Troubles with MS (MacBU)?
 

Check out this article, which reports that all is not well between MS and Apple concerning OS X adoption rate.

A friend sent the article to me, and it's being discussed in other forums, so I'm wondering what this forum might think about it.

I'm not sure what to make of the OS X adoption rate issue, especially regarding Kevin Browne's expectations. It sounds like they're working away on yet another release, however, so that means no big changes immediately.

It does seem to me that when speaking of the OS X adoption rate, you can't really factor it in to 25 million users, since most of those machines couldn't even run OS X anyway. I wonder how many Macs are actually up to snuff on this?

What do you all think? Any concerns about the adoption rate of OS X--supposedly around 2 million so far, and about how things are going with MS?

Phil

Here is the problem as I see it:
(all prices approximated)
Office v.X ..........................................$440
Word v.X............................................$350
AppleWork 6........................................$80
TextEdit .............................................Free

I don't know about any one else, but that seems like a very powerful market dynamic to me. And the fact that Office 98 and 2001 both work fine in Classic has a part to play in all this. Plus we shouldn't forget that there was only about a year between the releases of Office 2001 and Office v.X, and most people don't upgrade $400+ programs (for about $270) every year. Even Adobe is smart enough not to make an upgrade that expensive (Photoshop is about $600, but the upgrade is only about $150).

To blame the adoption of OS X for poor sales of Office v.X is to ignore one of Microsoft's leading problems, users who don't feel any need to upgrade their Microsoft products. Microsoft actually knows this from their Windows experience. They consider people who are using Office 97 and 2000 instead of Office XP to be a loss of revenue. That is why they have been working on ways to get their consumers to pay yearly (or even quarterly) fees for use of their products to keep people from going 5 years or more between upgrades. Lets face it, complete domination of markets just isn't enough for Microsoft.

M$ FUD

pppbbbfffttt.

the trouble with microshaft is that it is full of windoze users.

the trouble with the press (news media) is that they are no longer a responsible arm in search of anything resembling the facts. they make a lot of money writing such reactionary, well-timed drivel. too bad 97.6% of the population doesn't question their reporting more. or, simply recognize the pap and stop buying and reading it.
i'm pretty sure mickeySloth's MBU would see better numbers if they sold their products at a reasonable price. ever heard of competition? "oh, yeah, we keep 'em locked up in the basement."

did you notice that what's-his-butt said, "Apple needs to market the product more." ? or they'll walk. this is not a thinly veiled threat. typical M$ tactic. go ahead. walk. the "concerted effort" has been to woo customers from M$. i'm pretty sure that colored his comment. he may be pro-mac, but his superiors aren't. very fine distinction. a lot of "Hamlet" going on here. MBU is a puppet-regime paying lip service to their one reason for existing. and here, they're biting the foot that crushes their grapes to make their wine. let's poison it.

what M$ products do mac users really use? word. a word processor, for cripes sake! you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a word processor. excel. a great spreadsheet. replaceable? probably. entourage, a good email/contact/calendar client. replaceable? most definitely. others? i dunno.

i think M$ has a hose of pee-pee running down it's leg. they know, historically, that companies in their position lose their asses overnight. crushed by the weight of their own hubris. their momentum disables them from being humble. they've got no direction to go but down. and they know it. they'd oughta stop wearing khakis and put on a darker shade of brown.

i believe OSX could be poised as a real threat; pixar considered migrating to wintel desktops, abandoned it midstream for linux. (pixar may be headed and partly owned by s.jobs, but he's not stupid. he's let pixar run pixar's opeation. a 250 16-processors-each sun-box rendarFarm running 24x7. i understand that an employee there can choose their own desktop platform [within reason]; whatever they can produce on.)

linux desktop users are migrating to OSX because it is what they've been waiting for.

some wintel users are migrating. jason kottke recently switched and is happy.

apple's Xserve is a promising start for the big boulders, but can't compete with the crushing power of sun's boxen for the heavy lifting.

i think it might all come together for apple. i think they're playing it right. slow and steady, test the waters. apple's been burned in the past by trying to leverage technology that's too new(ton). let the competitors knock themselves out. slow and steady wins the race.

it's a battlefield. there are thousands of factors. i think s.jobs' has re-read Sun Tzu's "Art of War".

you know what the best marketing for apple is? word of mouth. apple has huge mythology to battle. "it's a toy. i already have a cuisinart. it's a mushy fruit with worms. blah blah blah." it's very difficult to battle that mythology with a billboard, pamphlet, tv spot, shiny buttons. you've got to strap one down and practically force them to look.

OSX is now a very young but worthy Unix desktop. it has some problems which are being tackled. but M$ was already afeared of unix. now, they've got a double threat.

get out there and talk OSX. take your portables around and show off the sure things. don't be condescending or arrogant or contemptuous or derisive. be diplomatic and sincere but also a bit, uh, what's the word? snickeringly-relieved-you're-not-under-M$'s-oppressive-thumb. yeah, that's the word.

also, be prepared to rise up when more of this M$ FUD hits the fan. i'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of it with their .NOT initiative in the wind. be sure to stay downwind of that sewer.


respectfully submitted,

rusty shackleford
armand tanzarian
merv tormel
cecil b. demille and a cast of thousands

Yeah. It's Microsoft's product, but Apple is the one responsible for marketing the product. :rolleyes:

As I mentioned to a co-worker today -- 90% of the people who buy Macs have no need of the bloat that comes with Office. AppleWorks, TextEdit, or a number of other low cost office suites fit the bill nicely.

About the only people I know who rely on Office are the ones who need to be compatible with their office. (pun intended, I am very funny ;) )

Why in the world would I pay $500 for an application that I don't need? AppleWorks works perfectly for what I use it for. And it came installed on my iMac already.

I've read this on a number of different fora now, and find it just plain silly. If MS wants to be the bully on the playground, maybe it's time for them to take a time out and let the rest of us play in peace for a while.

You gents put this so well, about all I can add is that when reading this story, the first thought was: 'the Switch Ads musta' really ticked someone off...'.

Or maybe it was the '.mac'? :D

I don't see any concern with the adoption rate as stated. BTW, does anyone know how they actually determine the rate? Is it based on individual units of OSX purchased plus hardware units sold with OSX as default? Did they take a survey? How do they account for computers that have been switched back to OS9? Or those that have been converted OSX with a borrowed CD?

As far as Microsoft, perhaps their low sales reflects a growing trend by Mac users to shun Microsoft products. As RacerX stated above, there are plenty of alternatives that are cheaper than the $500 price tag of OfficeX. And as OfficeX offers little else other than being native, why spend that kind of money when you may already have all that is needed in an earlier version of Office? It is funny that Microsoft practically gives Office away to businesses and organizations ($50 for a single license), but reams the home user with a 10-fold higher price tag, then shouts that no one is buying. Hmm, no wonder those sales figures are so low.

Office? Native? I thought it was a carbonized app, like IE. Not a big deal if I'm misinformed, though.

IIRC, the adoption rate was based on the fact that Apple said they'd sell something like 750,000 copies of Office, but in actuality only sold about 300,000.

well, that's another reason why i regarded it as just so much chin music. no stated collection method. don't they track machines thru http headers or something?

so, how do they accurately track this kind of market share thing?

It is carbonized, nkuvu, you are right on that. But I believe native refers to whether it opens directly in OSX or requires classic. As it is clearly the former, I believe native is the proper distinction. Think of it in terms of the Finder, which is both a carbon application and native.

Carbon has come quite a ways from the early days of quick and dirty conversion. It is really starting to display the type of qualities that people expect from an application environment. In fact I would go as far as to say that there really should be a scale as to the quality of Carbon apps. You are (for the near future) going to have the dirty coal-like Carbon conversions from Classic apps (most of which can be run in Mac OS 8.6 or later) and you are going to have the beautiful diamond-like Carbon apps (which you would have a hard time telling from a first rate Cocoa app).

In MacBU’s defense, Office v.X is pretty close to the diamond end of the scale. But that does not change it's overall functionality which still isn't worth the price (in either dollars or karmic debt).

:D


Thanks for the info. The only real experience I have with Carbonization is IEEEEE! *ahem* Sorry, I mean that MS browser. And it's certainly something worth screaming about (IMO, of course).

I'm surprised that so many of you think this is just about MS complaining that Office for X isn't selling enough. Office sold VERY well to the Mac market before X. You wouldn't know it from these online Mac forums, but the real issue is that it's OS X that's not selling.

From the MacCentral article linked by Phil, (which judging from the HUGE number of reader comments below it has ignited a frenzy and a firestorm of spin, denial, and everything else):

"Macworld magazine's own poll of its readers show that 58 percent have installed Mac OS X, with 46 percent using the operating system. Another 36 percent of those polled are considering OS X for purchase."

Only 58% of the readers of the #1 Mac magazine, the most aware, knowledgeable, and active Mac users, have installed it, AND NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF AFTER THE OFFICIAL RELEASE OF OS X LESS THAN HALF OF THOSE READERS ARE USING IT. (And after all this time, another 36% are still "considering" it.)

I didn't drop in to rain on your parade with any bad intent or with any pleasure, but I see people focusing on the effect rather than the cause, and that's not the reality of what's happening. Apple has a serious problem, and it can't be denied or dismissed or quibbled away.

Most of the MacCentral article was reporting a piece from the Wall Street Journal. Here's most of that article, copied from wsj.com. (I deleted a paragraph about the 1997 Apple/MS deal to bring this under "fair use.")

Markle


July 15, 2002

Apple Partners Complain OS X Is in Need of Stronger Marketing

By PUI-WING TAM
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Apple Computer Inc. is spending millions of dollars on advertising to get people to switch to its Macintosh line. But some of its prominent partners -- including Microsoft Corp., the target of the new ads -- want it to spend more of those dollars promoting its products to current customers.

At issue is Mac OS X, a highly acclaimed operating system, or base layer of software, that Apple introduced for its computers in March 2001 to provide them with a new on-screen look and other advantages. At the time, Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive and co-founder, hailed the new software as a major break from Apple's previous technology and a "foundation for the next 10 years." He urged third-party software developers to create OS X versions of games and application programs.

But now, on the eve of an Apple-oriented trade show in New York this week, some software developers are openly questioning how many of Apple's current consumers are adopting OS X (pronounced "OS ten," reflecting the Roman numeral) and saying the operating system has been a huge business disappointment. The upshot: Some of these developers may ultimately reassess whether to continue doing business with Apple.

Chief among the worriers: Microsoft, whose Office software has long been pivotal to the Macintosh. Microsoft says sales of a version of Office specially tailored for OS X-equipped Macintoshes have been sluggish, totaling only 300,000 copies since it was released in November -- behind the pace of the 750,000 it had expected over the first year.

Microsoft blames Apple. "There hasn't been a concerted effort to promote Mac OS X, even though the opportunity is there and our willingness is there," says Kevin Browne, who heads Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit.

Mr. Browne says Microsoft is committed to delivering another version of Office for Macintosh in 2003. But beyond that, he says, "it's harder to predict. If things don't dramatically turn around, we'll be evaluating this business with Apple."

A five-year technology agreement between Apple and Microsoft is set to expire next month. The two companies have an often-stormy history that included a long-running copyright infringement suit filed by Apple against Microsoft. Microsoft won the case, and its rival Windows operating system relegated the Macintosh to an industry niche.
.....

More recently, Apple has been running ads knocking Windows as prone to glitches and hard to use, and bluntly urge Windows users to switch to the Macintosh. Microsoft's Mr. Browne says Apple hasn't been forthcoming in sharing marketing plans. "Apple is a company that believes in secrecy," he says.

Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of world-wide product marketing, says Microsoft's anxieties about OS X's progress are "very, very misplaced." He argues that the majority of Apple's software partners are pleased with sales of OS X, for which around 4,000 applications are now available.

Mr. Schiller says Microsoft "should look inward" for the reasons why Office X isn't faring well. He suggests one cause: Microsoft priced the software at $499 -- too expensive, in his opinion.

Apple estimates that 2.5 million, or 10% of the estimated 25 million Macintosh users, have upgraded to its new operating system. By year's end, Apple predicts five million users will be using OS X. "We're right on top of our targets," Mr. Schiller says.

The dispute could have big repercussions. Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., has long used its operating system to differentiate the Macintosh from Windows-based computers, and third-party programs are vital to sustain and generate customer interest. "If Apple loses a few [software] developers, they're in big trouble," says Mike Silver, an analyst at research firm Gartner Inc.

Microsoft isn't alone in fretting. Corel Corp., an Ottawa developer of high-end graphics software, has deployed seven different OS X applications in the past year. It "seemed like a great opportunity," says Annette McCleave, Corel's executive vice president of marketing. But now, "our feedback is that a lot of people haven't made the switch to Mac OS X," she says. While Corel raised its concerns with Apple, Ms. McCleave says there has been just "muted response."

Apple's Mr. Schiller disputes the company is being secretive or complacent with developers. "We don't intend to have a muted response to anybody, and there's always more we can do together," he says.

OS X is visually attractive with innovative features and add-ons, including a photo-management program called iPhoto. But many longtime Macintosh users have invested in applications that work on OS 9 and aren't eager to go through the hassle and expense of moving to OS X.

Carsten Stehr, a Berkeley, Calif., painter and sculptor, tried OS X but still relies on OS 9. "If you already have a Mac and have a lot of files saved in the older operating system, it's difficult to shift everything over to Mac OS X," he says. Rahm Tamir, who owns a Macintosh consulting practice in Los Angeles, personally switched to OS X several months ago. But so far, he refuses to recommend it to clients. Whenever a problem appears on OS X, he says, it's "an enormous headache."

Not everyone is disappointed. Adobe Systems Inc., one of Apple's largest software developers, says sales of its Macintosh software rose to 31% of the company's overall revenue in its fiscal second quarter, up from the prior quarter's 27%, suggesting there is OS X momentum. But Bruce Chizen, Adobe's chief executive, says his company's experience may not be representative, since Adobe customers tend to be "early adopters" of technology.

Apple's Mr. Schiller says the number of users switching to OS X should go into a "steep climb" over the next few months. Apple began preloading OS X on all its computers earlier this year, and it plans to introduce improvements to it, such as instant messaging. He says Apple is doing plenty to market OS X, including making it a prominent part of this week's trade show and featuring it in its new "switchers" ad campaign aimed at Windows users.


Copyright © 2002 ** Dow Jones & Company, Inc. **

Need more apps, and some not by M$
 

There are several apps which are just not available yet for OSX, especially for my workplace. Endnote (i know it's in beta but they only supply a Word plugin, so bang goes adoption with an alternate word processing app), Kaleidagraph, DNA Strider etc.
These are really essential for some Molecular Biologists/Biochemists. To be fair there are alternatives but they're not up to scratch and using the originals in classic can be a pain, especially when they crash.

Taking to some fellow science people they just can't be bothered unless these apps come out. Even then, upgrading to the new software and OSX will cost anywhere between 2000-3000 dollars.

Also, if you proclaim switch ads to tempt PC owners you WILL incur the wrath of Gates et al. I don't care if they're also targeting Unix and Lindows people. I think this is well placed to cause some bother at Macworld NY.

Like I said, there was about a year between Office 2001 and Office v.X. If Office 2001 sold VERY well, why would those same people feel the need to run out and spend an additional $270 to upgrade to Office v.X less than a year after their original purchase? When releasing two products that are almost the same within a year of each other aimed at almost the exact same group of people, one would think that it would be natural for the sales to show a significant decline even without taking Mac OS X adoption into consideration.

Honestly that is more the cause than any other single issue. Do you think that the sluggish sales of Office XP are because people aren't using Windows XP (or Windows in general for that matter)? Of course not. It is because people already have their needs met by Office 97 or 2000 and feel no need to buy a new version. This is a much stronger dynamic, and it is being seen in many areas of Microsoft's product offerings. I think that you may be missing the cause as much as the writer of that article because it seems very straight forward to me.

According to this article, Phil Schiller is claiming about 10% of the installed base (2.5 million), with a goal of 20% by year-end.

Anyone have any data on the percentage of Windows users on the NT (NT,2K,XP) side of things vs. the DOS (95,98,ME) based systems? Has it reached 50% yet in the (just about) 10 years since the first release of NT 3.1?

ONLY? That's not bad at all, Markle (welcome again, btw :))

My response to the MacBU deal is, "Who's having the problem?" Not Apple, who seems pretty much OK with the take-up of OS X.

Let's face it: making the transition to OS X is not like upgrading from OS 8.6 to 9.0. You generally need more RAM, new printer, new scanner, and lots of software upgrades. That means you prioritize your expenses, and for me that's meant Golive, a printer, a scanner, Photoshop, and a few others. Maybe one day I'll get around to Office, but it's first things first, and Appleworks does just fine for now.

People starting off fresh can just get everything X-compatible right away.

Otherwise, I suspect many Mac users have looked around and decided that their older machines running OS 9 and maybe Office 98 or 2001 with scanners and printers that actually work are quite satisfactory for now. They'll get X-capable stuff as they replace equipment, but the complete turnaround for some of them might still be a year or two away.

Fine with Apple, it seems. There's no evidence that OS X is keeping anyone from purchasing new computers--quite the contrary! Apple doesn't make any money on Office, whatever the case.

But if MS doesn't think doing business with Apple is worth their while, they should make a business decision and drop the market. My guess is they won't do any such thing any time soon.

Phil

bassi, I would like to add too, that software like CellQuest, which runs a FACS machine, is only OS8.6 or OS9 compatible, so forget switching any attached computer to OSX. Same holds true for computers attached to some digital photography setups. Thus, in our lab, we have half the computers running OSX and half running OS9. We also purchased upgrades for Gene Construction Kit, but the old licenses don't conflict with the new (although you can't open a GSK2.5 file with GCK2), so it is advantageous to keep at least one computer running OS9 full time to allow use of that, EndNote, Kaleidagraph, etc. Apple is not holding the switch back, it really is software developers for very specific products, in our case.

From Markle's post of the article, it is funny that Microsoft, a competitor in OSes is belly-aching about sales, yet Adobe is not. Hmmm, once again I must think about the underlying motives. And the notion that Microsoft, after selling a $100million worth of software in Office, would leave and allow someone else to make that money, why am I skeptical?

Yep, you're right.
 

Thundarr, you're on the money there. It's other software developers and I can't see how Apple could make it any easier for them to port these programs. Mind you, I'm no programmer myself, but when you see the some small and large software houses carbonising their apps it makes me wonder.

It's not a scientific sample, but every lab I've been to is at least 50% Macs. And almost all my friends, in the discipline, use them too. That's a lot of folks!

Someone slap me down if I'm wrong about this. :p

Hi, Phil.

<< "Who's having the problem?" Not Apple, who seems pretty much OK with the take-up of OS X. ...Fine with Apple, it seems. >>

Do you think that Apple is REEEEEEEEEALLY satisfied with this?

Markle

In addition to legacy software, you have to remember that most older Macs run OS X slowly, if at all. This was briefly touched upon by Phil, but this is a major upgrade for a lot of people.

Before I switched to Macs, I was using a 300MHz CPU. Which suited my needs just fine. So now there's this new OS that needs something much faster, and you expect me to adopt it immediately?

When I did switch, I bought an iMac, which runs OS X perfectly well. I suspect that it will continue to run perfectly well for me for several more years. In that timeframe, if a new OS comes out, I probably won't upgrade. Especially if my machine runs the OS poorly.

For my Office needs, I'm pretty sure I've stated that AppleWorks is perfectly sufficient for me. If I am on a Windows box (at work, for example) Office 95 does everything that I need. Why would I spend another $300 to upgrade to the latest office suite?

It just makes no sense.