Where Microsoft and its Cohorts Fear to Tread
September 29th, 2006You’ve probably heard the news, that the Toshiba — or rather Microsoft — Zune player will cost $249.99, within pennies of the current 30GB iPod. Microsoft admits it’s losing money, but is prepared to take a loss in the hope that it will, some day, catch the iPod.
But the form and features and even pricing of the Zune player aren’t important. Although Microsoft wants us to think that it is willing to risk tons of cash to gain market share, there is one area that is, so far, in the hands-off department, and that’s the Mac.
Yes indeed, like other music players that use one of Microsoft’s failed DRM schemes, there is no Mac version of Zune. What’s more, it doesn’t seem to be on the radar. In fact, Microsoft seems to have been trimming its Mac offerings of late, with the departure of Virtual PC and, more importantly, Windows Media Player. I won’t dwell over the fact that a third party is distributing an add-on for QuickTime to support older Windows Media versions. The encrypted stuff won’t play on a Mac without a Windows virtual machine, such as Parallels Desktop. So much for that.
Of course, if you ask Microsoft why they killed these products, they’ll give you excuses. Virtual PC would have required a complete retooling to function on an Intel-based Mac. That would be like building a 1.0 product, but the key element of their response is that there are already other solutions to running Windows and Windows software, from Apple, Parallels and so on and so forth.
In other words, Microsoft just couldn’t compete with smaller companies. Or chose not to.
Windows Media Player? Well, that’s not developed by the Mac Business Unit, so there’s another division to make excuses, and I haven’t seen any that make sense other than the fact that Mac users just don’t seem to care.
Of course it’s not just Microsoft that chooses to ignore the Mac from time to time. I saw an announcement the other day about a new media streaming device from Netgear, perhaps designed to steal thunder from Apple’s iTV. Or at least some of the published reports I read about the product made that claim. Except that it won’t run on Macs either.
Now with Windows occupying over 90% of the personal computer market, I suppose I can agree with industry analyst Ross Rubin, who talked about the matter on this week’s episode of The Tech Night Owl LIVE, that these companies would prefer to go after the low-hanging fruit. Besides, Mac users wouldn’t necessarily be tempted, since they’re used to the seamless integration with Apple’s software and hardware.
Of course, that raises the biggest question of all about these alleged iPod “killers,” and that is why most of these companies have, so far at least, pretty much stayed clear of the Mac market. If their products are so impressive, so compelling, why not go for the gold, or the brass ring?
When it comes to the hardware, nothing needs to be changed. But they would have to build drivers and software that runs on both the PowerPC and Intel-based Macs. Is that such a hard task, to build a Universal binary version?
Apparently not, since there are now over 3,500 Universal applications, and the list is growing rapidly, almost every single day. In fact, Microsoft has already made one small move in that direction, with its latest instant messaging software. Oh yes, it doesn’t do audio or video yet, although iChat and even Skype can perform those worthy tasks. To be fair to Microsoft, they say they’re working on it.
Understand that Apple wasn’t afraid to build Windows versions of its products where it felt it could make a killing. In fact, there are far more Windows users with iPods than Mac users right now. But many of its competitors are clearly afraid to move in the opposite direction.
Print This Post
Why do you always blame Microsoft? If Apple gave some heads up on the Intel switch, they might have had time to do something with VPC and other products. You know deep down inside, even if they did continue making VPC, you’ll do anything possible to use something non-Microsoft anyway.
As for MS ignoring Mac community, consider this… When Apple planned to make games to play on iPods, who (game developers) did it include? or should I say who did they excluded? They excluded a lot of people, including Mac game developers. Hint, that’s how you alienate friends. Does Apple make iLife for Windows? Does Apple license it’s DRM to others? You see the battle goes both ways. You’re just one sided and not reporting the full story.
Also does Apple make OSX for non-Apple PCs? Apple is afraid of certain things.
Afraid? Why would Microsoft bother with Zune for Mac when they know that just about any Mac user would prefer iTunes + iPod? This is more of a logical reasoning, not fear. Why not take a poll and ask your Mac listeners/readers if they really want to use Zune on a Mac.
Yo, have you ever built software? It’s expensive. It’s more expensive to build for two completely different operating systems. It’s twice as expensive to test multi platform software as well.
And by the way, do you see Safari for Windows? No.
Note that “Universal” apps are only universal on the Mac platform. It’s not easy to build cross platform applications, ask Adobe about that. They know. Apple knows this too. Where’s FinalCut Pro for Windows? Apple doesnt have the guts to put that one out. Apple fears that people will stay on a PC.
Go for the Gold? The gold is in the PC market. That’s where 99% of the customers are. If you want quicker return on your investment, build the PC software first. Then think about a Mac version later. Rarely does it go the other way.
“Apple wasn’t afraid to build Windows versions of its products where it felt it could make a killing” you better rethink that statement. iLife, FinalCut Pro, etc. These are great apps. They could make a killing. But too bad. Apple fears too.
So what are you saying? You really think Microsoft should price Zune higher? Is that the smarter thing to do? duh.
Open up your iPod. Probably has Toshiba harddrive.
Few (if any) Mac user would use Zune. So Microsoft is actually doing the right thing for now.
What’s this about fear? Apple could have made iTunes for Windows at the same time it was made for the Mac. It didnt. Only later, did Apple make iTunes for Windows. That’s where the gold is.
These applications are designed to give value to the Mac OS, to make it more competitive in the marketplace. To bring more people to the platform. It’s designed to make a killing of a different sort.
Peace,
Gene
That’s what is meant by “low-hanging fruit.” But there are 30 million Mac users out there, about 20 million of which use Mac OS X. It’s still an important market.
Peace,
Gene
That’s why Microsoft fears to bring it over to the Mac platform. Exactly my point. If they had a product compelling enough, Mac users would buy it too.
Peace,
Gene
It doesn’t matter how compelling Zune or any other product is, iPod is entrenched and not going anywhere. Furthermore, Apple users are a very loyal bunch, so getting them to switch to Zune, even if it was better, smaller, faster, more capable and more intuitive at a lower price just wouldn’t happen in enough numbers to matter.
No fear. It’s actually a strength. If you can drop a product such as VPC and not even shed a tear. It’s a strength. If they started crying and begging for users (such as a PC switch back campaign) then I’d say fear.
Fear is when they don’t even try to compete at all (not make a portable player).
OK, they showed courage to drop Virtual PC because there were better products that got to market faster than they could. I see. Failure is an attribute.
Peace,
Gene
Microsoft is just doing what Apple continues to do which is to compel people to use it’s own operating system. There’s no fear here. With Vista on the way, do I smell FUD in the Apple camp?
By dropping VPC, I didnt think Microsoft failed. It’s moving on to more significant things. Since boot camp is available, there’s not good enough of a reason to make VPC for Mac anymore. I suspect Parallels secretly had some head start with it’s product. You sure sound Anti Microsoft. Can’t you compute without being angry?
Or Parallels just found a way to do it better by themselves, which is more realistic.
Angry? Not me. I’m enjoying all these messages, but it doesn’t change what I had to say on the subject.
Peace,
Gene
Every organization experiences some kind of failure. Thats how you learn. In the case with Microsoft VPC, that’s no failure. They are just so big, they don’t see the significance of VPC for Mac. Obviously they don’t need it. And neither do you. Especially when you can natively boot Windows on a MacIntel.
Obviously they could have agressivly pursued to build VPC for Mac. But, by doing so, they would have squished Parallels out of existance. Do you want that?
And by the way, why doesnt Apple make OSX for non Apple computers? Linux can.
So let’s see. There’s this big company that’s beaten to the marketplace by a smaller company with a better product. But that’ s not a failure on the part of the bigger company. Nice spin.
As to licensing Mac OS X: Apple makes its money on hardware. Do the math.
Peace,
Gene
The ecosystem of iPod and iTunes is hard to crack into. People are loyal to it, even when using a PC (how ironic). It makes zero business sense to make Zune on a Mac, at least not until Zune becomes more popular.
The same applies to the Microsoft ecosystem which is much larger than just a music player and it’s music service (can you say .NET?). Although many use iPods, they still compute on PCs. The marketshare shows clearly that even though a significant number of people have Macs, Windows continues to rule. As more users start to use Macs, proportionally, even more users get on PCs.
Of course Apple makes money on it’s hardware. It’s because it currently doesnt sell its software (OSX) for PCs. If it did, they would make a killing. Imagine millions of users throwing in $99 for the best operating system in the world? That’s a lot more money than Apple gets from it’s hardware sales (which are really PCs anyway).
But wait, oh no. They won’t do so because Apple fears an OSX for PC will only get pirated in which case, not much money is made and hardware sales stall. You see, Apple can’t promise a fool proof DRM on it’s own OS either. Can’t burn a movie to DVD from iTunes downloaded movie can you?
Apple would have to grow its software sales by an incredible margin to make up the difference. And they’d have a lot more work to do, as Mac OS X would have to be compatible with thousands and thousands of possible PC system combos, rather than the small number of Mac products. Even then, more and more reliability issues would be created. This is where Microsoft runs into trouble. Apple succeeds by providing the whole widget, an integrated system of hardware and software.
Folks who think Apple could just unfurl Mac OS X and make a killing don’t look into the reasons why Apple’s present setup is a good thing.
Peace,
Gene
Let’s not forget that those who code VPC for Mac are Mac developers. Those Mac developers had a part in the decision to drop VPC. If it were easy don’t you think they would just do make a new VPC? I guess M$ is not greedy after all.
The same is happening in the Game market. People are starting to drop native Mac games. Build it on a PC and you’ll more easily be able to port to XBOX 360. That’s two platforms for the same code. Where’s the Mac gaming console? The next closest thing would be playing pacman on an iPod. Call that gaming? Pretty lame for a big company like Apple.
Ask Parallels how easy it is 🙂
Peace,
Gene
Hey didn’t Apple have the lead with graphical user interaces at one time? Then somebody else came and trounced on them, overtook them, beat them up, took significant market share, made lots and lots of money. Yea, now thats what happened. Forget about doing the “math”, do the history. Apple ignited personal computing and the iPod is hot. But the Mac platform is a lump of coal. Now that’s what I call spectacular “failure” on a grand scale. And that’s failure in a sense that Apple lost a lot of potential that it can never get back. Obviously it’s successful in making a profit.
Microsoft will never catch up to the iPod. But at the same time, Apple won’t ever catch up to the PC in terms on dominating the desktop. They got spanked.
Gene,
I guess the gist of your opinion is that MS only wants to cater to what they believe they can make money at. That makes sense, but you are right: they are so big they are allowing other smaller companies to get into markets (Mac) that they can’t/don’t want to bother with. They ARE losing their nimbleness. The iPod is a case in point. MS is four years and millions (billions) of dollars late. I would say they are slow as molaases if they can’t react faster. But I will take your arguement one further: do they really need to be in this market? They seem to lose money at things outside of their Windows/Server/Office products. Maybe we would all be better served if they would just stick to what they make money at. Perhaps even Windows wouldn’t suffer as much.
Which is why Apple has been recording record sales and improved Mac market share in recent quarters? Give it a rest, please.
Peace,
Gene
Gene,
You kicked the wasp nest, I see. Hm. Here’s the fact as I see it  Microsoft would control every aspect of the software world, and more if they could, hardware, too. So if they choose not to compete, it is in recognition they can’t compete and turn a buck. I agree with you. There’s no other way to define that but as failure.
Seems like MSFT can’t get anything out the door. Maybe the two or three programmers doing all the work left.
Sorry. One of your lamer columns, I think.
As were most of your responses – except for the licensing of OSX.
Did you miss some sleep?
Steve
“…and your mother wears army boots! Spppttt.”
Peace
Gene
Tell ya what: This is one of the lamer responses I’ve seen so far today. All labels, no specifics. Can’t you do any better?
Peace,
Gene
Honesty how big is the Mac VPC market considering all the players and BootCamp available for free? The ROI for a small company like Parallels might be worth it, but for Microsoft? It’s a niche app in a small market. If it’s a failure for MS, it’s a small one at worst and probably a wise business decision. And as a bellwether of Microsoft’s decline look at Vista not this.