MS really wanted to compete, they'd be making they're own line of PCs in addition to selling OEM copies.

Microsoft Notebook

Microsoft Desktop

Microsoft WorkStation

And they'd all run Windows 7 and other MS software similar to how Apple Computers run Mac OS.

___

Even if they did that, I'd still buy Apple. I would hate to be tied up in Microsoft's proprietary system.

[bacaramac]

Can't wait to see this, the zPhone against the iPhone. I am not dissing the zPhone as I have no idea if this is reality, but hopefully it keeps Apple improving the iPhone.

zPhone, that is just funny to say.

EDIT: Oh yeah, zPhone, now available in S*** Brown and Green.

[dsachdev]

What I don't understand is: why is Microsoft and Ballmer so worried and so dead set on beating out competition? If they really are 30-1, why should they care?


The Innovator's Dilemma (http://books.google.com/books?id=SIexi_qgq2gC)

"The Innovator's Dilemma demonstrates why outstanding companies that had their competitive antennae up, listened astutely to customers, and invested aggressively in new technologies still lost their market dominance. Drawing on patterns of innovation in a variety of industries, the author argues that good business practices can, nevertheless, weaken a great firm. He shows how truly important, breakthrough innovations are often initially rejected by customers that cannot currently use them, leading firms to allow their most important innovations to languish. Many companies now face the innovator's dilemma. Keeping close to customers is critical for current success. But long-term growth and profits depend upon a very different managerial formula. This book will help managers see the changes that may be coming their way and will show them how to respond for success. The Management of Innovation and Change Series."

The first few chapters of this book go into how the underdog with a small percentage of the market, but a different perspective on how to do things (or who to market to), unseats the larger competitor rather quickly because their focus was instead on incremental improvements rather then drastic or evolutionary new products.

[Eraserhead]

and leverage the large installed base of Xbox 360 into a profitable GAMES division (media service via Xbox Live being a perk, a necessary me-too, not an attempt to beat Apple in the media distribution and presentation racket).

Xbox isn't actually that successful, in the scheme of things it is much more worthy to drop than Windows Mobile.

[shabbasuraj]

Zune phone?

... M$ has engineered a new way to brick a cellphone..

[importluva]

People who believe that are setting themselves up for failure or mediocrity. Great businesses focus on making great products. People want great products. They don't care whether you make a profit or not.

Its true, many great businesses make great products, but they won't be businesses if they don't make money. And you are wrong about people not caring if businesses don't make money. Businesses are funded by investors and they invest because they want to see dividends and a return on their investment. These investors are again people who buy and trade stocks. People want to make money too.

My point was to establish that competition is what keeps businesses and consumers on the same page. When consumers have an alternative to go to in the market, the business needs to

A) Cut costs
B) Introduce new/improved features to attract and retain customers
C) Expand to larger/different markets

[137489]

Uhhh...

Macs use standard PC parts. They don't use some special, "high-quality" components". Just the same parts you see in a standard PC. Putting your own parts in should be absolutely no problem, and if you mess something up, clearly it IS your own problem.

And I personally would love to see more user customization available. Popping in your own parts that are exactly what you want would be great.

I would love to see more customizable options too, but....

There are to many hardware incompatibilities with MS's model. More times than not, I got that blasted BSOD or some other error message or freeze up when replacing a failing CD drive, floppy drive (eh - when I used to use them), modem, etc. and trying to find a driver for all that hardware... Even the hardware manufactur's first questions when calling for support:

1. What Version of Windows are you running.
2. What processor are you running on.
3. Are you sure it is not a Windows problem or an incompatibility with some other hardware?

Oh, and I just love when a device driver overwrites a file that is used by another driver and screws both drivers up......

That is the reason I stopped building PC's or even upgrading them. By the time I get through replacing parts, and the headache with them - I could have bought a new machine for the same price and been happier and using my machine faster.

I would love to see how MS plans on doing hardware support? they suck and charge an arm and a leg for support as is it now. And their whole "I'm sorry one question per call/submission thing?"

MS should just throw in the towel and dedicate more resources to MACBU and developing Linux applications. they already stated they back Novell Linux - which to me is a signal they need to give up the OS ghost and go back to what they used to be good at, OFFICE SUITES and other applications (even mac 2008 / win 2007 versions suck now).

I say stick with Apple's model. I have yet to have a software or hardware issue.

[SFgadgetman]

They've had how long to figure this out? They could have just listened to consumers but nooooo.

I'm not a PC hater mind you I even bought a PC laptop but returned it after such a horrible experience with Vista. And I'd really love to snap up a new Netbook with XP simply because I know I'd have a somewhat reliable OS.

What I dislike is companies who don't listen to their critics or their customers. It seems to be a pattern with companies who have had years of success and dominance. Take a look at GM and you'll see the same issues.

It would be wonderful if MS could pull this off. It'd be great for competition meaning lower prices for all of us. I just don't think it's possible at this stage in the game.

[AppleNewton]

Can't wait to see this, the zPhone against the iPhone. I am not dissing the zPhone as I have no idea if this is reality, but hopefully it keeps Apple improving the iPhone.

zPhone, that is just funny to say.

EDIT: Oh yeah, zPhone, now available in S*** Brown and Green.

lololol zPhone....i can only imagine Ballmer's used-carsalesman like commercial for this.


"Get zPhone (zee phone) ...its for you!!!"

[Breegy]

The Innovator's Dilemma (http://books.google.com/books?id=SIexi_qgq2gC)

"The Innovator's Dilemma demonstrates why outstanding companies that had their competitive antennae up, listened astutely to customers, and invested aggressively in new technologies still lost their market dominance. Drawing on patterns of innovation in a variety of industries, the author argues that good business practices can, nevertheless, weaken a great firm. He shows how truly important, breakthrough innovations are often initially rejected by customers that cannot currently use them, leading firms to allow their most important innovations to languish. Many companies now face the innovator's dilemma. Keeping close to customers is critical for current success. But long-term growth and profits depend upon a very different managerial formula. This book will help managers see the changes that may be coming their way and will show them how to respond for success. The Management of Innovation and Change Series."

That makes sense, but also helps back up my last point ;) :

But if the ratios is really as Ballmer describes it, why is he even bothered?

I think someone is on an ego-trip because some better quality product maker is making him self-conscious.

And also that bit I said about how Apple has better customer service.

[madmaxmedia]

Personally, I have never had a huge problem with Windows software or hardware. I don't do a lot of customization, but I have changed plenty of components. I did have a lot of problems with spyware and such.

The main reason I switched though, is that I simply didn't enjoy using my old Windows machines (I'm speaking mainly about the OS.) They always worked more or less fine, but I never thought of them as particularly well-designed.

The same exact thing went for iPods vs. other music players. That's not to say Apple products are perfect, but they have generally been significantly better in my user experience.

[Unspeaked]

What I don't understand is: why is Microsoft and Ballmer so worried and so dead set on beating out competition? If they really are 30-1, why should they care?

That's like Wal-Mart being worried that my local Sweetbay is going to run it out of business.

Actually, it's more like WalMart being worried that Cotsco is going to run it out of business. And they are worried about that.

It's the nature of business to look at your competitors, regardless of size, and want to take them on.

In fact, Microsoft and Apple are much closer in market cap than WalMart and Costco ;)

[gcmexico]

a Zune phone? very interesting, I wonder how they will pull that off

[rjwill246]

As a loyal Apple devotee who's always dissed Microsoft, but who is also severely dissapointed in Apple lately (MobileMe disaster, 2.0 firmware bugginess, etc.), I'm looking forward to what MS has to offer in the future. I hope they can start kicking some ass, and force Apple to really get on their "A" game again.

The less than Apple experience a couple of weeks ago was not due to a unified company-wide slide in competence or excellence--- thus it was not about their "A" game now becoming a "B" game as the new norm. Look at what Apple did that week and marvel that it worked as well as it did. iPhone2 is far from perfect but it is still stupendous. MobileMe is still a little inexplicable but you can imagine that Apple has well and truly upended every stone to make sure this sort of thing does not happen again.

Overall, there is nothing MS can do now to kick Apple's ass. MS is the loser in long race that required determination, excellence and a viewpoint that apparent simplicity is king-- not acceptable mediocrity.
I have no fear that Apple is resting on its laurels and is accepting a new lower standard.

[137489]

Why not look towards Ubuntu as great choices moving forward rather then Microsoft?


I do not trust they will be around and software on Linux is well, not as impressive or lacking at best.

Slackware - gone

Caldera - Gone

FreeBSD - still out there but why when you can have a mac which is Darwin on FreeBSD implemented better.

Mandrake - you might still be able to find a copy somewhere, but not mainstream

Suse - Gone bought out by Novell

Novell - I seen maybe one or two copies for sale on a shelf at books-a-million

Red Hat - Not Mainstream anymore, I think I read somewhere RH started Ubuntu.

Lindows - Gone and sued by MS for the name infridgment.

I also think there were a few others that dropped by the wayside. Too bad, Linux did look great - once. they are only useful as a server model, as desktop development never took off and the x11 was so slow.

I think mac has got the "Unix" market as far as where to look other than MS and if you wish to have a "unix" on your desktop.

I would love to see what I use most on MS get ported to run on a mac.

MS-SQL server
.NET
Office 2003 (windows implementation - not the crap they tried to pass off on mac 2008 and win 2007 versions)
OneNote (well, for you one note lovers. I gave up that ghost for circus ponies and never looking back CP got onenote beat and it does not chew up my harddrive space either).

Other than that, everything else I have is better on a mac. I am also about to ditch another one of my PC's for a mac for my wife.

[fuziwuzi]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

Steve B, you don't sell PC's, so how are you outselling Apple 30-1?
that is an interesting point. apple make more from a sale of OS X (due to hardware) compared to a sale of vista.

but MS is notorious for comparing things that don't add up once questioned. recently gates stated that vista was selling strong, something in the order of 140M copies. fact is, when u buy a PC now you are pretty much forced to get vista, i have heard many people complain about vista, and some of those roll back. so when people don't really have a choice in their OS cause it's bundled in hardware how can u say that uptake is strong; and then u have to consider those that continue to use vista.

i seriously think that MS has adopted the hegemonic practices of the govts etc, and it's really frustrating to be told one limited view on thins

[BongoBanger]

There are to many hardware incompatibilities with MS's model.

Like what?

More times than not, I got that blasted BSOD or some other error message or freeze up when replacing a failing CD drive, floppy drive (eh - when I used to use them), modem, etc. and trying to find a driver for all that hardware...

I find this difficult to believe since virtually all peripherals come with driver disks. Examples, dates and hardware please.

Even the hardware manufactur's first questions when calling for support:

1. What Version of Windows are you running.
2. What processor are you running on.
3. Are you sure it is not a Windows problem or an incompatibility with some other hardware?

Right. Because all devices that work with, say, OSX work on all variants of Mac OS. They ask you that to make sure you haven't done something silly like buy hardware which isn't compatible.

Oh, and I just love when a device driver overwrites a file that is used by another driver and screws both drivers up......

Examples please because you really have to make a mess of things to do that.

That is the reason I stopped building PC's or even upgrading them.

Because you're not very good at it?

By the time I get through replacing parts, and the headache with them - I could have bought a new machine for the same price and been happier and using my machine faster.

Which is what the vast majority of Windows PC users do and which is why the vast majority never have any issues.

I would love to see how MS plans on doing hardware support? they suck and charge an arm and a leg for support as is it now. And their whole "I'm sorry one question per call/submission thing?"

They'll probably steal the good staff from one of the manufacturers to set up a service.

MS should just throw in the towel and dedicate more resources to MACBU and developing Linux applications.

What for? They have less than 5% of the global market between them and, bluntly, that's not likely to change much.

they already stated they back Novell Linux - which to me is a signal they need to give up the OS ghost and go back to what they used to be good at, OFFICE SUITES and other applications (even mac 2008 / win 2007 versions suck now).

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? They're good at writing and marketing operating systems. That's why 95% of all PCs run them. And Office 2007 sucking? What the hell? Go on explain why.

I say stick with Apple's model. I have yet to have a software or hardware issue.

And you wouldn't with an OEM Windows PC either.

that is an interesting point. apple make more from a sale of OS X (due to hardware) compared to a sale of vista.

No, they make the money from the sale of the hardware.

but MS is notorious for comparing things that don't add up once questioned.

Have you seen the Mac vs PC ads? Because, you know, they're classics of this kind of thing.

recently gates stated they vista was selling strong that the they had something in the order of 140M copies. fact is, when u buy a PC now you are pretty much forced to get vista,

Yeah and when you buy a Mac you're totally forced to use OSX. What's your point again?

i have heard many people complain about vista, and some of those roll back.

Translation: I've never used Vista so I base my experience on blog articles written by clueless hacks.

so when people don't really have a choice in their OS cause it's bundled in hardware how can u say that uptake is strong.

Because they're not:

a) Buying Macs
b) Buying Linux machines

i seriously think that MS has adopted the hegemonic practices of the govts etc, and it's really frustrating to be told one limited view on thins

Whilst being quite happy to present one yourself.

[Saladinos]

Very interesting development, indeed.

Ballmer is exactly right about Apple's narrow but complete products. Just as he is right about Microsoft's broad and unfocused products. I very much prefer Apple's strategy - it's better to have a device which is limited in functionality, but works extremely well, than a device which is open to all, but works shoddily and has an unoptimised interface due to all possible configurations needing support.

It's why WinMo phones won't work with a touch interface - the OS and all applications need to work with phone's that have the standard button interface as well. Apple do it one way, and stick to it. They focus their products.

[Breegy]

Actually, it's more like WalMart being worried that Cotsco is going to run it out of business. And they are worried about that.

It's the nature of business to look at your competitors, regardless of size, and want to take them on.

In fact, Microsoft and Apple are much closer in market cap than WalMart and Costco ;)

I was refering that to the 30-1 ratio Ballmer throws out, despite the fact that Windows doesn't even sell PCs. Many more people shop at Wal-Mart than smaller food chains. A few exceptions would be Publix and WinnDixie and a few others.

It's just that the Microsoft seems so dead set on becoming a monopoly by stomping out competition. He address all of his competitors. Why can't he just let them be? Apple, while it may advertise against them, isn't trying to eliminate them.

To me, the guy just seems a little crazy. Like he's got to get rid of them all. Again, the guy seems a little ego-tistical and is getting self-conscious because he's got a competitor who's making better quality products.

Also, it's ridiculous to take all the praise for these comptuer makers like Dell and Gateway and so on. Microsoft didn't make those computers. He shouldn't get to throw out his whole "30-1" ratio when he didn't do anything.

[jsetliffe]

Steve Ballmer often quotes the rather dubious, "we sell 200 million PCs while Apple sells 10 million" figure

What he means is, "There are 200 million PCs out there that are forced to run Windows as they don't have an alternative"



So there are more PCs running some MS OS, big deal. Bud out sells Guinness, does that mean Bud is a better product? No, of course not. Not even close. How many of the people using one of the 200 million Windows boxes would switch to being on one of the 10 million MACs if given a chance?

[sanford]

Xbox isn't actually that successful, in the scheme of things it is much more worthy to drop than Windows Mobile.

Oh God Xbox is a $3 billion sinkhole at the moment, no doubt. I only call it out because MS is conspicuously attached to the brand, hemorrhages cash into it, and they have, in installed base, a hit AND preposterously loyal early and middle adopters considering the absolutely jaw-dropping approx. 1/3 initial runs hardware defect rate that persisted far, far beyond the length of time such a massive defect rate can nominally persist in consumer electronics -- and it's STILL not low enough to be a nominal consumer electronics defect rate. Yet still Xbox 360 gamers stick with. I think though Windows Mobile has far deeper market penetration, their WM customers are far less loyal to that brand than Xbox customers are to that brand.

Also, I wasn't suggested they drop it, per se. Just that it mutate to a profitable "also-ran" in smartphone OSes (in mindshare, even if it exceeds others in installed base); failing that, then perhaps kill it off.

[137489]

They've had how long to figure this out? They could have just listened to consumers but nooooo.

I'm not a PC hater mind you I even bought a PC laptop but returned it after such a horrible experience with Vista. And I'd really love to snap up a new Netbook with XP simply because I know I'd have a somewhat reliable OS.

What I dislike is companies who don't listen to their critics or their customers. It seems to be a pattern with companies who have had years of success and dominance. Take a look at GM and you'll see the same issues.

It would be wonderful if MS could pull this off. It'd be great for competition meaning lower prices for all of us. I just don't think it's possible at this stage in the game.


Truthfully, buy the time MS lines up all the hardware makers; decides there standards, etc - it will be a couple of years as the lawyers would have to review it.

I think MS would only hurt themselves in terms of the amount of time it will take them to roll something like this out. I mean, to change the whole mindset of a company, get people on board, implement, switch of personell (yeah someone's job will either be cut or they will quit because of the hassles, or they are no longer needed due to not offering X anymore).

[glennyboiwpg]

Uhhh...

Macs use standard PC parts. They don't use some special, "high-quality" components". Just the same parts you see in a standard PC. Putting your own parts in should be absolutely no problem, and if you mess something up, clearly it IS your own problem.

And I personally would love to see more user customization available. Popping in your own parts that are exactly what you want would be great.

Ahh... but its not the parts thats the problem... Its the DRIVERS!

IF apple knows what exact parts are in their machine, then they can make sure that quality drivers are on the machine and they can test each configuration.

THAT is what you lose when you start throwing in different parts.

[fuziwuzi]

I do not trust they will be around and software on Linux is well, not as impressive or lacking at best.

Slackware - gone

Caldera - Gone

FreeBSD - still out there but why when you can have a mac which is Darwin on FreeBSD implemented better.

Mandrake - you might still be able to find a copy somewhere, but not mainstream

Suse - Gone bought out by Novell

Novell - I seen maybe one or two copies for sale on a shelf at books-a-million

Red Hat - Not Mainstream anymore, I think I read somewhere RH started Ubuntu.

Lindows - Gone and sued by MS for the name infridgment.


you are wrong with some of these, if you followed linux you'ld know.

slackware - http://www.slackware.com/ has an update june 2nd NOT GONE

mandrake - became Mandriva - still going strong

Red hat - has become fedora core, is maintained by a different group and is still a strong linux contender.

Suse - previously their OS has a proprietary installer and had to be purchased, novell has since released it free under open-suse. it still a strong distro and well maintained.

please, before you start spouting about linux dying, do your ****ing research.

[SinfonianShrek]

This is the way I see it: Microsoft's resident windbag is just expelling exhaust, as usual.

Microsoft can't do an "end-to-end" experience with Windows. They'd either have to go the full Apple route and manufacture their own hardware and stop selling their OS to other manufacturers (doomsday for Microsoft, financially speaking).

That or they'd have to spend GOBS of money to have compliance staff and engineers hosted at all major component and system manufacturers' offices. The second option is far more likely but still too costly and invasive for it to work. Let's not even think of the expanded support center and staff they'd have to build up to handle the inevitable flood of support calls the manufacturers would begin funneling to them since they'd be wanting to supply an "end-to-end" model...

As for the Zune phone? Sorry, but I have yet to meet anybody who bought a Zune. There's no market saturation for them to build on. Now, if they make their own Windows Mobile phone and really focus on making the damned OS work properly on the device I'd like to see that.

So I see nothing coming of this unless Microsoft is willing to lose OS market share in order to improve customer satisfaction, which they'd be stupid to do from the viewpoint of stockholders.

[dual64bit]

It says a lot about Apple's success that Microsoft are shifting their strategy.

Well said. This is a sad day for any Microsoft fan.

Glad I'm not one.

[deannnnn]

Yeah, Apple and Microsoft need each other to be at their best, much like a good superhero needs a good villain.

Each should continue trying to out-innovate the other, and ultimately the world wins.

As much as I dislike superhero stuff and comics and scifi... etc,
I could not agree with you more =)

[sanford]

I think you're right. Not with the Windows brand, not under the MS umbrella. The thing is, I'm neither stupid nor ignorant -- at least I hope I'm not and I have some reasonable evidence I'm not. In fact, in the past, as a work-for-hire freelancer, I've written enough training, documentation and PR copy for PC software and hardware companies, I have the knowledge, or know how to get the necessary additional knowledge, to easily maintain my own Windows PC and home/office network. And a Windows Mobile cell phone, too. Factoring in there is a lot more choice and a lot less idiot-proofing in MS products. But I am willing for Apple to take me for an idiot in the are of PC hardware and software, to provide what THEY think I need rather than grant me total latitude to cobble together what I think I need... Because no matter what I know how to do or can learn how to do, the ubiquity of PCs, the fact that even if you are as willfully as Luddite as possible, in almost every field, and certainly any field that must operate it's own "business side", PCs are indispensable tools... Like Hammers, if you'll pardon the old saw. I don't mind spending a couple minutes oiling a hammer once a month to keep it from rust. But no matter my ability, I do not want to invest a great deal of time maintaining my hammer, or my PC.

This is the way I see it: Microsoft's resident windbag is just expelling exhaust, as usual.

Microsoft can't do an "end-to-end" experience with Windows. They'd either have to go the full Apple route and manufacture their own hardware and stop selling their OS to other manufacturers (doomsday for Microsoft, financially speaking).

That or they'd have to spend GOBS of money to have compliance staff and engineers hosted at all major component and system manufacturers' offices. The second option is far more likely but still too costly and invasive for it to work. Let's not even think of the expanded support center and staff they'd have to build up to handle the inevitable flood of support calls the manufacturers would begin funneling to them since they'd be wanting to supply an "end-to-end" model...

As for the Zune phone? Sorry, but I have yet to meet anybody who bought a Zune. There's no market saturation for them to build on. Now, if they make their own Windows Mobile phone and really focus on making the damned OS work properly on the device I'd like to see that.

So I see nothing coming of this unless Microsoft is willing to lose OS market share in order to improve customer satisfaction, which they'd be stupid to do from the viewpoint of stockholders.

[SinfonianShrek]

I do not trust they will be around and software on Linux is well, not as impressive or lacking at best.

Slackware - gone

Caldera - Gone

FreeBSD - still out there but why when you can have a mac which is Darwin on FreeBSD implemented better.

Mandrake - you might still be able to find a copy somewhere, but not mainstream

Suse - Gone bought out by Novell

Novell - I seen maybe one or two copies for sale on a shelf at books-a-million

Red Hat - Not Mainstream anymore, I think I read somewhere RH started Ubuntu.

Lindows - Gone and sued by MS for the name infridgment.

Slackware: updated in June. Not gone.
Caldera: now SCO. Not gone
FreeBSD: still going strong, I personally have worked on over 50 machines running it in the past 7 months. Not gone or going.
Mandrake. now Mandriva. Not gone.
SuSE: bought by Novell and contender for most used enterprise level Linux. Not gone.
Novell: replaced with the acquisition of SuSE. Most often considered a positive change. Gone.
Red Hat: still around, another competitor for most used enterprise Linux (Red Hat Enterprise) and backs the Fedora Core open source project as a test bed for new technologies, programs, and hardware for their enterprise offering.

Look stuff up first, buddy.

[snassiri]

Omg.

Is that bald guy in the first link Ballmer?

I never knew what he looked like.

He's ****** creepy.


You have no idea. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc)

[8CoreWhore]

Is there a way to post more laughing smilies here than there is stars in the sky? :D

[jsetliffe]

You have no idea. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc)



Dance Monkey Boy, dance
LMAO

[BongoBanger]

Did anyone actually read the memo?

Look, it's pretty straight forward really:

Apple: In the competition between PCs and Macs, we outsell Apple 30-to-1.

Actually it's probably about 25 to 1.

But there is no doubt that Apple is thriving. Why? Because they are good at providing an experience that is narrow but complete, while our commitment to choice often comes with some compromises to the end-to-end experience.

In other words Apple build their own PCs and only allow OSX to run on it. They have standard builds and if you want variation outside the limited options available it's "tough beans".

On the other hand MS have let Windows run on any old bucket of crap whether it can or can't. This resulted in a big scandal over 'Vista ready' machines which quite obviously weren't.

Today, we’re changing the way we work with hardware vendors to ensure that we can provide complete experiences with absolutely no compromises.

This does not mean that they're goign to piss off all the manufacturers by building their own machines. What it means is that in order to be allowed to run a Windows licence the hardware manufacturer is goign to have to demonstrate that it's capable of doing so and the components used are certified by MS and of a high enough standard.

In other words, no more 'Vista ready' scandal.

We’ll do the same with phones—providing choice as we work to create great end-to-end experience

And, again, this doesn't mean that they're bringing out a Zune phone, it means that they'll set standards for handsest running WinMo to ensure they're powerful enough to support it and of sufficient quality. No more putting their name to sub-standard iPhone copies methinks.

[Cinch]

Current market capitalization

dell: $47 bln
aapl: $142 bln
msft: $233 bln

It is conceivable to see Apple exceeding Microsoft in mkt. cap. within a few years IMHO.

Cinch

[Breegy]

You have no idea. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc)

I can't watch this until I get home. Youtube is bocked at work (schoolboard).

[Silentwave]

Zunephone will be just as successful against the iPhone as the Zune is against the iPod.

However, this overall strategy shift tells me that monkey boy might not be quite as stupid as he appears to be.

[Mocha Addict]

Microsoft has hardly dealt with the hardware issues. I've recently become an Apple fan and have huge regrets for making my most recent purchase a Sony VAIO rather than a MacBook. After SP1 was released for Windows Vista, my machine still took 10 minutes to restart. That's not even an exaggeration. It's not a slow machine either, I 'upgraded' to XP and the thing flies through the restart process.

Sounds like they are trying to tell people that it is alright to test the poisoned water. Which will only result in a more dislike for Microsoft = more Macs sold.

On second thought. I like this plan.

[fuziwuzi]

tthey make the money from the sale of the hardware.
i don't get your point. in some ways because MSis a software company they have to sell more OSX to stay in the market. so it's like comparing apples and oranges so to speak




Yeah and when you buy a Mac you're totally forced to use OSX. What's your point again?
jesus dude, WTF is bootcamp.


Translation: I've never used Vista so I base my experience on blog articles written by clueless hacks.
used vista 32bit for 2 months on my self built desktop. but the meta data search was Consistently crap; it forced re-searches to reorder by date or size and maintained listings of files i had deleted. it forgot windows view settings. i recently tried vista 64bit on my dell lappy, i could not get it to network, where my windows XP could be found easily on the network. i am currently using server 2008 workstation edition, which is much better, and apparently written on vista sp1 codebase. it's ok, those i still dislike windows for a number of interface and usability reasons.


Because they're not:

a) Buying Macs
b) Buying Linux machines
you seem to forget that ms has restrictive contracts with companies, and also it's difficult to purchase a PC with XP, or other version of vista, they they are indictating that the success of vista boiled down to personal choice and people were actively choosing it, then it was actually bundled on a PC. a more accurate statement would be the current users, therefore ruling out those they switched to another OS after purchase.

[bobbleheadbob]

Yeah! This new "committment" on the part of Microsoft makes me want to run out and buy a Zune, Zune-Phone, and a Windoze PC!

NOT! :D

What a load of $h!+......:apple:

[137489]

Slackware: updated in June. Not gone.
Caldera: now SCO. Not gone
FreeBSD: still going strong, I personally have worked on over 50 machines running it in the past 7 months. Not gone or going.
Mandrake. now Mandriva. Not gone.
SuSE: bought by Novell and contender for most used enterprise level Linux. Not gone.
Novell: replaced with the acquisition of SuSE. Most often considered a positive change. Gone.
Red Hat: still around, another competitor for most used enterprise Linux (Red Hat Enterprise) and backs the Fedora Core open source project as a test bed for new technologies, programs, and hardware for their enterprise offering.

Look stuff up first, buddy.

You proved my point.

X now Y, no more X. Linux changes face so much, you can't keep up so writing software for them is well mind boggling and you can't gurantee your platform will be around.

Atleast with mac and windows there is a standard people agree to.

Linux - there is so many implementations and fragmentations that you cannot be totally guaranteed that it will run on the other implementation. Atleast with mac and MS (well, until vista) there is backward compatibility and a sense that if I move something from Windows 2000 to XP, it will run 99% of the time. Same with tiger to Leopard. With Linux, you are left with well... take a chance it may run.

On the other hand, open source has so many contributers that someone will come up with a version pretty quickly - just hope you do not need support.

[trd1282]

Redmond, start your photo copiers....again.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't miss your point, or even really disagree with you. My perspective is a bit different, but I don't think we are seeing different things. I posted some examples of what I thought were fortune rather than skill for Apple.

Maybe I need to reread your comments on Apple, but it seemed to me you were regarding business decisions, such as the one to buy NeXT and bring Steve Jobs back, as lucky. I see it as a good business decision, not luck. The fact that it worked out so very well for Apple might be luck on some level, but again I am making a different distinction I believe.

I just don't think the component model is more a quirk than any other particular 'model'. I distrust anyone who touts any 'model' as some sort of template for success. Models are what analysts come up with after the fact, to explain why company A succeeded or company B failed.

The reason I find this to be exceptionally quirky is the lack of success of this model virtually anywhere else it has been tried, even by Microsoft, and they should be past-master at it. The events leading up to this success were a one-off, and could not be duplicated. Apple has used the far more traditional industrial product development model which we are calling "end-to-end." Take any product off the shelf randomly and think you'll find it got there by this method.

Your example of Apple copying Microsoft and licensing their OS is very apt. I think Microsoft turning around and copying Apple with the Zune represents the same flawed thinking. In both cases, the 'model' didn't work because fundamental situations were no longer the same, and just as importantly the actual products were no better than before. That's where the sh$t hits the fan.

Apple was goaded into trying the licensing approach because it had become the conventional wisdom that this was the path to success in the computer business, although in reality, only one company had ever succeeded that way, and their exploitation of it was based on unique circumstances.

I don't think Microsoft succeeded because of their model any more than you do, which is to say I completely agree with your statement that any revisionist history of patting yourself on the back for developing some sort of new model or worse yet, a 'paradigm', is for the birds (or for press releases.) But I don't consider Microsoft's success a 'fluke' either. Rarely does anyone have it that easy in business, that they can become hugely profitable through absolutely zero effort or work on their own.

All successful enterprises own at least some of their success to being at the right place at the right time, but few more than Microsoft IMO. I think it is really worth re-imagining the technology industry without the accident of IBM-PC clones. It would have been an entirely different place. A much better one, I think.

[fuziwuzi]

You proved my point.

X now Y, no more X. Linux changes face so much, you can't keep up so writing software for them is well mind boggling and you can't gurantee your platform will be around.

Atleast with mac and windows there is a standard people agree to.

Linux - there is so many implementations and fragmentations that you cannot be totally guaranteed that it will run on the other implementation. Atleast with mac and MS (well, until vista) there is backward compatibility and a sense that if I move something from Windows 2000 to XP, it will run 99% of the time. Same with tiger to Leopard. With Linux, you are left with well... take a chance it may run.

On the other hand, open source has so many contributers that someone will come up with a version pretty quickly - just hope you do not need support.

you can compile from source if there is not package for your exact distro of linux.

i have seen a few apps that are currently unavailable in UB, and will not work on 10.5 so u can face the same problems in OSX. Also a major hurdle with vista was the lack of hardware drivers for certain devices, dispite the face it's a hardware manufacturers problem, it still means some people were forced to get new hard ware for vista; and could not use old stuff with it

i know linux is not perfect, but the method you are using to attack it is flawed

[mrrory]

You've got to love Ballmer, the guy's hilarious, he's a real life comedy character. I still can't get over the developer's conference episode, and would give lots of money to hear the de-briefing of that "event."

Zune Phone, oh lord, can't wait!

Of course Ballmer wants MS to be more like Mac, he's always wanted to hang with the cool kids.

[CmdrLaForge]

It doesn't matter what Microsoft is doing. At least for me.

[137489]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BongoBanger
Yeah and when you buy a Mac you're totally forced to use OSX. What's your point again?

Quote:
Orginally Posted by fuziwuzi
jesus dude, WTF is bootcamp.

and Parallels and VMware........ Hey, I admit I still have some MS based apps I have not converted to using only mac based yet (money holding me back, or there is not a mac version and I need something for work). and what am I doing. Running it in Windows through Parallels.

So as usual, your point, bongo, is pointless.... I am not forced to use OSX. I use it because I like it and it is better. I could have easily bought a mac for the better and quieter hardware and chose to never boot in OSX..

[jimmyjohn114]

Yeah, I totally agree. There just aren't many BTO options at all. I too want a dedicated GPU on my Macbook.

I'm surprised at all the people saying this. If you want a dedicated GPU, you're going to have to pay for it and get a MacBook Pro. The MacBook is cheaper for a reason in that it doesn't have as many options. Everyone wants wants wants but to get it, you'll have to pay for that extra something. And no one seems to want to do that. Everyone wants a computer with top of the line specs but for $1000

[Glideslope]

The largest issues will be related to Copyrights. Microsoft's change is more of a follow the leader strategy. As they move forward they will attempt to make the experience/product more Apple Like.

Microsoft does not innovate. They attempt to replicate.

It's all about the OS, and Redmond ain't even close.;)

[GoodWatch]

What this really comes down to is that Microsoft's success with the so-called "component model" was a fluke, an historical anomaly. It would be difficult to find another example of where it worked well for anyone else at any other time, including for Microsoft. They are just learning this it seems, having failed to implement it successfully in other markets. I think they're going to continue to struggle to get the same "seamless experience" out of the Windows PC market that Apple offers. They just don't have that sort of control over the OEMs -- in fact, they have less control today than they did just a few years ago. They're going to continue to jawbone the issue, but produce little. That's my prediction.

That historical anomaly lasted, what, 20 odd years? :) Microsoft cannot emulate this, unless they get into the PC business themselves and stop selling their OS to other PC manufacturers. Control the whole chain, so to say. Like Apple does. BTW, how are you doing?

[Syrus28]

I'm surprised at all the people saying this. If you want a dedicated GPU, you're going to have to pay for it and get a MacBook Pro. The MacBook is cheaper for a reason in that it doesn't have as many options. Everyone wants wants wants but to get it, you'll have to pay for that extra something. And no one seems to want to do that. Everyone wants a computer with top of the line specs but for $1000

Or maybe they want a 13 inch with dedicated GPU? Its not that hard to understand. The people want options, which is not what Apple is giving us... Its either this, or that. I just don't get why they have some hierarchical model that they try to believe everyone fits into.

[notjustjay]

This does not mean that they're goign to piss off all the manufacturers by building their own machines. What it means is that in order to be allowed to run a Windows licence the hardware manufacturer is goign to have to demonstrate that it's capable of doing so and the components used are certified by MS and of a high enough standard.

In other words, no more 'Vista ready' scandal.

In other words, "Vista Ready - For Real This Time! No, Really, We Mean It Now!"

Which also probably means the end of bargain-basement $299 PC's.

[fuziwuzi]

I'm surprised at all the people saying this. If you want a dedicated GPU, you're going to have to pay for it and get a MacBook Pro. The MacBook is cheaper for a reason in that it doesn't have as many options. Everyone wants wants wants but to get it, you'll have to pay for that extra something. And no one seems to want to do that. Everyone wants a computer with top of the line specs but for $1000

i think the problem is the case of forced choices, if you tell people just to get a MBP, then you are kinda buying into the apple mentality of provided limited number of options, and having to compromise to get just one feature. i think alot of users would like a pro package in a smaller form factor, but due to apples choices they have to compromise.

[madmaxmedia]

Maybe I need to reread your comments on Apple, but it seemed to me you were regarding business decisions, such as the one to buy NeXT and bring Steve Jobs back, as lucky. I see it as a good business decision, not luck. The fact that it worked out so very well for Apple might be luck on some level, but again I am making a different distinction I believe.

Yeah, I definitely don't mean they were pure luck, there were good business decisions. My point was more that some of these circumstances were providential (is that a word?) to Apple, but then they were able to take advantage of those opportunities. I sorta see Microsoft's initial success in the same way- Bill Gates didn't invent the clone market, the original IBM PC, or even write DOS to begin with. But the opportunity was there, and he succeeded at taking advantage of it.

The reason I find this to be exceptionally quirky is the lack of success of this model virtually anywhere else it has been tried, even by Microsoft, and they should be past-master at it. The events leading up to this success were a one-off, and could not be duplicated. Apple has used the far more traditional industrial product development model which we are calling "end-to-end." Take any product off the shelf randomly and think you'll find it got there by this method.

The model was based on the circumstances in which it arose, in that sense I 100% agree with you. But it was the right model for Microsoft at that particular time. And going forward, what is important for MS is to take a good, hard look at current market, and decide what is the best response. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they don't seem to show any inclination towards doing so- they still are trying to be all things to everyone, which is really no model at all.

But I don't really consider any 'model' to be good or bad, independent of the circumstances. I understand your point about Apple and 'end to end' development. But Microsoft did exactly the right thing at that particular time. And every day, some new business springs into life based on whatever particular circumstances govern it.

Thanks, Steve

[Breegy]

Everyone wants a computer with top of the line specs but for $1000

Uhm, not even the top of the line specs. But if you're paying over 1k for a laptop, it should at least have dedicated graphics and the top of the line specs for that price, meaning as much as they can afford to put with the money you're spending. It's ridicilous having to pay 1k more for a Pro when that's all you want.

[diamond.g]

Xbox isn't actually that successful, in the scheme of things it is much more worthy to drop than Windows Mobile.

Oh God Xbox is a $3 billion sinkhole at the moment, no doubt. I only call it out because MS is conspicuously attached to the brand, hemorrhages cash into it, and they have, in installed base, a hit AND preposterously loyal early and middle adopters considering the absolutely jaw-dropping approx. 1/3 initial runs hardware defect rate that persisted far, far beyond the length of time such a massive defect rate can nominally persist in consumer electronics -- and it's STILL not low enough to be a nominal consumer electronics defect rate. Yet still Xbox 360 gamers stick with. I think though Windows Mobile has far deeper market penetration, their WM customers are far less loyal to that brand than Xbox customers are to that brand.

Also, I wasn't suggested they drop it, per se. Just that it mutate to a profitable "also-ran" in smartphone OSes (in mindshare, even if it exceeds others in installed base); failing that, then perhaps kill it off.

Actually the 360 is doing well considering*. The only reason why is due to games and it coming out first. If the PS3 was $100 cheaper, came out in 2005 and had more games this would have been PS2 vs Xbox all over again. MS is trying hard to make money from that division which is why the prices are still as high as they are (note Sony isn't dropping price either).

Apple would have to go through a similar money sink if they wanted to compete in the set top box console market. Unless they pulled a Nintendo and were to have some killer, exclusive, games and experience. At this point Apple would have to better Nintendo's experience without the exclusive games (which as Sony and MS are finding out is quite hard).

* by well I mean that the 360 is seen in good light considering it comes from the most hated Company on the planet. Plus MS isn't just buying up everything like they did the first time around so they are hurting anyone's feelings.

[Eraserhead]

and Parallels and VMware...

And on a PC you can run Linux, which I think is the point BongoBanger is trying to make.

I see Bongobanger (or is that bong hitter) is on a roll with ripping every sentence of people's post :rolleyes:

But he does mostly appear to know what he's talking about, and debating with people who know what they are talking about is interesting.

yesh, he and a few others is what makes this board so dis-tasteful. :eek:

If the posters in question are breaking the forum rules then report him to the mods with the /!\ so they can deal with it :).

* by well I mean that the 360 is seen in good light considering it comes from the most hated Company on the planet. Plus MS isn't just buying up everything like they did the first time around so they are hurting anyone's feelings.

I don't think many people actually care about that, it didn't stop IBM dominating the industry until the 1980's.

If I thought the Xbox was the best console and I was buying a console I'd get one.

[fuziwuzi]

Actually the 360 is doing well considering.
lol, MS had to increase their warranty from 1 to 3 years because of many failures. despite that, they still sell alot. i just wouldn't want them to go end-to-end hand have to buy pc hardware off them lol

[Syrus28]

Uhm, not even the top of the line specs. But if you're paying over 1k for a laptop, it should at least have dedicated graphics and the top of the line specs for that price, meaning as much as they can afford to put with the money you're spending. It's ridiculous having to pay 1k more for a Pro when that's all you want.
Exactly.. Its ridiculous

Want a small screen? $1100+ MacBook
Want a dedicated GPU? $2000+ MacBook Pro
Want a light laptop? $1800+ MacBook Air
Want a all-in-one? $1200+ iMac
Want a real desktop? $2800+ Mac

What happens when I want a light laptop with screen <15 inches and dedicated GPU? What about a 15 inch with a integrated GPU? What If I want a desktop, but would like to use my own screen, but don't want to pay $3000?

[walnuts]

So they are shifting focus back to Windows, does that mean they are going to shift focus away from their already hampered MacBU/office for mac development?

[diamond.g]

I don't think many people actually care about that, it didn't stop IBM dominating the industry until the 1980's.

If I thought the Xbox was the best console and I was buying a console I'd get one.That could be true. I don't think it is the best console (nor do I think the Wii is the best).

lol, MS had to increase their warranty from 1 to 3 years because of many failures. despite that, they still sell alot. i just wouldn't want them to go end-to-end hand have to buy pc hardware off them lolThe fear of losing money really screwed the 360 (hardware wise).

Exactly.. Its ridiculous

Want a small screen? $1100+ MacBook
Want a dedicated GPU? $2000+ MacBook Pro
Want a light laptop? $1800+ MacBook Air
Want a all-in-one? $1200+ iMac
Want a real desktop? $2800+ Mac

What happens when I want a light laptop with screen <15 inches and dedicated GPU? What about a 15 inch with a integrated GPU? What If I want a desktop, but would like to use my own screen, but don't want to pay $3000?

Apple expects you to buy one of each. Or not buy any at all. :D

[fuziwuzi]

the impression i get is that they are going to try more end-to-end style packageing with mobile segment.

if anyone had been reading the PC sites, you'll know that MS is pushing hardware manufacturers to get onboard for windows 7. the see the hardware driver issue as a massive problem with vista, and are trying to get tighter integration with hardware, so that people have have a pseudo end to end experience with component software.

[MacFly123]

So he wants to redefine what end-to-end means? MS can't be an end-to-end system because they aren't an end-to-end system. Until MS starts making their own computers they can't be an end-to-end system. Ballmer just wants to make it look like they are trying because if all you're doing is working with Dell/Acer/HP/Toshiba/etc on making sure THEIR products work then you'll NEVER be an end-to-end company.

Eh well - it's not exactly like ballmer has ever been a master of the English language anyway. *squirt*

Yup. It is only going to get worse. Especially with Windows 7 coming and a pathetic implementation of Multi-Touch lol. You really think they are going to be able to implement that into all the hardware in a consistent and user-friendly way??? Um NO, lol!

What I think is really interesting is that I can see Microsoft demanding more than ever and trying to push their weight around more than ever in order to accomplish these new Apple goals of theirs, and in the process they will spur a new break off competitor that might even end up making their own OS and hardware (computers and or phones etc.) because the world is so sick of Microsoft bullying everyone around.

That will be very interesting to see! Google comes to mind :eek:

What this really comes down to is that Microsoft's success with the so-called "component model" was a fluke, an historical anomaly. It would be difficult to find another example of where it worked well for anyone else at any other time, including for Microsoft. They are just learning this it seems, having failed to implement it successfully in other markets. I think they're going to continue to struggle to get the same "seamless experience" out of the Windows PC market that Apple offers. They just don't have that sort of control over the OEMs -- in fact, they have less control today than they did just a few years ago. They're going to continue to jawbone the issue, but produce little. That's my prediction.

AMEN!!!!! Will they get better and copy Apple even more than ever before??? YES. But will they spend billions more in money and resources only to still suck in comparison? YES! Lol, it is really very sad, but yes competition is good.

[SinfonianShrek]

You proved my point.

X now Y, no more X. Linux changes face so much, you can't keep up so writing software for them is well mind boggling and you can't gurantee your platform will be around.

Atleast with mac and windows there is a standard people agree to.

Linux - there is so many implementations and fragmentations that you cannot be totally guaranteed that it will run on the other implementation. Atleast with mac and MS (well, until vista) there is backward compatibility and a sense that if I move something from Windows 2000 to XP, it will run 99% of the time. Same with tiger to Leopard. With Linux, you are left with well... take a chance it may run.

On the other hand, open source has so many contributors that someone will come up with a version pretty quickly - just hope you do not need support.

Ok, that's fallacy at best. Just because the distro "changes faces" doesn't mean it changes how its core technologies work. That's like me changing my name to Larry and then becoming lactose intolerant and blaming the name change. The fact is that Linux advances very rapidly because of its huge user network which is constantly testing and modifying the code in attempts to improve the OS, not because they suddenly are bought/organize into a corporation/decide to rename due to leading group changes.

You see each flavor as it's own island. There are so many islands spread so far that there's no way it could be a cohesive union, right? Wrong. While there are many different distros there are really only a small handful of variants that power the individual flavors with minuscule, often only cosmetic, differences separating them. Underneath it all most *nix distros operate the same and this results in the difference of making most software run on multiple variants as small of a change as compiling the source on the target system rather than depending on a pre-built binary.

Yes, it creates an environment requiring far more user expertise but that's part of the whole *nix mentality. You know what you're doing and thus can set your computer up to run forever with little to no maintenance after the initial, though difficult, configuration.

I have never advocated the mass replacement of desktop OSes with any variant of *nix, save for Mac. It's just far too involved for the common user to figure out. I have, however, touted it as a necessary replacement for almost every server OS I have ever gotten my grubby hands on.

**EDIT - For clarity's sake, I meant that I have never advocated replacing desktop OSes with a *nix format except for recommending the adoption of Mac OS X.

[InkMaster]

All talk no action. Classic Microsoft.


Over-promise, Under-deliver. The Microsoft Way™

[Syrus28]

Yup. It is only going to get worse. Especially with Windows 7 coming and a pathetic implementation of Multi-Touch lol. You really think they are going to be able to implement that into all the hardware in a consistent and user-friendly way??? Um NO, lol!
Your basing your opinion on... what?


What I think is really interesting is that I can see Microsoft demanding more than ever and trying to push their weight around more than ever in order to accomplish these new Apple goals of theirs, and in the process they will spur a new break off competitor that might even end up making their own OS and hardware (computers and or phones etc.) because the world is so sick of Microsoft bullying everyone around.

That will be very interesting to see! Google comes to mind :eek:
Oh, yes. That's how the business world works. "We don't like you, so we are going to make a new OS and hardware better than yours ever was!" Get real. That sounds like a comic book...

[Povilas]

i think MS needs some kick ass product designers. then... apple will be in trouble.

Most of kick ass designers work at Apple ;)

[monica23]

Makes me recall an article from about two years ago:

Apple's End-To-End Model Leads to Innovation and User Experience (http://switchtoamac.com/site/apples-endtoend-model-leads-to-innovation-and-user-experience.html)

Funny to see Ballmer using the same words :)

I think the following form that article sums is up perfectly:

"Apple does not have to rely on an OS vendor or third-party software vendors to write software to allow Apple to innovate. Apple has free will to design and innovate as they see fit and most importantly, how to impact the daily computing experience for its customers. Hardware engineers within Apple can work in conjunction with software engineers to bring forth new technologies and computing features. This provides Apple the ability to build products and technologies that once they reach the shelf, demand a technology premium but more importantly, a user experience premium."

[clevin]

What I don't understand is: why is Microsoft and Ballmer so worried and so dead set on beating out competition? If they really are 30-1, why should they care?
.
well, numbers are all there, no need to doubt it.
Over-promise, Under-deliver. The Microsoft Way™

We deliver pre-mature products, and our customers take it w/o complain, the Apple way™ :p

[Peruchito]

Exactly.. Its ridiculous

Want a small screen? $1100+ MacBook
Want a dedicated GPU? $2000+ MacBook Pro
Want a light laptop? $1800+ MacBook Air
Want a all-in-one? $1200+ iMac
Want a real desktop? $2800+ Mac

What happens when I want a light laptop with screen <15 inches and dedicated GPU? What about a 15 inch with a integrated GPU? What If I want a desktop, but would like to use my own screen, but don't want to pay $3000?

the answer is BUY A PC AND SUCK IT UP or just SUCK IT UP.

if you don't like what apple is doing. leave. i am getting tired of these weird complaints. i'd like a BMW too. but i can't afford it. you know what i do? i SUCK IT UP and get a something i can afford or don't get anything.

[johncarync]

Imagine...

Imagine Microsoft coming out with a phone that beats the iPhone hands down...the zPhone

Imagine that the zPhone will have better visual voicemail than the iPhone.
Imagine that the zPhone will make music purchasing and playing easier than iPhone/iTunes.
Imagine that the zPhone will have a huge array of stable applications to download.
Imagine that the zPhone will integrate seamlessly with your computer.
Imagine a touch interface on the zPhone that will blow the iPhone away.
Imagine a user interface that will make the iPhone interface seem archaic.
Imagine the zPhone being an overwhelming success.

...then call me and let me know what it's like because I can't imagine any of these things happening.

[joecd77]

So he wants to redefine what end-to-end means? MS can't be an end-to-end system because they aren't an end-to-end system. Until MS starts making their own computers they can't be an end-to-end system. Ballmer just wants to make it look like they are trying because if all you're doing is working with Dell/Acer/HP/Toshiba/etc on making sure THEIR products work then you'll NEVER be an end-to-end company.

Eh well - it's not exactly like ballmer has ever been a master of the English language anyway. *squirt*

Apparently since the Zune has been so successful they’re planning on expanding the end-to-end strategy to PCs. If I were Dell I would be worried – Maybe they shouldn’t have started selling PCs with Linux. I can see it now…. Microsoft VistaBook PowerPC G6 running Snow Vista 2009 2nd Ultimate Professional Edition for VistaBooks.

This reminds me of an article I read a few years ago where Bill Gate allegedly said that the iPod won’t last and that people want to listen to their music on their Phone. Sometime later, Steve Jobs responded to a comment regarding Microsoft licensing their DRM to MP3 makers and that if Microsoft ever wanted to compete with the iPod they would have to get into the hardware business. Of course the iPhone and Zune were later released.

[clevin]

the answer is BUY A PC AND SUCK IT UP or just SUCK IT UP.

if you don't like what apple is doing. leave. i am getting tired of these weird complaints. i'd like a BMW too. but i can't afford it. you know what i do? i SUCK IT UP and get a something i can afford or don't get anything.

show me the forum rule which says people can't complain about apple's business model.

[Syrus28]

the answer is BUY A PC AND SUCK IT UP or just SUCK IT UP.

if you don't like what apple is doing. leave. i am getting tired of these weird complaints. i'd like a BMW too. but i can't afford it. you know what i do? i SUCK IT UP and get a something i can afford or don't get anything.
You make no sense. How is wanting a 13-inch laptop with a dedicated GPU a "weird" complaint. And since Apple doesn't offer it, the "I cant afford it" complaint doesn't even factor in... Please, go back in your cave and come back out when you can comprehend some simple English.

[sishaw]

show me the forum rule which says people can't complain about apple's business model.

Complaining because Apple doesn't have a particular configuration that one wants is not really complaining about their business model, it's a complaint that Apple isn't meeting your personal preferences. Apple has a huge market cap, increasing market share, large cash reserves, and consistently produces innovative, quality products--I would say that their business model, even if it doesn't meet everyone's needs, is quite successful.

If Apple gets MS to look more closely at the end user experience, all the better for everyone.

[ely]

With Microsoft's acquisition of Danger, couldn't they just beef up the Hiptop/Sidekick's existing video and music capabilities and storage, tweak the OS, and call it an entry-level Zune phone? It's currently even more closed off than the iPhone.

[Povilas]

You make no sense. How is wanting a 13-inch laptop with a dedicated GPU a "weird" complaint. And since Apple doesn't offer it, the "I cant afford it" complaint doesn't even factor in... Please, go back in your cave and come back out when you can comprehend some simple English.

It's not about what you want ;) It's about what Apple wants. That guy is right, if Apple doesn't meet your expectations buy something else. Apple is not Dell, it's not Asus or Acer or ... I do not even want to imagine Apple starting to fill every hole you will point to.

[BenRoethig]

I doubt M$ is abandoning open hardware model, Thats still 90% of the market, what Ballmer is probably thinking, is just to spend some $$$ to expand, on top of its current model, a model with restricted hardware/softwares like apple did with macs.

The open hardware and end to end model are becoming more similar. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia are following the example set by Apple and the U3/4 chipsets where you take a family and produce slightly different versions for different roles that use more or less the same drivers. The same thing is happening with video cards.

[BongoBanger]

i don't get your point. in some ways because MSis a software company they have to sell more OSX to stay in the market. so it's like comparing apples and oranges so to speak

OK fair enough.

jesus dude, WTF is bootcamp.

Jesus, dude. WTF is an Ubuntu dual boot?

used vista 32bit for 2 months on my self built desktop. but the meta data search was Consistently crap; it forced re-searches to reorder by date or size and maintained listings of files i had deleted. it forgot windows view settings. i recently tried vista 64bit on my dell lappy, i could not get it to network, where my windows XP could be found easily on the network. i am currently using server 2008 workstation edition, which is much better, and apparently written on vista sp1 codebase. it's ok, those i still dislike windows for a number of interface and usability reasons.

Fair enough. Server 2008 ain't cheap though.

you seem to forget that ms has restrictive contracts with companies, and also it's difficult to purchase a PC with XP, or other version of vista, they they are indictating that the success of vista boiled down to personal choice and people were actively choosing it, then it was actually bundled on a PC. a more accurate statement would be the current users, therefore ruling out those they switched to another OS after purchase.

It's made out to be a bigger issue than it is. Despite a vocal - and increasingly tedious - minority nobody wants to buy a new PC with XP unless it's, say, a UMPC or you're a corporate user who runs XP enabled platforms and who will upgrade at their next technology refresh.

Very few people are 'forced' to buy it, they're just happy with it because it delivers what they need and if it doesn't there's always Linux.

In other words, "Vista Ready - For Real This Time! No, Really, We Mean It Now!"

Which also probably means the end of bargain-basement $299 PC's.

Hopefully. Let's make no mistake, the Vista Ready thing was a monumental cock up.

Microsoft has hardly dealt with the hardware issues. I've recently become an Apple fan and have huge regrets for making my most recent purchase a Sony VAIO rather than a MacBook. After SP1 was released for Windows Vista, my machine still took 10 minutes to restart. That's not even an exaggeration. It's not a slow machine either, I 'upgraded' to XP and the thing flies through the restart process.

That would be because Sony is notorious for installing crapware on their PCs (and Ed Bott is doing a great job at highlighting this). When you removed Vista and installed XP you removed the crapware too. If you install Vista cleanly and make sure it's patched it'll boot as quick. I hope MS really push this issue with the manufacturers because it's a huge turn off.

and Parallels and VMware........ Hey, I admit I still have some MS based apps I have not converted to using only mac based yet (money holding me back, or there is not a mac version and I need something for work). and what am I doing. Running it in Windows through Parallels.

So as usual, your point, bongo, is pointless.... I am not forced to use OSX. I use it because I like it and it is better. I could have easily bought a mac for the better and quieter hardware and chose to never boot in OSX..

Great and I'm not forced to use Windows because I can dual boot Ubuntu. As for Parallels, did that copy of Windows come free with your Mac? I don't think so - you bought it because the OS on the Mac didn't run them. So, and here's the irony, you bought a Mac and were forced to use Windows anyway!

Now please provide a rebuttal to the points I raised earlier.

[gog]

Hmm, will take more than a memo to change the culture of that outfit.

What an incredible coup for apple -- for years microsoft have been predicting the death of apple because of their insistence on this model... now they are openly admitting they got it wrong.

Ha ha!

[BenRoethig]

I don't miss your point, or even really disagree with you. My perspective is a bit different, but I don't think we are seeing different things. I posted some examples of what I thought were fortune rather than skill for Apple.

I just don't think the component model is more a quirk than any other particular 'model'. I distrust anyone who touts any 'model' as some sort of template for success. Models are what analysts come up with after the fact, to explain why company A succeeded or company B failed.

Your example of Apple copying Microsoft and licensing their OS is very apt. I think Microsoft turning around and copying Apple with the Zune represents the same flawed thinking. In both cases, the 'model' didn't work because fundamental situations were no longer the same, and just as importantly the actual products were no better than before. That's where the sh$t hits the fan.

I don't think Microsoft succeeded because of their model any more than you do, which is to say I completely agree with your statement that any revisionist history of patting yourself on the back for developing some sort of new model or worse yet, a 'paradigm', is for the birds (or for press releases.) But I don't consider Microsoft's success a 'fluke' either. Rarely does anyone have it that easy in business, that they can become hugely profitable through absolutely zero effort or work on their own.

Microsoft won because they offered an experience that offered a GUI interface that was Mac-like enough that could be bought with any machine instead of tying them to one idea or one company. Apple has always had the thought that if they built a computer that was better than everyone else, the public would automatically come to them.

[NAG]

you are wrong with some of these, if you followed linux you'ld know.

slackware - http://www.slackware.com/ has an update june 2nd NOT GONE

mandrake - became Mandriva - still going strong

Red hat - has become fedora core, is maintained by a different group and is still a strong linux contender.

Suse - previously their OS has a proprietary installer and had to be purchased, novell has since released it free under open-suse. it still a strong distro and well maintained.

please, before you start spouting about linux dying, do your ****ing research.

The person you're quoting may have been pretty wrong but Linux is no more competitive than they were years ago. Linux just isn't viable on the desktop because of the community. They've turned the thing into a religion that is pretty xenophobic (just look at the mozilla guys constantly targeting webkit with inane rants or all the FUD about how the iPhone isn't "free" and doesn't allow for GPL apps...which is wrong btw).

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, I definitely don't mean they were pure luck, there were good business decisions. My point was more that some of these circumstances were providential (is that a word?) to Apple, but then they were able to take advantage of those opportunities. I sorta see Microsoft's initial success in the same way- Bill Gates didn't invent the clone market, the original IBM PC, or even write DOS to begin with. But the opportunity was there, and he succeeded at taking advantage of it.

Providential is an excellent word, very suitable.

Consider that Gates & Co. had no real role in creating the opportunity to sell DOS to the makers of PC clones. There's no evidence that they anticipated that IBM would lose control of the PC hardware platform and planned accordingly. The thing was just dropped into their laps, really. Did they exploit the opportunity? Yes, but it would have been hard not to. I look at what they were successful in doing after that, and it wasn't a lot. How many times has Apple reinvented itself since then?

The model was based on the circumstances in which it arose, in that sense I 100% agree with you. But it was the right model for Microsoft at that particular time. And going forward, what is important for MS is to take a good, hard look at current market, and decide what is the best response. Unfortunately for Microsoft, they don't seem to show any inclination towards doing so- they still are trying to be all things to everyone, which is really no model at all.

Right, but again -- once the PC was cloned, what other market opportunities did Microsoft have for selling DOS but directly to the cloners? I suppose they could have gone into the hardware business and competed with them, but to what end?

The main point I'm making here is that there really aren't two, equally useful production models out there, "component" and "end-to-end." The former has little applicability outside of very special and limited circumstances, and the later is how virtually all products come to the market. If Microsoft can't become competent at end-to-end development, they will gradually but steadily diminish in influence. They're not going to get another opportunity to duplicate the model that made their OS business. The fact that they are only now starting to figure this out tells us quite a bit about the mindset of their management.

[Syrus28]

It's not about what you want ;) It's about what Apple wants. That guy is right, if Apple doesn't meet your expectations buy something else. Apple is not Dell, it's not Asus or Acer or ... I do not even want to imagine Apple starting to fill every hole you will point to.
And that's exactly why we won't see a majority market share over PCs. Apple as a whole may be worth more than PC manufacturers, but there's no doubt to who is tailoring to peoples needs, and therefore leading in sales.

[MacFly123]

Your basing your opinion on... what?

Just the simple fact that the C.E.O. of Microsoft itself just stated that they have not provided the experience people want with the component model and are now therefore going to try and focus on an end-to-end experience, yet implementing a complex technology and user experience like Multi-Touch is going to be even more complicated than what they have faced in the past.

So, good luck with that Microsoft, maybe soup up your coffee table a bit :rolleyes:

Oh, yes. That's how the business world works. "We don't like you, so we are going to make a new OS and hardware better than yours ever was!" Get real. That sounds like a comic book...

Wow. Apparently you fail to see the opportunity ostracizing all of your component makers by forcing them into your way or the highway would create for another company to provide and alternative solution according to their own judgement.

I mean, i KNOW Google would just HATE it if PC or phone manufacturers came looking for an alternative OS, like..... I dunno.... say ANDROID and other solutions that could become very attractive to ill treated hardware vendors that could work with someone else that is actually willing to embrace them and innovate together instead of being forced to jump through bully imposed hoops just to survive.

I mean I know companies have just LOVED the way Microsoft treats them and throws their weight around in the industry so far.

You are right, there is absolutely no room for opportunity or alternatives to arise there at all! :rolleyes:

FYI, I personally have never read a comic book, I prefer actual books.

[/dev/toaster]

One thing that Apple users/enthusiasts still need to get used to is the idea that, really, even if Microsoft starts putting out good product, Apple users still have nothing to worry about. ;)

A few years ago things were different, Apple was struggling to remain relevant and maintain solid financial ground. But currently the only people that have to worry about that are Apple stock investors. But Apple the company will be around for a long time regardless of what Microsoft does.

As a system administrator ... I have nothing at all to worry about. I won't work for a company that uses Windows for production servers. Hell, I won't work for a company that doesn't offer Mac as a desktop for their employees.

As a web developer, it worries me because I want MS to fumble a lot ... so the market evens up. IE really drives me nuts! I spent a few hours working on a new layout for one of my sites. It worked perfectly on Safari, Opera and Firefox. Then, took a few *days* to make it work in IE.

[SinfonianShrek]

You make no sense. How is wanting a 13-inch laptop with a dedicated GPU a "weird" complaint. And since Apple doesn't offer it, the "I cant afford it" complaint doesn't even factor in... Please, go back in your cave and come back out when you can comprehend some simple English.
This is how I see it: Apple wants to keep their pro and consumer lines distinctly separated. Maybe that line of distinction is a little too blatant with the screen size and hardware gap being so distinct, but in the end it is a matter of whether they feel it's worth their money to try and sell crossover models that blur the lines of these classes.

I read an interesting article earlier that dated back to '06. It said that Apple's success lies in the lack of selection almost as much as the quality of their product. When you have fewer systems to choose from you are more likely to be satisfied with your purchase since you'll have a few very specific and different choices rather than several similar ones leaving you feeling you bought the right unit rather than wondering if it would have been worth the extra $50 for the slightly better graphics card or RAM config.

I kind of agree with this. Apple has dedicated their machines to specific types of use and have built them to perform those different styles of personal/enterprise computing as well as possible while still allowing the machines' sales to generate a profit.

Intel makes the chips, the chipsets, and the graphics so I'm sure this gives Apple a fair discount on the overall cost. The whole line can be based off one mainboard as a result, making it far easier (and cheaper) for them to support and repair. Yes, the MacBook Pro line obviously uses multiple mainboards but at the same time you pay for that both in the cost of the machine and the cost of the AppleCare (if you buy it).

As it stands I think the MacBooks perform beautifully with the X3100. I was pleasantly surprised when I got my hands on one and, in my opinion, it's a testament to Apple's correct choice to segment the computers based on purpose.

I won't go so far as to say "SUCK IT UP" but I will say that unless you can prove to Apple it's worth their time and money to develop a crossover of the two classifications you're just going to be wanting something that won't exist.

And it will take more than 15 people on a forum saying, "Because I want it," to change Apple's mind...

[corywoolf]

So many posts in here bash Microsoft with little reasoning. Microsoft does have lots of problems internally. They also have created great products over the years:

-Xbox 360 (pioneered online console world, great user experience, lots of features that other companies were quick to copy)

-Zune (while late to the game, it was one of the first WiFi portable media players, provided a pretty good user experience)

-Peripherals (some of the best mice, keyboards, joysticks, and other input devices are made by MS)

-Office (hands down, best productivity suite out their for most users, extensive features that haven't been matched)

[clevin]

Just the simple fact that the C.E.O. of Microsoft itself just stated that they have not provided the experience people want with the component model
oh yeah, take his words, he also said windows dominant mac 30-1.

I read an interesting article earlier that dated back to '06. It said that Apple's success lies in the lack of selection almost as much as the quality of their product.

I think its about right, but that also caps the marketshare of apple can EVER reach.

[BongoBanger]

Wow. Apparently you fail to see the opportunity ostracizing all of your component makers by forcing them into your way or the highway would create for another company to provide and alternative solution according to their own judgement.

I don't think you understand. This is a consolidation and the major PC makers will be delighted because they already use good quality components. This means they'll lose less business to bargain basement crapheaps that no-one in their right mind should ever buy.

I mean, i KNOW Google would just HATE it if PC or phone manufacturers came looking for an alternative OS, like..... I dunno.... say ANDROID and other solutions that could become very attractive to ill treated hardware vendors that could work with someone else that is actually willing to embrace them and innovate together instead of being forced to jump through bully imposed hoops just to survive.

Except your vision of ill treated hardware vendors is a total myth.

I mean I know companies have just LOVED the way Microsoft treats them and throws their weight around in the industry so far.

Replace Microsoft with Apple and the sentence is equally valid. Just ask Wolfson.

You are right, there is absolutely no room for opportunity or alternatives to arise there at all! :rolleyes:

No, there really aren't because the major manufacturers are already on board, especially after the Vista Ready incident.

[Syrus28]

Just the simple fact that the C.E.O. of Microsoft itself just stated that they have not provided the experience people want with the component model and are now therefore going to try and focus on an end-to-end experience, yet implementing a complex technology and user experience like Multi-Touch is going to be even more complicated than what they have faced in the past.

So, good luck with that Microsoft, maybe soup up your coffee table a bit :rolleyes:

Yes, multi-touch is just oh-so complex for a company who has demonstrated the capibility (Surface)...

Wow. Apparently you fail to see the opportunity ostracizing all of your component makers by forcing them into your way or the highway would create for another company to provide and alternative solution according to their own judgement.
Forcing them into Microsoft's way, which will ultimately lead to a more profitable business? I'm sure HP, Dell, and HTC would just hate Microsoft for trying to improve the user-experience. Oh, wait...

I mean, i KNOW Google would just HATE it if PC or phone manufacturers came looking for an alternative OS, like..... I dunno.... say ANDROID and other solutions that could become very attractive to ill treated hardware vendors that could work with someone else that is actually willing to embrace them and innovate together instead of being forced to jump through bully imposed hoops just to survive.
Ill treated hardware vendors? Which ones? I'd love to see any PC manufacturer try to move away from Windows on a large scale to see how fast the company dies... Either way, your misinterpreting the memo. He's saying he wants to provide a better experience, more "end-to-end", as to provide better compatibility and standards to their products. Now tell me, which manufacturer would be upset about that?

I mean I know companies have just LOVED the way Microsoft treats them and throws their weight around in the industry so far.
Like...?

You are right, there is absolutely no room for opportunity or alternatives to arise there at all! :rolleyes:
On a large scale (PC), no, there's not. On the phone side, there definitely is, but I doubt its going to arise because they just despise Microsoft so much, considering they aren't anywhere near the top of the chain there.

FYI, I personally have never read a comic book, I prefer actual books.
Glad to hear it...:)

[Syrus28]

This is how I see it: Apple wants to keep their pro and consumer lines distinctly separated. Maybe that line of distinction is a little too blatant with the screen size and hardware gap being so distinct, but in the end it is a matter of whether they feel it's worth their money to try and sell crossover models that blur the lines of these classes.

I read an interesting article earlier that dated back to '06. It said that Apple's success lies in the lack of selection almost as much as the quality of their product. When you have fewer systems to choose from you are more likely to be satisfied with your purchase since you'll have a few very specific and different choices rather than several similar ones leaving you feeling you bought the right unit rather than wondering if it would have been worth the extra $50 for the slightly better graphics card or RAM config.

I kind of agree with this. Apple has dedicated their machines to specific types of use and have built them to perform those different styles of personal/enterprise computing as well as possible while still allowing the machines' sales to generate a profit.

Intel makes the chips, the chipsets, and the graphics so I'm sure this gives Apple a fair discount on the overall cost. The whole line can be based off one mainboard as a result, making it far easier (and cheaper) for them to support and repair. Yes, the MacBook Pro line obviously uses multiple mainboards but at the same time you pay for that both in the cost of the machine and the cost of the AppleCare (if you buy it).

As it stands I think the MacBooks perform beautifully with the X3100. I was pleasantly surprised when I got my hands on one and, in my opinion, it's a testament to Apple's correct choice to segment the computers based on purpose.

I won't go so far as to say "SUCK IT UP" but I will say that unless you can prove to Apple it's worth their time and money to develop a crossover of the two classifications you're just going to be wanting something that won't exist.

And it will take more than 15 people on a forum saying, "Because I want it," to change Apple's mind...
I can't say I disagree, but I do know the the world isn't just going to fit into Apple's little "model" they have going there. And why is that important? Because that ultimately caps the # of people who are willing to conform to their "model", which ultimately caps the number of people who get a Mac (something I'm sure Apple cares about).

[NAG]

Are you really so sure this will not be another Plays For Sure™ screw up like they did with the Zune? Pretending that microsoft hasn't screwed over their business partners is being naive.

[SinfonianShrek]

I don't think you understand. This is a consolidation and the major PC makers will be delighted because they already use good quality components. This means they'll lose less business to bargain basement crapheaps that no-one in their right mind should ever buy.



Except your vision of ill treated hardware vendors is a total myth.
Not necessarily. If Microsoft really dedicates themselves to as close to a "end-to-end" operation as they can get they will likely do some pretty harsh things to ensure compliance. I can see Microsoft requiring the contracting of their employees, in large numbers, to act as compliance auditors and engineers. If not, you won't be on Microsoft's list of hardware vendors. Not saying it's certain but I can see it.



Replace Microsoft with Apple and the sentence is equally valid. Just ask Wolfson. There's a difference between the aftermath of MS adopting this mentality and how Apple already operates. Yes, Apple is very picky about their hardware. But this plays to their advantage as it could for Microsoft, provided they don't alienate manufacturers with completely unreasonable demands.



No, there really aren't because the major manufacturers are already on board, especially after the Vista Ready incident.
The Vista ready initiative is a completely different beast than the idealized movement Chubby Monkey's memo brings to mind for most of us. Vista ready just meant that the vendors had to use hardware that had Vista drivers ready or in the works so that the OS would run, not necessarily well mind you, on the machines once it was released. I know not a single person who bought a Vista Ready PC and then upgraded after the fact. Tubgut is probably thinking more along the lines of an iron-fisted approach to compliance.

I can certainly see another computer competitor springing up in the wake of Microsoft's Socialist-like call for unification and compliance (backed by the same Socialist methods of enforcement through intimidation and brute force). They don't have to revolutionize the hardware or even the OS. What's to stop Google from developing a web-based Linux distro, tying it to a very narrow selection of hardware, ala Apple, and using their already incredible brand recognition to push a PC for the People in a Marxist song of freedom and efficiency? They have web-based apps in place, a humongous hardware base to power millions of machines if they wanted, and the operating capital to get it started and keep it going until it becomes profitable.

No, it's not too steep of a slope if you really think about it. Granted my description is kind of colorful and overly analyzed but it is still possible in my opinion.

[SinfonianShrek]

I can't say I disagree, but I do know the the world isn't just going to fit into Apple's little "model" they have going there. And why is that important? Because that ultimately caps the # of people who are willing to conform to their "model", which ultimately caps the number of people who get a Mac (something I'm sure Apple cares about).

I agree that they care about the number of customers they receive but they won't make much of a dent in that un-switched populace just from adding dedicated graphics to their MacBooks.

In the end it comes down to numbers and they are more likely to make a significant dent in the competitors' collective marketshare by focusing on user-experience right now rather than specifications. Sure, if they reach a major number on marketshare they'll have to start worrying about more specific computing desires (gaming, for example) and developing more machines toward that end but right now there's no money to be had by abandoning a philosophy that seems to be working rather well for them in order to satisfy a vast minority of their potential customers.

Maybe in the future your 13" with a Nvidia or ATI card will come to fruition but it's not likely to be while Apple still holds such a small marketshare and desires to capture significantly more.

[Moonlight]

So many posts in here bash Microsoft with little reasoning. Microsoft does have lots of problems internally. They also have created great products over the years:

-Xbox 360 (pioneered online console world, great user experience, lots of features that other companies were quick to copy)

-Zune (while late to the game, it was one of the first WiFi portable media players, provided a pretty good user experience)

-Peripherals (some of the best mice, keyboards, joysticks, and other input devices are made by MS)

-Office (hands down, best productivity suite out their for most users, extensive features that haven't been matched)

Xbox 360 is good. Have they started making money on that yet ?

Zune's WiFi was and is CRIPPLED to the point that there really is no point to it.

The Input devices are usable, is that really an argument for anything ?

Office is very good, not always has been though...And was made first for a Mac

[cloudnine]

I say good for them (Microsoft)... As much as I loathe everything Microsoft, this sort of "defense tactic", as it were, shows that Microsoft clearly views Apple as a threat in the market... which makes sense considering how quickly Apple has been gaining market share these past few years. While I don't own (or ever plan to own again) a Windows PC, it's good news for Windows PC owners that Microsoft is taking this step towards a better end user experience... which, in turn, will mean nothing but good things for Apple/Mac owners because (hopefully), Apple will strive to always be one step ahead :)

In short, Windows + better QC/QA = EPIC WIN FOR ALL OMG WTF BBQ... er, something like that.

[ronwasserman]

If they would just focus on creating an entirely new and RELIABLE OS they may just keep Apple under wraps.

[Insulin Junkie]

While I do enjoy the lack of digging for drivers and such for my Mac, it's rather annoying to have severely limited model choices.

QFE

On topic, Microsoft, unlike Apple, can't really afford something entirely new. They cater for a lot of businesses, some of which have just made the leap to XP, and they care preciously little for wow effects and the like. I think Microsoft should write a whole new, entirely 64 bit OS for the consumer market, and continue with their relic OS's for their business customers, instead of trying to please both parties with the same OS.

[Syrus28]

Are you really so sure this will not be another Plays For Sure™ screw up like they did with the Zune? Pretending that microsoft hasn't screwed over their business partners is being naive.
PlaysForSure was nothing more than a sticker (Now Certified for Windows Vista)... I'm sure Microsoft's partners were devastated..

Not necessarily. If Microsoft really dedicates themselves to as close to a "end-to-end" operation as they can get they will likely do some pretty harsh things to ensure compliance. I can see Microsoft requiring the contracting of their employees, in large numbers, to act as compliance auditors and engineers. If not, you won't be on Microsoft's list of hardware vendors. Not saying it's certain but I can see it.
Yes, because Microsoft has showed a history of this right? There's no reason to believe Microsoft will be overly harsh to the hardware makers, other than a dislike for Microsoft.

The Vista ready initiative is a completely different beast than the idealized movement Chubby Monkey's memo brings to mind for most of us. Vista ready just meant that the vendors had to use hardware that had Vista drivers ready or in the works so that the OS would run, not necessarily well mind you, on the machines once it was released. I know not a single person who bought a Vista Ready PC and then upgraded after the fact. Tubgut is probably thinking more along the lines of an iron-fisted approach to compliance.
The name calling really makes it hard to take this serious.

I can certainly see another computer competitor springing up in the wake of Microsoft's Socialist-like call for unification and compliance (backed by the same Socialist methods of enforcement through intimidation and brute force). They don't have to revolutionize the hardware or even the OS. What's to stop Google from developing a web-based Linux distro, tying it to a very narrow selection of hardware, ala Apple, and using their already incredible brand recognition to push a PC for the People in a Marxist song of freedom and efficiency? They have web-based apps in place, a humongous hardware base to power millions of machines if they wanted, and the operating capital to get it started and keep it going until it becomes profitable.
I don't get where your coming from. Why are you assuming Microsoft is going to use brute force to provide a a better user-experience? A better user-experience leads to better sales for all parties... And Google developing a desktop OS? You seem to think the business operates on feelings... Google would have nothing to gain from trying to compete directly with Windows, and would be nothing more than a gigantic money sink. (a-la YouTube, but much larger)

No, it's not too steep of a slope if you really think about it. Granted my description is kind of colorful and overly analyzed but it is still possible in my opinion.
Yes, it is too steep because Google is a web-based company that makes its fortunes on text-ads., from its search engine. People aren't going to jump ship from Windows to some unknown, as Google has literally no expertise in this area. Going from ads and a future mobile OS to a desktop OS which it will have to provide support for is a gigantic step, one Google can't afford to make, as it doesn't hold any promise.

[jodelli]

Originally Posted by Peruchito View Post
the answer is BUY A PC AND SUCK IT UP or just SUCK IT UP.

if you don't like what apple is doing. leave. i am getting tired of these weird complaints. i'd like a BMW too. but i can't afford it. you know what i do? i SUCK IT UP and get a something i can afford or don't get anything.

Wrong car company. It's Porsche that compares. The Carrera is uber cool, but this company also brought out the grossly underpowered 914 and 924. I won't mention the 912 because it was actually OK.

Jobs decideed the Apple III would have no fan with the obvious result.
The first Mac was elegant but an under performer until the Fat Mac and Plus arrived.
The NeXT cube was an amazing design but didn't have what academics and businesses wanted and was grossly over priced, thus sales didn't follow. Thank NeXT for the software though, OSX is the best.
The Cube was a work of art, but for the same price you could have a 'real' G4.

Apple doesn't have a history of producing what the market wants as far as computers go. They are still catering to a niche.