Linked by snydeq on Tue 19th Feb 2013 18:41 UTC
Microsoft As PC prospects decline, Microsoft has been moving toward a hybrid, cross-platform future with an eye toward opportunities in the server closet and the cloud. But the question remains, How might Microsoft evolve to get there? "It's tempting to say the past five years has seen Microsoft's desktop-centric strategy slowly give way to a pell-mell free-for-all made up of equal parts desktop, server, mobile hardware and software, cloud services, and auxiliary systems like the Xbox. Truth is, intention has always been present. It's only now, thanks to major upheavals in consumer tech and the cloud, that Microsoft's broad-spectrum plays are becoming more evident and critical. [...] What may be new for Microsoft is the need to better cohere its strategy around an ever-widening array of services and technologies, especially as the breadth of competition it faces widens. Most of all, if there ever comes a time to stop being a consumer-oriented company, Microsoft shouldn't flinch. A future where Microsoft doesn't make hardware or end-user programs seems remote, but there was a time when IBM abandoning its PC business seemed jarring, too." And if Microsoft can't quite cohere its strategy, the best means to this end may be to divide.
Permalink for comment 553165
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

You are totally missing the point. It's all about incentive. But i'll still reply to your answers to make my point clear.

I will need to buy a Mac computer to write apps for iOS (iPhone/ iPad) too. Mac is expensive to me. Perhaps you're already using Mac already so the cost to purchase Mac becomes zero, but I'm not.

Apple only had to make a few developers rich to generate incentive for everyone to make iOS apps and games. Microsoft is late the the party and their platform so far offers very little benefit compared to iOS or Android, so why should developers care? They need reasons to care, not obstacles.

However, I haven't heard that Apple/ Google give me free iPhone/ Android phones for development, I wonder if this also makes Apple and Google giving you the worst developer support.

Because Microsoft is not Apple and is not Google. Apple (willingly or unwillingly) attracted developers by making sure they earn a ton of money at first. Google made Android development extremely accessible and their entry level phones are cheap. Blackberry doesn't have either so they gave money and devices to developers.

Microsoft sat on their ass and did nothing, so developers mostly don't care.

I can't answer this as I don't have game development experience and benchmarks on hand.

You are again missing the point. It's not about performance, it's about ease of porting. Developers love learning new platform and getting their code to run on them. It's a neat challenge, except for the fact that their code has to be almost completely rewritten for Windows Phone because the APIs differ way too much (Microsoft Propertary vs Standards). Blackberry is trying to make sure that developers can port their games easily by supporting Flash, C++, Java, ObjC, OpenGL, etc. Microsoft, again, Isn't doing anything.

Last time I checked Lumia 620/ 7xx phone are relatively cheap compared to other Android/ iPhone. May be it is just in my city, but I feel weird when people happily pay for their new iPhone 5 (HK$5xxx at least) but say that it is expensive for Windows Phone (HK$25xx for Lumia 710 and HK$39xx for Lumia 820).

Anything less than WP8 is unusable for development or porting. It relies on technology Microsoft themselves made obsolete and does not even support native.
WP8 devices are not that easy to obtain in several parts of the world (like Latin America) and are more expensive than entry level Android phones.

So I hope I made my points clearer. As a developer, Microsoft is clearly doing things wrong and making the same mistake that they do all the time. It's like, they seem to think that sitting on their asses is enough and that users and developers will just be attracted to their products because they have the powerful Windows brand attached to it, while in reality it's quite the opposite.

Reply Parent Score: 3