Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Should Fear Apple
jcatcw writes "Computerworld's Scot Finnie says that Microsoft should be afraid because Apple has gotten smarter about how it competes. He says that it's the Parallels Desktop software that has been truly transformational for the Mac. Finnie did a simple three-month trial of the Mac last in the fall and realized four months later that he wasn't going back. Since then he's received hundreds of messages from readers who've also made the switch. 'In the end, this is about perception. It isn't about Apple's market share or even its quarterly sales numbers. (Apple's notebook computer sales for the fourth quarter were 4.1% of all portable computer sales, according to DisplaySearch.) What this is about is that Apple is reaching the right people with its product, winning new converts, Windows user by Windows user -- and creating buzz. How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel. And that's the condition Microsoft should fear. Because buzz can turn into something much harder to combat than sheer numbers.'"
Others have detailed the practical and financial reasons why Apple will not do that. Namely, they make money on hardware not software. One of Microsoft's problems is to attract developers, Windows supports a wide range of hardware with a minimum of requirements. Unfortunately that has meant that the quality of third party drivers has been less than desirable. That combined with MS 40,0000 (not including undocumented) APIs have made turning solving this issue difficult.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I've done various price comparisons at various times in the past few years, and I would say that generally the price of Apple hardware is comparable to similar hardware from other companies.
What I mean is this: if you pick an Apple laptop model, and then you go to Dell and price out a similar model to have all the same features, the price will usually be pretty close. Sometimes Apple was even a little cheaper, usually slightly more expensive, but close.
I'm sure there are loads of people who will claim I'm full of it, but those people usually aren't doing what I described in the last paragraph. For example, they'll point out that you can get a Dell laptop for $600 while the cheapest Apple laptop is $1100. However, the Dell laptop they're citing will be much thicker and heavier. The Dell won't have a CD-R drive or a built-in camera. The Dell won't be as fast or have a good-quality screen.
When you price out a machine with the same quality of parts, the same features, and the same form-factor, you generally find that Apple is competitive with all the major players (Sony, Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba). However, Apple doesn't offer el-cheapo machines. They just don't have a $300 machine where they've cut every corner to bring it to market at cheaply as possible. They don't offer a $600 laptop. They also don't offer a general mid-grade mini-tower or micro-tower. The only machine that you can really expect to be upgrading is a Mac Pro, and as the name suggests, it's an high-end workstation more than a general desktop PC.
So that's why I was talking about market segmentation. Apple might be able to expand their market into these areas, but it seems like they don't want to. I'm not sure why not, but I have some theories.