How will Apple react to Vista?

TG Daily ^ | February 2, 2007 | Rob Enderle

[ShorelineMike]

A big week for Microsoft is winding down - the company's first new operating system in five years has made its debut without major hiccups. It was a launch as typical as it can get for Microsoft and very different than one of those Apple product announcements. Get the background launch story and how Apple's Vista reaction could look like.

You have to admit the PC guy probably does more positive for Microsoft's image than anything Microsoft has done for the PC in a long time. But Microsoft has brought out Vista, the first really new operating system since Apple launched OS X and that means things should get rather heated going forward.

As promised we'll take a look at the Vista launch and compare it to an Apple event and then we'll chat about the rumored response Apple is supposedly cooking up to spoil Microsoft's party. Oh, and yes, we'll chat a bit about Vista someplace in the middle.

Vista launch: It sure wasn't an Apple event

I was talking to another analyst about this and he probably said it correctly. When Apple does a launch event Steve Jobs takes special interest and personally has a great deal to do with the staging, something he is incredibly good at. For Microsoft, they contract it out and you often wonder if the folks that designed the event either understood or cared about what it was they were launching. Microsoft's events tend to be parties bracketed by stunts designed to make people remember the name so surveys testing name recognition show improvement.

Apple, on the other hand, does events designed to sell products and the most recent example was their launch of the iPhone which virtually overwhelmed everything at CES and caused Apple's stock price to spike. This is a good example of doing an event that has a clear purpose and goal to sell product vs. doing one where the goal is visibility.

Now it may actually be kind of smart to do this with a Microsoft OS launch. The biggest problems with upgrades and migrations to a new OS occur in the first three months and things get vastly better after that as fixes are created for OS and application migration issues and more and more people are embraced by these fixes. If you realize that something like a billion PCs run some version of Windows, then, say even a 10% initial migration would be 100 million folks or 2.5 times Apple's estimated entire installed base of Macs. If only 1% of those folks had problems, and typically it will be much more than this, you would have 1 million people in dire need of help and there is no support organization or combination on the planet that could handle that kind of load over a short period of time.

This initial sales spike for Windows 95 nearly shut down Microsoft support and partially resulted in sales that were estimated to be only 50% of potential over the first year. This would suggest a softer launch would be better for a stronger first year sales ramp.

If Vista eases into the market, then the techies get it first and they, by nature, become part of the virtual support organization that updates to both Vista and the applications that run on it. In effect, the percentage of problems drops and the support capability of the market improves resulting in a sharp decrease of really upset people who can't get this product to work.

This could, and to be honest should, result in a more linear ramp for the product and a better overall experience for everyone involved. We'll try to revisit this at year end and discuss how it went.

Vista: When do you move?

Typically there are a couple of rules to moving to a new major OS release. The first is the migration gets much better, as I've noted, after the first three months because more of the third party applications have both migrated and been patched and because the drivers are more mature (both more reliable and better tuned).

The best experience will always be on new hardware and, if you bought a new PC last quarter, you probably already paid for a copy of Vista. This copy should come from the OEM designed specifically for the machine you purchased. Some will have them right away while others may take a few weeks to get it right. Trust me when I say it is better you get this right than get it early.

When you migrate, try the built-in Vista migration tool coupled with a migration cable. The Belkin Data Migration Cable for Windows Vista which costs under $50 seems to work fastest but you can also do the migration over your home network.

If you want to see just how much can be done automatically, the PCMover Application from Laplink actually moves many of the applications, you can get the download version for $50 and it should save you a lot of time. You will probably still need to upgrade these applications to their newest versions but this is arguably the simplest way to move to a new PC running Vista.

Is it worth it? That depends on you, I do identify with the PC guy in Apple's ads and it sure was worth it for me. But there is no need to rush, it isn't going anyplace. Some of us just like to get places first.

Apple's rumored response

With every major upgrade, there is a significant opportunity for a competitor to come in and steal market share and this one is no exception. At the Vista launch, there were folks chatting about Apple's supposed planned response to Vista and it could actually work.

If what they said is to be believed, Apple will come out in force when the most breakage is likely to occur and will roll against Vista with a campaign that targets this breakage and promises to give more benefit than Vista does without all of the pain.

Based on some informal sampling, if Apple was able to execute on such a campaign it could increase their market share by two points this year taking them to 6% of the market or nearly half again what they currently have.

Now because this is the slowest time of year for PC purchases in general that 2% may be conservative but the overall numbers sold won't be as impressive because they will be a fraction of what could have been sold had this occurred in the fourth quarter. Still, you play the cards you are dealt.

While I was thinking that the Super Bowl ad Apple is funding might kick this off, other industry observers who are likely better connected to Apple indicate that this will be a launch of the iPod based on the iPhone design instead. While I don't like the iPhone for a lot of reasons, an iPod based on that design could, if done correctly, get even me into the store wanting one. This is because most of the things that make the iPhone a bad phone simply don't apply to a device that doesn't need to be a phone in the first place.

Of course, if Apple does this after saying nothing about PCs during Steve's MacWorld address its going to cause folks to once again wonder if Apple is exiting the PC business. The other rumor was that Apple was going to license out their OS, that's been around for awhile and I still doubt that Steve would do that, but given the iPhone is actually a kind of a newer version of the Newton and we know Steve would never do that, maybe someone has upgraded his brain while he wasn't watching.

We'll see, regardless it may make the Super Bowl required watching for those of us that are more into tech than sports. I'm guessing even the PC guy from Apple's ads will be watching this game for that very reason.

[ByDesign]

"Then the nonsense about Microsoft stealing from Apple - when it was Apple that stole all its key ideas from Xerox in the first place."

Stuff and nonsense. The Mac project was being devloped concurrently with the Alto project at Xerox's PARC (Palo Alto Research Center, where they invented ethernet and the laser printer), and the people staffing both programs had done GUI research in college and regularly shared ideas previous to this. Apple's GUI paralled Xerox's efforts in many ways, but the major components of the Apple GUI was in place when the two demonstrations of the Xerox tech were done to sell the Mac to Jobs, who did'nt "get" the Mac yet.

Apple saw no code, there were major differences in the two GUIs, and Xerox lost their suit against Apple claiming they copied them. It was a proof of concept dog and pony show with a demo and Q&A session, that many, many other companies got.

Microsoft, however, had two prototype Macs and code so they could develop apps for it pre-release, and were working on Windows at the same time *in secret*. It was Jobs' own fault, for only requiring a verbal agreement from Gates not to copy them.

[ByDesign]

"Then neither would saying the same thing about Microsoft vis a vis Apple."

Apple paid for a proof of concept demonstration, saw no code, and the GUI was already establishd, and there were vast differences between the two. They paid for the demo with stock.

Microsoft had two prototypes, and *code*. They had it to develop apps, but not develop an OS.

There is a VAST difference between the two.

[KellyAdmirer]

Well, you have a good grasp of the intricacies of this. IBM wanted the Digital Research code, and got it by having Gates find some guy who basically had copied it and "improved" it. But whether or not the original code came from IBM, or Digital Research, or some guy living in a townhouse in Seattle isn't really the issue. The idea is that Gates built on that foundation, just as Jobs built on the foundation created by Xerox. I don't even see that there is a dispute about any of this - even the Apple people you quoted give due acknowledgement to Xerox.

[all_mighty_dollar]

Is McDonald's food superior due to "billions and billions" being served?

-------maybe?

Saturday, February 3, 2007 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

A bitter shot for Starbucks: McDonald's wins taste test

By Seattle Times staff and news services

NEW YORK — There's nothing average about the Joe at McDonald's.

The Golden Arches beat out java giants Starbucks and Dunkin' Donuts, along with Burger King, in a coffee taste test run by Consumer Reports magazine.

The magazine proclaimed McDonald's Premium Roast Coffee had "no flaws" and was easiest on the wallet.

"Try McDonald's, which was cheapest and best," Consumer Reports says in its March issue. "Or make your own coffee."

Of the four, McDonald's cost the least, $1.35, on average.....

Seattle Times

[nickcarraway]

I hyaven't had an unsatisfactory experience with XP. Does that make me a bad person?

[ByDesign]

"Everything done legally - and Microsoft hasn't "taken" anything from Apple.
Except that Apple took what Xerox showed them (in 16 hours with no code) and built upon that and built and built."

No, they did'nt, and it's well documented. Apple's GUI was already mostly done, the major parts worked out by the Mac team, who documented their work.

Try using and actual Alto, and a first Gen Mac, and you'll see how flat out wrong you are. Then read the material avaiable about the development of the Alto and the Mac, and the people involved, and then say Apple "stole" anything.

It's simply not true, and you make yourself a bigger fool every time you spout off about it.

[HAL9000]

I hyaven't had an unsatisfactory experience with XP. Does that make me a bad person?

That depends. Did you enter into some Faustian bargain to get it to work right? If not, you're in good shape.

[Swordmaker]

And another thing, quoting Apple people about how wonderful and original Apple is/was isn't going to impress anyone.

So Horn and Raskin are liars? They hold the patents on much of the GUI paradigm used by all computers today. I'd say that gives some weight and provenance to their comments.

Their statements are corroborated by many other sources, Kelly. If you won't believe the "horse's mouth" then you can go on and believe the myths you have been repeating. I lived through this time and was involved in computers and have talked directly to some of the people involved.

Technology is always built on the shoulders of those who went before.

Most people think that XEROX's PARC invented the Mouse. Nope, Douglas Engelbart at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) invented the Mouse in 1964, PARC people invented the use of a ball to transfer movement to Engelbart's wheels - an improvement that overcame some shortcomings in Engelbart's design:

The First Mouse - the "Bug"

Engelbart's Patent Application Drawing

Xerox didn't even invent the GUI, PARC's work on the GUI was built on research borrowed from SRI's work, which was built on a government project called SAGE... which in turn was built on ideas from Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad which was built on ideas from Vannevar Bush's MEMEX project... and probably built on something Leonardo Da Vinci drew back on the mid 1500s. ;^)>

The PARC people did phenomenally creative work... unfortunately not appreciated or backed by the Xerox management. But so did the people at Apple who were working on turning out a viable product... and succeeded phenomenally.

[MaxMax]

I like my apples Red,
without a wavy display screen.

[KellyAdmirer]

Even the Apple people quoted in post 86 of this thread aren't sure how much came from Xerox and how much was their own invention - yet you are positive it all came from Apple. Well, good for you. Xerox obviously took another position, which is why they sued, even if they did eventually lose. If you want to believe that Steve Jobs invented the universe, go ahead. Some of us know different.

[KellyAdmirer]

Nobody is calling anyone a liar. Where did you come up with that? Even the people you quote admit they "improved" on the ideas of others, or they don't recall who came up with what first, exactly. This is all getting bogged down in minutiae about who did what first, when the fact is that Apple built on the work of others, which was my original point. Period. Full stop.

[HAL9000]

I don't think Petronski is alleging that Apple stole their user interface from Xerox. He's actually quite Mac-friendly for a Windows guy, and he seems to respect Apple's accomplishments.

I agree about the Mac (and Lisa) GUI not resembling the Alto. There was a more superficial resemblance to the Xerox Star, but Apple added a lot of original concepts and refinements.

The real pioneers of the modern user interface were Vannevar Bush, Douglas Englebart and Ted Nelson, in my opinion. Everybody was influenced by them.

[Swordmaker]

Shipments of Macs in the U.S. also dipped significantly from 975,000 US systems to 808,000, indicating a genuine slowdown in sales for the Cupertino-based company....

Uh, All-Mighty? Quarter to quarter shipment changess are not that significant.

Look instead at year over year quarters. Apple shipped a total of 1,606,000 Macs in the 4th quarter (note, this is Apple's Fiscal 1st quarter), compared to 1,254,000 in the same quarter a year ago, an increase of 28%.

Apple ALWAYS sells more computers domestically in their 4th quarter (July-September) than in their 1st quarter (October-December) because it contains the domestic institutional sales to schools.

What IS significant is that this year Apple Inc. maintained the LEVEL of computer sales quarter over quarter from 4th to 1st... posting 1,610,000 Macs in the 4th Q and 1,606,000 in the 1st Q. That means that 1st Q foreign sales have increased by a large amount to compensate for the downtick in domestic sales.

[Swordmaker]

The idea is that Gates built on that foundation, just as Jobs built on the foundation created by Xerox. I don't even see that there is a dispute about any of this - even the Apple people you quoted give due acknowledgement to Xerox.

Of course they do. As do I. The point is that you started this discussion with the absurd statement:

"Then the nonsense about Microsoft stealing from Apple - when it was Apple that stole all its key ideas from Xerox in the first place."

Do you admit it was false? Especially that "all its key ideas" part? The facts are that there are significant differences and significant innovation in what the Macintosh team created.

[Swordmaker]

. . . yet you are positive it all came from Apple.

Please show me WHERE anyone on here wrote that? We just know it was not "stolen" from Xerox. Xerox SOLD whatever ideas and inspirations the Apple team took back to Apple for a very large amount. Apple BOUGHT what Xerox gave free to others who got similar tours.

[Swordmaker]

This is all getting bogged down in minutiae about who did what first, when the fact is that Apple built on the work of others, which was my original point.

May I suggest that in the future you choose your words more carefully than:

". . . when it was Apple that stole all its key ideas from Xerox in the first place. . ."

especially when you are posting to people who DO know the truth and are getting very tired of hearing the lie first spun by Bill Gates' spin factory repeated over and over again.

[Petronski]

...and then say Apple "stole" anything.

It would be a first for me, hotshot.

It's simply not true, and you make yourself a bigger fool every time you spout off about it.

Okay, now I understand the phrase "spout off" because I have seen you in action.

[Swordmaker]

Nobody is calling anyone a liar.

I quote you:

"And another thing, quoting Apple people about how wonderful and original Apple is/was isn't going to impress anyone."

You attack their accounts by saying their statements are not impressive... hinting to other readers that their statements should be discounted because they once worked for Apple. The strong implication is that they are not telling the truth.

[Petronski]

Sober up or come down and then reread the thread. Then tell me why you're so apoplectic about what I said.

[HAL9000]

What IS significant is that this year Apple Inc. maintained the LEVEL of computer sales quarter over quarter from 4th to 1st...

If I recall correctly, all of the PC clone manufacturers except for HP reported a decline in their Q3-to-Q4 shipments. Apple did well by maintaining their quarter-to-quarter level compared to Dell, Lenovo, Acer, etc.