Apple's success forces Microsoft to 'shake up' phone, media teams

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 79
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    ... Cases and accessories - The iPhone has everybody beat, but the Nexus One has better docks.



    Dock shmock. The iPhone has better sales numbers.



    Oh, and have you tried buying a Nexus One online lately? IIRC they gave up and are now selling through their carrier.



    The Android market is fragmented. There are many 1.x and 2.x versions out there on shipping products, and it's a difficult or impossible for users to upgrade the OS. (Of course, this is what the manufacturers want: better for them if you just buy a new phone.) Even worse, developers are facing a nightmare matrix of hardware and software versions.



    Potential Android customers are also seeing a new, improved Android phone every month, from a different manufacturer. So they're afraid to pull the trigger for fear of buying a model that will be obsolete in a month. And all this talk of Android 2.2 can only suppress sales of the 1.x and 2.x models. "Wait and see."
  • Reply 62 of 79
    ecphorizerecphorizer Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    OMG!!!

    Microsoft even copied Jonathan Ive!



    J Allard.



    OMG - this guy looks absolutely catatonic, vacant eyes, even his head is lolling to one side. It looks like he commutes to/from Humboldt County CA. Must be that Acapulco Gold is frying his brain.
  • Reply 63 of 79
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    As for Microsoft "dying" I think it's obvious that this not happening and that using extreme terms to describe where they are or are going is problematical. Microsoft is still a cash machine. They could do nothing else but supply Windows to OEMs and sell productivity apps and make money into the foreseeable future.



    That's Microsoft's ultimate fate. Microsoft will never die. They'll just keep on milking their corporate customers. The same way companies like Burroughs and NCR and Sperry-Univac also milked their dwindling customer base for as long as they could.



    Microsoft isn't really in the software business. They're in the Windows business. They sell Windows licenses to PC makers and Office licenses to corporate IT departments. For their employees, who have no alternative, to run on Windows PCs.



    But that focus on Windows means Microsoft has no future in consumer electronics. Their approach to consumer electronics has been to wedge Windows into smaller devices. Didn't work. The public wasn't fooled and Ballmer is finally realizing that. More importantly, investors weren't fooled either. That's why Microsoft stock has stayed flat for many years.



    So, Windows (there's that word again) Phone 7 will be released in late 2010. That's 3.5 years after iPhone was actually released. Years after the (drastically fragmented yet popular) Android clones were released. Didn't Microsoft learn anything from the Danger acquisition? Or was that just to get rid of a competitor?



    All this reorganization (and probably much Ballmer chair-throwing) is just to make investors think that Microsoft is actually doing something new. To keep investors from bailing en masse. Do you really think Ballmer has a better long-term plan for MS than Steve Jobs has for Apple? I don't.
  • Reply 64 of 79
    zindakozindako Posts: 468member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    That's Microsoft's ultimate fate. Microsoft will never die. They'll just keep on milking their corporate customers. The same way companies like Burroughs and NCR and Sperry-Univac also milked their dwindling customer base for as long as they could.



    Microsoft isn't really in the software business. They're in the Windows business. They sell Windows licenses to PC makers and Office licenses to corporate IT departments. For their employees, who have no alternative, to run on Windows PCs.



    But that focus on Windows means Microsoft has no future in consumer electronics. Their approach to consumer electronics has been to wedge Windows into smaller devices. Didn't work. The public wasn't fooled and Ballmer is finally realizing that. More importantly, investors weren't fooled either. That's why Microsoft stock has stayed flat for many years.



    So, Windows (there's that word again) Phone 7 will be released in late 2010. That's 3.5 years after iPhone was actually released. Years after the (drastically fragmented yet popular) Android clones were released. Didn't Microsoft learn anything from the Danger acquisition? Or was that just to get rid of a competitor?



    All this reorganization (and probably much Ballmer chair-throwing) is just to make investors think that Microsoft is actually doing something new. To keep investors from bailing en masse. Do you really think Ballmer has a better long-term plan for MS than Steve Jobs has for Apple? I don't.



    Good response, Let it be noted that Apple is actually churning out successful products one right after the other, their market cap and revenue stream is physical evidence to that. What is Ballmer doing? still running that photocopier.
  • Reply 65 of 79
    bigdaddypbigdaddyp Posts: 811member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zindako View Post


    Good response, Let it be noted that Apple is actually churning out successful products one right after the other, their market cap and revenue stream is physical evidence to that. What is Ballmer doing? still running that photocopier.



    I wouldn't mind it so much about the photocopier thing if the actually kicked out a good product now and then. Possible exception of x-box elite.



    Windows Phone 7. Even if, and I do stress if, it is a decent product it sill has one of the lamest names ever. I have heard that some of today's kids are getting a little blasé about the Apple brand. Well can you guess what they think about this? Windows phone 7? No way thats like the phone my grandpa would buy.
  • Reply 66 of 79
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ..... J Allard, chief experience officer and chief .....



    Where do these guys come up with these titles!?



    (Have you noticed that Apple, fwiw, doesn't have Chief Evangelists, Chief Bloggers, Chief Experience Officers, Chief Yahoos, etc).
  • Reply 67 of 79
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    All this reorganization (and probably much Ballmer chair-throwing) is just to make investors think that Microsoft is actually doing something new. To keep investors from bailing en masse. Do you really think Ballmer has a better long-term plan for MS than Steve Jobs has for Apple? I don't.



    Does anyone think so at this point? I sure don't. The plan seems to be, move some boxes around on the org chart and hope magic results. Some MBA got paid big bucks to come up with that idea, and they probably put themselves in a higher box too.



    I hadn't thought about Sperry Univac (later Sperry Rand) for years, so I looked it up. Turns out the company lives on (if only barely) as part of Unisys. Not that I think Microsoft is anywhere close to being merged out of existence. I suppose a better analogy would be GM in the 1970s. Similarly, Microsoft could go on for another 30-40 years on inertia alone, before it becomes apparent to everybody that they're but a shell of their former selves.
  • Reply 68 of 79
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,373member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    My kid's friend has a Zune. It is pretty slick.



    So is an oil spill......
  • Reply 69 of 79
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    So is an oil spill......



    And a shyster lawyer.
  • Reply 70 of 79
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    I'm a big fan of the Xbox 360. Despite its initial teething problems, it's a great system and has plenty of features that its competitors (including Apple) have copied. J Allard was at the centre of its creation so firing him seems from the outside to be a very, very dumb move.



    When are the MSFT shareholders going to realize that the problem is at the very top? Microsoft needs to get rid of Ballmer if it wants to improve its image.
  • Reply 71 of 79
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,523member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    That's Microsoft's ultimate fate. Microsoft will never die. They'll just keep on milking their corporate customers. The same way companies like Burroughs and NCR and Sperry-Univac also milked their dwindling customer base for as long as they could.



    Microsoft isn't really in the software business. They're in the Windows business. They sell Windows licenses to PC makers and Office licenses to corporate IT departments. For their employees, who have no alternative, to run on Windows PCs.



    But that focus on Windows means Microsoft has no future in consumer electronics. Their approach to consumer electronics has been to wedge Windows into smaller devices. Didn't work. The public wasn't fooled and Ballmer is finally realizing that. More importantly, investors weren't fooled either. That's why Microsoft stock has stayed flat for many years.



    So, Windows (there's that word again) Phone 7 will be released in late 2010. That's 3.5 years after iPhone was actually released. Years after the (drastically fragmented yet popular) Android clones were released. Didn't Microsoft learn anything from the Danger acquisition? Or was that just to get rid of a competitor?



    All this reorganization (and probably much Ballmer chair-throwing) is just to make investors think that Microsoft is actually doing something new. To keep investors from bailing en masse. Do you really think Ballmer has a better long-term plan for MS than Steve Jobs has for Apple? I don't.



    Yeah-- Ballmer is set to announce Mobile WOffice 0.92 Public beta... It'll be Wawful



    .
  • Reply 72 of 79
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,367member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by doyourownthing View Post


    i think google may have bought all of them



    Haha, good one.
  • Reply 73 of 79
    2oh12oh1 Posts: 501member
    Apple's success in __________ forces Microsoft to shake up its _________ team.



    Nothing new there.
  • Reply 74 of 79
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,326member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    I see the iPhone having a small, but profitable market share - maybe 15 or 20 percent.



    I think you are off by at least half.



    Quote:

    I think that WinPhone7 will immediately sell zillions of copies to enterprise users



    Not my enterprise. All of our C level execs are clamoring for the iPhone and we have multiple groups that were writing applications for the iPhone that are just falling over themselves with the iPad. Once OS 4 with the remote provisioning hits, it's game over. Its not just about the phone anymore. It's the platform, and no one has a better story to tell than Apple. Management of android is a joke, an OS 4 will leave it in the dust.



    Quote:

    I think that Android will continue to grow FAST, and will take a huge market share. Probably the biggest. Probably dominating.



    Probably. But market share does not denote success. If you look at the stats, android still doesn't generate the web traffic the iPhone does. Android will be popular with handset makers and carriers because of it's cost, but serious work and serious profit will be in the iPhone ecosystem.



    Apple neither needs nor desires total market domination, they just want the cream. And just like with the Mac and the iPod, they are getting it in the mobile space as well.



    Quote:

    Nokia is stepping up to the plate - I would expect that they will gain market share here in the US. Even their old OS is outselling everyone else worldwide by a huge margin, and this installed base is prime selling territory.



    But they aren't nearly as profitable.



    Have fun focusing on sales volume. Next you'll be trying to convince us that net books are really successful for the vendors that sell millions of them...
  • Reply 75 of 79
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ilogic View Post


    I would like to take a guess at the number one factor that caused this:



    The iPad. The latest sales figures is spooking the he77 out of them, and they know that they can't waste another moment trying to figure out how they're going to compete for the long haul. The tossing out of Windows 7 out of the HP Slate, the Courier scrapped no doubt because it lacked a serious component inside Apple's devices. We're not even talking about iPhone 4 and so MS now has to go back to the drawing board. For real this time.



    That is a bit illogical.



    Courier was supposed to run on Windows Phone 7 OS, which is not scrapped.



    Additionally, I believe MS did not say Courier is terminated, just postponed. iPad might be reason for that, but not in a way you think; after realising that iPad is just oversized iPod Touch, MS decided Courier concept is too radical and decided first to go out with simple single screen tablet based on WP7.



    HP Slate was supposed to run on Windows 7 for desktops, not Windows 7 for phones. Completely different platform. It is no surprise HP wants to use their own (freshly purchased) IP rather than MS product, not to mention that desktop Windows 7 is too heavy code for lightweight tablet.



    Scrapping of W7 slate and Courier have nothing in common. I'm sure we will see tablet(s) based on Windows Phone 7 soon after OS introduction.
  • Reply 76 of 79
    kilimanjarokilimanjaro Posts: 189member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    That depends on who designed the hardware. Apple outsources manufacturing but the design of the product is 100% Apple, so who assembles the product is irrelevant. Did Google do the same with the Nexus? (Just asking, I really don't know.)



    Yes, Nexus One is Google's.



    Nexus One is made by HTC, and Google was working tightly with the Taiwan-based manufacturer to design and create it. Nexus One was at first offered through Google's very own web page, not HTC's web page. The branding name you can find on the Nexus One is Google only, not HTC. And the warranty is stating Google, not HTC.



    So it obvious that Nexus One is Google's, hence come the conclusion: Google does make phone.. Umm, do I put it right?
  • Reply 77 of 79
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post


    Yes, Nexus One is Google's.



    Nexus One is made by HTC, and Google was working tightly with the Taiwan-based manufacturer to design and create it. Nexus One was at first offered through Google's very own web page, not HTC's web page. The branding name you can find on the Nexus One is Google only, not HTC. And the warranty is stating Google, not HTC.



    So it obvious that Nexus One is Google's, hence come the conclusion: Google does make phone.. Umm, do I put it right?



    Not sure. The brand name on the phone, or how it is sold, doesn't mean anything to me. I am wondering who actually designed it. If it was a collaboration between Google and HTC then this is very unlike Apple, which designs the entire product and then finds one or more manufacturers to assemble it.
  • Reply 78 of 79
    kilimanjarokilimanjaro Posts: 189member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Not sure. The brand name on the phone, or how it is sold, doesn't mean anything to me. I am wondering who actually designed it. If it was a collaboration between Google and HTC then this is very unlike Apple, which designs the entire product and then finds one or more manufacturers to assemble it.



    Duuh..



    I was talking about Google makes phone, and it's obvious Google is all over the phone.

    Whether or not Google entirely design the whole phone, Google own the phone and claim it as its phone. That's it..

    We'll never know how much influence Google put into the Nexus One, or perhaps HTC designed the whole phone by itself, but one thing for sure is people will see it as Google's phone.



    It is very unlike Apple, because Google was not trying to cover it up, but still no more details can be found about the collaboration.

    Perhaps someday in the future, Google will spill all the beans behind the making of Nexus One and even post a YouTube video about it, or maybe someone unhappy at HTC finally leak the process, then we'll know.
  • Reply 79 of 79
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kilimanjaro View Post


    Duuh..



    I was talking about Google makes phone, and it's obvious Google is all over the phone.

    Whether or not Google entirely design the whole phone, Google own the phone and claim it as its phone. That's it..

    We'll never know how much influence Google put into the Nexus One, or perhaps HTC designed the whole phone by itself, but one thing for sure is people will see it as Google's phone.



    It is very unlike Apple, because Google was not trying to cover it up, but still no more details can be found about the collaboration.

    Perhaps someday in the future, Google will spill all the beans behind the making of Nexus One and even post a YouTube video about it, or maybe someone unhappy at HTC finally leak the process, then we'll know.



    Maybe we don't know, but that doesn't make it a ridiculous question, not by any means. It's of great interest to some of us whether Google really has the expertise in-house to design consumer products, or whether they have to rely on their suppliers for it for most, some, or part of it. Maybe you don't see the difference, but I do.
Sign In or Register to comment.