Why Apple is superior to Microsoft

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Apple spends $2 billion a year on R&D to generate $130 billion revenue.
Microsoft spends $9 billion a year on R&D to generate $70 billion revenue.

Everything Apple tries in the last decade has turned into a monster hit(iPod, iPhone, iMacs, iPad). Microsoft has no NEW products in the last decade that are monster hits. Only the legacy monopolies(Windows, Office, Visual Studio) continue raking in the monster profits. Everything else(Bing, XBox, Zune, Windows Phone, Courier, etc..) gets funded from those legacy profits.

Bottom line - Apple knows how to nip bad designs in the bud EARLY to prevent huge operating expenses. By the time they get to market with a product, it's guaranteed HUGE success. Microsoft just tries a bunch of bad ideas and hopes 1 sticks to the all(XBox 360 with XBL).
 

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Even failures like Ping, MobileMe never cost Apple a ton of money. I wonder if iCloud is in the black already.

Also Apple typically acquires companies in the $200 to $400 million range that are game-changers(FingerWorks, Siri, Anobit, AuthenTec) and lead to products very quickly. Microsoft makes gigantic acquisitions in the multi-billions that end up being written-off year later. aQuantive cost Microsoft $6.2 billion for NOTHING.

Another example of how thoughtful and visionary Apple is.
 
Comment

TedM

macrumors 6502
Sep 19, 2012
356
2
California
Even failures like Ping, MobileMe never cost Apple a ton of money. I wonder if iCloud is in the black already.

Also Apple typically acquires companies in the $200 to $400 million range that are game-changers(FingerWorks, Siri, Anobit, AuthenTec) and lead to products very quickly. Microsoft makes gigantic acquisitions in the multi-billions that end up being written-off year later. aQuantive cost Microsoft $6.2 billion for NOTHING.

Another example of how thoughtful and visionary Apple is.
Good points are being made. Microsoft hasn't done well recently. I bet windows 8 flops. Apple really just needs to get themselves included in all the games coming out. A lot of people don't get macs cause of that. Me included.
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Good points are being made. Microsoft hasn't done well recently. I bet windows 8 flops. Apple really just needs to get themselves included in all the games coming out. A lot of people don't get macs cause of that. Me included.
I think PC gaming is overrated. The mobile gaming profits are far bigger now and that's where Apple is. Just wait until Infinity Blade: Dungeons comes out. I think we can agree that Microsoft is dead, baby dead.
 
Comment

Renzatic

Suspended
Apple R&Ds ideas that will be going into their next iDevice or Mac.

Microsoft R&Ds ideas that might not be put into use for a decade or more.

Which is better?

----------

I think PC gaming is overrated. The mobile gaming profits are far bigger now and that's where Apple is.
What? Steam has 3 million people on it buying up games from $10 all the way to $60. The App Store has 5 million people buying games for .99 a pop. More profitable? Hardly.

Just wait until Infinity Blade: Dungeons comes out. I think we can agree that Microsoft is dead, baby dead.
It'll be good, and I'm waiting on it with baited breath. But I'd be fooling myself if I thought of it as a Diablo III killer.
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Apple R&Ds ideas that will be going into their next iDevice or Mac.

Microsoft R&Ds ideas that might not be put into use for a decade or more.

Which is better?
So Microsoft Research is a philanthropic enterprise? I thought the point of business was to make filthy amounts of stack?
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Never said they were doing it for charity. Sometimes blue sky research prepares you for the future and nets you profits farther down the line.
The only things I'm seeing MSR has actually helped gain is in Surface tech and Kinect. Anything else?
 
Comment

r0k

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2008
3,610
73
Detroit
I'm an Apple fan but it is only fair to admit that Xbox was visionary. No more fighting directx and video drivers to get a game up and running. Xbox games just worked but what was running inside was just another flavor of a product MS already owned: Windows. MS poured money into xbox for years before it finally turned the corner and became profitable. But it did become profitable enough that MS is starting to call themselves a "devices" company when as of today the only device you can buy from them is an Xbox.

Another visionary Microsoft product was Kinect. I'd really like to see Apple license Kinect. Since they have MS licensing things from Apple for WP8 along with an anti-cloning agreement, why not license Kinect? It would be a great addition to innovations Apple already has like multitouch. Apple TV really should license kinect to allow gestures to control movie playback, menus, etc. I suspect Apple is on the verge of bring ATV out of "hobby" status and something like gesture recognition could make it even better.

Apple actually had Halo before MS swooped in and bought the thing. Apple needs to be more proactive in pursuing other companies' technologies that can strengthen either Apple's products.
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
I'm an Apple fan but it is only fair to admit that Xbox was visionary. No more fighting directx and video drivers to get a game up and running. Xbox games just worked but what was running inside was just another flavor of a product MS already owned: Windows. MS poured money into xbox for years before it finally turned the corner and became profitable. But it did become profitable enough that MS is starting to call themselves a "devices" company when as of today the only device you can buy from them is an Xbox.

Another visionary Microsoft product was Kinect. I'd really like to see Apple license Kinect. Since they have MS licensing things from Apple for WP8 along with an anti-cloning agreement, why not license Kinect? It would be a great addition to innovations Apple already has like multitouch. Apple TV really should license kinect to allow gestures to control movie playback, menus, etc. I suspect Apple is on the verge of bring ATV out of "hobby" status and something like gesture recognition could make it even better.

Apple actually had Halo before MS swooped in and bought the thing. Apple needs to be more proactive in pursuing other companies' technologies that can strengthen either Apple's products.
Knowing Apple, they have something even better then Kinect coming out on the iTV in 2013. Probably for 1/3 the cost of development too.
 
Comment

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
Apple spends $2 billion a year on R&D to generate $130 billion revenue.
Microsoft spends $9 billion a year on R&D to generate $70 billion revenue.

Everything Apple tries in the last decade has turned into a monster hit(iPod, iPhone, iMacs, iPad). Microsoft has no NEW products in the last decade that are monster hits. Only the legacy monopolies(Windows, Office, Visual Studio) continue raking in the monster profits. Everything else(Bing, XBox, Zune, Windows Phone, Courier, etc..) gets funded from those legacy profits.

Bottom line - Apple knows how to nip bad designs in the bud EARLY to prevent huge operating expenses. By the time they get to market with a product, it's guaranteed HUGE success. Microsoft just tries a bunch of bad ideas and hopes 1 sticks to the all(XBox 360 with XBL).
Going to point out. Apple only does R&D in very limited field and pure greed level research.

MS does a lot of university grade research. This mean they are doing a lot that is only for the betterment of man kind or research from day 1 that will more than likely never turn a penny of profit. Something Apple will kill. Apple only does research that has a clear path to being profitable in a fairly short time span.

People compare the 2 but have zero understanding of what they are doing. It mostly shows who the Apple clueless fanboys are make the argument you are making.
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Going to point out. Apple only does R&D in very limited field and pure greed level research.

MS does a lot of university grade research. This mean they are doing a lot that is only for the betterment of man kind or research from day 1 that will more than likely never turn a penny of profit. Something Apple will kill. Apple only does research that has a clear path to being profitable in a fairly short time span.

People compare the 2 but have zero understanding of what they are doing. It mostly shows who the Apple clueless fanboys are make the argument you are making.
So what you're saying is MSR is mostly a philanthropic enterprise for the "betterment of mankind" funded by monopoly profits. Now if Apple had set up an Apple Research division to do blue-sky research, that would be ok because their profits were rightfully gained.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/07/...s-claims-that-microsofts-first-os-was-stolen/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft
 
Comment

Renzatic

Suspended
So what you're saying is MSR is mostly a philanthropic enterprise for the "betterment of mankind" funded by monopoly profits. Now if Apple had set up an Apple Research division to do blue-sky research, that would be ok because their profits were rightfully gained.
I think it has more to do with you comparing apples to aardvarks by equating bigger company profits to better management and R&D divisions.

If Apple only wants to R&D technologies that will directly benefit them in the near future, that's fine. It's their money. If MS wants to stretch out a little more and research concepts and ideas that may or may not directly benefit them in the foreseeable future, then so be it. Once again, their money.

No one is a winner or a loser here. A good guy or bad. It's just completely pointless to compare the two.
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
thatcher: Now tell me honestly, my boy. Don't you think it's rather unwise to continue this philanthropic enterprise, this inquirer that's costing you a million dollars a year?
Charles foster kane: You're right, mr. Thatcher. I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, i'll have to close this place in sixty years.
Read more at http://quotes.dictionary.com/search/citizen+kane#ozvmdy43erczzlfx.99
:d:d
 
Comment

Renzatic

Suspended
Because making money isn't about making money. It's about having the most money. Like it's a score, right? If I made 2.3 million dollars last year, and my neighbor made 3.5, I'm a loser in the eyes of society, right? Cuz I didn't get the highest score on the block.

...no. Because I made 2.3 million dollars.

At the end of they day, MS as a whole made a profit. A huge one. They have billions in the bank. Who cares that they spend more money than the competition in certain fields without as huge a return investment? MS sure as hell doesn't.
 
Comment

smoledman

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Oct 17, 2011
1,912
314
Because making money isn't about making money. It's about having the most money. Like it's a score, right? If I made 2.3 million dollars last year, and my neighbor made 3.5, I'm a loser in the eyes of society, right? Cuz I didn't get the highest score on the block.

...no. Because I made 2.3 million dollars.

At the end of they day, MS as a whole made a profit. A huge one. They have billions in the bank. Who cares that they spend more money than the competition in certain fields without as huge a return investment? MS sure as hell doesn't.
It's that attitude which alienates educated people.
 
Comment

Renzatic

Suspended
It's that attitude which alienates educated people.
And it's flippant remarks that have no basis in reality that drives people who are smart enough to realize how completely ignorant and naive you are right up the damn wall.

You have no idea how the world works. Not even an inkling of a quarter of a clue. All you're able to put together is BIG NUMBERS OLOL WIN!

...and that's not a very good argument. There are these concepts called short term, and long term, and oh hell. I'm not even gonna waste my time.
 
Comment

sviato

macrumors 68020
Oct 27, 2010
2,278
45
HR 9038 A
Which is "better" ? Both are very successful at a very high level. Unless you actually have a stake in either company, there's no point in trying to gauge which is superior.
 
Comment

vvswarup

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
539
215
Going to point out. Apple only does R&D in very limited field and pure greed level research.

MS does a lot of university grade research. This mean they are doing a lot that is only for the betterment of man kind or research from day 1 that will more than likely never turn a penny of profit. Something Apple will kill. Apple only does research that has a clear path to being profitable in a fairly short time span.

People compare the 2 but have zero understanding of what they are doing. It mostly shows who the Apple clueless fanboys are make the argument you are making.
And your argument shows an amazing talent for twisting the facts and blowing smoke in any possible way to make Apple out to be the bad guy in everything.

If I'm a shareholder and I'm trying to decide where to park my cash, I can tell you that I would park it in a company that will be a responsible steward of my cash. Throwing money at products that have no chance at all of becoming a viable product is not an example of responsible management.

And I can play your game too. Look at it this way. Apple's "greed driven research" gave us great products like the iPhone and iPad. Apple has raked in billions of dollars in profits. Did you know that while tons of companies were cutting back during the recession, Apple was still hiring aggressively? Apple has given fuel to the mobile solutions industry. They continue to hire like mad. So Apple's "pure greed driven research" has made them very profitable, meaning that they will continue to hire aggressively, which will result in the betterment of mankind.
 
Comment

vvswarup

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
539
215
All companies pour a lot of money in R&D. They research around a dozen products, many of which have little chance of becoming a viable product. In looking at Microsoft's strategy, what's disturbing isn't how much Microsoft spends on R&D.

Microsoft ate losses on the Xbox unit for almost a decade until it finally became profitable a couple of years ago. Microsoft was able to hold on until the very end because of their superior financial muscle. Most other companies would have thrown in the towel. Microsoft is doing the same thing with Bing. They have lost billions on Bing to date yet they continue to invest in it.

To me, it is disturbing to see a company do this. Microsoft spent its way to profitability with the Xbox. They were able to hold on while others couldn't. It appears that Microsoft is hoping to employ a similar strategy with Bing. They're hoping that they can keep eating losses and hold out until it finally makes a profit. They way I'm seeing it, Microsoft appears to have the attitude that their superior financial muscle will continue to make up for being late with products. I don't expect it to work with Bing because Microsoft is going up against a rival that is no slouch in terms of financial muscle.
 
Comment

SporkLover

macrumors 6502
Nov 8, 2011
498
1
Apple spends $2 billion a year on R&D to generate $130 billion revenue.
Microsoft spends $9 billion a year on R&D to generate $70 billion revenue.

Everything Apple tries in the last decade has turned into a monster hit(iPod, iPhone, iMacs, iPad). Microsoft has no NEW products in the last decade that are monster hits. Only the legacy monopolies(Windows, Office, Visual Studio) continue raking in the monster profits. Everything else(Bing, XBox, Zune, Windows Phone, Courier, etc..) gets funded from those legacy profits.

Bottom line - Apple knows how to nip bad designs in the bud EARLY to prevent huge operating expenses. By the time they get to market with a product, it's guaranteed HUGE success. Microsoft just tries a bunch of bad ideas and hopes 1 sticks to the all(XBox 360 with XBL).
Superior is a pretty strong word. I'm not sure you can say Apple is superior as much as they better positioned themselves for the transformation of the computing environment. Microsofts business model up until recently was tied wholly to the PC/Server/Business market. Their cheese was moved and they weren't prepared. The all importance of the PC is waning, and Microsoft sees that and are trying to adjust. Unfortunately they are so late to the punch, their efforts are making much of an impact.

Zune, although sales flop, was a great well produced product. iPod already had the momentum, and with people on 5th generation + equipment in the Apple Eco system... Tough to break in.

Windows Phone.... MSFT helped create the segment, but rested on the laurels and let their efforts stagnate.... That created much room for the likes of Android and iOS. There reinvigorated Windows phone effort actually meant was a big hit amongst a lot of folks but again the just didn't have the sales to compete with android or iPhone they were little late to the punch.

They actually have an opportunity to make some headway in the tablet market if they can find a good way to tightly integrate Windows desktop windows business environment and the tablet.

But bottom line to my point.... Superior... Not so sure. Late to the game... Indeed.
 
Comment

boss.king

macrumors 68040
Apr 8, 2009
3,261
101
Just for funsies, smoledmans post from The Verge under his alias 'MutualCore': http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/11/3490818/why-is-microsoft-so-hated
If you take the blinders off, you will actually LISTEN to the arguments and they're compelling.

Microsoft has virtually no NEW products in the last decade that are monster hits. Only the legacy monopolies(Windows, Office, Visual Studio) continue raking in the monster profits. Everything else(Bing, XBox, Zune, Windows Phone, Courier, etc..) gets funded from those legacy profits.

Even XBox remains close to $8 billion in the red and that will never go to black.

Microsoft has paid an enormous price for leveraging monopoly positions in the form of antitrust violations/convictions which have cost it billions in fines and prestige.

Bottom line is many people are offended that instead of innovating like Apple(not necessarily inventing) while only spending a few hundred million, Microsoft spends untold billions to attempt market entry. It's unfair. Of course since Microsoft has mostly FAILED in those en devours it just feeds the haters gloat-machine.

My suggestion is to try to understand the Microsoft-haters instead of just fighting. The haters usually seemed far more informed on the issues then the MSFT shills.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.