4 ms·

This actually lines up reasonably well with market cap -- Apple is at $85B and Microsoft at $195B. Apple has seen resurgence in growth (75% year over year is pr

This actually lines up reasonably well with market cap -- Apple is at $85B and Microsoft at $195B. Apple has seen resurgence in growth (75% year over year is pretty kick ass), but they are much more heavily tied to consumers than microsoft so it seems logical that the current economic troubles will hit them harder. Personally, the only thing I would like more than Apple surpassing Microsoft as the giant computing behemoth is Ubuntu making good on its goal of surpassing Apple in usability/UI.

thras 18y ago
Ubuntu can't surpass Apple until someone figures out how to teach open source developers to create good UIs. Or at least get them to stick to standards.
- unalone 18y ago
  Yeah. And I think this is the source of a lot of the Mac/Linux bickering that I've seen on that site. A lot of Mac users really do like the idea of open source. It's just that as things stand right now, no one Linux distro comes even close to having the level of polish that OS X does. They're on two separate playing fields. And usually some straw man, like Compiz, gets dangled as "proof" that Ubuntu is graphically superior to the Mac, when a part of OS X is that the graphical flourishes tend to actually aid usability. Think Exposé - any one of the various things Exposé does - or the new Stacks, or even the genie minimalism. And while I'm certain that there are patches for Ubuntu that do each of these things, they aren't as well-incorporated into the system and that's the point of OS X. They're built into the core so developers can rely on them and build plugins that tie into the various features. And even then, that's ignoring all of the small details, like the completely polished beauty of the current window system, or the drag-file-icon-in-window-to-move, or the ability for programmers to change their Dock icon's image to represent information. There's just too much that any distro right now would have to do to catch up, and it frustrates me - and, I'd guess, other Mac users - that rather than acknowledge this ridiculous gap and figure out how to surpass it, Linux users raise stupid arguments and claim that every last Mac user uses their computer because of marketing hype. It's getting the Linux distros I've seen and participated in the community of - Ubuntu and Kubuntu, so maybe I've missed something - nowhere.
- lacker 18y ago
  I think this requires one "Ubuntu UI czar" who has some ability to enforce uniformity. Otherwise you get tons of nice looking parts of the system that don't abide by the same intuitive rules so they don't lead to a nice combination. Honestly, cloning the Apple interface as much as possible wouldn't be such a bad strategy.
  - lg 18y ago
    Apparently the users agree... http://www.gnome-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=0&xcontentmode=100 http://www.gnome-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=...
- rudyfink 18y ago
  Is there some organization of open source UI/design folks? It seems that this could also be done by some kind of approval/standards organization. For example, can I submit my YetAnotherChatClient app to some UI approval group (say Works Well for All) and get a stamp that says I conform to their standard of goodness?
  - orib 18y ago
    http://www.openusability.org/ http://www.openusability.org/
- davidw 18y ago
  If you'd been around in the Linux world 10 years ago, you would realize that, slowly but surely, open source developers are figuring this stuff out.
  - jmtame 18y ago
    don't think the market cares about self-relative performance. The fact that it's not superior right now is the issue.
    - davidw 18y ago
      With "disruptive innovations", what the market often cares about is 'good enough', and if the improvement curve of Ubuntu puts it on track to supersede that, that's all that's needed. I don't think Ubuntu will ever be "better" than MacOS (well, except for the fact that Ubuntu does focus follows mouse like God intended [it's in the old testament, I think], but I guess I'm in the minority there). But for that matter, neither is Windows, and it seems to have a slight numerical advantage. I think we're seeing the leading edge of Ubuntu with the netbooks. Here's a graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#The_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#The_theor...
- lhorn 18y ago
  I think a lot of people are confusing "good UIs" with "pretty windows". When it comes to usability and general quality of the UI, Gnome has surpassed dumbed-down OSX UI long time ago, they just don't have pretty windows to win the masses. I own a Mac and use it daily. I can't stand how poorly everything is made and how limited I am on a Mac compared to Ubuntu/Gnome. A few obvious examples: - Non-resizeable windows (only one corner) - Non-maximizale windows (the first lesson I learned on OSX - never click on a green "+" button: generally you never know what's going to happen) - File open dialog doesn't have a edit field for me to type a file name, so I can't quickly open /etc/whaterver when I need to. - Spaces are dysfunctional: applications aren't isolated in their virtual desktops, all mixed up together in a giant Alt+Tab list - Finder is a joke: nearly impossible to use without a mouse and its list of limitations is well known - Poor support for FTP/SFTP - Poor keyboard support (users are unable to assign hot keys they want, generally limited to a pre-defined list), many functions aren't available for keyboard users (cut/paste files, resize/move windows and many more). Hey, I can't even get to a specific top-level menu item from a keyboard. That's something even Windows 3.0 could easily do. Fuck, even most confirmation dialogs on OSX have keyboard disabled: you're forced to use the mouse to pick Yes/No/Cancel. Jesus... - Poor window/application management. The concept of "every app can be switched to and everybody shares a menu" doesn't work, and stop pretending that it does. On my Mac I have only Safari running yet my "Alt-Tab" list is HUGE: it includes background-running Audim, Skype, Performance Monitor and Finder - 6 apps total with only one (!) visible window. - Mandatory iTunes for everything. Probably the worst application I ever had to deal with on a daily basis. I could go on and on forever. For instance I've failed to find a working solution that allows me to use Spotlight to pull up links I saved on del.icio.us. Gnome has it built-in. The main reason I use my Mac is Safari and multi-touch: super-fast browser coupled with finger gestures for zoom, scroll and page flipping is awesome: worth tolerating general dumbness and poor usability of Leopard and apps that are bundled with it. For prolonged coding sessions I fire up Ubuntu: everything is a keystroke away there. The only drawbacks are slow&buggy Firefox and the pathetic LCD on my Thinkpad.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    I think Gnome have got it right - your correct, they are just lacking the pretties. But I think Ubuntu (and other distro) teams haven't made use of the Window managers well at all. Menu's, applications and other bits and pieces are just too confusing for the average Joe user. UI extends even beyond the windows themselves. As someone commented I think Linux devs are waking up to how important UI and user interaction is. But - It's a mess, and a hell of a job to fix - No one with the proper expertise is involved in the projects - It's not a glamorous thing to be doing (compare to "cutting edge" stuff - There seems to be this ingrained anti-M$ vibe that means no one can take influence from them. ?? UI is one thing M$ tend to do really well in Windows. They spend a LOT of money researching it.....
- known 18y ago
  http://xpud.org/ http://xpud.org/ is working on good UI.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  Gnome is better than XP, though I can't say the same for every Linux app.
jwilliams 18y ago
> so it seems logical that the current economic troubles will hit them harder. Not sure I agree - corporates can tighten their belts as much as consumers. A lot of corporates might choose to delay upgrading products coming out of support and/or cancel their support agreements. These are lucrative part of Microsoft's revenue.
- jacobscott 18y ago
  Fair point. Switching gears then, how about: Apple is a luxury brand and Microsoft isn't, so I think the current economic troubles will hit them harder.
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    Ok.. fair point :)
  - gaius 18y ago
    Except that's not actually true. Apple has luxury products like the iPod, sure. The current generation iPhone has features that are very obviously aimed at competing with corporate stalwart RIM. Apple (well, Jobs) doesn't focus on marketing to corporations as a strategy to be more appealing to consumers, but I'm certain if they had to they could. Do Sun have any desktop Unix customers left? They're Apple's obvious first target.
    - jacobscott 18y ago
      the iphone has outlook integration, yes. But the /brand/ is overall, a luxury consumer brand. People pay (or used to pay, depending on which sites you read) the "apple tax" to use OSX and etc. Apple uses style and design as key selling points and differentiators. Hence, the upscale nature of the brand. Apple will never sell anything that resembles an eMachine.
      - gaius 18y ago
        That is true only in the sense that Nikon is a luxury consumer brand that people pay a premium for. I'd argue that Apple is a "creative professional" brand and leverages that to appeal to consumers too. If Nikon only made digicams, no matter how good they were, if they took their eye off the photojournalists, the consumers would lose interest.
ErrantX 18y ago
Sadly I dont see Ubuntu doing that any time soon (I could write an essay on how much I dislike Ubuntu's UI!). It's just not a "glamorous" part of the OS-making process (IMO it's the great stumbling bloack of all modern Linux distros...). Agreed over the luxury branding of Apple though. It will be interestign to see how they fare over the next 18 months. Although with that said the Ipod is (probably annoyingly) one of those luxuries that isn't a luxury any more - so that should keep them going.
ewanmcteagle 18y ago
This market cap stuff is not really meaningful when looked at this way. Microsoft pays a dividend if it didn't all that cash would stay on its books and would have to result in an increase in its market cap. If you want to make a proper comparison (of this dubious stat) you should subtract the cash of each company from the market cap and then compare. Microsoft has returned more money to its shareholders than Apple is worth.

thras 18y ago

Ubuntu can't surpass Apple until someone figures out how to teach open source developers to create good UIs. Or at least get them to stick to standards.

unalone 18y ago
Yeah. And I think this is the source of a lot of the Mac/Linux bickering that I've seen on that site. A lot of Mac users really do like the idea of open source. It's just that as things stand right now, no one Linux distro comes even close to having the level of polish that OS X does. They're on two separate playing fields. And usually some straw man, like Compiz, gets dangled as "proof" that Ubuntu is graphically superior to the Mac, when a part of OS X is that the graphical flourishes tend to actually aid usability. Think Exposé - any one of the various things Exposé does - or the new Stacks, or even the genie minimalism. And while I'm certain that there are patches for Ubuntu that do each of these things, they aren't as well-incorporated into the system and that's the point of OS X. They're built into the core so developers can rely on them and build plugins that tie into the various features. And even then, that's ignoring all of the small details, like the completely polished beauty of the current window system, or the drag-file-icon-in-window-to-move, or the ability for programmers to change their Dock icon's image to represent information. There's just too much that any distro right now would have to do to catch up, and it frustrates me - and, I'd guess, other Mac users - that rather than acknowledge this ridiculous gap and figure out how to surpass it, Linux users raise stupid arguments and claim that every last Mac user uses their computer because of marketing hype. It's getting the Linux distros I've seen and participated in the community of - Ubuntu and Kubuntu, so maybe I've missed something - nowhere.
lacker 18y ago
I think this requires one "Ubuntu UI czar" who has some ability to enforce uniformity. Otherwise you get tons of nice looking parts of the system that don't abide by the same intuitive rules so they don't lead to a nice combination. Honestly, cloning the Apple interface as much as possible wouldn't be such a bad strategy.
- lg 18y ago
  Apparently the users agree... http://www.gnome-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=0&xcontentmode=100 http://www.gnome-look.org/index.php?xsortmode=down&page=...
rudyfink 18y ago
Is there some organization of open source UI/design folks? It seems that this could also be done by some kind of approval/standards organization. For example, can I submit my YetAnotherChatClient app to some UI approval group (say Works Well for All) and get a stamp that says I conform to their standard of goodness?
- orib 18y ago
  http://www.openusability.org/ http://www.openusability.org/
davidw 18y ago
If you'd been around in the Linux world 10 years ago, you would realize that, slowly but surely, open source developers are figuring this stuff out.
- jmtame 18y ago
  don't think the market cares about self-relative performance. The fact that it's not superior right now is the issue.
  - davidw 18y ago
    With "disruptive innovations", what the market often cares about is 'good enough', and if the improvement curve of Ubuntu puts it on track to supersede that, that's all that's needed. I don't think Ubuntu will ever be "better" than MacOS (well, except for the fact that Ubuntu does focus follows mouse like God intended [it's in the old testament, I think], but I guess I'm in the minority there). But for that matter, neither is Windows, and it seems to have a slight numerical advantage. I think we're seeing the leading edge of Ubuntu with the netbooks. Here's a graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#The_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation#The_theor...
lhorn 18y ago
I think a lot of people are confusing "good UIs" with "pretty windows". When it comes to usability and general quality of the UI, Gnome has surpassed dumbed-down OSX UI long time ago, they just don't have pretty windows to win the masses. I own a Mac and use it daily. I can't stand how poorly everything is made and how limited I am on a Mac compared to Ubuntu/Gnome. A few obvious examples: - Non-resizeable windows (only one corner) - Non-maximizale windows (the first lesson I learned on OSX - never click on a green "+" button: generally you never know what's going to happen) - File open dialog doesn't have a edit field for me to type a file name, so I can't quickly open /etc/whaterver when I need to. - Spaces are dysfunctional: applications aren't isolated in their virtual desktops, all mixed up together in a giant Alt+Tab list - Finder is a joke: nearly impossible to use without a mouse and its list of limitations is well known - Poor support for FTP/SFTP - Poor keyboard support (users are unable to assign hot keys they want, generally limited to a pre-defined list), many functions aren't available for keyboard users (cut/paste files, resize/move windows and many more). Hey, I can't even get to a specific top-level menu item from a keyboard. That's something even Windows 3.0 could easily do. Fuck, even most confirmation dialogs on OSX have keyboard disabled: you're forced to use the mouse to pick Yes/No/Cancel. Jesus... - Poor window/application management. The concept of "every app can be switched to and everybody shares a menu" doesn't work, and stop pretending that it does. On my Mac I have only Safari running yet my "Alt-Tab" list is HUGE: it includes background-running Audim, Skype, Performance Monitor and Finder - 6 apps total with only one (!) visible window. - Mandatory iTunes for everything. Probably the worst application I ever had to deal with on a daily basis. I could go on and on forever. For instance I've failed to find a working solution that allows me to use Spotlight to pull up links I saved on del.icio.us. Gnome has it built-in. The main reason I use my Mac is Safari and multi-touch: super-fast browser coupled with finger gestures for zoom, scroll and page flipping is awesome: worth tolerating general dumbness and poor usability of Leopard and apps that are bundled with it. For prolonged coding sessions I fire up Ubuntu: everything is a keystroke away there. The only drawbacks are slow&buggy Firefox and the pathetic LCD on my Thinkpad.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  I think Gnome have got it right - your correct, they are just lacking the pretties. But I think Ubuntu (and other distro) teams haven't made use of the Window managers well at all. Menu's, applications and other bits and pieces are just too confusing for the average Joe user. UI extends even beyond the windows themselves. As someone commented I think Linux devs are waking up to how important UI and user interaction is. But - It's a mess, and a hell of a job to fix - No one with the proper expertise is involved in the projects - It's not a glamorous thing to be doing (compare to "cutting edge" stuff - There seems to be this ingrained anti-M$ vibe that means no one can take influence from them. ?? UI is one thing M$ tend to do really well in Windows. They spend a LOT of money researching it.....
known 18y ago
http://xpud.org/ http://xpud.org/ is working on good UI.
Prrometheus 18y ago
Gnome is better than XP, though I can't say the same for every Linux app.

jwilliams 18y ago

> so it seems logical that the current economic troubles will hit them harder. Not sure I agree - corporates can tighten their belts as much as consumers. A lot of corporates might choose to delay upgrading products coming out of support and/or cancel their support agreements. These are lucrative part of Microsoft's revenue.

jacobscott 18y ago
Fair point. Switching gears then, how about: Apple is a luxury brand and Microsoft isn't, so I think the current economic troubles will hit them harder.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  Ok.. fair point :)
- gaius 18y ago
  Except that's not actually true. Apple has luxury products like the iPod, sure. The current generation iPhone has features that are very obviously aimed at competing with corporate stalwart RIM. Apple (well, Jobs) doesn't focus on marketing to corporations as a strategy to be more appealing to consumers, but I'm certain if they had to they could. Do Sun have any desktop Unix customers left? They're Apple's obvious first target.
  - jacobscott 18y ago
    the iphone has outlook integration, yes. But the /brand/ is overall, a luxury consumer brand. People pay (or used to pay, depending on which sites you read) the "apple tax" to use OSX and etc. Apple uses style and design as key selling points and differentiators. Hence, the upscale nature of the brand. Apple will never sell anything that resembles an eMachine.
    - gaius 18y ago
      That is true only in the sense that Nikon is a luxury consumer brand that people pay a premium for. I'd argue that Apple is a "creative professional" brand and leverages that to appeal to consumers too. If Nikon only made digicams, no matter how good they were, if they took their eye off the photojournalists, the consumers would lose interest.

ErrantX 18y ago

Sadly I dont see Ubuntu doing that any time soon (I could write an essay on how much I dislike Ubuntu's UI!). It's just not a "glamorous" part of the OS-making process (IMO it's the great stumbling bloack of all modern Linux distros...). Agreed over the luxury branding of Apple though. It will be interestign to see how they fare over the next 18 months. Although with that said the Ipod is (probably annoyingly) one of those luxuries that isn't a luxury any more - so that should keep them going.

ewanmcteagle 18y ago

This market cap stuff is not really meaningful when looked at this way. Microsoft pays a dividend if it didn't all that cash would stay on its books and would have to result in an increase in its market cap. If you want to make a proper comparison (of this dubious stat) you should subtract the cash of each company from the market cap and then compare. Microsoft has returned more money to its shareholders than Apple is worth.