Editorial

In Apple's market cap success, beating Microsoft means nothing

It would seem that May 26, 2010 will be forever considered a day of joy for Apple fans. Many see this day as the time when Apple was able to overtake Microsoft, when the underdog finally bested the incumbent. Late in the afternoon, the market capitalization of Apple (AAPL) crept ever so slightly past Microsoft (MSFT), and set off a celebratory tsunami of blog posts, tweets, Facebook statuses, and obligatory internet forum flame wars. It was almost like Apple fans thought they ‘defeated’ Microsoft in some way. And maybe they did. Market capitalization is a very common and practical tool for evaluating the market worth of a company, both for its ease of use and its ability to quickly give a snapshot the attitude of investors about a company. Specifically, market capitalization is the price of a company’s share multiplied by its total outstanding shares. This allows for the size of a company to be factored into the determination of its value, rather than just the share price alone (Google may have a much higher stock price than, say, Wal-Mart, but that doesn’t say anything about the value of the company in and of itself, due to the sheer size of Wal-Mart). Apple’s stock price has been higher than Microsoft for quite some now, and the reason why that alone didn’t cause as much reaction is because just comparing stock prices doesn’t take into account Microsoft’s size. It’s more important that Apple’s market cap rose above Microsoft, because it’s a more comprehensive evaluation of investment worth. It means that even though Apple is a smaller company, with a much smaller market share and product base, investors still see Apple as a company worth investing in more than Microsoft.

The amount of hype this particular piece of news is generating boggles my mind. Considering the huge consecutive successes Apple has experienced since Jobs retook the throne, which drove market confidence up and up again and again, the fact that Apple became an investor’s gold mine is not surprising in the least. When a company releases an iPod, an iPhone, and then an iPad, each taking the retail market by storm and consuming almost miraculous amounts of market share in their respective segments, financial forecasts will skyrocket. Despite all the controversy surrounding their behavior in certain areas of market etiquette and established wisdom surrounding open-source ideas and policies, Apple has consistently released products that people love. They’ve made product releases an art and a science, and it’s a symphony of beautiful music to investors’ ears. Apple is completely deserving of the accolades, and I wouldn’t dare take the credit away. What I don’t understand is how this has anything to do with Microsoft.

For a long time, it was Apple vs. Microsoft, Jobs vs. Gates, Windows vs. Mac OS, and PC vs. Macintosh. Microsoft made an OS, and it was very successful; Apple made an OS, it tried to compete, and generally failed in the market. In those heady days of old, both companies were software companies. Now, not so much. Apple’s return to the limelight after a few years in exile under a different CEO was marked by the release of a mobile digital music player. While OS X was a huge step in the right direction as far as mainstreaming the OS, nothing brought in revenue and visibility like the iPod. The iPod is one of those rare products that are so pervasive in the consumer market that even music devices that aren’t iPods are called iPods by many people (Think Kleenex, Nerf guns, Band Aids, or “I’ll Google that”). On the heels of the iPod and its various critically acclaimed upgrades came the iPhone, pushing Apple further into dominance in the mobile device market. In fact, Apple COO Tim Cook believes that Apple should be seen as a mobile device company. Following the one-two punch of the iPod and iPhone, the iPad is released, once more dominating the market and selling its first million in less than a month.

While Apple was busy reinventing itself as the mobile device company everyone wanted to emulate, Microsoft took its utter and total domination of the OS market and entrenched itself in the enterprise world. While everyone can agree that Windows Vista was a failure on many counts, and possibly one of the key factors behind the decline of their market cap and overall financial performance, businesses, where the bulk of computing happens, just stuck with XP and waited out the storm. Windows Server 2003 and all its numerous and varied enterprise management tools is what IT professionals use, period. There is no viable substitute for Active Directory, and there is nothing on the horizon that is even thinking about invading that territory. Windows Server 2008 is becoming very popular in the enterprise, especially for its virtualization capabilities, and it’s a matter of time (and a service pack or two) before Windows 7 takes the place of XP as the leading corporate OS. The world’s businesses run on Windows, and that’s where Microsoft has succeeded more than anywhere else. Just the opposite of Apple, every piece of hardware Microsoft puts out seems to be doomed to market failure, and the Zune and Kin platforms are perfect examples of that.

You see, we’re comparing apples and oranges (pun definitely intended). The symbolic accomplishment of Apple achieving a higher market cap than Microsoft is fueled by memories of the war that these two technology visionaries once fought long ago. While Mac OS market share is growing, it isn’t even close to becoming a threat to the Windows platform, and Apple understands that. The fact that the Apple has ascended to a cool 2nd place in the US market capitalization standings is big deal. The fact that they beat Microsoft doesn’t mean anything in the context of Apple winning the old OS wars.

Apple’s market cap conquest will be thrown around for a while as ammunition for the biggest tech flame war of our time. It will be a buzzword in Internet forums when Apple fans want to prove their superiority over Microsoft. It’s a misplaced victory, however, and the fans should be celebrating the fact that their market cap is 2nd in the country, period. Spinning the victory as a defeat to Microsoft only weakens the real meaning behind the success, and completely misinterprets the perceived competition between Microsoft and Apple.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Developer says PlayStation Home is "Not Sh*t"

Next Story

iPhone insurance plan... Now there's an app for that

98 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

apple is way ahead others are playing catch up...got my ipad form green entertainment.co.uk buy as many as you want no sales bar on how many you can buy.also saved myself a few pounds..

And in what way is Windows Azure flawed? Azure is a cloud architecture based on proven technology (specifically, Compute Cluster Server/HPC Server) that is equally capable of public cloud, private cloud, SaaS, and even HIPAA stuff deployed any of those ways. Further, you can tag-team SQL Server and Oracle (that's right, Oracle runs on Azure today) deploying each where it workls best. And as far as those top-500 supercomputers, *all* of those (even the few Windows servers in the list) are purpose-built niche servers; would you expect to see Windows there at all? (Contrariwise, where is Apple on that list?) As far as Linux goes, most Linux distributions *still* have hardware issues (ask anyone that has any recent GPU from AMD, nVidia, or even Intel about that) on the desktop. The reason behind the Linux wins on the server side is all about up-front cost (most Linux distributions don't have any upfront costs); however, the backside costs still largely are greater than those of Windows (especially in terms of support costs). Still, market-cap means diddly.
Apple and Microsoft compete very little heads-up (and that is exactly how Apple wants it).

Can I just add that this article is well written and put together. Happy to read more knowledgable articles as opposed to just summaries, with a plethora of bloated/flaming responses. Keep it up.

Apple an underdog? Really?
It's this attitude of people acting like apple is the scrappy underdog against the evil microsoft dictatorship that is really sad.

Look at Bill Gates where he is trying to save lives by riding the world of malaria and then steve jobs as he just rapes his fanboys as he steals all their money.

Meh, I could care less if Apple overtook MS really. They are not even in the same bracket. MS does a TON more things that Apple so MS is here to stay. This just gives Apple fans something to "brag" about but it really means ****.

techbeck said,
Meh, I could care less if Apple overtook MS really. They are not even in the same bracket. MS does a TON more things that Apple so MS is here to stay. This just gives Apple fans something to "brag" about but it really means ****.

It's like comparing a toaster to a microwave really. But the toaster's chrome and all shiny.

Owen Williams said,

It's like comparing a toaster to a microwave really. But the toaster's chrome and all shiny.

Whats funny is they only beat them by 3bil. Also, they are more valuable in the "books" not in every day real world use. This means NOTHING really. Doubt MS is sweating over this.

Edited by techbeck, May 31 2010, 3:52am :

Problem with market capitalization is its a function of share price. The problem with share price is its determined by numerous factors. One of the biggest differences between Microsoft and Apple is Microsoft pays out a quarterly dividend to investors while Apple does not. Why does this matter? Share price is adjusted downward based on the dividend payout.

Apple controls the hardware AND the software. Microsoft don't in the PC world.

-Apple also had a huge success with ITS iPhone design
-Apple also has better designed laptop hardware than the PC world (magstrip power adapter, better fan placement, bt, gb lan, webcam, abgn wifi, firewire, multi-touch touchpad)
-No one can argue the architecture of unix is better than that of windows (no installs, auto mount ISO images, native software for basic functionality)

Mac's just work. Easily. Windows is catching up, but it 'rode' the wave for the past 10 years where apple moved their lines modern (tiny), and mainstreamed the code to look prettier but still function.

Ruciz said,
Apple controls the hardware AND the software. Microsoft don't in the PC world.

-Apple also had a huge success with ITS iPhone design
-Apple also has better designed laptop hardware than the PC world (magstrip power adapter, better fan placement, bt, gb lan, webcam, abgn wifi, firewire, multi-touch touchpad)
-No one can argue the architecture of unix is better than that of windows (no installs, auto mount ISO images, native software for basic functionality)

Mac's just work. Easily. Windows is catching up, but it 'rode' the wave for the past 10 years where apple moved their lines modern (tiny), and mainstreamed the code to look prettier but still function.

Hope you're wearing an asbestos jockstrap...

Ruciz said,
Apple controls the hardware AND the software. Microsoft don't in the PC world.

-Apple also had a huge success with ITS iPhone design
-Apple also has better designed laptop hardware than the PC world (magstrip power adapter, better fan placement, bt, gb lan, webcam, abgn wifi, firewire, multi-touch touchpad)
-No one can argue the architecture of unix is better than that of windows (no installs, auto mount ISO images, native software for basic functionality)

Mac's just work. Easily. Windows is catching up, but it 'rode' the wave for the past 10 years where apple moved their lines modern (tiny), and mainstreamed the code to look prettier but still function.

Apart from the comment about the iPhone success most of that was your opinion, rather than fact. You shouldn't push opinions as facts, because if they where facts Apple, and not Microsoft would be the dominant party in the OS market right now.

Subject Delta said,

Apart from the comment about the iPhone success most of that was your opinion, rather than fact. You shouldn't push opinions as facts, because if they where facts Apple, and not Microsoft would be the dominant party in the OS market right now.

Apple will never be a dominant party in the OS market while OS X is tied to hardware. Then again, Apple can't exactly strong-arm themselves, or offer kickbacks and incentives to themselves either...

While I don't particularly like Apple devices, I would have to say that that their corporate and marketing strategy is very well played. They've earned their success in a tough marketplace and I respect that.

HeLGeN-X said,
I just found an iPhone 5G in a local cafe...

...and I'm writing this comment via a leaked Windows 8 right now

xD

I am posting this follow-up from my quad core Atom Nettop which is the latest snapshot of Midori OS. I really love running Windows 7 in a app container. It helps with compatibility issues. Nothing native, but who cares.

Personally I see this more a MS defeat than an Apple victory:

Microsoft Market Cap:

1999 $600.00 billion
2010 $227.86 billion

In ten years it went down more than 50%.....
So yes Apple grew substantially but, at the same time, MS severely shrinked and this is the problem; furthermore MS quote shrinked in a market that expanded significantly and this make things look even worse.
If MS had just held its quote Apple would still be way behind....

Fritzly said,
Personally I see this more a MS defeat than an Apple victory:

Microsoft Market Cap:

1999 $600.00 billion
2010 $227.86 billion

In ten years it went down more than 50%.....
So yes Apple grew substantially but, at the same time, MS severely shrinked and this is the problem; furthermore MS quote shrinked in a market that expanded significantly and this make things look even worse.
If MS had just held its quote Apple would still be way behind....

MS went down the hole because of piracy due to the high prices people have to pay for their operating systems and Office. Apple almost doesn't have to deal with piracy.

Fritzly said,
Personally I see this more a MS defeat than an Apple victory:

Microsoft Market Cap:

1999 $600.00 billion
2010 $227.86 billion

In ten years it went down more than 50%.....
So yes Apple grew substantially but, at the same time, MS severely shrinked and this is the problem; furthermore MS quote shrinked in a market that expanded significantly and this make things look even worse.
If MS had just held its quote Apple would still be way behind....

Take any valuation of a tech company during the dot-com bubble with a grain of salt. No stock that was "booming" at that time will ever get that high again unless they find a goose that lays 1000 golden eggs each day.

Regardless, consumers don't care about market caps. They care about products. And right now, both companies have products which are continuing to sell well.

Luis Mazza said,

MS went down the hole because of piracy due to the high prices people have to pay for their operating systems and Office. Apple almost doesn't have to deal with piracy.

The only reason Apple doesn't have to deal with piracy as much is that it's much harder to pirate overpriced hardware (even though there's an abundance of it) than overpriced software.

satukoro said,
The only reason Apple doesn't have to deal with piracy as much is that it's much harder to pirate overpriced hardware (even though there's an abundance of it) than overpriced software.

You mean it's harder to steal a physical product from a store than it is to download immaterial software from a random anonymous internet location?! Astounding deduction!

*raises hand*

When exactly was the last time Apple could really be thought of as an "underdog"?

I mean, Linux, sure. Total desktop underdog.

Haiku? LOL, yeah, pretty much.

But Apple? ...really?

"The iPod is one of those rare products that are so pervasive in the consumer market that even music devices that aren't iPods are called iPods by many people (Think Kleenex, Nerf guns, Band Aids, or “I'll Google that”)."

How on earth is that true. Please source.

Everyone I possibly know can distinguish the difference between a iPod, and a music player, the iPod is a music player a music player is not a iPod. I don't call my nokia phone a iPod because I use it as a music player, nor do I call it a iPhone because I use it as a phone. I don't call a tissue a cleenex, and when I say "google it" I mean go to google.com and search for it, not go to some other search engine and search for it, I intentionally mean use google, I know what I mean, and I know what I say.

Either Americans have been done over with capitalism and marketing beyond comprehension of other nations, or you just plain right lied an article by saying something that just wasn't true. Which is it?

I've heard other music players called iPods by technically-inept mom's before, but I've heard iPods and other music players more commonly called "MP3" without the player (for example, "he's listening to music on his MP3") which makes even less sense.

I find it much more annoying, however, how anything output from a computer to a large screen through a projector is commonly called a "power point," even if it has nothing to do with Microsoft PowerPoint...

balupton said,
"The iPod is one of those rare products that are so pervasive in the consumer market that even music devices that aren't iPods are called iPods by many people (Think Kleenex, Nerf guns, Band Aids, or “I'll Google that”)."

How on earth is that true. Please source.

Everyone I possibly know can distinguish the difference between a iPod, and a music player, the iPod is a music player a music player is not a iPod. I don't call my nokia phone a iPod because I use it as a music player, nor do I call it a iPhone because I use it as a phone. I don't call a tissue a cleenex, and when I say "google it" I mean go to google.com and search for it, not go to some other search engine and search for it, I intentionally mean use google, I know what I mean, and I know what I say.

Either Americans have been done over with capitalism and marketing beyond comprehension of other nations, or you just plain right lied an article by saying something that just wasn't true. Which is it?

It seems you haven't visited Latin America, they all call it that way. But, due to it's market expansion, iPod is more generally interpreted than any other mp3 device. imagine this, when HP Slate comes out, people will start calling it iPad, or at least in Latin America.

All that a higher market cap proves is that investors believe that Apple has a higher chance of growth than others. With huge companies like Microsoft that are already entrenched in their markets it's not really expected that they will grow much (they already have 90% of the OS market, large share in game consoles, and their new mobile strategy doesn't go into effect until later this year).

This has nothing to do with which company is "winning" anything, just which is currently undergoing the most growth, and considering that Apple was near bankruptcy several years back it's not very surprising to see them growing more...

Very good article. I agree with the most of it and it has really put in perspective Apple vs Microsoft.

Apple is a hardware company with a bit of software, and Microsoft is a software company with a bit of hardware. It uses it's partners to create the hardware and sell them the software for it.

It's two completely different companies in reality.

I myself am looking forward to WP7 and Natal, and will probably pick up both.

The only ones who care is apple fanboys and up in arms window fanboys upset at the previous article. THESE COMPANYS ARE NOT FOOTBALL TEAMS, why treat them like they are?

cloaked said,
The Zune isn't a failure.

The Zune wasn't a failure, but I think it will mainly flourish as a service in the future since the Xbox and Zune integration is amazing and has been a great experience for my friends who have an Xbox.

Troll: "Nobody cares about the Zune."
Response: "Except people who value good sound."

Troll: "Nobody uses Macs."
Response: "Except people who value good design."

Mac spawns iPhone OS.
Zune spawns Windows Phone 7.

Zune culture = Mac culture

/Microsoft offers WM Center -> Holy grail of HTPCs
//Apple offers AppleTV -> ______?
///Google offers Google TV -> im in ur toobz, wachin u back

bluarash said,
The Zune is actually a very solid product, this comes from someone who owns a few iPods and an iPhone.

Too bad they refuse to sell it overseas, specially, in New Zealand where the iPod has been available for years. Add to that the fact that Microsoft refuses to provide support for Zune on the Mac the device is entirely useless to me.

rawr_boy81 said,

Too bad they refuse to sell it overseas, specially, in New Zealand where the iPod has been available for years. Add to that the fact that Microsoft refuses to provide support for Zune on the Mac the device is entirely useless to me.


Different story here, the market just isn't viable.

Omen1393 - I agree completely. Zune surely isn't threatening the iPod or Touch but when it comes to comparing PMPs the one device that we always hear about as a director competitor to the iPod and Touch is the Zune. No one else gets mentioned.

Microsoft fumbled Zune terribly and iPod is so entrenched that they'll likely never be able to overcome it. Same scenario as Windows vs. Mac Os. If a competitor makes it to market first with a good product that catches on with the public i.e. Walkman; the manufacturer wins the publics loyalty unless they drop the ball as Sony did and fail to make the transition to the next playing field.

Sony had the market cornered when they released the Walkman tape player. They made the transition to CD Walkmans but didn't see the digital movement coming and Apple saw opportunity. Question is......Will Apple see the next big thing?

TomJones said,
I read the whole thing. The problem is not too much text -- the problem is that the paragraphs are too long.

ADD kicking in while reading???? Wow is all I can say

z0phi3l said,

ADD kicking in while reading???? Wow is all I can say

He's probably referring to the article being poorly-formatted, which it is.

One wonders if Microsoft will ever get in to the hardware side of things fully, and start designing their own hardware. Of course, they don't need to provided they set strict requirements that can run their software - e.g. WM7 that requires a minimum spec processor so it runs smoothly (I assume).
That's half the problem of Microsoft software - it's put on devices that just can't handle it - take laptops, for example, in 2007/8 that had Vista put on to them, and so much bloatware from the OEM, that laptops would hardly run.
But, of course, if MS become stricter, companies may very well completely dismiss them, and use other solutions such as Android, exclusively.

cleverclogs said,
One wonders if Microsoft will ever get in to the hardware side of things fully, and start designing their own hardware.

How about the successful Xbox/Xbox360?
Project Natal/Wave should be interesting when it is released.

Roberticus said,

How about the successful Xbox/Xbox360?
Project Natal/Wave should be interesting when it is released.

Well yes, this is a good example - they really can get things to work. Half the problem, however, is getting people to take notice, and use it, to break away from other platforms.
Maybe they will get WM7 right though, if they're targetting other users such as myself, who have yet to buy their first smartphone.

Roberticus said,

How about the successful Xbox/Xbox360?
Project Natal/Wave should be interesting when it is released.

That depends on how you define 'successful'. Everything aside from Windows, Server and Office have been barely breaking even or an abject failure for Microsoft, in terms of revenue.

Ever since the Vista debacle, people outside Microsoft have been discussing the potential for a Microsoft PC. If the problem is integration -- the need to have well-designed hardware, the need to have well-written drivers -- then the obvious solution is to move to an Apple model and integrate the PC vertically.

But nobody inside Microsoft seems to have paid any attention. This may be because anything Microsoft does is likely to run into antitrust problems, whereas anything that Apple does is OK by antitrust.

But frankly, the real reason is lack of imagination and conservative thinking. There are ways to structure a "Microsoft PC" initiative to specifically avoid antitrust problems. Ironically, netbooks are pretty close to a standardized Windows PC design -- because they only have a few low-powered chips to pick from.

TomJones said,
Ever since the Vista debacle, people outside Microsoft have been discussing the potential for a Microsoft PC. If the problem is integration -- the need to have well-designed hardware, the need to have well-written drivers -- then the obvious solution is to move to an Apple model and integrate the PC vertically.

But nobody inside Microsoft seems to have paid any attention. This may be because anything Microsoft does is likely to run into antitrust problems, whereas anything that Apple does is OK by antitrust.

But frankly, the real reason is lack of imagination and conservative thinking. There are ways to structure a "Microsoft PC" initiative to specifically avoid antitrust problems. Ironically, netbooks are pretty close to a standardized Windows PC design -- because they only have a few low-powered chips to pick from.

this is the first time i've ever heard of such a thing.

rawr_boy81 said,

It was talked about ages ago when Ballmer said he wanted Microsoft to be more like Apple; in other words have some stricter standards placed on OEM's to raise the bar when it comes to delivering a quality integrated solution. If the OEM's do a crap job then it doesn't matter how perfect Windows is, the end user will perceive Windows as bad because of butchering by the OEM.

Which is exactly what happened with Vista.

Steve did say Apple is a mobile devices company. I find it very true. No point trying to topple Microsoft in the OS market when they have a successful and profitable line up of the iPod, iPhone, iPad and MacBook.

On the flip side, Microsoft's attempt to imitate Apple in the mobile devices sector has never been that great (Zune, WinMo, Windows tablets). It gets worse for Microsoft as manufacturers are going Google's Android for their phones and tablets.

thealexweb said,
Apple is spreading itself to thinly and as a result its starting to neglect its core businesses (e.g. Mac).

How? They've just recently come out with the best line of MacBook Pros and MacBooks ever. The iMac which was just updated in October is a beautiful machine. The only Mac products that have had a long refresh time are the Mac Pro, Mac mini, and MacBook Air. And from everything I've heard about the Mac Pro and MacBook Air updates, Apple has been waiting for suitable parts to become widely available.

OS X 10.7 isn't expected to be talked about until WWDC 2011 which seems about right to me since Snow Leopard was just released this past August. iPhone OS 4.0 is ready to go for it's announcement next Monday. And iPods will get updated in September. I think Apple is firing on all cylinders. They might have production issues surrounding the iPad (and possibly the iPhone 4G), but I don't think they're neglecting the Mac.

There are also recent buzz on Mac Pro and MacBook Air updates coming pretty soon now.

I also don't really get the above comment. Apple is getting this stock value beyond Microsoft's because they keep surprising the stock holders' estimations of forthcoming revenues. Each time they do, AAPL takes a jump, and that's how it works in that world. That's far from a sign that they're spreading too thinly.

Edited by Northgrove, May 30 2010, 12:22pm :

What they are neglecting is OS X, iWork and iLife. Not the Macs themselves. Oh and Cinema Displays. These are looooooooooooooooong overdue.

OS X 10.6 doesn't include any killer feature compared to Windows 7. Leopard did include a lot of these compared to Windows Vista. So in the end that's why Windows 7 caught up with OS X in a lot of directions.

Edited by PyX, May 30 2010, 12:30pm :

Smigit said,
Things change. I'm not so sure Apples core business is in fact the Mac anymore.

Exactly, the article even states that Apple is trying to re-image itself as a mobile device manufacturer, not a general PC hardware/software company.

Last quarter, Apple derived only 28% of its revenues from Mac. The rest was iPhone, iPod, etc. With the release of the iPad, the Mac contribution to Apple's revenues is likely to go down still further.

Mac continues to grow, but iPhone is growing much faster. iPod is actually *declining* in units sold, although revenues are still inching up from upgrades. You can now see why Google is so dangerous for Apple.

asdavis10 said,
How? They've just recently come out with the best line of MacBook Pros and MacBooks ever.

Coming out with better and newer devices is hardly evidence they aren't neglecting an area (if they were older and worse - then... well it would be stupid.)

I think the point of the article is that most of Apples profits don't come from the OS and software, and so isn't really a comparison to Microsoft any more, and with bigger profits in one area... that's the area a company will focus on.

asdavis10 said,

How? They've just recently come out with the best line of MacBook Pros and MacBooks ever.

Wow, very hard to release hardware updates indeed. Major change! ... Oh wait.

lt8480 said,

Coming out with better and newer devices is hardly evidence they aren't neglecting an area (if they were older and worse - then... well it would be stupid.)

I think the point of the article is that most of Apples profits don't come from the OS and software, and so isn't really a comparison to Microsoft any more, and with bigger profits in one area... that's the area a company will focus on.

RuuddieBoy said,

Wow, very hard to release hardware updates indeed. Major change! ... Oh wait.

The point was that Apple are still updating Mac products in a reasonable time with the exception of possibly the Mac Pro, MacBook Air, and Mac mini which I stated that to my knowledge, were because of the lack of suitable parts. I don't think Apple has neglected the Mac at all. They've updated their products every year (sometimes twice a year as was the case with the MacBook) just as Dell, HP, or every other manufacturer does. As for software (ie. iLife and iWork) which someone else mentioned, I don't think anyone releases major software versions every year. I just don't see how Apple is neglecting the Mac.

Edited by asdavis10, May 30 2010, 5:13pm :

asdavis10 said,

The point was that Apple are still updating Mac products in a reasonable time with the exception of possibly the Mac Pro, MacBook Air, and Mac mini which I stated that to my knowledge, were because of the lack of suitable parts. I don't think Apple has neglected the Mac at all. They've updated their products every year (sometimes twice a year as was the case with the MacBook) just as Dell, HP, or every other manufacturer does. As for software (ie. iLife and iWork) which someone else mentioned, I don't think anyone releases major software versions every year. I just don't see how Apple is neglecting the Mac.

Updating hardware because you are a hardware company is a no brainer. If for no other reason their suppliers like intel make is for you to stay with older hardware, as in they will charge more for Core2 CPU's vs i3/i5.

I dont expect 10.7 this year, but since 10.6 was nothing but a service pack for Leopard, I would think we would be hearing rumors at least. Same goes for iWork and iLife. iWork lags so bad now with Office 2010 out its not even funny. Microsoft a has a big update for Live essentials, enough to make MoblieMe and iLife look dated, and its all free.

Windows 7 needs to be answered, its as good or better than SL. Snow Leopard looks dated. The aqua scroll bars in some places and the itunes version in other places through out the UI is a joke. Finder still lacks so badly. Cut and Paste...for the love of god.

The only people that need a Mac are iPhone OS app developers.

rrode74 said,

Updating hardware because you are a hardware company is a no brainer. If for no other reason their suppliers like intel make is for you to stay with older hardware, as in they will charge more for Core2 CPU's vs i3/i5.

I dont expect 10.7 this year, but since 10.6 was nothing but a service pack for Leopard, I would think we would be hearing rumors at least. Same goes for iWork and iLife. iWork lags so bad now with Office 2010 out its not even funny. Microsoft a has a big update for Live essentials, enough to make MoblieMe and iLife look dated, and its all free.

Windows 7 needs to be answered, its as good or better than SL. Snow Leopard looks dated. The aqua scroll bars in some places and the itunes version in other places through out the UI is a joke. Finder still lacks so badly. Cut and Paste...for the love of god.

The only people that need a Mac are iPhone OS app developers.

So because you don't hear rumors about something means that the company is neglecting a product line? So since Snow Leopard was nothing more than a service pack, does that mean that Windows 7 was as well? They both made more under the hood improvements rather than introduce new features. Its funny that you say that Snow Leopard looks dated because of UI features. How about Windows and all its legacy support? It's the most dated OS, period. Leopard was introduced in 2007 and refined in 2009. I don't think waiting until, possibly, 2012 is that long for a major update. But that's just me.

Edited by asdavis10, May 31 2010, 1:46am :

asdavis10 said,

So because you don't hear rumors about something means that the company is neglecting a product line? So since Snow Leopard was nothing more than a service pack, does that mean that Windows 7 was as well? They both made more under the hood improvements rather than introduce new features. Its funny that you say that Snow Leopard looks dated because of UI features. How about Windows and all its legacy support? It's the most dated OS, period. Leopard was introduced in 2007 and refined in 2009. I don't think waiting until, possibly, 2012 is that long for a major update. But that's just me.

Windows 7 dated looking? It is the most modern looking OS in use. When I upgraded my Leopard to Snow Leopard, I had thought it failed at first. I could not tell that anything had changed at first. Only after I used Safari now in 64bit by default did I know it was different.....Safari crashed more until I told it to run in 32bit mode.

All you here from Apple these days is about iStuff. You never see ads about Mac's, minus those now pulled Mac/PC clown ads. Everything Apple is doing revolves around iPhone OS. Event the rumors of a new Apple TV are about it being a iPhone OS next.

I guess Apple after trying for 10 years to gain market share in the computer world and basically not budging is throwing everything into an area where they are in the lead. Risky IMHO, since 3/4 of their profits now come from iStuff which is consumer focused. Consumers can change their minds very quickly, and with that come a massive move to the next best thing. Corporations can move that fast and tend to stick to the same thing, and Apple has no play in this area.

rrode74 said,

Windows 7 dated looking? It is the most modern looking OS in use. When I upgraded my Leopard to Snow Leopard, I had thought it failed at first. I could not tell that anything had changed at first. Only after I used Safari now in 64bit by default did I know it was different.....Safari crashed more until I told it to run in 32bit mode.

All you here from Apple these days is about iStuff. You never see ads about Mac's, minus those now pulled Mac/PC clown ads. Everything Apple is doing revolves around iPhone OS. Event the rumors of a new Apple TV are about it being a iPhone OS next.

I guess Apple after trying for 10 years to gain market share in the computer world and basically not budging is throwing everything into an area where they are in the lead. Risky IMHO, since 3/4 of their profits now come from iStuff which is consumer focused. Consumers can change their minds very quickly, and with that come a massive move to the next best thing. Corporations can move that fast and tend to stick to the same thing, and Apple has no play in this area.


^ What he said

rrode74 said,

Windows 7 dated looking? It is the most modern looking OS in use. When I upgraded my Leopard to Snow Leopard, I had thought it failed at first. I could not tell that anything had changed at first. Only after I used Safari now in 64bit by default did I know it was different.....Safari crashed more until I told it to run in 32bit mode.

All you here from Apple these days is about iStuff. You never see ads about Mac's, minus those now pulled Mac/PC clown ads. Everything Apple is doing revolves around iPhone OS. Event the rumors of a new Apple TV are about it being a iPhone OS next.

I guess Apple after trying for 10 years to gain market share in the computer world and basically not budging is throwing everything into an area where they are in the lead. Risky IMHO, since 3/4 of their profits now come from iStuff which is consumer focused. Consumers can change their minds very quickly, and with that come a massive move to the next best thing. Corporations can move that fast and tend to stick to the same thing, and Apple has no play in this area.

Too bad I didn't say anything about Windows 7 being "dated looking". Read what I said. We clearly have opposing views. I just don't feel this is the year for new announcements on the Mac. That will be at next year's WWDC.