Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft's Shifting Strategy in Response to Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Epic fail.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Competition is irrelevant to Apple's mission
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So Microsoft is going to borrow/mimic/copy Apple's strategies.
PC Warned us about this at MacWorld '08.
PC Warned us about this at MacWorld '08.
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?
"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!
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.)
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.
It's not a zero sum game, in other words.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.