Why Apple is superior to Microsoft

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by smoledman, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. smoledman macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #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).
     
  2. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #3
    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.
     
  3. TedM macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #4
    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.
     
  4. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #5
    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.
     
  5. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #6
    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?

    ----------

    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.

    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.
     
  6. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #7
    So Microsoft Research is a philanthropic enterprise? I thought the point of business was to make filthy amounts of stack?
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    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.
     
  8. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #9
    The only things I'm seeing MSR has actually helped gain is in Surface tech and Kinect. Anything else?
     
  9. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #10
    http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/

    Just because their research doesn't turn into the next in a long line of latest and greatest gadgets doesn't mean it's completely worthless.
     
  10. r0k macrumors 68040

    r0k

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Detroit
    #11
    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.
     
  11. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #12
    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.
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #13
    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.
     
  13. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #14
    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
     
  14. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #15
    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.
     
  15. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #16
    :d:d
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    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.
     
  17. smoledman thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #18
    It's that attitude which alienates educated people.
     
  18. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    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.
     
  19. sviato macrumors 68020

    sviato

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Location:
    HR 9038 A
    #20
    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.
     
  20. dejo Moderator

    dejo

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Location:
    The Centennial State
    #21
    The first claim is unnecessary hyperbole that you quickly disproved with your second claim. You can make your point without the need for over-the-top exaggeration.
     
  21. vvswarup macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    #22
    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.
     
  22. vvswarup macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    #23
    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.
     
  23. SporkLover macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    #24
    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.
     
  24. boss.king macrumors 68040

    boss.king

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    #25
    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
     

Share This Page