Microsoft and Apple are Clearly Heading in Different Directions

[JMH]

After this weeks CES keynote, it’s clear to me (as if it wasn’t before) that Microsoft and Apple are heading in two different directions. Apples response to the operating system, as proven with their preview of OSX Lion, is that they want to make the desktop as simple as iOS which runs on iPods, iPhone and iPad devices. Bringing the app-mentality, app-launcher and app-store to the desktop is clearly their main priority. “Form over function” always seems to be the unofficial mantra coming out of Cupertino.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has something totally different in mind. Whereas “form over function” is Apple’s mantra, “function over form” could be Microsoft’s. They want Windows on every device, which is clear after their announcement to make Windows ARM-compatible. The problem with this thinking is that they tried this before and failed (remember “Windows Everywhere”). In their own words, and I’m paraphrasing, they essentially said in their Windows Phone 7 unveiling that consumers didn’t want a copy of Windows on their handheld devices, which is odd, when you consider that Microsoft spent last years and this years CES touting Windows 7 as their tablet solution.

Microsoft and Apple are Clearly Heading in Different Directions | Windows 7 News

 

[Dave76]

As they have been and as it should be

 

[BCXtreme]

In their own words, and I’m paraphrasing, they essentially said in their Windows Phone 7 unveiling that consumers didn’t want a copy of Windows on their handheld devices, which is odd, when you consider that Microsoft spent last years and this years CES touting Windows 7 as their tablet solution.

Wait a minute, what?? No no no ... a tablet is not a "handheld device," at least not in the traditional sense. Saying that consumers don't want a copy of desktop Windows on their phones (hence, Windows Phone 7), doesn't mean that desktop Windows is not fit for tablets either! Windows Phone, as its name indicates, is not being marketed for tablet computers, nor did MS intend to do so.

Let's get the facts straight...

 

[Stratos]

Good points by all. The gen public will always appear to compare both companies as if they're supposed to be the same but I haven't since the days of the Apple IIe and IBM PC XT.

Apple's direction with Lion is indeed about providing the user a unique computing experience. They're indeed bringing the multi-touch interface of their iPhone/iTouch/iPad to OSX Lion. I believe it's a very interesting and good move, in some cases I felt using even the most precision mouse can't compare to your body's finger control. On the bad side, I don't like the idea of touching my viewing screen with my fingers. IMO the multi-touch idea worked out as a great idea for portable devices but I'm not so certain about desktop/laptop computing. Loyal Apple users will tend to buy anything Apple no matter what it is. Successful marketing, brainwashing, call it what you will. If Apple sold "dehydrated bottled water" on the shelves, I believe they will succeed.

MS on the other hand has always battled themselves more than with Apple. If you've worked alongside Microsoft engineers, you'll find that the marketing section and engineering sections are always locked in combat. MS has been the target of harsh criticism by both Apple and MS customers that it's become somewhat a tradition/cool thing to hate MS. MS could come up with an incredible product and the majority of the people will simply find a way to hate it regardless.

My issue with MS and portable devices is that the Windows 7 Phone OS is actually quite good, but it targets a market segment a lot less pricey than the iPhone. Apple's marketing does a great job to continue promoting and nurturing their iOS on their products, I rarely see anything on Windows 7 Phone after it became available. Personally I feel that MS's marketing team did a terrible job at calling their phone OS "Windows 7"... I mean, what does Windows 7 Phone OS have anything to do with Windows 7 the desktop OS, so why even call it that? The iPhone would sound incredibly stupid if it were called "Mac OSX Phone" so why MS went with that is beyond me.

For portable devices (to include future Netbooks), my belief is that MS needs to stop with the Win7 Starter Edition approach and simply consider developing a much simpler, smaller footprint, yet flexible/powerful OS unique to that product market. They shouldn't try so hard to make 1 product fit all simply by varying what's included in the package. Using a shovel may be great to move lots of snow but it's not the best tool when eating cereal.

 

[Buddahfan]

Good points by all. The gen public will always appear to compare both companies as if they're supposed to be the same but I haven't since the days of the Apple IIe and IBM PC XT.

Apple's direction with Lion is indeed about providing the user a unique computing experience. They're indeed bringing the multi-touch interface of their iPhone/iTouch/iPad to OSX Lion. I believe it's a very interesting and good move, in some cases I felt using even the most precision mouse can't compare to your body's finger control. On the bad side, I don't like the idea of touching my viewing screen with my fingers. IMO the multi-touch idea worked out as a great idea for portable devices but I'm not so certain about desktop/laptop computing. Loyal Apple users will tend to buy anything Apple no matter what it is. Successful marketing, brainwashing, call it what you will. If Apple sold "dehydrated bottled water" on the shelves, I believe they will succeed.

MS on the other hand has always battled themselves more than with Apple. If you've worked alongside Microsoft engineers, you'll find that the marketing section and engineering sections are always locked in combat. MS has been the target of harsh criticism by both Apple and MS customers that it's become somewhat a tradition/cool thing to hate MS. MS could come up with an incredible product and the majority of the people will simply find a way to hate it regardless.

My issue with MS and portable devices is that the Windows 7 Phone OS is actually quite good, but it targets a market segment a lot less pricey than the iPhone. Apple's marketing does a great job to continue promoting and nurturing their iOS on their products, I rarely see anything on Windows 7 Phone after it became available. Personally I feel that MS's marketing team did a terrible job at calling their phone OS "Windows 7"... I mean, what does Windows 7 Phone OS have anything to do with Windows 7 the desktop OS, so why even call it that? The iPhone would sound incredibly stupid if it were called "Mac OSX Phone" so why MS went with that is beyond me.

For portable devices (to include future Netbooks), my belief is that MS needs to stop with the Win7 Starter Edition approach and simply consider developing a much simpler, smaller footprint, yet flexible/powerful OS unique to that product market. They shouldn't try so hard to make 1 product fit all simply by varying what's included in the package. Using a shovel may be great to move lots of snow but it's not the best tool when eating cereal.

I don't know much about Apple and don't own any of their IOS products.

However, with MSFT it seems to me that all the editions of Windows 7 desktop are basically the same program and code. The difference is that when you upgrade from say Starter Edition to Home Premium the upgrade basically turns on some features that are in the Starter Edition but not turned on. So on and so forth with other upgrades in the Windows 7 line.

It is much cheaper to design and code an OS this way than it is to make them completely different programs.

I don't know enough about the Window 7 mobile OS to know whether it is also just Windows 7 desktop with features turned off, though that doesn't seem likely.

In any case I do agree that it was a bad marketing decision to name the Windows Mobile OS also Windows 7.

 

[BCXtreme]

My issue with MS and portable devices is that the Windows 7 Phone OS is actually quite good, but it targets a market segment a lot less pricey than the iPhone.

Microsoft is doing the exact same thing with phones that they did with PCs. Apple comes up with fantastic software and markets it with a high price tag. Then Microsoft comes in with their own fantastic software and markets it with a much lower price. The success of this strategy is why at least 90% of the world's computers are Windows PCs rather than Macs.

Personally I feel that MS's marketing team did a terrible job at calling their phone OS "Windows 7"... I mean, what does Windows 7 Phone OS have anything to do with Windows 7 the desktop OS, so why even call it that? The iPhone would sound incredibly stupid if it were called "Mac OSX Phone" so why MS went with that is beyond me.

1) It's not "Windows 7 Phone". It's "Windows Phone" with the current version number being 7 (last version of Windows Mobile was 6.x), hence "Windows Phone 7".

2) Prior to the second major version release, the official line from Apple was that "iPhone runs OS X". It wasn't until the 2.0 announcement that they dubbed it "iPhone OS". And then of course they changed it to "iOS" just last year.

I don't know enough about the Window 7 mobile OS to know whether it is also just Windows 7 desktop with features turned off, though that doesn't seem likely.

Windows Phone 7 is definitely an independent OS for mobile, any screenshot of a phone that's running it is enough to demonstrate that.

In any case I do agree that it was a bad marketing decision to name the Windows Mobile OS also Windows 7.

I'm going to end with this clarification one last time, just to make sure it's understood. The mobile OS is not called "Windows 7." It's called "Windows Phone". The version number is 7. The version number would still have been 7 if they had never rebranded the OS, because Windows Mobile was on version 6.5. Thus, "Windows Mobile 7" was renamed "Windows Phone 7". It was not named after Windows 7; the "7" part was not a "marketing decision" in any way. It's just how the version number happened to fall. The next major release, at some point in the future, will be "Windows Phone 8" and so on.

 

[Stratos]

Fair enough about the Windows Phone 7 remarks. I personally don't care if it is the 7th version of their mobile OS, it's still a bad name and obviously it can get very confusing in relation to their desktop OS. A small change like calling the OS for example, "M7" (mobile 7) would make it less confusing than adding "Windows" to its name. I'm just making something up but as you can see it removes nearly all of the possibility of associating the mobile OS to the desktop OS.

BCX, you're appearing to suggest that MS follows Apple in the scheme of their software and possibly hardware development for their computers, while it may be true for their phone market, it's false regarding computers, that's not why 90% of the computers around the world are on PC platforms.

Apple's target segment with the computer market is aimed at consumers/pro-sumers and professionals. Consumers make up only a portion of the total % of computers using either OSX or Windows. MS targets a much larger segment, both end users all the way to enterprise levels.

For their OS, Apple limits their OS support to Apple-licensed hardware. At the higher levels, Apple lacks a software product that compares to what 2008 Datacenter can provide. On the consumer end, you could say that staying with Microsoft Operating Systems means for the most part "hardware freedom". End users can pick almost whatever they want (as long as it's supported for the respective Win versions) and it will work. Apple limits you to only what's on the menu for hardware choices. Soup Nazi anyone?

Then there's cost issues. Many large institutions and corporations purchase computer hardware and software in bulk, you get more PC than you would buying Macs. Not all students are able to shell out over $1000 for a i3/i5 notebook, sometimes their budget is for under $800 and Apple lacks a real computer product in that price range. The iPad doesn't really count as it requires you to connect to a computer via iTunes when you first turn the unit on.

I've heard some people compare OSX with Windows in terms of pricing, $30 vs over a hundred bucks. That also can't be compared fairly because Apple never wrote OSX from the ground up, it's FreeBSD code slapped with a pretty face, added things to it and called it OSX. The kernel is not an Apple kernel, a simple uname -r in Terminal will reveal a Unix kernel. MS Windows OS are coded all by MS, it's not some open source code with a fancy face, at the core the kernel is a MS kernel (6.1 for Win7). That's why MS can sell Windows for that sort of amount, it's a Genuine product. OSX would compare better with Linux Mint or Ubuntu.

 

[BCXtreme]

BCX, you're appearing to suggest that MS follows Apple in the scheme of their software and possibly hardware development for their computers...

No, that's absolutely not what I'm suggesting. Windows Mobile existed long before iOS, Pocket PCs before the iPhone, and Tablet PCs before the iPad. I'm suggesting that Microsoft's success, both among end-users and corporations, is because they make their products affordable to the masses, something Apple has never been willing to do.

Then there's cost issues. Many large institutions and corporations purchase computer hardware and software in bulk, you get more PC than you would buying Macs. Not all students are able to shell out over $1000 for a i3/i5 notebook, sometimes their budget is for under $800 and Apple lacks a real computer product in that price range. The iPad doesn't really count as it requires you to connect to a computer via iTunes when you first turn the unit on.

Which was my point exactly.

I've heard some people compare OSX with Windows in terms of pricing, $30 vs over a hundred bucks.

I've heard this too, and it's ridiculous, not just because of the kernel (although that's very interesting), but because OS X is one operating system that has been updated several times over the years. Windows, on the other hand, is a series of operating systems ... each new Windows release has way more new stuff in it than the OS X releases. Apple charged Leopard customers $30 for Snow Leopard because Snow Leopard was little more than a service pack for Leopard. Microsoft charges XP/Vista customers much more money for Windows 7 because Windows 7, for almost all intents and purposes, is a whole new OS.

 

[Buddahfan]

My issue with MS and portable devices is that the Windows 7 Phone OS is actually quite good, but it targets a market segment a lot less pricey than the iPhone.

Microsoft is doing the exact same thing with phones that they did with PCs. Apple comes up with fantastic software and markets it with a high price tag. Then Microsoft comes in with their own fantastic software and markets it with a much lower price. The success of this strategy is why at least 90% of the world's computers are Windows PCs rather than Macs.

Personally I feel that MS's marketing team did a terrible job at calling their phone OS "Windows 7"... I mean, what does Windows 7 Phone OS have anything to do with Windows 7 the desktop OS, so why even call it that? The iPhone would sound incredibly stupid if it were called "Mac OSX Phone" so why MS went with that is beyond me.

1) It's not "Windows 7 Phone". It's "Windows Phone" with the current version number being 7 (last version of Windows Mobile was 6.x), hence "Windows Phone 7".

2) Prior to the second major version release, the official line from Apple was that "iPhone runs OS X". It wasn't until the 2.0 announcement that they dubbed it "iPhone OS". And then of course they changed it to "iOS" just last year.

I don't know enough about the Window 7 mobile OS to know whether it is also just Windows 7 desktop with features turned off, though that doesn't seem likely.

Windows Phone 7 is definitely an independent OS for mobile, any screenshot of a phone that's running it is enough to demonstrate that.

In any case I do agree that it was a bad marketing decision to name the Windows Mobile OS also Windows 7.

I'm going to end with this clarification one last time, just to make sure it's understood. The mobile OS is not called "Windows 7." It's called "Windows Phone". The version number is 7. The version number would still have been 7 if they had never rebranded the OS, because Windows Mobile was on version 6.5. Thus, "Windows Mobile 7" was renamed "Windows Phone 7". It was not named after Windows 7; the "7" part was not a "marketing decision" in any way. It's just how the version number happened to fall. The next major release, at some point in the future, will be "Windows Phone 8" and so on.

The fact that both are named Windows and that they happen to be on the same version is confusing and makes it sound like it is Windows 7 unless it is explained correctly.

Why did MSFT name the phone OS "Windows whatever"? Apple does not use the same OS name for its desktops and mobile units. MSFT should have been more original, in my opinion, in naming their mobile operating system.

 

[Stratos]

No, that's absolutely not what I'm suggesting. Windows Mobile existed long before iOS, Pocket PCs before the iPhone, and Tablet PCs before the iPad. I'm suggesting that Microsoft's success, both among end-users and corporations, is because they make their products affordable to the masses, something Apple has never been willing to do.

Not trying to defend Apple but the term "affordable" isn't a static value, it's a relative term in relation to one's budget. If I can spend $2000 on a laptop, it's obviously affordable, to me. If you read what I mentioned earlier, you'll see that I specified that Apple targets specific segments in the price market. If you're cheap or don't have the funds, a $700 PC laptop can appear "un-affordable". If people are willing to shell out the cash, it's obviously affordable to those buyers. Don't mistake the term "affordable" with the word "cheap". Affordable implies value at the selling price, cheap is simply about shelling out the least as possible.

I've heard this too, and it's ridiculous, not just because of the kernel (although that's very interesting), but because OS X is one operating system that has been updated several times over the years. Windows, on the other hand, is a series of operating systems ... each new Windows release has way more new stuff in it than the OS X releases. Apple charged Leopard customers $30 for Snow Leopard because Snow Leopard was little more than a service pack for Leopard. Microsoft charges XP/Vista customers much more money for Windows 7 because Windows 7, for almost all intents and purposes, is a whole new OS.

I didn't just mention the kernel, I did mention very clearly that Windows was built from the ground up. It starts at the kernel which is the core of any operating system all the way up to the frontend (GUI) to include all additional apps which accompanies it. The Windows kernel is not open source like OSX, I was merely stating that MS offers a true MS product, not something they "took over" based off someone else's work.

The whole "updating" of OSX isn't necessarily a bad thing. Apple chose a very solid foundation to build upon, a tried and test proven Unix base which offers raw simplicity, incredible flexibility and above all else, solid security. I nor any professional believe they should necessarily overhaul something that's proven to work. No sense in fixing something that's not broken. However the needs of an end user is ever changing and they're doing their best to provide features with real value. My only beef with Apple (and OSX) is that they appear to mislead people into thinking OSX is superior/more secure than Windows due to what Apple did. That's not the case, the primary reason why it's so good is due to the parts of the OS Apple had nothing to do with. I don't like how they appear to take credit for work they never did in that manner. Apple can take credit for how the OS interacts with the user through its GUI, like how unmounting an external drive is as simple as dragging the icon into the trash, compared to using Safely Remove Hardware and Eject Media on Windows 7.

Windows has taken the approach of re-inventing the wheel, it's a much tougher road to walk but all credit towards its development is due to Microsoft's efforts without open source development. I admire this as this is what I consider a "genuine product". They didn't pull a "chinese trick" where they took a photo of a completed product, ran home and created an updated version that's cheaper to produce. MS is also taking on a much broader range of customers, not just limited to consumer end users. I currently support MS more because I believe Microsoft Windows Operating Systems and the PC computer format represent "computing freedom". MS doesn't have to resort to "Hi I'm a Mac and he's a PC" type of ads to promote their products.

 

[BCXtreme]

The fact that both are named Windows and that they happen to be on the same version is confusing and makes it sound like it is Windows 7 unless it is explained correctly.

Why did MSFT name the phone OS "Windows whatever"? Apple does not use the same OS name for its desktops and mobile units. MSFT should have been more original, in my opinion, in naming their mobile operating system.

They certainly could have been, and might still be at some point. Like I said, Apple originally called their mobile software "OS X" just like the desktop software, and then they changed it later on. Microsoft might do the same thing.

Not trying to defend Apple but the term "affordable" isn't a static value, it's a relative term in relation to one's budget.

Which is why I said "affordable to the masses". Most people (the masses) don't have enough money to justify buying a Mac for $2000 when they could buy a PC of equal or greater power for half of that figure.

I didn't just mention the kernel, I did mention very clearly that Windows was built from the ground up. It starts at the kernel which is the core of any operating system all the way up to the frontend (GUI) to include all additional apps which accompanies it. The Windows kernel is not open source like OSX, I was merely stating that MS offers a true MS product, not something they "took over" based off someone else's work.

The whole "updating" of OSX isn't necessarily a bad thing. Apple chose a very solid foundation to build upon, a tried and test proven Unix base which offers raw simplicity, incredible flexibility and above all else, solid security. I nor any professional believe they should necessarily overhaul something that's proven to work. No sense in fixing something that's not broken. However the needs of an end user is ever changing and they're doing their best to provide features with real value. My only beef with Apple (and OSX) is that they appear to mislead people into thinking OSX is superior/more secure than Windows due to what Apple did. That's not the case, the primary reason why it's so good is due to the parts of the OS Apple had nothing to do with. I don't like how they appear to take credit for work they never did in that manner. Apple can take credit for how the OS interacts with the user through its GUI, like how unmounting an external drive is as simple as dragging the icon into the trash, compared to using Safely Remove Hardware and Eject Media on Windows 7.

Windows has taken the approach of re-inventing the wheel, it's a much tougher road to walk but all credit towards its development is due to Microsoft's efforts without open source development. I admire this as this is what I consider a "genuine product". They didn't pull a "chinese trick" where they took a photo of a completed product, ran home and created an updated version that's cheaper to produce. MS is also taking on a much broader range of customers, not just limited to consumer end users. I currently support MS more because I believe Microsoft Windows Operating Systems and the PC computer format represent "computing freedom". MS doesn't have to resort to "Hi I'm a Mac and he's a PC" type of ads to promote their products.

I wasn't disagreeing with you; I apologize if it sounded that way. I was only adding to what you said.

 

[Stratos]

Which is why I said "affordable to the masses". Most people (the masses) don't have enough money to justify buying a Mac for $2000 when they could buy a PC of equal or greater power for half of that figure.

I don't agree and I've explained why. You're assuming that the "masses" don't have have raw funds to buy a Mac. An individual may have $5000 in their pocket, that doesn't not mean they'll going to spend all of it. An institution might have $300,000 to spend on buying new computers, that doesn't mean they want to spend all of it.

- There are many people who can afford Macs but simply choose not to for each person's unique reasons. Obviously these people didn't find value with Macs and looked elsewhere.

- You're also leaving out people who are simply "cheap". I've stated this before. There are those who simply refuse to pay, for example more than $1000 on any computer. That naturally limits their choices since Macs target a specific price market.

- Again, there are those who are on limited budgets, who simply lack raw funds, like full-time college students who aren't lucky enough to have "bank of mom and dad" buying everything they need and want, however there are those who do. If they only have $500 in their pockets, well that's what they must work with. If that $500 could buy them a shiny new Macbook Pro, I believe they would.

The decision to buy a Mac does not start and end at how much cash someone has in their wallet, the decision often times involves a certain value the buyer seeks. This value is sometimes intangible and difficult to measure but it's still a very realistic factor when making the purchase.

It's the same reason why people by LV and Gucci bags, Porsche and BMW's instead of nylon backpacks and Kia-made cars.

Macs also involve a unique experience loyal users enjoy, something a lot of them believe they're not finding by using a Windows PC, nothing wrong with that.