Apple Reference & Presen…rary 8 (Internal Edition)/Apple R&P Lib Internal v8.0.iso/3-Presentations/Apple Computer Inc./Industry Competition/ROMs/Software/Windows vs. Mac Q&A 6⁄90

Text File | 1990-06-24 | 14KB | 312 lines

Apple Confidential / Need to Know


WINDOWS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS


This document is from Jim Davis, director of System Software Product Marketing.
It's designed to help you respond to common customer questions regarding
Macintosh and Windows 3.



1.Q.  What does Apple think of Windows 3?

The situation is slightly reminisicent of last year at this time, when OS/2 PM
was going to take over the world, according to the press and what happened?

From an industry perspective, we feel that Windows 3 will cause further
confusion and disruption in the Intel-based world.  Not only will this
increasingly cloud the issue of when users are supposed to move to OS/2, it
adds yet another interface choice for DOS users.  By our count, there are at
least 37 interfaces available for DOS!  And Windows 3 is yet another version of
an interface that’s had only limited acceptance for the past seven years.

From Apple’s perspective, we're pleased that the industry is paying so much
attention to so-called "Mac-like" computers.  It's an endorsement of our
leadership. It effectively moves the competitive debate to our turf -- and when
customers compare other graphics-based products with Macintosh, we win.  That's
because we are the definers of "Mac-like" and have a six-year lead in
graphics-based applications and technology refinement.  Several analysts are
beginning to conclude that BOTH Windows 3 and Macintosh will increase
substantially in market share over the next several years, at the expense of
plain DOS and OS/2.  We concur.


LEGAL

2.Q.  How does Windows 3 affect the lawsuit?

A.  We stand by our original statement that Windows unfairly imitates some
features of the Macintosh interface.  We can't speculate on the impact of
Windows 3 on the suit, except to say that it is being reviewed by Apple's
lawyers.


DIFFERENTIATION

3.Q.  How are you going to sell Macintosh, now that its main differentiator has
been copied?

A. This is the same argument used for OS/2 PM, and it misses the point. The
main differentiator of Macintosh is its superior functionality, and that has
not been duplicated by the competition.  Imitating a single feature like the
interface does not substantially reduce our overall lead in functionality.  In
other words, "It may look like a Mac, but it doesn't work like one."


4.Q.  But the best-known feature of Macintosh is its interface.  If that
feature is copied on other computers, don't you have a problem?

A.  Actually, the best-known feature of Macintosh is its friendliness to the
user.  That's a result of a lot more than the graphical interface.  Genuine
ease of use has to be designed into the computer from the chips up; you can't
add it on later.

Windows is also something to make MS-DOS more palatable, not a re-think of the
basic approach.


5.Q.  But if someone walks into a computer store and sees a PC with Windows,
won't he or she just assume it works the same as a Macintosh?

A.  People don't buy computers just for their looks.  People buy computers to
do things.  When a customer sits down and considers what he can actually do
with Macintosh, compared to what he can do with MS-DOS and Windows, the
advantages of Macintosh will be very compelling.

If you want proof, look at the recent user satisfaction study by Diagnostic
Research. Macintosh beat DOS and Windows in a long list of comparisons --
overall satisfaction, versatility, ease of use, reliability, performance,
purchase recommendation, and a lot more.


6.Q.  That survey was against Windows 2, not Windows 3.  Won't Windows 3
invalidate those results?

A.  No.  The main advantage of Macintosh is its overall functionality.
Underneath any version of Windows is MS-DOS and that's the real issue.


7.Q.  But will the average user be able to tell the difference between
Macintosh and Windows?

A.  Sure.  People can tell the difference between a Mercedes and a Hyundai.


COMPETITIVE COMPARISONS

8.Q.  What specific features of Macintosh make it better than Windows?

A.  There are a lot of them, but let's focus on four:

•  First, Macintosh has a unified architecture.  We design the Macintosh
hardware and software together, in Cupertino.  In the PC world, the hardware
and software standards are controlled in separate places--Microsoft makes the
software, while the hardware "standard" is set by several hundred companies
that fight constantly.  They can't even agree on a single standard for memory
expansion or the system bus, let alone anything more complicated.

What this means to users is that Macintosh is better-integrated and
incorporates new innovations like SCSI and built-in networking faster.

•  Second, Macintosh has a smoother growth path.  Macintosh users will have a
fairly easy move to System 7--some users will have to add a megabyte of memory,
but the software will run on all Macintosh systems.

Contrast that to the situation in the PC world.  Windows won't run at an
acceptable speed on the installed base of IBM PCs, XTs, and even many ATs.
That's not our judgment--that’s accordig to research done by InfoCorp.  To move
to Windows, those customers will face major hardware upgrades.  And even then
they won't be through, because a couple of years down the road it will be time
to move to OS/2, and a lot more hardware will have to be junked.

What that means to users is protection of their investments--in hardware,
software, and training.

•  Third, independent analysts agree that Macintosh is still the easiest
personal computer to use in the world.  That won't change, because ease of use
can't be added on as an afterthought.  We build ease of use into everything we
do, and we evangelize our developers to make sure their applications are also
consistent and easy to use.  The competition can't do that, because they sell
against their own developers.

What this means to users is better productivity.

•  Fourth, we have a big lead in applications.  Over the last seven years,
Macintosh has accumulated a library of thousands of programs.  It's the largest
library of graphical software in the world.  Our competitors won't be able to
match that quickly, if at all.

What that means to users is freedom of choice to pick the programs that work
best for them.


9.Q.  Doesn't Windows 3 mean the beginning of the end for Apple?

A.  No more than OS/2 PM did, or NeXT did.  Back when Macintosh was anounced, a
lot of people thought we were crazy.  They said we had no chance of
establishing a new computing standard.  But we did it.  And now the competition
is trying to imitate us.  People should keep that in mind when they predict
problems for Apple today.

Further, there is a growing opinion that Macintosh AND Windows 3 will prosper
as graphical orientations become more important to users.  The battleground is
moving to our turf -- and that stimulates new consideration of Macintosh.


10.Q.  The future of computing is standardization and open systems.  Doesn't
this doom Apple?

A. Our industry remains extremely young, and we believe there are incredible
innovations left to be made and explored. If we used standards of just a few
years ago, we would have an 80 column card as our user interface, and only the
computer priesthood would touch the computer.  There's a role for continuing
innovation in the computer industry.  The Apple II and Macintosh became
successful because they incorporated important innovations. We're confident
that Apple can continue to grow by innovating in the future.


11.Q.  If there are 20 million PCs that can run Windows, and only 3 million
Macs, doesn't that put Apple at a big disadvantage?

A.  Most of the installed base of PCs uses on the 8088, 8086, or low-speed
80286 processors, which many analysts say will never run Windows 3 at an
acceptable speed.

For a hint about the size of the potential market for Windows 3, look at the
research from International Data Corporation.  They say only about four million
PCs inthe current installed base have the hardware and horsepower needed to run
Windows 3 well.  This is reflected in the installed base of Windows.  InfoWorld
reported in January that there were only 200,000 registered Windows users.  The
sales-tracking service StoreBoard reported that total US retail sales of
Windows in November 1989 were only 2,600 copies.


12.Q.  Why would anyone buy Macintosh after they've seen Windows?

A.  Windows makes a PC look more like a Macintosh, but it does not duplicate
the power or sophistication of Apple's products.  If a graphical interface
alone was enough to make a PC work like a Macintosh, Windows 1.0 would have
taken over the world in 1985.


DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM

13.Q.  Aren't a lot of developers switching from Macintosh to Windows 3.0?

A.  Some developers of Macintosh programs are writing Windows programs in
addition to their Macintosh ones.  Apple welcomes this--it will encourage
interoperability between Macintosh and other systems.

Further, Macintosh developers say they will continue to develop innovative
applications first on Macintosh, because it is a much richer computing
platform.  That means applications will be optomized on Macintosh, and a more
basic version ported to Windows.  So the best versions of the applications will
continue to be on Macintosh.

The PC newsletter Soft•Letter recently interviewed the top 100 software
companies, and asked them which platforms they were developing for.  The
responses:

DOS:  94 companies
Macintosh:  50 companies
OS/2:  35 companies
Windows:  25 companies


14.Q.  Isn't the best Macintosh software being ported to Windows?

A.  Some of the most prominent Macintosh programs were ported to Windows years
ago -- Excel and PageMaker, for instance.  People predicted doom for Apple, but
it never happened.  The ported Macintosh programs were bought by existing DOS
PC
owners.  People buying new computers were still very open to Macintosh.  We
don't expect that to change.

Let's assume developers are able to write one package that runs on Mac or
Windows. Then assume half the Mac developers and half the DOS developers do so.
This means 2500 Mac apps run on Windows, but it is also true that 25,000 DOS
packages run on Mac!! This is the current speculation in the press, not from
us.

Also, there's a lot of developer loyalty to Apple as a company.  If you read
some of the recent comments about Windows from companies like WordPerfect and
Lotus, you'll understand how much developers value our commitment not to
compete with them.

Macintosh software developers are the sharpest and most energetic programmers
in the industry, so we wouldn't be surprised if some of them explored
opportunities in the Windows market.  We hope they do well.  But you can't
duplicate the functionality of a Macintosh program when you port it to Windows.
You have to deal with the limitations of DOS and the PC's hardware
architecture.  We think Macintosh program running on a Macintosh will work
better than a Macintosh program ported onto Windows.


PRICE

15.Q.  Doesn't Windows 3 deliver the Macintosh advantage on an inexpensive PC
clone?

A.   This is one of the greatest misconceptions of the whole Windows 3
discussion.   A cheap clone cannot run Windows 3 without adding a lot of
extras, which doesn't make it cheap anymore.  You'd have to add extras like a
graphics monitor, hard disk, mouse, windows software, and additional RAM.

Many analysts say the minimum hardware configuration for Windows is not much
less than the minimum configuration to run OS/2.   For instance, PC Week
columnist Will Zachmann said April 30 of this year, "A 1M or 2M 286 system is
no more able to truly take advantage of Windows 3.0 than it is to truly take
advantage of OS/2.  To really make use of the capabilities of Windows 3, you
will want to have a 386-based system with a large (more than 100M bytes) disk
and 4M bytes or more of memory."

InfoCorp said much the same thing in March 1990:  "8088-, 8086-, and
low-clock-speed 80286-based systems...will never run Windows or Presentation
Manager well, or at all in most cases."

Almost everyone (including Bill Gates) agrees that the Windows 3 is not for use
on 8086- and 8088-based computers, the low end of the PC market.


16.Q.  What about price comparisons with a Macintosh?  Even if you can't run
Windows 3 effectively on a cheap clone, you can still get something that's
pretty "Mac-like" for less money.   Won't that hurt Macintosh sales?

A.  It is interesting to note what has happened in the auto market. Buyers are
selecting the best value, not the cheapest.   As a matter of fact, the best
sellers are well above the cheapest in price. If price were all that mattered
in the Intel-based world, why would companies like Compaq continue to grow, as
clones undercut their price significantly and they run the same OS and
software!

We believe that as people begin to shop for value in computers, they will
increasingly turn to Apple because we add value that others can’t.

We've already said that we're working to lower the cost of color Macintosh
technology.  But you shouldn't count out our existing systems.  The performance
of a Macintosh Plus is outstanding compared to comparably-priced Windows
systems.


MARKETING

17.Q.  What's Apple's marketing response to Windows 3 going to be?

A.  Apple does not manage its products in response to what other companies do.
Windows 3 is actually a response to Macintosh.

We are continuing to develop and implement aggressive marketing programs that
articulate our unique differentation.  You'll continue to see advertising and
market programs that show the substantial advantages and benefits that
Macintosh provides to users now.  But these programs are ones we would
undertake regardless of whether or not Windows 3 were introduced.

It's useful to remember that some new competitive product is predicted to crush
Apple almost every year--OS/2, NeXT, SPARCStation 1, GEM, Open Look,
Commodore's Amiga...the list goes all the way back to the PCjr.  Macintosh has
thrived, in spite of the competition, because it's an established computing
standard, and no single product can just shove a standard aside.