Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Zune HD

KnightWRX said:
I just posted it in another thread. If you know about the PC's history, you know Microsoft got handed the monopoly on OSes on day 1. IBM did all the dirty work in getting the PC itself accepted.

EDIT : scratch that, it's in this very thread, on this very page. See this post for details :
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked though - it was why businesses selected IBM hardware equipped with MS software over Apple hardware equipped with Software Arts software.

I'm not disputing that MS did indeed abuse their monopoly, I'm pointing out the vision it took to get that monopoly in the first place. The point is that saying MS aren't business savvy or don't make best use of tools or don't add value is silly.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
I have downloaded over a hundred apps for my iPhone and iPod touch. Want to know how many I have found useful? two. Tweetie and Things.

Want to know what features attract me to a personal media player? screen size and battery life. I can't sit through a whole film watching it on my iPod nano, nor on the iPod classic. The screen on my iPhone is great, but I won't watch a movie on it since that would kill the battery. The only time the screen is good for watching videos on is when I'm on a long flight, and even then I will probably not since I'd need the battery once I landed. I would definitely get a Zune to watch movies on for airplane trips, or to listen to music while jogging or riding my bike.
Click to expand...
I agree that the touch/iPhone both have lousy battery life but why would the Zune's battery life be any better? Particularly if it is HD (which I doubt)?

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. The phone function is more important. Ok, agree there. Battery life needs to improve on ALL these flash devices.
 
BongoBanger said:
That's not what I asked though - it was why businesses selected IBM hardware equipped with MS software over Apple hardware equipped with Software Arts software.

I'm not disputing that MS did indeed abuse their monopoly, I'm pointing out the vision it took to get that monopoly in the first place. The point is that saying MS aren't business savvy or don't make best use of tools or don't add value is silly.
Click to expand...
Because "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM".
 
*LTD* said:
Licensing.

Ubuiquity is no indication of value or quality.
Click to expand...

And licensing doesnt fall under the category of "knowing what they are doing"? They gave the market what it wanted: on OS that isnt needlessly tied to hardware. Thats how they got their 85+% market share. It sounds to me like someone knew what they were doing when they decided to license their OS.
 
NoSmokingBandit said:
And licensing doesnt fall under the category of "knowing what they are doing"? They gave the market what it wanted: on OS that isnt needlessly tied to hardware. Thats how they got their 85+% market share. It sounds to me like someone knew what they were doing when they decided to license their OS.
Click to expand...
Its funny because when MS started it actually was tied to the hardware as the IBM PC was the only one then. Their genius, and no one can dispute that, is when clones started appearing and MS started selling their PC-DOS clone, MS-DOS, to the clone makers that things really started to cook. Well done, MS.
 
BongoBanger said:
That's not what I asked though - it was why businesses selected IBM hardware equipped with MS software over Apple hardware equipped with Software Arts software.

I'm not disputing that MS did indeed abuse their monopoly, I'm pointing out the vision it took to get that monopoly in the first place. The point is that saying MS aren't business savvy or don't make best use of tools or don't add value is silly.
Click to expand...

Actually, MS software had 0 to do with it (unless you count Tim Patterson's DOS), the corporate world was won over to the IBM PC by Lotus123 and WordPerfect. Of course, the alternatives then were the typewriter and a Texas instruments calculator. Big shops with a mainframe that didn't need all the computing power for the secretary were taken in to the PC architecture for it's small scale.

Microsoft basically rode the wave as the first OS vendor for the PC, with basically a monopoly given to them by IBM. When others came in to the market (which was the point of the PC), Microsoft simply sold them DOS, essentially seizing control of the platform from IBM, the first being Compaq from what I remember (bought by HP a few years ago).

Again you're missing the point. There was no grand vision, there wasn't even "at the right place, at the right time". Bill Gates turned down IBM and only when Kildall's wife basically told them to get off their property thinking it was a joke (IBM at the time was the biggest computer company in the world and CP/M wasn't that big) did he finally decide to hop on to the project with them.
 
BongoBanger said:
That's not what I asked though - it was why businesses selected IBM hardware equipped with MS software over Apple hardware equipped with Software Arts software.

I'm not disputing that MS did indeed abuse their monopoly, I'm pointing out the vision it took to get that monopoly in the first place. The point is that saying MS aren't business savvy or don't make best use of tools or don't add value is silly.
Click to expand...

Again, please read my posts. 1. Apple was not, and is not ready for mass enterprise support. 2. (@ the highlighted statement) Microsoft did didn't really have that vision; it was "handed" the PC market on a tray by IBM (by using IBM's brand name, which was big at the time). 3. "The point is that saying MS aren't business savvy or don't make best use of tools or don't add value is silly." We didn't say that. What we're saying is that they didn't develop and innovate enough to deserve the position that they're in right now.
 
Jacqueclaude said:
Gosh, sorry.
I'll go gather some of the neighbours and we'll go perform a questionnaire.

Don't be absurd.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you and your neighbours do not, and never did represent the industry, the consumers, or the customers as a whole. Please use official facts and figures made by reputable (or somewhat reputable) sources.
 
flopticalcube said:
EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean. The phone function is more important. Ok, agree there. Battery life needs to improve on ALL these flash devices.
Click to expand...

Definitely. But if I get the choice between a Zune and an iPod touch, I'd probably take the Zune especially if Microsoft starts to support OS X. Since the Zune has features that the iPhone and iPod touch don't have, as I already have an iPhone and the Zune has a bigger screen.
 
Not to mention IBM, using Microsoft's DOS and their PC platform went for the corporate desktop, the typewritter/calculator replacement. Apple on the other hand were after the hobbiest market at the time. The Commodore 64/128, Atari etc.. It reflects in their corporate culture too. Wozniak and Jobs made the first Apple computer in their garage. The PC was built at a corporation.

Is it any wonder that IBM seized control of the corporate desktops then while Apple was basically used in homes by tinkerers ?
 
NoSmokingBandit said:
And licensing doesnt fall under the category of "knowing what they are doing"? They gave the market what it wanted: on OS that isnt needlessly tied to hardware. Thats how they got their 85+% market share. It sounds to me like someone knew what they were doing when they decided to license their OS.
Click to expand...

Factually incorrect. IBM gave them the market; they could have and would have survived with or without the IBMPC clone makers.


Please read this post:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=7446167#post7446167
 
flopticalcube said:
Its funny because when MS started it actually was tied to the hardware as the IBM PC was the only one then. Their genius, and no one can dispute that, is when clones started appearing and MS started selling their PC-DOS clone, MS-DOS, to the clone makers that things really started to cook. Well done, MS.
Click to expand...

It never was actually tied to the hardware. The PC was an open platform, basically using bits and pieces that were commonly sold. IBM wanted it that way, so that a lot of hardware manufacturers could compete in the space, keeping prices down. The OS had to be fairly device agnostic to work in the first place.

The only thing that tied DOS to the IBM platform at that point in the time (pre-compaq days) was the BIOS. It is essentially what Compaq were the first to clone. The rest was just looking through a parts catalog and putting it together in a usable devices.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
You guys are getting too far off topic. What does this have to do with a new Zune?
Click to expand...

Nothing, nothing at all. Someone simply wanted to claim that Microsoft got where it got today by making excellent software. We were just refuting that point.

I think this shows a bit why the Zune isn't making as much in-roads as other Microsoft products too. They just can't force bundle it into a market they have a monopoly in, they have to compete. And they just aren't used to competing.

And before you say Xbox... ugh.. The Xbox itself was a massive failure. It sold in some numbers, being a distant third in the market in the face of the overwhelming PS2 and the brand for kids (at the time), Nintendo. With the Xbox360, guess what Microsoft did ?

They didn't compete. They basically bought out exclusivity deals for cash from 3rd party game makers, assuring their platform would be well positionned. We all know consoles don't sell consoles, games sell consoles. Sony seemed to refuse to do these deals, simply trying to leverage their PS2 platform. They failed to realise that console generations are brand new games, and you need to bring it right away as if you were a new player in town everytime.

And it's very telling that even though Microsoft made all these backdoor deals to force their platform to the top, the Nintendo Wii trounced them on quality of titles and experience.
 
KnightWRX said:
They just can't force bundle it into a market they have a monopoly in, they have to compete. And they just aren't used to competing.
Click to expand...

Xbox360 would like to have a word with you. Sony, once a king of a hill is dying. MS out of nowhere is the market leader. You know the reason? Developers. MS really cares for its developers.
 
KnightWRX said:
Nothing, nothing at all. Someone simply wanted to claim that Microsoft got where it got today by making excellent software. We were just refuting that point.

I think this shows a bit why the Zune isn't making as much in-roads as other Microsoft products too. They just can't force bundle it into a market they have a monopoly in, they have to compete. And they just aren't used to competing.
Click to expand...

The one and only example where a Microsoft product isn't used in a "embrace, extend, extinguish" agenda... oh wait... it is...
 
BMWFan said:
Xbox360 would like to have a word with you. Sony, once a king of a hill is dying. MS out of nowhere is the market leader. You know the reason? Developers. MS really cares for its developers.
Click to expand...

I just edited into my original post. MS really care$ for its developpers is what you mean.
 
BMWFan said:
Xbox360 would like to have a word with you. Sony, once a king of a hill is dying. MS out of nowhere is the market leader. You know the reason? Developers. MS really cares for its developers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I think the PS3 is doing just as well as the Xbox 360 is. And so is the PSP. It's just that it's 2 products, one for heavy duty, one for lighter portable gaming. (I beg your pardon, but the DS sucks. Once the novelty of the idea passes, serious gamers go back to the PSP, normal people will go to other consoles such as the wii. But this is of course my opinion.)

Anyways Xbox is one classic example of the "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy that was applied. It wasn't until earlier this year Microsoft was operating at a loss for these Xbox'es. They're relying on their other products to *heavily* subsidize the development and production costs.
 
Wikinerd said:
Sorry, but I think the PS3 is doing just as well as the Xbox 360 is.

Anyways Xbox is one classic example of the "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy that was applied. It wasn't until earlier this year Microsoft was operating at a loss for these Xbox'es. They're relying on their other products to *heavily* subsidize the development and production costs.
Click to expand...

And the exclusivity deals with partners. And reversing Sony exclusivity deals ( I wonder just how much it cost them to get Final Fantasy XIII...).

That's Windows and Office money right there.
 
BMWFan said:
Xbox360 would like to have a word with you. Sony, once a king of a hill is dying. MS out of nowhere is the market leader. You know the reason? Developers. MS really cares for its developers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you could not be more wrong.

First, MS barely has any first party developers unlike Sony who has a ton. Sony has always taken are of their studios like NaughtyDog, and even the loyal 3rd party studios like Insomniac. Insomniac got all the perks of being a first party developer without being owned by Sony because Sony wanted them to be happy.

MS is the market leader because they started out a year too early (yes it was too early, hence the massive hardware failures) and bought a bunch of exclusivity early on, killing any competition for the titles.

Sony is also not dying. More ps3's have been sold in the first 2 years of its like than 360's have been sold in the first two years of its life. You cant compare numbers as they are now because MS had a full year with no competition. Sony is doing just fine, have you seen the lineup for 2009 and early 2010? inFamous, Ninja Gaiden Simga II, God of War 3, Gran Turismo 5, Insomniacs next game (they have one every fall, so i assume they will do the same this year), Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, MAG, White Knight Chronicles... Combine that with the multi-plats like Modern Warfare 2, Bioshock 2, Prototype, etc... All within about a year from now. The 360 just cant hold up to that unless MS starts announcing AAA titles left and right.

The first few years for the ps3 were terrible, but like Sony always does they start out slow and keep getting better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back