Peter Sbarski10 July 2007, 4:21 AM
So last week, Danny Gorog arguedwhy the PC is dead. Here's my comeback: why a couple of successful products from Apple don't spell the end for the PC.
Danny's eloquent opinion piece, on why Apple is killing Microsoft on the consumer electronics battleground, made me sit back, pour a hot cup of green tea and reflect on our tumultuous industry.
Could it be true that a couple of successful products from Apple can displace the old giant or at least shamefully leapfrog it from a particular section of the industry?
Heck, Danny's probably right. The PC is dead (and Microsoft is now bewildered and lost). Larry Ellison has been saying it for years. Now Steve Jobs is saying it too. And we all know Steve is never wrong. That pesky floppy was dead overnight.
But Jobs wouldn't have an ulterior motive for predicting the end of the PC era, right? (He ought to release Leopard now while we still have personal computers on our desks).
What's behind Jobs' thinking? Is it the income from the iPod division which accounts for nearly half of the company's overall revenue? Or the fact that Apple has sold about one million iPhones with a profit margin of about 55% (the estimated total bill of materials for an 8GB iPhone is $265.33)?
But let's not worry about Steve Jobs; instead let's take a look at Danny's argument. His central thesis is this: Microsoft is behind in its PC-oriented thinking and approach which makes its attempts to stay relevant desperate and useless.
Danny writes, "Gates still maintains that tablet PCs are going to take over the world, that Microsoft will eventually dethrone Google to be the new leader in search, that Zune will eventually rival the iPod for market share and that Microsoft has already conquered the smart phone market."
I don't know if Gates thinks that Microsoft has already conquered the smart phone market - Windows Mobile is not a great product and he must know it - but you can at least write applications for it. What's that I hear? You can write applications for iPhone too. Well, good luck delivering that first class experience through a web browser.
In all seriousness though, yes, iPhone is an innovative product. It provides a superb user interface and amazing interactive facilities that should be studied and adopted. But it has serious shortcomings too.
It lacks a lot of features, compromises on the ones it has and isn't open. People love it for its UI and big screen but it's not the be all and end all of smart phones. Apple has made a few brave steps and it should be applauded but Microsoft's past effort in this field, uninspiring as it may be, does not necessarily prevent it from developing an excellent alternative product in the future.
Danny says that "Post-PC devices need to be tightly integrated". We are not Post-PC just yet but it is true that devices should be appropriately integrated. Microsoft, alas, has never had to travel that path. Its software had to support multiple hardware profiles from various manufacturers all with their own needs and wants. And, unlike Apple it also had to take care of third party developers and ISVs by providing tools, frameworks and support.
In recent times, however, Microsoft has walked the "proprietary hardware and software combo" route twice: once with Zune and again with Xbox/Xbox 360. Zune was a failure but Xbox/Xbox 360 could be considered a moderate success.
At one stage Sony, like Apple with its iPod, looked an unstoppable juggernaut. PS2 was eating up market share by the handful and the upcoming PS3 seemed like a technological marvel from the 25th century. And yet somehow, old Microsoft, without much console experience managed to upstage Sony and deliver a viable product.
Maybe, there is a warning and a lesson in there too. One day, Microsoft may try to enter the mobile market and control both the hardware and the software. And it is not impossible to imagine that having learned from Zune and iPhone its mobile offering will be competitive.
Throwing good money after bad
Google, Apple and others are challenging Microsoft and it is good to see. Microsoft isn't dead yet - it would be a mistake for many companies to assume that - but it can be challenged and beaten.
Danny writes that Microsoft competes in a lot of areas and throws a lot of money at technology problems which often leads to inferior solutions. I am not sure that I agree with all aspects of that proposition but there is one clear fact. Apart from spending a lot of money Microsoft employs a lot of very bright people too.
It may not catch up to Apple or Google - both have had a head start and both seem to have that vision thing going - but it's good that it's trying.
Don't discount the old beast just yet.
Related articles