Steve Ballmer calls Apple's Mac growth a "rounding error" - Page 4

Dude give it up already. You're really clawing at the air here bringing the iPhone into a mac discussion. Furthermore, there are similar hacks on windows mobile and android devices. Android has been patched, rumors indicate that iphone OS will be patched tomorrow, no word on windows mobile.

This is my last response to you. You are the definition of a troll. Make a comment. comment gets debunked. Make a new comment unrelated to the first one....

Edit: I see the article does eventually get to something mac related.

He just can't believe a HW company makes better software than the SW company itself.

you're absolutely right

Good point.

Ballmer, for some reason, isn't making sense these days when he has to answer for MS, and this happening a lot. It looks as if the sales guy is getting tongue-tied. Perhaps because it's getting increasingly difficult to avoid the real issues. He has to say *something*, but there's not a whole lot to say that will turn the tables or increase confidece. He's been operating under the assumption that all MS has to do is just "show up", not to answer for lousy performance and concerns over a decline!

He's visibly uncomfortable talking about these things, and you can often tell that he's about to explode. I wouldn't be surprised if he trows a fit after each of these uncomfortable PR appearances.

----

Essentially, the cost of ownership is much lower for windows (in enterprise, not home), and cost of change is very high.

Most Fortune 500 companies are still on XP - it takes years even to upgrade from one version of windows in a large enterprise on the desktop - let alone App/Web servers etc... Hell we still have a couple OS2 servers where I work, and IE 6 is the supported browser - and we are talking about a fortune 100 company.

As much as I would like to see Apple break into this market - there are just so many barriers, not the least of which is perception. IT organizations still don't take MacOS seriously. There's cost - these companies spend 500 bucks or less on the average employee laptop they buy in bulk from Dell or HP - apple doesn't have anything like that. There's familiarity - people are used to Windows and changing would cause a certain amount of disruption. There's software investments too numerous to mention. There's an army of knuckleheads out there that you can pay less than a retail clerk to support Windows on the desktop - I don't think that workforce exists and, if it does, you'd have to pay them significantly more at least for a while until they were marginalized. There is an army of developers out their you can also get cheap to build apps for windows. Apple doesn't even have much of the creative/media/content creation market like it used to anymore. Why run the Adobe suite on a Mac when you can run it just as effectively on hardware that costs 1/3 as much.

Are Macs better? Hell yeah! Can they do what needs to be done? Hell yeah! Would I rather use one at work? Oh yeah! Does any fortune 500 company really care? Nope. To them computing is a commodity - line items on balance sheets. Apple makes a boutique product. Companies don't buy lexus or porsche for their sales fleets - why would they buy Apple computers for their desktops? At the end of the day a Windows box gets what I need done at work, then I go home and ENJOY using my Mac / Apple TV / iPhone. I don't think Apple even WANTS to be in this market - at least not right now. If they did they would be building commodity products and advertising to the enterprise market.

Maybe Apple can sneak in in niches and then catch on, but I don't think that's really their plan.

Not sure about the first sentence. Perhaps. But your second sentence should be made into a sticky. Very well said - a simple sentence encapsulates the situation perfectly.

I'm in full agreement here. Apple specializes in the consumer experience and in catering to niche enterprise areas. I have absolutely no problem (nor should anyone) about Macs lagging in the corporate sector. In fact, I'd have my suspicions if Apple planned on making a big push in this area. Might not be a good idea long-term.

Good post.

That myth has been debunked time and time again. Some architectures were created with security in mind and not as a bolted on after thought. Writing a virus for Linux or Solaris is a lot harder, and as a matter of fact there are none.

Yes it's possible to write malware that relies on social engineering (basically trick the user into running it for you), but that's not what a virus is.

Microsoft's Active X is a fiasco that they still have not dealt with properly. Basically, Active X is a component that can run in a browser and that has full access to every operating system lever API, and full access to disk, with no security of any kind in place. Sandboxing security was bolted on only after thousands of exploits happened, and lots of embarrassment for Microsoft, but it is still possible to trick users and escape from the sandbox.

I think that figure from WWDC was 70 million OS X users. That included Mac OS X, iPod Touch OS, and iPhone OS users. I don't recall Apple ever saying how many Mac users there were. iPhone and iPod users aren't not considered Mac users. However...I could be wrong.

I think you're right, actually. I think there were an estimated 30 million OS X users around 2007, before the release of the iPhone.

Balmer is a significant asset... for Apple.

A significant what?

Sorry, I read that too quickly.

My point was, and still is, that it can be done. I never said there are x number of viruses on the Mac. Only that it can be done if the effort was put forward to do it. There is not a piece of software on this planet that is so secure that it can't be hacked from the outside.

Steve Jobs is absolutely right in saying Microsoft has no taste and that they always come up with third rate products. That is, in fact, the chief reason I don't touch Windows or any MS software with a 10 foot pole. They put no care into software design, no vision, no passion. Therefore they come up over and over again with products that have zero innovation. If you look from Windows 95 to Windows 7, almost 20 years of history and almost nothing has changed. I would even argue that anything that did change from Windows 95 to 7 was due to Microsoft doing a very bad imitation of apple technology.

While I can't deny that I hold disdain for Mr. Ballmer (Does any other CEO come across like a schizophrenic without meds?) he does have a point to some degree about market share. Until Apple or anyone else can make a dent in their corporate and enterprise level stranglehold they have nothing to worry about.

Of course they worry about seeing an ocean of Apple laptops but if only the top 10% of consumers can afford them, again not a big threat. (90% of us are too cheap or flat out broke sadly)

Ballmer actually admits the cost of Linux is less than Windows? That's amazing. Of course he admits it by positioning against OS X as being more expensive.

What a load of BS.

There was really no danger of Microsoft discontinuing MS Office for Mac because ...

1. It was in the best interest for Microsoft to keep Apple from going out of business. They sited many times in the DOJ hearing that Apple was a viable competitor in the OS market. Microsoft knew that without Apple, there would be greater chance of the DOJ breaking up Microsoft.

2. Microsoft MBU (Mac Business Unit) is very profitable. Always has been.

3. Microsoft has a near monopoly in the office suite market with MS Office. The last thing they would want is to have the DOJ come down on them for abusing that monopoly. By cutting off MS Office for Mac, it would look like the only reason they were doing it was to drive Apple out of business.

But all of this didn't matter because the average consumers still perceived that Microsoft could potentially stop MS Office for Mac at any time. Thus they weren't going to buy a Mac. Which was why is was important for Steve Jobs to have Microsoft come out and ensure the consumers that Microsoft was going to keep making MS Office for Mac for the foreseeable future.

The other issue was the perception that Apple was in financial trouble. Which they weren't, Apple at the time had no debt and close to 2 billion dollars in cash. Even if Microsoft "gave" Apple $150 million dollars in cash, (which they didn't) it wouldn't make much difference to Apple's financial health. But many consumers don't follow the business and financial section. They only see the headlines that Apple had lost a lot of money in the last few quarters. If the consumers feared that Apple wasn't going to be around much longer, they weren't going to buy a Mac. So it was also important for Steve Jobs to have a company like Microsoft "invest" in Apple. By buying $150 million of AAPL (non voting), Microsoft was showing the consumers that Apple was still a company worth investing in. And that they weren't worry about Apple going bankrupt any time soon. It wasn't the $150 million dollars "investment" that matter to Apple. But the gesture. (BTW- Microsoft bought AAPL at about $20.00 and later sold their shares at about $28.00. Microsoft made over $50 million dollars on their "investment" in AAPL. If they were to held on to it, it would be worth over 4 billion dollars today. After 2 splits.)

But by no means did Microsoft do any of this out of the goodness in their heart. Microsoft got much more in return, for what little they actually had to offer, out of this deal. At least at the time.

Edit- Actually Microsoft made over $140 million dollars on their $150 million dollars investment. They actually bought 150,000 of prefer stocks that was converted to 18,000,000 shares of common stocks of AAPL in 2000 and 2001. If they would have held on to them, they would be worth about 6 billion dollars today. (with 1 split).

Yeah and in fact, Wasn't it attempts to push into the commodity market - to fight Microsoft on its strengths rather than fighting them on their weaknesses - that almost destroyed Apple in the 90s? I remember a lot of beige boxes back then, and even clones! Remember UMAX and PowerComputing?

Cr*ppy software on a c*appy PC computer is still a c*appy choice. Blamer should stick that shiny bald head in place where sun don't shine: Douc*e Bag

If his audience were using more Macs than PCs, he should have shut up his big mouth. What other evidence does this clown need to know that Apple is fast moving forward.

What a fool?

Game is over for Microsoft and Ballmer. No tricks left in their hat. I say again to any investors, "sell, sell, sell!" The only reason that Ballmer is talking trash is because he doesn't want his wealth to decline, and all his wealth is in Microsoft shares.

I almost bought a Radius back then in order to replace my PowePC 6100/60, but I ended up hanging on to it and getting lots of use out of it right up until April 2002. Those were interesting days.

Actually that wasn't your contention. Your thesis was that it's the popularity making windows less secure, and that if OS X installed base was as high as Windows, that it would be equally insecure. This is simply not true. You have to know your history and know where MS came from. In Windows 98 and versions before it, the login dialog presented to the user was just a way for you to choose your login profile, and not a security measure. You could click cancel and still log in, without providing a password. This is the kind of OS Microsoft had to re-engineer into secure multi user OS. Same goes for Internet. Microsoft was so pre-occupied with dominating the desktop that Internet somehow managed to pass by them un-noticed, and they still have not accounted for that lost time (and that is proving to be the beginning of their end, but that's a different story).

The things were so bad even in 2001 with XP that unpatched machine left connected to the internet for mere 45 seconds would get infected with something. And why? Because Microsoft didn't engineer the OS initially with Internet in mind and they never intended the OS to be connected to a public network, and with all the security considerations that come from that requirement. Unlike say even the earliest UNIX OSes that were multi user, always on the network machines.

I will not go into theoretical argument if it is possible to write software that is so secure it is unbreakable from "outside" what ever that means (you probably mean from the Internet). I would argue that yes it is, but it would not be too useful. Security often goes against usability and sometimes you have to relax it to satisfy certain usability requirements.

Prime example is SSH, and remote administration that every UNIX admin uses. Still the most secure protocol out there, but it's not trivial to set up (again usability suffers because of security).

This is the interesting split personality that Mac people have. On one hand they believe that they have a "Premium" product, on the other they believe that they have a better Total Cost of Ownership. Statistics, and real data prove this incorrect. Apples Devices are no more reliable then name brand PCs, In fact, their laptops are noticably worse in reliability. In addition, they definitely have just as many, or more, security holes. Many of which are not exploited because of the insignificant market share that the Macs enjoy. Another great example: The iPhone is like swiss cheese.

If Windows is the epitomy of crap then why would a "Premium" product allow it to be loaded on their system.

In closing: If Macs are the "Premium" product with better TCO, then why does most Mac users also have a PC and/or Windows running on their Macs. Probably because they need to do real work once in a while. I think I would rather buy a machine that needs only one O/S to get my work done.

The laptop thing kinda blows my mind. I guess I'm not surprised that one might see a lot of expensive macbook and macbook pros if the audience is a lot of investors - especially if they are successful ones. I am surprised however that Apple sells as many laptops as they do.

In the desktop markets - i guess mainly iMacs and minis and maybe even mac pros for high end workstations, the "apple premium" or "apple tax" is small enough that it can at least be argued.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone can, with a straight face, make the argument that at $1000, a macbook with 2Gig of RAM, a 160Gig HDD, integrated graphics, and, most importantly, a 13" screen is anything other than a luxury item or status symbol. I you can, I'd love to hear it. This is probably why the laptop hunter ads are at all effective.

To most reasonably value-minded people, even those like myself, who prefer MacOS, an Apple laptop is a beautiful but overpriced tool. I own an iMac, iphone, and Apple TV, and love them all, but I own an HP laptop with 5" more screen diagonally, twice the ram, 3X the storage, better graphics, running Win 7.

It's not quite as pretty as a 17" macbook pro for $2500, and it won't run OSX, but it just cost a little more than that 13" white macbook, it's solidly built, and it runs CS4, all my development tools, and my beloved Orange Box, FEAR, UT, on a nice big bright screen. I have to tell ya guys - "I got just what I need"

I don't think so. If you read the Findings of Fact in U.S. v Microsoft, you will see that Microsoft was completely willing to use Office for the Mac as leverage against Apple. In fact, they did threaten to discontinue it, even though Office 97 was a virtually completed product and on the verge of shipping. One of the salient characteristics of the antitrust trial against Microsoft is that they were throughout the proceedings utterly convinced that they'd done absolutely nothing illegal, and were staggeringly unconcerned about what the government lawyers, or the judge in the case, thought about their conduct either inside or outside the courtroom.

Microsoft was certainly threatening to discontinue Office. Whether they'd have done it or not, we don't know. What we do know is that it was actively discussed and debated within Microsoft's management. Some were in favor of it, others apparently not -- but they absolutely had no qualms about using it as a threat, to extract concessions from Apple.

I have never seen any information indicating when Microsoft sold their AAPL, only assumptions that they sold it immediately after the five year holding window ended. Have you found something else?

a lot of good this did. by the time the EU forced them to bundle other browsers the browser is becoming irrelevant

HP is solidly built laptops? i support 2 5 year old dell inspirons that keep on going and will probably work for another few years. one has a nice crack and has been dropped a few times and it works like a charm. my $1500 HP business laptop has had a cracked screen and a bad power cord in 18 months of use and that's just going to and from work

if i spend this kind of money on a laptop again it's going to be Dell or Apple. never HP. with dell i'll get faster hardware but with apple i'll get better support

You are so confused that I don't know where to begin. Apple laptops are the best in business and highest rated in initial quality and user satisfaction. I certainly never had a problem with mine.

There is nothing wrong with allowing other OS to be installed on your hardware. If you knew anything you would know that actually increases the value for Mac owners, hence better TCO. I can run Linux, Windows and OS X on my macs should I want to.

And the major reason for this is to cater to Windows users sitting on the fence considering the switch, but are scared of the unknown windowless world. They can try OS X and if it doesn't work can always move back to Windows on the same hardware. Also, this is a good thing for gamers, who would like to use OS X, but are not willing to give up gaming on Windows. Now they can.

I'm a software developer, so I have to use a variety of operating systems from AIX, HPUX, Solaris, Linux and Windows. But at home I use OS X exclusively. I have not encountered a task I needed to do and could not. If there were such tasks I would not have bought a mac. Yes, my mac pro with 32 GB of RAM is capable enough to run several instances of different versions of Windows and other OS all at once in a virtual machine (Virtual Box is great open source one), so if I need to test my software on those platforms I can, but I would never run them as the primary OS.

iPhone is not any way more insecure than your average phone out there. By the way that SMS bug is not unique to iPhone, if that is what you are referring to.

I never said it would be equally insecure, go back and re-read my first post. What I said in so many words was that the effort put forward to find exploits in OSX is less than the effort put forward on Windows. If you flip the market share you will have more people finding ways to infiltrate OSX/UNIX. I never said there would be the same amount, what I said was it was not impossible.

And the 'outside' means gaining access without having to be sitting at the machine.

Bing! You get what you pay for.

Poppycock!

The browser is more relevant that ever! Google is betting the farm on it. Everything they've built was designed to run in a browser, or use a browser - and now they've packaged up their very own browser. If you believe even a little of the hype around "cloud computing" and all the related technologies, you know the web browser isn't going anywhere soon.

The browser is walking dead argument surfaced when some people "predicted" that all the great desktop apps would eventually be connected to the net to move, store, and share data, usurping the need for "dumbed-down", browser-based applications.

I think those people might have been wrong.

He is such a moron - or at least talks like one.
Since those Macs can also run Windows and don't have to be exclusive MacOS machines.
Those few 10Million users represent the cream that is separating from the curdling milk of the Windows/PC market. Ballmer should be looking at them as a source of learning how to do something truly genius - not a negligible "rounding error".

The only thing he should be talking about is finally making a device or partnering with a manufacturer to make something that fits Windows 7 like a glove and actually does something people desire. Oh yeah - they don't know how to do either of those things well - build or partner!

Bing/Live aren't all bad. When I bought my Macbook on ebay I got 10% cash rebate from M$ for buying Apple products

Of course the effort to develop OS X exploits is less than is put forth for Windows exploits. None have proved to work so why keep wasting so much time when it's so much easier to do elsewhere?

That was my f**king point! If there were more users they would keep up the effort.

-------

C'mon - now this is about Dell vs. HP? That certainly wasn't my point.

I said this particular HP laptop is solidly built. I haven't owned it long, so we will see. With PC makers that's one of the issues - each manufacturer has a low-end and a high-end and some have several levels in-between. The one i'm talking about is their highest end consumer targeted model, and it feels reasonably solid and well built. As for reliability, like i said - haven't owned it long and we will see. You've had a bad experience with HP that's fine - get a Dell, dude.

My point was that Apple laptops draw a premium or "Apple Tax" that is significant enough to drive reasonably value-minded people to the "dark side", and I'm surprised they sell as many as they do.

Like I said, I own a mac desktop and iPhone, etc. and I'd love to own a 17" macbook pro, but It's just a tool, so I get say 80-90% of what I want and 100% of what I need out of a laptop for 50% of the price with the HP (substitute Dell or whoever else makes decent windows laptops).

I'll pay the apple tax for a desktop, but the premium on Apple laptops is hard to justify, but hey, people buy Porsches to drive to the grocery store - I see them there all the time, so there's a market. \

No.

For the love of god haven't we flogged the security horse enough already?

Apparently not. The horse got a virus.