First, this is a post from "badasscat1" on The Verge from this morning:
...What this would do, is cause Microsoft, once a strictly software maker, to become a system maker.I also think that when we look back on all this 10 or 20 years from now, the entire Surface strategy is going to look like a huge mistake. Rather than push OEM’s to create new and innovative designs (the original stated goal), it’s instead caused some of them to just say "you know what? Screw it. Have fun, MS". It's also caused some of them, like Samsung (who MS was at one point courting to make more Windows Phones), to rethink their entire Windows strategy. The overall marketing for Windows machines, expressed as the total marketing from all OEM's, has dropped. Meanwhile, the industry has consolidated into just five or so big OEM's that MS is now actively trying to prop up with its "PC does what?" campaign. That's the opposite of what Surface was supposed to do.
Ballmer started that but Nadella has expanded it. And in the end it may result in MS being the only Windows machine OEM a few years down the line. And that could mean more short-term revenue for MS, but it would also mean a long-term decline in the Windows ecosystem as a whole, which can only be a bad thing for MS.
Producing products that are systems of hardware + software that are meant to work seamlessly together.
It's a winning strategy, in my opinion.
It's exactly what Apple does.
The irony is strong with this one...
M$ certainly offered some quality hardware items over the years.
But it's not what Microsoft does. It would a\be a seismic shit to their way of doing business and I don't know if they would survive the transition. The whole Windows model is "be all things to all people all of the time", which leads to their widespread penetration but rarely being the best at any one thing.
If they have to shift to being more focused, I don't know if they'll keep enough of their customer base to live through the upheaval.