It's par for the course. I am fine with people setting higher standards for Apple. Few, if any others, can exceed it. (This is also the reason why, when there's an obvious design failure, people are harder on Apple).
Apple already forged into the uncharted territory of facial recognition for the masses, so everyone knows it's possible and practical. It's scary Microsoft hasn't mastered it after years to get it right, though. But that's just like Apple to make technology work so well that people forget the complexity.
MS had face recognition since the release of Kinect for X360 in 2010, and it worked extremely well. After that, they had Windows Hello in the Surface Pro 4 since 2017, and every Surface device have it. Apple came later, and acquire PrimeSense, the same company MS use to build Kinect, to develop FaceID. And as today, the only devices with FaceID are iPhones and iPads. So it looks like MS has "mastered" facial recognition for many years. But maybe you didn't knew.
MS had rudimentary face recognition on Kinect. Today's FaceID is orders of magnitude more advanced.
Of course FaceID is far more advanced than the Kinect technology at the time. My point was to respond the post that "Apple already forged into the uncharted territory of facial recognition for the masses...". MS have been doing face recognition for years and it's already in all of their devices, something even Apple have not done yet.
Apple already forged into the uncharted territory of facial recognition for the masses, so everyone knows it's possible and practical. It's scary Microsoft hasn't mastered it after years to get it right, though. But that's just like Apple to make technology work so well that people forget the complexity.
MS had face recognition since the release of Kinect for X360 in 2010, and it worked extremely well. After that, they had Windows Hello in the Surface Pro 4 since 2017, and every Surface device have it. Apple came later, and acquire PrimeSense, the same company MS use to build Kinect, to develop FaceID. And as today, the only devices with FaceID are iPhones and iPads. So it looks like MS has "mastered" facial recognition for many years. But maybe you didn't knew.
MS sold about 35 million Kinect's before they killed it off due to slow sales, replacing it with Hololens, which sold about 50,000 units, with who know how few Hololens 2 sold. Apple shrunk the technology to fit in the iPhone and iPad, so I'm thinking that while both companies have expertise, Apple certainly mainstreamed it to consumers it by miniaturizing it for mass production.
Given that Apple has been shipping face ID since November 2017, I'd guess that they have sold something on the order of 300 to 320 million units with it. Miniaturization of the Face ID components was the innovation that Apple "mastered", giving Apple, again, a huge advantage over its competitors, including MS.
I find it strange that people think these large IT firms do anything without thinking about it and understanding all components of the decision.
The dominant IT OS in the world is Android. Over 2B users. Microsoft is not focused on OS's, otherwise, why is Linux the #1 server OS in Azure. Microsoft is trying to help its customers and prospects be productive with their apps and platforms. The CEO has moved the organization from focusing exclusively on Windows Centric View of the World to focus on applications, cloud, and other things. The next version of the desktop OS for the PC will likely be Linux based. Windows has made massive improvements over the years and is highly stable today, but moving to Linux eliminates any OS stability advantage Apple has today. The war is not the OS, its apps and consumption of Azure for Microsoft. By all accounts, they are crushing it today.
People like you have been preaching Linux on the desktop for decades. I use Linux and while it's perfect as a server OS, there is no scenario outside of your bubble that would ever convince me it will ever become anything more of a curiosity for a desktop OS replacement. Linux succeeds on the server because the people that administer it actually have to be quite technical and tech-savvy. Most desktop users are not, and linux fails consistently to accommodate those users.
We've heard one too many case-studies of large linux deployments on the desktop, only to accept failure and revert back to a Windows/Mac system. Give it a rest already.
I find it strange that people think these large IT firms do anything without thinking about it and understanding all components of the decision.
The dominant IT OS in the world is Android. Over 2B users. Microsoft is not focused on OS's, otherwise, why is Linux the #1 server OS in Azure. Microsoft is trying to help its customers and prospects be productive with their apps and platforms. The CEO has moved the organization from focusing exclusively on Windows Centric View of the World to focus on applications, cloud, and other things. The next version of the desktop OS for the PC will likely be Linux based. Windows has made massive improvements over the years and is highly stable today, but moving to Linux eliminates any OS stability advantage Apple has today. The war is not the OS, its apps and consumption of Azure for Microsoft. By all accounts, they are crushing it today.
It is clear that trying to shove a new OS into the phone market would be wasteful and not gain much in return for Microsoft, but leveraging an OS that dominates is a way back into the market. Microsoft believes it has apps that are of value, and the market agrees. Does anyone think that Apple's productivity apps are good? To me, they are basic and are not widely adopted. Microsoft is better at Apps than Apple, so why not build and add value in your domain.
Real innovation has been lacking from Apple in HW for some time in the notebook area. I own a 2018 Macbook Pro with a keyboard that is a joke. I repeat, its a joke. I use an external keyboard from Apple which is fantastic. So, Apple is fallible in HW too. Microsoft Surface devices are nice. They are doing well in the market. Imagine a world with a rock-solid Linux based OS and innovation on the HW from Microsoft and the other providers. That will keep costs down. Apple can continue to cater to folks who want to pay more for an image and certain aspects of their products. To me, the Macbook Pro is just put together in a simple and elegant way, and I like that and I'm willing to pay for that premium... today. I feel the same about iPhones. Maybe someday I won't if Apple can't keep up on innovation and Microsoft has a super stable and secure OS. Competition is good for consumers, as it keeps prices in check, and from a financial standpoint Apple has all their company's stock price and profit hinged on 1 product. iPhone. 70% of that is tied to the iPhone. Microsofts profit is spread across a larger number of products and they are used to living off a smaller profit margin. 1 major misstep by Apple will tank the stock. I don't see that happening, but I also don't think Apple has captured hearts and minds with their products like they did 10 years ago. Apple is less of an aspirational product to own that it used to be. They are still great and up there, but now people think of buying the new Samsung... gadgets also.
Microsoft will get their phone to the market and it will work. Now, will people buy it, I don't know, but the company is really performing well these days, so I trust they will get it correct, and they can also afford to play the long game if they want to stay in the market, which under Satya, I think they will. Does anyone think Tim Cook is inspirational? Smart, efficient, effective, yes, but not inspirational. Satya is more in the mold of Jobs than Cook is.
The next frontier will be glasses and Microsoft, with its Halo Lens line up will be in this market. Once those devices hit, they will nip away at the value of a phone, and this hurts Apple the most. Apple will deliver its product, but they don't own this space yet, so we shall see. Beyond that, what will be next?
Microsoft will be a dominant player in cloud and quantum computing, so they will be chasing revenue there, while Apple isn't a player in this space and can't buy in. The ship left and it is a massive capital expensive market to make a gamble to jump in on. Maybe the could buy someone else's cloud, but I don't see it.
Both Apple and Microsoft are great companies and along with Google and Amazon are driving the stock market these days.
Good first post!
The only thing I’d weigh in on is that we need to find a way to allow our minds to escape from the zero sum game trap on EVERYTHING. Just because two companies, countries, political parties, sports leagues, cultures, customer demos, or whatever exist at the same point in time and space does not mean they are in competition or one must win while all others lose.
Microsoft is clearly operating in markets that Apple has no interest in and vice versa. For example, Apple has no OEM customer market to speak of while Microsoft was literally built on the OEM market. Apple evolved from a hardware company into a company with a huge investment in software. Microsoft came from the other side but they both arrived at a similar place.
Demo screw ups are never a big deal. The fact that Apple didn’t dwell on its botched demos says a lot. Apple and Microsoft can’t control what the media and pundits obsess about. They are too busy getting stuff done and living their own “life” authentically as themselves. People who obsess about others too much are wasting their only opportunity to live their own life and do their own thing. Inventing zero sum games where they don’t exist is a waste of time and effort.
There used to be a saying "The Windows demo isn't over 'til it blue screens." Or maybe it was just me. Failure in demos is kind of MS's trademark. Good to see them getting back to their roots.
MS lacks the real intention to make something good and useful. Its intentions are aimed at marketing and stem from a managers culture. Its a lot easier to spread FUD about others than to make something new and useful at the same time. I find the switch to use Android very strange and qua timing absolutely wrong because Apples ARM processors this year will make Intel weep for the rest of their existence. ARM processors even from other vendors have more than enough oomph to run Windows. So why didn't they try to hasten that instead of using Android?
Let's think about what was shown in that 22 sec demo.....Could it be that some functions are not meant to split into two screens? Maybe that map app needs extra coding to be used in a two screen format. From what I understand is that Microsoft has asked android developers to use their 'common sense' when developing apps that could benefit from the use of both screens. Again this device is still in development (i.e. the developers' workshop sponsored by Microsoft is being held this week). If people don't like a product/brand that's fine, but let's not use a 22 sec poorly executed demo as the defining moment for a product in development.
"Microsofts profit is spread across a larger number of products and they are used to living off a smaller profit margin." Nonsense. Microsoft grew so huge because its profit margins were insane compared to anything with a physical component. Large upfront expense to build the software (OS, mail server, MS Office suite, etc) but it costs you a TINY amount of money to sell an additional copy. This is why the company was able to throw BILLIONS of dollars into their efforts to be relevant in the mobile space. This site has details of the financials of the company from 2005 through 2019: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/financial-statements For 2019 Revenue was just shy of US$126b with COGS of not quite US$43b. Gross margins of around 66% handily beat Apple. Net margin of 33% is still killer.
"Real innovation has been lacking from Apple in HW for some time in the notebook area." Yeah, adding the Touch Bar and moving to a USB-C port standard shows absolutely no experimentation with what a laptop might be able to do. As opposed to all those innovations constantly springing from the other laptop manufacturers - the only one that springs to mind is that absurd laptop with two extra screens that fold out (which is useful to some people, I'm sure, but that model didn't appeal to a large number of customers like the Apple laptops do).
"The next version of the desktop OS for the PC will likely be Linux based. Windows has made massive improvements over the years and is highly stable today, but moving to Linux eliminates any OS stability advantage Apple has today." Oh, my. Linux on the desktop, you say? Bullwinkle has a catchphrase to cover that. More seriously, if it does happen it will take more than a decade to implement. MS has been supporting Linux development for... what, three years? Still a long way to go. And the customer base is conservative, so figure another decade or more before they can stop supporting the Windows NT kernel. So, 20 years from now, MAYBE, MS will have changed to a supposedly more stable OS than present day macOS. I don't see that as an advantage.
"It is clear that trying to shove a new OS into the phone market would be wasteful and not gain much in return for Microsoft, but leveraging an OS that dominates is a way back into the market." So... Linux kernel for the desktop and server OS would be Microsoft "leveraging an OS that dominates" (its own) for the purpose of reinforcing its existing products? On the surface, the idea that MS should embrace Android looks like a good one, but... what happened to Blackberry (RIM)? MS has to show that its developer tools can be used to create solutions that will work well in the new environment, which seems to be progressing well enough, but if the deployment environment is flaky, will a market form? This demo failure is unlikely to sway existing Windows developers, although it may keep some in the fold who were thinking about becoming iOS developers instead.
"Apple is less of an aspirational product to own that it used to be. They are still great and up there, but now people think of buying the new Samsung... gadgets also." I am working on the assumption that anyone who has the purchasing power to afford these devices has a temperament that makes them unlikely to put up with crap for long. The number of people on the bleeding edge of technology or who are early adopters is a small percentage of the overall market. Mature, well-designed products sell by the ton - and if the maturation process can be performed within closed doors so that the wider public doesn't get the idea that you don't know what you're doing, so much the better.
"[Microsoft] can also afford to play the long game if they want to stay in the market..." Which they have been doing for how many years now? Let's be charitable and ignore WinCE - call it thirteen years, give or take.
"The next frontier will be glasses and Microsoft, with its Halo Lens line up will be in this market." Maybe the next frontier will be something else? Something like audio, which requires a fraction of the processing power, and which people are already used to pairing with their phones? Or maybe other wearable tech, like, say, a watch? Say, doesn't Apple already ship good headphones and watches?
"Microsoft will be a dominant player in cloud and quantum computing" MS is doing well in cloud computing; Azure is apparently pulling in twice the revenue of Google's cloud and half the revenue of AWS. They are and will be a successful player in this space, but probably not dominant. Quantum computing I know nothing about.
"...from a financial standpoint Apple has all their company's stock price and profit hinged on 1 product. iPhone." Apple is a large conglomerate that has diversified income streams, like all the other companies you mentioned. Yes, iPhone devices make up a significant percentage of their revenue, but what about Windows for Microsoft in years gone by? What about search advertising for Google? ALL of the companies you mentioned are large enough that they can afford a few years of missteps in a single area of their business.
"1 major misstep by Apple will tank the stock." I'm sorry, how long have you been watching Apple? In the past two decades, even a faint whiff of bad news has been enough to tank the stock. But it's always rebounded pretty quickly because the company brings in so much money that it cannot effectively spend it all.
The article's premise still stands: MS is trying to launch a significant new initiative, had an embarrassing public failure, and the world collectively yawned. It doesn't mean the company is dead, but Microsoft have a very heavy workload ahead of them to regain widespread interest in their products.
Let's think about what was shown in that 22 sec demo.....Could it be that some functions are not meant to split into two screens? Maybe that map app needs extra coding to be used in a two screen format. From what I understand is that Microsoft has asked android developers to use their 'common sense' when developing apps that could benefit from the use of both screens. Again this device is still in development (i.e. the developers' workshop sponsored by Microsoft is being held this week). If people don't like a product/brand that's fine, but let's not use a 22 sec poorly executed demo as the defining moment for a product in development.
So it will be left to the user to identify which apps will not support the multiple screen thing? I'm sure that will work out well.
Apple already forged into the uncharted territory of facial recognition for the masses, so everyone knows it's possible and practical. It's scary Microsoft hasn't mastered it after years to get it right, though. But that's just like Apple to make technology work so well that people forget the complexity.
MS had face recognition since the release of Kinect for X360 in 2010, and it worked extremely well. After that, they had Windows Hello in the Surface Pro 4 since 2017, and every Surface device have it. Apple came later, and acquire PrimeSense, the same company MS use to build Kinect, to develop FaceID. And as today, the only devices with FaceID are iPhones and iPads. So it looks like MS has "mastered" facial recognition for many years. But maybe you didn't knew.
MS sold about 35 million Kinect's before they killed it off due to slow sales, replacing it with Hololens, which sold about 50,000 units, with who know how few Hololens 2 sold. Apple shrunk the technology to fit in the iPhone and iPad, so I'm thinking that while both companies have expertise, Apple certainly mainstreamed it to consumers it by miniaturizing it for mass production.
Given that Apple has been shipping face ID since November 2017, I'd guess that they have sold something on the order of 300 to 320 million units with it. Miniaturization of the Face ID components was the innovation that Apple "mastered", giving Apple, again, a huge advantage over its competitors, including MS.
It's obvious that Apple shipped more facial recognition devices because of the iPhone. But that's not the point. My response was to the post that mentioned the "MS hasn't mastered it after years to get it right". It's obvious that MS was ahead of Apple in face recognition. Apple acquire PrimeSense, the company MS use to co-develop the Kinect technology, to create FaceID. Apple is the one who copied MS. Initially this wasn't an Apple innovation.
And I agree that making the technology in a small device as the iPhone is innovative. But again, MS was the one who start it, not Apple. And it's weird that Apple has FaceID only in their mobile devices, while MS already has Windows Hello in all of their devices.
Apple already forged into the uncharted territory of facial recognition for the masses, so everyone knows it's possible and practical. It's scary Microsoft hasn't mastered it after years to get it right, though. But that's just like Apple to make technology work so well that people forget the complexity.
MS had face recognition since the release of Kinect for X360 in 2010, and it worked extremely well. After that, they had Windows Hello in the Surface Pro 4 since 2017, and every Surface device have it. Apple came later, and acquire PrimeSense, the same company MS use to build Kinect, to develop FaceID. And as today, the only devices with FaceID are iPhones and iPads. So it looks like MS has "mastered" facial recognition for many years. But maybe you didn't knew.
MS sold about 35 million Kinect's before they killed it off due to slow sales, replacing it with Hololens, which sold about 50,000 units, with who know how few Hololens 2 sold. Apple shrunk the technology to fit in the iPhone and iPad, so I'm thinking that while both companies have expertise, Apple certainly mainstreamed it to consumers it by miniaturizing it for mass production.
Given that Apple has been shipping face ID since November 2017, I'd guess that they have sold something on the order of 300 to 320 million units with it. Miniaturization of the Face ID components was the innovation that Apple "mastered", giving Apple, again, a huge advantage over its competitors, including MS.
It's obvious that Apple shipped more facial recognition devices because of the iPhone. But that's not the point. My response was to the post that mentioned the "MS hasn't mastered it after years to get it right". It's obvious that MS was ahead of Apple in face recognition. Apple acquire PrimeSense, the company MS use to co-develop the Kinect technology, to create FaceID. Apple is the one who copied MS. Initially this wasn't an Apple innovation.
And I agree that making the technology in a small device as the iPhone is innovative. But again, MS was the one who start it, not Apple. And it's weird that Apple has FaceID only in their mobile devices, while MS already has Windows Hello in all of their devices.
MS lacks the real intention to make something good and useful. Its intentions are aimed at marketing and stem from a managers culture. Its a lot easier to spread FUD about others than to make something new and useful at the same time. I find the switch to use Android very strange and qua timing absolutely wrong because Apples ARM processors this year will make Intel weep for the rest of their existence. ARM processors even from other vendors have more than enough oomph to run Windows. So why didn't they try to hasten that instead of using Android?
Because ARM sucks donkey balls and will never be on the same level as x86. The only thing ARM is good for is keeping power low (and thus reducing heat generation). And Intel won’t hurt if they lose Apple’s business. Dirty, fangirl.
Apple already forged into the uncharted territory of facial recognition for the masses, so everyone knows it's possible and practical. It's scary Microsoft hasn't mastered it after years to get it right, though. But that's just like Apple to make technology work so well that people forget the complexity.
MS had face recognition since the release of Kinect for X360 in 2010, and it worked extremely well. After that, they had Windows Hello in the Surface Pro 4 since 2017, and every Surface device have it. Apple came later, and acquire PrimeSense, the same company MS use to build Kinect, to develop FaceID. And as today, the only devices with FaceID are iPhones and iPads. So it looks like MS has "mastered" facial recognition for many years. But maybe you didn't knew.
Not so sure they’ve mastered it. FaceID is smart enough to recognise you if you grow a beard or wear spectacles one day and contact lenses the next. Microsoft’s version requires their “improve recognition” function which requires you to take a second version of yourself with specs – or a beard.
If the MS system was as smart as Apple’s then they wouldn’t need “improve recognition”.
The sad thing is, FaceID did not fail and worked as it's supposed to. It's just like Huawei to mock the company who invented the iPhone and push their iKnockoffs as "better iPhones".
Windows surface running Android?! lol Microsoft needs to quit hardware already.
I don't think MS will quit the hardware business, considering it's was close to $2B last quarter.
Quarterly revenues, of course that was the peak of the year. Surface revenues have hovered around $1-1.5B each quarter for the last decade.
However, revenues are not profits and $2b in hardware revenues globally is not actually very performant for a company valued at $1T.
The "beleaguered" Apple of 1995 brought in $3 billion in quarterly revenues from sales of Macs.
Microsoft has rarely made any comments on the profitability of Surface. And while its revenues haven't ever really grown into a significant business, it is maintaining revenues with a product mix that is going downhill, with volumes being maintained with cheaper versions. That's the opposite of what Apple has been doing with iPhones and iPads. That's not sustainable.
Microsoft makes money elsewhere and can perpetuate a business that isn't making money (or is not making enough to justify the talent and resources spent on maintaining it--opportunity costs are some of the most expensive factors in tech). But at some point, Microsoft will have to decide how valuable it is to be busy making tablets and notebooks that sell to a tiny fraction of the market but cost a lot of money to develop, refresh and support, when it could simply delegate that effort to hardware partners and focus on the things it is good at and can make money on.
Let's think about what was shown in that 22 sec demo.....Could it be that some functions are not meant to split into two screens? Maybe that map app needs extra coding to be used in a two screen format. From what I understand is that Microsoft has asked android developers to use their 'common sense' when developing apps that could benefit from the use of both screens. Again this device is still in development (i.e. the developers' workshop sponsored by Microsoft is being held this week). If people don't like a product/brand that's fine, but let's not use a 22 sec poorly executed demo as the defining moment for a product in development.
Do you imagine that the demo presenter on stage was just winging it? You don't imagine that his attempt to spread a specific app across both panels was planned out in advance? You think he picked the wrong app?
No, it just wasn't working properly. There could be many reasons for that, and clearly he expected it to work. But when your demo crashes, and you don't even understand why and don't have a backup, and you're demonstrating to developers you expect to support your platform, that's significant, this far into the "shipping soon" period.
The fact that the Verge didn't really care about it makes it clear that Microsoft isn't storming into the tablet market with some awesome, refined new product category that will immediately let users pick between Win 10 and Android apps and dive into this Courier wet dream without a price tag.
It's Essential-ly vaporware bullshit with great product management graphics, just like the whole Windows 10 presentation deck itself, showing how apps were going to scale from Windows Phones right up to $10,000 PC whiteboards. Sugar howling in a vortex of hot air -- call it cotton candy but don't try to build a blanket out of it to keep warm.
What if you write a editorial and nobody cares? Because that’s what this is.
You can write mean barbs, but you are wrong.
I've been writing about the direction of tech for well over 15 years and have a documented pattern of being consistently right about a lot of once-controversial ideas.
I happen to have helped a lot of people become millionaires and I've being taken care of pretty well, thanks.
Comments
MS sold about 35 million Kinect's before they killed it off due to slow sales, replacing it with Hololens, which sold about 50,000 units, with who know how few Hololens 2 sold. Apple shrunk the technology to fit in the iPhone and iPad, so I'm thinking that while both companies have expertise, Apple certainly mainstreamed it to consumers it by miniaturizing it for mass production.
Given that Apple has been shipping face ID since November 2017, I'd guess that they have sold something on the order of 300 to 320 million units with it. Miniaturization of the Face ID components was the innovation that Apple "mastered", giving Apple, again, a huge advantage over its competitors, including MS.
Microsoft is clearly operating in markets that Apple has no interest in and vice versa. For example, Apple has no OEM customer market to speak of while Microsoft was literally built on the OEM market. Apple evolved from a hardware company into a company with a huge investment in software. Microsoft came from the other side but they both arrived at a similar place.
There used to be a saying "The Windows demo isn't over 'til it blue screens." Or maybe it was just me. Failure in demos is kind of MS's trademark. Good to see them getting back to their roots.
Its intentions are aimed at marketing and stem from a managers culture.
Its a lot easier to spread FUD about others than to make something new and useful at the same time.
I find the switch to use Android very strange and qua timing absolutely wrong because Apples ARM processors this year will make Intel weep for the rest of their existence.
ARM processors even from other vendors have more than enough oomph to run Windows.
So why didn't they try to hasten that instead of using Android?
"Microsofts profit is spread across a larger number of products and they are used to living off a smaller profit margin."
Nonsense. Microsoft grew so huge because its profit margins were insane compared to anything with a physical component. Large upfront expense to build the software (OS, mail server, MS Office suite, etc) but it costs you a TINY amount of money to sell an additional copy. This is why the company was able to throw BILLIONS of dollars into their efforts to be relevant in the mobile space. This site has details of the financials of the company from 2005 through 2019: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/financial-statements
For 2019 Revenue was just shy of US$126b with COGS of not quite US$43b. Gross margins of around 66% handily beat Apple. Net margin of 33% is still killer.
"Real innovation has been lacking from Apple in HW for some time in the notebook area."
Yeah, adding the Touch Bar and moving to a USB-C port standard shows absolutely no experimentation with what a laptop might be able to do. As opposed to all those innovations constantly springing from the other laptop manufacturers - the only one that springs to mind is that absurd laptop with two extra screens that fold out (which is useful to some people, I'm sure, but that model didn't appeal to a large number of customers like the Apple laptops do).
"The next version of the desktop OS for the PC will likely be Linux based. Windows has made massive improvements over the years and is highly stable today, but moving to Linux eliminates any OS stability advantage Apple has today."
Oh, my. Linux on the desktop, you say? Bullwinkle has a catchphrase to cover that.
More seriously, if it does happen it will take more than a decade to implement. MS has been supporting Linux development for... what, three years? Still a long way to go. And the customer base is conservative, so figure another decade or more before they can stop supporting the Windows NT kernel.
So, 20 years from now, MAYBE, MS will have changed to a supposedly more stable OS than present day macOS. I don't see that as an advantage.
"It is clear that trying to shove a new OS into the phone market would be wasteful and not gain much in return for Microsoft, but leveraging an OS that dominates is a way back into the market."
So... Linux kernel for the desktop and server OS would be Microsoft "leveraging an OS that dominates" (its own) for the purpose of reinforcing its existing products?
On the surface, the idea that MS should embrace Android looks like a good one, but... what happened to Blackberry (RIM)? MS has to show that its developer tools can be used to create solutions that will work well in the new environment, which seems to be progressing well enough, but if the deployment environment is flaky, will a market form? This demo failure is unlikely to sway existing Windows developers, although it may keep some in the fold who were thinking about becoming iOS developers instead.
"Apple is less of an aspirational product to own that it used to be. They are still great and up there, but now people think of buying the new Samsung... gadgets also."
I am working on the assumption that anyone who has the purchasing power to afford these devices has a temperament that makes them unlikely to put up with crap for long. The number of people on the bleeding edge of technology or who are early adopters is a small percentage of the overall market. Mature, well-designed products sell by the ton - and if the maturation process can be performed within closed doors so that the wider public doesn't get the idea that you don't know what you're doing, so much the better.
"[Microsoft] can also afford to play the long game if they want to stay in the market..."
Which they have been doing for how many years now? Let's be charitable and ignore WinCE - call it thirteen years, give or take.
"The next frontier will be glasses and Microsoft, with its Halo Lens line up will be in this market."
Maybe the next frontier will be something else? Something like audio, which requires a fraction of the processing power, and which people are already used to pairing with their phones? Or maybe other wearable tech, like, say, a watch? Say, doesn't Apple already ship good headphones and watches?
"Microsoft will be a dominant player in cloud and quantum computing"
MS is doing well in cloud computing; Azure is apparently pulling in twice the revenue of Google's cloud and half the revenue of AWS. They are and will be a successful player in this space, but probably not dominant. Quantum computing I know nothing about.
"...from a financial standpoint Apple has all their company's stock price and profit hinged on 1 product. iPhone."
Apple is a large conglomerate that has diversified income streams, like all the other companies you mentioned. Yes, iPhone devices make up a significant percentage of their revenue, but what about Windows for Microsoft in years gone by? What about search advertising for Google? ALL of the companies you mentioned are large enough that they can afford a few years of missteps in a single area of their business.
"1 major misstep by Apple will tank the stock."
I'm sorry, how long have you been watching Apple? In the past two decades, even a faint whiff of bad news has been enough to tank the stock. But it's always rebounded pretty quickly because the company brings in so much money that it cannot effectively spend it all.
The article's premise still stands: MS is trying to launch a significant new initiative, had an embarrassing public failure, and the world collectively yawned. It doesn't mean the company is dead, but Microsoft have a very heavy workload ahead of them to regain widespread interest in their products.
And I agree that making the technology in a small device as the iPhone is innovative. But again, MS was the one who start it, not Apple. And it's weird that Apple has FaceID only in their mobile devices, while MS already has Windows Hello in all of their devices.
However, revenues are not profits and $2b in hardware revenues globally is not actually very performant for a company valued at $1T.
The "beleaguered" Apple of 1995 brought in $3 billion in quarterly revenues from sales of Macs.
Microsoft has rarely made any comments on the profitability of Surface. And while its revenues haven't ever really grown into a significant business, it is maintaining revenues with a product mix that is going downhill, with volumes being maintained with cheaper versions. That's the opposite of what Apple has been doing with iPhones and iPads. That's not sustainable.
Microsoft makes money elsewhere and can perpetuate a business that isn't making money (or is not making enough to justify the talent and resources spent on maintaining it--opportunity costs are some of the most expensive factors in tech). But at some point, Microsoft will have to decide how valuable it is to be busy making tablets and notebooks that sell to a tiny fraction of the market but cost a lot of money to develop, refresh and support, when it could simply delegate that effort to hardware partners and focus on the things it is good at and can make money on.
No, it just wasn't working properly. There could be many reasons for that, and clearly he expected it to work. But when your demo crashes, and you don't even understand why and don't have a backup, and you're demonstrating to developers you expect to support your platform, that's significant, this far into the "shipping soon" period.
The fact that the Verge didn't really care about it makes it clear that Microsoft isn't storming into the tablet market with some awesome, refined new product category that will immediately let users pick between Win 10 and Android apps and dive into this Courier wet dream without a price tag.
It's Essential-ly vaporware bullshit with great product management graphics, just like the whole Windows 10 presentation deck itself, showing how apps were going to scale from Windows Phones right up to $10,000 PC whiteboards. Sugar howling in a vortex of hot air -- call it cotton candy but don't try to build a blanket out of it to keep warm.
You can write mean barbs, but you are wrong.
I've been writing about the direction of tech for well over 15 years and have a documented pattern of being consistently right about a lot of once-controversial ideas.
I happen to have helped a lot of people become millionaires and I've being taken care of pretty well, thanks.