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.'"
People are talking about the Mac throughout the industry. Admit it: Whether you love it or hate it, you're talking about the Mac at the water cooler.
Apple certainly does have a great public image. They are in a great place right now - they get huge amounts of publicity for free. This just didn't happen by accident though, they've done a good job creating their image, and creating products that people want to get excited about. Actually, some Mac ads are so good, that I enjoy watching them. (I love those "I'm a PC" and "I'm a mac" ads!). Apple has the momentum.
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
Speaking as a certified Macintosh fanboy who bought his first Mac in February, 1984... gimme a break. If there's anything more boring than an Apple-is-doomed story, it's a Microsoft-is-doomed story.
(Yes, I know he says Microsoft is not going to die... then at the end he says "Nothing lasts forever. The bloom is coming off the rose on Microsoft. I would never put it past the software giant to come up with a way to remake itself in a better light. But the current course doesn't appear to me to lead in that direction. As much as Apple is doing things right, Microsoft is doing things wrong." How is that anything but a weasel-worded version of "Microsoft is doomed?")
Speaking as a certified Macintosh fanboy, Microsoft copies the Apple OS a lot... and, you know what? Apple has, for a long time, been returning the favor. The two companies borrow ideas from each other promiscuously, and only the blinkered view of the fans of each camp prevents them from seeing it. Of course, one idea Mac OS 9 borrowed from Windows was making windows resizable by dragging at all four edges. I just wish Mac OS X had borrow that from Mac OS 9!
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
to run parallels. microsoft could give a flying fark where you run their os, as long as you buy one.
DELL or other pc manufactureres should be scared of macs.
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.
Okay! So you bought a Mac!
You bought something MacOS. Yay for you! YOU REBEL!
Now you use Parallels and buy a copy of Windows to put in there.
GAME OVER.
*MICROSOFT* doesn't care what HARDWARE you run their OS on. Running Parallels on a Mac doesn't hurt MICROSOFT in the slightest.
Both Apple AND Microsoft pull a profit off this. Microsoft even moreso, since Mac heads are likely to buy a RETAIL copy of the OS, meaning higher margins for Redmond than they'd get from a traditional OEM copy.
Who it's a mark against? The other PC vendors.
Seriously. Why does everyone turn stupid non-issues like this into a zip-gun fight between Redmond and Cupertino?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm sure there are plenty of people with their heads up their asses using Windows and Linux, has it put you off of those platforms too? Because I know I pick my OS based on the fact that no one I dislike uses it.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Worse than a pro-Apple buzz, is the Anti-Microsoft Buzz. As another Switcher appears at the watercooler, smiling like Smilin' Bob, the DIS-satisfaction of Microsoft will grow. What will happen is that Windows users will become increasingly frustrated with their inabilities, the road blocks, the busted drivers, the paths out into the 'Net they now FEAR to tread. Every "Cancel or Allow" will toll in an image of the Apple commercial's sunglassed security monger. The "Sad Realization" will grow.
Like one who looked into the Palantir, the emotional illness will sink in. And they will be trapped. Every mouse click will make them sicker, sink them deeper. Their happy, released Mac User associates will shine like a white wizard among the Orcs.
And every trick that Microsoft will try to rejuvenate their relationship will be transparent to them. Zune the iTune killer will make them laugh sadly. Every promise of liberation and innovation will fall flat before it is delivered. Every
The numbers will lie, like the percentage of marriages that last longer than 7 years... it belies the number of dead marriages still lingering. Microsoft will retain 90%+ of the market, but those will be wretched zombies, entombed in their own fear and loathing.
Microsoft's "WOW" will become "woe", from which they are unable to escape. And like Gandalf, betrayed by a friend and mentor, they are marooned atop a tower which promised great vision, but a broad horizon of darkness, gloom and malevolence is their only vista.
Actually, I'm not sure if I'd be that excited about standalone sales of OS X. Yeah, it looks pretty... Apple's got some nice applications available... But I'm not sure that I want just another OS available to me. I can get fairly close to the OS X experience with Vista or various flavors of Linux. What really makes Apple shine is the same thing you are lamenting - lack of hardware choices.
In the PC world you've got hundreds of PC manufacturers, thousands of hardware vendors, billions of combinations of components that are all supposed to work together...
Sure, I'm a hobbyist and I like to tinker. I've built my last dozen machines myself, by hand, from individual components. I like that level of control. I like to sift through benchmarks and reviews to find the motherboards that work best for me. I like the feeling of pride in having a quality PC that I built.
But my sister doesn't care. She wants to go in, buy something off the shelf, and just have it work. She isn't even completely clear on the fact that HP, Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc. all make computers that are called PCs. She sees stickers that say "Mac Compatible" and wonders why there isn't a "Dell Compatible" sticker. And to her, buying a Mac is simpler and more straightforward than buying a PC. She can understand that OS X 10.3 is newer/better/faster than 10.1 She knows that if it says "Mac Compatible" it will likely work. She doesn't need to wonder about whether the printer has a Parallel interface or USB. It just says "Mac", so she's safe.
And I really think that's part of the appeal of Apple products. They're simplified to the point where they just basically work most of the time.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
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.
Parallels has allowed our company to begin the migration away from Windows by providing support for specific, required applications on the platform of choice:
- Business users receive Macs, and use Parallels (and sometimes Boot Camp) for specific applications.
- Engineers have the choice between either Mac OS X or Ubuntu. They can also run Parallels or VMware for Windows applications, though they rarely do so.
- Artists run Windows, since their singular, primary application is 3d Studio Max -- Windows only 3d software.
Parallels has allowed us to make a long-term platform decision (Mac OS X and Linux) while continuing to support the short-term software requirements (Running Windows software). As more cross-platform software is made available, we will migrate away from the Windows-only solutions.
http://plausible.coop
No, I really don't forget that. The point is that it's an issue of market segmentation. Let me break it down a little more simply: It's not generally valid to complain that Apple charges a huge premium for their hardware. It is valid, however, to complain that Apple isn't trying to service all markets.
If you don't understand the distinction that I'm making, I don't know what to tell you.
But, thanks to the insane operating requirements for Vista, that $500 laptop will run like a dog... in fact, I would imagine that it would practically be unusable with only 512 meg of RAM that it probably comes with.
Microsoft helped out Apple significantly by essentially killing the cheap laptop market with memory-hogging Vista.
So, now you quite literally HAVE TO pay $1100 for a laptop to get something that runs... that makes MacBook a very viable option.
Thanks,
Mike
I've never understood this assumption, it's wrong on so many levels. Counting Apple's share of computers sold through certain channels and assuming that that is the market for your software.
For example, some percentage of Windows machines are servers, my random desktop application shouldn't count those as potential purchasers. If I make consumer software, then the 50% of Windows machines in corporate networks with controlled installations shouldn't count either. If I am writing software with limited requirements, then Apple Computer's generally longer deployment lifetime means that I'm looking at a different installed base.
Or to put it in another way:
If I write software for Java developers to buy, I DO NOT CARE about Windows, Linux, or Mac computers in the hands of non-Java developers. If Apple grabs 25% of the Java developer market, I'm in business. If I write software for musicians, Apple's approx 40%-50% marketshare in this niche makes them viable.
And your assumption ignores competition. Sure, lots of Windows computers need file compression, but how many of them had bought Winzip? After Microsoft embedded unzipping in the OS, how many of them bought Winzip? Apple has a thriving shareware market, Windows may, Linux does not.
As a developer, I care is there a potential market for my software. I really don't have any skin in the OS X vs. Microsoft Windows battle, do you?
Well, you might be attributing too much to the gaming market as well. Don't get me wrong, it's a big market and people who buy gaming rigs tend to push the bleeding edge of hardware. For some of us old folks, gaming on a PC has absolutely no interest whatsoever. A lot of people don't need the bleeding edge of hardware -- they need decent software that's easy to use.
In my opinion, Apples are coming bundled with a lot more software which is relevant to what people want to do. Handling your digital photos, movies, e-mail, and some light productivity software is probably what a lot of people want. I've been waiting got the right time to add a Mac Mini to my network -- it doesn't need to be huge, it can share disk space with the other critters on my network. But, I want the OS and the apps that come with it. I'm willing to pay a premium for that 'underpowered' machine.
I can't even fathom what you're doing with your machine. And, it is certainly not representative of what I and loads of other people do with out home machines.
I think Mac is currently in the midst of breaking into the market in serious quantity. The fact that this thread exists tells me it is.
I think you might also be missing what older people are willing to pay for a machine which doesn't give them troubles. Old ladies routinely seem to buy Cadillacs, because that's what their husband always bought and they like them. If I had an old grandma who wanted a computer and could afford to put up the cash, I'd absolutely steer her towards a Mac -- because it won't contribute to er early demise with all of the frustration.
You are a developer, and probably a gamer. But, you're also not representative of the rest of the consumer market for computers. I'm a developer at work -- but at home, I'm a light casual user who doesn't really tax his machines all that much: my XP box running at equivelant to around 2.8 GHz (AMD CPU) with 1GB of RAM is more than I've ever needed at home. My even slower FreeBSD box with 768 MB of RAM is just as zippy. I would personally never spend $2k on a machine (my last few have been less than $500 CDN), but I might be willing to go up a couple of price points for a Mac.
The whole point of this thread is that for a lot of people, the Mac offers a very attractive alternative to a Windows machine. For the people who really will do some web surfing, mail, a little light word processing, and handling all of this new-fangled digital media they still don't quite understand, the Mac is an exceptionally good choice.
Well, considering the revenues Apple has been pulling down (even if you discount the revenue from iTMS), and considering entire Universities are announcing they're going all Mac, I think you might find yourself wrong on that statement. Apple has been in 'real' businesses for a few decades now.
Apple aren't trying to supplant Microsoft as the dominant operating system. They're trying to make a niche for themselves of people who want something a little different out of their machines. Personally, that hipster marketing campaign makes me really wish I had one. There will always be a market for the big, honking PC rigs. But, there will always be a market for what Apple is selling as well.
You are entitled to your own opinion. Cancel or allow.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.