6 ms·

If Microsoft had taken this approach a decade ago, perhaps Apple would not have grown to twice MS's size simply by caring about the end-to-end user experience.

If Microsoft had taken this approach a decade ago, perhaps Apple would not have grown to twice MS's size simply by caring about the end-to-end user experience. Can we stop with the cargo-cult nonsense on here? Apple has been following the same end-to-end approach for almost three decades. They had initial success, and then a decade bordering on bankruptcy. During that same period Microsoft became the most valuable company in the world, with the help of partners. Seriously it is baffling how people can so easily make these armchair claims about what yields success and what doesn't. Just moments ago I saw another article that claimed that RIM needs to learn from Apple and Microsoft and own the whole chain (???!).

MichaelGG 14y ago
So your point is that it takes more than a general strategy to be a success? Well, yes. It doesn't change the fact that lots of Microsoft's products, even its core Windows platform, is hindered by OEM's loading crap and generally not caring about the end-user experience.
- huggyface 14y ago
  And a lot of Microsoft's success was courtesy of partners with aligned interests (not unlike Android, it should be mentioned). Dell, IBM, HP, Compaq (pre-destruction), and on and on: all assisted in Microsoft's growth to powerhouse. Apple pursued a very different approach -- one that was a running failure for many years -- until they rose, in my opinion, on the back of the iTunes entrenchment. Now they're making major dough by their position, but it's one that few others can emulate (RIM is currently falling hard with the same approach). Can Microsoft cargo-cult and copy one part of that and grow by leaps and bounds? Maybe, or maybe not. De-aligning with their partners is as possibly a disaster in the making.
cwisecarver 14y ago
Apple was just ahead of their time. They were delivering a superior, end-to-end experience before people expected such a thing from computers. The masses have come to expect that now and Microsoft is shifting, later than they should have, to the in the right direction.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Apple really wasn't ahead of its time. Back during the 80s and 90s the extent to which a Mac or a Windows PC was "superior" was highly debatable. There were solid points on either side and it was never an apples-to-apples comparison. But things changed. First, everything got cheaper. The average PC in 1995 is vastly more expensive than a tablet, smartphone, or laptop today. Second, Apple got a whole lot better. They upped their game by leaps and bounds. If you gave someone in 1990 who is using a Mac an iPhone they may not have any clue that the two devices bear any sort of relationship, and in many ways they don't share very much underlying technology. Apple spent the 2000s pivoting, again and again. Pivoting to services and digital goods (music and apps). Pivoting to mobile devices (iPod, iPhone, and iPad). Pivoting at the very foundations of their core software (MacOS -> OS/X and iOS). Making not one but two very significant CPU architecture pivots (PPC -> x86 & ARM). And on top of all that they honed their design and execution to an amazing degree. That's the new Apple. They've taken over the market not by starting "ahead of their time" in the 80s or 90s and then waiting for the market to catch up. They've done so well precisely because they've kept running and kept innovating. It's all about the OODA loop. MS has struggled with structural and cultural problems which has limited its agility and giving it some blind spots in key areas, though they are starting to get better.
  - cwisecarver 14y ago
    I guess what I was trying to say is that Apple has always had a walled garden. They've always controlled the hardware and the operating system. Because of that they've always had a better experience. They didn't have to support the white box PCs from hundreds if not thousands of manufacturers. Microsoft always aimed to do that and considering the task they did a fairly decent job. But there were always problems. The rise of digital appliances like the iPhone, iPad, and iPod have made people come to expect that level of stability and it-just-works experience from their computers. Apple had that before people expected it. In the 90s and early 2000s consumers shrugged of the bad driver support, random crashes and litany of costly OS upgrades from Microsoft as just how things worked. Moving towards computing as an appliance task, while hard for techies to swallow, seems to be the way things are going. As more people with varying levels of technical prowess get involved the successful companies will be the ones that keep the experience stable. Building a walled garden is the easiest way to do that. Apple did it in the 80s. Microsoft is taking a great step towards building their own with the launch of Surface. I wish them all the luck, competition is great for the market. I just wish they would have done it sooner.
roc 14y ago
The implicit context for that claim is the consumer mobile market. What works or doesn't in the desktop market is as relevant as what works or doesn't in the server market. Microsoft has never generated anything of note in the mobile or consumer markets via an OEM strategy. And the only things it has generated of note in the consumer market are all first-party offerings. (Peripherals, XBox) None of that suggests Microsoft must try end-to-end integration to succeed. But neither does their success on the desktop invalidate the fact that their OEM strategy has failed them horribly for a decade. (Tablets, UMPCs, Media Players, Phones) The fact that Apple's attention to detail wasn't nearly as much of an advantage on the desktop, while Microsoft's 'ubiquity via licensing' strategy was, only underscores the point that the consumer mobile market is different. And even the consumer phone market is demonstrably different from the rest of the consumer mobile market. Because while an OEM strategy is arguably working for Android in the phone market, it isn't going any farther in media players or tablets than Microsoft's OEM-based offerings.
- hollerith 14y ago
  >And the only things it has generated of note in the consumer market are all first-party offerings. (Peripherals, XBox) That statement makes sense only if you define Windows not to be in the consumer market, which is, uh, stretching it.

MichaelGG 14y ago

So your point is that it takes more than a general strategy to be a success? Well, yes. It doesn't change the fact that lots of Microsoft's products, even its core Windows platform, is hindered by OEM's loading crap and generally not caring about the end-user experience.

huggyface 14y ago
And a lot of Microsoft's success was courtesy of partners with aligned interests (not unlike Android, it should be mentioned). Dell, IBM, HP, Compaq (pre-destruction), and on and on: all assisted in Microsoft's growth to powerhouse. Apple pursued a very different approach -- one that was a running failure for many years -- until they rose, in my opinion, on the back of the iTunes entrenchment. Now they're making major dough by their position, but it's one that few others can emulate (RIM is currently falling hard with the same approach). Can Microsoft cargo-cult and copy one part of that and grow by leaps and bounds? Maybe, or maybe not. De-aligning with their partners is as possibly a disaster in the making.

cwisecarver 14y ago

Apple was just ahead of their time. They were delivering a superior, end-to-end experience before people expected such a thing from computers. The masses have come to expect that now and Microsoft is shifting, later than they should have, to the in the right direction.

InclinedPlane 14y ago
Apple really wasn't ahead of its time. Back during the 80s and 90s the extent to which a Mac or a Windows PC was "superior" was highly debatable. There were solid points on either side and it was never an apples-to-apples comparison. But things changed. First, everything got cheaper. The average PC in 1995 is vastly more expensive than a tablet, smartphone, or laptop today. Second, Apple got a whole lot better. They upped their game by leaps and bounds. If you gave someone in 1990 who is using a Mac an iPhone they may not have any clue that the two devices bear any sort of relationship, and in many ways they don't share very much underlying technology. Apple spent the 2000s pivoting, again and again. Pivoting to services and digital goods (music and apps). Pivoting to mobile devices (iPod, iPhone, and iPad). Pivoting at the very foundations of their core software (MacOS -> OS/X and iOS). Making not one but two very significant CPU architecture pivots (PPC -> x86 & ARM). And on top of all that they honed their design and execution to an amazing degree. That's the new Apple. They've taken over the market not by starting "ahead of their time" in the 80s or 90s and then waiting for the market to catch up. They've done so well precisely because they've kept running and kept innovating. It's all about the OODA loop. MS has struggled with structural and cultural problems which has limited its agility and giving it some blind spots in key areas, though they are starting to get better.
- cwisecarver 14y ago
  I guess what I was trying to say is that Apple has always had a walled garden. They've always controlled the hardware and the operating system. Because of that they've always had a better experience. They didn't have to support the white box PCs from hundreds if not thousands of manufacturers. Microsoft always aimed to do that and considering the task they did a fairly decent job. But there were always problems. The rise of digital appliances like the iPhone, iPad, and iPod have made people come to expect that level of stability and it-just-works experience from their computers. Apple had that before people expected it. In the 90s and early 2000s consumers shrugged of the bad driver support, random crashes and litany of costly OS upgrades from Microsoft as just how things worked. Moving towards computing as an appliance task, while hard for techies to swallow, seems to be the way things are going. As more people with varying levels of technical prowess get involved the successful companies will be the ones that keep the experience stable. Building a walled garden is the easiest way to do that. Apple did it in the 80s. Microsoft is taking a great step towards building their own with the launch of Surface. I wish them all the luck, competition is great for the market. I just wish they would have done it sooner.

roc 14y ago

The implicit context for that claim is the consumer mobile market. What works or doesn't in the desktop market is as relevant as what works or doesn't in the server market. Microsoft has never generated anything of note in the mobile or consumer markets via an OEM strategy. And the only things it has generated of note in the consumer market are all first-party offerings. (Peripherals, XBox) None of that suggests Microsoft must try end-to-end integration to succeed. But neither does their success on the desktop invalidate the fact that their OEM strategy has failed them horribly for a decade. (Tablets, UMPCs, Media Players, Phones) The fact that Apple's attention to detail wasn't nearly as much of an advantage on the desktop, while Microsoft's 'ubiquity via licensing' strategy was, only underscores the point that the consumer mobile market is different. And even the consumer phone market is demonstrably different from the rest of the consumer mobile market. Because while an OEM strategy is arguably working for Android in the phone market, it isn't going any farther in media players or tablets than Microsoft's OEM-based offerings.

hollerith 14y ago
>And the only things it has generated of note in the consumer market are all first-party offerings. (Peripherals, XBox) That statement makes sense only if you define Windows not to be in the consumer market, which is, uh, stretching it.