3 ms·

What is the track record of Microsoft in this kind of partnerships? Genuine question.

by jacabado 16y ago

Kylekramer 16y ago
There is a reason the term "Wintel" was created. But I'd bet they can't pull it off again.
- PakG1 16y ago
  I think the primary point would be that Wintel created a brand new market that hadn't yet really been developed yet. This time around (if it really happens), they're attacking a market that's pretty well developed. Still growing, but by no means at an infant stage.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    The distinction between "a brand new market that hasn't yet really been developed yet" and a market that's "well developed [but] still growing" can only be drawn in retrospect. Wintel was a decade late to personal computers, but it turns out a decade late was early enough.
    - PakG1 16y ago
      Fair enough. But I'd also say the key metric to analyze would be market penetration, percentage of total population buying the products. A lot more people have cell phones these days, both percentage-wise and gross numbers-wise, than people had personal computers back in the day.
SwellJoe 16y ago
You'd have to define "this kind of partnership". There are a number of mobile device makers building Windows phones. And there have been many co-development and branding deals over the years with Microsoft and PC makers. Many have been successful, many have failed. This, however, brings to mind the OS/2 deal, to me. If Microsoft culture is anything like it was in the 90s (which may not be the case), I would expect Microsoft to be a loyal partner with Nokia until such time as it is advantageous for them to go their own way, leaving Nokia holding the bag on a jointly developed "standard" platform that no one else wants. But, hey, I'm a cynical old nerd that's been involved in technology too long. The fact that Microsoft is a distant third, and losing ground daily, in the market might make a difference in how they treat their friends.
- brudgers 16y ago
  The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS. It looks more likely that Nokia could get out of the OS business altogether. I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up. And it is unlikely that Nokia and Microsoft will evolve to become direct competitors in the way IBM and Microsoft did in the late 1980's and early 90's.
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    "I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up." I can't make any sense of this statement. IBM was the definitive hardware company at the time. Microsoft was the definitive software company at the time. What kind of companies do you think they were? "The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS." As far as I can tell, we have no idea what sort of partnership they have in mind. But, I would expect Nokia to want a unique value, if they build Windows phones. And they have a huge development workforce, and have made numerous software acquisitions over the years. I'd be surprised if they don't plan to write some code, too.
    - philwelch 16y ago
      IBM was a systems company, not a hardware company. The difference is that a hardware company doesn't, by and large, develop their own software. Apple is another example of a systems company.
      - SwellJoe 16y ago
        "IBM was a systems company, not a hardware company. The difference is that a hardware company doesn't, by and large, develop their own software." You can't have it both ways. Nokia makes the vast majority of their own software and has for years. They have a huge software development staff, and have acquired a number of major software shops to augment it. And, while we're on the subject, in the PC market, IBM did not, by and large, develop their own software. They contracted out to Microsoft to make the OS in the beginning, and then teamed up with them to make OS/2. So, technically, I guess you can't compare the two because Nokia makes a lot more of the software on its devices than IBM made on its early PCs. But, that's the opposite of the argument you've made above. I don't think it really matters, though. I think this is a mistake for Nokia, and I think time will bear that assertion out. And, of course, if you don't like the IBM and OS/2 comparison, how about SGI and Windows NT? That was a unique relationship between a hardware (and software) company and Microsoft that had disastrous consequences for SGI.

What is the track record of Microsoft in this kind of partnerships? Genuine question.

Kylekramer 16y ago

There is a reason the term "Wintel" was created. But I'd bet they can't pull it off again.

PakG1 16y ago
I think the primary point would be that Wintel created a brand new market that hadn't yet really been developed yet. This time around (if it really happens), they're attacking a market that's pretty well developed. Still growing, but by no means at an infant stage.
- philwelch 16y ago
  The distinction between "a brand new market that hasn't yet really been developed yet" and a market that's "well developed [but] still growing" can only be drawn in retrospect. Wintel was a decade late to personal computers, but it turns out a decade late was early enough.
  - PakG1 16y ago
    Fair enough. But I'd also say the key metric to analyze would be market penetration, percentage of total population buying the products. A lot more people have cell phones these days, both percentage-wise and gross numbers-wise, than people had personal computers back in the day.

SwellJoe 16y ago

You'd have to define "this kind of partnership". There are a number of mobile device makers building Windows phones. And there have been many co-development and branding deals over the years with Microsoft and PC makers. Many have been successful, many have failed. This, however, brings to mind the OS/2 deal, to me. If Microsoft culture is anything like it was in the 90s (which may not be the case), I would expect Microsoft to be a loyal partner with Nokia until such time as it is advantageous for them to go their own way, leaving Nokia holding the bag on a jointly developed "standard" platform that no one else wants. But, hey, I'm a cynical old nerd that's been involved in technology too long. The fact that Microsoft is a distant third, and losing ground daily, in the market might make a difference in how they treat their friends.

brudgers 16y ago
The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS. It looks more likely that Nokia could get out of the OS business altogether. I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up. And it is unlikely that Nokia and Microsoft will evolve to become direct competitors in the way IBM and Microsoft did in the late 1980's and early 90's.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  "I'm not sure that OS/2 is the best analogy. That wasn't a hardware company and software company teaming up." I can't make any sense of this statement. IBM was the definitive hardware company at the time. Microsoft was the definitive software company at the time. What kind of companies do you think they were? "The supposed Microsoft Nokia partnership isn't joint development of a phone OS." As far as I can tell, we have no idea what sort of partnership they have in mind. But, I would expect Nokia to want a unique value, if they build Windows phones. And they have a huge development workforce, and have made numerous software acquisitions over the years. I'd be surprised if they don't plan to write some code, too.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    IBM was a systems company, not a hardware company. The difference is that a hardware company doesn't, by and large, develop their own software. Apple is another example of a systems company.
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      "IBM was a systems company, not a hardware company. The difference is that a hardware company doesn't, by and large, develop their own software." You can't have it both ways. Nokia makes the vast majority of their own software and has for years. They have a huge software development staff, and have acquired a number of major software shops to augment it. And, while we're on the subject, in the PC market, IBM did not, by and large, develop their own software. They contracted out to Microsoft to make the OS in the beginning, and then teamed up with them to make OS/2. So, technically, I guess you can't compare the two because Nokia makes a lot more of the software on its devices than IBM made on its early PCs. But, that's the opposite of the argument you've made above. I don't think it really matters, though. I think this is a mistake for Nokia, and I think time will bear that assertion out. And, of course, if you don't like the IBM and OS/2 comparison, how about SGI and Windows NT? That was a unique relationship between a hardware (and software) company and Microsoft that had disastrous consequences for SGI.