3 ms·

I think what's lacking here is a real definition of what 'winning' means.

• lloeki 10y ago
  1. survival: is the platform expected to be alive after next year? 2. relevance: is the platform even considered for any reasonable, non-niche task, use, or development? 3. influence: is the platform halo strong enough that it can nurture/trigger changes outside the platform (feature parity, pressure to improve/innovate)? Apple and Google cross all thresholds by a significant margin, and adding more numbers (doubling even) to either one will not change that. "Winning" is not about market share as an end. At a vanishingly distant 3rd and 4th places, MS is desperately fighting for 1. and 2. (and can only do so thanks to the now unified Windows platform), while BB has clearly lost 2. and is arguably losing 1. Don't even talk about 3. for either one.
  • mrmondo 10y ago
    Absolutely could not agree with you more! One thing I'd add - likely related closely to survival and relevance is around product sustainability and platform responsibility - I'm talking mainly in regards to consistently demonstrating due-diligence of maintaining, servicing and supporting the platform / services such as widespread, timely security patching controlled and measured across a reasonable age range of products while also responsibly protecting customer privacy. While on the surface this may seem more like measures of product quality rather than success - I believe they are critically important, key indicators of a successful product / deliverable. As you say - winning is not solely about market share or pure profit, but also sustainability and social responsibility which in turn then feeds back into both relevance and survival in the long run. *Pleasse excuse any typos, rushed my reply just on my phone late at night when I should be sleeping.