Mac sales and Windows sales are two different beasts. MS is locked out of the Premium end of the market, confined mostly to the low end.
Apple's happy where they are, and Microsoft is happy where they are. In the end, both companies are doing well.
Microsoft's doing well for overall marketshare. Apple has a profitable niche.
Both companies are fighting for the living room, the web, the mobile platform, and all of the other expanding markets.
Even at the height of MS' Laptop Hunters ad campaign, Apple went on to sell *more* Macs.
More notebooks. They sold fewer desktops (in at least one quarter in 2008). The market has been trending like that, though in general- more sales, more of them laptops.
Good for Apple, but hardly a sign of Microsoft failing.
Additionally, Apple cut prices significantly to compensate during the recession. And Windows 7 only came out at the end of 2009.
In a recession. Even with the existence of Windows 7, Apple continues to post record Mac sales, making a gradual transition to iPad extremely easy for the company - if that's Apple's intent. Windows 7 had no effect on Mac sales. Apple's ads didn't fail. They helped maintain Apple's position.
Not really.
I know at least half a dozen individuals who switched to Macs since Vista came out. None since 7 (I'm going to qualify that it HAS only been 6 months, but every 7 owner I know is happy with the OS.) . In fact, people who used to remark to me how Apple had "the best ads" now remark to me how it's same old, same old.
Apple is becoming a lean, mean profit machine- especially with their devices, they are making record profits. They are selling more Macs (the market is selling more PCs as a whole).
The question is whether they can continue this momentum.
Anyhow, Apple didn't fail, as in "APPLE SOLD FEWER MACS HOLY GOD". They hit the wrong target. The "Windows Vista isn't going to have any of the problems Windows XP had; Windows XP..." ad wasn't that good, because with the notable exceptions of ME (which was a disaster, I can testify to that) and Vista (to the average consumer), Windows versions were each better than the last.
There are numerous other points that Apple could have made. Heck, they could have re-aired the old virus, hardware problems, etc. ads they had- where there's still relevance in the mind of the average person.
Microsoft is struggling to stay relevant in the face of Apple's success.
They're fine in the short term. But the long term prospects are frightening.
They're losing the web to Google more and more every day. And they're losing many consumer electronics to Apple. And in the end, if Apple can convert a lot of people...maybe MS could become irrelevant.
They killed palm, failed to do anything with Windows Mobile...now BlackBerries, iPhones, Android phones, and other OSes put Windows Mobile in a position of little relevance.
No growth, no integration, eventually you're going to get outdated. And this is what scares Microsoft.
The organization is just too big to make changes. There's way too much intergroup conflict to get any major changes done quickly.
Which brings me to...
Microsoft knows that monoplies can rise and fall. They were lucky to get off so lightly with the monopoly lawsuit. They've trampled a lot of companies.
Being bearish on Microsoft, despite their Windows Phone 7 announcement (again, very late)
Windows Mobile 7, in my opinion, is pretty disgraceful. The level of photocopying disappoints me. Not intelligently targeting multitasking (if not full like previous WinMo versions, at least an Apple-like approach).
Some managers at MS thought "Wow, the iPhone is doing well". And they revamped WinMo...too little, too late.
If Microsoft could actually get something out of the labs, they'd probably be a lot better off.
Microsoft has underestimated the first mover advantage for years.
is perfectly natural these days, thanks to one thing: Apple.
Microsoft is feeling too much pressure to copy Apple.
If you don't copy the things your consumers like, you're ignoring valuable insights your competitors have made.
But if you push innovation aside for the proven, you're always going to be in second place.
The things Apple is doing right are the things Microsoft is notdoing. So in other words: Apple's successes have diminished Microsoft's growth prospects.
Exactly. Microsoft understood this in the game market, and even though it cost them $8B, they've been making a steady profit in the games division for two years despite utterly failing on the hardware front (The original was reliable as a tank, but it was off the shelf- the hardware was never sold at a profit. The 360 was designed by people who didn't take good hardware design and airflow design into account, which is why its so unreliable, only better due to die shrinks. This is a problem I'm sure they'll avoid on the Xbox 3.)
They have a successful game network with millions of paying customers. They're making the console more of a media device and less of a game console- with Twitter, the avatars, Facebook, video rental, etc... They are trying to utilize the one monopoly they're doing well with to beat Apple in that battle for the living room.
Microsoft takes risks and then ignores them. The Zune sells, and has some really neat software, but I've seen...one Zune commercial, on the internet. There's no brand awareness. "Oh, that weird Microsoft iPod ripoff."
If Microsoft actually did advertising- got content deals. Made people aware the damn thing existed and that it not only existed, but had [cool stuff], they'd do really well. Instead, they take an investment, do something neat (the OLED screen of the Zune HD is unbelievably nice, in person- and the wireless syncing, etc. are really neat. And the Zune software runs a hell of a lot better than iTunes for Windows.), and then have no confidence or backing in it whatsoever.
The tech industry thrives and moves forward on innovation. Microsoft is more of a quick follower (very often not so quick) rather than an innovator.
If you've read what I said earlier...this is redundant as a reply. I agree.
They simply don't take risks.
They did it with the game console, and while it hurt for a while, they're in a dominant position with what is arguably the best console gaming network.
In its universal licensing, cash-cow historical product segments, mostly in operating systems and Office software, there aren't many new features they can offer to drive upgrades.
The major issue. They research a ton of neat **** in the lab. They release the cool but horribly impractical demos (Surface). Meanwhile? No courier.
They could do an Ubuntu Remix Style Windows 7 Edition for tablets. A few services disabled, more touch oriented...but the internal friction prevents them from innovating. The Office segment, from what I've read from postings by former employees, is really against non mouse/KB input and refused to implement many features requested by the tablet team.
The organization is too damn big. The current level of cooperation and sharing of work and ideas between groups is poor. The "old timers" are against innovating, if it ain't broke, etc... while many of the "young folks" think in a more Apple way: If you don't do it better than the other guy, you're going to lose.
The pickings are more slim year after year. While Apple, for instance, already has an iPad version of iWork.
They've probably been working on it for some time along with the iPad itself.
Apple being the hardware + software maker has distinct advantages. It means that they can develop that over time very closely with the hardware and have day one availability.
MS has to communicate with OEMs what they want to do. Changes have to be made over time. We want a road map, we want to be in development. And that doesn't help Microsoft to implement anything faster than Apple.
Apple transitions software between devices like it's nobody's business. We already have iPads and an entire support structure of developers
It's the exact thing that makes the iPad appealing as a content consumption device and unappealing to a nerd like myself. They didn't have to do a terribly hard amount of work- indeed, iFixIt found the A4 was an overclocked iPhone processor- besides the case, battery, and screen, the hardware footprint really isn't much bigger.
And yet, when it comes down to it...that doesn't really matter to a lot of people.
and content providers to drive its growth
Apple's been doing a good job at this for years. ABC and Netflix make the iPad a hell of a lot more compelling.
while MS is still pushing lousy netbooks
As a PC user, I'm going to have to stop you right there.
I bought an ASUS EEE PC 701 4G- and if you don't have ASUS' model numbers memorized, it was pretty much the netbook that started the craze. $400. 4GB SSD. 7" screen. An underclocked Celeron.
And yet the form factor is appealing to me and many others. They're durable. They're inexpensive. They do a lot of tasks (browsing the web, typing a lot of text, running normal windows apps) very well. Newer innovations- like the Ion- are making HD video a non-issue, while keeping their battery life up.
So if you want a cheaper, yet fully functional computer, you can get a really great netbook for $400. Or you can buy an iPad for $500 - which is hard to screw up, but is a lot more limited in what it can do, and isn't designed for extensive input...
And I'd trust a netbook in my backpack before I trusted a glass screen iPad. I'm already a complete nut about my iPod Touch.
Winding down on this little tangent: I don't see the netbook and iPad as devices that have to be in conflict. I don't think that netbooks are lousy either. They are smaller, and they won't get the framerates of an HD 5970. But they do a lot of tasks well. And when I thought of the tasks I use my netbook for- including watching video- I realized that there are more situations in which I wish I had the netbook instead of the iPad.
and poorly-designed tablet devices no one cares about (some of which haven't even been released yet - so people can continue not caring about them when they hit the shelves.)
Let us make a distinction between "device" and "computer". MS has great (could be better, but I'd argue leading) standard OS tablet integration. For artists, etc... there are some AWESOME tablets running Windows.
The iPad is going to be a lot cheaper. It's going to do fewer tasks very well.
But no one considering Thinkpad X61 will buy an iPad instead. Or vice versa. The markets are there.
The bigger problem goes back to the cultural problem MS has with playing it safe. They're the juggernaut and can afford the risks. They need to take more. They need to be there first more often.
With their experience and feedback, they should have been able to come out with a good tablet
device years ago.
I don't need to rethink what a disappointment WM7 and how it goes back to the fear of innovating again...right?
Microsoft is generally irrelevant
At the end of the day, Microsoft has a lot of servers, has the best OS to manage large corporate networks, has a huge software ecosystem, the bestselling office suite, and a variety of other popular tools.
MS- for the past five years, at least - has been coasting on their momentum. They can't do it forever. And the people who realize it in the organization don't get heeded- or, don't get heeded enough.
I'd say Microsoft is fine, bare minimum, 10 years. The question is whether they're going to rise back up or slowly crumble.
Apple's big advantage, and the reason it can create such compelling products, is the advantage it has enjoyed for a while now and applied in new and interesting ways: the integration of hardware + software.
It's certainly helped Apple. It helps in certain areas- like embedded devices.
Archos, for instance, has made very good players for years. If memory serves me correctly, Archos made the first HDD based MP3 player.
And why aren't we all carrying Archos'?
Because Archos software has always sucked. Their newer Android models are supposed to be pretty good, but at this point taking Apple's momentum away would be difficult. You'd need a killer app.
Microsoft is in a quagmire over the multitude of hardware platforms it has to support, which ends up creating a poor user experience - at least relative to Apple - which doesn't really help, since everything released these days is compared to Apple products.
Invariably. The main problem is we get in a cycle:
- A group at Microsoft has an idea for an innovative device.
- Said group encounters trouble implementing it for public use due to the bureaucracy of Microsoft.
- Because they don't make the hardware, they have to convince the OEMs to make devices with it.
- The OEMs come up with a laundry list of demands. They want to make sure the device investment is worth it, since [last Microsoft thing] didn't sell so well. Every OEM has a different list.
- MS tries to make the software do everything for everyone. This results in it being delayed, buggy, and/or feature incomplete.
- Whatever bad factors contribute to nothing more than moderate success.
MS needs to take good ideas and test them sooner, and actually get them out to the market. Show it to consumers, then tell talk to the OEMs later in the process. Make them accommodate a bit instead of trying to do backflips for everyone.
I think one of the biggest examples of this inconsistency (this is starting to hit Android- Google is actually going to address it though) is how you can buy a Windows Mobile device, have the new Windows Mobile come out 2 months later. MS give your manufacturer the ROM for free.
Unless you have a contracted cell phone- and your handset maker is in a particularly good mood- you'll never get it. Why would they give it to you? You can buy a new phone...
When MS restricts the hardware (e.x. Zune), they get a very usable device that they then fail to promote, because they're used to their partners marketing devices for them. And thus, people don't know about it.
And the honour of holding the position of the one to which everything is compared is usually reserved for the company that sets the bar: Apple.
Apple's lucky to be in that position. The good perception of the company and their recent successes have done well for their brand image. (Now, I think Apple is great in some areas and overhyped in others, but let's avoid a topic we'll never agree on, hmmm?)
Microsoft is beginning to wake up to the benefits of Apple's model, but again, quite late.
With the exception of the Zune and the Xbox, not really. I think it's downright stupid that they didn't have a tablet device (not PC) out before Apple.
What MS is waking up to now, Apple chewed up and spat out years ago. Someone is really slow on the uptake and as a result users suffer.
Don't need to tell me. I like Windows. I like Microsoft Office. My Xbox, despite some issues, has the best online service- miles ahead of my PS3 and Wii.
And yet I use Google for my email, I own an iPod, I buy apps through the app store. MS has too many threats to sit near-still.
Until Microsoft churns out ONE effective device in each category that people will LOVE, and leaves behind the idea of whoring out their bad software to all hardware makers under the sun, they'll continue to struggle to offer relevant products.
Ah, but there's the catch 22:
Let's say that Microsoft stated tomorrow that only Microsoft PCs will run Windows. Yeah, they'll be a bit more expensive, and there won't be many models. But they'll run well. In other words, MS pulls an Apple in the regard we're talknig about.
They're using a de facto monopoly on one thing (desktop OS) to get it on another (hardware).
MS doesn't want to get broken up - it's safer to do things the old fashioned way in the eyes of the management. But a company that doesn't adapt doesn't keep ahead.
It took Microsoft 8 years to churn out a version of Windows that sucks less and gets a bit closer to OS X's level of polish.
It took them 6 years to do that (Vista was a bit closer to 7s polish). They took a gun and firmly shot themselves in the foot with all the stuff I described before.
Vista wasn't bad. The launch was.
That's nothing to really be proud about when operating systems are supposed to be your core are of (in)competency.
I'm very happy with Windows. At the end of the day, it runs many apps that aren't available on Mac OS or Linux, and I'm comfortable in the environment. For the reasons I described before, Microsoft damaged the reputation of Vista by FUBARing the launch. The OS itself wasn't bad.
The experiences I've had with Macs over the past few years haven't been as good. I've used Macs on a daily basis for a while now and I just don't see a compelling reason to switch. Hell, I could run OS X for free on my PC if I wanted to by hackintoshing- but I really fail to see any personal advantage to doing so.
Of course, I build my own PCs and run ThinkPads, which hit
the wall at 35MPH and are still in usable shape afterwards. That probably helps things- as well as not using dirt cheap motherboards and other components that have horribly written drivers because they're made solely for price.
