Microsoft's Shifting Strategy in Response to Apple

[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

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!

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!

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

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!

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.