Correcion: Apple has pissed off a handful of very vocal, IMO extremely whiny developers. The tech media (including John Gruber unfotunately, whose site I really dig) of course is blowing it all out of proportion.
Fact is, money talks, BS walks, and the evidence suggests that the vast majority of devs are pretty OK with Apple and the App Store.
I disagree. Yes, a handful are being excessively whiny, but that doesn't stop some complaints being legitimate. It's difficult to believe that there's a single iPhone developer out there who wouldn't be happier if they could freely talk with others about iPhone development. Apple has the opportunity here to become the defacto ultra-mobile computing platform, and they're shooting themselves in the foot by preventing people from taking about iPhone development. It doesn't make any sense! They should be fostering the development community; instead there is no community because you can't have community without communication.
?not that great. Microsoft finally got it right with Office 2008 on the interface/"Macness" side of things (they even finally got around to using the proper installer.pkg approach to installation, rather than using that proprietary VISE rubbish). The problem is they simultaneously made it pathetically slow. Right now, there are no all-round good office suites for the Mac.
Office 2008 beats NeoOffice because NeoOffice has a horrible interface (looks way too much like a Windows port), and it's slow (being Java-based it'll never escape that).
Correcion: Apple has pissed off a handful of very vocal, IMO extremely whiny developers. .
I think you're confused.
The handful of whiny developers of which you speak are probably voicing the concerns of many more smaller developers who are afraid to speak out.
When the Mac faithful (Gruber, Jason Snell and Dan Moren) who not only drink the kool aid but help MAKE it acknowledge that there is a problem with the way Apple are handling developers and the app store, then you've got a problem.
This is NOT just a few people. It is everybody. We all are very very angry at Apple for providing a wonderful product and then gagging us. But more than that... we are angry that Apple has not provided any rules beyond "unforseen" as to what they will allow and won't.
Apple should have a different system in place. All apps that are not illegal on iPhone and are virus free, and fit certain rules, codesign them and let developers sell them via their own means. App Store gets its own, more high quality game selection, as well as the free ones.
Apple shot themselves in the foot by restricting developers so much. Sure, protecting the device is important, as its very personal and easy to hack by a good hacker to get ur details. But restricting it because they don't LIKE what is on the device is WAY TOO MUCH control. They need set guidelines, not a general "we will block unforseen apps we don't like" that we have at the moment.
Why is he still the CEO of Microsoft? He doesn't know much about technology, the company's stock has dropped its value by 50% since he took over in January 2000, he's not even a good salesman (which is his only strength), and he's a raving lunatic.
LOL of course, let's all be rational and compare stock prices during the 2000 tech bubble to today's near-depression economy. Can you at least try to not sound like an ignorant zealot?
Ballmer has had more revenue growth, income growth, marketshare growth, and business growth than almost any other CEO in history, including Bill Gates. But of course, all that matters is stock price. But only as long as Apple's is not in a nose dive like a few years ago, otherwise it suddenly stops being important.
You're right. All previous PC owners I know who turned to Mac owners couldn't be happier. There's no going back.
It's funny that Ballmer believes that the enterprise stays firmly in MS hands.
Even enterprise customers are recognizing that the cost of ownership through support and licensing makes MS anything but cheap. Used to be that IT blindly pushed PC's to minimize support costs.
That is changing though and from the IT perspective I see a complete reversal towards the Mac. Where they used to joke about Mac's as toys I can now barely find anyone in our data center that doesn't use some sort Macbook.
Guys with PC laptops are simply viewed as old school
I am looking at guys administering over 100 Dell servers using a Mac. Along with employees requesting Macs & the iPhone for their work, this recognition in IT is how the enterprise gets to see more and more Macs.
This is NOT just a few people. It is everybody. We all are very very angry at Apple for providing a wonderful product and then gagging us. But more than that... we are angry that Apple has not provided any rules beyond "unforseen" as to what they will allow and won't.
Apple should have a different system in place. All apps that are not illegal on iPhone and are virus free, and fit certain rules, codesign them and let developers sell them via their own means. App Store gets its own, more high quality game selection, as well as the free ones.
Apple shot themselves in the foot by restricting developers so much. Sure, protecting the device is important, as its very personal and easy to hack by a good hacker to get ur details. But restricting it because they don't LIKE what is on the device is WAY TOO MUCH control. They need set guidelines, not a general "we will block unforseen apps we don't like" that we have at the moment.
You heard that people?! So lemme hear the arguments that they are "whiners" again. Explain it to me how they are whiners.
?not that great. Microsoft finally got it right with Office 2008 on the interface/"Macness" side of things (they even finally got around to using the proper installer.pkg approach to installation, rather than using that proprietary VISE rubbish). The problem is they simultaneously made it pathetically slow. Right now, there are no all-round good office suites for the Mac.
Office 2008 beats NeoOffice because NeoOffice has a horrible interface (looks way too much like a Windows port), and it's slow (being Java-based it'll never escape that).
Frankly, we couldn't give a shit about the MS eye candy that uses far too much screen space, and NeoOffice is really not that slow, particularly on a current machine. Furthermore, we refuse to pay the MS tax because we've learned to despise the crap from Redmond due to compatibility issues between versions within their own product line. We simply need to get work done and nobody we work with has ever detected that we are not using the "real thing." Besides, some of the best trading platforms and direct access exchange interfaces we use are Java based. When trading millions of dollars of other people's money, stability and functionality are far more important than looks.
As a hedge fund manager, we construct and distribute complex models to our staff for explaining our risk analysis techniques to our clients. There's never been a problem with compatibility or performance. All of the machines in our offices are either Linux or Mac based (Mac Pro) workstations running our own software that exports spreadsheet-based models. Our inhouse developers use Java and C++. In the "old days" we used Sun workstations.
Here's my opinions that're worth every cent you pay to read them.
1) The iPhone is in the honeymoon phase. It's new, it's shiny, and it's pretty well done. But there are cracks in the façade - see the AppStore whining and developer relations. I think it is certainly here to stay, but I don't think it's going to take over the world and usher in a new era of cell phone bliss. I think one of its biggest contributions will be to push the quality of web browsers on cell phones.
2) MS has screwed up big time with Vista. I don't know who they were targeting with it. Business/Enterprise doesn't care about the Aero GUI whiz-bang stuff. And MS seems to have added enough complexity and under the hood changes that businesses are gun shy to move away from their "tried and true" XP systems. Vista is a resource hog on home systems and the brief times I've spent with it, it seems to try to out think the user and be too clever for its own good - just get out of the way and let me work! Oh, and it's a design-by-committee disaster, too.
3) Apple has no serious enterprise strategy. As was mentioned, MS has certifications, end-to-end office automation solutions (Outlook, Exchange, Project, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.), big consultant houses with maintenance contracts, fleets of salesmen, and on and on.
4) Ballmer does appear completely out of touch. He doesn't understand the QUALITY that goes into an Apple product. He has no taste, and there doesn't appear to be anyone high up the MS management food chain with any sense of quality, either. (The story of the XBox 360 is fascinating here. They KNEW it was going to fail in vast numbers. They intentionally released a faulty product in order to get to market sooner! They ate millions & millions of dollars replacing boxes they knew were going to break. Jobs would never stand for shenanigans like that.)
5) Apple will "fail" under the weight of their own success just like MS, Sun, GM, Sony, and others before them. Size leads to inertia, more layers of management, more internal politics, etc.
"Microsoft is left as the last vendor trying to sell a commercial software platform for smartphones"
What a ridiculous statement. Apple's platform is locked to their hardware... they neither selling it, or giving it away on its own.
Apple is the only one charging users to *develop* for their closed platform and to also to take a slice of any app sales, if you are lucky enough that they deem your app suitable for the AppStore...
The only real threat is Google, and it will hit Apple first.
" Nokia leads the worldwide smartphone market with a 30 percent share. "If you want to reach more than that, you have to separate the hardware and software in the platform,"
And provide mobile office applications.... where are they Apple?? A smartphone should be/is far more than web + mail + games... it should be a mobile office!!
"In the fourth quarter of 2007, Apple grabbed 7% of the worldwide smartphone share, despite being limited to one model and primarily one provider in one country."
Breaking News!!! 7% is a lot less than 30%!!! The crux of his argument is can Apple beat 30%/Nokia/MS with one model, one provider whilst continuing to tie the software to the hardware (and the rest of the product line)?
MS will not copy Apple's business model, it would destroy them. They will bring elements of the integrated user experience to their platform.
"Jobs would never stand for shenanigans like that."
MobileMe clearly wasn't fully tested and pushed out too early. 2.0.1. was beta quality. And the native iPhone apps are (since v1) inconsistent in design and behaviour.
Smaller scale perhaps, but then Apple is on a smaller scale and its likely a sign of things to come if Apple continues to spread itself too thin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1
Here's my opinions that're worth every cent you pay to read them.
1) The iPhone is in the honeymoon phase. It's new, it's shiny, and it's pretty well done. But there are cracks in the façade - see the AppStore whining and developer relations. I think it is certainly here to stay, but I don't think it's going to take over the world and usher in a new era of cell phone bliss. I think one of its biggest contributions will be to push the quality of web browsers on cell phones.
2) MS has screwed up big time with Vista. I don't know who they were targeting with it. Business/Enterprise doesn't care about the Aero GUI whiz-bang stuff. And MS seems to have added enough complexity and under the hood changes that businesses are gun shy to move away from their "tried and true" XP systems. Vista is a resource hog on home systems and the brief times I've spent with it, it seems to try to out think the user and be too clever for its own good - just get out of the way and let me work! Oh, and it's a design-by-committee disaster, too.
3) Apple has no serious enterprise strategy. As was mentioned, MS has certifications, end-to-end office automation solutions (Outlook, Exchange, Project, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.), big consultant houses with maintenance contracts, fleets of salesmen, and on and on.
4) Ballmer does appear completely out of touch. He doesn't understand the QUALITY that goes into an Apple product. He has no taste, and there doesn't appear to be anyone high up the MS management food chain with any sense of quality, either. (The story of the XBox 360 is fascinating here. They KNEW it was going to fail in vast numbers. They intentionally released a faulty product in order to get to market sooner! They ate millions & millions of dollars replacing boxes they knew were going to break. Jobs would never stand for shenanigans like that.)
5) Apple will "fail" under the weight of their own success just like MS, Sun, GM, Sony, and others before them. Size leads to inertia, more layers of management, more internal politics, etc.
You heard that people?! So lemme hear the arguments that they are "whiners" again. Explain it to me how they are whiners.
They are whiners.
FWIW I too am an iPhone dev, (pro music-related software), and there ways of dealing with Apple that will get you a lot further than bitching in public forums will ever achieve.
Is there anyone out there who thinks Microsoft has a clue when in comes to future technology directions, innovation, etc.?
I think Apple owns that franchise.
Microsoft is not in the technology business. Nor in the innovation business. They're in the marketing business. It's about bundling and deal making for them.
Microsoft's greatest (only?) successes have come from copying others. They ripped off spreadheets from Lotus. Word processing from Word Perfect. Operating systems from Apple. And many many more. They are such major league pirates and yet they have the gall to rail against software piracy.
This is a great point here. M$ made money by being the conduit where by hardware talked to software. So, davesmall, is right on here - that is not innovation, it is positioning (and marketing). Furthermore, cases like Xbox 360 and Zune highlight the lack of innovation. Another case in point was made in the articles on Snow Leopard going to full 64-bit while Vista emulated 64-bit using a 32-bit approach (sorry if this is poorly worded - not my strength).
Oh, did I mention their ads? Brilliant innovation at its finest! (Thanks Mr. H! )
Apple has succeeded based on Jobs and company persistent attention to innovation to survive and grow the company.
M$ is not on solid ground innovation-wise. Blunt force trauma-wise, M$ IS a master at this.
His mistake parallels that of many media outlets. They report the news they way they WANT it to be, rather than the way it IS.
He's living proof that you only need a sub-par intellect to work at MS, or be a CEO for that matter.
A number of posts have made comments about Ballmer, Gates, and Dell not being "smart". I believe they are quite smart and we are missing the point here.
What is off here is perspective, not intelligence. Jobs held the perspective that opening Apple computers system to the world was not a smart path and it nearly didn't survive. Ballmer, Gates, and Dell hold a business approach that has worked quite well. Optimal? Not necessarily yet any company that holds 90% market share is doing a lot of things right.
There is a difference between a product made with passion and a product made for money. Of course everything needs money to roll in this world, but if money is the main concern, you will get product like Vista, if passion is the first priority and money second, then you will get wonderful product like the Leopard. Which would you choose?
Its proven that when you put passion into building something, the end product WILL always be better then a product that is build just to give more money.
Which company would go to the extend that Apple is doing? Its a major risk that Apple did not build in a dvd player in the MBA but hey, people who own the MBA seem not making a big deal of not having a build in DVD player because they realize that they rarely use it.
A number of posts have made comments about Ballmer, Gates, and Dell not being "smart". I believe they are quite smart and we are missing the point here.
What is off here is perspective, not intelligence. Jobs held the perspective that opening Apple computers system to the world was not a smart path and it nearly didn't survive. Ballmer, Gates, and Dell hold a business approach that has worked quite well. Optimal? Not necessarily yet any company that holds 90% market share is doing a lot of things right.
Perspective cannot be divorced so easily from intelligence. There are mounds of evidence in the world to back that up.
For argument's sake, let's assume that your 90% figure is accurate. Your statement assumes that Ballmer is someone who has contributed to that figure, rather than taking a ride on coattails. His influence may only have been the result of Gates' direct presence rather than independent thought. Time will tell, but I'm betting that 90% figure won't hold and Ballmer will be gone within two years.
"I'm not saying there isn't a threat [from Apple]," he added. But if we "do our jobs right, there's really no reason Apple should get any footprint in the enterprise."
Translation: If we bully and blackmail enough potential Mac adopters, Apple's penetration into the Enterprise market will be thwarted.
Balmer is a ruthless thug talking to morons who don't understand that Microsoft talks about "infinite choice" while doing everything in its power to limit the actual choice to Microsoft products. This cut-throat strategy has worked very well for them in the past. But tomorrow is another day!
Plus while we're at it, can we do away with the niche marketing strategy. Why is ATT the only provider in the USA and how again does this benefit Apple?
Don't forget that to get the deal done three or four years ago, Apple, who still seen as a one-hit wonder with the maturing iPod, had to convince an entrenched, old-school wireless provider to ditch their business model. It was not a trivial matter to get AT&T to change the game, including doing away with giveaway phones, charging a flat fee for unlimited data access, etc. Remember, Apple didn't even have a functioning prototype until late 2006.
As it was, they signed up for an AT&T exclusive, because that was the best deal they could get. If that deal was done today, I'm sure it would be more in Apple's (and our) favor.
Jeebus McRee--could there be a more unsuitable figurehead for a tech company in this day and age? I cringe every time I see this pithecoid buffoon going into one of his tirades. (It's painful for me to say, because except for the fact that I've still got all my hair, I resemble him more than a little.)
Instead of paying Jerry Seinfeld 10 megabucks to change their image, I think they need to hire a front man who won't frighten little children! Ballmer could still run the company into the ground behind the scenes, I hope he does; but if I were them, I'd try to find a little more presentable sock puppet for public appearances. Is Bob still available?
If Ballmer wasn't Bill's old college pal and BFF he would've been outta there years ago.
And in a few more quarters, if Apple hits a few more product home runs and Google outflanks MS in mobile phones and produces its OS successfully, I think he will be.
MS needs new leadership and a fresh strategic direction in the worst way -- and a good choice could benefit us all -- not least by prodding Apple to keep focused as their scope and breadth increases dramatically.
Who could have credibly predicted Apple would be rolling out strategic products in partnership with major telcos nearly simultaneously in 70 countries even five years ago? Or even been a factor in mobile phones in one?
Who -- based on facts on the ground -- predicted Apple would be the world's number one media retailer 10 years ago?
The inner circle can only deal with so many details on a direct basis, and as growth continues, management of all these balls in motion becomes as critical as what the balls are themselves. And with an ecosystem where products are so interrelated, keeping them all in synch inevitably takes a toll on how wildly innovative any one of those products can be.
We know what a great company Apple Computer became, against great odds, and adding new folklore to the whole concept of Phoenixes rising from their ashes -- and now we're going to find out exactly what kind of megacorporation Apple, Inc. is going to be -- and someday we'll find how much of it all has depended on the personality, vision and drive of the remaining founder.
Ergo, rooting for credible leadership at MS (which will have lots and lots of rust and muck to shake off) is rooting for Apple to reach new heights.
Comments
Correcion: Apple has pissed off a handful of very vocal, IMO extremely whiny developers. The tech media (including John Gruber unfotunately, whose site I really dig) of course is blowing it all out of proportion.
Fact is, money talks, BS walks, and the evidence suggests that the vast majority of devs are pretty OK with Apple and the App Store.
I disagree. Yes, a handful are being excessively whiny, but that doesn't stop some complaints being legitimate. It's difficult to believe that there's a single iPhone developer out there who wouldn't be happier if they could freely talk with others about iPhone development. Apple has the opportunity here to become the defacto ultra-mobile computing platform, and they're shooting themselves in the foot by preventing people from taking about iPhone development. It doesn't make any sense! They should be fostering the development community; instead there is no community because you can't have community without communication.
NeoOffice is?
?not that great. Microsoft finally got it right with Office 2008 on the interface/"Macness" side of things (they even finally got around to using the proper installer.pkg approach to installation, rather than using that proprietary VISE rubbish). The problem is they simultaneously made it pathetically slow. Right now, there are no all-round good office suites for the Mac.
Office 2008 beats NeoOffice because NeoOffice has a horrible interface (looks way too much like a Windows port), and it's slow (being Java-based it'll never escape that).
Correcion: Apple has pissed off a handful of very vocal, IMO extremely whiny developers. .
I think you're confused.
The handful of whiny developers of which you speak are probably voicing the concerns of many more smaller developers who are afraid to speak out.
When the Mac faithful (Gruber, Jason Snell and Dan Moren) who not only drink the kool aid but help MAKE it acknowledge that there is a problem with the way Apple are handling developers and the app store, then you've got a problem.
This is NOT just a few people. It is everybody. We all are very very angry at Apple for providing a wonderful product and then gagging us. But more than that... we are angry that Apple has not provided any rules beyond "unforseen" as to what they will allow and won't.
Apple should have a different system in place. All apps that are not illegal on iPhone and are virus free, and fit certain rules, codesign them and let developers sell them via their own means. App Store gets its own, more high quality game selection, as well as the free ones.
Apple shot themselves in the foot by restricting developers so much. Sure, protecting the device is important, as its very personal and easy to hack by a good hacker to get ur details. But restricting it because they don't LIKE what is on the device is WAY TOO MUCH control. They need set guidelines, not a general "we will block unforseen apps we don't like" that we have at the moment.
Why is he still the CEO of Microsoft? He doesn't know much about technology, the company's stock has dropped its value by 50% since he took over in January 2000, he's not even a good salesman (which is his only strength), and he's a raving lunatic.
LOL of course, let's all be rational and compare stock prices during the 2000 tech bubble to today's near-depression economy. Can you at least try to not sound like an ignorant zealot?
Ballmer has had more revenue growth, income growth, marketshare growth, and business growth than almost any other CEO in history, including Bill Gates. But of course, all that matters is stock price. But only as long as Apple's is not in a nose dive like a few years ago, otherwise it suddenly stops being important.
You're right. All previous PC owners I know who turned to Mac owners couldn't be happier. There's no going back.
It's funny that Ballmer believes that the enterprise stays firmly in MS hands.
Even enterprise customers are recognizing that the cost of ownership through support and licensing makes MS anything but cheap. Used to be that IT blindly pushed PC's to minimize support costs.
That is changing
Guys with PC laptops are simply viewed as old school
I am looking at guys administering over 100 Dell servers using a Mac. Along with employees requesting Macs & the iPhone for their work, this recognition in IT is how the enterprise gets to see more and more Macs.
Which is a good thing...
I'm a developer so let me settle this:
This is NOT just a few people. It is everybody. We all are very very angry at Apple for providing a wonderful product and then gagging us. But more than that... we are angry that Apple has not provided any rules beyond "unforseen" as to what they will allow and won't.
Apple should have a different system in place. All apps that are not illegal on iPhone and are virus free, and fit certain rules, codesign them and let developers sell them via their own means. App Store gets its own, more high quality game selection, as well as the free ones.
Apple shot themselves in the foot by restricting developers so much. Sure, protecting the device is important, as its very personal and easy to hack by a good hacker to get ur details. But restricting it because they don't LIKE what is on the device is WAY TOO MUCH control. They need set guidelines, not a general "we will block unforseen apps we don't like" that we have at the moment.
You heard that people?! So lemme hear the arguments that they are "whiners" again. Explain it to me how they are whiners.
?not that great. Microsoft finally got it right with Office 2008 on the interface/"Macness" side of things (they even finally got around to using the proper installer.pkg approach to installation, rather than using that proprietary VISE rubbish). The problem is they simultaneously made it pathetically slow. Right now, there are no all-round good office suites for the Mac.
Office 2008 beats NeoOffice because NeoOffice has a horrible interface (looks way too much like a Windows port), and it's slow (being Java-based it'll never escape that).
Frankly, we couldn't give a shit about the MS eye candy that uses far too much screen space, and NeoOffice is really not that slow, particularly on a current machine. Furthermore, we refuse to pay the MS tax because we've learned to despise the crap from Redmond due to compatibility issues between versions within their own product line. We simply need to get work done and nobody we work with has ever detected that we are not using the "real thing." Besides, some of the best trading platforms and direct access exchange interfaces we use are Java based. When trading millions of dollars of other people's money, stability and functionality are far more important than looks.
As a hedge fund manager, we construct and distribute complex models to our staff for explaining our risk analysis techniques to our clients. There's never been a problem with compatibility or performance. All of the machines in our offices are either Linux or Mac based (Mac Pro) workstations running our own software that exports spreadsheet-based models. Our inhouse developers use Java and C++. In the "old days" we used Sun workstations.
1) The iPhone is in the honeymoon phase. It's new, it's shiny, and it's pretty well done. But there are cracks in the façade - see the AppStore whining and developer relations. I think it is certainly here to stay, but I don't think it's going to take over the world and usher in a new era of cell phone bliss. I think one of its biggest contributions will be to push the quality of web browsers on cell phones.
2) MS has screwed up big time with Vista. I don't know who they were targeting with it. Business/Enterprise doesn't care about the Aero GUI whiz-bang stuff. And MS seems to have added enough complexity and under the hood changes that businesses are gun shy to move away from their "tried and true" XP systems. Vista is a resource hog on home systems and the brief times I've spent with it, it seems to try to out think the user and be too clever for its own good - just get out of the way and let me work! Oh, and it's a design-by-committee disaster, too.
3) Apple has no serious enterprise strategy. As was mentioned, MS has certifications, end-to-end office automation solutions (Outlook, Exchange, Project, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.), big consultant houses with maintenance contracts, fleets of salesmen, and on and on.
4) Ballmer does appear completely out of touch. He doesn't understand the QUALITY that goes into an Apple product. He has no taste, and there doesn't appear to be anyone high up the MS management food chain with any sense of quality, either. (The story of the XBox 360 is fascinating here. They KNEW it was going to fail in vast numbers. They intentionally released a faulty product in order to get to market sooner! They ate millions & millions of dollars replacing boxes they knew were going to break. Jobs would never stand for shenanigans like that.)
5) Apple will "fail" under the weight of their own success just like MS, Sun, GM, Sony, and others before them. Size leads to inertia, more layers of management, more internal politics, etc.
Enough rambling.
What a ridiculous statement. Apple's platform is locked to their hardware... they neither selling it, or giving it away on its own.
Apple is the only one charging users to *develop* for their closed platform and to also to take a slice of any app sales, if you are lucky enough that they deem your app suitable for the AppStore...
The only real threat is Google, and it will hit Apple first.
" Nokia leads the worldwide smartphone market with a 30 percent share. "If you want to reach more than that, you have to separate the hardware and software in the platform,"
And provide mobile office applications.... where are they Apple?? A smartphone should be/is far more than web + mail + games... it should be a mobile office!!
"In the fourth quarter of 2007, Apple grabbed 7% of the worldwide smartphone share, despite being limited to one model and primarily one provider in one country."
Breaking News!!! 7% is a lot less than 30%!!! The crux of his argument is can Apple beat 30%/Nokia/MS with one model, one provider whilst continuing to tie the software to the hardware (and the rest of the product line)?
MS will not copy Apple's business model, it would destroy them. They will bring elements of the integrated user experience to their platform.
MobileMe clearly wasn't fully tested and pushed out too early. 2.0.1. was beta quality. And the native iPhone apps are (since v1) inconsistent in design and behaviour.
Smaller scale perhaps, but then Apple is on a smaller scale and its likely a sign of things to come if Apple continues to spread itself too thin.
Here's my opinions that're worth every cent you pay to read them.
1) The iPhone is in the honeymoon phase. It's new, it's shiny, and it's pretty well done. But there are cracks in the façade - see the AppStore whining and developer relations. I think it is certainly here to stay, but I don't think it's going to take over the world and usher in a new era of cell phone bliss. I think one of its biggest contributions will be to push the quality of web browsers on cell phones.
2) MS has screwed up big time with Vista. I don't know who they were targeting with it. Business/Enterprise doesn't care about the Aero GUI whiz-bang stuff. And MS seems to have added enough complexity and under the hood changes that businesses are gun shy to move away from their "tried and true" XP systems. Vista is a resource hog on home systems and the brief times I've spent with it, it seems to try to out think the user and be too clever for its own good - just get out of the way and let me work! Oh, and it's a design-by-committee disaster, too.
3) Apple has no serious enterprise strategy. As was mentioned, MS has certifications, end-to-end office automation solutions (Outlook, Exchange, Project, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc.), big consultant houses with maintenance contracts, fleets of salesmen, and on and on.
4) Ballmer does appear completely out of touch. He doesn't understand the QUALITY that goes into an Apple product. He has no taste, and there doesn't appear to be anyone high up the MS management food chain with any sense of quality, either. (The story of the XBox 360 is fascinating here. They KNEW it was going to fail in vast numbers. They intentionally released a faulty product in order to get to market sooner! They ate millions & millions of dollars replacing boxes they knew were going to break. Jobs would never stand for shenanigans like that.)
5) Apple will "fail" under the weight of their own success just like MS, Sun, GM, Sony, and others before them. Size leads to inertia, more layers of management, more internal politics, etc.
Enough rambling.
You heard that people?! So lemme hear the arguments that they are "whiners" again. Explain it to me how they are whiners.
They are whiners.
FWIW I too am an iPhone dev, (pro music-related software), and there ways of dealing with Apple that will get you a lot further than bitching in public forums will ever achieve.
Is there anyone out there who thinks Microsoft has a clue when in comes to future technology directions, innovation, etc.?
I think Apple owns that franchise.
Microsoft is not in the technology business. Nor in the innovation business. They're in the marketing business. It's about bundling and deal making for them.
Microsoft's greatest (only?) successes have come from copying others. They ripped off spreadheets from Lotus. Word processing from Word Perfect. Operating systems from Apple. And many many more. They are such major league pirates and yet they have the gall to rail against software piracy.
This is a great point here. M$ made money by being the conduit where by hardware talked to software. So, davesmall, is right on here - that is not innovation, it is positioning (and marketing). Furthermore, cases like Xbox 360 and Zune highlight the lack of innovation. Another case in point was made in the articles on Snow Leopard going to full 64-bit while Vista emulated 64-bit using a 32-bit approach (sorry if this is poorly worded - not my strength).
Oh, did I mention their ads? Brilliant innovation at its finest! (Thanks Mr. H!
Apple has succeeded based on Jobs and company persistent attention to innovation to survive and grow the company.
M$ is not on solid ground innovation-wise. Blunt force trauma-wise, M$ IS a master at this.
Yup. The progression of reactionary companies to competition is always thus:
Ignore.
Ridicule.
Attack.
Copy.
Steal.
We are now at Copy. Here's your doggy treat, Ballsmer.
...
Priceless!
Are we missing "Whine" anywhere in this progression? Perhaps after Steal, we could add:
Get caught
Whine
Abuse Customers
Apply for Government Bailout
His mistake parallels that of many media outlets. They report the news they way they WANT it to be, rather than the way it IS.
He's living proof that you only need a sub-par intellect to work at MS, or be a CEO for that matter.
A number of posts have made comments about Ballmer, Gates, and Dell not being "smart". I believe they are quite smart and we are missing the point here.
What is off here is perspective, not intelligence. Jobs held the perspective that opening Apple computers system to the world was not a smart path and it nearly didn't survive. Ballmer, Gates, and Dell hold a business approach that has worked quite well. Optimal? Not necessarily yet any company that holds 90% market share is doing a lot of things right.
Its proven that when you put passion into building something, the end product WILL always be better then a product that is build just to give more money.
Which company would go to the extend that Apple is doing? Its a major risk that Apple did not build in a dvd player in the MBA but hey, people who own the MBA seem not making a big deal of not having a build in DVD player because they realize that they rarely use it.
A number of posts have made comments about Ballmer, Gates, and Dell not being "smart". I believe they are quite smart and we are missing the point here.
What is off here is perspective, not intelligence. Jobs held the perspective that opening Apple computers system to the world was not a smart path and it nearly didn't survive. Ballmer, Gates, and Dell hold a business approach that has worked quite well. Optimal? Not necessarily yet any company that holds 90% market share is doing a lot of things right.
Perspective cannot be divorced so easily from intelligence. There are mounds of evidence in the world to back that up.
For argument's sake, let's assume that your 90% figure is accurate. Your statement assumes that Ballmer is someone who has contributed to that figure, rather than taking a ride on coattails. His influence may only have been the result of Gates' direct presence rather than independent thought. Time will tell, but I'm betting that 90% figure won't hold and Ballmer will be gone within two years.
Wealthy, certainly, but gone nonetheless.
Translation: If we bully and blackmail enough potential Mac adopters, Apple's penetration into the Enterprise market will be thwarted.
Balmer is a ruthless thug talking to morons who don't understand that Microsoft talks about "infinite choice" while doing everything in its power to limit the actual choice to Microsoft products. This cut-throat strategy has worked very well for them in the past. But tomorrow is another day!
+++
Plus while we're at it, can we do away with the niche marketing strategy. Why is ATT the only provider in the USA and how again does this benefit Apple?
Don't forget that to get the deal done three or four years ago, Apple, who still seen as a one-hit wonder with the maturing iPod, had to convince an entrenched, old-school wireless provider to ditch their business model. It was not a trivial matter to get AT&T to change the game, including doing away with giveaway phones, charging a flat fee for unlimited data access, etc. Remember, Apple didn't even have a functioning prototype until late 2006.
As it was, they signed up for an AT&T exclusive, because that was the best deal they could get. If that deal was done today, I'm sure it would be more in Apple's (and our) favor.
Jeebus McRee--could there be a more unsuitable figurehead for a tech company in this day and age? I cringe every time I see this pithecoid buffoon going into one of his tirades. (It's painful for me to say, because except for the fact that I've still got all my hair, I resemble him more than a little.)
Instead of paying Jerry Seinfeld 10 megabucks to change their image, I think they need to hire a front man who won't frighten little children! Ballmer could still run the company into the ground behind the scenes, I hope he does; but if I were them, I'd try to find a little more presentable sock puppet for public appearances. Is Bob still available?
If Ballmer wasn't Bill's old college pal and BFF he would've been outta there years ago.
And in a few more quarters, if Apple hits a few more product home runs and Google outflanks MS in mobile phones and produces its OS successfully, I think he will be.
MS needs new leadership and a fresh strategic direction in the worst way -- and a good choice could benefit us all -- not least by prodding Apple to keep focused as their scope and breadth increases dramatically.
Who could have credibly predicted Apple would be rolling out strategic products in partnership with major telcos nearly simultaneously in 70 countries even five years ago? Or even been a factor in mobile phones in one?
Who -- based on facts on the ground -- predicted Apple would be the world's number one media retailer 10 years ago?
The inner circle can only deal with so many details on a direct basis, and as growth continues, management of all these balls in motion becomes as critical as what the balls are themselves. And with an ecosystem where products are so interrelated, keeping them all in synch inevitably takes a toll on how wildly innovative any one of those products can be.
We know what a great company Apple Computer became, against great odds, and adding new folklore to the whole concept of Phoenixes rising from their ashes -- and now we're going to find out exactly what kind of megacorporation Apple, Inc. is going to be -- and someday we'll find how much of it all has depended on the personality, vision and drive of the remaining founder.
Ergo, rooting for credible leadership at MS (which will have lots and lots of rust and muck to shake off) is rooting for Apple to reach new heights.