Why doesn't Microsoft out-innovate Apple?

Of course that being said, Microsoft Research seems to have some very cool ideas - which are systematically slain in committee review. Clubbed like baby seals before they can get to the consumer ocean. No wonder Steve Ballmer throws chairs!

No wonder Steve Ballmer throws chairs!

Ha, ha, ha...Ballmer seems to be an unpoopular guy. He does seem rather monkey-like.

Apple innovation: Apple is a consumer products company. I almost never come across a Mac in a business context, outside of the occasional web developer. Many business applications even today don't support anything but IE.

Microsoft makes some consumer products, but until the recent (and mostly laughable) few attempts, MS is a business products company that has also cornered/monopolized the OS early on. They may think they are or want to be a consumer products vendor, but they are not. Xbox and windows mobile stand out as the only exceptions that I can think of off-hand.

Apple is also good with marketing, which is essential as a consumer products company. When was the last good MS consumer marketing campaign?

Many business applications even today don't support anything but IE.

That used to be true, but is less and less true all the time. Many business applications are moving away from proprietary ActiveX crap and becoming more open. Our main web based app at work, for example, now runs *best* on Firefox, and we highly discourage the use of IE. Oh, and in a company with 300 employees we used to have Macs only in the technology department, but just purchased 200 MacBooks for the bulk of our users. The other 100 employees will make the switch next year.

I haven't seen any movement yet, but obviously I can only see it at the firms where I've been. Where I am now, supports IE exclusively for their applicatons.

At only one firm did I see any attempt to accomodate Firefox and Safari, and that was on a very limited scale for internally distributed applications, and in deference to a set of users who were Mac-exclusive, and would have spent so much time fighting against using the apps that the additional development cost justified support for Firefox and Safari.

Otherwise, haven't seen it, but it's not like I try to change firms every year. I do read eWeek regularly, and again, I haven't seen any tidal wave in organizations supporting Mac

I seeded an article not too long ago from IT World that discussed, in part, some of the movement away from IE to more open browsers.

Funny thing, Apple invented the mouse and Microsoft stole it. Maybe the same thing that will happen with speech recognition?

You gotta know Apple is doing the same thing. While they didn't invent it they are responsible for the GUI becoming THE way we compute.

Apple didn't invent the mouse, Xerox PARC did.

Actually, according to Wiki:

Douglas Engelbart at the Stanford Research Institute invented the mouse in 1963.

Bill English, builder of Engelbart's original mouse,[8] invented the so-called ball mouse in 1972 while working for Xerox PARC.

So that's who's responsible for my arthritic hands...

Moreover, I'm not sure that Apple really wants to compete on the enterprise. It seems, to me at least, pointless for them to throw millions (if not billions) at the enterprise segment just for a few points of marketshare. They're strong in the consumer and "creative" pro (audio and video) space, and that's what they're good at. Microsoft has made billions being all things to all people (or trying to be) and, for a time, it worked for them, and perhaps now that's become their Achilles' Heel.

Finally, I think Apple wants fans as opposed to mere customers. And it strikes me that enterprise users are customers, not fans, and the only way to really keep them "loyal" is with a legal document re-signed every few years.

We'll see. Apple is introducing Microsoft Active Sync support in the upcoming iPhone 2.0 software, and that is all about the enterprise! Sell your RIM stock if you have any. Apple will succeed in the enterprise the way they succeed with consumers: by pleasing the end user.

IBM and then Microsoft won the enterprise by winning the loyalty of IT Departments. Apple will take it by winning the loyalty of corporate users. For example, Macs are now getting more IT support in my company because the CEO, Bob Iger (you might recognize the name), is a Mac guy. Oh, and check this out.

That's a good point, vas. However, I think there are several steps between licensing ActiveSync and seriously competing for the Enterprise (not the starship). This is not to say that Apple can't compete, they've got smart people, but I don't think this portends the end of Microsoft's stranglehold on that market. In fact it strikes me as a move similar to dual-booting on Intel systems: they've got most of the bits and pieces in place, it eliminates a major objection to purchasing a Mac (or iPhone), so why not?

The thing is, many in the corporate IT world are actually seeing the advantages of Mac (less time spent removing spyware) and are fighting to get some traction on their end. IBM currently has a Mac pilot program. (Officially, since they've always allowed employees to other computers...just now they've actually made using Macs an actual project.)

Moreover, your entrenchment of Microsoft in the enterprise infrastructure is due largely to Microsoft pulling an "Apple" by going to university IT departments all over the country and funding extensive Microsoft-centric training programs. They justify they approach by stating to the univ admins that "hey - we are the enterprise infrastructure so your graduates will find jobs". Apple attempted this early on but failed to hold on to that segment against Dell et al undercutting them on equipment pricing. In my children's schools however technology has ground to a halt as the district has trouble supporting the infrastructure and desktop - too much time required to keep things updated against viruses and hacks. Apple continues to update it's remote controls to allow ease of management against the Apple desktop and server controls. It remains to be seen if it will allow further incursion into enterprise-level technology.

In my company, its the executive that drives adoption of technology, as more executives get iPhones, there is increasing pressure to support them in the infrastructure - same thing happened with Blackberry.

Interesting...obviously my corporate experience has been different, and I've worked at about a dozen firms, but that obviously doesn't mean the future will be like the past, to state the obvious.

What a bunch of tripe. Clearly you're one of the many who blindly toss out straw dog arguments but have no clue what you're talking about. I won't bother obliterating each of your erroneous statements, because I know you won't listen anyway.

Well, here is today's useless invective.

People don't like Office 2007's ribbon just because it's different, but because it hides features and makes them almost impossible to find. It wasn't innovation, i.e. better, it was just change. Change is useless unless it makes things easier to use, and more powerful.

Are they tied down by their enterprise customers? Sure. But that doesn't mean their customers won't embrace beneficial changes. Don't make excuses for them.

What a bunch of tripe. Clearly you're one of the many who blindly toss out straw dog arguments but have no clue what you're talking about. I won't bother obliterating each of your erroneous statements, because I know you won't listen anyway.

Nope, won't be listening at all, fanboy. =]

Are they tied down by their enterprise customers? Sure. But that doesn't mean their customers won't embrace beneficial changes. Don't make excuses for them.

I don't need to, because none of these companies are making these innovations. They ALL come from universities originally.

Change is something no one likes, and a perfect example of that is the Internet. We're still stuck with IE and broken web pages, even though we've had standards-based development for years now.

Innovation is difficult, and neither Apple or Microsoft will be making these innovations you all speak of.

Well at least you resorted to name calling. That is something to be proud of.

...none of these companies are making these innovations. They ALL come from universities originally.

Every single one? Such as?

I can think of one big innovation that didn't come from a university: the world wide web (CERN). Actually, I can think of another: the transistor (Bell Labs). Another is RISC (CDC or IBM). Also, the laser printer (Xerox) and PDF (Adobe).

Not to mention: computer generated color graphics, the GUI, the WYSIWYG text editor, ethernet, smalltalk, the laser printer...all invented at Xerox PARC. Not at a university. Then there's the spreadsheet, integrated circuits, touchscreens...none invented at a university. And the list goes on.

I guess there's no end to the nonsense some people will spout on the Internet.

If that many people are using their products then how could they ever innovate without being extremely clever about it?

It is really not that difficult. Big, important companies innovate all the time. It is called technological progress. Especially software companies innovate. They can't afford to stay the same. Look at Adobe. Look at Google. Being big and important doesn't mean you stop innovating and improving your products.

. . . and that Apple products will add 2 inches on your penis . . .

This is actually true. I couldn't believe it either, but damn if it isn't true.

I won't be purchasing a Mac in the near future, because my Windows powered laptop works. Also, there is no way I'd ever want to be associated with the Mac fanboys.

You must be running XP then and not Vista on that Laptop. :-) And by the way, if your rationale for not buying a product is that you don't want to be associated with that "clique" then you must be a very uninformed consumer. Macs have a following because they provide quality hardware and incredibly user-friendly software and they do a better job of integrating the two than anyone else. Refusing to buy one because you don't like something about the product is one thing; but refusing to consider them because you don't want to be perceived as a "fanboy" (which is obviously some dirty word to you) just makes you appear to be immature and unintelligent.

I don't think Microsoft ever expected to take over from the iPod. Making a profit on the Zune makes business sense and for all the portable media players out there I'm sure 2% is a large number in real terms.

So not only are they not supposed to be able to innovate, but they can also enter markets at will without any intention of doing well? Give me a break. Are you a professional MS apologist? Bill Gates never entered a market he didn't intend to dominate. The simple fact of the matter is that they have ceased to be able to innovate and they can't compete with the quality of Apple's hardware and software right now. Microsoft's "Entertainment and Devices" division is their least profitable division, operating at a loss most of last year and just recently started turning a small profit (mostly due to Xbox). 2% market share for a company as big and capable as Microsoft is ridiculous. It is an utter failure.

As Apple expands toward the enterprise market, with the iPhone and the XServe products, MS is going to be in trouble. Look how quickly Apple jumped into the smart phone market and now RIM and Motorola are reeling.

By the way, before you just label me an "apple fanboy," you should know that I was using Microsoft products long before Windows, back when you had to understand DOS commands. I just switched to Mac in the past few years after getting so frustrated with my computer getting more difficult to use after every software "upgrade."

I don't need to, because none of these companies are making these innovations. They ALL come from universities originally.

I forgot this one, but I just can't leave it alone. None of these companies are making innovations? Are you kidding me? Where did the iPhone and its innovative touchscreen come from? What about Time Capsule and Time Machine, the most innovative backup system ever designed? What about all of the innovative features in Leopard that make it so easy and enjoyable to use. What about little programs like iWeb, iPhoto, iChat, Garageband, iTunes, Aperture, etc.? All of these are innovative, enjoyable, and easy to use hardware and software created by Apple. They innovate constantly. You are just to clueless to see it.

At best all one can say is that there is an innovation feedback look between academia and business. No institution is responsible for all innovation in the field. It's a ridiculous and hyperbolic claim.

So are we saying, then, that nothing is innovative unless it is brand spankin' new, first to market, or so radical that it makes heads explode? It sounds like we're arguing about invention rather than innovation. Techdirt has a series of posts highlighting the difference in the context of the patent system.

Apple products are nowhere near perfect, nor are they massive innovations.

Nothing is perfect, but surely you jest that Apple products aren't innovations.

Innovate -- (verb) make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas and products.

The iPhone is not just another smart phone. The touch screen interface is a completely new and innovative way of interacting with your phone.

The iPod is not just another mp3 player. It completely innovated the way music is stored and accessed on mp3 players. They also introduced the iTunes store and Podcasts, which again were completely innovative at the time.

The macbook air is not just another small laptop. It is the smallest, thinnest, lightest laptop available with a full size keyboard and the first with solid state storage.

Time machine is not just another backup utility. It completely changes the way backups are stored, accessed and viewed, and recovered by the end user. It is a completely innovative way of dealing with an age-old problem.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Why do Apple fans (better?) still feel the need to push their hardware and software solutions to us?

(Yes, that is better.) But nobody here is pushing you to do anything. This article simply asks the question why MS cannot come up with more innovative products when they spend almost 10 times what Apple spends on R&D. Anyone taking an unbiased look at the products released by both companies in the last eight years would have a hard time arguing that MS is coming anywhere near Apple in introducing new and innovative products. This is an interesting topic for discussion and has a lot to do with the size and corporate cultures of these companies. But how is any of this pushing you to dump MS and buy Apple? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Finally, you truly are clueless if you think Apple fans aren't hard on Apple. They screamed bloody murder when the iPhone price dropped so soon and when it was locked to AT&T. Aperture users have been tearing them a new one over slow updates to that software. Go read up on some of the Apple forums sometime and see if you think it is just a bunch of fanboys singing Apple's praises.

The iPod is not just another mp3 player. It completely innovated the way music is stored and accessed on mp3 players. They also introduced the iTunes store and Podcasts, which again were completely innovative at the time.

Apple had little to do with the creation of podcasting, they simply created a repository for RSS feeds with enclosures for media files, and just happened to have Akami to host the whole thing.

Which I would say constitutes an innovation.

Invention is something like:

I have created a disposable wrap to place babies in so they don't crap all over the place.

I have created an adhesive which consists of two pieces of material joined together.

Whereas innovation, to me, is:

I put velcro on disposable diapers.

It depends on the Mac. Some are more upgradable than others. Almost always you can upgrade the memory, at least, and often the hard drive. This is especially true of the laptops (the main exception being that the Mac Air is virtually non-upgradable, without serious hacking), but that's not too different a situation than laptops from other companies.

Likewise, since iMac and Mac Mini systems are so tightly integrated, upgrading them can be a challenge (the iMac is slightly easier, I believe), but you're still pretty much limited to upgrading the memory and hard drive. This isn't markedly different than similar systems from Dell, Gateway, or Sony, which are more highly engineered in unique or all-in-one cases.

The Mac Pro is substantially upgradable. It's also the only tower that Apple offers. It offers similar upgradability to tower systems from other big computer manufacturers, although it is not as upgradable as building a system entirely of your own parts, piecemeal (again, similar to offerings from Dell, Sony, Gateway).

That is to say that similar system forms have similar upgradability among Apple and other manufacturers. No system from Apple or another major manufacturer will be as upgradable as buying all your own parts and building your own computer. The advantage to buying Apple, in particular, is the highly engineered and finished construction of their systems, even the Mac Pro.

A comparison: inside of a Mac Pro vs. the inside of a Dell Precision workstation.

Thanks for this info, I know it sounds like I'm just lazy not to go looking everywhere for it, but it sounds like a lot of knowledgeable Mac users are here.

This isn't markedly different than similar systems from Dell, Gateway, or Sony, which are more highly engineered in unique or all-in-one cases.

This is one of the annoying things about buying a new system. It seems like you really do need to build your own to get what you really need without everything else under the sun attached to it for an 'upgraded' price.