3 ms·

That’s…so long ago. The Apple with a two trillion dollar market cap and a spaceship campus is not the Apple of that era. The wider market and world aren’t what

That’s…so long ago. The Apple with a two trillion dollar market cap and a spaceship campus is not the Apple of that era. The wider market and world aren’t what they were then, either. It doesn’t mean very much at all.

coldtea 4y ago
Doesn't matter. Those things can go in the span of a few years. Remember when Blackberry was king? Pepperidge Farm remembers!
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  Nokia, Blackberrys ... it turned out that having a world class OS was more important than perhaps anyone at the time knew. My surprise is that Android is the "other one" and not Windows Phone.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    Why are you surprised, you said it yourself: > it turned out that having a world class OS was more important than perhaps anyone at the time knew. Microsoft never fully committed to a phone OS because workable tablets might have demolished the desktop market.
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      Microsoft actually had workable tablets by the mid-2000s. With Windows XP Tablet Edition. Then they wasted time and effort trying to push a crappy tablet UX (Windows 8) to desktop users.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >Microsoft actually had workable tablets by the mid-2000s. With Windows XP Tablet Edition. The problem was that the "Windows XP Tablet Edition" was utter crap. A desktop OS and its mentality shoved into tablet form with modifications that fell way short of what was actually needed for that form. The iPad was the first tablet that got it right - and feel like a tablet meant for tablety things, as opposed to a PC without a keyboard and crippled in all sorts of ways.
      - vetinari 4y ago
        I would put an emphasis on "workable". XP Tablet Edition was not that.
      - alxlaz 4y ago
        Windows XP Tabled Edition was to tablets as Windows 8 was to desktops and laptops: a solid (for its age) OS, but with an interface that was not adequate for that form factor. Using it on a tablet was just as annoying as using Windows 8 on a laptop. I hated it, my colleagues hated it -- I don't know anyone who didn't hate it.
  - vetinari 4y ago
    > My surprise is that Android is the "other one" and not Windows Phone. I'm not. Microsoft, with WP, copied the weak things from iOS (like being locked down, but also with very poor walled garden; single platform, Snapdragon reference design only), but not the strong ones. Android did it the other way, so I'm not surprised at all.
- simonh 4y ago
  The problem they had was that they sold individual standalone products, not platforms. There was very little to keep a user with the same vendor other than liking the next product. A platform is a different beast completely, and once a platform or set of platforms gets established at scale in a market, it’s almost impossible for a new entrant to compete with it. This is because platforms have three advantages. The first is a user’s sunk investment. I own hundreds of pounds worth of iOS software, and even the free software I use took an investment of time and effort to learn. Plus I now have considerable assets in those file formats and storage systems. Switching to a new platform would be expensive in money and time. The second advantage is network effects, my whole family is on the same platform, so is my company and many of my friends using the same services. The third advantage is the ecosystem. There is a plethora of software and services available for iOS that a new entrant won’t have, many offered by third parties. In competing with iOS and Android you’re not just competing with Apple and Google, but also the entire ecosystems of companies that complement them. These three advantages also apply to Android and its users. This is why even Microsoft could not break into the modern mobile smartphone platforms market, they were too late. Android and iOS had critical mass in all three areas. Google was incredibly lucky they managed to get Android up to being a viable platform before Apple had the entire mobile platform market sewn up. Fortunately the Android team at the time knew the new game they were playing when they saw the iPhone announcement, and realised they were in a race against time for survival. This is also why the desktop is dominated today by the same platforms it was in the 90s. Mac and Windows. Arguably we could extend that to the 80s with Mac and DOS. That’s around 3 decades of stability. The mobile market in its current form was established around 12 years ago. I would not be at all surprised if the mobile market is still dominated by Android and iOS in another 20 years. There are incredibly powerful forces driving this.

coldtea 4y ago

Doesn't matter. Those things can go in the span of a few years. Remember when Blackberry was king? Pepperidge Farm remembers!

JKCalhoun 4y ago
Nokia, Blackberrys ... it turned out that having a world class OS was more important than perhaps anyone at the time knew. My surprise is that Android is the "other one" and not Windows Phone.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  Why are you surprised, you said it yourself: > it turned out that having a world class OS was more important than perhaps anyone at the time knew. Microsoft never fully committed to a phone OS because workable tablets might have demolished the desktop market.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Microsoft actually had workable tablets by the mid-2000s. With Windows XP Tablet Edition. Then they wasted time and effort trying to push a crappy tablet UX (Windows 8) to desktop users.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >Microsoft actually had workable tablets by the mid-2000s. With Windows XP Tablet Edition. The problem was that the "Windows XP Tablet Edition" was utter crap. A desktop OS and its mentality shoved into tablet form with modifications that fell way short of what was actually needed for that form. The iPad was the first tablet that got it right - and feel like a tablet meant for tablety things, as opposed to a PC without a keyboard and crippled in all sorts of ways.
    - vetinari 4y ago
      I would put an emphasis on "workable". XP Tablet Edition was not that.
    - alxlaz 4y ago
      Windows XP Tabled Edition was to tablets as Windows 8 was to desktops and laptops: a solid (for its age) OS, but with an interface that was not adequate for that form factor. Using it on a tablet was just as annoying as using Windows 8 on a laptop. I hated it, my colleagues hated it -- I don't know anyone who didn't hate it.
- vetinari 4y ago
  > My surprise is that Android is the "other one" and not Windows Phone. I'm not. Microsoft, with WP, copied the weak things from iOS (like being locked down, but also with very poor walled garden; single platform, Snapdragon reference design only), but not the strong ones. Android did it the other way, so I'm not surprised at all.
simonh 4y ago
The problem they had was that they sold individual standalone products, not platforms. There was very little to keep a user with the same vendor other than liking the next product. A platform is a different beast completely, and once a platform or set of platforms gets established at scale in a market, it’s almost impossible for a new entrant to compete with it. This is because platforms have three advantages. The first is a user’s sunk investment. I own hundreds of pounds worth of iOS software, and even the free software I use took an investment of time and effort to learn. Plus I now have considerable assets in those file formats and storage systems. Switching to a new platform would be expensive in money and time. The second advantage is network effects, my whole family is on the same platform, so is my company and many of my friends using the same services. The third advantage is the ecosystem. There is a plethora of software and services available for iOS that a new entrant won’t have, many offered by third parties. In competing with iOS and Android you’re not just competing with Apple and Google, but also the entire ecosystems of companies that complement them. These three advantages also apply to Android and its users. This is why even Microsoft could not break into the modern mobile smartphone platforms market, they were too late. Android and iOS had critical mass in all three areas. Google was incredibly lucky they managed to get Android up to being a viable platform before Apple had the entire mobile platform market sewn up. Fortunately the Android team at the time knew the new game they were playing when they saw the iPhone announcement, and realised they were in a race against time for survival. This is also why the desktop is dominated today by the same platforms it was in the 90s. Mac and Windows. Arguably we could extend that to the 80s with Mac and DOS. That’s around 3 decades of stability. The mobile market in its current form was established around 12 years ago. I would not be at all surprised if the mobile market is still dominated by Android and iOS in another 20 years. There are incredibly powerful forces driving this.