I get the feeling he looks at how Apple is thriving on a closed ecosystem ("OS X Everywhere") and wants to succeed in a similar way, but he is utterly incapable of it.
Ah, but that's the thing-- Apple didn't go for "OS X Everywhere", they were willing to segment their OS strategy, and developed iOS for the iPhone and iPad. There's no telling what the tech world would look like now if Microsoft hadn't tied their tablet strategy to Windows XP.
iOS is based on OS X though, but anyway the technical distinction is irrelevant to my point.
The point is that Apple integration is very tight across devices, in a way that must be very appealing to Microsoft from a business perspective.
But Microsoft has it's own strengths, such as catering to the support and feature needs of the enterprise. In a way it mirrors Apple's strategy of targeting the high-end consumer market, Microsoft targets the highest-end software market, period.
The difference between "based-on" and "Windows everywhere" is subtle, but makes for a huge difference. Apple is willing to fit the right parts in place where Microsoft has made some truly bad and confusing technology selections (e.g. full Windows on tablets instead of a grown-up phone OS).
The difference is the quality of execution. I don't think "Windows everywhere" implies the crap they've been putting out. I chalk it up more to incompetent middle management.
Perhaps not for certain definitions of OSX. Have you shopped for a car recently? Look how many different automobiles have dock connectors these days...
Those Fords with Windows in the dash are the same ones with ipod cables in the glove box.
Ah, but that's the thing-- Apple didn't go for "OS X Everywhere", they were willing to segment their OS strategy, and developed iOS for the iPhone and iPad. There's no telling what the tech world would look like now if Microsoft hadn't tied their tablet strategy to Windows XP.