PDA

View Full Version : Steve Ballmer: Apple's Proprietary Hardware & Software Will...


MacBytes
Sep 27, 2008, 11:46 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Microsoft
Link: Steve Ballmer: Apple's Proprietary Hardware & Software Will Lose to Microsoft (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080927124616)
Description:: Apple's business model of offering proprietary software combined with proprietary hardware will lose out to Microsoft's licensing approach in the smartphone market, and keep the company from gaining any more share in the personal computing and enterprise markets, according to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

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

sushi
Sep 27, 2008, 11:51 AM
This from a company who they themselves have used proprietary file formats in the past. And now their own version of XML.

Most interesting.

SnowLeopard2008
Sep 27, 2008, 12:45 PM
Steve B < Steve J. Apparently. This is so interesting, since MS's butt is getting kicked around like a soccer ball by big companies like Nokia, Motorola, Rim (especially), and Apple as well. Wasn't there a leak about Steve B saying that MS should be more like Apple? Like better customer satisfaction and integration that Steve B wrote in a company-wide memo? And now he's saying that way doesn't work... I used my friend's Moto Q with Windows Mobile, and it was so hard to navigate, i.e. it looked so "flat". The menus were just boxes, and it was so cluttered and confusing. Ugh. No sense of where things are, very messy and not integrated. Now iPhone OS, I know where everything is, and it's integrated together very well.

MacBoobsPro
Sep 27, 2008, 01:16 PM
He is only saying this to hide the fact that MS can't make good proprietary hardware. Zune anyone? Even the Windows platform is not up to scratch and people are now realising this and moving on.

Really anything this idiot says should be taken with a pinch of salt. He always ends up eating his own words. His comments about the iPhone not being popular because of the price tag is one such example.

I have never met the guy but he comes across as one of the most unprofessional people running a business I have ever seen and it is beginning to show as Microsoft are getting hammered in every department.

IJ Reilly
Sep 27, 2008, 02:54 PM
The terms of this debate are screwed up. Licensing operating systems does not make either the software or the hardware any less proprietary.

gkarris
Sep 27, 2008, 03:07 PM
People that buy Microsoft Windows products only do it becuase they HAVE TO - not because they WANT TO.

Why Ballmer has to stoop so low as to put down Apple for their success is beyond me...

sra. Aguirre
Sep 27, 2008, 04:55 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Microsoft
Link: Steve Ballmer: Apple's Proprietary Hardware & Software Will Lose to Microsoft (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080927124616)
Description:: Apple's business model of offering proprietary software combined with proprietary hardware will lose out to Microsoft's licensing approach in the smartphone market, and keep the company from gaining any more share in the personal computing and enterprise markets, according to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

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

I tried getting Steve's point, but it is beyond my limited knowledge. Any Windows fanboy care to enlighten me?:D

For real, what's Steve been smoking lately?!?!?! He is aiming for a mugshot just like Bill G. I guess....

autrefois
Sep 27, 2008, 05:14 PM
This from a company who they themselves have used proprietary file formats in the past. And now their own version of XML.

Most interesting.

Microsoft's approach is apparently "Do as I say, not as I do."

winmacguy
Sep 27, 2008, 05:26 PM
He is only saying this to hide the fact that MS can't make good proprietary hardware. Zune anyone? Even the Windows platform is not up to scratch and people are now realising this and moving on.


With a vision like that I hope Steve Ballmer runs Microsoft untill the day he dies. :D

Eric5h5
Sep 27, 2008, 06:20 PM
The terms of this debate are screwed up. Licensing operating systems does not make either the software or the hardware any less proprietary.

That's for sure...MS is the king of proprietary. They are probably the most proprietary company on the planet, wanting to force their own stuff on everybody and everything, and doing their best to stamp out open formats. Apple is far less proprietary than MS.

--Eric

sushi
Sep 27, 2008, 07:22 PM
Microsoft's approach is apparently "Do as I say, not as I do."
That pretty much sums it up. :D

jodelli
Sep 27, 2008, 08:23 PM
Last I saw, Windows is proprietary software by definition, although that's not exactly what Balmer is talking about. Also IAW all the posts so far.

elppa
Sep 28, 2008, 08:06 AM
Has he bought Yahoo! yet?

rdowns
Sep 28, 2008, 08:06 AM
Has he brought Yahoo! yet?

Where is he bringing them to? :confused:

Sun Baked
Sep 28, 2008, 08:11 AM
The terms of this debate are screwed up. Licensing operating systems does not make either the software or the hardware any less proprietary.

Of course it isn't proprietary, just a "standard" that MS has pushed through after tweaking someone else's IP.

elppa
Sep 28, 2008, 08:47 AM
Where is he bringing them to? :confused:

cheers. modified.

twoodcc
Sep 28, 2008, 10:25 AM
wow. ballmer, i don't listen to anything he says

IJ Reilly
Sep 28, 2008, 11:28 AM
Of course it isn't proprietary, just a "standard" that MS has pushed through after tweaking someone else's IP.

Oh man, you're throwing some red meat on the floor. If you don't mind, just for today, I'll pretend to be a vegetarian. ;)

Hrududu
Sep 28, 2008, 12:06 PM
Wow, he is such an arrogant fool. Rich as hell and one of the biggest names in the PC world and he STILL can't get over the Mac vs PC argument. Shameful.

NT1440
Sep 28, 2008, 12:08 PM
The only people I have seen that are happy with WinMo are those who have phone UI's that are so altered they don't eve know it is windows.

donga
Sep 28, 2008, 02:47 PM
Wow, he is such an arrogant fool. Rich as hell and one of the biggest names in the PC world and he STILL can't get over the Mac vs PC argument. Shameful.

maybe he's got an inferiority complex, resulting in his comments and those "awesome" new pc ads

drwatz0n
Sep 28, 2008, 05:02 PM
People that buy Microsoft Windows products only do it becuase they HAVE TO - not because they WANT TO.

Why Ballmer has to stoop so low as to put down Apple for their success is beyond me...

Stupid, just stupid. My grandparents bought a Windows computer because they HAD to? I get your argument to a point, such as for business or certain compatibility, but Windows has a massive marketshare for a reason.

IJ Reilly
Sep 28, 2008, 05:35 PM
Stupid, just stupid. My grandparents bought a Windows computer because they HAD to? I get your argument to a point, such as for business or certain compatibility, but Windows has a massive marketshare for a reason.

But probably not the one you think. Either way, it's fair to say that a lot of people have not considered that they had a "real" choice.

Saladinos
Sep 28, 2008, 06:24 PM
Ballmer dropped out of business school before he learnt that good products are more important than your business model.

Besides, I'm not sure Microsoft's model is the antithesis of proprietary.

Microsoft:
- Windows (all closed source)
- Internet Explorer (tried to close the internet. Still trying)
- Office (proprietary formats)
- Windows Server (proprietary protocols)
- Silverlight (again, trying to close the internet)
- .Net (trying to shut down Java)
- Windows Mobile (proprietary sync tools)
- Microsoft DRM (Windows only. Not compatible with other MS-DRM devices, shut down old servers and people lost their music, required devices to not support non-MS formats like Ogg)

Apple:
+/- OSX (built on open source XNU kernel. Closed source layers providing GUI)
+ Safari (open source. Engine used on lots of platforms by lots of companies)
- iPhone (strict control on App Store and NDAs for developers, proprietary sync tools)
+ OSX Server (uses open software like CalDAV and Apache webserver)
- Macs (strict control on hardware)
+ iTunes and FairPlay (Windows AND Mac compatible, liberal DRM at time of introduction, iTunes Plus, Letter against DRM)

In total, Apple is much more supportive of open technology than Microsoft.

Oh, it should also be noted that Microsoft has been predicting the rise of Smartphones for the last 10 years, and failed. It took Apple to make that seem likely. They messed up the mobile market.

drwatz0n
Sep 28, 2008, 07:07 PM
Ballmer dropped out of business school before he learnt that good products are more important than your business model.

Besides, I'm not sure Microsoft's model is the antithesis of proprietary.

Microsoft:
- Windows (all closed source)
- Internet Explorer (tried to close the internet. Still trying)
- Office (proprietary formats)
- Windows Server (proprietary protocols)
- Silverlight (again, trying to close the internet)
- .Net (trying to shut down Java)
- Windows Mobile (proprietary sync tools)
- Microsoft DRM (Windows only. Not compatible with other MS-DRM devices, shut down old servers and people lost their music, required devices to not support non-MS formats like Ogg)

Apple:
+/- OSX (built on open source XNU kernel. Closed source layers providing GUI)
+ Safari (open source. Engine used on lots of platforms by lots of companies)
- iPhone (strict control on App Store and NDAs for developers, proprietary sync tools)
+ OSX Server (uses open software like CalDAV and Apache webserver)
- Macs (strict control on hardware)
+ iTunes and FairPlay (Windows AND Mac compatible, liberal DRM at time of introduction, iTunes Plus, Letter against DRM)

In total, Apple is much more supportive of open technology than Microsoft.

Oh, it should also be noted that Microsoft has been predicting the rise of Smartphones for the last 10 years, and failed. It took Apple to make that seem likely. They messed up the mobile market.

Your not comparing apples to apples (and no pun intended). I have taken your list and edited it so that each component matches the appropriate one on the other list. I have also added in details that you neglected, for one reason or another, to add.

Microsoft:

- Windows: Closed source
+/- Internet Explorer: Slow, not very stable, but okay for average users
+/- Office 2008: Proprietary formats, but it has the ability to export to standard formats as well (such as RTF, TXT, etc.)
- Windows Server: Proprietary protocols
(REMOVED) Silverlight: There is no Apple equivalent, though I find it better than Flash.
+/- .NET - Decent 16/32 bit API, comparable to Carbon
- Windows Mobile: Proprietary sync tools
- Microsoft DRM: Windows only, not compatible with other devices, server shut downs could prevent licensed music from being played in the future

Apple:

+/- OS X: open source components, proprietary GUI and other elements
+/- No addons, such as toolbars and searches (unlike IE), but faster rendering engine. Perfect for average users.
+/- iWork '08: Proprietary and standard formats, like Office 2008.
+/- OS X Server: Same as OS X (open components, closed GUI)
- iPhone - Strict platform control, NDA's, proprietary syncing tool (iTunes)
+/- Cocoa and Carbon: 32 and 64 bit API's
- iTunes and FairPlay: Has never been licensed to other companies. Requires you to have iTunes or an iPod/iPhone to play music, and does not work on any other devices. Letter against DRM has done nothing except for the introduction of iTunes Plus; the majority of the iTunes library is still DRM protected.

As you can see, your neglect for other elements and details in the equation paints Apple just as much as a Microsoft than you claimed.

PCMacUser
Sep 28, 2008, 07:08 PM
Mmm, feel the hate by the posters in this thread.

It's really simple kids.

Balmer's a businessman. Jobs is a businessman. This is what they do.

Trip.Tucker
Sep 28, 2008, 07:11 PM
Where is he bringing them to? :confused:

Very nice, sir! I'm far more blunt with my Spelling-Nazism ;)

impierced
Sep 28, 2008, 08:44 PM
This proprietary argument would have greater clout if Apple didn't provide an identical version of iTunes and QuickTime for Windows. Windows Media has never really worked on a Mac. Come to think of it, name me one MS application that is identical on the Mac side?

I don't mind proprietary formats, so long as the application/format in question is cross platform and exactly the same.

Flyer0815
Sep 28, 2008, 09:13 PM
Its not always about market share. Apple is offering a premium product that appeals to certain individuals who are content paying a higher price for a refined product. This model has grown beyond the so-called "niche" to include many everyday individuals who see the value in this model. Sure, there are far more Toyota's on the roads, which are a fine product, but no one is claiming that BMW or Audi's business model is flawed because they have less "market share".

I understand Ballmer must promote his company and his product, which he is paid to do. But to claim that Microsoft will dominate and Apple and RIM will just be "niche players" is crazyness.

rhett7660
Sep 29, 2008, 09:35 AM
(REMOVED) Silverlight: There is no Apple equivalent, though I find it better than Flash.

Quartz?

fuziwuzi
Sep 29, 2008, 09:50 AM
sure. MS's mobile software will be totally awesome. just look what they did with vista and their awesome new ad campaign.

oh

wait

what

brad.c
Sep 29, 2008, 09:55 AM
Isn't he same the great swami who predicted the iPhone would bomb?

Of course, we are in a community that is quick to criticize Stevie B., but does he have to make it SO easy to do so?

ThirteenXIII
Sep 30, 2008, 10:27 PM
windows is just as proprietary as anything.
to their windows registration to driver support, etc.

more times than not, you cant just take the drive out of one system and slap it into another without having to register the OS or all that mumbo jumbo, as it ties it to a certain spec of hardware you registered it with in the beginning.

i could swap drives of various installs from my macs to each other and wont have to ask me to reregister or do this or that.

shamino
Oct 3, 2008, 11:14 AM
This is just hysterical. The business model for computers is completely different than the one for phones.

People buying computers know that the hardware and software are separate entities. People can and do run multiple operating systems on their computers, they buy upgrades to their OS, and they sometimes swap out major pieces of hardware while keeping the same software. A computer is useless, except as a platform for running applications - people select the OS that can run their apps and then select hardware that can run the OS. (And those that don't do this, usually end up complaining that their computer doesn't do what they want.)

Phones, on the other hand, aren't like that. People buy the phone based on what they see in the combined hardware/software package provided by their carrier. They usually have no choice in deciding the operating system and have no ability to replace or upgrade it post-purchase. (I know, there are some hacker groups that distribute alternate system software for some phones, but most people don't even know that this is possible, and even fewer would be willing to do it.) The iPhone is extremely unusual, in the fact that Apple allows (and even encourages) you to upgrade the system software post-purchase.

It's just like music players. Who bought an iPod because of the system software it runs? Who outside of Apple even knows what system software non-Touch iPods are running? If Microsoft didn't heavily advertise the fact that Zunes run some form of Windows, would anybody know or care? Somehow, I don't think so. Music player customers only care that the device can play their music files, and has a convenient interface.

MacTraveller
Oct 3, 2008, 11:55 AM
This is just hysterical. The business model for computers is completely different than the one for phones.

People buying computers know that the hardware and software are separate entities. People can and do run multiple operating systems on their computers, they buy upgrades to their OS, and they sometimes swap out major pieces of hardware while keeping the same software. A computer is useless, except as a platform for running applications - people select the OS that can run their apps and then select hardware that can run the OS. (And those that don't do this, usually end up complaining that their computer doesn't do what they want.)

Phones, on the other hand, aren't like that. People buy the phone based on what they see in the combined hardware/software package provided by their carrier. They usually have no choice in deciding the operating system and have no ability to replace or upgrade it post-purchase. (I know, there are some hacker groups that distribute alternate system software for some phones, but most people don't even know that this is possible, and even fewer would be willing to do it.) The iPhone is extremely unusual, in the fact that Apple allows (and even encourages) you to upgrade the system software post-purchase.

It's just like music players. Who bought an iPod because of the system software it runs? Who outside of Apple even knows what system software non-Touch iPods are running? If Microsoft didn't heavily advertise the fact that Zunes run some form of Windows, would anybody know or care? Somehow, I don't think so. Music player customers only care that the device can play their music files, and has a convenient interface.

The voice of reason are you.

LeviG
Oct 3, 2008, 12:23 PM
ok don't bite my head off here but I can kind of see Ballmers logic in his arguement. :)

Apple iPhone is for arguements sake one product (yes more memory or different colour but the rest is the same) running an os where every aspect is controlled by Apple (unless you hack it). Even the programs are restricted as if apple doesn't approve of them you can't get them through the app store. From current events on this respect, you can't even add a program that has an overlap with apples own software (the podcast one for example).

Now MS Mobile (and symbian for that matter) can run on a range of products where the manufacturer can add features to suit their target demographic (say better camera, physical keyboard or better media player). Yes the underlying os is restricted (well unless you go hacking) but you can add to it - such as the 'overlay' for the pretty interfaces etc as we are now seeing. MS doesn't stop us from installing an app just because it overlaps with an inbuilt program. From my own pda with windows mobile 5 I've added better programs for video playback (core media player which has a huge range of codecs supported), opera mobile instead of pocket ie (not saying you would change safari anyways), file management and picture viewing for example.

Now the way I see it is that MS have produced a product which allows their partners (and the phone user) to produce a phone with their desired specs using their chosen hardware while apple has gone (as usual) and produced a single product with a restricted user experience.
As with all things a single product rarely fits everyone - just look at the amount of people calling for copy and paste and flash on the iPhone (both of which are on MS mobile :p).

As to the desktop programs, I can say quite clearly (on a windows pc) that the iPhone software is annoying (I like itunes though and I have an iPod) as it gets installed even if you havent got one!! where as ms interface (albeit far from perfect) is fairly clean considering that it allows you to go into the files system etc, it also isn't installed unless you have the hardware (atleast in vista).
Now I'm not saying this is the case on os-x as getting support for a product with no built in drivers to run on a mac can be a pain (think ms pda's) but apple software generally runs pretty well, so the logic there is to get apple hardware.

As to RIM, well to be honest I can see them going into a software only solution soon, you can already do most of the stuff the blackberry was originally intended for on most new phones (either on purchase or by buying a bit of software) which are aimed at the business user. Yes they have the 'crackberry' faithful but they will only last so long with that market.

BongoBanger
Oct 3, 2008, 06:50 PM
People that buy Microsoft Windows products only do it becuase they HAVE TO - not because they WANT TO.

Absolute crap. Honestly, just quit it with that myth.

The only people I have seen that are happy with WinMo are those who have phone UI's that are so altered they don't eve know it is windows.

And you know, it's because we have WinMo phones we have the freedom to do that.

NT1440
Oct 3, 2008, 07:00 PM
And you know, it's because we have WinMo phones we have the freedom to do that.

Freedom to change the look so much that people cant tell that its winmo, what a great selling point!

dress it up all you like, its till winmo

LeviG
Oct 4, 2008, 07:01 AM
Freedom to change the look so much that people cant tell that its winmo, what a great selling point!

dress it up all you like, its till winmo

Man you really are anti ms, different people have differnet needs, apple does not fulfill my requirements in a phone (plus its underspec'd in my view) while winmo and symbian can, which phone should I pick, the phone that can do what I want my phone to do or the fashion statement?

shamino
Oct 4, 2008, 11:36 AM
Absolute crap. Honestly, just quit it with that myth.
What myth? That corporate IT departments set policies demanding that all employees use Windows PCs for routine office work?

That's my employer's policy, and it's policy at most large companies. I could get fired for attaching any non-corporate-standard computer to the company network. This, by definition, forbids everything made by Apple, since the corporate standard is specific models of HP laptops running specific versions of Windows.

This is not unusual. I've friends and family working for a lot of different large corporations, and they all have similar policies.