The Way They Were

Back in those good ol’ days, Microsoft pretty much ruled the tech press and resulting message. They pre-announced products to kill or freeze competition, and sold Bill Gates’ vision as the path to the future. We know now, of course, that the path Mr. Gates saw was one no one ever traveled. Truth is, Microsoft’s last real innovation was when they bundled a suite of apps all designed to work together and called it Office…

Read the rest of this article on theAppleBlog >

1. Apple is “bad”.
2. Newsweek is a credible source for Apple commentary.

The former is nothing less than Paul has always thought, despite his claims of being unbiased, etc., even as he calls those who support Apple names every chance he gets. The latter, however, is especially telling, since of course Newsweek was little more than an Apple tool until now.

As Paul himself explains it:

Now that Apple fanatic Steven Levy is gone, apparently Newsweek can tell it like it is about Apple.

So if you support Apple, you’re a “fanatic” (there goes Paul’s name-calling again). If not, then you’re just telling it like it is. Gotcha, Paul. Thanks for the tip.

I’ve learned something about the way Paul works. Notice that this article is not on the Windows Supersite home page, but rather Paul’s blog. Paul thinks he’s safer (and less vulnerable to attack) when he puts his more egregious comments there instead of the Supersite proper. He’s wrong, of course, since they’re part of the same site, but Paula will take what he can get in terms of “shelter” from those calling him on his crap.

Paul’s record of ignoring (or rewriting) Microsoft’s history is quite clear, yet he imagines an Apple currently running as Microsoft used to. His post, and the Newsweek piece he linked to, provide nothing to support the theory that Apple is bad. Apple’s popular. The iPod and iTunes command their market. Big deal. This is already known and there is nothing wrong with commanding your market.

Microsoft’s sins were in abusing their position (you know, like threatening to displace competitors from markets), not in being popular. Google’s Eric Schmidt summed it up nicely just recently: “Microsoft has a history of favouring its own applications and I can give you 500,000 pages of court testimony, document web blogs and so forth and so on about that”.

Aside from popularity, the articles here have nothing to say about Apple being “bad”. Apparently, it’s supposed to just be understood.

For example, Paul says:

It’s about Apple. Apple becoming a much more dominant player. Apple exercising its market power and getting some push back from companies that don’t like being abused and customers who don’t like being treated like they don’t matter.

Paul and others do not like Apple becoming a big player. It threatens their livelihood. Otherwise there’s no clue given as to why it’s “bad”.

Regarding Apple “exercising its market power” to abuse companies, where are the examples? Adobe? Is it because their pathetic Flash player has been left to rot on the Mac so Apple doesn’t want it on their iPhone? Most other mobile phones don’t allow it either (no, Flash Lite is not the same). The record labels? You know, the ones who are all but colluding against iTunes by providing their music DRM-free everywhere else? Other music stores? Like Amazon and eMusic, whose music is 100% compatible with the iPod?

Apple is in fact still being treated like a second-class citizen by most of the major players, something Paul champions, since he’s quick to remind us of Apple’s 3.5% global market share. Just look at Google’s new Chrome browser, which won’t be available on the Mac for several months. Yet this is the company Paul says is abusing its power? Please.

As for abusing their customers, that’s even more laughable. Consumer Reports and every survey has shown Apple blows other tech companies out of the water in terms of customer satisfaction. Try another tack, Paul, you’re sinking.

Paul’s writings are full of flowery multi-part prose about Apple’s products and services filled with misinformation or half-truths. As just one recent example, in Paul’s four-part MobileMe “review” he claims you cannot export contacts in any significant way because you must do so one at a time. Nonsense. He points out that when you export as vCard the selected account is exported, but — either through ignorance or deliberate suppression — does not bother to mention that you can select them all and export one vCard with all the information.

I used the above method to export all my contacts and then import them into Windows Live contacts in about three minutes. And it only took that long because I milked it out and took a couple of breaks.

The above is just one example of what Paul obscures in his “reviews” of Apple products. But when others give positive reviews Paul just calls them names, as Steven Levy learned today, and as others have learned before him.

For an excellent rundown of other Microsoft faults Paul chooses to ignore, read this piece. [Though a single political paragraph taints the piece.]

Today, however, he must be unusually mad at Apple, so let’s see what his 4th of July Edition has to say:

Leopard is the buggiest OS Apple has put out since System 7.5
This line will be appearing in the next Switcher ad, I’m sure.

Paul, it’s not the Switcher campaign. That was years ago. It’s the Get a Mac campaign, and calling it by its wrong name doesn’t belittle it, though it does belittle your commenting on it.

Apple’s Snow Leopard. What’s The Point?
It appears to be a tacit admission that Leopard is horribly broken.

The only tacit admission by any company ever that their OS was horribly broken was when Microsoft dropped everything on Vista (then Longhorn) to code XP SP2 in the hopes of making it at least somewhat secure. They failed. It took them the better part of two years and, as they clearly acknowledged when Vista was finally released, XP SP2 was horribly broken. Yet it’s still preferred over Vista.

Thinking Like a Cocoa Programmer
Just think, “I’m going to sell 6 copies of this application!”

Paul is falling back on the classic Microsoft “argument” of just trying to overwhelm people with big numbers. But the numbers are falling, Paul, even as Apple’s rise, so it’s really not a good tack to take.

80% of companies using Macs
Unfortunately, they’re only using them 1.5 percent of the time

Foot in the door, Paul. Foot. In. The. Door.

An effective way to treat Web 2.0 vulnerabilities
Blame Microsoft?

Why the question mark? Aside from uneducated (read: Phished) users, the majority of attacks stem from vulnerabilities in IE (6 and 7) and IIS. The latter being a dirty little secret Microsoft (and their chief iShill) doesn’t talk much about.

Opera patches multiple bugs in flagship browser
Opera is fixing Firefox bugs now?

Paul, How can Firefox be considered a “flagship” browser when it lags behind IE in user base by a huge margin? Are you admitting it’s possible for much smaller numbers to be achieved by the better platform? If so, what about Apple and all your silly claims about market share? Oh, that’s right, Apple can never be better, regardless. Analysis, critical thinking, and their actual products need not apply.

What product category should Apple tackle next?
Maybe you should grab more than 1 percent of the cell phone market and 4 percent of the PC market before getting too excited about the next big thing. Just a thought.

Coming right after the Firefox comment above this is laughable. Not long ago Paul had this to say:

Now, in increasing numbers, people are turning to Macs–especially mobile Macs–at home, and especially so in the US, and especially in higher education. The iPhone is the hottest smart phone of the past 12 months, and the new iPhone 3G should make even more of an impact.

But now, apparently, Microsoft has reminded him of his directive, and it’s back to ignoring the US, just using global share, and claiming it isn’t worth spit. Oh, and the iPhone went from being the “hottest smartphone the last 12 months” (and it’s only been available for 12 months) to just having a mere 1 percent of the “cell phone market” (i.e., he no longer acknowledges a smartphone market).

This Microsoft “big numbers” argument cracks me up every time. As if Microsoft wouldn’t trade every Windows Mobile device right now for the iPhone.

Why I Still Use Windows Despite the Peer Pressure
You’re not a trend-following lemming who can think for yourself?

I thought the “big numbers” argument was the worst Microsoft (and Paul) could do. But never underestimate the power of desperation. So, if I understand this correctly, the OS Paul slams for having only 4 percent market share and being horribly broken is the one he’s claiming has the peer pressure and lemming support?

Did you really just say that, Paul? You wrote it with a straight face? Seriously?

Paul’s made some ridiculous comments, but this has gotta be in the top five.

Wouldn’t an intelligent non-shill realize that all the momentum and peer pressure, by far, is still on Windows’ side? It’s not even close. Windows is still unquestionably the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Remember, Paul, you yourself referred to Windows users as those who should “care about the systems you support now, your jobs, and your very livelihood” (emphasis mine). I’d call that pretty major peer pressure, and your implication otherwise is nonsensical.

It has always been Apple users who have fought peer pressure (and IT pressure), analyzed something “different”, and thought for themselves. Period. In fact, most Apple users know Windows, and have used it. The same is not even remotely true of Windows lemmings.

I can see why you posted this on a holiday, Paul. The fewer people who read it, the less foolish you look. I can’t wait to see what Microsoft makes you post on Labor Day.

Microsoft Debates.

First, there’s the small matter of emails from Microsoft uncovered in the trial regarding the Vista Capable certification program. These make for fascinating (though occasionally boring) reading, and make it clear that the more technically and customer-inclined at MS felt this was likely a disaster in the making (and just flat wrong), but the powers that be went ahead anyway.

Numerous outlets have reported on this — and will continue to do so despite the SuperSite — but Paul Thurott blows it all off like it’s nothing:

No offense, guys. But “yawn.”

C’mon, Paul! That’s all you’ve got to say? Wow. I’m glad the court takes it a little more seriously than you do. Not every email is damning, of course, and there’s definitely some back and forth, but surely there’s more to it than just “debate”.

As for the emails, it’s hard to pick a favorite, but below is one of mine. When a concern was expressed that even the Intel 865 chip set would qualify as Vista Capable, and would there be any help in not allowing this to happen, this reply was received (quoted in full):

“Based on the objective criteria that exist today for capable even a piece of junk will qualify. So based on that yes 865 will qualify.

For the sake of Vista customers, it will be a complete tragedy if we allow it. I don’t know how to help you prevent it.”

Turns out it didn’t require 865 certification after all; 915 certification was more than enough.

There are a lot of emails to go through, but it’s worth a read to see just how all the dissent from people concerned about the customer or Independent Hardware Vendors was brushed aside as they pushed through a choice anyone with a little rational thinking could see would be a mistake.

No, ultimately this was not “debate”. Had they honestly debated the issue they wouldn’t be being dragged into a class action suit now for doing something so obviously stupid and short-sighted. Perhaps it passes for “debate” at Paul’s table, but reasonable people would have to disagree.

Heck, even Joe Wilcox from Microsoft Watch is taking a proper stance on these emails, but Paul “see no evil” Thurrott spins it as simply nothing to see here, move along. Debate, indeed.

Apple Lies.

Meanwhile, the hard-hitting Apple reporting that Paul is so famous for is brought to bear. It’s been reported movies for rental (100 in HD) by the end of February that Apple promised is well short of that goal.

There are barely over 350 (91 in HD).

Had there been, say, 850 or more I might not be that critical. However, I’ll be the first to admit that 350+ is way off the mark, and likely even an indicator that something’s wrong. This is especially true since those 350 have been there for weeks. It’s almost as if they got that many up, and then stopped. Was there a tech issue? A licensing issue? One has to wonder.

Paul, of course, thinks it’s just Apple lying. After all, they had plenty to gain by offering a new feature and then falling so far short of a stated number in such a small timeframe… er, wait a minute, no they didn’t.

What had Apple to gain by “lying” about the number of movies they’d provide? If they knew they only had 350, did they believe more people would rent from that pool if they thought more were coming? Of course not. It’s not like suckering someone into recurring revenue.

Personally, I think something went wrong, and if Apple doesn’t see it getting fixed soon they had better say something. But I don’t see any reason why Apple would have lied about this at the outset. There was simply nothing to be gained by lying about this particular figure when it was so easily verified in such a short amount of time.

There’s a new article post on Paul’s SuperSite Blog for Windows attempting to explain Mac fanatics. Since it’s the usual Dvorak drivel I won’t link to it.

Problem is, I don’t see John’s name anywhere on it. Yet it fits his M.O. to a tee, so maybe he’s ghostwriting for Paul Thurrott?

I’m a little surprised Paul took this direction, people don’t pay as much attention to John’s stuff these days. Also, for an article ostensibly about Mac fanatics it spends quite a bit of time telling us how impartial, fair, etc. Paul is. Wonder why he thought that needed explaining?

I tend to call Paul out on his Microsoft biases. Like his claim that Apple releasing a major maintenance patch for Leopard in only three months is somehow “bad”; as opposed to MS taking over a year for an SP1 that still isn’t ready and, as I pointed out, already has problems and will slow down the very system it purports to improve.

Paul’s differing views of these two companies’ major maintenance releases is a great example to seriously question his claim that he’s objective about Apple and Microsoft products.

But why waste time with a Dvorak-style hit piece? Whatsa matter, subscriptions down? Maybe those who read SfW in 2006 and got suckered by Paul’s original Vista review finally had enough.

As for the article itself, it’s a pretty weak (and old) tack to fall back on Artie MacStrawman, but maybe that’s all the ammunition Paul has.

It actually gets worse after the article. Paul states in the comments that Windows fanatics are a myth, almost non-existent, and he’s not sure he ever met one. Oh please. He owes me a new keyboard and monitor from the beverage I spewed upon reading that claim. Why would Windows fanatics reveal themselves to you, Paul? You speak their language! If MacDailyNews claimed there were no Apple fanatics, or they had never met one, would you take that as gospel? It was a dumb comment.

But then again the entire article is silly, and incredible stinky bait. On the plus side, it might be a good example of the maxim “None proclaim their innocence so loudly as the guilty”.

There’s biased opinion — of which Paul has plenty — and there’s trolling. Paul’s latest is an example of the latter, and all the proof one needs to conclude not only that Microsoft has “fanatics” as bad as any Paul decries for Apple, but that some of them have large blogs with wide readerships.

[UPDATE:] Though the piece in question is on the SuperSite for Windows, Paul pointed out that it wasn’t an “article”, but rather a “blog post”. This seemed to matter a lot to Paul, so I made a correction in the opening paragraph. Paul also linked to the post in the comments below.

Philip Elmer-DeWitt rarely writes anything that makes much sense. He jabs at Apple, but his best shots are the kind Mohammed Ali would be throwing today.

Most of the time I just ignore the guy, shaking my head. Still, every now and then he exceeds a threshold and I feel like I should point it out.

Recently Philip decided that he didn’t like what Apple’s charging for storage. After showing prices for the iPod touch, he brilliantly asks this:

On second glance, however, there seems to be something wrong here. Why does a $100 bump in price buy you 8 GB of memory in the the first instance, but an extra 16 GB in the second?

Then, intrepid reporter that he is, he looks at iPhone prices, determines that Apple’s charging $100 for 8GB just like the touch, and asks another deep, probing question:

Why does Apple charge $12.50 per gigabyte in all models except the 32 GB iPod touch, where it’s $6.25 per gig?

He’s got Apple reeling now. Will they ever be able to wriggle out of his clutches? Ha! Before they can even try, he moves in for the kill:

Why does Apple charge $999 for the 64 GB solid-state drive in the MacBook Air? If you do the math, that’s $15.60 per gig of NAND Flash memory, more than double what Apple charges for the same stuff in the new iPod touch.

Philip’s hard-hitting expose is complete, and all the tech world trembles at what he might reveal next.

Well, except for one thing…

I think Philip Elmer-DeWitt is insane.

Here are some questions for you, Philip:

• Why has every hard drive since the beginning of time provided more storage/$ as you go higher in capacity? I mean, if you “do the math” you’ll see more GB per dollar in a larger drive than a smaller one of the same make/model/manufacturer.
• Why have I not seen the 64GB SSD drive available as a laptop option for less than $850 (and as high as $1,300)? Everyone is selling them for “more than double” the price of NAND Flash memory. That’s because it’s a new type of device, not just a big 64GB stick. You should really let that market mature a bit before criticizing the prices.
• Why has Apple’s iPod line always provided more storage/$ in similar models as you move up the line? Yep, just like with hard drives.
• Why has everyone else’s portable devices done the same?
• Why does a 2GB RAM stick not always cost exactly twice that of a 1GB, and why does a 4GB not always cost twice that of a 2GB? (Don’t even get me started on 8GB sticks.)
• Why does a 512MB SD (or any other storage card) not cost half that of a 1GB card?

Clearly, I could go on. The point is that Philip has not brought anything new to light. Had he bothered to “do the math” on just about any memory/storage prices he would have seen this.

OK, maybe Philip isn’t insane, but then he’s certainly ignorant of storage prices — no matter the medium, size, or reseller. I know he’s just trying to cast Apple Steve Jobs in a bad light, but it can’t be done from what he published.

Carl Howe at the Blackfriars’ Marketing wrote a great piece on Wednesday refuting all the garbage about Apple having to slash prices and sell loss-leader products. It’s fitting the headline began “News flash to reporters and analysts”, because a few of them appear to have read it.

The very next day we got a re-cycled version from ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Let’s see:

• Use the same headline as Carl (well, skipping the “news flash” part).
• Link to the same two articles as Carl.
• Draw similar conclusions to Carl.
• Don’t mention Carl.

True, where Carl says this about Apple selling at a loss:

…it would undermine the marketing value of their products that they have labored for decades to build up.

Adrian says this:

…rather than looking for new features, customers get hooked into looking at little more than the bottom line.

But come on. That Carl’s article was the real motivation for Kingsley-Hughes’ piece is obvious. Adrian doesn’t get into the depth Carl does, but that’s only because he’s out of his.

I’m glad you got Carl’s memo, Adrian, but the proper thing to have done was:

1. Link to it,
2. Say you agree,
3. Contribute anything worthwhile you have to say (which, let’s face it, would have ended at step 2),
4. Add your little online poll.

As it is, you tried to give the impression you can make an analysis your past writings have shown you wholly incapable of. Pretty weak stuff.

Just as they did at the 90, 180, and 270-day mark, Microsoft has cherry-picked and juggled statistics to arrive at the conclusion that Vista is more secure than XP, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and Mac OS X. Oh please.

That’s right, UNIX’s legendary reputation for security is all a sham — despite years of empirical evidence to the contrary. Vista is in fact the one, the true, perhaps even the only, truly secure OS. How could we have been so blind? Repent! Convert to Vista now.

In order to pull off this stunning revelation each quarter, Microsoft has to modify what might be considered reasonable measures of security. For example, attacks in the wild don’t play into it at all.

Luckily, some are calling Microsoft on their BS, but this thing will still get far more positive press (basically, just a repeat of Microsoft’s conclusions) than it deserves.

This is just reinforcement (for those who had forgotten) that Microsoft is still the 800-pound gorilla that can throw their weight around wherever they damn well please.

With all of Apple’s latest successes, there have been a few really stupid articles and discussion about how Apple is somehow the new Microsoft, has a monopoly, etc. That’s utter crap. Apple (and Linux) supporters would be well served to remember that they’re still only around 3% of the world’s computing platform. Microsoft still rules over 95%, still gets their press printed with little (or no) critical analysis, and still has the ear of most tech pundits and columnists.

I wrote about the Microsoft Security Redefinition campaign (MSRC) at the 180-day mark; that entire article is every bit as valid today. It appears MS will play this game every quarter, and continue to do so until enough people call them on this nonsense.

It’s no secret I’m not enamored with the new MacBook Air. In fact, I chose to purchase a MacBook instead. While I think it’s a beautiful design, I also think it’s less a sub-notebook than it claims to be given its footprint.

Paul Thurrott of Windows SuperSite was just fine with it the day it was announced, but is now blasting it to high heaven. Why the reversal? I’m assuming it takes a while for him to get his marching orders from Redmond.

Anyway, in his initial comments about the Air he gave it a grade ‘B’. Not bad at all.

Today, however, he can’t stand the thing, and his critique starts with the most ridiculous line of all:

While it’s easy to get caught up in Steve Jobs’ patented “reality distortion” field as I did yesterday, at least with regards to the MacBook Air, sometimes it’s wise to sit back and really mull over what it is that he’s offering.

If someone who’s been around tech as long as you, Paul, and who bashes Apple as much as you do, still gets caught in the alleged “reality distortion field”, then you have no business posting on Apple at all. I’m serious.

And what do you mean “sometime it’s wise… to mull over”? When is it not wise to mull things over? All you’ve copped to here is that you posted without thinking, an admission perhaps a little embarrassing for you.

Take heart, though. A fellow Apple-basher, Joe Wilcox, had to admit yesterday that he needed to avoid Macworld to not get caught up in the RDF.

Anyway, having made an excuse for posting his own opinion yesterday, we now get the talking points memo from the Apple-bashers. Pay attention, because this will be the battle cry for all of them on the MacBook Air going forward:

It’s too expensive. No surprise there: Apple technology is generally quite expensive at launch. The SSD version of the MacBook Air, however, is particularly expensive: It starts at over $3000

I think the $1,799 is just in the acceptable range. I would like to have seen a hundred less, but it’s not egregious compared to other sub-notebooks. As for the SSD, give me a break! Apple charges $999 for it. Find it substantially less from any other vendor offering the option, Paul.

It doesn’t utilize next-generation Intel chip technology. Though Jobs brought his new lap dog, Intel CEO Paul Otellini, out on stage yet again this year, talking up how the two companies worked together to pull off yet another technological miracle, the chip in the MacBook Air is just a smaller version of last year’s less efficient 65nm chips, and not this year’s 45nm design.

Paul, it’s a fine line between bashing Apple and just being ridiculous. So now Intel’s CEO is an Apple lap dog? Intel’s CEO? Why is it anybody who does business with Apple is a lap dog, Paul? Intel’s CEO. Heh. You crack me up.

As for the “next-generation” technology, the MacBooks and MacBook Pros don’t use that technology either. Neither do the iMacs or the Mac mini. In fact, until one week ago neither did the Mac Pros! Are you seriously recommending to your Windows readers they should avoid all PCs not using the new 45nm technology? No, just Apple’s. Pathetic.

The battery isn’t removable… As Steven Parker notes over at Neowin, what’s going to happen to MacBook Air users when they run out of power less than half-way across the Atlantic?

Do you and Steven know the battery times of a typical sub-notebook? I hope you both bring two to four batteries with you.

There’s no Ethernet… While you can purchase a USB-based Ethernet adapter for $29

Well, then I guess there is Ethernet, isn’t there? And for just $29 for those that need it, like big-talking tech bloggers who want 45nm technology and 10-hour battery life, but then insist the machine be tethered to a cable. Sheesh.

Yet another power adapter.

WTF? This is an issue? Not once did I ever buy a laptop and expect to use the power adapter from a previous laptop. I expect to use the one that comes with it. The MBA is small, so is the adapter. This is the most non non-issue I’ve ever seen.

It’s thin to no good end. While there are already a number of ultra-portable machines in the MacBook Air’s weight class (3 pounds), most of them exceed Apple’s device in ways that are meaningful. They have Ethernet ports, for example. More than one USB port. A docking station for a hardware “slice” that adds more battery and an optical drive.

This is where Apple’s philosophy differs from the other sub-notebooks. Jobs made that clear in his keynote, but you ignored all of it. The other machines may have more ports and connectors, but in order to make room for those things you get a smaller screen (11 inches, maybe less), a mini-keyboard and weak processors.

Apple’s compromises were to jettison the extra connectors and ports, and instead go with a big screen, full-size keyboard, relatively fast processors for this class of machine, and good battery life to begin with (so an extra battery isn’t a requirement).

You can debate this approach, but Jobs was up-front about it. Besides, since all the ports and connectors in the world won’t make a sub-notebook an acceptable desktop substitute (especially as slow as they typically are), it’s not unreasonable to think that trading them for a bigger screen and keyboard might make sense.

Overall, what this says to me is that the MacBook Air is a must-miss

Whatever. The market will decide. What your article says to me is that you simply ignored Apple’s approach, chose not to even debate it, and then slammed the machine by tossing out unoriginal features gathered from who knows how many machines.

I don’t rave about the MBA, and have my gripes with it, but at least I can debate the design philosophy. Paul and some others cannot see it that way, and apparently assume that every sub-notebook must be made in the same way. As usual, Apple tries to look ahead, while other PC manufacturers try not to look at all.

Personally, I’m OK with Jobs’ compromises except for the screen, which makes for too large a footprint in an alleged sub-notebook. Still, I think it leans less to the “bad” side than other sub-notebooks, which I consider more like a “My First Sony” toy PC. And I have no issue defending the MBA against Paul because his “arguments” are silly.

I’ve brought up my beefs here, and commenters have added to the discussion. They’ve presented both pro and con to my opinions in a pretty reasoned manner. And none of us ever needed to argue against the MBA simply because it doesn’t follow the lead of every two-bit PC hardware manufacturer, or because it has a new power adapter, or because there’s no Ethernet even though there is, etc. That should tell you something, Paul, but I’m sure it won’t.

Paul Thurrott attempts to set the record strait on DRM-free music. And in Paul’s world, the move to DRM-free tunes had nothing to do with Apple or Steve Jobs. You see, Paul’s been re-writing Microsoft history for so long he’s not above trying to re-write Apple’s as well.

So, on his completely unbiased (*cough, cough*) Super Site for Windows, Paul comments on a New York Times article that gives some credit to Apple and Jobs for the recent moves by the big labels to DRM-free music distribution. Paul, of course, cannot allow this, so he accuses the NYT of “pro-Apple history re-writing” and provides his corrections.

Before I even go any further, doesn’t this already make your ears perk up? I mean, why would the NYT be “pro-Apple”? And even if they were, there are so many good stories to publish about them why would they need to “re-write” their history? Further, why in the Hell would I think the NYT has it wrong, but a shill running a Windows Super Site would somehow get it right? OK, as all that sinks in let’s go on…

After mentioning that Jobs is the one who called on the industry to stop its DRM practices back in February, Paul steps in and gives us this:

“No it wasn’t. Anyone who believes that Jobs somehow led the charge in DRM-free music is living in a fantasy world.”

Mmm, yes. For the CEO of the company running the largest (by far) online music store to call for this halt was pretty trivial. Mind you, most people were accusing Apple of not wanting to ever get rid of DRM because of the alleged (and false) “lock-in” it provided Apple. So for Jobs to take this stance showed at once that those accusations were ridiculous, and those making them (and some still do) pretty much automatically disqualify themselves from intelligently discussing this topic.

“The outcry against DRM had been going on for years.”

Of course. And all those peons were critically listened to by the labels, making this sea change out of the goodness of their hearts. Hmmm, but isn’t there a huge outcry about all the lawsuits being filed by the labels as well? I wonder why we don’t see the labels stop that. Or what about the various pricing in Europe? The labels don’t seem to care there, either (though Apple is now calling them on it).

Why would the labels listen to the DRM outcry, as Paul is suggesting, but not other customer complaints? Could it be because the CEO of the largest online music store joined in the battle? Yes, I do believe so, even if Paul isn’t bright enough to see it.

Oh, and where was Microsoft’s CEO (or any other prominent media CEO) in all this, Paul? I can answer that. They were all in bed together with DRM schemes to strangle as much fair use rights out of the consumer as possible. Gates or Ballmer would never have called for the removal of DRM because they’ve been trying to sucker users into theirs (which was written solely to placate the content providers) for years.

“Jobs only jumped in when it became obvious which direction things were moving. This is a great example of Apple marketing winning out over reality.”

I wouldn’t believe this if I hadn’t read it, but Paul really is towing a new Redmond line that says the labels would have done this anyway. That’s a crock. Just as they haven’t stopped their other offensive practices against their own customers, they would never have even considered removing DRM had a major figure as important as Jobs called them on their BS.

Further, there’s plenty of proof that Jobs was against DRM long before his Thoughts on Music. The idea that he went where the wind was blowing is the real fantasy, Paul. I have no doubt you’re aware of this, but you increasing need to live in a fantasy world to avoid providing any credit to Apple, don’t you?

What I’m seeing here is nothing more than an Apple-bashing MS apologist and shill refusing to give any credit to Jobs/Apple even when it’s clearly due. In the process, he pretty much invalidates most of what he may have to say on this topic.

After refusing to give credit where it’s due, Paul (as is so often the case) simply plows forward. When the NYT article mentions that Apple insists on “selling all single tracks for 99 cents”, Paul is there to spew this garbage:

“Another bit of commonly-repeated fantasy. Contrary to Apple’s claims, tracks on iTunes are not consistently a single price (i.e. 99 cents). The company regularly offers sales and prices movies, especially, at a range of prices.”

Aside form when iTunes Plus was announced — tracks of which were initially $1.29 — I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a music track on iTunes for other than $0.99. And now, all tracks, including iTunes Plus, are at that price. Further, I’m not sure a “sale” necessarily qualifies calling the NYT quote “fantasy” anyway. Isn’t the definition of sale somehow selling for less than usual?

Besides, in Paul’s ridiculous quote he mentions movies — “especially” — at a range of prices. Thanks Paul, but the NYT was talking about music tracks. I hope you didn’t hurt your back moving those goalposts.

Ironically, Paul then goes on to quote what may be the only real myth in his entire post:

“But seriously, folks. Apple makes no money from iTunes anyway.”

It seems Apple pulls in around 30 cents a tune. From that, they need to support the infrastructure of the online store. I don’t think that’s 30 cents a song. The rest is profit. For a store that’s sold over 3 billion songs I think there’s some money in it for them, and I wouldn’t exactly call it insignificant. Yes, hardware sales are much, much more important, but it’s hard to believe there’s little or no net to Apple’s bottom line from music sales.

Finally, Paul closes the post as silly as it began:

“In fact, Apple would probably love to back off from the content distribution angle anyway: It’s a lot of work for no direct return at all.”

No, Apple wants to back off from DRM because it’s a resource-sucking hog for no gain to Apple, consumers, or anyone except content providers and companies like Microsoft who want to build their next monopoly upon it. If DRM were out of the way, there’d be nothing but basic ongoing maintenance and Apple could make even more money from the store.

Seriously, Paul, do you think Amazon is in this business to not make money? How is it they can make money from this (you do believe Amazon is making money, right?) and Apple cannot?

I hope your head doesn’t explode when you realize you can’t answer that question without a whole lot of history re-writing and/or fact juggling. Still, I’m sure you’ll try. And when you do, I’ll be here writing about it. See you then.

Microsoft must really think seven is their lucky number. After bragging about how Windows 7.0 was going to blow away Apple just a few weeks ago, now Microsoft is “leaking” about how terrific, incredible, stupendous, colossal, magnificent, and really, really good Windows Mobile 7.0 will be. This would be laughable except some people might believe it.

In her post on it, Mary Jo Foley doesn’t drool, but she doesn’t call it for what it is either: Classic, pure, Grade A Microsoft FUD. I mean, this is straight outta the FUD playbook Microsoft’s been running for twenty tears.

Meanwhile, over at TechCrunch they’re dazzled. Sure, they’re smart enough to mention the blatant copying by Microsoft, but they give this far more weight then it deserves with stuff like this:

Screen shots and specs of the next version of Microsoft’s mobile operating system, Windows Mobile 7, are being leaked

You can’t be serious! Leaked? No way. “Leaked” is what happens when a company wants something kept secret but some of it slips out. What you meant to say was “planting FUD”, which is what happens when a company wants to freeze the market and spills so much alleged detail and diagrams that, to quote from “Absence Of Malice”, the last time there was a “leak” like this Noah built himself a boat.

Oh, but TechCrunch shows what hard-hitting reporting they have with parenthetical thoughts like this:

(Note that these features are from a purported internal Microsoft document from last summer and may not actually find their way into Windows Mobile 7, but we are hoping that they do).

You mean with all that detail and all those cool gee-whiz diagrams (pretty red arrows for movement, blue wavy lines to denote shaking, and even blue arrows to prove Microsoft isn’t just limited to red) there aren’t any dates? Amazing how there could be so much detail and no dates. Almost as if it was… FUD.

TechCrunch continues the hardball reporting:

Not everything in WinMo 7 is copied from the iPhone. The shaking bit is new

Um, no it’s not; see the movie here where a cheap Chinese iPhone knock-off is doing the shaking thing. This not only shows it’s not new, but that it’s pretty darn easy to do, right up Microsoft’s ally.

Finally, TechCrunch zeros in on the only possible two options from all this “leaking”:

Will history repeat itself with Microsoft running away with the prize here, or will Apple strike back by licensing its mobile operating system to other cell phone manufacturers?

Huh? How ridiculous can you get in only two paragraphs? I’m thinking some brain cells are leaking from TechCrunch. Here’s the scoop: Neither of those two will happen. The former will not happen because it’s not 1987 any more, and the latter will not happen because there is zero reason for Apple to license anything.

I think the usual Microsoft suspects will fall all over this “leak” in the next few days, but this is all the usual Microsoft tactics in action.

I said this in the article about their desktop version 7, and it applies to this mobile version as well:

I believe the days of freezing the market with a flood of Microsoft vapor about the future — and fooling the tech community completely — are over. Sure, some die-hard IT managers and old-world tech reporters will believe and print anything out of Redmond

Looks like I can add TechCrunch to the list buying anything out of Redmond. I still believe most of the market will not be fooled.

Joe Wilcox of Microsoft Watch was at least decent enough to correct Bill Gates’ statement during his keynote Sunday night at CES about 100 million people actually using Vista:

“We have 100 million people using Vista now,” Gates told the capacity crowd in Las Vegas this evening. Maybe the user number was wishful thinking on the part of Gates. Microsoft’s press release refers to the more believable number of 100 million licenses sold.

As usual, however, the MS press release plays tricks with terminology. Amazingly, the truth serum Joe consumed also forced him to correct that little bit of marketing spin:

Even the 100 million licenses sold is a misstatement. Microsoft really means 100 million licenses shipped, which doesn’t account for the number deployed or number downgraded to Windows XP.

Bingo! As with seemingly everything else they sell, MS tells you the number they forced down the channel’s throat. How many were actually brought home and in use is anyone’s guess. Then Joe goes to on to speculate, as many have:

I’d like to know how many Windows XP licenses Microsoft shipped during the last six months, particularly to consumers or businesses that bought Windows Vista PCs. Now, that would be an interesting number.

Sure, and it would confirm what we’re already able to glean from the exaggerated Vista figures MS is spewing, which is why Redmond won’t release them. Windows XP is doing surprisingly well for an OS “replaced” a year ago.Up to now Joe’s been on the money. Unfortunately, just when I thought the Joe of old was back and looking at Microsoft critically, we get this:

That said, 100 million is an amazing number, given that Windows Vista has been in the mass market-meaning on new PCs-for less than a year. For an operating system panned by many reviewers and customers, Vista is successful as measured by licenses shipped.

No, Joe, that number is not amazing (as we’ll see shortly). Further, the idea that Vista’s been out for “less than a year” is just wrong. Starting in November of 2006 everyone buying a PC was getting a coupon for a free Vista. And in fact Microsoft counted those coupons among their first public figures of Vista sales in early March. People have been “buying” Vista for 14 months.Finally, Joe continues to get back in Microsoft’s good graces with this:

For an operating system panned by many reviewers and customers, Vista is successful as measured by licenses shipped. I’ve got to wonder: What would the number be if Vista were actually a hit?

Actually, as measured by licenses shipped (which is a misleading measure anyway), it’s still not a success. And while Joe’s truth serum wore off before he could admit this, Paul Thurrott’s recent dose already prompted him to answer Joe’s question a few weeks ago:

As of today, Microsoft has sold maybe 100 million Vista licenses a year into the OS’s release. Given that over 250 million PCs will be sold in 2007, that’s pretty unimpressive: I figured it would have been closer–much closer–to 200 million licenses by now.

Obviously, a lot of people are staying with XP, buying new PCs with XP (or Linux), or moving to Macs. Meanwhile, businesses are avoiding Vista like the plague, and will continue to do so well into 2008. This is why XP SP3 is being worked on just as diligently as Vista’s SP1. It’s also why Microsoft is devoting time to talk about Microsoft 7.0.

Bottom line is Vista has a fraction of the sales Microsoft should easily have garnered (think about it, they had to screw this up really bad to do so poorly), has a PR and perception problem, and must dedicate numerous resources for damage control, marketing spin, and service packs even for the old OS.

Oh well. Take heart, Microsoft fans. I’m pretty sure very soon we’ll hear how many Xbox units and Zunes Microsoft channel-stuffed during the Holiday season. Some day those units may actually be used, too.

I don’t know what Paul Thurrott’s New Year’s resolutions were, but apparently being objective about reporting anything Apple was not one of them. On his Windows IT Pro site he’s posted an article on how Apple can fix the iPhone. Forget about the fact that as a huge success the iPhone can hardly be said to need “fixing”, when you look at his actual “fixes” you see this is a ridiculous article even by Paul’s standards.

The article uses the same Microsoft/Verizon/Nokia/Motorola talking points we’ve been hearing for a year. Indeed, the article could just as easily have been written right after the iPhone was introduced at last year’s Macworld.

Of course, this kind of nonsense reporting is what you’d expect from a guy who posted an eight-part review on a phone when all other smartphones have garnered about 5% of the same coverage from him. Does Paul obsess much?

So let’s cover the iPhone’s “issues”, and how Paul says Apple should fix them…

Pricing

What is this, 2007? He’s still griping about price? What about the $200 price drop? According to Paul that’s nothing:

While Apple did drop the price of the iPhone by a whopping $200 to $399 in August 2007 (and lose the “low-end” 4 GB model in the process), the price of this device is still extravagant.

No, it’s not. Paul suggests the killer is that AT&T requires a data plan, and that if only it were allowed to be purchased without one then the poor and destitute who want a data phone without a data plan could have one. However, he makes no case for why anyone would want a smartphone (any smartphone) and then not use the things that make it “smart” — which of course require a data plan.

In this instance, Apple’s no-choice policies really bite consumers where it hurts, in the wallet. The real-world cost of an iPhone right now is $2000 to $3000 for two years of use

This just shows Paul’s ignorance (or disingenuousness). The lowest data plan is $60 per month. That’s $1,840 over two years, including the cost of the phone, and right in line (in fact, in some cases less expensive) than any of the alleged “cheaper” smartphones out there, which typically require $80/month or more.

Paul says Apple and AT&T should lower the plan rate, ignoring the fact that for unlimited data and generous minutes the plans were the lowest in the industry when introduced.

EDGE Network

it can’t be stressed enough: EDGE is a joke and this “2.5G” network is clearly the iPhone’s Achilles Heel. In my own admittedly unscientific tests, EDGE was less than one-third the speed of Verizon’s EV-DO network

EDGE works great for email and most mobile browsing. Further, it’s everywhere, and easy on the battery. Paul’s 3G tests differ from others who found that the speed of loading web pages was not dramatically (or even noticeably) enhanced on another phone using 3G. And when battery is taken into consideration 3G loses there as well.

As for EV-DO, it’s a proprietary 3G network. Verizon uses it in the US, but most of the world utilizes UMTS (the WCDMA standard) for 3G. Why would Apple offer an EV-DO phone in the states that couldn’t be used elsewhere, and only on a network that already turned Apple down because their management couldn’t see the future?

When a 3G iPhone becomes available, it will have at least acceptable battery life and utilize the 3G networks available in most of the world. You and Verizon may be short-sighted, Paul, but Apple is not.

No high-speed modem for your PC

Paul brings this up only for the purpose of slamming the EDGE network again.

No hardware or software expansion options

Paul’s upset that you can’t expand memory, and then says this:

This isn’t necessarily a huge problem given that the iPhone comes with 8 GB of flash storage, but the option would be nice.

Translation: Forget what I just said because it was stupid, but the talking points listed it anyway.

The iPhone is also a closed box. You can’t install new applications or uninstall the built-in apps you don’t want.

The SDK is coming Paul, as you well know. Heck, even without one there are probably more apps written for the iPhone than other smartphones. That’s gotta be killing the Windows Mobile bosses in Redmond; too bad for them.

The rotating screen that doesn’t

Paul is apparently trying to save us from the unpredictability of the iPhone’s rotating screen:

While Apple touts the iPhone’s amazing rotating screen as a key feature, the reality is that the screen rotates in only a few of the available applications, and then in an unpredictable and haphazard fashion.

Apple touted the screen rotation for the iPod functionality (photos, cover flow, movies, TV shows), for YouTube, and for web browsing (Safari). During last year’s demo they never showed it rotating for anything else. Media and web browsing, Paul. That’s what they touted, and that’s what it does.

Since then, they’ve added rotation to email attachments, which is useful. Will they add it elsewhere? It’s a useful feature, so probably. But did it “under-deliver in a huge way”? Only if you didn’t pay attention to what was touted.

Virtual keyboard

Price, EDGE, no expansion, and now the keyboard? Do you see what I mean when I say this article is just the talking points from Apple’s competitors?

While Apple fanatics were quick to hop all over complaints about the iPhone’s virtual keyboard, a simple truth emerged after all the tests were completed: Physical keyboards are simply better than virtual keyboards.

Ah yes, “Apple fanatics”. It just wouldn’t be a Thurrott article unless he slung a name or two at Apple’s supporters, or even those who simply like the iPhone.

As for the keyboard, there’s no question that no two keyboards — whether on desktops, laptops, or smartphones — are alike. Some are better than others. But Paul’s painting all other keyboards with a superior brush to Apple’s is nonsense. There are some smartphone keyboards the iPhone outperforms, and others it may not. And people will never agree on which is which.

Since the iPhone’s keyboard works quite well, I’ll gladly take it because of the advantages it allows (i.e., it’s not there when I don’t need it, leaving room for more important things).

Buttons, buttons, buttons

Basically, this section falls in line with old school thinking that the more buttons you have on a device the cooler you’ll be perceived as a technologist for knowing how to use it. Apparently Paul can’t impress too many people with his knowledge of the iPhone because everyone knows how to use it. This is actually a triumph of design, but since it doesn’t allow Paul to impress anybody he doesn’t like it.

Battery

Oh please. I told you this was a talking points article, didn’t I? The “argument” about the battery is no better than the same argument made about the iPod. Next.

Lackluster camera

It’s not like 2MP is bad for a mobile phone, especially considering that so many still use 1.3MP. No flash, or zoom, etc. are maybe the first legitimate issues Paul’s raised. Still, for quick pictures it’s not bad, and that’s all the majority of people expect from a cell camera anyway.

The iPhone had undergone several firmware releases with features being added since it was released. Not once was I disappointed, or did I expect, that the camera would be updated. It’s simply not anywhere in the priority list for most users.

PIM synchronization that doesn’t work

Paul’s harped on Outlook syncing before, but I have a hard time buying it.

While the vast majority of iPhone users are also Windows users, Apple seems to have done very little to enable universal PC-to-iPhone sync…. that sync feature is so horribly broken that it actually doesn’t work for many people

How many people is “many”, Paul? Not that Paul may not have had problems (I’m not saying he made them up), but if there were rampant syncing issues with Outlook it would be well known by now. It certainly worked great for me on my Windows XP box.

Then Paul just starts babbling. Since Apple covers the big hitters in email, contacts, and web browsers, he simply pisses and moans about what it doesn’t support. Yeah, Paul, go ahead and hook your other smartphones up and sync to all those apps. Good luck with that.

Apple supports their own products and the biggest hitters in other categories. They may add support for others in the future, but only a talking points drone would argue that the iPhone has sync that doesn’t work. Does Paul believe the 1.25 million (as of last quarter, probably over twice that now) iPhone users can’t sync, and didn’t say anything?

I hate to point this out to Paul, but iTunes was syncing with Outlook long before the iPhone; it’s not new, so any major issues that may have existed were likely addressed long ago.

iPod issues

I love how Paul sneaks in some garbage matter-of-factly in the hope that you’ll just believe it. For example:

And when you add to that the fact that the iPhone’s iPod application is notoriously buggy and crashes a lot

“Notoriously buggy”? Um, no. Much like with Paul’s alleged rampant sync issues with Outlook, now he’d have you believe the iPod application is notoriously buggy. How can anyone doubt this is a shill-based talking point article when BS like that is flung around?

Non-configurable applications, home screen

No doubt the powers that be at Microsoft/Verizon didn’t think the list was long enough, so they started repeating themselves and hoped no one would notice:

The iPhone doesn’t offer any way to install or uninstall applications…

Um, this was already mentioned in the section on “no hardware or software expansion”. Was the article written so blindly Paul didn’t even notice? Did he just copy and paste the talking points received without reviewing them? Whatever. As I said before, there are a lot of apps for the iPhone and it’s not even “sanctioned” yet. Imagine what will happen when the SDK hits the streets in February!

Actually, I’m sure Microsoft has imagined what will happen with the SDK, hence this hit piece, and many others I’m sure we’ll see.

As for the home screen, the forthcoming 1.1.3 firmware update will allow it to be customized.

No cut/copy and paste

Paul and I agree on something. I’d like to see this as well.

Weak Google Maps application

While the Google Maps application that comes on the iPhone is attractive, it’s actually quite limited. There’s no GPS hardware in the iPhone and no way to legally add it

Since when did GPS have anything to do with Google Maps? Paul’s just being ridiculous, and he continues:

so you have to know where you are to begin with, making the notion of a map somewhat superfluous.

Wow. Just wow. Are you kidding me? Forget Google Maps, Paul. Forget smartphones as well. In fact, forget computers. Are you telling me that if you were lost in a city and got a map you couldn’t use it? You can find out where you are, you know. Really. Even you.

Getting back to the present, the Google Maps application on the iPhone is a great implementation, with additional features such as Hybrid Maps, Locate Me, and Drop Pin support coming very soon.

Weak Notes application

This is true. The consensus was that notes wouldn’t blossom until sometime after Leopard was out because notes was a new function within email. It will be interesting to see what Apple does with this in the coming year.

Wi-Fi iTunes Store limitations

Leave it to Paul to take the cool WiFi Store and slam it. He bemoans that it only works over WiFi, and then gets in a classic Thurrott dig:

(I’m guessing Apple knew its fans would freak if they saw how long it took to download even a single song over EDGE.)

Paul, you wouldn’t want to wait for a song to load over your precious EV-DO either. You do know 3G pales in comparison to WiFi, right?

Paul decries that you can’t use it for things like audiobooks, podcasts, etc. These may be coming, but music was first and foremost (by a wide margin) the priority. It works beautifully. Then Paul says this:

and you can’t wirelessly sync the iPhone to your PC.

What does this have to do with the WiFi Store? Absolutely nothing; it’s just Paul getting jabs in whenever he can whether it makes sense or not. (Remember, he’s writing this for Windows IT Pros).

Pathetic ringtone support

Apple hammered out better deals through the labels than anyone else. Paul won’t write about that because it doesn’t help his case, so he just… makes stuff up.

Most consumers don’t want to edit their own MP3s or purchased songs. They want to pay a couple of bucks for a professionally made ringtone. This is a no-brainer and could easily be implemented.

Really? I’d rather pay 99 cents (for a song I already own) and pick the best part as my ringtone than have some “professional” pick a part for me. And I’d rather pay a “couple of bucks” (if I don’t own the song) and get my own ringtone and the song to keep.

Oh, and if you’re a Mac user ringtone support is even better because the latest GarageBand lets you make your own.

Final thoughts

Heh. “Final” thoughts? I read the whole article and didn’t even see any first thoughts. Certainly not any original ones. This article was just a re-hash of every BS complaint from last year.

Joe Wilcox of Microsoft Watch took time off from his recent Apple-bashing to reflect on Vista. Joe previously stated that Vista is fine now; the problems you read about were early issues that have been fixed. But he provides no details for this assertion, and given the continued flow of negative Vista press it seems no one else received the “fixes” Joe imagined. Still, Mary Jo Foley, Paul Thurrott, and others jumped on the bandwagon to declare Leopard the new Vista, though few actually believed the story.

But now, even with Vista supposedly fixed, Joe wrote this article to tell us the 10 things that went wrong with it.

Um, what? How did Vista go from being just fine, thank you, and better than Leopard, to requiring a list of what went wrong? What’s funny is that Joe can’t write this piece without acknowledging that Vista is at least disappointing, so just ignore all the BS he’s written the last six weeks about Vista being fixed and better than Leopard.

You can read Joe’s article, which isn’t without a valid point or two, but I’m skipping right to Paul Thurrott’s analysis of it. In this manner I can address both authors at once…

10. Too many versions.

They both agree there are too many version of Vista. Duh! A no-brainer.

9. DOJ and the EU.

They both agree that the EU and DOJ are a big problem. Bzzzzzzt! The DOJ didn’t even put a dent in Microsoft’s monopoly, which is why they still have it. Paul writes:

“Again, as I’ve written again and again, Microsoft has been too eager to meet its competitor’s needs in Vista in order to keep the antitrust watchdogs at bay. They’ve appeased various security companies, Google, and others, and the result is a watered down OS that could have, and should have, been more cohesive.”

The idea that Vista is “watered down” in order to satisfy the DOJ watchdogs is silly. Windows is — by necessity — a lowest-common-denominator OS because Microsoft can’t keep its monopoly propped up by introducing a product that will leave too many older PCs and peripherals behind. MS extends support as far back as it can claim to, and always has.

It’s funny; this backward compatibility is what the MS shills used to always brag about, but now it’s suddenly resulting in a “watered down” OS. Even funnier that they blame it on the DOJ, who MS repeatedly stuck their tongue out at, failing to meet documentation deliverables time and again.

8. Office 2007 missing link.

Joe believes that not equating Office 2007 with Vista is an issue. Paul disagrees. I kind of side with Paul on this. I think Joe is looking for an Office “halo effect”, but making too much of Office 2007 Vista-specific would have just infuriated a user base who thinks Vista is crap, but wants the new Office. By making Office equal on XP, I believe they increased Office sales.

7. WOW went away.

The next point is where Paul gets all worked up. I can just see him now, hunched over his keyboard, mumbling to himself, nervously trying to control his shaking hands as he types out beauties like this:

“Apple’s absolutely BS-tacular “300+ new features” claim for Leopard.”

“I’m sure Microsoft could come up with 1000+ “features” in Vista if it just used Apple Math ™.”

Paul, “Apple Math” simply lists the new features and then counts them. Guess what? It comes to over 300, which some would express as “300+”. So the only real question is: Can you count? Sure, you don’t think some of them are “features”, but Apple had the balls to list every one of them and let consumers judge for themselves. How radical. Meanwhile, where’s Microsoft’s list?

“the Apple “Get a Mac” ads, which are almost criminally untrue, should be fought.”

“most consumers don’t know that those ads are mostly just outright lies.”

The “Get a Mac” ads win awards for a reason. They’re not even remotely “criminally untrue”. Save that BS rhetoric for Microsoft when their representatives quote alleged Zune market share, or claim channel-stuffed XBOX units as “sold”, or claim a percent of the mobile market they do not possess, or claim 295 patents against open source but won’t reveal them, or hack together a vapor demo of a big ass table with touch controls and a shipping date that‘s already been pushed back. The list is endless.

If Microsoft ever told the truth it was purely by mistake. For Paul to point a finger at Apple while at the same time adapting a “see no evil” monkey stance with Microsoft is just further proof (not that any were needed) that he’s a major shill for them.

6. The ecosystem wasn’t ready.

Joe thinks the ecosystem wasn’t ready, and Paul counters that it never is. Had Paul been a bit milder in his disagreement, I might have understood, but instead we get this:

“This is the company that, by the way, delayed Vista past Holiday 2006 (see #4 below) so that the ecosystem would have even more time to prepare.”

Yeah, that’s why MS delayed Vista. Not because it wasn’t ready or anything. Heck, now we know it wasn’t even ready when they did release it, yet Paul is claiming it was ready months earlier? Whatever. Paul’s lost.

“As if the five+ year development time wasn’t already enough. Screw the ecosystem. These guys never show up. And everyone just blames Microsoft.”

The number of peripherals and video cards that worked properly with Vista on upgraded systems upon release could be counted on one hand — even a hand that’s been through an industrial accident. So Paul’s theory is that every third-party vendor fell down on the job? Bullshit. It’s clear Vista was a moving target for its entire development timeline. It’s equally clear the embedded DRM to appease content providers is wreaking havoc on getting drivers to work properly. Microsoft is blamed because it’s primarily their fault.

5. Design by committee.

Joe and Paul agree that the “design by committee” approach is an issue. but Paul has to whine about the antitrust groups as well. No one’s buying it. That was #9 Paul, let it go. Besides, the DOJ wants to wash its hands of Microsoft, and yet nothing has changed in terms of their monopoly.

4. Bad timing.

Joe and Paul agree on bad timing, but Paul also gets a dig at Apple (because he must):

“But then we can also point to Apple’s decision to rush Leopard out the door in October (after delaying the product several times) in order to make this year’s holiday selling season. “

Leopard was delayed once Paul. Just once. 1. That would be one time. One. You might have more lies in just one column than all the alleged “lies” in all the “Get a Mac” ads combined.

“And it’s not clear this was the right choice: Leopard was clearly not ready for prime time when it shipped and is arguably still not ready. “

Another big, fat, glaring lie. And no one’s buying it, Paul. Joe began it, then you piled on, but you’re both already changing tack as witnessed by the very articles on which I’m commenting. Reviews of Leopard are overwhelmingly positive, comparisons with Vista favor Leopard, and negative press about Vista continues almost daily.

Funny how Paul turned “bad timing” for Vista into a tirade against Apple.

“I will say this: Credit Microsoft a bit for being mature enough to miss Holiday 2006. It’s sales suffered as a result, but the OS was also in better shape when it did ship.”

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I countered the Holiday 2006 argument in #6, and since MS doled out coupons for free Vista with every PC sold during that holiday season sales didn’t suffer anyway. Just another falsehood. In fact, MS used those coupons when proclaiming Vista’s first 30-day sales numbers! They claimed 20M “sold” in the first 30 days, but the coupons went back an additional 60 days. It was a dishonest act by a dishonest company, but Paul “see no evil” Thurrott doesn’t care; apparently too busy being outraged about “Get a Mac” ad “lies” like saying there are too many versions of Vista (despite item #10, apparently).

As for the “better shape” Vista was in when it finally shipped, I addressed that in #6 as well.

3. Complexity is a killer.

Joe bemoans Vista’s complexity. Paul blows it off, saying that Vista is no more complex then XP:

“You can get up and running on Vista quite quickly. Ultimately, that’s as simple as anything else.”

OK. But then he says this:

“I think we’re misunderstanding how huge this was in Vista. …the underpinnings were replaced with something brand new. It made image-based deployment and Server Core in Windows 2008 possible. It’s going to make Windows 7 possible too. It’s a big deal. A really big deal.”

Um, then didn’t you just agree with Joe? I mean, which is it? Oh, I get it. Vista is simple when it serves Microsoft’s purpose, but it’s incredibly complex when that argument makes sense. It’s complex. It’s simple. It’s complimple!!

(Yes, kids, you too can shill for Microsoft in the privacy of your own home. We’ll provide the talking points, you provide the blindfold, ear plugs, thesaurus and imagination.)

2. The “good enough” problem.

1. The Windows XP ecosystem.

Paul combines these as the same point, and he’s not far off. Bottom line is this is a bunch of whining about how XP is just too darn “good enough” for Microsoft’s own good. This was a silly argument when first posited; I commented on it then so I won’t waste time on it again, but look at this beauty from Paul:

“I don’t appreciate the complaints about XP SP2 either. That release could very well have been sold as Windows XP Second Edition… But instead, Microsoft gave it away by calling it a service pack because it felt strongly that all users should just get those improvements.”

Paul misspelled “Microsoft gave it away because XP was under constant attack due to horrid security, with Internet Explorer acting as a malware magnet openly inviting remote application installations without user intervention.”

0. Conclusions.

So we have two prominent Microsoft bloggers admitting that Vista was a disappointment, albeit under the guise of a simple “10 things wrong” article. Now we get to the best part. Here’s how Paul concludes his post:

“As of today, Microsoft has sold maybe 100 million Vista licenses a year into the OS’s release. Given that over 250 million PCs will be sold in 2007, that’s pretty unimpressive: I figured it would have been closer–much closer–to 200 million licenses by now.”

Paul’s admitting Vista’s sold little more than half what he expected! Still, even that’s not what I’m amazed about. Rather, it’s these last three sentences:

“So what really did go wrong with Windows Vista? These 10 points address some of the issues. But there’s gottta be more to it.”

Poor Paul! He knows Vista’s a dud. He also knows the 10 points are just cover and excuses, so there’s “gotta be more to it”. Was he scratching his head as he wrote that? Remember the expression on the Grinch’s face when he’s puzzled about the Whos having a great Christmas even though he took everything? (“And he puzzled three hours, `till his puzzler was sore.”) Well, that was the expression on Paul’s face when he wrote those last lines.

Sadly, unlike the Grinch Paul doesn’t have a sudden realization of the underlying issue. I know what the problem is, Paul. So do most reviewers, tech bloggers, high-end power users, Microsoft’s hardware partners, and independent software vendors. It’s been written about for 10 months, and the articles keep coming. The “more to it”, Paul, is simply that Vista is not very good. Really. Truly. It’s that simple. If Vista was a good OS, none of the other stuff (much of which applied when XP was introduced) would matter. No need for a top 10 list.

2007 has not been kind to Vista, and I predict 2008 will not start much better. Yes, sooner or later the issues will be addressed in the real world (not just Joe Wilcox’s imagination), and businesses will adopt it by attrition. But that’s another 6+ months before any real momentum is built. Meanwhile, Microsoft will definitely lose more ground to OS X, Linux, and others.

On his blog, a software test engineer in Redmond had this ridiculous thing to say:

“I will say that if you are impressed by the “touch features” in the iPhone, you’ll be blown away by what’s coming in Windows 7.”

First, what’s with the phrase “touch features”? Did he think referring to it generically in quotes would minimize the iPhone’s interface? Come on, guy, say it with me: Multi-Touch. This is a bona-fide user interface with over 200 patents running on a successful, shipping hardware platform. It’s really silly (if not ignorant) to try blowing it off with the use of a quoted phrase.

Mind you, that phrase does have its uses. There’s no question the alleged “iPhone killers” of late — which basically throw up touch-screen menus in front of the standard Windows Mobile, Symbian, or Palm OS — can truthfully be categorized as only “touch features”. Maybe Win 7 can blow them away, but that’s hardly something to brag about. It’s somewhat akin to being the tallest midget; a dubious distinction at best.

Aside from the above, why do I consider his statement ridiculous? I’ll list a few reasons here in no particular order:

• The Phone is currently available. I know Microsoft would rather people talk about what they hope Microsoft will deliver in the future than the stuff they’re shipping now, but some people are more interested in what they can actually, you know, buy and use today.
• Windows 7.0 (a.k.a. Vienna) isn’t even scheduled until late 2009, and Microsoft’s track record indicates the reality is that it won’t ship until 2010 or later. It’s just silly to brag about it now.
• Any “touch features” this guy is testing in Win 7 are very premature, half of what he thinks he’s seeing will be dropped from the shipping product anyway.
• Just as it’s safe to assume Microsoft will not deliver for three years, it’s known that Apple’s Multi-Touch interface is already in use by 1.5M people (and climbing). It will have matured and improved considerably — and its user base greatly increased — in those same three years. Bottom line is this guy doesn’t have a clue what competition Vienna will be facing in 2010.
• It shows a bit of desperation that — even before the first Vista Service Pack is available — there’s the beginnings of vaporware talk about Vienna. This is of course the classic Microsoft strategy from the 90’s; maybe old habits die hard. Besides, I guess it beats talking about Vista.

I believe the days of freezing the market with a flood of Microsoft vapor about the future — and fooling the tech community completely — are over. Sure, some die-hard IT managers and old-world tech reporters will believe and print anything out of Redmond, but it’s not necessarily because they believe it. It’s because they don’t want to learn or do anything different, it would kill their careers.

But more and more new blood is coming into IT these days, and they’re more open-minded. Soon the last holdout of Microsoft doggedness and ignorance of alternatives will begin to wear away. That will be a good thing for the tech world in general. Not because it means the end of Microsoft (I’d love to see what their talent pool could do with better leadership), but rather it means one company will no longer set the agenda for years at a time and fail to deliver.