Something that seems to have gone under the radar about this interview is the fact that Balmer says (hard to fathom) that they are only going to sell Surface tablets from the few Microsoft retail stores and the online microsoft store...that's it. (After really angering their OEM's by making it themselves they are now going to really anger their retailers by not letting them sell the device - who will be selling the Intel based tablet).
It brings up the idea of controlling the user experience at sales, but Apple has a custom user buying experience in Best Buy, I'm sure Best Buy would have jumped at the chance to provide this for Microsoft if they could have been the initial retailer for the Surface (and Microsoft could've gotten it out en masse across the U.S.)....
So Microsoft is going to roll this thing out and then nobody will be able to get their hands on it and play with it (which you can with the competition Android and iOS), unless you live near one of the 25 or so Microsoft stores.
Just seems set up to underperform on sales because of this. You gotta wonder if these guys know what the heck they are doing (although saying "wonder" may be giving them too much credit).
The talk about just selling the device from Microsofts few stores and online is here:
Steve Ballmer says Microsoft plans to compete with Apple in every market
When I was young I planned to be rich and be surrounded by young, sexy, bi-sexual chicks that loved me for me. I think my plan is more likely to pan out than Ballmer's is.
Apple should worry more about Samsung which is selling 10 million Galaxy phones per month, while the iPhone 5 with only the 4 inch screen will be 3 months late to market by September.
Be careful what you repeat. Samsung said it had pre orders for 10 million Galaxy phone from their vendors. Not from end customers. They haven't told how many they actually sold since Apple passed them a couple years ago.
it would be fun to be at a board meeting. OK, you had an operating system when you became president, you had Office, you had IE, you had a corporate server, you had lots of people invested in those tools. Take away those massive profits that would be there no matter if you were here or not, what have you done to grow PROFITS? What profitable new market have we entered that will part of your legacy. What new product has been an unqualified success, measured by profits, not the number shipped? What is your vision for where MS is going? Oh, we're copying Apple? So they are leading MS, then why do we have you?
I can't imagine that the board doesn't get even more pointed than this. But SB is still there. There's a case study here somewhere.
How odd that Ballmer feels it necessary to announce that Microsoft will attempt to copy Apple on all fronts. When has it ever for a moment been otherwise?
What is it that's so unspeakably crass about the man? Despite having no such pretensions myself, Ballmer always inclines me to sneer something devastating about arrivistes. Every time he opens his mouth I find myself responding as though I were Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey, encountering some equine byproduct on her shoe. Perhaps it's living in Seattle, where the two-ton, brick-in-the-face subtlety of Microsoft's nouveau riche, self-styled aristocracy slaps one in the face on a near daily basis. Opportunistic hoarders whose only principal is wealth are many terrible things, and while boring isn't the worst of them, they're still sufficiently tedious to inspire daydreams about the bloodless erasure of Bellevue from the planet.
The only thing that's different this time around is MS's failure may be very telling. It's alienated its already panicked hardware suppliers, iOS is eroding its Fortune 500 market, and consumers are deserting its mediocrity in droves. Android is an increasingly fragmented mess with poor security, and rumor has it that the fondlement of Windows 8 is anything but a pleasure.
Far from being smug, I'd love it if having MS's feet held to the fire inspired it to get off its fat ass and dance. Competition is a crucial spur to creativity, and Apple is now disturbingly powerful. The first thing the Kind of the Hill does is grow fat and complacent. It'd be lovely to finally see MS get lean and creative, but one wonders if such a thing is possible after so many decades of depending on monopolies, marketing, and the bizarre protection racket which is Windows security.
It'd be interesting to see Apple slap down a glove and release a real iWork. God knows they've left it sitting for long enough. Seeing MS forced to address the staggering, gaseously bloated cow which is Word is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Nor has any significant evolution of spreadsheets occurred since Excel either bought or crushed its competition. Despite the endless hype over little apps, most folks still spend much of their time reading, writing, and counting (and - shudder - giving presentations about it).
Unless Microsoft is doing this out of desperation, why the hell would the company go after Apple like this? It's abandoning its way of operating that has worked for almost 30 years. MS would seem to be taking on a huge risk of alienating all of its hardware manufacturing partners merely to regain a few percent of market share. Trying to block Apple's every move doesn't seem like much of a strategy because Apple has usually been working on their own strategy for years ahead of time. For Microsoft to merely start throwing pieces in Apple's way isn't going to be very effective. This is going to be the first time that Microsoft has been seriously challenged and it's going up against an enemy with much more money than they have and that will be the first time that's ever happened to Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft should have openly tried to to attack Apple in that fashion. I guess the computing world isn't big enough for two players. Microsoft has to have the whole pie to itself.
"What this means is we (MS) are not going to innovate and turn out fantastic products that stand on their own. We need to see what everyone else is doing before we commit. We are going to wait see what Apple does then attempt to catch up and match what they come up with. We simply want to be "one of the other guys" and do what everyone else is doing". "Innovation and market leadership? You've got to be kidding. We are Microsoft. With the market share we have, we aren't going to do that kind of stuff and risk losing anything to a company that's thinks they can sell a $500 phone... Oh, wait... Scratch that last part. But we will be competitive! We have joined with Nokia to provide a world-class OS on a phone... Oh, wait... Scratch that last part."
Ballmer's very admission of this shows just how desperate they are, and just how marginalized they've become in all the key, progressive markets.
Looks like there might be some sort of shareholder revolt behind the scenes, or rumblings to that effect.
It might also mean that folks outside and inside the company don't think the Surface is good enough to make an impact. But this is just speculation.
good observations.
what jumps out from his bravado is how much in fact it is a complete admission that MS is now playing catch-up to Apple in the essential consumer markets of the future. not to mention total revenues and profits too.
i bet he is, for the first time, getting real pressure from the MS Board to perform. or else ...
also note how big Bill himself has been defending the Surface lately. Bill has been Ballmer's protector all these years. but at some point even he will run out of excuses. now they have both doubled-down. if the Surface flops ...
... but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop.
With due respect, I don't see it that way. In the mobile world, there's no "going back to Microsoft stuff" because Microsoft has never had a meaningful presence in mobile; they have no traction there. In my opinion, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, NeXT had a superior product in the desktop world, but also no traction. Back then, Apple had sufficient traction and Microsoft had near-complete lock-in, which, as you point out, they exploited. But NeXT had no traction and they almost died before being sold to Apple.
Today, Microsoft has no traction in the mobile world, and no superior product. They do have desktop dominance and mobile vaporware, but I for one doubt their vaporware will be transformed to equal products, let alone superior ones. And history teaches us that even with superior products, when the competition is well-established, it's hard to get traction. Steve Jobs learned this lesson the hard way during his ten years at NeXT. Steve Ballmer's in the process of learning that lesson right now.
With their dual Surface strategy, Microsoft's obviously trying to leverage their desktop dominance into traction in the mobile space, but success is far from guaranteed. I would definitely bet against them.
Microsoft's aim is to become dominate, effectively a monopoly just as on the desktop. In the mobile sphere they were caught with their pants downs, but they are now spending billions on getting that back. Now, it may not seem like it now with all the iPhones and Android stuff out there, but in 5yrs it's going to be very different. Microsoft is a very aggressive company that has no qualms about destroying all competition, it has the muscle and desire to do this. Actions of the present and history prove this. They have an enormous amount of patents and are not afraid of enforcing these, either through payment or litigation, enforcing lock-in, and are buying up companies. Microsoft is also heavily into advertising to shape public opinion e.g. through support of internet sites. Young people today are brought up on Microsoft Windows, they know that brand name like Coke. Yes, I know Apple products have become more popular is some markets and countries, but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop. Recently Microsoft is making the right moves to achieving this but I hope I'm wrong because the consequences for us are a lack of innovation.
You've just described Apple. Except that Apple can do all this overnight, at about half the cost, create insane brand-loyalty and lock everyone else out almost completely.
This isn't 15 years ago. Or even 5 years ago. MS is woefully unprepared to compete in this market. "Cool Factor" plays a key role now. And MS never had any. Now they need it, are desperately trying to get it, except its obvious to everyone on an instinctive level that they're a) faking it, and b) look really out of place even if trying sincerely.
After all this time, the very best they could do is the Surface? Like, really??? ALL that R&D expenditure - all that *supposed* talent, and they did THAT, which also crashed at their flat-footed keynote?
You can have very deep pockets apparently, but that doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Especially when a complete tool hold the purse strings.
You know however much I detest Google's theft of Apple's IP, having worked in this industry since the 1970's I have to say Microsoft is the one I want to see die because of IP theft. At least Google have some great products in addition to the stuff they ripped off. Microsoft not so much.
Wow, I didn't know there was anyone in the computer industry that actually supported intellectual property rights. Good for you!
You've just described Apple. Except that Apple can do all this overnight, at about half the cost, create insane brand-loyalty and lock everyone else out almost completely.
This isn't 15 years ago. Or even 5 years ago. MS is woefully unprepared to compete in this market. "Cool Factor" plays a key role now. And MS never had any. Now they need it, are desperately trying to get it, except its obvious to everyone on an instinctive level that they're a) faking it, and b) look really out of place even if trying sincerely.
After all this time, the very best they could do is the Surface? Like, really??? ALL that R&D expenditure - all that *supposed* talent, and they did THAT, which also crashed at their flat-footed keynote?
You can have very deep pockets apparently, but that doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Especially when a complete tool hold the purse strings.
You are correct that MS problems are marketing. I would also add distribution to their list of problems. MS is going to find out that tablets don't sell well through Dell and HP. The surface will end up on a shelf at Best Buy next to the iPad and it will look like a piece of crap. Corporate users, who could benefit most from the Surface's MS Office suite, don't make impulsive computer purchases at Best Buy. MS won't reach the critical mass it needs to get into other retailers like Target and Costco unless MS simply pays enough money to get it on the shelf.
Google has a similar problem with its Android tablets. Android customers buy their phones from cell phone carriers. However, nobody wants to buy a computer from a cell phone carrier. Don't most of us despise our cell phone carriers? Traditional computer outlets like Best Buy are on the decline. Dell and HP have swallowed the PC industry and its retail channels. If you are selling to PC customers through channels other than HP and Dell, you have a problem. That means all Android and Windows tablet manufacturers have a problem because none of them distribute through Dell or HP. The only company with a retail outlet for consumer tablets is Apple. Duh
Microsoft's aim is to become dominate, effectively a monopoly just as on the desktop. In the mobile sphere they were caught with their pants downs, but they are now spending billions on getting that back. Now, it may not seem like it now with all the iPhones and Android stuff out there, but in 5yrs it's going to be very different. Microsoft is a very aggressive company that has no qualms about destroying all competition, it has the muscle and desire to do this. Actions of the present and history prove this. They have an enormous amount of patents and are not afraid of enforcing these, either through payment or litigation, enforcing lock-in, and are buying up companies. Microsoft is also heavily into advertising to shape public opinion e.g. through support of internet sites. Young people today are brought up on Microsoft Windows, they know that brand name like Coke. Yes, I know Apple products have become more popular is some markets and countries, but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop. Recently Microsoft is making the right moves to achieving this but I hope I'm wrong because the consequences for us are a lack of innovation.
MS didn't get caught with their pants down. MS tried for a decade to get in the consumer market. What about MS Zune? Windows Mobile Phone? Windows tablets? MS tried and failed at these and many other consumer projects over more than a decade and billions of R&D.
100% of the success of MS is from corporate IT departments. These people are rabid MS fans and can't fathom anything else. Unfortunately, in the 90s, businesses bought the majority of computers. Consumers bought PCs for home because they needed the software that was written for their work computers. That has all changed with mobile computing devices. These devices aren't meant to replace a home PC. For the most part, the software doesn't need to be compatible and in many cases cloud computing resolves any issues that would have been a problem in the past. If anything, the reverse is happening. The consumer products on the iPhone and iPad (e.g., music, pictures, games, etc) are not usable on a PC. So now the tables have turned. People are inconvenienced by having PCs and are more and more likely to choose a Mac as a home computer. The change is happening slowly, but it is never-the-less happening. It may take another 10 years, but MS is going to die just like RIM.
Microsoft's aim is to become dominate, effectively a monopoly just as on the desktop. In the mobile sphere they were caught with their pants downs, but they are now spending billions on getting that back. Now, it may not seem like it now with all the iPhones and Android stuff out there, but in 5yrs it's going to be very different. Microsoft is a very aggressive company that has no qualms about destroying all competition, it has the muscle and desire to do this. Actions of the present and history prove this. They have an enormous amount of patents and are not afraid of enforcing these, either through payment or litigation, enforcing lock-in, and are buying up companies. Microsoft is also heavily into advertising to shape public opinion e.g. through support of internet sites. Young people today are brought up on Microsoft Windows, they know that brand name like Coke. Yes, I know Apple products have become more popular is some markets and countries, but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop. Recently Microsoft is making the right moves to achieving this but I hope I'm wrong because the consequences for us are a lack of innovation.
you're describing the Windows Everywhere MS fantasy of the 90's. it didn't happen then, and it won't work now. MS' domination of PC platform was a one-shot, one-time phenomenon due to unique circumstances of the early PC era. because cross-platform software/file protocols did not exist then, the world was forced to standardize on a single OS to share anything. today cross-platform everything is trivial. so no single OS or OEM will ever dominate again.
instead there will be several widespread but competing ecosystems - all "walled gardens" like Apple's. but unified at the higher level of the web (the sky above the gardens, i guess, in that metaphor, with individual "clouds" scattered about). switching among them will be inconvenient, but not impossible. and most software will support all the major ones.
it will be the leadership quality of the various companies that decides how big a chunk of the ecosystem markets each holds. and regional companies will be very strong in China and India. i'm sure Apple or any company would be thrilled to hold 25% overall - that would be a huge amount of revenue.
as to leadership - Ballmer, "the Sales Guy"? come on, get real.
Comments
Something that seems to have gone under the radar about this interview is the fact that Balmer says (hard to fathom) that they are only going to sell Surface tablets from the few Microsoft retail stores and the online microsoft store...that's it. (After really angering their OEM's by making it themselves they are now going to really anger their retailers by not letting them sell the device - who will be selling the Intel based tablet).
It brings up the idea of controlling the user experience at sales, but Apple has a custom user buying experience in Best Buy, I'm sure Best Buy would have jumped at the chance to provide this for Microsoft if they could have been the initial retailer for the Surface (and Microsoft could've gotten it out en masse across the U.S.)....
So Microsoft is going to roll this thing out and then nobody will be able to get their hands on it and play with it (which you can with the competition Android and iOS), unless you live near one of the 25 or so Microsoft stores.
Just seems set up to underperform on sales because of this. You gotta wonder if these guys know what the heck they are doing (although saying "wonder" may be giving them too much credit).
The talk about just selling the device from Microsofts few stores and online is here:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/10/steve-ballmer-says-microsoft-wont-leave-any-space-uncovered-to/
See this recent Vanity Fair piece on Microsoft, and its scary 'stack-ranking' approach: shocking, and explains a lot. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-downfall-emails-steve-ballmer
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter236
Apple should worry more about Samsung which is selling 10 million Galaxy phones per month, while the iPhone 5 with only the 4 inch screen will be 3 months late to market by September.
Be careful what you repeat. Samsung said it had pre orders for 10 million Galaxy phone from their vendors. Not from end customers. They haven't told how many they actually sold since Apple passed them a couple years ago.
it would be fun to be at a board meeting. OK, you had an operating system when you became president, you had Office, you had IE, you had a corporate server, you had lots of people invested in those tools. Take away those massive profits that would be there no matter if you were here or not, what have you done to grow PROFITS? What profitable new market have we entered that will part of your legacy. What new product has been an unqualified success, measured by profits, not the number shipped? What is your vision for where MS is going? Oh, we're copying Apple? So they are leading MS, then why do we have you?
I can't imagine that the board doesn't get even more pointed than this. But SB is still there. There's a case study here somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X
Apple: "Our focus is the customer. Our mission is to delight the customer."
Microsoft: "Our focus is Apple. Our mission is to compete with Apple."
Really, this says it all.
Wow!!! That sums it up!!
How odd that Ballmer feels it necessary to announce that Microsoft will attempt to copy Apple on all fronts. When has it ever for a moment been otherwise?
What is it that's so unspeakably crass about the man? Despite having no such pretensions myself, Ballmer always inclines me to sneer something devastating about arrivistes. Every time he opens his mouth I find myself responding as though I were Maggie Smith in Downton Abbey, encountering some equine byproduct on her shoe. Perhaps it's living in Seattle, where the two-ton, brick-in-the-face subtlety of Microsoft's nouveau riche, self-styled aristocracy slaps one in the face on a near daily basis. Opportunistic hoarders whose only principal is wealth are many terrible things, and while boring isn't the worst of them, they're still sufficiently tedious to inspire daydreams about the bloodless erasure of Bellevue from the planet.
The only thing that's different this time around is MS's failure may be very telling. It's alienated its already panicked hardware suppliers, iOS is eroding its Fortune 500 market, and consumers are deserting its mediocrity in droves. Android is an increasingly fragmented mess with poor security, and rumor has it that the fondlement of Windows 8 is anything but a pleasure.
Far from being smug, I'd love it if having MS's feet held to the fire inspired it to get off its fat ass and dance. Competition is a crucial spur to creativity, and Apple is now disturbingly powerful. The first thing the Kind of the Hill does is grow fat and complacent. It'd be lovely to finally see MS get lean and creative, but one wonders if such a thing is possible after so many decades of depending on monopolies, marketing, and the bizarre protection racket which is Windows security.
It'd be interesting to see Apple slap down a glove and release a real iWork. God knows they've left it sitting for long enough. Seeing MS forced to address the staggering, gaseously bloated cow which is Word is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Nor has any significant evolution of spreadsheets occurred since Excel either bought or crushed its competition. Despite the endless hype over little apps, most folks still spend much of their time reading, writing, and counting (and - shudder - giving presentations about it).
Unless Microsoft is doing this out of desperation, why the hell would the company go after Apple like this? It's abandoning its way of operating that has worked for almost 30 years. MS would seem to be taking on a huge risk of alienating all of its hardware manufacturing partners merely to regain a few percent of market share. Trying to block Apple's every move doesn't seem like much of a strategy because Apple has usually been working on their own strategy for years ahead of time. For Microsoft to merely start throwing pieces in Apple's way isn't going to be very effective. This is going to be the first time that Microsoft has been seriously challenged and it's going up against an enemy with much more money than they have and that will be the first time that's ever happened to Microsoft. I don't think Microsoft should have openly tried to to attack Apple in that fashion. I guess the computing world isn't big enough for two players. Microsoft has to have the whole pie to itself.
Microsoft products require training (or re-training)
Apple products just work
Microsoft products stopped working, Windows is checking for a solution...
Apple focuses on customer experience
Microsoft focuses on their competitors
Apple wants to make a dent in the universe
Microsoft wants to control the universe
Microsoft is nothing like Apple.
Looks like there might be some sort of shareholder revolt behind the scenes, or rumblings to that effect.
It might also mean that folks outside and inside the company don't think the Surface is good enough to make an impact. But this is just speculation.
"Innovation and market leadership?
You've got to be kidding. We are Microsoft. With the market share we have, we aren't going to do that kind of stuff and risk losing anything to a company that's thinks they can sell a $500 phone...
Oh, wait... Scratch that last part.
But we will be competitive! We have joined with Nokia to provide a world-class OS on a phone...
Oh, wait... Scratch that last part."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Ballmer's very admission of this shows just how desperate they are, and just how marginalized they've become in all the key, progressive markets.
Looks like there might be some sort of shareholder revolt behind the scenes, or rumblings to that effect.
It might also mean that folks outside and inside the company don't think the Surface is good enough to make an impact. But this is just speculation.
good observations.
what jumps out from his bravado is how much in fact it is a complete admission that MS is now playing catch-up to Apple in the essential consumer markets of the future. not to mention total revenues and profits too.
i bet he is, for the first time, getting real pressure from the MS Board to perform. or else ...
also note how big Bill himself has been defending the Surface lately. Bill has been Ballmer's protector all these years. but at some point even he will run out of excuses. now they have both doubled-down. if the Surface flops ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike54
... but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop.
With due respect, I don't see it that way. In the mobile world, there's no "going back to Microsoft stuff" because Microsoft has never had a meaningful presence in mobile; they have no traction there. In my opinion, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, NeXT had a superior product in the desktop world, but also no traction. Back then, Apple had sufficient traction and Microsoft had near-complete lock-in, which, as you point out, they exploited. But NeXT had no traction and they almost died before being sold to Apple.
Today, Microsoft has no traction in the mobile world, and no superior product. They do have desktop dominance and mobile vaporware, but I for one doubt their vaporware will be transformed to equal products, let alone superior ones. And history teaches us that even with superior products, when the competition is well-established, it's hard to get traction. Steve Jobs learned this lesson the hard way during his ten years at NeXT. Steve Ballmer's in the process of learning that lesson right now.
With their dual Surface strategy, Microsoft's obviously trying to leverage their desktop dominance into traction in the mobile space, but success is far from guaranteed. I would definitely bet against them.
You've just described Apple. Except that Apple can do all this overnight, at about half the cost, create insane brand-loyalty and lock everyone else out almost completely.
This isn't 15 years ago. Or even 5 years ago. MS is woefully unprepared to compete in this market. "Cool Factor" plays a key role now. And MS never had any. Now they need it, are desperately trying to get it, except its obvious to everyone on an instinctive level that they're a) faking it, and b) look really out of place even if trying sincerely.
After all this time, the very best they could do is the Surface? Like, really??? ALL that R&D expenditure - all that *supposed* talent, and they did THAT, which also crashed at their flat-footed keynote?
You can have very deep pockets apparently, but that doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Especially when a complete tool hold the purse strings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
You know however much I detest Google's theft of Apple's IP, having worked in this industry since the 1970's I have to say Microsoft is the one I want to see die because of IP theft. At least Google have some great products in addition to the stuff they ripped off. Microsoft not so much.
Wow, I didn't know there was anyone in the computer industry that actually supported intellectual property rights. Good for you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
You've just described Apple. Except that Apple can do all this overnight, at about half the cost, create insane brand-loyalty and lock everyone else out almost completely.
This isn't 15 years ago. Or even 5 years ago. MS is woefully unprepared to compete in this market. "Cool Factor" plays a key role now. And MS never had any. Now they need it, are desperately trying to get it, except its obvious to everyone on an instinctive level that they're a) faking it, and b) look really out of place even if trying sincerely.
After all this time, the very best they could do is the Surface? Like, really??? ALL that R&D expenditure - all that *supposed* talent, and they did THAT, which also crashed at their flat-footed keynote?
You can have very deep pockets apparently, but that doesn't seem to be enough anymore. Especially when a complete tool hold the purse strings.
You are correct that MS problems are marketing. I would also add distribution to their list of problems. MS is going to find out that tablets don't sell well through Dell and HP. The surface will end up on a shelf at Best Buy next to the iPad and it will look like a piece of crap. Corporate users, who could benefit most from the Surface's MS Office suite, don't make impulsive computer purchases at Best Buy. MS won't reach the critical mass it needs to get into other retailers like Target and Costco unless MS simply pays enough money to get it on the shelf.
Google has a similar problem with its Android tablets. Android customers buy their phones from cell phone carriers. However, nobody wants to buy a computer from a cell phone carrier. Don't most of us despise our cell phone carriers? Traditional computer outlets like Best Buy are on the decline. Dell and HP have swallowed the PC industry and its retail channels. If you are selling to PC customers through channels other than HP and Dell, you have a problem. That means all Android and Windows tablet manufacturers have a problem because none of them distribute through Dell or HP. The only company with a retail outlet for consumer tablets is Apple. Duh
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike54
Microsoft's aim is to become dominate, effectively a monopoly just as on the desktop. In the mobile sphere they were caught with their pants downs, but they are now spending billions on getting that back. Now, it may not seem like it now with all the iPhones and Android stuff out there, but in 5yrs it's going to be very different. Microsoft is a very aggressive company that has no qualms about destroying all competition, it has the muscle and desire to do this. Actions of the present and history prove this. They have an enormous amount of patents and are not afraid of enforcing these, either through payment or litigation, enforcing lock-in, and are buying up companies. Microsoft is also heavily into advertising to shape public opinion e.g. through support of internet sites. Young people today are brought up on Microsoft Windows, they know that brand name like Coke. Yes, I know Apple products have become more popular is some markets and countries, but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop. Recently Microsoft is making the right moves to achieving this but I hope I'm wrong because the consequences for us are a lack of innovation.
MS didn't get caught with their pants down. MS tried for a decade to get in the consumer market. What about MS Zune? Windows Mobile Phone? Windows tablets? MS tried and failed at these and many other consumer projects over more than a decade and billions of R&D.
100% of the success of MS is from corporate IT departments. These people are rabid MS fans and can't fathom anything else. Unfortunately, in the 90s, businesses bought the majority of computers. Consumers bought PCs for home because they needed the software that was written for their work computers. That has all changed with mobile computing devices. These devices aren't meant to replace a home PC. For the most part, the software doesn't need to be compatible and in many cases cloud computing resolves any issues that would have been a problem in the past. If anything, the reverse is happening. The consumer products on the iPhone and iPad (e.g., music, pictures, games, etc) are not usable on a PC. So now the tables have turned. People are inconvenienced by having PCs and are more and more likely to choose a Mac as a home computer. The change is happening slowly, but it is never-the-less happening. It may take another 10 years, but MS is going to die just like RIM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike54
Microsoft's aim is to become dominate, effectively a monopoly just as on the desktop. In the mobile sphere they were caught with their pants downs, but they are now spending billions on getting that back. Now, it may not seem like it now with all the iPhones and Android stuff out there, but in 5yrs it's going to be very different. Microsoft is a very aggressive company that has no qualms about destroying all competition, it has the muscle and desire to do this. Actions of the present and history prove this. They have an enormous amount of patents and are not afraid of enforcing these, either through payment or litigation, enforcing lock-in, and are buying up companies. Microsoft is also heavily into advertising to shape public opinion e.g. through support of internet sites. Young people today are brought up on Microsoft Windows, they know that brand name like Coke. Yes, I know Apple products have become more popular is some markets and countries, but it's easy to go back to Microsoft stuff. Apple and Google had better watch out otherwise it will be repeat of what had happened on the desktop. Recently Microsoft is making the right moves to achieving this but I hope I'm wrong because the consequences for us are a lack of innovation.
you're describing the Windows Everywhere MS fantasy of the 90's. it didn't happen then, and it won't work now. MS' domination of PC platform was a one-shot, one-time phenomenon due to unique circumstances of the early PC era. because cross-platform software/file protocols did not exist then, the world was forced to standardize on a single OS to share anything. today cross-platform everything is trivial. so no single OS or OEM will ever dominate again.
instead there will be several widespread but competing ecosystems - all "walled gardens" like Apple's. but unified at the higher level of the web (the sky above the gardens, i guess, in that metaphor, with individual "clouds" scattered about). switching among them will be inconvenient, but not impossible. and most software will support all the major ones.
it will be the leadership quality of the various companies that decides how big a chunk of the ecosystem markets each holds. and regional companies will be very strong in China and India. i'm sure Apple or any company would be thrilled to hold 25% overall - that would be a huge amount of revenue.
as to leadership - Ballmer, "the Sales Guy"? come on, get real.