- About race Google and Microsoft, which almost caught up with Apple of 1994
- vicissitudes of life
- This all happened before
- Apple: the calm before the storm
- What With Google?
- The story of Apple and IBM
- the vertical integration of the lessons from the old Apple
- As Google has redesigned Copland, Taligent and Performa and has made Android
About race Google and Microsoft, which almost caught up with Apple of 1994
Roman St. George | July 26, 2014 To bookmarks
US companies Google and Microsoft officially succeeded - Apple reached a level, but today they are at the level of Apple 20 years ago. So to achieve this is very doubtful. You this statement seems to savagery? Well, let's not jump to conclusions, and spend a few historical parallels, plunge, so to speak, in a retrospective of the IT-industry and Apple in particular, and this will help us ai editor Daniel Eran Dilger.
vicissitudes of life
Now Google is very successful company, with a maximum estimate of inventory and an army of fans willing to explain to everyone that the current problems of the Internet giant as such are not at all. (Even difficulty with penetration in the mobile sphere.) Those who know how to make money, never stop.
And then the Microsoft, whose service to store data losing users since there was a failure in its power networks. Ten years ago, Microsoft has been as Google today received profit in incredible numbers and with great ease. So that no one could not assume that the times have changed. The web is no longer just venturing "holivary" on this issue, and many, even Apple fans, and they could not allow that change to be, but still so serious.
I'm not predicting that Microsoft will suffer a complete collapse in the mobile sector, and that the company will have to see how Apple takes its corporate and a piece of cake. I just assumed that Apple would survive and keep growing market in their hands. After all, it is at that time to solve problems, which in the past had pushed her to the decline. And then the company has functioned quite well, creating products that consumers needed.
Daniel Eran Dilger, journalist AppleInsider
Now we see a lot of evidence that Google is on the path of decline followed by Microsoft, and that Microsoft itself has a long way to the bottom. There's something to it and catch up losing power the Internet giant. The reason of their wrongness. And that's what it is.
This all happened before
20 years ago, in 1994, Apple Computer itself was in a state of crisis. Case it should have been worse, but at the time its leaders even began to realize what the problem is. Inside the company, things were very bad, and the situation required immediate attention.
On the desktop PC market, which Apple itself has created 10 years ago, it quickly overtook competitors. Cupertino-based company lost its leadership as a manufacturer of consumer technologies in the field of software (where savvy company like the Microsoft, do not bother about software bugs, copes with writing code) and in the production of hardware (where cheap labor in foreign factories costing competitors are cheaper than local Apple production in the United States).
Four years ago, Apple began working with IBM to manufacture CPUs, multimedia applications and software to support the operating system. But this collaboration, especially in the area of writing software, has led to only copy existing developments and the creation of programs that ultimately nobody used.
Despite the launch of the world's first handheld Newton Message Pad (and development of new ARM mobile processor specifically for this gadget) Apple still could not understand how you can earn good money in sales of mobile devices. The income from a profitable product in the face of a Macintosh computer, began to gradually decline.
Old Apple suffered a collapse of the official, and such considerable that even the technical scope of the experts could not imagine her triumphant return - at the right time in the right place and with the right iPod. But to return to Apple its leading position on the world market, it took another 10 years.
In the 1990s, even the blind optimism of the fans could not save the old Apple from collapse. The miracle would not have created a simple marketing. American company needed a real rehabilitation. Old Apple needed to reach the bottom, to get rid of inefficient work processes, change focus and orient on what it does best of all, get rid of counterproductive, "toxic" partnership, to form a new course and rebuild philosophy of work with consumers. And to do this it was necessary before the loss would exceed the already Decreased profits.
Actually, the fact that Apple was able to fully mutate between 1994 and 2014, is seen as something on the edge of the possible. Few other companies can boast of similar successes. At the same time there are many tech giants, which in the past were not able to adapt to changes in the market. This Atari, Acorn, Commodore, Sony (then all is not lost), Palm, BlackBerry, and Nokia, and this is not an exhaustive list.
Even Microsoft now looks like a building whose facade gives the cracks - one after the other. And through those cracks discernible great destruction, to eliminate that major repairs require a painstaking restoration of architecture. For example, in addition to a general reduction of state management of the company actively delegates many processes outside freelancers. This, in turn, leads to the disclosure of a closed, confidential information.
Apple: the calm before the storm
It is also important to recognize that in the case of other technology giants before they crash they functioned quite well. Just like Google today, and how Microsoft a few years ago, as the BlackBerry in 2011, and Nokia in 2009, as well as Apple a couple of decades ago.
In 1993, Apple has paid dividends to its shareholders within six years, and its securities were at the peak of their value - more than twice higher than the original IPO. This American company has bypassed even IBM (for its performance in the same time period). Then Apple owned assets of $ 5 billion , while quarterly profit amounted to $ 2.4 billion . These figures exceeded the results for the same period last year, despite the fact that revenue fell slightly.
All planned development is under active implementation (including platform Copland and Taligent ). In addition to this, the company has first-class team of scientists, to create new items in the division Apple ATG (Advanced Technology Group). These laboratories also have Google today - to work on projects like jetpack, robots, or autonomous vehicle.
In the case of Apple of its development were not just "inflated" projects. In fact, the company produced a real technological innovation, ahead of the rest of the PC industry. Among these products - a proprietary technology of digital video playback the QuickTime , programming environment HyperCard for the Web, as well as plenty of advanced tools for communication, search, data display. Its staff worked on new programming languages and interfaces for mobile platforms, in particular for the Newton.
In 2006, Microsoft also received huge profits - as long as the market does not appear to the Windows Vista features such as PlaysForSure and support for the Windows Mobile . As in the old Apple's, Microsoft has been in numerous staff talents and third-party developers who have worked on original concepts and ideas. But focus on the essentials they did not.
After his first failure about 10 years ago, Microsoft vigorously (though not too effectively) began to spend billions on acquisitions and change strategy. All this is indicative of serious internal problems. Moreover, these problems were as much to do with Apple in 1994 as in Windows 95 Mac OS, which was published in 1984.
The biggest difference from the old Microsoft today Apple Computer twenty years ago that the founder of the company from Cupertino, Steve Jobs wanted and could make a difference. In the case of Microsoft is now Bill Gates did not seem capable of neither the first nor the second. Instead, the company began actively to reduce staff and throw lengthy reflections on the future strategies that are very reminiscent of the behavior of Gil Amelio , who became CEO Apple in 1996.
What With Google?
While Microsoft can hardly cope with their problems, analysts are still trying to find an excuse turmoil, befallen Google. In their view, Google's attempt to copy Microsoft policies related to the sale of licenses, ingenious, and profits just have to wait. It does not matter that advertising on mobile platforms is not working as well as it works on desktop browsers. Google advertising revenue declining from quarter to quarter, but analysts have found an explanation and this. According to them, advertising on mobile platform just works differently. The problem lies in the fact that the popularity of desktop computers ceased to grow, while the Internet giant is losing control over its mobile platform Android.
While analysts are extremely concerned about the increasing Apple's market share in the mobile sector, and in particular, the share of the Chinese market, they still continue to find excuses Google failures in the mobile area. The researchers completely ignore the fact that China has long established their own version of Google services.
In the news somehow say only that some Chinese brand has created a copy of the iPhone (which actively captures the market, however, taking share from the Samsung, but does not have Apple). And when China launched a set of online services, like Google products that simply closing the US company access to the Chinese market, analysts said that China and Google is not needed at all.
Instead, the researchers draw the situation differently. Ostensibly a copy of Google's products by Chinese competitors Amazon and only work on Android hand. The impression is that Android - a religious cult, not a commercial project. In this light Google stands a deity, and not just developers who also need money, at least for the financing of their own development.
One can only imagine what would have happened to Apple in 1994, if at that time the company was appreciated for the spread of a "computer Mac», despite the fact that she has not received income from the sale of licenses for Microsoft Windows. Then would the value of the shares of such a corporation can not speak. Or if Apple market depended on others to use its WebKit engine, licensing is also no profits. In this case Apple would not sell any of their products (of which the company actually receives more revenue than Google). In 2013 the American manufacturer has received $ 171 billion (mainly in the mobile sphere), while Google's revenue is determined by the sum of $ 55.5 billion (to a greater extent, not on the mobile sphere). So who said that Android wins in this race?
The story of Apple and IBM
To date, Apple is a standard technological advances. The design of its products and their user interfaces define fashion trends and inspire imitators. The company is developing dynamically and purposefully the latest software, and want to follow her example, even such brands as the Volkswagen . Operation of its retail stores accept the standard of many, including the Microsoft, and the Samsung, and online shopping applications seek to copy Amazon, Google, and still the same Microsoft.
Although 20 years ago, Apple was working on a completely different heritage. And, oddly enough, and now the Google, and Microsoft all repeat competitor mistakes he made in those days.
Apple original plan in connection with the partnership with IBM (or not just mutual assistance in sales and service) was very ambitious. And in the Apple co-operation gave all the credit (primarily in the field of multimedia) to his partner. At the same time, there are different strategies were combined and culture, is an internal conflict about what the microkernel whose use in foods, who will develop a new user interface and even the design of future devices, as well as which architecture will form the basis of the new system.
It sounds familiar? Exactly the kind of difficulties experienced Google in cooperation with Samsung today. Not reckon with the Koreans can not, because Samsung provides the largest number of sales of Android-devices, and is the source of virtually all of Google's profits in this area.
Debates are about what version of Android (or Chrome OS, or Tizen) will be integrated in new gadgets, who will determine the appearance of the user interface, and who will remain in the benefit at the same time, whose programs and services are approved and fall into the device or stores applications. This eventually leads to the fact that Samsung is now supplying its mobile products with multiple browsers, different book stores, applications, and media content. In turn, Google supplies the market with products Samsung, which then does not receive the software Android firmware updates even during the two-year contract the buyer. In general, Google works in conditions of total chaos.
If Microsoft has a long time to deal with similar problems, but at least she would receive the profits from Windows licensing partners, and rules for working with its software have been strictly defined. Today, both companies have their own popular products - their operating systems, which are offered free of charge to any tablet manufacturer. In his turn, Apple receives record revenues, delivering on the iPad market as a fully finished product.
As a result, one of the leaders in enterprise and cloud-based services has selected Apple, not Microsoft or Google, as its partner for the mobile platform. That's the most obvious manifestation of the vicissitudes of life.
the vertical integration of the lessons from the old Apple
Microsoft executives were enough clever in time to realize that the time has come to cease to produce its own bad foods and start to copy the generated model of Apple's business conduct. (After all, it endeavors like PlaysForSure, Windows Mobile / Windows Phone and Windows RT seem to be a complete failure in comparison with the iPod, iPhone or iPad.) But it turned out to crank this transition much more difficult than anticipated. In particular, Zune player, KIN phone and tablet Surface fail miserably.
In the case of Google, all attempts to repeat the vertical model of Apple's business also failed. The internet giant has spent billions to acquire Motorola, but it did not bring significant results except for spending billions on loss coverage. This was followed by additional costs billions to buy startup Nest. The company has achieved success in the re-branding of the products of its partners and their transformation into the Nexus in order to "fix" the bloated user interface, which was created by licensees Android.
Strategy related to the Nexus, worked as well as Apple Mac program on cloning in 1994. And it is to perform all development and maintenance, and virtually no profit in doing so.
As Google has redesigned Copland, Taligent and Performa and has made Android
To cover up the problem with the development of software for Android, Google continues to release new versions of its mobile platform, which supposedly should be to "improve" its work and close security holes.
According to the developers of Google, built environment to carry out their Android Application Runtime, finally, should fix all the problems with the slow work of Android. The same is said about the Android 4.1 Project Butter in 2012, when the new firmware was supposed to eliminate the "brakes» Android 4.0 user interface. This version of the 2011 itself is also positioned as an upgrade to solve problems with the operating system, created in the image and likeness of iOS - "just like the iPhone». Prior to this, the representatives of the Internet giant, in principle, does not recognize the existence of lag Android interface in general and in particular applications.
Old Apple in turn endlessly patched design of the original Mac System Software with the help of patches and software patches. Thus, with the help of Copland, the company allegedly tried to introduce modern features, only for legacy OS sample the 1990s - is that dead poultices. We had to start all over again, and it did so Steve Jobs at NeXT in 1988, using the Unix kernel. Instead, together with IBM old Apple tried to copy what NeXT already succeeded. This, of course, about the project Taligent .
Today's problem is Android and Google in general is that, like the Microsoft, the Internet giant can not just go and copy the entire operating system, invented by Steve Jobs. So his attempts to turn Android into something like Copland system are taken too late.
In addition, Google is now large focus on low-cost mobile devices, rather than on the more profitable gadgets middle and upper price segment. But then, it was in Apple's history, it suffices to recall the launch of the line of inexpensive computers Mac Performa in 1992-1997. Google management should ask colleagues from Apple, as it has been successful or banal look through the pages of history. [ai]