Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: mac
Microsoft + Mac + Free = Crapness
There is so little changed for a full 1.0 version increase that I'm surprised that they don't list the name change as a new feature
Every time a new version of MSN Messenger for Mac is released I downloading thinking “This version is gonna have cool new features”. And every time it takes me just 30 seconds to realise that this is an app made by Microsoft, for Macs, for free and that nothing has changed. I’ve just gone through the same with the new version 5. It has a new name, Microsoft Messenger, a brushed metal interface and well.... not much else new. I guess you can change your profile picture, but as with many things 3rd party MSN apps have been able to do this for years. And I suppose that it also shows you the icons in the chat window (very iChat-esque).
There’s also some corporate thing that let’s you talk on multiple protocols but that requires you to get something else from Microsoft which can just be worked around by getting a Jabber account on a server supporting multiple protocols and using iChat. The thing is that there is so little changed for a full 1.0 (well technically 0.9.9) version increase that I’m surprised that they don’t list the name change as a new feature. But this just shows what we’ve come to expect from Microsoft for the Mac platform.
If you look at Apple’s free offerings on the PC platform they consist of Quicktime and iTunes. Sure Quicktime isn’t yet the latest version on Windows but they do have a public preview of it out and iTunes is practically the same on Windows as on OSX. In fact the only thing that has ever been seriously different between the Windows and Mac versions of these two apps has been performance, but when Quicktime is built into OSX it isn’t hard to see why they would be faster on a Mac.
But then you have Microsoft. Microsoft Messenger is lagging light years behind MSN Messenger in so many areas. And their other major free offering is Windows Media Player. On Windows it lets you organise and play your music, buy from online stores, watch movies and much more. What can it do on the Mac? Well, it can just about play some movies but even movies Microsoft releases aren’t guaranteed to work.
Now of course there are tactics going on. Microsoft want’s to make the Mac seem as incompatible as possible and so it makes shoddy free products. Apple has been to hell and back, freezing some parts on the way, to make OSX as compatible with Windows as they can. All they want to do is advertise their platform to windows users by saying, “This is an example of the sort of applications we make, if you want more come to the mac”. But Microsoft’s tactics won’t work. I mean they could stop making WMP and Microsoft Messenger tomorrow but there would still be 3rd party apps that take their place. Perhaps when Microsoft realises that all they are doing by releasing such shoddy apps is damaging their reputation even more than they have amongst Mac users they’ll get their act together and write decent versions and then maybe we’ll look around and say, “Hmm, maybe Microsoft can write a good free program after all”. Maybe.
Quick Note: Where are the Macs?
I’ve just read that Apple has an 11.1% market share in education in the UK. So if over 1 in 10 computers in schools here are Macs then how come every single school I’ve been in has been filled with PCs?
More Info
Apple UK grabs 11% education market
 |
9 | 760 |
| comments | views |
thinkback
There are no ‘tactics’; it’s a simple manor of the macbu being small and msn for windows team being large.
> I’ve just read that Apple has an 11.1% market share in education in the UK. So if over 1 in 10 computers in schools here are Macs then how come every single school I’ve been in has been filled with PCs?
Historically schools in Scotland have had a higher proportion of Macs than England, that might account for some of it. Also in England higher education (i.e. Universities) have had more Macs than Junior or Secondary schools.
Regarding the main point of your article, I totally agree. ALL Microsoft’s current software products for the Mac (including Office 2004) are one way or the other (reliability, features, or both) inferior to the Windows version and the sole reason is Microsoft programming, NOT Mac OS X. Even Office 2004 is inferior in that it struggles with complex Word documents and embedded graphics. Entourage 2004 is a piss poor Exchange client. RDC client for Mac gets confused over time zones I believe. Windows Media Player (enough said).
As you say, Microsoft’s reputation amongst Mac users would be infinitely better if Microsoft shipped at least as good quality products (and feature equivalent of course unlike MSN Messenger).
After all, if Mac users were willing to accept crap software they would be using Windows in the first place!!!
I think Apple should release iChat for Windows (locked to requiring an iSight camera). Imagine the embarrassment to Microsoft as everyone moves to iChat with QuickTime 7 with its high quality four way video conferencing. This would also increase the popularity of Firewire amongst the unwashed PC hordes.
Apple could go even further by building in Skype compatibility to iChat and again shipping it for Windows as well as Mac. THAT would definitely be a body blow for MSN Messenger! Indeed Apple could easily afford to BUY Skype.
The skype idea is completely possible seeing as Skype has released it’s OSX API. And as for Apple buying Skype, it could make sense if you consider the uses for it if Apple ever released an iPhone
|
| Aug. 16, 2005 | |
| 4:23 am |
“Now of course there are tactics going on. Microsoft want’s to make the Mac seem as incompatible as possible and so it makes shoddy free products.”
This is another case of a Mac user thinking that the Mac is more important to the computing world than it actually is. Microsoft doesn’t care one bit if Macs are or are not compatible with PC’s with the exception of MS Office. It’s not Microsoft’s job to make the Mac more compatible with Microsoft products, it’s Apple’s job. Apple can license Windows Media just like everyone else and make a compatible player but they choose not to. In fact, they removed Windows Media capability from the iPod.
I haven’t read anything about licensing MSN’s IM protocol but I wouldn’t doubt that it’s available too. Apple just choose AIM and Jabber.
You ever stop and think that maybe Apple doesn’t provide the tools neccessary to build a good IM client or media player and that they just don’t make it worthwile for developers to spend their time and money making Mac programs? Yahoo sucks on the Mac too. Do you think they have some agenda against Apple?
Real Networks doesn’t have feature parity on both platforms. Nullsoft doesn’t make Winamp for Mac, MusicMatch doesn’t make a good player for Mac either. If it was just Microsoft not having feature parity between Windows versions and Mac versions then maybe your conspiracy theory would hold water but it currently doesn’t.
“Apple has been to hell and back, freezing some parts on the way, to make OSX as compatible with Windows as they can. All they want to do is advertise their platform to windows users by saying, “This is an example of the sort of applications we make, if you want more come to the macâ€?.”
No, that’s not what they’re doing. QT and iTunes are separate entities from the Mac. If Appel stopped Making Macs today then they would still make QT and iTunes tomorrow. QT is the base for more than a few apps (After Effects for one) and the streaming products are made to appeal to anyone irregardless of platform. It’s not a way to lure anyone ot a Mac. They don’t even use those apps to advertise the Mac at all.
BTW, QT is a really bad example of Apple trying to bring people over to the Mac because it sucks on Windows. It’s slow, the codecs suck, it’s a processor hog, has no hardware acceleration, and all the codecs it has were already been surpassed by Divx/Xivd/3vid or free implementations of the same thing before Apple even released them (case in point H.264 and MPEG-4).
“I mean they could stop making WMP and Microsoft Messenger tomorrow but there would still be 3rd party apps that take their place.”
If that’s true then why even bother making a Mac client at all? Just let the third-parties handle it and focus more on Windows.
The only crap I saw was the blog itself.
Microsoft, like IBM need not force themselves to work with Apple (and vice versa but MS much less so). MS Office is apparently one of Apple’s best software so I don’t know where the hate is coming from.
Oh, you do know QuickTime and iTunes on the PC is crap right? Seriously the PC platform doesn’t need anymore software from Apple, but welcome to the PC fray anyway.
Informer, I take it you’ve never used Office for Mac? It’s slow. It’s out-of-place and un-Mac-like (Excel’s not bad; Entourage is a nightmare--feels like a Windows app in an Aquaesque suit, which can be quite disconcerting to many Mac users). It doesn’t leverage OS X technologies well. Office 2004 isn’t horrible, but it leaves much to be desired. A result of some vast conspiracy? No.
iTunes on Windows sucks? That’s news to me. Different strokes for different folks, i guess. 
| Nick | Aug. 23, 2005 | |
| 12:06 am |
I won’t deny that QT for Windows isn’t as good as the Mac version. But as I said the only major difference between the Mac and PC versions is performance. They have practically the same feature set. Same with iTunes. WMP and Messenger on the other hand don’t have the same features.
“This is another case of a Mac user thinking that the Mac is more important to the computing world than it actually is.”
Or it could just be that you are a PC user underestimating the role of the Mac in the computing world.
|
| Aug. 24, 2005 | |
| 9:12 am |
QT is a prime example of what happens when you take an OS dependent software and put it into a totally different system. Its like putting a seal into a pool of killer whales and tell them to mate.
Same goes for any software that comes out of Apple. Their software is NOT designed to be portable, and their platform is NOT designed for portability either. Microsoft is not the only company having difficulties porting their software to the Mac (ID software once said that it was pointless to develop software on the Mac because performance was just not up to par compared to PCs).
1.
A lot of professors and Ph.D students at my university, especially in biology and optics, use Macs.