Comments on: Which company is more successful: Apple or Microsoft?

Readers weigh in on which computer company has had the bigger impact on the tech industry.

[iemad]

Apple is the underdog

I love apple products and I think it is a successful company but microsoft is WAY more successful and creates better products. Office, windows media player, money, windows xp, windows 2003, .net, internet explorer, msn, outlook, IIS, BizTalk, SQL server, visual studio, on and on and on.

Not to mention the best software product in the world Visual Studio. Microsoft is developer-centric company but apple is consumer-centric.

Oh, how about the tablet pc, smart phones, media center, XBOX, windows mobile PDAs, UMPC (Origami) or how about the millions of software that JUST works on windows - no emulation, no virtual machines, nothing. It just works.

Don't also forget Bill Gates charitbale personality and willingness to help the poor and unfortunate. How often do you see very rich people giving a damn about the forgotten millions.

Just because apple is an underdog, it doesn't make it a better company.

Don't be a player hater.

[cwhissen]

Lots of comments, few answers

I'd liek to first state I've been as guilty of this as everyone else.

It seems like people are getting bogged down in which company is cooler, or less-evil. The questions is about success, not cuddliness. And no matter what they're known for, Microsoft is famous throughout the world. And look at the numbers:

APPLE
Revenue $13.93 billion USD (2005)
Operating Income $1.650 billion USD (2005)
Net Income $1.335 billion USD (2005)

MICROSOFT
Revenue $39.79 billion USD (2005)
Operating Income $14.56 billion USD (2005)
Net Income $12.25 billion USD (2005)

Microsoft has nearly three times the revenue and more than 9 time the Net income. Considering that they both started at about the same time, it's hard to argue that Apple has had more success.

Does that mean MS is a better company? No way. Are they cooler? Not really. But in the same period of time Microsoft has gotten to the point where they have more name recogntion and more money than Apple. Both companies are successful, but it's hard to give an edge to Apple once you look at the numbers and the facts.

[strytelr]

Mac vs: Msoft

Seems to me that Microsoft spent a lot of time on Windows just to get where the Mac was when it entered the market. With any MS program if you attempt to do something out of the ordinary, it just won't allow it. When I purchased Word V 1.1 for DOS I ended up tearing up the disk and purchased Word Perfect for Mac. There was no comparison. If Word was a candle Word Perfect on the Mac was the Sun! Since then I have been forced by employers to use MS, because its the lowest common denominator.

[James P. Larsen]

McDonalds vs. a good bistro

Apple is like a good bistro--a great place to relax, eat good food
while sipping a fine wine. Microsoft is like McDonalds. It's where
you eat if you don't know better or if you simply have no choice--
McDonalds or nothing.

Which is more successful, a good bistro or McDonalds? Depends
on how you measure success. ;-)

[KML-]

Micro$oft vs. Crapple..?

It all boils down to what you consider success. What I consider success is market share and profitablitly. Therefore, the winner in my opinion is Microsoft. Some of you may disagree with me *cough*Mac-Zealots*cough*. However the plain truth is that Microsoft is the more successful of the 2. This by all means doesn't mean Apple is a bad company, all it means is that Microsoft IS more successful in business over Apple.

[dlbudgetpc]

Market share

I agree fully that Microsoft, from a business standpoint is more successful than Apple computer. Sure Steve Jobs is a flashy speaker, and Apple computers and Ipods are pretty to look at, and some may consider that a success. I've used OS X and a Imac, and wondered what the fuss was about. Just go in a computer store like Computer City, and walk over to the software section. You will see 7 isles of software for PC's, and a 1 or 2 for Apple. More hardware support too. The Mac has its place. Graphic artist seem to prefer the Mac. Go fiqure. Most business apps run on a PC under Microsoft Windows. Most business users have a PC on their desktop or in their laptop bag. Most home users have a PC. But hey, if you want to worship Steve Jobs, thats your choice.

[Sil3nt71]

It's all how you look at it..

First things first..the lag of OSes. I've seen many criticize Vista and how it will be Microsoft's downfall. I really see this as a teeter-totter of power. One surpasses the other, and the process repeats. OS X maybe better now, but Microsoft will inevitably arrive to where Apple is, and use the business "tactics" to once again beat Apple to the punch. Just imagine, in a few months people are going to be saying, "wow, widgets are so cool" and you will have to be there reminding them that Apple came up with it first.

I'm sure no one can deny that it was Windows and Microsoft that made personal computing a global phenomenom. And that is what Microsoft is good at, getting there products out there. I mean, how many Mac's do you see when you go to places like Target, or Wal-Mart? Microsoft is there, saturating their products and selling them to new PC-users. Most people probably haven't even heard(much less care) about what an iMac is. I've asked around at school, where teenagers get their parents to buy computers, and parents reluctantly buy a computer...but for a bargain. And whose there to fill the order with necessary apps and lowest dent in their wallet? When people say "the computer" they generally refer to a Windows box. But say mp3 player, and the first thing that comes to mind is iPod, which like Windows PC's, have saturated the music player market.

Apple is extremely well at refining products, not being innovative. Their marketing may be the most prominent innovative thing they do. And Microsoft is extremely well at saturating the market with their products.

So how do you measure success? Success is gain, not change or innovation; it's how well your products sell, and are received. MS is the clear winner here. Go out on the street and ask which OS they like better. The chances are that they'll say that they haven't tried OSX. Just because it's better isn't success. To use an example in which I suspect everyone is knowledgable of: Sega's DreamCast was technologically superior to Sony's PlayStation 2. But through marketing, saturation and over appeal of the system, it sold well, eventually forcing Sega out of the hardware business.

So to put it bluntly, if you were to compare both companies side by side, then where are the debates coming from? Microsoft is obviously the clear winner. Just because one company is better doesn't mean that's successful(although, in all honesty it should). But both complement the spectrum of home computing.

I like to think as Apple as a scalpel, and Microsoft as a sword. Sure you can use both in either situation (surgery or battle), but one is more suited than the other at either task.

[cwhissen]

Another OS note

People are talking about the lag of Vista and ignoring an actual consumer friendly thing that MS is attempting: backwards compatiblity. When I upgrade my computer in a year or so, I know that I will still be able to play my old copy of Red Alert or Wolfenstein 3D or whatever nostalgia-induced gaming urge I have. Games that I originally played on Windows 3.1 and 95. And I know I will be able to use that old copy of Photoshop that I paid way too much for. Because MS will make it backwards compatible. Which is part of the reason behind the delay, making sure it's backwards compatible.

Now Mac. I am still using OS 9 at work because OSX will not run the thousands upon thousands of dollars of software we use. OSX users had to replace their software or run a fake OS9 over OSX to make it work - though it still doesn't work with half the programs we use, many of which are graphics intensive. Okay, so it happened once, big deal. But wait, Intel chips are now the chip of choice for Mac (despite years of claiming the superiority of Macs was in their chip design) and suddenly - gasp - now we have to run yet another program to run this software we just purchased and good luck with that old copy of SimEarth or that propietary archiving system. For a company that is "all about the consumer" that doesn't seem very consumer friendly.

Macheads wonder why businesses refuse to switch to the "obviously superior" Mac. Do you know how many businesses are still using software from the mid 90s or earlier? Software that will still run on their brand new PCs? As long as MS continues to put out even an adequate product that allows them to use software they already own - without emulators and rossettas and all the other crap - it will be the compnay of choice for businesses. It's no wonder Microsoft has rocketed ahead in market share.

Sorry this isn't really pertaining to the question, just more a pointing out of something that is so often overlooked.

[john55440]

iPod Success, Mac Failure

Market share tells the tale...

[xlt3zz]

Ummmm...No

What a simple minded comment. What would you say is a better and more advanced product? The nano or video ipod? Obviously the video ipod. But which is more popular....the nano. What is a more popular grocery store, Walmart or Dean & Deluca? Obviously Walmart, but which one carries higher quality products... Dean & Deluca. You see, the most popular product with the highest market share doesn't necessarily means it's a better product. Mac OS X is a much more advanced OS than any Windows for a multitude of reasons. That's why it's the industry standard computer and OS for industries including video production and graphic design for example. People in these industries aren't stupid idiots buying worthless computers. People usually buy Windows because it's cheaper than an Apple computer, more widely available, and most people are unaware of them and the difference between the two operating systems. Marketshare doesn't measure quality or success. Take Mercedes Benz and Ford for another example. Which is cheaper (Ford), which is more popular (Ford), but which has higher quality and more advanced features?

[open-mind]

Powerful Simplicity

I was in college in 1985 when I was introduced to the Mac. I had
heard of the Mac, but didn't really understand what it was about
until my roommate showed me one day. I had only used
command line computers until then. Sitting by a shared Mac...

"It uses these 3 1/2 inch disks instead of the big floppy ones?", I
asked.
"Yeah, watch this."

He puts the disk in and a little disk picture appears and then a
window appears with more little pictures.

"You mean those pictures are your disks and files, and it shows
them automatically? Cool!"
"Isn't it? They're called icons."

He selects three little pictures and drags them from one window
to another. A copy dialog appears.

"You mean you copy any files just by dragging their little pic ...
err icons?!"
"Yeah", smiling. "And you delete them by dragging them to this
trash can."
"That's too easy!", I said while thinking about trying to
remembering picky CLI syntax.
"Yeah, I know", he says laughing.

"And all your commands are in these menus up here, so you
don't have to memorize commands. And it only lets you pick the
ones that make sense."

He shuts the computer down from the menu! And it
automatically ejects his disks as it shuts down.

"WOW".

Today, it's hard to imagine being impressed by that. But at that
time it was revolutionary. I couldn't believe that concepts so
simple could also be so powerful. It was suddenly 100% obvious
that all computers should work this way.

It took Microsoft 10 more years to create an experience even
close.

[zhoffmanster]

Apple

I believe that, because of the iPod, Apple has become more successful, even though most computers run Windows and most people (even the Mac users I know) use Microsoft Office.

[iamanobody]

Good Show Ahead

In my opinion, I think Microsoft and Apple stands together in terms of performance.

Microsoft wins the market on its Operating System, XBOX Console and business softwares ie, Exchange Servers, MSSQL, etc.

Apple however, wins the market based on its Entertainment products like MP3, Mac Desktops/Notebooks.

Judging from time and the percentage of users using its products, Microsoft wins.

Judging from entainment, Apple scores here as their products are designed to perform in such areas.

Hence, based on which company is successful, cannot be determined currently. We shall get the clearer picture in near futute... :)

[iamanobody]

Good Show Ahead

In my opinion, I think Microsoft and Apple stands together in terms of performance.

Microsoft wins the market on its Operating System, XBOX Console and business softwares ie, Exchange Servers, MSSQL, etc.

Apple however, wins the market based on its Entertainment products like MP3, Mac Desktops/Notebooks.

Judging from time and the percentage of users using its products, Microsoft wins.

Judging from entainment, Apple scores here as their products are designed to perform in such areas.

Hence, based on which company is successful, cannot be determined currently. We shall get the clearer picture in near futute... :)

[dheadley]

It all subjective..

Every single person makes thier own benchmark as to what is successful and what isn't. I'm going to use a third company to illustrate my thoughts.

Some would say that revenue is everything and in that case compairing MS to Apple is as like comparing MS to IBM (IBM > MS > Apple) in each case the other one is over twice the size of the other.

Some people look at how a company designs and executes its products (Apple > MS > IBM).

Some people talk about innovating technologies and proccesses (IBM>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Apple> MS)

Some talk about marketing thier product to get it out to the masses (MS > Apple > IBM)


My personal opinion on the matter is that Apple actually knows what the consumer wants better than any other company and can deliver it in thier own way that will work better and be easier to use by the people that want to use it. Do they innovate, maybe not as much as they refine things and turn other peoples lumps of coal into shiny diamonds.

MS doesn't have any idea what the customer wants or really needs. They look at what other people are finding markets in and then make a competing product, usually by swallowing up companies already in that sector, and then use thier clout to make thier version the big dog in that area even if it is inferior in every way. They do have some good products, but rarely do any of thier products ******* very stabily or offer even an on-par product during the first few version releases. The one thing they have done really really well is sell thier products to the masses. ( through legal means or not is another issue )

To me moving things forward is the best mark of success. Adding new features, making things more intuitive and user friendly, being able to take an idea, even someone elses, that is going nowhere fast and turn it into something not only viable but setting new standards is the mark of success. In that apple is clear winner to me.


Oh btw I included IBM in my post because numbers don't tell the whole story. IBM is way bigger than either of the two companies being talked about here. They come up with more innovations in computer hardware, manufacturing processes and technolies in an average year than both the others combined with a hand of other high visibility computer industry names thrown in as well have in thier entire existance. But they are probably the worst people in the industry at relating to the consumer and marketing their products well to the masses.

[Stan Johnson]

If success in business is profit---Microsoft of course

Microsoft---no debate at all regardless of all of Apples success which is great indeed.

[mjd420nova]

APPLE or INTEL

It really comes down to the hardware. Whose is the mosr prolific?? Apple refused to allow anyone but their techs touch their machines, but
many were still serviced by "unauthorized techs"
and are none the worse off. Flattery lies in the
art of copying anothers products and passing them
off as yours. Couldn't do that with Apple, they
sued everyone who tried to make a board to fit
their machines. Talk about greedy!! IBM got
Microsoft to write the first DOS and it has been
open source since. IBM-INTEL have it all going
their way so it would only be natural that the
originator of the first OS be the leader.

[csburris]

Hearts and Minds - the Mac wins!

If you ask one of the millions of Windows users why they use
Windows, they will say something like - that's what we have at
work, or "My Boss makes me". Ask a Mac user, and they will talk
about the pleasure of computing and tell you that you will have to
pry their Macs out of their "cold dead fingers". It is clear which
computer is more successful at winning hearts and minds.

[etesami]

The High cost of apple

I'm a computer science student and I love and enjoy a good computer. I always go for the fastest and most powerful to satisfy me. Of course that means those computers are expensive.
However, the majority of computer users don't want to spend a lot of money for a computer.
All they want is to be able to do the basic things that they need to do and they are done!
Of course these poeple won't buy a Mac for $2,500, when they can get a Dell for $500.
I think that the reason why Microsoft grew so fast was because it was being installed on relatively cheap systems and more poeple could afford it.
However now that Apple has recognized this matter, they have become more competetive.
For instance the introduction of MacMini and the new Intel bases iMac's which are fast and reliable systems without increasing the price is causing more peple to buy a Mac

[technewsjunkie]

Just to reiterate - Mac Mini is $500, & that's inexpensive

I agree with you. The average user SHOULDN'T be spending $2500 for a top of the line Mac.

THEY should be buying a Mac Mini, or iMac.

The cost issue is persistantly overstated. Apple offers choices for a variety of users and budgets.

[technewsjunkie]

It depends on the definition of what "is", is...

To quote Bill Clinton. (oh no, let's not bring politics into this! ;-)

The headline is provocative. "Success" can be measured in different ways.
Market share, financial, innovation, cultural phenomenon, originality...

[Peter Bonte]

according to c/net its Apple :)

6 out of ten is about Apple, not bad for a company that's going
out of business every year.

-------------
Most popular stories

Drone aircraft may prowl U.S. skies
Microsoft to bring Hotmail onto the desktop
Time line: Three decades of Apple innovation
Miracle cure for software setup?
Getting to the core of Apple

Most discussed stories

Do you use a Mac? How about an iPod? | 184 comments
Where Apple fails | 66 comments
'World of Warcraft' patch downs servers for hours | 57 comments
Which company is more successful: Apple or Microsoft? | 54
comments
No iPods for Steve Ballmer's kids | 52 comments

----------

[toosday]

Microsoft (Though Apple Deserves Credit)

Apple is the innovator. No one denies that. However, the
affordability of Microsoft's Windows-based machines is what
shepherded the computer-revolution to begin with. Simply put:
When I was ten years old, my parents either couldn't afford or
didn't care to purchase an extremely expensive computer.
However, shelling out a few hundred was less of a big deal.

Computers wouldn't be nearly as popuar if it weren't for
Microsoft.

For evidence, just look at what Apple had to do to make iTunes
the beheamoth it is today: By making it available on Windows
machines.

[Bill Dautrive]

Apple is

MS is nothing then a collection of inept programmers that copy what Apple and Open Source does.

Measures like money, market share ect are meaningless. MS is the wal-mart of computing, except they do not discount their crap like wal mart. They are a retarded carbon copy of Apple, so how exactly are MS successful?

I suppose if you consider poor products, constant lying, illeagal business practices to be the mark of a successful business then you could make a case for MS.