Daniel Dilger of RoughlyDrafted sure does a good job at defending Apple, whether it needs it or not. This time around he’s suggesting that Microsoft has now become the beleaguered Apple of 1996. Whatever similarilities he points to, he sure does miss the obvious. Microsoft is a huge and public target for all of us to point out their errors. Microsoft is going to make lots of errors. It’s a huge company.
But further, no matter how hard Microsoft tries to emulate Apple or how much people want to draw simularities between the two, Microsoft is no Apple. Sorry. The companies have two different DNAs.
This labelling arguement isn’t what I want to get into though. Instead, Daniel takes a couple swipes at Microsoft that I think deserve some responses. First, he talks of the “failure” of the Tablet PC and UMPC. Sure, both of these product areas have performed far less than they could or should have. Yes, Microsoft could have done better, though personally I’d lay even more responsibility on the shoulders of the OEMs. That’s just my take on it though. Anyway, how many billions of dollars does a market have to be before it’s not a “failure” anyway? Calculate it out yourself, a couple million Tablets times $1.5K or so a piece and you have a pretty good sum of money. Is a $3B market really a failure? Not to me. Again, a $6B market would be better, but let’s not close the coffin too early shall we?
Now onto another arguement Daniel makes in his post, “Microsoft has found it increasingly difficult to hire new talent because the company no longer offers any exciting future potential.” Yeah, Microsoft has a challenge here in communicating its value to some. I can see that. But come on. I don’t care if Apple or Microsoft have 10 or 10 million employees each, it all comes down to you and how much you can contribute in the organization. A great engineer in either place will still be a great engineer. Let’s be clear, both companies lose out on opportunities. Both do. Look at how Apple has missed out on Tablets–something you’d think it would be great at and would be welcomed by its customer base. I don’t care how bad of a business idea you may think it would be for Apple to make a Tablet, if you were an engineer wanting to get into the Tablet space, Apple hasn’t been the place to be. Likewise, if you’re an artistically minded Tablet developer within Microsoft you’d probably feel left out too. In both cases, it may make sense for the engineer to move on, but it also may make sense for them to put all they have into showing how great a product they can make as they see fit. Yes, in an established company–as both companies are–this can-do think is not often nourished, but it’s just as valuable as in any startup company. New ideas have to come from somewhere.
Yes, people will tire and burn out and may even come to realize that to do what they want they have to go elsewhere, but this is universal. It’s not specific to Microsoft. It’s not unheard of in Apple. It’s just the way it is.
It’s up to Apple and to Microsoft to communicate their value. In this respect–in terms of the public voice–I’d give the edge to Apple, but this is just one dimension of a multi-dimensional problem.
Let me go at this from another angle. Let’s say you’d like to see personal computers take the next evolutionary step–I mean something that does more to understand you than you having to conform to it. I’m thinking of a computer that interacts with you rather than you being forced to interact with it. Maybe it would be able to adjust to your needs by listening to what you do and say throughout the day–not just from your words, but your grunts, your sighs–all the things you vocally do to communicate. Let’s say it could also watch what you do and react accordingly. Or what about if the computer could better understand your context to make appropriate guesses at helping to minimize repetitive tasks. Let’s say the computer could do all of this and more, such as support rich multi-touch interaction or be able to read your handwritten scribbles. Sound interesting? Now which company would you think would be more likely to pursue even a portion of this vision? Apple? Microsoft? Based on what I’ve heard from many of Bill Gates’ recent speeches and what Microsoft is doing today with Tablets and Surface and its Robotics initiative, I’d say Microsoft hands down. Think Steve Jobs is more likely to pursue natural input methodologies? I don’t. Recall his comment about handwriting and how he see everyone moving to the keyboard? A computer that forces me to use the keyboard isn’t exactly my idea of an ultimate computer. Sorry.
Anyway, next time you think the engineering pad looks greener on the Apple side, take a real hard look and think about where opportunities really lie. To me, both companies have lots to offer. No reason to tear down one to pump up the other. Let’s skip this nonsense and get back to work creating something really, really cool…and useful.