Slashdot Log In
Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:41 AM
from the bite-outa-the-apple dept.
from the bite-outa-the-apple dept.
ttom writes "OSWeekly.com looks at Microsoft's promotional strategy and concludes that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game." From the article: "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they? By the way, please don't take my sarcastic tone as an expression of my dissatisfaction for the product. I think it's great, and I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp. I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article's opening line & premise the rest of the article is based on is incorrect:
No. Boot camp made a small stir, but the vast majority of people out their still see Mac PCs as very different from WIndows PCs (and don't understand the dual boot process anyway). Macs are still getting far more ipod splashback publicity than they were five years ago.
A more interesting discussion would be "Why Dell Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game"? After all, two years ago I know I certainly wouldn't have expected to see:
1) Apple rushing to join an Electronics Industry Code of practice founded by Dell after sweatshop scandal rumours.
2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.
Both those items are areas I expect Apple's marketing (if not reality) to shine, but instead it's Dell with all the glory.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why is Apple beating Dell at its own game?"
Apple's Mac Pro is cheaper than an equivalent Dell. Dell has even admitted this, a spokesman sagely saying "it is what it is".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dell is the #1 PC manufacturer, and they advertise pretty heavily. HP is #2, but fewer people think of HP when they think of buying a PC.
Also, Michael Dell and Steve Jobs have some history.
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's cheapest products are midrange in the market, and they shine at the high-end. Apple is competing with Lenovo, Toshiba, and Sony for customers with an eye toward total presentation & overall quality, and a bit more flexibility in the pocketbook.
There's this silly horse-race attitude in technology commentary, that any company that doesn't have the largest marketshare in their industry is doing something wrong. Typically in any industry gaining the majority means making certain sacrifices (for instance, Microsoft could never break backwards compatibility as often as Apple does -- their huge installed corporate base would balk) Hence there's a lot of money to be made in targeting niches where one size doesn't fit all.
Apple would have a very rough time becoming Dell and keeping the qualities that make their particular market so lucrative and loyal.
Parent
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with Dell as the price comparison? It is the most common.
I just did a comparison with Asus. A nearly equivalent MacBook is a few hundred dollars cheaper, albeit without the graphics card. The Asus is lighter, but the MacBook is smaller, and a lot more nicely made. This isn't taking into account OS X, which is the main reason the MacBook is better.
One thing about Asus that I really despise is all of the different models. They have useless alphanumerical names, and take a long time to look through. Surely a "1.8 GHz AsusBook" would be more helpful than an "ASUS kajf0394jljfsdd09fadfkaj". Car makers (particularly foreign ones) do this too, and it is quite irritating.
But if I ever want a Lamborghini laptop, I'll buy an ASUS. Hooray for useless models.
The only real advantage that PCs have for hardware is being able to build your own desktop, and being able to buy really, really cheap (in price, performance, and quality) PCs. The low end ones also have more customization options (which their buyers won't use). These are pretty big advantages for some people, though.
Parent
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the reason is simple -- every Mac fan online has been bombarded for years by Windows fans using low-end Dell computers to "prove" that Apple's computers are overpriced. Like here [zdnet.com], and here [zdnet.com].
Obnoxious Windows zealots have been making such a comparison for years -- do you really expect Mac zealots to stay silent now that the opposite is true?
Yaz.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I bask in the magnificence of your 45mph linux computer. I wish I was as cool as you.
Greenpeace report on Apple was a scam (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.
If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent. [roughlydrafted.com]
It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.
Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple [roughlydrafted.com].
Parent
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone who can use the phrase "Apple-hostile media" in the middle of a serious rant deserves a +5 funny!
Parent
You heard it there first. (Score:5, Funny)
Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't even be surprised to see a wrapper that installs Windows apps on Macs to run without a full version of Windows installed... As a Mac professional, this prospect scares the crap out of me.
Ahem... [codeweavers.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know-- I think many Mac users won't quite be satisfied with running the crossover office windows version of their app. It'll be enough for them to get by and ditch Windows, but they won't quite like it. How many Mac users use OpenOffice, for example? How many people will be happy when there's a good, stable, up-to-date native OSX version?
So I think that this sort of thing will encourage switchers, and the increased user base will encourage native development. Hopefully.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
* Microsoft Outlook
* Microsoft Project
* Microsoft Visio
* Half-Life 2
* Quicken
Not a giant list of supported apps in the end (although many may work without "support"...). One would think the choices are about filling gaps with missing OS X apps that are popular or loved on the Windows platform, but its a funny lis
Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps?
Maybe because Windows itself isn't working well for you? I have to say that, as the manager of an IT department, I'm tired of being over the barrel with Microsoft. It's restrictive and insecure, and I'm supposed to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade to Vista in order to get an OS which hopefully might possibly work, meanwhile locking myself further into a vendor which has caused me nothing but headaches? No thanks.
Now, I'm all in favor of people using whatever system works for them, and if Windows does the job for you, more power to you. In my mind, anything that lets me move to OSX, or better yet Linux, is a good thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See, If there are two applications that do the same thing, but one runs under CrossOver/Parallels/BootCamp and the other is native,as a user I'll opt for the native version without any doubts.
The Mac is a niche market, it's very easy to loose your userbase if you do something stupid, like offering some lame emulated version of you app. Somebody else will be waiting to offer your users a better alternative.
I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd say OSWeekly knows who their biggest advertiser is and are pandering to them.
12 year old emo followers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, you have to be slightly brain damaged to think that MS is better at whole-system integration than Apple.
Take a survey of 100 Bootcamp\Virtualization Users (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say you are wrong here. The publishing industry in general has that sort of industry practice. If I buy a book and it has an error in it, I don't take it back to the publisher for them to fix it. In fact, they might (or might not) fix it in their next release. If I buy a newspaper and there is an error in it, they print a correction in a newer paper a few days later - they don't recall or warranty the
Not sure I understand (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:4, Informative)
To me, that is Apple. Yes their computers aren't the cheapest, but in 3 years I had to replace my desktop Dell 3 times due to hardware problems. Yes Apple has had hardware problems too, but the quality of hardware IS high, and the Mini is a really nice bit of engineering, as is my Nano.
Basicly Apple does the same thing as most premium manufacturers. They charge more for a product that is better and sexier.
If you are confused with Apple's product lines you have never gone to Dell or HP for computers.
I call you troll:)
Parent
The only people losing out... (Score:5, Interesting)
My next laptop purchase is going to be a Macbook early next year. The reason?
It can run Windows, that simple. There is software for windows that simply isn't available for OS X that I need. Conversely there is software on OS X that I need that I normally run under a VM with Linux. You could say Linux is a loser in this too.
But Microsoft having the beatdown on them? Nope, Apple see Windows as not going away anytime soon and frankly the majority of OS X users will use OS X the majority of the time. Apple are gaining pc users because of bootcamp.
I own a homebuilt pc and a Thinkpad, so i'm currently not a mac user and hadn't considered a Mac until the Macbook.
NB. I haven't read the article as it's not available.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
for Windows but not Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
We'd all own piles of dog crap too if some one was smart enough to make us all believe we need it.
-ps: the use of boot camp is cheating, btw, imo. As well, I think Multi-booting is just plain inconvenient. Too much time to take to traverse from OS to OS in time of need. I do it. Done it for years. Linux, Mac, and Windows in many forms on many machines. But it's too time consuimg. A person could be better off owning multiple machines running different platforms. Period. As well have tons less heartaches and oh-shit-this-didn't-work-smacks-to-the-forehead about how much time has been wasted setting it all up only to discover som ething trivial, yet major, like wireless driver failure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BootCamp is a bullet point.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Switching to Intel closed the price, performance and (with BootCamp or Paralells) the application compatability gaps; advantage Cupertino. Apple reported their best hardware sales quarters ever just recently, and I have read some speculation that they sold 50% more MacBooks than they expected this quarter (not sure how true that is but the delays in shipping make it plausible). My local Apple Store is literally jammed all day long, including week days and the wait at the Genius Bar is upwards of an hour most days. I seriously doubt all that bustle is for XP install on BootCamp???
The only category that might truly suffer from BootCamp existing is game development, porting is expensive and this is the kind of easy way out the big game publishers love.
On second thought I might install BootCamp with Leopard... if it will let me run Ubuntu?!
Article missed the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe OSNews has missed the point.
Apple has always touted OSX as a superior experience to Windows, and is continuing to do so.
However, it is simply reality that many folks have Windows programs they need to run as well. Between Boot Camp and the various VM approaches Apple now has that option covered nicely.
Where does that leave Macs exactly? As:
- The worlds most versatile computers.
- Powered by a superior, more secure OS.
- Able to run legacy Windows applications as need be.
Windows continues to chug along on its own momentum, but I expect Mac sales to do VERY nicely. The vast majority of Mac user time will be spent in MacOS X, I predict. I also predict more and more native MacOS game ports over time, as the userbase swells.Apple laptops = yum (Score:3, Interesting)
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as the Thinkpads - here's a little secret: buy used. Many businesses seem to replace the things after a year, so you can find lightly-used examples with plenty of life left in them for significantly less than they'd cost new. (I paid $280 for a Thinkpad T23 - granted, this is was a 3 yr old computer at time of purchase, b
Aim: Sell more Mac hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.
Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.
As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.
The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.
Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.
The author is missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The article meanders around without making much of a point, but this seems to be the gist of it:
He goes on to say:
Of course Microsoft is unconcerned, because they make money by selling Windows. They are not a PC OEM. Apple has a different business model. The company makes most of its money selling hardware. The well-integrated OS and hardware are what coax consumers to buy Macs. You can't have one without the other and still call it a Mac. As us old fogies remember, Apple tried letting other companies build Macs, and it was not exactly a rousing success for Apple. Sales of clones ate into Apple's market without building overall market share.
Boot Camp and the various virtualization technologies are giving Windows users the opportunity to buy Apple hardware and compare the Mac experience with the Windows experience on the same machine, with no special technical expertise required. So far the results have been overwhelmingly positive [apple.com] for Apple. There's a reason Apple was confident enough to bring a x86 processor into Macintosh hardware again (it's been done before [everymac.com]). Apple knows that if customers compare Windows to OS X head-to-head, OS X will gain users. If even a small percentage of new Mac purchasers make OS X the primary OS on their Mac, OS X will gain marketshare.
So far the strategy appears to be working. The low "green" rating for Apple is unfortunate, but it's not going to keep people from buying Macs. Dell, the company Jobs considers as Apple's biggest rival, isn't exactly kicking ass [msn.com], and Microsoft's troubles with Vista [nytimes.com] are well-known.
How is it that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game?
I'll say this again (Score:3, Insightful)
For the average user you have a nice selection of well thought out applications and I system that requires less fighting to get things working. For the developer you have a Unix environment to feel at home in. On the down side is the lack of software like AutoCAD and issues working with Microsoft group ware.
Great shades of OS/2, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
I miss OS/2.
It's not a game, it's a meta-game. (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is a master of meta-game. It starts products and initiatives it intends never to win, or to win and stagnate, all the time.
Boot camp is a perfect example of a meta-game move. There is no way that users running windows on Mac hardware is good for Apple. But being able to is valuable. Ideally, people decide that getting a Mac is less risky, because they can always boot Windows if they need to, or even switch back. The key question is how confident they are their operating system is superior to Windows. If the answer is "very", then it's on balance a good thing that dual booting is possible. If the answer is "on par", then it's a bad thing.
Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one reason. I really don't believe it is the only reason. I don't think anyone except a few of the more extreme Mac Zealots are claiming that OS X is perfectly secure. If Apple achieves 50% market share, of course there will be a few attacks made for it. Even Apple admits that OS X isn't perfectly secure. What they are saying is that OS X is more secure than Windows. Just the fact that pretty much any user program on OS X can run on a heavily restricted user account, provided the restricted user has perms to run that software, says a lot right there. Some Windows software practically requires you to use high-privilege accounts just to run software, and Windows by itself doesn't warn users if something is trying to be installed silently.
I imagine Apple's licensing policy for HFS.
Now something like that has been brought to the Windows world. What is Microsoft's NTFS licensing policy like?
Parent
Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Interesting)
If OS X was to be less of a target because of its marketshare, reasonable people would expect the picture to be the same as it was with the Classic Mac OS. That had a hundred or more viruses IIRC. Of course that's nothing compared to what Windows had at the same time, and you could probably put that down to marketshare, since the Classic Mac OS was not renowned for its security.
But OS X has not had a single virus in the wild AFAIK, nor do OS X users suffer from malware. It stands to reason that there must be other factors preventing the spread of malicious software on the OS X platform. Why can't people simply admit that Apple has released a pretty secure platform?
Microsoft on the other hand has released a Swiss cheese operating system that simply can't compete with OS X security wise, marketshare differences or not.
Now let's be fair. I actually (and perhaps naively) believe that Vista will fix a lot of the security problems the Windows platform has faced. It's not going to be perfect, but Windows users should be quite a bit better off than they were. When this happens, the same marketshare trolls will be trumpeting how superior Windows is to OS X security-wise. People can't have it both ways, no matter how much they try.
Parent
Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time my Mac bitched at me about upgrading hardware invalidating my license for the OS, or required some stupid activation process so I could log in.
Never.
I upgraded my fathers computer to a new Core 2 system on the weekend and went through so much pain getting his system working; once I resolved the initial hardware issue and was able to actually boot an OS Windows XP decided to tell me it wasn't activated and prevented me from continuing until I activated it. I hadn't even had a chance to install the network drivers so I was forced to make a phone call to activate it.
Then it decided it wasn't a legitimate copy of Windows XP. Seems the date & time were wrong and therefor the copy of windows couldn't possibly be authentic.
Due to the hardware issues I had ran across trying to get the system setup I stripped it down to damn near nothing and installed things one at a time. At which point, an hour after I had got it up and running and passed the first authentication/illegal copy BS, I installed the rest of the memory and hooked up the other harddrive, and installed the soundcard. Then Windows decided it was upgraded too much and needed activation again. Atleast this time I had 3 days grace and could finish configuring the system. Unlike the first time where I wasn't even allowed to log in.
I tried the online activation at this point since I now had all the drivers installed and everything was working well. Online activation was refused as obviously the computer had been upgrade too much and I was in violation of the license; so then it required me to call the automated services again to get a new code.
At which point it refused to give me one as well and sent me to an actual live person.
The live person then asks me what changed, etc, and how many computers the os was installed on. The answer? 1. This is a retail Upgrade copy of Windows XP Pro. It is fully, and legally licensed; I would have had less hassle if the damn thing was a pirated copy!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you misunderstood. The upgrade which was performed was equivalent to buying a new computer; and doing so with an Apple is easier. On a PC if it were truely a new computer we would have had to re-install all the applications. We were able to skip that step for the most part. On a Mac you can just link the new and the old computers together and have it move everything over. Even if the old mac is dead, but the harddrive is ok It's still easier to deal with. (In which case I'd throw the hd in an enc
Re:Boot Camp (Score:4, Interesting)
At the 3 software development companies I've worked at in the last year, all XP stations, crash frequently. This isn't specifically XP's fault, but the fault of the apps or specific needs of developers. If you leave it running at the login for months, I'm sure it's very stable...and useless.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My WinXP hasn't crashed on me neither. But right now I'm trying to find out why my computer with WinXP is telling me that I have "Limited or no connectivity" from my network. A network which worked flawlessly last night. Works with my MacBook Pro. Even using the same ethernet cable for my WinXP computer in the MacBook works. But still my WinXP tells me that my cable might be unplugged (I did remember to put it back in) or that my gateway/router is not configured right.
How fucked up can Windows XP be?!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You realise that this nag-screen exists because there are lots of people in the world who [a] never switch off their computer and [b] completely ignore any and all online updates that are downloaded, right? If you think Microsoft does this simply
Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Function depends on form (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they did say 'in comparison' : ) There are some things which could be a lot better in OS X - including some of those you mentioned, though I'd disagree about dragging off the dock - those are links to files, not files themselves, and the user wouldn't want to drag them to the desktop. The same principle is used for toolbar icons and icons in the favourites list in the finder - it's not used only in the Dock.
Re separating the functions in the Do
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like the crazy file selector dialogs that force you to laboriously click your way through the folder hierarchy, because Apple has decided you shouldn't want to save time by just typing the path in
Type a path? That takes forever! Hit the Finder in the dock and drag the folder you want into the file selector. Or drag the exact file you want. Most of the time I have the folder I'm working in open in the Finder anyway.
If you have frequently-visited folders, drop them into the
Quicktime Pro (Score:4, Informative)
The "stupid" thing about Quicktime is that you need the Pro version to view videos in full-screen. That feature is something that regular users need, not professionals.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is true, but the Dock isn't supposed to be consistent with the rest of the system, it's supposed to be unique and separate. I find the left/top side of the Dock to behave in a very reasonable way. The right/bottom side is a bit weirder.
and where a whole bunch of totally different tasks -- launching applications, monitoring running tasks, etc. -- are all mixed together
Launching and monitori
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)