Re: Apple's poor positioning for the age *after* x86

In article <200509181035548930%danieljohnson@vzavenuenet>,
Daniel Johnson <danieljohnson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2005-09-17 23:55:56 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[snip]

> > I'd be interested to know what products, other than Windows and Office,
> > have actually followed this pattern. If I were to make a list of all
> > the products Microsoft introduced five or more years ago, how many of
> > them would you label as market leaders in their respective markets?
>
> Hard to say. I think the way Windows because the market leader
> overnight was unusual; I can think of no other product that was a flop
> for 5 years, then suddenly took over the world.
>
> Maybe you should try it. :D
>
> [snip]
> >> Microsoft's approach was always "please the media vendors"; and that
> >> obviously means tough copy protection. But the assumption here is that
> >> the media vendors know what they are doing and just need technology.
> >>
> >> What the iTMS shows is that this was all wrong. The whole Windows Media
> >> strategy was based on a false premise. The correct premise turned out
> >> to be that record labels need to be beaten with a clue-stick.
> >
> > There are a couple of studies that say the whole concept of copy
> > protection is based on a false premise -- namely, that online file
> > trading actually reduces sales.
>
> This is not the premise. The premise is that unpoliced, people will
> share their media.

But they only care about that if it costs them money. They're quite
convinced it does, but the evidence doesn't particularly point that
way.

> Online file trading is not the end-all and be-all of piracy, and it
> is not unreasonable to try to make this more difficult. Nobody has
> every been able to stop sophisticated, determined pirated, but you
> can impede the casual sort of piracy.
>
> It is just that the problem was not this piracy, but rather the
> inability of the music industry to come to terms with technological
> change. They have come to see the customer as the enemy, and the
> customer's interests as inimical to their own. No amount of copy
> protection can fix that.

In this respect, Microsoft is actually working *against* the long-term
interests of the content providers, by telling them that their old
business models can be forced to work in this age of easy digital copies.

> [snip]
> >> I have always said that MS is beatable. I do not see right now how they
> >> are supposed to beat Google. The obvious answer is that they are hoping
> >> Google will blow it somehow, and they can pick up the pieces.
> >>
> >> Might work. Has before, sometimes.
> >
> > This is a little sad, honestly. There are ways to beat Google on the merits.
>
> Really. How?

Just off the top of my head:

1) Something beyond keyword search; mining unstructured web pages and
producing structured data. Google does some of this to produce data for
Google Local and Froogle, but much more is possible.

2) Community features, like site ratings, etc. integrated with browser
toolbars and used to help rank results.

3) APIs that web sites could implement to allow the engine to index the
contents of their databases, not just whatever pages are accessible by
following links.

> > With its vast resources, there's frankly no reason Microsoft should
> > have to wait for Google to screw up. But you don't expect them to get
> > anywhere unless that happens, and I certainly don't. I know why I'm
> > making this prediction: because I think Microsoft is basically a
> > third-rate software company. Why are you making it?
>
> I think Google is very good. I think Microsoft is also very good and
> could equal them, but I do not see how they can produce something that
> is *enough* better to supplant google.
>
> Microsoft is about quality of implementation. They take good ideas that
> have been poorly implemented, implement them very well, and profit.
> That's what they did to Apple with Windows, and what they are doing to
> Java with .NET.

This is a honestly a fairly nutty claim. Yes, I see how the argument can
be made about .NET and Java, but the larger pattern is exactly the
opposite -- Microsoft creates inferior implementations and wins through
leveraging its existing market power.

> But I just don't quite see what is poorly implemented about Google.
>
> [snip]
> >>> That's not what I'm describing either. I'm pointing out, as I've
> >>> pointed out repeatedly, that Microsoft is simply not that dangerous
> >>> outside of its monopolized markets, and that therefore, if those
> >>> monopolies ever start to crack, Microsoft could end up losing nearly
> >>> everything -- it's not too likely that Windows could fall to 60% market
> >>> share without falling to 30% shortly thereafter, in other words.
> >>
> >> That is a possibility. To some extent, Microsoft dominates the markets
> >> where IBM, Apple and Netware managed to screw everything up completely.
> >
> > Once again we see this theme; Microsoft is only a success when others
> > screw up. Are there *any* examples of markets where Microsoft has
> > actually fought its way to the top and won by producing better
> > products, as Apple has, to a large extent, with, say, Final Cut Pro?
> > Or, alternatively, markets that Microsoft largely created and came to
> > dominate through its vision and its superior products, as Apple did
> > with the iPod, or Adobe did with Photoshop?
>
> Yes. You will probably never admit that Microsoft's Windows products
> were superior to OS/2, Mac OS and Novell Netware, but it was, and
> that's why it won.

I'd love to hear an explanation of how pre-XP consumer versions of
Windows or pre-NT corporate versions of Windows were in any way superior
to Mac OS.

> You seem to be complaining that Microsoft is not so good that they
> could defeat an entrenched competitor who never makes any mistakes and
> delivers perfect products. I don't think anyone can do that.

Nobody delivers perfect products or executes perfectly. With its
resources, Microsoft should be able to take on serious, competent
competitors and prevail on the merits. There is remarkably little of
this in Microsoft's history.

> [snip]
> >>> They were losing money hand over fist for a while. Can you imagine what
> >>> the perception would be if Microsoft posted a $10B loss for, say, 2009?
> >>
> >> This sounds like Apple. They weren't doooooooomed no matter how many
> >> times people said so on the 'net. :D
> >
> > But the dynamic I mention above didn't apply to Apple. Nobody was using
> > the Mac because it was the world's dominant operating system, so
> > Apple's market share losses didn't really snowball.
>
> The notion that people using WIndows only because it is popular is
> comforting but false.
>
> For instance, many companies would continue to use Windows because of
> its excellent backwards compatibility, even if ceased to be popular.

I admit, vendor lock-in is also a significant factor. But probably not
as much in the consumer space.

> > Also consider, Apple easily could have been doomed, without new
> > leadership. Would that happen at Microsoft, or would the current bunch,
> > who probably own too much stock to get rid of easily, be too arrogant
> > to admit they couldn't save the company?
>
> I doubt it, but who knows what the future will bring? If they are not
> arrogant now, they might become so.
>
> [snip]
> >> I suspected as much. :D
> >>
> >> But I find that many people who feel MS's software is lousy do not have
> >> any clear notion of what is wrong with it. They just feel that it ought
> >> to be better, that it should be *easy* to do better. Are you in that
> >> particular camp?
> >
> > No, I have pretty clear notions of what's wrong with Microsoft's stuff,
> > and I understand that writing good software is hard. I just don't see
> > that Microsoft has any excuses, given its current market position and
> > financial situation.
>
> That sounds very like "... it should be easy to do better", qualified
> by "... for a rich company like Microsoft". Saves you from having to do
> it better yourself, I guess.
>
> I don't agree with this. In my view, the problems of software
> development are not solved by throwing money at them.

This is true. They can, however, be solved by properly managed teams of
smart, motivated developers. Microsoft has smart developers; it's the
other two bits that the company, by most accounts, is screwing up.

It also really helps if you've got one guy in a serious leadership
position who's got, for lack of a better word, vision. Otherwise you
often just end up with incremental improvements and new features based
on user requests.

Once you've got a problem solved, having resources like Microsoft's
ensures that you can make sure everyone else knows you've solved it.
This is pretty important, I think.

> But anyway, what do you think is wrong with Microsoft's stuff?

That's a bit too broad a question to answer in one post.

--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Did Microsoft BUY Apple?? Virtual PC GAMES.
    ... Microsoft bought out Apple long ago! ... could argue that Windows DID indeed have a competitor in the OS market. ... and therefore STILL won't be useful for games. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.virtualpc)
  • Re: I really do like OS X but . . .
    ... Win32 is just an environment, ... >Windows right now, would be from .NET or Java. ... >Microsoft took an excellent kernel like NT, ... Only Apple. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • SecurityFocus Microsoft Newsletter #176
    ... MICROSOFT VULNERABILITY SUMMARY ... Microsoft Windows XP HCP URI Handler Arbitrary Command Execu... ... PHPNuke Category Parameter SQL Injection Vulnerability ... Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer Vulnerability Identific... ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • THE WINDOWS WORLD STILL DOESNąT GET IT!
    ... as Microsoft was completing its latest round of ... Windows has always been basically a Mac OS knock-off. ... while Apple has long since moved on to bigger and better things. ... running their own retail stores? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Cost of the M$ monopoly-$10BIllion/year.
    ... and how little investment Microsoft has made to it since bundling ... >> towards producing a low cost yet powerful machine, which is what Apple ... >the late 80s when Windows was a steaming pile of crap by comparison. ... >And apps depend on API, and Apple has a much better API than Windows, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)