Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Feb 2011 23:33 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Is it really going to happen? Will we see one of the more momentous announcements in the tech world next week? The web's been abuzz about Nokia possibly adopting Windows Phone 7 for a number of handsets, and now even The New York Times has chimed in - at which point it might be time to start taking the rumours seriously.
Thread beginning with comment 461215
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
wirespot
Member since:
2006-06-21

I meant "legacy" as in business methods. I'm afraid you're gonna make me launch into a lenghty explanation. ;)

Microsoft approaches a market with a pure copycat mindset. They look at lucrative niches, they see what works, they make a very similar product and attempt to insert it by force using money and leveraging their existing monopolies. Or they aquire an established player in that niche. They reason that "if it's there and it works, we can just take a chunk of it (or all of it)."

Follow-up tactics include the (in)famous "embrace and extinguish" and violent (buy-out, lawsuits) practices against competition, until the niche is theirs.

This strategy has famously worked at exactly one point in history: namely in taking over the PC market via establishing Windows and Office as the de facto standard for OS desktops and office apps, respectively.

But this strategy has failed to achieve the same results in any other case. They made a beach-head with C# in Java territory but failed to conquer it. They tried to enter the console market with Xbox but Sony and Nintendo held on. They tried to copy Apple in the MP3 player market but failed spectacularly. They never managed to dislodge LAMP for the Web with their own product combos.

(Important note: nowhere in their strategy does customer satisfaction appear to play a crucial role.)

The problem is that their competition nowadays are constantly evolving. They seem to reinvent their markets periodically, relegating Microsoft to playing a game of catch-up. Nintendo sits quietly for several years but then comes out with a complete game-changer. Apple is benefitting from Steve Jobs' long term planning and arguably genius, and shifting their focus all the time. Google is hard to compete with because most of their products are free and their core business is a de facto monopoly (how do you like them apples? ;)

Microsoft has no long term goals, no corporate philosophy, just a pile of cash, exactly two established monopolies, and a tendency to run after the next shiny thing.

To get back on topic: WP7 may be a technically adept product, but their approach of the market is dated. They saw everybody fawning over "smartphones", they want in, now. And they'll get in... to some extent. But they will fail the big break without long terms goals, without an actual understanding of what customers want, without a sincere desire to innovate rather than copy.

WP7 is the "me too" response. Compare it to Android (the phenomenon, the approach, not the technical product itself); it was fashioned by Google in a very precise manner to be a game changer. That's the kind of insertion you want, the kind that shapes the environment around it. Just getting in is useless if the ground will shift under you again very soon.

PS: On a personal note, I've come to change my opinion of you, Thom. I no longer thing you're biased toward any particular side of the industry (anymore than it's humanly normal, anyway). And I've come to rather enjoy the passion you put in your articles. It might make them more informal and some percieve a bias, but they're a more interesting read for it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I meant "legacy" as in business methods. I'm afraid you're gonna make me launch into a lenghty explanation. ;)


What Freetard rubbish.

Microsoft approaches a market with a pure copycat mindset. They look at lucrative niches, they see what works, they make a very similar product and attempt to insert it by force using money and leveraging their existing monopolies. Or they aquire an established player in that niche. They reason that "if it's there and it works, we can just take a chunk of it (or all of it)."


Because no other company ever done this ever at all. There was never online maps before Googlemaps, There was never web mail until gmail, and Myspace never existed ... facebook was totally original.

Follow-up tactics include the (in)famous "embrace and extinguish" and violent (buy-out, lawsuits) practices against competition, until the niche is theirs.


I really don't know what to make of this.

This strategy has famously worked at exactly one point in history: namely in taking over the PC market via establishing Windows and Office as the de facto standard for OS desktops and office apps, respectively.


Except Macintosh was actually out before Windows 1.0 and the first versions of office were actually for the macintosh ... Lets forget that.

Windows and the PC did much of what the Macintosh did, not all of it but enough to be "good enough", that is why Windows became dominant.

But this strategy has failed to achieve the same results in any other case. They made a beach-head with C# in Java territory but failed to conquer it. They tried to enter the console market with Xbox but Sony and Nintendo held on. They tried to copy Apple in the MP3 player market but failed spectacularly. They never managed to dislodge LAMP for the Web with their own product combos.


9 out of 10 jobs in my Area of the U.K. are either VB/C# with ASP.NET, IIS and SQL Server 2005/2008. Microsoft are doing very well with ASP.NET.

(Important note: nowhere in their strategy does customer satisfaction appear to play a crucial role.)


What do you base this one then? Supporting Windows XP for 13 years ... apparently they don't care about their customers at all. On their website you can still find support information for Windows 98 an Operating system that has been long since retired. .NET 1.1 API and documentation is still available even though it was unsupported since 2005 or 2006 (can't be bothered to look it up).

The problem is that their competition nowadays are constantly evolving. They seem to reinvent their markets periodically, relegating Microsoft to playing a game of catch-up. Nintendo sits quietly for several years but then comes out with a complete game-changer. Apple is benefitting from Steve Jobs' long term planning and arguably genius, and shifting their focus all the time. Google is hard to compete with because most of their products are free and their core business is a de facto monopoly (how do you like them apples? ;)


Heard of the Kinect then? Never heard of Xbox Live? then (which Sony and Nintendo are miles behind on), Xbox Arcade? ... Nintendo and Sony copied Microsoft here ... Do we live on the same planet?

Microsoft has no long term goals, no corporate philosophy, just a pile of cash, exactly two established monopolies, and a tendency to run after the next shiny thing.


You obviously haven't heard of .NET then ... Quite a few dev's absolutely love. I can use .NET for Web, Desktop, Phone, Xbox 360 ... So I think there might be a strategy.

The strategy is quite obvious ... Get devs working with .NET, get companies using .NET and it will ensure the survival of their platforms.

To get back on topic: WP7 may be a technically adept product, but their approach of the market is dated. They saw everybody fawning over "smartphones", they want in, now. And they'll get in... to some extent. But they will fail the big break without long terms goals, without an actual understanding of what customers want, without a sincere desire to innovate rather than copy.


Like with the Xbox ??? Oh wait it tops the sales charts in the U.K. in 2010 ...

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/281937/news/xbox-360-tops-uk-c...

Stop talking utter freetard bollox.

Reply Parent Score: 2

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Because no other company ever done this ever at all. There was never online maps before Googlemaps, There was never web mail until gmail, and Myspace never existed ... facebook was totally original.


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.

Except Macintosh was actually out before Windows 1.0 and the first versions of office were actually for the macintosh ... Lets forget that.


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.

9 out of 10 jobs in my Area of the U.K. are either VB/C# with ASP.NET, IIS and SQL Server 2005/2008. Microsoft are doing very well with ASP.NET.


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.

What do you base this one then? Supporting Windows XP for 13 years ... apparently they don't care about their customers at all.


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.

Heard of the Kinect then?


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.

The strategy is quite obvious ... Get devs working with .NET, get companies using .NET and it will ensure the survival of their platforms.


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

Like with the Xbox ??? Oh wait it tops the sales charts in the U.K. in 2010 ...


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.

Stop talking utter freetard bollox.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Just two things:

> Windows and Office as the de facto standard
An standard has to be public, known by all, etc. and Windows and Office are privative, closed programs, treated like secrets. They are just dominating programs.

> Google is hard to compete with because most of their products are free and their core business is a de facto monopoly
Let's say you can use whatever search engine, whenever you want, wherever you want. Also without any added problem you search. So we should not call Google Search a monopoly. It's good to have several search engines available that can be used at any time.
Let's compare it to... not using Office (for example). That will bring you problems, most of them created by interested parts (there are more than one).

Last but not least: a good comment, Wirespot!

Edited 2011-02-08 21:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1