Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two Microsofts

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Two Microsofts

#11

Post by monkbent »

mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Apple is a hardware company. Your confusion comes from not following the money.

Their software and services exist to differentiate the hardware and allow for a profit margin.

The Microsoft corollary would be if Apple offered iTunes, iCloud, etc for Android.

Re: Two Microsofts

#12

Post by [deleted] »

monkbent wrote: post #11
mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Apple is a hardware company. Your confusion comes from not following the money. Their software and services exist to differentiate the hardware and allow for a profit margin. The Microsoft corollary would be if Apple offered iTunes, iCloud, etc for Android.

[deleted]

Re: Two Microsofts

#13

Post by insaneirish »

monkbent wrote: post #11
mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Apple is a hardware company. Your confusion comes from not following the money. Their software and services exist to differentiate the hardware and allow for a profit margin. The Microsoft corollary would be if Apple offered iTunes, iCloud, etc for Android.

And since monkbent didn't mention it, he is the author, so now the parent knows "what the author thinks" about Apple.

Re: Two Microsofts

#14

Post by serve_yay »

mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Well, that seems more like a belief as a prelude, and the piece is about how the rift in MS is not services/devices but consumer/enterprise. There's really no question that Apple puts consumer devices ahead of enterprise or services (their services just add value to the devices).

Re: Two Microsofts

#15

Post by ben336 »

ekianjo wrote: post #8
m0th87 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What services is Apple is?

Apple is a service company. You buy Apple hardware to get access to their services, which are usually exclusive to the platform.

They make their money off the hardware though. And plenty of people use Apple hardware without using Apple services. I have an iPhone/iPad/Mac, and don't use Apple services for email/document/storage/photo backup etc. I appreciate their OS software and hardware, but for the most part think there are better options for pretty much all of their services.

Re: Two Microsofts

#16

Post by georgemcbay »

"by releasing most of the functionality of Office for free, Microsoft is giving up on the iPad as a growth driver for Office 365, but it seems like they can’t quite wean themselves of incremental income from Office diehards. The problem, though, is that not only could this limitation manifest itself as incremental annoyance, it also limits the defensive utility of this move (members-only)."

This paragraph stuck me as funny as it is decrying Microsoft upselling premium subscriber only features for Office 365 and then it ends on a link that is a "members only" upsell to a $10 a month subscription feature for this blog.

Ha, ha. wut.

Re: Two Microsofts

#17

Post by padmanabhan01 »

monkbent wrote: post #11
mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Apple is a hardware company. Your confusion comes from not following the money. Their software and services exist to differentiate the hardware and allow for a profit margin. The Microsoft corollary would be if Apple offered iTunes, iCloud, etc for Android.

//Apple is a hardware company.

How is a company that makes OS X, iOS, iCloud services not a software company? Sure it sells hardware, but not hardware that's a brick.. People buy the hardware so they can use the software which pretty much means they sell a package that includes both hardware and software..

Re: Two Microsofts

#18

Post by ekianjo »

ben336 wrote: post #15
ekianjo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is a service company. You buy Apple hardware to get access to their services, which are usually exclusive to the platform.

They make their money off the hardware though. And plenty of people use Apple hardware without using Apple services. I have an iPhone/iPad/Mac, and don't use Apple services for email/document/storage/photo backup etc. I appreciate their OS software and hardware, but for the most part think there are better options for pretty much all of their services.

Does not matter. When you buy an Apple product, you are basically supporting their services as well. And as far as I know, you are more or less forced to have an iTune account if you have an Apple device, right ? So you are tied in to their services at least for the distribution of applications (on mobiles).

Re: Two Microsofts

#19

Post by lxj »

monkbent wrote: post #11
mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Apple is a hardware company. Your confusion comes from not following the money. Their software and services exist to differentiate the hardware and allow for a profit margin. The Microsoft corollary would be if Apple offered iTunes, iCloud, etc for Android.

Asus is a hardware company.

Re: Two Microsofts

#20

Post by jMyles »

mbillie1 wrote: post #5

> I don’t think any company should have both horizontal (i.e. services) and vertical (i.e. devices) businesses. I find it curious that Microsoft is the target of this criticism, and I am further curious what the author thinks about Apple.

Outside this box, I think this critique takes on an even stranger tone:

* Tesla - sells devices (cars) and services (auto repair, charging stations, consulting, etc) * Equal Exchange - sells devices (Cocoa, Coffee and Coffee gear, etc) and services (reports on working conditions and other quality control data) * A private university - sells devices (classrooms, living space, all sorts of retail items) and services (classes, research, community outreach, much more)

(getting more abstract)

* A trial lawyer - provides devices (a body to stand in place of a defendant, relevant evidentiary media materials) and services (research, strategy, etc) * A restaurant - provides devices (table, food, decor, ambiance) and services (cooking, consulting, food sourcing)

OP may say that the intended target of this critique is the "tech" sector (ie, "a horizontal business should be great on every platform, while a vertical business should be differentiated"), but it looks like that becomes a capricious distinction the closer you look.

A university needs to provide compelling courses on research from all sources, including other institutions of higher education, while still being differentiated in its "vertical" market.

A restaurant needs to source food that will excite its clientele (again, even sometimes from various types of horizontal competitors) while still being vertically differentiated.

And so on.

Providing both horizontal and vertical components (whether organized into separate subsidiaries, subcontractors, divisions, or whether blended entirely) is a very old concept and is the natural course of maturity for a successful model.

Post reply on HN