3 ms·

Why does everybody aim for total market dominance? Is is not enough anymore to be just profitable? And even if it was a minus business and Microsoft would subs

Why does everybody aim for total market dominance? Is is not enough anymore to be just profitable? And even if it was a minus business and Microsoft would subsidize all Windows phones, you could argue that they have good reasons to do so. A few years ago, there was a good article arguing "Android is a Moat" - namely that the main reason Google develops Android is to protect it's search engine castle in mobile against Apple. Windows phone could be Microsoft's way of ensuring Bing (and the Windows Store) have a foothold in the mobile world. If I look at my Android phone, there are maybe 5 external apps that I use regularly, 3 of which are probably available on Windows. If developers don't want to port their apps, Microsoft is in a position to just f'ing do it themselves if they really wanted.

rogerbinns 10y ago
> Why does everybody aim for total market dominance? Is is not enough anymore to be just profitable? Network effects are very helpful. Also remember to distinguish fixed costs from variable costs. The development effort is pretty much a fixed cost, whether you sell few or many. Each additional product sold reduces the fixed costs per device. Generally the more you sell, the cheaper you can make the product, the more profitable you can be, the better deals you can negotiate etc. And then the bigger customer base you have, the easier it is to continue to do well financially. There are more opportunities for a longer term sustainable business. > If I look at my Android phone, there are maybe 5 external apps that I use regularly ... The power of defaults! What you are also implying is that the apps that came with the Android phone are all you need, plus those 5 external ones. This gives great power to the provider of the builtin/default ones. > If developers don't want to port their apps, Microsoft is in a position to just f'ing do it themselves if they really wanted. Not really. Microsoft doesn't have the source to the apps, would have to stick to rules about trademarks (eg calling an app "Google Search" would be problematic), would have to develop against public APIs and their requirements, would have to maintain the apps, and a heck of a lot of other stuff. For example see http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/09/microsoft-re-releases-its-youtube-app-for-windows-phone/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/09/microsoft-re-releases-its-y... An aside/anecdote was a developer colleague who worked at a company that made a music player. They were paid $100k by Microsoft to port to Windows Phone in its earlier days. The Microsoft app review team then rejected the resulting app, because it kept running as music players need to, and Microsoft didn't have any rules yet about apps that needed to keep running in the background. It did eventually get sorted out, but still rather amusing.
Grishnakh 10y ago
>If developers don't want to port their apps, Microsoft is in a position to just f'ing do it themselves if they really wanted. No, they can't. Firstly and obviously, they can't just appropriate someone else's trademark and make a clone app, and if they make a clone with a different name, it won't have the draw that the original has. But more importantly, a lot of apps rely on network connections to do stuff. For instance, if Facebook doesn't have their app for WinPhones, MS can't exactly make their own Facebook app that easily. Or look at Tinder, the most popular dating app right now. There's no way MS could make a clone of that which actually works with Tinder's servers and network. They could make their own MS-Dating app, but what's the point? There's tons of alternatives to Tinder out there, but they don't have any users so they're useless, just like Google+ is useless because all your friends and relatives are on Facebook and not G+. For simple standalone apps like a calculator app or a magnetometer app, sure, MS could just make those themselves. But those aren't what draw people to smartphones, it's the networked apps like Google Maps, Waze, Tinder, Facebook, apps for your bank, etc.

rogerbinns 10y ago

> Why does everybody aim for total market dominance? Is is not enough anymore to be just profitable? Network effects are very helpful. Also remember to distinguish fixed costs from variable costs. The development effort is pretty much a fixed cost, whether you sell few or many. Each additional product sold reduces the fixed costs per device. Generally the more you sell, the cheaper you can make the product, the more profitable you can be, the better deals you can negotiate etc. And then the bigger customer base you have, the easier it is to continue to do well financially. There are more opportunities for a longer term sustainable business. > If I look at my Android phone, there are maybe 5 external apps that I use regularly ... The power of defaults! What you are also implying is that the apps that came with the Android phone are all you need, plus those 5 external ones. This gives great power to the provider of the builtin/default ones. > If developers don't want to port their apps, Microsoft is in a position to just f'ing do it themselves if they really wanted. Not really. Microsoft doesn't have the source to the apps, would have to stick to rules about trademarks (eg calling an app "Google Search" would be problematic), would have to develop against public APIs and their requirements, would have to maintain the apps, and a heck of a lot of other stuff. For example see http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/09/microsoft-re-releases-its-youtube-app-for-windows-phone/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/09/microsoft-re-releases-its-y... An aside/anecdote was a developer colleague who worked at a company that made a music player. They were paid $100k by Microsoft to port to Windows Phone in its earlier days. The Microsoft app review team then rejected the resulting app, because it kept running as music players need to, and Microsoft didn't have any rules yet about apps that needed to keep running in the background. It did eventually get sorted out, but still rather amusing.

Grishnakh 10y ago

>If developers don't want to port their apps, Microsoft is in a position to just f'ing do it themselves if they really wanted. No, they can't. Firstly and obviously, they can't just appropriate someone else's trademark and make a clone app, and if they make a clone with a different name, it won't have the draw that the original has. But more importantly, a lot of apps rely on network connections to do stuff. For instance, if Facebook doesn't have their app for WinPhones, MS can't exactly make their own Facebook app that easily. Or look at Tinder, the most popular dating app right now. There's no way MS could make a clone of that which actually works with Tinder's servers and network. They could make their own MS-Dating app, but what's the point? There's tons of alternatives to Tinder out there, but they don't have any users so they're useless, just like Google+ is useless because all your friends and relatives are on Facebook and not G+. For simple standalone apps like a calculator app or a magnetometer app, sure, MS could just make those themselves. But those aren't what draw people to smartphones, it's the networked apps like Google Maps, Waze, Tinder, Facebook, apps for your bank, etc.