Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft and Apple Rumble Into Middle Age

Hugh Pickens writes "Bill Briggs writes on MSNBC that the two tech titans are rumbling into middle age as Microsoft marked its 35th birthday on Sunday and Apple turned 34 late last week. But while Microsoft, to some, appears a tad flabby in the middle — a Chrysler Town & Country driver with a 9 pm bedtime — Apple, in some eyes, looks sleeker and younger — a hipster in a ragtop Beemer packed with chic friends sporting mobile toys. 'The difference between the two companies is that Apple has been fearless about transformational change while Microsoft has been reluctant to leave its past behind,' says Casey Ayers, president of MegatonApps. 'Microsoft has always been loath to change and risk alienating some of its customers, but its inability to leave the past behind has left their product line bloated and dysfunctional.' On current accounting ledgers, Microsoft overshadows Apple: Microsoft's market cap is $255.75 billion; Apple's is $213.98 billion. But Apple is getting awfully big — awfully fast — in Microsoft's rearview mirror. Consider that a decade ago Microsoft's market cap was almost $590 billion and Apple's was about $16 billion. So while Apple cheered its opening weekend of iPad sales, what wish should Microsoft have made when it blew out its birthday candles Sunday? 'More than anything, Microsoft's birthday wish should be for fearless leadership,' says Ayers. 'Without someone at the top who feels an urgency to constantly innovate in meaningful ways, Microsoft will shrink and become less relevant with each birthday to come.'"

14 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Not really so by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft has always been loath to change and risk alienating some of its customers

    Uh, maybe if you're only looking at Windows and/or Office products. They also seem to do greatly, so why fix something that isn't broken?

    But with some of their other divisions I wish they didn't change. Anyone else remember such from Microsoft Games as Flight Simulator, Age of Empires series, Halo, Train Simulator, MechWarrior, Links, Midtown Madness, Motocross Madness.. Now that they changed they're not publishing or developing those kind of games anymore. In fact no one is. Microsoft Games is just for Xbox 360 anymore.

    "Without someone at the top who feels an urgency to constantly innovate in meaningful ways, Microsoft will shrink and become less relevant with each birthday to come."

    Just yesterday slashdotters laughted how Microsoft is burning money on their online division like Bing and other properties, how it's completely useless. Which one it is now, to think long term or not to think?

    1. Re:Not really so by SargentDU · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many of those games you mention are acquisitions by Microsoft, not developed in-house. That is not innovation, it is acquisition.

    2. Re:Not really so by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft Games as:

      • Flight Simulator - developed by subLOGIC.
      • Age of Empires series - developed by Ensemble Studios and which withered after MS's acquisition,
      • Halo - developed by Bungie, another company that made awesome products until MS bought them.
      • Train Simulator - developed by Kuju Entertainment and licensed to MS.
      • MechWarrior - developed by Dynamix, is this owned by MS now?
      • Links - developed by Access Software, again bought by MS afterwards.
      • Midtown Madness - Developed by Angel studios, part of Rockstar, later bought by Take2. I don't think this is owned by MS though.
      • Motocross Madness - developed by THQ, part of Rainbow, not MS.

      You've put together a lovely homage to MS's buying out and ruining of good game companies since every good game you came up with was developed by a company that MS bought out after they made something good, or which you thought was made by MS but was actually not. More than half the companies no longer exist having been mothballed by MS.

    3. Re:Not really so by DJRumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe the newest browser you can put on Windows 98 is IE5 or IE6. I went through that practice in a virtual machine. IE7 supports only XP and above.

      Vendors on the MS side tend to support their 3rd party products longer. Browsers like Firefox, Opera, etc are 3rd party applications, not MS supported apps. You would be hard pressed to find any vendor that sent out software with Windows 98 software support listed in it's specs. Firefox no longer supports Windows 98 either.

      Jaguar 10.2 was released 8 years ago. It is not unreasonable that it is no longer supported. They have replaced the processor architecture since then, switching from PPC to Intel. The same goes for 10.3, which was supported under PPC. At some point, it makes sense to drop support for a hardware platform that is no longer actively being produced.

      http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

      Considering Windows 98 doesn't even make the chart, would you spend time supporting it? What about Windows 2000? It has .6% of the population, which is a fraction of even Linux numbers.

      Your argument sounds good on the surface, except for the fact that I don't know a single person who still uses 98, ME, or 2000 for that matter. Why would a company waste dollars supporting an infinitesimal population of hardware when an upgrade is only a few hundred dollars. Add to that, the popularity of laptop computers, which are prohibitively expensive to service. It's usually cheaper to replace them if you have any sort of failure outside of the 'disposable' components like HD's, Memory Sims, or optical drives.

      Every business I have worked for in the last 15 years upgrades their PC hardware every 2-4 years. I'm betting most home users do the same but at twice those intervals (4-8 years), either due to desire, or component failure.

      The business model would certainly work well for businesses, and also works well for home users. Mac users tend to have more disposable income. It certainly isn't hurting the Apple bottom line, and you get a leaner OS in the bargain.

      In the end, the 3rd party vendor support is far more important than the OS itself. The oddest thing is that Apple is far more popular with the home user crowd even though the support model would seem to be more in line with business practices in regards to sunsetting old hardware. I can only assume the Mac users have more disposable income is a factor. Although I'm sure there are still PPC's out there still ticking along, the bulk have probably long since upgraded to an Intel Mac.

  2. Fanbois spew summary by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God, I just lost 40 IQ points reading the garbage summary. Can you be any more biased?

    1. Re:Fanbois spew summary by gsgriffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm allowed to disagree on /. I hope. Bias that is trying to sway people by leaving out all the facts is not helpful.

      Apple is the THE most monopolistic company involved in electronics today. At one time, the fanboys used to point fingers at MS at being the big monopoly. Now Apple controls all software, hardware, distribution for everything the touch. Sure they make good products, but they were also positioned in such a way that they could screw over their base and make huge OS changes over the past 30 years and leave all previous software behind. You upgrade to new OS, you buy all new software too. Apple could do that with only a handful of buyers. MS on the other hand had millions of corporate and individual users that couldn't afford to purchase completely new versions of all of their software they bought.

      Did MS lack the ability to change and advance fast, OR did market mandate that they move slow? I think a reasonable argument could be made for the latter. I know that through each new version of OS that MS produced, I was able to keep the thousands of dollars of software I had invested in. Now with Win 7 working wonderfully, I would expect to see more Apple attacks so they don't lose ground against MS.

      --
      jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  3. Fearless Leadership? by necro81 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More than anything, Microsoft's birthday wish should be for fearless leadership," says Ayers. "Without someone at the top who feels an urgency to constantly innovate in meaningful ways, Microsoft will shrink and become less relevant with each birthday to come

    There's another component you need if you want to use fearless leadership and disruptive innovation to be the bedrock of your success: you need to also be right. Apple's taken some big product risks. None of them were exactly bet-the-company-big risks, but pretty risky. The fact that we're still talking about Apple is that they've taken chances and been right. There are plenty of companies out there that had a scary-cool product or technology, something transformational, but missed something along the way: misjudged the market, misjudged their capital needs, rushed a buggy product to market, etc. Don't hear much from those companies anymore.

    While there's something to be said for bluffing in poker and going all in, it's much better to go all in when you've got the cards. You can bluff and buy the pot only so many times before someone calls you on it and you're out of the game.

  4. Not that hard to understand by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft has been consistently successful - in and of itself, that makes it hard to "leave the past behind". Over the same period, Apple made a slew of really bad decisions which brought the company pretty much into irrelevance by the mid-1990s. For Apple, leaving the past behind was an asset - Apple basically had to make itself over just to survive. That's served Apple well this decade, but let's not forget where they were (compared to Microsoft) previously.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Your Description Of Apple As Hipster by SplicerNYC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Could not be more obnoxious sounding. Only hipsters love hipsters because they often don't see how truly annoying they are.

  6. Re:Sleeker and younger? by confused+one · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before you offer him that steak, you better check to see what his partial digestive tract and donor liver can tolerate.... Guy's been through a lot lately, give him a break. I don't care how powerful he is or how much money he has, cancer's a bitch and I don't wish it on anyone.

  7. Not as much competition as you'd think... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apple has basically avoided the corporate market, which is where most of Microsoft's money is made, however much ground they are gaining in the home market. Toes are being stepped on, to be sure, but I just don't see Microsoft and Apple as being on a collision course for the most part. Given the conservative nature of the corporate market, what's much more likely is that Apple will end up as the dominant home player, at least for a while, and Microsoft will follow IBM into being solely a corporate player.

    The danger to Apple is that very large enterprises always ossify, and the market they are coming to dominate in the short term -- which is basically home entertainment electronics -- is vastly more competitive and unstable than the PC market has ever been (or likely ever will be). When much of your appeal is driven by current fashion trends, you're vulnerable in a way that a vendor of business software seldom faces.

    Note that I'm not saying Apple is doomed or any similar nonsense. Apple is doing very well and probably will continue to do so for some time, and Microsoft will probably continue its slow decline. What I'm saying is that Microsoft and Apple are less and less in competition with each other. Apple will probably spend a lot more time in the future competing with companies like Sony and JVC and LG than it does with Microsoft, and they'll most likely do very well, at least as long as Jobs is at the helm. After Jobs, I'm rather less sanguine about Apple's future because people like Jobs (or, for that matter, Gates) tend not to groom their successors very well.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  8. Re:This isn't a troll, just my opinion. by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft fanboys don't pretend they are better than you...they pretend the products they use are better than the products you use. I'm fine with that. I've been a gamer and internet lurker for a very long time, I'm used to that sort of thinking. While I personally think it's stupid to lock yourself into only one option (i.e. I owned both an SNES AND a Genesis), I understand why some people have that kind of mentality.

    Apple fanboys, however, go beyond mere brand loyalty. Apple fanboys insinuate that they are a better person than I am simply because they use Apple products and I don't. That is something I have absolutely zero patience for.

  9. Re:Steves coolaid by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Again, someone who doesn't understand that his priorities are not the ones of the mainstream consumer electronics user. "Hitting the right notes with the right people" is the only thing that matters, especially when the "right people" are a customer base that just about anyone would give their right arm for. Nobody except the geeks out there care about the things you complain about. The Apple systems work, you can find an application for almost anything you want to do, and the price point is not excessive for the perceived value.

    Mainstream engineers with attitudes like yours have had sixty years of computing history (and forty-some odd years since the advent of the personal computer - note, I count this time since Kay's work on Dynapad and the Alto at Xerox PARC) to deliver a good user experience. They have failed. You hype systems (like Windows and Linux) which, although open, force users into the role of system administrator all too often and deliver inconsistent user experiences.

    Apple, on the other hand, has succeeded. That they did so by walling the garden makes little difference to their customers. Understand that and you will understand the future. Disregard it and you'll be consigned to the dust heap of history. If you want to fight their closedness, you first have to make your open systems appealing and easy to use. Get a clue, people.

    --
    That is all.
  10. Re:Woo hoo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, forget about being a co-author. You have a 5-digit /. UID - now that is crazy cool!