If Apple would be what Microsoft is today with 98% for Apple and 2% for Microsoft, would the computer industry be any better/cheaper/more advance/etc than what it is with Microsoft?
What is your guess?
What is your guess?
Would Apple be a better leader?
- Thread starter PeteRoy
- Start date
RelaxTheMind
Platinum Member
- Oct 15, 2002
- 2,245
- 0
- 76
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
Microsoft >>>>>> apple
sure microsoft eats babies and the souls of the unborn but if apple was in charge we would all be slaves to their proprietary hardware/software and forced to buy their products rather than normal ibm clones
They would charge huge amounts for non cutting edge technology and shove BS benchmarks down our throats to keep us in line.
sure microsoft eats babies and the souls of the unborn but if apple was in charge we would all be slaves to their proprietary hardware/software and forced to buy their products rather than normal ibm clones
They would charge huge amounts for non cutting edge technology and shove BS benchmarks down our throats to keep us in line.I think being the underdog encourages you to try harder whereas having what is pretty much a monopoly can result in stagnation. Having said that, Jobs shows (at least, used to) show an almost unhealthy obsession with perfection. Just look at what happened with neXt computers. They spent so much effort on what was the most amazing monitor stand (commonly believed to be very similar to the 2gen iMac with the screen on a stalk) that little time was spent on more essential items. This, in part, caused the downfall of neXt.
In essence Bill G is a seriously good businessman with less focus on design and artistic flare. Steve is also a good businessman, but has the character trait whereby he obsesses over design. Currently it seems that apple makes the innovations and other companies rip them off. Just look at the iPod or OSX for examples. In terms of design and OS features, they already are the industry leaders, but in numbers of users (OS-speaking), they aren't.
It reminds me of how technologies found in F1 cars work their way down into commercial cars. A company spends massive amounts developing technologies, then these technologies are imitated and made cheaper (design costs a lot).
I'm going for a 'no' that the industry would be better if apple were leading it.
50 : 50 would be optimal as both companies would be working their asses off trying to outdo each other.
In essence Bill G is a seriously good businessman with less focus on design and artistic flare. Steve is also a good businessman, but has the character trait whereby he obsesses over design. Currently it seems that apple makes the innovations and other companies rip them off. Just look at the iPod or OSX for examples. In terms of design and OS features, they already are the industry leaders, but in numbers of users (OS-speaking), they aren't.
It reminds me of how technologies found in F1 cars work their way down into commercial cars. A company spends massive amounts developing technologies, then these technologies are imitated and made cheaper (design costs a lot).
I'm going for a 'no' that the industry would be better if apple were leading it.
50 : 50 would be optimal as both companies would be working their asses off trying to outdo each other.
no. we would be forced to pay retail prices and sales would not exist. plus mac OSX would have as much viruses/crap as windows does right now.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
Not necessarily, success is based more on luck & business strategy (especially in the marketing department) than product quality or value.
apple also has a luxury that microsft does not have. they do not have the buisness's to think about when they make a big change to their os. microsoft has to think about all the corporations when they make a minor change there there os. if they added things like expose and whatnot to there os the buisness's would be so pissed cause they would have to teach all there users how to use the new features which costs them more tech support. apple has a smaller market share and can get away with this type of thing and releasing new os's all the time. so if apple were on the top i think the roles would be reversed. and microsft would do the inovating
edited for spelling
edited for spelling
iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
Don't think there would be much changes. Probably spyware in MAC OS....blue screen of death/crash. Like someone mentioned before, because Apple is the underdog, they are focus on spitting out quality product. If they were to be mass market like MS, it would be a different story.
Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
I had an Atari ST back then and there was a piece of hardware that plugged into the cartridge port of the Atari to allow it to "emulate" a Mac. I put emulate in quotes because it really wasn't true emulation as it used the actual Mac boot ROMS to load the Mac OS. It was called Magic Sac and was a pretty interesting little piece of hardware.
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
Yes, it would be far worse with Apple in charge. Apple has always charged very high prices for the higher-end products and software products, and seems to do a better job of "locking out" competitors making cheaper clones of their systems.
Also, keep in mind that they're already finding a bunch of security holes in Mac OS X, and it only has something like 2% market share. If that OS had a majority market share like Windows 2000/XP does, I have a hunch that it would be just as virus and spyware ridden as any Microsoft OS is right now.
Also, keep in mind that they're already finding a bunch of security holes in Mac OS X, and it only has something like 2% market share. If that OS had a majority market share like Windows 2000/XP does, I have a hunch that it would be just as virus and spyware ridden as any Microsoft OS is right now.
Steve Jobs started NeXT after he was fired from Apple. Apple then bought NeXT and used a lot of the technology in the Apple OS.
He's nearly "ruined the company twice" yet he's brought it back from millions in the red to producing record profits.
Apple historically has had some of the best product in Silicon Valley with the worst management. Previous CEOs were mostly inept and didn't really have any idea of how to market the product from a technical or aesthetic standpoint. Jobs comes along and things change. BIGTIME.
As CEO of Pixar as well he seems to be sending that studio on a fast clip for growth. I'm not really seeing a track record of failure here.
All this pricing stuff is based on the behavior of a company with 3% market share catering to a clear niche in terms of computational hardware (iPod excluded). You're also assuming a boatload of other factors will be in place as well.
It's obvious that if you are on top you will HAVE to cut prices or else someone else can come undercut you. If Dell didn't run the coupon deals, would they be as profitable? Probably not, because your average joe is not going to pay $1500 for a laptop.
But then, there are few computer companies in the world which have control over their hardware and their software, so who's to say "what would have been the case?"
Exactly. Apple fanboys don't understand this. Microsoft owns 95% of the market. That means they have to satisfy 95% of the computer owners there. They can't make huge changes to their Windows because it will anger and confuse a lot of people. Businesses don't want to reteach a new OS to their employees, and most adults don't want to learn a new Windows. The only people who wants new features are the teens who probably pirated their version of Windows anyways.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter