Apple will outlast Microsoft
Friday, November 16, 2007 - 10:11 AM EST"Microsoft may be Apple’s 800-pound gorilla, but Apple’s got something Microsoft will never have: fanatical loyalty. So, in this battle for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere, who’s got the edge? The smart money’s on Apple," writes CIOUpdate columnist Richard Martin, president of Alcera Consulting.
"It is my contention that Apple is setting itself up for long-term success and even that rarest of things, corporate longevity. In short, I believe that Apple—with due regard to the authors of Built to Last, James Collins and Jerry Porras—just may be 'built to last.' Microsoft, on the other hand, has many characteristics which leave it vulnerable to attacks and threats from all sides," Martin writes.
"What sets these two giants apart is nothing other than customer experience," Martin writes. "So. You’re Apple’s competition. How do you compete against that? Do you tell customers your computer is more stable (which it probably isn’t)? Do you tell them your device is sleeker and more modern looking (hey, Apple’s is made in a hollowed aluminum casing lovingly carved by a laser beam)?"
Martin tellingly offers no answers whatsoever for Apple's competitors, just some bad news, "Simply put, Apple could probably make a lot of marketing mistakes and screw itself up silly, and it will still be around in a hundred years."
"I know this is going to sound like heresy, but I will say it anyway. Microsoft has a weak brand image. In some quarters, it even has a negative brand image. There, I said it... Users don’t feel any particular attachment to the Microsoft software they use. Many of them feel it is forced on them and dream of a more convivial workstation. Personally, I don’t see that much of a difference between the two computing paradigms, at least in terms of ergonomics, but I’m a nerd after all."
MacDailyNews Take: Almost universally, in our experience, people who "don’t see that much of a difference between the two computing paradigms," are Windows-only users. So, we're pretty confident that Martin has never used a modern Mac for any meaningful amount of time, but, yet, commendably, he still "gets it," even if he doesn't fully understand it.
Martin continues, "We live in a long-tail world, to use Chris Anderson’s phrase. Apple certainly isn’t invulnerable to an upstart device maker from way down in the tail. However, it at least has some very strong defenses in the form of strong emotional attachment on the part of users and customers and a consumer-oriented business model that seeks to please people as people, and not as workers. Microsoft, on the other hand, is extremely vulnerable to competitive pressures by any number of upstart device or software producers."
Full article - highly recommended - here.
MacDailyNews Take: Someday, the world will look back at the time when Microsoft's OSes dominated the personal computer and laugh (and/or cry) at the sheer folly of it all.
We can almost hear them now: "Can you believe that, no so long ago, 9 out 10 PCs ran Windows?" "ROTFLMAO!" "In the end, you didn't save any money, dummies, plus you lost what you thought you saved a thousand-fold!" "Bill Gates plunged a technologically-naive world into 'The Dark Ages of Personal Computing' with a rickety rip-off of Apple's Mac and then used his ill-gotten proceeds to try to buy his way into sainthood. That didn't work either; at least he was consistent." "Thank God (and Jobs) for Apple!"
Now, Microsoft may very well last for a long time, most likely by running some online ad service or as a holding company or peddling games they didn't come up with, but their dominance of the PC with a badly-executed copy of Apple's Mac, was, is, and will continue to be a nasty mistake that costs far more in real productivity, time, and money than most are willing to admit. This mistake will be corrected over time. In fact, the correction has already begun.


"...seeks to please people as people, and not as workers."
That is the difference.