Oh, I know how Microsoft tries. It's the success that matters. That Microsoft is willing to weaken the compatibility due to partner pressures is disturbing.
When that product is developed and designed at Microsoft, but sold under another company's name, the consumer doesn't know - but it's still from the same company, the same tight coupling.
Is this like the original Zune, basically a Toshiba Gigabeat? Or the XBox 360 CPU, ripped off from the Sony/Toshiba Cell R&D? Do you have better examples? Unless I hear better examples, I continue to believe that the last innovative consumer hardware product from Microsoft was the Intellimouse.
You think those new WP7 phones have been developed by HTC and Samsung in a vacuum? ;) No, there's been heavy MS involvement from the beginning.
I would like to know the level of involvement beyond making sure the OS will work on the hardware.
Doesn't Apple also make computers and operating systems?
In most cases, Apple has a heavy manufacturing expense. Microsoft and Google do not.
Google's PHONE operating system sells on more phones than Apple's. Does that mean Google should not be considered a player in the telecom/mobile phone market, just because their phone hardware sales are basically nil?
No, it means Google has no manufacturing expenses (I'll allow you to forget the embarassing Nexus One). In fact, the CEO brags about it. There's R&D and the profit it returns, without the expense of manufacturing.
Well, great - then Microsoft and Google must REALLY be good because of even HIGHER margins!
As I've shown you, Microsoft doesn't do all that well when hardware manufacture is involved. And is Google even making any money off of Android yet? Does Google's profit have anything to do with anything that competes with Apple?
Apple's being stupid about trying to do both and keeping that anchor of hardware tied around its waist!
Apple gets to lead the way because Apple controls its hardware and software. Apple can come out with fully integrated products on day 1. Many Android users are still waiting for Froyo on their devices months after its release.
So maybe Microsoft and Google are like the Soviets, saving costs by letting the Americans do it first, then copying. Don't worry, Apple is used to the copying by now. Microsoft's been doing it since the 80s.
Yes, success matters. And who is more successful? Who makes more money, who has a higher profit margin?
Thank you.
Is this like the original Zune, basically a Toshiba Gigabeat? Or the XBox 360 CPU, ripped off from the Sony/Toshiba Cell R&D? Do you have better examples? Unless I hear better examples, I continue to believe that the last innovative consumer hardware product from Microsoft was the Intellimouse.
RoundTable. Look at any "Office Communicator" compatible telecom device. That's just for starters.
In most cases, Apple has a heavy manufacturing expense. Microsoft and Google do not.
On some products, they do. I spent most of the summer of 2008 in Dongguan working on that heavy manufacturing for Microsoft. Toolings, millings, PCBAs, etc. Deploying multiple anechoic chambers and video test stations for QC.
That they are able to make a HIGHER margin is a testament to the company. Again, results count - who makes more money, who has higher margins? No one seems to be willing to actually STATE it.
Microsoft makes more money. Microsoft has higher margins. Can you say that?
As I've shown you, Microsoft doesn't do all that well when hardware manufacture is involved. And is Google even making any money off of Android yet? Does Google's profit have anything to do with anything that competes with Apple?
Because you're not looking at the big picture. Microsoft makes money off that hardware - it drives more sales of other parts of their product line. Google makes tons of money off of Android - it drives ad impressions.
Compartmentalized thinking is the problem; look at the company as a whole, and whether it's bigger now than when it started a given project. Has the bottom line and profit margin grown? If so, even though that project may "lose" money, as a whole it's better for the company.
Who makes more money? Who has a higher profit margin?
Apple gets to lead the way because Apple controls its hardware and software. Apple can come out with fully integrated products on day 1. Many Android users are still waiting for Froyo on their devices months after its release.
BS, and you know it. App Store came out when? Was it out when the iPhone or iPod was released? When did they finally add multitasking? How about iOS 4.2 FINALLY being available for the iPad, months after its release?
Who's gaining marketshare? Who's holding? Who's losing? The numbers simply do not support the story you're trying to sell...