Ballmer sees Mac as a main competitor, iPhone as just buzz

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    Without reading any of the posts, but knowing this beloved community of posters, I don't think I can add or detract to the similar thoughts and comments regarding Steve Ballmer other than to say, what a piece of work he is!
  • Reply 62 of 71
    kreshkresh Posts: 379member
    The iPhone comment sorta makes sense to me in a strange way. Let see if I can arrive at how I understood BallerBoy.



    The iPhone is the single outlet for Apple to distribute iPhone OS X.



    I don't know how many phone manufacturer's, or oem repackagers, there are but let's just say there are fifty. Microsoft does not have to compete with Apple for the business of these fifty manufacturers, but they will have to compete with Android.



    So in a sense Microsoft is not competing with Apple in the oem (real market), but they are getting trounced by Apple in the consumer market (fake market).



    I guess to Microsoft when someone sees the Apple iPhone next to an "X" phone (powered by WM 6.5) from Samsung in a retail store then it is an Apple vs. Samsung battle. On the other hand if there is a Samsung "X" phone powered by Android and a Samsung "X" phone powered by WM 6.5 then it is oh what the hell, the guy makes no sense.....
  • Reply 63 of 71
    I feel the pain of Microsoft software users having to put up with a CEO who has no direction. It would be better for them, the industry, and us Apple users, if Microsoft would just give us some competition and real innovation.



    Image if someone like Steve Jobs were at Microsoft, Adobe, et al., we'd have some really great products to look forward to! I love Apple products but they have no competition and they know it. It makes them lazy. Competition is good for everyone.
  • Reply 64 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Phormic View Post


    Don't vote him out! I want Ballmer there for as long as possible. It's like watching a train wreck stretching over years.



    You don't want somebody running Microsoft who actually knows what they're doing do you?



    Frankly, Apple at times needs to be prodded into making improvements to their products, so I'd rather see better competitive products coming from Microsoft.
  • Reply 65 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daniel B View Post


    Ray Ozzie will take over soon. He just needs a little more time at MS. Ballmer knows this.



    After reading the recent Wired article, I see him as more similar to Gates. Full of ideas and with a real passion for software.



    http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...16-12/ff_ozzie



    Apple has a window of opportunity now.



    I agree with your assessment.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    The only reason I keep a PC (that I made) on my desk, as well as my Mac (for real work), is because I enjoy the PC-only simulations. I just heard that Microsoft canned the whole simulation development department (MS Flight Simulator and Train Simulator, which was supposed to have a major upgrade this year.) There goes two good reasons for lack of desk space.
  • Reply 67 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne View Post


    Office 14, wtf?



    Office 3.0 (1992)

    Office 4.0 (1994)

    Office 4.3 \t

    Office 95 = version 7 \t(skipped 5 & 6 to synchronize w/ all internal program versions at 7)

    Office 97 = v. 8

    Office 97 + Word 98 = v. 8.5

    Office 2000 = v. 9

    Office XP = v. 10

    Office 2003 = v. 11

    Office 2007 = v. 12

    Office 2009?? = v. 14 (skipped "version 13" due to MSFT's triskaidekaphobia)
  • Reply 68 of 71
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Office v0.1.x = Cave drawings. This was a lab proof-of-concept, though the data did eventually lead to MS Paint, which hasn't evolved since its public debut (French HQ)

    Office v0.9.1 = Stone tablets (presented by Moses at early CES in 1350BCE. (Little known fact: MS stood for Mount Sinai back then, not Microsoft)

    Office v1.x = Knotted pieces of string (S. American division) which were more portable than the stone tablets that came before. This was a inexpensive solution for MS in this emerging market.

    Office v2.0.1 = Bound reeds scribed or flanks of skin with ink made from one's charred enemy. A push for a more "Greener technologies" finally led way to using more plants over people and livestock.

    Office v2.5 = Introduced lightweight reeds and papyrus. Monochrome was replaced with a colour palate made from berries, flowers, cobalt and other new technologies were eventually standardized.



    (I'm out of ideas for lame things to make up)



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave View Post


    Office 3.0 (1992)

    Office 4.0 (1994)

    Office 4.3 \t

    Office 95 = version 7 \t(skipped 5 & 6 to synchronize w/ all internal program versions at 7)

    Office 97 = v. 8

    Office 97 + Word 98 = v. 8.5

    Office 2000 = v. 9

    Office XP = v. 10

    Office 2003 = v. 11

    Office 2007 = v. 12

    Office 2009?? = v. 14 (skipped "version 13" due to MSFT's triskaidekaphobia)



  • Reply 69 of 71
    If I were a PC, I'd run linux....thank god I'm a mac. haha
  • Reply 70 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave View Post


    Office 2009?? = v. 14 (skipped "version 13" due to MSFT's triskaidekaphobia)



    It may be that M$ is morbid of the number 13 or maybe they just don't want any "bad luck" (Friday 13th type stuff) to befall their product! The user has enough problems as it is!!
  • Reply 71 of 71
    Steve Balmer has a lot of knowledge and insight but for the love of God he is the biggest fanboy on the planet. I can't blame him, he works for Microsoft and needs to try to make the Windows Platform look usable.
Sign In or Register to comment.