Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sees Linux As Bigger Competitor Than Apple
Facetious writes "It seems Microsoft doesn't believe the data from Net Applications regarding Linux any more than Slashdot readers do. In a recent presentation, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer showed a slide showing, from Microsoft's internal analysis, that Linux client use is clearly ahead of Apple's."
Apple is dieing..
I'm not an Apple user, but isn't the current incarnation of Apple's OS based on a flavor of Linux or Unix? If so, funny that they wouldn't count it..
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Makes sense... a PC user can switch to Linux by downloading a LiveCD (or whatever) and installing or just running from the disk. A PC user has to buy new hardware to switch to Apple.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I think thats sort of a "duh" statement when you consider server usage as well as desktop usage.
Mac servers can't be much of the server market.
Could Microsoft be accounting for embedded distributions of Windows CE versus embedded Linux compiled into his numbers? I think that might give it an edge over Apple's. Ballmer's presentation is just citing "use." Which could be pretty accurate while Net Applications analysis is also accurate for desktop/notebook/server situations. Don't see a lot of explanation past the charts on either of these links.
My work here is dung.
Of course they're worried! If Linux (and the rest of the open source projects) become even slightly common, Microsoft have lost. They can't buy Linux, they can't do deals with it. They don't seem to be able to out perform it either. Short of zapping every magnetic and (some how) optical media on the planet, Microsoft cannot kill an open source project of a large magnitude; there'll always be community members willing to take over where one was "bought" by Microsoft.
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
as soon as os x for all pc comes out M$ will be carping there pants.
Not really. Microsoft Office is the dominant word processing package on the Mac.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Apple sells hardware.
While there is certainly a small amount of overlap in their product lines, they aren't really in direct competition.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Perhaps after the success of the switch adds Apple inched ahead of Linux on the desk top. But if you look over the last 15 years, I believe that there has been more Linux on the desktop than Apple OS's.
It hasn't been in anyone's interest to say that. I think that is even true of the Linux companies. For a long time they wanted to be under the radar under dogs. Perhaps because they didn't want a fight to the death with Microsoft.
Think Deeply.
There is more money in servers then there is clients, and it's an area that MS could still grow in. In this area Linux companies and traditional UNIX are competitors to MS whereas Apple is most decidedly not.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Let's not forget that Linux can be installed on any architecture. Apple may have a larger market share (depending on where you get your data from of course, lol), but they still have a limited compatibility range making them less viable.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
OSX can only realistically come from one over priced manufactuer where as Linux is free and can be installed on any machine.
The economy is in the dumps. Would you be worried about the over priced guy with no net book or the guy that's infiltrating the netbook space quite well when that's a fast growing sector?
The Net Applications survey seems to be centered on desktops and personal-use devices only, while Microsoft's graphic conceivably includes OS deployment across all kinds of devices (desktops, servers, network appliances, etc.).
If you take servers into account (especially web servers and certain network appliances), aggregated Linux installations could very well top aggregated Apple OS product installations.
Also note that the Net Applications survey segregates Macs (presumably including MacOS System 9 and earlier along with OS X) and iPhones (which runs a modified Mac OS X called "iPhone OS"), whereas the Microsoft slide simply has a single "Apple" moniker.
It's an Apples v. Oranges comparison; don't read too much into it...
The day the manage to lock out piracy, a lot of that group will switch to Linux, not pay full prize full Windows licenses.
I can understand why they see Linux as a bigger threat. Linux is something completely different than Windows, MacOS is "just" another proprietary closed source company controlled desktop OS. These days, more and more people see the advantages of free sofware, and Microsoft will never be able to catch up with Linux on that one.
Why would MS put a fish in their pants?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Could this finally be the year of Apple in the server room?
-1 not first post
Linux is not tied to drm-filled hardware, which means it is free to flow through technology, unlike OSX. Linux has much greater potential than OSx primarily for that reason.
An operating system's installed base is not the same as the market share.
Market share is measurable because it's based on percentage of sales over a given period of time.
Installed base is difficult or impossible to measure, because it's the percentage share an operating system has over the entire population of computers. This means the market share of Macs and Linux machines is underestimated. Macs, because they last on average 2 years longer than Windows PC's. Linux, well, because hardly anybody pays for Linux since they can legally get it for free.
So, essentially, market share figures are highly inaccurate for estimated the installed base of any given operating system.
This space left intentionally blank.
Well, given the quality of their software, they're obviously not programmers. They're carpenters.
That would require a reversal of the entire Apple strategy, as well as a huge developer-blitz to make OS X work on non-Apple hardware.
OS X is good and stable, but it's merits owes a lot to the tight integration with Apple's hardware choices.
Important stuff
No, they'll be goldfishing here pants.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Apple USES software to move their hardware.
You're comparing Apple to lemons.
M$ sells software, (there is no branded computer called Microsoft, is there?,) and as such Linux is IN DIRECT COMPETITION, (there is no branded computer called Linux, is there?)
Because Linux is FREE and M$ costs, look for the same idiot managers to jettison M$ for the same reason they jettisoned IBM in the '80s and for the same reason: because Linux is FREE and M$ costs.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
1 iBook running OSX
1 machine running XP
1 machine running vista
1 Ubuntu box/dual boot Win7
2 Debian boxes
2 boxes running Mandriva
1/8 Apple
3/8 MS (more like 2.5 since 7 is beta)
5/8 Linux
YUP, linux is winning under my desk!
Linux is a more fundamental threat than Apple. Apple, fundamentally, is another commercial vendor - one that can be dealt with, cajoled, threatened, and God forbid, even bought. Plus, Apple's focus is on hardware.
Linux cannot be dealt with in that fashion. The business model is different. Microsoft can pull a Novell or a Xandros deal, but that either 1) ends up helping those distros, or, more worryingly, 2) does nothing to fight the multiheaded hydra that Linux is. Add the fact that it cannot be bought or threatened with any serious lawsuits, its a major headache for Microsoft. All Microsoft can do, is to slow down its rate of adoption, through a combination of tactics, and that is what they have been doing for the past 10 years. This is also good for Linux, as it is giving the developers breathing time and space to improve the quality. In looks department, they are already comfortably ahead of anything Vista or Leopard throw up. The only missing pieces of the puzzle are UI workflow design (where Apple has a superior product) and apps (where Microsoft is ahead). The latter is changing, while the former, is IMO languishing a bit for Gnome, though KDE4 has made some notable improvements.
Microsoft's overall domination of the PC is currently not under threat, but Linux's success is forcing it to slash profit margins and do other things that it would rather not have do. The reason is that unlike Apple, Microsoft's userbase is full of people who want quality for a good price and don't want to be fooled into paying for pricy stuff they really do not need.
It is not the year of linux on the desktop yet. But its coming, and that is giving people in Redmond sleepless nights.
And so long as they refuse to license their OS, they never will be. The vast majority of the market is uninterested in Apple hardware.
Why?
I can tell that *somebody* has never put a fish in their pants!
"That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means..." - Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride".
What if they offered Linus Torvalds a billion dollars for the trademark and the copyright to his code?
And assuming Linus accepted, of course...
Then we'd fork the latest version of the kernel (and git, and * FROM code WHERE copyright_holder = "Linus") and hack on.
To deal with the trademark, we'd have to rename the kernel. We could always use Linus' original name, Freax, or name it after some other maintainer... Mortonix? Coxix?
And then there'd be happy hacking all around.
Although it's nice to see Linux as a threat to the Microsoft marketshare, the pie chart in the linked topic shows piracy or 'unlicensed' copies of Windows as the biggest threat. I guess that people do still like or are forced to use Windows, but are just not capable or unwilling of providing the cash for the operating system.
OK so Apple's share of the worldwide computer shipments is 7-10 million units.
Funny thing is, there are other ships floating out there in them competitive waters Mr. Ballmer.
Witness: iPod, iPhone, iTunes, and notably WebKit
I see a much lower percentage share of IE on sites I manage and barely a blip of traffic from Chrome with Firefox and then Safari taking places 2 & 3.
We don't need to discuss how iPod/iPhone has affected the landscape.
I'm more interested in how WebKit plays in the equation.
Webkit is more than just plain old eyeballs, it's increasingly driving standards with support for CSS,/HTML specs, and, offline db support that make content development less dependent on proprietary tools like ActiveX plug-ins or Flash and more dependent on a web browser (typically not one from MSFT).
He's a cocky bastard and he just got lucky. Wonder if he'd do as well as Paul Allen outside of the MSFT play pen?
Not to mention that fleet sales are what propped up Detroit for a long time ... now what's happening to them? I mention this because the ultra low cost and low cost devices are equivalent to fleet sales.
(to microsoft)
Listen, and understand. That linux is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Well, duh!
Netbooks are all the rage these days. The market is growing rapidly, and it will inevitably influence trends on desktop as a whole.
There's no OS X netbook (no, Airbook is not a netbook), nor there are any in plans so far.
Meanwhile, Windows is in heavy competition with Linux for "the netbook OS", and it hasn't been doing so good so far. No-one wants Vista there, and XP is mostly okay but aging fast.
It's no coincidence that "netbook-friendly" is a major talking point for all Windows 7 marketing.
Because they want to revitalize their advertising.
"Apple has that young hipster, Linux has that cute penguin, but look! We've got a fat nerdy guy with a fish in his pants! Look at him dance!"
Well, it would be more amusing than the Seinfeld commercial.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
The slashdot summary links to two different articles that show wildly different market shares for Linux. I understand why we might not trust the 0.83% from hitslink.com, since, e.g., lots of people's browsers are probably set up with user agent strings claiming to be something other than what they really are. What I totally don't get is where MS claims to have gotten the much higher figure, which looks like ~5% from the pie chart. All I can think of is standing outside the door of a supermarket and asking people to tell you what OS you use. And ~5% just seems much, much, much too high to me. I see my students use the computers in my physics lab, which are half Windows and half Linux boxes, so I can pretty much tell who's never seen Linux before. Now way is the percentage of Linux users that high.
Find free books.
I revently took a course in Microsoft AD after having been a linux guy since RH 5. I couldnt in my wildest dreams think that Microsofts server products are such pile of manure that they are. The more i learn about Windows the more surprised i get that people stand for all the shortcomings, the bad usability, the lack of customer centric solutions and the costs.
In my mind there are just some small things that needs to be pieced in for Linux to be a really dangerous threat to Windows. Most of the things already exists for a Linux solution to completely replace a Microsoft centric network.
I have run Linux Terminal Servers, Linux Fileservers, Linux webservers, Novell, Windows various solutions and Novell Linux solutions. The only thing really needed is an easier and faster way of setting a Linux solution up. Novell and Windows is very hard and tedious to manage once setup but its really easy to get a minimal system up and running. Linux on the other hand is very hard to setup but very easy to manage on a daily basis.
If someone packages a solution where you can get a file, print, ldap and policy handling up and running without much fuss i think Linux would explode. Windows integration is from my view overrated, its much more important of making it easier to get up to speed with a pure linux network. Right now to much work is put into following Microsofts whims around with AD and whatnot instead of building a better solution on linux. A copy can only be so good as its original.
HTTP/1.1 400
this is probably just because he's including server numbers. seems reasonable that the number of linux installs on servers would outnumber the number of apple desktops.
http://kered.org
OSX is even somewhat limited even on Apple hardware. Don't let the silly
ads fool you. Once you get beyond the stuff in the box you got from the
apple store, it can be a cold cruel world out there. (IOW, not all the
3rd party hardware works)
MacOS falls prey to the same (everyone focuses on the market leader)
problem that Linux does.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Please take an intro to stats class before you spout off again.
Linux has survived, but not really prevailed. The general public still doesn't want Linux, despite the years of improvements. Keep in mind that I took a pessimistic view of Linux survival. That is, I didn't think Linux would survive. I thought that Linux and its users would be slaughtered. It has, and it has grown and improved. I am honestly astounded at the level of advancement that Linux has made
But that being said we are still losing to OSX and Windows. A Couple reasons exist. One is Games. A few more do exist. Things generally aren't happening fast enough, and I really am having a hard time understanding why. Its as if there are not as many coders working on Linux application software while there are more coders working the Kernel. The Former is bad, the latter is good. One thing I think needs to be done is an improvement to Linux's development suite. Something to challenge Visual Studio.
Every year Linux survives is a year of Linux. Lets hope the last year of Linux never comes.
So...wait...does this mean that last year was the year of the Linux desktop?
Who is John Galt?
When I was a kid, I had an Apple IIgs and a DOS box. The Apple was a nice machine, but the DOS box felt a lot more like a computer. At the time, I had a full instruction manual for DOS. That manual included descriptions of all the COM and EXE files on the system, their switches and examples of how to use them. Apple lacks that raw computing experience. It is there in the terminal window, but you don't need to go there to use the OS. Linux on the other hand still has that natural and exposed underbelly that geek kids can get into. Some kids are curious and those kids like figuring out how things work. Those kids don't need mommy and daddy to shell out $1000 for a computer that runs OSX because they can get Linux for free and run it on a 486. Those kids are a lot more likely to go a school that will move toward open source as a cost saving measure, as opposed to a school that will come up with a lot of money to pay the Apple tax.
If I were Microsoft and I was focused on the next generation of geeks, I'd be scared shitless of Linux.
Apple has accepted an upper cap on their market penetration. Thus they are not a threat to Microsoft, nor are their few fanatical customers much of an opportunity.
Apple sells high end products. Apple's target audience is people who will pay more for aesthetics, and for a bottom liner on troubleshooting. Apple's less concerned with selling more products than selling more expensive products. A single digit market share isn't a problem with this model, because Apple's skimming the cream off the market, and leaving PC manufacturers to compete on price with very slim margins.
The key to Microsoft's fortunes are in the Business Market, not the Consumer Market. Businesses buy Office, Exchange, SharePoint, SQL Server, and Server products. Businesses pay for support agreements and the like. There just isn't as much money for them in the consumer market. So Microsoft doesn't put as much energy there.
Apple loves the consumer market.
Linux loves the business market.
Therefore: Linux is their biggest competitor.
Bad User. No biscuit!
Did anyone actually look at the chart in TFA? I would say "clearly ahead" is a stretch...
No, they'll be goldfishing here pants.
Dude. Goldfish _are_ carp.
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
>>as soon as os x for all pc comes out M$ will be carping there
>>pants.
>Why would MS put a fish in their pants?
Don't knock it until you try it.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
No, I'm not accusing the author of equating Linux with piracy but did anyone else notice how much the two showed up side by side in the same sentence?
I wonder if any uninformed dbs like that teacher who confiscated all his student's Linux CDs claiming they were piracy will skim over this article and leap to the wrong conclusion.
What next? They'll tell me linux has more developers than windows. And that they work for free.
Why would MS put a fish in their pants?
I think that's obvious.
SO you believe that Ballmer must be stating only the facts, no agenda here?
What I've noticed from Ballmer over the years is a consistent pattern: what Ballmer perceives as a manageable threat, he mentions as a threat, but what he views as a huge threat he mocks and makes fun of.
Look at Open Source, or Macs, or the iPhone. When he's really threatened, he disrespects and mocks in order to appear especially confident. A sort of Tough Guy Reverse Psychology.
So yes, I know Linux partisans will say it's a desktop threat to MS with more potential because every Windows box is a potential Linux box, but I think Ballmer's "tell", as it were, is saying that he is scared by the Mac and in particular the fact that Apple has an obvious and coherent Mac-iPod-iPhone spectrum of products that can easily include netbooks, tablets, surfaces, or any other form-factor. And that Apple has basically managed an end run around Microsoft in the content realm (Music & Movies).
Dell desktop with Windows Vista (cheapest I could find in
Apple dekstop with OS X (cheapest I could find in
And one more thing:
1 year RHEL license for desktops: $80
So, in short, you do pay more to acquire Apple products, and there is no valid reason to deny that. You can try to claim that Apple products are better and therefore should cost more, but that is an entirely different argument.
Palm trees and 8
It will be the year - for everyone using a Linux desktop.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
I think another part of his thinking is M/S Office, which I believe where most of their profit comes from. when someone buys a mac my guess is they pick up M/S office, which means $ for M/S. Not and option for the other OS's. Obviously M/S is to blame for that, but right now that is the reality of their situation.
Your nice typing loses credibility once your bigotry shows through. Apple's userbase is not full of people who are "fooled into paying for pricy stuff they really do not need". Many of us are quite sophisticated, computer-wise, and are getting exactly what we need, which works in the way we want.
Keep believing that everyone who doesn't make your choice is stupid if you want, but...
It's easier to contend against cool, when your option is less expensive.
But when the competition is cool AND free, you have a serious problem.
I've been a Mac user for over 20 years, and now that everyone and their brother has a Mac at the university, you now see the "cool kids" running around with Linux laptops (I'm guessing they boot into Windows when they need Word).
The Mac is looking a little less like "the little guy" and more like "the man" these days.
A story on Slashdot that pits Unix fans against Apple devotees.
I'm hearing some heads exploding, I think.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Apples OSX does not come with any crappy activation key or other pain in the a$$ copy protection system, so their actual install base could be way higher than reported. Of course you still need Mac hardware to install OSX on, but there is nothing to stop you (except the law) from buying 1 copy of OSX and updating all the Macs in your building.
>OSX can only realistically come from one over priced manufactuer where as Linux is free and can be installed on any machine.
Overpriced? Thanks, but my time is valuable... I'd rather pay the very reasonable price and have the OS up and running in an hour than spend days messing around with Linux trying to get some driver working. Please dont compare apples with linuxes. Its called 'choice'... use it and enjoy the results.
I think the reason Microsoft see Linux as the competition is that Apple is in another league and as wfolta stated above 'every Windows box is a potential Linux box'.
That chart doesn't make any sense. There's no numbers, but the chart would show that Linux+Apple combined have less than 10% market share, and Linux's is slightly higher than Apple's. Are Net Applications' numbers that severely skewed? I mean, it would make sense to increase Windows' market share at the expense of Linux, but doubling Apple's makes little sense.
If that slide is for real, then both must be messing with the numbers: NetApps throwing Linux to the bin, and Ballmer likely downplaying all their competitors (i.e. unlicensed Windows included) in order to reassure the investors/shareholders.
All in all, Linux is by far a (the?) major thorn in Microsft's side. Apple has a well defined target market: they sell the shiny machine together with the shiny OS, and they proved over and over they don't intend to let the software get detached from the machine, which can only please Microsoft.
On the other hand, Linux runs on all hardware where Windows runs, and then some. That's gotta hurt.
I'm sorry but even the vaguest notion of a Microsoft store reeks of bona-fide grade-A concern over the success of the Apple stores.
Microsoft should certainly worry about Linux distros as well, but the bottom line is that Microsoft is struggling to regain legitimacy after its failed ventures as of late, and the competition (both Linux and Macintosh) are quickly filling the void with their products.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
Isn't it? Bugger, that makes system I just built really unfashionable.
Mind you, I used a Cosmos S case for it, so I guess as long as 2009 is the year of Linux UNDER the desktop I'll be OK ;-)
Who thinks we'll see a Microsoft Linux distro in the future?
I mean, think about it - to continue with Windows, Microsoft must:
Microsoft isn't good at any of these, yet they continue to pour money into Windows, in spite of the fact that it has very little value as a platform. People buy Windows for the familiar user interface (which MS actually got right), not for its security or stability. Why wouldn't Microsoft put its interface and API on top of a Linux kernel? They can still do the proprietary Windows thing, but let the Linux folks get the device drivers and system stability right.
I know some people here are anti-Microsoft, but if MS hoisted Windows onto Linux, you'd have many, many more drivers written for Linux, and the choice of OS would be practically moot. For the end user, it would come down to the choice between running a free WM such as KDE or GNOME, or paying some extra for the familiar Windows UI. And we could dispense with the incompatibilities with the two systems, and get the best of both worlds: the stability and security of Linux, with the ease of use and familiarity of Windows.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Apple's market share in the PC space is growing due to the iPhone and iPod, all thanks to OS X.
The truth of the matter is that Linux and OS X are eroding Microsoft's dominance, but OS X is the bigger player.
Personally, I think everyone is being misdirected. It would seem, from a shareholder view, that MSFT loses a lot more money to piracy than to either Linux and Apple, at least going by the data provided by MSFT. So, in terms of bang for the buck, MSFT would be better off spending dollars on tightening its DRM or creating a new way to secure and consistently monetize its intellectual property. Certainly, that would be detrimental to users, but in this economy, it might be easier to try to clamp down on piracy than to having to go slog it out in the marketplace. I doubt MSFT will want to relinquish their current price points in order to try and entice a few customers who are used to "free" or relatively free software. No, I think they're more likely to put the squeeze on non payers and pirates than on the Linux set.
There is no security when liberty is sacrificed.
There was a similar story before. Here is my comment from that story:
I do believe Apple and Microsoft are not direct competitors, because Apple is selling computers and Microsoft is selling software. And many people even run Microsoft Windows on Apple computers. The only thing Apple does not do is sell computers preinstalled with Microsoft Windows like the other companies that build PCs.
Since Apple is not planning on licensing their os to other computer manufacturers (they did this and the company almost went bancrupt, but was saved by Microsoft) the only os that does compete with Microsoft for coming preinstalled is Linux. If you think of all the companies that sell PCs.
Two reasons: Apple is smaller because it requires specialist hardware that is fairly expensive. NOTE this does NOT mean I am claiming Apples are overpriced, just that you can't turn an obsolete PC into a perfectly fine linux server or desktop.
Second reason is that Apple is a straight competitor. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer ain't enemies, they believe the same thing: Software should be paid for and the end user does NOT get to own the piece of software let alone use it in any way that they want to.
Linux on the other hand says "Here is all this great software, use it, don't pay for it and do with it what you want how you want to for as long as you want to." EEK!
Or to keep it simple, an Apple buyer might be persuaded to buy MS office for the Mac. A linux user is a far thougher sell and might even use something like OpenOffice or even worse Abiword (remember that OpenOffice is as complex as MSOffice but Abiword, that is so scary because it says "not only am I not going to pay for MSOffice but I don't even need all that it offers").
Apple is a competitor, Linux is an assault on the very principles that MS thinks should govern software.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Whenever a PC user gets fed up with something his PC cannot do, he either upgrades the OS, or ditches the machine.
MSFT depends on this to sell new copies of its OS. It exists in symbiosis with hardware vendors, who sell hardware/upgrades to handle the new OS.
Some of the machines that are supposed to be going to the PC graveyard are turning into Linux's Zombie Army.
Every day the Zombie Army grows larger. How long until the hardware vendors see the utility in servicing this market?
There's something seriously wrong with that "wheel chart" of theirs comparing browser and OS dominance.
It shows the "Apple" OS wedge at about 20%. Then it shows the Safari wedge at about 1%. Firefox is popular on the mac platform, but nowhere near THAT popular that (at the very least) 95% of mac users use firefox. ((20-1)/20)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Well, it would be more amusing than the Seinfeld commercial.
Watching paint dry is more amusing than the Seinfeld commercial.
$ make available
Especially if they got Vern Fonk to do the commercials:
"Savings never tasted this good!"
"Dance! Shipoopi!"
Cheers,
c
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
They can still manage to monetize Mac's OS. They do still sell office and other products for Mac. M$'s problem with Linux is that they can't sell software for it, so they have no potential way to generate revenue from it. Can you really see them doing their own di$tro?
Wow. You obviously haven't used a Mac since computers used punch cards!
To claim that the Apple UI is the same as it was since the first implementation of OS X and hasn't changed in all that time and that Linux and MS in the same time period have done all the heavy lifting and innovation in the GUI space is just.... wilfully ignorant.
Also, the thinly disguised comment that Macs can't really do anything and are just overpriced toys is just silly.
So, what "new things" have MS and Linux tried on the desktop in the "20 year" gap where the OS X interface has stood still, frozen in time? Aero? Widgets? Animated windows? Context sensitive, status based icons? New shiny colours?
If OS X since version 10.0 hasn't changed, then by that standard, neither has any other operating system.
"That word, you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means..." - Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride".
Been a while since I saw it, but wasn't that one of Fezzik's (Andre the Giant) lines?
No, it was Inigo Montoya.
You got your Apple //gs and I got my Apple ][+ for the same reason the other kids got their C-64s and Atari 800s. It wasn't "because we liked to figure things out." It was games. What did we want to figure out? Games, mostly. Winning games was good, so we figured out how to hack games. Free games were even better, so we figured out how to get around copy protection. Perhaps in the long view some of us wanted to figure out how to write games of our own, and so we learned to program. But the games came first; if you're telling me you got into computers because figuring out arcane flags for command-line programs was really exciting to you, or you loved figuring out how a floppy-disk filesystem worked, I'm calling you a liar.
Besides, this old trope that "the Mac hides everything from you" has been around since the day the Mac came out, and it wasn't true then and it isn't true now. The reason modern OSes seem to "hide things" is because they are in fact exponentially more complex than the DOSes of the 80s. A kid who "likes figuring things out" has a helluva lot more to figure out in the JDK or the .Net runtime than he did learning machine language for an 8-bit processor.
It sounds like you're arguing that Linux is a better educational tool because it forces you to twiddle around in the command line and "figure things out." When I was a kid, I would have just said "it breaks all the time." I'd have been much happier figuring out the things I wanted to figure out on an OS that worked when I wanted it to do something. (Not a knock on Linux, because I don't actually believe you even need to know much about the command line to run Ubuntu, but that's what you seem to be saying...)
Breakfast served all day!
Hard to believe so many people are still using windows ...
Replace SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS with OPEN SOURCE and MBAs with CLOSED SOURCE in my SIGNATURE.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
But seriously, don't you remember it's the Archon's that are the best, and given enough time in a mission or brutal game, Protoss "should" win over all.
I guess we do all need macs, huh?
2^3 * 31 * 647
Perhaps you've never used Windows to see how it evolved over the versions. Or the major interface shift when they went from Win3.1 to Win95. And then the major Start button redesign with Vista. And now the task bar shift with Windows 7. That's just to name the major noticable things.
Now, look at the file menu at the top of OSX. That was created back when a Mac (and most computers at the time in general) were pretty much only capable of running one app at a time. You could switch to another one, sure, but it was very slow, because it was basically task switching, paging the other one(s) out to the disk. So a single file menu, which changed per application, was a good way to save screen real estate, because you really weren't actively using more than one thing at a time.
Over twenty years later, OSX still has a single file menu along the top. Through ten major iterations of the operating system, and when computers can truly multitask applications, they still left a single file menu, just like version one.
Have you ever noticed that no other operating system out there mimics that functionality? The next biggest contender, Linux, generally mimics Windows, because the Windows interface is functional. There is nothing functional nor efficient about the single file menu design.
Now sure, when they bought NeXTStep and put the pretty OSX layer on top to resell it, they brought the dock over with it, and prettied that up too. But this was still really no major innovation in the interface per se. You can still start your apps the way you always did in Mac OS, via the finder and such. It was just something new to look at, with bouncing icons and all that pretty stuff.
Also, it doesn't have to be thinly disguised, as I will outright say that Macs are just overpriced toys. If you want a computer to do work, you buy a PC. If you want a computer to play games, you buy a PC. What does that leave Macs for? Just people who want to be different, while they use the web and some email.
Enjoy Steve Jobs conning you into buying a whole new computer with every few OS versions.
To be completely honest, there weren't very many good games on the Apple IIgs, other than the Sierra games (Kings Quest, Police Quest, etc.) All of the good games were on the PC. Each game required its own boot disk. Each boot disk required figuring out how to write autoexec.bat and config.sys files. After a while I actually enjoyed figuring out how much lower memory I could free up. I interviewed for a tech support job at Interplay when I was 15, and I answered all of their questions about how to properly configure systems to get the games running, but they didn't hire me because I was too young. I really only got the interview because a friend of mine worked there and we would stay after hours to play Command and Conquer and Quake on the LAN.
Anyway, I digress. I do argue that Linux is a better educational tool because of the command line. A GUI is really just an application that sits on top of the command line and hides what is going on beneath the surface. If kids are really going to understand the computer, they will do it through the command line. You could argue that such low level knowledge is obsolete, and you very well might be right. I think that everyone has different learning styles. I learned a lot about computers when it didn't work right. I learned a lot when I tweaked a file and all of a sudden the computer didn't boot. For me it was like a big puzzle, with a lot of intricate pieces. "Oh, you have to load EMM386 and THEN push things into high memory, but you need the HIMEM switch in config.sys to actually enable it." Things like that. The equivalent in Linux is building the kernel, and including only the parts that are necessary.
You very well may be right that modern OSes are too complex for the command line, 1980s approach to things. My own perceptions are probably blinded by my personal experiences. The command line was a real boon for my career. Comfort with the command line translated to comfort with *nix, comfort with Cisco IOS, comfort with COSMOS and comfort with System75. Most everything these days has a GUI, although I can't speak about 5ESS or whatever switches are being used these days, but they probably do too. These days tech support is a click away, and information is easily accessible. You're probably right. Kids shouldn't worry about playing around in the low levels of the system when the userland world is rich enough to keep them busy. Instead of learning a command line, they should probably be focused on APIs, object classes and the like.
As long as apple has OS X tied to relatively expensive computers that force the purchase of a monitor unless you're willing to go totally underpowered (mini) or overpowered (servers) and requires you to have apple hardware to run OS X (without hacks yes I know they exist) then they will be a niche OS. Don't get me wrong..I love my iMac but I could have had linux up and running on a box with the same specs for 1/4 - 1/2 the price and used an existing monitor.
Ballmer has also stated that the iPhone and RIM don't have 'momentum' (despite selling in colossal numbers), whereas the real market momentum is in 'windows mobile and android'. Which no one buys.
It's all marketing and PR BS. Apple's in a fantastic position, and will continue on that trend. Microsoft may have more money, people, and market share, but they've got nothing worth using it all for. The best they can come up with is a few stolen features, a few half-assed 'innovations', the occasional good idea, and a lot of competitors besieging them on all sides.
Ubuntu releases every 6 months like clockwork; and the quality is good. This simple fact must KILL Microsoft, (in all kinds of different ways).
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
Xen, VMware, KDE & Gnome (which includes better-than-windows-alternatives cd burners, media players, text editors), Wine (running windows applications natively on Linux - awesome really. Darwine doesn't even work half the time in comparison), various office suits (OpenOffice.org, staroffice, koffice etc.) Unreal series of games (that's like 9), Doom series of games (three), America's army, Quake wars, Second life, World of goo (and those are just the games at the top of my head).
Now, with the applications mentioned above. I don't really see how they are more buggy or "just suck" compared to their OS X or Windows equivalents. Sure, there are annoyances, but I can find similar annoyances on either platform.
Sure, there is software which is lacking on Linux, and I'll admit that. That said, I find Krita is quite a viable alternative to Photoshop and yes, it supports the common CMYK colour crap that people complain that Gimp is lacking. The video editing tools on Linux are certainly quite crude, but, Linux already has all the libraries and technology for creating a great movie editor - with software like ffmpeg which is used in xine, vlc, mplayer etc. which can play virtually any format and encode to any format, do you really think that iMovie will have a share of daylight the moment it's produced (when you consider the format and codec support)?
I could go on, but, I don't really see the point.
Jesus, have you ever played stuff like Second life under OS X? It's terrible. The majority of games that are available for OS X and Linux, oftend tend to have weird obscure issues in OS X more-so than Linux.
The reason for that is not to do with Linux compatibility, it's actually to do with the fact that OS X has a buggy opengl infrastructure, buggy drivers. Hell, even the developers of crossover games admitted that for EACH and EVERY SINGLE game that they make compatible for crossover games Mac that they have to add specific fixes, because of how buggy it is. While this is not the case for Linux, Solaris (running crossover application in elf compatibility mode), BSD experimental port of the same software.
Major OS X applications like Photoshop.. Okay, Well, let's see here. Serious graphics designers would use 64bit software to make use of the vast memory support of 64bit system, except Photoshop only has 64bit support under Windows... Beyond that? What major software is there on OS X? Well. There is iTunes (which isn't as good as the opensource alternatives by a long shot), iLife, which... I guess the only advantage it has over the Linux equivalents is the movie editor. But don't forget you generally need to pay for all that and I honestly don't know many people who do movies to begin with (including OS X users).
There is no real interest virtualization technologies - beyond running Windows, which is somewhat of a failing in my opinion, the majority of free, opensource office software is not available or terribly broken on OS X. OS X doesn't even have it's own special niche like Linux does in the server market (virtualization, superior performance, enhanced reliability) the desktop market (superior performance, enhanced reliability, next gen features implemented almost immediately - see desktop compositioning, it goes far beyond Windows and OS X now, free, works almost with any hardware - including hardware windows no longer supports).
And you're trying to tell me
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I don't believe anything else Ballmer says. The guy is the poster child for M$ fuckups these days. Why would anyone believe what he has to say about his companies competition? His statement about Linux actually makes me think Apple is more of a competitor than any of us think.
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
A cross between Mandatory Fun Day and FISH! gone horribly wrong...
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Microsoft sells mostly software which runs on PCs manufactured by other companies - even if they do sell games machines as well.
And mice, and keyboards, and headsets and MP3 players, and..
Trying to twist the data to fit your prejudice will not make it so.
I'm not twisting any data. You are denying the existence of data by diminishing the impact of Apple's software division and Microsoft's hardware division. They aren't small peanuts, and they don't exist solely to push the sales of other divisions, like most cynical slashdotters seem to to think.
...Apple has their own hardware. The reason Microsoft considers GNU/Linux a bigger threat is that it competes with them on their own turf, namely standard PC hardware.
Nope, that was '06.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
It's the first step, remember: "extend, embrace, extinguish".
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Microsoft has historically beaten all competition by driving them out of the market when necessary with free alternatives. This was the key role IE played in defeating Netscape and every one else. Windows beat OS\2 by virtually giving away the OS to every OEM that would install it. They know the value of Free. They cannot compete with free. As long as Linux is out there, they know its just a matter of time. They know that every new DRM strategy, every new virus, Every PC loaded with bloat ware is just another nail in the Windows coffin. Not today, not tomorrow. But within twenty years, you may be setting in front of a Microsoft distro of open source Linux. Microsoft will still be there, but they will no longer be the OS monopoly they are now.
> Microsoft Sees Linux As Bigger Competitor Than Apple
Apple's not a competitor to Microsoft. It's kind of like a tough guy in a movie who picks up one of the bad guy lackies and uses him as a shield against bullets.
Microsoft uses them and their continued existence, at Microsoft's pleasure, as an argument to government that they're not a monopoly. Linux is in much the same spot.
Linux Fan: No, Linux is (blah blah blah blah)
Microsoft: Whatever. I respect your power. Just stay away from 99.9% of the profit center out there.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Apple has accepted it's position in a niche, and isn't going to get out of it. As such, MS has absolutely nothing to fear from them.
Note though that many other things were killing Apple at the time, and the OS they licensed was terrible. You can't reasonably conclude that they couldn't do better now that they have a decent OS.
So wait, the OS 9 > OS X switch is discounted in this 20 year history but the Win 3.1 to Win 95 one is in as "innovative changes"? Like I said - if one is allowed, so must the other be.
The single file menu is the Mac way of doing things. It doesn't hamper multitasking, since only the active application shows the menu bar at the top - if you click on another application during your multitasking, the bar changes to that app. You cannot physically click in two places at once with your mouse, so having the menu bars attached to the windows serves no real purpose. The Mac UI states that the menu is always at the top. No one else "mimics" this because all the Linux UIs tend to mimic the Windows way of doing it. One is not better than the other, it's just whatever method you get used to, or prefer.
If you're going to argue that the fact that the single file menu is a reason that Mac "hasn't innovated" then I am going to say that the fact that Windows has had separate window-based file menus all the time as a reason that they "haven't innovated". Neither OS has changed their UI in that respect. You can't have it both ways.
And if you don't believe that the Dock is anything more than eye candy, then you really are wilfully disregarding its function. It is far more than just eye candy, and the Dock itself has also gone through some UI changes over the years - most recently with the pop out stacks and grid listings in 10.5. Like them or loathe them, they are new and weren't there in 10.0.
Your belief that the Mac is only a toy is also showing ignorance of the Mac as a tool. I don;t doubt that a Windows box is a useful tool (hey, they sell a lot of them and they are everywhere) but the Mac is far more than just a pretty box. People do actually buy them to do useful tasks beyond "web and email" and that you think that's all they're god for is just showing up your ignorance.
Such as it is, Steve Jobs has never conned me into buying a new computer. I am still using all the Macs I have ever bought, none of them bought because they couldn't run the latest Mac OS (like the whole Vista debacle). I bought new machines because I wanted them, not because my powerbook couldn't run 10.5.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Apple has accepted their niche position, and aren't trying to grow out of it. As such, they are absolutely no threat to Microsoft.
TFA is about Linux being a bigger competitor to MS than Apple. My original post points out that this is because Apple isn't even trying to compete with MS in the vast majority of the market.
Oh, and the word is 'losing' not 'loosing', you fucking simpleton.