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Old farts that have fallen out of the tech world and inundate us with outdated technology that caters to outmoded market segments.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