Well, if it comes to the point where teens that do own Zunes try to keep them hidden, that doesn't bode well at all for Zune's reputation. Currently, the Zune doesn't have the deep software infrastructure that the iPod Touch has so it's going to take quite a bit of effort on Microsoft's part to build a decent store for the Zune HD.
And for developers it will be a tough decision as to whether to develop for a platform with such small market share when the iPod Touch platform offers so much more in terms of recent activity and numbers of iPhones and iPod Touchs in current use. Apple has so much in place already for developers that it would seem to be the easiest road to take to make quick money.
With so many devices built already with Apple's dock connectors there'll be a relatively easy progression to add more features that tap into the connector. Especially with the number of cars on the road that are iPod/iPhone ready.
The Zune is at a seemingly great disadvantage and introducing a model with just better hardware isn't going to help all that much.
It's rather amazing what Apple has done with the iPhone/iPod Touch platform and yet can't do very much to crack Microsoft's/Windows stranglehold on the desktop/notebook level. I'm guessing it must be the higher pricing of Apple's products at that level that's hindering growth.
But never dismiss Microsoft which has the money, engineers and market share to beat Apple if they want to.
. . . which is to wait 8 years, and when the stars are aligned just so and the tide reaches a certain height, THEN release something truly compelling.
No, MS DOES NOT have the engineers to "beat" Apple. MS "engineering" is a joke. Nor the market share - which is a meaningless measurement, since Apple owns the portable device sector with a great product, is leading in the mobile phone area in terms of sheer innovation, and owns the premium end of the computer market. That leaves MS with the Wal-Mart demographic. Just like what you see in those low-budget ads.
They do have the money. Which makes them an even greater danger to themselves because it keeps giving them an incentive to keep doing the wrong things.
When Microsoft launched Windows 95 with a graphical user interface, Apple was slaughtered.
If Mac OS X is the gem Apple says that it is (and I believe that it is really good), then Apple should license it to earn money for its efforts instead of squandering its most important asset.
What the hell are you talking about?? Why on earth would Apple license OS X and destroy the very reasons for its differentiation?
Apple chose not to license out their OS. Bad management at Apple combined with this to create a bad situation in the mid 90's.
Being dismissive never served Apple very well. It's the main reason why Macs are overpriced and never accounted for more than a 4% world market share.
Appleinsider is not Apple.
For over a decade (in the 80s/90s) Macs had over 4% marketshare. If you're trying to make a point... get your facts straight.
Quote:
Going on the offensive with better products would be a far better strategy.
Gee! Now why didn't Apple think of that?
Quote:
But never dismiss Microsoft which has the money, engineers and market share to beat Apple if they want to.
If they want to? What does that mean?
You mean like they want to beat Google in search and advertising?
Like they want to beat Nintendo and Sony by sinking billions into xBox and getting less than 25% of the market?
Like they want to beat Nokia and Blackberry... after a decade of trying?
Like they wanted to beat iPod with "maybeplaysfersure"?
Do you see a pattern here? The simple fact is that, outside of their core businesses, Microsoft doesn't appear to be very effective. When they actually step outside of their monopolys, and meet REAL COMPETITION, all their money and engineers and marketshare doesn't count for much
Quote:
More specifically, the iPod and iPhone must face competition from Google Android, Nokia Symbian, Palm Web OS and Microsoft Windows Mobile devices.
So far, in the PMP and smart phone businesses Apple has been much more successful than Microsoft. Apple seems to thrive on competition. Microsoft seems to stutter. See Above!
Quote:
Apple is repeating the mistakes it made more than 20 years ago in:
1- refusing to license the Mac OS to computer builders;
2- selling Mac computers with a 50% profit margin, instead of 20%.
For years everyone accused Apple of the very same thing with their iPod strategy. Look where that got them?
Apple has grown their Mac marketshare (real world marketshare!) for nearly 5 years. Well before Vista and even prior to the Intel transition. They may be big numbers.... but the rest of the PC industry... and Microsoft have been losing share.
Quote:
If Mac OS X is the gem Apple says that it is (and I believe that it is really good), then Apple should license it to earn money for its efforts instead of squandering its most important asset.
They DO earn money from OSX. Lots of it. For every percentage point of market share they make a hell of a lot more than Dell or HP.... or Microsoft.
Quote:
The same holds true for the iPhone OS. License it if it is so good (and I think that it is quite good), and don't squander the opportunity once again.
Rubbish! The market is nothing like the computer market of the 80s. In a few months iPhone has achieved much much more than WinMo has in years. Hey I hear the Blackberry is quite good. Perhaps they should license their OS too? Perhaps we should all try and perform as badly as MS in the mobile space?
Perhaps you should stop squandering your valuable time by trying to .... think?
Apple is repeating the mistakes it made more than 20 years ago in:
1- refusing to license the Mac OS to computer builders;
2- selling Mac computers with a 50% profit margin, instead of 20%.
Uh . . . what??
THOSE are actually the keys to its astounding (as in a record $11 billion quarter with about $28 billion cash on hand) success. As it stands now, Apple has MORE cash on hand than MS.
Apple's strategy is absolutely golden. They are a model business. Apple is probably one of the very, very few companies that IS NOT making a lot of mistakes. In fact, they've done everything right since Steve Jobs' return, and continue to do so during his absence.
Apple is releasing sales numbers on the 15th. Prepare to be impressed.
And again, why the hell would Apple give away their core business by licensing out their OS? Do you even realize what the implications of that would be?? Not a pretty sight. At all.
But never dismiss Microsoft which has the money, engineers and market share to beat Apple if they want to.
Apple is repeating the mistakes it made more than 20 years ago in:
1- refusing to license the Mac OS to computer builders;
2- selling Mac computers with a 50% profit margin, instead of 20%.
By dismissing Microsoft's efforts to produce a Zune HD, AppleInsider reminds me of Apple's own attitude 20 years ago when it dismissed Microsoft DOS as a potential threat to Apple. When Microsoft launched Windows 95 with a graphical user interface, Apple was slaughtered.
If Mac OS X is the gem Apple says that it is (and I believe that it is really good), then Apple should license it to earn money for its efforts instead of squandering its most important asset.
The same holds true for the iPhone OS. License it if it is so good (and I think that it is quite good), and don't squander the opportunity once again. Because, if Apple won't license the iPhone OS, others are going to write their own cell phone software (and Apple will not make a penny from it).
Is there anyone at AppleInsider who believes that no one, absolutely no one, can write a good cell phone system software to compete with the iPhone OS?
Apparently they (MS) don't want to. They've lived long with the Zune embarrassment and the best they can muster is a clone. But that's usual for MS, buy it and kill it or ape it. Innovation is a distant third choice. I forgive everyone but Nathan Myhrvold on that one - he had the chops to make MS an innovator and he's flown. Interesting choice of career since then - buy up every patent you can. I remember after he left MS, Steve Perlman said "there's two ways to be successful in this business - either build a better mousetrap, or build a mediocre mousetrap and market the heck out of it." He might not have exactly said "heck", but the message was unambiguous. Steve's path since then has been continued innovation on several fronts.
The 20-years-ago argument would be worth considering except that Apple's comeback has been carried on the back of what you call a closed system on two fronts - OSX and iPod ecosystems. And beyond the cash-on-hand, MS would kill for Apple's five year share price performance. Graph it yourself.
Win95 was not MS's first GUI. The strength of 3.0, 3.1, 95 through XP was that you could keep your old / cheap hardware and leverage your investment. Vista is the first real stumble in that regard. Apple's only issue here has been their requirement of updated hardware twice so far for X and 10.5 - they'll stumble again if they require Intel for 10.6 (though the EDU crew still swears there's no such decision yet, and they say this whenever we remind them how much PPC XServe iron would have to be repurchased by institutions with paper-thin margins).
Apple can't earn nearly as much money with pirate-able OS discs as they can with entire systems and an increasing market share.
And yes, while I admire the efforts involved in Vista and (let's pick Ubuntu) *nix as OSs (and I use both of those on a semi-regular basis) as well as (pick your favorite phone OS - Win, Palm, RIM, Android, NEO - oops, I mean "PlanB"), then no, the evidence seems to be that whether they want to or not, be it ability or patent restrictions, they have not produced a device that people are falling over themselves to buy and expand (1B App Store downloads is a pretty good number to chase).
What's so great about the App Store? Seriously, most of the apps suck. The actual UI is great, but it's hampered by a lack of RAM, a bit of a sluggish OS, and it could stand to have better battery life (I've got a 1g Touch BTW).
And seeing as my 5g iPod died the other (one too many drops), I'm now considering a 120 GB Zune now, as I do not like the Classic iPods at all, and due to Apple's nickel and dime tactics, my perfectly fine FM car adapter does not work with my Touch or the iPod Classics, because of how Apple changed around the dock connector pins. So basically I have to buy a brand new car adapter too.
At least with iTunes Plus, I was able to re-purchase my DRM'd tunes into non-DRM'd tracks.
Changed around the dock connectors? How did they change around the dock connectors? I have a charge adapter from a 2004 iPod Mini (considered ancient by many at this point) and I use it interchangeably in my car with my iPhone.
I wish Apple fanboys weren't so dismissive of the Zune platform. They are actually pretty nice devices, despite the fact that they are coming from Microsoft.
I have both a 16GB iPod Touch and an 80GB Zune. For playing videos and messing around with the Apps, the iPod Touch is awesome. But for listening to music it's just so-so. When I'm listening to music or podcasts, the Zune is my choice. The fact that it has physical buttons makes it much easier to use for music playback. And it's possible to control it when driving or doing something else that requires my attention (touch screens are terrible in these situations). The Zune UI is actually very clean, responsive, and more than capable. The hardware is well designed too. The integrated WiFi lets you do things you can't on the iPods like buy music (sans iPhone/Touch), sync with a computer wirelessly, and play networked games. And I know not everyone listens to the radio, but the fact that one is included certainly doesn't hurt anything; I use mine occasionally. Plus, since MS provides regular firmware updates for ALL Zunes (which they don't charge for), it isn't made obsolete when the next version comes out; MS has added tons of new features since I first bought mine and it hasn't cost me a dime. I personally don't use the Zune Marketplace to buy music, but tracks are all still $0.99 or less too.
I'm not sure how the Zune HD will be received, because it seems like MS is trying to copy the iPod Touch. It will certainly have the same shortcomings of a touch screen based UI. Maybe MS has some interesting twist that will give it an edge... we don't know yet. I suspect it will be a good video player, but not bring much else to the table.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I think the Zune is dismissed too quickly without it even being given a fair shake. I say don't knock it til you've tried it. I did and I ended up liking it enough to buy one. And it gets a lot more use than my iPod Touch does because I buy these devices primarily for listening to music.
I tried one. I wasn't impressed. You're just silly if you're listening to a zune instead of an ipod touch. You know what does actually impress me? The fact that I don't have to buy another iPod or even consider looking at a zune.. I bought an iPhone last summer and it makes having a dedicated music player obsolete (with the one exception being an international flight, in which case I just take my ipod mini). The music player market is past its peak.. Microsoft is wasting its money.
The music player market is past its peak.. Microsoft is wasting its money.
How true.
The future is devices like the iPhone. Not so much as phones, as mobile internet devices - almost like miniature computers, highly adaptable, highly versatile, and as we are about to see, highly extensible.
The future is devices like the iPhone. Not so much as phones, as mobile internet devices - almost like miniature computers, highly adaptable, highly versatile, and as we are about to see, highly extensible.
Yep. And ever cheaper, and ever more powerful. And, hey look, there's Apple with a subset of their Unix desktop OS running on those very mobile devices.
I've said it before, but Apple appears to be playing a different game from most of the "cell phone" and "MP3 player" manufacturers.
While most of those manufacturers are endlessly bolting on ever more "features" and spec-whoring like their lives depend on it (with their inevitable cheerleaders brandishing same, having bought into the checklist mentality), Apple has been methodically building their next platform as a logical extension of their computer business.
So while Symbian and WinMob et al figure out ways to scale up "cell phone" operating systems, the better to take advantage of every more memory, every faster CPUs, and every more powerful graphic subsystems, Apple just watches the hardware come to them. If the iPhone performance feels a little constrained now, it feels less so this fall. And less so next spring. And pretty soon your running touch optimized OS X, straight up.
Even a phone designed recently, such as the Pre with its WebOS, is all about fitting into hardware constraints. Sure, it "multitasks", but at what cost to the range and power of apps that will be available? And what happens when handsets are so powerful as to make such a compromise pointless? Would I buy a laptop that could only run "Web apps", because at some point in the past that was the only way to make it feel powerful?
Improving hardware only plays into Apple's strategy, which is why they chose that strategy in the first place. Skate to where the puck will be.
Articles like this get under my skin. MS is following the market, they are not "copying" a copy would be something that looked almost the exact same, Apps have been around for a VERY long time, does that mean Apple copied places like XBLA/PSN/FireFox? no.
they are moving with the times, and this was obviously the next step. they are NOT copying apple, they are only moving with what they know to be the next step in the market. Apple was first to get there, because they understand reinventing the market better than most companies, but that does not make everyone else "copiers" especially when other companies (including Microsoft) have had concepts of these ideas for YEARS. they just lack the balls to go through with it.
then adding a negative article to it, just to make this seem less impressive? its almost childish.
this looks like a VERY promising device. if it turns out to be a phone, they could easily make just as many sales as apple if they make it Verizon exclusive (letting the rivalry between att/verizon determine who gets each product)
if not? it still looks like it could be pretty bad ass.
i have an iPhone, so ive got all i need, but there are billions of other people out there ready to get something... the article is just such rubbish.
Articles like this get under my skin. MS is following the market, they are not "copying" a copy would be something that looked almost the exact same, Apps have been around for a VERY long time, does that mean Apple copied places like XBLA/PSN/FireFox? no.
they are moving with the times, and this was obviously the next step. they are NOT copying apple, they are only moving with what they know to be the next step in the market. Apple was first to get there, because they understand reinventing the market better than most companies, but that does not make everyone else "copiers" especially when other companies (including Microsoft) have had concepts of these ideas for YEARS. they just lack the balls to go through with it.
then adding a negative article to it, just to make this seem less impressive? its almost childish.
this looks like a VERY promising device. if it turns out to be a phone, they could easily make just as many sales as apple if they make it Verizon exclusive (letting the rivalry between att/verizon determine who gets each product)
if not? it still looks like it could be pretty bad ass.
i have an iPhone, so ive got all i need, but there are billions of other people out there ready to get something... the article is just such rubbish.
So.... based on nothing more than a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing you're willing to declare it a "VERY promising device" and "pretty bad ass" but the article is "childish."
Plus, you know that they couldn't possibly be following Apple here, because obviously pictures of rectangular touch screen things are the inevitable next step and Apple just happened to get there first.
And, oh! If it "turns out to be a phone" then it will, of course, "easily" match the iPhone in sales, because, as everyone knows, the market has been longing for a phone that's a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing, and trivial bits like how it works or how much it costs or battery life or applications or peripherals pale in comparison to PICTURES OF RECTANGULAR TOUCH SCREEN THINGS.
So.... based on nothing more than a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing you're willing to declare it a "VERY promising device" and "pretty bad ass" but the article is "childish."
Plus, you know that they couldn't possibly be following Apple here, because obviously pictures of rectangular touch screen things are the inevitable next step and Apple just happened to get there first.
And, oh! If it "turns out to be a phone" then it will, of course, "easily" match the iPhone in sales, because, as everyone knows, the market has been longing for a phone that's a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing, and trivial bits like how it works or how much it costs or battery life or applications or peripherals pale in comparison to PICTURES OF RECTANGULAR TOUCH SCREEN THINGS.
Fuck, and people talk about "Apple fan boys."
yes. its very promising. i notice how everyone that said it was pure shit escaped your critisim, but i, well i said that it was "promising" and you have to attack me... thats your apple fanboyism for you.
i like apple, i have one, im looking into buying a new one to replace my old. however thats not non-bias or anything... i MUST be bias because i own a PC... even though i own an iMac too not to mention the iPhone.
but no no no, im the bias one, not you, not the guy attacking a guy that says MS isnt Copying, because they are using their own technology that they have been showing off for years.... no no no, they must be copying apple because apple came out with the first touch screen handheld phone... didnt they? didnt they? wait is the answer to that NO? holy shit, it is NO, apple Copied a bunch of companies than, didnt they?
no. they did not, because they followed the flow of the market, just like MS is doing with this device. we know very little on it, for starters, if it is even REAL. but hell, im a MS fanboy for backing up a company that is following the market. yes Apple is leading that market right now... but if you look at the device, its obvious MS is NOT just copying it. unless you want to tell me that Apply straight up copies Palm, and coutless other smart phones when it entered the market...
if so then i guess MS is copying, but not apple, just the ACTUAL founders of the market.
and obviously MS could make a ZunePhone that actually worked. the Zune has MUCH better software than the iPod classic (i own neither, but have used both a lot) and they have Windows Mobile. if they made a phone that mated the two together? of course it could sell. add an app store? they would get apps. MS is a SOFTWARE company, of course they would come out with something that would be pretty damn good. now put that on competing networks of Verizon? what do you think the people would buy? right now there is nothing close to the iPhone, MS would not need to beat the iPhone in quality to sell a huge number of phones on a Different service.
an idiot could figure this out... maybe you should go ask one for a little help.
yes. its very promising. i notice how everyone that said it was pure shit escaped your critisim, but i, well i said that it was "promising" and you have to attack me... thats your apple fanboyism for you.
i like apple, i have one, im looking into buying a new one to replace my old. however thats not non-bias or anything... i MUST be bias because i own a PC... even though i own an iMac too not to mention the iPhone.
but no no no, im the bias one, not you, not the guy attacking a guy that says MS isnt Copying, because they are using their own technology that they have been showing off for years.... no no no, they must be copying apple because apple came out with the first touch screen handheld phone... didnt they? didnt they? wait is the answer to that NO? holy shit, it is NO, apple Copied a bunch of companies than, didnt they?
no. they did not, because they followed the flow of the market, just like MS is doing with this device. we know very little on it, for starters, if it is even REAL. but hell, im a MS fanboy for backing up a company that is following the market. yes Apple is leading that market right now... but if you look at the device, its obvious MS is NOT just copying it. unless you want to tell me that Apply straight up copies Palm, and coutless other smart phones when it entered the market...
if so then i guess MS is copying, but not apple, just the ACTUAL founders of the market.
and obviously MS could make a ZunePhone that actually worked. the Zune has MUCH better software than the iPod classic (i own neither, but have used both a lot) and they have Windows Mobile. if they made a phone that mated the two together? of course it could sell. add an app store? they would get apps. MS is a SOFTWARE company, of course they would come out with something that would be pretty damn good. now put that on competing networks of Verizon? what do you think the people would buy? right now there is nothing close to the iPhone, MS would not need to beat the iPhone in quality to sell a huge number of phones on a Different service.
an idiot could figure this out... maybe you should go ask one for a little help.
Unless it can match and EXCEED the standards set by the iPhone . . . it might very well be "pure shit."
MS is never really "first" . . . at anything. That's the problem. They don't take risks. That's why from the get-go their products are usually suspect.
yes. its very promising. i notice how everyone that said it was pure shit escaped your critisim, but i, well i said that it was "promising" and you have to attack me... thats your apple fanboyism for you.
i like apple, i have one, im looking into buying a new one to replace my old. however thats not non-bias or anything... i MUST be bias because i own a PC... even though i own an iMac too not to mention the iPhone.
but no no no, im the bias one, not you, not the guy attacking a guy that says MS isnt Copying, because they are using their own technology that they have been showing off for years.... no no no, they must be copying apple because apple came out with the first touch screen handheld phone... didnt they? didnt they? wait is the answer to that NO? holy shit, it is NO, apple Copied a bunch of companies than, didnt they?
no. they did not, because they followed the flow of the market, just like MS is doing with this device. we know very little on it, for starters, if it is even REAL. but hell, im a MS fanboy for backing up a company that is following the market. yes Apple is leading that market right now... but if you look at the device, its obvious MS is NOT just copying it. unless you want to tell me that Apply straight up copies Palm, and coutless other smart phones when it entered the market...
if so then i guess MS is copying, but not apple, just the ACTUAL founders of the market.
and obviously MS could make a ZunePhone that actually worked. the Zune has MUCH better software than the iPod classic (i own neither, but have used both a lot) and they have Windows Mobile. if they made a phone that mated the two together? of course it could sell. add an app store? they would get apps. MS is a SOFTWARE company, of course they would come out with something that would be pretty damn good. now put that on competing networks of Verizon? what do you think the people would buy? right now there is nothing close to the iPhone, MS would not need to beat the iPhone in quality to sell a huge number of phones on a Different service.
an idiot could figure this out... maybe you should go ask one for a little help.
Uh huh. So that's a great deal of carrying on and the usual spittle spewing crap about fanboys, but it's all still based on a picture of a rectangle.
And then a bunch of feverish stuff about what MS might or could or probably will do, based on nothing whatsoever.
It's actually sort of jaw dropping, that you could leap face first into that level of MS fawning in the same post your running you're "fanboy" shit.
At least the people that like the iPhone are doing so based on a, you know, product. You apparently believe that a picture of a rectangle is proof positive that MS is poised to kick ass and take names, despite the fact that they seem to be having a tough time competing which much of anyone at all in the mobile space.
Which almost never ends up happening, for some reason . . .
MS posts a mockup, and we dismiss it as probably more of the usual.
Apple posts a mockup and we expect something . . . insanely great.
It comes down to track records. I really don't think that with Ballmer at the helm and the usual gang of "engineers", MS suddenly had an iPod-like or NeXT-meets-Apple-like epiphany. As long as Ballmer is at the helm, with his "special" brand of tech philosophy, it looks like MS will be be way behind the puck for quite a long time.
Unless it can match and EXCEED the standards set by the iPhone . . . it might very well be "pure shit."
MS is never really "first" . . . at anything. That's the problem. They don't take risks. That's why from the get-go their products are usually suspect.
oh i agree that MS does not take enough risks (unless you are talking about their gaming division, XBox Live is great, and its only that way because they were first console to go after an online market, against the HUGE sony)
anyway, i would LOVE to see any company actually give apple a run for their money (which would make apple work harder) but like you i think the chances are slim that MS will come out with something that meets and exceeds that of apple.
however, for a phone to be successful it does not need to do that. MS only needs to make the best phone on Verizon to have sales like the iPhone, they need to make a phone that is *nearly* as good. this would make it so that people on verizon wouldnt feel like they were missing out, like they do now (what do they get, the BBStorm?) MS could easily make a phone with software that was close *enough* to the iPhone that Verizon users would go nuts and upgrade to it, plus other anti Apple people would buy it just because it was not an iPhone (the same people that buy Zunes/Sansa/Creative/whathaveyou.
Uh huh. So that's a great deal of carrying on and the usual spittle spewing crap about fanboys, but it's all still based on a picture of a rectangle.
And then a bunch of feverish stuff about what MS might or could or probably will do, based on nothing whatsoever.
It's actually sort of jaw dropping, that you could leap face first into that level of MS fawning in the same post your running you're "fanboy" shit.
At least the people that like the iPhone are doing so based on a, you know, product. You apparently believe that a picture of a rectangle is proof positive that MS is poised to kick ass and take names, despite the fact that they seem to be having a tough time competing which much of anyone at all in the mobile space.
Words fail me.
you were the one that had to spew "fanboy" to a person that owns more Apple stuff than MS powered stuff.
i like both Apple and MS, so fucking sue me. i also like Competition in the market place. as it creates productivity that only helps the customers.
If you re-read my post, it is talking of the idea of what this COULD be, and how exciting THAT is. not what IS, and what WILL be. you just sound like someone scared. which never happens to those of us that dont put emotions into a company that doesnt care about us (could be said for apple OR MS)
i like to see tech move forward, which is one reason i love apple, but if another company does it as well, i'll be excited. im sorry if you cant love tech as a whole, and have to cling to one company, like you are following your favorite sports team.
Comments
And for developers it will be a tough decision as to whether to develop for a platform with such small market share when the iPod Touch platform offers so much more in terms of recent activity and numbers of iPhones and iPod Touchs in current use. Apple has so much in place already for developers that it would seem to be the easiest road to take to make quick money.
With so many devices built already with Apple's dock connectors there'll be a relatively easy progression to add more features that tap into the connector. Especially with the number of cars on the road that are iPod/iPhone ready.
The Zune is at a seemingly great disadvantage and introducing a model with just better hardware isn't going to help all that much.
It's rather amazing what Apple has done with the iPhone/iPod Touch platform and yet can't do very much to crack Microsoft's/Windows stranglehold on the desktop/notebook level. I'm guessing it must be the higher pricing of Apple's products at that level that's hindering growth.
But never dismiss Microsoft which has the money, engineers and market share to beat Apple if they want to.
. . . which is to wait 8 years, and when the stars are aligned just so and the tide reaches a certain height, THEN release something truly compelling.
No, MS DOES NOT have the engineers to "beat" Apple. MS "engineering" is a joke. Nor the market share - which is a meaningless measurement, since Apple owns the portable device sector with a great product, is leading in the mobile phone area in terms of sheer innovation, and owns the premium end of the computer market. That leaves MS with the Wal-Mart demographic. Just like what you see in those low-budget ads.
They do have the money. Which makes them an even greater danger to themselves because it keeps giving them an incentive to keep doing the wrong things.
When Microsoft launched Windows 95 with a graphical user interface, Apple was slaughtered.
If Mac OS X is the gem Apple says that it is (and I believe that it is really good), then Apple should license it to earn money for its efforts instead of squandering its most important asset.
What the hell are you talking about?? Why on earth would Apple license OS X and destroy the very reasons for its differentiation?
Apple chose not to license out their OS. Bad management at Apple combined with this to create a bad situation in the mid 90's.
But do a closed system right, and you're golden.
Being dismissive never served Apple very well. It's the main reason why Macs are overpriced and never accounted for more than a 4% world market share.
Appleinsider is not Apple.
For over a decade (in the 80s/90s) Macs had over 4% marketshare. If you're trying to make a point... get your facts straight.
Going on the offensive with better products would be a far better strategy.
Gee! Now why didn't Apple think of that?
But never dismiss Microsoft which has the money, engineers and market share to beat Apple if they want to.
If they want to? What does that mean?
You mean like they want to beat Google in search and advertising?
Like they want to beat Nintendo and Sony by sinking billions into xBox and getting less than 25% of the market?
Like they want to beat Nokia and Blackberry... after a decade of trying?
Like they wanted to beat iPod with "maybeplaysfersure"?
Do you see a pattern here? The simple fact is that, outside of their core businesses, Microsoft doesn't appear to be very effective. When they actually step outside of their monopolys, and meet REAL COMPETITION, all their money and engineers and marketshare doesn't count for much
More specifically, the iPod and iPhone must face competition from Google Android, Nokia Symbian, Palm Web OS and Microsoft Windows Mobile devices.
So far, in the PMP and smart phone businesses Apple has been much more successful than Microsoft. Apple seems to thrive on competition. Microsoft seems to stutter. See Above!
Apple is repeating the mistakes it made more than 20 years ago in:
1- refusing to license the Mac OS to computer builders;
2- selling Mac computers with a 50% profit margin, instead of 20%.
For years everyone accused Apple of the very same thing with their iPod strategy. Look where that got them?
Apple has grown their Mac marketshare (real world marketshare!) for nearly 5 years. Well before Vista and even prior to the Intel transition. They may be big numbers.... but the rest of the PC industry... and Microsoft have been losing share.
If Mac OS X is the gem Apple says that it is (and I believe that it is really good), then Apple should license it to earn money for its efforts instead of squandering its most important asset.
They DO earn money from OSX. Lots of it. For every percentage point of market share they make a hell of a lot more than Dell or HP.... or Microsoft.
The same holds true for the iPhone OS. License it if it is so good (and I think that it is quite good), and don't squander the opportunity once again.
Rubbish! The market is nothing like the computer market of the 80s. In a few months iPhone has achieved much much more than WinMo has in years. Hey I hear the Blackberry is quite good. Perhaps they should license their OS too? Perhaps we should all try and perform as badly as MS in the mobile space?
Perhaps you should stop squandering your valuable time by trying to .... think?
F
Apple is repeating the mistakes it made more than 20 years ago in:
1- refusing to license the Mac OS to computer builders;
2- selling Mac computers with a 50% profit margin, instead of 20%.
Uh . . . what??
THOSE are actually the keys to its astounding (as in a record $11 billion quarter with about $28 billion cash on hand) success. As it stands now, Apple has MORE cash on hand than MS.
Apple's strategy is absolutely golden. They are a model business. Apple is probably one of the very, very few companies that IS NOT making a lot of mistakes. In fact, they've done everything right since Steve Jobs' return, and continue to do so during his absence.
Apple is releasing sales numbers on the 15th. Prepare to be impressed.
And again, why the hell would Apple give away their core business by licensing out their OS? Do you even realize what the implications of that would be?? Not a pretty sight. At all.
But never dismiss Microsoft which has the money, engineers and market share to beat Apple if they want to.
Apple is repeating the mistakes it made more than 20 years ago in:
1- refusing to license the Mac OS to computer builders;
2- selling Mac computers with a 50% profit margin, instead of 20%.
By dismissing Microsoft's efforts to produce a Zune HD, AppleInsider reminds me of Apple's own attitude 20 years ago when it dismissed Microsoft DOS as a potential threat to Apple. When Microsoft launched Windows 95 with a graphical user interface, Apple was slaughtered.
If Mac OS X is the gem Apple says that it is (and I believe that it is really good), then Apple should license it to earn money for its efforts instead of squandering its most important asset.
The same holds true for the iPhone OS. License it if it is so good (and I think that it is quite good), and don't squander the opportunity once again. Because, if Apple won't license the iPhone OS, others are going to write their own cell phone software (and Apple will not make a penny from it).
Is there anyone at AppleInsider who believes that no one, absolutely no one, can write a good cell phone system software to compete with the iPhone OS?
Apparently they (MS) don't want to. They've lived long with the Zune embarrassment and the best they can muster is a clone. But that's usual for MS, buy it and kill it or ape it. Innovation is a distant third choice. I forgive everyone but Nathan Myhrvold on that one - he had the chops to make MS an innovator and he's flown. Interesting choice of career since then - buy up every patent you can. I remember after he left MS, Steve Perlman said "there's two ways to be successful in this business - either build a better mousetrap, or build a mediocre mousetrap and market the heck out of it." He might not have exactly said "heck", but the message was unambiguous. Steve's path since then has been continued innovation on several fronts.
The 20-years-ago argument would be worth considering except that Apple's comeback has been carried on the back of what you call a closed system on two fronts - OSX and iPod ecosystems. And beyond the cash-on-hand, MS would kill for Apple's five year share price performance. Graph it yourself.
Win95 was not MS's first GUI. The strength of 3.0, 3.1, 95 through XP was that you could keep your old / cheap hardware and leverage your investment. Vista is the first real stumble in that regard. Apple's only issue here has been their requirement of updated hardware twice so far for X and 10.5 - they'll stumble again if they require Intel for 10.6 (though the EDU crew still swears there's no such decision yet, and they say this whenever we remind them how much PPC XServe iron would have to be repurchased by institutions with paper-thin margins).
Apple can't earn nearly as much money with pirate-able OS discs as they can with entire systems and an increasing market share.
And yes, while I admire the efforts involved in Vista and (let's pick Ubuntu) *nix as OSs (and I use both of those on a semi-regular basis) as well as (pick your favorite phone OS - Win, Palm, RIM, Android, NEO - oops, I mean "PlanB"), then no, the evidence seems to be that whether they want to or not, be it ability or patent restrictions, they have not produced a device that people are falling over themselves to buy and expand (1B App Store downloads is a pretty good number to chase).
What's so great about the App Store? Seriously, most of the apps suck. The actual UI is great, but it's hampered by a lack of RAM, a bit of a sluggish OS, and it could stand to have better battery life (I've got a 1g Touch BTW).
And seeing as my 5g iPod died the other (one too many drops), I'm now considering a 120 GB Zune now, as I do not like the Classic iPods at all, and due to Apple's nickel and dime tactics, my perfectly fine FM car adapter does not work with my Touch or the iPod Classics, because of how Apple changed around the dock connector pins. So basically I have to buy a brand new car adapter too.
At least with iTunes Plus, I was able to re-purchase my DRM'd tunes into non-DRM'd tracks.
Changed around the dock connectors? How did they change around the dock connectors? I have a charge adapter from a 2004 iPod Mini (considered ancient by many at this point) and I use it interchangeably in my car with my iPhone.
I wish Apple fanboys weren't so dismissive of the Zune platform. They are actually pretty nice devices, despite the fact that they are coming from Microsoft.
I have both a 16GB iPod Touch and an 80GB Zune. For playing videos and messing around with the Apps, the iPod Touch is awesome. But for listening to music it's just so-so. When I'm listening to music or podcasts, the Zune is my choice. The fact that it has physical buttons makes it much easier to use for music playback. And it's possible to control it when driving or doing something else that requires my attention (touch screens are terrible in these situations). The Zune UI is actually very clean, responsive, and more than capable. The hardware is well designed too. The integrated WiFi lets you do things you can't on the iPods like buy music (sans iPhone/Touch), sync with a computer wirelessly, and play networked games. And I know not everyone listens to the radio, but the fact that one is included certainly doesn't hurt anything; I use mine occasionally. Plus, since MS provides regular firmware updates for ALL Zunes (which they don't charge for), it isn't made obsolete when the next version comes out; MS has added tons of new features since I first bought mine and it hasn't cost me a dime. I personally don't use the Zune Marketplace to buy music, but tracks are all still $0.99 or less too.
I'm not sure how the Zune HD will be received, because it seems like MS is trying to copy the iPod Touch. It will certainly have the same shortcomings of a touch screen based UI. Maybe MS has some interesting twist that will give it an edge... we don't know yet. I suspect it will be a good video player, but not bring much else to the table.
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I think the Zune is dismissed too quickly without it even being given a fair shake. I say don't knock it til you've tried it. I did and I ended up liking it enough to buy one. And it gets a lot more use than my iPod Touch does because I buy these devices primarily for listening to music.
I tried one. I wasn't impressed. You're just silly if you're listening to a zune instead of an ipod touch. You know what does actually impress me? The fact that I don't have to buy another iPod or even consider looking at a zune.. I bought an iPhone last summer and it makes having a dedicated music player obsolete (with the one exception being an international flight, in which case I just take my ipod mini). The music player market is past its peak.. Microsoft is wasting its money.
The music player market is past its peak.. Microsoft is wasting its money.
How true.
The future is devices like the iPhone. Not so much as phones, as mobile internet devices - almost like miniature computers, highly adaptable, highly versatile, and as we are about to see, highly extensible.
How true.
The future is devices like the iPhone. Not so much as phones, as mobile internet devices - almost like miniature computers, highly adaptable, highly versatile, and as we are about to see, highly extensible.
Yep. And ever cheaper, and ever more powerful. And, hey look, there's Apple with a subset of their Unix desktop OS running on those very mobile devices.
I've said it before, but Apple appears to be playing a different game from most of the "cell phone" and "MP3 player" manufacturers.
While most of those manufacturers are endlessly bolting on ever more "features" and spec-whoring like their lives depend on it (with their inevitable cheerleaders brandishing same, having bought into the checklist mentality), Apple has been methodically building their next platform as a logical extension of their computer business.
So while Symbian and WinMob et al figure out ways to scale up "cell phone" operating systems, the better to take advantage of every more memory, every faster CPUs, and every more powerful graphic subsystems, Apple just watches the hardware come to them. If the iPhone performance feels a little constrained now, it feels less so this fall. And less so next spring. And pretty soon your running touch optimized OS X, straight up.
Even a phone designed recently, such as the Pre with its WebOS, is all about fitting into hardware constraints. Sure, it "multitasks", but at what cost to the range and power of apps that will be available? And what happens when handsets are so powerful as to make such a compromise pointless? Would I buy a laptop that could only run "Web apps", because at some point in the past that was the only way to make it feel powerful?
Improving hardware only plays into Apple's strategy, which is why they chose that strategy in the first place. Skate to where the puck will be.
they are moving with the times, and this was obviously the next step. they are NOT copying apple, they are only moving with what they know to be the next step in the market. Apple was first to get there, because they understand reinventing the market better than most companies, but that does not make everyone else "copiers" especially when other companies (including Microsoft) have had concepts of these ideas for YEARS. they just lack the balls to go through with it.
then adding a negative article to it, just to make this seem less impressive? its almost childish.
this looks like a VERY promising device. if it turns out to be a phone, they could easily make just as many sales as apple if they make it Verizon exclusive (letting the rivalry between att/verizon determine who gets each product)
if not? it still looks like it could be pretty bad ass.
i have an iPhone, so ive got all i need, but there are billions of other people out there ready to get something... the article is just such rubbish.
Articles like this get under my skin. MS is following the market, they are not "copying" a copy would be something that looked almost the exact same, Apps have been around for a VERY long time, does that mean Apple copied places like XBLA/PSN/FireFox? no.
they are moving with the times, and this was obviously the next step. they are NOT copying apple, they are only moving with what they know to be the next step in the market. Apple was first to get there, because they understand reinventing the market better than most companies, but that does not make everyone else "copiers" especially when other companies (including Microsoft) have had concepts of these ideas for YEARS. they just lack the balls to go through with it.
then adding a negative article to it, just to make this seem less impressive? its almost childish.
this looks like a VERY promising device. if it turns out to be a phone, they could easily make just as many sales as apple if they make it Verizon exclusive (letting the rivalry between att/verizon determine who gets each product)
if not? it still looks like it could be pretty bad ass.
i have an iPhone, so ive got all i need, but there are billions of other people out there ready to get something... the article is just such rubbish.
So.... based on nothing more than a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing you're willing to declare it a "VERY promising device" and "pretty bad ass" but the article is "childish."
Plus, you know that they couldn't possibly be following Apple here, because obviously pictures of rectangular touch screen things are the inevitable next step and Apple just happened to get there first.
And, oh! If it "turns out to be a phone" then it will, of course, "easily" match the iPhone in sales, because, as everyone knows, the market has been longing for a phone that's a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing, and trivial bits like how it works or how much it costs or battery life or applications or peripherals pale in comparison to PICTURES OF RECTANGULAR TOUCH SCREEN THINGS.
Fuck, and people talk about "Apple fan boys."
So.... based on nothing more than a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing you're willing to declare it a "VERY promising device" and "pretty bad ass" but the article is "childish."
Plus, you know that they couldn't possibly be following Apple here, because obviously pictures of rectangular touch screen things are the inevitable next step and Apple just happened to get there first.
And, oh! If it "turns out to be a phone" then it will, of course, "easily" match the iPhone in sales, because, as everyone knows, the market has been longing for a phone that's a picture of a rectangular touch screen thing, and trivial bits like how it works or how much it costs or battery life or applications or peripherals pale in comparison to PICTURES OF RECTANGULAR TOUCH SCREEN THINGS.
Fuck, and people talk about "Apple fan boys."
yes. its very promising. i notice how everyone that said it was pure shit escaped your critisim, but i, well i said that it was "promising" and you have to attack me... thats your apple fanboyism for you.
i like apple, i have one, im looking into buying a new one to replace my old. however thats not non-bias or anything... i MUST be bias because i own a PC... even though i own an iMac too not to mention the iPhone.
but no no no, im the bias one, not you, not the guy attacking a guy that says MS isnt Copying, because they are using their own technology that they have been showing off for years.... no no no, they must be copying apple because apple came out with the first touch screen handheld phone... didnt they? didnt they? wait is the answer to that NO? holy shit, it is NO, apple Copied a bunch of companies than, didnt they?
no. they did not, because they followed the flow of the market, just like MS is doing with this device. we know very little on it, for starters, if it is even REAL. but hell, im a MS fanboy for backing up a company that is following the market. yes Apple is leading that market right now... but if you look at the device, its obvious MS is NOT just copying it. unless you want to tell me that Apply straight up copies Palm, and coutless other smart phones when it entered the market...
if so then i guess MS is copying, but not apple, just the ACTUAL founders of the market.
and obviously MS could make a ZunePhone that actually worked. the Zune has MUCH better software than the iPod classic (i own neither, but have used both a lot) and they have Windows Mobile. if they made a phone that mated the two together? of course it could sell. add an app store? they would get apps. MS is a SOFTWARE company, of course they would come out with something that would be pretty damn good. now put that on competing networks of Verizon? what do you think the people would buy? right now there is nothing close to the iPhone, MS would not need to beat the iPhone in quality to sell a huge number of phones on a Different service.
an idiot could figure this out... maybe you should go ask one for a little help.
yes. its very promising. i notice how everyone that said it was pure shit escaped your critisim, but i, well i said that it was "promising" and you have to attack me... thats your apple fanboyism for you.
i like apple, i have one, im looking into buying a new one to replace my old. however thats not non-bias or anything... i MUST be bias because i own a PC... even though i own an iMac too not to mention the iPhone.
but no no no, im the bias one, not you, not the guy attacking a guy that says MS isnt Copying, because they are using their own technology that they have been showing off for years.... no no no, they must be copying apple because apple came out with the first touch screen handheld phone... didnt they? didnt they? wait is the answer to that NO? holy shit, it is NO, apple Copied a bunch of companies than, didnt they?
no. they did not, because they followed the flow of the market, just like MS is doing with this device. we know very little on it, for starters, if it is even REAL. but hell, im a MS fanboy for backing up a company that is following the market. yes Apple is leading that market right now... but if you look at the device, its obvious MS is NOT just copying it. unless you want to tell me that Apply straight up copies Palm, and coutless other smart phones when it entered the market...
if so then i guess MS is copying, but not apple, just the ACTUAL founders of the market.
and obviously MS could make a ZunePhone that actually worked. the Zune has MUCH better software than the iPod classic (i own neither, but have used both a lot) and they have Windows Mobile. if they made a phone that mated the two together? of course it could sell. add an app store? they would get apps. MS is a SOFTWARE company, of course they would come out with something that would be pretty damn good. now put that on competing networks of Verizon? what do you think the people would buy? right now there is nothing close to the iPhone, MS would not need to beat the iPhone in quality to sell a huge number of phones on a Different service.
an idiot could figure this out... maybe you should go ask one for a little help.
Unless it can match and EXCEED the standards set by the iPhone . . . it might very well be "pure shit."
MS is never really "first" . . . at anything. That's the problem. They don't take risks. That's why from the get-go their products are usually suspect.
yes. its very promising. i notice how everyone that said it was pure shit escaped your critisim, but i, well i said that it was "promising" and you have to attack me... thats your apple fanboyism for you.
i like apple, i have one, im looking into buying a new one to replace my old. however thats not non-bias or anything... i MUST be bias because i own a PC... even though i own an iMac too not to mention the iPhone.
but no no no, im the bias one, not you, not the guy attacking a guy that says MS isnt Copying, because they are using their own technology that they have been showing off for years.... no no no, they must be copying apple because apple came out with the first touch screen handheld phone... didnt they? didnt they? wait is the answer to that NO? holy shit, it is NO, apple Copied a bunch of companies than, didnt they?
no. they did not, because they followed the flow of the market, just like MS is doing with this device. we know very little on it, for starters, if it is even REAL. but hell, im a MS fanboy for backing up a company that is following the market. yes Apple is leading that market right now... but if you look at the device, its obvious MS is NOT just copying it. unless you want to tell me that Apply straight up copies Palm, and coutless other smart phones when it entered the market...
if so then i guess MS is copying, but not apple, just the ACTUAL founders of the market.
and obviously MS could make a ZunePhone that actually worked. the Zune has MUCH better software than the iPod classic (i own neither, but have used both a lot) and they have Windows Mobile. if they made a phone that mated the two together? of course it could sell. add an app store? they would get apps. MS is a SOFTWARE company, of course they would come out with something that would be pretty damn good. now put that on competing networks of Verizon? what do you think the people would buy? right now there is nothing close to the iPhone, MS would not need to beat the iPhone in quality to sell a huge number of phones on a Different service.
an idiot could figure this out... maybe you should go ask one for a little help.
Uh huh. So that's a great deal of carrying on and the usual spittle spewing crap about fanboys, but it's all still based on a picture of a rectangle.
And then a bunch of feverish stuff about what MS might or could or probably will do, based on nothing whatsoever.
It's actually sort of jaw dropping, that you could leap face first into that level of MS fawning in the same post your running you're "fanboy" shit.
At least the people that like the iPhone are doing so based on a, you know, product. You apparently believe that a picture of a rectangle is proof positive that MS is poised to kick ass and take names, despite the fact that they seem to be having a tough time competing which much of anyone at all in the mobile space.
Words fail me.
yes. its very promising............
SNIP
an idiot could figure this out...
An idiot could write it.
MS is poised to kick ass and take names
Which almost never ends up happening, for some reason . . .
MS posts a mockup, and we dismiss it as probably more of the usual.
Apple posts a mockup and we expect something . . . insanely great.
It comes down to track records. I really don't think that with Ballmer at the helm and the usual gang of "engineers", MS suddenly had an iPod-like or NeXT-meets-Apple-like epiphany. As long as Ballmer is at the helm, with his "special" brand of tech philosophy, it looks like MS will be be way behind the puck for quite a long time.
Unless it can match and EXCEED the standards set by the iPhone . . . it might very well be "pure shit."
MS is never really "first" . . . at anything. That's the problem. They don't take risks. That's why from the get-go their products are usually suspect.
oh i agree that MS does not take enough risks (unless you are talking about their gaming division, XBox Live is great, and its only that way because they were first console to go after an online market, against the HUGE sony)
anyway, i would LOVE to see any company actually give apple a run for their money (which would make apple work harder) but like you i think the chances are slim that MS will come out with something that meets and exceeds that of apple.
however, for a phone to be successful it does not need to do that. MS only needs to make the best phone on Verizon to have sales like the iPhone, they need to make a phone that is *nearly* as good. this would make it so that people on verizon wouldnt feel like they were missing out, like they do now (what do they get, the BBStorm?) MS could easily make a phone with software that was close *enough* to the iPhone that Verizon users would go nuts and upgrade to it, plus other anti Apple people would buy it just because it was not an iPhone (the same people that buy Zunes/Sansa/Creative/whathaveyou.
Uh huh. So that's a great deal of carrying on and the usual spittle spewing crap about fanboys, but it's all still based on a picture of a rectangle.
And then a bunch of feverish stuff about what MS might or could or probably will do, based on nothing whatsoever.
It's actually sort of jaw dropping, that you could leap face first into that level of MS fawning in the same post your running you're "fanboy" shit.
At least the people that like the iPhone are doing so based on a, you know, product. You apparently believe that a picture of a rectangle is proof positive that MS is poised to kick ass and take names, despite the fact that they seem to be having a tough time competing which much of anyone at all in the mobile space.
Words fail me.
you were the one that had to spew "fanboy" to a person that owns more Apple stuff than MS powered stuff.
i like both Apple and MS, so fucking sue me. i also like Competition in the market place. as it creates productivity that only helps the customers.
If you re-read my post, it is talking of the idea of what this COULD be, and how exciting THAT is. not what IS, and what WILL be. you just sound like someone scared. which never happens to those of us that dont put emotions into a company that doesnt care about us (could be said for apple OR MS)
i like to see tech move forward, which is one reason i love apple, but if another company does it as well, i'll be excited. im sorry if you cant love tech as a whole, and have to cling to one company, like you are following your favorite sports team.