iOS changed the definition for a smart phone. We are now in a new market, with RIM and Nokia running on momentum (people are already asking for the Nokia CEO's head, asking when they'll switch to Android). iOS did not enter a market already filled, it entered an empty one for its paradigm and took sales from the existing market. Android succeeded because it was a "good enough" alternative people who wanted a phone using the new paradigm, but didn't want or couldn't afford an iPhone. So now you have the original and the cheaper copy (which is constantly getting better). Where is the room for another inferior copy?
Best Buy does not represent the market. And the laptop and desktop - the PC - market is still growing at 24% annually.
Best Buy is a good representative of the retail market, being the largest in the East and expanding internationally. Your 24% growth figure does not count the iPad, or Android copies (which as you know will sell more due to being cheaper). Face it, tablets are cannibalizing notebooks, and that will only increase. That means Microsoft's market for Windows will shrink.
Let the phone hardware experts do the hardware, let the software experts do the software. NO COMPANY is expert at everything.
Really? Apple makes the best hardware and has the operating systems Microsoft always aims to copy. Apparently one company is capable of it.
Closed, locked-in, non-competitive markets are typically stagnant; dynamic, competitive markets are where you get innovation.
Apple is spurred to innovation because Apple needs to always stay ahead of the copiers or else the company will become a producer of commodity products. Apple begins the death watch when the innovation stops.
Microsoft and Apple are more profitable on a margin basis, and Microsoft is considerably more profitable on an absolute dollar basis as well.
Microsoft's profits will keep rolling on in momentum for quite a long time. Still looking for a solid history of innovation and growth in new markets to support a high valuation. Chirp... chirp....
Really? Then why does Microsoft spend MORE on R&D (meaning not copying), and yet still has a higher profit margin than Apple?
Maybe Apple doesn't execute on their ideas very well, and it takes Microsoft to make them profitable and attractive. After all, when you sell 20 copies of Windows for every copy of OSX, you must be doing something right for your customers.
Microsoft's profits will keep rolling on in momentum for quite a long time. Still looking for a solid history of innovation and growth in new markets to support a high valuation. Chirp... chirp....
Hmmm... You hold up Apple as the paragon of innovation and design, and Microsoft as a company that doesn't innovate, just copies. Yet who makes more money? Heck, who SPENDS more money on R&D? Who makes more profit?
Maybe your assumption is flawed - maybe it's not the flashy "innovator" that is a successful company, but the mundane, just-get-it-done company that dominates its markets that is successful?
Bottom line: Microsoft sells more, makes more, and keeps a higher percentage of what they make, as compared to Apple. They're financially more successful than Apple. Can't really deny that at all, can you?