Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Encouraging OEMs to Beautify Computers
Grooves writes "Microsoft has shipped a 'Vista Industrial Design Toolkit' to PC manufacturers, meant to
encourage them to design computers that are more visually appealing. From the article: 'From color palettes to suggestions about how the power and reset buttons should appear, the kit basically describes Microsoft's vision of what a Vista PC should look like. The look features accelerated curves and purposeful contrast, among other qualities.' The report goes on to say that Microsoft wants 'PCs to be objects of pure desire.' Sound familiar? It's hard to see budget-conscious OEMs stepping up to this."
MS is just trying to grab a few sales away from Apple at the expense of the OEMs. Why not? MS doesn't have anything to loose on this one - the OEMs are the ones taking the risk.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Would you really want to take design suggestions from MS? I can't think of anything they've designed (on their own) that looks like I'd want to put my name on it and sell it.
I desire my PC to be pure of spyware, security flaws and unstability.
Somehow Macs do this and manage to be sexy at the same time. That said, I have a PC at work and home. I'd buy a Mac for home except that Macs are sadly lacking in the one field in which I work (video game development).
Ummm, no. Your claim is specious. You seem to be saying that Microsoft got 95% of the market by leveraging their market dominance in an "illegal" way. You don't get 95% marketshare by being a monopoly; you become a monopoly by getting 95% marketshare. The "illegal anti-trust" activities are only "illegal" and "anti-trust" once you already have dominant marketshare, which they achieved by providing superior value (in conjunction with the hardware vendors) to the consumers.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
I believe that is due to misshaps that Apple made during the early and mid 90s (this is before Steve Jobs and OS X). Apple had a hard time creating a modern OS (Pink, Taligent, Copland), while Microsoft started to improve their OSes to the point that they surpassed the original Mac OS in stability and performance while almost matched it in usability (Windows 95 and especially Windows NT-based products). In 1999, I'd choose Windows 2000 over Mac OS 9 any day for most tasks. Had Apple's failed OS ventures actually didn't fail, then perhaps Apple's marketshare would be much more substantial.
Windows and non-Mac PCs are still selling very well for a few reasons. Businesses are still heavily dependent on Windows software. But the biggest reason why MS has 95% and Apple has 5% is the price of admission is much lower. You can buy an entry level desktop for $300 and an entry level laptop for $600. It would come with some Celeron processor, a somewhat shabby graphics card, the traditional bundled applications (that don't really play together with other applications, unlike iLife and OS X's integration), and XP Home. However, this is what 90% or so of the computer population wants to buy; a computer fast enough to do email, word processing, photo editing, DVD watching, web browsing, music downloading, and other everyday tasks. For them, that $300 Celeron machine or $600 Celeron laptop would suffice.
Now, if you spend $600 (or $1100 for the laptop), you can get a Mac. The Mac comes with OS X, iLife, a pretty nice processor (1.5GHz Core Solo for the $600 Mac Mini, 1.66GHz Core Duo for the $800 Mini, and 1.83GHz Core Duo for the $1100 MacBook), decent graphics (I'm typing this on a MacBook now; the Intel Integrated Graphics on this machine isn't very hampering unless you are a intense gamer, which I am not). All of the iLife applications work together. I enjoy the searching capabilities of Spotlight and use them every day. I like how Spotlight is integrated with all of my other applications. For a Unix hacker like myself, the terminal is just a click on the Dock away. I don't have to worry about bad drivers, malware, viruses, or anything like that. I work with a peace of mind.
Macs are worth the price. When I showed my parents and siblings my Mac and fooled around with it for a few days, they fell in love with it. They were sold on buying a Mac, and they are now saving up for a iMac. The problem is that cheaper PCs are good enough for 90% of the market. Windows XP "just works" now (as long as you keep an eye on security), and Vista will be far better than XP (insert "it's a copy of OS X here"; say what you want, but Vista is still better than XP). Perhaps they haven't had exposure to OS X; my parents were sold on the Mac within a few days. Perhaps they still must have a Windows PC for their jobs (and they don't know that Intel Macs can run Windows natively). Or, perhaps that money is an issue for most people.
Many people say that in order for Apple to increase its marketshare, they should release OS X to all x86 PCs. After owning a Mac for a few days, I'll disagree. Most users don't know how to install an OS, assuming that they know what an OS is. Plus, part of the benefit of buying a Mac is that you know that all of your hardware works. You don't have to scrounge the Net looking for drivers; your hardware in most cases "just works." Finally, it will make Apple have to compete with Microsoft in Microsoft's domain: OSes. Apple would be back in the Spindler/Amelio days of cloning and red ink. The best way for Apple to raise its marketshare is to lower its price of admission and provide some more variety in Mac offerings (while retaining a clear-cut consumer/pro line). How about a Core Solo MacBook for $700? How about knocking down the Mac Mini to $500 again just like it was originally was in January 2005. How about releasing that iMac for Education to the general public for $999? That will make a large increase in Apple's marketshare, because they will be much closer to the price points that most consumers buy their computers at.