What price uncool?

On April 9, the Windows Blog reported on a Microsoft-commissioned whitepaper by Roger L. Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates entitled What price cool? - peculiarly named AppleTax.pdf, so we know where it's going to go. In the whitepaper, Kay makes a number of arguments about how people choosing to buy Apple products are choosing style over substance, and shows how Apple users pay outlandishly more for the 'same' technology. Unfortunately, Kay makes a number of blatant factual errors, many of which are detailed on other tech sites such as cnet and Apple enthusiast sites such as Appleinsider. Rather than dwell on the factual problems, I'd like to point out how some of arguments that Kay makes are, in direct contrast to his assertions, arguments that can be made for Apple products.

Software

First off, let's remember that Microsoft is primarily a software company. Apple is primarily a hardware company. I'm not sure where Microsoft's new Apple-hardware-bashing attitude is coming from, but MS risks alienating some of the very users that it targets in trying to flog its software.

For example, Kay lists MobileMe as a costly alternative to the free Windows Live Mesh service. Yup, click on the link. Live Mesh supports Macs! Why? Microsoft has been trying to recreate itself as a software plus services company as of late, and to provide services, you have to serve all platforms, even Apple's.

In addition to Live Mesh, there are more software products that Microsoft makes in Apple flavours. Silverlight was unveiled and demonstrated at NAB 2007 on both Windows and Apple platforms. Seadragon is an amazing photo browser from Microsoft Live Labs. Seadragon mobile is only available for the iPhone - no Windows Mobile versions exist - while Seadragon AJAX works great in Safari and Firefox. And, of course, the software grand-daddy of them all is Microsoft Office Mac. Few PC users realize that Microsoft's first GUI-based office was for the Mac - the Windows version came later. Rumors are that there's even an iPhone version of Office in the works.

So, Mr. Kay, if Apple represents such a bad choice for a computing platform, why does Microsoft target some of its most important software technology at the Mac and iPhone in addition to Windows?

Choice

Choice is brought up often in Kay's analysis, including this gem:

"And a number of popular devices don't work with Macs, including Windows Mobile phones, Garmin GPS navigation units, Suunto run and dive watches, and even BlackBerries..."

Kay posits the choice argument as one in which Apple is the loser. As in, Windows gives you more choice. While the choice argument may be true for Microsoft, in that many more devices work with Windows than Mac OS, the opposite is true for every one of the companies listed in Kay's example.

As an Apple user I chose to buy a Tomtom GPS unit (instead of a Garmin) precisely because the Tomtom works with both Windows and Mac operating systems. I chose to buy an iPod (and not a MS Zune, for example) because iPods work with both Windows and Mac operating systems. I chose to buy an iPhone rather than a BlackBerry, because the iPhone works with both Windows and Mac operating systems. I had the choice not to chose a Windows-only device.

Computer-connected accessory makers that are truly forward-looking are able to give customers the choice of using their products with any operating system, be it Windows, Mac OSX, or Linux, because they understand that, above all else, it's the customer's data that is most important. Data is both OS-agnostic, as well as application agnostic. Common data standards provide choice. I don't need Windows to surf the web, load images from my digital camera, or open Word Documents, because HTML is a common web standard, JPEG is a photo standard, and .DOC is a de-facto document standard. The fact that these standards exist gives all users, PC, Mac or Linux, the choice of using IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera or any of a handful of other web browsers to surf the web, Photoshop, iPhoto, or GIMP to edit images, and Word, Pages, Open Office or Google Docs to edit Word documents. Windows is not a requirement of choice.

Rather, users have real choice when standards exist. From AAC to HTML to Java to JPEG to MPEG to OpenGL to PDF and Posix, Apple supports more choice in open formats than Microsoft, which has historically tried to tie users to its proprietary technologies (Direct-X, WMF, WMA, and WMV, to name but a few).  Choice is for the user, not the OS. Funny how Mr. Kay chose not to talk about that.

Besides, Microsoft has chosen to excercise its choice in the markets it has more control over. If, as Mr. Kay argues, more choice is better, then why did Microsoft dump its Plays for Sure hardware and software partners when it released the Zune and Zune Marketplace? Why too, does Microsoft not license Xbox hardware to third parties so it can concentrate on the software, as it does with Windows? Microsoft, like Apple, has come to realize that in some cases it's better to choose how to position your brand and devices than to let third parties choose how to dilute it.

Popularity contest

Kay also points out that Microsoft has 98% of the personal computer market by which he means, of course, that Windows makes up 98% of the installed OS base, since Microsoft doesn't actually make computers. Regardless of the accuracy of the 98% number itself, that also means that Microsoft has very little room to grow, and very much to lose.

In contrast, Apple has seen a significant growth in sales year over year, including the recent recession-influenced Chistmas quarter. Could it be that the race to the bottom is hurting Microsoft's bottom line? And, all those people who buy netbooks for $359 with Microsoft's nearly 8-year-old bargain-bin XP operating system probably won't dig deeper into their pockets to pick up a copy of MS Office for another $399. It just doesn't make sense.

Let's not forget the Linux charge. Linux is currently the fastest growing platform, and finds its way into the widest variety of devices, from TVs to set-top boxes, and media players to mobile phones - devices that are either too space-constrained or cost-constrained to host Windows.

Finally, there's Apple's iPhone, battling RIM to become the most popular pocket computer of all time. When your data is in an open format, in the cloud, the iPhone currently represents one of the best choices in giving you mobile access to that data.

Fairies and unicorns and the cool kids

Roger Kay makes a statement in his paper about why people want Macs, "What teen doesn't want to be with the cool kids?", and another about Mac devices having "fancy plastics and fairy dust", while recently David Webster, General Manager for Brand Marketing at Microsoft said "not everyone wants a machine that's been washed with unicorn tears".

I think it's obvious. I don't know how Roger Kay missed it. All the cool kids do want fairy dust, and all those Apple products washed with unicorn tears. Windows-based PCs just don't offer that, at any price, and that's uncool.