Macopinion

Apple versus Microsoft: Part 1

by Marc Zeedar macopinion@designwrite.com

One of my favorite pastimes is analyzing the philosophical differences between Microsoft and Apple and studying how their fundamental viewpoints shape corporate direction and influence key decisions. The two companies share a history and their fates are intertwined, yet they seem like such opposites.

Why can't Microsoft innovate? How can Microsoft continue to succeed with mediocre technology? How come Apple is able to revolutionize the technology industry again and again? Why is it so difficult to predict Apple's future moves in advance, yet after they reveal a new strategy, it seems so clear?

In my next few articles, I'll explore these questions and others as we look into the heart of the differences between Gates and Jobs, Microsoft and Apple. As we study the companies, it's important to include the personalities of their founders and their corporate history into the equation, so we'll look at those aspects as well.

On the surface the two companies have many similarities. Both helped launch the personal computer revolution, are financially successful, have tremendous influence on technology manufacturers and society, and are led by world-famous billionaires. Yet there are striking differences in how the businesses operate, the products they create, and the way the public thinks about them.

They are also moving targets. The Microsoft of the 1980s is very different from the Microsoft the 1990s and even the Microsoft of today. The same can definitely be said for Apple, which has had a more uneven ride the last few decades but is now shining brightly to Microsoft's waning star. I'll concentrate mostly on the two current iterations of the companies, but we'll keep in mind their history as that's an important part of their definition.

Differing Philosophies
Companies are fascinating organisms. It's like the DNA of their founders infects them, infusing their corporate culture with similar attributes. Apple was started by long-haired hippies in a garage who wanted to change the world and did. Microsoft was started by a couple Harvard drop-outs who found a quick way to make big bucks by jumping on to a new trend few had seen coming: personal computers.

Both companies have come a long way since those days, and both founders have matured and changed. But some of those seeds of original identity remain and show up in unexpected ways. In particular, the founders still see themselves in those ways.

Steve Jobs still thinks of himself as a rebel; that attitude shapes his philosophy and his company's products: the iPod, for all its mainstream success, derives some of its appeal from its ability to be different. Bill Gates, despite being the richest man in the world, seeks more wealth and power: it's just in his nature to be ambitious.

It is the philosophical differences between these two men that has defined their companies. Sometimes these differences are vast, such as the opposing views of DRM (copy protection) from Gates and Jobs. Other times the differences are more subtle, like the interface changes between Windows and Mac OS X.

But every now and then something happens which shines a spotlight on these philosophical differences and it's enlightening to examine such events in detail.

Recently, with the release of Windows Vista, numerous media outlets are reporting of an interesting change in Microsoft's licensing terms. It seems that with the cheaper versions of Windows Vista (Home Basic or Home Premium) the license does not permit use of the operating system within virtual environments such as Parallels or VMWare. To get that functionality you're expected to purchase a more expensive version of Vista (Business or Utimate).

Why is this? Microsoft claims it's a security issue -- that virtualization systems have security holes that aren't blocked by the (apparently) less secure cheaper versions of Vista. That sounds like a lame excuse to justify forcing consumers to buy a more expensive product and it is.

But what interests me about this aren't the niggling details about the licensing, but the fact that Microsoft would even think of doing such a thing. Such a move reveals a lot about Microsoft's character and their underlying philosophy.

On paper Microsoft and Apple are not competitors. After all, Apple's a hardware maker just like Dell and HP and countless other computer manufacturers. If Microsoft saw Apple like that you'd think they'd be delighted to sell extra copies of Windows to Mac users. Mac users could be big customers, too, if they bought Microsoft Office for both platforms as well as a Microsoft OS.

But the legal change is obviously an attack on Mac users who want to use virtualization software. Yeah, theoretically there's a market for virtualization software running on Linux or Windows itself, but we all know that the biggest market for virtualization is Mac users who need to run some Windows software. Microsoft isn't stupid enough to reject good money from Mac customers by locking out all versions of Vista, but the company is spiteful enough to legally insist Mac users buy the more expensive versions of Vista. This is tacky, coming from the world's richest corporation, and insulting. Microsoft obviously just wants to gouge Mac users.

The fact that Microsoft would do this demonstrates not just arrogance, but fear. Yes, this shows that Microsoft is afraid of Apple. Microsoft isn't going to treat Apple as a PC partner like Dell or HP and see extra Vista sales as bonuses from a partner. Instead Microsoft sees Apple as a threat that must be attacked.

This is the wrong attitude. If Microsoft was truly an open-minded software company merely interested in getting its software on as many computers as possible, it would embrace Apple as another sales platform. Instead, this shows Microsoft's true goal is not software sales, but market control.

Next Time: Microsoft's core motivations reveals their fear.

macopinion@designwrite.com