Slashdot Log In
Why Microsoft Should Fear Apple
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:43 AM
from the sneaky-fruit dept.
from the sneaky-fruit dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Vista Taking a Nibble Out of Apple in OS Wars? 406 comments
PetManimal writes "Despite all of the positive buzz about the Mac operating system and the 'halo effect' of iPod sales, Mac OS X market share actually dropped last month, reports Computerworld: 'The share of PowerPC-based Macs fell ... from 4.29% in February to 3.94% in March. That dip was not fully offset by an increase in Intel-based Mac hardware, leading to a overall net decline in Mac share of 0.3%, to 6.08% in March.' Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS. The figures are from a company called Net Applications, which collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of 40,000+ Web sites."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Apple - Great Image (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
control group (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, he hasn't received millions of emails from people who haven't made the switch. This is why "buzz" is misleading instead of using real data. Maybe the "buzz" leads to more people switching to Apple, but if you don't actually measure it, how would you know??
Apple is doomed! No, Microsoft is doomed! No, ... (Score:5, Interesting)
(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!
why? you still need an os install disk... (Score:5, Insightful)
DELL or other pc manufactureres should be scared of macs.
Our "Enterprise" Experience (Score:5, Interesting)
- 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.
Parent
Baloney. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure baloney, Scot Finnie.
How do you measure buzz? You don't. It's something that experienced people in this industry can just feel.
Would you buy stock in a company based on "buzz"? Doubt it. At least these days, in the post dot-bomb world anyways.
What Apple does currently have is momentum. They keep making good decisions and carving out markets. And that's why MS should fear them. MS is already losing in the junior leagues (Zune vs. iPod). Enough of that, and maybe MS will start losing in the big leagues (OS and Office).
Why Microsoft doesn't really give a shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Why Microsoft doesn't really give a shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, you may run XP in Parallels now, but will you buy new Windows software? Will you buy anything that says 'Vista only' on the box? Or will you just slowly replace your old XP apps with Mac apps, and then forget about your VM? I would guess that the latter is more likely for most switchers.
Parent
The Anti-Buzz (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Mini-Microsoft May Be Revealing (Score:5, Insightful)
In isolation, individual blogs may be just some people blowing off a bit of steam, or may be representative of a few dissatisfied staffers.
Taken together, they paint a picture of a company that's in danger of losing its way.
It's hard to know just how representative the sum of these blogs is. They're all pretty self-selecting, after all. If they paint a relatively accurate picture, then Microsoft is missing some key things Apple's recently gotten right:
* Management who understand their products at every level and pitch them well. Anyone who's presented to a large crowd knows how hard this is, but Steve Jobs is a complete master at it.
* Getting the product's look and feel right first time. Pick up a new Apple product. Touch it. Look at the surfaces. They always look great. People react to this, equating professional finish with professional products.
* Focus on product lines, with no products bleeding more money with every unit sold. There's no Apple product I've heard of where each unit sold is a loss to the company. The units both R&D and then start to generate profit. Even iTunes with its razor thin profit pays for itself. This shows solid business planning, solid budgeting and is very well respected by the investors.
* Staff who keep pretty damn quiet about the internal stuff. Apple have a policy on communication, and very few staff feel they need to start some kind of Mini-Apple in response. Few companies allow staff to communicate, as it's just too easy for staff to send the wrong message. The company I work for is vast beyond the dreams of Apple or Microsoft, and we train all staff about external communications (in normal policy & procedure training). The impression Apple gives is that of a tightly run company.
Apple present as a company focused on a few core lines - home computing, professional media/art computing and entertainment. It's easy to see how just about everything they do fits those lines.
Microsoft are all over the place. Their core is clearly Windows and Office, but they've dipped metaphorical toes into media, gaming, tablet computing, robotics, handhelds, peripherals, mobile phones, web searching and more. Some non-core lines are very successful (XBox-360) but they all seem to be in the red, only able to be pursued due to the huge cash reserves brought in by the core lines. Few businesses would do this, even very rich businesses (such as GE) demand each product or division runs a profit and improves year on year. That's sustainable business practice, but Microsoft seems to believe deep pockets last forever.
Microsoft are looking tired, but they can pull things together. Cut some of the non-core lines loose - sell them off. Get out and understand how people want to use stuff before building a product (Zune wireless sharing is a notable failure here). Savage the management layers to shake out dead wood at *all* levels, review all current projects with a view to killing most of them and refocus the (smaller) company on the smaller range of product lines.
Microsoft can waste energy competing with Apple and Google, but they needn't bother. Neither is a threat and the market's easily big enough for everyone. The biggest enemy they seem to have is themselves and their existing products.
To recap a film metaphor - remember when Luke Skywalker went into that cave near Yoda's house on Dagobar? He met Darth Vader, then fought and killed him. The mask covering the head exploded, revealing Luke's own face. His greatest enemy at that point was his own nature.
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft shouldn't be too worried until Apple begins to sell OS X for installation on hardware besides theirs
If their smart, they'll worry much before that. First, unless you're some sort of a Mac-ophobe, there isn't a real reason why you can't buy a Mac if you want to run OSX. You can buy one machine and gain the ability to run OSX, Windows, Linux, and whatever else runs on x86 hardware (EFI aside). Contrary to what you hear, Macs aren't really expensive for what you get, so if Apple gets some more market segmentation, most of the reasons to buy a Dell with fall away. The only market they'll be missing are the homebrew people, which is a market I'm sure Apple can live without.
And, of course, Apple doesn't need to get a majority market-share in order to be a danger to Microsoft. It's sufficient that people will start saying, "So why doesn't Windows let me do [such-and-such]?" Microsoft has relied on vendor lock-in for years, and any competitor gaining even a significant market share means that there will be market forces for them to open up a little more. To explain it a different way, if you see Macs creep into everyday life a bit more, you'll find a lot more heterogeneous environments. If Microsoft doesn't use open standards in order to interoperate with Macs, it will be clear that they are blocking productivity and the people maintaining those environments will be more likely to choose something more open.
So, in this sense, a single Unix-y alternative OS getting through the doors will probably open the door for others to come in, too. By gaining 10-15% market share, Apple might actually increase Linux adoption as well.
Right now, Microsoft is feeling pressure on many fronts to use open standards and open formats, and that can only be a good thing.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since almost all PCs (including Macs) these days are x86 based (including x86-64), I'm surprised that game publishers haven't taken to releasing games on bootable discs with their own OS. Would game players really care if they have to boot their PC from the disc to play? Plenty of bootable live-OS examples out there to choose from.
Parent
Re:Microsoft should worry until... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Parent
Re:rolls eyes (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Same story, different decade (Score:5, Insightful)
Were we to have an honest, reasonable discussion, I'd ask you to provide evidence that the majority of those who use Apple products are obsessed with image. I'd present dozens of product reviews in mainstream publications which praised the usability and practicality of various Apple products. But this is Slashdot, so as long as you state something as if it were an objective fact, somebody will mod you up.
Parent
No problem! (Score:5, Insightful)
That, and the amount of time you don't spend on stuff you shouldn't have to spend time on.
If it adds up, then PC is for you. No biggie.
But for most people I know (that are below average technically able), they convert to Macs and rave about them afterwards
Parent
Re:What about the Switch-back? (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't met many switch-backers that say WHY they weren't as productive. Could you not find programs you liked? Did OS X do something different that you didn't like?
I don't have a problem with you switching back, it's just the lack of a reason WHY weren't you as productive.
Parent
Re:No way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite being profitable BMW should try a different tactic.
Parent