Just to play Devil's Advocate here, I think the article has some serious flaws while making some great, fundamental points. The biggest flaw? Stealing an under

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, I think the article has some serious flaws while making some great, fundamental points. The biggest flaw? Stealing an underdog's strategy when you're not the underdog just doesn't make sense. Mac had almost no enterprise (outside of a few verticals) deployments when they decided to scrap it all and go for broke. Their customers were used to having to upgrade software (think Adobe, sound editing programs, Quark) every few years anyways, and they had those companies buy-in for the upgrade. Contrast that to Windows where if they did, as the author suggests, start over from scratch, that would provide a HUGE opening to Mac and Linux. They would essentially be giving up their dominant market advantage. And for what? Have they been hurting some? Sure. Vista's reception, while not a total disaster, has been lackluster at best, but their growth in other areas (home consoles, media centers) is strong, and their enterprise play is still a near strangle-hold (sure, you got a few oddballs running Mac, but very few enterprise grade deployments, where the real money in licensing and support is). Why would they give all that up to copy-cat (and probably a poorer copy cat) their competitors' strategies?