Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Jun 2012 08:50 UTC
Microsoft The New York Times further fans the flames of the emerging uneasiness between Microsoft and its hardware partners. As the paper reports, Microsoft decided it needed to get into the hardware game (with Surface) after the utter failure of HP's Slate 500 Windows 7 tablet. "Microsoft worked with other hardware partners to devise products that would be competitive with the iPad, but it ran into disagreements over designs and prices. 'Faith had been lost' at Microsoft in its hardware partners, including by Steven Sinofsky, the powerful president of Microsoft's Windows division, according to [a] former Microsoft executive." The biggest news is not Surface itself. It's the changing industry it represents. Microsoft failed to deliver capable smartphone/tablet software, which pissed off OEMs, who, in turn, turned to Android (and webOS for HP) - which in turn pissed off Microsoft, leading to Surface. Had Microsoft gotten its act together sooner, we'd have had far better OEM products.
Thread beginning with comment 523730
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Microsoft's fault?
by acobar on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Microsoft's fault?"
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

The problem for OEM is that to be recognized and stay relevant you need to somehow differentiate. And what is the easiest way to do that? Software layers modifications. Their thinking is simple: people acquainted with some added features may stick to them and teach others to do so too. Their failing point is that most of the things they modify/add is crap.

Probably would be wiser to invest more on build quality and services around the device but, guess what, few of them have the resources to do that and some that have are afraid because the bigger risk associated. These are precisely the Apple strong points. Also, they would compete with their front vendors, the telcos and ISP. Not an easy task if you are not that big.

So, really, if you are doing hardware and is not Apple, Samsung or perhaps some 3 to 4 others more, you do not have that much choice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?
by Neolander on Mon 25th Jun 2012 12:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Microsoft's fault?"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It is possible to differentiate through hardware quality and software stability though.

Until Nokia got Elop'd and fell into software madness, I used to recommend their phones for their sturdiness and the good stability/feature set equilibrium provided by s40 and Symbian for the price. Similarly, I strongly suggest friends not to buy Acer laptops due to their horrible build quality.

Edited 2012-06-25 12:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?
by acobar on Mon 25th Jun 2012 13:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Same here about Nokia. I really have a hard time to try to understand companies that try to bring someone from outside to sort out their problems, seeing them like a savior. When they bring expertise on distribution/business relations or about new technologies is one thing, but what did Elop (and many others like him on other companies) brought? Nothing! They try to "revolutionize", wasting valuable efforts on a crisis moment.

You don't get too big a company just doing stupid things, even thought big companies do stupid things, but unlike most of us, as long as the stupid thing they did is not insane, or that the bleeding is not related to a huge technology shift, they will have the time to adapt. Nokia could do that, they had market presence, business relationship and expertise on the field. They could have improved their mix of offerings on service and options and what they did? The most dumb movement I ever saw on any gigantic company with their market presence.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It is possible to differentiate through hardware quality and software stability though.

Until Nokia got Elop'd and fell into software madness, I used to recommend their phones for their sturdiness and the good stability/feature set equilibrium provided by s40 and Symbian for the price.

S40 seems better than ever, and being developed further, under Elop? Symbian similarly, so far... (and while this one supposedly has writing on the wall, it should still be good at least for one typical mobile phone lifetime)

Reply Parent Score: 2