4 ms·

The easiest explanation of what happened was Microsoft were a software company who had all of their eggs in one basket relying upon third parties to use their o

The easiest explanation of what happened was Microsoft were a software company who had all of their eggs in one basket relying upon third parties to use their operating system and consumers/enterprise to use their products like Microsoft Office. Whereas Apple started out as both a hardware and software company, first computers and then portable music players (iPod), watches (iWatch) and phones (iPhone). This is where Microsoft went wrong. They focused on providing the software and let vendors like HP, etc use it on their machines. Apple was smart in seeing that there are advantages to controlling both the software and hardware (the iPhone is a perfect example of this). By the time Microsoft realised they should have been producing hardware that used their software, Apple had already overtaken it in the great tech race. Apple had the hardware and were providing the software thus locking out any competitors from their platform. Not to mention, they were focusing on the design aspect of the devices themselves which others were not. I think Microsoft have started clawing back. HoloLens looks like a seriously great product, I think the amount of time and effort they have been putting into hardware and infrastructure will undoubtedly catapult them back to the top. Not to mention Microsoft have cleverly changed their strategy to favour open source (something nobody would have predicted 7 years ago). The Xbox division also does pretty damn well too. The question is: can Apple sustain their current success? It seems the iPhone is their meal ticket, if the iPhone eventually fizzles out, where will that leave Apple?

sliverstorm 12y ago
Do remember that Microsoft became a breakout success thanks to IBM losing control of the IBM PC, upon which DOS ran. The origin of Microsoft (rampant clones, many hardware vendors) is literally the opposite of the origin of Apple's recent successes (vertically integrated, does their own hardware). Microsoft's original strength was its weakness this time around.
Dwolb 12y ago
I think you're not giving MS enough credit. The pieces of the story that are missing are IBM and Intel. IBM was the only firm in the world at the time that were able to integrate a working computer. To do so at a price that was appropriate for the home, IBM had to outsource large pieces of the project, both the CPU and OS. MS and Intel were brilliant to allow substitutes for the early IBM computers to rise to market by working with multiple customers. The first firm to fully copy IBMs system (allowing software purposed for the IBM computers to run on other machines) was Compaq. Henceforth, MS and Intel were able to commoditize the PC and extract tons of value from their portions of the value chain. MS, Intel, and Compaq were key in effectively capturing about 1/3rd of IBMs value in a short time span. The factors that led to their success can probably then be assessed in the context of Apple et al.
- swift 12y ago
  > IBM was the only firm in the world at the time that were able to integrate a working computer. I don't understand what you mean by this. A variety of personal computers were already on the market when the IBM PC came out, including models from Apple, Tandy, and Commodore.
laichzeit0 12y ago
> Apple had the hardware and were providing the software thus locking out any competitors from their platform. Lockout is one way of looking at it. Another way is that it gives them the ability to make things integrate extremely well. Seamless integration like Apple does is extremely difficult to achieve without complete control of the ecosystem. > Not to mention, they were focusing on the design aspect of the devices themselves which others were not. This is where Microsoft still falls hopelessly short. They make ugly, geeky looking hardware. Everything Apple makes looks and feels beautiful. > It seems the iPhone is their meal ticket, if the iPhone eventually fizzles out, where will that leave Apple I'm not sure which other phone I could buy that would integrate with the rest of the Apple ecosystem? Unless they lag really badly in whatever technical advances mobile phones make, this doesn't seem likely. Some people like myself don't keep buying iPhones because of its technical specifications.
- pjmlp 12y ago
  > Everything Apple makes looks and feels beautiful. I don't care how beautiful it looks if I cannot buy a CPU/GPU combo that I really need, nor if the only way to agree on device data requires some brain damaged software.
- Gigablah 12y ago
  I wouldn't call the Surface Pro "ugly" and "geeky looking".

sliverstorm 12y ago

Do remember that Microsoft became a breakout success thanks to IBM losing control of the IBM PC, upon which DOS ran. The origin of Microsoft (rampant clones, many hardware vendors) is literally the opposite of the origin of Apple's recent successes (vertically integrated, does their own hardware). Microsoft's original strength was its weakness this time around.

Dwolb 12y ago

I think you're not giving MS enough credit. The pieces of the story that are missing are IBM and Intel. IBM was the only firm in the world at the time that were able to integrate a working computer. To do so at a price that was appropriate for the home, IBM had to outsource large pieces of the project, both the CPU and OS. MS and Intel were brilliant to allow substitutes for the early IBM computers to rise to market by working with multiple customers. The first firm to fully copy IBMs system (allowing software purposed for the IBM computers to run on other machines) was Compaq. Henceforth, MS and Intel were able to commoditize the PC and extract tons of value from their portions of the value chain. MS, Intel, and Compaq were key in effectively capturing about 1/3rd of IBMs value in a short time span. The factors that led to their success can probably then be assessed in the context of Apple et al.

swift 12y ago
> IBM was the only firm in the world at the time that were able to integrate a working computer. I don't understand what you mean by this. A variety of personal computers were already on the market when the IBM PC came out, including models from Apple, Tandy, and Commodore.

laichzeit0 12y ago

> Apple had the hardware and were providing the software thus locking out any competitors from their platform. Lockout is one way of looking at it. Another way is that it gives them the ability to make things integrate extremely well. Seamless integration like Apple does is extremely difficult to achieve without complete control of the ecosystem. > Not to mention, they were focusing on the design aspect of the devices themselves which others were not. This is where Microsoft still falls hopelessly short. They make ugly, geeky looking hardware. Everything Apple makes looks and feels beautiful. > It seems the iPhone is their meal ticket, if the iPhone eventually fizzles out, where will that leave Apple I'm not sure which other phone I could buy that would integrate with the rest of the Apple ecosystem? Unless they lag really badly in whatever technical advances mobile phones make, this doesn't seem likely. Some people like myself don't keep buying iPhones because of its technical specifications.

pjmlp 12y ago
> Everything Apple makes looks and feels beautiful. I don't care how beautiful it looks if I cannot buy a CPU/GPU combo that I really need, nor if the only way to agree on device data requires some brain damaged software.
Gigablah 12y ago
I wouldn't call the Surface Pro "ugly" and "geeky looking".