howtogeek at May 1st, 2013 06:42 — #1
Originally published at: http://www.howtogeek.com/162030/microsoft-could-have-been-on-top-10-product-opportunities-microsoft-missed/
When people think of innovative tech companies, they generally don’t think of Microsoft. Microsoft has actually had a history of innovative products and ideas, but they’ve failed to execute them over and over again.
romberry at May 1st, 2013 09:45 — #2
Had Longhorn development gone better, Microsoft could have put up more
of a fight against Apple’s OS X. ... Macs may be expensive, but you
can take your Mac to a local Apple Store and get it serviced if you
have a problem.
Um....what? More of a fight? Your local Apple store?
Compare market share of even Vista (yes, Vista) to OSX. And be aware that in the United States there are less than 300 Apple stores for the whole country. Less than 500 for the whole world. For the vast majority of people in the US and the world, there is no such thing as a "local" Apple store.
The two blockquoted sentences I started this reply with are notable for how completely divorced from reality they are.
Even today, OSX accounts for less than 10 percent of the market for computer operating systems. Significantly less. Had MS "put up more of a fight" there would be no OSX at all. (Recall that Bill Gates and MS effectively helped to save Apple when it was at low ebb both by investing actual money and by agreeing to continue to develop and support MS Office for the Mac. Fact.)
As far as whether there is any hardware in the Windows ecosystem that can compete with the Macbook Pro high end. of course there is. But the vast majority of Windows users don't want to pay thousands of extra dollars for high end hardware like that. And really, why should they? Apple hardware is nice, but is it actually worth the price premium? Not for most people, no. In fact, I'd argue it's not actually worth the price premium to almost anyone.
nsdcars5 at May 1st, 2013 09:54 — #3
sigh WinFS. I still dream sometimes...
Nicely summed up article, but you forgot one thing: When they made mistakes, they didn't give us the source code for us to fix it .
srxtreme at May 1st, 2013 12:03 — #4
What ever happened to the Amiga system, way back the they were way ahead of everyone else. Had nice graphics, stereo sound along with an excellent GUI with file cabinets with drawers drag and drop etc. While Microsoft was still running DOS with command line interface.
The Amiga systems were especially popular in Europe back in the late 80s. I lived in Germany then.
I guess microsoft or apple swallowed them up.
I miss my old Amiga 500, any one else remember them
campbell2644 at May 1st, 2013 12:14 — #5
Bill Gates had Microsoft as a world winner in the 90's but the company became bloated on its near monopoly situation, indeed that is all that keeps it going these days.
nanogeek at May 1st, 2013 12:17 — #6
There is a lesson here:
Never be complacent, always strive for higher and better.
vitrbjorn at May 1st, 2013 12:19 — #7
Are you serious? Just look at the market share, Microsoft has more computers on the internet than Apple. The PC is the working mans computer, Apple was designed for the rich, you can tell that by the price of comparable systems.
nsdcars5 at May 1st, 2013 13:53 — #8
No, seriously? The working man's computer? Half the people I know who work use a Mac nowadays.
ensign_scrulu at May 1st, 2013 14:47 — #9
barzone911 at May 1st, 2013 18:58 — #10
yes I too had an AMIGA 1000 and bemoan the fact that the 2 Dominant PC Oses especially crApple tactic of Gulaging the user. at little Oses have progressed since the unfortunate death of Amiga but at least I can dip my toes into an Amy experience on my Android phone.
codinghorror at May 1st, 2013 21:16 — #11
This was a more compelling argument when Macs were more proportionally expensive.. but they've done a pretty good job of whittling the Mac prices down relative to the "premium" design over the last 5-8 years. It costs a bit more, yes, but not so much more that it doesn't seem worth it.
vitrbjorn at May 1st, 2013 23:05 — #12
Then you know people who earn more than minimum wage. No one I know owns or can even afford an Apple anything, Android and Window phones and Microsoft or LINUX computers.
vitrbjorn at May 1st, 2013 23:06 — #13
It does when you live paycheck to paycheck.
romberry at May 2nd, 2013 01:34 — #14
Half the people you know use a Mac? How do you explain the fact that Macs/OS X are significantly less than 10 percent of the market? You must know a pretty exclusive crowd of folks.
romberry at May 2nd, 2013 01:39 — #15
Simply not so. Macs are still proportionally more expensive. And when you figure that the innards are EXACTLY the same stuff as in standard PC designs, right down to the processors, the NAND and hard drives, and what you're paying for is Apple's fat 40 percent (!!) margins and marketing, that ought to be obvious.
Apple hardware is no more reliable (and often less so) than mainstream PC hardware. And the functional reliability of mainstream PC hardware can be improved greatly by doing a clean Windows install that wipes out the crap that many OEMs insist on larding on top of the OS.
codinghorror at May 2nd, 2013 03:30 — #16
I'm going to call your bluff on this. Can you find a PC of similar specs and build quality (aluminum unibody, thin design, backlit keyboard) and weight for about the same price as a Mac? Post what you find here.
vaibhavgarg1982 at May 2nd, 2013 03:32 — #17
I think the "half" you know works for Apple itself !
I dunno, but in my decade and a half of computing, I am yet to see a SINGLE Mac being used. How's that for a data point?
jonnky at May 2nd, 2013 10:37 — #18
As much as it must pain Apple's pundits to read, according to all major tracking firms (including Gartner, NetMarket, StatCounter, W3Counter, Wikimedia, etc.) Microsoft Windows (in all its various available iterations) still accounts for more market share WORLD-WIDE than all other PC operating systems combined! Microsoft might not have hit every nail square on the head, but they have obviously being doing something right ... VERY right.
kyle_noman at May 2nd, 2013 11:13 — #19
In my more than 30 years of experience in the computer industry, I have seen the struggle from both sides. I was a PC guy for most of my career but did a stint for a Mac company. I also worked in education (which was a strong Mac field). My personal preference is the PC because of the expense of owning a Mac but also PCs are more configurable, in my opinion. All that to say there are applications that the PC excels at and there are applications that the Mac does better than the PC. I do feel that it comes down to the founders philosophy: Bill Gates with his
Get a computer in every home
or Steve Jobs:
Let's see how long we can recoup our development costs
Seriously, when there is so much disparity in price between the two factions, is there even a contest? The quality is close to the same and the processors are the same, so I guess the question becomes which do want to pay for? Aesthetics or function?
aanon69 at May 2nd, 2013 17:53 — #20
next page →