Once again MS does all it can to make WP fail

Who did I insult exactly? I'm just explaining why I think WP7 is not doing so well compared to the competition, and it has nothing to do with its Xbox support. Did I hurt WP7's feelings or something? I don't even recall saying anything bad about WP7 in this thread.

Oh, I'm certainly a fan of Steve Jobs. He's a superhero of technology. If I could create a federal holiday in his honor I would.

Steve Jobs Day would be held on the anniversary of this milestone event:

1 minute ago, Bass wrote

Who did I insult exactly? I'm just explaining why I think WP7 is not doing so well compared to the competition, and it has nothing to do with it's Xbox support. Did I hurt WP7's feelings or something?

Oh, I'm certainly a fan of Steve Jobs. He's a superhero of technology.

Let's see... People that want to use their phone to connect to Xbox "show off virtual badges of how little of life they have to their friends". Now if I was 12 years old I might have been "offended" by such a 12-year old comment, but personally I could not care less about idiotic statements like that.

And when you start talking about fanboys, let's not beat around the bush here, shall we... I mean, your profile pic, nudge nudge wink wink...

BTW, you might be surprised to know that I currently have an iPhone. Although I plan to get a Nokia phone once available here in the US.

So I insult a non-specific group of people that probably doesn't even exist, and you insult me directly, and I'm the one being insulting? Give me a break. Have fun with your investigation on who is making WP7 fail. I won't bother you anymore.

4 hours ago, Bass wrote

Plus, you can always take your games you bought with you to a new iPhone, but not to a new WP7 or Android phone.

You can't take your (more expensive) WP7 or Android games back to iOS either.

Actually, Android has it the best way because it's the easiest platform to manually extract your saved games and state from - assuming other platforms use the same file format then you can transfer your games around.

I'm just a little peeved I have to use third-party software to move my saved game state from my iPhone to my iPad and vice-versa.

@W3bbo:

That's true. It's obviously a deterrent to switching esp. with someone who actually spends a lot of money on games/apps. Even if an OS "up and comer" has some magical features they have to overcome the fact that people invest money into smartphone OSes that can't be recovered by switching.

23 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

I think you are a little bit sour because Apple doesn't have anything like Xbox. Apple TV just doesn't have enough substance to compete.

Well, there's the whole Pippin thing. How's that working out for you guys?

Mmm, not sure. 

Apple is sitting on $82 billion on cash, so I'm sure that if they were interested in the console market then they could have a pretty good stab at it, so you're quite right to wonder why they don't.

Well, let's look at the XBox shall we? This product is about ten years old and has only recently started to make a profit, and is still some way off from covering the billions that MS has shelled out developing it.

Apple doesn't like those kinds of numbers. Apple will only build a product if one or both of the following is true:

1. The device is contributing directly to the bottom line from day 1 (the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Macbook Air).
2. The device will generate sales for other devices that contribute directly to the bottom line (the Mac stores, iCloud, the iTunes store, MacOSX)

As far as Apple can see, the production of a games console would just suck up a huge amount of money for a decade, without really leading to the sale of anything else.

The other thing is that for the kind of numbers Apple likes to deal with, there are just not enough hardcore gamers out there to make it worth the effort.

This is why all the pundits are claiming that Cupertino is going to start making its own TV (and the other manufacturers are already starting to panic), because in Apple's extremely simple view of the world, there will never be a year when the sales of games consoles will outstrip the sales of television sets. The AppleTV will probably cost three times as much as an XBox and sell ten times more units. So it makes a lot more sense for them to build a TV that can play games.

So I don't think it's that Apple doesn't have the substance to compete (they design their chips in house, they build their own operations systems, they design their own manufacturing processes and then cover the costs upgrading their manufacturing partners to run those processes), I think they'd just rather focus on a market that will make them a ton more money.

@Ray7:

I only brought up the point because Bass seemed a bit sour for some reason. Personally I don't really care what Apple does. Apple is a one-trick pony. The only thing they do right now that is successful is sell the same thing in 3 slightly different form factors: iPad/iPhone/iPod touch + iTunes to support that ecosystem. OS X is not a success compared to Windows.

Personally I think Apple is at risk because as soon a shinier bauble comes along from another company, the masses will drop iDevices. Android is already outselling iPhone by a large margin. Not saying I care for Android, just making an observation that Apple isn't a given going forward.

Compare that to MS that isn't putting all its eggs into one basket.

2 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

@Ray7:

I only brought up the point because Bass seemed a bit sour for some reason.

Can't say I noticed. I actually thought you jumped down his throat and I'm still not sure why. 

Personally I don't really care what Apple does.

Which of course makes me wonder why his Steve Jobs avatar seems to bother you so much.

Apple is a one-trick pony. The only thing they do right now that is successful is sell the same thing in 3 slightly different form factors: iPad/iPhone/iPod touch + iTunes to support that ecosystem. OS X is not a success compared to Windows.

Mmm. Let's see.

The iPod

The iPhone

The iPad

All go without saying. Then we have the Macs that are still growing in a recession when every other PC manufacturer is struggling to make a profit. 

Then we have the software lines:

iWorks

iLife

The prosumer music stuff like Main Stage and Logic Pro and Final Cut

FileMaker, still being upgraded and still making a profit after more than twenty years.

The online store where they sell other people's stuff (the second most retail site in the UK at the moment)

And AppleTV. Loads of people buy it, don't ask me why.

But then we have Microsoft who have basically survived on Windows and Office while just about everything else they've tried seems to have just been throwing good money after bad. The XBox? There's still no guarantee that it will recoup the billions that has been spent on it already.

And you call Apple a one-trick pony. Wow.

Personally I think Apple is at risk because as soon a shinier bauble comes along from another company, the masses will drop iDevices.

That's the thing though; it's already happened. They move into a market, dominate it, then when other cheaper competitors move in, the jump into something else. The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad.

The real surprise was the iPad. Microsoft had been trying to sell tablets for a decade. Apple steps in and wipes the floor with them in the space of six months. 

That's why the win, because whereas Microsoft has to see wait to see where the market is going and then hope their Windows hegemony allows them to muscle their way in, Apple simply creates the market. Seems to work for them

Android is already outselling iPhone by a large margin.

Always has, but who cares? Which of the Android manufacturers is making as much money as Apple? Which developer base is more profitable? As more manufacturers jump onto the Android bandwagon we'll start to see a race to the bottom: poorer quality, skimping on the hardware to compete on price, a complete lack of differentiation. Hell, Apple's strategy pretty much relies on huge numbers of licensees for Android and WP7. Once you get that then the public finds it very hard to differentiate models and just goes to the one that stands out: Apple. 

Not saying I care for Android, just making an observation that Apple isn't a given going forward.

Oh, nothing is definite going forward (especially without Jobs at the rudder), but I would probably put my money on a strategy that defines then dominates a market, over one that just hopes people get sick of something.

@Ray7:

Hey cool! If you put blank lines between the Apple products it makes it look like they have a lot!

Never said iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch was their only products (which once again is pretty much just the same thing in 3 slightly different form factors). Just that those are the ones that currently make them very successful. Take those away and what is left?

4 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

@Ray7:

Take those away and what is left?

Then you have a niche boutique hardware company that makes very well-designed hardware with its own software platform that's popular with graphic designers, students, and people who don't want a "complicated" computer - or people who want a UNIX-compatible computing experience with a usable shell on-top (sorry Ubuntu).

Apple was still successful simply as a computer manufacturer without any of their new post-iPod consumer products. And being a smaller company allowed them to be more nimble and to innovate faster than Microsoft.

...though things are probably all attributable to leadership - Apple without Jobs was heading for a disaster. Yet Steve's "4 product matrix" saved the company and set it in the right direction.

Whereas Mr. Ballmer gives us seven SKUs of Windows. Nice.

3 hours ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

Whereas Mr. Ballmer gives us seven SKUs of Windows. Nice.

That's what happens when you have 1.2 billion people use your operating system. On the other hand if you only have 60 million you can probably get away with just one version.

8 hours ago, BitFlipper wrote

@Ray7:

Hey cool! If you put blank lines between the Apple products it makes it look like they have a lot!

Er, well actually it's the Channel9 post editor widget that puts a blank line between each product; I didn't have a say in the matter. Besides which, having a blank line between each product doesn't actually change the number of products. 

Oh, and I forgot Time Machine. Again, not sure why anyone would buy this but they obviously do. When I dumped Windows Home Server a few weeks back, Time Machine didn't even make the long list for a replacement.

Never said iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch was their only products (which once again is pretty much just the same thing in 3 slightly different form factors).

Mmm, you mean  like Windows, Windows Home Server, Windows Small Business Server…?

Just that those are the ones that currently make them very successful. Take those away and what is left?

W3bbo has already covered this. Even without the iOS line, Apple would still be the 4th or 5th biggest computer seller in the world. And of course saying "take them away and what is left" is kind of a moot point; they are here, they're not going away for the foreseeable future, so you have to deal with it from that perspective really.

34 minutes ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

That's what happens when you have 1.2 billion people use your operating system. On the other hand if you only have 60 million you can probably get away with just one version.

Or is it that you can get away with one version if you design an operating system that scales better in both directions?

1 hour ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Or is it that you can get away with one version if you design an operating system that scales better in both directions?

The ability of Windows to scale isn't relevant, the product is basically the same in all versions (both Home and Server SKUs). The reason for seperating SKUs in the Windows world is market segmentation, allowing you to charge different amounts to different types of consumer based on what they expect from the product and what they are likely to pay.

Apple's market isn't really big enough to justify massive amounts of segmentation and what benefit there is they can generally gain by offering different Mac models (or did you not notice the 'one version is good for all' didn't apply to their hardware offerings?)

1 hour ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

The ability of Windows to scale isn't relevant, the product is basically the same in all versions (both Home and Server SKUs). The reason for seperating SKUs in the Windows world is market segmentation, allowing you to charge different amounts to different types of consumer based on what they expect from the product and what they are likely to pay.

Apple's market isn't really big enough to justify massive amounts of segmentation and what benefit there is they can generally gain by offering different Mac models (or did you not notice the 'one version is good for all' didn't apply to their hardware offerings?)

Not quite.

Apple shifts more PCs than 90% of the other PC manufacturers in existence, manufacturers who carry much larger product lines than Apple. So the reason that Apple doesn't carry massive product lines isn't because they can't support it, it's because they understand how to be the 5th largest box builder without it. For a start, it means they can build an OS that can scale across their product line.

But thanks for correcting me. I believed that Windows installations could differ depending on what box they were being installed on. So you're saying that the exact same installation for Windows7 desktop will be used for Windows7 server? That doesn't sound quite right to me.

55 seconds ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

But thanks for correcting me. I believed that Windows installations could differ depending on what box they were being installed on. So you're saying that the exact same installation for Windows7 desktop will be used for Windows7 server? 

 

I'm saying it isn't an issue of Windows being able to scale. You could just bundle all the functionality of both Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows Server into a single Windows edition and it could function on all the hardware configurations that Windows does today. The difference in SKUs is basically in the selection of which functionality can be enabled and that's simply decided by what the target market is likely to want (netbooks probably aren't going to be used as Active Directory domain controllers, for example)

The reason they don't do a single SKU like this is because it doesn't allow you to sell the product in the way that offers maximum reach at maximum profit. This is exactly the same reason Apple sells an iMac and a Mac Pro, for example. 

59 seconds ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

I'm saying it isn't an issue of Windows being able to scale. You could just bundle all the functionality of both Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows Server into a single Windows edition and it could function on all the hardware configurations that Windows does today. The difference in SKUs is basically in the selection of which functionality can be enabled and that's simply decided by what the target market is likely to want (netbooks probably aren't going to be used as Active Directory domain controllers, for example)

The reason they don't do a single SKU like this is because it doesn't allow you to sell the product in the way that offers maximum reach at maximum profit. This is exactly the same reason Apple sells an iMac and a Mac Pro, for example. 

Okay, I didn't know that. I thought they were different depending on whether it was going on a desktop machine or a server machine. Then why do they charge so much more for the server versions if it's all just the same code?

a moment ago, Ray7 wrote

*snip*

Then why do they charge so much more for the server versions if it's all just the same code?

 

Daft question. Because they can. Apple used to do the same thing before they decided to just charge the same for the OS across the board (irrespective of machines and number of users).