When do Vista delays become disdain for the customer?

This is really a make-or-break time for Apple and Microsoft. Many have predicted that Apple will fall back to a much smaller market share once the iPod frenzy dies down but with a chance like this, we could actually see Apple's market share go soaring.

The awareness of the Apple brand has never been better and with the way Jobs has been releasing new products, it's hardly a far-fetched possibility that they could sieze the day.

After all the @!$%#ing and moaning about Microsoft having a stranglehold on the OS market, there is suddenly a very wide opening for competition.

Apple is currently choosing not to compete. They could easily release an OSX build for generic Intel boxes. They could even build a slick XP to OSX upgrade package and price it to snatch heavy market-share. But Apple has not chosen that route, yet.

With Apple out of the way, this is the perfect window (no pun intended) for the Linux developers to be launching a beautiful, low-cost, open-source OS that fills the gap that Microsoft has left. If an OS comes out with solid Windows network-ability, Office-like applications, and a large and knowledgeable support community, they could own a market share they might not have imagined if Microsoft offered regular upgrades.

As I (and others) have said repeatedly, Apple doesn't want to release a shrinkwrapped OS X for generic boxes because that would cause everyone-users and Apple alike- a lot of headaches which would really damage the overall experience of using OS X. Keeping the hardware and software integrated is one of the key things that keeps OS X incredibly stable and easy to use.

I think this is only going to open an opportunity for Apple in the consumer market, since Apple doesn't seem too interested in the enterprise market:

Steve doesn't mince any punches about what kind of company Apple is. He continually tells employees, even his enterprise sales force, that Apple isn't an enterprise company. Yet Apple products meet the needs of some enterprises, and those customers continue to purchase the products in spite of Steve being very clear about Apple not being an enterprise company. While Steve is busy saying Apple isn't an enterprise company, there are plenty of enterprise people at Apple, they just live in this nether world of not being part of Apple's focus. They continually get the short end of the stick.

And it should be noted that even though this Vista delay hurts Microsoft, it doesn't hurt them as much as one might think. The biggest area for upgrades to Vista is going to be the home market, businesses will be slow to adopt no matter when it gets released. A study by Canadian firm Asset Metrix from June of last year reveals that Windows 2000 is still the dominant OS in businesses, and Microsoft will be supporting it until 2010.

Not to go too deeply into the "why" of it, let me point out a few details:

Windows OS updates are extremely disruptive to users. Ask a typical Windows end user about whether they would rather upgrade their OS or gnaw off their own right arm, and the long delay seems more appropriate. This is one big reason why most users wait until they buy a new computer to upgrade the OS - starting over fresh has proven to be the simpler experience.However, because of this MS should do a better job of matching the 3 to 4 year hardware refresh cycle. This was more evident in the windows 95 to 98 to ME/2000/XP product cycle.

MS releases are complicated by the broad arrangement of hardware they must support, new and legacy. The latter is primarily due to the requirements of enterprise customers (as HW partners would prefer that MS force hardware upgrades en masse), which is a problem Apple has chosen to avoid with their consumer market focus.

Given these issues, I doubt there will be much grumbling from the average consumer about the delay, since it puts off the onerous chore of upgrading again. The HW partners are justify-ably pissed about it, though, since many users will delay their HW purchase for that reason. Apple does indeed have a market opportunity by simply being the flashiest car on the lot during the holidays, but most consumers have other criteria driving their purchase.

Apple OS releases are much less disruptive - it could be argued this is due to the control over the hardware or the limited scope of the releases themselves, but it is undeniable that they do not cause the widespread chaos and confusion a mass Windows upgrade does. Hence, it is less burdensome for Apple to release new updates.

Also, since hardware and OS are inextricably entwined in their business model, Apple is much better at using the OS to push more hardware (OS X required the G3, and I wouldn't be too surprised if future OS X compatibility with PowerPC drops quickly now that the Intel architecture is on the scene). Note that I didn't say that MS doesn't do this as well, the difference is that Apple is much more subtle about the connection with gradual accretive feature releases. Apple has always been better at product marketing.

Windows OS updates are extremely disruptive to users. Ask a typical Windows end user about whether they would rather upgrade their OS or gnaw off their own right arm, and the long delay seems more appropriate. This is one big reason why most users wait until they buy a new computer to upgrade the OS - starting over fresh has proven to be the simpler experience.

Yes, but thats why most users update by upgrading their hardware; and they normally do this around holidays. Not having a new/fresh consumer product for the 2006 holiday season is a fairly big deal. More so for Microsoft partners than consumers, but still it does allow an opportunity. That said, despite various Wall Street junkies stating that Apple should take advantage and strike a blow, I can't image that Apple will adjust its time lines too much. They will have viable products, which may become more attractive to user who are shopping for new machines. Definitely the Mac mini, and any potential updates and modifications to it would be attractive. The new MacBooks and whatever they're going to call the iBook replacements will also hold an attraction.

But really, I see this as a failure of Microsoft to support the eco-system it created for Windows. I'm not certain if its that big of deal for consumers.

The opportunity that stands out like a sore thumb for Apple is to release a low cost machine preinstalled with Leopard. The MacBook however, will be released well before hand and I suspect Apple will want to maintain their lower volume, higher margin formula with it.

That leaves a reincarnation of the eMac, which might fit the bill perfectly unless of course the long speculated tablet-mac is designed to fill the gap between the much speculated about widescreen video iPod and intel MacBook.

It's all about price points - will apple attempt to bridge the gap between iPod and MacBook with a more complete solution than the mini?

"When do Vista delays become disdain for the customer?"
About a year and a half ago

The awareness of the Apple brand has never been better and with the way Jobs has been releasing new products, it's hardly a far-fetched possibility that they could sieze the day.
-Edward Sebastian

I fully agree with Edward here, I really think that Apple will "seize the day" at this point. This delay really puts them in a rather sweet position to start pushing their line of personal computers with the release of Leopard. Like he said brand recognition for Apple has never been higher. The amount of hype surrounding the company is tremendous. When Apple recently held a press conference to show off some "fun new products" the announcement sparked a huge amount of speculation and discussion over what they could possibly be releasing next, ranging from a touch screen video iPod on down to Intel Minis. The outcome of the conference eludes me at the moment but most reporters came away disappointed. This really goes to show the standard Apple has set for themselves and as I said puts them in an ideal position to take a chunk of the PC market share.

Apple has an opportunity to take a nice piece of the consumer market, especially if they they get some more game developers on board. I think the business and enterprise markets will pretty much remain the domain of Microsoft and to a smaller extent Linux.

Actually no matter what the analysts are saying, this will likely be very bad for Microsoft.

Just before 2003 shipped, Microsoft pushed very hard (forced) to get their corporate customers who spend millions per year on subscriptions to Microsoft software to what is called "Licensing 6.0". It was a maneuver to smooth out Microsoft's profit figures. The agreement is that they would pay 1/3 of the subscription fee per year for 3 years and during that time the customer would get support and a major update to the products.

Well, here we are in 2006, and Microsoft won't be shipping until 2007. They are probably working hard to convince the CIOs and CTOs that they need to re-up the licensing agreement. Microsoft will probably have to pay (or support) these corporations to keep them from going back to the pay as they go idea.

Watch Microsoft's profit numbers over the next 3 years, you'll see more peaks and valleys, and the analysts hate that.

Wow, talk about Apple hype.

The only thing that they have successfully released so far is their family of IPOD's. How you guys are extrapolating this to the OS market is beyond me. Apple does not have the resources, nor are the consumers willing to switch to OSX just because Vista is delayed by several months. At the end of the day, Microsoft has what Apple only wishes it could... an army of software developers making software for Microsoft Windows. And no clever marketing ploy will change that (yes, even one by Apple). Is your corporate network going to switch to OSX all of the sudden? Well, no. It would be suicide at all levels of productivity, not to mention, financially infeasible.

And let me tell you, Vista is no '5 year old' technology. It may have been in the works for five years, but it's a push beyond everything we have right now. Granted, it may be hard for an average Joe to appreciate most of the features of Vista because he simply won't understand what it means, but for developers it's a whole different story. I can't wait to get my hands on it. (Yes, I'm one of those 'software engineers').

So in short: I'm frustrated by the delay too! But it wont change a thing on the market share of the OS's.

Ilya Grigorik, Vista may appeal to you as a developer but MS has got to sell a LOT of Vista boxes to Average Joe consumers and to do that, it has to matter to those Average Joes who outnumber developers but hundreds to one.

I still haven't heard of a single Vista feature that makes it a must-have for home users. It should be more secure, OK, I guess that qualifies. But they said XP would be secure too and while it is better than 98, it's far from perfect.

And is increased security alone enough to warrant whatever Vista is going to cost? Not just the cost of the software but also the hardware upgrades needed to run it? I just don't see it and let me tell you that bothers me. I would really like to have something to look forward to that I could say "this will fix my XP problems" because as a besieged admin, I need a good solution yesterday, not 10-12 months from now. Assuming THAT date doesn't slip.

Or I can go Mac or linux right now and be done with all this delay. No waiting. I am far from the only person facing the same choices.

Having been a Windows user for 12 years, mostly doing graphic design and web development, I am now looking for something new. I've been looking forward to Vista and experiencing a new(ish) OS. I've been looking forward to it for a long time, but it just kept getting delayed. Too long of a delay for my liking. I want something new and I want it now!

So, I just ordered a MacBook Pro.

Sure, I don't expect my decision to affect Microsoft. In fact, about the only people it might affect are my friends and family who call on me as an expert to fix their Windows issues. Sorry, I can't help. Ask a Windows guy.

@Ilya Grigorik

Just curious, cause I'm also one of those Software Developers, though I do my work on a mac, as part of that army of developers. So, last I checked windows vista had lost the majority of it's new and interesting features that were in the backend that programmers were going to get to play with. The only thing still around seems to be the new glass technology which is only new in the windows world.

I don't want to get in any kind of pissing match, so if this is too aggressive of a comment I apologize, I really want to know what tech is microsoft putting out that makes you as a developer warm and fuzzy?

I was going to seed this article from MacDailyNews about one Microsoft employee's feelings on the state of Vista and Microsoft in general, but I can't really verify the authenticity of it. However, I do feel that it's worth a read.

@Kikaiju:

You're absolutely correct. However, I don't think Microsoft expects your average Joe user to rush out and buy Vista. The people who are going to do that are: developers, gamers, technology enthusiasts. Your main bulk of consumers is going to take it's sweet time migrating to vista, with majority of people doing just that when/if they decide to get a brand new computer. Your average consumer is a typical pragmatist: "If it aint broke, don't fix it!". And let me tell you, Win XP covers most people's needs well enough, so there is no reason for an immediate switch to begin with. Now for your case, as a sys-admin... You may be comfortable switching to Linux/Mac, but that's because you have the technological know-how. If you're an admin of even a small office (

The only thing that they have successfully released so far is their family of IPOD's. How you guys are extrapolating this to the OS market is beyond me. Apple does not have the resources, nor are the consumers willing to switch to OSX just because Vista is delayed by several months. At the end of the day, Microsoft has what Apple only wishes it could... an army of software developers making software for Microsoft Windows. And no clever marketing ploy will change that (yes, even one by Apple). Is your corporate network going to switch to OSX all of the sudden? Well, no. It would be suicide at all levels of productivity, not to mention, financially infeasible.

You're right on this one, and I'm sure that's heresy coming from a Mac user (gasp!) But there's a difference between the users and the zealots, and the zealots are the ones that talk louder.

I think a few consumers might purchase a Mac because of this (and by a few we're talking several hundred, maybe a couple thousand) but it definitely won't happen en masse. sleggat represent this group. I also agree with your comment about corporations, few if any of them will migrate to Mac regardless of when Vista ships. But here's my question for you: have you ever considered developing for OS X and if not, why? I won't make any claims about the superiority of one OS over the other because, to be honest, I don't know enough about either of them to be a fair judge.

As a question to sleggat: does it worry you at all that there won't be native support for Adobe products until possibly next year, or is Rosetta enough for you now? Just a matter of curiosity.

Take away that nice presentation layer from OSX, and what are you left with? Nothing that is of use to your average joe! Most mac users I've asked have never used nor do they even know what a bash shell/script is.

You've still got an OS with a lot of good features: file system journaling, better (in my opinion, at least) "plug and play," Spotlight, more security features (though Vista is including many of these, which is great). I do know what the shell is and what scripts are, but I don't use them because I don't as yet have a use for them (though this might change at some point).

God I'm really starting to hate these OS discussions. Since when did the OS I use have any affect on anyone else's life?

From the comments here, one ought to perhaps seperate expectations between the home and corporate user. Apple has no chance and no expectation to make inroads into the corporate market, but the home market is a different matter. Until or unless it starts licensing OSX, then we are talking about it producing the right hardware boxes for home users to buy if it wants to increase its sales.

Vista having slipped will not hurt that ambition. Leopard streamlining and simplfying the OSX GUI might make it easier for home users to have the courage to switch. But no-one expects a true head to head battle with Microsoft unless OSX is licensed. And why should Apple even begin to consider that if it continues to create high margins from a solid base of hardware purchasers.

What no-one is mentioning re the Vista slip is the fact that as well as having missed an important annual market by this delay, the usual reaction by most IT departments and savy users to a new release of Windows is to Wait until SP1 before going near it......

That takes us to 2008....

@Andrew:

... here's my question for you: have you ever considered developing for OS X and if not, why? I won't make any claims about the superiority of one OS over the other because, to be honest, I don't know enough about either of them to be a fair judge.

I have no objections towards developing for OSX, in fact, ideally I would love to have a unified presentation layer that spans all operating systems. Unfortunately, different processor architectures and layer implementations make that impossible. I guess you could argue for java, but then I would like to point out that java's sandboxing model and lackluster presentation layer quickly brings you back into place. I'm glad to see projects like Mono (C# on linux/mac) be worked on, but all of these are just hacks; they are building wobbly bridges, not solid foundations.

Now put yourself into my position. I have an idea X, I want to implement it, market it, sell it. I also have a choice to make: which technologies am I going to use? Now, a good concept to bring into play here is that of a 'network'. As any marketing textbook will tell you, the value of the network is approximately the square of the users in it. With this in mind, what is your reasonable choice? Well, most of the time it will be to pick the largest available network and build for it. (Granted, sometimes you're better off targetting a small segment like graphics developers who preferr OSX). Economically, that's the choice that makes sense since we don't have unlimited funds and we can't develop for everyone! So what do I pick? Well, most of the time, windows!

The crucial point here is the fact that I'm not making any claims towards the superiority of any OS in particular. It's a matter of simple cost/benefit analysis, and a four months slip in a shipping date will not change anything.

I was just asking out of curiosity. From your previous comments you made it sound like OS X, to put it bluntly, sucks at everything.

@Andrew

That was not my intention, overall I think OSX is a great OS. I was playing around with the idea of getting an apple laptop for a while, but in the end Tablet PC won me over.

P.S. My desktop is XP, my laptop is Tablet XP. I also have a 'production' linux box sitting beside me (Ubuntu), and I run my own web-server on RHEL (RedHat Enterprise). So as you can see, the only thing I'm missing is OSX and the price barrier is what's stopping me from getting one.

@Ilya Grigorik

with 4 boxen laying around, you can't afford a $600 computer? Please, don't bring up price point, it's no longer anywhere near a valid argument, and is purely an argument of FUD.

1) Completely new high-performance networking stack 2) XAML and Avalon for graphics (More on this in a second)
3) 100% Hardware accelerated graphics 3) User level drivers (Security)
4) Wide open interface to the OS at .Net level for programmers

Ok, I asked about for the programmer, and these are great backend changes. User level drivers are great, for both security and for stability, I should know, the mac has had them since OS X came out. Hardware accelerated graphics are also very nice, and one of the things that is very close to happening in OS X (in fact you can turn them on right now with the proper video card). New networking stack is nice, but once again something a programmer won't be directly benefiting from. Ahh here we go, access to the OS through .net. I've played a bit with c# (and thus .net) and this is a nice feature. Getting to dig around in things at the OS level is fun. This very well might be a huge change for Windows developers if so good good. Unfortunately for the argument about programing, I can pull out the fact that in our cocoa bindings we get the same thing.

Here, let me state what as a mac developer I get, and maybe you can tell me if any of these techs are things that I've just not known about in Windows

1) Core Data - This allows a programmer to very easily make a model of the data including relationships (via a GUI, or through a programing interface). This model can then be tied into a GUI through a technology called
2) Bindings - Bindings allow you to tie a model into a view. They kinda exist as a transparent controller in the MCV style of programing. This allows you to do things like tie a text box directly to an object so that information will go seamlessly back and forth.
3) Core Graphics - a graphics processing subsystem that is done all in the GPU, allows you to apply filters in real time with low programing output.
4) Core Audio - same as above only for sound

This is actually the kind of list I was looking for when I asked my question. So back you you Ilya Grigorik.

@emeryc

I'm what you would call a 'power user'; do you think I really need a mac-mini to browse the web in a half-dead safari browser? No, if I get a mac I'd like to get something that has some performance to it, so I can actually use it for some nontrivial tasks.

With that out of the way, you missed my point about languages & developing on MAC/Windows. It's great that you guys have those technologies, but it wont weigh in on my decision for choosing a platform to begin with. If I can appeal to a 95% platform segment vs a 5% segment, guess which one I will choose? This is a business decision which dominates all technological preferences. My original comment about Vista technology was simply addressing one of the comments that claimed that Vista is a 5 year old technology (which I hope you realize now is not true).

I don't want to get into this stick measuring contest because it's useless and always/is inconclusive. Apples are different from oranges no matter how you show them, I'm just claiming that oranges taste better ;)