Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can)

Microsoft apologist Paul Thurott is doing his very best to scribble up a negative spin on Apple's WWDC Leopard announcements. Poor Paul! After five years of Longhorn waiting and regular Vista disappointments, his very best attempts at poo-pooing Leopard sound a lot like sour grapes. Why is Apple shipping so much innovation while Microsoft struggles to deliver any at all?

Three Reasons Why Microsoft Can't Ship (and Apple can)

How has Apple been able to ship six major revisions of Mac OS X in the same timeframe that Microsoft has done little for their desktop users apart from service packs, patches and ads?

Compare Apple's development of Mac OS X with these three distractions that Microsoft struggles with, and you'll see why half a decade has passed without any significant feature upgrades to Windows XP!

It's not that Microsoft has been standing still. They've been working hard to deliver a regular volley of patches and workarounds to Windows' security vulnerabilities and redesigns for Window's architectural flaws. Further, they've been sidetracked by the allure of adware and paid search.

1- Windows' Insecurity

The first strike against Microsoft's productivity has been the distraction of having to figure out how to firewall, plug, patch, or deactivate all the exploitable holes in their custom, closed software platform. It's very difficult to renovate your house when the structure is on fire! In Microsoft's case, the house was built without any regard for fire safety.

Microsoft's core deliverable of the last half decade was XP Service Pack 2's software firewall. It was designed to suffocate all those gaping, wide open ports that are as eager to chat on the open internet as a gaggle of children begging for exploitation on MySpace.

Common security measures, including the use of secure protocols and the sandboxing of Internet traffic, were ignored by Microsoft until a pandemic crisis of spyware and security exploits bought the Windows platform to its knees and brought the company widespread public embarrassment. Windows is still closely tied to insecure protocols such as SMB/CIFS file sharing, and the poorly implemented security in ActiveX, VBA and COM Automation.

Apple, like all vendors, has similarly dealt with regular new discoveries of software vulnerabilities, but their users haven't been adversely affected by waves of viruses and worms. Why not? Because many of the potential vulnerabilities for Mac OS X are related to its Unix foundation, and were fixed by the open source community before anyone could expend the efforts to exploit them.

Flaws addressed by Apple itself were often easier to solve because of the clean, modern architecture of most of Mac OS X's core code, which was assembled and vetted after Internet security was a well known and established practice.

Microsoft's Windows code preserves a lot of problematic legacy that was built at a time when networking was a trusted local affair under the control of a Network Admin. Much of Windows is still simply naive to the Internet. That turns vulnerabilities into full fledged disasters rather than potential risks that can be easily fixed.

Think of it this way: we’re all vulnerable to germs, but not on the scale of the Black Death. Windows is a platform without soap, where rats run around in open sewers. Huge populations of Windows PCs have fallen sick because of poor security hygiene.

The Response to Vulnerabilities

Vulnerabilities in Mac OS X have been easy to address because Apple's system to keep users up to date simply works better than Microsoft's. Rather than expecting users to navigate through clumsy web pages of updates (which ended up a target for exploitation itself), Apple built Software Update right into the operating system as a native application using a secure web service protocol.

Many of Microsoft's problems are their own doing, but the blame can also be shared with its partners. Third party software has opened plenty of holes. Even Symantec's virus protection software has introduced new vulnerabilities for Windows, calling to mind the phrase: can't live with it, can't live without it! On Mac OS X, you can live happily without Symantec.

Window's defenders like to suggest that the security crisis facing the platform stems from its popularity; that's simply a self delusional lie. Microsoft's IIS web server has far less market share than the open source Apache, and yet has been the victim of more frequent and severe attacks.

Windows' security crisis is a huge problem for Microsoft simply because the company ships poorly designed software, and has fumbled in attempts to secure users from ongoing attacks. The distraction of its security flaws keeps Microsoft from shipping new developments.

2 - Windows' Flawed Architecture

Microsoft has tried to improve upon efforts to keep users up to date, but the core insecurity of their products has stymied their efforts. The problems behind Windows’ insecurity really stem from distraction number two: its core architectural flaws.

Security issues are random fires to put out, but architectural flaws are like a rotten foundation. Imagine trying to add a new guest room on a house while smoke poured from the attic and the foundation buckled and crumbled under the weight of flaming walls!

Microsoft faces similar problems in trying to figure out how to retrofit the core flaws in the aging Windows platform in a way that won't destroy backward compatibility with other legacy software. I detailed Five Architectural Flaws in Windows last year, many of which have no easy solution.

Some of the steps Microsoft is taking to secure Vista involve killing or neutering core software they added to Windows, such as ActiveX. Clearly, security solutions that require demolishing your existing work indicate that the work done so far was shoddy and incompetent.

Microsoft has been so driven to own platforms and markets that they have rushed to market a lot of poorly designed software. ActiveX was an attack on Netscape, designed to proprietize web development by tying web services to IE, Windows, and IIS. They succeeded in owning the PC browser at the expense of their users' security and software reliability. Microsoft's singular focus on power and profits is the root of a third distraction that prevents them from delivering.

3 - Window's Adware Infatuation

Microsoft's interest in copying Google has saddled the company with adware centric strategies. So not only is the foundation of their burning house crumbling, but Microsoft has also invited in a voracious army of termites to live within the smoldering walls of their platform and eat it inside out. Why? Because those termites are promising to pay phat rent in the form of advertising revenue!

Microsoft got started with adware in their attempts to shove Push into Windows 98. They then bundled Alexa spyware into Windows, just as Yahoo! dumps its own adware tracking tools on users and profits from Gator ads.

Once you own the PC desktop, why waste any time innovating new features and usability for your customers when you can just resell them minor revisions of the same old product and make money by plastering the platform with ads, adware, and more advertising?

Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft are all racing to own the Pay Per Click advertising market, which catches buyers right at the perfect moment: just as they are about to buy something. Is there money to be made in putting ads on the web? Not really; the real money in pay per click advertising isn't banner ads but rather paid search placement.

That's right, Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are all trying to develop a business based upon catching Internet surfers looking to buy something. That's why all three are racing to build free search engines that grab attention as the way to look for Internet content: once people start using their search service, they’re more likely to type in "wedding dress" and get back the results their advertisers paid them to deliver.

There is real money in paid search because there is real value in it for advertisers. Nobody responds to ads being stuffed in their face or littered around the web in blogs; the only real money currently being made in Internet advertising is paid search placement: sticking an ad in a user’s face the moment the consumer is looking to buy something.

Google's sky high evaluation is based upon a single revenue source: paid placement search. Google didn't even originate the business plan; their ideas since have only involved spending money to build better search, and find new ways to get their search in front of users:

•searching users' Gmail;
•paying users to distribute the Firefox browser with embedded Google search;
•paying Apple to embed Google search into Safari;
•showing users a Google Earth with integrated search;
•handing out other Internet applications that search through users' data;

... all to provide tighter demographics that better target users with the best ad at the right moment to provide value to their advertisers.

Yahoo! does the same thing, but rather than providing users with free stuff they want to download and use, Yahoo! has opted to stuff adware into user's computers on the sly, and automatically shove ads upon them by supporting adware companies who exploit flaws in the Windows platform to constantly pop up ads.

Yahoo! makes some money on adware views, but they really want to get into paid search, where the real money is. That's the technology Google took from them and successfully deployed; Yahoo! is still struggling to copy Google at the game Yahoo's Overture group invented.

Microsoft has something neither Google nor Yahoo! have: monopolistic control of the PC desktop. Microsoft should be able to clean up this industry, since they don't have to convince anyone to download their toolbar or their browser: every PC already comes with Internet Explorer, the Alexa spyware, and MSN for their home page. Everyone in Europe has MSN for their IM, and much of the world uses MSN Hotmail for their email.

Still, Microsoft is struggling to shove ads and particularly paid search at their captive audience, and failing remarkably given their position. Microsoft just recently stopped paying Yahoo! to deliver their MSN ads for them in the US; they still pay them for paid search in international markets.

The Folly of Insane Greed

Microsoft's insatiable greed has resulted in a poorly designed software platform, rushed to market in order to kill emerging competition. Architectural flaws have resulted in a security crisis for users, which has resulted in an unsupportable mess for Microsoft. Rather than working pointedly to solve their flaws and the resulting platform crisis, Microsoft as a company has chased after adware revenue, and has exposed users to further grief by being part of the adware problem rather than its solution.

These three interrelated factors have all worked against Microsoft's ability to deliver new innovation. What Microsoft really needs to do is focus on building good products, rather than chasing buzz and trying to smother competition and own every new market.

If Microsoft focuses on features that deliver usability for their users, rather than kowtow to the entertainment industry, attack successful products with vaporware, and try to invent product categories that have no market, they will discover the keys to success that Apple has been using to unlock one industry after the next.

Next up: Is Microsoft apologist Paul Thurott loudly attacking Apple's WWDC announcements with his usual negative spin for a reason? I'll reveal the real secrets behind Leopard that Paul doesn't want you to notice!

Next Article: WWDC Secrets Paul Thurrott Hopes You Miss

This Series

Tech: Mac OS X Leopard vs. Windows Vista

I really like to hear from readers. What do you think? Leave a comment or email me with your ideas.