I'm no Microsoft fan, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. As a matter of fact I would dread the day they don't exist in a meaningful way, these companies keep each other sharp and constantly pushing forward!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft is DOOOooooooommmed.....#
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok, "Surface". Reports it is selling below even low expectations.
The list I made is very, very valid. I also pointed some strong points.
And I completely agree, if, IF, management is flexible MS will do good and prosper.
note:
----------
It was about 20 years before they reached their pinnacle, and it will be a long time to fall, IF nimble minds do not prevail.
Some sectors they dominate, with no hint of issue. XBox is one.
Surface could completely bomb and it would hardly put a dent on the company.
Again, you present nothing that shows that Microsoft, today, is any sort of decline. You should really learn about what Microsoft does if you are going to make such ill-informed predictions.
Last edited:
Remember the first Xbox? It did exactly that. And everyone said that MS had no chance of taking any marketshare off Nintendo or Sony. And that aside, it isn't as if the Surface is going to be the only Windows 8 tablet.
Please, your arguments have gone beyond the bottom of the barrel now. Microsoft are fine. Even if Apple continue to manage to keep dominating the majority of Smartphone and Tablet marketshare, Microsoft will be fine and will continue to deliver their software and hardware to consumers who want it. Just like Apple have been doing with their PCs for the past decade.
I use those facts over last 12 years as evidence of shortcomings by MS (Apple is not immune, Maps app a serious one, but is only a small part of the overall product).
You cannot deny MS has fallen some since its peak.
Unlike Kodak is does have every chance to turn it around, and also unlike Kodak big PC's are not going away anytime soon.
Had MS experimented more with tablets, either its 1994 version or the 2000 version, the iPad would be a niche thing, like the Newton was.
OH, and starting with 10.6, the OS upgrades are $30 each.
The Win7 Pro for my new PC cost $200
((( THE above was an unposted earlier post ))))
----------
You are not listening.
Apple is but a small factor in the big picture. Perhaps the spark, but a part of a sea change. Even if Apple vanished right now, it would not change what is happening.
From 1995 to 2005, MS had no challenger. Even the celebrated Linux did nothing, simply because it was just one challenger. Look around today.
The Win7 Pro for my new PC cost $200
What percentage of the price of your Mac is figured in for development of Mac OS X? The software doesn't just magically appear from nothing at no cost. Microsoft has charged approximately $100 for an OEM to purchase Windows licenses for computers since at least Windows XP. I know this because I purchased Windows XP Professional full from a hardware vendor on ebay for about $120 when it came out. Right now Microsoft is charging $40 to upgrade to Windows 8 via download. Not sure if they will change that price or if so, how much it will increase. But then, Microsoft is a software company. They don't manufacture desktop/laptop computers to sell, like Apple.
So go do the math on how much each component (CPU, RAM, disk, video, etc) inside your Mac approximately cost if you were going to piece the computer individually. Subtract that from the price you paid and that will give you the cost of the included software and whatever markup Apple puts on it, which includes costs for cosmetic design.
Logic escape you? Lets make a proper comparison.
Every Mac you buy does indeed have a portion for the $$ for OS, but it is the exact same thing for PC's (only in this case you know how much it is).
On the OS UPGRADE side of things this is where the values are naked.
UPGRADE sales are RESIDUAL profits, meaning the software makers do not expect sales since most buyers buy new hardware (and OS) then upgrade. THIS is what to compare with.
Look at the price chart below:
MS wants $120 to $220 for UPGRADE version.
Apple wants $29 for its UPGRADE version (effectively that is what it is)
In defense, 9 years ago Apple also charged almost the same amount as MS for its upgrades.
MS wisely decided to keep price low for Win8 to get more to switch, and it might. Also reduce piracy.
Is the Win8 installer an UPGRADE, that is needs previous OS?
This is 2009 pricing for Win 7.
MS also makes lots of hardware, not just XBox. What you said is flatly wrong.
I think he was trying to point out that MS is primarily a software company and Apple is primarily a hardware company. Whatever they get their main profit from, they need to preserve its pricepoints to stay in business. Their complementary products, they don't care about and are willing to leverage by driving down its price if it makes them more money.
So Apple is a hardware company, which is why they charge a ton of money for their Macbooks and iPads and never cut prices until the next generation comes out. Meanwhile they're willing to put out their OS for cheap and slash the price of Aperture and Logic and Final Cut a couple hundred bucks because that profit loss on software will lead directly to hardware sales. Microsoft is the exact opposite. It hurts them to cut the price off their OS and Office Suites but they have no problem letting OEM's install their software on cheap pieces of plastic that fail after 6 months.
Far as MS making its own hardware, those are all expansions into other markets. Some failed (Zune), some succeeded (XBox, peripherals), but they're independent of desktop and mobile computing market. The exception would be the Surface.
I did understand what he said, but the fact is in the end it does no matter.
Look at it this way, since Apple makes its money from hardware, it wants to encourage people to buy new hardware. Instead is sells the OS for almost nothing, allowing people to use their Mac's for years longer (over 6 years for me each time).
MS, OTOH, sells the *upgrade* OS for over $100, $200 for Pro version. End result is customers put off upgrading, often getting new hardware with latest OS instead. We all know MS makes *less* money on new hardware then for OS upgrades.
Apple also has significant advantage as more machines run latest OS, offering a larger market for developers, and the more frequent incremental updates are less pain to users.
I was not including Application software in my examples, they are a different beast (MS does well in this category).
Not mass marketing own system is somewhat obvious, as they would be competing against dozens of others. And it is better to let another company fail due to bad hardware.
You are really reaching. Yes my point is that Microsoft is a software company and make money from software. Apple has desktops/laptops that which they sell along with Mac OS X. They make money from hardware because you can't buy Mac OS X and install it on a non-Mac (well you can, but violates the software agreement).
Operating systems take much manpower to code. I assume that the only custom pieces of hardware that is part of a Mac is the motherboard, keyboard, mouse and case, so they pay 100% for that hardware and design. The rest of the hardware they purchase in bulk as an OEM. The computers are manufactured in China, which we all know is very cheap. Apple then pays 100% of the Operating System. So what percentage of a Mac are you paying for the software? Do the math for the parts they purchase as an OEM and then figure in the cost for the custom hardware and limited warranty. I would bet that software is actually a very large percentage. Either that, or the computer has a higher than average markup if you go by the $30 price of purchasing Mac OSX upgrade. Only Apple execs and accounting know those answers.
So of all of this hardware Microsoft makes, how much of it includes a copy of Windows 7 or Vista? None until now with Windows 8 and Surface Pro. We don't know what their plans are for upgrading Windows on the Surface to the next version, but right now they are offering a $40 upgrade price for 8 Pro. Maybe they will offer Windows RT devices free upgrades and Windows 8 Pro Surface tablets an upgrade at a relatively cheap price, just like Apple does for their computers.
As for raw OS sells between the two, how many people buy Windows to install on Macs and how many people buy OS X to install on Hackintoshes?
Last edited:
Their goal is still to sell hardware every year. They make OS X cheap to up the penetration rate among users. If everyone wants to adopt OS X because it's cheaper than Windows, then everyone will also need to buy a Mac to use it. Same with iWork, Logic, Final Cut, etc, which is why they're so cheap. They pricedrop (devalue) their first party software because they're using it as a tool to get people to buy Macs.
Yeah this is one of Microsoft's missteps. All the problems that come with commoditizing hardware have hurt the brand over time and now a lot of people have shifted to Apple. Their software screw ups (IE Vista) didn't help either.
Not having quality Application software, esp third party, is a problem that comes with commoditizing software and this is something that can hurt Apple. I think MS is banking on it with the Surface Pro, which lets it attack the mobile SW ecosystem that complements Apple iOS devices
It's really a tug of war over priorities. HW vs SW. Apple is not really committed to profiting off the software market and MS is not really committed to profiting off the HW market. Until one of them tries to own the other's primary market and succeeds, both companies will still be around
It's not really the competition that's stopping them. It's just they don't care to commit to the hardware market. It's easier for MS to just commoditize the hardware market and profit off having their OS ecosystem on a ton of cheap affordable OEM equipment. Apple is the exact opposite. It doesn't commit to the software market. It makes software cheap and then uses it to sell more hardware.
They're pretty much different visions for the future. Quality hardware running cheap software or vice versa.
I don't know many companies that are vested in both hardware and software. Maybe Nintendo - they try to preserve both their hardware and game pricepoints, but they're in a totally different market anyway.
In my opinion, being a software company is safer, as long as the company is a good software company. Despite what people want to believe, Microsoft is a good software company. IBM were smart to get out of the consumer hardware market because it was only dragging them down. They now focus on specialized software, chip design, innovation and super computing. They are bleeding edge technology. IMO, Microsoft are sort of following that business model, but in their own way.
The problem with consumer hardware is that it requires a large percentage of natural resources to manufacture, as well as people. Software requires little natural resources in relation to people. That is why consumer hardware is mass produced by extremely cheap labor or machines. Until "Skynet" exists (joking of course), people will have to write software.
The problem with consumer hardware is that it requires a large percentage of natural resources to manufacture, as well as people. Software requires little natural resources in relation to people. That is why consumer hardware is mass produced by extremely cheap labor or machines. Until "Skynet" exists (joking of course), people will have to write software.
I don't think Microsoft is doomed yet. They have a bright future in enterprise if they play their hand wisely, which could involve giving up on their piss-poor attempts in the consumer mobile device arena.
No, my point is that Microsoft survived Windows NT, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows Vista...
IF Microsoft only had those as products and was depending on the income from any one of those alone to survive, Microsoft would be dead, or terminal on life support.
Microsoft makes huge money on royalties and fees that are charged to each company on each system they sell with Windows. They are 'safe' from their own best intentions to kill themselves. Apple on the other hand, could have easily been killed several times by inept management and near fatal misfires of products, yet I don't think that even Apple could kill themselves now. However (a note to current Apple management) that does not mean that Apple can 'wag the dog' with crappy products and horrid updates (iTunes 11 for instance).
Apple has a long history of being their own worse enemy... THAT can not be discounted. What I'm seeing from the new Apple products lately makes me wonder how long until Apple starts to feel the missteps. (case in point, the ridiculous protruding camera lens on the back of the new Touch. What's up with that? Even I would have fought against that one...)
So, relax, the news that Microsoft is dead, are drastically overstated (and over wished for)...
What they are trying to do is not a bad idea.
Interlacing Xbox, PC, tablet together.
The problem is the practicality.
Unless I spend several hundred dollars on their tablet I miss all the added functionality of "live tiles" which bare a resemblance to my Xbox tiles.
All in all its not a bad idea but there is a serious lack of anything useful to me in windows 8.
Interlacing Xbox, PC, tablet together.
The problem is the practicality.
Unless I spend several hundred dollars on their tablet I miss all the added functionality of "live tiles" which bare a resemblance to my Xbox tiles.
All in all its not a bad idea but there is a serious lack of anything useful to me in windows 8.
They only had to survive ME and Vista (which Vista wasn't all that bad, just released too early, put on computers not capable of running it, and never got past it's initial first impression). The NT line was considered some of MS' best work, and it's been the base of all their OSes since 2001 on.
Seriously?
Hard to believe how close minded and irrational you are.
So according to your logic if one is to own an Apple product he or she is not a cheapskate. If one does not own an Apple product he or she is a cheapskate?
What sort of laughable, close minded, irrational logic is that?
It doesn't surprise me that your irrationality leads you to make incorrect assumptions.
First, there isn't any "Droid" tablet on the market. As such, I will assume that you meant an Android tablet.
Second, I don't own any tablet at the moment because I simply don't have a need or a desire for one. If I were interested I would buy a Nexus 7 (or Nexus 10) Android tablet. According to your logic that will make me a cheapstake, right?
To say that someones does not or does purchase an Apple product because they are or aren't, respectively, a cheapstake is completely idiotic.
I have 4 iPad mini tablets on order for family and if I wanted a tablet I would myself buy an Android tablet or even a Surface tablet. Makes me a cheapstake again right?
My point being that your rationale is sad. If you think that owning an Apple product has much to do with you being a cheapstake or a high roller, you are fooling yourself. Sorry to break it to you, but you are not special for owning an Apple product. I have seen 7 year old children with iPhones, so hold on to your horses there big boy, owning an Apple product is not that big of a deal.
Buy the way, I typing this on my MBP, running Winodws 8 and I have (here it comes......) my Yellow Nokia Lumia 920, a Windows phone, charging on my blue Nokia wireless charging plate and I'm loving it.
For the record I had the option of buying an iPhone 5 last month, but I decided to go with the Lumia 920 because of a thing called personal preference and not because of any financial restrictions (i.e. being a cheapstake)
Now, quite frankly, I feel like an idiot taking the time to respond to a close minded, irrational fan boy like you. I will not be wasting anymore time reading or responding to your posts, so go crazy! Also, you can report me for using the word "idiot" or any related words and/or point out my grammatical errors (or play the logistics game) if that would make you feel better about yourself. I hope you get help, good luck.
I think you spelled "doom" wrong with a couple of extra "O"s.
Hard to believe how close minded and irrational you are.
So according to your logic if one is to own an Apple product he or she is not a cheapskate. If one does not own an Apple product he or she is a cheapskate?
What sort of laughable, close minded, irrational logic is that?
It doesn't surprise me that your irrationality leads you to make incorrect assumptions.
First, there isn't any "Droid" tablet on the market. As such, I will assume that you meant an Android tablet.
Second, I don't own any tablet at the moment because I simply don't have a need or a desire for one. If I were interested I would buy a Nexus 7 (or Nexus 10) Android tablet. According to your logic that will make me a cheapstake, right?
To say that someones does not or does purchase an Apple product because they are or aren't, respectively, a cheapstake is completely idiotic.
I have 4 iPad mini tablets on order for family and if I wanted a tablet I would myself buy an Android tablet or even a Surface tablet. Makes me a cheapstake again right?
My point being that your rationale is sad. If you think that owning an Apple product has much to do with you being a cheapstake or a high roller, you are fooling yourself. Sorry to break it to you, but you are not special for owning an Apple product. I have seen 7 year old children with iPhones, so hold on to your horses there big boy, owning an Apple product is not that big of a deal.
Buy the way, I typing this on my MBP, running Winodws 8 and I have (here it comes......) my Yellow Nokia Lumia 920, a Windows phone, charging on my blue Nokia wireless charging plate and I'm loving it.
For the record I had the option of buying an iPhone 5 last month, but I decided to go with the Lumia 920 because of a thing called personal preference and not because of any financial restrictions (i.e. being a cheapstake)
Now, quite frankly, I feel like an idiot taking the time to respond to a close minded, irrational fan boy like you. I will not be wasting anymore time reading or responding to your posts, so go crazy! Also, you can report me for using the word "idiot" or any related words and/or point out my grammatical errors (or play the logistics game) if that would make you feel better about yourself. I hope you get help, good luck.
I think you spelled "doom" wrong with a couple of extra "O"s.
I assume Pinkymacgodess was referring to NT 4. Relative to what was out at the time, it was a powerful workstation/server OS, but it was a nightmare of problems. Didn't really become "stable" until SP4. Large NT 4 domains relied on WINS which is one of those "great ideas but crap implementation" technologies. Hardware vendors had really tough time implementing drivers because it was new and DOS/Win95 users wanted NT hardware support.
In my opinion, Windows 95, NT4 and Windows 2000 were the only products they had to survive. I don't think they put much money into ME development and when Vista came out, XP was still just as popular as ever. Businesses were still buying Windows licenses when Vista was out, except many would just install XP instead. That is how Microsoft license Windows. You buy a license, which entitles you to install the latest version, but you can install whatever version you want to. Also note that Vista and Windows Server 2008 are the same code base. Microsoft possibly made more on Windows Server 2008 licenses than Vista.
Considering your hair splitting rant, I can say the same of you.
I did say "who will likely buy the very late MS".
The Operative word is "likely", not "will"
IOW, it does not apply to you,... or does it?
BTW, ever hear of Phonemic Phun?
But for people that actually USED NT, they had to put up with bouts of having the OS reinstalled because it got so flakey. I subcontracted with a company that supported a large installation of NT 4 systems and the reinstall rate was pretty high... I got very good at reinstalling NT 4. I made a lot of money off that sub gig, but the constant same old crap reinstall got old pretty quick, plus the fight over drivers and such.
Sure, everything since is based to some absurd level on NT, but Microsoft saw enough wrong with the 'NT way' to abandon most of it. I think that for a later OS that Microsoft did that 'Changed the World', it would be Windows 2000. It was rock solid, and didn't collect lint as easy as NT and subsequently needing to be reinstalled so much...
But still...
Interesting that while in 'The Big Apple' (New York) I ran into a Microsoft Surface kiosk at the Time-Warner building where the bubbly sales rep/demo Nazi told me NOT to buy the Surface. He said, under his breath, that it sucked and that he thought that Microsoft did a bad thing by releasing the 'Pro' version later than the 'RT' version and wondered what the 'RT' version's real purpose was. If it's an 'iPad killer', it just doesn't have the 'touchy feely' that the iPad has, and is too limited, and that the 'Pro-users' like me would be turned off by the bad reviews and not look at the 'Pro' version when it finally comes out. Microsoft not being in the arena of having the rush the 'Pro' version to market will still work out, but they miss a prime impulse buy moment (X-Mas) and not have to fight the bad press of Surface...
But, that STILL doesn't mean that Microsoft is doomed... Just getting better at being it's own worse enemy...
And yet, I WILL look at the 'Pro' version when (if) it comes out. Don't know if I'll buy one, but... The 'Pro' version looks like, with it's expansion capabilities, to be a lurking threat to the iPad, even with the awkward Windows 8 GUI mess of an OS.
So basically you're saying that even if Apple and all of its products vanished right now, even with the majority of their consumer tablet competition gone, MS would still lose out?
Right.