Theaetetus writes "In an interview with USA Today, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer claimed there is no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. The article also deals with Microsoft's friction with the Justice Department, friction with Google, and the profitability of MSN. 'No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get. In the case of music, Apple got out early. They were the first to really recognize that you couldn't just think about the device and all the pieces separately. Bravo. Credit that to Steve (Jobs) and Apple. They did a nice job. But it's not like we're at the end of the line of innovation that's going to come in the way people listen to music, watch videos, etc. I'll bet our ads will be less edgy. But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.'"
I want to address the market share statement by citing Apple's PC Market share [appleinsider.com]:
According to research firm Gartner, worldwide PC shipments totaled 57 million units in the first quarter of 2006, representing a 13.1 percent increase over the same period last year. But in that time, Apple's share of the worldwide market slipped from 2.2 percent to a mere 2.0 percent, the firm's data shows.
Now, that's a pretty low figure. Yet, curiously enough, I know plenty of people who own a mac. But they only own one Mac that does everything and they aren't allowed to use them at work. So, I would posit that it's simply because enterprise businesses aren't used to Macs so they don't use them. That's a large part of the market share. Yet Apple is still very much in the ball game of the personal computer because of the loyalists and their avid love for Macs.
Not to mention that special "something" that Apple has and Microsoft clearly does not have [slashdot.org]. I don't claim to know what it is--I don't own a Mac--I'm bicurious about OSX and I don't know why... is it the bash kernel? I'm also curious about the iPhone. Outrageously expensive but it has that special something to it that will intrigue the masses and we will be informed about it despite the fact that maybe only 2% of us actually purchased the device.
'No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get. In the case of music, Apple got out early. They were the first to really recognize that you couldn't just think about the device and all the pieces separately. Bravo. Credit that to Steve (Jobs) and Apple. They did a nice job. But it's not like we're at the end of the line of innovation that's going to come in the way people listen to music, watch videos, etc. I'll bet our ads will be less edgy. But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.'
Translation:
It's obviously expensive, that's bad. They will make more money than us... someway I don't understand. We have a mobile operating system and are fairly successful in pushing it into mobile devices. I'll leave out how much just our software raises the price of a mobile device... because it's probably pretty significant $50-$100. We dropped the ball on music and we're currently dropping the ball on a billion phone sales by making them more expensive without providing the customer with the strange benefits I don't understand but Steve Jobs thinks is obvious. I'm sure Microsoft will come out ahead here. Oh, and I can't wait until my uncle squirts Tom Dooley by The Kingston Trio all over me. We're smart, we chose to target the old people who buy and return a single piece of fruit and are electronically hip and are retiring as opposed to the foolish spending youths of today--why do you think we colored it brown?!
The question left out of this interview was whether Ballmer has to lie to himself that he's working for the greatest company on earth every morning when he wakes up or if that lie persists full strength throughout the week.
If you underestimate your enemies--no matter how big or small--you're going to get burned.
Ballmer just defines ball game differently than you do.
Lots of love, low sales is success for some.
He would (obviously) prefer little love, high sales.
I suspect that what Mac has is the notion that by buying the 2% solution, you are smarter than us dolts in the 98%. If you can convince your customers that they are a member of an elite, you can sell them anything.
Well, maybe not an iproduct [gizmodo.com], but close.
I speak as a former member of the cult who got seduced by the fact that the Windows market is thirty times the size of the Mac market.
Note the reporting periods are slightly different (MS is 2006, Apple is 2006Q1 TTM), but the numbers are essentially comparable.
So while is might be that Apple has higher productivity, and in fact I fully expected that would be the case, a naive reading of these numbers (ex MS perma-temps etc) suggests otherwise.
I would correct you in this, seeing as the wikipedia entry is old and new earnings for both Microsoft and Apple have just come out this quarter. Let's play devil's advocate, assuming Apple adds 5000 employees and Microsoft adds zero, MS would have ~71,000, Apple ~23,000
The numbers go as follows. For the same fiscal quarter, Apple had revenue of $5.26 billion. MS has more revenue at 14.40 Billion.
"During this time I had given my old macbook to my stay-at-home wife and mother of my three year old. The three year old threw it while the plug was in an horribly bent the chassis. But it still worked. My wife is nursing the baby and it turns out that human breasts can spray that milk quite a distance. My macbook had breast milk spattered all over it and in every crevice. It still worked! The three year old stuffed something into the DVD drive to prevent us getting the disk out. After we finally got the disk extracted, everything continued to work. The laptop is over five years old and has literally been around the work with me. It still works fine."
Interesting, but, I think you glazed over this whole breast and breast milk thing WAY too quickly.
Can you describe this in greater detail....any pictures by chance?
I think we need to take this into MUCH greater account when stress testing laptops, and hardware in general!!
\
Sure as hell is more interesting than watching 2 gorillas throw samsonite luggage all over a cage, the breast milk-laptop test would be one of the most often watched tv commercials in the world!!
At least, it would be the most tivo'ed commercial....:-)
Back when my wife was nursing, I woke up one night, being sprayed in the face. Wife was asleep on her back. Hydraulic pressure had made a fountain almost 4' high.
Well, it's true that some people think ITV's Pop Idol (aka American Idol) is better TV than the BBC's Planet Earth.
I bring that up because, personally, I really do think it has a lot to do being able to appreciate a classy product when you see one, a question of taste (for want of a better way of describing it).
I'm quite serious and I'm really not trying to be snooty (and I know how this sounds and that it could be mistaken for flamebait) - simply not everyone can do that (they can look at something hideous and think it looks 'fine', they can eat terrible food and notice it's awful, can write terrible documentation and think it's "really clear" (or for that matter, write terrible code and have no idea how hideous and nasty it is).
I'm with Steve Job's on this one, Microsoft just make crass software. They don't even TRY to get it write until they are embarrsed into doing so, and even when they do the result is half assed (compare the IE7 to Firefox or Safari's - it's not only technically worse than either of those two, but the UI is worse).
I've used plenty of OSes, and prior to FreeBSD, for me and my uses, Windows was the best OS
I do kind of wonder about that TBH, Mac OS 6 & 7 where so far ahead of Windows 3.1 from everything from CAD, to software development to even word processing.
Despite the email address, I'm not a fanboy. There are plenty of technical reasons why I also like Gnome desktop (it's really nice, very flexible, and Nautilus has evolved into a better file manager than the Mac OS's current Finder). I think Windows is a terrible choice though (technically, and artistically) - and only worth using when the software you want to use is only avalible on windows, or if your writing software on it (but then, you are getting what you deserve:-).
I have a Windows system, but it's purely for games (Apple hardware *still* doesn't support SLI, nor Mac OS a wide range of cards - specifically it doesn't support many high end cards, which is totally put be off getting a mac desktop). Windows is actually pretty good at games though, largely due to optimised drivers from vendors, but DirectX itself is certainly to Microsoft's credit (even if it does mean many developers are less likely to use Open GL).
Believe it or not, Mac users, even the most fanatical among us, don't believe that no one likes Windows.
Yeah, but it's that guy in the tweed suit, and who wants to hang around with him?! [1]
[1] That was supposed to be a joke, but I no-so-secretly believe it.[2]:) [2] And yes, I'm a big fat nerd with man boobs sitting in an home study full of posters from the Science museum, with not one but two Darth Vaders models, surrounded by a multi processor Sparc system, a server running debian, two Macs (one G4 PPC, one Intel Laptop) and a Windows XP gaming system but in the presence of other nerds I'm positively dynamic:)
You have a valid point. There's another interesting way to look at this issue, however. People's choices affect other people at times and in ways they don't always anticipate or even care about if informed. The classic example is the protective helmet. If you ride your bicycle or motorcycle without a helmet, you are contributing to a social problem (head injuries) which cost me (the taxpayer) money. Eventually somebody (insurance companies and Medicare) get tired of paying for stupidity and persuade Congress (or State Legislatures) change a law to reduce the cost to the society as a whole from individual stupidity.
If you choose to run Windows that's fine on the level of the individual decision. In theory, I don't care what you run on your PC so long as you and I have access to web sites, can exchange email and photographs, etc. We can be friends and share data freely without even knowing what type of system the other person uses.
However, I care about the fact that email is very nearly useless now. I care about identity theft. I care about industry and government data which is protected in order to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.
How many billions of dollars must be stolen or wasted and how many years must pass before we admit that there are systemic problems with security on Windows which seem to be deeply rooted not solely in hubris as often thought, but also in more subtle philosophy, technology, and methodology choices? These go back decades, and have enabled an enormous industry in identity theft and spamvertising to take root and thrive despite, ahem, entirely new versions of Windows which are, ahem, more secure than ever. Some of these problems can be fixed, and some of them have been substantially mitigated if not outright fixed, for decades, on UNIX. The sad realization that Microsoft apologists refuse to admit is that development methodology and management philosophy affect the security of products produced by the organizations practicing them.
If software vendors were held liable for the expensive calamities that result from their security defects, would the technology industry collapse? Or would it adjust, and then march steadily on, with a greater emphasis placed on security? I suspect it would not collapse, but I don't have the lobbying dollars t back up my position, and neither does anybody else who shares it (thus far). The recent law suits brought against TJX by banks over stolen credit card data may portend a coming shift in alliances. If the banks turn against the software industry next, we will see a shakeup in political alliances and an eventual fight in Congress over this issue. Until then, the issue will remain the abstract musing of the occasional columnist or security analyst.
Discussions of botnets in forums like Slashdot often include the idea that individual home users should be held accountable for the security of their home PC. Well, should they really? They didn't sign up for that. Are they held accountable for the global security implications of their refrigerator? No, they are not because there aren't any except for a few highly abstract issues related to the resources it took to build it and the energy it takes to run it. With a home PC the global security implications are complex, but not highly abstract, rather they are quite direct. Your home PC can be used to steal your identity which could be sold to raise funds for terrorism, for example, which is pretty direct. It can be used to attack other hosts or assist with Distributed Denial of Service attacks on hosts or entire networks, which is unambiguously direct: PC -> Shitstorm.
Quite frankly, the statistics are stark and unforgiving. Windows: roughly 100,000 "known viruses" vs. roughly zero for the Macintosh (margin of error +/- 5 (five)). Twenty percent of home Windows PCs infected vs. roughly zero percent of home Macintosh or Linux systems infected (margin of error +/- 1/100 of 1%). If a relationship bet
There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item.
Excuse me, Mr. Balmer? Subsidized by who or what?
Maybe Balmer knows something I don't (always possible), but methinks that he needs to go back to CEO school* for lessons on how to pay attention to your competition. In specific, the reason why the iPhone is going to cost $500 is because it's not being subsidized by cell phone contracts. Jobs is trying to change the rules in that respect. Like Nintendo, Apple wants to make a profit off of every hardware unit sold. Any money that comes in through the surplus channels of additional content or features will simply be creme.
My 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.
I can see how that went: "Here uncle, take this Zune player. It's FREE! That way I can tell everyone that my 85 year old uncle has a Zune, but doesn't want an iPod."
Uncle: "Have you lost your marbles, sonny-boy!?! What in tarnashun' does your old uncle here need with this Dune player?"
Balmer: "Zune..."
Uncle: "Don't interrupt me when I'm talking boy! You think you're so sh'mart with yer fancy electronics company!"
Balmer: "Technically soft-"
Uncle: "I said DON'T INTERRUPT ME!"
Blamer: "Um. Sorry."
Uncle: "That's better. Now get rid of this piece of junk. Did I ever tell you about the time I was flying over Iwo Jima and ended up in a blazing dogfight? I think it was 1942..."
Balmer: *sigh*
Two months later...
Blamer: "My 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune."
Reporter: "Oooooo..."
* I hear that he didn't finish his Dark Lord training with Jeff Skilling...:P
Oh, that's not a subsidy. That's just Cingular/AT&T wanting to give it to you in the pooper. In other words, business as usual.
Ahh, that's what is meant by a "subsidy". Ever notice that phones are cheaper when you get a contract? That's because the carrier will cover part of the cost of the phone to get you on a contract (usually 50-100/year, here in Canada at least).
This is a product that hasn't launched yet, hasn't been seen in the wild, and only demo'd under controlled circumstances. Yet we've had his illustrious personage repeatedly [valleywag.com] tell us [youtube.com] that this phone is going to be a bust.
If it's such a dead-certain bust, why is he constantly mentioning it in the media ? Surely shome mishtake ? The fact is that he's terrified Apple are going to repeat their success with the iPod, and it shows.
If it's such a dead-certain bust, why is he constantly mentioning it in the media ? Surely shome mishtake ? The fact is that he's terrified Apple are going to repeat their success with the iPod, and it shows.
He was specifically asked about the iPhone - I tend to talk about things too when I'm asked about them. Read the rest of the interview - he speaks fairly candidly (if obviously from a biased position) with respect to Office competitors from Google and Open Office.
In any case, I tend to agree with his analysis, which is that the iPhone wont get a significant marketshare. Most people will not shell out $500 for a phone. He does say that Apple may find the iPhone very profitable (i.e. it will be a high-margin item, for sure, like most Apple products), just that they wont get a huge marketshare.
The thing is, you're both right, and so was Ballmer. In fact, the only thing wrong here is the headline of the/. article. Ballmer is right that Apple won't see the utter dominance in phones that they've gotten with the iPod. But he and you are also correct in that Apple will sell these things as fast as they can make them for a good while, and they'll make bucketloads of cash off of it.
I guess it's the fault of Microsoft (and maybe IBM before that), that so many people have a hard time calling a company/product successful unless they utterly dominate all of their competitors and basically own the market. In reality, most industries have many competitors, many of which make consistent profit and should certainly be considered successful.
Anyone looking for Apple to own the cellphone market a few years down the line is going to be very disappointed. No matter how big a splash they make, it's an absolutely huge industry, and the iPhone can only grow so fast. Apple will likely be a significant player, and much like in the computer industry, they'll probably hold some influence well beyond what their market share would indicate. And that'll be good for Apple, hopefully good for the mobile phone industry, and good for people who want iPhones.
Want to bet which brand is more recognizable to consumers after one year - iPhone or Windows Mobile 5/6/7? The figures will be even more skewed on the desirability factor. Let's see - do I want something cool, or do I want something that reminds me of the operating system that I _have to use_ at work/home? I mean, the name is just stupid marketing - Windows (a brand that's as old as dirt, with more than a few dings), 5/6/7 (reinforces the whole "oldness").
Balmer shouldn't be afraid of the first iPhone. He should be afraid of the first "iPhone NanoMini". He'll be singing a new tune after that.
He knows the iPhone is going to be big and that it will put pressure on Microsoft's hand-held OS to match it feature for feature; but since MS doesn't not design the hardware, they'll be in tough to compete.
The hand-held market is the dominant computing platform and Jobs is going after it with a vigor not seen since the first Macintosh came out. Apple has yet to ship a single unit, but already iPhone (and mini OS X) is a top-ranked contender for that market.
Ballmer is either scared or stupid, plain and simple.
Also, I'm going to hazard to guess that, if Apple does get a 2% market share, some of that share is going to be taken out of Microsoft's share. I mean, right now, Microsoft's market is "people who are willing to buy expensive smart-phones instead of the free comes-with-service-contract phone". Where do you think Apple's 2% will come from?
But my 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune.
If his uncle isn't in the market for an iPod, what makes him think that he'll be in the market for a Zune, or any other portable media player? Is his uncle such a discerning consumer that he would notice the differences among the devices? Would he merely own and use a Zune to make his nephew happy? (Note that I don't say "buy" a Zune.)
I could understand members of the/. crowd being in the market for a portable media player, and strongly ruling out owning an iPod. I doubt, however, that his 85-year old Uncle is that kind of consumer. For him, there's essentially no difference between the two. If he isn't in the market for one, he probably isn't in the market for any.
In the MS philosophy, success of a new product is not that it generates a profit, but that it has market share. Just take a look at xbox. Even MSN is more concerned with market share than profit. This is the old we will make in volume what we lose in profit. This business plan is not unreasonable. it is often the case that some product are primarily sold to cover fixed costs. Such products, however, are often the low end or old models, not the high end marquee products. The advisability of such plan also has fallen from grace due to the bankruptcy of some many companies that ascribed to such magical thinking. Apple, fortunately, has generally put forth a more naturalistic bussinees model of selling good products at a a reasonable sustainable profit.
In any case, given the MS philosophy of socializing the computer market through direct private investment, it is no wonder that radical idea of selling a competative product at a profit does not seem viable. How can Apple possibly imagine that it can survive if it sells a mere hundred thousand phones at a $100 profit, when in fact it should try to ship one million units at little or no profit, or even a $126 loss. Such a loss will be made up in volume.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer claimed there is no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share... 'No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.
In other news, Ford's CEO mocked Ferarri: It's a $200,000 item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually look at the 1.3 billion cars that get sold, I'd prefer 60% or 70% or 80% of them to be Fords, than I would to have 2% or 3% which is what Ferarri might get.
In both cases, a company is completely happy building a niche product, that does its job exceptionally well, that they can be truly proud of, and that they can turn a profit on every single one.
Apple themselves said they were only going after 1% of the market. 1% of 1.3 billion is still 13 million. If they can turn $50 profit on each and every one of those, they walk away with an extra $650m on their bottom line next year. Not a bad kick in the teeth for the indignity of having to be exactly the market you went for.
Microsoft has a totally different model. They want global dominance in cell phones because it'll help prop up their model of making the entire world have to use your stuff if they want compatibility and then you can extort money on things like office suites. They'll happily give away their mobile O.S. if it means propping up that model.
Neither one is particularly wrong per se. They're just two totally different models that, evidently, are successful for both companies. Microsoft turns a profit, Apple turns a profit, yay for both of them.
But knocking one model for failing to succeed based on the metrics of your model... while totally succeeding on their own model's metrics and turning a profit... that's a little cheap.
What is interesting is that Apple's own figures were they were aiming for 1% market saturation but Balmer's already referencing 2-3% before it comes out. I'm curious as to whether that's a case of his not getting numbers straight, of Microsoft expecting more success for Apple than Apple's actually banking on, or whether they're just trying to raise the bar now so they can say Apple failed to meet numbers Apple never went for later.
1989: The GUI will never gain significant market share (And the end user will only ever need 640K of RAM!)
1994: The Internet is a passing fad and will never gain any significant market share!
1995: MS BOB Will be a huge market success!
1997: The DOJ will never convict us of being a monopoly!
1998: The end user doesn't care about security!
1999: What's this Linux thing you're talking about?
2001: What's this Apple thing you're talking about?
2002: iPod: Less storage than a Nomad and no wireless. Lame.
2006: iPod: Less storage than a Zune and no wireless. Lame.
2007: The iPhone will never gain significant market share!
It would seem that if you want to accurately predict popular technology trends all you have to do is listen to what Microsoft is saying and then predict exactly the opposite!
Even if apple grabs 2-3% of the market share, they will be drawing the revenue from both the hardware and software side of the sale. After all, Jobs' state GOAL was only 1% of the market in 2008. So Ballmer is really saying that he thinks Apple will do better than they will publicly admit to thinking.
Microsoft still doesn't get that Apple operates in a fundamentally different space than they do. Microsoft sells software; Apple sells hardware AND software.
Its like comparing Mac and PC sales. By controlling the hardware channel, Apple makes a hell of a lot more money per unit sale than Microsoft. Yet because they control both sides of the equation it is very difficult to compare them to pure software companies like Microsoft or to pure hardware companies like Dell. Apple's balance sheet shows net income in the ballpark of HP and Dell, based on revenues a half to a third the size. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/9E F16A95-278E-40ED-9E00-FBEBD75207FB.html [roughlydrafted.com]
So, yes, Microsoft would rather have software on 60% or 70% or 80% of the phones out there, just like they would like to have software on 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% of the desktops out there. Apple has a fundamentally different business model.
I happen to agree with one point he makes, Apple is late to the party. With the iPod they arrived "fashionably late", well before the party was going, but not until they knew it was going to be a good party. With the iPhone what we have is a big party and another glam-chick pining for attention. She'll attract eyes when she comes through the door but when people realize how shallow of an offering she is they will wait for her younger sister to arrive.
Talk is cheap, many people love to chime in they will buy one, but I bet they won't. It is a feel good response, makes them feel like part of the "in crowd" while never being obligated to do anything.
Apple's way late to the big show and their offering is seriously lacking. Wait for the second or THIRD revision of this iphone before jumping
Ballmer's job seems to be to cast aspersions on any IT company that might be encroaching on Microsoft's world in the hope that people will pay attention, whereas it just looks like fear and loathing. Cool dance moves though.
Motorola's CEO said basically the same thing: it's a niche product, and it doesn't have the backing of the major carriers.
That's really not the point. Jobs could care less how many of them sell - he's more concerned with testing out the market for unencumbered phones, and hoping that he can create a new market for phones.
The iPhone is dangerous and disruptive in this respect. If consumers can grow a pair and tell the cellphone companies they'd rather have an unencumbered, standards-based service than a proprietary, locked in, shaft-the-consumer service, then we will see real positive change in the cellphone industry.
Jobs can do this. Ballmer can't. And that is what scares him and everyone else at Microsoft.
Maybe it will become another Newton. But it doesn't matter, because Apple can afford the risk, and they stand a fortune to gain by being the first in the unencumbered phone services market.
According to a Bloomberg News article [iht.com] I found, the global cellphone market is forecast to grow 12% over the previous year and reach 1.14 billion units in 2007.
The same article describes how Motorola grabbed 4% more of the market,with Sony Ericcsson the star performer grabbing 8%.
Sony Ericcsson models (at least the one with music that I wanted to buy) when I looked cost about $500 bucks. These things aren't subsidized either. You pay a chunk up front and then a chunk all along.
So Ballmer says Apple will grab 2%? Wow. 2% of 1.14 billion is 22.8 million units. At $500 each, that's over 11 billion dollars. Apple's sales for the fiscal year ending Sept. 2006 was [answers.com]$19 billion. So Ballmer says they are going to have *only* this incredible success, whereas if Apple pulls anything at all interesting out of this hat it has a chance at going like Sony Ericcson, which actually has worse design and features than the iPhone?
That, plus the trend for phones toward full browsers, larger screens and music. Maybe not in the U.S. where people don't spend money and are happy with motorola bricks, but there is a distinct possibility the iPhone could grab market overseas too.
My forecast is Microsoft needs to start ordering in chairs by the busload.
Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention that special "something" that Apple has and Microsoft clearly does not have [slashdot.org]. I don't claim to know what it is--I don't own a Mac--I'm bicurious about OSX and I don't know why
Translation: The question left out of this interview was whether Ballmer has to lie to himself that he's working for the greatest company on earth every morning when he wakes up or if that lie persists full strength throughout the week.
If you underestimate your enemies--no matter how big or small--you're going to get burned.
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Informative)
No it is not. BSD kernel, bash shell, but not the bash kernel.
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:5, Informative)
Darwin is the BSD-based OS, XNU is the kernel, not the BSD kernel.
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:5, Interesting)
Ballmer just defines ball game differently than you do. Lots of love, low sales is success for some. He would (obviously) prefer little love, high sales.
I suspect that what Mac has is the notion that by buying the 2% solution, you are smarter than us dolts in the 98%. If you can convince your customers that they are a member of an elite, you can sell them anything.
Well, maybe not an iproduct [gizmodo.com], but close.
I speak as a former member of the cult who got seduced by the fact that the Windows market is thirty times the size of the Mac market.
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Informative)
Speculation of this kind is passe' in the Internet Age. Google "microsoft number of employees" and find some helpful Wikipedia articles:
Microsoft: [wikipedia.org] $12.6B/71712 employees = $177,035.91/employee
Apple: [wikipedia.org] $1.73B/17787 employees = $97,262.05/employee
Note the reporting periods are slightly different (MS is 2006, Apple is 2006Q1 TTM), but the numbers are essentially comparable.
So while is might be that Apple has higher productivity, and in fact I fully expected that would be the case, a naive reading of these numbers (ex MS perma-temps etc) suggests otherwise.
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Informative)
The numbers go as follows. For the same fiscal quarter, Apple had revenue of $5.26 billion.
MS has more revenue at 14.40 Billion.
These numbers are from the companies' own SEC filings and press releases, NOT wikipedia (probably not a good place to get financial information).
You can find them at:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/25results
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_
Now let's redo that calculation with our worst case scenario (for Apple) numbers.
Apple 5.26 x 10^9 / 2.3 x 10^4 = $230K per employee (with 5000 added employees)
Microsoft 14.40 x 10^9 / 7.1 x 10^4 = $203K per employee
Those are your real numbers. Don't rely on wikipedia for everything- it's not a Bible.
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting, but, I think you glazed over this whole breast and breast milk thing WAY too quickly.
Can you describe this in greater detail....any pictures by chance?
I think we need to take this into MUCH greater account when stress testing laptops, and hardware in general!!
\ Sure as hell is more interesting than watching 2 gorillas throw samsonite luggage all over a cage, the breast milk-laptop test would be one of the most often watched tv commercials in the world!!
At least, it would be the most tivo'ed commercial.... :-)
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Insightful)
I bring that up because, personally, I really do think it has a lot to do being able to appreciate a classy product when you see one, a question of taste (for want of a better way of describing it).
I'm quite serious and I'm really not trying to be snooty (and I know how this sounds and that it could be mistaken for flamebait) - simply not everyone can do that (they can look at something hideous and think it looks 'fine', they can eat terrible food and notice it's awful, can write terrible documentation and think it's "really clear" (or for that matter, write terrible code and have no idea how hideous and nasty it is).
I'm with Steve Job's on this one, Microsoft just make crass software. They don't even TRY to get it write until they are embarrsed into doing so, and even when they do the result is half assed (compare the IE7 to Firefox or Safari's - it's not only technically worse than either of those two, but the UI is worse).
Despite the email address, I'm not a fanboy. There are plenty of technical reasons why I also like Gnome desktop (it's really nice, very flexible, and Nautilus has evolved into a better file manager than the Mac OS's current Finder). I think Windows is a terrible choice though (technically, and artistically) - and only worth using when the software you want to use is only avalible on windows, or if your writing software on it (but then, you are getting what you deserve
I have a Windows system, but it's purely for games (Apple hardware *still* doesn't support SLI, nor Mac OS a wide range of cards - specifically it doesn't support many high end cards, which is totally put be off getting a mac desktop). Windows is actually pretty good at games though, largely due to optimised drivers from vendors, but DirectX itself is certainly to Microsoft's credit (even if it does mean many developers are less likely to use Open GL).
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Funny)
After all, some people like to be peed on, and, most of the time, using Windows isn't as bad as *that*, so it stands to reason.
Parent
Re:Spoken Like a True Self-Deluded CEO (Score:4, Funny)
[1] That was supposed to be a joke, but I no-so-secretly believe it.[2]
[2] And yes, I'm a big fat nerd with man boobs sitting in an home study full of posters from the Science museum, with not one but two Darth Vaders models, surrounded by a multi processor Sparc system, a server running debian, two Macs (one G4 PPC, one Intel Laptop) and a Windows XP gaming system but in the presence of other nerds I'm positively dynamic
Parent
choices (Score:5, Interesting)
If you choose to run Windows that's fine on the level of the individual decision. In theory, I don't care what you run on your PC so long as you and I have access to web sites, can exchange email and photographs, etc. We can be friends and share data freely without even knowing what type of system the other person uses.
However, I care about the fact that email is very nearly useless now. I care about identity theft. I care about industry and government data which is protected in order to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.
How many billions of dollars must be stolen or wasted and how many years must pass before we admit that there are systemic problems with security on Windows which seem to be deeply rooted not solely in hubris as often thought, but also in more subtle philosophy, technology, and methodology choices? These go back decades, and have enabled an enormous industry in identity theft and spamvertising to take root and thrive despite, ahem, entirely new versions of Windows which are, ahem, more secure than ever. Some of these problems can be fixed, and some of them have been substantially mitigated if not outright fixed, for decades, on UNIX. The sad realization that Microsoft apologists refuse to admit is that development methodology and management philosophy affect the security of products produced by the organizations practicing them.
If software vendors were held liable for the expensive calamities that result from their security defects, would the technology industry collapse? Or would it adjust, and then march steadily on, with a greater emphasis placed on security? I suspect it would not collapse, but I don't have the lobbying dollars t back up my position, and neither does anybody else who shares it (thus far). The recent law suits brought against TJX by banks over stolen credit card data may portend a coming shift in alliances. If the banks turn against the software industry next, we will see a shakeup in political alliances and an eventual fight in Congress over this issue. Until then, the issue will remain the abstract musing of the occasional columnist or security analyst.
Discussions of botnets in forums like Slashdot often include the idea that individual home users should be held accountable for the security of their home PC. Well, should they really? They didn't sign up for that. Are they held accountable for the global security implications of their refrigerator? No, they are not because there aren't any except for a few highly abstract issues related to the resources it took to build it and the energy it takes to run it. With a home PC the global security implications are complex, but not highly abstract, rather they are quite direct. Your home PC can be used to steal your identity which could be sold to raise funds for terrorism, for example, which is pretty direct. It can be used to attack other hosts or assist with Distributed Denial of Service attacks on hosts or entire networks, which is unambiguously direct: PC -> Shitstorm.
Quite frankly, the statistics are stark and unforgiving. Windows: roughly 100,000 "known viruses" vs. roughly zero for the Macintosh (margin of error +/- 5 (five)). Twenty percent of home Windows PCs infected vs. roughly zero percent of home Macintosh or Linux systems infected (margin of error +/- 1/100 of 1%). If a relationship bet
Parent
marketing genius (Score:5, Insightful)
The Zune: It's not your grandmother's music pla... (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder, will they come preloaded with Lawrence Welk?
Parent
Re:marketing genius (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Target market (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Target market (Score:4, Funny)
So it'll be huge in South Korea?
Parent
Re:Target market (Score:4, Funny)
No, old people related to Microsoft executives.
Parent
Re:Target market (Score:5, Funny)
Think about that for a second.
Parent
Re:Target market (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Subsidized by what? (Score:5, Funny)
Excuse me, Mr. Balmer? Subsidized by who or what?
Maybe Balmer knows something I don't (always possible), but methinks that he needs to go back to CEO school* for lessons on how to pay attention to your competition. In specific, the reason why the iPhone is going to cost $500 is because it's not being subsidized by cell phone contracts. Jobs is trying to change the rules in that respect. Like Nintendo, Apple wants to make a profit off of every hardware unit sold. Any money that comes in through the surplus channels of additional content or features will simply be creme.
I can see how that went: "Here uncle, take this Zune player. It's FREE! That way I can tell everyone that my 85 year old uncle has a Zune, but doesn't want an iPod."
Uncle: "Have you lost your marbles, sonny-boy!?! What in tarnashun' does your old uncle here need with this Dune player?"
Balmer: "Zune..."
Uncle: "Don't interrupt me when I'm talking boy! You think you're so sh'mart with yer fancy electronics company!"
Balmer: "Technically soft-"
Uncle: "I said DON'T INTERRUPT ME!"
Blamer: "Um. Sorry."
Uncle: "That's better. Now get rid of this piece of junk. Did I ever tell you about the time I was flying over Iwo Jima and ended up in a blazing dogfight? I think it was 1942..."
Balmer: *sigh*
Two months later...
Blamer: "My 85-year-old uncle probably will never own an iPod, and I hope we'll get him to own a Zune."
Reporter: "Oooooo..."
* I hear that he didn't finish his Dark Lord training with Jeff Skilling...
Re:Subsidized by what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Subsidized by what? (Score:4, Informative)
Ahh, that's what is meant by a "subsidy". Ever notice that phones are cheaper when you get a contract? That's because the carrier will cover part of the cost of the phone to get you on a contract (usually 50-100/year, here in Canada at least).
Parent
The iPhone? (Score:5, Funny)
Shocking news Apple CEOo claims Zune will bust! (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/16/steve-jobs-wor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/18/15582
SiO2
Bad Ballmer Bellicosity (Score:5, Insightful)
Methinks the Ballmer doth protest too much (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's such a dead-certain bust, why is he constantly mentioning it in the media ? Surely shome mishtake ? The fact is that he's terrified Apple are going to repeat their success with the iPod, and it shows.
Simon.
Re:Methinks the Ballmer doth protest too much (Score:5, Insightful)
He was specifically asked about the iPhone - I tend to talk about things too when I'm asked about them. Read the rest of the interview - he speaks fairly candidly (if obviously from a biased position) with respect to Office competitors from Google and Open Office.
In any case, I tend to agree with his analysis, which is that the iPhone wont get a significant marketshare. Most people will not shell out $500 for a phone. He does say that Apple may find the iPhone very profitable (i.e. it will be a high-margin item, for sure, like most Apple products), just that they wont get a huge marketshare.
Parent
Re:Methinks the Ballmer doth protest too much (Score:4, Informative)
Do they care that it's $500? No. And why should they? They're going to expense it anyway.
Time will tell exactly how big the market for the iPhone is, but if I had to guess,
I'd say the Apple will do very well.
Parent
Re:Methinks the Ballmer doth protest too much (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it's the fault of Microsoft (and maybe IBM before that), that so many people have a hard time calling a company/product successful unless they utterly dominate all of their competitors and basically own the market. In reality, most industries have many competitors, many of which make consistent profit and should certainly be considered successful.
Anyone looking for Apple to own the cellphone market a few years down the line is going to be very disappointed. No matter how big a splash they make, it's an absolutely huge industry, and the iPhone can only grow so fast. Apple will likely be a significant player, and much like in the computer industry, they'll probably hold some influence well beyond what their market share would indicate. And that'll be good for Apple, hopefully good for the mobile phone industry, and good for people who want iPhones.
Parent
Name rec after one year (Score:5, Insightful)
Balmer shouldn't be afraid of the first iPhone. He should be afraid of the first "iPhone NanoMini". He'll be singing a new tune after that.
Ballmer is in damage control mode (Score:4, Interesting)
He knows the iPhone is going to be big and that it will put pressure on Microsoft's hand-held OS to match it feature for feature; but since MS doesn't not design the hardware, they'll be in tough to compete.
The hand-held market is the dominant computing platform and Jobs is going after it with a vigor not seen since the first Macintosh came out. Apple has yet to ship a single unit, but already iPhone (and mini OS X) is a top-ranked contender for that market.
Ballmer is either scared or stupid, plain and simple.
boxlight
Um.. what market share is he talking about. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope he's not saying that windows has 50%, 60% or 70% of the mobile handset market share, because microsoft is not even close.
Symbian - 72.5%
Linux - 16.9%
PalmSource - 2.0%
Microsoft - 4.6%
RIM - 3.8%
Others - 0.2%
So if he's saying Apple will get 5% of the market share, well they will then have a larger share of the market than MS.
Silly Ballmer-speak
Re:Um.. what market share is he talking about. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
85-year old Uncle (Score:3, Insightful)
If his uncle isn't in the market for an iPod, what makes him think that he'll be in the market for a Zune, or any other portable media player? Is his uncle such a discerning consumer that he would notice the differences among the devices? Would he merely own and use a Zune to make his nephew happy? (Note that I don't say "buy" a Zune.)
I could understand members of the
Somebody should send him an iPod (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Somebody should send him an iPod (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Of course, new product are not profitable (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, given the MS philosophy of socializing the computer market through direct private investment, it is no wonder that radical idea of selling a competative product at a profit does not seem viable. How can Apple possibly imagine that it can survive if it sells a mere hundred thousand phones at a $100 profit, when in fact it should try to ship one million units at little or no profit, or even a $126 loss. Such a loss will be made up in volume.
Comparing Apples To Lemons (Score:5, Insightful)
In both cases, a company is completely happy building a niche product, that does its job exceptionally well, that they can be truly proud of, and that they can turn a profit on every single one.
Apple themselves said they were only going after 1% of the market. 1% of 1.3 billion is still 13 million. If they can turn $50 profit on each and every one of those, they walk away with an extra $650m on their bottom line next year. Not a bad kick in the teeth for the indignity of having to be exactly the market you went for.
Microsoft has a totally different model. They want global dominance in cell phones because it'll help prop up their model of making the entire world have to use your stuff if they want compatibility and then you can extort money on things like office suites. They'll happily give away their mobile O.S. if it means propping up that model.
Neither one is particularly wrong per se. They're just two totally different models that, evidently, are successful for both companies. Microsoft turns a profit, Apple turns a profit, yay for both of them.
But knocking one model for failing to succeed based on the metrics of your model... while totally succeeding on their own model's metrics and turning a profit... that's a little cheap.
What is interesting is that Apple's own figures were they were aiming for 1% market saturation but Balmer's already referencing 2-3% before it comes out. I'm curious as to whether that's a case of his not getting numbers straight, of Microsoft expecting more success for Apple than Apple's actually banking on, or whether they're just trying to raise the bar now so they can say Apple failed to meet numbers Apple never went for later.
Oh Microsoft... Always the Technology Visonary... (Score:3, Funny)
1989: The GUI will never gain significant market share (And the end user will only ever need 640K of RAM!)
1994: The Internet is a passing fad and will never gain any significant market share!
1995: MS BOB Will be a huge market success!
1997: The DOJ will never convict us of being a monopoly!
1998: The end user doesn't care about security!
1999: What's this Linux thing you're talking about?
2001: What's this Apple thing you're talking about?
2002: iPod: Less storage than a Nomad and no wireless. Lame.
2006: iPod: Less storage than a Zune and no wireless. Lame.
2007: The iPhone will never gain significant market share!
It would seem that if you want to accurately predict popular technology trends all you have to do is listen to what Microsoft is saying and then predict exactly the opposite!
Ballmer is more optimistic than Jobs re: iPhone (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft still doesn't get that Apple operates in a fundamentally different space than they do. Microsoft sells software; Apple sells hardware AND software.
Its like comparing Mac and PC sales. By controlling the hardware channel, Apple makes a hell of a lot more money per unit sale than Microsoft. Yet because they control both sides of the equation it is very difficult to compare them to pure software companies like Microsoft or to pure hardware companies like Dell. Apple's balance sheet shows net income in the ballpark of HP and Dell, based on revenues a half to a third the size. http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/9
So, yes, Microsoft would rather have software on 60% or 70% or 80% of the phones out there, just like they would like to have software on 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% of the desktops out there. Apple has a fundamentally different business model.
Talk is ever so cheap. (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk is cheap, many people love to chime in they will buy one, but I bet they won't. It is a feel good response, makes them feel like part of the "in crowd" while never being obligated to do anything.
Apple's way late to the big show and their offering is seriously lacking. Wait for the second or THIRD revision of this iphone before jumping
From the desk of Bill Gates (Score:3)
Dude, shut up.
Bill
Ballmer's job seems to be to cast aspersions on any IT company that might be encroaching on Microsoft's world in the hope that people will pay attention, whereas it just looks like fear and loathing. Cool dance moves though.
Huh? What? speak up Ballmer... (Score:3, Funny)
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Motorola's CEO said basically the same thing: it's a niche product, and it doesn't have the backing of the major carriers.
That's really not the point. Jobs could care less how many of them sell - he's more concerned with testing out the market for unencumbered phones, and hoping that he can create a new market for phones.
The iPhone is dangerous and disruptive in this respect. If consumers can grow a pair and tell the cellphone companies they'd rather have an unencumbered, standards-based service than a proprietary, locked in, shaft-the-consumer service, then we will see real positive change in the cellphone industry.
Jobs can do this. Ballmer can't. And that is what scares him and everyone else at Microsoft.
Maybe it will become another Newton. But it doesn't matter, because Apple can afford the risk, and they stand a fortune to gain by being the first in the unencumbered phone services market.
M$ exec says Apple will grab 2% (Score:4, Informative)
The same article describes how Motorola grabbed 4% more of the market,with Sony Ericcsson the star performer grabbing 8%.
Sony Ericcsson models (at least the one with music that I wanted to buy) when I looked cost about $500 bucks. These things aren't subsidized either. You pay a chunk up front and then a chunk all along.
So Ballmer says Apple will grab 2%? Wow. 2% of 1.14 billion is 22.8 million units. At $500 each, that's over 11 billion dollars. Apple's sales for the fiscal year ending Sept. 2006 was [answers.com]$19 billion. So Ballmer says they are going to have *only* this incredible success, whereas if Apple pulls anything at all interesting out of this hat it has a chance at going like Sony Ericcson, which actually has worse design and features than the iPhone?
That, plus the trend for phones toward full browsers, larger screens and music. Maybe not in the U.S. where people don't spend money and are happy with motorola bricks, but there is a distinct possibility the iPhone could grab market overseas too.
My forecast is Microsoft needs to start ordering in chairs by the busload.
Re:Why the media blitz recently (Score:5, Funny)
But does he have an enormous schwanstucker?
Not that I care personally, mind you.
Parent