Apple Will Feel The Pain From Windows 7 Launch - Software - IT Channel News by CRN.
Let's go through this in stages.
"Here's what I believe will happen: The Windows 7 launch will take those market-share gains Apple has seen over the past several years and make them disappear."
Really? So the fact that a lot of Macs were bought when XP was still out has no bearing on the fact that Apple has been gaining market share? Granted, Vista was the best thing to happen to Apple, but do you think that people aren't wondering why they would purchase 'fixed Vista' in the first place?
"How frightened is Apple that its about to be whammied by Windows 7? Well, BusinessWeek is reporting that Apple is planning to launch a marketing blitz aimed at convincing PC buyers to instead choose a Mac."
And MS didn't do the same thing leading up to Snow Leopard's release? Remember those "I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person" ads last summer? Microsoft is planning their own advertising blitz, too, and it is even advertised on your site, and it involves a full "commercial free" episode of The Family Guy.
"BusinessWeek says that Apple will likely make the case that Macs are more susceptible to viruses. A flat-out false claim. There are a bunch of Mac myths. And better security than Windows is the biggest one. Security experts say that if Mac users are less susceptible to attack, it's simply due to the fact that there are fewer viruses written for Macs than for Windows."
Yeah, some of the security stuff is myth, but a lot of the "Mac Myths" were based on user intelligence, something neither MS nor Apple can do anything about. There are still less viruses out for Apple compared to MS, just like less attacks on FF and Opera than IE.
"BusinessWeek also claims Apple will make fun of Microsoft for making Windows XP owners go through what is by all accounts a cumbersome process to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7. Talk about a canard. That duck just don't fly. No one in their right mind would even think of upgrading a Windows XP system to Windows 7. That's an exercise for unemployed nerds with too much time on their hands. It simply doesn't make sense. Windows 7 is a cause celebre to look at buying a new system. It is not a reason to look at upgrading a well-running Windows XP system. You wouldn't upgrade a well-running Mac system either. Get a life."
BULL SHIT. I have upgraded my MacBook Pro once, and I'm going to do it again once I make it to my computer store of choice and get Snow Leopard. A new OS should NOT be a reason to drop $2k on a new computer. Of course, my MacBook Pro is working as well as day 1 at 3 years old. I can't say the same about my quad-core Dell desktop until I reloaded XP on it. If we can't upgrade a perfectly good system, then why even give Windows 7 the time of day? Oh, I get it. We're supposed to go out and buy a $400 junk PC with Windows 7. I guess you can't upgrade one of those, just like you can't polish a turd. Dell, HP, Sony, etc. all have $2k laptops and desktops. You COULD upgrade those from XP to W7, but yeah, I guess that process will be too cumbersome, thanks to MS.
Additionally, the upgrade process that I did to go from Tiger to Leopard was quick and easy and resulted in no data loss. It has been YEARS since I messed with upgrading a computer with an MS system, partly because 8 out of the last 10 computers I owned or used were so terrible to begin with that they were replaced instead of upgrading to a new OS and had to be reloaded on a yearly basis (not MS's fault, of course).
Speaking of reloading every year, even my bad-ass Dell Quad-Core had to be reloaded after a year (with XP, of course, no way I'd even think about Vista given what I do). Computers should not become so painfully slow or error prone that they need to be reloaded regularly.
EDIT (2): Take a look at this page from the Washington Post where tech writer Rob Pegoraro calls the XP -> 7 upgrade process a "Destructive Install". Mr. Pegoraro has a pretty good assessment of Windows 7 in his article.
"Yes, the Mac has had a great run for the past couple of years. Gartner says Apple's share of the U.S. computer market for the third quarter amounted to 8.8 percent, up from 8.6 percent in the year-ago period. My bet is that market share is going to drop below 5 percent by the end of 2010."
That is an awful strong statement considering the reduced liklihood that people will purchase new computers just to get a new OS in the current economy. You can consider 2009 dead - the holiday season is about to start and the US unemployment is at 9.8% or so. There may be some purchases at tax time, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the expectation.
What about the market share of dual-boot computers - such as a Mac running both OS X and Windows 7 under Boot Camp, Parallels, or Fusion. Is this even going to be measured correctly?
"Apple CEO Steve Jobs has done a great job of exploiting the shortcomings of Vista for some significant market-share gains. Windows 7 has none of those shortcomings and all the advantages of the Windows brand at its best."
And Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer didn't attempt to exploit the price-point of Apple Hardware? Of course, he also poo-pooed the iPhone and the iPod, both of which have outsold their MS counterparts so much that you don't hear much about Windows Mobile or the Zune.
All in all, I think Windows 7 will be a great OS. I will probably purchase it and run it on under Parallels or on Boot Camp (or both, even). However, unless major changes happen, my next computer will be a Mac... whenever I buy that computer.
Let's be realistic, though. Windows 7 will not be a cure-all for MS. Bing is more or less a failure, Windows Mobile is looking like a failure, Zune is a failure, Office for Mac is a failure (probably part of Microsoft's business plan), and Vista was a failure, to name a few. Steve Ballmer seems to be delusional, having been associated with a number of articles where he laughs at the iPhone, calls Vista an "unqualified success", and the "Vista Capable" lawsuit. Office for Windows is the only software product that Microsoft makes that can be competitive, and it is under assault by free online services like Google Docs. Microsoft's innovation has been surpassed or matched in EVERYTHING THEY DO. Windows and Microsoft will not die, and that is great. We need them. However, Microsoft would do better to refocus and make sure that I'm not wrong on that.
EDIT: In addition to above, Microsoft acquired "Danger" in April 2008. In 1.5 years, they didn't learn to backup their server or store things like photos locally on a device. Instead, it appears that they had them on a server. I'm not too familiar with the T-Mobile Sidekick, but not storing pictures to local memory? Bad news, and a bad move by Microsoft to not do something better.
Now, back to the author and article. The linked article was the most biased and uneducated crap I have ever read. This reads as if it was written by a business person that thinks they know a lot about technology... a person that thinks their PocketPC is cool because it has built-in Wi-Fi... a person that thinks they know a lot because they have 2 GB of RAM in their computer... a person that thinks they are smart because they setup a wireless network in their house and it has 128-bit WEP security. Get with the times. Blackberries and iPhones have replaced PocketPCs a long time ago. 2 GB of RAM is nothing. WEP security is crap, try WPA, and it is pretty easy to set it up. Let me know when you've figured out a program that does more than:
10 PRINT "Hello World"
20 GOTO 10
No comments:
Post a Comment