Opinion: Apple -- Here to Stay

MacCentral ^ | March 08, 2005 | Don Tennant

[r5boston]

Nearly a decade ago, just a few months after Microsoft shipped Windows 95, I asked Bill Gates if it was a conscious decision in the development of that product to give Windows more of a Mac look and feel. Of course I knew he'd say it wasn't, but I couldn't resist asking. "There was no goal even to compete with Macintosh," Gates proclaimed. "We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."

That was a crock, so I pressed the issue a little. I asked him how he accounted for the widespread perception that Windows 95 looked a lot like Mac 88, and whether the similarity was just a coincidence. I didn't expect a sobbing confession of mimicry, but I thought it would be cool to see how he'd respond. Surprisingly enough, Gates shifted gears and became more forthcoming.

[MikefromOhio]

Apple is good. Microsoft is the one on the ropes right now. with Linux coming on and with Apple (which is a UNIX base anyway) still taking a quarter to a third of the market alone, Microsoft is feeling the squeeze....

[Squawk 8888]

"We don't even think of Macintosh as a competitor."

Probably true. If I had a 95% market share and the other guy had 5% and charged twice as much I wouldn't think of him as a competitor either.

[Mr. K]

Apple did things first and did them well and did them right.

EXCEPT when PC's started selling for $2500 Mac's stayed at $4500

when pcs went to 1500 mac were 2500

now pcs are 450 and macs are still AT LEAST twice that.

Not only that, but anyone could program a PC- Mac stayed proprietary.

Anyone at mac have a clue why Macs (with their superior software) never topped PC's? No, they probably still dont

[bkepley]

Coming from a Magazine called Macworld I'd call this a block-buster news item. Has Drudge posted it yet?

[Bush2000]

No offense, but any assertion that Linux and Macs are taking a quarter market share from M$ is just delusional...

[knittnmom]

Curiously enough, shares of Apple (AAPL) are trading higher today than shares of Microsoft (MSFT).

[bigsigh]

There were two turning points as I recall. When apple decided to protect the operating system and when Jobs treated Gates badly in their face-to-face in the 80s. I think it was amazing that Gates kept developing Mac software and even put millions into apple.

I'm a macaholoc since 1985, but the company hasn't always been the best biz brain on the block. Riding the crest now, so we'll look to the future. But I think Gates will be there too. LOL!

[MikefromOhio]

sure thing man....whatever you say...

if you count the IPod, it does. Easily.

You know Microsoft had to ban them in their corporate headquarters right?

I am a Windows administrator and I think that Macs are better so what does that tell you?

[anonymoussierra]

Many persons do not know this Wozniak is polish Wozniak help Stafan Jobs Thank you

[SteveBosell]

I may be wrong on this, but I think the only reason Gates put millions into Apple was that if Apple went bust, anti-trust claims against him would be all the stronger.

[bikepacker67]

if you count the IPod, it does. Easily.

You know Microsoft had to ban them in their corporate headquarters right?

Not only that... their trying to ban them from their new operating system (Longhorn)

[Cosmo]

Well, it will be interesting to see what the E-mac does. I suspect alot of people who bought cheap Dells will be jumping at the chance to use their monitors with a $450 machine the size of a kleenex box.

[bigsigh]

sounds familiar. I used to be on top of all this stuff, but now I'm just freeping along.

[MikefromOhio]

I'd believe it....

and they have to know that people like me and others will find a way to hack it or get some 3rd party software to make it work....

[antiRepublicrat]

now pcs are 450 and macs are still AT LEAST twice that.

Well, crap PCs are $450. Decent ones still cost more, and counting all of what you get they often cost more than a Mac.

BTW, Apple now does make a $500 computer.

Not only that, but anyone could program a PC- Mac stayed proprietary.

Anyone could always program a Mac, since it's the hardware that's proprietary. Although now days most of the stuff in the box (memory, hard drives, etc.) is standard PC hardware, and Apple was the first to push universal connectors like USB and Firewire.

Anyone at mac have a clue why Macs (with their superior software) never topped PC's?

Because IBM, with its huge market power, pushed the PC to dominance in the business community. Then Compaq reverse-engineered the BIOS, allowing anyone to make a PC, thus cutting the price.

[antiRepublicrat]

Not only that... their trying to ban them from their new operating system (Longhorn)

They're just putting in a good corporate security feature, since it's easy to steal data with storage devices getting as small as they are. My current 1 GB USB key is smaller than an early 90s 1 MB memory chip.

[HAL9000]

now pcs are 450 and macs are still AT LEAST twice that.

That's not correct. The newest Macs cost $499, and they're selling fast.

[calex59]

Ok, enough with the stuff about Microsoft stealing windows from MAC. Apple stoled it first. This is a fact and is well known in the computer industry. What goes around comes around. Macs may or may not catch up with PCs, I don't know. I will stick with my PC because I am waiting for Linux to get really user friendly and then I will switch permanantly. I have one computer dedicated to Linux but don't feel it is worth the hassle right now to keep messing with it so it will do what I want. Soon, real soon, linux will be a big competitor to Windows.