By: Michael Mace, Competitive Analysis / Market Intelligence.
The Competition in Graphical Interfaces
Summary
Situation: Macintosh Has Won the Interface “War”
For the last six years, Apple has been on a quest to change the way the world looks at personal computers. Apple argued that a graphical interface makes a computer easier to use and makes its user more productive. The quest is now over. Apple has won. Almost everyone agrees that graphical interfaces are the wave of the future. IBM and Microsoft are furiously at work bringing them to the PC-standard world, Unix vendors are developing three “standard” interfaces, and even Tandy is pushing a graphical interface for its low-end PCs. The Japanese PC industry is literally awash in competing interfaces.
The Competitors. Here’s a list of the major competitive interfaces, and the companies supporting them:
• DOS 4.0. Includes a graphical file manager, but does not add a graphical interface to DOS programs. Supported by IBM, and available from other vendors. However, bugs have limited acceptance by the public.
• Windows. A graphical interface that runs on top of DOS. Promoted enthusiastically by Microsoft and a small group of developers. Supported by Zenith, NEC, and a lot of PC clone vendors, and less vigorously by Compaq and IBM.
• NewWave. Not actually a separate interface, NewWave is a Windows extension product developed by Hewlett-Packard. We don’t think it will catch on as a standard for all Windows users, but has been sold to several large corporate accounts.
• Presentation Manager. The graphical interface for the new OS/2 operating system. Supported very strongly by IBM and, with slight hedging, by Microsoft. Also endorsed by virtually all major manufacturers of IBM PC software.
• DeskMate. Tandy’s graphical DOS interface. Licensed to some third-party developers as well (most notably Lotus).
• Open Look. Developed by Sun, Open Look is supported by Sun and its allies in the workstation wars: AT&T, Unisys, Fujitsu, and a few others.
• NextStep. The interface of the NeXT Computer System. Licensed by IBM for use on its next generation workstations.
• Motif. The Unix graphical interface being developed by the Open Software Foundation, a group of workstation companies including DEC, HP, and IBM. Motif is being promoted most aggressively by DEC and HP.
• Others. A host of miscellaneous interfaces is also on the market, both in the US and overseas. They include Digital Research’s GEM, Quarterdeck’s DESQview, and many others. Most Japanese vendors have either developed proprietary interfaces, or have adopted modified versions of Windows.
Scenario: What Happens Next?
Presentation Manager will prevail on PCs. In the long term, we think Presentation Manager will become the main graphical interface for IBM-standard personal computers. There will be a transition from DOS to Windows to Presentation Manager, and it is not yet clear how long that transition will take. Probably it won’t even start in earnest until late 1990 or early 1991. The high cost of PM, and expected improvements to Windows, may allow Windows to hang on well into the 1990s.
Not Unix. We don’t think the Unix interfaces will make big inroads into the PC market—not because of anything wrong with the interfaces themselves, but because most PC software developers are focusing on PM, Windows, and Macintosh. Without productivity software, we think the Unix vendors won’t get far in the PC business.
Implications: How Does Apple Compete?
Misperceptions of Macintosh are a challenge. The trend toward graphical interfaces is a substantial victory for Apple’s point of view, but creates new problems. Most potential customers still think of Macintosh as just a personal computer with a graphical interface. As more vendors adopt graphical interfaces of their own, the differentiation of Macintosh is blurred. The Macintosh interface is substantially superior to most of the competition, and Apple can explain that to customers. But we think it’s also important to discuss the full range of the advantages of Macintosh, and not just the interface.
It is time for another revolution? Many Apple-watchers have noted the interface situation and are calling on Apple to create the next “revolution” in personal computing. They say Apple will not be able to continue its growth unless it creates another breakthrough product as dramatic as Macintosh. We think they’re wrong. The market today is not prepared for another product revolution, and Apple doesn’t need one now anyway. Instead, we think it’s time for a revolutionary change in the competitive focus of the PC industry.
It’s Time to Change the Rules. The major PC makers have devoted substantial resources to matching Apple’s main differentiator. Now that they are playing on Apple’s turf, they are especially vulnerable to a change in the terms of the competition. We think Apple should shift the industry focus away from interface, and toward the question of who makes the world’s best personal computer. Such a shift would put IBM, Microsoft, and the rest of the industry back on the defensive. And best of all, it’s an argument Apple can win.
For more information on the competitive advantages of Macintosh, see our document “Macintosh Differentiation: Beyond User Interface.”
_______________________
INTRODUCTION: Apple’s Crusade for Graphical Interface
When Apple introduced the first Lisa computer, it started a crusade to change the way the world used personal computers. Apple contended that a graphical interface, in which people could look at and manipulate familiar symbols, was intrinsically superior to the command-line interface used by MS-DOS, then the de facto corporate standard. With the shipment of Macintosh, Apple’s crusade was extended into a full-scale holy war to establish an alternative to DOS.
Apple won. Today, there’s a consensus in the personal computer industry that graphical interfaces are the wave of the future. They are being developed actively by all the major players. This represents a big victory for Apple’s point of view, but it also creates new challenges...
_______________________
SITUATION: Graphical Interfaces are Popping Out All Over
Every major PC and workstation company is now committed to at least one graphical interface project. Such interfaces are already becoming commonplace, and we think they will be standard on most personal computers within a year or two. Command-line DOS will linger at the low end of the PC market, simply because it runs on very inexpensive equipment and has a large installed base. But even DOS is becoming more graphical, with the advent of DOS 4.0, which has a graphical file management tool.
Here are details on the major interface contenders...
DOS
Status: Version 4.01 shipping now from IBM and Microsoft.
Configuration: Runs on today’s (and yesterday’s) PCs.
Strengths:
• Requires no hardware upgrades.
• Version 4.0 includes a graphical file management shell similar to the one in PM.
Weaknesses:
• Does not provide a graphical user interface for applications.
• Drawing environment very primitive.
• DOS 4 has a reputation for bugginess, and most users have refused to upgrade to it.
Outlook. Although DOS is not a graphical user interface and never will be, many customers don’t care. They are used to the command-line, and feel no need to change. Others will probably be satisfied with the graphical file manager in DOS 4.0, and will not bother to upgrade to Windows or OS/2 for years. Still others will want to run the lowest-cost PCs, and thus will be stuck with DOS for the near future no matter what sort of software they want.
Popular computer software has a way of persisting long after its features have been surpassed by the competition. We expect this to happen with DOS.
Microsoft Windows
Status: Shipping now. Small but growing base of applications.
Configuration: Best performance requires 386 processor or very fast 286. Hard disk required. One megabyte of memory is adequate.
Strengths:
• There is already a significant base of Windows software, especially for desktop publishing.
• Drawing environment is similar in capabilities to Macintosh QuickDraw.
• The Windows environment is selling well (Microsoft claims 70,000 copies a month; we think it’s probably lower than that, but still substantial).
• The 80386 version of Windows can load multiple DOS applications at the same time, and display them within windows. By contrast, OS/2 Presentation Manager today can run only a single DOS program at a time, and it completely takes over the screen.
Weaknesses:
• The file manager in Windows is very primitive. (Microsoft promises that it will eventually be replaced by one similar to the Presentation Manager’s file system.)
• Windows is not supported by major software developers like Lotus, Ashton-Tate, and WordPerfect.
• Performance of PCs using Windows is often slow when compared to equivalent Macintosh systems.
• Windows does not offer the advanced graphics-drawing capabilities of PM and Display PostScript.
• Windows is difficult to install and configure.
• The development tools for Windows are notoriously bad.
Outlook. If not for Presentation Manager, we think Windows might be taking off right now. Sales of the environment have jumped dramatically, and we think a lot of customers are looking actively for Windows software. However, it’s not coming fast enough. The only companies developing for Windows today are small start-ups and some Macintosh programmers looking to expand into the PC world. The Lotuses and Ashton-Tates of the world are concentrating on moving to OS/2. A few of them are now moving back toward Windows, but it may be too late—by the time they could finish a Windows project started today, Presentation Manager would be close to taking off.
To IBM, OS/2 with Presentation Manager is the key to its PC account control strategy. If Windows became an alternative to Presentation Manager, IBM’s strategy might be hindered. This has contributed to IBM’s reluctance to push Windows aggressively. Nevertheless, as it becomes clear that the transition to OS/2 will be lengthy, IBM is becoming more supportive of Windows. The environment is now gaining momentum, and could become even stronger if Presentation Manager continues to stumble.
A key factor determining the fate of Windows will be the reaction to Version 3, which is due out sometime in early 1990. The new version of Windows will reportedly address many of the biggest complaints about the old version, including better memory management and an improved file manager. In addition, the look of Windows will be made more similar to Presentation Manager. Some customers are beginning to ask why they should buy OS/2 when Windows will solve most of their problems. We expect to hear that question a lot more in the next 12 months.
Hewlett-Packard NewWave
Status: First version shipped in September 1989.
Configuration: Designed to work with any PC using Windows. Future versions promised for Presentation Manager.
Strengths:
• Provides a Macintosh-style graphical file manager.
• A powerful macro-making facility, called “agents,” can automate repetitive tasks and produce human-readable macro control files.
• Documents can be linked together, so that changes in one will flow through to update the others.
Weaknesses:
• Applications must be rewritten to use most of NewWave’s most interesting features, and not many developers have expressed willingness to do so.
• HP is not noted for its software marketing skill.
• Current version works only with Windows/286.
Outlook. NewWave is a Windows add-on product which implements a Finder-style file management system, a sophisticated macro facility, and inter-document communications functions. It has not attracted overwhelming developer support (in fact, most of its early publicity came from the Apple lawsuit). However, a few developers are beginning to line up behind NewWave, and HP has penetrated several important corporate accounts with it, most notably American Airlines. Some analysts are even beginning to talk of it as a serious competitor to OfficeVision.
We don’t think NewWave is likely to take a lot of sales from OfficeVision. The two products have very different strengths: OfficeVision is best at tying PCs to mainframes and minicomputers, while NewWave today is much lighter in upstream communications functions. We also think NewWave is very unlikely to become the standard interface for Windows or Presentation Manager, unless it is bundled with one of those products (a very low-probability event).
But HP is very good at selling to large corporations, especially those that have already bought HP equipment in the past. HP is likely to continue to have some success using NewWave as a tool to get its personal computers and other equipment into targeted accounts.
Microsoft/IBM Presentation Manager
Status: Shipping now. Applications beginning to appear in late 1989.
Configuration: Will run on 80286 machines, but in practice an 80386 will probably be required. Four or more megabytes of memory and a 40 megabyte hard disk are also required for full functionality.
Strengths:
• Supported strongly by both IBM and Microsoft.
• Endorsed by most of the major PC software companies.
• Includes a graphical file manager which is a big improvement over command-line DOS.
• The graphics-drawing capabilities in PM are very sophisticated (about equivalent to Display PostScript).
• PM applications run faster than their Windows counterparts.
Weaknesses:
• PM’s stiff hardware requirements and resulting high entry cost have produced a customer backlash against it.
• The graphics package in PM is very complicated, and difficult for programmers to learn.
• Since it is not clear when Presentation Manager will be accepted by large numbers of customers, some developers are having trouble deciding when to move to it.
• Only two productivity applications for PM were available as of October 1989.
Outlook. Presentation Manager is in the strange position of being good enough to stifle Windows development, but not good enough to take over the world on its own—yet. The expensive hardware upgrades required to run PM and OS/2 have deterred customers from moving to it. This, along with the slow pace of applications development, will probably delay widespread acceptance of PM for quite a while.
However, we think OS/2 with PM is the odds-on favorite to succeed in the long run. Microsoft and IBM call OS/2 the operating system of the 1990’s, and it literally is. Using the hardware we expect to be standard in the mid-1990s, OS/2 and its follow-ons will deliver very advanced capabilities. For drawing, Presentation Manager’s drawing functions are roughly equivalent to PostScript. Its programming interface is much more complex than PostScript’s, but it has some bitmap-manipulation features that PostScript sorely lacks. In user interface, PM is about the same as Windows, with the exception that it features a graphically-based file manager. The file manager is not as versatile as Macintosh Finder, but is a lot better than the DOS command line.
What will IBM do with Presentation Manager? Earlier this year, IBM went on an interface technology buying binge. It licensed interfaces from NeXT and Metaphor, and Display PostScript graphics from Adobe. Officials also hinted that the company might use interface features from HP’s NewWave and the X Window standard. We think IBM probably doesn’t have a master plan for enhancing PM at this point, and is currently just trying to sop up every advanced interface idea on the market. In fact, it’s not clear who’s really driving the future features of Presentation Manager—IBM or Microsoft. Their versions of the environment might even diverge sometime in the future.
IBM’s long-term plans for graphical interface are tied up with OfficeVision, the company’s application software designed to link together IBM PCs, minicomputers, and mainframes. OfficeVision’s interface features an “office” metaphor, with filing cabinets, office equipment, and so forth. IBM has hinted that OfficeVision’s features will eventually be migrated down into Presentation Manager, a development that would not surprise us.
Digital Research GEM
Description: Graphics Environment Manager (GEM) was developed by Digital Research shortly after the release of Macintosh. It achieved some notoriety early, but never caught on with the general IBM-PC community, in part because Microsoft announced Windows and users decided to wait for that. Today, GEM has a small but well-written base of software, much of it produced by DRI itself. A modified version of GEM is the standard graphical interface for Atari’s ST product line.
Status: Available now. Probably more popular in Europe than in the US.
Configuration: Requires less computing power than Windows; will even run on a PC-XT. Also available for Atari’s 68000-based machines.
Strengths:
• Runs on inexpensive machines.
• DRI’s GEM applications are well-written (better than most Windows software).
• GEM is substantially faster than Windows.
Weaknesses:
• Very little third-party software support.
• Falling behind Windows and Presentation Manager in features.
Outlook. Considering the constraints imposed by the IBM PC architecture, GEM is a substantial accomplishment. However, it has never attracted the critical mass of developer and manufacturer support needed to become a major force.
Tandy DeskMate
Description: Tandy’s standard graphical interface, DeskMate is somewhat limited in features and sometimes awkward to use. But it works on even the cheapest Tandy PCs, giving it the lowest price point of any major graphical interface. DeskMate provides menus and windows to applications, but it lacks a Finder-style file management tool. Tandy has licensed the interface to some third-party developers.
Status: Available now. DeskMate is even built into some Tandy machines.
Configuration: Works with any PC-compatible with an 8088 or greater processor.
Strengths:
• Very, very low cost entry point.
• Because it is Tandy’s standard interface, has a large installed base.
Weaknesses:
• Not accepted by many third-party developers.
• Not used on many non-Tandy PCs.
Outlook. Tandy is a master at selling products to its own customers, but is not a standards-setter in the PC industry. Its efforts to push DeskMate to other developers have had limited success. We think DeskMate will continue almost indefinitely as the interface for Tandy’s machines, and that market is large enough that some developers will do Tandy-specific software. Lotus is the biggest company to do so to date (that’s right, Lotus shipped a spreadsheet for Tandy before it shipped one for Macintosh). Other DeskMate developers include Software Publishing, Brøderbund, and Symantec.
Sun/AT&T Open Look
Status: Software under development. Finished versions of the file manager promised soon.
Configuration: Currently requires Unix, which means a large hard disk and several megabytes of RAM. In practice, the hardware for Open Look will probably be about the same level of power as the hardware for Presentation Manager.
Strengths:
• Supported by one of the largest workstation companies in the world (Sun), and the company that developed Unix (AT&T). Endorsed by Unix International, an anti-OSF group organized by Sun and AT&T (members include Unisys and Fujitsu).
• Is a substantial improvement over the standard command-line Unix interface.
• Includes a PostScript clone drawing environment.
Weaknesses:
• Still incomplete and unreleased.
• A file management system (called Open Windows) has yet to ship.
• Requires a commitment to Unix, something many mainstream users may not accept.
• We think the interface has yet to excite a significant number of developers or customers.
• Partially eclipsed by excitement over NeXT’s interface.
Outlook. We have been unimpressed by the promotion of Open Look. Some of its features look interesting, but the demonstrations of it at trade shows have been uninspiring, and as of September 1989 we see no groundswell of PC customer or developer support for it (even Sun is not promoting it as enthusiastically as it used to). Open Look might catch on in 1990, after more applications using it are shipped, and Sun comes out with lower-cost computers. But for now it has little momentum.
NeXT Inc. NextStep
Status: Version 1 released in September 1989.
Configuration: When run on the NeXT Computer System, requires eight megabytes of RAM and a 68030 processor. We think this is the minimum configuration for doing useful work with the interface. A version which will run on IBM Unix (AIX) computers is pending.
Strengths:
• Hailed enthusiastically by many reviewers and developers.
• Development tools include a interface-creation kit (called Interface Builder) which simplifies the creation of graphical interfaces for programs.
• User interface is very attractive.
• Graphics package is Display PostScript, which enables very tight coupling of the on-screen image with the one printed on the page.
Weaknesses:
• A new product from a start-up company.
• Software is extremely slow at times.
• Currently only black and white, and runs on only a single machine.
• Expectations have been set very high; a backlash is possible.
• Requires a 68030, eight megabytes of memory, and a hard disk or optical drive.
Outlook. The announcement of the NextStep interface was a public relations coup for Steve Jobs. He not only captured the attention of the computer press, but he entranced a large group of developers with a system designed to make their work easier. Jobs identified the frustration that many developers feel in trying to program graphically-based systems, and turned that into an advantage by promising to help them. The NextStep interface also incorporates Display PostScript, the on-screen equivalent to the PostScript printer control language. PostScript is more powerful than Macintosh QuickDraw, and is relatively easy to program (at least when compared to Presentation Manager).
IBM has licensed the NextStep interface and promised to make it available for IBM Unix systems. The company’s level of enthusiasm for NextStep is unclear. IBM may have chosen NextStep specifically to differentiate its Unix offerings from OS/2 and Presentation Manager.
There are still a host of marketing and technical uncertainties surrounding NeXT’s products, not the least of which is potential customer objections to a PC that runs Unix and requires eight megabytes of RAM in its base configuration. Nevertheless, NeXT has already had a profound effect on the expectations of developers and customers.
Open Software Foundation Motif
Description: Open Software Foundation is the anti-Sun alliance of major Unix vendors. Members include HP, DEC, IBM, and Silicon Graphics. OSF is developing its own version of Unix, designed to be an alternative to the Sun/AT&T efforts. Motif is the graphical interface specification for OSF’s Unix.
On screen, Motif looks much like Presentation Manager. Some of the interface elements been countershaded, to give a 3D effect. The programming interface for Motif is a derivative of DEC’s protocols, however. So from the programmer’s point of view, porting a Presentation Manager program to Motif will not be a simple task.
Status: Not yet shipping to customers. Probably will be available in the first half of 1990.
Configuration: Hardware requirements should be very similar to Open Look.
Strengths:
• Since it looks like Presentation Manager, it benefits from PM publicity.
• Could appeal to some customers who want to standardize on a single user interface for both PCs and workstations.
• Officially endorsed by a lot of workstation companies.
Weaknesses:
• Still more a specification than a product.
• Suffers from many of PM’s weaknesses, as well as its strengths.
Outlook. Most of the workstation industry (except for Sun) belongs to OSF, so Motif is officially endorsed by a huge number of companies. However, there is no guarantee that all the OSF members will ship exactly the same version of the interface, or that they will promote Motif aggressively. IBM, for instance, may make NextStep its primary workstation interface instead of Motif. And Silicon Graphics plans to sell a completely different interface that it’s developing on its own. Momentum seems to be shifting away from Open Look and toward Motif, but the outcome is not yet clear. Unix vendors have a strong incentive to add their own proprietary features, in order to differentiate their computers. If they do so, the Motif “standard” could quickly splinter.
_______________________
SCENARIO: What Will Happen Next?
Interface quality is not the decisive factor. We think the fate of the interfaces will not be determined primarily by their quality, but rather by the acceptance of the operating system they are attached to, and by the strength of the companies supporting them. One of the best-looking competitive interfaces on the market, NeXT’s NextStep, is in a relatively weak marketing position. Meanwhile, one of the most awkward graphical interfaces we’ve seen, Presentation Manager, has a lot of momentum.
With that in mind, here’s our projection...
In PCs, no single interface will dominate. We think no single graphical interface will dominate corporate personal computing in the early 1990s the way the DOS command line did in the early 1980s. Instead, we think the current DOS market will split between DOS, Windows, and Presentation Manager. Macintosh should be able to hold its own in this situation. Unix interfaces are likely to take only a small portion of the mainstream PC market (although they should be important in traditional workstation markets, which are not the focus of this report).
Don’t write off DOS. Windows and Presentation Manager are gaining in acceptance, but they require substantial upgrade costs, and will not operate on much of the PC installed base. This guarantees a healthy market for standard DOS applications for years to come. Full graphical interfaces will not completely supplant DOS until standard low-end PCs include an 80386 chip, several megabytes of RAM, and a hard disk drive. We don’t expect this to happen until the mid-1990s at the earliest.
In the long run, PM and Windows likely to be big winners. Presentation Manager and Windows are well on their way to becoming the de facto graphical environments for PC-standard computing. Because of differences in their features, hardware requirements, and release dates, we think the two environments will appeal to different groups of users and developers during the next several years. After that, we expect Windows to fade away in favor of PM.
Who will use which environments?
• DOS will continue to appeal to corporations which do not need the advanced features of OS/2, to PC users who do not need sophisticated graphics, and to anyone on a budget.
• Windows will probably be used most by desktop publishers, smaller companies, and those mixing Macintosh computers and PCs. The software companies writing for Windows today are primarily desktop publishing vendors and small start-ups, many of them Macintosh developers. We don’t expect this to change dramatically.
• Presentation Manager will be used at first almost exclusively by larger firms which can afford the expense of moving to OS/2—and which can best use its database and communications features. The companies developing actively for PM today include many Windows programmers, plus the largest MS-DOS and Macintosh software companies. They can afford to make the long-term investments needed to produce PM software. As PC hardware becomes less expensive in the 1990s, we think PM will gradually move into the mainstream, and replace Windows.
Probably limited penetration for Unix interfaces. We think that the combination of Windows, OS/2, and Macintosh may leave little room in corporate personal computing for Unix and its associated graphical interfaces. Unix has a lot of supporters, and is attracting considerable attention because of the growth of workstation sales. But in order to overcome the lock that the PC standard and Macintosh have on mainstream personal computing, we think that Unix would have to offer compelling features or applications not available now (or in the near future) from the other standards. Although Unix may be better than OS/2 in some respects, we don’t think it is enough better to overcome the combined marketing efforts of IBM, Microsoft, most PC vendors, and most PC software developers—all of whom appear to be converging on OS/2 as their operating system of choice for the future.
Customers willing to look at an alternative to the PC standard usually stop at Macintosh. Unix vendors might be able to position their products as the second-choice operating system, displacing Macintosh, but in order to do so they would have to deliver a superior operating system and interface, plus a large base of high-quality productivity software. And Apple itself offers a Unix system, to which it is adding its graphical interface. So customers who want Unix can get it without abandoning Macintosh. It is hard to picture how Unix vendors could displace Apple in the PC world, if it continues to innovate at a reasonable rate. In fact, Apple may be able to move its products into some traditional workstation markets.
Still, the Unix vendors cannot be counted out. They will undoubtedly remain strong in workstation, server, and minicomputer markets, all of which we think will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, distinct from PC markets. And companies like NeXT will continue to try to deliver Unix systems that are used like PCs but are more functional. However, these efforts seem unlikely to produce major sales breakthroughs unless Apple and the Microsoft/IBM team fail to update their interfaces and operating systems in a timely manner.
Opportunity for Macintosh. The rising competition in graphics and graphical interfaces creates tremendous opportunities for Macintosh. Apple can position itself as the company implementing today the features that the PC companies are promising tomorrow. It can also position its operating system as much more settled and complete than the competition.
Overall functionality the key. We think that the bulk of PC purchases are ultimately driven not by operating system features, but by the overall functionality of the PC, including the third-party software. The most lasting win for Apple will be to create systems that have better features than the competition, and which are easier to program.
_______________________
IMPLICATIONS: How Does Apple Compete?
Misperceptions of Macintosh are a challenge. When Macintosh was released, most of the public attention focused on its graphical interface. It was perceived as the essence of Macintosh. The interface was the computer’s most obvious attribute, and customers understood easily how it differed from traditional PCs. Even today, much of the industry discussion about Macintosh centers on interface-related issues. Advantages like ease of use, ease of learning, productivity, and graphical creativity have all been presented as things that derive from the interface.
The majority of personal computer users today still think of Macintosh only in terms of its interface. This was not a problem when Macintosh had the only graphical interface on the market, but it is more and more of a challenge today.
Competitors are copying Apple’s approach. Sales pitches for the competing interfaces today sound remarkably like Macintosh presentations. Companies like Sun and HP tout the advantages of consistency between applications, ease of learning, reduced training costs, and intuitive operation. In some cases, they even quote Macintosh productivity studies in order to document their own advantages.
The debate should not center on interface. In many cases, competitors’ features are not as well-implemented as Macintosh, and we feel confident that Apple will retain important advantages in user interface. But Apple’s interface advantages are not as readily apparent as they were when Apple was selling against the DOS command line. Then, a 30-second commercial was sufficient to explain the advantages of the Macintosh interface. Today, it requires a fifteen minute hands-on demo, with the competing machines side by side. Interface is still a very important Macintosh advantage, but interface alone is not the primary competitive advantage of Macintosh, and is not enough to fully differentiate Apple’s products.
Is it Time for Another Personal Computing Revolution?
Analysts are calling for another revolution. In response to the interface situation, a lot of industry observers contend that Apple needs another revolutionary product immediately, if it is to keep growing. They say that only a breakthrough machine, something as “different” as the original Macintosh, can prevent Apple from drowning in a sea of competing interfaces. We think they are wrong, for two reasons—customers aren’t ready for another revolution, and Apple doesn’t need one.
The world isn’t ready for another PC revolution. When Macintosh was introduced, the personal computer market was ready for radical change. The development potential of the IBM PC architecture was rapidly topping out, and nothing on the horizon promised to change that. But conditions are not the same today. The IBM-standard PC world is going through a major upheaval of its own, and customers are hard-pressed to keep up with it. The last thing the average MIS manager wants today is another big change.
Apple doesn’t need another revolution. In 1984, Apple was facing big challenges. The Apple III had failed, and Lisa was losing momentum. Many observers were declaring IBM the knockout winner of the competition to control corporate PCs. Apple was in danger of being confined to the education and hobbyist markets. A revolutionary product was needed to throw back DOS and keep the business market open. Today, conditions are very different. Apple’s business sales are growing, and its challenge is to build its momentum, not to rebuild its business from scratch.
What Apple Can Do: Change the Rules, Again
It’s time to shift the competitive focus. IBM, Sun, Microsoft and the other interface competitors are all playing on Apple’s turf now. By emphasizing graphical interfaces and pouring resources into developing them, they have implicitly endorsed Apple’s agenda in personal computing. Even the third-party analysts calling on Apple to create a new revolution are looking to Apple to give the industry direction. We think Apple can use this authority to change the terms of the competitive debate—to move attention away from just user interface, and toward an examination of who makes the overall best personal computer system in the world.
Macintosh is the world’s best personal computer. The fundamental differentiator of Macintosh is not just its interface, but the overall superiority of the product. Macintosh simply does the job better. As is often the case with automobiles, there is no single feature that makes Macintosh best. Instead, it is all of Macintosh, including its third-party software, that makes the computer superior. The more the debate focuses on broad user functionality instead of narrow benchmarks and hardware specifications, the better Macintosh looks.
For more details on Macintosh competitive advantages, please see our document, “Macintosh Differentiation: Beyond User Interface.”
---------- Footnotes ----------
* Competing definitions of “interface.” Some people define the term “interface” as a catch-all for the entire experience of using the computer. This is technically correct, but it runs counter to the way most of the industry uses the word. To most computer users, a graphical interface includes just the mouse, windows, and icons. Because this is the definition understood by most customers, we’ll use it in this document.
