Microsoft's Mac Business Unit 460
An anonymous reader writes "Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an interesting piece on the folks who work at the Mac Business Unit for Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft's Mac Business Unit
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.
GM to VW as Mac to Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Needs presentation skills (Score:3, Interesting)
How shall we put this? Their spokesperson could do with just a tad more charisma. Or to be rather more honest, several swimming pools' worth of extra charisma...
Cheers,
Ian
The best part of the article imho (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Talking of Linux, I read
and wondered if Microsoft were thinking of another *nix system...Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
they care... (Score:5, Interesting)
So it tells you, MS can make good software, they just have to actually care.
They also fixed the CSS bugs on Mac IE. That just shows you...something. They have a fix for this, but they wont release it for windows. Add your consipiracy theory here.
Like this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Needs presentation skills (Score:5, Interesting)
For the record i use oo.org on a mac and it does a damn good job, imo.
Credit where credit is due, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Office v.X is really good. Excel is a great application, Word a little less so, PowerPoint tolerable. I'd like to see Entourage made a little more Mac OS X technology-friendly-- e.g., give me the option to use the Mac's Address Book within Entourage. But I think they're still doing a good job overall. The fact that Microsoft supported Quartz so quickly is a great sign. Then, after Microsoft dropped the price of Office v.X after sales were a little dismal showed they were responsive to the market. It goes to show you that when Microsoft has to compete, they can do well.
However, Microsoft doesn't always want to compete -- it's easier to dominate than it is to compete. So when Apple introduced the excellent Safari (and with the success of Camino), Microsoft crumbled like a cookie. The problem is, Internet Explorer was really slow and felt kind of crappy. To this day, whenever you launch it, it bugs you about "making it the default application" while ignoring your request to not display the message again. Not surprisingly, Microsoft killed it (and with it, all Mac compatibility with web designers who insist on designing for Internet Explorer). That action showed the side of Microsoft that all Mac users expect is lurking underneath the shiny, Aqua exterior.
Not surprising really... (Score:3, Interesting)
While they might have their differences and have even taken each other to court over OS appearance etc, Bill Gates has been quoted as saying something along the lines of 'The Apple Mac is the only other computer system worth writing software for'.
Personally I think the Microsoft Mac team [microsoft.com] write some great software. Nice to see common sense transcending the die-hard zealotry we usually see...
Re:they care... (Score:4, Interesting)
with the exception of Outlook (not express) 2001, and any version of Windows Media Player (yes thats what it's called on the mac!) Microsoft software is even some of the best software available for the mac! (i do find myself fighting word and excel a lot though)
interesting, Outlook and WMP aren't products of the MBU, so they are allowed to suck.
Re:they care... (Score:5, Interesting)
Today IE5 for Mac OS is a crumby browser compared to modern offerings such as Apple's Safari, Camino [mozilla.org]/Firebird [mozilla.org], and OmniWeb [omnigroup.com] but back near the turn of the millennium Internet Explorer 5 for Mac OS was praised far and wide as the best browser EVER for Macintosh systems, and arguably the best browser on any platform.
Here is a review [oreillynet.com] at O'Reilly's Mac Developer Center (which has some geek-credit here) where they praise thinks including:
- Blending into the newly released OS X Aqua look
- The "page holder"
- Font controls
- CSS1/2 support
- PNG Support (which is still broken on windows)
- HTML4 support
Here's one [macworld.com] over at macworld that decries it as the best thing since jesus as far as os x browsers are concerned. IE was very impressive, unfortunately Microsoft let it stagnate which hurt all mac users - choice is good.
Another article [mediamall.com] from 2000 that speaks to the quality of the MacIE.
I'm feeding a troll, but whatever.Re:Not only Macs... (Score:5, Interesting)
A *lot* of companies won't eat their own dog food, and that is really funny to me...
Re:The best part of the article imho (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft does make good software. They just don't make it for Windows
Some critical apps missing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GM to VW as Mac to Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
That will happen if they ever figure out a way they can buy Linux. Short of Linus and a bunch of other copyright holders losing their minds, I don't see that happening.
Seriously, why would they even attempt to write software for Linux? Most Linux users (at least on /. anyway) are pretty hostile to Microsoft. It would be kind of like trying to sell cigarettes to the American Cancer Society.
Do the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
It has little to do with marketing budgets; they advertise in Macintosh magazines- they're regularly the first two pages in Macworld. You wouldn't be asking questions if you saw how much Office for the Mac costs.
That's doubtful.. The OS and Office divisions are the cash cows for Microsoft. There is no way the Mac group is more profitable than the Office group.
Office is the Mac group's only product, and further, I specifically said the OS division is more profitable. Read, kay? Jesus, it was even in the text you quoted from my comment.
Here's a few numbers to wrap your head around. 1)MS Office for PCs? Included with almost every PC for nearly free. 2)Office for Macintosh? $400. What's bigger, 5% of the market at $400/copy, or 95% of the market at "near free"? Hmm?
Why do you think the Macintosh version of Office always comes out first? Why do they sign agreements committing to developing it well into the future? Why do you think it doesn't have any pisses-off-customers product activation? Hmm...maybe because they make a shitload of money off it and want to keep the gravy train rolling?
Re:also because... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they get those hardware bundle rates because Microsoft offers them for Windows systems. You can get it, too, just go up on PriceWatch [pricewatch.com] and see how cheap you can get Office 2003 with the purchase of a hard drive.
HP and Dell get an even GREATER discount than you are able to get because of the volume of units they move.
Three reasons to discriminate against Mac users:
1) They have a virtual monopoly on office software for the Mac. Therefore, they can charge each and every Mac user full pop without fear of losing marketshare. I believe Office has consistently been the top-selling software title for Macintosh for a number of years, so what's the motivation to cut the price?
2) It contributes to the general belief that Macs are overpriced. You spend a couple hundred more on the hardware, and then you have to spend an extra $200 more than Windows users for Office? It helps price Macs out of the competitive price range of Wintel systems.
3) Keep Macs out of the lucrative corporate market. Again, they'll sell in volume discount their Windows solutions, but corporate Mac users are stuck.
Not bloatware! (Score:5, Interesting)
I easily spend 1000+ hours a year in Office v.X, and I'm really looking forward to the new version. It's darn complete - there really weren't that many holes, and it looks like they're filling most of them.
Re:The only reason.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I find that Mac users are pretty happy with months of uptime but Windows 2K through XP seem pretty stable with a good patch and antivirus regimen. YMMV. Stability is an issue on any system that doesn't get checkups and patches. Windows is definitely high maintenance in comparison.
Linux is still far from "user-friendly" as a desktop solution. Stable or not, it's still has a huge "geek factor" to bridge before you can just give it to a user without your phone and pager going off every 5 minutes. Talk about high maintenance.
Who cares if they stop making Office for Mac? (Score:5, Interesting)
MS getting ready to shed its skin? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft invented the term "dogfood" (Score:5, Interesting)
I realize that you didn't make the comment above about Microsoft "secretly using Sun servers", but those are the kind of statements that really make me upset because they are demonstrably false. If you ever had an opportunity to visit the Redmond campus, you would see that.
Microsoft invented the term "dogfood." Eating your own dogfood was slang introduced in the DOS days. Dogfood is software that's not even in BETA yet: in other words, not ready for public consumption. Microsoft is famous for having its people eat their own dogfood. It is not like the networking company you worked at.
Other terms first used at Microsoft? Vaporware. Death March. OOF. See other Microsoft jargon [moskalyuk.com].
How many of you were running 2.3.x or 2.5.x kernels before 2.4.x and 2.6.x came out? It's amazing how people on Slashdot just can't seem to give Microsoft credit.
Re:they care... (Score:1, Interesting)
NTLM Login.
Ever try getting any other browser to work on a corporate network where the admins are all the MCSE/Kool-Aid-Drinker type? It's impossible.
I've tried Opera, Mozilla, Netscape, Safari, Omniweb and probably a couple others. Opera, Mozilla, and Netscape were tried on both Mac and Windows. None of them could get through a Win2k Small Business Server proxy. Only IE could, on both Mac and Windows.
That's the *only* justifiable reason to keep IE around, and it's a doozie, IMHO.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Interesting)