60 percent skipping Vista, so Ballmer looks to Apple
A new survey by KACE, a systems management appliance company, suggests that 60 percent of those surveyed have no plans to deploy Microsoft Windows Vista, a 10 percent rise over a similar survey administered by KACE in November 2007. A full 42 percent of these are actively exploring Vista alternatives, with 11 percent having made the leap to alternative platforms like Mac OS X or Linux.
Eighteen months after the release of Windows Vista, enterprise adoption is still in the single digits, and the majority of that seems to have come from upgrades of legacy Windows versions, not XP.
How does Microsoft hope to compete? By copying Apple, the company that is kicking its tail in terms of growth. It worked once before....
In an email sent by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to Microsoft employees, Ballmer argued that "the success of Windows is our number one job," while acknowledging that to compete with little Apple that it outsells "30-to-1" it will change the way it works with hardware companies to try to catch up.
Indeed, I've been hearing rumors for some time that Microsoft is planning to launch mobile phone interfaces to compete with Apple's iPhone, with a touch-screen UI that will make people "salivate." The problem with this game of catch-up is that it's just that: If you're not leading, you've got to beat the leader on price or some other feature. Witness Microsoft's Zune if you think it's good enough to come out with a good but not better competitor to Apple.
So, while Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth talks about being better than Apple, the best Ballmer can do is to aspire to be like Apple. It won't work.
Ballmer ended his missive to Microsoft employees by demanding that people believe that Microsoft is "the best in the world at doing software and nobody should be confused about this."
Unfortunately, they are, Mr. Ballmer. People are very confused on that point. They're doing all sorts of whacky things like using Linux for servers, Apple for mobile and desktops, MySQL for databases, etc. People have become very confused. They no longer think Microsoft writes the best software.
That, Mr. Ballmer, is Microsoft's big problem. Microsoft is no longer the provider of the industry's best software. Not by a long shot.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
It's not going to work tho because they'd have to make their own computer and **** off Dell/HP/Toshiba/Acer/ etc... Talk a big game, don't do much. Sounds like a big stock inflation technique so he can sell some of it...
Vista doesn't have the compatibility problems many people think it does, nor the security issues, nor the ease of use issues.....I recently took out an old PCI-input TV tuner from a XP-based machine (it came with it) and put it in my new HP which runs Vista. It worked seamlessly and was up and running in minutes. THis is true for all of my hardware, which is all based in XP oriented technology.
Open source software users, as well as techies who use Linux or Mac such as yourself, commonly have nothing better to do yet to pick on the most popular and controversial OS, Windows Vista.
...and just because the zune is facing a device ruled by a sheep-like monopoly of users doesn't mean its the lesser of the two, "Quality rather than quantity"...just like the new iPhone.
Microsoft earned the lack of Vista adoption.
You extremely narrow minded empirical "evidence" doesn't outweigh the massive amounts of real evidence that Vista has serious hardware and software compatibility issues, and what it can run it runs it slower.
M$ does not know how to please or sell to the public, M$ sells to PC manufacturers, and locks them in with disadvantageous contracts. "If you want to sell PCs you better put M$ products in them or we will cut off your air supply" Sound familiar? I don't have one Apple product, but why do you think that Apple beats M$s ass in every category in which they compete?
Because they make products that please the actual buyer, and sell to that buyer base directly. And although I don't buy any Apple products because they are overpriced and they have their own lock-in tactics, but I will give them this, their products are pleasing.
Hahahaha, totally priceless. People that choose ipods are mindless sheep, so that must mean that people that choose windows are ..... What? I can't hear you.
It's not like anyone has to choose an ipod, or anything.
OSX vs Windows Vista -- like you said, quality, not quantity.
MS will continue its downward spiral until it stop copying and start innovating for once.
I don't see that trend ending now, because it's hardly been a "downward spiral" for them at all.
Vista may go the way of Microsoft Bob or Windows ME, but the company is hardly in trouble.
Its market share on the desktop is dropping every week.
Office 2007 is a nonstarter.
Everywhere else, they have to compete on a level playing field and the results have been average at best, laughable most of the time.
They have no direction, their only methid of lock-in is slowly going away and they have absolutely no idea of how to leverage the future of computing because it is not reliant on lock-in.
Nobody fears or looks to MS as a leader anymore. They are just a bumbling giant following the crowd, and they don't know where the crown is going or why.
They are in trouble and the longer they wait to fix it, the worse it will be for them. MS is in decline, like what happens to all giant corporations sooner or later. And like the previous giants, MS are in denial about it.
You probably meant to write ...
"They did that with DOS (Digital Research's CP/M), Windows (Apple's original MacOS) and now Vista (Apple's MacOSX)."
Like wise often users who defend vista have never used OSX (or linux for that matter) for longer than a day. I was a windows (heck a DOS user before even windows existed) user for a very long time before I made the switch to OSX.
OSX truly is paradise. I get the power of Linux with all the open goodness (libraries, extensions) underneath with a nice UI on top and for most users there isn't any application that they need that doesn't run on OSX these days (MS word etc).
Bottom line is that fanboy/girl'ism aside there is a genuine reason why Apple is gaining market share and apple users are genuinely excited and enthusiastic about a their respective well thought out, well built, easy to use Apple products. Sure Apple has a cult following but any cult following is unsustainable without genuine enthusiasm from its followers and the market share gains apple has been making these days goes a bit beyond a cult phenomenon.
In addition to those issues, consider the cost for migrating all those systems. Many of them don't meet the minimum hardware requirements for Vista and can't be upgraded. So we can't roll out standardized desktop images of Vista until our machines are EOL and replaced. And we just can't afford to replace all of those machines right now.
But the most important issue is the perceived need. There is little perceived value-added for an Enterprise by moving to Vista. It is a testament to the quality of the product Microsoft produced with XP that users feel no need to switch. Microsoft should abandon their current strategy of a rigid life-cycle for XP in favor of a subscription model. In fact, they should have done so long ago. Charge an annual fee for each license, with all of the volume discounts, etc. that they can do for enterprise customers, and entitle customers to use *any* Microsoft desktop O/S with the license - let them upgrade, downgrade, whatever, as they see fit.
Not only would this resolve the issue of the "Microsoft Upgrade Treadmill" that Enterprise Customers *HATE*, but it also would mean a *steady* stream of revenue for Microsoft and less pressure to be rolling out sparkling new operating systems (replete with bugs) every three to five years. Instead, Microsoft could simply go to major releases, minor updates, and collect a steady stream of user fees.
Even for the home user, they're comfortable with the XP interface they've known for so many years and Vista gives them no compelling reason to upgrade. They don't care about the flashy interface effects and they certainly don't care about DX10 as nothing they use requires it.
It can all be summed up in three words. Vista: why bother?
Now, when it comes to replacing home computers (at least) Macs are very attractive to the less computer literate with their "everything's right under your nose" interface and near automation of difficult tasks. That interface and a five minute demo are all that's needed to sell one to a lot of people. Really, they're not for me as I'm the kind of power user who doesn't want to have to resort to the command line or install a new tool every time I want something other than the most basic of GUI options (something I often dislike Gnome for) and I can't, as a programmer, for the life of me work out why # is hidden on the UK keyboard (option + 3) but they seem to work for a lot of people.
So, despite all the fanboy's bleating this has nothing to do with people being 'afraid' of change and everything to do with Vista not offering people any reason to change. Not to mention the compatiblity issues which do happen; just because they didn't happen to you, doesn't mean they didn't happen to anyone else in the world with the thousands of hardware and millions of software combinations. Until you can explain why installing Comodo Firewall Pro sends my laptop into an endless reboot loop after SP1 you can just shut up. Until then, I've also got XP and Ubuntu on here so Vista is nicely dormant until it has a purpose. Or maybe you can explain why SP1 on automatic update was delayed for a number of different hardware combinations including Lenovo laptops with Realtek HDA audio (try the MS knowledgebase).
They have tried to go that route and their business customers signaled a red flag, so they abandoned the idea.
The subscription model wouldn't solve Microsoft's issues in the long term anyway, because would just be another attempt at avoiding to work hard for their revenue. It is a business model designed to rest on their laurels and they can no longer afford to rest on their laurels, as the industry is slowly going back to normality, where companies have to actually work hard every single day to earn the business of their customers.
For Microsoft to adjust to this normality will be hard but eventually they will learn to work hard and earn their customers' business like everybody else has to. Ironically, the best way to get to that would seem to be copying from Apple again, but not cosmetically but architecture and structure. Vista probably shouldn't have been an increment over its predecessors. Instead, it should have been an entirely new operating system which breaks with Microsoft's path, just as MacOSX broke with Apple's past. And unlike Apple who took quite a risk going uncharted terrain when they switched to MacOSX, Microsoft could have learned from Apple's lessons, thus taking less risk doing the same thing.
In other words, Microsoft could have taken an existing BSD system as a base and fork it, this would be their equivalent of Apple's Darwin, and thanks to the BSD license, they wouldn't have to open source it if they don't feel comfortable about it. Then, they should have developed a clean new GUI and API on top of this new base OS, this would be their equivalent of Apple's Aqua and Cocoa. They could probably use their .NET API pretty much the way it is. Then all they needed to do was to give their legacy Windows API a diet, like Apple did with their Carbon API, then add that as a legacy API together with a Classic Windows emulator to the new OS.
Even though it would have been very obvious that they are using Apple's blueprint to build a new OS, they would not be seen as a brainless copycat for going this route, they'd be considered a smart copycat in this case. This way they would have a real good shot at a new OS that doesn't carry around any of the legacy ballast much of which is most likely responsible for Windows' problems. They'd have a real good chance of coming up with a stable and streamlined new OS. Yes, the Classic Windows emulator would probably still be a bloated beast but that's actually a good thing because it would encourage their developers to use the new APIs in favour of the old and their users to buy new software for the new API instead of running the old one in the emulator. And eventually after some years, they get a chance to get rid of the legacy API altogether, or at the very least it may then only be an optional feature which most users won't even install. Apple has shown that this can work, these days OSX has no classic environment anymore, and who knows they may even get rid of the Carbon API at some point. This is what Microsoft could and should have learned from Apple and try to copy, not just the jelly beans GUI look.
Like wise often users who defend vista have never used OSX (or linux for that matter) for longer than a day. I was a windows (heck a DOS user before even windows existed) user for a very long time before I made the switch to OSX.
OSX truly is paradise. I get the power of Linux with all the open goodness (libraries, extensions) underneath with a nice UI on top and for most users there isn't any application that they need that doesn't run on OSX these days (MS word etc).
Bottom line is that fanboy/girl'ism aside there is a genuine reason why Apple is gaining market share and apple users are genuinely excited and enthusiastic about a their respective well thought out, well built, easy to use Apple products. Sure Apple has a cult following but any cult following is unsustainable without genuine enthusiasm from its followers and the market share gains apple has been making these days goes a bit beyond a cult phenomenon.
Hahahaha, totally priceless. People that choose ipods are mindless sheep, so that must mean that people that choose windows are ..... What? I can't hear you.
It's not like anyone has to choose an ipod, or anything.
OSX vs Windows Vista -- like you said, quality, not quantity.
"Ballmer ended his missive to Microsoft employees by demanding that people believe that Microsoft is 'the best in the world at doing software and nobody should be confused about this.'"
Way back when, Gordon Letwin's Basic was superior to that of Microsoft and yet Microsoft won the contract. Bill Gates told Gordon that if you want your software to sell, then come work for Microsoft.
Microsoft was the best in the world at SELLING software, not DOING software. Unless Ballmer views "doing software" in the same manner as "Debbie does Dallas".
It's also fun to watch all the Microsoft supporters come out and rail against anyone and anything that besmirches their precious Microsoft. Apparently, a lot of sheep have careers and futures riding on the continued explosive growth of Microsoft, but that rides over and done with. Microsoft won't go away soon, but at nearly 100% of the desktop market they cannot grow their core much more (unless they find other planets to sell to). Ballmer wants to ride the wave like Gates did, but that wave is over and no amount of shoreline ranting and raving will create another monster wave.
He says Microsoft stands for choice. Well then, let there be some choice. It's not like Apple or Linux vendors are a real threat to Microsoft. Looks more like Ballmer can't stand it when there is choice.
Do we see GM's or Toyota's CEO go ballistic if BMW has a good quarter? No, because they know that no matter how popular BMW can be as a brand, it is no threat to their business.
Do we see McDonald's CEO scream when some Mexican or Italian restaurant chain becomes popular with business lunchers? No, because he knows that they are no threat to his business.
Ballmer seems like a spoiled child which has too many toys already but screams every time some other kid gets a new toy. He is only making a fool of himself.
This all means that today's desktop computer market, mainly controlled by Microsoft, has reached the performance and usability point that desktop workstations had reached in 1985. Planned post '85 developments have been set aside while Bill Gates used marketing expertise for 25 years to sell the uninformed masses incremental pieces of that technology.
The original plan was to replace desktops with a P2P grid of ever increasing bit size nodes, so that by 2000 we could expect 512bit PU registers, and use the power of the grid and its PU registers to enable interactive voice, 3D and writing recognition on wireless connected user interface devices. In fact many such devices human interfaces could be linked to one node, minimising the need for each individual to have or even be close to their own unit.
Microsoft are desperately trying to hang on to their lateral market by promoting other obsolete technologies like touch screens as the next best thing.
Yet development of the original plan has been taking place in laboratories around the world creating other technologies that cannot be suppressed. Take for example the Toshiba/Sony/IBM Cell architecture that powers the Sony PS3, the Toshiba laptop and IBM's petaflop supercomputer. Here is an architecture that really fits the plan. Or take Intel's Atom chip powering portable hand held Internet interfaces, many of which are being built by innovative Asian companies creating their own functionality with Open Source tools. Or take the rise of the notebook as a fixed desktop replacement.
All these changes are a harbinger of a shift from Microsoft's desktop to devices that fit within the original robust computing plan. Even the Apple iPod and iPhone fit this plan, but desktop PCs definitely do not.
No wonder Ballmer can't see his way to any future that include Microsoft's major cash cows.
As to whether users who decline the offer of an "upgrade" to Vista, in favor of sticking with the XP they know, are "confused"; perhaps there's something for Mr. Ballmer to learn there as well...
You do realize that OSX is the most proprietary OS ever created, correct? Are you going to argue it isn't? Don't say Mac is ANYTHING like Linux. Linux is undeniably closer to Windows XP in functionality, compatibility, and even appearance. That fanboy-ism which you mention that comes from Apple fans is actually a proven mental issue:
You spend the money on a machine which is mediocre for the price you paid for it, only to realize its not exactly a "paradise" as you call it. People with Macs then defend the product to death because they paid for an "elite" machine which is actually quite overpriced, and are too filled with pride to admit it.
My school has been using Macs since the mid-90's. We have about 60 but they allow use to bring our own laptops to school for computer and arts classes. I was one of a few using Vista, but it worked just as well and I was able to do everything my counterparts were doing in class.
Also, its a personal preference. The cult culture emerging for Apple is largely due to the iPod, not the performance of the Macs, and because you have a very inspiration man at the helm, Mr. Steve Jobs.
@gregk8:
Yes, you can apply that logic to the WIndows v. Mac situation, but comparing mp3 players and operating systems is completely different. When someone uses a computer, the vast majority of people 40+ that I know don't really care if it's Mac or Windows (but most prefer Windows, including my 78 year-old grandmother BECAUSE OF ITS EASE OF USE!). When someone buys an mp3 player, the vast majority of people want what everyone else has, which is the iPod. Ive owned two iPods, and two Zunes. People were far more impressed with the Zune functionality and other aspects about it
"It's not like anyone has to choose an ipod, or anything."
-exactly..because they dont know what else is out there.
[http://Excuse my off-topic-ness.|http://Excuse my off-topic-ness.]
- by pjonesCET July 25, 2008 11:11 AM PDT
- The fact is, Microsoft has never written any true original piece of software in their life.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (32 Comments)They have always acquired it by any means they could get away with.
Windows started out as copying somewhat Apple's Idea of the GUI. in OS 6 on up.
Naturally they changed it around enough so the courts couldn't say they ripped it off.
Excel , Word, and Powerpoint were purchases from other software companies.
Even MSWorks was a direct rip-off off of the original Appleworks. Appleworks started out on Apple I and Apple II machines.