Why Microsoft Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game 418
ttom writes "OSWeekly.com looks at Microsoft's promotional strategy and concludes that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game." From the article: "Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they? By the way, please don't take my sarcastic tone as an expression of my dissatisfaction for the product. I think it's great, and I really never expected to see something like Boot Camp come out of the Apple Camp. I know that users have bombarded them with requests for officially allowing Windows usage on a Mac, and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
The article's opening line & premise the rest of the article is based on is incorrect:
No. Boot camp made a small stir, but the vast majority of people out their still see Mac PCs as very different from WIndows PCs (and don't understand the dual boot process anyway). Macs are still getting far more ipod splashback publicity than they were five years ago.
A more interesting discussion would be "Why Dell Is Beating Apple At Its Own Game"? After all, two years ago I know I certainly wouldn't have expected to see:
1) Apple rushing to join an Electronics Industry Code of practice founded by Dell after sweatshop scandal rumours.
2) Apple scoring lowest on a "Green" survey - when Dell scored second highest.
Both those items are areas I expect Apple's marketing (if not reality) to shine, but instead it's Dell with all the glory.
Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
12 year old emo followers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, you have to be slightly brain damaged to think that MS is better at whole-system integration than Apple.
BootCamp is a bullet point.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Switching to Intel closed the price, performance and (with BootCamp or Paralells) the application compatability gaps; advantage Cupertino. Apple reported their best hardware sales quarters ever just recently, and I have read some speculation that they sold 50% more MacBooks than they expected this quarter (not sure how true that is but the delays in shipping make it plausible). My local Apple Store is literally jammed all day long, including week days and the wait at the Genius Bar is upwards of an hour most days. I seriously doubt all that bustle is for XP install on BootCamp???
The only category that might truly suffer from BootCamp existing is game development, porting is expensive and this is the kind of easy way out the big game publishers love.
On second thought I might install BootCamp with Leopard... if it will let me run Ubuntu?!
Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one reason. I really don't believe it is the only reason. I don't think anyone except a few of the more extreme Mac Zealots are claiming that OS X is perfectly secure. If Apple achieves 50% market share, of course there will be a few attacks made for it. Even Apple admits that OS X isn't perfectly secure. What they are saying is that OS X is more secure than Windows. Just the fact that pretty much any user program on OS X can run on a heavily restricted user account, provided the restricted user has perms to run that software, says a lot right there. Some Windows software practically requires you to use high-privilege accounts just to run software, and Windows by itself doesn't warn users if something is trying to be installed silently.
I imagine Apple's licensing policy for HFS.
Now something like that has been brought to the Windows world. What is Microsoft's NTFS licensing policy like?
Re:for Windows but not Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time my Mac bitched at me about upgrading hardware invalidating my license for the OS, or required some stupid activation process so I could log in.
Never.
I upgraded my fathers computer to a new Core 2 system on the weekend and went through so much pain getting his system working; once I resolved the initial hardware issue and was able to actually boot an OS Windows XP decided to tell me it wasn't activated and prevented me from continuing until I activated it. I hadn't even had a chance to install the network drivers so I was forced to make a phone call to activate it.
Then it decided it wasn't a legitimate copy of Windows XP. Seems the date & time were wrong and therefor the copy of windows couldn't possibly be authentic.
Due to the hardware issues I had ran across trying to get the system setup I stripped it down to damn near nothing and installed things one at a time. At which point, an hour after I had got it up and running and passed the first authentication/illegal copy BS, I installed the rest of the memory and hooked up the other harddrive, and installed the soundcard. Then Windows decided it was upgraded too much and needed activation again. Atleast this time I had 3 days grace and could finish configuring the system. Unlike the first time where I wasn't even allowed to log in.
I tried the online activation at this point since I now had all the drivers installed and everything was working well. Online activation was refused as obviously the computer had been upgrade too much and I was in violation of the license; so then it required me to call the automated services again to get a new code.
At which point it refused to give me one as well and sent me to an actual live person.
The live person then asks me what changed, etc, and how many computers the os was installed on. The answer? 1. This is a retail Upgrade copy of Windows XP Pro. It is fully, and legally licensed; I would have had less hassle if the damn thing was a pirated copy!
Doom! Doom! DOOM! (Score:2, Insightful)
dual boot is great for new users (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know-- I think many Mac users won't quite be satisfied with running the crossover office windows version of their app. It'll be enough for them to get by and ditch Windows, but they won't quite like it. How many Mac users use OpenOffice, for example? How many people will be happy when there's a good, stable, up-to-date native OSX version?
So I think that this sort of thing will encourage switchers, and the increased user base will encourage native development. Hopefully.
Article missed the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe OSNews has missed the point.
Apple has always touted OSX as a superior experience to Windows, and is continuing to do so.
However, it is simply reality that many folks have Windows programs they need to run as well. Between Boot Camp and the various VM approaches Apple now has that option covered nicely.
Where does that leave Macs exactly? As:
- The worlds most versatile computers.
- Powered by a superior, more secure OS.
- Able to run legacy Windows applications as need be.
Windows continues to chug along on its own momentum, but I expect Mac sales to do VERY nicely. The vast majority of Mac user time will be spent in MacOS X, I predict. I also predict more and more native MacOS game ports over time, as the userbase swells.Re:Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boot Camp (Score:2, Insightful)
This is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find OS X to be inelegant and inconsistent. You have the Dock, where icons behave totally differently from any other icons anywhere else on the entire system, and where a whole bunch of totally different tasks -- launching applications, monitoring running tasks, etc. -- are all mixed together in one confusing zooming bouncing distracting usability nightmare. You have Finder windows that flip from brushed metal to Aqua when you merely show/hide the toolbar, and that STILL, after six years of OS X, have not come close to regaining the unparalleled usability of the classic Finder. You have places where drag-and-drop works beautifully inexplicably mixed up with places where it doesn't work at all: why can't I drag a document from the Recent Items list to open it in a non-default application? Why can't I assign an icon to a folder by dragging it into the Get Info window? Why can't I drag a document from the Dock to the Desktop? I thought this was supposed to be the One Consistent OS, where everything Just Worked?!
And you have limitations introduced in the name of "elegance". Like the crazy file selector dialogs that force you to laboriously click your way through the folder hierarchy, because Apple has decided you shouldn't want to save time by just typing the path in. Like iTunes, with its "streamlined" interface that just leaves average users upset because they can't understand why there isn't a "stop" button.
Not to mention the inelegant limitations. Why the hell can't I play videos fullscreen in the built-in media player? Oh, that's right, because they want extra money for that privilege. Yeah, let's enhance our customers' multimedia experience with a whole bunch of greyed-out menu options with price tags -- that'll make more elegant!
And the confusing interface that makes no distinction between the fundamental system menus and an individual application's menus. I still haven't managed to teach one aging Mac fanatic friend the difference between closing a document window and closing an application. On Windows, it's obvious, because the application either closes when you run out of documents, or has a giant application window that you can't miss. On OS 9, at least you had the clear and readable task list in the task switcher menu thingummy. In OS X, the application just sits there in the background, with the only indication that it's still running and taking up memory and system resources being a tiny black triangle in the dock. Thank God her new Intel Mac has enough memory that she isn't constantly running out any more -- that was a real pain on the old one.
For all that, OS X is a great OS, and for the most part, the more Microsoft copies from it, the better Windows will get. But let's be honest here: using OS X can be just as frustrating an experience as using Windows. Neither actually has a major advantage in terms of "elegance" or "consistency". When it comes down to it, OS X is just as inelegant, just as inconstent as Windows -- just in different areas.
But don't let that stop you being a smug Mac weenie and wallowing in your delightful self-delusion that Windows sucks in every way imaginable while using OS X is the closest a mere human can come to basking in the reflected glory of God Almighty Himself.
(Flamebait oblivion, here I come!)
Re:Leading to fewer OS X apps? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I already have Windows, and all of my stuff already works with Windows, why should I go through the hassle of a different OS to use Windows Apps?
Maybe because Windows itself isn't working well for you? I have to say that, as the manager of an IT department, I'm tired of being over the barrel with Microsoft. It's restrictive and insecure, and I'm supposed to spend hundreds of dollars to upgrade to Vista in order to get an OS which hopefully might possibly work, meanwhile locking myself further into a vendor which has caused me nothing but headaches? No thanks.
Now, I'm all in favor of people using whatever system works for them, and if Windows does the job for you, more power to you. In my mind, anything that lets me move to OSX, or better yet Linux, is a good thing.
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh right, my apologies, I should have said "Apple scored abysmally on the same survey, for the same green criteria that Dell came second on".
"Why is Apple beating Dell at its own game?"
Apple is beating Dell at its own game - I never said they weren't, but in sacrificing quality (and marketing?) to build cheaper, more Dellish PCs, they've neglected their own game.
Apple's Mac Pro is cheaper than an equivalent Dell
Well, if you want the precise specs of one of the small range of notebooks Apple offers, it's true that they're cheaper than the equivilant Dell. (I guess Apple have dropped their marketing budget & Dell have upped theirs, making for price/advertising BS parity between Dell & Apple.)
I do find it interesting that Mac fans always point to Dell as their preferred price comparision. I mean....Dell? Is that really the space Apple is competing?
FWIW, If I was an Apple guy, I'd look up the Asus notebooks - made in the same chinese factory as the Apples, with very similar specs. Obviously, as a proud mac supporter, I'd be happy that Apple's offering is cheaper....Except they're not! Asusteks notebooks have a larger hdd, better video card, smaller ff, are lighter, have better optical media options, etc etc etc than the equivilant macbook.
Aim: Sell more Mac hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.
Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.
As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.
The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.
Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.
The author is missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The article meanders around without making much of a point, but this seems to be the gist of it:
He goes on to say:
Of course Microsoft is unconcerned, because they make money by selling Windows. They are not a PC OEM. Apple has a different business model. The company makes most of its money selling hardware. The well-integrated OS and hardware are what coax consumers to buy Macs. You can't have one without the other and still call it a Mac. As us old fogies remember, Apple tried letting other companies build Macs, and it was not exactly a rousing success for Apple. Sales of clones ate into Apple's market without building overall market share.
Boot Camp and the various virtualization technologies are giving Windows users the opportunity to buy Apple hardware and compare the Mac experience with the Windows experience on the same machine, with no special technical expertise required. So far the results have been overwhelmingly positive [apple.com] for Apple. There's a reason Apple was confident enough to bring a x86 processor into Macintosh hardware again (it's been done before [everymac.com]). Apple knows that if customers compare Windows to OS X head-to-head, OS X will gain users. If even a small percentage of new Mac purchasers make OS X the primary OS on their Mac, OS X will gain marketshare.
So far the strategy appears to be working. The low "green" rating for Apple is unfortunate, but it's not going to keep people from buying Macs. Dell, the company Jobs considers as Apple's biggest rival, isn't exactly kicking ass [msn.com], and Microsoft's troubles with Vista [nytimes.com] are well-known.
How is it that Microsoft is beating Apple at its own game?
I'll say this again (Score:3, Insightful)
For the average user you have a nice selection of well thought out applications and I system that requires less fighting to get things working. For the developer you have a Unix environment to feel at home in. On the down side is the lack of software like AutoCAD and issues working with Microsoft group ware.
Re:Boot Camp (Score:1, Insightful)
My [windows XP-based] laptop: Turn on the wireless switch at the front of the laptop, windows asks me for the passphrase (if it has never been on this network before) and logs in on its own....
Never heard of requiring a reboot for it..
Function depends on form (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they did say 'in comparison' : ) There are some things which could be a lot better in OS X - including some of those you mentioned, though I'd disagree about dragging off the dock - those are links to files, not files themselves, and the user wouldn't want to drag them to the desktop. The same principle is used for toolbar icons and icons in the favourites list in the finder - it's not used only in the Dock.
Re separating the functions in the Dock, this would definitely be an improvement - it'd be nice if it had an area for running applications, and an area for documents, and if the trash can where still on the desktop so that it stayed still. As you say, there's plenty of things to improve (perhaps just less than Windows : ) )
Like the crazy file selector dialogs that force you to laboriously click your way through the folder hierarchy, because Apple has decided you shouldn't want to save time by just typing the path in.
If you want to type the path in while in a system dialog, you can press cmd-shift-G; presumably it's not in there because it would confuse users who don't know what a path is. Alternatively you can just drag in the folder you want to go to.
Like iTunes, with its "streamlined" interface that just leaves average users upset because they can't understand why there isn't a "stop" button.
I see, and what would this missing stop button do; exactly the same thing as the pause button? The stop button is a hangover from VCRs where there was actually a mechanical difference between stopping (and moving the head away from the tape) and pausing, it has no place on a non-VCR device.
And the confusing interface that makes no distinction between the fundamental system menus and an individual application's menus.
The only 'fundamental system menu' is the Apple menu on the left, which stays in the same place. Each application has its own menubar which appears when that application is active, seems sensible to me. I prefer this to the approach of replicating the same application menus in each window, but each to their own. There's no need to close applications after use, so why should the system encourage it? I'd prefer them to go the other way and leave all apps running unless you explicitly choose quit.
delightful self-delusion that Windows sucks in every way imaginable... Neither actually has a major advantage in terms of "elegance" or "consistency".
Having struggled through various Windows 'assistants' trying to get a basic thing like an external USB disk to work the other day (worked flawlessly on OS X, and other disks worked with XP), I beg to differ. This was using the built in XP mass storage device drivers, which usually work, but when they don't the Add Hardware dialogs are just a mess of confusing options and properties that the user hardly ever wants to see. Windows isn't so different from OS X, but there are still differences, and they way it handles problems and presents them to the user is one of the most obvious.
Flamebait oblivion, here I come!
On the contrary, on this site your point of view is the received wisdom, the silent majority are still using Windows.
Great shades of OS/2, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
I miss OS/2.
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Boot Camp (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EULAS are illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say you are wrong here. The publishing industry in general has that sort of industry practice. If I buy a book and it has an error in it, I don't take it back to the publisher for them to fix it. In fact, they might (or might not) fix it in their next release. If I buy a newspaper and there is an error in it, they print a correction in a newer paper a few days later - they don't recall or warranty the original paper.
Software does have a distinct difference... Thanks to Mr. Gore, this Internet thingy makes it a lot easier to make those 'modifications' in software more rapidly. (I'm not going to call them corrections, because in some cases, the code was right to begin with, just exploited for bad purposes.)
Bill
Re:Not sure I understand (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, and don't worry, you'll be paying $150 every year for bug-fixes and minor improvements... er... I mean new 'versions' of OS:X.
Re:Boot Camp (Score:3, Insightful)
My WinXP hasn't crashed on me neither. But right now I'm trying to find out why my computer with WinXP is telling me that I have "Limited or no connectivity" from my network. A network which worked flawlessly last night. Works with my MacBook Pro. Even using the same ethernet cable for my WinXP computer in the MacBook works. But still my WinXP tells me that my cable might be unplugged (I did remember to put it back in) or that my gateway/router is not configured right.
How fucked up can Windows XP be?!
The network is working perfectly. The cables are connected correctly. I can use either cable in my Mac and it works. Put either cable in the WinXP box and I get "Limited or no connectivity"...
I'm going to cry.
And don't get me going on WinXP's handling of wireless networks.
*runs off to kill some MS programmers*
Waste of net space (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because Macs now use Intel chips and Windows can actually be installed natively on them now? Maybe because Parallels knocks the socks off of MS Virtual PC for Macs in terms of speed, which is only possible with Intel. Of course there is going to be more talk about Windows being installed on Macs, considering it is now fast with virtualization and doesn't require emulation, and also considering it is now POSSIBLE to do so natively. Like, durrrr....
"some users have shrugged it off and moved on to the Microsoft side of things."
Of course some are. Unless the author presents statistics stating HOW MANY users have done so, the statement has no real meaning.
"Apple is to blame for this, at least to some extent. They just had to go and release Boot Camp, didn't they?"
I'm pretty sure Apple was kind of expecting talk about Windows running on a Mac to increase when they, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, enabled this to be done easily and practically. I somehow doubt Apple expected talk to decrease when they did this. Again, durrrrr.....
"and the fact that they yielded to these requests is interesting because they've emphasized the OS X and Windows experiences as being completely separate for quite some time."
They still are. It still requires a reboot to switch between them (excluding Parallels). Apple has recognized that some users want to switch to a Mac, but still require Windows for one or two applications. They have made it possible for most of these users to switch. (I think Parallels solution is more elegant personally). Apple also recognizes that very very few Apple purchasers are going to dump OS X and run Windows exclusively.
"Boy, for something that they speak so badly of and accuse of ripping them off, they sure are in a hurry to let you run it side by side with their offering. Why is this? Well, it's all in the numbers."
Because some people need to run one or two Windows applications, but prefer using a Mac for most things. A good example, there is absolutely NO Canadian Tax software for the Mac that I am aware of, but Parallels/Boot Camp make it possible for a Canadian such as myself to do their taxes on their Mac (such as my Mac Mini). Without access to Quicktax and similar pieces of software, I probably would have stuck with a PC. Boot Camp was actually an intelligent move in my opinion.
"Apple knows that those who are envious of the Mac hardware will be more inclined to purchase it if they can run Windows (their relied upon operating system of choice). The suits at Apple may try to innocently play this off like you can run Windows and OS X separately and without interference, but you know as well as I do that they're hoping Windows users will begin to spend a little time with OS X, become hooked, and then essentially ditch their former love. It almost sounds like a soap opera when you put it that way, huh?"
I somehow find it very difficult to believe that Windows users are envious of Mac hardware, which in most cases is over-priced compared to Dell, or even Alienware in the case of laptops. I have yet to meet a single Mac user, including a few Intel owners, who bought a Mac because of the hardware. They all bought it because of OS X. I also was in the Apple store the other day, and they had 3 iMacs, 2 running OS X and 1 running XP Pro. A couple people said "oh cool, they run Windows as well now", and then promptly moved onto the OS X computers to play around with them instead.
"I've enjoyed watching Microsoft's response to all of this, because there really hasn't been much of one."
What did you expect them to do, start reselling Mac computers for Apple? Of course they're going to be happy when more Mac users buy licenses for Windows, but there isn't really much they can respond to. Apple still isn't shipping Windows on Macs, and I asked a person at my local Apple store
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's cheapest products are midrange in the market, and they shine at the high-end. Apple is competing with Lenovo, Toshiba, and Sony for customers with an eye toward total presentation & overall quality, and a bit more flexibility in the pocketbook.
There's this silly horse-race attitude in technology commentary, that any company that doesn't have the largest marketshare in their industry is doing something wrong. Typically in any industry gaining the majority means making certain sacrifices (for instance, Microsoft could never break backwards compatibility as often as Apple does -- their huge installed corporate base would balk) Hence there's a lot of money to be made in targeting niches where one size doesn't fit all.
Apple would have a very rough time becoming Dell and keeping the qualities that make their particular market so lucrative and loyal.
Greenpeace report on Apple was a scam (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Greenpeace cheers for HP and Dell, who generate far more e-waste than any other PC makers. They churn out disposable, cheap PCs with short life spans, often using far more toxic CRT displays to hit the low price target. HP was rated good on "Chemical Management," despite missing their goals last year. Meanwhile, Apple was rated "partially bad" for not having as many published goals, when in reality they had already banned use of those toxics, including Hexavalent Chromium and others.
If you like facts, here are more examples of how the Greenpeace report was misleading and incompetent. [roughlydrafted.com]
It's really too bad the Greenpeace report was thrown around without any criticism from the mainstream media or even from bloggers. Even Slashdot refused to cover it. Everyone is afraid to say anything about Greenpeace, but ignoring their misleading and irresponsible report on the grounds that it's politically incorrect to critique anything calling itself "Green," actually waters down the efforts of real environmentalists and those interested in forwarding the state of the art in clean and responsible business and manufacturing.
Incidentally, the Greenpeace report was written by a SVTC member. That's the group that targeted Apple last year in a campaign against the iPod, saying that people would throw their iPods away when the battery ran down. More about the Toxic Trash campaign on Apple [roughlydrafted.com].
Re:Summary headline is incorrect. (Score:3, Insightful)
In the end, the Apple machine offers more choice: I can run Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux on it. On the other-brand PC or clone, I cannot run Mac OS X. Other options might or might not be available, but Apple machines usually offer good high-end options which other vendors don't always have.