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.

31 of 550 comments (clear)

  1. PR vs. Manipulation by intermodal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:PR vs. Manipulation by gwernol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      What makes you think Mac OS X isn't "real competition" for Microsoft? If Apple is successful with its stated aim of moving from 5% to 10% market share it will gain those extra users mainly from Microsoft. This looks like real competition to me. It would be good to see more competition in the OS marketplace but OS X looks like the real thing to me.

      --
      Sailing over the event horizon
  2. Re:Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' OSX ? by whee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I believe Microsoft helped Apple fix OS X bugs in the same manner any developer would. Microsoft, in their development of Office v.X and IE for Mac, discovered problems that were not created by their code; Apple's problems. Microsoft notifies Apple, Apple fixes bugs in their OS.

    The main problem Microsoft has is that they feel their Mac division is somewhat wasted; Apple isn't advertising their products enough to justify the expense of creating and maintaining Office/IE and whatever else they may be doing.

  3. I can't imagine... by ultramk · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...why MS would feel even slightly threatened by this.

    The Mac has 5 percent of the market. What's there to be afraid of? True, it's a lucrative 5 percent, and OSX has mindshare far beyond its marketshare, but still. Do they really see it as this much of a threat?

    What do they want, a monopoly?

    --
    You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
    1. Re:I can't imagine... by BitGeek · · Score: 5, Informative


      Apples market share is about %20.

      The "%5" figure comes form "computers sold this year" and does not include computers sold thru the Apple store, small local apple dealers and apple retail stores. That %5 is the percentage that Ingram and tech data sell that are Macintoshes, ignoring the huge numbers of machines sold thru apple's online stores and other retail locations.

      Or, put another way, Apple has %5 of the NEW IBM PC market, not %5 of the PERSONAL COMPUTER market.

      Also, since Macintoshes last a lot longer in use than PCs- at least twice as long- at any point in time, the number of Macs out there to sell into are going to be a lot more than the percentage of machines recently sold.

      This is a serious problem because marketing dweebs everywhere are underestimating the installed Mac base by %75.

      Just like there are far more Linux boxes than there are computers sold with linux pre-installed in the market.

      Note that this under reporting of Linux and MacOS both helps Windows, and of course the companise doing this under reporint- IDC and Dataquest are doing so under contract from microsoft to do "market research".

      The funny thing is that when Jobs talks about getting the "other 95 percent" he's being ironic, but nobody seems to realize it.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    2. Re:I can't imagine... by jgalun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Macs have 20% market share? Right. Let's see, according to the newest IDC report (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0207/03.marke tshare.php) Macs have a 3.48% market share in the US and 2.4% worldwide. Apple's Middle Eastern division recently claimed 5-6% worldwide market share, again, going off IDC numbers (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0207/03.apple me.php).

      But, you say, IDC numbers are grossly undercounting Macs. First of all, you claim, IDC ignores sales through the Apple stores and through small retailers, focusing instead on the number of Macs that pass through wholesalers. Well, where do you think the small Mac stores get their Macs from if not from wholesalers or from Apple directly? And why do you think that IDC can't get numbers on the Apple stores and Apple's online store. The approximate percentage of Apple's sales that goes through the Apple store online is well known even to the general public, and the number of Macs sold a quarter is known to the general public as well. I see no reason why IDC cannot get those numbers, or why Apple wouldn't make them available to IDC - particularly given that IDC does rank Dell, which does a much higher percentage of sales direct than does Apple. If IDC were incapable of taking direct sales into account, then Gateway and Dell would not show up in IDC's list - and they do.

      Your other reason why Macs have more market share than people realize is that Macs "last a lot longer in use than PCs- at least twice as long." I have heard this bandied around a lot by the Mac community, but I don't think this is nearly as prominent an effect as they make it out to be. First of all, I would like to see statistics backing up the "twice as long" claim. Secondly, I have a hard time believing that Macs have had much of an advantage over PCs in the last three or four years. I owned an iMac, and that definitely was too slow and limited in hard drive space to use for more than a couple years. Now that MacOS X is out, forget about it - there are lots of complaints about how MacOS X has been slow on older machines. On the other hand, all the PC owners I have known are still happy with the 400 Mhz machines they've had for the last four years, unless they are hard-core gamers. Finally, even if it is true that people use Macs for longer than they use PCs, I believe that the percentage of Mac owners that own multiple machines is much higher than the percentage of PC owners than own multiple PCs, and this will mitigate the market-share effect of Macs being in use for longer, since a person with 5 Macs all still in use will still only buy one copy of Photoshop and one copy of Office.

      Jobs is not being ironic when he talks about the "other 95 percent." What reason does he have to be ironic? To make an in joke to the Mac community? I don't think so. Jobs has one basic goal as head of Apple: to make a profit. The way he'll make a profit is by raising market share while keeping prices high (Apple has very good margins on its computers). It will keep prices high because it is selling a differentiated product. A simple econ textbook will show you why Apple will never sell Macs for as cheap as PCs, and why Apple will never take the whole market. This is not necessarily bad for Apple - if it can find the sweet point where it's getting the right number of sales at the right profit margin, it can be extremely profitable. It just won't ever take over the world that way. Jobs understands that, and that's why he's been positioning Apple as the computer for the fashionable elite - because he doesn't need lots of sales at Walmarts, he needs a decent number of sales at 27% margins.

      The problem is, you need to have a large enough market share to woo software developers and hardware developers, and you also need to convince your stockholders that you are selling as many machines as you can at the high margins. The "other 95 percent" campaign fits these needs perfectly. It makes consumers understand that they don't need to fear Macs just because it has small market share, because after all, BMW and Mercedes Benz have small market share too. And it tells stockholders and developers that there's lots of potential for growth, and that Apple intends to enlarge the Mac market.

      If your arguments were correct, there would be no reason for Apple not to use the 20% number. Because 20% would make developers happier, would encourage more consumers to buy Macs (since they'd see a larger community already existing), and would keep stockholder expectations realistic. After all, if Apple raises stockholder expectations by saying "we only have 5% market share, it'll be so easy to expand it by going after the other 95%," and then fails, management will be held responsible. On the other hand, if it says to stockholders, "We have 20%, it's just that Macs last longer, but we are slowly growing this community and steadily strengthening the company," they'd be hailed as doing a good job.

      But that 20% is just not correct. Otherwise, why does Google show a 4% browser share for Macs? Why do software developers see such small sales for Macs?

      I don't understand why Mac fans refuse to accept that Macs have a small user base now. It's not a value-judgment on the computer, it just means that Apple needs to do a better job selling the things. And I think Apple has been doing a much better job selling Macs over the last couple years, and I think they will continue to improve and gain more market share. But lying about the situation doesn't change it.

  4. Love this quote ... by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > "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"
    1. Re:Love this quote ... by overunderunderdone · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      It wasn't really about the trial either. It was part of an out-of-court settlement of a patent dispute. In fact the publicly announced $150 million was rumored to be just the public tip of a larger behind the scenes patent cross licensing agreement that let MS off the hook for patent infringment in Windows95 (that rumor was confirmed by Steve Jobs' soto voice comments on some business shows hinting that there was a lot more money coming Apple's way than just the $150 Million - though that might have been spin)

    2. Re:Love this quote ... by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The patent dispute was over code Microsoft stole from Apple from Quicktime that somehow ended up, comments and all, in WMP.

      They payout was rumored to have been in the neighborhood of an additional 600+ million.

      Ironic when you later hear that Microsoft had asked Apple to "knife the baby". They steal the code, and then tell the company they stole the code from to kill their own product. Then they make a huge costly effort to go out to all major video serving sites on the net (CNN being a prime example) and GIVE them hardware, and free streaming server software, in order to beg them to serve WMP content instead of Quicktime. (CNN used to be a MAJOR bastion of Quicktime).

      Seems nobody at Microsoft has ever thought about competing on merit.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  5. Catch-22 by mcwetboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    1. Re:Catch-22 by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's more likely that Microsoft is trying to get Apple to divert it's marketing budget away from the current compaign encouraging users to ditch windows, and instead spend those advertising dollars to get the existing apple user base to upgrade to MacOS X. I'm sure that they're selling more then enough copies (1.2 millon in the first 6 months, did it say?) to justify having developed Office X, but what they really want is for Apple to stop going after their core business.

  6. That Microsoft cares is interesting by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I find it curious that MS is taking the effort to spread some FUD on the eve of Apple's Macworld announcements. In years past, they wouldn't have even bothered to do so, because they essentially wrote off Apple as a competitor.

    Could this be a sign that MS is getting a bit nervous about OS X and its potential to infiltrate their corporate and home markets?

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting by Ranger+Rick · · Score: 4, Informative

      FUD? Is that anything like the Apple switch commercials?

      No, FUD is when they lie. The people in the switch commercials actually switched... I hated macs until MacOSX. MacOS9 is an ugly, unstable conglomeration of patches, but I was convinced by MacOSX to finally buy one, and I haven't gone back.

      On the other hand, the article said stuff like:

      The new version supports enhanced Quartz 2D font smoothing that greatly improves the look of Web pages. But rather than reciprocate, Apple has been cutting deals with one of Microsoft's chief rivals.

      ...which is pure FUD. What kind of reciprocation are you supposed to get for flipping a bit on a layer that's only provided for compatibility? The Quartz 2D font smoothing is for people that are too lazy to port their application to MacOSX native APIs. (Well, not that Quartz isn't native, but it's a continuation of the fugly MacOS < 10 APIs.)

      Before Microsoft released this amazing new update to IE that turns on font smoothing, you could get it already by tweaking a system property. MS did *nothing* other than change a configuration file.

      The article is full of things that MS is trying to take credit for. Yes, I'm sure porting Office to OSX found bugs and they reported them to Apple, but that doesn't make MS some kind of partner in OSX development like the article suggests.

      --

      WWJD? JWRTFM!!!

  7. Gratitude by john82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' OSX ? by dhovis · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually, I think it had more to do with the Carbon APIs. Microsoft refused to rewrite Office in Cocoa, but it wanted to use some of the features from Cocoa. That is why the feature sets of Carbon and Cocoa have been converging.

    Besides, when it came out, Office v.X was the most complex Carbon program to date. I'm sure Microsoft's Mac programmers found lots of bugs in the APIs and reported them back to Apple. Office v.X came out shortly after 10.1, and required 10.1 because it fixed a ton of bugs overall, but particularly with the Carbon API.

    I think that is probably what Microsoft's contribution to OS X was.

    Anyway, if Office v.X is not selling well, it is probably due to the OUTRAGEOUS price. $500? I bought it at the educational discount and that was still $200. I only paid $1500 for my iBook, I'm certainly not going to pay 1/3 of that again for Office.

    --

    --
    The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

  9. Re:My other computer is a mac... by aftk2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's funny that you mention standards, and then deride the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer, which is a far more W3C-standards-compliant (here's a breakdown of CSS capabilities for most modern browsers) than IE 5, 5.x, and 6 for Windows. Netscape 6/Mozilla's even better.

    I thought I'd take some time to address the claim of Windows Internet Explorer dominance (even if off-topic), since I see it often.

    It's been my experience that Microsoft's Macintosh projects are far better than their Windows counterparts.

    --
    concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
  10. Switch by weefle · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Well, I can see how Microsoft might be getting a little anxious, what with Apple pushing hard for people to switch from Windows to a Mac, coming out with a 17" version of the LCD iMac, making Mac OS users' default homepages Netscape instead of Microsoft pages, and designing iChat to use AIM and not MSN.

    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.

  11. Re:what apple needs to do by demaria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ignoring the fact that this will not happen anytime soon if at all... :)

    I doubt Apple would partner with Dell. Those two haven't exactly had a loving relationship. Michael Dell very much doesn't like Apple. I'd say it would be more likely Apple would partner with Sony, HP, or Gateway, in that order. Sony seems like the most likely since they have been pushing firewire. HP only because Apple licensed their printer design before so there is a relationship there. Gateway because of the Gateway Country stores which Apple recently started their own version.

  12. Re:Hard time believing by mandie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was a testing intern in MacBU (Macintosh Business Unit) last summer. We found lots of OS X bugs and spent a good deal of time pin-pointing them. I spoke with Apple developers about what I'd found a couple of times. If OS X had significant problems, Office v.X sales would be hurt, simple as that.
    MacBU is a small (~150 employees, $50 million in expenses) but profitable ($100 million+ in sales in FY2000 or 2001, as I recall) division that is also good publicity. One of the nicer parts of MS to work in, from what I saw that summer.

    --
    Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
  13. Are we bitter about something? by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "FUD? Is that anything like the Apple switch commercials?"

    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
    1. Re:Are we bitter about something? by PsychoSpunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      That is the entire focus of the ads, IMO. There are no 'facts' or 'figures' substantiating any of the claims. It just appears to be a bunch of ads featuring computer illiterates switching to something that is supposed to be 'easier' and more 'intuitive.'

      I say: PROVE IT.


      Well, at the expense of feeding a troll, anecdotal evidence is unprovable by logical convention. But it seems that you're getting all worked up over advertising. FYI, all advertising is designed to appeal to your emotions. Numbers are a big turnoff for the general populace.

      You want facts? Watch the Switch ads again. All the people in the ads are providing subjective facts. Anecdotal evidence is not FUD, but it's not hard objective fact either. There is one overlying subjective fact that isn't voiced in all of the ads: A Mac is a computer that will work for you. This is a fact if you consider one detail: computers are tools designed to work for you. The ad never says a PC won't work for you, it says it didn't work for them. The whole point of the ad is to say: If you feel like your computer isn't working for you, try something new.

      In your haste to denounce the ads, you read something extra into the meaning. Your definition of the FUD from the ads is stretching for some tie-in with your misinterpretation. The implications are that you might actually agree with the Real People, but are frightened to leave the hegemony that you are comfortable with. Regardless, your troll is obviously FUD. You could do better, if you'd only take time to apply yourself and elevate from obvious troll status to the level of elegant troll by providing some facts or figures to prove your point, you might have actually succeeded.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
  14. Office v. X not selling well by geoffeg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article seems to portray the idea that Microsoft is unhappy with Office v. X's sales performance and is blaming Apple for not marketing OS 10 enough.

    Well, I think I may have another theory on why Office isn't selling very well: $459.95. While the new version of Office is nice and quite pretty I still don't see it warranting almost half a grand. I can't think of the last time I ever used Word for anything more than writing my resume and the occasional label and envelope printing. AppleWorks can do all that for more than one fifth the price. While it's true that Office has quite a few more features than Works it can probably get most people by.

    So this is probably just good (or bad) old Microsoft marketing work. Some people will believe whatever they read, despite their mothers telling them not to.

  15. Re:what apple needs to do by foobar104 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Microsoft is walking a fine line. by Spencerian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  17. Questions to ask that weren't by ddtstudio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    -- 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?

  18. Re:what apple needs to do by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

    Note to austad: Stop listening to advertisements. They appear to be having some sort of ill effect on your brain.

    While Dell is certainly popular, I've never heard of this "new computer" == "Dell" meme before.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  19. MS helping resolve problems on Mac OS X by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft, for example, was instrumental in helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X, the next-generation version of the Macintosh operating system released in March 2001.

    Could this mean helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X being able to run MS Office?

    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. (I was privy to seeing some of this first hand, related to a product I worked on at the time.)

    --

    Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
  20. Re:what apple needs to do by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    MS sells an office suite. They leverage their monopoly in OSes to allow them to make a huge margin on their office suite.

    Apple has does not share this uncommon ability to generate huge revenue through selling OSes and office suite software. They would not be able to support their OS developement costs. Not even close.

    Fortunately, right now, they have huge margins on their higher end machines. This does allow them to burn money developing their operating system.

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  21. Re:Not pushing OSX? by BitGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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/ 1816257
  22. MS is building a case to drop Mac support. by cornice · · Score: 4, Interesting
    But after the turn of year, Microsoft began looking more closely at how Apple marketed OS X 10.1, complaining the Mac maker failed to put out enough marketing dollars to drive adoption of the new operating system. That adoption was crucial to Microsoft, which developed Office v. X to run only on OS X and not the older OS 9.

    This could be a case there the Office v.X people are trying to justify their poor sales performance but I doubt it. I think MS sees OSX as a threat and they are gearing up for big fall out with Apple.

  23. Missing the best quote by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    MacCentral's coverage included this comment from Phil Schiller; about time someone clues MS into the fact that their prices are rediculous. You are selling consumer-level software for professional-level prices! " Browne's comments drew criticism from Apple's senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, Phil Schiller. Schiller told the Wall Street Journal that Microsoft's concerns are 'very, very misplaced' and suggested that the $499 price tag of Office may be a reason why Microsoft's sales are sluggish."

    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith