For a long, long, long, long time, I thought that Microsoft was going that angle as a marketing move. Then they started doing ads like this, that seem to actively make them look stupid, and I'm starting to think that it's actually what they believe, that their corporate culture really doesn't realize what Apple does well that they don't, and it's a very saddening thought.
I'd love to see what'd happen if Apple opened OSX up to non-Apple hardware, or competed on a price level with mid-range PCs. Personally I think the biggest thing holding OSX back is the hardware price; even Microsoft know that I think…instead of staying on the software level with their new ads, they had to talk about the price of the hardware (not even the hardware itself — the second ad even said how nice the Mac hardware is!)
Hopefully Apple fights back, it's about time they did! I love unicorn tears, I just wish they were cheaper... (it's strange they've kept Macs as nearly a 'designer' product, cause they know first hand what happens when you make something mainstream; i.e. iPod/iPhone)
But then Apple would have to spend a ton of resources on getting OSX compatible with a gazillion different hardware setups. It will either slow down iterations or hurt the user experience, the "it just works" magic.
I agree completely, and this is the case I've been making for years. If OSX opened up to any hardware configuration, it would be a slow moving animal similar to M$. As it stands, I don't think Steve's vision is complete yet — not enough to open it to the world.
They could just have a list of off-the-shelf components which are fully compatible, pretty much like the OSX86 project has; a good hackintosh with tested components can be as good as the real thing.
It wouldn't be perfect, personally I'd still prefer a real Mac (I like the hardware), but I don't think it'd be a 'wrong' move by Apple to try to open things up a bit.
But then you'd have all these tech articles and blog/forum posts bitching about how Mac OS X sucks because it doesn't support hardware X ... just like you have with Linux.
It's a known fact that people don't look at the hardware compatibility list before buying a X86 machine, not even the more technically inclined ones (I know I don't ... and I'm running Linux ... although I should know better ... somehow I hope that whatever problem I have, it would get solved shortly).
And there's always the issue of having partnerships with the hardware companies to write those drivers for them, because they cannot do it on their own (lack of specifications, resources available). Microsoft couldn't pull it for Vista ... the drivers demanded from hardware manufactures were lately delivered and improperly tested.
I agree completely about the hardware pricing issue. I'd gladly buy the OS from them, but not pay such absurd amounts for pretty looking hardware. It's just not my style.
When Apple announced Intel support, I thought for sure this was a technical move so that they could eventually become an OS and software company, in additional to a computer/electronics company. I was expecting them, within a year, to have a standalone version of OSX compatible with most hardware configurations.
They stand to make a killing if they officially ship an OS which supports non-Apple hardware. Hell, if I were any hardware vendor, I'd gladly work with them to be one of the first official compatible hardware vendors. Even if there were only a handful of Apple-supported hardware components, they'd made a killing once people start building and selling Apple computers themselves.
By the way, whatever happened to that (non-Apple) business that was building computers with OSX on it?
How many times does it have to be said? Apple would not make a killing by selling OS X to other hardware manufacturers because Apple does not make money off of OS X. Apple is a hardware company. Their entire business and culture is based around this single fact. Might as well say, "If Apple were instead completely and diametrically opposed to the company they are, they could make a killing." Possibly true, but in no way useful or relevant.
I didn't know that. I just figured selling a CD or DVD with the OS on it, in addition to their own computers, would only make them more money. How would this not be the case?
But Linux for the PC is priced at $0.00, and the gorilla stands. The reason people prefer Windows to Linux is that it runs most software on virtually all hardware. Doesn't OSX has the same problem as Linux?
It seems clear that Microsoft’s stance on the Mac’s sales growth is that there’s nothing wrong with Windows or right with the Mac, but rather that there’s something wrong with Mac users.
So by declaring that they do not like mac users, where does Office for Mac come in? What about mac users who are contemplating switching to Windows? (they must exist, surely?) Aren't they going to be put off by this sort of negative advertising?
So the target demographic of these ads is existing Windows customers, to try to persuade them not to jump ship. Desperate.
(note: I haven't actually seen these ads, I don't think MS advertise on Austrian television)
Aside from the allusion to 70s and 80s car manufacturers, is warning against open standards because "Microsoft could fail" still considered a far flung idea?
"Reminds me of the attitude of U.S. carmakers in the ’70s and ’80s, as more Americans switched to Japanese imports."
Except that Japanese imports had better quality AND cheaper prices than their American counterparts. With Apple products the former is arguable and the latter is not true. Analogy broken.
I'm waiting for the Romeo and Juliet ad campaign that focuses on two allegorical star-crossed lovers, with the last ad revealing that the drama has actually taken place at a college campus and not Italy.
Also, anyone who buys a computer bathed in unicorn tears is cursed to a half-life.
