6 ms·

> "...I think Microsoft ought to abandon Windows Phone. The war is over, and iOS and Android won." That's remarkably short-sighted. The first iPhone was releas

by polemic 13y ago

> "...I think Microsoft ought to abandon Windows Phone. The war is over, and iOS and Android won." That's remarkably short-sighted. The first iPhone was released only 6 years ago, Android 5 years ago. You really think that Microsoft - a company with nearly infinite runway, an enormous R&D investment and serious history - is going to down tools after a few years of frustration? Not likely. The prize is too big and consumers too fickle to just give up.

Steko 13y ago
Agreed. Phones aside, the viability of Chromebooks goes a long way to showing how open the OS market is compared to the desktop market a decade or two ago.
telephonetemp 13y ago
I agree. I don't see why this isn't like saying > "...I think Microsoft ought to abandon the Xbox. The war is over, and Sony and Nintendo won." a decade or so ago.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Except you have tabula rasa in console business every few years so you could jump anytime if you have the money. And games as entertainment products rarely have legs longer than a generation - we the PC master race are spoiled with decade long backwards compatibility but in the console world it is rarely so. And entertainment business (because the console is just a hardware dongle) is different beast.
  - freehunter 13y ago
    I would argue that any investment in the Halo series, God of War series, or Mario series is a big draw towards buying the next console the same as the console you currently have. Yeah, you'll have to buy Halo 5 on the Xbox One, but you've already played Halo 1-4. Switching to Killzone halfway through the series won't scratch the same itch.
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      In theory yes but: (Opinion) This generation was weak on exclusives even the strong titles were franchised and watered down during the cycle - it was combination of prolonged generation and blockbuster effect with insane production values. After all GoW2 was the swan song of the PS2 and arguably the best game for the platform and for some at all. Xbox 1 also had very strong line up in the last two years (Halo 2, NGB, Burnout, Conker). The last two years have been a desolation in the console exclusive worlds - we have some bright spots like The Last of US but it seems it really is the last of them. So I am almost not interested in next gen at all. But unlike mobile phones and tablets owning more than one living room console makes sense. You don't have cost of switching just cost of entry (buying PS3 allows me to play Uncharted but does not prevent me from cursing xbox for lack of mouse in a shooter). And you could always bring down the cost of the device to as low as needed if you are willing to take the hit. Right now in US and western europe the only users MS can get must be poached from Apple and Android. That is much harder task.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        Something like 50% of the market still owns a feature phone, last I checked.
- mikeash 13y ago
  A major difference there is that the Xbox was a success in the market.
arethuza 13y ago
For some reason your argument reminds me of DEC and the PC market - given their position in the early 1980s they should have been in a great position to compete, but they were always on the back foot and constantly playing catch up with the actual market leaders (including, of course, Microsoft).
- krenoten 13y ago
  Microsoft does have a history of doing great work while chasing others.
shangaslammi 13y ago
Yes, but the effect of ecosystem lock-down is huge compared to 5-6 years ago. It's not about who makes the best phones or phone-OS anymore. People are invested in their respective app ecosystems and all their photos, contacts, documents etc. are in Apple's or Google's cloud. I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't have a chance at all but I think the odds are against Windows phones ever reaching a significant market share no matter how much capital and R&D they stack behind it.
- harrytuttle 13y ago
  I don't agree. Most of the general users I know forget their email password every time they fuck up their phone and just buy all the apps again. This is the norm. The only thing people give a shit about is their data (and that is usually when it's way to late and they're about to lose it), not the apps.
  - Alphasite_ 13y ago
    No it's not. People may forget, but they don't rebuy things repeatadly.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      Somebody gave one of my students a fairly (< 1yr old) new laptop the other day because they got it loaded up with viruses, (virii?) There is a market segment with more money than brains, it is large.
      - slurry 13y ago
        Viruses.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - 13y ago
7952 13y ago
We are getting to a point where the power of the device is less of a distinguishing factor. Lots of people are satisfied with the hardware of the previous generation Iphone or lower spec'd Android Phones. If hardware prices continue to drop the feature phone market (which Nokia dominates) could easily turn into a low end smart phone market. The Windows Phone OS could actually be a good choice for this. This is also useful for Microsoft in the business market where there are a surprising number of feature phones (and aging Blackberry's).
- Samuel_Michon 13y ago
  I don’t understand that reasoning. Why would a phone maker choose Windows Phone over Android? – Android is cheaper than Windows Phone (many phone makers pay Microsoft to be able to use patents used in Android, but even then, Android is cheaper than Windows Phone) – Android has lower system requirements than Windows Phone – Android has a thriving app market, Windows Phone doesn’t Windows Phone low-end phones will only be hit if Microsoft convinces network operators to push them. That could happen if network operators were to regain power over the consumer by doing so. For instance, it could mean that on those phones, the app market is managed by the network operator, customers would pay different rates for different kinds of data, and customers could only use a pre-installed web browser that serves the network operator’s ads.
  - throwawaykf02 13y ago
    Android certainly does not have lower system requirements than Windows Phone. I mean, it could run on lower spec hardware... for some definition of "run". Mine are both last-gen devices, but my Lumia has half the cores and RAM as my Galaxy and runs twice as smoothly. I hear later versions of Android did get smoother on flagship phones, but I don't know how or if that translates to lower-end devices.
    - slurry 13y ago
      The smoothness thing is actually an architectural choice. On Windows and iOS, the multitasking subsystem will stop the world for a user gesture. On Android it treats a user gesture as one task to handle among many.
bodyfour 13y ago
Exactly. Plus it's a prize Microsoft probably feels it can't afford to lose. If Android magically evaporated tomorrow Google would be just fine -- the core of their business (ad sales) doesn't fundamentally require that they control the mobile platform, although it certainly makes things easier. Microsoft, on the other hand, had for decades been the platform company. They've historically tried to grow by pushing out from their desktop beachhead into other territory they think they can control the platform for (i.e. servers, game consoles) Now suddenly they've found themselves behind in the highest-growth segments of the industry. In fact, just "behind" doesn't do their situation justice: they've had to spend billions just to claw themselves into a distant third place. I expect that those billions will keep flowing. Microsoft is desperate to win this thing.
- bad_user 13y ago
  > If Android magically evaporated tomorrow Google would be just fine -- the core of their business (ad sales) doesn't fundamentally require that they control the mobile platform I do not agree. They don't necessarily need to control the mobile platform, but they do need access to the distribution channels. Witness how Apple replaced Google Maps with their own solution, even before their solution was good enough, as if they couldn't wait to get rid of GMaps. At some point not so long ago, they also threatened to replace Google's search engine with Bing by default. In 2009 Google Voice was also rejected from iTunes because it was "duplicating existing functionality". Google is basically playing Microsoft's own game from the nineties - controlling the platform makes them a valuable distribution channel, ensuring not only their survival, but also giving them leverage in expanding to new markets. Google is bigger and much more dangerous today because of Android, which IMHO is vital for them going forward.
  - NotAnEngineer 13y ago
    > At some point not so long ago, they also threatened to replace Google's search engine with Bing by default. In iOS 7, Siri (the only search interface Apple cares about) will search Bing by default. Source: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/10/a-wiser-siri-snubs-google-for-bing-in-apples-upcoming-ios-7 http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/10/a-wiser-siri-snubs...
raverbashing 13y ago
> "...I think Microsoft ought to abandon Windows Phone. The war is over, and iOS and Android won." This sounds like (some years ago) "I think Google ought to abandon their search engine, the war is over and Yahoo and Altavista won"
- narcissus 13y ago
  There is a slight difference, though, in that as soon as Google went to market with their search engine, it was a hit. Or it seemed like it at least. I don't have the numbers, but I can only imagine that uptake of Google was a lot faster than that of Windows Phone. Now I understand that search engines are a lot easier to switch to than phones etc. but it still makes for a less compelling comparison.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I don't think it's right to count Windows Phone separately from Microsoft's previous mobile phone offerings. Even if it was a major change from before, it was still part of the lineage. If you count it that way, Microsoft has been in the mobile phone OS business for well over a decade and they still have essentially no traction. They had traction back when the smartphone market was tiny, but they didn't expand with the market once Apple and Google blew it open. If Google were still struggling to get traction with their search engine in 2010, I think it would be quite fair to say that Yahoo or whoever had won and maybe they should give it up.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Google was a huge hit since it was hosted on Stanford's servers. It was just so obvious from the beginning that it was easier to use, and produced better results than the incumbents.
windexh8er 13y ago
It's not about having the resources, it's knowing when you understand you don't have the devices to compete. Then myth that Microsoft has "unlimited runway" is just pure market BS at this point. Microsoft is not invincible based on its former pedigree. We also know that they're likely being funneled money via programs that spy on Americans and are likely helping float products that should have failed (speculation, but the facts are there). The crux of it is Microsoft is not good at R&D today. Microsoft sells products that people still buy. People don't buy Nokia as much. What was the driver? Surely not to turn them around. We know that's not what they do with an acquisition.
- jyrkesh 13y ago
  I don't think it's "pure market BS". Microsoft has "total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments standing at $77.02 billion as of June 30."[1] For a company that's still in the black, that's a pretty long runway. And I have trouble understanding why the NSA stuff is relevant here. Believe me, I'm as upset as anyone here about it, but I really don't think that Microsoft is propped as a company by some cash that the NSA gave them to build out some relatively trivial monitoring infrastructure. [1]http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/a-trojan-horse-once-again-stephen-elop-now-evp-of-devices-at-microsoft-confirmed-as-an-internal-candidate-for-ceo-slot-as-he-lays-out-plans-in-his-own-words/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/a-trojan-horse-once-again-s...
  - windexh8er 13y ago
    I think the recent revelations reveal my point re: NSA. A significant amount of that NSA budget is being used to buy into product steering and development. This was rather obvious as details started coming to light. I never said Microsoft was "propped", but that is artificially stimulating a company based on a flawed reality of market and investment (i.e. consumers are not buying a product to increase this margin - and in fact these funds are making the product less viable from the consumer standpoint).
- polemic 13y ago
  "The crux of it is Microsoft is not good at R&D today." Where on earth did you hear that? Both Nokia and Microsoft are known for producing high quality products and investing heavily in R&D. The don't have a technology problem, they've got a branding, positioning and strategic problem.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Microsoft isn't abandoning the mobile war anytime soon. Too many things depend on it: in particular, its burgeoning media business that grew out of XBox Live (which is successful for a lot more than just games these days). Microsoft recognizes that, to preserve the its position in what people once called "the war for the living room," it needs to fight for the territory outside the living room. Windows Phone may or may not have a shot in hell, and things don't look good in the short term. But finding success somewhere in mobile is a strategic imperative for the company. Doing that through a hardware acquisition seems strange. And to Ben's point, this is a particularly weird "Why buy the cow?" scenario, given the preexisting partnership that served roughly the same purpose. We'll see what Microsoft is thinking, but I'm scratching my head. Consumers are fickle, to your point, but en masse, they're also creatures of convenience. Android and/or iOS seem like mighty convenient platforms right now, from a consumer's POV.
lnanek2 13y ago
And everyone thought XBox would be a consistent failure whereas the series ending up pioneering a lot of network service stuff and being well considered now.
- GVIrish 13y ago
  Xbox didn't struggle for several years trying to achieve just 3% market share. I can guarantee you that if the Xbox only had 3% of the market today, Microsoft would've given up. Clearly the mobile market is far bigger than the game console market, but fact of the matter is that the Xbox got far more traction early on than Windows Phone has ever gotten.
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  Though many people think it still hasn't earned back the $20-odd billion investment that's been put into it, which makes it a failure by many definitions.
Tloewald 13y ago
Microsoft seems to avoid competing on even playing fields. It would rather own the platform and dictate terms than try to be the best in a crowded market. There's one notable area where Microsoft has competed and thrived: Microsoft does quite well on the Mac platform, possibly making more money from each Mac sold than it does from each Windows PC sold. And there are in fact more viable word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation program competitors it needs to worry about on the Mac than there are on Windows (Apple's just for starters). What's short-sighted is Microsoft not being willing to pursue the strategy it has been successful with on the Mac on other platforms such as Android and iOS, and gambling everything on creating another platform it can strong-arm users and developers on -- something it has only quasi-succeeded in doing once (XBox).
- geoka9 13y ago
  > There's one notable area where Microsoft has competed and thrived: Microsoft does quite well on the Mac platform I wouldn't call it a level playing field. They've had a lot of time to make inroads into the market by not documenting the office file formats for as long as possible, so people had no choice but to buy their software. The formats are documented now, but it's very hard for the competition to get people to switch from a product they are already comfortable with.
  - Tloewald 13y ago
    Good point, but at one point when the dominant WP on DOS was WordPerfect, Word won its position against MacWrite, WriteNow, and several other very solid products.
pmelendez 13y ago
Also the phrase "the war is over" is true until it is not. "The war was over" for online search before Google entered in the game. The war was over for mp3 players until the ipod came out. The war was over for Apple back in 98. The war was over for internet browsers until Chrome came out.

by polemic 13y ago

Steko 13y ago

Agreed. Phones aside, the viability of Chromebooks goes a long way to showing how open the OS market is compared to the desktop market a decade or two ago.

telephonetemp 13y ago

I agree. I don't see why this isn't like saying > "...I think Microsoft ought to abandon the Xbox. The war is over, and Sony and Nintendo won." a decade or so ago.

venomsnake 13y ago
Except you have tabula rasa in console business every few years so you could jump anytime if you have the money. And games as entertainment products rarely have legs longer than a generation - we the PC master race are spoiled with decade long backwards compatibility but in the console world it is rarely so. And entertainment business (because the console is just a hardware dongle) is different beast.
- freehunter 13y ago
  I would argue that any investment in the Halo series, God of War series, or Mario series is a big draw towards buying the next console the same as the console you currently have. Yeah, you'll have to buy Halo 5 on the Xbox One, but you've already played Halo 1-4. Switching to Killzone halfway through the series won't scratch the same itch.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    In theory yes but: (Opinion) This generation was weak on exclusives even the strong titles were franchised and watered down during the cycle - it was combination of prolonged generation and blockbuster effect with insane production values. After all GoW2 was the swan song of the PS2 and arguably the best game for the platform and for some at all. Xbox 1 also had very strong line up in the last two years (Halo 2, NGB, Burnout, Conker). The last two years have been a desolation in the console exclusive worlds - we have some bright spots like The Last of US but it seems it really is the last of them. So I am almost not interested in next gen at all. But unlike mobile phones and tablets owning more than one living room console makes sense. You don't have cost of switching just cost of entry (buying PS3 allows me to play Uncharted but does not prevent me from cursing xbox for lack of mouse in a shooter). And you could always bring down the cost of the device to as low as needed if you are willing to take the hit. Right now in US and western europe the only users MS can get must be poached from Apple and Android. That is much harder task.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Something like 50% of the market still owns a feature phone, last I checked.
mikeash 13y ago
A major difference there is that the Xbox was a success in the market.

arethuza 13y ago

For some reason your argument reminds me of DEC and the PC market - given their position in the early 1980s they should have been in a great position to compete, but they were always on the back foot and constantly playing catch up with the actual market leaders (including, of course, Microsoft).

krenoten 13y ago
Microsoft does have a history of doing great work while chasing others.

shangaslammi 13y ago

Yes, but the effect of ecosystem lock-down is huge compared to 5-6 years ago. It's not about who makes the best phones or phone-OS anymore. People are invested in their respective app ecosystems and all their photos, contacts, documents etc. are in Apple's or Google's cloud. I'm not saying that Microsoft doesn't have a chance at all but I think the odds are against Windows phones ever reaching a significant market share no matter how much capital and R&D they stack behind it.

harrytuttle 13y ago
I don't agree. Most of the general users I know forget their email password every time they fuck up their phone and just buy all the apps again. This is the norm. The only thing people give a shit about is their data (and that is usually when it's way to late and they're about to lose it), not the apps.
- Alphasite_ 13y ago
  No it's not. People may forget, but they don't rebuy things repeatadly.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Somebody gave one of my students a fairly (< 1yr old) new laptop the other day because they got it loaded up with viruses, (virii?) There is a market segment with more money than brains, it is large.
    - slurry 13y ago
      Viruses.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - 13y ago

7952 13y ago

We are getting to a point where the power of the device is less of a distinguishing factor. Lots of people are satisfied with the hardware of the previous generation Iphone or lower spec'd Android Phones. If hardware prices continue to drop the feature phone market (which Nokia dominates) could easily turn into a low end smart phone market. The Windows Phone OS could actually be a good choice for this. This is also useful for Microsoft in the business market where there are a surprising number of feature phones (and aging Blackberry's).

Samuel_Michon 13y ago
I don’t understand that reasoning. Why would a phone maker choose Windows Phone over Android? – Android is cheaper than Windows Phone (many phone makers pay Microsoft to be able to use patents used in Android, but even then, Android is cheaper than Windows Phone) – Android has lower system requirements than Windows Phone – Android has a thriving app market, Windows Phone doesn’t Windows Phone low-end phones will only be hit if Microsoft convinces network operators to push them. That could happen if network operators were to regain power over the consumer by doing so. For instance, it could mean that on those phones, the app market is managed by the network operator, customers would pay different rates for different kinds of data, and customers could only use a pre-installed web browser that serves the network operator’s ads.
- throwawaykf02 13y ago
  Android certainly does not have lower system requirements than Windows Phone. I mean, it could run on lower spec hardware... for some definition of "run". Mine are both last-gen devices, but my Lumia has half the cores and RAM as my Galaxy and runs twice as smoothly. I hear later versions of Android did get smoother on flagship phones, but I don't know how or if that translates to lower-end devices.
  - slurry 13y ago
    The smoothness thing is actually an architectural choice. On Windows and iOS, the multitasking subsystem will stop the world for a user gesture. On Android it treats a user gesture as one task to handle among many.

bodyfour 13y ago

Exactly. Plus it's a prize Microsoft probably feels it can't afford to lose. If Android magically evaporated tomorrow Google would be just fine -- the core of their business (ad sales) doesn't fundamentally require that they control the mobile platform, although it certainly makes things easier. Microsoft, on the other hand, had for decades been the platform company. They've historically tried to grow by pushing out from their desktop beachhead into other territory they think they can control the platform for (i.e. servers, game consoles) Now suddenly they've found themselves behind in the highest-growth segments of the industry. In fact, just "behind" doesn't do their situation justice: they've had to spend billions just to claw themselves into a distant third place. I expect that those billions will keep flowing. Microsoft is desperate to win this thing.

bad_user 13y ago
> If Android magically evaporated tomorrow Google would be just fine -- the core of their business (ad sales) doesn't fundamentally require that they control the mobile platform I do not agree. They don't necessarily need to control the mobile platform, but they do need access to the distribution channels. Witness how Apple replaced Google Maps with their own solution, even before their solution was good enough, as if they couldn't wait to get rid of GMaps. At some point not so long ago, they also threatened to replace Google's search engine with Bing by default. In 2009 Google Voice was also rejected from iTunes because it was "duplicating existing functionality". Google is basically playing Microsoft's own game from the nineties - controlling the platform makes them a valuable distribution channel, ensuring not only their survival, but also giving them leverage in expanding to new markets. Google is bigger and much more dangerous today because of Android, which IMHO is vital for them going forward.
- NotAnEngineer 13y ago
  > At some point not so long ago, they also threatened to replace Google's search engine with Bing by default. In iOS 7, Siri (the only search interface Apple cares about) will search Bing by default. Source: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/10/a-wiser-siri-snubs-google-for-bing-in-apples-upcoming-ios-7 http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/06/10/a-wiser-siri-snubs...

raverbashing 13y ago

> "...I think Microsoft ought to abandon Windows Phone. The war is over, and iOS and Android won." This sounds like (some years ago) "I think Google ought to abandon their search engine, the war is over and Yahoo and Altavista won"

narcissus 13y ago
There is a slight difference, though, in that as soon as Google went to market with their search engine, it was a hit. Or it seemed like it at least. I don't have the numbers, but I can only imagine that uptake of Google was a lot faster than that of Windows Phone. Now I understand that search engines are a lot easier to switch to than phones etc. but it still makes for a less compelling comparison.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't think it's right to count Windows Phone separately from Microsoft's previous mobile phone offerings. Even if it was a major change from before, it was still part of the lineage. If you count it that way, Microsoft has been in the mobile phone OS business for well over a decade and they still have essentially no traction. They had traction back when the smartphone market was tiny, but they didn't expand with the market once Apple and Google blew it open. If Google were still struggling to get traction with their search engine in 2010, I think it would be quite fair to say that Yahoo or whoever had won and maybe they should give it up.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Google was a huge hit since it was hosted on Stanford's servers. It was just so obvious from the beginning that it was easier to use, and produced better results than the incumbents.

windexh8er 13y ago

It's not about having the resources, it's knowing when you understand you don't have the devices to compete. Then myth that Microsoft has "unlimited runway" is just pure market BS at this point. Microsoft is not invincible based on its former pedigree. We also know that they're likely being funneled money via programs that spy on Americans and are likely helping float products that should have failed (speculation, but the facts are there). The crux of it is Microsoft is not good at R&D today. Microsoft sells products that people still buy. People don't buy Nokia as much. What was the driver? Surely not to turn them around. We know that's not what they do with an acquisition.

jyrkesh 13y ago
I don't think it's "pure market BS". Microsoft has "total cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments standing at $77.02 billion as of June 30."[1] For a company that's still in the black, that's a pretty long runway. And I have trouble understanding why the NSA stuff is relevant here. Believe me, I'm as upset as anyone here about it, but I really don't think that Microsoft is propped as a company by some cash that the NSA gave them to build out some relatively trivial monitoring infrastructure. [1]http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/a-trojan-horse-once-again-stephen-elop-now-evp-of-devices-at-microsoft-confirmed-as-an-internal-candidate-for-ceo-slot-as-he-lays-out-plans-in-his-own-words/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/a-trojan-horse-once-again-s...
- windexh8er 13y ago
  I think the recent revelations reveal my point re: NSA. A significant amount of that NSA budget is being used to buy into product steering and development. This was rather obvious as details started coming to light. I never said Microsoft was "propped", but that is artificially stimulating a company based on a flawed reality of market and investment (i.e. consumers are not buying a product to increase this margin - and in fact these funds are making the product less viable from the consumer standpoint).
polemic 13y ago
"The crux of it is Microsoft is not good at R&D today." Where on earth did you hear that? Both Nokia and Microsoft are known for producing high quality products and investing heavily in R&D. The don't have a technology problem, they've got a branding, positioning and strategic problem.

jonnathanson 13y ago

Microsoft isn't abandoning the mobile war anytime soon. Too many things depend on it: in particular, its burgeoning media business that grew out of XBox Live (which is successful for a lot more than just games these days). Microsoft recognizes that, to preserve the its position in what people once called "the war for the living room," it needs to fight for the territory outside the living room. Windows Phone may or may not have a shot in hell, and things don't look good in the short term. But finding success somewhere in mobile is a strategic imperative for the company. Doing that through a hardware acquisition seems strange. And to Ben's point, this is a particularly weird "Why buy the cow?" scenario, given the preexisting partnership that served roughly the same purpose. We'll see what Microsoft is thinking, but I'm scratching my head. Consumers are fickle, to your point, but en masse, they're also creatures of convenience. Android and/or iOS seem like mighty convenient platforms right now, from a consumer's POV.

lnanek2 13y ago

And everyone thought XBox would be a consistent failure whereas the series ending up pioneering a lot of network service stuff and being well considered now.

GVIrish 13y ago
Xbox didn't struggle for several years trying to achieve just 3% market share. I can guarantee you that if the Xbox only had 3% of the market today, Microsoft would've given up. Clearly the mobile market is far bigger than the game console market, but fact of the matter is that the Xbox got far more traction early on than Windows Phone has ever gotten.
ZeroGravitas 13y ago
Though many people think it still hasn't earned back the $20-odd billion investment that's been put into it, which makes it a failure by many definitions.

Tloewald 13y ago

Microsoft seems to avoid competing on even playing fields. It would rather own the platform and dictate terms than try to be the best in a crowded market. There's one notable area where Microsoft has competed and thrived: Microsoft does quite well on the Mac platform, possibly making more money from each Mac sold than it does from each Windows PC sold. And there are in fact more viable word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation program competitors it needs to worry about on the Mac than there are on Windows (Apple's just for starters). What's short-sighted is Microsoft not being willing to pursue the strategy it has been successful with on the Mac on other platforms such as Android and iOS, and gambling everything on creating another platform it can strong-arm users and developers on -- something it has only quasi-succeeded in doing once (XBox).

geoka9 13y ago
> There's one notable area where Microsoft has competed and thrived: Microsoft does quite well on the Mac platform I wouldn't call it a level playing field. They've had a lot of time to make inroads into the market by not documenting the office file formats for as long as possible, so people had no choice but to buy their software. The formats are documented now, but it's very hard for the competition to get people to switch from a product they are already comfortable with.
- Tloewald 13y ago
  Good point, but at one point when the dominant WP on DOS was WordPerfect, Word won its position against MacWrite, WriteNow, and several other very solid products.

pmelendez 13y ago

Also the phrase "the war is over" is true until it is not. "The war was over" for online search before Google entered in the game. The war was over for mp3 players until the ipod came out. The war was over for Apple back in 98. The war was over for internet browsers until Chrome came out.