> How else can they (Microsoft) compete with the iPad but than to switch to an Apple-style schedule of annual incremental updates?
> That mindset and development schedule — “What can we do to make this nicer by next year?” — may well be the most important thing from iOS that Apple has taken back to the Mac.
His last couple paragraphs got me thinking... If Microsoft wants to sell hardware, they'll have a better chance of succeeding if they release Windows versions faster... Apple sold a ton of 4Ss, because it was faster, had more ram and a much better camera. But, also because of Siri, a software feature.
And Google/Asus Nexus 7, from everything I hear, is a fabulous 7" tablet. But much of its greatness is because of Android 4.1. How can Microsoft compete with these devices if they want to take their time releasing new versions of Windows every 2-3 years?
Microsoft does not want to sell hardware, not in the way you imply. Surface is akin to Google's Nexus; a 'northstar' product intended to lead OEMs in the right direction.
Microsoft is not, and never will be, a hardware company. Please don't go off saying "what about Xbox or mice & keyboards".
First Xbox, while finally turning a profit, is a shining example of how far Microsoft needs to go to truly be excellent at hardware supply chain management. The RROD debacle cost MS many $B and there is no evidence that they have truly learned.
I know the people who drove the Xbox360 hardware design and supply chain management. They are now war scared seasoned experts. The type of people you want working on the next big thing. None of them even knew about Surface until it was announced. Typical Microsoft organizational silos.
Designing and building hardware is easy. Easy relative to SELLING hardware. Retail, hardware supply chain management, support, etc... are huge endeavors that Microsoft has very little capability for. The DNA of Microsoft is that of a software company.
Second, a tiny, tiny percentage of Microsoft's profits come from direct sales of products to consumers. Like less than 5%. In order for MS to seriously get into the hardware business it would need a model that enabled something close to the +40% gross profit margins Apple is seeing from its vertically oriented model. It would take a decade or more of radical change for Microsoft to make such a change, and while MS has demonstrated it can turn the ship (more like a fleet) before, I simply do not think this is a direction it can go.
I do not believe Microsoft will try to compete with Apple on Apple's terms (vertically integrated, high-margin hardware with up-front payment). I believe Microsoft will try to end-around Apple by continuing with a predominantly horizontal play, enabling annuity revenue streams from 'experiences' delivered across all of a user's devices, regardless of whether they run Windows or not (including Apple's devices).
I don't think Microsoft can reasonably compete with Apple in the hardware game. Apple's too good, and they have too much practice. I'm still shocked at their Surface tablet strategy, as I think a lot of people are. They don't have a particularly good track record recently, given the manufacturing problems with the Xbox.
I'm guessing that Microsoft's strategy still lies in software (a healthy combination of Windows, Office, and Business [Windows Server, SQL Server, SharePoint, etc]), entertainment (Xbox, Skype), and "cloud" offerings (Azure, Live, etc).
I think that their release strategy, where they release a "major" update every 2+ years, isn't inheriently wrong. It's still viable, and meshes well with a lot of the corporate money they're chasing. But I do think with the low price point of Windows 8, they realize that there is less and less money to be made in the consumer OS space, and more potential money to be made in servers and services.
>I don't think Microsoft can reasonably compete with Apple in the hardware game. Apple's too good, and they have too much practice.
MS is good at hardware but the problem is margins and the lack of proper leadership. Apple has been building this manufacturing advantage for a decade and can get a cheaper price because of their high volumes of their orders. It doesn't hurt to have essentially created three new markets as well during that span.
>But I do think with the low price point of Windows 8, they realize that there is less and less money to be made in the consumer OS space, and more potential money to be made in servers and services.
I'd also add that Apple and Google are both splitting the PC market with tablets which means even far less future revenues from Windows.
Playing devil's advocate, can MS and Apple deliver new features every year that would push someone to upgrade at a low price? With mobile devices being so young compared to the PC I can understand why there is an annual update. For the PC I'm not so sure.
> That mindset and development schedule — “What can we do to make this nicer by next year?” — may well be the most important thing from iOS that Apple has taken back to the Mac.
His last couple paragraphs got me thinking... If Microsoft wants to sell hardware, they'll have a better chance of succeeding if they release Windows versions faster... Apple sold a ton of 4Ss, because it was faster, had more ram and a much better camera. But, also because of Siri, a software feature.
And Google/Asus Nexus 7, from everything I hear, is a fabulous 7" tablet. But much of its greatness is because of Android 4.1. How can Microsoft compete with these devices if they want to take their time releasing new versions of Windows every 2-3 years?