3 ms·

And it's almost funny--they've been hamstrung by being too far ahead of the pack in some ways. Look at all the trouble they had when they built Windows on top

And it's almost funny--they've been hamstrung by being too far ahead of the pack in some ways. Look at all the trouble they had when they built Windows on top of the IE engine. In a way, that's one of the first steps towards a real use for the "cloud"--what should be different about browsing for a file on your computer and browsing the internet? And that ended up causing them some serious money. They flubbed their early efforts at mobile OS development also. They had a real chance to corner the market before Apple was even making iPods, I believe. But they got too focused on beating Blackberry and didn't really look past them (in my opinion--I'm no expert). Then the tablet: Microsoft was one of the first to really push tablet computers. Unfortunately, the technology wasn't there to support the idea. So they shelved it for awhile, then Apple came along ~10 years later and did it "right". And now Microsoft is trying to play catch up to a field where they did a decent amount of the early work.

snom380 13y ago
The technology was there, several years before the iPad I had a PC with a capacitive touchscreen. What Microsoft lacked was the insight to realize that just cramming a touchscreen and stylus on Windows XP wouldn't work. Apple, perhaps with the hindsight of the Newton, realized that creating a completely new GUI optimized for finger touch was the way to go (or rather their experiments stemming from multi-touch trackpads showed them that it was _a_ way to go).
beagle3 13y ago
That's not how any of these things went. > Look at all the trouble they had when they built Windows on top of the IE engine. They didn't build windows on top of IE. They showhorned IE in as a technical solution to a legal problem (How to abuse their monopoly without it being patently obvious to everyone). Just to be clear - At the time, IE4 was way better than Netscape4 - but it only became popular when it was available by default. And it was a successful solution, on all accounts - they killed netscape, they won the web (for a while), and they paid very little in damages eventually. > Then the tablet: Microsoft was one of the first to really push tablet computers. Unfortunately, the technology wasn't there to support the idea. The technology WAS there, but Microsoft's UI wasn't - they continuously tried (and failed) to make a desktop-OS touch-usable. I've never used one myself, but everyone I know who had a Newton said it was "just right". And the palm pilot worked very well too. People underestimate what apple have done with the iphone and tablets - they've figured out the UI/UX. Hardware is an important, but lesser part of this equation. Microsoft, for 10 years, couldn't figure out that there even was a UI/UX problem.
- rsynnott 13y ago
  > I've never used one myself, but everyone I know who had a Newton said it was "just right". Interestingly, a big part of the Newton's failure (along with the terrible v1 handwriting recognition, which was largely fixed later, and Apple's strained finances) was that they went for a complete break with the past; there was basically no developer familiarity. iOS was probably a sweet spot; new, purpose-designed interface bearing very little resemblance to MacOS beyond font choices, but almost the same under the hood.
rsynnott 13y ago
> They had a real chance to corner the market before Apple was even making iPods, I believe They were so very, very insistent on "it has to be Windows!" which lead to the notoriously dreadful Windows CE/Mobile interface. This goes on to an extent, but now more as a confusing marketing thing; Windows Phone does not seem like a good name for a phone that doesn't have windows as a concept.

snom380 13y ago

The technology was there, several years before the iPad I had a PC with a capacitive touchscreen. What Microsoft lacked was the insight to realize that just cramming a touchscreen and stylus on Windows XP wouldn't work. Apple, perhaps with the hindsight of the Newton, realized that creating a completely new GUI optimized for finger touch was the way to go (or rather their experiments stemming from multi-touch trackpads showed them that it was _a_ way to go).

beagle3 13y ago

That's not how any of these things went. > Look at all the trouble they had when they built Windows on top of the IE engine. They didn't build windows on top of IE. They showhorned IE in as a technical solution to a legal problem (How to abuse their monopoly without it being patently obvious to everyone). Just to be clear - At the time, IE4 was way better than Netscape4 - but it only became popular when it was available by default. And it was a successful solution, on all accounts - they killed netscape, they won the web (for a while), and they paid very little in damages eventually. > Then the tablet: Microsoft was one of the first to really push tablet computers. Unfortunately, the technology wasn't there to support the idea. The technology WAS there, but Microsoft's UI wasn't - they continuously tried (and failed) to make a desktop-OS touch-usable. I've never used one myself, but everyone I know who had a Newton said it was "just right". And the palm pilot worked very well too. People underestimate what apple have done with the iphone and tablets - they've figured out the UI/UX. Hardware is an important, but lesser part of this equation. Microsoft, for 10 years, couldn't figure out that there even was a UI/UX problem.

rsynnott 13y ago
> I've never used one myself, but everyone I know who had a Newton said it was "just right". Interestingly, a big part of the Newton's failure (along with the terrible v1 handwriting recognition, which was largely fixed later, and Apple's strained finances) was that they went for a complete break with the past; there was basically no developer familiarity. iOS was probably a sweet spot; new, purpose-designed interface bearing very little resemblance to MacOS beyond font choices, but almost the same under the hood.

rsynnott 13y ago

> They had a real chance to corner the market before Apple was even making iPods, I believe They were so very, very insistent on "it has to be Windows!" which lead to the notoriously dreadful Windows CE/Mobile interface. This goes on to an extent, but now more as a confusing marketing thing; Windows Phone does not seem like a good name for a phone that doesn't have windows as a concept.