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 $.

Well at least that was my impression of the approach taken in this editorial. Nevertheless the author is able to pull it off making his reasoning cogent enough. I enjoyed reading the article!

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!

"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.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Mr Martellaro's statement is so far from the truth it scares me.

Sheesh. You scare easily. There there little fella. It's all going to be ok.





__dork__

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

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.

Good Article! Kinda makes you think about the types of games that ship with the system. Didnt Apple put a chess game on their system, while Microsoft shipped with solitaire?

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.

Quote

Guest 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.

Vista... same old tired dog... new shiny collar. Microsoft does not have the talent or the skills to develop a new OS from the kernel on up, which is what they need to do if they really want to out-Apple Apple.

Nuffsed...

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.

It's that simple.

The Apple phoenix is but chic.

Quote

Guest 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...

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. %-)

An interesting perspective- but its a little hard to grasp what you mean without examples of what it is you are talking about... put more facts in thier and less of a bias.

Back up your arguement if you expect us to believe you.

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.

EGZ: Most... unintelligible... post... ever.

No, I disagree that it was the most unintelligible post ever, but if you do follow up on this:

Quote

EGZ wrote:
( Maybe I should write an article! )

please get a good editor.

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.

Even 10 years ago, it was worth a fight for the corporate market but NOT now. It's like selling cardboard boxes - only the guy who can make it for the lowest cost can walk away with any profits - everyone is just selling to not lose as mkuch money as the guy slightly below them. For a company like Hp with 10,000 other products, it's okay to lose a little on PC's - they can make it up by selling another server to that company. Apple is NOT interested nor should they be.

It's not just a lot of personal, paperwork and sales people to make sales happen but more importantly - it's a different mindset.

To sell to companies & gov'ts, you ASK them what they want, they issue specs - you look at them and build or lean towards building to their specs. That's why MS is confused by consumers - WE clearly said we wanted these things - lowfat food, TV on our Pc, tablet PC, etc, etc ... but the reality is that when we actually come to buy it - we don't buy what we say we want and MS is furter confused because they clearly think they are the smartest people on EArth so how could we be so dumb as to not buy their 'thing?'

Apple could care less what you think you want. They will deliver what they want and what they think might interest you. If you buy, of course ... who wouldn't want that? When you don't, Apple doesn't really care either - if you're not smart enough to get it, we're not going to explain it to you. That's how Apple sells the ipod. You don't see them expalining how to sync your calendar entries ... that's why Apple can't sell to Enterprises - they can't imagine why anyone wouldn't buy it - why bother "selling" it - you either get it or you don't and if you don't, we don't care for you to use our computers ... arrogance, sure but in todays' buying strata where value of personal interests is more imprtant than status or price (I'll drive my Land Rover to Target to save $.75 on 6-rolls of Bounty). Apple wins.

That's why MS is clueless that they shouldn't miss a holiday selling season or why after 6 MONTH, there is still a shortage of Xboxes ... opposing arrogance, we're MS - you'll wait for us ... corpoations, yes ... conusmers - not so much.

"Sparked by Apple, the traditionally stodgy business company now wants to be a fun company and sell you fun toys... but to do that, Microsoft must make grotesque engineering compromises in its OS."

This seems to be the crux of the argument, but its flat-out wrong, and you can easily see its wrong by observing that OS X is built on Unix -- a major Microsoft competitor in the business world. Arguably, there are some usability and user interface compromises to be made, but there won't be any changes

I don't know about you, but when I want to know a company's sales target, I check out their marketing department, and I haven't seen a lot that tries to rebrand Microsoft as a fun digital toy company. What I see is that the bigger businesses are happy with what they have, don't want another round of upgrades and retraining, so Microsoft (and a lot of other companies) are pursuing the more lucrative small and mid-sized business segment. These businesses usually can't afford a full-time professional IT staff, so Microsoft are selling Vista on ease of use, security out of the box and fewer hassles.

The real reason for this delay should be pretty obvious. Historically, Microsoft's initial OS releases have been pretty weak, followed by updates and services packs to correct various issues. You had Windows 3.1, Windows 95B, Windows 98SE, Windows XP SP2, etc. Microsoft wants to avoid this situation, because ironically, Vista's biggest competitor this time around is Windows XP. People don't have as much reason to upgrade, so 1) MS has to sex up their dossier a bit with some bells and whistles and 2) this is the end of the line of the Windows 95 design philosophy, and possibly the final OS for many people who are comfortable with it. They have to get this one right.

Rainy day: What Mr. Martellaro was saying is that consumers and business have very different needs.

The os like OS X or dare I say Linux, can perform well for both. What the author is saying is that, corporates are lazy to change and to spend money year after year on new versions of the OS cos, it means a lot more head ache and is prohibitively expensive. Not to mention that software development companies will have to perform additional testing to make sure that their program works on all the versions that have been released year after year, they will also have to try and exploit the newer capabilities added to the OS to keep above the competition. Its a monumental task for a business. Think about it.

On the other hand, when it comes to consumer, we're talking of one customer, all he needs is some time and enough $ to pick one copy of the OS. In a matter of minutes he is up and running. Moreover we as consumers always like to see new things, be it features or just eyecandy. But we really don't have to worry on the level that businesses have to.

I think this is what he meant that an OS cannot be a consumer OS and a business OS at the same time. The requirements are conflicting in a way. And hence its difficult to satisfy the both parties with a single OS.

Just my 2 cents....

Mongo say bunkalow. Bill Gate want picture of himself on every computer.

Whoever wrote this is retarded.....Microsoft delays are because Windows is the crappiest OS and most unstable and hes trying to copy so much stuff from OS X....Spotlight....Dashboard...etc etc...

Your theory does not make any coherent sense. Sorry. There is more to it than just Apple and Microsoft.

Microsoft's ambitions with media content began before iLife or iTunes or anything else Apple and did not happen as a result of Apple. Microsoft's security problems are a result of too much integration, too much backwards compatibility, poor design decisions and too much code to handle. It can very well be argued because Microsoft has always wanted to spread themselves to dominate every corner and, indeed, they are spreading themselves thin, but to suggest that this was some clever unspoken plan by Apple or that it is because Microsoft always vies for Apple's savvy is just plain bizarre.

Before I begin ranting too much, your article made me chuckle, because you put a very interesting spin on events, but it is an illusion. Microsoft's problems are a result of their own haphazard security model and management style and trying to support too many interests... this really has practically nothing to do with Apple, because Apple ceased to be serious competition to Microsofts' dominance a long while ago. It's simply because Microsoft is desperately trying to fix mistakes and design decisions made a long time ago in Win 3.x/9x... and smooth them out, while trying to stay cutting edge with many competitors (there's more than just Apple). Apple chose another route, which is to just cut people loose when major changes happen (like architecture changes and OS changes) and it has caused many problems and angered customers as well. Microsoft does not want to and probably cannot afford to go this route, but that presents its own challenges... let alone the challenge of getting users to find a reason to upgrade from XP - despite its flaws, it's still a top-notch OS for the average consumer/business.

I say this as a SUSE Linux user, hence I'm partial to Windows/Microsoft and OSX/Apple.

Quote

LaurieF wrote:
No, I disagree that it was the most unintelligible post ever, but if you do follow up on this:

Quote

EGZ wrote:
( Maybe I should write an article! )

please get a good editor.

I disagree, EGZ needs an author, not an editor.

"The real reason for this delay should be pretty obvious."

Yes.

The next big OS X update comes out around Christmas, so Microsoft needs to push Vista's release past then, giving themselves some last-minute time to copy OS X.

Then they'll push it back again, once they discover the crippling bugs in their new additions.

After "fixing" those bugs, they'll finally release Vista, which will be a very dodgy and behind-the-curve OS X clone that feels ridiculously unfinished and rushed with badly realized features even though it's had a massive development time.

Shortly thereafter the first Vista Service Pack will follow, which either simply won't improve anything, or seriously maim the OS like XP Service Pack 2 did.

It's not a matter of whether or not Microsoft WANTS to follow every Windows release with various service packs and critical updates, it's a matter of whether or not they can help it.

The answer is, as it always has been and always will be, they can't help it.

EGZ:

My diagnosis:

a) You are borderline illiterate.

or

b) You have to reach for the crack-pipe so often that you can't finish a complete sentence.

Different problems; both require counseling. Get help.

OSX has such little market share it makes no difference to MS. Vista's multiple delays are because Jim Allchin said we need to start over. Because they did, future releases will be easier to build thanks to the modular nature of Vista.

I like Apple, but get a grip.

Although the author makes some interesting points, I don't think Apple was necessarily trying to "spring a trap". They were simply doing what they do best, innovation and it was just microsofts greed that made microsoft trip over its own feet trying to keep up.

And for the last time I hate when people think market share = market population. Market share percentages are based on how many computers a company sells. So for instance, if macs went obsolete much sooner, and people had to buy macs more often, that alone would raise their market share. And statistics show that macs tend to last 3 times longer than their pc counterparts so the whole "market share as a judge of market population" is total bs. Market population in the consumer market is more like 20% for macs and the mac business market population is more like 1%. Generalizing the macs popularity by marketshare is just ridiculous.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ch03s02.html#nt_contrast

Windows is an OS without a thesis. Of course it's a big, buggy bag of unrelated functionality.

There is also speculation that some of Vista's programming was too close to what exists in OSX. The plagiarized lines of code had to be addressed and expunged. Not that MS is above stealing and implementing poorly the creative and technical work of others, but they don't want to risk it.

I didn't touch on the Vista beta horror stories I've seen circulating at some MS blogger's sites. Yikes! I wonder if they can even get a handle on it by Jan of 07?

Hope that Apple did have some impact on this delay-though it is all speculation. Yet just as some artists place reproductions of masters next to their works in progress. I cannot believe MS doesn't do this too with other OSs. Must be dispiriting to constantly face one's own inferiority.

John,
Good article. I think the essence that you are trying to portray "Microsoft has lost focus" is well said. Apple is focussed on consumers and they are really good now, Just as Jobs said in the 97 Boston Macworld. Microsoft wants to enter all the business - XBOX, windows live, search ... I think they need to focus on Business. They are going to have a tough time selling Vista to enterprise, I can't think of anyone who would want an eyecandy software for business. They would just say "No thanks, I 've XP and Security stuff" or "Hmm ... let's take a look at Linux"

I think 'kitchen sink' is a very valid comment about the MS approach. I read a quote recently that suggested that MS engineers have 'never seen a feature they don't like'.

I'm not sure that Apple have actually led them to make this mistake, because it's not the only company they cannot resist copying. They wanted to be AOL, now they want to be Google. They want to be Sony for games consoles. They want the database market, middleware market, development tools market, the computer languages market, the web server market - meaning they have to beat everything that Oracle, Sun, IBM and the whole open-source community can come up with.

Having typed all that, I've just remembered that they're now doing their own version of PDF and Flash - again with a matching set of development tools. Even when there is a free product or specification, they're compelled to invent their own.

So I'm not sure Apple is their only problem - but being able to target one section exclusively is an opportunity for everyone else. (Which is why Google won - they focused on search rather than being a rag-bag portal).

Still, it's worth remembering that the business edition of Vista should still ship before the end of the year, and that developers are already building applications to make use of technologies like the core workflow engine. We won't be seeing them on desktops any time soon, but I expect server applications to exploit them rapidly.
They are also doing very well with VisualStudio and .NET, which is hitting a sweet spot for web development in many places.

Now that is telling me a different story - one of a company that has recognised that the next phase of the internet is about dominating the server market rather than the browser. (Who cares if the end customer is running a Mac or a Nokia, so long as the server and database are Microsoft).

In truth, it's a big firm - they're bound to get some things right - shotgun strategy.

Quote

Rainy Day wrote:
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.

Rainy (can I call you that?) - I don't think anyone is arguing that OS X isn't suitable technically, but that it is difficult for a company to focus well on both markets at the same time.

Apple's message is targetted wholly at consumers, in such a way that it's negative to business. I remember the same issue in the 80s with Amiga and Atari - your typical PC user presumed these machines with colour graphics and sound and games were toys, rather than because they were more advanced powerful machines.

The same is true today - I work in a software development house and people still think the Mac is 'good for graphics', rather than 'comes with every programming language you can think of, an IDE and a web server'.

Of course there are plenty of techy people out there that do appreciate OS-X but you need to separate techy and business. The techy people never wanted Windows in the first place - we always thought X-Windows or Sun was going to win, because they were so much better.

"OSX has such little market share it makes no difference to MS."

Really. Is that why Vista is a fourth-rate copy of OS X?

Because OS X doesn't matter to Microsoft?


"Vista's multiple delays are because Jim Allchin said we need to start over. Because they did, future releases will be easier to build thanks to the modular nature of Vista."

Hahahah. The multiple delays are because Microsoft is an incompetent thief. Keep on dreaming, though. Wouldn't want you to buy a clue or anything.


"I like Apple, but get a grip."

Maybe you should come back down to Earth before you say that, space cowboy.

No matter which way you look at it...if your a microsoft lover if your an apple lover...Microsoft COPIED Apple OSX....they stole alot of Apples ideas...And peaches for peaches Apple is still 1000x better and stable...

I think that the article was spot on.

However, I think that if Apple wants to get back into the enterprise, it is through the consumer.

When PCs first hit the scene, they didn't get deployed through IT, they got deployed through business users. Back then, getting anything done through IT was impossible due to the limitations of coding on mainframes - very costly and time consuming. As a result, departments started buying PCs through their own budgets. It wasn't until we started networking these machines that they became the domain of IT.

The same thing with email and the internet. IT departments were totally oppossed to these advancements. But business users installed the necessary software and did it anyways (same thing now with IM). It was only later, that these moved into the realm of IT.

My point is that you will never make it into any organization through IT. You need to convince the actual users of your product and get them to implement it themselves. If Apple does indeed want back into the enterprise, perhaps they should ignore IT and go after the actual users themselves (i.e. consumers).

I believe that the article was fantastic.

However, I believe that Apple may be doing exactly what is needed to get back into the enterprise.

If we look back to the beginnings of the PC, IT departments handled mainframes and it was nearly imposible to get any sort of change made. As a result, individual departments started using their own budgets to purchase PCs - they did not go through IT since they dismissed them as toys. It wasn't until lots of PCs were purchased this way that they became the realm of IT (in fact, in most cases it wasn't until we started trying networking them).

Disagree? Lets look at email and the internet. IT departments were oppossed to these advancements (we would get viruses and IT didn't have the resources to provide support). Many people in the actual departments started using them anyways. Instant Messenger is the same thing now.

If Apple wants into the enterprise, they need to focus on the user of the technology and get them to implement it, regardless of what IT thinks. Increasing your base of home PC users may be the best way to locate those that are most likely to do this for you. Apple still needs the "killer app", but I could see them (or one of the Mac faithful) creating some sort of multimedia app that would be very useful at work.

Who knows, maybe the killer app is just an OS that works without all of the overhead of Windows.