5 ms·

A long time coming. Microsoft failed to capitalize on smartphones before Apple and Google and now they're paying the price. That's their perennial problem. The

by Fej 10y ago

A long time coming. Microsoft failed to capitalize on smartphones before Apple and Google and now they're paying the price. That's their perennial problem. They had an app market, smartphones, tablets... before the above, but they couldn't figure out how to sell them. They could have been Apple.

bobajeff 10y ago
>They could have been Apple. Not really. What we called apps/smartphones/tablets before the iPhone/iPad was not really the same thing.
- zbyte64 10y ago
  Bingo. To Microsoft tablets were just larger PDAs meant for answering emails.
  - josteink 10y ago
    On what planet does this statement ring true? Microsoft were the first to release Windows as a full on tablet-OS, at least half a decade before before even the iPhone existed. Forget about the iPad. That was at least 10 years later. Microsoft delivered a full version of Windows XP (which was what was current at the time), capable of running all Windows software. No emulation. No limitations. The problem was that most Windows software weren't really nice to run on a tablet, so the platform had limited appeal. Besides that you had the hardware issue: A "tablet" at that time was at least as heavy as a laptop. It was way before its time, and as such, was doomed to fail. But don't come and claim Microsoft foresaw tablets as a platform for limited capability computing for answering emails only and such. That's what Apple delivered. Microsoft had the right vision, and they were willing to execute. It's a shame it didn't turn out better.
- rmason 10y ago
  I had a Palm phone in 2001. They didn't call it a smartphone back then, but I had Internet and some small apps for weather and news. It was sort of like the Internet before the web, it was something only a geek would love. Weighed five pounds, ran hot and you needed a stylus to interact with it. Palm should have owned the smartphone era but they didn't have a vision where it should go. Steve Jobs did, he set standards and didn't ship until they were reached, end of story.
- tostitos1979 10y ago
  Did you ever use .net compact framework? It was actually decent from a functionality standpoint (especially coming from a J2ME background). While it was way better than what was out there, it was designed for corp usage. It didn't have the design flare required to be a mass consumer product.
  - flukus 10y ago
    The UI toolkit was awful, lot's of fixed positioning makes supporting different resolutions and aspect ratios almost impossible.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      So... just like iOS?
      - flukus 10y ago
        I haven't done anything with iOS so I don't know if it's been resolved yet. But for a long time iOS had the advantage of only running on a single device. I believe the iPad had the same aspect ratio and could simply upscale the UI at first too.
        kalleboo 10y ago
        Yeah these days it's all fine after they got AutoLayout working, but developers got lulled into "there's just one device size" that threes was a minor panic when they expanded the line (and now with iPad multitasking you need to handle basically any size)
        tostitos1979 10y ago
        At the outset, there were a few devices with generally consistent screen sizes ... the compaq ipaq was very popular for instance .. so not too bad.
      - rimantas 10y ago
sverige 10y ago
By that time, though, it was hard to trust Microsoft. They had screwed so many little companies over the years. On the consumer side, Windows was phoning home all the time. Apple and Google seemed so - nice and innocent, I guess. Of course, they spy on their customers in a way Bill Gates only dreamed of in the 90s, but at least they paid off their competitors instead of just outright stealing their products the way MS did.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Yeah, but it's hard to do what Apple does. That's why it pays so well.
megablast 10y ago
This is a warning for any big company. Ignore the new stuff, and you will end up paying. Microsoft were fortunate to have lots of other revenue streams, Nokia and BB were not. That is why you see Facebook so eager to buy new competing companies before they get huge, they know a lot of young people are not moving to facebook, so they want are going where the new kids are going.
- protomok 10y ago
  +1 It seems few big companies are able to maintain a culture of continuously trying to reinvent themselves and find the next big thing. In addition to buying the next big thing (effective but requires $$$) I think intentionally trying to disrupt/reinvent your own products before your competition does is a great way to not miss the next big thing.
adventured 10y ago
It's a myth that companies can dominate every segment if only they'd execute better. Search, mobile, desktop, social, cloud, enterprise, productivity, streaming, VR, etc - there's no scenario under which Microsoft was going to own all of them, even ignoring the obvious anti-trust issues that would have guaranteed they couldn't be Apple. It's extraordinarily difficult for one company to dominate two major segments in tech. Besides, Microsoft practically is Apple. Apple market cap: $571 billion, and heading down, with a business that will continue contracting as they're pushed out of China Microsoft market cap: $438 billion, and rising again Azure by itself will end up being more valuable than the iPad and Mac businesses combined (both of which are declining).

by Fej 10y ago

bobajeff 10y ago

>They could have been Apple. Not really. What we called apps/smartphones/tablets before the iPhone/iPad was not really the same thing.

zbyte64 10y ago
Bingo. To Microsoft tablets were just larger PDAs meant for answering emails.
- josteink 10y ago
  On what planet does this statement ring true? Microsoft were the first to release Windows as a full on tablet-OS, at least half a decade before before even the iPhone existed. Forget about the iPad. That was at least 10 years later. Microsoft delivered a full version of Windows XP (which was what was current at the time), capable of running all Windows software. No emulation. No limitations. The problem was that most Windows software weren't really nice to run on a tablet, so the platform had limited appeal. Besides that you had the hardware issue: A "tablet" at that time was at least as heavy as a laptop. It was way before its time, and as such, was doomed to fail. But don't come and claim Microsoft foresaw tablets as a platform for limited capability computing for answering emails only and such. That's what Apple delivered. Microsoft had the right vision, and they were willing to execute. It's a shame it didn't turn out better.
rmason 10y ago
I had a Palm phone in 2001. They didn't call it a smartphone back then, but I had Internet and some small apps for weather and news. It was sort of like the Internet before the web, it was something only a geek would love. Weighed five pounds, ran hot and you needed a stylus to interact with it. Palm should have owned the smartphone era but they didn't have a vision where it should go. Steve Jobs did, he set standards and didn't ship until they were reached, end of story.
tostitos1979 10y ago
Did you ever use .net compact framework? It was actually decent from a functionality standpoint (especially coming from a J2ME background). While it was way better than what was out there, it was designed for corp usage. It didn't have the design flare required to be a mass consumer product.
- flukus 10y ago
  The UI toolkit was awful, lot's of fixed positioning makes supporting different resolutions and aspect ratios almost impossible.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    So... just like iOS?
    - flukus 10y ago
      I haven't done anything with iOS so I don't know if it's been resolved yet. But for a long time iOS had the advantage of only running on a single device. I believe the iPad had the same aspect ratio and could simply upscale the UI at first too.
      - kalleboo 10y ago
        Yeah these days it's all fine after they got AutoLayout working, but developers got lulled into "there's just one device size" that threes was a minor panic when they expanded the line (and now with iPad multitasking you need to handle basically any size)
        tostitos1979 10y ago
        At the outset, there were a few devices with generally consistent screen sizes ... the compaq ipaq was very popular for instance .. so not too bad.
    - rimantas 10y ago

sverige 10y ago

By that time, though, it was hard to trust Microsoft. They had screwed so many little companies over the years. On the consumer side, Windows was phoning home all the time. Apple and Google seemed so - nice and innocent, I guess. Of course, they spy on their customers in a way Bill Gates only dreamed of in the 90s, but at least they paid off their competitors instead of just outright stealing their products the way MS did.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Yeah, but it's hard to do what Apple does. That's why it pays so well.

megablast 10y ago

This is a warning for any big company. Ignore the new stuff, and you will end up paying. Microsoft were fortunate to have lots of other revenue streams, Nokia and BB were not. That is why you see Facebook so eager to buy new competing companies before they get huge, they know a lot of young people are not moving to facebook, so they want are going where the new kids are going.

protomok 10y ago
+1 It seems few big companies are able to maintain a culture of continuously trying to reinvent themselves and find the next big thing. In addition to buying the next big thing (effective but requires $$$) I think intentionally trying to disrupt/reinvent your own products before your competition does is a great way to not miss the next big thing.

adventured 10y ago

It's a myth that companies can dominate every segment if only they'd execute better. Search, mobile, desktop, social, cloud, enterprise, productivity, streaming, VR, etc - there's no scenario under which Microsoft was going to own all of them, even ignoring the obvious anti-trust issues that would have guaranteed they couldn't be Apple. It's extraordinarily difficult for one company to dominate two major segments in tech. Besides, Microsoft practically is Apple. Apple market cap: $571 billion, and heading down, with a business that will continue contracting as they're pushed out of China Microsoft market cap: $438 billion, and rising again Azure by itself will end up being more valuable than the iPad and Mac businesses combined (both of which are declining).