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

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Two Microsofts

#41

Post by xorcist »

roc wrote: post #29
Spearchucker wrote: post #3

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Office on iOS and Android is (in my opinion) geared at being able to read and maybe edit Office documents. While these apps can certainly create Office documents, they're not really suited to it. One would ideally do that using a laptop or PC. And that then simply makes mobile a way of further entrenching Office - people who use it at work can now use it on their devices. Peop…

> "That was Microsoft coming late to the party." Late? They threw the party. Damn near a decade ago.

They only had a small market share some ten or fifteen years ago. Most people were on Palm and Psion (and Sidekick in the US). They still only have a small share, it's mainly the competition who has changed.

Re: Two Microsofts

#42

Post by eddieroger »

padmanabhan01 wrote: post #17
monkbent wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

They now give away all their software (despite upcharging for more iCloud space). On the Macs, Apple has embraced that people want to run Windows and supported Boot Camp for generations of hardware now. The entire retail outlet is dedicated to selling the hardware and accessories for said hardware, with a single vertical column (maybe that much) left over for software. They provide an App Store on both platforms, but produce a minority of what they sell there. Apple is a hardware company.

For what it's worth, I get your point, though. My preference is to use OSX over Windows these days, but that's because I find it to be the best intersection of *nix boxes (which all of my servers run) and a pleasant UI with great apps (because I'm still a human, and sometimes I tire of the command line). But look at the way iCloud took forever to become stable - if it's even there now - or the recent decreased in perceived QA (iOS 8.0.1, Apple Maps), and you can tell Apple's focus isn't on software as much as hardware.

Re: Two Microsofts

#43

Post by Spearchucker »

bestham wrote: post #36
swartkrans wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NextStep was built with enterprise in mind but became wholly consumer in its next life as OS X and then iOS. The massive consumer success of the iPhone led to employers giving in to employees who wanted iOS devices instead of Blackberry devices, a phenomenon called BYOD, "bring your own device". BYOD has given rise to an entirely new Apple presence in enterprise which I think Apple is just getting started with. Prior…

Just a nit pick, BYOD is when a employee brings his/her own device to work in order to use it to do work. At some places it's viable to let employees choose the tools that work best for them, and not force every employee onto the same 6 pound HP or Lenovo or Blackberry. New and improved provision schemes will make this even more viable in the future, where applications and data that belongs to the employer can still…

It's an interesting area. I don't think BYOD has the rosy future the breathless posts on LinkedIn will have me believe. The problem is one of security. If I'm going to enforce security on a device I will need to wipe/reset the BYOD phone and apply my enterprise policy (password on start, device encryption, find-my-phone, remote wipe and so on).

At the other end of that equation you have a consumer who has a shiny new phone, and is being asked by her employer to yield control of the new shiny to the enterprise. Not appealing, when said consumer foots the bill for the phone, data and calls.

That conflict will result in CYOD (choose your own device), I think. And if we get a company phone, will mean we walk around with two phones. One fore work, locked down and able to access corporate email and SharePoint, the other for play, which has no corporate policy applied to it and only has Internet access.

Re: Two Microsofts

#44

Post by daigoba66 »

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.

You're right, but I would phrase it a bit differently:

I believe Apple is a product company. They make things that people want to buy and use. Their products are built from a combination of hardware and software/services.

Microsoft is also a product company. The difference is that they make a lot of different types of products. Some are things people buy and use like Xbox, Surface, and Lumia. Some are "platforms" like Windows and SQL Server. And they still sell "software" like Office.

Re: Two Microsofts

#45

Post by cwyers »

untog wrote: post #27
ekianjo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ITunes is a distribution service. They make money off it. It's like saying "Valve is just doing games" where most of their money comes from selling the contents of others. When you have a monopoly on distribution on a specific platform, that's a service where people are locked into using. I don't know how to explain it in any other way to you.

No-one is arguing that they make money from it. Nor is anyone arguing that Apple doesn't do services. They are arguing that they make far more money on hardware sales than services, and thus are primarily a hardware company.

Except they're tied. The way you get Apple services is buying Apple hardware. You can't buy most Apple services separately from Apple hardware, and you don't get charged for many Apple services aside from the purchase price of the hardware.

The debate over whether Apple makes money off hardware or software is ridiculous. Every iPhone contains both Apple hardware and software, and works in concert with Apple services, designed to be a cohesive whole. It's ONE experience, designed top to bottom to work together. That's Apple's entire value proposition.

Re: Two Microsofts

#46

Post by wvenable »

Spearchucker wrote: post #43
bestham wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a nit pick, BYOD is when a employee brings his/her own device to work in order to use it to do work. At some places it's viable to let employees choose the tools that work best for them, and not force every employee onto the same 6 pound HP or Lenovo or Blackberry. New and improved provision schemes will make this even more viable in the future, where applications and data that belongs to the employer can still…

It's an interesting area. I don't think BYOD has the rosy future the breathless posts on LinkedIn will have me believe. The problem is one of security. If I'm going to enforce security on a device I will need to wipe/reset the BYOD phone and apply my enterprise policy (password on start, device encryption, find-my-phone, remote wipe and so on). At the other end of that equation you have a consumer who has a shiny new…

> If I'm going to enforce security on a device I will need to wipe/reset the BYOD phone and apply my enterprise policy

Which is exactly what happens in a BYOD scenario and the process is getting better for both employees and employer. For example, my employer can now "wipe" all my corporate data on my iPhone while leaving all my personal data intact. Of course, as long as I have their data the security policy (password on start, device encryption, etc) is enabled.

We do have CYOD but we only facilitate the connection between the employee and the provider -- the employee owns the device. Mobile devices are very personal things and nobody wants to carry two of them.

Re: Two Microsofts

#47

Post by [deleted] »

roc wrote: post #29
Spearchucker wrote: post #3

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Office on iOS and Android is (in my opinion) geared at being able to read and maybe edit Office documents. While these apps can certainly create Office documents, they're not really suited to it. One would ideally do that using a laptop or PC. And that then simply makes mobile a way of further entrenching Office - people who use it at work can now use it on their devices. Peop…

> "That was Microsoft coming late to the party." Late? They threw the party. Damn near a decade ago.

[deleted]

Re: Two Microsofts

#48

Post by jjoonathan »

roc wrote: post #29
Spearchucker wrote: post #3

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Office on iOS and Android is (in my opinion) geared at being able to read and maybe edit Office documents. While these apps can certainly create Office documents, they're not really suited to it. One would ideally do that using a laptop or PC. And that then simply makes mobile a way of further entrenching Office - people who use it at work can now use it on their devices. Peop…

> "That was Microsoft coming late to the party." Late? They threw the party. Damn near a decade ago.

Apple released the Newton in 1993. Palm released the Pilot in March 1996. WinCE/PocketPC was released in November 1996.

Microsoft didn't throw the first party and they didn't throw the party that mattered.

Re: Two Microsofts

#49

Post by snowwrestler »

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 only has a devices business. Every service it offers is tied to an Apple device and is priced to reinforce the value of the device.

Re: Two Microsofts

#50

Post by geon »

padmanabhan01 wrote: post #17
monkbent wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

The hardware is pretty much an expensive dongle for the software.
Post reply on HN