Unfortunately that's what many, many IT managers believe as well and this disaster isn't going to do anything but continue to perpetuate that perception.
I am the owner of my business and also the IT manager!
For small business users like me its essential to be able to send out emails from you own company domain.
Mobile me & push doesnt allow this.... Although you choose "From: abc@yourowndomain" when you compose an email, it is received at the other end as if it were sent at "[email protected]"
The "exchange for everyone else" needs to fix this bug soon or a lot of clients are gonna be confused and emails lost...
Not to mention the $$$$...
Now Blackberry does this seamlessly and effectively for up to 10 email accounts.... Their phones just dont have such a god broswer or music player.
I am the owner of my business and also the IT manager!
For small business users like me its essential to be able to send out emails from you own company domain.
Mobile me & push doesnt allow this.... Although you choose "From: abc@yourowndomain" when you compose an email, it is received at the other end as if it were sent at "[email protected]"
The "exchange for everyone else" needs to fix this bug soon or a lot of clients are gonna be confused and emails lost...
Not to mention the $$$$...
Now Blackberry does this seamlessly and effectively for up to 10 email accounts.... Their phones just dont have such a god broswer or music player.
But which am I going to use for business?
What app are you using to send the mail out? From my iPhone, I am replying to emails that came in through MM back through Gmail and they are showing up as gmail only. I am using the Gmail SMTP server, too, but even if I use the MM SMTP server the header info still says the email came from Gmail account while it obviously shows that it traversed the MM servers.
What the article says and whatever bias you think it has is irrelevant. Robots don't report the news, fallible humans do. It's what the Canalys compiled, Symbian-published report tells us about smart phone sales that's important.
It was linked to in the article, but here's the link:
I can't see what it is that you're trying to point out, as it seems counter to what you were saying before. I'm very familiar with that page as I've bookmarked it long ago.
I can't see what it is that you're trying to point out, as it seems counter to what you were saying before. I'm very familiar with that page as I've bookmarked it long ago.
What's your point?
Yeah, I would like to apologize to you and anyone else who lost brain cells while trying to figure out my point.
I can be an airhead sometimes and this was a prime example. I'm actually no longer sure what my thought process was, but I think I was confusing installed base with market share or something. I've got it straight now and can make my point clear and simple:
While the iPhone may only have around 27% of the smartphone market, market share is not a good indicator of what's popular, but rather, what is selling well.
A good example of this discrepancy is visible in the PC market, where Apple only has 8% of the U.S. PC market, yet their computers are outpacing the industry 3 to 1 as the over-saturated desktop PC market (which makes up the vast majority of computers both in the U.S. and the world) flat-lines while Apple's computer sales continue to rise, which is why they are now the third largest U.S. PC vendor.
Yeah, I would like to apologize to you and anyone else who lost brain cells while trying to figure out my point.
I can be an airhead sometimes and this was a prime example. I'm actually no longer sure what my thought process was, but I think I was confusing installed base with market share or something. I've got it straight now and can make my point clear and simple:
While the iPhone may only have around 27% of the smartphone market, market share is not a good indicator of what's popular, but rather, what is selling well.
A good example of this discrepancy is visible in the PC market, where Apple only has 8% of the U.S. PC market, yet their computers are outpacing the industry 3 to 1 as the over-saturated desktop PC market (which makes up the vast majority of computers both in the U.S. and the world) flat-lines while Apple's computer sales continue to rise, which is why they are now the third largest U.S. PC vendor.
I understand it a bit more now.
But you would have to more carefully define what you mean by popular. While its true that Apple is expanding its computer sales three times faster than PC sales are expanding, there are still far more PC's being sold than Macs. If we look at actual sales numbers as a guide, then PCs are obviously much more popular. If we look to the rate of sales growth, then Macs are obviously much more popular.
It could be that Mac sales are expanding fast amongst a small group of purchasers who are inclined to buy Macs. What happens if that group limit is reached within a couple of years? Mac sales will slow down. We really don't know what the case is yet. I'm hoping that it isn't a small group, but that the entire population will come to appreciate Apple's products, but you never know, anything can happen.
But you would have to more carefully define what you mean by popular. While its true that Apple is expanding its computer sales three times faster than PC sales are expanding, there are still far more PC's being sold than Macs. If we look at actual sales numbers as a guide, then PCs are obviously much more popular. If we look to the rate of sales growth, then Macs are obviously much more popular.
I consider the latter as popular. Mac sales are not just outpacing the PC industry at a steady 3 to 1, sales are growing exponentially on the Mac side, so we could see them move to 4 to 1. Meanwhile, PC sales are flat-lining for the most part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It could be that Mac sales are expanding fast amongst a small group of purchasers who are inclined to buy Macs. What happens if that group limit is reached within a couple of years? Mac sales will slow down. We really don't know what the case is yet. I'm hoping that it isn't a small group, but that the entire population will come to appreciate Apple's products, but you never know, anything can happen.
But so far, they show no signs of slowing down and because the global computer population is over-saturated with beige-box PCs, Apple can eat into the Windows installed base, while the reverse is much less likely to happen because sooo many people already have these ewaste machines from HP, Dell, etc.
I consider the latter as popular. Mac sales are not just outpacing the PC industry at a steady 3 to 1, sales are growing exponentially on the Mac side, so we could see them move to 4 to 1. Meanwhile, PC sales are flat-lining for the most part.
But so far, they show no signs of slowing down and because the global computer population is over-saturated with beige-box PCs, Apple can eat into the Windows installed base, while the reverse is much less likely to happen because sooo many people already have these ewaste machines from HP, Dell, etc.
I'm just being the devil's advocate here.
If a category is close to saturation, then growth must slow down, as it has nowhere to go.
When a product has a very small marketshare, as Apple does (less than 4% worldwide), then it's easier to have what seems to be explosive growth.
Worldwide computer growth last quarter was about 15% vs. Apple's 47% or so. Big difference. But, look at the base both came from. The PC base is 25 times larger.
Will Apples' growth slow down? Of course. When will that occur?
Ah, thats the question for which we have no answer.
If a category is close to saturation, then growth must slow down, as it has nowhere to go.
When a product has a very small marketshare, as Apple does (less than 4% worldwide), then it's easier to have what seems to be explosive growth.
Worldwide computer growth last quarter was about 15% vs. Apple's 47% or so. Big difference. But, look at the base both came from. The PC base is 25 times larger.
Will Apples' growth slow down? Of course. When will that occur?
Ah, thats the question for which we have no answer.
I see your point(s). But the next major transition in computing platforms will be from desktops to mobile laptops and smartphones, not simply to Macs. Apple could easily coast for the next 3-5 years with the iPhone as is, while the competition struggles to match Apple's cohesive hardware/software devices that are greater than the sum of their parts.
With Apple's recent acquisition of PA Semi (which will provide supporting, custom Mac chips) and a slimmed-down, Intel-optimized version of Leopard coming next year (Snow Leopard), Apple will widen the gap on the Mac side in ways rivals will be in no position to replicate for years, if not decades.
I see your point(s). But the next major transition in computing platforms will be from desktops to mobile laptops and smartphones, not simply to Macs. Apple could easily coast for the next 3-5 years with the iPhone as is, while the competition struggles to match Apple's cohesive hardware/software devices that are greater than the sum of their parts.
With Apple's recent acquisition of PA Semi (which will provide supporting, custom Mac chips) and a slimmed-down, Intel-optimized version of Leopard coming next year (Snow Leopard), Apple will widen the gap on the Mac side in ways rivals will be in no position to replicate for years, if not decades.
That's very possible. jobs is said to have remarked that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth, then move on to the next thing. It's possible the iPhone/iTouch platform is that next big thing, though Mac growth may have surprised him?for now.
I would agree that Apple is ahead, and will be for a few years, but certainly not for decades. It's possible that neither Apple nor Microsoft will even be around decades from now.
I would agree that Apple is ahead, and will be for a few years, but certainly not for decades. It's possible that neither Apple nor Microsoft will even be around decades from now.
Just pointing out, Apple is a hardware company that uses its own software to add value to its products. Microsoft is just a software vendor, and a third-rate one at that. Their most popular hardware products that have had any kind of success are their computer mice and the Xbox consoles, with the original having a decent failure rate and the 360 having a historic +40% failure rate. That's pretty horrible and they've still probably haven't turned a profit on them.
Similarly, the hardware vendors that sell their computers with Microsoft's Windows as the de facto OS on every new PC - Dell, HP, etc. - produce mainly ewaste and thanks to them signing exclusive, anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM deals with MS, not only are they dependent on Redmond, they can't easily offer alternative operating systems like Linux, let alone their own operating systems.
So I agree with half your statement: Microsoft is unlikely to be in anywhere near the position of power in the OS market that it holds today and uses to stifle progress in the state of the art of technology.
Just pointing out, Apple is a hardware company that uses its own software to add value to its products. Microsoft is just a software vendor, and a third-rate one at that. Their most popular hardware products that have had any kind of success are their computer mice and the Xbox consoles, with the original having a decent failure rate and the 360 having a historic +40% failure rate. That's pretty horrible and they've still probably haven't turned a profit on them.
Similarly, the hardware vendors that sell their computers with Microsoft's Windows as the de facto OS on every new PC - Dell, HP, etc. - produce mainly ewaste and thanks to them signing exclusive, anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM deals with MS, not only are they dependent on Redmond, they can't easily offer alternative operating systems like Linux, let alone their own operating systems.
So I agree with half your statement: Microsoft is unlikely to be in anywhere near the position of power in the OS market that it holds today and uses to stifle progress in the state of the art of technology.
I remember enough of the older days of the computer industry going back to the 1960's when I was in high school, and taking Fortran. We didn't think that the big manufacturers of mainframes and mini computers would go out of business either, but almost all did, or were bought up by others. And there were some very big names there in that business, GE, RCA, Sperry, Honeywell, and others. The same thing was true for personal computing. most of the early names that we thought would be the major powers are also gone
I can't take a jaundiced eye towards this and pretend that because I like a company, and have a fair amount of stock in it, that it will be here forever. Decades is a very long time for companies. Most don't survive that long.
The truth is that there will be paradigm changes in the industry, and those around before, will become weakened, and likely not survive. It can take a while.
I can't take a jaundiced eye towards this and pretend that because I like a company, and have a fair amount of stock in it, that it will be here forever. Decades is a very long time for companies. Most don't survive that long.
Sure, but in my opinion, Apple isn't "most companies." There really isn't, nor has there ever been a company quite like Apple. They did well until Jobs left and the company fell under the control of salesmen who produced ads more innovative than their computers, which lead to their brush with death in the '90s.
Microsoft doesn't have a Steve Jobs/NeXTSTEP life-raft to save them when they really start to take on water in the coming years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The truth is that there will be paradigm changes in the industry, and those around before, will become weakened, and likely not survive. It can take a while.
Definitely. And Apple is cagey enough and mobile enough to adapt quickly to new paradigms, in addition to their unique position that will enable them to create their own.
Sure, but in my opinion, Apple isn't "most companies." There really isn't, nor has there ever been a company quite like Apple. They did well until Jobs left and the company fell under the control of salesmen who produced ads more innovative than their computers, which lead to their brush with death in the '90s.
Microsoft doesn't have a Steve Jobs/NeXTSTEP life-raft to save them when they really start to take on water in the coming years.
Definitely. And Apple is cagey enough and mobile enough to adapt quickly to new paradigms, in addition to their unique position that will enable them to create their own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping this is all true.
But remember RCA? They were about as American a paragon as any company has ever been. One of the most innovative, and inventive companies around, responsible as much for the US's advances during the first two thirds of the 20th century as any other company. Where are they now?
One major product flub was responsible for the company's downfall.
That happened to Apple during the holiday season 1995. I remember it very well. Apple escaped by the skin of its teeth.
But remember RCA? They were about as American a paragon as any company has ever been. One of the most innovative, and inventive companies around, responsible as much for the US's advances during the first two thirds of the 20th century as any other company. Where are they now?
One major product flub was responsible for the company's downfall.
That happened to Apple during the holiday season 1995. I remember it very well. Apple escaped by the skin of its teeth.
Good point.
I think Apple's brush with death has been more of a positive than anything else. It forced everyone involved to recognize what dire straights the company was in. Their rather small market position at the time turned out to be an advantage in disguise because it allowed Jobs to rapidly transition the Mac installed base into something profitable and worthwhile. They know what near certain death feels like. Most companies in their situation would have collapsed, or been spun off into something forgettable.
That's why I can't see a future with Microsoft in it, at least not in a role of any real magnitude. They're failing on so many fronts, but they seem to be insulated from reality. When and if they do come to their senses, it'll likely be too late and who will they have to turn to? Their rival, Apple? The open source community that hates them? The companies they've forged partnerships with, only to abandon them (the companies) by the wayside?
It's not like Microsoft had anything that compelling to begin with, and now they have a personality crisis, which was pretty visible during their show at this year's E3 game conference, in which they tried to make the 360 a system for everyone and no-one by showing great games their system is known for at the start, then dedicating the second half to ripping off ideas from Nintendo and Sony left and right. It's similar to the lack of focus seen in their ads for Office and Windows, which is pretty comical considering they have a monopolistic position on the desktop.
I think if LInux distributors were more interested in providing something really unique, rather than basically cloning the Windows desktop look and feel, we'd see more migration from Windows, which would put pressure on Microsoft from the low-end, profitless PC market where Linux could undercut the expensive Windows OEM licensing tax, and from the profitable high-end media production, consumer and education markets, where Apple's doing very well.
I think Apple's brush with death has been more of a positive than anything else. It forced everyone involved to recognize what dire straights the company was in. Their rather small market position at the time turned out to be an advantage in disguise because it allowed Jobs to rapidly transition the Mac installed base into something profitable and worthwhile. They know what near certain death feels like. Most companies in their situation would have collapsed, or been spun off into something forgettable.
That's why I can't see a future with Microsoft in it, at least not in a role of any real magnitude. They're failing on so many fronts, but they seem to be insulated from reality. When and if they do come to their senses, it'll likely be too late and who will they have to turn to? Their rival, Apple? The open source community that hates them? The companies they've forged partnerships with, only to abandon them (the companies) by the wayside?
It's not like Microsoft had anything that compelling to begin with, and now they have a personality crisis, which was pretty visible during their show at this year's E3 game conference, in which they tried to make the 360 a system for everyone and no-one by showing great games their system is known for at the start, then dedicating the second half to ripping off ideas from Nintendo and Sony left and right. It's similar to the lack of focus seen in their ads for Office and Windows, which is pretty comical considering they have a monopolistic position on the desktop.
I think if LInux distributors were more interested in providing something really unique, rather than basically cloning the Windows desktop look and feel, we'd see more migration from Windows, which would put pressure on Microsoft from the low-end, profitless PC market where Linux could undercut the expensive Windows OEM licensing tax, and from the profitable high-end media production, consumer and education markets, where Apple's doing very well.
Three things.
One is that we'll never know what would have happened to Apple if Spindler didn't make that incredibly dumb move for the 1995 holiday season. Apple had a 10% marketshare then, and a big presence in most all hi tech companies. A friend was in charge of desktop purchasing for Boeing back then, They had over 34,000 Macs, and about 1,000 PC's. A fair number of other companies had the same ratio.
After the 1995 holiday blunder, management, guided by IT, began to eliminate Macs from the environment. This happened everywhere.
If Apple hadn't made that blunder, Apple might have maintained a big presence in business, and their marketshare may never have dropped below 10%, and possibly would have climbed higher, which was the intent of what was done, though it was a mistake.
It's taking a long time to just get back to where things were in 1995. We're not there yet.
Two is that it took Rome 500 years to finally collapse. Even if MS continues to blunder, their special position in the marketplace will keep them where they are, abet diminishing, for a long time to come.
Three is that the open software model as exemplified by the various Linux based distro's isn't really a good model. Most customers require backing from some entity that they can go to with their problems. That isn't true for the free Linux based distros.
If people think they have problems with Apple support, they should look to problems in the Windows community. If Windows users think they have problems with support, they should look to the Linux based community, where there is no support at all.
If they want to pay for support, they can look to the various business based Linux providers, but there is no cost advantage, and usually it costs more. They will also be stuck with a distro that is heavily biased towards business, which will be a great disadvantage to most would be users, who aren't interested in that.
Even business isn't looking to move to Linux (I HATE calling the distro's that. Do we call OS X MACH?) Despite CrossOver, very little customer written software works with it. The same thing is true for much of the software that is commercial that big companies depend on for back office use.
Linux is even losing out to MS in the area of server software, which is something that most people aren't aware of.
It's taking a long time to just get back to where things were in 1995. We're not there yet.
Maybe not on the computer front, no. But then the desktop market is oversaturated and stagnant. Maybe not in the global market, no. But in the high-end media production, higher education (and increasingly, K-12) and profitable consumer markets, they may have 20%. There's no way to really measure that last one, yet it's one of the most significant markets and will be into the foreseeable future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Two is that it took Rome 500 years to finally collapse. Even if MS continues to blunder, their special position in the marketplace will keep them where they are, abet diminishing, for a long time to come.
Totally agree. At least on the desktop front. What about the portable media player front? The smartphone front? There are a number of areas Apple already has greater real or mental market share. Pretty much every new device they've put out has been very well received, successful, and profitable, while the same can't be said for even the Xbox, the closest thing Microsoft has had to a successful, profitable platform outside of their desktop monopoly. And not even their consoles, nor their music players are running a tailored version of XP, let alone Vista, if any iteration of Windows at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Three is that the open software model as exemplified by the various Linux based distro's isn't really a good model. Most customers require backing from some entity that they can go to with their problems. That isn't true for the free Linux based distros.
That's true. But don't forget to factor in the Office and anti-virus licenses that don't really exist on the Linux side.
And yeah, I was talking about Redhat and the like, not SuperRandomLinux 7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Even business isn't looking to move to Linux (I HATE calling the distro's that. Do we call OS X MACH?)
Exactly. It bothers me too when people promote and talk up Linux as if it's a unified entity or operating system, when it's really a loosely aligned armada. It's an armada with its heart in the right place, for the most part, but whether Linux really has a place on the average consumer's desktop has yet to be seen. Open source software in more general terms does have its place though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Linux is even losing out to MS in the area of server software, which is something that most people aren't aware of.
Thanks, I looked but couldn't find anything newer than 2006. Though the article you posted is from 2007, here is the latest data showing a IIS gaining and Apache losing ground.
Comments
Unfortunately that's what many, many IT managers believe as well and this disaster isn't going to do anything but continue to perpetuate that perception.
I am the owner of my business and also the IT manager!
For small business users like me its essential to be able to send out emails from you own company domain.
Mobile me & push doesnt allow this.... Although you choose "From: abc@yourowndomain" when you compose an email, it is received at the other end as if it were sent at "[email protected]"
The "exchange for everyone else" needs to fix this bug soon or a lot of clients are gonna be confused and emails lost...
Not to mention the $$$$...
Now Blackberry does this seamlessly and effectively for up to 10 email accounts.... Their phones just dont have such a god broswer or music player.
But which am I going to use for business?
I am the owner of my business and also the IT manager!
For small business users like me its essential to be able to send out emails from you own company domain.
Mobile me & push doesnt allow this.... Although you choose "From: abc@yourowndomain" when you compose an email, it is received at the other end as if it were sent at "[email protected]"
The "exchange for everyone else" needs to fix this bug soon or a lot of clients are gonna be confused and emails lost...
Not to mention the $$$$...
Now Blackberry does this seamlessly and effectively for up to 10 email accounts.... Their phones just dont have such a god broswer or music player.
But which am I going to use for business?
What app are you using to send the mail out? From my iPhone, I am replying to emails that came in through MM back through Gmail and they are showing up as gmail only. I am using the Gmail SMTP server, too, but even if I use the MM SMTP server the header info still says the email came from Gmail account while it obviously shows that it traversed the MM servers.
Who is David G.?
What the article says and whatever bias you think it has is irrelevant. Robots don't report the news, fallible humans do. It's what the Canalys compiled, Symbian-published report tells us about smart phone sales that's important.
It was linked to in the article, but here's the link:
http://www.symbian.com/about/fastfacts/fastfacts.html
I can't see what it is that you're trying to point out, as it seems counter to what you were saying before. I'm very familiar with that page as I've bookmarked it long ago.
What's your point?
I can't see what it is that you're trying to point out, as it seems counter to what you were saying before. I'm very familiar with that page as I've bookmarked it long ago.
What's your point?
Yeah, I would like to apologize to you and anyone else who lost brain cells while trying to figure out my point.
I can be an airhead sometimes and this was a prime example. I'm actually no longer sure what my thought process was, but I think I was confusing installed base with market share or something.
While the iPhone may only have around 27% of the smartphone market, market share is not a good indicator of what's popular, but rather, what is selling well.
A good example of this discrepancy is visible in the PC market, where Apple only has 8% of the U.S. PC market, yet their computers are outpacing the industry 3 to 1 as the over-saturated desktop PC market (which makes up the vast majority of computers both in the U.S. and the world) flat-lines while Apple's computer sales continue to rise, which is why they are now the third largest U.S. PC vendor.
Yeah, I would like to apologize to you and anyone else who lost brain cells while trying to figure out my point.
I can be an airhead sometimes and this was a prime example. I'm actually no longer sure what my thought process was, but I think I was confusing installed base with market share or something.
While the iPhone may only have around 27% of the smartphone market, market share is not a good indicator of what's popular, but rather, what is selling well.
A good example of this discrepancy is visible in the PC market, where Apple only has 8% of the U.S. PC market, yet their computers are outpacing the industry 3 to 1 as the over-saturated desktop PC market (which makes up the vast majority of computers both in the U.S. and the world) flat-lines while Apple's computer sales continue to rise, which is why they are now the third largest U.S. PC vendor.
I understand it a bit more now.
But you would have to more carefully define what you mean by popular. While its true that Apple is expanding its computer sales three times faster than PC sales are expanding, there are still far more PC's being sold than Macs. If we look at actual sales numbers as a guide, then PCs are obviously much more popular. If we look to the rate of sales growth, then Macs are obviously much more popular.
It could be that Mac sales are expanding fast amongst a small group of purchasers who are inclined to buy Macs. What happens if that group limit is reached within a couple of years? Mac sales will slow down. We really don't know what the case is yet. I'm hoping that it isn't a small group, but that the entire population will come to appreciate Apple's products, but you never know, anything can happen.
I understand it a bit more now.
But you would have to more carefully define what you mean by popular. While its true that Apple is expanding its computer sales three times faster than PC sales are expanding, there are still far more PC's being sold than Macs. If we look at actual sales numbers as a guide, then PCs are obviously much more popular. If we look to the rate of sales growth, then Macs are obviously much more popular.
I consider the latter as popular. Mac sales are not just outpacing the PC industry at a steady 3 to 1, sales are growing exponentially on the Mac side, so we could see them move to 4 to 1. Meanwhile, PC sales are flat-lining for the most part.
It could be that Mac sales are expanding fast amongst a small group of purchasers who are inclined to buy Macs. What happens if that group limit is reached within a couple of years? Mac sales will slow down. We really don't know what the case is yet. I'm hoping that it isn't a small group, but that the entire population will come to appreciate Apple's products, but you never know, anything can happen.
But so far, they show no signs of slowing down and because the global computer population is over-saturated with beige-box PCs, Apple can eat into the Windows installed base, while the reverse is much less likely to happen because sooo many people already have these ewaste machines from HP, Dell, etc.
I consider the latter as popular. Mac sales are not just outpacing the PC industry at a steady 3 to 1, sales are growing exponentially on the Mac side, so we could see them move to 4 to 1. Meanwhile, PC sales are flat-lining for the most part.
But so far, they show no signs of slowing down and because the global computer population is over-saturated with beige-box PCs, Apple can eat into the Windows installed base, while the reverse is much less likely to happen because sooo many people already have these ewaste machines from HP, Dell, etc.
I'm just being the devil's advocate here.
If a category is close to saturation, then growth must slow down, as it has nowhere to go.
When a product has a very small marketshare, as Apple does (less than 4% worldwide), then it's easier to have what seems to be explosive growth.
Worldwide computer growth last quarter was about 15% vs. Apple's 47% or so. Big difference. But, look at the base both came from. The PC base is 25 times larger.
Will Apples' growth slow down? Of course. When will that occur?
Ah, thats the question for which we have no answer.
Baby steps I guess
Others on another forum say they had service stop for a few hours but I didn't come across that thankfully
I'm just being the devil's advocate here.
If a category is close to saturation, then growth must slow down, as it has nowhere to go.
When a product has a very small marketshare, as Apple does (less than 4% worldwide), then it's easier to have what seems to be explosive growth.
Worldwide computer growth last quarter was about 15% vs. Apple's 47% or so. Big difference. But, look at the base both came from. The PC base is 25 times larger.
Will Apples' growth slow down? Of course. When will that occur?
Ah, thats the question for which we have no answer.
I see your point(s). But the next major transition in computing platforms will be from desktops to mobile laptops and smartphones, not simply to Macs. Apple could easily coast for the next 3-5 years with the iPhone as is, while the competition struggles to match Apple's cohesive hardware/software devices that are greater than the sum of their parts.
With Apple's recent acquisition of PA Semi (which will provide supporting, custom Mac chips) and a slimmed-down, Intel-optimized version of Leopard coming next year (Snow Leopard), Apple will widen the gap on the Mac side in ways rivals will be in no position to replicate for years, if not decades.
I see your point(s). But the next major transition in computing platforms will be from desktops to mobile laptops and smartphones, not simply to Macs. Apple could easily coast for the next 3-5 years with the iPhone as is, while the competition struggles to match Apple's cohesive hardware/software devices that are greater than the sum of their parts.
With Apple's recent acquisition of PA Semi (which will provide supporting, custom Mac chips) and a slimmed-down, Intel-optimized version of Leopard coming next year (Snow Leopard), Apple will widen the gap on the Mac side in ways rivals will be in no position to replicate for years, if not decades.
That's very possible. jobs is said to have remarked that he would milk the Mac for all it was worth, then move on to the next thing. It's possible the iPhone/iTouch platform is that next big thing, though Mac growth may have surprised him?for now.
I would agree that Apple is ahead, and will be for a few years, but certainly not for decades. It's possible that neither Apple nor Microsoft will even be around decades from now.
I would agree that Apple is ahead, and will be for a few years, but certainly not for decades. It's possible that neither Apple nor Microsoft will even be around decades from now.
Just pointing out, Apple is a hardware company that uses its own software to add value to its products. Microsoft is just a software vendor, and a third-rate one at that. Their most popular hardware products that have had any kind of success are their computer mice and the Xbox consoles, with the original having a decent failure rate and the 360 having a historic +40% failure rate. That's pretty horrible and they've still probably haven't turned a profit on them.
Similarly, the hardware vendors that sell their computers with Microsoft's Windows as the de facto OS on every new PC - Dell, HP, etc. - produce mainly ewaste and thanks to them signing exclusive, anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM deals with MS, not only are they dependent on Redmond, they can't easily offer alternative operating systems like Linux, let alone their own operating systems.
So I agree with half your statement: Microsoft is unlikely to be in anywhere near the position of power in the OS market that it holds today and uses to stifle progress in the state of the art of technology.
Just pointing out, Apple is a hardware company that uses its own software to add value to its products. Microsoft is just a software vendor, and a third-rate one at that. Their most popular hardware products that have had any kind of success are their computer mice and the Xbox consoles, with the original having a decent failure rate and the 360 having a historic +40% failure rate. That's pretty horrible and they've still probably haven't turned a profit on them.
Similarly, the hardware vendors that sell their computers with Microsoft's Windows as the de facto OS on every new PC - Dell, HP, etc. - produce mainly ewaste and thanks to them signing exclusive, anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM deals with MS, not only are they dependent on Redmond, they can't easily offer alternative operating systems like Linux, let alone their own operating systems.
So I agree with half your statement: Microsoft is unlikely to be in anywhere near the position of power in the OS market that it holds today and uses to stifle progress in the state of the art of technology.
I remember enough of the older days of the computer industry going back to the 1960's when I was in high school, and taking Fortran. We didn't think that the big manufacturers of mainframes and mini computers would go out of business either, but almost all did, or were bought up by others. And there were some very big names there in that business, GE, RCA, Sperry, Honeywell, and others. The same thing was true for personal computing. most of the early names that we thought would be the major powers are also gone
I can't take a jaundiced eye towards this and pretend that because I like a company, and have a fair amount of stock in it, that it will be here forever. Decades is a very long time for companies. Most don't survive that long.
The truth is that there will be paradigm changes in the industry, and those around before, will become weakened, and likely not survive. It can take a while.
I can't take a jaundiced eye towards this and pretend that because I like a company, and have a fair amount of stock in it, that it will be here forever. Decades is a very long time for companies. Most don't survive that long.
Sure, but in my opinion, Apple isn't "most companies." There really isn't, nor has there ever been a company quite like Apple. They did well until Jobs left and the company fell under the control of salesmen who produced ads more innovative than their computers, which lead to their brush with death in the '90s.
Microsoft doesn't have a Steve Jobs/NeXTSTEP life-raft to save them when they really start to take on water in the coming years.
The truth is that there will be paradigm changes in the industry, and those around before, will become weakened, and likely not survive. It can take a while.
Definitely. And Apple is cagey enough and mobile enough to adapt quickly to new paradigms, in addition to their unique position that will enable them to create their own.
Sure, but in my opinion, Apple isn't "most companies." There really isn't, nor has there ever been a company quite like Apple. They did well until Jobs left and the company fell under the control of salesmen who produced ads more innovative than their computers, which lead to their brush with death in the '90s.
Microsoft doesn't have a Steve Jobs/NeXTSTEP life-raft to save them when they really start to take on water in the coming years.
Definitely. And Apple is cagey enough and mobile enough to adapt quickly to new paradigms, in addition to their unique position that will enable them to create their own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping this is all true.
But remember RCA? They were about as American a paragon as any company has ever been. One of the most innovative, and inventive companies around, responsible as much for the US's advances during the first two thirds of the 20th century as any other company. Where are they now?
One major product flub was responsible for the company's downfall.
That happened to Apple during the holiday season 1995. I remember it very well. Apple escaped by the skin of its teeth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm hoping this is all true.
But remember RCA? They were about as American a paragon as any company has ever been. One of the most innovative, and inventive companies around, responsible as much for the US's advances during the first two thirds of the 20th century as any other company. Where are they now?
One major product flub was responsible for the company's downfall.
That happened to Apple during the holiday season 1995. I remember it very well. Apple escaped by the skin of its teeth.
Good point.
I think Apple's brush with death has been more of a positive than anything else. It forced everyone involved to recognize what dire straights the company was in. Their rather small market position at the time turned out to be an advantage in disguise because it allowed Jobs to rapidly transition the Mac installed base into something profitable and worthwhile. They know what near certain death feels like. Most companies in their situation would have collapsed, or been spun off into something forgettable.
That's why I can't see a future with Microsoft in it, at least not in a role of any real magnitude. They're failing on so many fronts, but they seem to be insulated from reality. When and if they do come to their senses, it'll likely be too late and who will they have to turn to? Their rival, Apple? The open source community that hates them? The companies they've forged partnerships with, only to abandon them (the companies) by the wayside?
It's not like Microsoft had anything that compelling to begin with, and now they have a personality crisis, which was pretty visible during their show at this year's E3 game conference, in which they tried to make the 360 a system for everyone and no-one by showing great games their system is known for at the start, then dedicating the second half to ripping off ideas from Nintendo and Sony left and right. It's similar to the lack of focus seen in their ads for Office and Windows, which is pretty comical considering they have a monopolistic position on the desktop.
I think if LInux distributors were more interested in providing something really unique, rather than basically cloning the Windows desktop look and feel, we'd see more migration from Windows, which would put pressure on Microsoft from the low-end, profitless PC market where Linux could undercut the expensive Windows OEM licensing tax, and from the profitable high-end media production, consumer and education markets, where Apple's doing very well.
Good point.
I think Apple's brush with death has been more of a positive than anything else. It forced everyone involved to recognize what dire straights the company was in. Their rather small market position at the time turned out to be an advantage in disguise because it allowed Jobs to rapidly transition the Mac installed base into something profitable and worthwhile. They know what near certain death feels like. Most companies in their situation would have collapsed, or been spun off into something forgettable.
That's why I can't see a future with Microsoft in it, at least not in a role of any real magnitude. They're failing on so many fronts, but they seem to be insulated from reality. When and if they do come to their senses, it'll likely be too late and who will they have to turn to? Their rival, Apple? The open source community that hates them? The companies they've forged partnerships with, only to abandon them (the companies) by the wayside?
It's not like Microsoft had anything that compelling to begin with, and now they have a personality crisis, which was pretty visible during their show at this year's E3 game conference, in which they tried to make the 360 a system for everyone and no-one by showing great games their system is known for at the start, then dedicating the second half to ripping off ideas from Nintendo and Sony left and right. It's similar to the lack of focus seen in their ads for Office and Windows, which is pretty comical considering they have a monopolistic position on the desktop.
I think if LInux distributors were more interested in providing something really unique, rather than basically cloning the Windows desktop look and feel, we'd see more migration from Windows, which would put pressure on Microsoft from the low-end, profitless PC market where Linux could undercut the expensive Windows OEM licensing tax, and from the profitable high-end media production, consumer and education markets, where Apple's doing very well.
Three things.
One is that we'll never know what would have happened to Apple if Spindler didn't make that incredibly dumb move for the 1995 holiday season. Apple had a 10% marketshare then, and a big presence in most all hi tech companies. A friend was in charge of desktop purchasing for Boeing back then, They had over 34,000 Macs, and about 1,000 PC's. A fair number of other companies had the same ratio.
After the 1995 holiday blunder, management, guided by IT, began to eliminate Macs from the environment. This happened everywhere.
If Apple hadn't made that blunder, Apple might have maintained a big presence in business, and their marketshare may never have dropped below 10%, and possibly would have climbed higher, which was the intent of what was done, though it was a mistake.
It's taking a long time to just get back to where things were in 1995. We're not there yet.
Two is that it took Rome 500 years to finally collapse. Even if MS continues to blunder, their special position in the marketplace will keep them where they are, abet diminishing, for a long time to come.
Three is that the open software model as exemplified by the various Linux based distro's isn't really a good model. Most customers require backing from some entity that they can go to with their problems. That isn't true for the free Linux based distros.
If people think they have problems with Apple support, they should look to problems in the Windows community. If Windows users think they have problems with support, they should look to the Linux based community, where there is no support at all.
If they want to pay for support, they can look to the various business based Linux providers, but there is no cost advantage, and usually it costs more. They will also be stuck with a distro that is heavily biased towards business, which will be a great disadvantage to most would be users, who aren't interested in that.
Even business isn't looking to move to Linux (I HATE calling the distro's that. Do we call OS X MACH?) Despite CrossOver, very little customer written software works with it. The same thing is true for much of the software that is commercial that big companies depend on for back office use.
Linux is even losing out to MS in the area of server software, which is something that most people aren't aware of.
It's taking a long time to just get back to where things were in 1995. We're not there yet.
Maybe not on the computer front, no. But then the desktop market is oversaturated and stagnant. Maybe not in the global market, no. But in the high-end media production, higher education (and increasingly, K-12) and profitable consumer markets, they may have 20%. There's no way to really measure that last one, yet it's one of the most significant markets and will be into the foreseeable future.
Two is that it took Rome 500 years to finally collapse. Even if MS continues to blunder, their special position in the marketplace will keep them where they are, abet diminishing, for a long time to come.
Totally agree. At least on the desktop front. What about the portable media player front? The smartphone front? There are a number of areas Apple already has greater real or mental market share. Pretty much every new device they've put out has been very well received, successful, and profitable, while the same can't be said for even the Xbox, the closest thing Microsoft has had to a successful, profitable platform outside of their desktop monopoly. And not even their consoles, nor their music players are running a tailored version of XP, let alone Vista, if any iteration of Windows at all.
Three is that the open software model as exemplified by the various Linux based distro's isn't really a good model. Most customers require backing from some entity that they can go to with their problems. That isn't true for the free Linux based distros.
That's true. But don't forget to factor in the Office and anti-virus licenses that don't really exist on the Linux side.
And yeah, I was talking about Redhat and the like, not SuperRandomLinux 7.
Even business isn't looking to move to Linux (I HATE calling the distro's that. Do we call OS X MACH?)
Exactly. It bothers me too when people promote and talk up Linux as if it's a unified entity or operating system, when it's really a loosely aligned armada. It's an armada with its heart in the right place, for the most part, but whether Linux really has a place on the average consumer's desktop has yet to be seen. Open source software in more general terms does have its place though.
Linux is even losing out to MS in the area of server software, which is something that most people aren't aware of.
Apache's losing out to IIS?
Apache's losing out to IIS?
Yup!
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html
Yup!
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...er_survey.html
Thanks, I looked but couldn't find anything newer than 2006. Though the article you posted is from 2007, here is the latest data showing a IIS gaining and Apache losing ground.