 |
by John Martellaro
April 3rd, 2006
And it comes from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure we don't get on the wrong track or try to do too much. We're always thinking about new markets we could enter, but it's only by saying no that you can concentrate on the things that are really important.
-- Steve Jobs to Business Week, Oct. 12, 2004
Recently, we've heard the announcement by Microsoft that Windows Vista for consumers will be delayed until January 2007. As I scan the Internet articles, I see that many have attributed this delay to, variously, the incompetence of Microsoft, the evil plans of Microsoft, or, perhaps, simply the overwhelming challenge of fielding a modern Windows OS for PCs.
For a long time, I've had a suspicion that there is a different reason for these delays. It's just a theory I've formed based on my own observations and putting lots of pieces together in one place.
Bear with me for a paragraph or two while I set this up. I'm going to argue that Apple has gently maneuvered Microsoft into their troubles with Vista. Of course, Microsoft is solely responsible for its own problems, but the history of the relationship between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs has, I believe, contributed to those Vista delays.
The first thing we all know is that during 1995-97, Apple lost control of the business market. Back when the character of the competition between Apple and Microsoft was simply the OS, Apple felt that it had the upper hand. But as times changed and the business market matured in its use of computers, IT managers needed something Apple wasn't able to supply: a capable back office system with authentication and management tools. Apple appeared to be ambivalent about this loss of the business market, and a series of poor CEOs failed to understand the evolution of business requirements and failed to bring clarity to Apple's vision.
As Microsoft seized control of the enterprise in the late 90s Apple flailed about because its own OS was becoming obsolete, and they lost further ground. And since there was a lot more money to be made doing business with business, Microsoft prospered. Finally, however, Apple started getting its OS act together with Mac OS X as a result of the purchase of NeXT. Steve's return combined with a modern OS allowed Apple to lay out a vision, and the vision would be to focus on the consumer. It's was Steve Jobs' vision to do one thing well instead of being all things to all people, and that vision would lay the ground work for Apple's OS success.
It's not enough to have a vision. One must analyze the expected results of that vision and make decisions that exploit the projected outcomes. I believe a decision was made to drive Microsoft into a bind with Apple's disciplined consumer focus. This was because Steve knew that Bill hates to lose and wants to one-up everything Apple does. Knowing that weakness, Apple decided to:
- Exploit Microsoft's greed and over-confidence
- Exploit Mr. Gates' fascination with Apple's nimbleness and innovation
- Leverage Apple's consumer orientation unfettered by business constraints
- Leverage the fact that Apple's sales are fueled by the purchase authority of individuals and the emotional reaction customers have to Apple products
- Emphasize OS security - knowing that the consumer Internet would likely become a more and more dangerous place.
I don't think this was a war plan written out in detail. I think it was the gut instinct of a very smart Apple CEO who nursed the plan along and let it flourish.
That maturation of the business use of computers that I just mentioned happened to come along at a time when the Internet was maturing itself and brought with it grave security issues. The timing couldn't have been worse for Microsoft. It forced businesses into monumental measures to protect themselves at the very time when Microsoft's Windows 98/2000 was unprepared to deal with it. And so, divided between the lucrative and cushy-safe business market and the consumer market won by default, Microsoft mismanaged their response to the threat to consumers.
Many business customers don't know how easy they've had it with their PCs. Tons of hardware, routers, firewalls, proxy servers, expensive software tools, spam filters, SMTP server dictionary attack defenses, anti-virus tools, all paid for by businesses to protect their operations, can create a false sense of security in the work place. However, when the average Joe buys a beautiful Sony Vaio notebook for home use, he is, generally, quite unprepared to duplicate all the hardware and software that protects his office PC. About five years ago, it didn't matter.
Now it does.
Simultaneously, we have the "envy effect" of Microsoft. Whatever Apple does, Microsoft copies. Why? Microsoft is a needy company. They don't have the charisma of Apple. The monopolistic company nevertheless wants your love and admiration. Sparked by Apple, the traditionally stodgy business company now wants to be a fun company and sell you fun toys -- an Xbox, a music player, a video player, a home entertainment system -- and have an OS that supports all the cool digital life integration things that Apple's iLife does.
But to do that, Microsoft must make grotesque engineering compromises in its OS. After all, Microsoft's enterprise OSes are so darned complex that a healthy business can be made with MS certification programs. They are so complex that IT managers can keep their jobs by bludgeoning the CEO with complexities that only an army of specialists can manage. For years, IT managers have been proud of the fact that they have a no-nonsense business architecture from Microsoft, not fun toys that employees love to love. Now, how can you take this Windows Vista OS, cleverly designed to cater to all the business agendas that Microsoft has built, and then have it work well on a small notebook computer in the hands of, say, a technically inexperienced young professional who just wants to post vacation photos on the Internet for Grandma to see?
It's hard. It's really hard.
But small potatoes for America's largest, most powerful software company, right?
Occasionally, current and former Apple employees wonder about Apple's enterprise focus. What I think I have learned is that Apple will not allow organizational structure or engineering decisions to emphasize business needs in preference to the consumer needs -- so that the products and OS can remain lean, unfettered, and consumer focused. Not, however, because Apple cannot be competent in the enterprise; rather, it's because of a strategy to avoid the trap that Apple wants Microsoft to fall into.
Namely, how is that nominally formal and high-brow business OS from Microsoft going to be re-engineered to cater to an ever-increasing consumer market for music, videos, and the digital lifestyle. It'll be a tall order to shake XP's reputation for leaking like a sieve, allowing all kinds of malware in, destroying people's privacy and finances. And it'll have to sit behind consumer-grade defenses that pale in comparison to modern business hardware.
Of course, Vista's improved security for the consumer is good for the enterprise. But, I think, all of a sudden, Microsoft realizes that if they are going to compete in the high definition living room, earn back consumer trust, be a viable OS that can live on an 8th grader's notebook computer and coexist with an iPod, and on top of that, be a platform that can engage in unrestricted warfare against Apple, the scope of their nominally business OS has to creep much more than they had planned back in 2001 when the iPod was first launched. As a result, that perceived pressure to out-do Apple put stress on the design of Vista.
This management understanding (such as it is) of the scope of what Windows Vista must accomplish is what causes the frustrations of the Microsoft bloggers who just want a focused, lean, and reliable OS.
I strongly suspect that Longhorn's ambitious business projects had to be simplified or thrown out to cater to fun consumer projects. Security emerged as a new priority. Meanwhile, concerns might have arisen that simple, beautiful GUI philosophies to entice consumers might not sit well with no-nonsense IT Managers. Conflicts likely cropped up between internal consistency, Win-32 backwards compatibility, and third party security tools. The need for different versions of the OS, catering to different customer classes, emerged with corresponding support and software maintenance issues.
The bottom line is that Microsoft's success and pre-occupation with business puts them behind the power curve with respect to OS security and the digital lifestyle; and maybe that's okay, but when that's combined with their covetous desire to compete with Apple's well-thought-out, consumer focused OS and fun consumer technologies, it has caused them to build a highly compromised OS. A split-personality OS. A kitchen sink OS.
What's the impact of that decision? To be all things to all people with a new OS? How does consumer support of an OS of this magnitude drain the resources and morale of Microsoft? How will consumers react to an OS so large and complex? How much longer can a monster PC OS with roughly 50 million lines of code contain and fulfill the business ambitions of one company that tries to be everywhere, do everything, and compete against everyone?
That's the bind I believe Apple, with its "just-say-no" OS strategy and fabulously successful music and digital lifestyle business, has seduced Microsoft into. And that's the reason, from my perspective, for the continual delays and problems with Vista.
But small potatoes for America's largest, most powerful software company, right?
References: The Seed of Apple's Innovation
John Martellaro is a senior scientist and author. A former U.S. Air Force officer,he has worked for NASA, White Sands Missile Range, Lockheed Martin Astronautics, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Apple Computer. During his five years at Apple, he worked as a Senior Marketing Manager for science and technology, Federal Account Executive, and High Performance Computing Manager. His interests include alpine skiing, SciFi, astronomy, and Perl. John lives in Denver, Colorado.
Send polite comments to , or post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From Hidden Dimensions
- Apple's Values and the Movie Moguls - September 11th
- My Tour of Duty at Apple, Part II - August 30th
- Apple, The Cluetrain and The Money - August 22nd
Hidden Dimensions Archives
Observer Comments
There are some VERY interesting points in this article. I have oft remarked about the "everything to everyone OS that is Windows".
To many is seems that the business market is the only one that matters. Apple clearly has a different tact. Why convince a IT CIO and his gang of Mac hating PC snob techs (bear in mind many will have never touched a Mac), when you only have to convince 1 person to buy a Mac for home, the person with the $.
In the "Pirates of Silicon Valley" movie there's a scene where Bill Gates is about to appear with Steve Jobs (after his return to Apple) to talk about Microsoft investing 300 mill and continued support for Office on the Mac. At any rate, they're going through what they'll be saying and Bill Gates asks Steve if he looks ok. I don't remember the exact comment and I don't know if it happened this way or if this was poetic license but Bill Gates seemed to be looking for approval from the cool guy in the class. The analysis here reminded me of that moment. For all the business and technical sophistication of those involved we're still dealing with what amounts to cliques, the in crowd, basically teenagers looking for approval. Kind of sad.
This article makes some interesting points. But it loses a huge amount of credibility in building the argument on the premise that "during 1995-97, Apple lost control of the business market."
Mr Martellaro's statement is so far from the truth it scares me. Was he alive in the mid 90s?? The fact is that Apple never, ever had control of the business market.
From the beginning Apple was a consumer computer company. They had a fair market share back in the 80s of course. But as soon as IBM started selling PCs, that market was lost.
By the mid 90s, Apple was losing primacy even in the consumer market simply because many consumers figured that because IBM compatibles were the standard in the corporate world, they were the way to go.
beautiful explication of the basic "mammals vs dinosaurs" riff that went up back in the 90s (we all remember that one, right?) - I agree totally that Apple has done a great deal to set this trap & encourage MicroGates to stumble into. Apple has played to their strengths consistently, scooped Redmond whenever possible, and allowed the MS obsession with owning everything to play against them.
I wait to see if the Imperial walkers hit the ground on the Vista pass, or the next....
Very glad to have you back in your writing chair, sir!
Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:35 pm Subject: An anonymous coward writes...
"This article makes some interesting points. But it loses a huge amount of credibility in building the argument on the premise that "during 1995-97, Apple lost control of the business market."
Having been in the computer industry one way or another since the 70s, I say this is a debatable point; however, YOUR comments lose ALL credibility when you use a debatable point as justification to dismiss a solid, well-grounded and well-argued piece by a man with far more credibility than you.
I was at Lockheed Martin where, in just a few months in 1998, 3,000 Macs were carted out and replaced by Hewlett-Packard PCs with Windows NT. The same thing happened at Hughes (merged with Raytheon) and in the USAF.
In the early 90s, when the computer industry was immature and when the competition was mostly DOS, Macs were viable business tools, reaching, as I recall about 12% +/- market share. After Win95/NT shipped, sites with thousands of Macs became rare, massive AppleTalk networks were ripped out, and the long slide began.
John Martellaro
Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:44 pm Subject: I disagree on a couple of points
First, Apple did not lose the business market in 1995-97. They lost the business market in 1981-84. The only inroads they made after that were in graphics art and publishing which are not the mainstream business market.
Second, Apple did not put an "emphasis on security" with MacOS X from the beginning. At WWDC 2001 right before it shipped, they said they were working on APIs first, speed second, then features and security. They flat out said that security was not a high priority. The fact is that they got better security for a variety of reasons. One is that they started with a more secure OS in the beginning. Second is that they have better developers than Microsoft. That's a fact, not an opinion. Apple pays its developers better than Microsoft (Microsoft is NOT known for high pay) and they tend to attract top people with advanced degrees. These people tend to make better security choices just shooting from the hip. After 10.2 shipped, Apple started caring more about security and today I'm sure it is a higher priority now that they have an OS with basic features and good efficiency.
I think the reality is that Microsoft could win against Sculley/Gasse management team, but have been simply outclassed by Jobs/Tevanian.
John's point about business rings true. If I recall, the same thing happened at Pfizer.
Apple at one point was the largest PC manufacturer. They held a little over ten percent of the market. Many of those cusomters were businesses. I am not sure if Apple ever "owned" the business market, but it nonetheless was competing admirably.
I doubt that Apple had a crystal ball and set a trap for M$, but I have no doubt that M$ has fallen into one. The world of computing is so much more complex than the dawn of the GUI desktop computer and even the dawn of the networked home computer that being all things to all people is more than a tall order-- it's nearly impossible to do well.
There is an old saying about if you try to be all things to all people you will end up being nothing to nobody, or something like that. M$ has tried to take a kludge OS, maintain legacy app support, stay current with (web, network and media) technology needs, extend the OS into the Unix server space, extend into embedded devices, extend into the handheld (Palm/Newton) market, extend into Smart Phones and both handheld & living room media devices. All with the same or similar code base.
Friends, I can drive an open tractor to Chicago in the wintertime-- it drives a lot like a car-- but it will not be a rewarding or enjoyable experience. I could also probably plow a field with a Hummer and get similar results. I could enter a Toyota Prius in the Indy 500 and it would be more of the same. The point is that all would function, just not very well. This is what M$ has been doing and the ever expanding complexity of the Personal Computer is catching up with their business model and OS roadmap.
The obvious solution to all of this is depending upon interoperable standards. Not M$'s proprietary versions that they market, but the real deal. Then they can be free to write different compatible OSes that work well together. This is the one thing that they will not do.
Microsoft has achieved most of their growth through exploiting their de facto control of the desktop. By releasing "Microsoft" versions of industry standards they can effectively cripple Mac Linux, Solaris and other systems that wish to play in their universe. By supporting open standards the playing field is level and people could use what they want and would see Windows for the kludge OS that it is.
They set the trap with their own greed, hubris and in-breeding.
The ideas and writing are fine, but what Apple & MS are about are so basic, obvious, and well documented, if a person has time to research it....
Back when Apple first began, a marketing guy Valentine, went to work marketing Intel ( a tiny calculator parts company ) and Apple. While the Apple III, Lisa, were the focus of engineering, he wrote IBM & SONY on the board EVERY DAY! Apple was earning 100% of income from consumer business, and spending 100% developing business machines.
IBM & SONY, every day for years..... Steve was there.... Both are wildly successful, which is great.... but they are totally different companies. IBM - Business, they court companies for YEARS, then sign billion dollar contracts.... Sony - Consumer - is just any person seeing something in a store, and buying it.... no approval required, no board meeting, just people.
MS even designed their campus to look exactly like IBM. They are in Business market. ( Successful, a real market, but not fun... ) Apple, and you'll hear Steve say this ALL the time. "Apple will be the next Sony, not Sony, but like sony". "Pixar will be the next Disney, not Disney, but like Disney".
Apple had 20% market - like when IBM was worried.... Apple ][ - Mac OS only had 10% market share ever..... and while some businesses used them ( Desktop publishing ) it was never a business machine.... Art, Advertisements, PR, graphics, design, was never most of the computers....
Office has support for file formats from 8 bit cpu's. So does DOS, and Windows. They need to not break app's even a decade old ( & run out of business by illegal monopolistic behavior ) maybe the company is dead & can't update it...... So, it's more like IT people are MS sales & customers.
Business is never what Apple was about. Unless content creation is business. ( and never competed in ) Apple has always been a consumer company, the computer 4 the rest of us? ( Only company not Business focused, makes consumer products - no one else does! )
MS is in business for many reasons. Among them, IBM paid over 4 Billion so MS could create ( Buy DOS & patch it ) & still let them own it, and charge per box fees. IBM never thought PC's would ever be more than geek hobby... oops!
IBM licensed the OS, IBM was business, a monopoly ( broken up even ), so they modeled MS after IBM, in detail.... They were stuck in business, but successfully....
Apple was the first to make a PC. Not the 1st PC, but 1st PC "Market". You could actually buy one, and USE it for things, without programming it..... and that was a new idea. Yet, always what Apple was about....
Mac OS, (Lisa) was an obvious way to make it even easier for consumers..... Steve before getting fired, adopted Laser Printing, though he had never seen it work, only a broken demo! It's expensive.... but what if we had a dozen people share a $10,000 printer? They become printing presses..... cheaply..... ( Appletalk networking was ONLY for this purpose ) Steve also gave a LOT to schools.... when he returned in 1997 - these 2 were the only income the company had - after 12 years!!!
Steve also said he would automate the whole Mac assembly line. Designed, refined, and told everyone it would work..... but no one ever did this before..... after Steve left, it DID work, exactly as he said.....
Anyway, this premise, Consumer or Business, like SONY ( was?) or IBM. These already define companies. Apple & MS, now that makes competing impossible..... without changing companies, or new company??
SONY isn't Walkman cool now, they now own Record Labels, & are too scared of stealing.... which makes it impossible to release a Walkman! Politics, opposing agendas, large corporations..... Sony never invented radio - CEO was a skier - wanted radio while skiing....
MS has always stayed business. Music Store; Make technology, let others use it, make small fees on each transaction..... Make WMP standard, so we collect fees..... and Office & OS are the only income @ MS. - EVERY other division LOSES money. ALL of them! WinCE, X BOX, MP3, MSN, all of them lose $$ LOTS of it!
If OS/ Office = 100% of income for MS. They need to.... be careful. If Windows removes compatibility for legacy software, and installed in new PC's, they would have to STOP buying PC's = & that would stop OS rev. & Office.
Yes X Box is a consumer business. But the Box loses $ on every sale! The software for it, licensing, is where the income comes in.,.... eventually.... a SMALL FEE, for each game, ever sold.... a Business.
Apple is not Business, never was. iPod is a profitable product. The service iTunes Store, is successful, but never was for profit.... just break even service for iPod owners to "Legally" get content. Other stores need profits from selling songs, and there is no profit..... Apple sells iPods - and @ 1Billion songs - broke even a couple times - which is why it's successful.... it isn't a business ( But breaks even - pays it's own employees )
MS as business, wants to own the technology - gatekeepers - so they make cell phone OS - but never make one. Other people do.... and MS will extort successful - maybe. They License OS for $50/ PC x 330 Million.... and besides Intel - there is zero profit left in PC's. No one makes $ selling PC boxes. So MS is often 1/3 the cost of a PC. They get paid automatically.... it is a fee.... imposed on PC makers, so consumers have no choice - it's x dollars.....
Apple has no obligation, or 10 year technology contracts, with large corporations. It can switch a whole OS - with 5 years "Classic" bolted on.... Carbon for modified..... now on Intel, no classic....
Copland, was supposed to port System 7 to a Kernel. It was outta control!! Everyone tried to add everything, ( But the stability was just Kernel! & worked! ) So, everyone added their own features, managers never said NO, or even knew what it meant in time or cost..... People were inventing cold fusion software - adding extra layers - search engines - everything.
Steve always looked @ cost. The Mac would have been great @ $999 - but greedy excec's said $1500 - and actually went $2500!!!
Avie, never missed a ship date. Steve would sit down & ask.... Avie would say XXX is not possible in 6 months. Unless we get lucky, or drop other features..... Acting as OS VP, if features were not ready, it shipped ON TIME, without them. ( This alone would have saved Copeland ) BTW - Copeland OS 8 on a NuKernal is exactly Classic! It could ship!!!
So, discipline, is largely built in @ MS & Apple. MS never wants to really be a consumer company. ( X Box had to be an outside division - left alone - because no one there even thinks that way! )
The only place competition lives, is how can MS get fees from WMP, when iTunes & Quicktime - are installed on 50 million PC's! CD free with iPods, free 2 download.... burns CD's, etc.
Apple doesn't need fees from Quicktime. ( It does $1 or $2 for PRO ) but using it - as MPEG-2 encoder in iDVD. Video/Audio/ MIDI/ in any app/ any part of OS..... to make Pictures, Music, Video, CD/DVD, iLife, FCP, GB, Apple is profiting from what consumers can DO.
Ultimately, IT people will have to try to stay MS. Apple will try not to get involved in slow, legacy, games..... Instead, making consumer stuff, they can sell immediately. No courting, no years of golfing with CIO's.....
As you see, both can be wildly successful...... Ipod Video eclipsed billions of MS Media Center - bypassing PC's - it hooks up to TV/Stereo/ Car / PC....
In Consumer Electronics, MS has no experience...... Business company, Apple is doing well in consumer business..... but not trying to get into office automation in any real way.....
These are very different areas..... Time will tell.... but there is no right way. Business & Consumer are different... Consumer makes faster returns... but fickle public can hate things also..... so risky..... Biz 10 year contracts..... less risky..... but long time to get them.
Apple is cool to consumers. MS is trying to be business cool.... and no can't really act consumer cool. Neither can Apple give IT conferences.....
( Movies aren't factually accurate )
MS is slipping for many reasons. Threats from Google, Internet replacing offices back ends..... X Box 360, Security fixes, keeping old apps from breaking, while making security work...... Spread too thin, and fighting too many battles.....
Even Managers @ MS compete against themselves. Security service @ monthly fee.... then make OS less secure? Fight! IE embedded in OS - Search engine & security services frameworks stuffed in - not breaking anything???
Still, engineers always have ideas..... Management must say, OK, do it by next month, and we ship it.... otherwise, maybe next release. Instead, Managers are going, WAIT add AJAX tools, Kill Google, Kill SONY, Break competing applications, steal Anti Virus business.....
Lack of focus, monopoly pays OS fee on every PC sold - why hurry? We still get paid......!
Apple needs excitement! They need everyone interested in new stuff..... new iPods..... whatever....
This is VERY important to understanding how MS & Apple do & do not relate.
Gates & Jobs? Not reflected in film.... different people, different ideas, different business, see how Apple vs. MS is not an issue? War is over, Apple needs to do a really good job to do well....
( Maybe I should write an article! )
He didn't mean it that way. Come on guys, don't read into this what wasn't there.
What he meant was that Apple lost control of the business community that it did have.
In the early '90's for example, a friend of mine was the head of desktop purchasing at Boeing, They had 34 thousand Mac's in the organization. They also had about 1 thousand PC's. Many hi tech companies had similar computer arrangements.
In 1995, when Spindler, then running Apple, decided to increase Apple's marketshare by releasing a million inexpensive machine during the Christmas season, he blew it by releasing the now undesirable 68xxx machines instead of the desired PPC machines. Sales bombed. A lot of people think that Apple's loss of marketshare around that time was due to the changeover. That people DIDN'T want to move to the new PPC. But that wasn't really the case. The Spindler move, which was responsible for getting him fired, was really why the losses occured. Don't forget that, at that time, business accounted for a far greater percentage of computer sales than it does now. That didn't begin to change until the later part of the '90's, when both the CD player (with its much better gaming, and music, experience), and the internet began to give consumers better reasons to want a computer.
In early 1996, IT managers were telling their bosses that Apple was dead, and that they had better move to Windows before they were left with orphan machines and software.
My friend told me at the time that the word had come down to replace the Mac's as quickly as possible. This happened at other companies that were heavily invested in Macs.
My wife's company, CitiCorp, went through the same change. The legal department had about 3 thousand Macs. They were switched over to Windows 98, above their rather loud objections.
The truth is that when Jobs came back to Apple, when he was asked if Apple was going to make a push back into the enterprise, his (rather foolish) answer was that: The enterprise is not our customer.
This led to even more dumping of Macs, and the loss of some developers of business programs.
It's only been more recently that Apple has been making any effort to move back into the enterprise at all. But that customer is still skeptical at Apple's seriousness, due to the fact that they still refuse to do what most other PC makers do for large business accounts.
Hopefully, at some point, Apple will understand what has to be done.
Years ago Apple told Macintosh users that they would deliver a modern OS, and Classic would run their old apps. Then Apple said in order to move the OS forward Classic will no longer be supported. These incremental steps helped users upgrade products, and get rid of products they didn't want to keep, allowing the maturation of the OS and the maturation of the customer to be in sync.
Microsoft cannot do this easily. But in order for them to compete, they need to tell their users that they will support the old OSes for a year, and then people will need to upgrade or lose support. If they cannot convince people to do this, they are finished in the OS market. Their OS will also be bulky, slow and stodgy compared to OS X.
The article misses these points, but Apple's firmness to take a stand to move forward and Apple customer's descision to move forward with the promise of a modern OS are the reason I believe Apple is winning right now. Apple users believe there is always a light at the end of the tunnel, but Microsoft users do not believe that Microsoft can deliver an OS that will compete with OS X.
QuoteGuest wrote:
Microsoft cannot do this easily. But in order for them to compete, they need to tell their users that they will support the old OSes for a year, and then people will need to upgrade or lose support. If they cannot convince people to do this, they are finished in the OS market.
Microsoft's biggest problem is the enterprise market. Big companies do not want to be told that the OS they are running on their servers will need to be upgraded, as well as their apps, drivers and support contracts. Steve Jobs and Apple know this and are trying to get into the enterprise business slowly with a solid UNIX server, and a server OS that will save companies money in the long run to maintain.
"... Didnt Apple put a chess game on their system, while Microsoft shipped with solitaire?"
That's interesting because the screen shots I've seen of Vista show that it ships with chess. : ) http://www.only4gurus.com/longhorn/pages/chess.asp
Apple sells to a specific, educated, and affluent market. Microsoft sells to the masses and is trying to catch up, you can't achieve perfection through mediocrity.
http://techrepublic.com.com/2300-10877_11-6043696-2.html
"They lost the business market in 1981-84. The only inroads they made after that were in graphics art and publishing which are not the mainstream business market."
I was an engineer at a very large high-ish-tech manufacturing company (one of the 50 largest US companies) from 1980 to 2001, and once the personal computer started making inroads in the mid-1980s, we were all Macintosh. Yes, we used VAXs, followed by Apollo workstations, for our higher-end computation, and the guys doing the drafting had CATIA, but the spec-writing and memo-writing and spreadsheeting and emailing and test-record-keeping and all office functions were done on Macs. We had thousands of Macs networked over hundreds of locations.
It was only after an ex-IBM-er was hired as the new head of IT in the mid-1990s that the decision came down to switch to PCs. And the engineers hated it.
Melgross has it right "MS is slipping for many reasons. Threats from Google, Internet replacing offices back ends..... X Box 360, Security fixes, keeping old apps from breaking, while making security work...... Spread too thin, and fighting too many battles....."
The last OS that MS released that I really liked was 98. Yes it crashes, yes it's not secure, but its functional. It did just what I needed. Everything since then has been bloated with all kinds of extras that I don't use, and I wonder just how many of the extra features and functions that are new since 98 people actually use?
I think that MS is rich enough and big enough that if it decides that it wants to be everything to everyone it can be. Problem is without a clear vision and path to get there along with a good dose of accountability you get the mess that they have now!!!
Winn Swartau of Security Awareness predicted that Apple will continue inroads against MS and Linux will become ready for the mainstream by the end of 2007. The way I see it Microsoft has until Christmas season 2007 to figure out a direction and get a vision or begin a steady irreversable road to obscurity.
QuoteGuest wrote:
This article makes some interesting points. But it loses a huge amount of credibility in building the argument on the premise that "during 1995-97, Apple lost control of the business market."
Mr Martellaro's statement is so far from the truth it scares me. Was he alive in the mid 90s?? The fact is that Apple never, ever had control of the business market.
From the beginning Apple was a consumer computer company. They had a fair market share back in the 80s of course. But as soon as IBM started selling PCs, that market was lost.
By the mid 90s, Apple was losing primacy even in the consumer market simply because many consumers figured that because IBM compatibles were the standard in the corporate world, they were the way to go.
Um, What about Mac Office. You know, from the 1985 commercial "Lemmings". Wasn't that an intention of Apple to do business with the business community?
(BTW, Yes, I know Mac Office died horribly)
Tho, I believe that Apple really lost control when Jobs was ousted by the board of directors in favor of a suit.
Apple once held a major chunk of market real estate until the corporate heads decided that selling computers was like selling cars.
Bad, Bad decision...
Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:10 pm Subject: Re: Pirates of the Silicon Valley comment
I think you are reading too much into what was a story based on fact with much subjective interpretation thrown in. Bill Gates is more focused these days on his altruistic ventures than he is running the ship, which I think is part of Microsoft's problem. Whatever you think of Bill, he gets it more than Ballmer does.
this is every apple employee/fan boy's go to "thought sequence" to make themselves feel better and "right." It's like some sad guy that can't get it up from insecurity and starts thinking about some rediculous porn scene instead of concentrating on the tail right before him.
Let's be blunt. Bill gates is RICH BITCH. He owns the PC world. He owns apple anytime he wants. Pull the plug on office and it's all over. He's parasitic and coldly opportunistic. He takes parts of apple, their tech, look UI because he sees success there and wants to make his company more successful. And he does so without having to invest nearly as much effort or research dollars because he just lifts it from apple.
To engage in some retarded delusion of "poor bill gates has a complex because he's not as cool as steve" is some insane jackoff fantasies from people who have drank the koolaid for too long.
Dont get me wrong, I'm an apple fanboy myself, but I can enjoy the hardware without engaging in this kind of fantasy.
It reminds me of those gay kirk and spok stories people make. (Good lord I've set myself for some colorful slams with this and other things I said, here, but hey it's all in good fun 
.
Which is not to say that the author's article isn't interesting. It certainly is as a "what if" exercise. But anyone that buys the thought that bill gates has a picture of steve jobs showing off translucent windows next to his pillow so he can get the confidence to plow his wife better is seriously almost as messed up as me for taking this metephor this far. %-)
Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:21 pm Subject: An OS does not a platform make
While the article has many valid points and raises some interesting questions and possibilities, the idea that MacOS X is just a consumer OS, or that no OS can be both a consumer OS and business OS, is just silly. After all, Unix was a business-class OS when Windoze was still in diapers. And it is arguably much more complex than Windoze.
It is the business of an OS to manage resources of the computer (e.g. processor, memory, files, disks, peripherals, etc.)
It is not the OS which makes Windoze an enterprise platform, but rather all the accouterments which are available on the Windoze platform (many of which are produced/sold by M$).
MacOS X is probably more suitable for business than Windoze is, given its rock stable performance and security. All it lacks are non-OS accouterments, which are available on the Windoze platform, to make the Mac platform a first-class business solution too.
Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:59 pm Subject:
Yes, you could call it a planned attack but when Apple flatly states START YOUR COPIES, REDMOND - they are not really kidding. Way back in 1995 when Ms finally rolled out a shiny WORKING Windows OS (win '95) - Mac users had bumper stickers that read Mac'89 = Win'95 which was true then ... and frankly, you could say the leaky XP is really based on OS7 & OS8, hardly Apple's best OS and aging rapidly ... and of course, Vista is clearly based in concept and ultimately execution on OSX - only now, MS is so befuddled by anything - they are more than 6 years behind the Mac OS. Win has simply 5-7 years behind whatever Mac OS is out there. That's simply a statement of fact - it's neither good nor bad - it just is. It's maybe not so great for consumers but yes, for corporations, it's fine.