Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the bite-outa-the-apple dept.

ttom writes "OSWeekly.com looks at Microsoft's promotional strategy and concludes that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game." From the article: "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they? By the way, please don't take my sarcastic tone as an expression of my dissatisfaction for the product. I think it's great, and I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp. I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."

6 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Summary headline is incorrect. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The summary's title is incorrect, its not really MS beating Apple at Apple's game. Selling windows for x86 PCs is MS's game. Summary should read "Why Microsoft is beating Apple at Microsoft's game".

    The article's opening line & premise the rest of the article is based on is incorrect:

    You know, I think OS X has been temporarily pushed to the side right now because I've heard more discussion about Windows running on Macs then even before.

    No. Boot camp made a small stir, but the vast majority of people out their still see Mac PCs as very different from WIndows PCs (and don't understand the dual boot process anyway). Macs are still getting far more ipod splashback publicity than they were five years ago.

    A more interesting discussion would be "Why Dell Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game"? After all, two years ago I know I certainly wouldn't have expected to see:

    1) Apple rushing to join an Electronics Industry Code of practice founded by Dell after sweatshop scandal rumours.

    2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.

    Both those items are areas I expect Apple's marketing (if not reality) to shine, but instead it's Dell with all the glory.
    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  2. Leading to fewer OS X apps? by mrshermanoaks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, I love running WinXP on my MacBook Pro using Parallels. The real worry is that once you can easily run Windows on your Mac, there will be less incentive to port apps to the Mac side. Publishers will say "why should I put in all that effort when you can run the PC version?" I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.

    1. Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? by wp.moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I'm not a Mac user, I agree with your comments. Those of us who remember the OS/2 fiasco will recall the IBM marketing mantra of "A Better Windows than Windows". That strategy back-fired horribly. Put the arguments of technical superiority aside. The users were started asking a very pertinent question. If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps? Bad marketing then, bad marketing today.

    2. Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps?

      Maybe because Windows itself isn't working well for you? I have to say that, as the manager of an IT department, I'm tired of being over the barrel with Microsoft. It's restrictive and insecure, and I'm supposed to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade to Vista in order to get an OS which hopefully might possibly work, meanwhile locking myself further into a vendor which has caused me nothing but headaches? No thanks.

      Now, I'm all in favor of people using whatever system works for them, and if Windows does the job for you, more power to you. In my mind, anything that lets me move to OSX, or better yet Linux, is a good thing.

  3. Aim: Sell more Mac hardware by bestinshow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ability to run Windows will sell more Mac hardware, which gives Apple more money, and increases their marketshare.

    People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.

    Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.

    As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.

    The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.

    Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.

  4. Great shades of OS/2, Batman! by supersocialist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boot Camp is awesome, beyond awesome, but it's highly reminiscent of OS/2 and why OS/2 died: why bother building OS/2 native apps if OS/2 runs Windows apps? Code for Windows and you run on both; code for OS/2 and you're wasting your time! With the rumored native Windows support in Leopard, this could get even worse... eventually next to nothing will come out for Mac OS, which will appear to be a huge black eye for Apple. OS/2 was technically superior, too, but if all your apps are for Windows, why not just run the real thing?

    I miss OS/2. :(