Jobs & Co. cannot beat Microsoft and Mozilla
Apple rarely competes directly — with anyone. Instead of slugging it out with other hardware and software companies on a level playing field, Apple historically creates its own playing field from scratch, then dominates it utterly.
While nearly the whole industry participated in what used to be called the 'IBM-compatible' market, with clone hardware running DOS, OS/2, Windows and, later, Linux, Apple refused to play. Instead, the company always built its own computers that ran its own operating system.
Those funny 'PC vs. Mac' ads create the false impression of direct, one-on-one, competition between PCs and Macs, but it’s a marketing sleight of hand. While a Mac is a unified, tightly controlled hardware-and-software product from Apple, a PC contains an unpredictable mixture of hardware components integrated by any number of companies, lorded over (usually) by a Microsoft operating system.
If PCs were made by Microsoft, and Microsoft didn’t allow anyone else to make PCs, then you could make an apples-to-apples comparison, as it were, between PCs vs. Macs. But they’re not, so you can’t.
While Dell competes directly with HP and hundreds of other companies in the PC space, Apple does not compete directly with anyone in the Mac market. Don’t get me wrong; this isn’t a bad thing. There are advantages and disadvantages to Apple’s approach, and the success of Apple brings welcome choice to the market.
Likewise with the iPod. The portable media player market is the House That Apple Built. The company owns the iTunes platform and largely controls digital music distribution. Steve Jobs is the most powerful man in Hollywood, and he doesn’t even live there. Apple doesn’t compete directly with anyone in the media player market because, like the Mac market, Apple created the media file management platform (iTunes), the content marketplace (digital file distribution through iTunes) and standards, and doesn’t let anyone else play.
With the iPhone, Apple is once again refusing to compete directly in the mobile phone market. While some handset makers compete directly with each other in the Windows Mobile, Symbian and other ‘open’ platform markets, companies like Research In Motion, Palm and, soon, Apple all play in their own respective, self-created sandboxes. Controlling your own platform has proved for RIM and Palm to be the way to go, and will also be successful for Apple.
Apple is once again creating its own category - call it the Mac OS-based mobile phone category - and I’m sure Apple will win 100 percent market share.
I can think of only one example in which Apple competes directly with other companies on a level, open playing field: the software media player market.
Apple’s Windows version of QuickTime competes directly with Microsoft’s bundled Windows Media Player, RealNetworks’ RealPlayer and others. Although QuickTime holds its own, Apple doesn’t dominate market share. But from a quality and usability standpoint, QuickTime is by far the superior player, in my opinion. For video quality, sound quality and ease of use, QuickTime rules in every element of the user experience.
So why do I have such a bad feeling about Safari for Windows?
By announcing a Safari for Windows, Jobs uncharacteristically entered a mature market not created or controlled by Apple. This is Sparta. The insular Apple universe is a relatively gentle place, an Athenian utopia where Apple’s occasional missteps are forgiven, all partake of the many blessings of citizenship, and everyone feels like they’re part of an Apple-created golden age of lofty ideas and superior design.
But the Windows world isn’t like that. It’s a cold, unforgiving place where nothing is sacred, users turn like rabid wolves on any company that makes even the smallest error, and no prisoners are taken. Especially the Windows browser market.
This is no Athens. This is Sparta.
Apple sent its first emissary, the beta version of Safari for Windows (see our Safari 3.0 beta on Windows review), into the Windows world, and it was unceremoniously kicked into the well.
Hours after Jobs announced Safari for Windows (and despite Apple’s claim that Safari is “designed to be secure from Day One”) security experts published information about some 18 security holes found in the new browser. Bloggers and message board posters lunged at the news, and heaped vicious scorn and ridicule on Apple and Safari.
The browser is beta, and bugs are expected. Apple fixed the problems just three days after they surfaced.
Apple-fan bloggers are aghast at the rough treatment. But they’d better get used to it.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=9776
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home