While Apple has brought many ideas to the table for all OS's, they still shot themselves in the foot in the end. In my opinion, Apple is more a monopoly than Microsoft. I used to be an Apple user in my late teens. I eventually switched over to PCs in the Windows 95-98 days as the selection of software available already exceeded Apple's fare almost 20 years ago.

Owning an Apple is not like owning a PC. My prediction in the end is that Apple doesn't have a chance to survive in the market as Linux will eventually replace it. Here are their problems:
1. You can't open the case of an Apple or you'll void the warranty.
2. Limited software selection
3. Price
4. Difficult to find inexpensive replacement parts for past warranty machines.
5. Server technology is limited and not ready for prime-time on most networks, more trouble than good.

In a nutshell, Microsoft has already beaten Apple for decades. I don't understand why all their advertising would have you believe that Microsoft should actually be concerned with them. If anything, Apple should be concerned with Linux, who has a greater share of the market than Apple already. I'm sure if we could see the future, I'm certain that it will be Linux who finishes Apple, as Microsoft has already proved their product in total is superior.

Remember, there are already more people using Ubuntu then Mac...

You have to understand what Apple is all about: beautiful industrial design, and a relentless focus on ease of use and usability, i.e., a great user experience.

Customer service satisfaction is part of that experience. Think of Apple as a kitchen appliance company. When you're shopping for an appliance, you want something attractive-looking that fits in with your kitchen decor. You want it to be quick and easy to use; you have no time nor inclination to fiddle around with lots of fancy features. You want reliability and a vendor that stands behind its product. And if you have to pay a premium for all this, that's fine.

Do you care if KitchenAid is "open"? Do you care if Breville is the Swiss Army knife of functionality? No and no.

It's all about thinking like the typical consumer. Apple gets it. its competitors do not.

I was just telling my daughter this morning how inflexible i-devices are. I bought her an iPod Touch 8GB model for Christmas. Apple commands a hefty price increase for a small memory upgrade - just moving to the next model when an SD card is $10 at best. The iPad as far as I'm concerned is dead in the water already. No memory expansion like all their other devices, no USB ports, NO battery replacement, just NO flexibilty whatsoever. All Apple-controlled, period. At least on my smartphone I can change my battery add add a cheap SD card and sync it with my apps on my computer and get done what I want. I think their lock-out attitude will be their demise in the long run if they don't open up and soon!

The question I would have is: Did you really have to decide for the 90,000 people? I suppose you felt their were efficiencies to be gained, but were they real in the long run?

The costs would seem to be quite real. Clearly you angered a bunch of people. And made a lot of people use a tool that was not the best suited for them. And since some tools will be better for some jobs, by limiting diversification there were likely some opportunity costs.

Just a few thoughts to ponder:
Apple and Microsoft were begun on different premises for a reason. Apple came about as always wanting to be client-focused and state of the art. Steve Jobs and Apple not only wanted to own their destiny, but being client-centric, they addressed an audience with innovation that the client could use in very targeted markets. The packaging might have attracted users, but the tools worked and kept users loyal.
Apple found niches such as graphic design, which had always been proprietary, and opened that market to the user. If anything, this target marketing is the hallmark of Apple innovation at its best.

Microsoft was an innovator as well. The audience was different, the needs were actually more traditional and applied to a wider market. Whether it be scientists, architects or gamers, the core platform was basically the same.

As time went on Microsoft, the larger of the two, with its eye on the target actually being the developer, showed them how well-designed applications tested in Apple environments such as QuickBooks and Adobe products that were conducive to its target market could grow exponentially by including the PC world. And they did.

NEXT - Steve Jobs in exile - was about finding a common platform using the niche marketing concept as its driving force. It was a learning experience that redefined Jobs approach to the market. When he returned ti Apple, he returned to bring Apple to the mass market - hence iPod, i-Phone and so forth.

In many ways, Microsoft has grayed and the innovations have slowed as Linux and Google and new brands of mass marketers have come to the stage. Microsoft will not go away as IBM did not go away. It will transform itself.

Apple will always be perceived as an innovator, because it built its brand on that image and has succeeded. Microsoft has builts its brand on being "everypersons" PC. It could be the GM of the computer industry.

So from my perspective there is room for each of these companies and more in the market because in reality they try to differentiate their products and their competition is healthy and drives technology forward.

Collectivism has created any new or innovative ever. No two or more minds can think together. It takes an individual with his/her own mind and individual thinking that creates new and fresh ideas. I support open source as long as it's functional and useful. The open-source products I use (on a Mac) are mostly built by one developer and they are very good. Apple may make what some will call a closed system, but so what if it works? I can't change much in my MacBook Air, but I have changed processors in Intel iMacs and Minis. That said, people who make collective decisions for people who can think normally have made bad decisions.

Being a person who has spent the last 39 years in the computer business, I can understand why the average computer user does not "get" Windows but can far more easily handle an Apple. I use both and while Apple can be frustrating for someone who is as technical as I am; there are many more situations in which the architecture of the Windows operating system just drives me up the proverbial wall.

For ease of use and stability, I will take Apple any time over Windows.

What Mr. Parkinson and the other DP managers got for their money was expensive hardware. IBM, HP, Sony, NEC, Compaq et. al. were not THAT inexpensive. And they were bound to a monopoly operating system that was always a challenge to get running on the particular boxes that they just over spent for.

Once IBM approved the Wintel platform the managers rushed to buy inferior hardware and software which was barely good enough claiming that it was "the standard." It continues to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wintel has caught up but it took decades.

I expect too much from Apple and was concerned that Apple's real competitor, Sony, would finally overtake it as the industry innovator. Fortunately Jobs came though with the iPad.

The iPad design is the next portable computer paradigm. Later versions will be more powerful and have more features.

By the way, if the iPad versions of iWork are as useful and powerful as they appear, you could do all the class work and research work for an MBA.

The bottom line is, no, many of us will not pay extra for a white plastic case over a gray case. Spray paint is cheap - Apple is not. I wonder if Apple has begun to show the hubris that took down all those ancient gods. The typical consumer does not expect to do many things with a toaster - it turns bread-type things brown. We expect more functionality out of our computers. Not everyone is happy to pay two or three times the value of something just to have the "name brand."