What the World Owes Microsoft
If you judged the popularity of OSes solely on the amount of coverage on the internet, you’d be hard pressed to reach the conclusion that Apple and Linux count for less than 10% of the market combined. An objective observer would probably peg the market split at somewhere around 40%, 30%, 30%.
There are reasons for the disparity between coverage and market share. Few are passionate about Windows, and since Windows is the default OS for the overwhelming majority of users, articles about alternatives have more appeal than yet another piece about ten ways to avoid spyware. Another contributing factor is, of course, the glacial delay between releases of Windows, how much more is there to say about Windows XP?
Windows is an easy target, the tech is a little outdated, everyone hates the big bully that is Microsoft, and people don’t see a legitimate choice in OSes. Hence, the antipathy towards Windows is understandable and, remembering some of the Redmond giant’s actions, justified. Those who don’t despise Microsoft are largely indifferent, the OS is just what ships with the computer after all, much like the coolant in your air-conditioning system. When you’re floating in the big sea of Windows apathy and the only rocky outcroppings visible on the horizon are craggy cliffs of Microsoft loathing it easy to forget all the great stuff Microsoft brought to the masses, things like the GUI and affordable computing.
Pure heresy you say? Time to step into the Apple Matters trolley to yesteryear and survey the computing landscape. Before Windows became ubiquitous, OSes were seen as something companies made to so the hardware would actually do something out of the box. The best illustration of this is Apple. While it would seem foolish now for one company to have multiple OSes that is precisely what Apple had with the Lisa, the Mac and the Apple II. Hardware wise the Lisa and the Mac were fairly close, close enough that unsold Lisas were sold as repackaged Macs, but they used incompatible OSes. The Apple II was still a big seller and that machine shipped with a different OS altogether.
So, from a single company, there were three OSes. If you bought a Lisa you had the Lisa OS, if you bought a Mac you got Mac OS and if you bought an Apple II you had the command line. Apple was not atypical in this regard, every manufacturer had some odd and semi useless OS. Most were shells for running DOS programs but they were all a little different and most were pitched as providing an advantage over the competition.
This is the point where Microsoft got innovative. Seeing the Mac as the most consumer friendly computer around Bill Gates decided he wanted to port the Mac experience to the PC. Microsoft begged Apple to license the software, Apple declined. Knowing the future when he it saw Gates set the Microsoft minions to the task of making the best copy of the Mac OS they could. It took a few tries, Windows 1.0 was laughable but Windows 3.0 was getting close. Windows ‘95? The proverbial nail in the coffin.
The best thing about Windows was that it would run on just about any PC compatible (PC compatibles being defined as knock off of IBM computers), and PC compatibles were cheap. Where an original Mac cost $2500, a PC compatible cost half as much. But those machines didn’t have a reasonable copy of the Mac GUI so Apple was able to make hay for a few years, few thought it would last. The notable exception? Apple, who enjoyed the 400% markups too much to consider doing things another way.
In 1990 Windows 3.0 was released. PCs still cost half as much as a Mac but they now had a semi-competitive GUI. Computer prices had dropped to the point where not only the elite and hobbyists would buy the things, computers were now within the reach of the middle class. But just barely, faced with the option of buying a PC or a Mac and already tight budgets most, the vast majority, opted for the PC. The situation is analogous to cars. Mercedes made cars before Ford, but Ford made cars for everyone. Who really empowered the movement of the average guy?
So we are faced with a choice: would it have been better to keep the Mac-like GUI restricted to only the well heeled or was it a better thing for the masses to be able to get their hands on a computer system that worked like a Mac? Keep in mind that before the Mac computers were hard to use, requiring cumbersome memorization of commands. By liberating the GUI from Apple Microsoft gave a vast number of people the ability to use a machine that would have been little more than a doorstop without the user friendly Windows. Sure, Microsoft ripped off the Mac interface but it democratized the computing experience and allowed the masses to participate.* Can that really be a bad thing?
*Even the ripping off aspect is questionable. While Windows is obviously derivative of the Mac, John Sculley exchanged a “perpetual, non transferable” license of Mac technology to Microsoft in exchange for a promises to upgrade Word for the Mac and not to ship Excel for Windows until October of 1986 (Excel, typically, shipped late anyway).
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
The guys that ran Apple at that time, Scully & Co., were pretty arrogant and short-sighted. How long did they think those 400% mark-ups would last. Apple’s “Think Different” campaign could have helped that crew.
By liberating the GUI from Apple Microsoft gave a vast number of people the ability to use a machine that would have been little more than a doorstop without the user friendly Windows. -C.S.
Most Mac faithfuls, including yours truly, do realize and give credit to M$ where credit is due. They were responsible for proliferating and making the GUI ubiquitous for all mankind to experience.
What ticks-off most Mac loyalists is about the way Bill & the gang perpetrated the whole scheme of domination. The way M$ made exclusive dealings and highly unethical business motives with all potential distributors of their sacred ripoff of the Mac GUI. Don’t tell me that because M$ implemented the Start button, it is an original idea. The Apple menu was the inspiration for Bill’s handymen.
Anyway, it is history and there is nothing else we can do but ponder “what if"s perpetually. All we can hope for is the devastation that Leopard and its future siblings will do to Vista and her tardy ways.
All we can hope for is the devastation that Leopard and its future siblings will do to Vista and her tardy ways.
I don’t think it’s a very laudable position to hope that one monopoly would be replaced by another. Instead, I personally hope that Linux, OSS and enforced interopability will eventually make the need to align yourself with any empire a thing of the past.
I don’t think it’s a very laudable position to hope that one monopoly would be replaced by another. -Ben
I was not actually insunuating complete destruction of M$‘s >90% market share. That is totally impossible given the breath of saturation and penetration of Windows. All Leopard and its ilk may be able to achieve is a parity - say 30% OSX, 20% Linux, and 50% Windows.
And yes, another empire replacing a defeated empire leads to the same conclusion - customer dissatisfaction.
The past is the past plus here is the scenario:
#1 If Apple maintains even a notable market share throughout the 90’s (20-30%), there is almost no chance Apple would not have been bought by somebody - whether it was IBM or Toshiba or Canon or even HP - Apple would’ve been too tempting of a target.
#2 Even if MS never did anything illegal, it was and is simply better at selling to enterprise. That’s NOT a knock on Apple - just like MS cannot really sell to consumers (Win 95 their last real consumer successs), it’s just a cultural difference. Both are arrogant but MS’ arroagnce is that they believe they are smarter than you and will tell you what you need to buy. That’s perfect for selling to fellow bureaucrats (who also tell you tell what they wanaa buy, when and for how much). Apple’s arrogance is aloofness. Let me show you something (when I’m good & ready to show you). If you “get” it, you should probably buy one ... if you don’t get it, well, I’m not really going to work too hard to bring you up to speed. This is excellent for consumers who liked to be dazzled and wowed while not so much for enterprise bureaucrats who want everything triple signed.
And now? Their cultural & corporate philosophies will certainly hold for the time being ... the world has changed - no longer is the geek a guy with a pocket protector and thick glasses ... we all have a little geek in us now so MS is jealous at all the attention Apple gets. But basically they are the DMV of technology - get in line, we’ll give it you when we say - it’s like when the DMV starts up a service campaign on how ‘customer friendly,’ they are - it’s just awkward.
The Future? There really are three markets - enterprise, “embedded” and consumers. Enterprise will really be split between web-based (thin clients like PC’s), Windows and Linux. Yes, there will always be some mac sales but let’s face. Apple is really not that intrested. Yes, they’re ahppy to sell a couple million servers and some million high end desktops but they’re not going to create a massive enterprise selling infrastructure & employees. Again, Apple’s philosophy - they’ll create something cool (like the server) and if you like it great, a VAR will be ahppy to sell you one ... but we’re not going to print up a million brochures and invite you to golf.
Embeded (for lack of a better world) is the world of wedding kiosks, cash registers and “terminals.” Pretty much all Windows or going forward, web-based OS/app ... and some lInux. Other than macworld, very few major clients are going to use a mac as a “terminal.”
Consumer - that is the real fight. Apple has made some inroads in the high end notebook market and now that macs are the only computer to run the top three OSes ... there’s lots of room for growth.
We live in an ADD world ... te past is so 10-minutes ago
Look, as someone who fought through Netscape crashing all the time on Windows 3.1, and reinstalled Windows 95 probably 30 times on the same machine, I’m not too sure about the gift that Microsoft gave us. You can say that they made computing available to everyone, but they also made computers almost universially despised. Now people don’t clamor to get their hands on a computer unless it’s a Mac or something esoteric. Ford made cars for everyone, but even Ford diversified their line to include the Mustang, among other specialty cars. I doubt that Microsoft will be able to stare down true competition.
“OSS and enforced interopability”
Ben:
Enforced interoperability sounds a lot like legislated morality. Neither can work.
One can’t enforce interoperability in the computing world. We will only get interoperability when users demand it, and thus far, very few users demand it. I, for one, could care less whether my Keynote presentations work in any other program or OS. Even with the recent defections from OS X to Linux (which 1. Very few actually care about, and 2. Are meaningless in the real world outside of Mac punditry), most fall in line with “I don’t care about interoperability” camp. So long as companies, whether it be MS, Apple or others, create programs that work, people will not care about cross platform compatibility, and rightfully so. The market must decide this issue, not enforcements.
Whatever. I suspect that there will be a move towards common document format interoperability, if the EU has its way at least. Certainly, no company will be able to compete with Office if they are sued for compatiblity with its format. I suspect this has crossed legislators’ minds.
I find the sentiment people will not care about cross platform compatibility, and rightfully so incredible. What matters in the end—that is, what increases the quality of the users’ experience—is fair competition in the marketplace, which is very far from the case currently and for the last however-many years. If consumers are too short-sighted to see that a lack of interoperability is what locks them into buying Microsoft’s overpriced, bloated office applications, then it is absolutely central within the jurisdiction of ethical law-making to ensure that this is the case.
Or perhaps you think laws should actually be designed to be unethical?
While Windows is obviously derivative of the Mac… i’d say Windows copied all it could from Mac, remember, Steve Jobs studied typography (the thing that’s about all the variations between Sans and Serif) and later he implemented it in the Mac and windows copied it. If the question were what the world owes to Mac (or jobs) one important point would be computers with nice typos. And, i dont know what it has to do with the topic here but I kind of felt writing so.
But nana, the mac “copied” a great deal from xerox.
It’s share and share alike in this business, all that matters to me is who uses the ideas to come up with the better product.
(and a certain amount of ethics regarding monopolies/competition, the environment, etc)
So long as companies, whether it be MS, Apple or others, create programs that work, people will not care about cross platform compatibility, and rightfully so.
People don’t care about cross-platform compatibility because 90% of them use Windows/Office and already are compatible with just about everyone.
But as one who uses both a Mac and PC, I would love to give up the world of downloading/purchasing two versions of the same software IF two versions are even available.
As for the original question, I think the article sums it up. Microsoft’s motto was “a computer on every desktop.” And we wouldn’t be even almost there if Apple/Mac were the dominant system.
Ben,
I think you will find that Xerox received shares for their input and did pretty well out of the deal. They never tried to properly capitalise on their research.
If Windows did not become the de facto monopoly over a decade ago with Win95, I doubt Apple would have changed their Scully ways of sell as little but get fat profits in return.
I was once an Amiga owner and loved that A1000. The immediate result having the A500 and A1000 capturing a significant share around 40% back in the late 80’s even with the Mac II and the IBM PC/AT in the fold. Much of this, of course, because A500 captured the hearts and mind of home-based consumers and yes, gamers.
So, if we conjure up a scenario where Windows is not the dominant OS, surely the Mac would be up there but I doubt if it would be the big kahuna for their pricing would still be steep. The Amiga would be the surer bet (if Commodore marketing folks weren’t that inept and incopetent, to begin with…but that’s another story.)
But nana, the mac “copied” a great deal from xerox.
Good luck with that, Ben. And let the apologist excuses roll. I agree with you, of course, that everyone copies everyone else, but it’s now so ingrained in the Mac-bot psyche that Microsoft does nothing but steal, you’ll actually hear people say something stupid like “Apple is the only company that innovates” (a quote written on this very board).
And what’s funny is how far they carry this. They’ll accuse Microsoft of ripping of Windows because of the recycle bin, but completely ignore the fact that virtually everything in Safari is a clone of Opera and Firefox.
At this point, it’s not so much an argument of MS vs Apple as it is Apple minions propogating Apple talking points.