Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft vs. Apple's "Thunder"
jaymzter writes "Cnet has an interesting article on Microsoft's attempt to steal the thunder from the upcoming Macworld show, and also to slap Apple down for not showing enough gratitude. What's really interesting, is that Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' Mac OS X, and that Microsoft doesn't think Apple is pushing Mac OS X hard enough. Oh, the tangled webs we weave." Strange story. Basically its a battle of PR.
PR is relations with the public. Manipulation is when something is falsely influenced or pushed. This is manipulation. Making OSX seem strong makes Microsoft look less like a monopoly, without actually having to take on the real competition publicly (read real competition as "BSD, Linux, (and maybe OpenBeOS someday)") which would make the public actually aware of these options.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
> "What does $150 million buy you? It doesn't buy you eternal gratitude."
;)
Shit, thats a great quote. Especially considering MS poured the money in for purely (mostly, whatever) selfish reasons - we can assume the DOJ trial would look much different today had MS not participated in the 'wonton act of goodwill for which Apple should have eternal gratitude'.
"Old man yells at systemd"
- Apple doesn't promote Mac OS X enough. Fewer people shift to the platform than Microsoft would like. Microsoft Office for OS X doesn't sell as many copies as they wanted. Microsoft is pissed.
- Apple puts considerable effort into the next version of OS X, code-named Jaguar. New features are added that make competition-obsessed Microsoft nervous. Microsoft is pissed.
Microsoft is pissed if Apple doesn't promote OS X enough. Microsoft is pissed if Apple develops OS X too much or advertises the platform too aggressively. (And what flavour of nuts will Microsoft go if Apple launches an OS-specific ad campaign?) Apple can't win, so they have nothing to lose.Give me a freakin' break!
Gratitude, uh sure, got it right here on the end of my middle finger. Let's see, MS has repeatedly fscked Apple at every turn, stolen code from Apple, and used strong arm tactics to get their way. Does anyone out there think that $150M loan deal to Apple (which was a big profit for MS) did anything more than buy time for MS by propping up Apple? And we should believe that MS knows more about OSX than Apple? Pardon me while I gag on that nonsense. OSX comes out of the NextStep OS, BSD, and other Apple developed code. Where the heck was MS in any of that?
Ultimate gratitude: MS ought to be kissing Apple's ass for keeping the Feds off of them this long. Were it not for Apple's meager sales, the anti-trust case against MS would have been a done deal long ago.
"As a policy, Microsoft rarely speaks out against partners. Even when bugs in Mac OS X hampered the release of Office v. X, MacBU took the heat for product delays rather than blaming Apple."
Well, there's a brilliant piece of spindoctoring! "We've screwed up so much in the past that nobody would believe us if we blamed someone else for something that didn't work" suddenly becomes "We're such a noble company we'll take the flak to protect our allies." Masterful.
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)
As for Microsoft's opinion that Apple isn't pushing Mac OS X hard enough? Well, that just sounds like a software company's opinion of a hardware company. Apple's shipping machines with Mac OS X as the default OS and has made plenty of announcements about the sunsetting of Classic Mac OS. Apple's money comes from selling machines, so that's all they need to do.
And how does Microsoft intend to "steal Apple's thunder?" By simply by making announcements of its own versions of what Apple has been doing with tremendous success for years. Movie trailers will continue to be in QuickTime format, MPEG-4 is still QuickTime, and Apple will continue to sell 802.11b harware in addition to their robust and easy-to-use software.
If Bill thinks he's going to lead the game, he'd better try to get out in front on a thing or two.
I definitely agree that they could have done a much better job picking people for the switcher commercials. Most of the people seemed to be artsy yuppies, your typical Mac user. They would have been much better off picking more normal run of the mill housewives, businessmen, students, etc. People who buy machines because they work, not because their friends will think they're counterculture.
Apple bought the rights to the interface from Xerox. Just like msft "bought" the rights to the Apple user interface.
You could say msft stole the interface. But it was all perfectly legal. Their lawyers were smarter than Apple's were. Apple sued, Microsoft won.
Hmm.. maybe to you real people talking about their experiences with PCs as opposed to Macs could be considered spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. To me, it's not even close to FUD.
"In years past Apple wasn't running commercials tarrgetting Microsoft."
True. It's kinda hard not to eventually get around to targeting Microsoft, when they have an operating system monopoly, and are therefore your only competitor. It's not exactly like the goliath Apple is getting ready to stomp on lowly Microsoft. ;-)
"If you want to think so..."
It's not that I want to think so, it's that the timing and content of Microsoft's announcements seems to be aimed squarely at disrupting Apple's Macworld announcements. Does it seem coincidental to you?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There's absolutely no justification for that kind of business move. Apple is a luxury brand, and they spend millions cultivating and maintaining that brand. They even go after hobbyists who make Aqua-inspired UI themes, all to protect the Apple and the Mac brands.
Some people believe that Apple's computers are technically superior. In some ways, they are, but in some ways, they aren't. That's not the point. The point is that people buy Macs because of the Apple brand, not the guts of the computer.
A Dell-branded Apple-built computer running Mac OS X would be the worst of all possible worlds. A shit brand wrapped around a technically average and moderately expensive computer, running a niche OS? That's a going-out-of-business plan.
It's perfectly fine for Microsoft to grouse about Office v.X sales, although they should be well-aware from their own experience with Windows 95 and later that transition to a new operating system and its applications takes time.
Mac OS X's acceptance rate is increasing, and will continue to do so as more games and general software is moved to work in OS X only. This transition will happen strongest in the businesses that use Macintosh systems, then homes, with educators last. Businesses can afford the transition and have already scheduled new systems. Homes have a mix of old and new things that Mac OS X must use, but the purchase of a new computer typically calls for a new printer to replace the ratty one.
Educators are moving very slowly to OS X client since a lot of their software for students and administrators doesn't yet run in Mac OS X. However, Mac OS X Server may have a big acceptance in their IT shops because of its NetBoot and Macintosh Manager network-based client services.
I think that Office v.X gives a lot of users a reason to switch. But $500 for an office suite, especially since AppleWorks comes installed on an iMac, is a price that only a few are willing to pay. Apple users have never really subscribed to the "upgrade annually" mentality that IT pros and home PC users have only began to shake off. Office 2000 for Macintosh works fine in the Classic environment of OS X. Why hasn't Microsoft given them a reason to switch? (One idea: MS should accept a trade-in on old original MS Office software disks--PC or Mac--for a rebate on Office v.X)
The fine line part is that Microsoft must not cut the cord on Mac Office development as lawsuits would be cut for antitrust violations faster than you can do a gaussian blur in Photoshop on a G4. Microsoft can't generate further news that shows how they can bully other companies by threatening--the current distrust by stockholders in Wall Street could lead Microsoft into a different court.
For now, however, I think MS is correct in its criticism. They aren't starving for money, but MS has been watching their revenues drop, too, and want as many dollars as the market will give them. Whether this comment from the MBU has anything to do with Apple's new aggressive marketing is a guess.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
-- office xp sales have deen dismal. is this the fault of windows xp's slow adoption rate?
-- ms has split office v.x into a number of baffling skus, such as an entourage/word combo, a word/excel combo and so on. were sales of these packages counted in the single number they're tossing around?
-- is the soho/home productivity market saturated?
-- has the sudden stop on hardware upgrade sales affected sales of os x, new macs (which all ship with os x as a default boot) and office?
-- is office v.x just not that great of a product? either in enticing sales or enticing upgraders?
I think what's new is that Apple has been steadily improving their products for about four years now. A few times every year, Apple has announced some incremental upgrades to their product lines, with surprisingly few big announcements (like the G4 iMac, the iPod, and the xServe).
Apple's slow-and-steady approach is very effectively turning them from a has-been, brink-of-death company into a giant in the industry. They're not that impressive in terms of market share or annual revenues, but they're at the absolute top of the heap in terms of brand loyalty and customer satisfaction, and that's what scares Microsoft.
I have the same issues.
Going from FCP 2 -> FCP 3 not only bought around OS X compatibility, but a bunch of really useful features (colour correction stuff, G4 real-time stuff, offline RT, potential film editing plug-ins), and (at current prices) offered that at a quarter of the price of the original software (250/830).
Meanwhile, I appreciate it must of been a lot of work porting the software, but Office upgrades to the X version offer a much smaller feature upgrade for roughly 1/2 the price again (230/430).
I guess pricing software is always tricky but most people I know aren't prepared to pay (proportionally) that much for what isn't a massive enhancement for them...
The other huge difference, of course, is that Apple's PR machine usually would quash incompetent quotes like that "gratitude" thing. Oh, man. Generalissimo Jobs would have that guy's head.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
1. Treat your customers like criminals by filling your software with "product activation" to stop the 'thieves'.
2. Send flesh eating lawyers after every mom & pop business the instant it appears their licensing is out of order.
3. Refuse to fix security holes. Blame the user for being too dumb. Then, refuse to give people the ability to remove defective/insecure software.
4. Cater to the content pimps (RIAA, MPAA etc..) and promise a new version of your system whose only benefit is to further limit how people can user their computer.
5. etc....
Result: My next computer will be a mac.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Mac clones nearly killed Apple. They were generally cheaper and faster than Apple's machines. It was a great win for consumers, but Apple lost a ton of money from it. OS marketshare means jack when 95% of your revenue comes from hardware that's being constantly undercut by competitors*.
If the OSX and Windows Dell machines were priced similarily, I think most people would buy the Windows ones anyway. No matter how much advertising Apple does, it's going to take a LONG time to break the current "Macs suck, they have no software, I've never really used one but I know they suck" mentality a lot of people have.
The only way Apple could survive licensing OS X to Dell would be converting from their current high-margin hardware business to selling just cheap software licenses, like MS. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Jobs likes making cool computers too much. And I shudder to think what the stock would do when they announce that they are laying off their entire hardware division and restructuring 70% of the company so that they can fight an uphill battle with MS on x86 PCs.
* I don't consider Windows PCs competitors all that much, not as much as the Mac clone manufacturers were, at least. Apple mainly sells computers to people who want to run Mac OS, and only Mac OS. Most of Apple's customers wouldn't even consider buying a Windows-based machine. Without the clones, Apple has no real competition.
CNET seems to have crafted more pseudo-news on the cynical premise that, when you need some quick hits, try a "Microsoft vs. Somebody" story or an "Embattled Apple" story, or, if you really want hits, a "Microsoft vs. Apple" story.
See if this sounds like a plausible timeline:
This isn't to say that it's either impossible or implausible that Microsoft would time their announcement to undercut Apple; but where's the supporting evidence for this, beyond a little anonymous insider grousing?
That's funny, when they don't promote OS X, MS yells at them for not doing it enough, and when they do make ads, MS yells at them because they're trying to inform/steal MS's customers. But Jobs has been giving MS the finger all this time, I'm sure he'll be able to continue doing so and survive. :)
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Yeah, kinda ironic considering they're the only computer maker that's made much money in the last couple of years...
You post that stupid cartoon every freaking day.
Call it "flaming by proxy". Sheesh.
Fact is, Most mac users are regular people who appreciate a computer that ACTUALLY WORKS and doesn't require a lot of work to get it working.
I'm a flat out computer and operating expert, having worked on OSs at microsoft (I disclaim responsibility for their craptitude, though) and am proficient at every platform-- I don't need training wheels to get things done, but I get a LOT more work done per minute on a Mac than any other platform I've used.
Its not that we're elitist- we're tired of idiots calling us and our platform idiots because it ACTUALLY WORKS. So fsck off with your attitude.
Sometimes what you perceive is arrogance is actually the simple knowledge of superiority.
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
people buy Macs because of the Apple brand
No, people buy Macs because they run the Mac OS, which despite a number of issues has always provided a superior user experience to Microsoft's offerings.
-- thinkyhead software and media
What bothers me most about this article is that the author implies that Apple owes M$ gratitude for "helping" them out in the past. I'm sorry but it's entirely too obvious that the only reason Microsoft has ever helped Apple was to make sure that they had a competitor to point to and say "we're not a monopoly, see? People can buy Macs if they don't like Windows."
And if MS really did help Apple fix "bugs" in the OS that allowed them to run Office, it was again only for their gain. Apple cannot be blamed for the lack of sales on Office Mac. Seriously, if I had a Windows box I wouldn't even pay the $500 MS wants for office Mac. That's just ridiculous considering it comes bundled with a new PC.
CNet: if you really want to be a respected new outlet, you really need to stop producing MS FUD. This is a disgrace to the media in general and worth only of a publication like the National Enquirer.
Back in the late 80's that was the norm. Apple had to doctor the OS in order to keep existing MS programs (Word,Excel) running properly. MS was well known in the industry to play fast and loose with the Mac API.
Sheesh, you make this sound like it was some Microsoft problem. EVERYONE had to "play fast and loose" with the Mac API because the APIs were brain damaged. It's not entirely Apple's fault, since there was so much momentum behind them, and after all, they were pretty much the first APIs made for GUIs.
But let's not forget the prior to OS/X the Macintosh APIs were utter crapola.
History orientation: ..."
Back then, Microsoft was IBM's toy. Apple (mistakenly) never perceived them to be as ruthless and manipulative as they were.
Before the launch of the Mac, Steve Jobs said something to the effect of:
"There are two major technical milestones in our industry."
*slide of Apple II*
"The Apple II computer."
*slide of IBM PC*
"And the IBM PC. We plan on launching the next great mile stone
Anyways, it goes to show that "1984" was targeted at IBM, and not M$FT.