What maicrosoft hasn’t figured out is that we wouldn’t be buyin gtheir crappy computers either, if we had a choice.
They cannot get a foothold in the android world because Android electronics are not 3 times the price
Windows took over because stupid steve jobs expected people to want to pay more for his stuff. He could have gone mass production and sold them at the same price Microsoft was selling DOS computers- and then HE would be the richest man in the world.
But they always (and still do) think they can sell things more expensive - and a lot of snobs prove them right every year.
I notice a lot of rich liberals have Mac items
Microsoft is going to have to dump the Windows brand on mobile devices. People say to themselves, “My Windows PC crashes all the time, gets viruses, spyware and crapware, and they want to put all that on a PHONE? NO THANKS!”
There is a lot of revisionist history in your post, Mr. K.
First of all, Microsoft NEVER manufactured or sold even one computer... not one.
Secondly, "stupid" Steve Jobs wanted to sell the 128K Macintosh computer, with integral monitor and floppy for $1495 but was overruled by the CEO of Apple, John Sculley, who wanted a larger margin and originally priced it at $1995, then raised it to $2495 for the 512K model.
Thirdly, in actual fact, the 16/32 bit Macintosh WAS competitively priced to other professional computers. In 1984, a bare bones, 8 bit 64K IBM DOS capable PC with monitor and a single floppy was selling for around $3000 in 1982/83, and had dropped to only around $2400 by the release of the Macintosh. A 640K IBM XT was released in March of 1983 and was selling for a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price of $4,995. In early 1983, Compaq released the first legal IBM clone at $3500 and maintained that price point. The Compaq DeskPro Model 1, with 128KB of RAM, one floppy, with no monitor, was released in June 1984, five months after the Mac, for a MSRP of $2495. The 16 bit IBM AT was not released until September of 1984 at a $4995 MSRP. AT clones followed at a lower price, but the entry level Mac was still less expensive. I bought one of the very first AT clones with 640K, 20MB HD, in 1984 for one of my clients, a month after IBM brought theirs to market, for $2795, a real bargain.
The reason that the Mac did not sell as many as the IBM and clones was the phrase "Nobody every got fired for buying IBM." Businesses used IBM... and the desktop IBM/Microsoft DOS computer moved into the business environment... and people bought what they knew at work, regardless of how well it really worked, or cost. It was only after 1990, when Steve Jobs was no longer at Apple and sub-$1000 bargain basement Wintel computers became readily available that a price differentiation was such a big deal.
Jobs returned to Apple in 1997 and proceeded to simplify the Mac line and reduce prices. As a result, Apple is now the number two corporation in the World by market cap and is rapidly closing on the number one, Exxon Mobile...
Apple has never played in the bargain basement...
> Windows took over because stupid steve jobs expected people to want to pay more for his stuff. He could have gone mass production and sold them at the same price Microsoft was selling DOS computers- and then HE would be the richest man in the world... But they always (and still do) think they can sell things more expensive - and a lot of snobs prove them right every year.
You seem to have no concept of why Apple does what they do, but sure are eager to condemn from a position of ignorance of their business. Fortunately, ignorance is simple to address with knowledge.
You might want to look up the phrases "business model" and "high-end retailer", and think about how they might apply to Apple. "Profitability" or "profit margin" too. Oh, and maybe look at Apple's stock performance over the past 10-15 years, compared to Microsoft's or nearly anyone else's in that industry.
Steve Jobs, whatever his other flaws, knows what business he is in. I suggest that you consider his success in that chosen market segment, before you condemn his reluctance to join the others in their race to the bottom.
> I notice a lot of rich liberals have Mac items
Perhaps, but more of them have Microsoft or other items. Apple almost never has a majority marketshare, except when they initiate or (re-)define the market for their items; and then they only lead in unit sales for a short time until cheaper competitors appear and eat the market out from below.
Really, this is not rocket science.