Ex_PC_Puke said:
You want me to list names and numbers - no way - I want to live a long life and not be looking over my shoulder
You've known / worked with folks who were 1 or 2 levels down from Gates ???
I didn't think so .................... at the top everything changes - like I said - most MSFT folks are just normal people
Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your claims. It's just that I really doubt posting the name of someone who "sold his soul" to Bill in a Mac rumors thread is somehow going to land a hitman on your doorstep - that's just freakishly paranoid. And refusing to state the NUMBER of people you've "known" to have done this because Microsoft might send someone to "silence" you is just downright schizophrenic.
As I mentioned earlier, if Ledgard was allowed to keep her job after going off about certain distressing recruiting assumptions in upper management and accusing certain individuals of being "entitled, spoiled whiners," I really don’t think you are in any sort of danger. Not only was she not reprimanded by upper management, she was commended.
It's only natural for someone to expect precise facts, links, and references in such a debate, because without them it is only common sense to assume the unfounded statements to be biased, subjective and/or false.
Would it be crazy if I said "Pepsi's board of directors is made up entirely of angry, Brazilian terrorists," provided absolutely no facts or evidence, and just expected you to believe me?
And yes, I've had long conversations with Gates, Ballmer, and Jobs on numerous occasions, and I know them about as much as I'd need or care to.
rs2sensen said:
I have to give a little more credit to Apple here. I disagree with the statement that Apple taking down Microsoft is like an "Ant taking down a jumbo jet." I think a much more proper analogy would be David and Goliath. Apple may not be much of a threat now, but they could be in the near future. Apple may not have much current market share, but they have a huge amount of marketing/media muscle that if thrown to bear directly at Microsoft, could be very threatening.
Apple has the superior operating system, their hardware is some of the best in the world, and they have a very strong image. Imagine for a second if BMW were to come out with a low cost model to rival Ford or GM. Yeah, quality would be less than a true BMW, but thousands of people would flock to the dealer to check it out, and thousands would buy. BMW could follow that original model with a huge marketing campaign, and then continue with new low cost products. They would bring that high class BMW image to the common consumer. Also, Apple releases one of the most revolutionary music devises ever made, the iPod......
rs2sensen said:
My main ideas on this:
1. Apple has been planning on targeting M$ for a long time
2. The iPod creates a growing Apple following
3. They release the mini, which can rival the cost of the average PC
4. They plan to release a new OS at the same time as M$
5. They switch to Intel processors, ending the Ghz/Mhz myth, and bring their technology better in line with PCs
6. Apple expends a huge amount of money on image (ie. in lots of movies, lots of ads, and they have a huge amount of media hype
7. Jobs and Gates have had a pretty evil history (Check out the movie, Pirates of Silicon Valley, the book Revolution in the Valley, or any other Mac history source)
8. The keynote speach at WWDC 2005 had about a million slants/attacks at M$
I predict that Apple is planning on directly going after Microsoft in a long prolonged plan and that this plan is already in motion. It may seem crazy, but it's not impossible.
My post was not meant to discredit Apple. Apple is doing very well in its respective interests. Seeing as though I have tens of thousands of dollars dumped into Apple, I had better believe Apple has a promising future.
My analogy was as accurate as I wanted it to be. I wasn't confused. The concept behind the ant vs. airplane analogy was simple: the two differ so much in their shear size, purpose, and position that it makes very little sense to compare the two - not to mention have them in the same competitive arena. I was talking in terms of current market share, not the company’s individual measures of "class" and/or subjective potential and predictions.
With the Windows family accounting for 90% of the entire OS market and Windows 98, a seven year old operating system, still doubling that of OSX's 2% market share - I don't think I'm making a terribly preposterous claim when I say Apple has quite a bit to go before it is any sort of threat to Microsoft... To Microsoft, 2% might as well be 0%.
Just like I wouldn't try and compare Apple's MP3 player dominance to that of Microsoft's (seeing as they don't even have one) because it would just be completely ridiculous. It's just a matter of putting both company’s purposes, interests, and markets into perspective.
It wouldn’t be radical to say that the iPod and Apple’s music business is it’s golden egg. It’s music business (iPod included) made up 38% of Apples total revenue according to Apples Q2-2005 results. That’s more than double the revenue generated by it’s top-selling Mac model (the iMac/eMac) and over half the total revenue generated by Apple’s entire Mac business (all of the models combined), which includes OS’s, software, peripherals, devices, and third-party retail. On top of that, the iPod’s significance in Apple’s total revenue is just one factor; we must also assume the factor operating expenses (R&D, SG&A, etc) plays in Apple’s net-income. A significant portion of these expenses are set aside for Apple’s Mac sector - while it would be impossible to get the exact percentage, it is postulated that Apples Music sector is much lower maintenance than it’s Mac sector.
Another interesting factor is GPM: While Apple does not specify the GPM of individual products for competitive reasons, it has mentioned that it’s overall iPod line GPM is roughly over 20%. As I mentioned earlier, Apple’s top-selling Mac model is the iMac/eMac, a product that is extremely popular with Apple’s strong educational market. The GPM is drastically reduced for products sold through Apple’s educational store – so I could say that Apple’s top selling Mac also happens to be Apple’s least profitable Mac.
What’s my point? Well only that if, in a strange turn of events, Apple’s Macintosh department were to be blown up (by an angry Brazilian terrorist working for Pepsi), it still could be a very prominent business entity with the prodigal younger brother still very much alive: it’s Music business.
This, of course, would not be the case with Microsoft, which is why I like to stress the differences between the two companies, especially in interests.
I won't even argue the whole "OS X vs. Windows" debate other than to say that you can't. Microsoft’s designs OS’s on a tremendously larger scale – not only is it designing an OS for hundreds of millions of more users than Apple, Microsoft is designing it to be compatible with countless types and versions of hardware. Apple designs it’s OS for a meticulous closed platform consisting of such a small number of different models, you could count them on two hands. It designs it for a user base millions of times smaller than that of Microsoft’s. Chris Pirillo (if you don’t know who that is, I don’t know what to say… try visiting chris.pirillo.com) had one of the best ways of looking at it when he said (in a blog debunking idiotic statements made by a newspaper columnist pitting Tiger against XP) :
Columnist: “It's less prone to malicious attacks.
Chris: “That's because it's not the tallest nail. That's like saying FireFox is more secure than IE, when (in fact) it's just not getting attacked as much because the installed user base is nowhere near that of IE. Trust me, if the market share tables were turned, folks would be saying "IE is more secure than FireFox." Ah, but we finally get to the reason why the article has an extreme bias in the Mac direction:”
Columnist: “I've been trying out Tiger on a borrowed an iMac G5 and my own dual-processor Power Mac G4.”
Chris: “No wonder. MATTHEW FORDAHL is writing like a biased zealot because MATTHEW FORDAHL is a biased zealot.”
If 1 in every 100 people drove an Apple car and 90 in every 100 drove a Microsoft car, and we see that, statistically, there are more accidents in Microsoft cars than Apple cars - Would anybody be confused as to why that is? So why is it so hard for certain people to wrap this same concept around their brains when it comes to this ridiculous X vs. XP debate.
Certain Mac enthusiasts really just need to put keep things in perspective – fans want to believe Apple is the radiant underdog, that will someday make it’s move and take down Microsoft.
The irony of it all is that while there are tons of fans out there that believe it to be a possibility, one of the many that don’t would most definitely be Apple – not because they don’t have faith in themselves, but because it’s just not on their list of priorities. I think people get confused when they watch a Jobs Keynote where he makes about 100 jabs a second at Microsoft – it’s NOT about burying Microsoft; it is, in fact, about selling Macs.
As far as Macs are concerned, the single greatest thing Apple has going for them is the fact that they AREN’T mainstream. Apple likes being the forbidden fruit.... I mean that’s what they are.
