-
Website
Http://www.techflash.com/ -
Original page
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/09/ballmer_spots_microsoft_employee_with_iphone_at_company_meeting.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
If you bought APPL stock when iMacs were flying off the shelves in Jan 2000 and sold now you would be up +580%
End of story.
Ballmer should've shown his responsible side. Instead of making fun of an employee who clearly has the better device, he could've said out loud:
"I'm sorry you have to buy that. It's my responsibility you've been driven to buy it, and I'll make sure you have good reason to use our own products in the future !"
Not as fun. But it would at least be authentic.
As far as mobile operating systems go, my two year old can turn on mommies iPhone, unlock it, click on the YouTube icon and start watching Pingu videos. She doesn't have the same luck with daddies WindowsMobile device.
Anyone can set their Windows Mobile phone to have an iPhone-like interface or at the very least set app icons on the today screen.
One of the benefits of Windows Mobile is that it allows the user to do what they want and need. The iPhone forces people do do things as Steve Jobs sees fit, right down to banning software that Apple doesn't 'approve' of. Am I the only person here that finds that level of control disgusting and anti-progress in the information age?
No, as you can see from the comments others feel that way too. It's the way geeks see the world. Normal consumers have no interest in the issues you raise. They just want to turn on a phone and use it. All of that Apple control is there to insure a great user experience. It isn't brainwashing that makes them love their iPhones (about 90% user satisfaction, tops in the industry). It's the experience of using it.
Even if, a big if here, WM can come up with a decent phone, Apple can simply relax some of those controls (switch operator, add personalization options), and new WM will instantly drop dead.
And you need to fight the apple ecosystem here. It is almost a mission impossible, given MSFT track record. (of course, given MSFT deep pocket, there is always a chance)
+1
I'm guess the answer would be "not much better".
Jobs on the other hand has not.
Thanks for making that point...
Mac's have a tiny market share which show's they are luxurious, better and for classy people.
And just above that,"The Truth" uses a 1.1% market share of the Zune to argue that iPod's are better since they are more widely used.
And you wonder why people look at Apple fanboy's with a smirk and wonder when they will join the real world who just use the tools most fit for purpose to do their jobs. Hence PC's make up the bulk of the desktop market with Mac's taking up a similar market share to Tomy my first computers.
Or are you saying because they sell less cars that their cars are inferior?
Both arguments are spurious and lacking in logic. Mac is considered the 'luxury' brand (at least thats what Microsoft is trying to say) and for all intents and purposes, they are by dominating the above $1000 mark.
And fewer bugs, hacks, crashes, etc, thanks to their BSD/Unix based backend. Making them better engineered as well.
For all intents and purposes, Mac is the BMW of the computer world.
It's just weeks since a MacBook was hacked in under 10 seconds at this years annual CanSecWest PWN2OWN competition yet again and even PayPal has warned Apple's Safari is "lagging behind" other browsers on security putting their customers at risk.
The difference is Apple takes a BSD kernel and wraps it in their own interface layer meaning they never have to really get to grips with what makes their own OS tick. Yes it simplifies their job and code base a lot but I wouldn't say it's better engineered. I can take an engine from an Aston Martin and put it in a Volvo but I'm only fooling myself if I think I'm now the owner of an Aston Martin.
Also XNU isn't a BSD kernel, it's got some FreeBSD code in it, but its history lies with NeXT. The BSD bits were added further down its lifecycle.
I'm sorry but I actually love Mac's as computers but I don't see them as being head and shoulders above PC's and I'm tired of hearing about how they are not widely used because they are better, they are very expensive because they are better, blah blah blah...
And this argument that they are luxury because they are the most popular computer over 1000 pounds is ludicrous. That's like Dell suddenly charging 20 grand for a PC and saying it's the most popular computer in the diamond class super luxury market because no one else is greedy enough to charge it.
Our company uses PC's because they are more cost effective. We recently purchased some new laptops and looked at Mac's but didn't go that route because no one could find an argument for the price tags.
Nice computers? yes.
Worth the extra money? no way.
I even had someone telling me that we should get Mac's with smaller screens and lower spec's while still paying more because it's a better experience for the user. Erm, so we had a list of practical needs and we should ditch most of that list for a 'nicer experience'.
I'm sorry, it wasn't practical so we went with PC's as most companies do.
Now if you're buying your own machine and you really love Mac's then I'm happy for you but please stop complaining about why they are great and Windows is terrible because everyone with any mental capacity for computing knows that's just not true.
It's like Mac users can't say anything about a Mac without a comparison to Windows. Can Macs even exist without Windows since it seems their sole purpose is to be for comparison.
When you can argue why a Mac is worth the money on its own merits then I'll buy one as will most of the market who currently doesn't own one.
Simply to say a Mac is 10 times more expensive than a PC because it's 10 times better isn't really an argument that washes in the real world.
It's so clear to me now, thank you for correcting me.
Or could it be that Apple makes over priced products for zealots who just want to make silly and pointless remarks about everyone elses software.
Regardless, the reality is Macs are perfectly good computers as are many Windows and Linux based machines depending on their intended purpose and the users budget.
So far I'm the only person to say both operating systems are good, to say that Mac's set benchmarks for usability, to say I've seriously looked at Macs and to say I actually really like Macs as well as Windows.
The response?
A defensive attitude about how Apple's superior.
Defensive? How is saying both operating systems are good with strengths defensive unless by defensive you mean I refuse to say Apple is better than everything and everyone in all things?
If you can't take any kind of criticism then how do you expect Mac's to continue to evolve and improve. Learn from the Linux community who take any criticism and turn it into improvements to the OS, much like any successful group of developers.
So I'll repeat it again.
Macs are great computers as are many many Windows based machines.
Macs are not suerior to every other creation in every way, Steve Jobs is not the Messiah and Bill Gates is not the devil.
iPhones are far superior to most if not all Windows Smartphones but I personally prefer to Blackberry's and yes that must be shocking, an oppinion that favours something without an Apple badge on.
I await your outraged response for daring to say there's more to life than Apple and to be told I'm defensive for pointing out other success stories.
Again, the 91% number is B&M retail sales only. Does not include mail-order (so the $1000+ Dell you ordered from Dell.com is not counted) nor business purchases (which eliminates a huge chunk of $1000+ PCs sold, and very little in the way of Macs).
In my case I was looking at laptops which I found very expensive compared to similar spec Windows based laptops.
Now I appreciate that someone who really prefers working with a Mac will pay the extra and if it works for them then it's a great investment but in my case and for what I need to do it didn't make financial sense.
I assure you I don't have a problem with Mac's otherwise I wouldn't have spent so long looking at them recently when looking at new laptops. I use them myself and think they are a great competitor to Microsoft, setting new benchmarks when it comes to usability and really forcing Microsoft to think on their feet.
Indeed Mac's can have the edge when it comes to usability but it isn't a clean knockout and I am able to work in my job just as effectively with a PC as I would with a Mac.
What I do find annoying is people making remarks about how Mac's are so superior to Windows and making totally overboard claims as to be farcical.
When I was a schoolboy we used to argue about Amiga's and Atari ST's but then I was a kid. It's just sad to see grown up's acting that way today over Mac's or PC's when both are perfectly good solutions.
Zune has long been better than iPod. But there is a long line of "better" products that were second place or less in the market. At least, I can sneer at the iPodPeople with their inferior iPods as I enjoy my very superior Zune.
CNET: "The bottom line: The Zune has blossomed from an ugly duckling into a worthy iPod alternative." -- And that's the old 80GB model.
ZDNET on Zune 120:
"The zune 120, with a unique focus on music discovery, is a fierce competitor to the iPod Classic. The zune's substantial storage capacity combined with its zune Pass music subscription makes it an ideal solution for restless music fans with large appetites."
The Zune might be a worthy competitor, but it's still second-rate. The iPod ecosystem is so vastly superior there is really no comparison.
As Apple has always pointed out, it's the software that differentiates.
Grow up or shut up.
Someone makes a statement that the Zune is a better device. Other person counters that it's the ecosystem that counts. I claim that by that same reasoning, Windows is a much better ecosystem than Apple's (which is undeniable in the same sense that the iPhone being a better ecosystem than the Zune's is undeniable). And you call that "bunk"??? If you find a flay in the reasoning, say it. Otherwise I have to conclude you have drunk so much kool aid that you can't reason anymore.
Windows users seem to think lots of programs means their system is better. They know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.
I don't think that having more apps means having a better apps, I beleive that NONE of the critical apps I use, except for Office, are available for the Apple. And the vast majority of users will think the same. Same for the hardware, services and everything else.
The GP claimed that it's the ecosystem what matters, not the device. I claimed that in such case Windows ecosystem is better, period. If you do think that OSX ecosystem is better than Windows, you are seriously deluded. Very seriously. It's not kool-aid, it's heavy drugs for you.
Like I said earlier, more isn't better. Quality is better, and OS X is better. A person can be more productive in OS X than Windows (there are no doubt exceptions for many people, but on average, Macs make people more productive. Ask why people switch to Macs, but very, very few switch from Mac to WIndows - more likely they'd go Linux.
Windows doesn't have anything comparable to Applescript. And I'm sure you have no idea why that's important. Which just shows why you are incapable of using vaid points in your argument. Because you use the old tired argument that more apps is better than good apps. How many word processors do you need? Image editors, or script/text editors? Databases? Unless you use some custom software designed for a single user then there is no way your argument holds water. But then your experience is not applicable to anyone else.
You mean like WScript? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wscript
Comparing your 2009 Apple to 1995 Windows isn't really that fair. Windows has come a long way over the past 15 years, just like Apple has.
Applescript has its problems, and some things are broken in Snow Leopard. It's been improved in some ways as well. But there's nothing like it on any other OS. And it's because of the vision of Apple to create a way of turning the operating system itself into something that gives the user power to do things that can't be done as easily or automatically as it can be done on a Mac. And easy in this case is a relative term. Applescript takes a lot of work to learn. It's different than any other programming language, though it has some similarities to Smalltalk. Be that as it may, it's one reason I am way more productive at work than I would be with a Windows computer that cannot tie unrelated products together as if they were one big application. For example. Photoshop, Quark, Word, and Excel. Try that on Windows. It won't work as well or as easily.
Regarding the point about few people switching from Mac to PC I guess you should be able to do the math that it is because few people are using Macs in the first place!!! (7% according to most statistics). If you can't realize that, there's little I can say that will make you reason.
I know well that I can run PC apps in the mac, but that doesn't do anyfhing to the mac ecosystem. The experience is simply better while staying inside a single OS (don't make me list the reasons, if you can't see them it's your problem) and the fact that I have to says a lot. It is funny that you say that PCs can't run Apple software. There's no technical reason why that's not possible, it is just that nobody would invest the time in writing an emulator to run the very few apps available for mac and not for Windows. You have a platform for which literally millions of apps are available, and a platform for which there are a few and you imagine someone would care about running the few apps for the later in the former????
And no, I'm not equating size with quality, I think you need to learn how to read. I'm saying that quantity is important, and when the difference is 100:1 there's no contest. THe apps I need are there for Windows, and are very high quality, whereas they are not there for Apple at all. Many devices I use are not compatible with Apple (I use a digital osciloscope, a remote wireless camera, a dedicated media center with a specialized control, an X10 home controller, a car engine programmer and many other devices that no one would care to write drivers for that are not for Linux or for Windows). Maybe you've been using Apple long enough that you think there's nothing outside that world, but you are missing 99% of the world then, and that's your problem. You might say "I don't care, I'm happy with my apple and it's tiny world", and that's OK for you, but when you claim that the rest of the world should move to your little box, you are being delusional. Not everyone is happy with the same few apps, the same three laptops, the same few devices and the closed environment.
PowerShell is more than an administrative tool? That's cool. I'm glad for WIndows users. Applescript has made my life very much easier for years and years.
You sure set up a lot of straw men with your arguments. Aren't you afraid they might gang up on you?
"Zune vs. iPod
The Zune still has a hard road ahead if it wants to catch up to the iPod. Microsoft is doing an admirable job, however, of carving out a niche of music fanatics who value the Zune's emphasis on music discovery and subscription-music gluttony. When it comes to high-capacity MP3 players, Apple and Microsoft are the two best options available, offering comparable features, file support, and audio quality. But, unless you have a grudge against Apple or are tempted by the Zune's subscription-music service, the iPod's superior battery life and accessory options make it a better option for most users."
And that's their review's conclusion.
Not quite what you were suggesting, is it?
Let's face it, these days if you're buying an iPod it's probably an iPhone or an iPod Touch - have you seen the App Store? How does Zune counter that?
Sorry, not Jobs' style.
SJ isn't as threatened as Ballmer and MS by products and software.
I could go on to prove but you get the idea.
I was disappointed. The old SteveB would have asked me "why" I'm using an iPhone, I would have told him, he would have tried to convince me to change, and he would have sent an email to someone with his n+1 market intelligence report.
The engagement with the guy at the company meeting was an even better opportunity for SteveB to make his case. Oh well ... maybe he knows he doesn't have a convincing one?
Build a better phone.
Not a cheaper phone, not a more business oriented phone and not a phone with several more options.
A better phone.
It;s like catching a fly with chopsticks. Until you can do it, you *can't* do it.
Secondly, there are several Windows Mobile phones better than the iPhone, and none of them have restrictions on what software you can run on them (or how many apps you can run at once for that matter).
It's really sad that Apple, a company that makes such anti-technology devices is so sheepishly followed by some people.
Apple matters in technology because they are innovative. They aren't always the first, or even second, to market with something - but when they do release a product, it changes how people think. They have always done that. Until Microsoft can rethink their gameplan they will continue to lose marketshare and slip further into irrelevance.
I would love to see a better phone made... and i'll switch to it.. I'm a gadget lover like that... but i'm also not in denial and not an apple hater. I see what's the best user experience and gadget overall... and i go for it. Currently right now there's nothing better.
Would i like to see something better? Heck yes..!
Would i like to see an Xbox/Zunephone? YES
Make it integrate with our live accounts? and also our 'gamerscore' as we play games on the phone and have achievements??? YES
Will that happen?
Probably only AFTER Balmer Dies, or quits.
Crackberries are a joke in comparison.
Once the novelty factor of the glossy games and the fact that you can rotate it fades away you'll be back to join the men with a Blackberrry.
Blackberry browser is superb, email is what makes them sell since nothing else including iPhones come close.
That isn't just me, there are few companies who go the iPhone route for their staff when reliability and solid email and communication is what counts.
WinMo is now a niche market... and not a luxury niche market either.
Believe me, even Ballmer has visions of using the iPhone in his dreams, especially looking at the near-disgusting competing WinMo devices on the market today.
That said, it is totally nekulturniy for a Microsoft droid to bring an iPhone to a company event, no matter how 'open' Microsoft is.
If he/she/it was one of my employees, I forsee a ctaffing reduction in the near future for that drone!
There's a reason Steve never asked "how many of you have iPhones" - because that would be the next headline. It isn't competitive intelligence, it's a phone that has worked for 3 iterations now just fine while WinMo did not (and still does not).
Everyone was trying to toggle of 3G, look for WiFi hotspots, convince the person next to them to go into Airplane mode, etc.
(PS yes a failure for AT&T as well. On a regular Mariner's game day, iPhones work reasonably well - but not when so many are there and in use like during the company meeting)
It's amazing how people buy into the Apple hype around the iPhone. It's simply a decent phone - it is by no means the amazing revelutionary device that some users seem to think. My phone can do everything an iPhone can and more, and there are better phones than mine out there too.
It's different for everyone. The iPhone is "great" because it's simple and for the most part the things it can do, it can do very well. WinMo is "great" because it is unlimited and customizable. If you have the time then you can make a WinMo phone far more user friendly than an iPhone, but for most people that's too much work so the iPhone works better for them. WinMo was never aimed at the consumer which is why the iPhone has been such an amazing success story.
I don't have an iPhone or a WinMo phone, but I can see the advantages to each. I don't understand why people have to be on one side or another. They are both great devices that suit different needs. Yes MS do need to focus more on the consummer and not the professional, which from what I've seen WinMo 6.5 partially does.
As for Ballmer, it sounds like he was making a joke here. I don't understand why people hate on him so much. Well, I do, they are blind fan boys and take any excuse they can find to throw dirt on their targets.
You sheep only think Apple has good design because they tell you to think that. If Microsoft put out a device with rows of square icons as an 'interface' it would be ridiculed.
What's the point in setting up your Windows Mobile to be exactly like iPhone ? I know you can, and you're saying it's a choice you can make but really, that advertising technique doesn't necessarily work. If I have to struggle to make my WinMobile device to act and look like iPhone I would have just bought an iPhone, no struggle and performs equally or even better because it doesn't have to have all the other stuff :) Just saying.
You also seem to have a grudge against Apple or iPhone. Or just extremely loving of Microsoft and their products. You're not prodiving good information as to why people would want to switch either. You're more like defending the product you've chosen because you've chosen it. That's common. If you want people to switch you should enlighten people about the product and not nag on what the iPhone does or doesn't because then you're marketing their product and you don't want that. Your tactic ain't user friendly. It's more fanboy-material than anything else.
Steve Ballmer behaves the same way, although a bit more violently and aggressive.
You wouldn't know about any of this though because you clearly know fuck all about design or aesthetics
I'd use terms like "boorish", "intimidation" and "threatening" to describe his conduct toward the iPhone user.
As another reader pointed out, this was an opportunity to learn how to better understand the reasons for purchasing an iPhone. Opportunity lost.
Intimidation only works on employees and vendors, Steve. Crappy behavior like you displayed drives people away when other viable options exist.
iPhone is merely one viable option. Nokia n900 (with Maemo Linux) is another, perhaps more enticing option. (I'm using an iPhone 3G S now but may drop it due to AT&T's failure to deliver even 2G voice in 2 key metro areas. I'd liken Microsoft to AT&T in that both promise far more than they can deliver and seek to overcome performance issues with marketing.)
Unfortunately Ballmer fails to understand that competition and intimidation are opposites...
Why not?
The owner of Koenigsegg recently lost his licence while speeding with a Ferrari.
What can the Iphone do that windows mobile cant? How about that windows mobile touch screen devices cant do on say... windows mobile 5? or CE?
I get that the Iphone has a nice user interface but is development on it so open you can change the UI drastically like you can on windows mobile? (touchflo, pointui)
Microsoft seems to consistently have the advantage on really productivity and fully capable products, they just seem to miss the mark when it comes to marketing.
Apple recently added copy and paste... Really? ive been able to copy and paste for some time now.
The just added touch but it isn't that good or functional. The SDK doesn't provide slide or transitions, they fail to build a good kit for developing easy UI's. It is left up to the developer to build a good UI. Apple makes it so everyone can make a good UI by making tools for them. That way all UI's act and look the same.
Plus they understand providing distribution for the device and not just supplying a device without disctribution of applications.
It's well thought out design and delivery that keeps them on top.
Have you ever USED an iPhone? Why would you need to change the UI when it already ROCKS? I guess being able to drastically change the UI on windows mobile is the only way users are able to get close to a decent UI at all.
Let alone the time it took for a web page to load adding more $$. As for emails, that was reasonably okay as long as there were no attachments.
Bottom line: go with whatever works for you, nothing is perfect, Windows Mobile, Blackberry simply don't work for me and now only my iPhone does.
I believe what has made Apple so popular is that kind of control. It improved customer service tremedously by essentially standardizing it but they did it on a level that appeals to the public.
When he called on Ford he drove a Ford-brand car there, when at GM he had a GM-brand car, and at Chrysler he drove a Chrysler-brand car.
The car companies noticed things like this.
Windows Mobile is like using Windows 98 in 2009.
wouldn't it be good for a CEO to know and try their competitors products instead of staying within their sphere of reality?
1 they have the maturity of a 5 year old.
2 they treat their customers like a bank.
3 they are so full of themselves its not funny.
Making the beginning of meetings speckles below that one would see at a circus, being responsible for the first mass lay offs, not delaying Vista and instead shipping a clearly unfinished product, etc.
Ballmer needs to go. I want whoever headed up Windows 7 to take charge of the company.
Then again, perhaps the MS employee was attempting precisely to parallel the market positions of Microsoft and Apple with that comment...
Ballmer, this is directed at you: LIghten up. Get over it. Your products are inferiour, because they're cheaper. Don't you get that?
Extremely apt comparison.
This would be akin to a Pepsi company meeting where the CEO walks by an employee who is drinking a Coke.
The room suddenly became VERY quiet and Steve asked him to repeat his comment and reminded him he was giving a "career statement" when he did.
The REST of us thought it was quite funny...