Briefly: Apple games, Ballmer on Vista sales (and Apple), patents

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Plus the entire cast of 24!



    Did you know that Chuck Norris was originally cast to play the part of agent Jack Bauer?

    Unfortunately Chuck killed all the terrorists, defused all the nukes and saved the president in 24 minutes.



    I'm so looking forward to the episode when Chloe O'Brian fires up AppleScript Editor to help Jack out of a sticky situation.

    I would love to see someone consulting "Counterterrorism: The Missing Manual by David Pouge".
  • Reply 22 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    And Monopoly .... and so on... and all with Core Animation 8)



    Hook up an iSight to the Apple TV so I can do some in-your-face trash talking while I collect rent on Marvin Gardens with 4 houses!
  • Reply 23 of 53
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I think that's the very problem, they own the personal computer market. While the PC market is still growing, growth opportunities are outside that. I think Apple has realized that is where their future is as well.



    I think Vista is to keep their users sufficiently satisfied to not look elsewhere for system software.



    That's exactly it. I was just thinking the same thing as I was reading the article.



    MS has no where to go. Even if they gobbled up all of Apple's business, it would make little difference to them.



    But Apple, on the other hand, can grow by almost two orders of magnitude worldwide, and more than one, here in the US.



    MS's problem is that they have had little success with anything other than their OS and Office businesses. Their portable OS has been catching on in phones, but it has a long way to go, and likely will never catch up to Symbian.
  • Reply 24 of 53
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Oh yes, the US and Europe are the largest and wealthiest consumers.



    That's true, but China, which is coming on strong already has over 400 million in their middle class. While they aren't as wealthy as those in the US and Europe, Japan, etc—yet, they will be, and there will be a lot more of them.



    The same thing is true for India, but about ten years delayed.



    I wouldn't overlook a lot of places.
  • Reply 25 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by illuminati18 View Post


    If Vista isn't intended to increase Microsoft's revenue, then what is?



    Im not particularly impressed with Vista, it's windows, it works, nothing to see here, move along.



    On the other hand, I think that Office 2007 is the best piece of software that Microsoft has ever written. Although I'm not really hearing much about it ( particularly compared to the moonshot expensive Vista ), I believe that it will be a huge upgrade market for MS.



    If you haven't used it give it a go. Let go of what you know, and enjoy it.



    One particularly coo thing about MS is the amount of transparency they have with their customers. And it is this transparency that lets us examine why Office is so good. People. Office 2007 is all about listening to the people who use office. For years the Office team has been gathering billions of sessions of office usage patterns. They analysed that data, and built Office 2007 to meet the needs of the people who already use office.



    Compare that with the windows team, or the visual studio team. They dont listen to the people. They listen to themselves.
  • Reply 26 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    ...MS's problem is that they have had little success with anything other than their OS and Office businesses. Their portable OS has been catching on in phones, but it has a long way to go, and likely will never catch up to Symbian.



    With what little success Windows Mobile has had in the PDA and smartPhone space it still accounts for only 1% of Microsofts revenue.



    The PDA and smartPhone market is still up for grabs with no dominant player.
  • Reply 27 of 53
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    With what little success Windows Mobile has had in the PDA and smartPhone space it still accounts for only 1% of Microsofts revenue.



    The PDA and smartPhone market is still up for grabs with no dominant player.



    Right now Symbian is on far more phones than CE and derivatives, Palm, and Blackberry combined.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mmmpie View Post


    Compare that with the windows team, or the visual studio team. They dont listen to the people. They listen to themselves.



    Hey, not fair. They also listen to MacWorld and WWDC keynote addresses.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    Hook up an iSight to the Apple TV so I can do some in-your-face trash talking while I collect rent on Marvin Gardens with 4 houses!



    This could be the killer app for the Apple Plasma's built in iSight!!
  • Reply 30 of 53
    iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mmmpie View Post




    .....



    One particularly coo thing about MS is the amount of transparency they have with their customers. And it is this transparency that lets us examine why Office is so good. People. Office 2007 is all about listening to the people who use office. For years the Office team has been gathering billions of sessions of office usage patterns. They analysed that data, and built Office 2007 to meet the needs of the people who already use office.



    Compare that with the windows team, or the visual studio team. They dont listen to the people. They listen to themselves.





    But one particulary cool thing about Apple, is being a company based on innovation, they often can't rely on hearing what the customer wants, since they are trying to create ways of doing things that no one has really considered.



    One particulary un-cool thing about Apple, is that they over-apply their intuition and research when it no longer applies. That has always frustrated me about Apple. They get something right. VERY right. They know they are right, but then they don't see that what was right is now wrong because of a shift in people's experience.



    Examples:

    1) One-button mouse - How long did it take them to fix this? When the mouse was first introduced, I think the one-button was probably the right thing to do. Apple was correct for only using one button. They did good studies on user interfaces and they arrived at the right conclusion. HOWEVER, after Windows95, when every one got use to the mouse, the study probably was no longer valid. They should have been using 2-buttons 10 years earlier than they did.



    2) Stickey Menus - It took Apple until OSX (maybe late OS9) to realize that that when you click once on a menu, you shouldn't have to hold it down and release. Windows allowed you to do either method. But Apple was soooooo freakin' hard headed they weren't willing to admit that they needed to change their original notion.



    3) The list goes on... I've got to go.
  • Reply 31 of 53
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    What Apple did when it transitioned from OS 9 to OS X was to create an operating system within an operating system so that Classic users could still get by. That was a bold and brilliant move. This is the same problem that MS faces. The reason that Vista is just another Windows is because of legacy - and when you own 90% of the market that is a pretty big legacy. So it's not just that they lack innovation and have absolutely no style, Vista is just Windows all over again because they can't afford to do anything else. Although they try to upset the Apple cart, they can't.



    m
  • Reply 32 of 53
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,704member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    Don't forget AppleTV...the casual gaming market could be huge.



    There's been a lot of talk about this casual gaming market.



    The big problem I see with this is: how do you actually control a game on AppleTV? With the remote? It's been done by cable providers for years, and I don't see that market as having a lot of innovation and growth behind it. Though I'm sure Apple could do a better job of it than cable providers have, I'm still not convinced of there being a quality game experience with a regular remote.



    And if you force people to buy a joystick peripheral, then it's no longer "casual gaming" because people have to go out of their way to buy a special device to play the games. Which most casual gamers won't bother to do.



    The only option I see is to include some decent game controls on the regular remote. But I don't think that's going to happen.
  • Reply 33 of 53
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    No room for growth?



    Well of course, if your new product isn't different from the last and everyone already has your last product...



    But seriously, if Vista were truly desirable, it would be a growth opportunity. They couldn't possibly think all of us have as many computers as we'll ever want. They couldn't think that we don't want OS improvements... could they?



    Edit: After rereading everything, I realize balmer didn't actually assert that there wasn't room for growth. It was only posts in this thread that projected that stance onto him.
  • Reply 34 of 53
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    No room for growth?



    Well of course, if your new product isn't different from the last and everyone already has your last product...



    But seriously, if Vista were truly desirable, it would be a growth opportunity. They couldn't possibly think all of us have as many computers as we'll ever want. They couldn't think that we don't want OS improvements... could they?



    Edit: After rereading everything, I realize balmer didn't actually assert that there wasn't room for growth. It was only posts in this thread that projected that stance onto him.



    Ballmer doesn't have to come out and assert that there is little room for growth.



    Industry insiders have been saying that for years, and its true.



    By growth, it's meant that the market moves as computer take-up moves. MS knows that quite well.



    That's is why they have invested in cable companies, etc.



    The computer market has slowed down in its expansion. This might speed up as the "third world" becomes more computerized, but so far, at least, they are doing that with pirated software. How that will resolve itself, no one knows.
  • Reply 35 of 53
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I completely disagree. In my opinion, there is tons of room for growth.



    One of the previous presidents of IBM made similar comments a few decades ago. They are now rather infamous. He felt that there was only a market for a handful of computers (mainframes) in the world.



    Throughout the computer industry's history, various sectors have reached saturation. What we're seeing here is another two sectors reaching near market saturation. Most office workers and families now have a desktop or laptop. But these aren't the only places that computers are needed or wanted.



    Just as was true in the past, other sectors open up when compelling and affordable products are offered.



    For instance, many manufacturers are now rolling out computer systems for people on the production floor. Work instructions and procedures are then easily available and always up to date.



    Increasingly complex computers and user interfaces are finding their way into automobiles. This is an absolutely huge computer market.



    What about public web terminals? Sounds superfluous or unlikely? At one time, so did home computers and even office computers. Imagine, every subway car and storefront offering walk up computers. Of course, advertising would pay the way. Store fronts will all eventually have video advertisements that allow you to walk up and find out more about products in the store.



    And then there is network media playback for the masses. This will result in perhaps doubling or trippling the number of computers in a home.



    No room for growth? Only if you you're not willing to sell to new "computer" markets as they emerge. At one time, home and even office computers were new, and not considered part of the industry. The computer (mainframe) market was saturated. At least that's what some rather naive so called experts proclaimed.



    We'll look back at this era and chuckle. No room for growth in the computer industry?
  • Reply 36 of 53
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    No room for growth?



    Well of course, if your new product isn't different from the last and everyone already has your last product...



    But seriously, if Vista were truly desirable, it would be a growth opportunity. They couldn't possibly think all of us have as many computers as we'll ever want. They couldn't think that we don't want OS improvements... could they?



    The problem here is MS becoming a victim of its own game. They always made something that was "good enough" at everything, not the best at anything. And I don't think it is as if people need or want more computers to the point that they'll rush out when there's been a major update.



    The PC is fairly mature now, and I just don't see how an OS upgrade can be a driver for major market growth. Even XP took about three years to achieve the dominant installed base, and I wouldn't be surprised if Vista took just as long, for the most part, being accepted simply because that's what is included with a new computer. An OS, any OS really isn't going to be that exciting anymore, in my opinion. The things that revolutionize a PC don't really seem to be accepted in many markets, be they thin clients, the UMPC, tablets, etc, I don't think even Apple open up a PC market to a new form that's revolutionary and exciting.



    Quote:

    Edit: After rereading everything, I realize balmer didn't actually assert that there wasn't room for growth. It was only posts in this thread that projected that stance onto him.



    Nobody claimed Balmer said this that I remember.
  • Reply 37 of 53
    After having read all the posts on this thread, it's clear that there are some important pieces of information that Appleinsider forum posters here are unaware of. The commentary to Ballmer's statements here are for the most part short term reactionary and naive with respect to Microsoft's long term plans for Vista.



    The first point is lack of knowledge of Microsoft's long term "Master Plan". There is currently a raging controversy in Vistaland regarding the publication of a paper by well respected computer Security expert Peter Gutmann entitled,



    ?A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection?. It can be found here



    http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html



    The paper is rather long, well written, technical and well documented. It goes into great detail on the dangers and long term costs to PC consumers as a result of MS embedding DRM into the Vista kernel. Over time (1-5 years?) , as Vista becomes gradually installed into the user base (i.e., the 95%ers), MS will be poised to control High Definition Premium Content (HD DVD and/or Blu-Ray) on the PC. It will give them literally an opportunity to print money.



    Here?s an excerpt from the Final Thoughts section of that paper:



    ?In July 2006, Cory Doctorow published an analysis of the anti-competitive nature of Apple?s iTunes copy-restriction system which looked at the benefits of restrictive DRM for the company that controls the DRM. The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft would put its programmers, device vendors, third-party developers, and ultimately its customers, through this much pain is because once this (premium content) copy protection is entrenched, Microsoft will completely own the (pc video) distribution channel. In the same way that Apple has managed to acquire a monopolistic lock-in on their music distribution channel (an example being the Motorola ROKR fiasco, which was so crippled by restrictions that a Fortune magazine senior editor reviewed it as the STNKER), so Microsoft will totally control the premium-content distribution channel. In fact examples of this Windows content lock-in are already becoming apparent as people move to Vista and find that their legally-purchased content won?t play any more under Vista (the example given in the link is particularly scary because the content actually includes a self-destruct after which it won?t play any more, so not only do you need to re-purchase your content when you switch from XP to Vista, but you also need to re-purchase it periodically when it expires. In addition and since the media rights can?t be backed up, if you experience a disk crash you get another opportunity to re- purchase the content again). It's obvious why this type of business model makes the pain of pushing content protection onto consumers so worthwhile for Microsoft since it practically constitutes a license to print money.



    Microsoft have been saying for some years now that they'd really like the PC to go away, to turn into a kind of media center and content-distribution center for consumers. Windows MCE (Media Center Edition) has been the tail end of a long line of (unsuccessful) attempts to achieve this (the only reason why MCE seems to sell at all is because it's the cheapest version of Windows that vendors can pre- install on a PC). If ?premium content? ever takes off, Microsoft wants to be the central controller of all content distribution and playback ? only Windows can secure the content, therefore only Windows can distribute it. Even the term ?premium content? is misleading: in a few years' time, most audio and video will be produced in some form of HD format, at which point ?premium content? becomes normal, and so everything is subject to content protection.
    ?



    The second point relates to Microsoft's current 5 year fiscal plan announced in 2006 to engage in a $40 Billion stock buyback. Short term drops in stock price during this 5 year period (i.e. the current situation further fueled by Ballmer's remarks today) enables MS to buy back their stock cheaply. Combine point 2 with point 1 and what you see are the foundations of MS "Master Plan".
  • Reply 38 of 53
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    I completely disagree. In my opinion, there is tons of room for growth.



    One of the previous presidents of IBM made similar comments a few decades ago. They are now rather infamous. He felt that there was only a market for a handful of computers (mainframes) in the world.



    Throughout the computer industry's history, various sectors have reached saturation. What we're seeing here is another two sectors reaching near market saturation. Most office workers and families now have a desktop or laptop. But these aren't the only places that computers are needed or wanted.



    Just as was true in the past, other sectors open up when compelling and affordable products are offered.



    For instance, many manufacturers are now rolling out computer systems for people on the production floor. Work instructions and procedures are then easily available and always up to date.



    Increasingly complex computers and user interfaces are finding their way into automobiles. This is an absolutely huge computer market.



    What about public web terminals? Sounds superfluous or unlikely? At one time, so did home computers and even office computers. Imagine, every subway car and storefront offering walk up computers. Of course, advertising would pay the way. Store fronts will all eventually have video advertisements that allow you to walk up and find out more about products in the store.



    And then there is network media playback for the masses. This will result in perhaps doubling or trippling the number of computers in a home.



    No room for growth? Only if you you're not willing to sell to new "computer" markets as they emerge. At one time, home and even office computers were new, and not considered part of the industry. The computer (mainframe) market was saturated. At least that's what some rather naive so called experts proclaimed.



    We'll look back at this era and chuckle. No room for growth in the computer industry?



    The statement made at the dawn of the computing age has nothing to do with statements made today.



    Many of the "computers" you speak of are using embedded chips with either some form of Linux, or even more likely, a custom OS, specific to the industry.



    The form of computer we are speaking of, either desktops, or laptops have entered a slowing growth curve, which is well known. I mentioned the other areas where these sales may grow, but whether they adopt Windows in a big way, after they stop the 98% piracy rate, or move to Linux, or even some other OS, we don't know.
  • Reply 39 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The statement made at the dawn of the computing age has nothing to do with statements made today.



    Many of the "computers" you speak of are using embedded chips with either some form of Linux, or even more likely, a custom OS, specific to the industry.



    The form of computer we are speaking of, either desktops, or laptops have entered a slowing growth curve, which is well known. I mentioned the other areas where these sales may grow, but whether they adopt Windows in a big way, after they stop the 98% piracy rate, or move to Linux, or even some other OS, we don't know.



    This is AppleInsider and the company most here are focused on seeing grow is Apple.

    With that said, wether it is embedded or not more devices running OS X will help Apple grow.

    Apple is growing by branching out into other areas and leveraging it's crown jewel at the same time. What is a computer? The lines are blurry and will continue to blur at an increasing rate. In my opinion the iPhone is a computer that also makes phone calls. The 6G iPod will also be a computer that is very good for media playback.
  • Reply 40 of 53
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    This is AppleInsider and the company most here are focused on seeing grow is Apple.

    With that said, wether it is embedded or not more devices running OS X will help Apple grow.

    Apple is growing by branching out into other areas and leveraging it's crown jewel at the same time. What is a computer? The lines are blurry and will continue to blur at an increasing rate. In my opinion the iPhone is a computer that also makes phone calls. The 6G iPod will also be a computer that is very good for media playback.



    Johnny, the article we are commenting upon is about MS's growth, not Apple's.



    Apple is in a different situation than MS. MS as a computer OS and software company can only grow if the computers they require have growth rates. If that growth rate slows down, as it has, then their growh rate slows down as well, as it also has.



    With Apple having such a small marketshare, as I commented earlier in this thread, Apple has a great deal of possible growth ahead of it, if it does things right, to cut further into MS's share.



    But, even so, Apple is also moving outside of their primary area of computers. They also see that is is necessary to get into areas with high growth rates because they are new areas, with little market penetration. Whoever gets there first with a desirable system can wrap up that sector.



    All of this ties together, of course, because neither Apple nor MS is getting into the business of making hammers, or manhole covers.



    That might change in the future if both are shown to work better if a popular OS is wedged into them somehow, but there will be some time to go before that happens.
Sign In or Register to comment.