First Gartner and now Business Week.

Let the winfanboy whining begin...

(I work with a bunch of them so I know of what I speak. Last week one tried to get me to admit that Vista was "the best OS ever made". I just smiled and chuckled.)

... for the word "beleaguered" to be used in conjunction with "Microsoft."

I still can't rationalize such predictions with the fact that 90% of all apps and games are Win-type -- not Mac-type. Virtualization allows Win apps/games to run on Macs, but not visa-versa. So we might well end up running our 'Mac' computers with only Win software -- except Apple iApps.

Apple had 2 recourses: Have Xcode create Win apps (Too Little?) and/or License Mac OS to HP and Dell (Too Late?).

Curmudgeon

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I still can't rationalize such predictions with the fact that 90% of all apps and games are Win-type -- not Mac-type. Virtualization allows Win apps/games to run on Macs, but not visa-versa. So we might well end up running our 'Mac' computers with only Win software -- except Apple iApps.

Apple had 2 recourses: Have Xcode create Win apps (Too Little?) and/or License Mac OS to HP and Dell (Too Late?).

Curmudgeon

A little lesson from history. In the 1960s, GM had nearly 50% market share in the US. In 2007, that had dropped to about 23%. For most of the last century, GM was the world's biggest car maker. As of early this year, it may have lost that position to Toyota.

Were (are) Toyotas cheaper than Chevys or Saturns? No, in fact, GM competes primarily by keeping prices down. From that US News article, "Toyota has achieved remarkable profitability—its net income was $14 billion in the latest fiscal year—driven largely by aggressive growth worldwide. That's because Toyota has been building the kinds of cars people want, at plants that are the most efficient in the world."

That should sound familiar.

Windows may be very limited, but in 2012 it will sell ~600 million copies to Apple's 60M. When Microsoft opened its OS to the world 25 years ago, that sealed the fate of the personal computer. Jobs, a far greater visionary, unfortunately did not open up the Mac OS all those years ago because of his obsessive possessiveness and controlling instinct. Gates was more in tune with the society that wanted an open environment that would work on all sorts of computers at the time. Though far superior, the Mac OS was not adopted as the world standard. Windows has 95% or more market share.

If Apple is not careful, the same things could happen in two or three years with the IPhone vs. Windows Mobile or other OSs for the Smartphone. Whoever has the most open environment wins long-term in this market.

Our University just announced it will continue with XP and not "upgrade" to Vista. Macs are doubilng in colleges everywhere. Teens are expected to be 2% of iPhone users this fall. iPhone use overseas? Faggetabout it! They're selling like hotcakes. Apple is on a roll that only Elmer FUD at Business Week continues to try to minimize the continually increasing market share. Look at all of the naysayers whining about the Bacbook AIr. It's selling quite well, thanks. Go Apple!

Microsoft held on to old technology because they feared losing their customers who had all those legacy apps. In the meantime Apple kept updating its OS and upgraded processor platforms twice, fearlessly risking losing their existing customers but always managing to win them back, and attracting a few new ones to boot.

GM stuck to iron-block, two-valve, push rod engines and live axle leaf spring suspensions because anything other than 'Detroit iron' will be rejected by their existing customers. (A handy excuse by the way to spend less on R&D) Meanwhile, Toyota went aluminum block, four-valve OHC and independent suspensions.

The numbers don't show it yet but Microsoft's days at the top of the dungheap are behind them. GM's reign ended at right at that moment when their product design became hostage to their most technologically conservative (let's not say 'backward', shell we?) customers. For Microsoft that moment is marked by Windows Vista.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Windows may be very limited, but in 2012 it will sell ~600 million copies to Apple's 60M. When Microsoft opened its OS to the world 25 years ago, that sealed the fate of the personal computer. Jobs, a far greater visionary, unfortunately did not open up the Mac OS all those years ago because of his obsessive possessiveness and controlling instinct. Gates was more in tune with the society that wanted an open environment that would work on all sorts of computers at the time. Though far superior, the Mac OS was not adopted as the world standard. Windows has 95% or more market share.

If Apple is not careful, the same things could happen in two or three years with the IPhone vs. Windows Mobile or other OSs for the Smartphone. Whoever has the most open environment wins long-term in this market.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! In fact Microsoft is the only significant example where 'openness' won out. And it won not because it was open, it won because of two things: IBM chose DOS and then Sculley (Not Jobs!) insisted on the strategy of insanely high pricing for the MacIntosh.

When the IBM PC came out, the 'Apple' brand did not yet have the gravitas that it has today. No matter what Apple did in 1981 no Fortune 500 corporation was going to pick them over IBM. It just wasn't going to happen. A CTO would have been laughed out of the boardroom if he proposed choosing upstart Apple over Big Blue.

Then, when Apple had the chance to be a significant player with the MacIntosh, Sculley squandered this opportunity by sacrificing market share for short term profit. Jobs wanted to lower Mac prices, and though that was not the main reason Sculley and Jobs clashed, Jobs' departure certainly cemented the policy of insanely high Mac prices.

One more thing, if IBM had not been outmaneuvered by Gates and was able to get an airtight exclusive license on DOS (or bought it outright), IBM would be the ultra-dominant PC manufacturer today and with a closed system at that.

And really, if 'openness' is the magic bullet to industry dominance, why is Linux languishing in the desktop and laptop markets?

It's not a question of Apple's OS killing off Windows.

MS's cash cow is Windows. Fine, they have a large legacy market. Apple's cash cows (and legendary profit margins) are Mac desktops, laptops, Servers, Apple-TV and third part hardware (drives, etc.);OS X Operating System plus other Apple software; 30% third-party mobile software through iTunes; Music, Movies and other content and synchronization through iTunes; iPods; iPhones, plus service contracts.

A big happy family of high-profit-margin cash cows. Ever heard of synergy?...or maybe Halo effect?

Toyota, like several car manufacturers, make reliable products, that customers instinctively choose to buy again and again, even if careful maintenance might help the first purchase last hundreds of thousands of miles.... Sound familiar, fellow Mac owners? I disagree with the assessment of Vista being the moment that Windows lost the battle. XP was always a difficult OS for me, and my adoption of Mac OS started with an eMac. Though I've purchased three other Macs since then the eMac still works perfectly, if not quite so efficiently as it's newer siblings. And then there's the 8 year old iMac I bought on eBay last month, which still handles OS X happily, and shows no sign of packing in yet....

The difficulty of having several manufacturers using the Mac OS on their computers is that the consumer struggles to grasp why one unit is a better purchase than the other, and if the wrong decision is made, then struggles to grasp if it is the software or the hardware that is letting them down - setting to one side their ignorance! Using Dell or HP might work, as my recent purchase of a Linux OS laptop from Dell has proved, but Apple don't seem to need the help, and getting the OS into peoples lives doesn't seem to be the single greatest concern. Linux will do that, but at a pace governed by the consumer. Creating technology that people want, or can't live without (iPhone & iPods) is much more subtle, and carefully creative. because the OS is a common denominator, not the majority factor. Apple has steadily developed it's business, provided consistent performance and reliability, and aesethically satisfying design, is constantly thinking ahead in all areas of technology AND has a premium branded presence on the High Street.

Meanwhile Microsoft are still flogging Windows, and what else....? Office? OK, but what about Open Office; it's free for heaven's sake! The xBox? I have a PS2, which hardly gets used. I'm sure it's a fantastic bit of kit, but I don't need it, and I don't want it. Microsoft probably lost the battle with 3.1, but nobody was watching....

Apple have secretly created a monopoly, and a cult, and though I am a fully paid up subscriber/member, for now, I don't care.

Another history lesson. IBM created OS2 -- technically superior to Windows OS. In addition to OS2-type apps, OS2 evolved to run Win-type apps "better than Windows". Where is OS2 today?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Another history lesson. IBM created OS2 -- technically superior to Windows OS. In addition to OS2-type apps, OS2 evolved to run Win-type apps "better than Windows". Where is OS2 today?

IBM created OS/2 in partnership with Microsoft. When MS pulled out (because Windows 3.0 was becoming successful), OS/2 faded a bit. IBM worked on it until about 2005. However, it still exists as eCommStation.

[quote=IBM created OS/2 in partnership with Microsoft. When MS pulled out (because Windows 3.0 was becoming successful), OS/2 faded a bit. IBM worked on it until about 2005. However, it still exists as eCommStation.[/quote]

Did OS2 initially run only OS2-type apps?
Did IBM evolve OS2 to run Win-type apps?
Did IBM say Win-type apps ran under OS2 "better than Windows"?

Fuzzy Memory

No idea. Never used it myself. Check the wiki if you want more information.

MS succeeded, as stated above, because IBM picked them and failed to own the OS. Further, IBMs PC were built on nonproprietary, off-the shelf, hardware. This allowed MS to license their OS to anybody (eg. Dell, Compaq) that wanted to build an IBM clone. IBM, as a PC manufacturer, even then were destined to failure since the IBM-PC had a poorer warranty and higher cost than the clones. It may have taken some time, but MS succeeded due to its ability to leverage its entry into the OS space into other areas as well (Office, IE etc.)

However, none of this would have been possible if MS had not been able to gain credibility due tto its association with IBM.

For MS, the market has changed and they have failed to recognize the dramatic shifts that have taken place. Further, MS's business strategy is based on the ability to dominate and control (monopolize) markets. None of the new markets they have entered (Zune, Xbox, Windows Mobile) have been profitable nor dominant.

Bill Gates in the early 80's said that the computer industry tended to have a natural OS monopoly. Gates made the moves to create that monopoly.

If everything goes right Apple might get OS market share to 10 % in the US and up to 6 % worldwide but I think that is as high as it can go.

Windows has a monopoly with government and big business PCs, and there is not much that Apple can do with getting into that market.

BB

Quote

bb-15 wrote:
If everything goes right Apple might get OS market share to 10 % in the US and up to 6 % worldwide but I think that is as high as it can go.

Windows has a monopoly with government and big business PCs, and there is not much that Apple can do with getting into that market.

BB

I respectfully disagree. Many governments are tending away from Microsoft (more specifically Windows and/or Office). DoD is now urging the adoption of open source technologies that are cross-platform, and are recommending more heterogeneous networks over the homogeneous Windows networks that are currently being run. Does this mean that Apple will suddenly get a huge boost? Not necessarily. However, it does open the door more, being a certified UNIX distro now.

Switching over to the UNIX platform of OSX was probably the smartest thing Apple has done in years.

If Apple were to license Mac OS to HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. couldn't Mac OS achieve 50% market share? I imagine Apple could charge more than the MS receives for each box.

Apple tried that during the clone years. It almost killed the company. Keep in mind that Apple is a hardware company. They spend a great deal of money on R&D for their designs. Some (not all) of the companies you mention don't do much in the way of research and design, which is why they can sell at bottom dollar. Those would seriously undercut Apple. That is what happened in the 90's, before Jobs killed the clone program.

four years ago, i was bough my laptop iBook G4. my friends laughed at me. well i did not care about Mac vs. Windows stuffs. when vista came out and my company gave me a new laptop. i must downgraded to XP in order to use it. meanwhile, my G4 is still work strong with Leopard. at least i save 1000 USD to buy new laptop. in my opinion, iBook G4 is running as fast as new laptop with vista in certain applications. PC users will continue use Window because majority still used. they does not care about window as long as they can do their jobs. on the other hand, we do care about mac and we paid for the benefits.
p/s: i am not english native speaker. please forgive the mistakes i made.