Microsoft and Apple unite: New gadgets on the way?
January 25, 2010 by Valerie HelmbreckPosted in: Search engines, Special Report, e-commerce, operating systems
Forget those contentious TV ads where Apple and Microsoft mock each other’s operating systems. Think instead of unlikely marriages like Mary Matalin and James Carville, or Bill and Hillary Clinton. Think Microsoft and Apple.
Recent rumors about talks between the two powerhouse computing companies center less on the attractive pairing of the duo and more on their common goal: preventing Google from taking over the technology world.
The gossip du jour: Apple may be in talks with Microsoft to replace Google as the iPhone’s default search engine with Microsoft’s “Bing.”
Teaming up would benefit both Microsoft and Apple in different ways when it comes to competing with the search engine giant that is Google.
While Google’s big business is selling ads against search engine results, that’s not something that both rivals are interested in. Of course, Microsoft is scrambling to make a name for itself in that arena, but Apple has no presence there at all.
But Apple does have a serious stake in the consumer electronics industry, and Google’s looking to make a place for itself there in a big way, with things like operating systems, phones, collaborative software, office suites and photos.
The financial implications of a Microsoft/Apple alliance could be huge for the technology sector. The companies tested the waters with Apple’s introduction of dual core processors in their systems and the user-friendliness of Windows 7 has no doubt been influenced by the ease-of-use design models that are an Apple signature.
Crossover software developments have also been a win-win for both companies. The use of iTunes on Windows machines has greatly expanded Apple’s customer base for applications and media. The availability of Microsoft’s Office Suite for Macs has extended Microsoft’s dominance of the business productivity software market.
These experiments have been financial wins for both companies, but the fierce competition for users of both companies’ operating systems has fueled an ongoing and very public rivalry.
Now a more formal alliance might be in the not-so-distant future.
My guess: The relationship will benefit Microsoft more than Apple, since the former’s been on the ropes in many respects for several years, while the latter’s been soaring with each passing fiscal quarter.
FinanceTechNews.com delivers the latest Finance news once a week to the inboxes of over 150,000 Finance professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to FinanceTechNews!
Tags: Apple, Google, iphone, iTouch, Microsoft, search engine
January 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am
This is the lamest bit of “news” I’ve seen today… perhaps this week.
No part of the headline was substantiated with the body of text. The “rumor” that the iPhone may switch to bing as the default search is pretty thin to base such an article on. Bing blows, and any user worth their salt would be in the “settings” app switching this back to google (or even yahoo) PDQ, IFF this rumor ever materializes.
And this gem is takes the cake:
“The companies tested the waters with Apple’s introduction of dual core processors in their systems and the user-friendliness of Windows 7 has no doubt been influenced by the ease-of-use design models that are an Apple signature.”
WTF does Apple using an Intel dual-core CPU have to do with MS? Similarly how does windows 7 deciding to make UI enhancements, that arguably imitate a competitor’s, support your position of a collaboration, laughably suggested as a “testing the waters” of some future partnership.
This is the sort of “news” that I can do without (unsubscribed). Hopefully other readers won’t mistake your dribblings as useful information from an authoritative or reliable source.
January 26th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
@Dewey:
I agree that the UI enhancements don’t suggest anything more than the general M$ approach of identifying successful elements developed by competitors and trying to make them their own. However, Apple’s move from the big-endian world to an Intel-based platform could certainly make any future collaboration between these two rivals more straightforward. You’re right, though, this is far too tenuous to be called “news” by any stretch of the imagination. There is no evidence put forth by the author to support that this move was anything more than Apple’s recognition that Intel-based processing is the future of OS development.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Entering into a cooperative agreement with Google is dangerous. Soon the cell phone companies will realize this – after all, Google almost bought the biggest chunk of new spectrum at the prior FTC auction. Next time – they probably will since they intend to take over the cell phone market.
Google is the most successful advertising company in the world – they have a lot of money they need to invest – soon there will be a desktop OS (how will Apple’s Mac survive that??)
Times, they are a changing!
January 26th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Fellas: Thanks for the constructive criticism, but I still think there’s a valid premise here: Both MS and Apple have an interest in making sure Google doesn’t run away with the market. And that was the focus on the article. The addition of Bing to one of the world’s most popular smartphones would be a huge boost to the folks in Redmond. And the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend still holds water — even when you’re talking technology. I merely cited the dual-core CPU as a building block for the relationship, nothing more. Kind of like owning a dog together when you’re dating. It doesn’t mean you’re gonna get married, but it’s a tie that binds.
Dewey, sorry to lose you as a subscriber. Your comments are useful.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
@Dink: “…how will Apple’s Mac survive that??…” I don’t understand your reasoning. How will Apple’s BSD-UNIX based OS survive against a browser-based OS? That comparing apples to oranges (pun-intended)
January 26th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
The MS empire doesn’t befriend any entity it doesn’t think it can best in some way or another, and eventually subsume. Apple should be extremely wary if Redmond appears to be cozying up to them in any way. This is not an example of joint custody of a pet, it’s more like playing a game of Risk online. An opponent promises they won’t attack you in Europe, and you agree. But the ultimate goal is to conquer all other opponents, so the truce holds until it’s in the best interest of your opponent to break their promise. Redmond may say they want to work together, but their ultimate goal is defeat or assimilation of all competitors.
The implication that being the best at something is necessarily a bad thing is the primary fallacy of this discussion. Google provides functional, intuitive services, and the price for most users can’t be beat. Essential document, mapping & email services all with no monthly fee is a price most users can handle. For those who need more features, those can be purchased. As long as Google supports these “free” services with their advertising and paid service subscribers, who loses?
If Google or Microsoft or Apple or anyone can provide the best service or product and users are willing to pay the required fee, then that’s a good thing. Taking aim at someone simply because they’re the best at what they do doesn’t make sense.
January 26th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Valerie, although everyone should be shaking in their shoes about Googles future plans, I am still don’t understand the relationship between the Dual Core CPU and Apple and Microsoft.
Can you please help me understand your commentgs and how you tie the two together?
January 26th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
The dual core CPU is merely a move that makes Apple computers more Microsoft friendly, that’s all. In looking at actions that could bring the two companies closer together, that is one that at least allows both companys’ operating systems to co-exist in a more efficient way. As Geoff pointed out, it makes future collaboration/joint ventures more straightforward and streamlined.
January 26th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
No, Valerie, a dual-core CPU in no way whatsoever makes Apples more Microsoft friendly.
Not at all. Not in any way shape or form.
The old G5’s had multi-core processors.
What I suppose you mean to say, is that the Apple move to Intel processors made it possible to run MS operating systems on an Apple computer. The move to Intel architecture was key — the number of cores is totally irrelevant. Totally. Really, really wrong.
January 26th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
@Geoff: I think you should brush up on your technology history a bit. Microsoft has literally saved Apple from going under on more than one occasion.
In fact the only reason MS still produces the Office Suite for Mac OS is because Apple virtually begged them to do so. MS at one point was deliberating on pullign the plug on that product. Apple knew that the little bit of business productivity their OS actually has in the business world is very dependant on Office.
Currently Apple is thriving on iPod and iPhone sales. The Mac computer market is still and almost always has been very slow.
January 27th, 2010 at 10:07 am
@Mark M: “…The Mac computer market is still and almost always has been very slow…” I guess you need to brush up on your current events. Mac sales may count for a small % of the total computer units sold, but their Mac sales were up 33% over the same quarter last year.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
That is misleading. Sales were way down the prior year, as were everybody else’s too. They do sell more iphones and ipods then computers, by far.
January 25th 2010 Apple reported 3.36 million Mac shiments, which was higher then expected, but they also shipped 8.7 million iphones and 21 million iPods.
Macs have a US market share somewhere around 9% in the US and around 4% worldwide, depending upon whihc metric and source you want to use. That is FAR less then PC.
January 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
@ Mark M:
I understand very well the history of the MS/Apple “partnerships.” Redmond propped up Apple to maintain a “competitor” in the end-user OS world. Letting Apple die in days of yore would have meant the end of any remotely viable competition for Windows. Altruism this was not. It was simply a way to keep the monopoly clamor at bay. The same thing has happened with Novell. Microsoft has built “alliances” with Novell to keep an eye on their biggest server-based OS competitor, and to make sure they too remain viable. Linux has Redmond back on their heels, because there is no actual entity with whom to try to build any sort of alliance. Open source might very change the whole equation for Microsoft, one they have been cashing in on for years & years.
@Jim: Statistics can say whatever you want them to say. An increase from 50 to 100 units is a 100% increase, but when your competitor is moving tens of thousands of units, that sort of “doubling” is meaningless. My point is that the numbers need to be put in perspective. Compare Mac sales to Windows sales and the picture is very different from looking only at that 33% sales increase. Perhaps “slow” was a poor term to describe Apple’s relatively small share of the OS market. I wouldn’t base an investment in Apple on Mac OS sales, I would focus more on iXxxx hardware development.
@Rick: I believe Ms. Helmbreck was identifying the move away from Motorola chips to ones that could run both Windows and Apple software as the basis for her statements. At least that’s how I interpreted it. Of course both CPUs have dual-core models. The issue was a move away from 68000-based processors, not the dual-core nature of Intel chips…
I see Apple’s move to Intel chips as an opportunity to create a “boutique” hardware line to run a Microsoft OS. I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t agree that Apple hardware is far superior to any Windows-based platforms out on the market today.
January 27th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I totally agree – this article was a stretch, and the attempt to support the premise by citing the switch to dual core processors is completely unfounded. There are almost certainly other reasons for the switch (like availability of Intel chips, for one).
The headline is misleading, and the “rumor” part led into other conjecture that is just too much.
Is Google a threat to both? Absolutely. Does it matter that a web-based OS is different than the Apple OS? Not to the majority of people out there now…
The real question is what are Apple and MS doing to keep their customers from switching to Google-based stuff.
While worth a footnote, or mention, not a whole article based on a rumor.
(And the appealing headline not supported by facts did NOT entice me to subscribe).
January 28th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Geoff, thanks for attempting to clarify. You’re exactly right. And who knew one sentence could cause so much furor! But it was my job as a writer to make plain what I meant, and from the looks of the comments, I didn’t. My bad.
And to everybody who thinks the MS/Apple negotiations concerning Bing aren’t worth a story, time will tell. Tech analysts seem to believe these negotiations are significant and the implications could be far reaching. They could be wrong — they have before. But the idea has prompted some good discussion here and the comments have been both constructive and illuminating. Thanks to all who weighed in.