Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Vista Will Double Apple's Market Share
Apple is a bigger threat, because the OEMs who sell "Windows Only"
machines are competing against Apple who sells UNIX/Windows machines.
Yes, they call it OS/X, like IBM call their AIX, or HP call theirs
HP_UX, or Sun calls theirs SOLARIS or SCO call theirs UNIXWare, but
it's UNIX, and OEMs who sell "Windows Only" systems can't compete,
because Microsoft won't let them.
Every claim made in Apple's commercials about Mac, can also be made
about SUSE Linux, Linspire Linux, or SCO Unixware, or Solaris for
Intel. Machines configured with ANY of these operating systems - don't
crash as often, don't "pause" indefinitely, don't get viruses, run
business software, run Windows programs, and run applications that are
even better than Microsoft's. My newest favorite is the one where
Jobs/Apple says "I'm making a movie too", and out comes this beautiful
female model, saying hello in a really sexy dress. Then Bill/Microsoft
reluctantly shows his "movie" and a guy, sporting beard and moustashe,
very overweight, and hairy legs, walks out in the same dress, and says
hello, like he's about to puke his guts out.
Apple and Linux can run best-of-breed applications written for UNIX,
even applications used by ILM, DreamWorks, and the other major imaging
studios.
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Remember how you felt when you saw "The Phantom Menace" for the first time?
> | I was overwhelmingly disappointed. That's exactly how Windows Vista RC1
Actually, I liked the Phantom Menace. But I understand the
dissappointement with RC1.
> | makes me feel, and that's not very likely to change between now and when
> | the OS goes gold.
Microsoft really doesn't have a "killer app" to sell Vista. The
problem is that Apple is cutting directly into the sales and profits of
the OEMs. Microsoft will either have to shut off apple completely
(risking the possibility that Apple knows enough to run Windows
applications without needing Windows licenses to technology that
Microsoft obtained from Apple in the first place, or Microsoft will
have to let the OEMs compete with a Linux/Windows or UNIX/Windows
combination which allows them to compete with Mac.
Vista, on the other hand, seems hell-bent on keeping Linux OFF the OEM
platform as the primary operating system (meaning that it will still
get viruses, pause for long periods, reset spontaineously, reboot, and
run only applications written for the Microsoft API. At least that's
all an OEM can claim of the system "As Shipped".
> | Before now, there wasn't a viable "Google" or "Firefox"
> | for the Windows platform. Between Apple's Boot Camp and Parallels, you're
> | going to have to make a strong argument to keep people from finally
> | making the switch. And you wanna know the worst part of this
> | entire situation?
> |
> | Microsoft, in each and every instance, has been its own worst enemy.
> `----
Fundamentally, this is correct. By trying to maintain exclusive
control of the OEM channel, they risk taking themselves, and the OEM
channel, with them.
Keep in mind that even if only TWO of the top 5 OEM vendors were to
demand a Windows on Linux solution, even if it meant buying Windows
2000 licenses under Windows 2000 terms, and running it under Xen or
VMware, it would be enough to completely topple the "Windows Only"
paradigm in the PC industry.
Even worse, if Apple BECOMES one of the top 5 vendors, by revenue or by
unit volumes, it would create an even bigger problem for Microsoft.
IBM is no longer an OEM, they are now a VAR, which means that they
aren't contstrained by the OEM licenses. They could compete with Apple
by offering a Linux PC which uses the Windows licenses sold to them by
the OEM (Lennovo). Imagine what would happen if IBM went to Lennovo
and said "we want 4 million PCs, with Windows", then they put Linux on
them, and then reinstalled Windows as a Xen client. If Microsoft tries
to revoke the licenses, then IBM could send back the 4 million PCs, and
say "We don't want them, and if we can't use Windows, we WON'T pay for
it". At this point, Lennovo would have to discount the price of these
4 million computers by a value decided by IBM, regardless of what they
paid Microsoft.
Now, suppose companies like Merril Lynch, Prudential, MetLife, Bank of
America, and the other 5,000 companies who buy computers took a similar
approach. If Microsoft will not let them use Windows on their Linux
based machines, not only does the OEM have to pay Microsoft for
machines it won't be able to sell, but it will also have to pay for the
price required to appease the corporate customers for the diminushed
value of not having Windows on the machine (up to $400 per machine?).
The OEMs will also have to deal with the fact that, because the
corporations have to provide their own images and configuration, that
they will expect discounts to offset the additional cost of the
configuration. In effect, the OEMs could buy millions of licenses for
Windows, and no one will be willing to pay any additional amount for
them. In fact, they might even pay more for machines WITHOUT Windows
(if they decide to switch to alternatives such as crossover or
Win4Lin..
>http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/c0611/44c11/44c11.asp&guid=8CF5E5CB35CB42E1857F6F42970E2A2C
> http://tinyurl.com/ya7x59
>
> He seems fascinated by Linux, Compiz/XGL in particular. He has had Linux
> installled, too. When keen advocate turn their backs on Windows, this means
> something. He is one among many.
This is going to be a critical element. If the OEMs perceive Windows
Vista to be a threat, reducing their ability to compete with Apple's
UNIX/Windows combination, they might opt not to License Vista at all.
This wouldn't be the first time. When Windows ME came out, it was so
bad, and so hated by users, that OEMs started requesting Windows 98
instead. Microsoft had to scramble to release XP, if only to keep the
OEMs from defecting.
Vista and OS/X might even drive the OEMs to demand Windows 2000 under
Windows 2000 terms (transferrable licenses, reinstallable, and no WGA).
|
|
