For Microsoft, they need to recognize that competing against Apple just sets them up as a follower instead of simply focusing on making high quality, differentiated products and services. I'm happy to see them trying with products like the Surface Book, but when they focus on competing with Apple, instead of selling me on how I can use their products and why using their products makes more sense for me, I am unimpressed.
It's worse than being a follower: they are now playing Apple's game. Apple has been in the vertically integrated computer business for more than 40 years. Microsoft found success selling an OS to an common hardware platform that was super easy to clone. And now Ballmer is bragging that Microsoft has the software and hardware chops to go after Apple at its own game? Bitch, please. In the mid 1990s when Windows 95 was winning, and Apple was losing, the prevailing wisdom was that Apple should do exactly what Microsoft was doing and spin off its hardware and license Mac OS to Mac clone-makers. Under weak leadership, Apple began doing that, but this only further eroded Apple's profits. It took iCEO Steve Jobs to reverse that decision and take back Apple's IP and then double down on Apple's original all-proprietary products. And Apple found success this time around because it got much, much better at executing on its strengths. Fifteen years later, this is now Apple's game.
As Steve put it: Apple didn't have to be like Microsoft to win, Apple had to remember who Apple was and what made it great. (Or words to that effect)
Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to--what? Challenge Apple at building vertically integrated products? Is that what Ballmer is bragging about, bringing competition to Apple's game? That, I would argue, is a strategic error. Microsoft has huge advantages: they are everything Apple isn't. PC can fill every nook and niche that Macs and iPads can't. Microsoft needs to connect with their users. And I'm not talking about tone deaf marketing messages and feature wars. I'm talking about really caring about the user, rather than treating them as currency in their war against their competitors.
I agree as to the point that Microsoft is the only real competition to Apple, but they are a weak second.
In the areas that Apple competes they are 3 - 5 years ahead of Microsoft, and at the level that Apple continues to innovate I do not see Microsoft bridging that gap.
There are two areas that Apple hasn't competed (enterprise desktop and servers). I see the recently entered strategic partnerships with Cisco andIBM as strong leading indicators that Apple is making a serious push into enterprise desktop market.
Productivity and cost are the by words of enterprise decision making. Until now there was no large scale examples of Apple competing against Windows in these areas. IBM's deployment of nearly 200,000 Macs changes that.
Starting in about 2 years I see rapidly expanding growth in Mac units the enterprise Once Mac share of the enterprise hits 10% (2025?) I think we will see a paradigm shift that will make MSFT irrelevant soon after. Lower training costs,lower security costs, longer effective life cycles, and a reduction in support personnel from 1:240 workstations to 1:5400 will do that will do that.
he is delutional as we all know, MS only does a portion of their hardware design by third parties and I am not talking about they user third parties parts, they actually contract other companies to design products for them. This is the reason many of MS Hardware products just suck, it is design by commitee and people who have no vested interest in the outcome.
I won't comment on the Surface Book, since it's too new, but I have seen the Surface Pro and it's a great device. I don't know why you think it's sucks.
How interesting that Microsoft made a real product based on a mockup of an Apple product made by some random guy.
Microsoft isn’t even scraping the bottom of the barrel. They’ve lifted the barrel up, rolled it away, and are digging through the cracks in the cobblestones beneath it.
There are two areas that Apple hasn't competed (enterprise desktop and servers). I see the recently entered strategic partnerships with Cisco and IBM as strong leading indicators that Apple is making a serious push into enterprise desktop market.
Productivity and cost are the by words of enterprise decision making. Until now there was no large scale examples of Apple competing against Windows in these areas. IBM's deployment of nearly 200,000 Macs changes that.
I doubt Apple is too concerned about servers or enterprise desktops. They wisely dropped out of the server market years ago. The cloud is where the current server market is and that is primarily built using blades and VMs on bare metal, not 1Us running OS X server.
Apple is mostly focused on consumers, but with respect to enterprise they are mainly concentrating on notebooks, iPads and iPhones. The IBM initiative was for MacBooks not iMacs.
Quote:
In a memo to employees, IBM notes that starting today all employees (not just some select developers like in the past) can pick from a MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, or a PC when setting up a new or refreshed workstation.
Nope. Imagine the snickering if Apple released a laptop like this. Everyone in the tech press would be calling it fugly. I'd be real nervous about throwing this thing in a backpack with other stuff.
Yes, I think MS is probably the only real serious competition for Apple on the HW and SW front. Android is becoming the lowest common denominator, consumer low end platform and not a serious high end offering though they keep trying. There are enough nerds and Apple haters to keep it going for a while...
MS seems to be slowly getting its collective head out of its arse.
Hopefully they start focussing on the customer and the customer experience with a laser eye.
I am not sure, it is hard to predict who will rise and who will crumble over time, but for anybody to challenge Apple in the relatively short term they need more than just good products. Microsoft is huge and an established player, so that is in their favour. They are also learning to do hardware and who knows where Windows will be in 5 - 10 years time. Just because Apple is firing on all cylinders right now that is no guarantee for the future. Playing devils advocate I can see hundreds of ways Apple can screw up over time. MS has already done a lot of screwing up so maybe, just maybe, they are learning. I don't think it takes a bright person to see this, however. And Balmer always says shit for effect whoever he speaks.
I am not sure, it is hard to predict who will rise and who will crumble over time, but for anybody to challenge Apple in the relatively short term they need more than just good products. Microsoft is huge and an established player, so that is in their favour. They are also learning to do hardware and who knows where Windows will be in 5 - 10 years time. Just because Apple is firing on all cylinders right now that is no guarantee for the future. Playing devils advocate I can see hundreds of ways Apple can screw up over time. MS has already done a lot of screwing up so maybe, just maybe, they are learning. I don't think it takes a bright person to see this, however. And Balmer always says shit for effect whoever he speaks.
That is in fact Microsoft's playbook: hang in there until the other guy screws up.
This strategy worked against all of Microsoft's old competitors except in the last decade against Apple and Google. Neither company has given Microsoft an opening to exploit.
Your point is well taken: this is Apple's and Google's game to lose.
I saw this youtube video of him recently, at some basketball game, I think he owns the team probably, and Fergie was there performing some song, and Ballmer was dancing around and jumping like a crazy person. He either seems to be extremely energetic or on drugs or something, because he seems to act like that very often.
How interesting that Microsoft made a real product based on a mockup of an Apple product made by some random guy.
Microsoft isn’t even scraping the bottom of the barrel. They’ve lifted the barrel up, rolled it away, and are digging through the cracks in the cobblestones beneath it.
for what it's worth, it's definitely paying for MS in terms of mindshare.
It's worse than being a follower: they are now playing Apple's game. Apple has been in the vertically integrated computer business for more than 40 years. Microsoft found success selling an OS to an common hardware platform that was super easy to clone. And now Ballmer is bragging that Microsoft has the software and hardware chops to go after Apple at its own game? Bitch, please. In the mid 1990s when Windows 95 was winning, and Apple was losing, the prevailing wisdom was that Apple should do exactly what Microsoft was doing and spin off its hardware and license Mac OS to Mac clone-makers. Under weak leadership, Apple began doing that, but this only further eroded Apple's profits. It took iCEO Steve Jobs to reverse that decision and take back Apple's IP and then double down on Apple's original all-proprietary products. And Apple found success this time around because it got much, much better at executing on its strengths. Fifteen years later, this is now Apple's game.
As Steve put it: Apple didn't have to be like Microsoft to win, Apple had to remember who Apple was and what made it great. (Or words to that effect)
Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to--what? Challenge Apple at building vertically integrated products? Is that what Ballmer is bragging about, bringing competition to Apple's game? That, I would argue, is a strategic error. Microsoft has huge advantages: they are everything Apple isn't. PC can fill every nook and niche that Macs and iPads can't. Microsoft needs to connect with their users. And I'm not talking about tone deaf marketing messages and feature wars. I'm talking about really caring about the user, rather than treating them as currency in their war against their competitors.
One of the key factors in Apple's success after Jobs return was exactly the focus on the consumer market. With consumer (generally) the "user is the purchaser". So the user cares about appearance, quality, experience, and sometimes total cost over lifetime, etc. With enterprise, the user is usually not the purchaser - the purchaser is the IT department and the "user experience" is just about last on the list. Windows appealed to that market, which is one of their factors in dominating the enterprise. They sold to the Fortune 500, which meant selling to (simplistically) 500 groups.
As we know, this allowed Apple to stabilize the Mac business, and opened the doors to consumer electronics like the iPod. Although not predicted in the early 2000's, smart phones then became the largest CE device of all time, and simply due to numbers, it is all about consumer (enterprise supplied handset numbers are relatively small, compared with the estimated 2B total smartphone users of today). So here is Apple, with its focus on consumer, absolutely owning the premium CE space across phones, tablets, computers, and related ecosystem - which in devices is the most valuable. Going into enterprise is a way for Apple to expand their devices business, but it will never be their primary focus as the larger market is consumer. Also why Apple is unlikely to focus on servers or any enterprise infrastructure - their strengths are not what those IT purchasers are looking for.
Which brings us to Microsoft. They have never really sold much to the end consumer. Windows was acquired by consumer via the PC that was purchased, and most often Office in that way too. The surface is a starting point, but still very early and very small. They really have no solid track record selling into consumer directly. Enterprise doesn't purchase as much based on design & integrated offering. Not sure MS future here is as bright as many think. Certainly it has no historical data to guide it.
For the price bracket and size, it is a fair comparison in terms of which performs better. The customer doesn't care how that performance comes about.
Now, most Mac users are not playing hard core games on their 13" rMBP and the 15" rMBP is the more professional device for people who need OpenCL performance for drafting, graphics, etc. So in the end it is not that big of a deal for the normal customer.
Good point. Speaking of the 15" rMBP, here's a comparison of the $2,500 15" rMBP vs a $2,700 version of the SB. Not hard to guess which one wins
How can anyone take this guy seriously? Microsoft's new Surface and laptops look pretty decent but I have no interest. How well they work, How well they actually hold up and how well they sell remains to be seen. I don't see them pulling customers away from Apple but rather pulling customers away from their already struggling "partners". The fact that Microsoft now competes with their own partners must absolutely p*ss them off. That's more akin to stabbing your already bleeding partner in the back.
Comments
It's worse than being a follower: they are now playing Apple's game. Apple has been in the vertically integrated computer business for more than 40 years. Microsoft found success selling an OS to an common hardware platform that was super easy to clone. And now Ballmer is bragging that Microsoft has the software and hardware chops to go after Apple at its own game? Bitch, please. In the mid 1990s when Windows 95 was winning, and Apple was losing, the prevailing wisdom was that Apple should do exactly what Microsoft was doing and spin off its hardware and license Mac OS to Mac clone-makers. Under weak leadership, Apple began doing that, but this only further eroded Apple's profits. It took iCEO Steve Jobs to reverse that decision and take back Apple's IP and then double down on Apple's original all-proprietary products. And Apple found success this time around because it got much, much better at executing on its strengths. Fifteen years later, this is now Apple's game.
As Steve put it: Apple didn't have to be like Microsoft to win, Apple had to remember who Apple was and what made it great. (Or words to that effect)
Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to--what? Challenge Apple at building vertically integrated products? Is that what Ballmer is bragging about, bringing competition to Apple's game? That, I would argue, is a strategic error. Microsoft has huge advantages: they are everything Apple isn't. PC can fill every nook and niche that Macs and iPads can't. Microsoft needs to connect with their users. And I'm not talking about tone deaf marketing messages and feature wars. I'm talking about really caring about the user, rather than treating them as currency in their war against their competitors.
I agree as to the point that Microsoft is the only real competition to Apple, but they are a weak second.
In the areas that Apple competes they are 3 - 5 years ahead of Microsoft, and at the level that Apple continues to innovate I do not see Microsoft bridging that gap.
There are two areas that Apple hasn't competed (enterprise desktop and servers). I see the recently entered strategic partnerships with Cisco andIBM as strong leading indicators that Apple is making a serious push into enterprise desktop market.
Productivity and cost are the by words of enterprise decision making. Until now there was no large scale examples of Apple competing against Windows in these areas. IBM's deployment of nearly 200,000 Macs changes that.
Starting in about 2 years I see rapidly expanding growth in Mac units the enterprise Once Mac share of the enterprise hits 10% (2025?) I think we will see a paradigm shift that will make MSFT irrelevant soon after. Lower training costs,lower security costs, longer effective life cycles, and a reduction in support personnel from 1:240 workstations to 1:5400 will do that will do that.
he is delutional as we all know, MS only does a portion of their hardware design by third parties and I am not talking about they user third parties parts, they actually contract other companies to design products for them. This is the reason many of MS Hardware products just suck, it is design by commitee and people who have no vested interest in the outcome.
I won't comment on the Surface Book, since it's too new, but I have seen the Surface Pro and it's a great device. I don't know why you think it's sucks.
Wow a top of the line discrete GPU blew away an integrated Intel GPU. What a shock.
What it's shocking is how Apple have never gave the option for a discreet GPU in the 13" MBP.
Their Mobile platform a disaster.
Their Surface platform tractionless in the market.
Apple's only "serious" competition? Perhaps in future. Note that by *that* reasoning I could also "perhaps" buy Sony.
With my Nigerian business partners.
Who for some reason communicate only by e-mail.
I need it for my iOS app development. Currently you have to run on an external device when testing which is a real pain.
Real pain when testing on the actual device? Really?
But that is the only way to test it correctly! virtual iOS device simulators:
1) don't have all the resources that the actual device has
2) have unrealistic performance both in the number of cores, its (CPU) speed and GPU speed.
Microsoft is counting on you to never find out.
Windows 10 is still Windows.
How interesting that Microsoft made a real product based on a mockup of an Apple product made by some random guy.
Microsoft isn’t even scraping the bottom of the barrel. They’ve lifted the barrel up, rolled it away, and are digging through the cracks in the cobblestones beneath it.
There are two areas that Apple hasn't competed (enterprise desktop and servers). I see the recently entered strategic partnerships with Cisco and IBM as strong leading indicators that Apple is making a serious push into enterprise desktop market.
Productivity and cost are the by words of enterprise decision making. Until now there was no large scale examples of Apple competing against Windows in these areas. IBM's deployment of nearly 200,000 Macs changes that.
I doubt Apple is too concerned about servers or enterprise desktops. They wisely dropped out of the server market years ago. The cloud is where the current server market is and that is primarily built using blades and VMs on bare metal, not 1Us running OS X server.
Apple is mostly focused on consumers, but with respect to enterprise they are mainly concentrating on notebooks, iPads and iPhones. The IBM initiative was for MacBooks not iMacs.
I am not sure, it is hard to predict who will rise and who will crumble over time, but for anybody to challenge Apple in the relatively short term they need more than just good products. Microsoft is huge and an established player, so that is in their favour. They are also learning to do hardware and who knows where Windows will be in 5 - 10 years time. Just because Apple is firing on all cylinders right now that is no guarantee for the future. Playing devils advocate I can see hundreds of ways Apple can screw up over time. MS has already done a lot of screwing up so maybe, just maybe, they are learning. I don't think it takes a bright person to see this, however. And Balmer always says shit for effect whoever he speaks.
That is in fact Microsoft's playbook: hang in there until the other guy screws up.
This strategy worked against all of Microsoft's old competitors except in the last decade against Apple and Google. Neither company has given Microsoft an opening to exploit.
Your point is well taken: this is Apple's and Google's game to lose.
I saw this youtube video of him recently, at some basketball game, I think he owns the team probably, and Fergie was there performing some song, and Ballmer was dancing around and jumping like a crazy person. He either seems to be extremely energetic or on drugs or something, because he seems to act like that very often.
How interesting that Microsoft made a real product based on a mockup of an Apple product made by some random guy.
Microsoft isn’t even scraping the bottom of the barrel. They’ve lifted the barrel up, rolled it away, and are digging through the cracks in the cobblestones beneath it.
for what it's worth, it's definitely paying for MS in terms of mindshare.
the ballmer discount on microsoft stock is long gone, the nadella premium now in full effect.
It's worse than being a follower: they are now playing Apple's game. Apple has been in the vertically integrated computer business for more than 40 years. Microsoft found success selling an OS to an common hardware platform that was super easy to clone. And now Ballmer is bragging that Microsoft has the software and hardware chops to go after Apple at its own game? Bitch, please. In the mid 1990s when Windows 95 was winning, and Apple was losing, the prevailing wisdom was that Apple should do exactly what Microsoft was doing and spin off its hardware and license Mac OS to Mac clone-makers. Under weak leadership, Apple began doing that, but this only further eroded Apple's profits. It took iCEO Steve Jobs to reverse that decision and take back Apple's IP and then double down on Apple's original all-proprietary products. And Apple found success this time around because it got much, much better at executing on its strengths. Fifteen years later, this is now Apple's game.
As Steve put it: Apple didn't have to be like Microsoft to win, Apple had to remember who Apple was and what made it great. (Or words to that effect)
Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to--what? Challenge Apple at building vertically integrated products? Is that what Ballmer is bragging about, bringing competition to Apple's game? That, I would argue, is a strategic error. Microsoft has huge advantages: they are everything Apple isn't. PC can fill every nook and niche that Macs and iPads can't. Microsoft needs to connect with their users. And I'm not talking about tone deaf marketing messages and feature wars. I'm talking about really caring about the user, rather than treating them as currency in their war against their competitors.
One of the key factors in Apple's success after Jobs return was exactly the focus on the consumer market. With consumer (generally) the "user is the purchaser". So the user cares about appearance, quality, experience, and sometimes total cost over lifetime, etc. With enterprise, the user is usually not the purchaser - the purchaser is the IT department and the "user experience" is just about last on the list. Windows appealed to that market, which is one of their factors in dominating the enterprise. They sold to the Fortune 500, which meant selling to (simplistically) 500 groups.
As we know, this allowed Apple to stabilize the Mac business, and opened the doors to consumer electronics like the iPod. Although not predicted in the early 2000's, smart phones then became the largest CE device of all time, and simply due to numbers, it is all about consumer (enterprise supplied handset numbers are relatively small, compared with the estimated 2B total smartphone users of today). So here is Apple, with its focus on consumer, absolutely owning the premium CE space across phones, tablets, computers, and related ecosystem - which in devices is the most valuable. Going into enterprise is a way for Apple to expand their devices business, but it will never be their primary focus as the larger market is consumer. Also why Apple is unlikely to focus on servers or any enterprise infrastructure - their strengths are not what those IT purchasers are looking for.
Which brings us to Microsoft. They have never really sold much to the end consumer. Windows was acquired by consumer via the PC that was purchased, and most often Office in that way too. The surface is a starting point, but still very early and very small. They really have no solid track record selling into consumer directly. Enterprise doesn't purchase as much based on design & integrated offering. Not sure MS future here is as bright as many think. Certainly it has no historical data to guide it.
For the price bracket and size, it is a fair comparison in terms of which performs better. The customer doesn't care how that performance comes about.
Now, most Mac users are not playing hard core games on their 13" rMBP and the 15" rMBP is the more professional device for people who need OpenCL performance for drafting, graphics, etc. So in the end it is not that big of a deal for the normal customer.
Good point. Speaking of the 15" rMBP, here's a comparison of the $2,500 15" rMBP vs a $2,700 version of the SB. Not hard to guess which one wins
https://fstoppers.com/gear/surface-book-vs-macbook-pro-15-macbook-twice-fast-93596?utm_content=buffer3ac7c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Hey thanks for the link to fstoppers.
I had never seen or heard of them.
I have now watched a few of their videos and kind of like that guys delivery and he seems fair enough.
How can anyone take this guy seriously? Microsoft's new Surface and laptops look pretty decent but I have no interest. How well they work, How well they actually hold up and how well they sell remains to be seen. I don't see them pulling customers away from Apple but rather pulling customers away from their already struggling "partners". The fact that Microsoft now competes with their own partners must absolutely p*ss them off. That's more akin to stabbing your already bleeding partner in the back.