why pc's have more market share?

[mstens]

I make no value judgements about whether or not it was a great thing, because if IBM had held onto the software rights, there might have been further competition between OSes and that could have conceivable led to much better OSes sooner rather than later.


I still remember that classic Wheel of Fortune with Vanna's hair oh so pixelated.

IBM had no OS ready, which is why they contracted with Microsoft. They've tried their own PC OS's... none of them caught on either.

 

[CalBoy]

IBM had no OS ready, which is why they contracted with Microsoft. They've tried their own PC OS's... none of them caught on either.

Yes, but IBM was in the dominant position in that time period to make Microsoft hand over the legal rights to the OS. That's what I meant by "large corporate blunder."

 

[mstens]

eh, not really. They were so far behind their own release schedule they needed something NOW, course you could argue that schedule was a mistake.. but..

Notice IBM doesn't waste their time with the PC market anymore. On the whole it's really not a huge profit.

 

[CalBoy]

eh, not really. They were so far behind their own release schedule they needed something NOW, course you could argue that schedule was a mistake.. but..

Notice IBM doesn't waste their time with the PC market anymore. On the whole it's really not a huge profit.

At the time period we're talking about, IBM was the largest technology company in the world and one of America's bluest blue chips. Microsoft was a small start up with virtually no assets.

Had IBM demanded that Microsoft sell rather than lease the software to IBM, then history would have turned out quite different.

 

[clevin]

...

i think u made way too many assumptions which probably not that reliable.

if you think software alone in the beginning days was already too hard to compete with M$. And how would software+hardware be easier ?

 

[mstens]

At the time period we're talking about, IBM was the largest technology company in the world and one of America's bluest blue chips. Microsoft was a small start up with virtually no assets.

Had IBM demanded that Microsoft sell rather than lease the software to IBM, then history would have turned out quite different.

I don't think so. Bill Gates was in the power position at the time and he KNEW it. It was one of his brightest moments actually Microsoft wasn't the first OS they went after btw. The first one told them to pound sand course, they're not around anymore either

What did IBM bring to the party? All they really bought was legitimacy as far as consumers were concerned.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

The answer is simple. It is the fact that Apple does not license its OS to any one but it self. If IBM did the same thing in the past the results would at best be like they are today and at worse we would have a crappier OS and computers due to lack of composition.

I think if was not M$ being the one with largest market share it would of been linux since no one like everything being tied to one maker. Plus the government would of stepped in. and forced it.

If apple ever gets to 80% you can bet they will be broken apart. One hardware and one software

 

[scotty96LSC]

I think the PC had the early edge in computers since that was all people knew when the computer age started. So that is what people bought.
Then comes Apple.
Now you have the "resistance to change" thing happening and thus PC continues to lead the pack.
But, I believe, there will be a day when Apple takes that lead.

 

[clevin]

I think the PC had the early edge in computers since that was all people knew when the computer age started. So that is what people bought.
Then comes Apple.

thats only half of the history.

 

[juanm]

In one word: inertia.

 

[RedTomato]

If I was running desktops, I'd probably still be on PCs. It's just so much cheaper to build (or buy) a desktop PC than a desktop mac.

The mac mini is lovely, but it just doesn't have the flexibility of a desktop pc. (and the old LCD imacs didn't either)

I only really started looking at macs when I moved to laptops. You can't build a laptop pc, and mac laptops just blow away pc laptops.

 

[MisterMe]

... Bill Gates was in the power position at the time and he KNEW it. ...

This is simply not true. Microsoft's primary product was MS-BASIC, which it developed for several operating systems. At the time, Microsoft was not in the OS business, and thus, had zero (0) power with IBM.

 

[CalBoy]

i think u made way too many assumptions which probably not that reliable.

This is just a "what if" scenario. But, I'm basing my assumptions on the competition that occurred in other industries in a similar manner. Historically speaking, that's probably how things would have developed.

if you think software alone in the beginning days was already too hard to compete with M$. And how would software+hardware be easier ?

I'm sorry, I just don't understand all of what you're trying to say here.

I don't think so. Bill Gates was in the power position at the time and he KNEW it.

Before that bargain, Gates was nothing but a college drop-out with supportive parents.

What did IBM bring to the party? All they really bought was legitimacy as far as consumers were concerned.

How would you sell a product without legitimacy?

IBM was in the position to dictate terms to Microsoft at that time, but they simply didn't perceive the software to be valuable enough to bother with. IBM just couldn't fathom how popular personal computers would rapidly become.

 

[MacFanBoyIIe]

I agree with the OP's first reason, "Modularity."

PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.

Now if someone were to ask my preferences regarding operating systems I would take OS X as the better choice every time. But we're talking total package here. You can't (legally) put OS X on PC hardware. It's locked down.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I agree with the OP's first reason, "Modularity."

PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.

Now if someone were to ask my preferences regarding operating systems I would take OS X as the better choice every time. But we're talking total package here. You can't (legally) put OS X on PC hardware. It's locked down.

If you're talking about the total package, then you can't avoid talking about Windows. If you're referring to a PC with a Linux distro on it, then you're very much right. However, probably 99% of all non-Mac PC's come with some variety of Windows, so your description should read more like this:

PC: Closed. Proprietary. Bloated. Expandability. Options. Monopoly. Monopoly. Monopoly. Viruses.

Your description only applies if you're talking about a PC w/ Linux, which definitely do not have a majority market share.

 

[MacFanBoyIIe]

If you're talking about the total package, then you can't avoid talking about Windows. If you're referring to a PC with a Linux distro on it, then you're very much right. However, probably 99% of all non-Mac PC's come with some variety of Windows, so your description should read more like this:

PC: Closed. Proprietary. Bloated. Expandability. Options. Monopoly. Monopoly. Monopoly. Viruses.

Your description only applies if you're talking about a PC w/ Linux, which definitely do not have a majority market share.

You completely misread the post. Windows can be installed on ANY PC, made by any company, or even built by your stubby little hands.
OS X can only legitimately run on Macs built by Apple.
So again,
Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

And AGAIN, I'll say, OSX is still the better operating system.

"Do try to pay attention 007...."

 

[kuwisdelu]

You completely misread the post. Windows can be installed on ANY PC, made by any company, or even built by your stubby little hands.
OS X can only legitimately run on Macs built by Apple.
So again,
Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

And AGAIN, I'll say, OSX is still the better operating system.

"Do try to pay attention 007...."

No, I didn't misread the post. I understand what you meant, but when you say "the total package" you have to consider more than just what operating systems you can run on a piece of hardware.

Again, I'll say that everything you said is completely valid as long as you're talking about a non-Mac PC on which you intend to put an OS like Linux.

Yes, as far as what hardware it can be installed on, Windows is much more open and flexible than OS X, however as far as the OS itself, once you put Windows on any particular computer, it's just as locked-down and proprietary as OS X. As far as limited goes, Windows has some more user options (like UI tweaking, etc.) than OS X, but as far as openness goes, a far greater percent of OS X is open-source than Windows.

 

[MacFanBoyIIe]

stuff...

OK that's great, but the question isn't about Windows. It's about WHY PC's have more market share. PC's can run anything except Mac OSX. Apple won't allow OSX installed on anything except Apple built hardware.
So, my comments still stand:

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Are you tracking?

 

[chagla]

OK that's great, but the question isn't about Windows. It's about WHY PC's have more market share. PC's can run anything except Mac OSX. Apple won't allow OSX installed on anything except Apple built hardware.
So, my comments still stand:

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Are you tracking?

wow! thank you for mentioning the part in the bold. folks take a cheap shot at pc laptops saying, "well my macbook CAN run Windows but your pc can't run leopard". as though it's somehow PC's fault for unable to run leopard.

gee, of course it can't run leopard bcz its crippled to run only on a specific hardware.

 

[zap2]

It's about WHY PC's have more market share.

Well if you're going to nit pick, then Mac now fall under PCs, the OP has to be asking about Windows based PC, since Linux based PC doesn't have more market share

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Wow...if were talking PC w/ Windows, then you're wrong...very much so on the "Open."


But the answer to the question why PCs have more market share is

Apple's 1 hardware maker, and the OP is comparing one hardware company vs all other companies.

Why does Sony have less market share then the Gateway, HP, Dell, Apple, Acer, Asus combined? Because its 1 vs many

 

[MacFanBoyIIe]

Well if you're going to nit pick, then Mac now fall under PCs, the OP has to be asking about Windows based PC, since Linux based PC doesn't have more market share....

The owner of a PC can install any OS he wants, except for OSX. Most just choose to install Windows. That's why when I say PC, you automatically assume Windows. Are we done with the stupid semantics?

 

[MacFanBoyIIe]

wow! thank you for mentioning the part in the bold. folks take a cheap shot at pc laptops saying, "well my macbook CAN run Windows but your pc can't run leopard". as though it's somehow PC's fault for unable to run leopard.

gee, of course it can't run leopard bcz its crippled to run only on a specific hardware.

Just bringing the brutal truth to the masses. Granted I love Macs, but I'm not a sheep. Prefer to keep an open mind and think for myself. Some of these sheep on this forum take the brutal truth like Rosie O'Donnell takes a ****. No offense Rosie.

 

[zap2]

The owner of a PC can install any OS he wants, except for OSX. Most just choose to install Windows.

Haha...please, do you honestly believe that? Most people choose to install Windows? Are you sure its not

"Most don't know a thing about what different OSes are, so they stick with Windows"

 

[kuwisdelu]

OK that's great, but the question isn't about Windows. It's about WHY PC's have more market share. PC's can run anything except Mac OSX. Apple won't allow OSX installed on anything except Apple built hardware.
So, my comments still stand:

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Are you tracking?

The question is either inherently about Windows or it's an inherently flawed question. You're answering the wrong question. Look at the rest of these posts and you'll see we're primarily talking about PC's with Windows, as there really isn't any reason to talk about Macs vs. PC's in general. If you're talking like that, then, well, a Mac is a PC, and...what zap said:

Well if you're going to nit pick, then Mac now fall under PCs, the OP has to be asking about Windows based PC, since Linux based PC doesn't have more market share



Wow...if were talking PC w/ Windows, then you're wrong...very much so on the "Open."


But the answer to the question why PCs have more market share is

Apple's 1 hardware maker, and the OP is comparing one hardware company vs all other companies.

Why does Sony have less market share then the Gateway, HP, Dell, Apple, Acer, Asus combined? Because its 1 vs many

If you compare Apple to individual PC manufacturers like HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, etc., then it's really not lagging behind at all. In fact, as Steve Jobs said, Apple and Dell are the only companies in the industry turning a sizeable profit right now, and "[Dell] does it by being Wal-Mart and [Apple] does it by innovating."

If you're only looking at hardware, then, I suppose your comments are still accurate, to some extent, but if you're only looking at hardware then talking about why "PC's" have more market share than Macs is silly, because a Mac is a PC. If you look at Apple's market share as far as PC's go, there's really nothing surprising, and it's also a market in which Microsoft does not compete in, nor has ever competed in. The question is why PC's with Windows have more market share than Macs.

Not to mention, if you're considering just the hardware and it's compatibility with software, then Macs are really a much more "open, expandable, flexible" platform than other PC's, because you CAN install OS X, Windows, Linux, and any x86 operating system you want. With other PC's, you can't install OS X. Yes, that's the fault of OS X, not the hardware, but if you're going to ignore Windows in your PC argument, then you must also ignore OS X, which ultimately makes a Mac more flexible than other PC's.

 

[zap2]

The question is either inherently about Windows or it's an inherently flawed question.

YES! Thats it!

If you compare Apple to individual PC manufacturers like HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, etc., then it's really not lagging behind at all.

Yes, infact I believe Apple's in 3rd when you compare that(HP and Dell are 1 and 2)

In fact, as Steve Jobs said, Apple and Dell are the only companies in the industry turning a sizeable profit right now, and "[Dell] does it by being Wal-Mart and [Apple] does it by innovating."

Haha, true, but I think thats more of a marketing set up, then fact. HP does well for itself, I'll tell you that

The question is why PC's with Windows have more market share than Macs.

Yup, and the answer is 1 hardware company vs many, and its like "Why even ask that question? Its apples and oranges(not meant to be a pun)