> Microsoft is afraid to cross the chasm. It must become a hardware manufacturer to compete with iPad.
Well, Microsoft as a company already crossed that chasm with the XBOX (and Zune, if that matters). But yes, for the Windows section of Microsoft, that is a huge step to make.
Odd how the history played out. Mac OS X began as NeXT's OS (NEXTSTEP). When NeXT failed to get market traction with their high-end proprietary hardware/OS platform, they abandoned hardware and became a software/OS company. Microsoft already owned that space however. When NEXTSTEP the OS failed, they sold to Apple, became Mac OS X and later iOS, and went back to being a high-end proprietary hardware/OS platform. Microsoft however, long successful as a software company, is now facing the prospect of having to compete as a complete hardware/software platform, something they've never done, and something that Mac OS X (as NEXTSTEP) failed at previously.
I guess it just shows that neither strategy is necessarily the "right" one. It's all about providing what the market wants, when it wants it.
Its interesting to consider the choices available to the incumbents given their respective legacies.
Is Microsoft making a mistake by pricing its mobile OS bundle at a high $85? To what extent is that decision forced by their existing Windows franchise?
I think that Microsoft is making a locally optimal decision, and cannot yet fully come to grips with the post-PC era.
Comments
> Microsoft is afraid to cross the chasm. It must become a hardware manufacturer to compete with iPad.
Well, Microsoft as a company already crossed that chasm with the XBOX (and Zune, if that matters). But yes, for the Windows section of Microsoft, that is a huge step to make.
Odd how the history played out. Mac OS X began as NeXT's OS (NEXTSTEP). When NeXT failed to get market traction with their high-end proprietary hardware/OS platform, they abandoned hardware and became a software/OS company. Microsoft already owned that space however. When NEXTSTEP the OS failed, they sold to Apple, became Mac OS X and later iOS, and went back to being a high-end proprietary hardware/OS platform. Microsoft however, long successful as a software company, is now facing the prospect of having to compete as a complete hardware/software platform, something they've never done, and something that Mac OS X (as NEXTSTEP) failed at previously.
I guess it just shows that neither strategy is necessarily the "right" one. It's all about providing what the market wants, when it wants it.
Right.
Its interesting to consider the choices available to the incumbents given their respective legacies.
Is Microsoft making a mistake by pricing its mobile OS bundle at a high $85? To what extent is that decision forced by their existing Windows franchise?
I think that Microsoft is making a locally optimal decision, and cannot yet fully come to grips with the post-PC era.