OSNews

I did not say that Microsoft is the only company that ever copied or aquired something. I said they can't seem to be able to focus on something else.



Office for the Mac was a completely separate thing from the Windows version. There's no use comparing the two.

1) The first versions of Office for Mac were part of agreements with Apple. When those agreements fell through the Mac versions were abandoned.
2) The Mac Office team was completely separate from the Windows team. The Mac Office suite was a completely different codebase from the Windows version.
3) MS had issues with Office for Mac being different from the general Mac look and feel, especially in the later versions. It did not go well with Mac users.



Have you ever heard the saying "a sample of one is poor statistics"? You may live in a peculiar area. From my experience over various areas, you're likely to see at least as many requests for Java, C++, Python, PHP, Perl, Ruby etc. Actual proportions may vary wildly from place to place.



They care about the software makers. It has to do with keeping the mass of software available for Windows working. It has to do with maintaining the monopoly strong.

Software makers are not Microsoft customers, they are developers for the Windows platform. The customers are the ones that buy copies of Windows. Making sure someone buys your product is not the same as taking the extra step of making sure they're satisfied with it. I don't believe Microsoft ever cared for that extra step. "Make them buy it" was always enough for them.



Yes. The latest development in human interfaces for gaming consoles. A market invented and established by the Nintendo Wii.

There's a difference between taking something already invented and making it better, and inventing something ground breaking. It takes genius to take those playing cubes that everyone is polishing but basically stacking in the same old way and make something completely new out of them. It's not in Microsoft's core philosophy to go for that spark of genius. It doesn't cultivate that sort of talent, it never has.

It can be argued that Bill Gates had it when he made the initial moves that established Microsoft for what it is today, but he never cultivated it. Microsoft is not about "make something new", it's about "see, want, get, polish" applied to stuff that's already there.



Not exactly visionary, is it. Living is not just about surviving.



Yes, after a decade of selling the Xbox as loss leader... to a point that stretches the definition of the term. May I point out that Nintendo makes a profit on every Wii sold?

Like I said, Microsoft will hang in there, somehow, even if they have to throw money at it to make it stick. But it's not their market in any sense. They entered it by force, they are staying in it for as long as they're willing to lose money, they haven't managed to eliminate any of the major competitors.

Even assuming your definition of "fail" is cutting them some slack, there's no way you can call this success.



You're the only one looking like the retard/fanboy, when resorting to name calling. Stick to making your points and we'll all be better off.

And in case you forgot what this discussion is about, I'm not attacking Microsoft. I'm trying to explain why Nokia would have little reason to get involved with them.