Would we hate Microsoft if it were Apple?

Let's face it: Apple is every bit as proprietary as Microsoft. More so, in fact. Apple takes secrecy to new levels. It prefers to build everything itself and maintains a closed, tightly integrated ecosystem.

And yet many of us, myself included, regularly deride Microsoft, not Apple, for being proprietary and greedy.

Why does Apple get a free pass? Because Apple makes exceptional hardware and software that is consistently beautiful. Period. It's lock-in, but lock-in never looked so good.... :-)

I suspect that if the quality of Microsoft's products improved, we'd overlook many of its character flaws. I'm not talking about stability, in which area Microsoft has significantly improved. I'm talking aesthetics. Superior design covers a multitude of sins at Apple. At Microsoft, inferior design accentuates its multitude of sins (Monopoly past, Millennium, Blue Screen of Death, etc.).

Microsoft makes products that people have to use. Apple makes products that people want to use. That's why we love Apple and deride Microsoft. It's as simple as that.

[Boomstickedition]

So you are saying Apple gets a free pass because it looks pretty?

[mediocrates--2008]

I'm not sure I can get behind you on this one, Matt. Sure, Apple makes great products - as anyone could that insisted on micro-managing every small detail like a the Myanmar junta. Given that they control every detail on their roughly 5% market share, I would expect it to maintain quality more easily than Microsoft, which attempts to work with the miasma of hardware configurations on the computing world's other 95%. If Apple were brave enough to take on the task MS sets for itself, would the results be any different? I think not.
Apple has only managed to survive as an OS because it has successfully appealed to that subculture which desperately needs to feel more noble and illuminated that the rest of us poor slugs.
You're comapring Apples to oranges. MS trys to be all things to all people, and must suffer the consequences. Apple is the goose-stepping, fascist, despot of the OS world, and their can be no greater sin.

[erikzimm]

I think the reason we don't deride Apple is because, year after year, they put out quality products. As I write, I'm using my PowerMac G5 from early spring 2004. How many Windows users can you honestly say are still using a computer in excellent condition that's over four years old? And when I decide to shell out and get a new one, it's good to know the resale value on this computer is going to be phenomenal (before my G5, I sold my old three and a half year old G4 for $1100).

[pepe_ki]

Well - I am... More than 5 years old actually... And I am very happy about it.
The only thing which drove me craze were Nvidia drivers and that is the point.
Do not blame MS where other failed (90% of cases).
Where MS failed - IMHO - was that their platform allowed this louzy pieces of SW bring them down. But it is quite hard to accomplish everything - right?
I run Linux and Windoze at home - each for it was designed for. And as I have said - I am a happy person.

[Grifter02]

I don't recall Microsoft ever selling PCs, so how can you compare a PowerMac to a PC running Windows? What does Microsoft have to do with that comparison? I know people running Mac OS on crappy DIY PCs, are those going to be worth $1100 3 years down the road simply because they're running Mac OS? No, because the OS has nothing to do with the quality of the machine running it.

[Igiveup2]

No problem with this 5 year old XP machine. My G5 was dead within two years. One HDD failure and two logic board failures. Logic board failures are a more common problem than Apple cares to admit.

[Johnny Mac 7]

Why does Apple get a free pass? Because Apple makes exceptional hardware and software that is consistently beautiful. Period. It's lock-in, but lock-in never looked so good.... :-)

Says who? Define beautiful. I've used Apple products since the late 80s. As time went on I grew tired of the limitations that were put on me by apple. As an example the keyboard on most PCs have extra buttons where with one touch you can access email, the internet, a calculator and many other functions. Apple's minimalist design doesn't. The front of my PC tower has many ports: firewire, USB, card reader, microdrive and more. Apple's minimalist design doesn't. Beauty to me equates to functionality, convenience and speed. Just for the record, I have both a MAC and a PC at home. The MAC is for graphic design work. The PC for everything else. If I hadn't invested a lot of money in software for the MAC I would be doing graphic design work on the PC. Until XP MAC had a far superior OS. They no longer do. I also have Vista on my PC and have installed some new programs on it. I have no complaints about XP or Vista contrary to what many say. I don't have an ipod. My MP3 player plays most formats, has an FM radio with the ability to record it, has line in recording and voice recording. It also has higher quality audio. The ipod has nothing to offer me. I could go on about price, value, etc. The point is ENOUGH BS ABOUT APPLE.

[The_Decider]

What hardware does Apple make?

[Hugmup]

Apple makes two versions of the Mac Mini (desktop), four versions of the iMac (desktop), three versions of the Macbook (laptop), three versions of the MacBook Pro (laptop), one highly configurable Mac Pro (workstation), three wireless routers (Airport, Airport Extreme, and Time Capsule, which has built-in network storage), several MP3 players, a couple of cell phones, a TV set-top box, a mouse in wired and wireless versions, and a keyboard, in wired and wireless versions. I think that's it. They deliberately keep the number of SKUs down.

Like other manufacturers, they design the hardware and the actual manufacturing takes place in the orient under contract.

[Hugmup]

Sorry, I forgot their server line.

[The_Decider]

You do realize that most of that is hardware designed and built by other companies don't you? What hardware inside and iMac does Apple design and manufacture? Answer: nothing. Buying parts off the shelf and putting them together doesn't make for a hardware maker. It makes them an OEM that also creates its own high quality OS. Apple is a software company.

[Hugmup]

Actually, Apple is not completely comparable to Microsoft. Apple is comparable to a Dell-Microsoft merger. It manufactures computer hardware for which it makes an operating system.

Here's why Apple is adored.

Apple's operating system is based on Darwin, an open-source kernel. Microsoft's kernel is proprietary and closed.

Apple's operating system is certified UNIX 03. Microsoft Windows is compliant with itself.

Apple's browser is based on WebKit, which is open source and standards compliant. Microsoft's browser's rendering engine is closed and not compliant.

No really equivalent, but Apple's iWeb produces clean, standard code. Microsoft's Visual Studio produces code that throws Internet Explorer into quirks mode, so that even if the code is standards compliant, it renders differently on Internet Explorer than other browsers. This locks people into Internet Explorer.

Apple uses standard protocols. Microsoft uses proprietary protocols; for instance, Exchange uses a proprietary version of IMAP.

Apple's OS X has a consistent API that gives programmers access to everything. Windows has an inconsistent API that has hidden pieces.

Apple's XCode development tools are free on every OS X disk. Microsoft's development tools are expensive and must be purchased separately.

Apple's web server is Apache, it's open source, with no restrictions on features. Microsoft's web server is proprietary, with restrictions in client versions of Windows.

Apple makes high quality computers. Dell... well...

Apple's has a comprehensible product line. Dell's is very confusing.

Apple's computers contain everything you need. Dell's require add-ons.

Apple's computers don't put a rat's nest of wires on or behind your desk. Dell's do.

Apple has stupendous customer service. Dell just lost a lawsuit about their customer service in New York.

Apple has a chain of retail stores, with a helpful staff who let you play on the demo machines all day, and you can take your purchases home with you. Dell does not.

Apple has services like personal shoppers (free) and personal training (inexpensive).

Apple doesn't require you to know whether the problem is in the hardware or the software before they give you service. Dell blames Microsoft, and Microsoft blames Dell, and the customer is caught in the middle.

Apple lets you talk to a customer service representative for free in person, even if your warranty is up. Dell lets you chat online with someone following a script in India.

I could go on, but I think I made my point.

[The_Decider]

Dell doesn't design or manufacture hardware, probably not even their own crappy monitors, keyboards, and mice. Think Kenmore. Putting hardware together does not make for a hardware manufacturer.

[alegr]

"Microsoft makes products that I have to use. Apple makes products that I want to use. That's why I love Apple and deride Microsoft. It's as simple as that"

Why don't you just write about you, bot about "we people"?

[Igiveup2]

Credit Apple with emotional intelligence in design and marketing. There's a YouTube video of Jobs at the 1998 MacWorld expo talking about the strategy. It's about brand marketing and style. That's a strategy that attracts loyal, forgiving consumers. It's a force beyond reason, as anyone encountering the Apple fanboys on CNET can see.

[amadensor]

It is not that at all. It is that people who use Apple do so by choice, those who use MS do so by mandate. Until very recently, it was impossible to go into a normal store and buy a computer without MS on it.

We fight anything which is forced on us, that simple.

[jrepenning]

There's considerably more to Apple's "superior design" than appearance. Although Apple is certainly not above eye-candy for its own sake, most of the visual appeal of the Mac actually supports a more fundamental goal:

The fundamental Apple design philosophy has always been "do the right thing, well." The fundamental design philosophy of Microsoft has always been something more like "do all things, and enable many more." Both of those have their unique charm, but the "DTRTW" Apple philosophy is charming to the end user, and particularly the new user, while the Microsoft "DATEMM" philosophy is primarily charming to third-party integrators, IT departments, and deeply habituated power users.

[Metaljman]

Yeah, my HP with XP home from 2004 is still working great. Plus...I got to upgrade whatever I wanted.

Tired old Apple argument holds no steam in today's market.

[jimmyed2000]

I agree that Apple products look nice and work well. My MacBook Pro is just great. I agree that Apple keeps a very tight lid on their direction and whats coming next - the infamous silent drum. But what about all the OS X source code that Apple lets you get to? http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.5.2
Its a lot quicker and easier to get this than to fight through Microsoft's share source site.

Apple is popular at the moment because they are innovating. They single-handedly brought the MP3 player across the chasm (even the Pope has an iPod). They built the easiest, nicest operating system available today on top of an open source base. They are setting new standards for services (iTunes), devices (iPhone), and software (OS X, iLife etc). Their stuff is fun.

All this is almost inevitable because every 'small' player has to innovate to avoid extinction. Not only do they have to innovate on technology they have to create new markets and focus on what people want. Incumbents don't have to innovate, they just have to copy the innovators enough to ensure they don't get erroded away. They just need to keep trotting out something new once in a while. Hence Microsoft's lack of ambition recently. Microsoft must have wrongly assumed everyone wanted a new operating system from them. Maybe they should have asked people before they started. It is reported that Vista cost $10 billion to develop, the iPhone $150 million. Apple could develop 65 devices like the iPhone for the cost of Vista. The smart money seems to be at Apple and the market is rewarding it with market cap: Apple $166bn, Microsoft $263bn, IBM $178bn, Dell $47bn.

tangent: In '97 Michael Dell was asked what he'd do if he ran Apple - "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders". Jobs apparently emailed Dell last year with a reminder of this as Apple overtook Dell in market cap. /tangent

I'll stop waffling and get to the point. If Microsoft were Apple they would have stopped innovating a long time ago and if Apple ever gets to the size of Microsoft (I hope they don't) they'll stop or slow down a lot too. Until then I hope they keep up the stream of fun new things.

[Igiveup2]

If Microsoft had planted their feet on XP and maybe just tinkered around the edges, they would have been heavily (and justifiably) criticized for that, too. Major changes to an OS aren't easy, but Microsoft correctly saw that the old NT kernel and graphics engine were coming to the end of the line. Case in point to the article: would you criticize Apple for releasing Leopard?

[GoldenCol]

1997? You are missing something, jimmyed.
Who provided Apple (aug '97) with a $ 150 million lifeline that brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy? None other than Microsoft. That's exactly why I always chuckle when I hear or read another comment from an Apple fan (note that I did not say "fanboy") deriding Microsoft.

METALJMAN: I am with you. My IBM Thinkpad 1300 from 2001 with W2K is my everyday machine. Surfs the web, runs Office 2003, several multimedia programs and a whole other bunch of stuff. Sure don't need a G4 to do that.

[all-usernames-in-use]

Would we hate Sears if it were IKEA? Let me remind you that there are people who aren't impressed by either one...

[odubtaig]

Apple can't really generate a lot of lock-in just because they don't have the market share to force a particular file format or system on people. If they want people to adopt the system they have to interoperate with other systems so they can't just close people down to their own systems as they'd be locking themselves, not others, out.



I have no doubt that if Apple were as big as MS they'd be just as much a problem. The reason people hate MS more right now is that MS has more of a direct impact on their lives.

[penguiniator]

I can't help but feel that you think your entire audience consists of Mac lovers. You almost always refer to "We" when speaking about your own love of the Mac, as if it also applies to the rest of us. I dislike Microsoft, and abhor Apple even more. Apple succeeds in portraying themselves as the people's computer company. Their marketing is brilliant. If you buy their line, there are two choices, Mac or PC. Lately it is all about Mac or Vista. Unfortunately, every time I use a Mac I am slapped across the face while trying to get from point A to point B with the unspoken assertion: "It's our way, or the highway". I'll take the highway, thank you very much.

[solitare_pax]

It boils down to service. If Apple were a restaurant, it would be a clean full-service deal, with a good waitstaff and a good selection on the menu - not everything, but enough, and the major problems are kept out in the kitchen, or dealt with - in a fairly effective way most of the time. Nothing's perfect. If Microsoft were a restaurant, it would be a super-buffet type of place where you can get anything - if it happens to be out there - but first, you have to choose which of the mismatched plates and trays you want to use, and hunt around for the utensils - and wonder why the chairs aren't clean, and why the hell is that dolt mopping off a table with the mop he just used to clean up the floor? Now - which place would you prefer to eat at?

[rduffner]

Matt, it's funny you chose this topic as I was in NYC the past 2 days. Jamie and I walked over to the Apple Store yesterday on Fifth Avenue as I needed a new screen protector for my iPhone. I was basically asking this same question to Jamie as we were leaving the store. For one, the perception of cool always trumps propritary and closed. But then I asked, what about the Xbox. What comes to mind when you think of the Xbox? Clearly it's cool. I wonder what your readers think about when they think of the Xbox - I'll bet it doesn't elicit the same kind of reaction for those inclinded to take an anti-Microsoft bent. The possibilities are there.

[shycelticwitch]

When you wake up from your dream... open your eyes and look around, anything that runs on Windows will now run on Mac... ONLY A LOT BETTER!

[ChronicSquirrel]

Apple in my personal experience with the three major OSs(Mac, PC, UNIX/Linux) and Apple deserves the reputation that it has been given. For one thing unlike Microsoft, with every new release of the Mac OS, Mac has been getting better and better ever since 1984. Windows 95 was a step up from that sick ass looking Windows 3.1 but from there until Vista, the quality of Microsoft's work has slid and fallen faster than dumping a crap in a toilet.

So yes, I say that Apple has earned its "free pass" because for example OS X Leopard does not suck nearly as bad as Vista. What I don't understand is how good XP was(XP was good i'll admit that) just to have MS put out a completely useless OS that could ruin their rep...nay...Vista has screwed Microsoft's rep. I know several die hard buddies in my area who got so sick of Vista, they walked out and bought Macs. Not all of them mind you, one buddy downgraded back to XP.

So in conclusion I use Apple hardware and software because it actually does what I want it to instead of freezing crashes or BSoDs ruining my day. Sure, my Mini has crashed a few times yet that was all my fault and nothing to do with Apple or Mac OS X. Certain beta software I worked with had issues, hence beta of course. You can't expect any beta of anything to work properly(especially my own Computer Game project which currently has issues with the OpenGL pipline) because their for testing purposes only.