3 ms·

"i think microsoft beat apple because apple was busy beating itself. apple had about a ten-year lead in gui operating systems, but couldn't keep up" Microsoft

"i think microsoft beat apple because apple was busy beating itself. apple had about a ten-year lead in gui operating systems, but couldn't keep up" Microsoft gave people a clear transition to a windowing environment -- back when people weren't even sure they wanted one -- that allowed them to run hardware from any vendor they wanted, with software from the vendors they were used to using, and allowed them to load a windowing environment only when they wanted to. It was a nice, safe, incremental step. Going to Mac meant throwing everything away and starting over. "it's very painful to switch operating systems, due to network effects." Agreed. And don't forget: when you get there, you have a limited selection of hardware (and none at the entry level), you can't play most computer games even if you were willing to buy them all over again, and if your company has custom apps, they probably only run if you load up Parallels, which is a daunting prospect for most people. There's no question that network effects drive Microsoft adoption. But Apple also isn't behaving like a company that wants to attract all of Microsoft's customers. It's behaving like a company that's perfectly happy skimming off the most profitable customers and collecting a premium for it. Actually, if you want to take a look at someone that fits Paul's criteria for a company that tries to grow by acting like a nonprofit and going out of it's way to look for ways to benefit its customers, you could do worse than to look at Ubuntu. Ubuntu looks like a company that could start eating Microsoft's lunch at some point.

allenbrunson 19y ago
i think you're making too big of a deal out of hardware choice. you're talking about people who don't know if they want a gui or not, yet you think those same people will want to choose what type of computer to run it on? as if. people like that want to AVOID having to make choices like that, as often as possible. i'm up at the other end of the spectrum: i know all the tradeoffs, i'm as technically savvy as computer buyers get ... yet i don't want to make that choice, either. i haven't had to worry about what type of hard disk controller i've got for ten years or more, and i'm glad to be rid of dealing with piddly issues like that. the only people who care about the low-level hardware they're using are gamers, tinkerers, and cheapskates. probably a tiny percentage of the total computer-using population. well, i guess i do care about what hardware i'm using -- to the extent that i want it to be pleasant to use. once again, apple's interests are exactly aligned with my own.
- wanorris 19y ago
  > i think you're making too big of a deal out of hardware choice. you're talking about people who don't know if they want a gui or not, yet you think those same people will want to choose what type of computer to run it on? as if. For casual consumers, hardware choice mostly only matters in that you can go buy a variety of Windows computers at Best Buy for under $500 bundled with a monitor and a printer. There are also laptops in that range, as well. This is important for two reasons. First, because some people just don't have a lot of money. If you are living in poverty, all the nifty extra features a Mac might have don't really matter. Second, because there are more multiple-PC homes. If you're buying a second computer for the kids or checking email or whatever, a simple, cheap system may do everything you want. For less casual users, there are HTPCs, tablet PCs, sub-$500 ultralight notebooks like the Eee, gaming notebooks, and other segments that Apple doesn't compete in.

allenbrunson 19y ago

i think you're making too big of a deal out of hardware choice. you're talking about people who don't know if they want a gui or not, yet you think those same people will want to choose what type of computer to run it on? as if. people like that want to AVOID having to make choices like that, as often as possible. i'm up at the other end of the spectrum: i know all the tradeoffs, i'm as technically savvy as computer buyers get ... yet i don't want to make that choice, either. i haven't had to worry about what type of hard disk controller i've got for ten years or more, and i'm glad to be rid of dealing with piddly issues like that. the only people who care about the low-level hardware they're using are gamers, tinkerers, and cheapskates. probably a tiny percentage of the total computer-using population. well, i guess i do care about what hardware i'm using -- to the extent that i want it to be pleasant to use. once again, apple's interests are exactly aligned with my own.

wanorris 19y ago
> i think you're making too big of a deal out of hardware choice. you're talking about people who don't know if they want a gui or not, yet you think those same people will want to choose what type of computer to run it on? as if. For casual consumers, hardware choice mostly only matters in that you can go buy a variety of Windows computers at Best Buy for under $500 bundled with a monitor and a printer. There are also laptops in that range, as well. This is important for two reasons. First, because some people just don't have a lot of money. If you are living in poverty, all the nifty extra features a Mac might have don't really matter. Second, because there are more multiple-PC homes. If you're buying a second computer for the kids or checking email or whatever, a simple, cheap system may do everything you want. For less casual users, there are HTPCs, tablet PCs, sub-$500 ultralight notebooks like the Eee, gaming notebooks, and other segments that Apple doesn't compete in.