5 ms·

tl;dr: Ex. micro-softie laments all the ways ms failed in the mobile space, while completely overlooking the elephant in the room: MS, in the mobile space, di

by uuoc 10y ago

tl;dr: Ex. micro-softie laments all the ways ms failed in the mobile space, while completely overlooking the elephant in the room: MS, in the mobile space, did not have an already entrenched monopoly upon which to leverage other market share.

s3r3nity 10y ago
Is this a fair analysis, though? It's not like Apple or Samsung had monopolies that they leveraged to their advantage to drive mobile share. Unless this is a subtle commentary on Google's use of their search monopolistic power to drive adoption of Android (which drives further adoption of Google products) -- if so, then kudos to you.
- mhurron 10y ago
  Other than the XBox, what new thing has Microsoft launched that has not hinged on its existing dominance? It seems that the people that brought Microsoft to where it became the dominant force either left or were no longer listened to and Microsoft simply expected to succeed because they where already huge 'over there.'
  - mandeepj 10y ago
    > It seems that the people that brought Microsoft to where it became the dominant force either left or were no longer listened to and Microsoft simply expected to succeed because they where already huge 'over there.' May be these people have no more disruptive ideas.
- chriswarbo 10y ago
  > It's not like Apple or Samsung had monopolies that they leveraged to their advantage to drive mobile share. The iPhone was a natural progression from the iPod, which dominated the music player market since the turn of the millenium.
  - Someone 10y ago
    I don't buy that. If the iPhone was 'just an improved iPod' at release, reception wouldn't have been as mixed as it was ('brilliant' vs 'flop') The iPhone was a small battery powered box you can hold in your hand and it could play music, just like the iPod, but at the time the iPhone debuted, that's about where the similarities ended. Also, because of its price ($500 plus a two-year contract) the iPhone targeted a different audience.
    - SisypheanLife 10y ago
      Looking back at the keynote where Steve Jobs announced the iPhone, the progression from the iPod served as huge leverage and represented one of the core three components of the phones marketing strategy. The iPhone was about combining your music player (that everybody already owned) and with your phone and then adding an incredibly smooth web experience. Without the iPod functionality, it would have still been a revolutionary phone, but the mass adoption and hype surrounding it would have been reduced.
    - chriswarbo 10y ago
      > The iPhone was a small battery powered box you can hold in your hand and it could play music, just like the iPod, but at the time the iPhone debuted, that's about where the similarities ended. iPods had just become colour when the iPhone came out, so the main differences were interaction (touchscreen vs "touch wheel"), screen size and connectivity. It wasn't long before the iPod touch came out, with a big touchscreen and apps; basically a non-phone iPhone, giving that different audience a clear transition path.
  - eriknstr 10y ago
    I agree. Just look at the announcement of the first iPhone by Steve Jobs at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ and notice that the focus on iPod accounts for a good part of the sales argument.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  The point isn't whether Apple or Samsung had monopolies. They didn't need them. The point is that Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage, and they did need it. Why did Microsoft need monopoly leverage? Because for about 20 years, that had been the way they won in new markets: they entered the new market, found a way to leverage the Windows monopoly to give them an edge in that market, and went on to win a dominant position in the new market. So when the time came to try to dominate a new market without that edge from leveraging Windows, Microsoft didn't know how to do it.
pklausler 10y ago
Microsoft is a software development company in much the same way that the Corleone family was in the olive oil importation business.
- pklausler 10y ago
  Clarification: I mean to say that they have done well, but it's not just because they're really good at importing olive oil.
GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
>MS, in the mobile space, did not have an already entrenched monopoly upon which to leverage other market share. Not quite true. MS managed to beat out Palm to become the market leader in PDAs and mobile devices, just before the iPhone was released and torpedoed everyone. At one time, there were as many different models of Windows CE devices as there are Android devices now, giving MS a severe fragmentation problem back then similar to the one that Android has now.

by uuoc 10y ago

s3r3nity 10y ago

Is this a fair analysis, though? It's not like Apple or Samsung had monopolies that they leveraged to their advantage to drive mobile share. Unless this is a subtle commentary on Google's use of their search monopolistic power to drive adoption of Android (which drives further adoption of Google products) -- if so, then kudos to you.

mhurron 10y ago
Other than the XBox, what new thing has Microsoft launched that has not hinged on its existing dominance? It seems that the people that brought Microsoft to where it became the dominant force either left or were no longer listened to and Microsoft simply expected to succeed because they where already huge 'over there.'
- mandeepj 10y ago
  > It seems that the people that brought Microsoft to where it became the dominant force either left or were no longer listened to and Microsoft simply expected to succeed because they where already huge 'over there.' May be these people have no more disruptive ideas.
chriswarbo 10y ago
> It's not like Apple or Samsung had monopolies that they leveraged to their advantage to drive mobile share. The iPhone was a natural progression from the iPod, which dominated the music player market since the turn of the millenium.
- Someone 10y ago
  I don't buy that. If the iPhone was 'just an improved iPod' at release, reception wouldn't have been as mixed as it was ('brilliant' vs 'flop') The iPhone was a small battery powered box you can hold in your hand and it could play music, just like the iPod, but at the time the iPhone debuted, that's about where the similarities ended. Also, because of its price ($500 plus a two-year contract) the iPhone targeted a different audience.
  - SisypheanLife 10y ago
    Looking back at the keynote where Steve Jobs announced the iPhone, the progression from the iPod served as huge leverage and represented one of the core three components of the phones marketing strategy. The iPhone was about combining your music player (that everybody already owned) and with your phone and then adding an incredibly smooth web experience. Without the iPod functionality, it would have still been a revolutionary phone, but the mass adoption and hype surrounding it would have been reduced.
  - chriswarbo 10y ago
    > The iPhone was a small battery powered box you can hold in your hand and it could play music, just like the iPod, but at the time the iPhone debuted, that's about where the similarities ended. iPods had just become colour when the iPhone came out, so the main differences were interaction (touchscreen vs "touch wheel"), screen size and connectivity. It wasn't long before the iPod touch came out, with a big touchscreen and apps; basically a non-phone iPhone, giving that different audience a clear transition path.
- eriknstr 10y ago
  I agree. Just look at the announcement of the first iPhone by Steve Jobs at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN4U5FqrOdQ and notice that the focus on iPod accounts for a good part of the sales argument.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
The point isn't whether Apple or Samsung had monopolies. They didn't need them. The point is that Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage, and they did need it. Why did Microsoft need monopoly leverage? Because for about 20 years, that had been the way they won in new markets: they entered the new market, found a way to leverage the Windows monopoly to give them an edge in that market, and went on to win a dominant position in the new market. So when the time came to try to dominate a new market without that edge from leveraging Windows, Microsoft didn't know how to do it.

pklausler 10y ago

Microsoft is a software development company in much the same way that the Corleone family was in the olive oil importation business.

pklausler 10y ago
Clarification: I mean to say that they have done well, but it's not just because they're really good at importing olive oil.

GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago

>MS, in the mobile space, did not have an already entrenched monopoly upon which to leverage other market share. Not quite true. MS managed to beat out Palm to become the market leader in PDAs and mobile devices, just before the iPhone was released and torpedoed everyone. At one time, there were as many different models of Windows CE devices as there are Android devices now, giving MS a severe fragmentation problem back then similar to the one that Android has now.