To Ballmer, Grabbing iPad's Market Is 'Job One Urgency'

Barence writes "Microsoft's Steve Ballmer has vented his frustration at the success of the iPad and said developing a Windows alternative is 'job one urgency.' 'Apple has done an interesting job of putting together a synthesis and putting a product out, and in which they've... they sold certainly more than I'd like them to sell, let me just be clear about that,' Ballmer told analysts. The Microsoft boss said the company plans to deliver a range of tablet formats in the next year, some based on Intel's next-gen Oak Trail processor. 'It is job one urgency around here. Nobody is sleeping at the switch. And so we are working with those partners, not just to deliver something, but to deliver products that people really want to go buy.'" In Microsoft's vision, slates will run a derivative of Windows 7.

Comments

Good luck with that.

[MikeFM]

Did you see their crappy looking Windows tablet mock-up? That's pretty much everything right there. Microsoft has no idea how to make a stable, secure, easy-to-use, attractive product. If it runs standard Windows apps it's just a tiny hard to use PC. If it doesn't then you may as well go with the better made iPad with it's huge lead in apps or even an Android based device. Their only hope is to offer a cheap device for people to dumb to know the difference - it works on the PC.

Bill Gates

[hey]

Bill was into tablets for years
http://www.google.com/images?q=Bill+Gates+tablet

Re:Anger.

[sdpuppy]

Haven't you heard the news?

Market caps are almost the same.

They're both around 200 B and change.

http://www.everythingicafe.com/aapl-passes-msft-in-market-cap/2010/05/26/

http://247wallst.com/2010/05/27/apple-beats-microsoft-in-market-value-msft-aapl/

http://www.9to5mac.com/AAPL-MSFT-345345332

Re:Anger.

[beelsebob]

What are you talking about? Apple is worth more than Microsoft.

Apple: $235.77bn
MSFT: $222.18bn

Bullshit

[Space cowboy]

I really doubt you can find them because that's all complete bullshit.

MS bought a small (150M, I think) as part of a settlement deal, to prevent Apple cleaning their clock in court - MS had been caught ripping off Apple's code and selling it as their own. They later sold all those shares at a profit. From Apple's perspective, by far the larger concession they got from MS was a promise to keep making MS office for 5(?) years as well... They had $2B in the bank when MS bought those shares.

Simon.

Re:Bullshit

[negRo_slim]

"In August 1997, the Company and microsoft Corporation (microsoft) entered into patent cross license and technology agreements. In addition, microsoft purchased 150,000 shares of apple Series A nonvoting convertible preferred stock ("preferred stock") for $150 million. These shares were convertible by microsoft after August 5, 2000, into shares of the Company's common stock at a conversion price of $8.25 per share. During 2000, 74,250 shares of preferred stock were converted to 9 million shares of the Company's common stock. During 2001, the remaining 75,750 preferred shares were converted into 9.2 million shares of the Company's common stock."

http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum9/7140.htm

Re:Bullshit

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Did you follow your own link?

In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apple's "QuickTime piracy" lawsuit against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement.

To resolve the QT code infringement lawsuit, as well as the look-n-feel lawsuit, MSFT agreed to give Apple $150M and continue to make Office for the Mac.

Re:Bullshit

[bonch]

Steve Jobs didn't turn to Bill Gates and ask for $150 million in stocks. Microsoft was required to as part of a settlement deal after getting caught stealing Quicktime code and stuffing it into Video for Windows. The stocks were non-voting stocks and didn't contribute whatsoever to the iMac, iPod, iPhone, or iPad. The expenses of the research and development behind the iPhone alone probably dwarfs $150 million quite handily.

You're a really bad troll. Try harder.

Re:Bullshit

[iamhassi]

"Steve Jobs didn't turn to Bill Gates and ask for $150 million in stocks. Microsoft was required to as part of a settlement deal after getting caught stealing Quicktime code...."

DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE NEWS
http://aroundcny.com/technofile/texts/tec081097.html
"Jobs asked Gates to pledge $150 million in purchases of Apple stock. Gates agreed, but only after getting the deal on sharing trade secrets and the agreement that Apple would promote the Microsoft Web browser. "

There was no settlement deal, no Quicktime code stealing. Stop making stuff up.

Re:Bullshit

[R3d M3rcury]

They didn't have "billions" in the bank at the time, and according to the news $150 million kept Apple from going out of business or being bought out.

As I understand it, Apple did have "billions" in the bank at the time. The problem was, though, they were having to spend those billions.

Back in 1997, Apple was going out of business. Everybody knew it. And Nobody wanted to be left holding the bag. Which means that Apple was getting really bad terms on parts. Nobody wanted to ship Apple a million hard drives to make Macintoshes and then have Apple go belly-up and have to stand in line with the other creditors for pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court. So everyone was demanding lots of money up front for parts.

The 150 million, while paltry, gave the impression that Microsoft was backing Apple. So Apple wouldn't go bankrupt--they'd get bought out by Microsoft. So you could sell stuff to Apple and not worry about getting paid.

I'm a Mac developer and I'd just quit at a company back in 1997. I went away for two weeks to a foreign country so I was pretty far out of the loop. When I got in the plane to return home, I grabbed a copy of the Asian Wall Street Journal. And right there on the front page was a headline that heavily implied that Microsoft had bought Apple for $150 Million. I almost had a heart attack in my airplane seat. As I read the article, it became a bit more clear what had happened. But I wouldn't necessarily trust the newspapers at the time to get the details right.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

When Steve Jobs took over Apple the company was 90 days away from having to file bankruptcy. If I'm not mistaken Bill Gates personally gave Jobs financial backing to help them at this time. Not certain about that but I'm not sure it was done via the MSFT corporate folks.

My point on commenting is this.

Jobs took what he did at Next. Re-worked that OS to run on the Intel chip set. Slimmed it down to run in the mobile touch devices and KEPT MAKING A BETTER OS.

In 10 years Apple went from almost going UNDER to PASSING MS in market cap. Jobs had a vision and a passion. He has built a brand of computer that is not unlike Porsche has for the auto. Folks buy an Apple because the like the overall experience and feel like they are getting their dollar worth.

Along these lines. MS has gone the Wal-Mart strategy of a max production, cheap cost route. Ballmer even recently hired someone from WalMart at the executive level. They focus on cheap and if your computer has a problem you just re-install everything or CTRL-ALT-DEL your computer.

Basically, in 10 years Ballmer has WASTED 200 billion from the companies value. There were BRILLIANT ideas and engineers at MS. Go look at SPACES and that platform. The device was ahead of it's time. I just find it ironic that a touch-table top system built by MS cost 10K and you can get an iPod Touch for $300 but Ballmer calls Apple 'pricy'.

Finally...
Go to this link and listen to the two CEOs: http://allthingsd.com/d/
Jobs has passion and technical focus. You may not like what Apple does but they have VERY good reasons for doing it.

Ballmer has no rhyme or reason for saying ANYTHING. Matter of fact, I can find Ballmer saying the iPhone is a joke and will not make in the market WHILE BEING FILMED by the press.

Ballmer needs to go.

http://allthingsd.com/d/

Re:Ballmer's phrasing is telling

[jimicus]

That's because "$DEVICE running a modified version of Windows" is the only thing Microsoft understands - even when it makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:I don't get it.

[_Sprocket_]

Then why didn't businesses tend to buy Apple IIs?

They did. The Apple II was selling very well as the first business microcomputer. Essentially, it was sold as a VisiCalc machine (one account I read from an early computer shop owner was that people came in to the store wanting to buy that exact setup without knowing what it was they needed to buy). Apple and VisiCalc created a new market and lead that market. But that success also attracted IBM's attention.

Keep in mind the timing here. The Apple II had been in production since 1977. VisiCalc comes out in 1979, the same year Apple produces the Apple II+. That combination changes the market. In 1981, IBM produces the 5150 specifically targeted at business after a rushed 1yr development cycle (completely counter to IBM's culture). VisiCalc is available for the IBM PC.

IBM already has a foot in the door with business customers. Most business computing before then involved mainframes and that was IBM's realm. The phrase "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" comes from this era and really highlights the sales advantage for the IBM PC.

Apple had the initial market dominance. However, while that is often a major advantage, it is not the whole story. The microcomputer market was growing at that time. IBM didn't have to displace Apple. They just had to capture the growing market. And they did.

Re:Anger.

[DriedClexler]

I would like to be the fourth person to whole-heartedly agree, and the first person to wonder why the hell you aren't modded up higher.

(Seriously, that's the thing that's turned me off from Apple products -- how they'll make it so nice but then leave out so many basic features. Put an mp3 on my music player or a pdf on my smartphone? No, I need their fucking iTunes before I can move a goddamn file. Save a few stills from a video? No, I have to repeatedly navigate through the same lengthy directory several times. A calculator with log capability? No, that'll have to wait for OS 10.5 with some dorky cat name.)

Re:Anger.

[a_nonamiss]

1) 1996 - Microsoft introduces Pen Computing Services for Windows 95
2) 2000 - Bill Gates unveils the "Tablet PC" concept at Comdex.
3) 2003 - Microsoft unveils "Windows XP - Tablet PC edition"
4) 2005 - Microsoft "Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005" is released
5) 2010 - HP Slate demoed at CES.

There are a slew of other examples, but GP said at least 5, so he is in fact correct. Gates had the vision almost 15 years ago that Tablet PC's were going to feature prominently in the future of computing, but Microsoft consistently screwed up the execution. (With the exception of a few niche markets, like medical applications, which use the Tablet PC routinely and effectively)

Re:Anger.

[ceoyoyo]

People have tried most USB keyboards and they work. A mouse doesn't really make sense, but if you wanted to write the driver there shouldn't be anything stopping you. People have also tested a bunch of USB microphones and most work.

I've plugged in a USB stick and it's no problem - gets mounted just like on any other UNIX. Apparently the USB port doesn't put out enough juice to run most hard drives, but they should work just fine if you give them external power.

At the moment MobileTerminal doesn't work on the iPad (it's open source, you can fix it yourself if you want) but iSSH works well and also gives you a nice SSH and VNC app for a reasonable price. Last I checked nobody had upgraded gcc to work on the iPad yet (it works fine on the iPhone) but that's probably just a matter of time. I've got Python on mine, but I also saw a ruby interpreter in passing.

Re:Anger.

[DrgnDancer]

That's largely immaterial to the question "Could Microsoft buy Apple", or "How much are these companies worth". Your point is valid, but the worth of a company (the amount required to "buy it") is its market cap. To "own" either Microsoft or Apple, one must own half or more of the stock (crudely, the type of stock matters, and technically you really only need more than anyone else not half). The value of the outstanding stock is therefore highly relevant to the question "could Microsoft buy Apple" and the answer appears (at the moment) to be "no". At least not without destroying itself in the process.

Re:Anger.

[Man On Pink Corner]

... er, iTeleport, nee Jaadu VNC, that is.