Microsoft vs. Apple's "Thunder" 577
jaymzter writes "Cnet has an interesting article on Microsoft's attempt to steal the thunder from the upcoming Macworld show, and also to slap Apple down for not showing enough gratitude. What's really interesting, is that Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' Mac OS X, and that Microsoft doesn't think Apple is pushing Mac OS X hard enough. Oh, the tangled webs we weave." Strange story. Basically its a battle of PR.
Odd... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not pushing OSX? (Score:2, Informative)
RonB
Re:Not pushing OSX? (Score:2)
Still my favorite was the Switch parody commercial that was running around before Apple's lawyers had it pulled. lickmesweaty.com/truth I think it was at.
Re:Not pushing OSX? (Score:4, Insightful)
You post that stupid cartoon every freaking day.
Call it "flaming by proxy". Sheesh.
Fact is, Most mac users are regular people who appreciate a computer that ACTUALLY WORKS and doesn't require a lot of work to get it working.
I'm a flat out computer and operating expert, having worked on OSs at microsoft (I disclaim responsibility for their craptitude, though) and am proficient at every platform-- I don't need training wheels to get things done, but I get a LOT more work done per minute on a Mac than any other platform I've used.
Its not that we're elitist- we're tired of idiots calling us and our platform idiots because it ACTUALLY WORKS. So fsck off with your attitude.
Sometimes what you perceive is arrogance is actually the simple knowledge of superiority.
Re:Odd... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think Apple is after knowledgable users. Knowledgable users appreciate strength in numbers - if you use the same setup as a whole lot of other people, you're more likely to find someone, either in real life or on the net, who's dealt with some of the problems you're facing.
This, to me at least, is what makes Linux such a dream to use - because 99% of its users are tech-savvy and net-connected, a quick google will usually help you out when you're stuck. It works for Windows too, but only because of the sheer number of Windows users. Try feeding obscure Mac problems to groups.google.com.
PR vs. Manipulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PR vs. Manipulation (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think Mac OS X isn't "real competition" for Microsoft? If Apple is successful with its stated aim of moving from 5% to 10% market share it will gain those extra users mainly from Microsoft. This looks like real competition to me. It would be good to see more competition in the OS marketplace but OS X looks like the real thing to me.
Re:PR vs. Manipulation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:PR vs. Manipulation (Score:2)
I can name two reasons:
1.) A switch to Apple requires a new computer purchase.
2.) Microsoft has Office and IE for Mac. Apple's success = MS's success.
Re:PR vs. Manipulation (Score:2)
Most people don't upgrade their computers, apart from possibly adding RAM or a new graphics card. Most people buy new computers when they've outgrown their old ones. Apple's not saying, ``Throw away your four-month-old PC, with which you're pretty satisfied, and buy a new $1,700 computer!'' They're saying, ``When you've had enough of that crufty old PC and you're looking to buy something new, consider a Mac.''
The proprietary-hardware-is-a-barrier-to-sales argument gets blown way out of proportion, IMHO.
Re:PR vs. Manipulation (Score:2)
Neither of your numbers are accurate.
Re:PR vs. Manipulation (Score:2)
Fixes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its one to submit a few spelling mistakes as patches. Its something else when the patch is critical.
Its interesting to note that no information about the fixes was given. Must mean that they were insignificant.
MSFTs suggestions to Apple... (Score:2, Funny)
I can't imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
The Mac has 5 percent of the market. What's there to be afraid of? True, it's a lucrative 5 percent, and OSX has mindshare far beyond its marketshare, but still. Do they really see it as this much of a threat?
What do they want, a monopoly?
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:2)
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:5, Informative)
Apples market share is about %20.
The "%5" figure comes form "computers sold this year" and does not include computers sold thru the Apple store, small local apple dealers and apple retail stores. That %5 is the percentage that Ingram and tech data sell that are Macintoshes, ignoring the huge numbers of machines sold thru apple's online stores and other retail locations.
Or, put another way, Apple has %5 of the NEW IBM PC market, not %5 of the PERSONAL COMPUTER market.
Also, since Macintoshes last a lot longer in use than PCs- at least twice as long- at any point in time, the number of Macs out there to sell into are going to be a lot more than the percentage of machines recently sold.
This is a serious problem because marketing dweebs everywhere are underestimating the installed Mac base by %75.
Just like there are far more Linux boxes than there are computers sold with linux pre-installed in the market.
Note that this under reporting of Linux and MacOS both helps Windows, and of course the companise doing this under reporint- IDC and Dataquest are doing so under contract from microsoft to do "market research".
The funny thing is that when Jobs talks about getting the "other 95 percent" he's being ironic, but nobody seems to realize it.
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, you say, IDC numbers are grossly undercounting Macs. First of all, you claim, IDC ignores sales through the Apple stores and through small retailers, focusing instead on the number of Macs that pass through wholesalers. Well, where do you think the small Mac stores get their Macs from if not from wholesalers or from Apple directly? And why do you think that IDC can't get numbers on the Apple stores and Apple's online store. The approximate percentage of Apple's sales that goes through the Apple store online is well known even to the general public, and the number of Macs sold a quarter is known to the general public as well. I see no reason why IDC cannot get those numbers, or why Apple wouldn't make them available to IDC - particularly given that IDC does rank Dell, which does a much higher percentage of sales direct than does Apple. If IDC were incapable of taking direct sales into account, then Gateway and Dell would not show up in IDC's list - and they do.
Your other reason why Macs have more market share than people realize is that Macs "last a lot longer in use than PCs- at least twice as long." I have heard this bandied around a lot by the Mac community, but I don't think this is nearly as prominent an effect as they make it out to be. First of all, I would like to see statistics backing up the "twice as long" claim. Secondly, I have a hard time believing that Macs have had much of an advantage over PCs in the last three or four years. I owned an iMac, and that definitely was too slow and limited in hard drive space to use for more than a couple years. Now that MacOS X is out, forget about it - there are lots of complaints about how MacOS X has been slow on older machines. On the other hand, all the PC owners I have known are still happy with the 400 Mhz machines they've had for the last four years, unless they are hard-core gamers. Finally, even if it is true that people use Macs for longer than they use PCs, I believe that the percentage of Mac owners that own multiple machines is much higher than the percentage of PC owners than own multiple PCs, and this will mitigate the market-share effect of Macs being in use for longer, since a person with 5 Macs all still in use will still only buy one copy of Photoshop and one copy of Office.
Jobs is not being ironic when he talks about the "other 95 percent." What reason does he have to be ironic? To make an in joke to the Mac community? I don't think so. Jobs has one basic goal as head of Apple: to make a profit. The way he'll make a profit is by raising market share while keeping prices high (Apple has very good margins on its computers). It will keep prices high because it is selling a differentiated product. A simple econ textbook will show you why Apple will never sell Macs for as cheap as PCs, and why Apple will never take the whole market. This is not necessarily bad for Apple - if it can find the sweet point where it's getting the right number of sales at the right profit margin, it can be extremely profitable. It just won't ever take over the world that way. Jobs understands that, and that's why he's been positioning Apple as the computer for the fashionable elite - because he doesn't need lots of sales at Walmarts, he needs a decent number of sales at 27% margins.
The problem is, you need to have a large enough market share to woo software developers and hardware developers, and you also need to convince your stockholders that you are selling as many machines as you can at the high margins. The "other 95 percent" campaign fits these needs perfectly. It makes consumers understand that they don't need to fear Macs just because it has small market share, because after all, BMW and Mercedes Benz have small market share too. And it tells stockholders and developers that there's lots of potential for growth, and that Apple intends to enlarge the Mac market.
If your arguments were correct, there would be no reason for Apple not to use the 20% number. Because 20% would make developers happier, would encourage more consumers to buy Macs (since they'd see a larger community already existing), and would keep stockholder expectations realistic. After all, if Apple raises stockholder expectations by saying "we only have 5% market share, it'll be so easy to expand it by going after the other 95%," and then fails, management will be held responsible. On the other hand, if it says to stockholders, "We have 20%, it's just that Macs last longer, but we are slowly growing this community and steadily strengthening the company," they'd be hailed as doing a good job.
But that 20% is just not correct. Otherwise, why does Google show a 4% browser share for Macs? Why do software developers see such small sales for Macs?
I don't understand why Mac fans refuse to accept that Macs have a small user base now. It's not a value-judgment on the computer, it just means that Apple needs to do a better job selling the things. And I think Apple has been doing a much better job selling Macs over the last couple years, and I think they will continue to improve and gain more market share. But lying about the situation doesn't change it.
Re:I can't imagine... (Score:2)
Love this quote ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, thats a great quote. Especially considering MS poured the money in for purely (mostly, whatever) selfish reasons - we can assume the DOJ trial would look much different today had MS not participated in the 'wonton act of goodwill for which Apple should have eternal gratitude'.
Re:Love this quote ... (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't really about the trial either. It was part of an out-of-court settlement of a patent dispute. In fact the publicly announced $150 million was rumored to be just the public tip of a larger behind the scenes patent cross licensing agreement that let MS off the hook for patent infringment in Windows95 (that rumor was confirmed by Steve Jobs' soto voice comments on some business shows hinting that there was a lot more money coming Apple's way than just the $150 Million - though that might have been spin)
Re:Love this quote ... (Score:4, Insightful)
They payout was rumored to have been in the neighborhood of an additional 600+ million.
Ironic when you later hear that Microsoft had asked Apple to "knife the baby". They steal the code, and then tell the company they stole the code from to kill their own product. Then they make a huge costly effort to go out to all major video serving sites on the net (CNN being a prime example) and GIVE them hardware, and free streaming server software, in order to beg them to serve WMP content instead of Quicktime. (CNN used to be a MAJOR bastion of Quicktime).
Seems nobody at Microsoft has ever thought about competing on merit.
"Eternal" Re:Love this quote ... (Score:2)
Another instance of Microsoft's confusion about the difference between people and institutions?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Catch-22 (Score:5, Insightful)
When I see lightning.... (Score:2, Troll)
In my opinion, OSX is hands down the best OS for someone who does not mind spending money on an operating system and possibly a good amount more on hardware... Software is not really an issue, there are plenty of freeware packages native to OSX, and if you don't like them, run a window manager and your favorite *NIX apps...
I think Microsoft recognizes OSX as a superior OS compared with the likes of XP and will do just about anything to either discredit Apple, or claim that somehow they are responsible for it being so great. I'm not sure what they're trying to achieve... Can really picture this happening?:
Tincan Billy: Hey, you know OSX, the OS from Apple that people are so excited about?
Fishbone Willy: Yeah, what about it?
Tincan Billy: Well, it turns out that Microsoft has got this thing code-named Corona....
Fishbone Willy: Like the beer?
Tincan Billy:I'm not sure, but whatever it is, I'm going to stop using OSX right away!!!
Fishbone Willy: Sounds like a safe plan...
OS X is doing very. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well of course it is doing very well. Whenever someone wishes to upgrade their current machine to a newer Mac, they have no choice but to get OSX with it. When a company controls both the hardware and the software they control what the user gets as soon as they decide to upgrade.
Microsoft could only wish to control the hardware and the software. Then whenever you wanted a faster computer, you would have to upgrade also to the newest version of Windows. So in theory if MS was like Apple in this respect, then I suppose WinXP would be 20% of the Windows user base, especially when many of the big businesses buy new computers within the next two to three years.
Re:OS X is doing very. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure Apple ships their OS with their boxes (acturlly they still ship both 9 and X BTW). And everything else would be silly. As the article says Apple isn't that interrested in upgrades. The reason is simple really: Apple makes their money from hardware. The first many years you could download the latest OS from Apple from their FTP site for free!
Re:OS X is doing very. (Score:2)
They are well on their way to making this a reality, courtesy of "Palladium".
Re:OS X is doing very. (Score:2)
*cough* Palladium *cough*
That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Could this be a sign that MS is getting a bit nervous about OS X and its potential to infiltrate their corporate and home markets?
Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
FUD? Is that anything like the Apple switch commercials?
In years past, they wouldn't have even bothered to do so, because they essentially wrote off Apple as a competitor.
In years past Apple wasn't running commercials targetting Microsoft.
Could this be a sign that MS is getting a bit nervous about OS X and its potential to infiltrate their corporate and home markets?
If you want to think so... But the infiltration rate of OSX to dedicated Mac users hasn't been all that good according to Apple. They're saying they have only 1 million people using it.
Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
No. That's simply competition, just like any car commercial or detergent commercial. FUD (which comes from the bad old days when IBM was a monopoly) stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, and comes more under the heading of dirty tricks.
When MS says, "Oh dear, maybe we're not making enough money from Office on the Mac." they are trying to kill Mac sales, by making potential customers think that maybe MS-Office will disappear in the future and they'll be stuck with an outdated system.
Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:2)
The biggest example is the "Blue Screen of Death" commercial. I mean, yes, you could make a case that BSOD would be an issue if Microsoft were still trying to peddle WinME on the public, but they aren't. So it would be more honest to compare OS X with XP, and on stability that comparison is very favorable to both, as both are stable operating systems. Sure, MS's older systems (until NT/2000) had serious BSOD problems, but then so did MacOS previous to X (not BSOD, but LOTS of random lock ups due to lack of full memory protection, shitty multitasking, etc). And you could make a case that Microsoft's OSes, even if more stable, tend to be less secure, but at least Microsoft doesn't tend to ship out install scripts that format the system harddrive of a significant percentage of the people who run it...So it all evens out.
Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:2)
I don't find the ad to be FUD. The ad is aimed at people trying to upgrade old systems. If you have a 2 to 5 year old system, it is running Win9x/ME and you are very close acquaintances with BSOD.
Are we bitter about something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm.. maybe to you real people talking about their experiences with PCs as opposed to Macs could be considered spreading Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. To me, it's not even close to FUD.
"In years past Apple wasn't running commercials tarrgetting Microsoft."
True. It's kinda hard not to eventually get around to targeting Microsoft, when they have an operating system monopoly, and are therefore your only competitor. It's not exactly like the goliath Apple is getting ready to stomp on lowly Microsoft. ;-)
"If you want to think so..."
It's not that I want to think so, it's that the timing and content of Microsoft's announcements seems to be aimed squarely at disrupting Apple's Macworld announcements. Does it seem coincidental to you?
Re:Are we bitter about something? (Score:2, Interesting)
FUD = Fear (Windows was too hard to use) Uncertainty (I couldn't figure it out) Doubt (I gave up and tried something else).
That is the entire focus of the ads, IMO. There are no 'facts' or 'figures' substantiating any of the claims. It just appears to be a bunch of ads featuring computer illiterates switching to something that is supposed to be 'easier' and more 'intuitive.'
I say: PROVE IT.
Show me something with substance, a study (truly neutral party of course [MIT??]), or something that might 'prove' a point.
Re:Are we bitter about something? (Score:4, Funny)
I say: PROVE IT.
Well, at the expense of feeding a troll, anecdotal evidence is unprovable by logical convention. But it seems that you're getting all worked up over advertising. FYI, all advertising is designed to appeal to your emotions. Numbers are a big turnoff for the general populace.
You want facts? Watch the Switch ads again. All the people in the ads are providing subjective facts. Anecdotal evidence is not FUD, but it's not hard objective fact either. There is one overlying subjective fact that isn't voiced in all of the ads: A Mac is a computer that will work for you. This is a fact if you consider one detail: computers are tools designed to work for you. The ad never says a PC won't work for you, it says it didn't work for them. The whole point of the ad is to say: If you feel like your computer isn't working for you, try something new.
In your haste to denounce the ads, you read something extra into the meaning. Your definition of the FUD from the ads is stretching for some tie-in with your misinterpretation. The implications are that you might actually agree with the Real People, but are frightened to leave the hegemony that you are comfortable with. Regardless, your troll is obviously FUD. You could do better, if you'd only take time to apply yourself and elevate from obvious troll status to the level of elegant troll by providing some facts or figures to prove your point, you might have actually succeeded.
Have a nice day.
Re:Are we bitter about something? (Score:3, Insightful)
How 'steep' or not is hard to prove one way or the other. The only way would be to have a study involving 3 groups of people, without any computer experience or trepidation, have one group on Windows, one group on Mac, and the third with access to both. The third is your control group that determines a preference to one or the other. The other 2 groups determine which is easier, or faster, to learn. The bitch of it is, how can someone make use of a computer that does not understand what it is for? And how do you measure progress? Sending an email? Perusing the web? Using a messaging protocol?
My point is this: It is all learned. It is not intuitive. One might be more to your liking than another, but that does not make it more 'intuitive' for the rest of the planet. That is the problem with Mac zealots. You all are as close minded as the Nazi's were.
Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:4, Informative)
FUD? Is that anything like the Apple switch commercials?
No, FUD is when they lie. The people in the switch commercials actually switched... I hated macs until MacOSX. MacOS9 is an ugly, unstable conglomeration of patches, but I was convinced by MacOSX to finally buy one, and I haven't gone back.
On the other hand, the article said stuff like:
Before Microsoft released this amazing new update to IE that turns on font smoothing, you could get it already by tweaking a system property. MS did *nothing* other than change a configuration file.
The article is full of things that MS is trying to take credit for. Yes, I'm sure porting Office to OSX found bugs and they reported them to Apple, but that doesn't make MS some kind of partner in OSX development like the article suggests.
Re:That Microsoft cares is interesting (Score:2)
Gratitude (Score:4, Insightful)
Gratitude, uh sure, got it right here on the end of my middle finger. Let's see, MS has repeatedly fscked Apple at every turn, stolen code from Apple, and used strong arm tactics to get their way. Does anyone out there think that $150M loan deal to Apple (which was a big profit for MS) did anything more than buy time for MS by propping up Apple? And we should believe that MS knows more about OSX than Apple? Pardon me while I gag on that nonsense. OSX comes out of the NextStep OS, BSD, and other Apple developed code. Where the heck was MS in any of that?
Ultimate gratitude: MS ought to be kissing Apple's ass for keeping the Feds off of them this long. Were it not for Apple's meager sales, the anti-trust case against MS would have been a done deal long ago.
Re:Gratitude (Score:2)
Note: I'm making a joke!
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
What? (Score:2)
Why do you believe this? Dell lives on razor thin margins and is eating Gateway alive in the market. IBM has left the home market. Compaq was swallowed by HP. In short, the X86 market is consolidating.
How is Dell going to allow Apple to make hardware, especially with Apple's historical margins? It would be worse than the Mac clones saga ever was and much faster to boot.
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt Apple would partner with Dell. Those two haven't exactly had a loving relationship. Michael Dell very much doesn't like Apple. I'd say it would be more likely Apple would partner with Sony, HP, or Gateway, in that order. Sony seems like the most likely since they have been pushing firewire. HP only because Apple licensed their printer design before so there is a relationship there. Gateway because of the Gateway Country stores which Apple recently started their own version.
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:2)
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:2)
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people believe that Apple's computers are technically superior. In some ways, they are, but in some ways, they aren't. That's not the point. The point is that people buy Macs because of the Apple brand, not the guts of the computer.
A Dell-branded Apple-built computer running Mac OS X would be the worst of all possible worlds. A shit brand wrapped around a technically average and moderately expensive computer, running a niche OS? That's a going-out-of-business plan.
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:3, Insightful)
No, people buy Macs because they run the Mac OS, which despite a number of issues has always provided a superior user experience to Microsoft's offerings.
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:2)
just fueling the fire
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has does not share this uncommon ability to generate huge revenue through selling OSes and office suite software. They would not be able to support their OS developement costs. Not even close.
Fortunately, right now, they have huge margins on their higher end machines. This does allow them to burn money developing their operating system.
Re:what apple needs to do (Score:4, Funny)
While Dell is certainly popular, I've never heard of this "new computer" == "Dell" meme before.
Round 1 (Score:2, Interesting)
Just the usual MS antics... (Score:2)
Sales of Office X != OS X popularity
Hey Billy (Score:2)
Suck it up.
This whole nonsense about Apple making deals that have come as a surprise to M$ execs...it's hard when you have to swallow your own m.o., isn't it?
The OpenOffice.org people better hurry (Score:2, Interesting)
Credibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there's a brilliant piece of spindoctoring! "We've screwed up so much in the past that nobody would believe us if we blamed someone else for something that didn't work" suddenly becomes "We're such a noble company we'll take the flak to protect our allies." Masterful.
Switch (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Microsoft's opinion that Apple isn't pushing Mac OS X hard enough? Well, that just sounds like a software company's opinion of a hardware company. Apple's shipping machines with Mac OS X as the default OS and has made plenty of announcements about the sunsetting of Classic Mac OS. Apple's money comes from selling machines, so that's all they need to do.
And how does Microsoft intend to "steal Apple's thunder?" By simply by making announcements of its own versions of what Apple has been doing with tremendous success for years. Movie trailers will continue to be in QuickTime format, MPEG-4 is still QuickTime, and Apple will continue to sell 802.11b harware in addition to their robust and easy-to-use software.
If Bill thinks he's going to lead the game, he'd better try to get out in front on a thing or two.
I Love This Quote (Score:3, Funny)
Could this be M$'s new slogan?
--
Apple Ads Incorrect (Score:3, Funny)
Still Haven't "Upgraded" to Office v. X (Score:3, Interesting)
Admittedly, most of my writing has been text based. I also have AbiWord set up under XDarwin/XFree86 if I need it (I'm waiting to try OpenOffice, as soon as goes from Developers build to beta). I've considered AppleWorks. And I have Office under OS 9 if I'm desperate.
I can't justify spending $270 for an upgrade for this. I never used Office enough to warrant those sort of numbers.
Re:Still Haven't "Upgraded" to Office v. X (Score:2, Insightful)
Going from FCP 2 -> FCP 3 not only bought around OS X compatibility, but a bunch of really useful features (colour correction stuff, G4 real-time stuff, offline RT, potential film editing plug-ins), and (at current prices [apple.com]) offered that at a quarter of the price of the original software (250/830).
Meanwhile, I appreciate it must of been a lot of work porting the software, but Office upgrades to the X version offer a much smaller feature upgrade for roughly 1/2 the price again (230/430).
I guess pricing software is always tricky but most people I know aren't prepared to pay (proportionally) that much for what isn't a massive enhancement for them...
Semantics (Score:2, Funny)
Microsoft looking for a scapegoat (Score:5, Informative)
1. Look at Apple's web site; it's completely Aqua compliant. In fact, it's been so popular that many software companies have been mimicking Apple's Aqua look for their own web sites. Some examples are Power On Software [poweronsoftware.com], Connectix [connectix.com], and The Omni Group [omnigroup.com].
2. Apple's Switcher ads are everywhere on Television. I've also seen their ads for the new iMac, the iPod, and other Mac OS X-friendly technologies. In fact, I saw a front page Mac OS X ad in the IEEE Spectrum last month talking about its value as a Unix OS.
3. Look at the response Apple's had with the press, like O'Reilly's Mac Development Center, or the favorable articles that have been written about Mac OS X.
Clearly, Apple's been promoting Mac OS X as much as it can. It's more likely that Microsoft is concerned about two things:
1. Sales of Office v.X aren't as good as they hoped. I'd chalk that up to the incredible $500 price tag
2. Apple is targeting Windows customers with their Switchers ad campaign. Microsoft is happier with Apple when they play in their own sandbox, but when they go after Microsoft's customers (or perceived customers), Microsoft takes the gloves off.
A good example of the latter point came out during the DOJ trial when Apple was first introducing QuickTime for Windows. According to the case: (Source: Reuters, Feb 25, 1999)
No, I'd say considering that Adobe says their Mac sales are up (and they attribute this to people upgrading to the new Mac OS X-compatible version of Photoshop), it's more likely that Microsoft is just not happy that Apple is trying to grow their market at Windows's expense.
Upgrades (Score:4, Interesting)
* MacOS X pretty much requires modern Mac hardware.
* In a recessionary economy, many people are deferring large purchases.
* Most people buy new computers instead of new operating systems.
* Apple's latest professional upgrades have been less than compelling.
* Therefore, people won't buy MacOS X until they get a new computer, and they won't get a new computer until the recession eases, or Apple comes up with something truly compelling.
Unless, of course, they're X afficionados like me. But that's not going to pull this market into the mainstream. What will pull it in is people's gradual replacement of their old computers.
Surely Microsoft knew this? The same pattern has held with Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP and so on. And surely they are aware of their own trouble selling XP into a down market? Apple's having the same trouble with MacOS X.
They shouldn't be beating Apple up unless they are beating up their own marketing department just as badly
*
As far as their upgrade complaints are concerned, I bought new versions of Photoshop, Illustrator and After Effects to gain MacOS X compatibility, so Adobe should be very pleased. I've been very pleased with all my Adobe purchases. Adobe really knows how to design graphics software better than anyone.
I bought Office X because I felt I had to due to a new venture I'm involved in that requires the use of Office documents. But I wouldn't have bought it otherwise, and the price - quite bluntly - made me think I was being raped, just so I could view Office documents in all their (ahem) glory.
(Unfortunately, I did a test of the AppleWorks import filters with modern Office documents, and they did a terrible job, so I really didn't have much choice).
D
Re:Upgrades (Score:2)
Remember -- Office is a suite. If you don't want all four programs, buy what you want. Adobe's suite of Photoshop, Premiere, After Effects and Illustrator is, IIRC, $1,299. Is that a raping as well?
$400 for Office is expensive, sure, but it's not out of line for other professional productivity software of its ilk. And if you use it for your own business, it's tax deductable as a business expense.
Microsoft helps Fix OS X? (Score:2, Informative)
The delay of all the major players to port to OS X was due solely upon their reluctance to move to the Objective-C/Cocoa Tools environment.
This delay added a level of unnecessary complexity with the Carbon APIs. To blatantly state Apple was crippled without some technical expertise from Microsoft is misleading.
Microsoft doesn't just publish its APIs for the likes of Apple to modify its OS towards. Its Microsoft's role to effectively communicate to Apple their current impasses, regarding the progress of any development effort being written for MacOS X.
It is Apple's role and responsibility to determine the feasibility of those requests and to determine where such is infeasible.
Lastly, its also a political game of epic proportions across the software industry and that will never change--this is not Star Trek.
Office v. X not selling well (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I think I may have another theory on why Office isn't selling very well: $459.95. While the new version of Office is nice and quite pretty I still don't see it warranting almost half a grand. I can't think of the last time I ever used Word for anything more than writing my resume and the occasional label and envelope printing. AppleWorks can do all that for more than one fifth the price. While it's true that Office has quite a few more features than Works it can probably get most people by.
So this is probably just good (or bad) old Microsoft marketing work. Some people will believe whatever they read, despite their mothers telling them not to.
What thunder? (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, nothing new there. Microsoft shouldn't have a problem stealing the thunder at all, I mean those announcements aren't much of anything. Now, Steve Jobs has been known to pull some surprises from time to time, maybe MS is worrying about that...
Re:What thunder? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple's slow-and-steady approach is very effectively turning them from a has-been, brink-of-death company into a giant in the industry. They're not that impressive in terms of market share or annual revenues, but they're at the absolute top of the heap in terms of brand loyalty and customer satisfaction, and that's what scares Microsoft.
Microsoft is walking a fine line. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mac OS X's acceptance rate is increasing, and will continue to do so as more games and general software is moved to work in OS X only. This transition will happen strongest in the businesses that use Macintosh systems, then homes, with educators last. Businesses can afford the transition and have already scheduled new systems. Homes have a mix of old and new things that Mac OS X must use, but the purchase of a new computer typically calls for a new printer to replace the ratty one.
Educators are moving very slowly to OS X client since a lot of their software for students and administrators doesn't yet run in Mac OS X. However, Mac OS X Server may have a big acceptance in their IT shops because of its NetBoot and Macintosh Manager network-based client services.
I think that Office v.X gives a lot of users a reason to switch. But $500 for an office suite, especially since AppleWorks comes installed on an iMac, is a price that only a few are willing to pay. Apple users have never really subscribed to the "upgrade annually" mentality that IT pros and home PC users have only began to shake off. Office 2000 for Macintosh works fine in the Classic environment of OS X. Why hasn't Microsoft given them a reason to switch? (One idea: MS should accept a trade-in on old original MS Office software disks--PC or Mac--for a rebate on Office v.X)
The fine line part is that Microsoft must not cut the cord on Mac Office development as lawsuits would be cut for antitrust violations faster than you can do a gaussian blur in Photoshop on a G4. Microsoft can't generate further news that shows how they can bully other companies by threatening--the current distrust by stockholders in Wall Street could lead Microsoft into a different court.
For now, however, I think MS is correct in its criticism. They aren't starving for money, but MS has been watching their revenues drop, too, and want as many dollars as the market will give them. Whether this comment from the MBU has anything to do with Apple's new aggressive marketing is a guess.
Questions to ask that weren't (Score:5, Insightful)
-- ms has split office v.x into a number of baffling skus, such as an entourage/word combo, a word/excel combo and so on. were sales of these packages counted in the single number they're tossing around?
-- is the soho/home productivity market saturated?
-- has the sudden stop on hardware upgrade sales affected sales of os x, new macs (which all ship with os x as a default boot) and office?
-- is office v.x just not that great of a product? either in enticing sales or enticing upgraders?
Predictable crossroads, nothing more (Score:2, Informative)
And now after five years they meet at another crossroad, but Apple this time has finances and MS doesn't relly need Apple so bad.
Five years agreement was nothing but five years of growing tension between both companys. Apple has nothing to loose (at least as long MS is stealing desktops from him, and the only way to grow is to steal some desktops from MS), MS has nothing to loose (Apple Mac OS X is not their OS, "sheeesh it's Unix"). And here now is the battle of the giants. One polished and user friendly with a complete solution and the other, well it has majority of desktops. Now this battle is continuously growing from smaller disputes and smaller blows to higher and higher. It's just a matter of time when it will blow into the world.
Apple has already started battle with stoping Shake production and pushing Unix, and Unix is a long time non acomplished MS grail. Just when it seemed they will succed to diminish Unix, Linux and MacOSX crossed their path. This was the silent start of war. Pushing Office and IE or Mac OS X is just the last try to control what you don't own.
Prediction is: Both companys will throw away huge amounts of money just trying to slowly diminish the opponent. In here Apple has advantage in their own hardware, which is pushing their second line of proffit : Software, while MS has advantage in almost unlimited supply of money and lack of fair play (Apple's not much better though). This war will continue to grow with every atempt to crush opponent.
Points of survival and advantages for Apple:
1. Their own hardware running their own System where MS can barely compete. (MS could hardly start to push their own computers without loosing their best customers such as Dell..., hey would have to announce another kind of war to stat that, a hardware war)
2. Professional line of software for high end users
3. Open office could help them ditch MS, and it's free
4. Almost fanatic users, which realy believe in their computers, and will probably stay with Apple no matter what
5. Partialy cheating with Open source sympathy
Points of survival and advantages for MS:
1. Majority of desktops
2. Most used office suite
3. Terrifying amount of money
4. Corrupted officials
I'm not saying anybody is better, they both suck big time. In case my prediction would be correct, at least Linux will have more peace and options just because it's strangely somehow neutral (money basis at least). But it's definite that both competitors will dry out their money supply if they would start this battle.
MS helping resolve problems on Mac OS X (Score:4, Interesting)
Could this mean helping Apple resolve problems with Mac OS X being able to run MS Office?
Back in the late 80's that was the norm. Apple had to doctor the OS in order to keep existing MS programs (Word,Excel) running properly. MS was well known in the industry to play fast and loose with the Mac API. (I was privy to seeing some of this first hand, related to a product I worked on at the time.)
Compare, Contrrast (Score:3, Insightful)
The other huge difference, of course, is that Apple's PR machine usually would quash incompetent quotes like that "gratitude" thing. Oh, man. Generalissimo Jobs would have that guy's head.
Recipe for loosing market share (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Send flesh eating lawyers after every mom & pop business the instant it appears their licensing is out of order.
3. Refuse to fix security holes. Blame the user for being too dumb. Then, refuse to give people the ability to remove defective/insecure software.
4. Cater to the content pimps (RIAA, MPAA etc..) and promise a new version of your system whose only benefit is to further limit how people can user their computer.
5. etc....
Result: My next computer will be a mac.
Microsoft's PR Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, MS often screws up it's own efforts, and this latest OS X adoption complaint is a prime example. Do you really think MS went into making Office v.X without someone checking to see what Apple estimated the adoption rate was? And now they are shocked and disappointed with that rate being exactly on target?
I can see the PR firms banging their collective heads on the table, wishing MS management would keep its' big mouth shut. I'm sure the MS people believe that they can prod Apple into better marketing efforts for OS X, but in effect they're creating more bad blood between Apple and MS, and it can only tick off customers. Don't confuse this latest salvo a PR effort. It's just another example of Microsoft's companywide arrogance.
Need hits? Try Microsoft vs. Apple story! (Score:3, Insightful)
CNET seems to have crafted more pseudo-news on the cynical premise that, when you need some quick hits, try a "Microsoft vs. Somebody" story or an "Embattled Apple" story, or, if you really want hits, a "Microsoft vs. Apple" story.
See if this sounds like a plausible timeline:
This isn't to say that it's either impossible or implausible that Microsoft would time their announcement to undercut Apple; but where's the supporting evidence for this, beyond a little anonymous insider grousing?
MS is building a case to drop Mac support. (Score:4, Interesting)
This could be a case there the Office v.X people are trying to justify their poor sales performance but I doubt it. I think MS sees OSX as a threat and they are gearing up for big fall out with Apple.
CNET is a M$ whore anyway... (Score:3)
Apple is in the hardware business. They give away the OS of their choice (X with 9.x for compatibility,) on the machines they make and sell.
M$ is in the coercion business.
To OEMs: "Sell your PCs with the latest version of Windows... Or else watch you proces hit the ceiling and your sales go through the floor..."
To businesses: "Upgrade to the latest version of Office, or kiss your data goodbye..."
Consumers buy the hardware and the OS is not an option in either case. Choice doesn't exist.
At least Apple uses pretty candy-colored/flavored lubricated condoms. M$ just rams it up the end-user's poop chute.
Article is pure FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
What bothers me most about this article is that the author implies that Apple owes M$ gratitude for "helping" them out in the past. I'm sorry but it's entirely too obvious that the only reason Microsoft has ever helped Apple was to make sure that they had a competitor to point to and say "we're not a monopoly, see? People can buy Macs if they don't like Windows."
And if MS really did help Apple fix "bugs" in the OS that allowed them to run Office, it was again only for their gain. Apple cannot be blamed for the lack of sales on Office Mac. Seriously, if I had a Windows box I wouldn't even pay the $500 MS wants for office Mac. That's just ridiculous considering it comes bundled with a new PC.
CNet: if you really want to be a respected new outlet, you really need to stop producing MS FUD. This is a disgrace to the media in general and worth only of a publication like the National Enquirer.
Missing the best quote (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' OSX ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The main problem Microsoft has is that they feel their Mac division is somewhat wasted; Apple isn't advertising their products enough to justify the expense of creating and maintaining Office/IE and whatever else they may be doing.
Re:Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' OSX ? (Score:2)
Also, if Office v.X was advertised, then people would start realizing that you don't need a buggy crash-prone Microsoft operating system to run Office or IE.
By the way, if the browser is a part of the operating system (Windows), why is it possible for Microsoft to separate it for the Mac but not for Windows? Hmm...
Re:Microsoft supposedly helped Apple 'fix' OSX ? (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, when it came out, Office v.X was the most complex Carbon program to date. I'm sure Microsoft's Mac programmers found lots of bugs in the APIs and reported them back to Apple. Office v.X came out shortly after 10.1, and required 10.1 because it fixed a ton of bugs overall, but particularly with the Carbon API.
I think that is probably what Microsoft's contribution to OS X was.
Anyway, if Office v.X is not selling well, it is probably due to the OUTRAGEOUS price. $500? I bought it at the educational discount and that was still $200. I only paid $1500 for my iBook, I'm certainly not going to pay 1/3 of that again for Office.
AGREED! (Score:2)
So now I'm going to go with Linux and OpenOffice, soon as I can find a good replacement for... some program for making b'day, etc. cards.
note: I do not normally refer to MS as M$, but in this instance I thought it was appropriate ;-)
Re:My other computer is a mac... (Score:5, Informative)
I thought I'd take some time to address the claim of Windows Internet Explorer dominance (even if off-topic), since I see it often.
It's been my experience that Microsoft's Macintosh projects are far better than their Windows counterparts.
Re:My other computer is a mac... (Score:2)
Probably because they have to compete on their own merits, rather than being bundled or pre-installed.
CUPS from fink (Score:2)
Re:Switcher Commercials (Score:2)
Re:Switcher Commercials (Score:2)
Just look at George Dubya: he has money and education, and yet he is most definately a total idiot.
Re:Switcher Commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Switcher Commercials (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but my self worth does not revolve around what people think of my computer.
Well then you probably don't own a mac.
Re:Hard time believing (Score:5, Interesting)
MacBU is a small (~150 employees, $50 million in expenses) but profitable ($100 million+ in sales in FY2000 or 2001, as I recall) division that is also good publicity. One of the nicer parts of MS to work in, from what I saw that summer.
Re:ironic - you msspelled "Parc" (Score:2, Insightful)
You could say msft stole the interface. But it was all perfectly legal. Their lawyers were smarter than Apple's were. Apple sued, Microsoft won.
Re:ironic - so did you (Score:3, Informative)
It's an abbreviation for Palo Alto Research Center, and thus should be in all caps.
Re:Pre-install Word! (Score:2)
Nah! Assign a handful of programmers, and a interface design guru to work on OpenOffice for OS X and install that on all Macs.
Re:They helped Apple "fix" OS X? (Score:2)