28 ms·

I think that's one of Microsoft's main failings. "Google are making baked beans? Why aren't we in the baked bean market? Let's make beans!" "What? Now Face

by ant512 13y ago

I think that's one of Microsoft's main failings. "Google are making baked beans? Why aren't we in the baked bean market? Let's make beans!" "What? Now Facebook are making Facebook Soda? We need to make Microsoft Soda!" Every time a tech company produces something new MS have to muscle in on the market, despite having a) no prior experience, b) no aptitude, c) existing products that could use their attention.

001sky 13y ago
windows, Xbox and Explorer from the 90's...all mimic plays
leetrout 13y ago
It does feel like MS just shows up like that. Azure did (and does) give that impression; Zune, as well. And Surface tablets are also a clear response to the iPad (whether MS ever had anything in R&D previously or not, they certainly didn't ship). But I think Google is much more prone to jump in to a market with force, they just seem to execute "better" (I leave that open to interpretation). FB comes out and MS buys in whereas Google makes their own social network. Apple makes the iPhone and Google makes Android. Only much later (as the ship has already left port) does Microsoft come in with Windows Phone (I'm only considering 7 & 8). Somewhat related, I feel like MS and Dell were on target with the Axim from a product idea standpoint but Apple really capitalized on combining the functionality of a phone and forward thinking hardware and software design with iOS devices.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  That's because that has been Microsoft's strategy from the beginning: let someone else take the risk of proving whether a market for something exists, and then, if it does, get in there quick with their own offering. They got into the PC OS business with MS-DOS after the Apple II; into the GUI business with Windows after the Mac; into the word-processor business with Word after WordPerfect; into the browser business with IE after Netscape, etc. This is an established enough business strategy there's a name for it: "fast follower." (See http://www.businessinsider.com/youre-better-off-being-a-fast-follower-than-an-originator-2010-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/youre-better-off-being-a-fast...).
  - incongruity 13y ago
    In the mobile market, Google was the fast follower. MSFT's entries with windows phone and the surface cannot be called fast.
    - freehunter 13y ago
      To be fair, Windows Mobile existed and gained market dominance long before the iPhone was around. Tablet PCs were introduced with Windows XP, long before the iPad was around. Microsoft's failure was in hesitating to change with the market, not a failure to have products on the market.
      - incongruity 13y ago
        I'd go so far as to argue that it really wasn't the same market - the one that Windows Mobile was in was not anything like the smartphone market created by Apple and Google. Tablets, you can make a case for, as above, I guess, but again, the leap with the iPad was so great that it wasn't just an iteration but a leap, leaving it open for a fast follower to come on (as Google did there too).
        freehunter 13y ago
        The difference I was trying to point out was that Apple and Google had no legacy involvement in the market at all. Microsoft had clearly defined strategies that were playing out, and were working on developments to further those strategies. Apple and Google didn't have Windows Mobile 6, 7, and 8 being planned and developed when iOS or Android were released. Microsoft did. It's slower to turn a ship around than it is to start one going in the right direction in the first place. And besides faster processors and a slicker UI, what exactly puts Android in a different market than Windows Mobile? Serious question. Both allow you to develop, download, and install apps. Both are pocket computers with a cell phone built in, built on the same paradigm that Microsoft ushered in throughout the 90's (give users almost complete control, let OEMs do whatever they want on the hardware side). Windows Mobile has touchscreen support. Both can/could be gotten for very cheap or very expensive. Android seems to be, for all intents and purposes, a straight-line evolution of Windows Mobile with a Linux kernel (yet still closed-source where it really counts).
- djspin80 13y ago
  Azure wasn't so much "Amazon has EC2? We should have our EC2 as well!", Azure was one of the few products Microsoft actually succeeded in launching. Otherwise, Ballmer greeted Microsoft with a series of failures...only when Ballmer has no control does the company actually succeed.
  - ams6110 13y ago
    Azure in the private cloud has been a flop though, in fact I'm not even sure you could run a equivalent Azure cloud privately. Meanwhile OpenStack is going gangbusters.
- 300bps 13y ago
  And Surface tablets are also a clear response to the iPad I find it hard to believe that someone who writes something this wrong can function in society. Microsoft invented the tablet computer a decade before the iPad existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC Their marketing may have sucked, but they were well ahead of the rest of the industry (and apparently the world).
  - tedsanders 13y ago
    >I find it hard to believe that someone who writes something this wrong can function in society. Please, stay civil. :) Anyway, I don't think the statement is wrong. Sure, Microsoft had tablet computers first, but I think it's also true that the Surface RT and Surface Pro were made in response to the iPad's success.
    - scholia 13y ago
      As a matter of fact, the development of the Surface software started before the iPad came out...
      - leetrout 13y ago
        Citation requested. Are you referring to PixelSense?
        scholia 13y ago
        No, PixelSense had nothing to do with it. http://uxweek.com/2012/speakers/jensen-harris/ http://uxweek.com/2012/speakers/jensen-harris/ The antecedents to the Metro design were in Zune HD and the Zune desktop client, among other things.
- pritambaral 13y ago
  Agree with G+ being FB inspired. There's more to it (Google ecosystem etc.) but I'll leave that. Android, however, was totally unrelated to the iPhone. In fact, Android's development started before the iPhone. Android's inspirations were also totally different. It's just that the iPhone appealed to a larger number of initial users and thus gained market share quickly, because, well that's what it was designed to do.
nivla 13y ago
Well couldn't that be said about any company? If the competitor is doing something different, wouldn't you ask yourself why the heck am I not doing that, especially when there is an untapped revenue. Expecting companies not to follow/copy/learn from their competitors is a naive stand. >Every time a tech company produces something new MS have to muscle in on the market, despite having a) no prior experience, b) no aptitude, c) existing products that could use their attention. Similar to what Google is also trying to achieve with Google+, especially with muscling in part? Although I don't like their approach, I can't blame them for going with it. There is a huge untapped market in the social segment and they were right to put a footing on it.
- scholia 13y ago
  Most of Google's products have been knock-offs of something that already existed. Sometimes much improved knock-offs (Search, Gmail) but sometimes not (Knol, G+ etc). Android was bought in.

by ant512 13y ago

001sky 13y ago

windows, Xbox and Explorer from the 90's...all mimic plays

leetrout 13y ago

It does feel like MS just shows up like that. Azure did (and does) give that impression; Zune, as well. And Surface tablets are also a clear response to the iPad (whether MS ever had anything in R&D previously or not, they certainly didn't ship). But I think Google is much more prone to jump in to a market with force, they just seem to execute "better" (I leave that open to interpretation). FB comes out and MS buys in whereas Google makes their own social network. Apple makes the iPhone and Google makes Android. Only much later (as the ship has already left port) does Microsoft come in with Windows Phone (I'm only considering 7 & 8). Somewhat related, I feel like MS and Dell were on target with the Axim from a product idea standpoint but Apple really capitalized on combining the functionality of a phone and forward thinking hardware and software design with iOS devices.

smacktoward 13y ago
That's because that has been Microsoft's strategy from the beginning: let someone else take the risk of proving whether a market for something exists, and then, if it does, get in there quick with their own offering. They got into the PC OS business with MS-DOS after the Apple II; into the GUI business with Windows after the Mac; into the word-processor business with Word after WordPerfect; into the browser business with IE after Netscape, etc. This is an established enough business strategy there's a name for it: "fast follower." (See http://www.businessinsider.com/youre-better-off-being-a-fast-follower-than-an-originator-2010-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/youre-better-off-being-a-fast...).
- incongruity 13y ago
  In the mobile market, Google was the fast follower. MSFT's entries with windows phone and the surface cannot be called fast.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    To be fair, Windows Mobile existed and gained market dominance long before the iPhone was around. Tablet PCs were introduced with Windows XP, long before the iPad was around. Microsoft's failure was in hesitating to change with the market, not a failure to have products on the market.
    - incongruity 13y ago
      I'd go so far as to argue that it really wasn't the same market - the one that Windows Mobile was in was not anything like the smartphone market created by Apple and Google. Tablets, you can make a case for, as above, I guess, but again, the leap with the iPad was so great that it wasn't just an iteration but a leap, leaving it open for a fast follower to come on (as Google did there too).
      - freehunter 13y ago
        The difference I was trying to point out was that Apple and Google had no legacy involvement in the market at all. Microsoft had clearly defined strategies that were playing out, and were working on developments to further those strategies. Apple and Google didn't have Windows Mobile 6, 7, and 8 being planned and developed when iOS or Android were released. Microsoft did. It's slower to turn a ship around than it is to start one going in the right direction in the first place. And besides faster processors and a slicker UI, what exactly puts Android in a different market than Windows Mobile? Serious question. Both allow you to develop, download, and install apps. Both are pocket computers with a cell phone built in, built on the same paradigm that Microsoft ushered in throughout the 90's (give users almost complete control, let OEMs do whatever they want on the hardware side). Windows Mobile has touchscreen support. Both can/could be gotten for very cheap or very expensive. Android seems to be, for all intents and purposes, a straight-line evolution of Windows Mobile with a Linux kernel (yet still closed-source where it really counts).
djspin80 13y ago
Azure wasn't so much "Amazon has EC2? We should have our EC2 as well!", Azure was one of the few products Microsoft actually succeeded in launching. Otherwise, Ballmer greeted Microsoft with a series of failures...only when Ballmer has no control does the company actually succeed.
- ams6110 13y ago
  Azure in the private cloud has been a flop though, in fact I'm not even sure you could run a equivalent Azure cloud privately. Meanwhile OpenStack is going gangbusters.
300bps 13y ago
And Surface tablets are also a clear response to the iPad I find it hard to believe that someone who writes something this wrong can function in society. Microsoft invented the tablet computer a decade before the iPad existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Tablet_PC Their marketing may have sucked, but they were well ahead of the rest of the industry (and apparently the world).
- tedsanders 13y ago
  >I find it hard to believe that someone who writes something this wrong can function in society. Please, stay civil. :) Anyway, I don't think the statement is wrong. Sure, Microsoft had tablet computers first, but I think it's also true that the Surface RT and Surface Pro were made in response to the iPad's success.
  - scholia 13y ago
    As a matter of fact, the development of the Surface software started before the iPad came out...
    - leetrout 13y ago
      Citation requested. Are you referring to PixelSense?
      - scholia 13y ago
        No, PixelSense had nothing to do with it. http://uxweek.com/2012/speakers/jensen-harris/ http://uxweek.com/2012/speakers/jensen-harris/ The antecedents to the Metro design were in Zune HD and the Zune desktop client, among other things.
pritambaral 13y ago
Agree with G+ being FB inspired. There's more to it (Google ecosystem etc.) but I'll leave that. Android, however, was totally unrelated to the iPhone. In fact, Android's development started before the iPhone. Android's inspirations were also totally different. It's just that the iPhone appealed to a larger number of initial users and thus gained market share quickly, because, well that's what it was designed to do.

nivla 13y ago

Well couldn't that be said about any company? If the competitor is doing something different, wouldn't you ask yourself why the heck am I not doing that, especially when there is an untapped revenue. Expecting companies not to follow/copy/learn from their competitors is a naive stand. >Every time a tech company produces something new MS have to muscle in on the market, despite having a) no prior experience, b) no aptitude, c) existing products that could use their attention. Similar to what Google is also trying to achieve with Google+, especially with muscling in part? Although I don't like their approach, I can't blame them for going with it. There is a huge untapped market in the social segment and they were right to put a footing on it.

scholia 13y ago
Most of Google's products have been knock-offs of something that already existed. Sometimes much improved knock-offs (Search, Gmail) but sometimes not (Knol, G+ etc). Android was bought in.