Bob Enderle,
you ignorant slut.
I guess we can also say that Paris Hilton could
probably
present a better argument than you can about IBM and Apple - and as
a bonus, Paris looks much better in a swimsuit than you ever will.
Paris Hilton talks more sense than Bob Enderle.
All your talk about Apple and IBM taking on Microsoft was the
biggest pile of crap. No sane CEO at either of these companies has any
false expectation that overnight they will be able to push their
computers onto the enterprise market and just take over. I agree that
Microsoft is vulnerable with the bad reception that Vista has been
getting, but they are still selling XP, and that is a much bigger
hurdle for Apple and IBM to clear.
Bob, you are confusing Windows as a single thing. In reality there
is XP - and then there is Vista.
Let's face it, Microsoft has the same problem as Apple and IBM - how
to get rid of XP. There are around one billion PCs running XP today (my
good buddy Paul Thurrott keeps me up to date on these
facts), and most of these billion computers aren't capable of
upgrading to Vista.
The enterprise world isn't going to throw out this large investment
without getting something back in return. Vista isn't rocking their
world, and instead these companies will pay extra for Vista Business
just so they can downgrade to XP. It's a plan that keeps Microsoft
making money in the short term, but it only makes the XP inertia worse
in the long run.
for the most part that is Microsoft's problem to deal with. Neither
Apple nor IBM has to try to swallow the market all in one bite like
Enderle suggests. They have years to work that problem down. All they
have to do is break the monopoly power of Microsoft by creating enough
viable competition.
Apple and IBM don't even have to cooperate the accomplish this. As
long as they target people looking to upgrade from XP, they are
effectively working together by default. Microsoft is going to get
hammered from both sides, and neither alternative has to be seen as
ganging up on poor Microsoft to do it.
Only the biggest Apple fans or Microsoft haters believe you have to
eliminate Microsoft to defeat them. Microsoft has had a strangle hold
on PC innovation for decades by virtue of its monopoly. Whatever they
released has become the standard that everyone else had to follow
regardless of technical superiority (or inferiority).
This is not the same as following open standards that everyone can
use. Microsoft's standards are changed at its whim and will stagnate
once they dominate a market. Just look at how Internet Explorer
development stalled once Netscape was defeated - and compare that with
today, where Firefox
and Safari are both putting pressure on Microsoft to start
innovating again or be left behind.
What the world wants is not to kill Microsoft, but to make them
compete based on merit, not dominance. Let's see how truly innovative
Microsoft can be with Apple, IBM, Linux, and others breathing down
their necks and ready to peel away market share. That is how a free
market is supposed to operate: competition drives innovation for the
consumer's benefit and returns a nice profit to companies that merit
it.
Monopolies are a great way to line the pockets of one company at the
expense of others. Can anyone say
$60 billion?
Sorry, Bob, but it looks like you may both need to consult with
Paris before releasing your next plan on winning.
