3 ms·

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

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.
- windexh8er 13y ago
  Great R&D produces innovative and market stimulating products in my book. Microsoft hasn't impressed me, personally, for quite a long time. I realize this is a subjective idea to discuss - but neither Nokia or Microsoft are leaders in the mobile space (trying to create a bit of focus here since Microsoft has many facets). If you're not a leader in a segment you're not developing new and innovative products. Granted I think Apple and Google are coasting a bit right now, this comes back to innovators dilemma - which is what Nokia has grappled with going from a market innovator to irrelevant respectively (to the US market anyway). Just my $0.02, but trying to provide context.

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.

windexh8er 13y ago
Great R&D produces innovative and market stimulating products in my book. Microsoft hasn't impressed me, personally, for quite a long time. I realize this is a subjective idea to discuss - but neither Nokia or Microsoft are leaders in the mobile space (trying to create a bit of focus here since Microsoft has many facets). If you're not a leader in a segment you're not developing new and innovative products. Granted I think Apple and Google are coasting a bit right now, this comes back to innovators dilemma - which is what Nokia has grappled with going from a market innovator to irrelevant respectively (to the US market anyway). Just my $0.02, but trying to provide context.