I think that Microsoft's big problem has been its Windows fetish. Imagine if Microsoft treated Office as a truly independent business. Office for Android, Linux, and iOS.
It seems to me that Microsoft so desperately craves monopoly power, it is blind to the opportunities simply afforded by making a good product that people want and selling it to them.
> It seems to me that Microsoft so desperately craves monopoly power, it is blind to the opportunities simply afforded by making a good product that people want and selling it to them.
Microsoft will do that when all else fails - IE4 was a wonderful browser.
However, that strategy works well only when you can wait until your competition does a mistake. The main reason for NetScape's demise was NetScape. The main reason for Lotus' demise was Lotus. Similarly for Borland. (Not sure about Caldera and WordPerfect, though).
However, so far Google have been executing very competently. So have Apple (mobile os + hardware), Nintendo and Sony (game consoles). And up until a couple of years ago, even Macromedia/Adobe with Flash (remember Liquid Motion? No one does, but it was MS' first attempt to displace Flash. Remember Silverlight? That's the newest)
Microsoft strategy has been to execute on par with competitor, and wait until they stumble. Microsoft doesn't know what to do against competent execution. So far, it didn't really hurt them.
(Not that I know what to do against competent execution a-la Google, and Apple -- but Microsoft seems to want to be the end-all-be-all of everything software).
"...what to do against competent execution a-la Google, and Apple"?
Give the customer what they want. Do it faster, better, cheaper than Google or Apple. Then print money until somebody notices and starts competing with you.
It's hard to get right, in practice, but that's the theory.
> It's hard to get right, in practice, but that's the theory.
That's not even the theory. That's wishful thinking. Or, it is true in a tautological way if you define "what the customer wants" by "as shown by attaining market leadership".
Also, even if it were the theory, it's as useful as saying "the way to make money in the stock market is to buy low and sell high".
Google's customers (advertisers, mind you, NOT users) want access to users with an intent to buy. Microsoft can't provide or manufacture that.
Apple's customers want something that "just works, does so intuitively, and is what their friends and all the cool kids have". Microsoft does not know how to deliver that. (You can argue about the "just works and does so intuitively", but I would say that they failed, with the possible exception of WP7 -- which I don't like, but is not as horrible as other MS stuff).
I completely agree with you. I'm no Microsoft shill, and unless they can find something that gives them market leadership their dominant position in the market is a big juicy target for all competitors.
Please cite sources for "that's not even the theory." Here's my statement and a source:
That's what I meant by tautologically useless. You might be able to test it for commodities like bread or crude oil, but you cannot for anything remotely differentiable. A recent example:
Apple supplies tablets. There is great demand. Market participants conclude: "If we supply tablets, we can profit of some of that demand". Market is filled with tablets at various price ranges ($50-$700) with various capabilities. Almost none of them sells.
Conclusion: there is demand for ipad, no demand for tablets.
Any theory that requires you to retroactively define your terms is "not even theory" in my book.
The Kindle Fire in particular is selling well, primarily because the Amazon media experience is almost as good as Apple's. I don't think that's tautologically useless: there is a market there, but apparently you need to spend a _lot_ of time writing the software - Apple had a decade to get iTunes to where it is today.
Amazon seems to understand that and has taken total responsibility for the software on the Kindle Fire, to the point they forked Android. I think that's a mistake long-term but short-term they get this one thing: Apple's hardware comes with Apple's software, and it is the combination that is so valuable.
P.S. It took me forever to research these tablets and post this list. The experience of trying to find a decent Android tablet is incredibly frustrating (unless you just go straight to the Nexus 7). The prices are all over the place, which to me indicates junk marked up to catch unwary buyers. The reviews are pretty scathing about poor build quality, unusable Android builds, and horrible customer service. All of that has an effect on the marketplace.
It seems to me that Microsoft so desperately craves monopoly power, it is blind to the opportunities simply afforded by making a good product that people want and selling it to them.