Log Out

Microsoft plans stores 'right next door to Apple'

Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:26 PM EDT
, , , , ,
Associated Press
Advertise | AdChoices

SEATTLE — Microsoft Corp.'s chief operating officer says the software maker is planning to open retail stores "right next door to Apple" in the fall.

The executive, Kevin Turner, also says Microsoft is "in the game for the long-term" and has hired a retail team.

Microsoft brought on a 25-year Wal-Mart veteran in February to lead the effort, but has said little since. Turner was speaking to a gathering of technology partner companies in New Orleans.

Microsoft and Apple have been sparring for years. Microsoft's Windows runs on most of the world's PCs. Apple, which operates 250 stores worldwide, is venerated for its design sense.

Apple's popular Mac vs. PC ads depict Windows as a self-righteous nerd; Microsoft has struck back with ads that push PCs' lower prices.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

Michael Sautter

That will be convenient for people upset with a Windows PC that just won't work for whatever reason, they will be right next to an Apple Store and be able to get a Apple Mac that just works!

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:07 PM EDT
Michael the Great

I don't see how this will hurt Apple. After all, you can run Microsoft software on an Apple. The reciprocal isn't true though-- if you own a windows machine, you're stuck with (for the most part) poorly written, overly expensive, crash-prone, hard to use, clunky software.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:12 AM EDT
Icon of Sin

Do you seriously contend that PC hardware is more expensive than a comparable Mac? Are you really that out of touch?

I will put any of my Windows Vista or 7 boxes up against a Mac or Linux desktop OS and match it point for point on reliablity, guranteed.

The OS and Microsoft software (Office Suite, IE, etc) are very easy to use.

  • 1 vote
#2.1 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:56 AM EDT
brinsmaid

While Macs and PCs both now contain standard PC hardware (Intel chips, Nvidia cards, etc), the whole discussion about Macs being more expensive that PCs is based on an incorrect assumption. You cannot compare the quality of hardware, specs, features, etc of a $300 PC with that of a $1300 iMac (for example). Do you compare a Hyundai to a Mercedes?

The argument that a less expensive PC outperforms any Mac is flawed. The cost and value propostion of a Mac can be justified on a number of levels (hardware, software, etc).

When you build a PC to the specs of a Mac (pick whichever one you wish), you discover that the PC either costs more or the same. Plus, you don't get the industrial design and build quality in a PC that you get in a Mac. Ever see a PC with no visible screws (either on the back or front)?

All new Macs include iLife. iLife in itself is reason enough for a lot of people to purchase a Mac. Microsoft's attempts to duplicate iLife's success have generally been panned by users and/or forgotten by Microsoft itself. Windows Movie Maker is one such example.

When you are replacing that $300 PC two years later because it can no longer run the latest incarnation of Windows, everyone's Macs from 5 years ago will actually run faster because of code optimizations Apple continually makes to OS X.

By the way, I believe that Michael the Great was referring to the cost of the software, not the hardware.

  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:36 AM EDT
Michael the Great

Do you seriously contend that PC hardware is more expensive than a comparable Mac?

Of course not. Cheap hardware is always cheaper by its definition. BUT, Microsoft isn't a computer company. They don't sell computers. They sell SOFTWARE.

That's why I said that Apples can run Microsoft, but Microsoft can't run Apple. With Apples, you get both. Microsoft is a one-way street.

Now, just to expand the discussion a bit...

I usta think that Apple was just overpriced, proprietary stuff that was only bought by suckers. REAL computer power users always ran Microsoft. I even shorted Apple stock in the mid-90s.

Then, I decided that it would be a good idea to buy a Mac for my kids to use so that they wouldn't infect the "real" computer with viruses and spyware and crapware and ....

Anyway, I used it at the office for a week to make sure I understood how it worked so I could help the kids with their "toy" computer. I didn't expect the results of that experience. But apparently lots of people have it every day: I realized that the Apple system was WAY better.

You know how many times my Apple crashes in a whole year? Maybe once. No kidding. One time out of 365 days of use, and thats using a MacPro for serious video editing and high-end apps. A PC "power user" running windows probably crashes his system 365 times out of one day of use.

I systematically began replacing our office system with Macs. When a PC died, I dumped it and bought a Mac. Honestly-- productivity is way up, and we don't even require a full time IT guy to keep patching and "uninfecting" PCs.

Apple users regularly tell their friends and family to buy a Mac, and they do so enthusiastically. Windows users assume their friends will buy a PC because they don't know any better. :)

  • 3 votes
#2.3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:40 AM EDT
Icon of Sin

While Macs and PCs both now contain standard PC hardware (Intel chips, Nvidia cards, etc), the whole discussion about Macs being more expensive that PCs is based on an incorrect assumption. You cannot compare the quality of hardware, specs, features, etc of a $300 PC with that of a $1300 iMac (for example). Do you compare a Hyundai to a Mercedes?

You could if they had the exact same components but a different name. Your $300 vs $1300 comparison is loaded, it is more likely that you would find a $800 PC having the same specs as a $1300 Mac.

The argument that a less expensive PC outperforms any Mac is flawed. The cost and value propostion of a Mac can be justified on a number of levels (hardware, software, etc).

I think you are just flat out wrong. Same hardware, inferior software; doesn't sound like a value proposition to me.

When you build a PC to the specs of a Mac (pick whichever one you wish), you discover that the PC either costs more or the same.

You are incorrect. You will find that a PC with identical specs (or as identical as they can be) will be cheaper every time.

Plus, you don't get the industrial design and build quality in a PC that you get in a Mac. Ever see a PC with no visible screws (either on the back or front)?

Yeah, Macs are stylish. That is the one obvious area where they win out over PCs. And yes, I have seen plenty of PCs that have no visible screws in any place (am working on one right now).

When you are replacing that $300 PC two years later because it can no longer run the latest incarnation of Windows, everyone's Macs from 5 years ago will actually run faster because of code optimizations Apple continually makes to OS X.

It is absolutely disengenuous of you to continue to make comparisons between a $300 PC and $2000 Mac. They are on different levels. A PC with modern hardware will be running just fine in 2 years. It most likely will run the next version of the Microsoft OS (as 4 year old hardware supports Windows 7 without too many issues).

You are incorrect in saying that the Mac will be "faster" in 5 years, because it will not.

    #2.4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
    Icon of Sin

    You know how many times my Apple crashes in a whole year? Maybe once. No kidding. One time out of 365 days of use, and thats using a MacPro for serious video editing and high-end apps. A PC "power user" running windows probably crashes his system 365 times out of one day of use.

    Then you have had some seriously incompetant IT staff.

    we don't even require a full time IT guy to keep patching and "uninfecting" PCs.

    Why would you have an IT guy doing that? If you would have set up your network and PCs in the proper manner to begin with I can assure you that you wouldn't have that problem.

    Apple users regularly tell their friends and family to buy a Mac, and they do so enthusiastically. Windows users assume their friends will buy a PC because they don't know any better. :)

    If Mac works for you, great. Use it. But to pretend that your opinion is fact is just ludicrous. There are many areas where a PC far exceeds that capabilities of a Mac. It doesn't have anything to do with "not knowing better" as you condescendingly put it. It is about using the right tool for the job.

      #2.5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:23 PM EDT
      brinsmaid

      Ladies and gentlemen, we have found a troll.

      Show me one iLife application that is inferior to a Microsoft product. Show me a Zune that is superior to an iPod. Show me a version of Windows that is not bloated with legacy code.

      Anyway, by "faster," I mean MAC OS X consumes less resources with each iteration. Show me a version of Windows that has done that.

      By the way, I own Macs and PCs. My most recent PC purchase was 6 months ago and I just purchased a new iMac. I am in a position to compare. Are you?

      • 1 vote
      #2.6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:26 PM EDT
      Icon of Sin

      Ladies and gentlemen, we have found a troll.

      I am a troll because I disagree with the nonsense that is being spouted off here? Nice ad hominem attack, thanks for showing how weak your consider your own position.

      Anyway, by "faster," I mean MAC OS X consumes less resources with each iteration.

      No it doesn't.

      By the way, I own Macs and PCs. My most recent PC purchase was 6 months ago and I just ourchased (sic) a new iMac. I am in a position to compare. Are you?

      How is that relevant to the discussion? You personal experiences or mis-conceptions doesn't correlate to making generalized statements. I work with new PCs every day, Macs about once a week.

        #2.7 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
        brinsmaid

        It is absolutely disengenuous of you to continue to make comparisons between a $300 PC and $2000 Mac. They are on different levels.

        With this one statement, you have validated everyone's argument that you cannot compare a PC to a MAC based on price alone and as a result invalidated anyone's claim (including Microsoft's and your own) that you can get a comparable PC for less than a Mac.

        • 2 votes
        #2.8 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:40 PM EDT
        Icon of Sin

        With this one statement, you have validated everyone's argument that you cannot compare a PC to a MAC based on price alone and as a result invalidated anyone's claim (including Microsoft's and your own) that you can get a comparable PC for less than a Mac.

        Your statement is nonsensical.

        Nobody is saying that comparing based on price is the primary metric, you are comparing hardware specifications; price directly correlates to that hardware.

        You can get a PC with comparable hardware for less than a Mac, a $300 PC vs a $2000 Mac will not be comparable hardware.

        This isn't a tough concept to understand, nor is it anything that isn't widely known to be true.

          #2.9 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
          Reply
          Icon of Sin

          I don't think you are going to pull a lot of Apple fan boys away from the Glorious Leader's product line, but I think a few stores in major metro areas combined with aggressive marketing of the Windows 7 OS and upcoming line of Zune HD products could create a nice little retail base for Microsoft.

          I wonder which PCs that are going to sell and whether or not they have some sort of exclusive rights signed with any of the big manufacturers (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc)?

            Reply#3 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:59 AM EDT
            brinsmaid

            Another in the list of pointless moves by Microsoft.

            Speaking of which, I understand that Microsoft benefits from sales of PCs bundled with Windows, but Microsoft's "I'm a PC" campaign is marketing a product Microsoft does not sell...namely PCs. Besides, anyone can run Windows on a Mac.

            • 1 vote
            Reply#4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:20 AM EDT
            MasterNav

            Being a multiplatform technologist, I am well-versed in both the challenges and opportunities with Windows and MacOS. What I can't figure out is what Microsoft is thinking on this. As has been noted above, they are not as diversely positioned as Apple from a retail interest perspective. So they must be able to provide some kind of value-add in the retail space to make it a relevant point of interest. Now if they are going to do more than have apologists or enthusiasts populating the sales floor, and are going to provide service space for Windows users - then I think these might be viable as a concept. The fact that they are going to try to go head-to-head in the retail space with the Apple stores I think is a serious mistake. They would do better to simply open up their retail spaces and one-up Apple on the service front - a place where Windows users can take their PCs to get Windows support and see what an optimal Windows configuration does for them. Windows doesn't have to suck for the average user - it's just not built to be robust enough out of the box. If Microsoft can make that happen they have a real chance to stop the erosion. What they don't want to do is have the retail stores be an extension of the Mojave Experiment. Because while the demonstration looks great - the next question is killer - "so how much is the hardware that I need to run Windows this well?" Looking at what Microsoft used to run the Mojave Experiment - that is not a question they want the average consumer to ask.

            Now that being said, you look at who they brought in to drive the retail side, and look at how they are going to implement this, and you see immediately the effects of their corporate culture. I am deeply concerned that they believe they can simply throw money at this and expect it to work without sweating the details. Sony stores (for example) have not been a resounding retail success and were pitched to be a response to the Apple Store. The Apple Stores when they were first announced were immediately critiqued by experts in retail and computer sales as being unviable (along the same lines as the failed attempts by Dell and Gateway). Apple sweated the details, did full scale mock-ups of the store plans and ran consumer testing groups through them until they had the best uniform footprint for each space size. When they were released to the public space and set-up - the nearly universal response was anticipated failure. To date, the Apple Store model has turned the standard retail pardigm on its head and has been the most unlikely and unlooked-for success in brick and mortar retail sales history. They are scrutinized by every retail pundit and maven as an example of how to retail successfully as a highly-tuned product line model. In most retail spaces the resident Apple Store has traffic rivalling even big-box retail stores in that same market.

            If Microsoft brings similar rigor and attention to detail to their effort in the retail space, they have a real chance at making it work. If they simply pour money into it, it will become the same sort of unsuccessful money hole that Dell and Gateway experienced. And while Microsoft has some deep pockets, they can't afford to bleed at that rate for very long.

            disclaimer: I own both Apple and Microsoft stock and am Microsoft certified

            • 1 vote
            Reply#5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:54 AM EDT
            Leave a Comment:
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            Newsvine Privacy Statement
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.