4 ms·

The article has a tongue-in-cheek yet enjoyable way of getting people updated on what MS is up to lately.

Silhouette 12y ago
The trouble is, even with the tongue-in-cheek style, the article still didn't mention a single thing Microsoft is planning that actually made me excited or likely to give them any of my money. In fact, it didn't even try to suggest a general strategy for how Microsoft is going to make its money when it starts giving away one of its most significant products, other than repeated reference to the ubiquitous "services". I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, but I don't understand betting a company with Microsoft's strengths and track record on a mobile-first, cloud-first strategy today. The mobile market is borderline stagnant, having reduced consumer pricing expectations for both apps and on-line services to the point where hardly anyone makes any money in that market any more except for the huge advertising networks. The inevitable and always blindingly obvious risks of relying on cloud services finally seem to be getting some acknowledgement from Serious Business People(TM), while increasingly privacy- and security-conscious individual users are even starting to question the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter these days. Obviously Apple, Google and Facebook aren't going to go bust tomorrow, but a lot of things seem to be trending against a mobile-first, cloud-first strategy lately. I'm still a little surprised they appointed a CEO who was obviously going to push in that direction -- almost a "safe pair of hands", in much the way Tim Cook has been at Apple -- rather than someone more visionary, who might move or create technology markets in the way Apple, Google, and indeed Microsoft all have in their more innovative days but don't seem to any more.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  > having reduced consumer pricing expectations for both apps and on-line services to the point where hardly anyone makes any money in that market any more except for the huge advertising networks. Individual developers might not make much money, but the profits for Apple and Microsoft depend on the sales as a whole across all developers. In Apple's case, they're making plenty. https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-in-2015-with-New-Records.html https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-i... It remains to be seen whether Microsoft can get anything close to that momentum going in the Windows Store, but it's pretty clear they're trying to move that way.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    Individual developers might not make much money, but the profits for Apple and Microsoft depend on the sales as a whole across all developers. In Apple's case, they're making plenty. That's true for now, but I don't think it's sustainable. Apple's effective monopoly on the distribution channel is already a big risk for developers. You might not get approved at all, and have no real recourse if you don't. You might be effectively forced to update existing apps to comply with arbitrary new rules or UI guidelines because another iOS update came out, even though there's nothing in it for you (except for not losing what you already had). I've lost track of how much it costs or soon will cost just to be able to develop and ship apps in the first place via Apple's App Store, but it's more than nothing. And even if you jump through all the hoops, the near-zero price point of any app no matter how large or high-quality is now firmly established, and Apple can take a huge cut of those near-zero revenues purely because they have that monopoly on distribution of software for their own devices. So for users, the software available for iOS is limited in scope and much of it is junk. For developers, iOS apps are one of the most high-risk, low-reward options, so that situation isn't going to change. And Apple's market share, particularly among consumers, seems to be diving faster than you can say "Good Android devices cost half as much", making iOS an ever-less-attractive platform for new development. If you're Facebook and giving your app away for free because you make your money another way, or if you're a specialist consultancy making business apps that integrate with cloudy things like SalesForce and are priced accordingly, you're playing a different game. But for typical consumer apps, the rules are heavily stacked against developers, and sooner or later the only people left will be the naive ones who haven't learned better yet, until the default wisdom becomes Android-first for any app[1], at which point Apple's mobile device business model is finished (and potentially so is Apple itself, though it's so huge now that like Microsoft and IBM before it there will be several chances to reinvent itself and recover first). [1] Edit: Or Microsoft-first, if they really land Windows 10. Or Web-first, if mobile browsers and the APIs for using features traditionally reserved for native apps catch up. Web apps still have a huge advantage in portability compared to native ones, and that will also get more important if Microsoft/BlackBerry/anyone else manages to establish additional significant mobile platforms that aren't iOS- or Android-based.
    - 12y ago

The trouble is, even with the tongue-in-cheek style, the article still didn't mention a single thing Microsoft is planning that actually made me excited or likely to give them any of my money. In fact, it didn't even try to suggest a general strategy for how Microsoft is going to make its money when it starts giving away one of its most significant products, other than repeated reference to the ubiquitous "services". I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, but I don't understand betting a company with Microsoft's strengths and track record on a mobile-first, cloud-first strategy today. The mobile market is borderline stagnant, having reduced consumer pricing expectations for both apps and on-line services to the point where hardly anyone makes any money in that market any more except for the huge advertising networks. The inevitable and always blindingly obvious risks of relying on cloud services finally seem to be getting some acknowledgement from Serious Business People(TM), while increasingly privacy- and security-conscious individual users are even starting to question the likes of Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter these days. Obviously Apple, Google and Facebook aren't going to go bust tomorrow, but a lot of things seem to be trending against a mobile-first, cloud-first strategy lately. I'm still a little surprised they appointed a CEO who was obviously going to push in that direction -- almost a "safe pair of hands", in much the way Tim Cook has been at Apple -- rather than someone more visionary, who might move or create technology markets in the way Apple, Google, and indeed Microsoft all have in their more innovative days but don't seem to any more.

wlesieutre 12y ago
> having reduced consumer pricing expectations for both apps and on-line services to the point where hardly anyone makes any money in that market any more except for the huge advertising networks. Individual developers might not make much money, but the profits for Apple and Microsoft depend on the sales as a whole across all developers. In Apple's case, they're making plenty. https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-in-2015-with-New-Records.html https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/08App-Store-Rings-i... It remains to be seen whether Microsoft can get anything close to that momentum going in the Windows Store, but it's pretty clear they're trying to move that way.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  Individual developers might not make much money, but the profits for Apple and Microsoft depend on the sales as a whole across all developers. In Apple's case, they're making plenty. That's true for now, but I don't think it's sustainable. Apple's effective monopoly on the distribution channel is already a big risk for developers. You might not get approved at all, and have no real recourse if you don't. You might be effectively forced to update existing apps to comply with arbitrary new rules or UI guidelines because another iOS update came out, even though there's nothing in it for you (except for not losing what you already had). I've lost track of how much it costs or soon will cost just to be able to develop and ship apps in the first place via Apple's App Store, but it's more than nothing. And even if you jump through all the hoops, the near-zero price point of any app no matter how large or high-quality is now firmly established, and Apple can take a huge cut of those near-zero revenues purely because they have that monopoly on distribution of software for their own devices. So for users, the software available for iOS is limited in scope and much of it is junk. For developers, iOS apps are one of the most high-risk, low-reward options, so that situation isn't going to change. And Apple's market share, particularly among consumers, seems to be diving faster than you can say "Good Android devices cost half as much", making iOS an ever-less-attractive platform for new development. If you're Facebook and giving your app away for free because you make your money another way, or if you're a specialist consultancy making business apps that integrate with cloudy things like SalesForce and are priced accordingly, you're playing a different game. But for typical consumer apps, the rules are heavily stacked against developers, and sooner or later the only people left will be the naive ones who haven't learned better yet, until the default wisdom becomes Android-first for any app[1], at which point Apple's mobile device business model is finished (and potentially so is Apple itself, though it's so huge now that like Microsoft and IBM before it there will be several chances to reinvent itself and recover first). [1] Edit: Or Microsoft-first, if they really land Windows 10. Or Web-first, if mobile browsers and the APIs for using features traditionally reserved for native apps catch up. Web apps still have a huge advantage in portability compared to native ones, and that will also get more important if Microsoft/BlackBerry/anyone else manages to establish additional significant mobile platforms that aren't iOS- or Android-based.
  - 12y ago