Isn't this what Apple is doing wrong in regards to OS X?

[IJ Reilly]

I dropped a reference to BeOS, which was also a candidate for purchase by Apple. Shortly after Apple declined to purchase Be, the company went under -- despite having created a quite advanced OS. Did any of the OEMs snatch up Be? Nope. This operating system stuff is hard work. Not many companies have the talent, the resources, or the inclination to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft. Only one, really.

 

[Slowstick]

I dropped a reference to BeOS, which was also a candidate for purchase by Apple. Shortly after Apple declined to purchase Be, the company went under -- despite having created a quite advanced OS. Did any of the OEMs snatch up Be? Nope. This operating system stuff is hard work. Not many companies have the talent, the resources, or the inclination to go toe-to-toe with Microsoft. Only one, really.

Open source, perhaps?

 

[lpp71]

Looks like someone needs to watch Triump of the Nerds.

x2

Old documentary, but VERY good and accurate.

 

[rajalot]

No, I see that distinction and take your point. Hardware does make a difference. I am adding what I believe is an even more important distinction, which is often overlooked. The Microsoft OEMs can distinguish their products only on the basis of hardware, and price. Apple isn't under that constraint -- they can determine how the thing actually works. The other point I'm adding is, the way Apple does things is pretty normal. The way the rest of the industry works isn't normal at all. In fact it's very weird.

Not true. OEM's can distinguish them with hardware, prices, support they give, looks of the case, add-ons to windows (not bloatware but addons like touchsmart or eee tray), looks of the web-pages... there is so much more mattering to customer than just the hardware. Windows OEM's are actually closer to software-as-a-service than hardware, while Apple is the hardware guy.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

The other point I'm adding is, the way Apple does things is pretty normal. The way the rest of the industry works isn't normal at all. In fact it's very weird.

If 90% of the market functions one way and the other 10% does something different then it is the 10% that is weird, not the majority. The paradigm for software/hardware ahs changed and apple is living in 1997.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Not true. OEM's can distinguish them with hardware, prices, support they give, looks of the case, add-ons to windows (not bloatware but addons like touchsmart or eee tray), looks of the web-pages... there is so much more mattering to customer than just the hardware. Windows OEM's are actually closer to software-as-a-service than hardware, while Apple is the hardware guy.

Yes, they provide service to customers, but how much different really is the level of service available from, say, HP or Dell? How often does a customer choose one Windows PC maker over the other because of the service they can expect if something goes wrong? The look of their web pages? Surely now you're joking. These things are in the margins, at best.

The point I was making is that only Apple gets to decide how the entire package works and looks. This is a much greater distinction than the minor differentiations available to the Windows PC makers, if only because in the end, they are all going to work the way Microsoft wants them to work.

 

[IJ Reilly]

If 90% of the market functions one way and the other 10% does something different then it is the 10% that is weird, not the majority. The paradigm for software/hardware ahs changed and apple is living in 1997.

The computer market is an aberration, the result of a historical quirk that won't be repeated. No other market works this way, and for good reason.

 

[Consultant]

The Secret Failures of Microsoft
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/2E6D9BB2-FE1B-4556-8389-67BD581FBCCC.html

Windows 95 and Vista: Why 2007 Won't Be Like 1995
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/EFDF04D6-8FE9-49E2-878C-B15FA27F1CCA.html

That doesn't make sense. What does quantity have anything to do with this?

MS sell more of windows because it's cheaper, not because it's better.

The Microsoft Invincibility Myth / Windows price paradox
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/C91CCB7E-A668-4B0A-ABB6-98840AC8A317.html

 

[Winni]

MS sell more of windows because it's cheaper, not because it's better.

There are tons of reasons why Microsoft sells more software than anybody else, and the price has almost nothing to do with it. Here are just a few reasons in no specific order:

- The sell a platform, not just loosely coupled pieces of software.

- That platform can be customized(!) and extended(!) by anybody who wants to do so. (For example, Microsoft's embedded platform comes to OEMs in a similar "Lego bricks collection" as Linux - OEMs are in complete control over the system and how they want to use it. But even the desktop Windows version can be customized to the customer's requirements.)

- Microsoft understands the OEM business better than anybody else.

- Microsoft uses a "divide and rule" policy: As long as people pay license fees, they let anybody play in their market. (Where Apple is only interested in Apple and avoids competition wherever possible.)

- Microsoft actually listens to its customers (which would mainly be Enterprises and OEMs) and designs the products to their requests.

- Microsoft ships products that Enterprises ask for. (Just look at Sharepoint Portal Server, if you want an outstanding example for this.)

- Microsoft ships products that gamers and game developers ask for.

- Microsoft ships products that software developers ask for. (There are reasons why Visual Studio and .NET are the killer development environment that they are and why developers swear by them.)

Apple competes with Microsoft only in the consumer market; which is just ONE business segment of Microsoft Corporation. In the Enterprise market, Apple is a complete no-show - Apple doesn't have any software products for this market, and even their hardware portfolio only covers a few bits and pieces that you'd need in the Enterprise field. Dell and several others have the required products, but Apple doesn't.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Funny stuff, especially the part about Apple being the company "avoiding competition." In fact it's a hilarious suggestion, when you consider that Microsoft is the serial antitrust law violator, not Apple.

 

[belvdr]

- Microsoft ships products that gamers and game developers ask for.

That's why they stopped developing FSX! Thanks for the update.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

The computer market is an aberration, the result of a historical quirk that won't be repeated. No other market works this way, and for good reason.

Can you teach me how to see into the future?

 

[rajalot]

Yes, they provide service to customers, but how much different really is the level of service available from, say, HP or Dell? How often does a customer choose one Windows PC maker over the other because of the service they can expect if something goes wrong? The look of their web pages? Surely now you're joking. These things are in the margins, at best.

The point I was making is that only Apple gets to decide how the entire package works and looks. This is a much greater distinction than the minor differentiations available to the Windows PC makers, if only because in the end, they are all going to work the way Microsoft wants them to work.

Services do differ and so does guarantees. Especially when big companies are considering bulk offers which include support options from Lenovo, HP or whatever, they do matter a lot. They also matter to individuals and service they get is crucial to the success of company. You buy a 1000€ gaming rig from Dell and get ****** service if something goes wrong, you are not going to buy from them again. Websites are part of that same user experience because you get your drivers from those sites and self-support.

Point you are making is incorrect. Microsoft doesn't tell OEM's how to run their companies or what crap they wish to shove in their computers or how those computers look like - they only offer the operating system. Service OEM's give means a lot more in long run than hardware. If it were just the hardware, everyone would be building their own PC's because it's cheaper that way. Most don't because they don't know how and/or they know they can't deal with possible problems themselves.

I agree with Winni's list.

 

[dmmcintyre3]

Who cares how many usb ports there are on a laptop. the most usb devices I have ever used on the road at once is 2. At home I plug in a USB hub just so I only have to plug in 1 USB cable.

 

[blackhand1001]

That's why they stopped developing FSX! Thanks for the update.

He was referring the DirectX. Not Flight Simulator

Who cares how many usb ports there are on a laptop. the most usb devices I have ever used on the road at once is 2. At home I plug in a USB hub just so I only have to plug in 1 USB cable.

The whole 2 USB thing on the Macbook Pros is pretty sad today especially since most netbooks have 3 usb and most of the competing Dell laptops in that price range have as much as 6 USB ports. Apple Products are usually nice buts its quirks like this that really hurt them. I'd Also like to see two touchpad options, one having a two button setup on the Macbooks as their is a lot of software that requires extensive right click functionality and even with multi-touch you can't use both mouse buttons at the same time. Also where is the mobile workstation graphics card options on apple laptops, their are programs out their that require Quadro's or FireGL's. Apple is really forgetting about the real professionals that need powerful and customized hardware.

 

[tbrinkma]

How often does a customer choose one Windows PC maker over the other because of the service they can expect if something goes wrong?

I have two words for you, "Packard Bell".

In the early 90s, Packard Bell was a major, well-respected, name-brand player in the PC market. Then they had a rough patch where they gained a reputation that their hardware was unreliable. After about a year ('94 or '95 IIRC), they got the situation under control. By '99, Packard Bell was essentially dead in the market because their reputation had never recovered.

Another word for you, "Dell".

Dell had a good reputation for their customer service, but they viewed it as a cost-center, so they decided to off-shore it to India. Their customer service reputation took a nose-dive, and still hasn't recovered, despite the fact that they've brought it back to the US. Virtually nobody buys a Dell because of the quality or expected service anymore. They buy almost solely on price.

Apple, on the other hand, has managed to cultivate a good reputation, and hasn't taken any of those 'cost saving measures' that so many other companies have. People buy Apple computers *specifically* because of the reputation for quality and service.

In short, a good reputation is worth more than making $100 more on every sale. A good reputation takes years to build, and moments to lose. A bad reputation takes years to get rid of, and moments to reinforce.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Can you teach me how to see into the future?

No crystal ball necessary, since you can also look into the past and consider the present. Can you find another example where a business model like Microsoft's has occurred, and been successful? Apple also tried to imitate Microsoft's business model. Was that experiment successful? Microsoft itself has attempted to recreate their business model for Windows with other products. Have those efforts been successful? For other recent products (Xbox, Zune) Microsoft is employing the more conventional model that Apple has always used. If the model Microsoft has used for operating systems is the clear winner, then why?

Services do differ and so does guarantees. Especially when big companies are considering bulk offers which include support options from Lenovo, HP or whatever, they do matter a lot. They also matter to individuals and service they get is crucial to the success of company. You buy a 1000€ gaming rig from Dell and get ****** service if something goes wrong, you are not going to buy from them again. Websites are part of that same user experience because you get your drivers from those sites and self-support.

Point you are making is incorrect. Microsoft doesn't tell OEM's how to run their companies or what crap they wish to shove in their computers or how those computers look like - they only offer the operating system. Service OEM's give means a lot more in long run than hardware. If it were just the hardware, everyone would be building their own PC's because it's cheaper that way. Most don't because they don't know how and/or they know they can't deal with possible problems themselves.

You didn't actually read my point apparently, but I will repeat it anyway: Windows PCs made by all of the Microsoft OEMs all work the way Microsoft wants them to work. Meaning, they all run Windows. This substantially and automatically limits how one PC maker can distinguish their PCs from other PCs.

But also, since you did bring it up, for a long time Microsoft did indeed tell many of the big OEMs "how to run their companies," in that they strictly controlled what they loaded on their PCs. Compaq and IBM, for two, were threatened with a cutoff of their OS supply from Microsoft when they attempted to deviate even a little.

I have two words for you, "Packard Bell".

In the early 90s, Packard Bell was a major, well-respected, name-brand player in the PC market. Then they had a rough patch where they gained a reputation that their hardware was unreliable. After about a year ('94 or '95 IIRC), they got the situation under control. By '99, Packard Bell was essentially dead in the market because their reputation had never recovered.

Another word for you, "Dell".

Dell had a good reputation for their customer service, but they viewed it as a cost-center, so they decided to off-shore it to India. Their customer service reputation took a nose-dive, and still hasn't recovered, despite the fact that they've brought it back to the US. Virtually nobody buys a Dell because of the quality or expected service anymore. They buy almost solely on price.

Apple, on the other hand, has managed to cultivate a good reputation, and hasn't taken any of those 'cost saving measures' that so many other companies have. People buy Apple computers *specifically* because of the reputation for quality and service.

In short, a good reputation is worth more than making $100 more on every sale. A good reputation takes years to build, and moments to lose. A bad reputation takes years to get rid of, and moments to reinforce.

Some people might buy Apple computers specifically because of their reputation for quality and service, but I think far more buy them because they run OSX instead of Windows. But I agree with you that a reputation, once sullied, is difficult to restore. That's one reason why it would be suicidal for Apple to try licensing OSX to third party PC makers again.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

No crystal ball necessary, since you can also look into the past and consider the present. Can you find another example where a business model like Microsoft's has occurred, and been successful? Apple also tried to imitate Microsoft's business model. Was that experiment successful? Microsoft itself has attempted to recreate their business model for Windows with other products. Have those efforts been successful? For other recent products (Xbox, Zune) Microsoft is employing the more conventional model that Apple has always used. If the model Microsoft has used for operating systems is the clear winner, then why?

Apple failed at licensing their OS because at that point people were happy with MS and there really was no desire for most people to buy a new computer, new programs, and learn something new. Today there is more reason to switch to apple hardware now that you can dual boot on it and the OS works better than it used to in business/enterprise situations, even though it not up to par with windows in that regard.

Forgive me, but im not sure i am sure what you mean by the xbox and zune comparison.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple failed at licensing their OS because at that point people were happy with MS and there really was no desire for most people to buy a new computer, new programs, and learn something new. Today there is more reason to switch to apple hardware now that you can dual boot on it and the OS works better than it used to in business/enterprise situations, even though it not up to par with windows in that regard.

Forgive me, but im not sure i am sure what you mean by the xbox and zune comparison.

I notice you overlooked most of my questions. Well I suppose they were rhetorical, since it's clear that not only was Microsoft's success in operating system licensing a fluke which even they can't recreate, but that they're trying to build products more like Apple now. Has Microsoft licensed the Zune or Xbox to other hardware manufacturers? If not, why not?

Apple's experiment with licensing the MacOS failed because the entire concept is ill-conceived and almost impossible to execute successfully. They started that experiment with around a 12% market share and ended with less than half that amount. The only surprise to some of us was that nobody at Apple saw it coming.

 

[belvdr]

He was referring the DirectX. Not Flight Simulator

He said what gamers asked for as well in his quote. So, I still disagree a bit.

 

[Slowstick]

What do you think now with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard in regards to the article?