What ate Microsoft is eating Google and Samsung

“There is something good and positive to be said about Disneyland that also can be said about Apple. Both are carefully cultivated, highly orchestrated, fine-tuned ecosystems that cater to hundreds of millions of very happy customers,” Ron McElfresh writes for Mac360. “Meanwhile, Microsoft, Google, and Samsung have something in common with each other that is not common to Apple or the company’s products or their growing customer base.”

“Millions of smartphone and tablet customers recognize Android’s growing fragmentation problem,” McElfresh writes. “[And what about] Samsung’s need to provide a security suite to guard the Galaxy line against a growing field of Android malware? The situation is similar to the problems Microsoft has with Windows. Discriminating smartphone and tablet customers trust Apple products more than cheaper look-alikes. Cheap sells, of course, but not for long.”

McElfresh writes, “Just as alert Windows PC users flocked to the Mac because of its better atmosphere, Apple will continue to gain customers at the expensive of cheap Android devices, as well as BlackBerry and Nokia customers who are worried about the future of their chosen platform. Apple represents safety, security, and comfort, while Google, Microsoft, and even Samsung represent a more fragmented, convoluted, and unsure platform.”

Read more in the full article here.


  1. When your market share is less than 10% after over a decade of marketing OS X, I do not think the phrase “Windows PC users flocked to the Mac” applies. The simple fact is that there are plenty of people who have the money to afford Apple stuff but will stay with Windoze despite hating it.

    Seeing how many otherwise intelligent people stick with Windows despite knowing that there is a better alternative explains many things in life about human nature.

      1. absolute horseshit – have you paid any attention at all to the dribbling baffoons that “drive” the computers? Talk about the ability to shat on a free lunch. I am a iT admin for a MS house and how some of these people get dressed and to their desks on their own every day is beyond me.

        Trust me, you can’t fix stupid. Yes, it is a joke but, “ugly is only skin deep. Stupid is to the bone.”

          1. I loath all things MS and the story that brought me to my current position would clear up a load not mention bore you to tears. I am a Apple fan and stock holder. I also agree with your user error assessment. I pray for a day that I could do real IT work and not waste my time peeing on non problems that the “chimps” behind the keyboards manufacture…with apologies to chimps. If I were to lose my “babysitting” job tomorrow because we throw out all Windoze machines, I would be thrilled that finally sanity has prevailed. My company has embraced the Apple ecosystem and is changing as we go. Anyone that actually believes IT jobs exist because of the existence of MicroShaft needs to put the bong down.

    1. OS X’s market share is distorted by large employers who buy literal truckloads of Windows PCs so that each and every desk can have its own PC. If you removed this vast number of business PCs from the install base (plus all the PCs that are used as POS registers), you’d be surprised at just how high the Mac’s market share would actually be.

      Where I work, they’re slowly moving away from the “PC on every desktop” paradigm, moving employees to network terminals that interface with Windows running on a central server. PCs are being reserved for those who truly need them, mobile employees who need laptops, for example.

      If this new paradigm takes off, it’s going to remove the major source of revenue for the remaining PC assemblers, and then we’ll see what the Mac’s market share really is.


      1. I know, there are about 8 different Windows PCs that I have to use in my Radiology Department that should all really be running on one device. Not exactly the most elegant setup from high $ vendors and IT people who need to get out of their cubicle and see what they have created.

    2. Some people just can’t bring themselves to change. The other factor is many people have hundreds of dollars invested in software for Windows that they would have to repurchase when moving to the Mac (Office alone can fit that bill).

      Then there’s the UI. They’re just different, and that scares a lot of people away because they don’t think they can learn something new. What’s amazing about that falsehood is that they have to learn a new Windows UI every 6-8 years, plus they’re learning new software UIs (Office, anyone?) and new UIs for their smartphones.

      1. “The other factor is many people have hundreds of dollars invested in software for Windows that they would have to repurchase when moving to the Mac (Office alone can fit that bill).”

        Or not. Boot Camp, Parallels and VMWare fit the bill nicely and use them daily.

        Agree a new UI scares people. Surprised someone has not widely circulated a cheat-cheat that shows the UI differences boil down to a handful of keystrokes … Windows 8 tiles excluded.

    3. That old rubbish again:
      The simple fact is that there are plenty of people who have the money to afford Apple stuff…

      The problem:
      You, and obviously millions of other ignorant people, think that the ONLY cost of buying a product is the sales tag. WRONG.


      1) Return On Investment (ROI). Go read about it here:

      Apple gear ALWAYS has the best return on investment versus any comparable product. You won’t find any professional study stating otherwise.

      2) Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Go read about it here:

      Apple gear ALWAYS has the lowest cost of ownership versus any comparable product. Again, you won’t find any professional study stating otherwise.


      Price Tag cost + TCO – ROI = THE REAL COST of any product.

      The result is that Apple gear ALWAYS has the lowest REAL COST versus any comparable product.

      Therefore the REAL question is:
      Why are people so ignorant that they PAY MORE for Windows PCs, etc., instead of buying LESS EXPENSIVE Apple gear? Go figure it out. I personally have no idea.

      1. As someone who has been using Apple stuff since 1979, owning Macs since 1985 and Apple stock since 2001 I have a pretty good perspective of the life cycle costs of Apple stuff.

        The TCO may pan out, but generally Apple stuff has a much high up front cost, which is a big problem for many potential customers.

        Next, as Apple transitions to more of a mass market brand the resale value is steadily dropping. The Resale value of an iPhone is about on par with a Chevy rental car when you look at TCO of a subsidized iPhone.

        1. What is ‘front cost’? Do you mean the price tag? That very often IS the case. I pointed out THAT is why ignorant folks go buy MORE expensive Windows PCs instead. Getting it yet?

          Yes, that price tag is a ‘problem’ for many potential customers. But then they PAY and PAY for their stuff and it has a SHORTER life time compared to comparable Apple gear.

          Yes, if Apple does go into the cheap iPhone market, of course the resale will be comparably less. But NOT less than comparable other manufacture products. That’s because Apple consistently builds BETTER hardware AND software than the competition.

          Why do I have to explain this to people? I guess I’m skilled at understanding value and certain other people aren’t.

          If you don’t get it yet, you’re not going to get it. I’m sorry you’re wasting your money on more expensive, user-hostile Windows PCs. It doesn’t make you a bad person. I’ll still help you with your computer, as long as you don’t ask me to help you with your operating system, which I loathe.

  2. All Windows PC companies use the same operating system. It’s developed by one company that has no incentive to innovate, and it’s open to malware attack. Since there’s no differentiation on the software side, Windows PC companies compete on hardware only. This promotes a race to the bottom, where the cheapest possible hardware is produced by companies making less and less profit over time.

    Now substitute “Android device makers” for “Windows PC companies” in the above paragraph and you’ll see the problem faced by Samsung and other Android device producers.

    1. Why stop there? Why not substitute other industries in there? Nike makes shoes that are not significantly better than any other brand, so why would you pay more for the swoosh? ALL industries are in a race to the bottom. All Apple can do is maintain its quality standards above the fray. But like it or not, the iPhone 5C is proof positive that it can’t hold prices/margins/exclusivity up forever. Apple knows that the sweet spot is serving the mass market. That’s why GM doesn’t build Rolls Royces and they don’t build Yugos. Somewhere in the middle lies maximum profits. The people who mistakenly believe that Apple is Rolls Royce are only deceiving themselves. Apple’s future DOES rely on achieving and maintaining a reasonably strong market share. oops, again i wrote some words that people here don’t like to hear. oh well.


      1. Not true. Look at the iPod, Apple covered all of the price points and didn’t leave any room for ankle biters to peddle their wares. It’s long overdue for Apple to move lower in the smart phone market, and I think the tech has caught up enough to have an acceptable user experience on cheaper hardware.

      2. Mike. You are just so wise. Knowing the price points on machines that are not officially announced. Just so wise.

        And I agree. How can Nike justify those high prices. They must be going broke from lack of sales.

        Just saying

      3. Why not substitute other industries? Because the examples that you cite represent mature markets. The race to the bottom is prevalent in technology markets, because the value added markup on technology is so high and declines to commodity status over time.

        With cars and shoes, the race to the bottom already occurred years ago. The products themselves are commodities. But, brands can successfully carve out very profitable niches by establishing themselves as premium brands.

        I don’t see anyone else comparing Apple with Rolls Royce, which is a low volume luxury brand. The more correct analogy would be BMW or Mercedes, which are premium brands that maintain high margins and high enough volume such that their profits can rival those of mass market competitors.

        Market share based on razor thin margin products is not where Apple wants to be. Apple’s sweet spot is with their profit share. Apple’s future relies on continued innovation and focus on the user experience — all of which justifies the higher margins. Apple will never compete on price or feature checklists. Companies in the race to the bottom compete almost solely on price and the spec sheets.

  3. I love my Apple products.
    But because over the last few years, PC makers have lowered computer much, people I meet seem to think Apple’s are overpriced. I try tell them if you buy a $400 computer, your just getting an already outdated POS. They don’t care and a lot are on tight low budgets. There will always be a market for cheap inferior products, cuz people are cheap or really can’t afford them.

    1. Ultimately it comes down to an individuals decision making capability. I’ve seen people take crazy life threatening risks for literally a couple dollars. People almost never make decisions with their brains, it’s mostly their eyes and emotion.

  4. Common people don’t care about, neither know what platform fragmentation is. All they want is wistles and bells in their smartphones. Most people don’t even know how to use 70% of their smartphone capabilities. Mail, chat, surf, phone, calendar, contacts, Facebook, Twitter, clock, photos, that’s all they need and all they are capable of using. Every android and Nokia has these features in some fashion. That’s why this crap is elsewhere.

  5. Their are some glaring omissions in the Mac vs PC history that don’t work in the smartphone war. In the 80’s MS was a well run company with a visionary leader. Apple was a mess. Now Apple and Google or well run companies. MS slipped in a clause that OEM’s had to pay MS on the number of PCs they sold, despite the OS, making it difficult for other OS’s to compete. Google has no binding contracts with their OEM’s. Android OEM’s can use another OS or make their own (Samgsung). When the PC became a consumer device the vast majority of buyers used Windows at work, and were comfortable with it. Most smartphone buyers did not use them at work first. The few that did used an all but dead phone, Blackberry. Mac and Win (DOS) were used on one device, computers. iOS and Android are on tablets, music players, cameras and now watches; as well as phones. The Smartphone battle is nothing like the PC battle was.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.