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.'"
Sure MS is a monopoly, but if Apple wants to play the game of what software can run on which hardware, then I don't see why MS shouldn't have the same priviledge.
What part of "MS is a monopoly" don't you understand?
Seriously. They're a monopoly, and they've found guilty, in multiple courts in multiple instances, of abusing that status. (Being a monopoly isn't illegal; using that monopoly to suppress competition that might one day break the monopoly is, and that's what Microsoft does.) I just don't see why people have so much trouble understanding this; it's like asking why, if you and I can walk around on the street, a convicted criminal who's locked up in prison can't do the same.
Now, you may disagree with the anti-monopoly laws. But the law as written clearly makes Microsoft guilty of things that Apple hasn't (and in fact couldn't have) done, and the rules are different for lawbreakers. It's that simple.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.