Apple is in no way a threat to Microsoft. It may be the best out there, the most beautiful (it is), the most stable et al, but it is not a threat to Microsoft.
Linux, or in general Free Software, is not a threat to Microsoft because it's a better OS (it is), but because it's a movement, a belief that software should be free (as in speech). That belief and movement will not go away if one day Longhorn surpasses Linux (highly doubtful). They will just construct a different, better OS made up of open source apps + kernel, and continue to be a threat.
Apple on the other hand, has no desire to be a threat to Microsoft, except regain some share and thus revenue (this can work up to a point, from that point on, too much market share may not actually mean increased profitability), and is thus unable to threaten Microsoft in the OS arena. Linux is the same way, but since in Linux money is made in services offered rather than machines sold or copies of the OS sold (by a single company, like Apple), the laws of economics do not tend to apply as they do to Apple.
Mac OS X is a great product, in many ways superior to Windows XP. But it is not a threat to XP, and I highly doubt it will ever be.
Linux, or in general Free Software, is not a threat to Microsoft because it's a better OS (it is), but because it's a movement, a belief that software should be free (as in speech).
The percentage of people who care about "free as in speech", even within the current linux community is small. Many more people are much more interested in the "free as in beer" aspect. You could argue that the former results in the latter, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Most people simply aren't that idealistic, they are much more apathetic to anything that does not directly/immediately impact them.
[B]The percentage of people who care about "free as in speech", even within the current linux community is small. Many more people are much more interested in the "free as in beer" aspect. You could argue that the former results in the latter, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Small compared to who? When I said Free Software, I was adhering to the definition given by the guys with the biggest amount of Free Software on their shelves, the GNU group. They argue that when they say Free, they don't necessarily mean 'as in beer', rather, they mean as in speech. The software they give is absolutely free, both as in beer and as in speech, but they say that someone may sell the software to you to cover any costs that have occurred, such as CDs, booklets, shipping and handling. That's why I said 'as in speech', to emphasize their point. I didn't say that everyone in the Linux community would buy Photoshop CS2 if it was ported to Linux, neither did I say that no one wouldn't.
2 out of 3 most widely used distro's out there are sold, and for a hefty price too: SuSE is around 90 euros, where as Mandrake differs from package to package, but is generally 50 euros. Mind you, this is not a small part of the Linux community: this is the biggest part (together with Fedora Core which has been free since RedHat dropped support for their desktop edition which was around $40).
However, you do have a point, and I am not trying to say that you do not. But I still stick to my initial position of people wanting software more for its freedom in customizing than anything else, at least in the Linux world.
Quote:
Most people simply aren't that idealistic, they are much more apathetic to anything that does not directly/immediately impact them.
Agreed. I'm not an idealist either and I could care less if it includes the source code or not as long as it works for me and is not spying on my usage habits, but that cannot be said for most of the Linux crowd. A simple example can be given: Ahead Nero just released a version of their product for Linux dubbed NeroLINUX. It met with little demand. Why? Well, why not use something that is free as in beer, and free as in speech such as K3B, when it's at least as good as NeroLINUX (not Nero Ahead for Windows, they differ), if not better?
Any example? iPod not included. We're talking about OS' here.
I think it's pretty simple, the Mac mini is pretty cheap with no viruses or spyware. I think it will be a big hit for college dorm rooms. I think as well, Apple is within striking distance of producing a multi-media device for the living room - just another area MS is failing miserably at.
Business is still a fair ways off for Apple, but I think they will be a major contender in another 5 years or so.
MS is simply not producing anything innovative enough to prevent Linux or Apple from continuing to erode their market share. The only thing slowing MS erosion is their backwards compatibility and established market share.
If Apple increases it's volume ten fold, it will still be a third of Microsoft's size..
Apple are in NO WAY capable of doing this. They can't even keep up with demand on thir regular products as it is now. The whole ecosystem around Apple would have to keep up too. Technicians, educators, support and sales will have to be recruited on a massive scale and there's not enough capable people to meet such a demand. Suppliers of components like IBM can't increase the volume ten fold either. They would have to build at least 3 new factories or Apple would have to use AMD and the foundries in Taiwan in the mean time to produce processors and other components and I think they would have a hard time keeping up. Apple would have to support a lot more languages than they do today. Arabic, Russian, Hindi, Korean..
This isn't about Apple replacing Windows P.C.'s - this is about a new market - the digital appliance. That segment is currently up for grabs, and Apple certainly can't be written off in that regard.
As well, Apple doesn't need to grab 50% market share - if they can get it up to 10% they would become a huge pain in the ass for MS.
This isn't about Apple replacing Windows P.C.'s - this is about a new market - the digital appliance. That segment is currently up for grabs, and Apple certainly can't be written off in that regard.
The topic is about OSs, 'does Win XP...' not digital appliances.
even if windows is totally overhauled with a new clean system it will not cause a loss of sales to apple etc.. remember you forget the 399 dells that sell rather well and can be had overnight (VS 2-3week waiting periods for apple) and they can just add a virtualized windows XP environment.
Comments
Longhorn Delayed Again - Who Wins?
Originally posted by PB
For those interested, here are the latest news about Longhorn:
Longhorn Delayed Again - Who Wins?
Is it me or was Apple only mentioned once in that article. I see Apple as a bigger threat than Linux to MS.
For people looking for full replacements from scratch, Apple is it.
Originally posted by aplnub
I see Apple as a bigger threat than Linux to MS.
Apple is in no way a threat to Microsoft. It may be the best out there, the most beautiful (it is), the most stable et al, but it is not a threat to Microsoft.
Linux, or in general Free Software, is not a threat to Microsoft because it's a better OS (it is), but because it's a movement, a belief that software should be free (as in speech). That belief and movement will not go away if one day Longhorn surpasses Linux (highly doubtful). They will just construct a different, better OS made up of open source apps + kernel, and continue to be a threat.
Apple on the other hand, has no desire to be a threat to Microsoft, except regain some share and thus revenue (this can work up to a point, from that point on, too much market share may not actually mean increased profitability), and is thus unable to threaten Microsoft in the OS arena. Linux is the same way, but since in Linux money is made in services offered rather than machines sold or copies of the OS sold (by a single company, like Apple), the laws of economics do not tend to apply as they do to Apple.
Mac OS X is a great product, in many ways superior to Windows XP. But it is not a threat to XP, and I highly doubt it will ever be.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Linux, or in general Free Software, is not a threat to Microsoft because it's a better OS (it is), but because it's a movement, a belief that software should be free (as in speech).
The percentage of people who care about "free as in speech", even within the current linux community is small. Many more people are much more interested in the "free as in beer" aspect. You could argue that the former results in the latter, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Most people simply aren't that idealistic, they are much more apathetic to anything that does not directly/immediately impact them.
Originally posted by Karl Kuehn
[B]The percentage of people who care about "free as in speech", even within the current linux community is small. Many more people are much more interested in the "free as in beer" aspect. You could argue that the former results in the latter, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
Small compared to who? When I said Free Software, I was adhering to the definition given by the guys with the biggest amount of Free Software on their shelves, the GNU group. They argue that when they say Free, they don't necessarily mean 'as in beer', rather, they mean as in speech. The software they give is absolutely free, both as in beer and as in speech, but they say that someone may sell the software to you to cover any costs that have occurred, such as CDs, booklets, shipping and handling. That's why I said 'as in speech', to emphasize their point. I didn't say that everyone in the Linux community would buy Photoshop CS2 if it was ported to Linux, neither did I say that no one wouldn't.
2 out of 3 most widely used distro's out there are sold, and for a hefty price too: SuSE is around 90 euros, where as Mandrake differs from package to package, but is generally 50 euros. Mind you, this is not a small part of the Linux community: this is the biggest part (together with Fedora Core which has been free since RedHat dropped support for their desktop edition which was around $40).
However, you do have a point, and I am not trying to say that you do not. But I still stick to my initial position of people wanting software more for its freedom in customizing than anything else, at least in the Linux world.
Most people simply aren't that idealistic, they are much more apathetic to anything that does not directly/immediately impact them.
Agreed. I'm not an idealist either and I could care less if it includes the source code or not as long as it works for me and is not spying on my usage habits, but that cannot be said for most of the Linux crowd. A simple example can be given: Ahead Nero just released a version of their product for Linux dubbed NeroLINUX. It met with little demand. Why? Well, why not use something that is free as in beer, and free as in speech such as K3B, when it's at least as good as NeroLINUX (not Nero Ahead for Windows, they differ), if not better?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Apple is in no way a threat to Microsoft.
I disagree, Apple is for sure becoming a threat in the consumer market.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I disagree, Apple is for sure becoming a threat in the consumer market.
Any example? iPod not included. We're talking about OS' here.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Any example? iPod not included. We're talking about OS' here.
I think it's pretty simple, the Mac mini is pretty cheap with no viruses or spyware. I think it will be a big hit for college dorm rooms. I think as well, Apple is within striking distance of producing a multi-media device for the living room - just another area MS is failing miserably at.
Business is still a fair ways off for Apple, but I think they will be a major contender in another 5 years or so.
MS is simply not producing anything innovative enough to prevent Linux or Apple from continuing to erode their market share. The only thing slowing MS erosion is their backwards compatibility and established market share.
Apple are in NO WAY capable of doing this. They can't even keep up with demand on thir regular products as it is now. The whole ecosystem around Apple would have to keep up too. Technicians, educators, support and sales will have to be recruited on a massive scale and there's not enough capable people to meet such a demand. Suppliers of components like IBM can't increase the volume ten fold either. They would have to build at least 3 new factories or Apple would have to use AMD and the foundries in Taiwan in the mean time to produce processors and other components and I think they would have a hard time keeping up. Apple would have to support a lot more languages than they do today. Arabic, Russian, Hindi, Korean..
No.. Apple is no match for Microsoft.
Originally posted by Henriok
No.. Apple is no match for Microsoft.
This isn't about Apple replacing Windows P.C.'s - this is about a new market - the digital appliance. That segment is currently up for grabs, and Apple certainly can't be written off in that regard.
As well, Apple doesn't need to grab 50% market share - if they can get it up to 10% they would become a huge pain in the ass for MS.
Originally posted by the cool gut
This isn't about Apple replacing Windows P.C.'s - this is about a new market - the digital appliance. That segment is currently up for grabs, and Apple certainly can't be written off in that regard.
The topic is about OSs, 'does Win XP...' not digital appliances.
So, situations differ.
As far as desktop OS's go, MS has nowhere to go but down, and Apple and Linux up.