Apple celebrates 30 years
«Back to main storyWhich company is more successful: Apple or Microsoft?
In 1976, Apple Computer was founded, and, within a few short years, it could rightfully claim to be the company that brought PCs into the mainstream--first with the tremendously popular Apple II series and later with the Macintosh and its graphical user interface. The Newton, iMac and iPod later added to Apple's reputation for pushing the envelope.
The prior year, Paul Allen and Bill Gates were busy writing a version of BASIC to run on the hot PC of the time, the Altair. For much of the 1970s and '80s, Apple and Microsoft peacefully coexisted, with Apple focusing on hardware and the Mac OS, while Microsoft developed applications for the Apple and other machines. Microsoft later went on to develop the enormously successful Windows OS, which now runs some 90 percent of the world's PCs (compared with Apple's share of under 5 percent).
Both companies are clearly technology pioneers that have secured their places in the PC revolution. But, just for the sake of argument, if you had to pick just one company to label the most successful, which would it be?
Do you value more the one that kick-started the revolution in 1976 with the original Apple computer and continues to innovate with products such as the iPod, or the one that eventually sold hundreds of millions of copies of its operating system, arguably bringing computing to the masses? Join the discussion.
Apple at 30
Beyond the iPod: Apple at 30
Does Apple still want to be a computer company, or is it morphing into an entertainment and consumer electronics company?
Change is as comfortable as a black turtleneck
Q&A with Woz: Didn't want to change the world
Low market share is badge of honor
The Mercury News
Will Apple stay fresh after Jobs?
Apple's biggest problem in the future may be Jobs himself. The CEO's control and influence over the company is legendary. Jobs is part of every major product design, and his vision and touch are on everything Apple does publicly. Yet despite Jobs's importance to the company, Apple has said little publicly about plans for a successor when he quits or dies.
The Age
Apple Computer set to mark 30th birthday
As the storied company celebrates its 30th birthday in a week, Apple Computer Inc. will have brushed off its bruises from product failures and arguably misguided decisions to emerge with a shine that's more than skin-deep.
Associated Press
The man behind the Mac
Whether he's inspiring his staff or negotiating with captains of industry, Jobs has outsize abilities to persuade, motivate, inflame the imagination and enrage. How did he get this way? Stubborn Apple at risk of making the same mistake twice
A Silicon Valley fairy tale
Faithful, sometimes fanatical
San Francisco Chronicle
Apple heroes and villains
Every story has its heroes and villains, and the history of Apple Computer is no exception. The world's most lickable computer company has seen its share of good guys and bad guys during its 30-year history, and sometimes, the goodie is also the baddie. 30 years of Apple products
Apple OS gallery
Steve Jobs' best quotes ever
Wired
Apple's remarkable comeback story
The once-troubled computer maker, turning 30, has found new life as a mobile music company. Still, challenges loom.
CNNMoney.com
The cult of the Apple
They tattoo Apple's logo on their arm. They help sell Apple products, even though they're not paid to. One couple met at the Macworld Expo conference, got engaged and were married there.
Scripps Howard News Service
Fans celebrate with Apple
ThankYouSteve.com
"On April 1, 2006, Apple Computer will celebrate 30 years of insanely great products. To commemorate this occasion, we thought it would be fitting to recognize the company, and its founders, that introduced Macintosh, iPod, and countless other revolutionary hardware and software technologies over the past three decades, with an insanely great website of our own."
HappyBirthdayApple.com
"In celebration of Apple's 30th anniversary, we will be presenting Apple with a hardbound book containing messages from people around the world."
Through the years
Time line: Three decades of Apple innovation The products, people and events that shaped the Mac maker.
Photos: Birth of the Mac interface
Gallery 1: Early fonts, graphics Historic Polaroids chart evolution of the user interface.
Gallery 2: Radical shift Soft-key based UI becomes mouse/windows-based.
Gallery 3: Lisa desktop Creating double-click, menu bars and more.
Gallery 4: Sketching out the Mac Before MacPaint there was LisaGraf.
Photos: Mac fans unite
Postcards from the faithful What Apple products mean to CNET News.com readers.
Cult of Mac Apple devotees have a style all their own.
Videos:
Wozniak on early Apples Company co-founder talks about building computers with cheap parts.
'It was like working at Disneyland' Former Apple evangelist Guy Kawasaki on the company's early days.
Perspective:
Sizzle may be subjective, but Apple's definitely got it, says CNET News.com's Charles Cooper.
Poll
Credits
Editors: Leslie Katz, Scott Ard
Copy editors: Edward Moyer, Jennifer Guevin
Production: Bernie McGinn, Andrew Lottmann
Design: Michelle White, Ellen Ng
technology ahead of its time. Microsoft created the MSDOS. Since
then has always lived copying Apple technology. Yes , both are
successful enterprises, but Apple has the spear.
straight!
Apple has consistently tried to do this. Sure, Apple has had its share of major flops (Apple///, Newton, Cube, etc.), but even its flops sometimes generate new markets. (It can be argued that Palm and others saw the Newton and corrected its very severe flaws and thus went on to create usable PDAs.) It's like an old skiing instructor told me many years ago, "If you are not falling down regularly you just are not trying hard enough."
Microsoft is so deathly afraid of having a major flop they very rarely push the envelope. This is the single biggest issue I have with Dell and Microsoft. They don't push the industry forward. IIRC, the only time Microsoft pushed the envelope was with the BOB interface, and it was a flop. They didn't try again.
If there were not companies like Apple out there (and there are many other than just Apple) constantly pushing the envelope we'd all still be stuck with card deck inputs.
Currently, Apple isn't innovating. They're refining. Itunes and Ipod were better versions of existing products, OSX was 6 years ago, and in development from 8 years ago. Their hardware isn't all that special anymore. They're just better craftsman making luxury stuff.
Now, Mac OSX, ipod, itunes are all better executed than any thing MS makes except maybe their programming language .Net. They execute, they don't innovate. Newton, OSX, powerbook, they are all in the past, and there's nothing to suggest that Jobs has anything similarly innovative in store.
American is the biggest. Southwest is the most profitable.
Microsofts success is behind it while Apple keeps on building. Nough said!
would embrace clean, working innovative products. Apple fell from
that fortune under poor leadership 10 years ago. All that is out teh
window now. It amazes me to no end that consumers and business
continue to toerate the slow copy cat and almost broken, service
pack world of Microsoft. It will be a pleasure to watch Gates and
company lose its footing in the new century for the same reason
Apple did in the 90's. NO LEADERSHIP, no innovation, no focus.
Apple was not an innovator in the traditional sense. Its an innovator in the way we interact with technology. By which I suppose I mean design. They were not the first to put a GUI on there OS. But check out that trash bin, and how those windows are designed. They were not the first to make a good mp3 player, but by gawds, run your thumb around that circle on ure ipod.
Microsoft is simpler in its ways. It looks at markets, mass markets. And tries to find out how they can own the platform on which that market is growing. They started with the Desktop. And then moved to mobile devices. Oh and that Game playing thing you got in the living room. And now they want to be the platform for consumer devices. (Yes, your TV would be running Microsoft if the IPTV strategy becomes a reality). Enterprise has eluded them for sometime. But who knows what the SOA future hold. And anyone who follows Microsoft will know how many times they tried, until they got it right (Sort of& but look around you& see any palms.. or do you see pocketpc).
Apple on the other hand, has great ideas. Bring them out. Sometimes they work. Sometimes they dont. They are NOT as hungry as Microsoft.
Apple is very good at reinventing it self. If you look at there revenue breakdown, you wont be forgiven for thinking they are a consumer electronics company. But apple will NEVER dominate more than one segment. Just as it did with desktop publishing market, and now with portable media player market. Its dominance is always narrow. Because to be an innovator you need to be a Niche player. (Dont think 3M is not a Niche player).
Microsoft on the other hand can compete with Sony on games, IBM on collaborative solutions, Symbian on portable OS and Google on search (not yet& but it will come).
End of the day, one feels easier to bet against Apple than to bet against Microsoft.
Maybe Microsoft is good at everything and master of nothing when it comes to technology. But you have to admit that the only thing holding Microsoft back is the Law.
So whats wrong with Apple. Its a visionary company. With a leadership that understands inventory management & industrial design better than anyone else. Heck, they got a computer running the MACH kernel to be the worlds most user friendly. But the first computer a boy from a country like my own Sri Lanka, will NEVER be an Apple. His first mp3 player will never be an IPOD. I am not going to explain why not, because I am now off to the Pub. But think on that.
When was the last time you opened a spreadsheet that was not an excel file? (Quatro / 1-2-3 / Visicalc :P )
Oh, btw Visual Studio is the best development environment to have ever existed. Random.
---- should have recognized that the project was out of control much sooner, Tarter said. "Either it was too ambitious or it was mismanaged," he said. "It might have made more sense for them to prioritize the few features that really made a difference and gotten them out the door and then dealt with the more advanced stuff later." "
The amazing thing is that this is about OSX. I don't think anyone realizes how crippled Apple was for how long. Now that they are on their feet, MS is starting to slip. They can't spend money forever. Whether Apple can get back on it's feet before Google makes them both irrelevant is beyond me.
By reinventing itself when necessary, Apple evolves, stays alive and
prospering. MS, while once the Godzilla of the cyber world, has
met the tar pits, and is sinking slowly.
own fields. It is very much like comparing BMW against Nissan, or
Volvo vs. Honda, or Rolls Royce and Kia. One is what you desire so
much, and the other is the common and the affordable one. For
me, I have used both platforms and OSes (and a lot of other OSes
and platforms) for 2 decades now. I just have to give my vote and
salutations to Apple.
Microsoft is clearly out of step with what consumers want. People don't care about the latest and greatest features. They want a computer thats easy to use, programs that are user friendly, and security features built-in, not added as an afterthought. Every half-baked idea that Microsoft churns out is simply a detractor from what it should be focusing on; Windows and Office.
Apple, hands down is the most successful, based on the ability to survive in a market saturated with Windows boxes. It has not only managed to survive but innovate, and say "hey how can we make this not only better, but easier to use". Its technology has always been consumer geared, despite the commonly held misbelief. While MS and PC manufacturers are currently talking about incorporating technology, Apple is using it. Bluetooth? Done. 802.111b/g? done. Smartphone/PDA synching? Done. Advance web browser? Done. Microsoft is a dinosaur in the land of computing. Instead of being innovative, it copies. Take a look at Vista and the current features of OS X. Its only raison d'etre is its sheer size and ability to throw money at something until it either swallows the competition, or drives them out of business.
be no imitators even if they are unmitigated thieves (Microsoft).
If Apple didn't happen there would have been hundreds of OS all
doing command line today. We would still be in the dark ages of
ease of use.
Microsoft's contribution is analogous to the Mafia's. What have
Mafia thugs contributed to society?
That is what Microsoft has added to computing because they use
all the same tactics and methods and have absolutely zero
ability to innovate. Just understanding others innovations is a
huge stretch for Microsoft. Stealing them is their only talent.
Making what they steal is their perpetual challenge.
Apple wins hands down. They create 90% of the innovation in
the industry with <1% of the R&D $.
1. If I used Windows, I would have clueless bureaucrats telling
me what tools to use and how to do my job. Their conservative
minds are puzzled by the ease and freedom of Mac OS X, so they
stay away.
2. I can get more done when I don't have pop-ups, MS branding,
animated paperclips/puppydogs, and spyware constantly getting
in my way.
3. I just love how that disk appears on my desktop when I insert
it into the CPU. No goofy "My Computer" to open, and it's been
that way since 1984.
4. I want to use what's better not what everyone else uses. I
don't agree with the philosophy that one should eat dung
because billions of flies can't be wrong.
in·no·vate - To begin or introduce (something new) for the first time.
When has Apple innovated? GUI? got from Xerox.OSX? Based on other peoples work. iPod? Creative and Archos had similar long before. Apple improves. They do not innovate. Just wanted to clarify that.
As ot the question:
suc·cess -1. The gaining of fame or prosperity: an artist spoiled by success. 2. The extent of such gain.
Apple has less than 5% market share in OS. It's hard to call apple a successful OS company, but they do have a lock on MP3 - for now. So, I'd say they're a success there. But their success is much more limited than Windows. Apple is an American success in some catergories (MP3, cool-factor). They are known in America, and most first world-countries. But, leave Europe or Japan or US/Canada, and Apple is english for a round fruit.
Microsoft is a world-wide name. Right up their with, perhaps even above, Disney for name recognition. Their name can be found on computers in just about any country. Governments, businesses, and people use their products around the world. (90% of the computer using world is using Windows).
Both companies are successful. But who's more? On a global scale, the larger scale, Microsoft is the clear dominant force. By definition, having fame and prosperity, their is no denying the clear lead of Microsoft. So, I'd have to say Microsoft is a bigger success.
around. Microsoft is FAR more profitable than Apple.
Apples shines, Microsoft does not. If you're just into finance, then
you would only consider the green, the shine.
When has Apple innovated? GUI? got from Xerox.
Hmm...I can't remember using or seeing a Xerox "personal computer" with a GUI in the early 80s. Apple saw the concept, built the Mac OS from the ground up and brought it to the common masses for the first time.
around. Microsoft is FAR more profitable than Apple.
Apples shines, Microsoft does not. If you're just into finance, then
you would only consider the green, the shine.
criminal behavior (they thoroughly squashed other operating
systems for Intel processors such as GEMS and GEOS by using
pedatory pricing contracts that excluded the competition. When
caught, they worked out a toothless "consent decree" that was
meaningless when they went full-force after Netscape. Explorer
didn't grab 90% of the market by being a better browser. they
made Computer Manufacturers include Explorer and exclude
Netscape through predatory contracts again. Read about
Microsoft's behavior at the Netscape trial (I believe WIRED may
still have their account up on their web site) and you'll wonder
why Bill Gates et al aren't in jail for tampering with the court
system.
Imagine if the Coca-Cola company gave Sprite away for free in
supermarkets, but required that the stores NOT offer 7-Up. First
of all, 7-Up would have to give their product away to maintain
market share, and even then would have a difficult time getting
it to consumers.
Well, eventually Microsoft will wind up like this country's
passenger railroads, or General Motors. Throwing their money
around to influence government to give them breaks instead of
innovating....
In the long run, they will wither away, and innovative companies
like Apple will thrive.
to each of these more specific questions:
Money made?
Shareholder value created?
Innovation?
Societal contribution?
Most unique?
Most competitive?
Microsoft has filled a critical role in lowering the costs of
technology for us all by delivering a common platform.
Apple has inspired us with 30 years of innovation.
It's safe to suppose someone would have filled Microsofts role
without Microsoft, could the same be said about Apple?
is very innovative, is usually first to market, ships when it says, and
that has unique and solid/stable products OR one that copies most
things it produces, always ships late since 1995 (remember that
one?), has many problems and is very unstable. I think the answer
is clear which I would rather own. Even though Gates has more
money, I think Jobs will die a happier and more enriched man.
Microsoft is the more successful company. If you measure
success by how influential you are -- how much you have
impacted others -- than Apple is clearly the more successful
company.
Apple is the author of not one, not two but several revolutions in
the digital world. Some of them were micro-revolutions, others
were majors.
The biggies that are with us today include things like:
- graphical user interfaces
- plug & play
- mice
- the All-in-One form factor
- the design of the modern laptop (think of where the keys are)
- desktop publishing
- a rich graphics API system
- iPod
- iTunes Music Store
There are tons of littler items, but no less important, such as
FireWire and the use of visual-display Postscript system to
enable interface feats such as Expose in Tiger.
Microsoft is the more successful company. If you measure
success by how influential you are -- how much you have
impacted others -- than Apple is clearly the more successful
company.
Apple is the author of not one, not two but several revolutions in
the digital world. Some of them were micro-revolutions, others
were majors.
The biggies that are with us today include things like:
- graphical user interfaces
- plug & play
- mice
- the All-in-One form factor
- the design of the modern laptop (think of where the keys are)
- desktop publishing
- a rich graphics API system
- iPod
- iTunes Music Store
There are tons of littler items, but no less important, such as
FireWire and the use of visual-display Postscript system to
enable interface feats such as Expose in Tiger.
GUI & mouse - Xerox PARC innovation used by Apple
Plug & play - to the best of my knowledge, Amiga had it first
All in one form factor - actually first available in the Radio Shack TRS-80, 1977, a time when Apples still required a monitor
desktop publishing - Adobe, not Apple
iPod - Archos and Creative had it first, available commercially
design of the modern laptop - what? 1982s Grip Compass (consideered by many to be the first tru laptop) bears close resemblance to current laptops. apple didn't enter until 1989.
iTunes music store - they did it best, but Apple were not the first to sell music online, that distinction goes to Sony (at least where major lable downloads are concerned)
I don't know enough to dispute API. And have to give credit for FireWire.
When you look at the facts, Apple is merely the improver of not one, not two, but several revlutions in the digital world. That may make them a success, but at least give some credit to the people who actually did the work.
Kudos to WOS and Steve for standing fast through all the industry and media stoning that they have endured over the past 25 of the 30 years. Back in the garage design days, they initiated the pc, and assisted gates to get dos up, get Norton to get the DOS to write to hard disks, and created and put windows 3.1 into pc's into place from within apple practically as a gift.
The subsequent windows pc is a computer that acts like a mac - a mac mimic. We hold these truths to be self evident. The only innovation that there is for the pc is innovating the implimentations of adapting all the innovations that the rest of the industry has created.
Soon it will be time to integrate an implimentation of X which will be a windows version and elliminating the patch city that is now in existance.
I'm not critisizing. Just judging the tree by it's fruit.
Pigeons peck and eat on the ground and fly up to about 30 feet. Eagles soar at 5,000 feet up and look down on millions of pigeons. Funny how the ratio between the birds is the same as the ratio between mac's and pc's.
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.
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.
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. ;-)