Live data from Hacker News

The war Microsoft should have won

medium.com

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#41
post #31

Single major innovation in iPhone was ability to perform reasonably high precision user interaction using grossly imprecise input method, i.e. Human thumbs. My theory is that people in WinMo team didn't used iPhone when it came out because everyone carried WinMo in their pocket. I think most people just didn't believed it was perfectly possible to use touch keyboard with thumbs with reasonable precision. So the react…

"Windows windows windows windows windows windows windows windows"

This was Ballmer's response at a conference when he was asked what Microsoft's response would be to the iPhone. Verbatim.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#42
post #4

tl;dr: Ex. micro-softie laments all the ways ms failed in the mobile space, while completely overlooking the elephant in the room: MS, in the mobile space, did not have an already entrenched monopoly upon which to leverage other market share.

Microsoft is a software development company in much the same way that the Corleone family was in the olive oil importation business.

Clarification: I mean to say that they have done well, but it's not just because they're really good at importing olive oil.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#43
post #7
post #4

tl;dr: Ex. micro-softie laments all the ways ms failed in the mobile space, while completely overlooking the elephant in the room: MS, in the mobile space, did not have an already entrenched monopoly upon which to leverage other market share.

Is this a fair analysis, though? It's not like Apple or Samsung had monopolies that they leveraged to their advantage to drive mobile share. Unless this is a subtle commentary on Google's use of their search monopolistic power to drive adoption of Android (which drives further adoption of Google products) -- if so, then kudos to you.

The point isn't whether Apple or Samsung had monopolies. They didn't need them. The point is that Microsoft didn't have monopoly leverage, and they did need it.

Why did Microsoft need monopoly leverage? Because for about 20 years, that had been the way they won in new markets: they entered the new market, found a way to leverage the Windows monopoly to give them an edge in that market, and went on to win a dominant position in the new market.

So when the time came to try to dominate a new market without that edge from leveraging Windows, Microsoft didn't know how to do it.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#44
post #40

I have bought a Lumia just to play around with the WinRT platform, as was positively impressed by the SDK and Visual Studio tooling, versus the usual chaos of Android releases specially for NDK users. The C++/CX + XAML experience feels like Visual C++ finally catching up with C++ Builder and finally becoming visual . Also the component model allows for an easy interaction between .NET, JavaScript and C++, similar to…

[deleted]

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#45
post #30
post #9

I think the article is a nice summary of why Microsoft lost, but it doesn't fulfill the promise of its title. "Should have won" implies that there were steps Microsoft should have taken to overcome the difficulties it faced. Let's explore some: Lack of vendor trust, not wanting to get locked in with Microsoft like PC-makers did. No easy solution there. Hampered by success of cash-cows like Windows/Office. Shouldn't M…

They had just the same opportunity to do mobile web as Apple - CE devices could run a real browser. Unfortunately, that browser was IE. I think Apple's real innovation was the App Store, combined with a usable (non-resistive) touchscreen. Prior to the App Store, it was remarkably hard to get apps onto phones. You were dependent on the mobile carrier, whose levels of customer gouging made Microsoft look like newbies.…

> Apple's real innovation was the App Store

The app store only launched in July 2008, same time when iPhone 3G launched.

It was more than 1 year after the original iPhone launch.

The original iPhone was a marketing success even being merely a feature phone by today’s standards: no app store and no user-installable apps at all.

> other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile

HTC launched its first touch-oriented windows mobile phone almost 1 month before the first iPhone. They called it HTC Touch and included custom touch-optimized WinCE shell. Nobody cared, and people just bought iPhones instead, the sales figures for that year was 2M devices HTC, 6M Apple.

Because better and touch optimized browser, and also because unlimited data plan. Back in 2007-2008, you couldn’t buy unlimited mobile data for any other phone.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#46
I can see the seeds of Microsoft's failure in Ballmer's response to the iPhone question. He talks about how the device can "do email" and "do web". They were check off items. Apple didn't say "our device can do email" they said "you can get your mail wherever you are." They weren't the first to offer that by far but they talked about the customer: the end user.

Ballmer also talked about his customer: the enterprise CIOs (and for the phones, the carriers, not the end users).

Apart from the money-losing Xbox division I am not sure Microsoft really has ever had an end user orientation. Not surprisingly, given Ballmer's background, they are a 20th century industrial concern, more like a car company than anything else. That served them very well when the field was young and the companies that were computerizing needed all the help they could get -- and so were willing to be dictated to.

By the way I also liked the buffoonery of saying that they have a "respectable position" in the "high end" music player business. In another appearance he touted their strength in the "hard-disk based music player space." It reminded me of Steve Jobs claiming that NeXT was dominant in the "business workstation space". Let's define a niche and fill it...backwards!

(Ironically Zune did have a number of interesting features (dare I say "innovations") but the customer base was too smart to care about specs. By focusing on gimmicks they ignored the hard work of making a product that people actually wanted to use.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#47
post #9

I think the article is a nice summary of why Microsoft lost, but it doesn't fulfill the promise of its title. "Should have won" implies that there were steps Microsoft should have taken to overcome the difficulties it faced. Let's explore some: Lack of vendor trust, not wanting to get locked in with Microsoft like PC-makers did. No easy solution there. Hampered by success of cash-cows like Windows/Office. Shouldn't M…

Microsoft had a path it could have taken. Write an android launcher that looks like Windows Phone Tiles. Get people to "convert their phones to Windows phones"

Release an Android App Store. Release .netCore as part of your app store, so to run these type of apps, they need your app store instead of normal android apps running on Dalvik/AndroidRuntime.

Fork android, like Kindle, and release a copy with Skype for messaging, outlook for mail, the rest of office, the Microsoft Store.

Now they have Windows Phones, that run natively on all android hardware, and have backwards compatibility with android apps.

They completely skipped the embrace extend steps, and tried to jump right to extinguish.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#48
I do still miss that keyboard. I still don't type nearly as fast on a phone, and considering that these devices had no autocorrect, not nearly with a quarter of the accuracy.

Apart from the resistive touch-hostile technology and stylus-centric interface, HID has taken a substantial step backwards in the years following the decline of CE devices.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#49
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True — but it's also why neither I nor the companies I've worked at have worked on iOS apps (of note, the Android apps we've built have been internal corporate apps, not consumer-facing apps, where iOS's consumer base would be an asset). I as a developer very much don't want to use Windows or macOS. Why would I want to use either of them when I can use Linux? I know there are others who think otherwise; it's great th…

This makes no sense. In what kind of backwards company are internal apps targeted based on the software devs' platform preferences? The determining factor is what phones the people who need to use the apps have. If many of the people that need to use the app have iPhones, you'd be forced to write them for iPhones. If many had Windows Phones, you'd be forced to write them for Windows Phones. Your development-platform…

The hoops of developing for iOS were why the company didn't develop internal apps for iOS; the hoops of developing for iOS are also why I don't develop for iOS.

I am not a slave; I can choose where I work.

Re: The war Microsoft should have won

#50
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like Apple or Samsung had monopolies that they leveraged to their advantage to drive mobile share. The iPhone was a natural progression from the iPod, which dominated the music player market since the turn of the millenium.

I don't buy that. If the iPhone was 'just an improved iPod' at release, reception wouldn't have been as mixed as it was ('brilliant' vs 'flop') The iPhone was a small battery powered box you can hold in your hand and it could play music, just like the iPod, but at the time the iPhone debuted, that's about where the similarities ended. Also, because of its price ($500 plus a two-year contract) the iPhone targeted a di…

> The iPhone was a small battery powered box you can hold in your hand and it could play music, just like the iPod, but at the time the iPhone debuted, that's about where the similarities ended.

iPods had just become colour when the iPhone came out, so the main differences were interaction (touchscreen vs "touch wheel"), screen size and connectivity. It wasn't long before the iPod touch came out, with a big touchscreen and apps; basically a non-phone iPhone, giving that different audience a clear transition path.

Post reply on HN