I seem to get along well with Apple lovers, so I can't just blindly bash Apple. However, I must say that a technological exodous from Microsoft to Apple is not in the best interest of mankind. I won't comment on how Apple products are superior to Microsoft's or visa versa. The truth is, both are software infrastructure companies, and both (well at least Microsoft, probably Apple) can handle the full gamet of software infrastructure needs of 3rd party developers which are the driving force in the software industry.

Something is definitely fishy. Apple has a greater total stock value than Microsoft. Apple is worth around $250 billion and Microsoft is worth $220 billion. Apple has around 50,000 employees, and Microsoft has around 90,000 employees. Guessing by the trends that got us to today, I would say that Microsoft probably has at least 10x as much uncompromised original intellectual property than Apple. It is way too early for Apple to be passing up Microsoft in value. Furthermore, the existing infrastructure built around Microsoft products completely dwarfs Microsoft itself. I don't have the kind of free time to come up with an accurate number for that, but I would say at least $5 trillion.

Can Apple defeat Microsoft? If the hype keeps going, definitely-- though it will take at least 10 years even if Microsoft barely puts up a fight. In the end we will be going from one fully proprietary dead end to another, and it will cost humans at least $5 trillion worth of time to come out on the other side with as much stuff as we have today. That $5 trillion could even be the straw that breaks the camel's back and destroys Western civilization. And of course someday Apple will lose its luster, starting the whole process over again.

Pointing out bad things isn't very useful without also pointing out what can be done. I don't think knowing what can be done can sway this process, but I will give my 2 cents anyways. We can't just blindly follow Microsoft. If we did, Microsoft would just milk us. For now, I think Microsoft is adequate. As long as our software infrastructure is controlled by a proprietary giant, the huge costs of a change over will loom over us (and we will certainly have to pay it eventually.) If we switched over to something like Linux or an untainted form of FreeBSD, we will still have to pay it once, but the cost to man kind of a future infrastructure shakup would be a fraction of what it is with our propriety software infrastructures of today.

Of course I think neither Linux nor FreeBSD are ready to fill Microsoft's shoes just yet. Besides the fact that they aren't technically ready, they both have ideological disadvantages to overcome. Linux is far too anti-commercial. Let's face it, if we pull money of out of the picture, we no longer have an industry. Money is absolutely necessary to provide the motiviation necessary to get the software infrastructure we need. On the other hand, FreeBSD's commercially friendly approach put Apple where it is today. Apple used all of FreeBSD it could to build its empire. The problem is that Apple products just use FreeBSD; they are not designed to live in harmony with FreeBSD. People may have to get creative and find a blend of ideologies that encourages a commercial (and in many cases proprietary) presence on an open platform that is protected from hostile commercial takeover.