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 523742
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?
by acobar on Mon 25th Jun 2012 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Microsoft's fault?"
Member since:

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[5]: Microsoft's fault?
by zima on Wed 27th Jun 2012 18:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Microsoft's fault?"
zima Member since:

Elop brought, and continues to bring, pretty much what Nokia board wanted... (whatever that is, long-term)

That did include an expertise of sorts with one business relation, BTW. And Nokia was visibly stumbling before Elop. And Elop seems to aggressively push further the development of S30 and S40.

Reply Parent Score: 2