Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Feb 2011 23:33 UTC
Permalink for comment 461388
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-21
I didn't. I'm saying they play a game of "me too" and that it's not a recipe for overwhelming success.
No, not in this context. They are developers.
You would still use Windows 7 no matter how it looked. It's nice that you happen to like it, but irrelevant.
That's not exactly customer satisfaction at its finest.
Careful, you're talking about the leaders of their respective fields.
But OK, so you're saying that absolute game-changers aren't relevant, that fixing things is good enough. Give me an example involving Microsoft, then. A market where Microsoft took something broken, fixed it, and absolutely owned as a direct result. It cannot be about Windows or Office, and it cannot be a "market" within one of these monopolies (eg. .NET). And I'm afraid I will not accept the gaming console market as proof either.
There's nothing innovative about keeping your developers happy, it's common sense.
Then why can't Microsoft do that too? Have the others needed a decade as well?
Anybody can enter and stay in a market by throwing money at it. The trick is to make useful products at a profit. To do that you need some amount of empathy for your customers. And to absolutely own the market you need to make something outstanding.
When you sell at a loss each item you sell is actually bad for you. You want to offset the loss in some other manner. They haven't been able to.
No, they're not. The losses are for the entire Xbox division, they're overall figures.
I admit I don't have information more recent than summer 2010. If you do please share.
«"Embrace, extend and extinguish," also known as "Embrace, extend and exterminate," is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.»
From here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
Qt for mobile and MeeGo were already well on their way and in their finishing stages when WP7 came out. I don't see how suddenly doing a fundamental switch late in a project can be good for it. Not unless it's absolute crap and you decide to cut your losses. How crap is MeeGo remains to be seen.
It's true that adopting an existing OS saves you from investing into your own R&D. But it puts you at the mercy of the OS maker. All OEMs have learned that the hard way in Windows' glory days. That's the angle that Google is exploiting by making Android free and open. That's why Apple and Samsung and Nokia and RIM etc. are making their own OS.