Microsoft has never, ever profitably dominated any market based on superior product quality. Any successes they had always relied on the OS monopoly that IBM gifted to them.
And don't forget, Windows itself was based off a direct port of the Macintosh Toolbox API, which Apple pretty much handed to Microsoft by giving them early access so they could develop an office suite for the Mac, which Apple needed in order to get the Mac into the enterprise. Unfortunately, Microsoft took that API code and developed their GUI Office for DOS from it, completely negating the need to buy a Mac.
The irony, Apple already had a home grown office suite written for the Lisa called, 7/7. But the two groups within Apple were so at odds with each other, neither wanted anything to do with the other.
...Microsoft has never, ever profitably dominated any market based on superior product quality. Any successes they had always relied on the OS monopoly that IBM gifted to them.
I would say that Microsoft SQL Server is a pretty darn good product compared to Oracle. This might be the one decent product that Microsoft makes. .NET is pretty nice also if you can call that a product.
Surely Microsoft are worried now that HTC are playing around with Android?
Android has no licensing fees and a more modern interface and software stack than Windows Mobile. It's out now, and WM6.5 isn't out until the end of the year, WM7 is nowhere to be seen.
HTC could decide that Android is their future, and up to 80% of Microsoft's mobile platforms could disappear over the course of a couple of years as HTC migrated across.
I would say that Microsoft SQL Server is a pretty darn good product compared to Oracle. This might be the one decent product that Microsoft makes. .NET is pretty nice also if you can call that a product.
And my experience is the opposite. Oracle is nice and gets on with the job. SQL Server sticks you in a rut and the best JDBC driver available is from a third party. Then again you get what you pay for with commercial software.
MS needs to buy palm, so they have a "real" OS, their moble OS is archaic and also ran.
I love the way they minimize the term "innovate" to the point it means nothing to MS, I quess if they change the font then that's "innovation" because doing nothing is the typical MS
... This idea that an open system has to be superior is a meme I seriously doubt. ... Microsoft seems to focus on hardware-openness, e.g. everybody uses Windows but on all kinds of hardware. ... the "openess-meme" seems to me overused by MS and oversimplified. Hardware-openess is just one of many factors and does not automatically lead to success.
I agree, but I don't think you go far enough.
Balmer uses the "openness" word over and over again, so much that people are believing it, but I can't think of a single example of Microsoft being "open" in the sense that anyone else in the industry uses the term.
We can do his work for him as you have done, and assume he is referring to "hardware openness" but that's nothing anyone (besides Microsoft) even talks about in those terms. Openness is generally meant to refer to software openness in terms of open source and software interoperability, or to refer to general interoperability of computer systems, products, and devices. Microsoft does *none* of that really.
Sure they let Windows run on anything that someone wants to try to run it on, but why not? It's kind of the only thing they sell, so why stop anyone from doing that? It's not as if they are being purposefully "open" or altruistic there. Generally speaking they focus on their core customers which is large corporations and don't really give a rat's behind about the average consumer. On the hardware side, they also, (as this article itself points out), work mostly with two or three preferred partners.
IMO Microsoft is not into "open" at all, just as Apple is not really "closed" the way all the anti-Apple folks like to talk about. Balmer just like to talk it up that way, but he couldn't tell the truth with a gun to his head.
Surely Microsoft are worried now that HTC are playing around with Android?
Android has no licensing fees and a more modern interface and software stack than Windows Mobile. It's out now, and WM6.5 isn't out until the end of the year, WM7 is nowhere to be seen.
HTC could decide that Android is their future, and up to 80% of Microsoft's mobile platforms could disappear over the course of a couple of years as HTC migrated across.
Oh yeah, that is what I desire the most, a start menu. I truly desire to click a button that says START in order to turn something OFF. To go through clients' start menus just to gain access to their hard drive contents - yeah, that's real helpful. Oh, and let's throw a few more setup wizards in there too -- I can never have enough magic in my life. Remember the talking paper clip? Ah yes, those were the days.
Here's to an operating system that stays out of your way.
HTC made the SE Xperia, it made many Treo's, its making the Palm Pre. It has made many many carrier branded devices in USA and worldwide. It made many PDA's also.
So Windows Mobile just should just as many devices as RIM - Windows Mobile is moribund but RIM is not?
Are the Apple crowd feeling threatened, that they have to run these bash articles which fall apart on simple inspection?
You can talk when Apple delivers its answer to the HTC Touch Pro 2, the most desirable device of MWC 2009.
What's Apple going to deliver in June - video recording?
I've had very good luck with HTC devices. Very solid and they last.
In fact I have the first Windows Smartphone 2002 released, the Orange SPV which was released by them. I really liked the orginization of sms, mms, email and appointments on the homescreen, sure alot of it may look the same but it works and is functional.
As great as the iPhone is, it really does lack in this home screen in my opinion. Most of the time when I look at my phone its to be reminded of missed calls and those options. In addition... get with multitasking already. How old fashion is it to launch AIM to see if you have any new IMs or new people online.
HTC has also proven itself with wonderful design and touch friendly software. But HTC was here long before they became a brand. They have made pratically all carried branded devices starting with the Orange SPV and today including the AT&T Fuze or T-Mobile Wing or T-Mobile XDA series.
My next phone will probably the the HTC Touch Pro 2 unless Apple radically brings something new. My current phone is the AT&T Tilt, I like how both those designs tilt the keaboard. I also own a iPod Touch.
Lees added, "Our fundamental strategy and our choice is to drive innovation by having different form factors vs. having one phone out at the same time. This approach takes slightly longer to move an industry. You saw it in the early days of the PC, too. The same thing happened where Apple had 35 percent share of all the PCs sold, but they weren’t able to compete over the long-term."
Apple may have had 35% of the market before the PC arrived back in the early days of the Apple II in the late 70s, but it was Microsoft who had and lost a "first mover" 24% share of the smartphone business in the more recent and relevant history of 2004, and was subsequently "not able to compete over the long-term."
Apple's greed and ego will be its demise.
20 years ago, Apple had a 30% market share with only 2 computer models and Mac OS 5, Mac OS 6, Mac OS 7, 7.1 and 7.5. Apple refused to license the Mac OS to other manufacturers, rightfully convinced that the Mac OS with its graphical interface and Human Interface Guidelines was far superior to Microsoft DOS which was licensed to all other PC manufacturers standardizing on the IBM-PC clone specification.
Strenghtened by the superiority of Mac OS, and the refusal to license it, Apple felt that it was justified to sell its 2 or 3 Mac models at a premium price generating a 50% profit margin whereas its DOS competitors applied a "normal" 15% or 20% profit margin. The fleecing of early Mac OS adopters drove away budget-conscious companies and struggling students outside of arts and architecture departments.
When Microsoft caught up with Apple and launched Windows 95, it was installed on every IBM-clone computer selling at nearly half the price of a Mac. Apple was slaughtered when schools, students, families and companies realized that Windows 95 computers offered a graphical interface, a choice of models and features, the possibility to upgrade and a better sale price that was like offering to every buyer a 40% off sale, all the time, for every computer.
Sadly enough, Apple is repeating the same mistakes for the iPhone, i.e. insisting on a single model, not licensing the iPhone OS, and making a 50% profit on every iPhone sold.
The future is easy to predict. When competitors catch up to Apple, and they will, Apple will be slaughtered, once again. How many death spirals can a company endure before it is bought by a rival or driven into oblivion?
Given Steve Jobs poor health, a saviour will be hard to find the next time. And what product would he launch to save Apple?
In retrospect, the billion dollar bonuses will come back to haunt Apple and many will wonder if Apple's greed and ego caused its demise.
20 years ago, Apple had a 30% market share with only 2 computer models and Mac OS 5, Mac OS 6, Mac OS 7, 7.1 and 7.5. BLAH BLAH BLAH
You keep that rant in an MS Notepad file and cut and paste or do you recite it from memory? How many times do people have to say... history is not a good predictor of the present or future...
iPhone/iPod/Mac are not overpriced in their market compared to relevant competitors, offer a superior user experience (sorry, the stats bear it out) and keep sufficient innovation coming. Licensing an OS for phones is not the answer as a business - it isn't making MS much money, it makes Nokia and Google nothing. Apple is competing in a mature PC market rather than a nascent one where no-one knew which business model would win. For the foreseeable future, it has cracked the nut on business models overall which is why everyone is aping them - better included software, full ecosystems, more stylish design, better integration etc. Apple won't have their super-high margins forever but they are doing a pretty good job at justifying them to the buying population right now and are showing few signs of being caught out by the complacency of the distant past.
Relatedly, people rant on about the cost of OEM stuff like Macbook power adapters as fleecing the customer but when you compare them to OEM Lenovo, HP, Dell etc. they are about the same. The difference is that there are back channels to get refurbs, old stock etc. much cheaper that doesn't exist for Apple so the smart buyers cry foul. I agree they should license magsafe to Kensington/Targus etc. so I can buy a powertip and it would be nice if the build quality was better but it is hardly enough to characterize Jobs as sitting in Infinite Loop, stroking a white cat and laughing maniacally.
Comments
Microsoft has never, ever profitably dominated any market based on superior product quality. Any successes they had always relied on the OS monopoly that IBM gifted to them.
And don't forget, Windows itself was based off a direct port of the Macintosh Toolbox API, which Apple pretty much handed to Microsoft by giving them early access so they could develop an office suite for the Mac, which Apple needed in order to get the Mac into the enterprise. Unfortunately, Microsoft took that API code and developed their GUI Office for DOS from it, completely negating the need to buy a Mac.
The irony, Apple already had a home grown office suite written for the Lisa called, 7/7. But the two groups within Apple were so at odds with each other, neither wanted anything to do with the other.
...Microsoft has never, ever profitably dominated any market based on superior product quality. Any successes they had always relied on the OS monopoly that IBM gifted to them.
I would say that Microsoft SQL Server is a pretty darn good product compared to Oracle. This might be the one decent product that Microsoft makes. .NET is pretty nice also if you can call that a product.
Android has no licensing fees and a more modern interface and software stack than Windows Mobile. It's out now, and WM6.5 isn't out until the end of the year, WM7 is nowhere to be seen.
HTC could decide that Android is their future, and up to 80% of Microsoft's mobile platforms could disappear over the course of a couple of years as HTC migrated across.
I would say that Microsoft SQL Server is a pretty darn good product compared to Oracle. This might be the one decent product that Microsoft makes. .NET is pretty nice also if you can call that a product.
And my experience is the opposite. Oracle is nice and gets on with the job. SQL Server sticks you in a rut and the best JDBC driver available is from a third party. Then again you get what you pay for with commercial software.
I love the way they minimize the term "innovate" to the point it means nothing to MS, I quess if they change the font then that's "innovation" because doing nothing is the typical MS
... This idea that an open system has to be superior is a meme I seriously doubt. ... Microsoft seems to focus on hardware-openness, e.g. everybody uses Windows but on all kinds of hardware. ... the "openess-meme" seems to me overused by MS and oversimplified. Hardware-openess is just one of many factors and does not automatically lead to success.
I agree, but I don't think you go far enough.
Balmer uses the "openness" word over and over again, so much that people are believing it, but I can't think of a single example of Microsoft being "open" in the sense that anyone else in the industry uses the term.
We can do his work for him as you have done, and assume he is referring to "hardware openness" but that's nothing anyone (besides Microsoft) even talks about in those terms. Openness is generally meant to refer to software openness in terms of open source and software interoperability, or to refer to general interoperability of computer systems, products, and devices. Microsoft does *none* of that really.
Sure they let Windows run on anything that someone wants to try to run it on, but why not? It's kind of the only thing they sell, so why stop anyone from doing that? It's not as if they are being purposefully "open" or altruistic there. Generally speaking they focus on their core customers which is large corporations and don't really give a rat's behind about the average consumer. On the hardware side, they also, (as this article itself points out), work mostly with two or three preferred partners.
IMO Microsoft is not into "open" at all, just as Apple is not really "closed" the way all the anti-Apple folks like to talk about. Balmer just like to talk it up that way, but he couldn't tell the truth with a gun to his head.
Surely Microsoft are worried now that HTC are playing around with Android?
Android has no licensing fees and a more modern interface and software stack than Windows Mobile. It's out now, and WM6.5 isn't out until the end of the year, WM7 is nowhere to be seen.
HTC could decide that Android is their future, and up to 80% of Microsoft's mobile platforms could disappear over the course of a couple of years as HTC migrated across.
HTC already has an Android phone.
button to get to the start menu. People will know they want a Windows Phone for both business and consumer services."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Oh yeah, that is what I desire the most, a start menu. I truly desire to click a button that says START in order to turn something OFF. To go through clients' start menus just to gain access to their hard drive contents - yeah, that's real helpful. Oh, and let's throw a few more setup wizards in there too -- I can never have enough magic in my life. Remember the talking paper clip? Ah yes, those were the days.
Here's to an operating system that stays out of your way.
People will know they want a Windows Phone for both business and consumer services.
Yeah. Right.
Right? Where's the article on how all Apple products are made in China but designed in California.
As Ray said, HTC just happens to be the best ODM.
HTC made the SE Xperia, it made many Treo's, its making the Palm Pre. It has made many many carrier branded devices in USA and worldwide. It made many PDA's also.
So Windows Mobile just should just as many devices as RIM - Windows Mobile is moribund but RIM is not?
Are the Apple crowd feeling threatened, that they have to run these bash articles which fall apart on simple inspection?
You can talk when Apple delivers its answer to the HTC Touch Pro 2, the most desirable device of MWC 2009.
What's Apple going to deliver in June - video recording?
Yes and we'll continue buying it.
In fact I have the first Windows Smartphone 2002 released, the Orange SPV which was released by them. I really liked the orginization of sms, mms, email and appointments on the homescreen, sure alot of it may look the same but it works and is functional.
As great as the iPhone is, it really does lack in this home screen in my opinion. Most of the time when I look at my phone its to be reminded of missed calls and those options. In addition... get with multitasking already. How old fashion is it to launch AIM to see if you have any new IMs or new people online.
HTC has also proven itself with wonderful design and touch friendly software. But HTC was here long before they became a brand. They have made pratically all carried branded devices starting with the Orange SPV and today including the AT&T Fuze or T-Mobile Wing or T-Mobile XDA series.
My next phone will probably the the HTC Touch Pro 2 unless Apple radically brings something new. My current phone is the AT&T Tilt, I like how both those designs tilt the keaboard. I also own a iPod Touch.
Lees added, "Our fundamental strategy and our choice is to drive innovation by having different form factors vs. having one phone out at the same time. This approach takes slightly longer to move an industry. You saw it in the early days of the PC, too. The same thing happened where Apple had 35 percent share of all the PCs sold, but they weren’t able to compete over the long-term."
Apple may have had 35% of the market before the PC arrived back in the early days of the Apple II in the late 70s, but it was Microsoft who had and lost a "first mover" 24% share of the smartphone business in the more recent and relevant history of 2004, and was subsequently "not able to compete over the long-term."
Apple's greed and ego will be its demise.
20 years ago, Apple had a 30% market share with only 2 computer models and Mac OS 5, Mac OS 6, Mac OS 7, 7.1 and 7.5. Apple refused to license the Mac OS to other manufacturers, rightfully convinced that the Mac OS with its graphical interface and Human Interface Guidelines was far superior to Microsoft DOS which was licensed to all other PC manufacturers standardizing on the IBM-PC clone specification.
Strenghtened by the superiority of Mac OS, and the refusal to license it, Apple felt that it was justified to sell its 2 or 3 Mac models at a premium price generating a 50% profit margin whereas its DOS competitors applied a "normal" 15% or 20% profit margin. The fleecing of early Mac OS adopters drove away budget-conscious companies and struggling students outside of arts and architecture departments.
When Microsoft caught up with Apple and launched Windows 95, it was installed on every IBM-clone computer selling at nearly half the price of a Mac. Apple was slaughtered when schools, students, families and companies realized that Windows 95 computers offered a graphical interface, a choice of models and features, the possibility to upgrade and a better sale price that was like offering to every buyer a 40% off sale, all the time, for every computer.
Sadly enough, Apple is repeating the same mistakes for the iPhone, i.e. insisting on a single model, not licensing the iPhone OS, and making a 50% profit on every iPhone sold.
The future is easy to predict. When competitors catch up to Apple, and they will, Apple will be slaughtered, once again. How many death spirals can a company endure before it is bought by a rival or driven into oblivion?
Given Steve Jobs poor health, a saviour will be hard to find the next time. And what product would he launch to save Apple?
In retrospect, the billion dollar bonuses will come back to haunt Apple and many will wonder if Apple's greed and ego caused its demise.
Apple's greed and ego will be its demise.
20 years ago, Apple had a 30% market share with only 2 computer models and Mac OS 5, Mac OS 6, Mac OS 7, 7.1 and 7.5. BLAH BLAH BLAH
You keep that rant in an MS Notepad file and cut and paste or do you recite it from memory? How many times do people have to say... history is not a good predictor of the present or future...
iPhone/iPod/Mac are not overpriced in their market compared to relevant competitors, offer a superior user experience (sorry, the stats bear it out) and keep sufficient innovation coming. Licensing an OS for phones is not the answer as a business - it isn't making MS much money, it makes Nokia and Google nothing. Apple is competing in a mature PC market rather than a nascent one where no-one knew which business model would win. For the foreseeable future, it has cracked the nut on business models overall which is why everyone is aping them - better included software, full ecosystems, more stylish design, better integration etc. Apple won't have their super-high margins forever but they are doing a pretty good job at justifying them to the buying population right now and are showing few signs of being caught out by the complacency of the distant past.
Relatedly, people rant on about the cost of OEM stuff like Macbook power adapters as fleecing the customer but when you compare them to OEM Lenovo, HP, Dell etc. they are about the same. The difference is that there are back channels to get refurbs, old stock etc. much cheaper that doesn't exist for Apple so the smart buyers cry foul. I agree they should license magsafe to Kensington/Targus etc. so I can buy a powertip and it would be nice if the build quality was better but it is hardly enough to characterize Jobs as sitting in Infinite Loop, stroking a white cat and laughing maniacally.
My 2c... Troll on...