4 ms·

It's disturbing that he thinks if he made good managerial decisions, and as a result he made good phones, that he thinks he would get more customers? It's also

It's disturbing that he thinks if he made good managerial decisions, and as a result he made good phones, that he thinks he would get more customers? It's also disturbing that one of the most successful businessmen is introspective and learns from mistakes?

erik_seaberg 7y ago
He threatened OEMs into refusing to even offer better software from his competitors. He won a contest by rigging it, and then seems surprised that he couldn't win another contest on merit, like a mafia don who thought he was a legitimate businessman.
- chachachoney 7y ago
  Indeed. Microsoft engaging in said behaviour with Compaq over beOS was directly responsible for my exploration of and ultimate preference for non-MS platforms in all things. It's telling that marketing / branding / repuation doesn't factor into his internal model of Android vs. Windows phone. At the time, google was doing a good job of branding itself ("do no evil") as an open, transparent (at least in terms of source code) and interoperable member of the community. (oh how times / perceptions have changed...) So google and had a lot of good faith with developers who were unhappy with Microsoft's ethics/business practices, browser war schennanigans, etc... This played no small role in Android's early adoption and ultimate success.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Exactly! In my viewpoint, Microsoft had a terrible name. Windows 9x was unstable and a security nightmare (sure, it was cheap compared to UNIX desktops). Windows NT was more stable, and more secure, but it still had MSIE and ActiveX and MS Office which were all security nightmares. They might've worked well because they never took security serious. Eventually, the latter bit Microsoft in the ass. Linux had a different name. Arguably, a better one. One of the weaknesses was software compatibility and UI complexity. Android didn't suffer from the former (as all of that was fixed before phone shipped), and tried to limit the latter with a new UI from the ground up (no X/KDE/GNOME etc). Companies such as Google and Facebook take security serious. Because they're data driven companies, they want to protect that vehemently. Once the pieces of the pie are cut out, its extremely hard to get even a small part of the pie. Linux desktop was too late, Windows Phone was too late. Why? Apps/ecosystem. I mean, Windows to this date still barely has a way to update software like Linux had for more than 20 years (APT, for example). You need either Windows Store or a third party one such as Chocolatey or Scoop.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Google did the same thing until the EU forced it not to. It wouldn’t allow a manufacturer to sell both a Google certified Android phone and an open source AOSP phone without Google Services.

erik_seaberg 7y ago

He threatened OEMs into refusing to even offer better software from his competitors. He won a contest by rigging it, and then seems surprised that he couldn't win another contest on merit, like a mafia don who thought he was a legitimate businessman.

chachachoney 7y ago
Indeed. Microsoft engaging in said behaviour with Compaq over beOS was directly responsible for my exploration of and ultimate preference for non-MS platforms in all things. It's telling that marketing / branding / repuation doesn't factor into his internal model of Android vs. Windows phone. At the time, google was doing a good job of branding itself ("do no evil") as an open, transparent (at least in terms of source code) and interoperable member of the community. (oh how times / perceptions have changed...) So google and had a lot of good faith with developers who were unhappy with Microsoft's ethics/business practices, browser war schennanigans, etc... This played no small role in Android's early adoption and ultimate success.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Exactly! In my viewpoint, Microsoft had a terrible name. Windows 9x was unstable and a security nightmare (sure, it was cheap compared to UNIX desktops). Windows NT was more stable, and more secure, but it still had MSIE and ActiveX and MS Office which were all security nightmares. They might've worked well because they never took security serious. Eventually, the latter bit Microsoft in the ass. Linux had a different name. Arguably, a better one. One of the weaknesses was software compatibility and UI complexity. Android didn't suffer from the former (as all of that was fixed before phone shipped), and tried to limit the latter with a new UI from the ground up (no X/KDE/GNOME etc). Companies such as Google and Facebook take security serious. Because they're data driven companies, they want to protect that vehemently. Once the pieces of the pie are cut out, its extremely hard to get even a small part of the pie. Linux desktop was too late, Windows Phone was too late. Why? Apps/ecosystem. I mean, Windows to this date still barely has a way to update software like Linux had for more than 20 years (APT, for example). You need either Windows Store or a third party one such as Chocolatey or Scoop.
scarface74 7y ago
Google did the same thing until the EU forced it not to. It wouldn’t allow a manufacturer to sell both a Google certified Android phone and an open source AOSP phone without Google Services.