4 ms·

With all due respect, this is where I do not agree. Microsoft is a company with a very diverse product spectrum and $60B in revenue. One has to give them some

by ashr 17y ago

With all due respect, this is where I do not agree. Microsoft is a company with a very diverse product spectrum and $60B in revenue. One has to give them some credit for sustaining high level of revenues and profit growth. It would be only fair to consider that they do have a lot of very smart people who can perhaps tell when is a short cut (FAST, Powerset ?) a better way to success and when the sheer commitment to high level of craftsmanship is the primary way. With the search business being so dominated by Google (and for very good reason), introducing an entirely new brand name like Bing is a LOT of work, just to get people's ears and eyeballs. To overcome such a huge startup latency because of a new brand, a $100m investment in marketing sounds perfectly reasonable. Overall, I think they are investing a total of ~$500m in the online business operating expenses for the year.

netsp 17y ago
Apple on the other hand, often seems to actively prefer to compete at a disadvantage. It's hard to get an Apple for work, it usually employees voicing (loudly) a preference. They rarely use price to break into or maintain markets. They want people to overcome those barriers to get the product. So if someone buys an Apple or an iphone it's because they really wanted it. When they win, it's usually because they made something someone really wanted. Wanted enough to pay for it themselves; nag their boss; learn something new or some other obstacle. It would be a break from this strategy if iphones started to be mass issued by employers putting them in to the hands of people who are apathetic. MSFT take the opposite approach. Their usually involve the path of least resistance. That often using high high/dominant market share; pricing strategies; barriers to switching; barriers to being the odd one out, etc. Both are IMO good business strategies & both are good businesses. But there is a qualitative difference in the approach. If sheer commitment to high level of craftsmanship is the primary way to winning, they probably won't win.

by ashr 17y ago

netsp 17y ago

Apple on the other hand, often seems to actively prefer to compete at a disadvantage. It's hard to get an Apple for work, it usually employees voicing (loudly) a preference. They rarely use price to break into or maintain markets. They want people to overcome those barriers to get the product. So if someone buys an Apple or an iphone it's because they really wanted it. When they win, it's usually because they made something someone really wanted. Wanted enough to pay for it themselves; nag their boss; learn something new or some other obstacle. It would be a break from this strategy if iphones started to be mass issued by employers putting them in to the hands of people who are apathetic. MSFT take the opposite approach. Their usually involve the path of least resistance. That often using high high/dominant market share; pricing strategies; barriers to switching; barriers to being the odd one out, etc. Both are IMO good business strategies & both are good businesses. But there is a qualitative difference in the approach. If sheer commitment to high level of craftsmanship is the primary way to winning, they probably won't win.