Eating Crow Ping!
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 08/26/2009 10:20:19 AM PDT by Star Traveler
The iPhone & Steve Ballmer: It’s Time For Him To Eat Some Serious Crow
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
There are very few people in the tech world who annoy me quite like Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. It’s not just that he’s loud, dismissive and arrogant. It’s that he manages to be all these things while usually being spectacularly wrong, especially when it comes to Apple. Take for example his thoughts on the iPhone from a USAToday article in 2007:
“There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance,” said Ballmer. “It’s a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I’d prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.”
As you might imagine, I experienced a moment of pure schadenfreude last week when Canalysis senior analyst Pete Cunningham announced that not only did the iPhone have 13.7% of the global smartphone market, but that it had surpassed Windows Mobile devices which had slipped to only 9%. Even worse for Microsoft is the fact that in the last 2 years, Apple has sold more iPhones than all the Windows Mobile devices from all its vendors combined.
I can only imagine that somewhere in Redmond, behind a very heavy door…Steve Ballmer is throwing a good old-fashioned hissy fit, cursing Apple, sweating profusely and gnawing on the furniture.
The fact is that Microsoft has never truly understood Apple and that confusion has grown in part out of their unparalleled success with Windows. With Windows, Microsoft found a superior product in the Macintosh OS, produced a cheaper knock-off and then created a large ecosystem of partners for wide distribution and support. The result was global domination. Unfortunately, cheaper and more plentiful doesn’t automatically win in every situation. As computers sink into every facet of daily life and the costs of consumer technology continue to drop, more and more value is being placed on finding products which are easier, more capable or simple more enjoyable to use.
Microsoft was unable to stop the runaway success of the iPod and it’s looking more and more unlikely that they’ll be able to contain the growth of the iPhone either. Why? Because they cannot fathom a formula for success that isn’t a function of feature set divided by price. It’s how they think and it’s also how they ultimately view the products they compete against. No wonder Ballmer spends so much time shouting at the rain. From his perspective, anyone who willingly pays more for the same features is a brainwashed idiot. What he doesn’t understand is that the experience of a product is more than the sum of its component parts. It’s how the device works, how it feels and even more elusively, how it makes you feel. Can you think of a Microsoft product that is truly a joy to use? I don’t mean one that works well, because many of their products work well enough. I mean one that is a joy to use. Neither can I. That’s because Microsoft isn’t in the joy business. They’re in the “nearly as good for less” business and that isn’t an appeal to the heart. It’s an appeal to the wallet.
So Mr. Ballmer, here’s some friendly advice. The next time you feel yourself ready to mouth off about how Apple is doomed to fail because it doesn’t understand the realities of the marketplace, take a moment and think about Windows Vista and the fact that roughly 50% of Apple Store customers are new to the Mac. Think about sales figures for the Zune as compared to the iPod. Think about the millions of people ditching their Windows Mobile devices for an iPhone. Think about the $35 Billion that a zero-debt Apple has sitting in the bank and all the money it continues to make made through this harsh economic downturn. Then if you’re still confident that you’re the smart one and Apple is the delusional one, then by all means have your say.
Just understand that with your miserable track record in predicting Apple’s future, there’s an excellent chance that you’ll end up eating your own words. Better make sure they’re palatable.
Tell me: what applications can I get for my Motorola Razr?
Answer: next to none, what exists is crippled and painful to obtain.
If you are trying to use a Moto Razr to compete with smartphones, then you are clueless.
How is that CD player you bought doing with DVD's?
I bet that gave you a heart attack! LOL...
“Apple” and “Synergy” — synonyms of each other... :-)
Synergy (from the Greek syn-ergos, meaning working together) is the term used to describe a situation where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome. Simply defined, it means that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy
Synergy for Apple — does result in the sum of the parts being greater than individual pieces.
Microsoft is the only company who specializes making the sum of the parts less then the individual pieces... LOL...
While we’re having a vigorous debate about iPhone vs. Windows, let me toss this tangent in:
I’m sitting here with a 3GHz 4GB quad-core dual-head Dell PC, only slightly behind the bleeding edge of the desktop PC experience. I’m listening to music via Windows Media Player.
Two issues leap out:
1. The darn thing SKIPS/STUTTERS every few seconds! WTH?
2. To avoid blowing my eardrums out via normal headphones, the volume is set to about 1% of maximum. 1%!
This is among the simplest of modern applications: playing MP3 music thru headphones - yet MS can’t even get that right! Stuttering? Ear-shattering default volume? C’mon MS, _get_it_right_already_!
Funny, my iPod & MacBook gets it right. Hit “play” and everything works the way I expect.
Attention to detail. Little things make/break the user experience. Make it, they’ll buy more; break it, they’ll go elsewhere.
You said — Attention to detail.
—
Steve Jobs is famous for that, and is the “terror of Apple” in that regard... has a lot of employees quaking in their boots because of it... :-)
But, he seems to know when that detail is important and essential and “it works” as you say...
I don’t think MS makes those. Logitech does and MS brands them.
Fine. Nit-pick my example instead of answering the main point.
Tell me what smartphone has a selection of applications which competes with the iPhone AppStore in:
- quantity (vs. 50,000 apps)
- quality (vs. any “good” iPhone app, like Pandora, BulletFlight, Doom Resurrection, etc.)
- price (vs. LOTS of free apps, $3 normal, most under $10)
- installation (vs. AppStore->pick app->Buy->Install, running within 1 minute)
- development (vs. free programming suite)
- distribution (vs. $0-99 + 30% price to sell on AppStore)
- satisfaction (vs. lots of free MSM drooling)
How is that smartphone you bought doing with its apps?
I’ve got 25 apps in common use on my iPod Touch.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Why do I have a PC? Because I could buy a PC laptop, an ipod, and still have money left over for tuition!
I have wondered why that fact has been ignored while people gush over the phenomenal success of Apple. They wouldn’t have even been around if Gates hadn’t bailed them out.
That never happened. Microsoft paid $150 million as part of a LAWSUIT settlement that they LOST. In addition to buying $150 million of Apple three year restricted, preferred stock, they were required by the terms of the settlement to license TO Apple certain software patents and copyrights in perpetuity at no cost to Apple, and maintain development and shipment of Office for Mac for an additional five years.
Apple, for its part of the settlement, agreed to license TO Microsoft certain software patents and copyrights for a period of three years for a yearly licensing fee to be paid by Microsoft and to include a free copy of Internet Explorer for Mac on the default Mac OS install disk along with Netscape Navigator for a period of five years.
Microsoft sold the preferred stock on the open market as soon as it was out of restriction. They made a nice profit. I heard they sold it for around $700 million.
Apple was never “wildly successful” until they came out with the iPod. Good for them. It’s a greate product.
Actually, at one time Apple had over 23% of the world wide personal computer market with their combined Apple II and Macintosh lines in 1984. Compared to other makers that could be considered "wildly successful."
BS, Sysample. Apple had over 1.2 billion dollars in CASH when Microsoft STOLE the code for Quicktime... and wound up having to pay them to license it AND to pay $150 million in addition. Apple was never in any danger of closing its doors.
You haven't recalled correctly. Apple makes the bulk of their money on their computer sales. You can make a lot more on a $1000 sale than you can on a $100 sale. That may be changing now with the revenue stream from the iPhones coming in.
Also it lets me do voice activated Google searches.
Also, I can get Rush on it just about anytime I want.
It's pretty cool
I can do those with my Blackberry Storm too.
I’d place more stock in the article if it didn’t come from a Mac site. Mac cultists are rarely objective.
You of course have a point - but you will I hope agree that an article listed as being by the "Editor of MacRevu" is already more objective, just by wearing its perspective on its sleeve, than Associated Press "objective" journalism is.Subjectivity is the assumption of your own objectivity. It is difficult to isolate in your own thinking because you wouldn't write anything if you actually didn't think that you were right. But at least you can call yourself a conservative before you rant about "liberals." And in fact you do that by the mere act of posting to this web site.
Star, how do you connect to the tv?
ampu
Because that isn’t what happened maybe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.