The Back Page - Rob "Wrong Again" Enderle Peers Into Apple's Windows Future
by
- April 12th, 2006
It's gotten to the point where I don't want to bother deconstructing columns from Rob Enderle. Not only do I not want to give the man any more ink, his opinions are so pointlessly wrong they don't need rebutting, and he repeats himself a lot. However, when he puts out facts that are wrong, and I mean wrong, there needs to be a correction somewhere on the World Wide Web, and so I will roll my eyes and do just that.
To wit, Mr. Enderle wrote a column Tuesday for TechNewsWorld, one of his usual haunts, that attempts to show how Apple is a step or two away from becoming a Windows OEM. As usual, his views are supported with error and misunderstandings (on his part), and that's what I am going to address today.
First of all, Mr. Enderle said that the release of a beta version of Boot Camp, Apple's new software that allows Mac owners to run Windows natively on their Intel-powered Macs, makes Apple "a tentative Windows platform OEM." That's an absurd supposition, even though I think Apple should embrace Windows*.
However, Mr. Enderle noted that, "Last week, Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) became a tentative Windows platform OEM with its announcement of Boot Camp, which allows new Mac hardware to run Windows XP and, eventually, Vista. Apple had said it wasn't planning to support Windows -- just like it said it didn't plan to support Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) or bring out flash-based media players.
When Apple announces something it won't do, it might actually be a sign or warning of something it will do."
For once, I completely agree with Mr. Enderle! Apple's stated position that it will not support Windows might well mean the opposite is in the works. The company regularly and repeatedly does the opposite of what it had previously said it would do.
From there, however, we spiral down into the weird, whacky world of Rob Enderle, where up is red, down is spleen, and the earth orbits on fish.
"If you want to talk about something that lit up the week, this was it," he opined. "Suddenly, with one seemingly easy move, Apple is a player in the PC space again."
I am not going to be an Apple apologist, but considering the fact that people like Rob Enderle spend so much of their time writing about Apple, the company clearly has been a player in the PC market for the last 30 years and 12 days. Oh, and Apple's market share is rising fast, and the company is one of two PC vendors to make a profit on sales of computers.
Red herrings are one of Mr. Enderle's specialties, and this kind of statement -- that Apple is not currently a player in the PC space -- is merely an effort to downplay Apple in the minds of his readers in order to make the rest of his utterings appear to make sense.
He then goes on with something about Disney not buying Macs running Mac OS X (not true the last time I got a help-wanted notice from Disney to run at TMO, but possibly not true today), and how they might if they were "priced competitively" and ran Windows.
Let's say for a second that this is true, and that Apple is singularly concerned with Disney's buying plans: Apple will never compete on price as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm, not to mention the fact that it won't not sell an integrated OS/hardware solution as long as Mr. Jobs is CEO. Take away either of those things, and Apple loses to Dell.
It's also not in Mr. Jobs' DNA.
Steve Jobs wants three things in his products: Control, control, control. He can't control Microsoft, and by extension Windows, so he's not going to rely on it for an OS. He might sell Windows in addition to Mac OS X, but Macs will always run an OS controlled by Steve Jobs as long as he is CEO. That's really all there is to that.
Anyway, back to Mr. Enderle, who wrote: "When he reclaimed leadership of Apple, the company was trying to build a product that was very similar to OS/2, which had a compatibility feature that would run older applications. He killed it because he, and all of us that covered OS/2 as analysts, had learned that what happens when you have a dual mode product like this is that developers don't move on it. Then you are only left with your own, increasingly lonely, underused applications. This is one of the reasons Copland was killed and replaced with the hybrid Unix blend that became OS X, which had limited OS 9 support."
Where do I begin when it comes to the factual errors?
Steve Jobs came back to Apple in the first place because Gil Amelio and Ellen Hancock had already killed Copland, which was why NeXT was purchased in the first place.
Copland was killed because it was out of control and nowhere near completion (and again, it was killed before Mr. Jobs came back), and not because it had an emulation layer. This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read.
Mac OS X, the OS that replaced Mac OS 7/8/9, had a compatibility layer that allowed Classic Mac OS apps to run. Mr. Jobs was CEO when that was put in place, the same person Mr. Enderle claims knows that emulation kills future adoption.
Even though his entire premise is based on incorrect facts -- and I mean this is basic, basic stuff -- he goes on to say Apple has been losing developers for years anyway, "and nothing it has done so far has had any measurable impact on these losses."
Never mind that each of the last three Apple World Wide Developer Conferences have been bigger than the year before, and that membership to Apple's Developer Connection has been on the rise for the last several years, too.
It's just silly, really.
In any event, since Apple has lost all its developers and has to pay all this money to develop its own OS, the company will finally see the wisdom of adopting Windows. The logic is clear, according to Mr. Enderle, because Windows is modular (whatever), and Apple will be able to slap its` own look and feel on top of Windows to keep us Mac users comfy.
This is, of course, astoundingly bad reasoning, and makes me once again ask the question of who in the heck hires this man as a consultant?
But I digress...
Not only would there be major compatibility issues with other Windows software if Apple skinned Windows, it would negate Apple's one competitive advantage, the aforementioned control of the OS. Were Apple to do this, the company would be competing with Dell, something that no one does well.
Lastly, Mr. Enderle backs up his assertions by noting that, "Historically, Apple has felt that moving to Windows would simply result in Microsoft taking the market from it. However, Apple moved to Windows with the iPod and took that market from everyone else, and Microsoft has been unable to take it back."
Of course, that's just flat wrong. Apple competes on the Windows platform with iPod and iTunes, but iPod doesn't run Windows. It runs a proprietary OS that keeps control in the hands of Apple. That makes is precisely NOT analogous to Macs running Windows.
This is just such simple stuff.
The rest of Mr. Enderle's column rambles off to talk about the EU's efforts to shackle Microsoft, and is unrelated to the bits I just destroyed. You're welcome to read it if you can stomach it.
The strange thing, at least to me, is that it's so hard to take Rob Enderle's opinion and analyst seriously when it so often is based on "facts" that are just plain wrong. For instance, someone making the case for Apple to become a Windows OEM PC maker can make a logical argument for that idea (that it necessitates a complete lack of understanding of Steve Jobs' motivations and ideas on business is another issue).
On the other hand, when that argument is based on a house of errors, I personally can't get past those errors to ever properly consider the position presented. That may explain my obvious frustration with the likes of Rob Enderle, since I am guessing it shows through.
* It is my opinion that Apple can grow Mac OS X's market share by working with Microsoft to have an Apple-certified version of Windows for Macs. The short version is that I think Apple should let Microsoft handle the support -- something the company has become adept at since Windows sucks so much -- leaving Apple to sell this version of Windows in its stores, and preload (for a fee) the OS (in addition to Mac OS X, of course) right out of the factory. If you would like to read my full thoughts on this complex issue,
and let me know. If enough people are interested, I'll write a column about it.
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
If Apple got yet another version of Windows, it would lose its cachet, ease of use, and essentially cede its leadership position to M$. The whole M$/Apple dynamic is really quite interesting, because even though Windows is ubiquitous and considered the de facto standard (for now), M$ had never really been seen as a leader. Apple, on the other hand, continues to lead.
I like the strategy that is emerging where Mac OS swallows Windows, making it seem easily managed and corralled. Apple's vision is grander than most of us conceive-- plus they are instituting real strategies to achieve it whereas most of us simply dream of possibilities.
Apple is really strong right now and growing stronger all the time, even if much of that is because M$ continues to stagger out of the gate with Vista. Now is definitely NOT the time for Apple to give up their momentum. I could only imagine M$ "support" for Windows on Mac. "Um... this never happens on a Dell... um...I don't know. Try rebooting." No thanks.
While people seem to be correctly stating that Apple is not in head to head competition with M$ because Apple is primarily a hardware vendor, don't believe that M$ doesn't look at Apple and just wish they'd go away already!
I agree with the blatant factual errors, but I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the whole Boot Camp thing for one basic reason... what will make any software developer inclined at all to make OS X versions of any software they create? If everyone, including Mac users, can run their software in Windows why would they spend the necessary resources to develop an OS X specific version. Unless Apple has some cool and wonderful things that can be done to make the Universal Binary concept extend beyond the CPU and into the OS realm, I don't see how this is going to encourage the commercial development community to expand, or even continuein some cases, their efforts in the OS X arena. I hope I'm just paranoid!
Guest wrote: A "skinnable" Windows already exists, and it causes no compatibilitly issues whatsoever.
Putting a Mac OS X face on Windows does not give Windows the Ease of Use of OS X. Anyone who believes that the power of OS X lies in the artwork is sadly mistaken.
Well, for someone who states in the entire 1st paragraph that they wont waste another bit of ink for this Rob guy, you sure do talk about him alot. Apple will be amazing at what ever it does. Steve Jobs is a brilliant man, if he were to leave Apple again Apple would fall apart. Because of him we have the iPod, the iMac, and the Mac Mini. Apple develops things that usually scares the consumer because of its incompatabilities with windows apps. But this has changed. Without exclusive apps to only windows PCs, companies like Dell and HP have nothing but the price to compete with. True Apple is very pricy but with all the hardware given its worth it. Just for the record I am not a Mac-lover, infact my last Mac was 8 years ago, but Apple is really impressing me, my next computer will definitly be an iMac.
Guest wrote: I agree with the blatant factual errors, but I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the whole Boot Camp thing for one basic reason... what will make any software developer inclined at all to make OS X versions of any software they create? If everyone, including Mac users, can run their software in Windows why would they spend the necessary resources to develop an OS X specific version. Unless Apple has some cool and wonderful things that can be done to make the Universal Binary concept extend beyond the CPU and into the OS realm, I don't see how this is going to encourage the commercial development community to expand, or even continuein some cases, their efforts in the OS X arena. I hope I'm just paranoid!
I think most Mac developers recognize that Apple is primarily a hardware company. I believe when they see Apple's hardware numbers go up - and they will - they will of course continue to develop for OSX, since there will be more copies of OSX to develop for.
More hardware sales = larger OSX market share = more developers.
Let's not forget that "support" doesn't just mean compatible. Yes Apple said they weren't going to go out of their way to help you run Windows on their systems, but then they did. But that was a very Apple move. They didn't want people to use some hacked up version of Windows without full driver support and then come away from their machine thinking its inferior to other company's products.
So now "not supporting" Windows means they don't want to deal with people calling them when they have a problem with Windows. Sounds simple enough. But what about when someone has a problem with one of the Apple-sourced device drivers? Who's going to support that? Apple. But its still probably better than people complaining about the crippled, crashing installs of Windows XP that were around before boot camp.
Guest wrote: what will make any software developer inclined at all to make OS X versions of any software they create?
Why are they inclined to do it now?
Mac users and developers are already a self-selecting segment of the computing world who have said no to Windows. The market for OS X software has already been established.
Guest wrote: what will make any software developer inclined at all to make OS X versions of any software they create?
Why are they inclined to do it now?
Mac users and developers are already a self-selecting segment of the computing world who have said no to Windows. The market for OS X software has already been established.
Exactly. Look at it this way, guest: Adobe could have made Photoshop Windows-only at any point in the past and told Mac users to "just buy Windows and a PC."
Why didn't they do that? Well it's because they make money from OS X Photoshop and if they stopped making it some other company would make an OS X photo editor and start taking that money instead.
Boot Camp didn't change that. Any developer who decides to stop making an OS X version of their software will very quickly find that another company has filled their spot with a new program and thus no OS X users will follow their program to Windows.
So yes, you're being paranoid. Don't worry about it.
I think your comments have hit the nail on the head. This nonsense of putting an os x skin on windows is just that. Anyone with a bit of computer knowledge knows that windows underneath the tellytubbies paint is a tangled mess of code that microsoft is having huge problems with. Look at the late arrival of vista and the comments on minimicrosoft to see the real truth. They are drowning in a sea of code, patches to fix patches etc it's a software engineers nightmare.
Apple did the right thing in dumping the classic os and going to os x, I believe that microsoft will end up doing the same thing eventually.
The longer they postpone it the better is is for Apple.
There is no loyalty in windows users, my brother is dumping his xp system for an imac, he is sick of re-installing windows, fighting viruses and blue screens.
Mac users on the other hand love their machines, and that's no exaggeration.
Mr Enderle wake up and smell the coffee.
anyone who ever uses it (ie: OSX, filemaker, quicktime, newton, os9, ipod, ilife, ilife, ilife, safari, Apple mail, built in utilities, the apple user interface, the look and feel, the ease of use, the user freindliness, the intuitiveness etc....) doesn't need convincing otherwise. Apple OS and functionality is and always was superior to all other os's. In these days of multimedia, graphics and convergence of all digital media the graphic element is critical - The Music (recording) industry, graphic design industry, publishing industry, photography industry, and soon to be film making industry and all creative arts and industries, predominantly use Macs. - There is a reason for that. nuff' said. That
will never change no matter what. Bill Gates just doesn't have it.
Adobe, Quark, Digi Design and all other companies that make creative software know full well that the Mac OS optimizes their software and makes it shine too.
Enderle should become a Wall Street analyist. He's showing promise at never getting it to the point where he's just sometimes right - one day he'll get it all screwed u[p and then will be certified for an investment analyist.
Small White Car hit the nail on the head... Developers will keep making OS X apps as long as there's money to be made. It's the reason Microsoft keeps making Office for the Mac... they make money doing so. (it's interesting to read how well-regarded the Mac unit at Microsoft is by MS developers – it's seen by many as the only areas within MS that has its head on straight).
The real question is this: If you own an Intel Mac, the next time you buy software, will you forego the Mac version and buy a Windows version? Even if the price is less for the Windows version, I doubt whether many Mac users would buy it instead of the Mac version. Games are the only exception, and that's because the Mac versions come out later than the Windows versions, and usually cost more by the time they're releaased.
The only concern might be a developer considering a Mac version of their software. These folks may forego the effort, counting on Mac users to boot into Windows. But again, if there is money to be made, they'll put forth the effort to do so. The certain increase in Mac market share will help this.
what amazes me is that Enderle *continues* to find an audience for his "opinions" (though I recognise that an ignorant and uninformed view such as his cannot rise to the level of a true opinion).
Perhaps I can help Mr. Enderle clear up his confusion:
you have a choice of co-workers - A. is capable, but is uninteresting, tiresome, self-important and difficult to work with; B. is every bit as capable, but is more attractive, easier to talk to & get along with, and is generally more interesting, intelligent & co-operative.
A. gets no hiring bonus, but is high-maintenance and incurs higher support expense due to a self-important prima-donna attitude; this renders A. effective but not very desirable. B. typically gets a substantial signing bonus, but is lower-maintenance, incurs much less supportive expense due to a self-effacing, team attitude.
Right on wrote:
"Anyone with a bit of computer knowledge knows that windows underneath the tellytubbies paint is a tangled mess of code that microsoft is having huge problems with.....Apple did the right thing in dumping the classic os and going to os x, I believe that microsoft will end up doing the same thing eventually. "
Mac OS X, Linux, and the Internet are UNIX. Windows is not, and causes many problems for MS. Enderle must know this, since it seems clear that he's a mouthpiece for MS top management. This article is black PR written to reinforce the idea that Windows is the dominant technology, and that Apple must eventually come around to adopting it, when in fact, the opposite is very likely. I would not be surprised if MS was already secretly working on a Unix-based OS to replace Windows.
I think the funnest part of the whole macintel thing is that now all the pc mags out there can finally compare "apples to apples". If a PC mag shows that the macbook pro is basically the same as some high end alienware thing.... just with newer architecture, better design, and the ability to run an amazing UNIX based OS out of the box, then I think it will start a good trend of moving all those "well they're nice but I couldn't" guys into the "well I couldn't turn down this thing!" guys.
Remember, Apple never tried to be Dell, Apple wants to be perceived as a better Sony or Alienware... and I think most people admit that Apple can out design any of those guys when we're looking at high end computers.
I'm amazed at the ferocity with which Mac-catholics defend their "faith" . "How dare you sully the image of the almighty piece of fruit by suggesting that it isn't a significant player in the PC market.."
Duh.Of course it isn't, at least not numerically.
2% market share is not signifigant.
Nor does Mac need that kind of numbers to be good. Trying to fabricate better numbers is just dumb.
And of course that will effect the number of developers who write for osx/mac.
And Adobe is ALWAYS the example used for :"Look, we have developers too..."
Whatever.It's the one major developer that isn't Apple that consistantly updates their OSX/Mac products.
There are tons of smaller devs that make great progs for the mac, but they are realistic, and only expect so many sales..
The main thing is, as long as Apple continues to profit enough to keep developing new hardware and software, then who cares what the rest of the PC world does??
Stop sounding like a whiny cult member defending your smelly hippie prophet!!!! It's embarassing!
"anyone who ever uses it (ie: OSX, filemaker, quicktime, newton, os9, ipod, ilife, ilife, ilife, safari, Apple mail, built in utilities, the apple user interface, the look and feel, the ease of use, the user freindliness, the intuitiveness etc....) doesn't need convincing otherwise."
Hate to rain on your little parade of personal opinion, but having used both Windows and Mac software, they are both equally good/bad. when you look beyond the shiny nice design of the Apple computers, you are looking at a damn screen and whether you run Excel on a Mac or Winbox, it all works the same. There is no Apple Magic, that is wishful thinking. Get over it.
IF Apple had any true intelligence, they would drop the Mac hardware and design OSX as a direct competitior to Windows. In an article in Fortune magazine, one of the editors reported that he received a letter from Micheal Dell stating if Jobs made OSX for PC's, he would install it on Dell systems in a heartbeat. Dell would love to get from under MS's thumb, the main reason Dell spends millions on Red Hat Linux.
I didn't even bother to finish reading this article. Using words like "ubsurd" and "silly" are just plain unprofessional when rebuttling anohters article. In the introduction you make it seem like you have spent you life correcting this person articles! Come on, really? How 'bout not letting this guy get under your skin and you just write an artlice strickly speaking about your opinions. Or do you get paid to follow this guy around and "correct his errors"? I bet I could do my research and find errors in your so called "facts", but I have a life.
Hate to rain on your parade, but Apple IS a major player, even with a 2% or so market share! Why else has the PC market followed Apple's lead with the introduction of the 3.5 inch floppy drive, the usb ports, the easy open cases, the flat screens, the Firewire for video download, etc., etc., etc.! Apple innovates, the rest of the market follows... you don't have to have a major market share to be a market leader!
"Duh.Of course it isn't, at least not numerically.
2% market share is not signifigant.
Nor does Mac need that kind of numbers to be good. Trying to fabricate better numbers is just dumb. "
Sorry, clueless moron, but the Mac market-share isn't 2%.
Try again. Thanks for trying to fabricate numbers, though. The irony's pretty funny.
"when you look beyond the shiny nice design of the Apple computers, you are looking at a damn screen and whether you run Excel on a Mac or Winbox, it all works the same. There is no Apple Magic, that is wishful thinking. Get over it."
Work's the same? Wake up and stop huffing glue, kid. The number of times I've experienced Windows fatally crash is in the high twenties. The number of times I've experienced the Mac OS fatally crash is zero.
The non-fatal crash ratio between my Mac and Windows computers is about 1 to 40.
Works the same... Maybe in your little happy-happy fantasy world.
"IF Apple had any true intelligence, they would drop the Mac hardware and design OSX as a direct competitior to Windows"
If Apple had any true intelligence, they'd commit suicide?
Because since they're a hardware company, that'exactly what your ignorant scenario would result in. Good job.
"I didn't even bother to finish reading this article. Using words like "ubsurd" and "silly" are just plain unprofessional when rebuttling anohters article. In the introduction you make it seem like you have spent you life correcting this person articles!"
You're right, Rob Enderle's girlfriend, we should all go easy on him for being a clueless liar. Nobody should call him out on the silly and absurd garbage he writes. He should be awarded medals!
Apple didn't actually lead with USB. Several manufacturers had USB ports on their machines long before Apple switched to USB with the iMac. Unfortunately (for the other manufacturers) neither Windows nor peripheral designers actively supported USB at that time. It was just sorta languishing there, waiting to be used.
Apple did seem to provide the last push required to get USB into the mainstream.
CloseViewName:Guest Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:09 pmSubject: usb
That may be true, but my point remains the same - where Apple leads, the market follows. Not always, but notice that now that Apple isn't putting floppies on their machines, many manufacturers are leaving them off except as options, too.
True, Apple took YEARS to adopt a multiple button mouse, and took firewire off the iPod in favor of usb2. All that proves is that they're not dumb, and can tune into market trends that they didn't set. But they ARE a market leader, as they constantly prove.
When was the last time you saw the press fall all over themselves to attend a Dell press release over a new product, anticipating a new, innovative technology?
From Enderle: "This is one of the reasons Copland was killed and replaced with the hybrid Unix blend that became OS X, which had limited OS 9 support."
Um... OS9 support seemed pretty robust to me. Nearly all apps ran seamlessly and well withing normal performance measures. How is this limited? Yet another fact that Enderle got wrong!
Guest wrote: "anyone who ever uses it (ie: OSX, filemaker, quicktime, newton, os9, ipod, ilife, ilife, ilife, safari, Apple mail...) doesn't need convincing otherwise."
Hate to rain on your little parade of personal opinion, but having used both Windows and Mac software, they are both equally good/bad. when you look beyond the shiny nice design of the Apple computers, you are looking at a damn screen and whether you run Excel on a Mac or Winbox, it all works the same. There is no Apple Magic, that is wishful thinking. Get over it.
did you want to add something to the conversation?
Guest wrote: IF Apple had any true intelligence, they would drop the Mac hardware and design OSX as a direct competitior to Windows.
I guess that makes you the only one w/ true intelligence, eh Ace? The reasons that's a bad idea are so obvious that another explanation would just leave you confused & angry, so I won't try your patience. Just shake your head and walk away; after all, you're *MUCH* smarter than anyone at Apple - or here....
If Apple's stuff is so average, and programs on both platforms look and perform the same, why does Microsoft continually talk about doing this that or the other "feature" to meet what Apple has been doing for years. Because Microsoft innovates by watching Apple and then trying to steal the buzz. The latest one can be found at Microsoft Watch, where Mary Jo Foley says that M$ is now going to come out with a Garageband killer. Another beautiful "innovation" two or three years after Apple did it. Apple's stuff is superior and fun both. M$ Windows really is quite inferior, and if you can't take someone liking Apple, just go home and cry in your room, but leave the air clear here.
I bought my first Mac in 1984 as well as my first BMW . . . many followed since.
Funny thing is nobody ever tries to convince me to buy a Chevy but a lot of Enderby's want me on Windows.
Apple's market share equals that of BMW and Mercedes combined . . . all 3 are profitable but have no interest in the mass market but wish all Chevy owners and Windows users as much fun.
Guest wrote: "anyone who ever uses it (ie: OSX, filemaker, quicktime, newton, os9, ipod, ilife, ilife, ilife, safari, Apple mail, built in utilities, the apple user interface, the look and feel, the ease of use, the user freindliness, the intuitiveness etc....) doesn't need convincing otherwise."
Hate to rain on your little parade of personal opinion, but having used both Windows and Mac software, they are both equally good/bad. when you look beyond the shiny nice design of the Apple computers, you are looking at a damn screen and whether you run Excel on a Mac or Winbox, it all works the same. There is no Apple Magic, that is wishful thinking. Get over it.
Yeah! What he said! Oh... wait... WTF? Are you on CRACK? Windows software just as good as Mac software... uhhhh... nope, sorry, try again.
The other thing that is only touched upon is that Mac users are from the top end of the computer buyer market, finance wise. Mac users spend more on their machines and are more inclined to buy software.Read: not pirate. Smart Developers look for paying customers. Apple customers vote with their wallet.
There are precious few Windows-only software packages for which Mac users and would-be users are pining. One example would be Autodesk's AutoCAD. The majority of the remainder are games.
So Boot Camp means that Windows games developers don't release OS X native versions. Is that really a *BAD* thing? Considering how invasive some of their DRM and copy protection measures under Windows have been (Google "StarForce" for details), wouldn't it be nice to have a logically separate portion of your computer dedicated to such tasks, having no impact on your workday/productivity/creativity system?
.