Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer shills Windows 7 on U.S. national TV in front of Apple Mac (with video)

Mac Daily News ^ | 10/24/2009

[Swordmaker]

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer appeared on NBC's Today Show on Thursday to shill his company's Vista service pack, er, "Windows 7" and spent the entire segment in front of an older model (note the latches above the screen) Apple MacBook Pro (courtesy of an NBC graphic designer — Mac user, no doubt — who must have a wicked sense of humor):


Direct link to video via Hulu here.



Of course, it's easy to run Windows 7 (or any other Windows version, Linux, etc.) and non-Mac applications on OS-unlimited Macs natively (via Apple's Boot Camp) and/or via fast virtualization (VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop for Mac) which is just another reason to Get a Mac. But, Ballmer T. Clown doesn't like that concept very much at all (a href="http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9412/">Couldn’t you just buy a Mac and run Windows? Microsoft CEO Ballmer: ‘No, we prefer real PCs’) because he knows that when people get a Mac and really begin to use it, they never want to boot up Windows again if they can help it. Then they start to use iWork in place of Office and... suffice to say, it's bad for Microsoft's sales. Microsoft banks on ignorance; without it, they have nothing.

MacDailyNews Take: It must suck to work for Microsoft where important details routinely go left unchecked and, no matter where in the world you go, you're constantly surround by professionals who all use Apple Macs. Plus, every time you try to promote your inferior products, Apple's keep showing up in your TV appearances and even in your sloppy company's own ads that are, of course, also creating on Macs.

[discostu]

The product I work on works full time, it’s not an OS or anything similar so there’s no virus or bot problem.

MS has a lot of reasons they’ve come this far. They’ve actually got some really good products, and not that many people are switching.

I haven’t spread anything malicious or incorrect. Simply having a little discussion that started off with whether or not Gates is annoyed at those “I’m a Mac” ads and then took a turn into things like profit margins and why Apple’s is higher per sale than any of the PC makers, a discussion that was quite enjoyable for the most part. And then you showed up and started throwing insults and showed once again why so many people refer to Mac users as cultists. Now if can’t post like a grown up and keep the insults to yourself in the next one don’t bother. And since when did Gamestop MAKE software used by 480 of the Fortune 500?

[WVKayaker]

POS Checkout, dude. You tell us how good Microsucks is, but don't use them?

Opiniolns are like a-holes. Everybody's got one...

Get a Mac and never go back!

[discostu]

Well now we know you’re incapable of discussing anything like an adult. Bye bye, have a nice life, don’t bother to post back, I don’t read posts from 12 year-olds.

[WVKayaker]

Bye bye, have a nice life, don’t bother to post back, I don’t read posts from 12 year-olds.

I thought I was posting to a 12 year old! I'll have nicer life when dweebs who make caustic statements stop being so defensive when they speak from a "supposedly" powerful situation. Why is it necessary to defend MS irrationally, if they are so great? My guess it is a matter of Apple being squarely over the target, and pounding the hell out of them! YMMV.

[Swordmaker]

name 3 companies that sell Macs for less than Apple? If you don’t have at least 3 companies trying to under cut your prices then you don’t have any competition on price, which frees you up to have a much higher per sale profit margin. THAT is what I said. That is what you’re avoiding dealing with by lying about what I said. Don’t lie about what I said.

I am not lying. You are obfuscating the issues by trying to define non-existent economic markets to argue your points. That's false to fact and evidence.

With your "name 3" challenge, you, AGAIN, want to limit the personal computer market in which Apple Macs compete to ONLY MACS. That is not the case. There is no such thing as a Mac market. Apple Mac is merely a brand and model name of a personal computer. Your strawman argument and challenge is absurd because you it's based on the false premise that there is a separate, distinct open market called the Mac Market. There is not—and the courts have ruled there isn't. No market is defined by brand. You could just as easily challenge someone to name 3 companies selling Mercedes for less than Mercedes... and be just as wrong. Or how about a challenge to find 3 companies that sell IBM brand Mainframe computers for less than IBM. You can dance around and shout as much as you want that Apple has no competition on price, but you are still WRONG. Let's fix your challenge:

"Name 3 companies that sell Macs personal computers for less than Apple?"

There, that's now correct and not begging the question.

So here is the answer to the correct question: Dell, HP, Toshiba.

Psystar, like you wanted to artificially define a "Mac OS X Market" that was separate from the products produced by the maker of Mac OS X which Apple was operating in as an illegal monopoly. Federal Judge Alsup tossed that theory out as absurd and frivolous, denying it entirely, ruling that no company can be an illegal monopoly in their own product line. He further ruled that there was no such thing as the "Mac OS X computer market" that Psystar claimed existed that they were free to compete in. Psystar then tried to maintain that Apple was operating as an illegal monopoly in the "$1000 and over Personal Computer Market" as though mere price could define a market. Judge Alsup tossed that absurd theory out on its ear as well. These claims have been judged and found wanting and are now res judicata. What is now at issue in the 9th Circuit Courtroom of Judge Alsop is Psystar's novel contention that Apple is abusing its copyright rights in deciding how its product, Mac OS X, is distributed. That's a real hard thing for Psystar to prove because it is one of the copyright owner's specified rights as enumerated in the Copyright laws.

Apple Macs do not have to compete against somebody else's Macs... because Macs are THEIR products. Apple Macs are competing against ALL personal computers... and in particular they are competing against all personal computers in the mid and upper value segments, which are not discrete markets.

[discostu]

On the price level Macs do only compete with Macs. They compete with PCs on CONTENT, but once the person has decided they want a Mac they’re buying from Apple at Apple’s prices with no ability to get a better deal from somebody else. Which means Apple faces no price competition, which means they get to have higher profit margins.

I don’t even understand why you’re arguing this. YOU are the one that mentioned their higher per sale profit margin. And anybody who’s even read the World Book bio on Adam Smith knows the primary market force that allows a company to have a higher per sale profit margin is lack of downward price pressure from competition. It’s not a bad thing, it’s not a hit on Apple, it’s a simple market reality.

[antiRepublicrat]

but once the person has decided they want a Mac they’re buying from Apple at Apple’s prices with no ability to get a better deal from somebody else.

There are a lot of non-Apple Mac resellers.

Downward price pressure from competition would come from a PC that's as good as a Mac, including the overall experience from purchasing, to unboxing, to setting up, to using to support.

[discostu]

Resellers are different though. They’re not going to undercut Apple’s prices, not the way eMachine undercuts Dell. The “just as good” thing is entirely subjective. The Mac Cultists will never say PCs are anywhere near it, which is one of the reasons Macs and PCs really don’t compete with each other, too much religious belief on the Mac side. PCs behave very nicely for me, nicely enough that I’ve never even contemplated switching, because I experience exactly none of the problems the Mac crowd says they fled PCs to avoid.

[antiRepublicrat]

They’re not going to undercut Apple’s prices, not the way eMachine undercuts Dell.

Now you're talking two different manufacturers, and we're back to the fact that Apple competes with Dell and eMachines.

The Mac Cultists will never say PCs are anywhere near it, which is one of the reasons Macs and PCs really don’t compete with each other

They competed in my case, where I bought my first Mac instead of a new PC a couple of years ago.

[2111USMC]

all Windows and one that is a six year old Dell.

My home computer is a 14 year old Dell with dual processors and an aftermarket video card running on W2K Pro.

Not counting the monitor, my total investment in this system is $75.00 (I built it by canabalizing parts).

[discostu]

Yes multiple manufacturers, like I’ve been saying for two days. But no Apple doesn’t compete in price with Dell and eMachine because Apple sells Macs and nobody else does. When somebody decides to buy a Mac they’re paying what Apple says they’ll pay, they can’t go find another manufacturer to undercut Apple’s price.

But they didn’t compete in price. Like I said way earlier, there’s three primary avenue of competition: content, price, service. Apple vs PC is entirely competition in content. PC manufacturer’s vs each other is a competition in price and service, which forces PC manufacturer’s prices down, which lowers their profit margins, which is a type of competition Apple doesn’t face, which is why their per sale profit margins are higher.

[antiRepublicrat]

When somebody decides to buy a Mac they’re paying what Apple says they’ll pay

Mac Mall sells at a bit of a discount.

they can’t go find another manufacturer to undercut Apple’s price.

Dell, HP, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc. Apple's competition for Macs is PCs, at least it appears so given their advertisements.

Apple vs PC is entirely competition in content. PC manufacturer’s vs each other is a competition in price and service,

Apple competes in all. The only thing here is that PC manufacturers have a common denominator in Windows. Therefore they can't use the OS as a differentiator, while Apple can. Meanwhile, Apple decided to use many things besides the OS itself as differentiators, while most of the PC OEMs decided to use price. Sony doesn't use price either.

[discostu]

But it’s NOT a different manufacturer. I can undercut a Dell price by nearly 50% by going to shopping around with other manufacturers. THAT is price competition, not Mac Mall.

Apple doesn’t compete with the PCs in price. If they did they’d be losing since they’re generally more expensive than anybody but Alienware. The PC manufacturers really can’t compete on anything but price, because they’re really selling the same machines with the same hardware and same OS. If you match the specs from one manufacturer to the other you’ll find the equipment is almost exactly identical, down to the part number of the Western Digital HDD, so they can’t compete on content, so they MUST compete on price.

[antiRepublicrat]

But it’s NOT a different manufacturer. I can undercut a Dell price by nearly 50% by going to shopping around with other manufacturers.

But you won't get a Dell.

Apple doesn’t compete with the PCs in price.

They do in the higher end of the market. A high-end Mac Pro is competitive with the Dell workstations. And Sony competes mostly in Apple's range of laptops, in fact many are more expensive than the Apple equivalents.

The PC manufacturers really can’t compete on anything but price

Sony competes on quality, service and design. Dell is trying to compete on Apple's level with their new small notebooks and all-in-ones. They're not doing so well though -- poor execution.

[discostu]

I’ll get a PC that has all the same parts in it as Dell, except for the ugly frontplate with the Dell logo. That’s what price competition is, same content, different price.

No Apple doesn’t. Because they’re selling completely different computers. Price competition is same product different price, Macs and PCs are different products, therefore they CANNOT compete on price.

[antiRepublicrat]

I’ll get a PC that has all the same parts in it as Dell, except for the ugly frontplate with the Dell logo. That’s what price competition is, same content, different price.

You seem to think content just means the exact parts in the machine. Guess what, people will pay more for a well-designed, well-engineered, well-supported product, all else being equal. This is a simple concept repeated in many other industries.

An iMac does not have the same "content" as a big box o' boards.

Macs and PCs are different products, therefore they CANNOT compete on price.

Yet they do. Just because Mercedes doesn't sell in the $12,000 range doesn't mean they don't compete on price against products in their range, like Lexus and Acura.

[discostu]

That is exactly what content means. It is just the parts. Design and engineer are part of content, support is on its own (that was the third avenue of competition).

You might finally be starting to get it, yes an iMac does not have the same content as the PCs, and subsequently when an iMac competes with PCs it is competing on the strength of their relative contents.

No they don’t. The have different content, they are competing on the content NOT the price.

And once again we’re to the point that I just don’t understand why you’re arguing this. I’m not saying anything bad about Apple or Macs, simply pointing out why Apple’s profit margins are higher. This is really simple basic economic stuff Smith pointed out centuries ago. If you don’t like it bust out with the Ouija board and take it up with him.

[SunkenCiv]

Nope. It has to do with your hatred of Apple and its products, and has nothing to do with anything else. That’s clear from the constant shifts in your so-called arguments. If Apple painted them blue, you’d say it’s because they’re blue. If Apple made them out of solid gold, you’d say it’s because they’re solid gold.

[discostu]

I don’t hate Apple. Nothing I’ve said in the discussion of their competition has even the slightest anti-Apple implication. And I haven’t shifted my argument in the slightest, my argument from the first was that they get a higher profit margin because they don’t have anybody trying to undercut their prices. And the fact that the Apple heads somehow thinks that’s bad just shows what a creepy cult you guys are. There’s nothing wrong with not having any price competition.

[antiRepublicrat]

yes an iMac does not have the same content as the PCs, and subsequently when an iMac competes with PCs it is competing on the strength of their relative contents.

I think I see where you're going. But the problem is that there are other PCs that have high-speed cases and decent engineering, and they're pretty expensive, too, as I mentioned with Sony. Apple competes with those. Apple also competes directly with the Dell workstations, where Apple actually comes out lower in price in many cases. Apple also has a better overall deal against Dell's all-in-one.

Apple basically doesn't compete in two areas in the consumer computer market: The low-cost computer and the high-end but sub-workstation desktop. The former because they don't want to play in the high-volume, low-margin market, and the latter because they can't cram that much performance in their chosen consumer desktop enclosure.

Companies often set up their markets according to how they want to make a profit and how they want to be viewed. Over in Germany if you discount the crazy exchange rate (but include the 19% tax), the low-end Mercedes is a 1.6 liter diesel A-Class for about an $18,000 equivalent to a German. Here it starts at a 3 liter C-Class (two steps up in Germany, they have a B-Class) for over $33,000. In Germany Mercedes is known to make everything from small cars to delivery vans to buses. Here they're just the luxury car maker, and Mercedes doesn't want to compete under their name in the low-end market segment here.

Apple doesn't want to compete in the low-end market segment anywhere.