"Apple is the next Microsoft"

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by pl001

My Surface RT has replaced my laptop for personal use. Work is another matter, but it's a lot closer than people think there too. Heck, there's little work I can actually do on a standalone PC today, almost everything is done through thin clients and VMs. The only thing I use my home PC for now is media storage and streaming. And there are hard drives that can do that by themselves today.

Microsoft is not blind to this, it's why they are still pushing Windows 8/RT so hard.

But back to the topic at hand, I think it is clear that Apple could never be the next Microsoft, because they were never like Microsoft to begin with. They are far less diversified and depend almost exclusively on the fickle consumer market selling premium devices that many people want but few really need. I continue to be amazed at their success, it has been incredible given their limited product portfolio.

It surprises me to see this last paragraph on a technology forum. None of us need ereaders or computers and calibre. Paper books worked well for thousands of years. I still get my magazine subscriptions on paper, but audio and electronic books, while not really a need, are better for me and many others.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Shane R

It surprises me to see this last paragraph on a technology forum. None of us need ereaders or computers and calibre. Paper books worked well for thousands of years. I still get my magazine subscriptions on paper, but audio and electronic books, while not really a need, are better for me and many others.

Strictly speaking this isn't a technology forum; it's a hobbyist forum focused on reading. Some technologies that enable reading or are marginally relevant are discussed but we rarely get seriously tecnical. Us techies are in the minority here.

The point about Apple cash cow products being "wants" and not "needs" is 99% true. Microsoft products, on the other hand, are "essential facilities" (as determined by the federal court system in their antitrust case) in their core markets. 80% of their business is "needs", and at least half is "critical needs".

The people and companies that buy most Microsoft products use them to be productive and/or earn a living. People who buy Apple cash cows buy mostly for fun, for entertainment, or (maybe) because they're "cool". There is some overlap between the customer bases and both aspire to play in each other's territory but it's been decades since they were direct competitors. Microsoft's consumer successes may be dwarfed by Apple's consumer prowess but Apple's enterprise presence doesn't even reach joke levels.

So yes, Apple lives off making people want things they don't need to subsist. Microsoft makes most of their money providing tools that help people produce, things they need.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

You're still picking on my examples and trying to turn this into an emotional issue on my part (snide comments like "I know you don't like IE" are insulting and rude, and "I don't understand why anybody would single out Microsoft as being so horrible" just proves you didn't even read the post you replied to) instead of taking my thesis overall as I asked.

If you will not show me the respect to do this much, then I will not continue to engage in this conversation. You don't deserve a proper reply if you can't offer me that much.

Sorry, didn't mean to offend you. But your reasons for bashing Microsoft (and it is bashing) appear to demonstrate a poor understanding of the markets they compete in. If being blunt offends you to the point that you won't stay engaged in the discussion, so be it. But that would only confirm my suspicion, in my mind anyway, that you are indeed using emotion and assumptions to support your opinion. If you would like to re-engage and clarify your opinion, I will welcome it.

Edit...In regards to your thesis, I understand what you are saying, however to remove the context of the market they play in essentially invalidates the purpose of posting it in the first place. They support their products well in relation to their market. I could apply your thesis about corporate culture to just about any company in existance today. So if you don't want to discuss why your examples are flawed, there is nothing left to discuss.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by Shane R

It surprises me to see this last paragraph on a technology forum. None of us need ereaders or computers and calibre. Paper books worked well for thousands of years. I still get my magazine subscriptions on paper, but audio and electronic books, while not really a need, are better for me and many others.

That is a good observation in an e-reader forum. But where are the leading e-reader companies from a few years ago? Sony, gone from the market. Nook, almost gone. Kindle, focused on full tablets.

The iPad and especially the iPhone are far more useful than dedicated e-readers for general consumers and that plays a part in their success. Still, the consumer electronics market tends to be fickle, with companies falling from leadership to obscurity within a few years. It is a risky place to place most of your chips.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The point about Apple cash cow products being "wants" and not "needs" is 99% true. Microsoft products, on the other hand, are "essential facilities" (as determined by the federal court system in their antitrust case) in their core markets. 80% of their business is "needs", and at least half is "critical needs". The people and companies that buy most Microsoft products use them to be productive and/or earn a living. People who buy Apple cash cows buy mostly for fun, for entertainment, or (maybe) because they're "cool".

You sound as though you might be forgetting that many professionals in the arts use macs almost exclusively -- and not for fun or entertainment. If I'd tried bringing a PC to recording sessions when I started out, or using one at my home for preproduction with producers, I'd never have gotten any work in New York (nor would I have as an editor) in the '90s. Things are a bit different now in publishing, but the music industry's the same. Even the people I know who grew up with PCs and love them have had to switch to macs for professional work -- not because macs are superior but because everybody else has one.

A producer I know (and who's hired me quite a lot) has worked with everyone from Frank Sinatra and Lou Reed to Princess Superstar and Mobi. He used to make the same comments about macs as the rest of you on MR until he bought a building in Brooklyn and had to set up his own studio using Pro Tools. He still loves his PC, but there wasn't another way to build a studio and make it work professionally and aesthetically.

The transitional moment came when he realized he had to abandon his earlier dream of an analog-only studio (he loved his Studer 8000s and George Martin Neves) and began to plan an in-house version of the analog-digital synergy that had always worked for him.

[hardcastle]

EDIT: Reply deleted.

Never mind. I read the posts that surround my own and this thread has turned into a brand war, with people more interested in defending or attacking corporate entities (or accusing me of attacking them unfairly) with unproven generalizations than actually having a meaningful discussion.

I will not continue to pour gasoline on this carnival. Have at it, kids.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by pl001

That is a good observation in an e-reader forum. But where are the leading e-reader companies from a few years ago? Sony, gone from the market. Nook, almost gone. Kindle, focused on full tablets.

The iPad and especially the iPhone are far more useful than dedicated e-readers for general consumers and that plays a part in their success. Still, the consumer electronics market tends to be fickle, with companies falling from leadership to obscurity within a few years. It is a risky place to place most of your chips.

Apple isn't like those other companies. Even with off the shelf parts, it's PC products are more boutique than commodity because the people that want them really want them and there's only one place and one price that will provide them. That brand loyalty has been around for decades and it's PC business is profitable because of it.

Its market may reduce from it's current size, but i think they are developing the same sort of audience for their idevice lines. I know lots of people who want a bigger screen but say they will wait for Apple to make one instead of moving to something available right now.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

You sound as though you might be forgetting that many professionals in the arts use macs almost exclusively -- and not for fun or entertainment.

I forgot nothing.

Read again: I explicitly said cash cows.
(Most of Apple's money is iOS and more precisely, iPhone.)

The Mac hasn't been a cash cow at Apple for over a decade.
At best it is a legacy product line, at worst an afterthought.
It rates just ahead of the non-touch iPods and AppleTV.

Apple could lose the entire Mac business and they wouldn't blink.
Stock price might even go up.

(When I use weasel words it's to simply the discussion. In this case: no Mac, no XBOX or MS mice and keybiards. No need to bring in the outliers; Apple is 99% entertainment and fun--even the phones. MS is mostly business.)

[pl001]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

EDIT: Reply deleted.

Never mind. I read the posts that surround my own and this thread has turned into a brand war, with people more interested in defending or attacking corporate entities (or accusing me of attacking them unfairly) with unproven generalizations than actually having a meaningful discussion.

I will not continue to pour gasoline on this carnival. Have at it, kids.

So you call somebody ignorant, yet get offended by the responses. You post examples to support your point, then when engaged on those points you claim it isn't relevant to your thesis. When your thesis itself is engaged, you say you didn't realize what was being discussed, this is a "carnival", and we're "kids" not worthy of your time.

I guess I don't have anything more to say to that. Have a good weekend.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by Shane R

Apple isn't like those other companies. Even with off the shelf parts, it's PC products are more boutique than commodity because the people that want them really want them and there's only one place and one price that will provide them. That brand loyalty has been around for decades and it's PC business is profitable because of it.

Its market may reduce from it's current size, but i think they are developing the same sort of audience for their idevice lines. I know lots of people who want a bigger screen but say they will wait for Apple to make one instead of moving to something available right now.

Yes, but being boutique is largely a perception, not reality. As you mention they use mostly "off the shelf" parts that are available to anybody. What they do is take those parts and make a compelling package out of them. Well, anybody can do that, it's just nobody has had much success making inroads. At some point somebody will. In fact I'd say they are today as there are numerous premium mobile devices on the market right now. Will Apple's piles of cash be enough to survive if they continue to not keep up with the market? For a good amount of time I'm sure.

Indeed they have always been like this, and they have struggled mightily at times because of it. Today as I mentioned they have far more cash to offset a downswing, but once you lose mindshare it is very difficult to earn it back. Palm, Blackberry, Microsoft, etc have all learned this. Only Microsoft survived, and only because of their diversification.

That's the whole point here...I have been saying since page 1 that Apple is not Microsoft because despite perception Microsoft is still growing and making money. They are very different from Apple and the analyst that prompted this thread is nothing more than a blowhard whose main purpose is creating click-bait.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pl001

IE has some issues, and being locked into it is the reason I'll probably never buy another RT product. But at least I can use the whole web with it. And to claim it is "abandoned" is ridiculous. For one, it's a free product. Yeah, so you have to update to a "new" OS that is over 4 years old to use the latest version. Like no other software would ever require you do that.

Microsoft is far from perfect, but let's try keeping things in perspective here.

It was specifically stated that the old versions are abandoned. All the people who are using perfectly functional WinXP computers have no choice but to install a real browser. Because IE8 is not a real browser today...

Chrome and Firefox don't require you to 'update to a "new" OS that is over 4 years old to use the latest version', which is all that really matters in this case.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And older versions of IE are still supported by Microsoft with the exception of IE versions 2.0-5.1 for Macintosh and IE 5.2 for for Mac OS X which have been supported for years after their release regardless of their success.

What exactly do you mean by supported???

Support for old software is defined by the presence of updates, which for IE would be the IE 9, 10, and now 11 updates. How do you "support" an old version, is this like supporting Firefox 3.0 or something? Oh yay, Microsoft still "supports" Internet Explorer 2.

Microsoft does not "support" IE8, they support IE, and only on Win7&8.

---

The fact that they'd discriminate based on which version of the OS you have is frankly, asinine. And it is no matter what company does it.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

(When I use weasel words it's to simply the discussion. In this case: no Mac, no XBOX or MS mice and keybiards. No need to bring in the outliers; Apple is 99% entertainment and fun--even the phones. MS is mostly business.)

I'm not so sure I'd consider XBOX, Bing, Windows, SkyDrive, etc "outliers". Although I agree business is their bread and butter, and they have recently been struggling with mobile devices, there is little doubt they are serious about the consumer side of things. I think the pieces are in place to start to see success, but it could be too late. They very well could end up more along the lines of IBM, still large and successful but largely out of the public eye.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It was specifically stated that the old versions are abandoned. All the people who are using perfectly functional WinXP computers have no choice but to install a real browser. Because IE8 is not a real browser today...

Chrome and Firefox don't require you to 'update to a "new" OS that is over 4 years old to use the latest version', which is all that really matters in this case.



What exactly do you mean by supported???

Support for old software is defined by the presence of updates, which for IE would be the IE 9, 10, and now 11 updates. How do you "support" an old version, is this like supporting Firefox 3.0 or something? Oh yay, Microsoft still "supports" Internet Explorer 2.

Microsoft does not "support" IE8, they support IE, and only on Win7&8.

---

The fact that they'd discriminate based on which version of the OS you have is frankly, asinine. And it is no matter what company does it.

You two are confusing "support" with "supply the latest version of the software". Yes, you need to upgrade a 12 year old OS to get the newest version.

But yes, point taken, IE is not "supported" as well as Chrome or Firefox in that regard. But keep in mind all the major browsers are free so it's not a hardship by any means.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I forgot nothing.

Read again: I explicitly said cash cows.
(Most of Apple's money is iOS and more precisely, iPhone.)

The Mac hasn't been a cash cow at Apple for over a decade.
At best it is a legacy product line, at worst an afterthought.
It rates just ahead of the non-touch iPods and AppleTV.

Apple could lose the entire Mac business and they wouldn't blink.
Stock price might even go up.

(When I use weasel words it's to simply the discussion. In this case: no Mac, no XBOX or MS mice and keybiards. No need to bring in the outliers; Apple is 99% entertainment and fun--even the phones. MS is mostly business.)

This is how one knows that a discussion is moving in a constructive direction: When people focus on points of clarity rather than defenses and self-vindication.

My point about your previous point was that you focused on the idea of Apple users as a homogeneity of shallow awe. Like you, I'm not using harsh words to criticize an opponent's imagined attitude but to explain a point of disagreement.

First, I don't agree that mac laptops are irrelevant. We've been talking about them all along and they're still viable. I can agree with you about the Mac Pro.

Second, saying that Apple hardware is not essential to any business and that its user base isn't driven by need is saying that none of the artists and writers I know matter because they aren't real business people and aren't really dependent on macs for making a living.

The error is associating a mindset, attitude and IQ level with a product, as if said product revealed anything significant about the person who used it. Personal analysis by product choice is the phrenology of capitalism. I'm not saying this because I think you're guilty of dismissing artists' intelligence and depth by design. I'm saying that that's what the argument itself implies.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pl001

You two are confusing "support" with "supply the latest version of the software". Yes, you need to upgrade a 12 year old OS to get the newest version.

But yes, point taken, IE is not "supported" as well as Chrome or Firefox in that regard. But keep in mind all the major browsers are free so it's not a hardship by any means.

Very well then, how do you define support?

And why is it so obvious to you that older OS versions don't deserve the latest version of a software that is fully capable of running on the older system? I would understand if a program is simply too resource-intensive/complex/requires libraries not available for older systems/something, but if Chrome and FF both find it technologically feasible to support WinXP, then Microsoft can do it so.

The only reason they don't is because of politics! Why?