1997: Steve Jobs Was Wrong and Microsoft Saved Apple
Posted 06 August 2009 - 08:51 AM
David Coursey says in his article:
"Jobs, the Times reported, 'attempted to soothe the audience, saying: ' We have to let go of a few notions here. We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft needs to lose. '"
That, of course, turned out to be competely false. Apple's success has not been built atop Macintosh nearly so much as the iPod and iPhone, both of which catapaulted the company to riches by trampling Microsoft (and everybody else). Yes, Apple won and Microsoft is still trying to recover, without any success...
What a load of bull... Up to that point, the article was correct and factual. The conclusions however are not only illogical in regards to the context of this article, but are mere Apple fanboism shortsightedness and hypocrisy... Now why do Apple fanatics have such a large chip on their shoulders? Why is there a perpetual virtual war between Apple and Microsoft? Only in disturbed minds...
Dream on, live in your world of insanity and fantasy...
The meanest, most contemptible kind of praise is that which first speaks well of a man, and then qualifies it with a "But."
~ Henry Ward Beecher, 1813-1887, American Preacher/Orator/Writer
When you are content to be simply yourself and don't compare or compete, everybody will respect you.
~ Lao Tzu
Posted 06 August 2009 - 08:54 AM
Microsoft announces lots of things, most of which can be ignored or laughed at.
There are two thing that "saved" Apple. Most obvious is the genius of Steve Jobs, followed the delightful all-in-one iMac, the first computer with a personality. That one product put Apple back on the map, while the iPods and iPhone have given Apple world domination.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:01 AM
Microsoft vs. Apple: Running Stupid, Not Scared
You David Coursey are indeed a very laughable person, with twisted ideas and silly views... But you do elicit lots of feedback, from all sides. So that's your goal?
You call that success? But at what cost?
The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:08 AM
Because both companies are competing for the hearts and minds and money of the consumer, with Microsoft relegated to the low-end low-profit market, while Apple snags the major portion of the high-end, more-profitable segment.
And there can be no accord between two very different kinds of consumers, one that looks for the cheapest computer it can find, and the other that recognizes the value of quality and is willing to pay a premium for it.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:21 AM
Microsoft sells software. Apple sells hardware. If there is any competition, it's Apple vs the rest of the world... :D
According to http://marketshare.h...re.aspx?qprid=8 (thanks to rgreen4)
|Operating System|Total Market Share |
Report generated Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:16:40 PM
This report has been reviewed by Quality Assurance
PS: Anyone ever noticed a Microsoft branded laptop, or computer?
PPS: Does Apple manufacture Military Grade laptops? Like the Dell Latitude E6400 XFR? Dell's exclusive Ballistic Armor? Protection System to meet or exceed real world and military standards (MIL-STD-810F). Viewable in direct sunlight thanks to DirectVue? Technology LCD.
Didn't think so...
Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:39 AM
First, although Apple was a marginal player in 1997, it was a player without debt and a small cash horde that was, if my memory serves, a couple of billion dollars strong. Apple didn't need Microsoft's cash to survive (which I don't believe the author of this article was suggesting), and because of these resources, I don't think it needed Microsoft's developers to survive either.
Had Microsoft pulled out of the Mac, Apple would have struggled, but presumably would have eventually prospered as Jobs managed well the resources available to the company, steering the company towards survival and eventual prosperity. Prosperity probably wouldn't have come quickly, as Apple's ability to invest in its own foresight would have been significantly more limited. But surviveability was, I think, a foregone conclusion once good management took Apple over. The only real threat to Apple's existence, I think, would have been if it was purchased outright, as a Microsoft withdrawal would have hit the already-low stock price.
Second, Microsoft was agreeing to do what it was already doing - develop for the Mac. "Saving" suggests an affirmative diversion of practice or resource to rescue another who is immediatley endangered. Here, Microsoft diverted nothing - it merely agreed to maintain the status quo.
The distinction is important when one considers that Microsoft was doing more than public relations with this commitment. Microsoft was under intense antitrust pressure at the time, and needed the commitment to Apple to be able to present itself as not anticompetitive. To serve this end, it needed not just the present (the deal to keep developing) but the past as well (the history of always developing) and it would have lost both if it decided to pull the plug.
I don't think either company needed the other to survive. I think they each saw how to serve selfish ends through a deal, which is just classic business.
I do agree, however, that Misrosoft completely missed the possibility of a strengthened Apple branching out into other, as-yet unrealized markets. One need only to look at Microsoft's success predicting and entering these kinds or markets to see how successful they are at looking, to paraphrase Wayne Gretsky, where the puck is going to be as opposed to where the puck currently is.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 10:24 AM
Yes, Microsoft sells software, but Apple sells a lot more than hardware. An Apple computer is an example of vertical integration, where the hardware includes the software (OS X, iTunes, Safari, Quicktime, etc), ensuring seamless functionality.
You were wise to qualify your last sentence, "If there is any competition." There isn't. Apple does its thing in a different market segment. The PC box makers are the ones competing with each other, all selling essentially the same thing with a different label on the box.
However, there is no denying one fact: Windows dominates in market share, for the simple reason that more people are going to buy a cheap computer than a more expensive one. Apple, long ago, made the conscious decision to never make a cheap computer.
Where Apple dominates is in mind share, and the is critical for Apple's continuing success. For many consumers, Apple is perceived to be (rightly or wrongly) as the company that makes the best products.
It is a view I share.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 10:38 AM
Posted 06 August 2009 - 10:46 AM
Fanboy, are we?
"And there can be no accord between two very different kinds of consumers, one that looks for the cheapest computer it can find, and the other that recognizes the value of quality and is willing to pay a premium for it."
I don't choose a Windows-based unit because it's cheap, I choose it because it's useful. It's easy to get name-brand software for a PC. No big-box stores around me sell software for Mac or Linux. The fact that there's competition that drives price wars is just a bonus.
While I rely on Microsoft products to pay the bills (SharePoint, .Net, etc.), I can see the flaws.
"Yes, Microsoft sells software, but Apple sells a lot more than hardware. An Apple computer is an example of vertical integration, where the hardware includes the software (OS X, iTunes, Safari, Quicktime, etc), ensuring seamless functionality."
What's the difference from Windows? Windows, Win Media Player, IE do the same.
"For many consumers, Apple is perceived to be (rightly or wrongly) as the company that makes the best products."
For many others, they are perceived as elitists who overprice their products. The average home user doesn't need anything more than a computer that does web/email and light word processing. Why pay $1k+ for a Mac when you can get a PC for $300?
Posted 06 August 2009 - 10:55 AM
Last I checked both are also very profitable companies. Probably in the top 1%.
In fact Steve Jobs appears to be totally right on this one. Apple has done well in areas outside of Mac with the ipod and iphone. Microsoft is also doing well with xbox 360 and other online services not related to Windows. Besides since 1997 Microsoft has created an entirely new business around enterprise IT (SQL Server, .NET, Sharepoint etc) which either didn't exist or was a really small part of their business...as far as I can recall.
So both Apple and Microsoft saw growth for areas outside of their traditional OS.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 11:36 AM
I will let you decide. I own an iMac along with two Nokia Internet Tablets (the N800 and N810). I also have on my wrist a Suunto digital watch, with data streaming from Microsoft Direct (which I subscribe to).
"The average home user doesn't need anything more than a computer that does web/email and light word processing. Why pay $1k+ for a Mac when you can get a PC for $300?"
Correct. If your needs are met with a cheap machine, there is no reason to spend more. For such people a netbook would do nicely for less than $200.
However, some of us have greater expectations and value the user experience. Some of us who have had both PCs and Macs (as I have) find the Mac experience more satisfying. (I would also factor in the Total Cost of Ownership, the time effort and money required to keep a PC free from worms, viruses and spyware, along with the Residual Salvage Value of the Mac.)
Under those circumstances, for anything other than minimal use, the Mac would be the better choice.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 11:45 AM
Now please respect the choices of those who don't choose to buy Apple as well... And it isn't just about price or quality.
I think both companies won by helping each other over the last thirty years or so...
Another way to look at it would be:
Apple helped Microsoft by going the x86 CPU route! Now Microsoft potentially has ALL Apple x86 users as customers! Isn't that also the truth?
Win-Win is the only sustainable way IMHO.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 12:32 PM
"I think both companies won by helping each other over the last thirty years or so..."
"Helping" would be collusion and a violation of ant-trust. That's a no-no. Yes, Microsoft had once made an investment in Apple, but for reasons related to Microsoft's own agenda. I cannot think of a single instance where Apple has gone out of its way to help Microsoft.
"Apple helped Microsoft by going the x86 CPU route! Now Microsoft potentially has ALL Apple x86 users as customers! Isn't that also the truth?"
Not quite. When Apple made the transition to Intel chips, it had nothing to do with Microsoft. IBM's PPC chips were a dead end. It was a move Apple was forced to make. And at Microsoft's expense. Yes, with a MacIntel, you can dual boot (or triple boot, if you choose) any operating system of your choice. Want Windows? Go ahead. Want Linux? Go ahead.
And if you just want to run a bunch of the more popular popular Windows apps without Windows installed, you can do that, too. Using a app for the Mac called CrossOver.
It's also been claimed that Windows runs better on Apple hardware than it does on hardware from PC box makers. Microsoft could be pleased, but I am sure their box makers aren't.
Posted 06 August 2009 - 03:38 PM
Last time I checked, many apps were shaky using Crossover. I can't test them myself, I don't have intel mac, just ppc