Linked by Kroc Camen on Wed 16th Sep 2009 20:06 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Sometime ago I conjectured that Microsoft made certain changes to IE8 to force web standards forward and drop backwards compatibility as default (a very un-Microsoft move) because of the need for the web to break out of the blinkered IE6 / Desktop-Browser view of content otherwise Microsoft would find itself unable to compete in the mobile space. It's been over a year since that article and in such a short period of time it has become ever clearer that Microsoft's mobile offerings, and their overall mobile platform strategy are failing against the dominant iPhone, the newcomer Android, and a re-invigorated Palm with WebOS.
Permalink for comment 384497
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don' think so ...
by dindin on Wed 16th Sep 2009 21:52 UTC
Member since:

If this situation had been about desktops and servers I would have agreed with you ... that is if Microsoft had dropped the ball and fell behind and lost the the battle to other companies.

Not so in the Mobile World. For starters, the time span in the Mobile World is aboyt 2-4 years. People sign new contarcts and are looking for new devices. So, Yes Microsoft may have dropped the ball now, but they have an opportunity to fix it the next time someone goes out to buy. I am not saying they will do that - just that they have the opportunity.

Given that Mobile device/OS sales are tied to customer penetration and also that it is tied to a communications service/network (unlike PCs and servers), there are other factors that come into play.

You said it yourself. Apple was not a phone manufacturer 3 years ago but here we are. What gave Apple the opportunity is that people were looking for the next great device and they gave it to them. Microsoft CAN do the same. Especially if they have a decent device and the apps for it.

They may have missed the boat, but there is always the next one ... who knows that maybe a faster one.

Edited 2009-09-16 22:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3