Microsoft’s Phone Needs to Take a Page from Apple
Things aren’t going well for Microsoft. Its stock is moribund, Bill Gates is bailing, Ballmer can’t seem to rise above the level of a running joke and the Vista ship date has been pushed back more frequently than the defensive line of last years San Francisco 49ers. For those who despise Microsoft with a passion, usually reserved for religion and politics, this is the most delicious moment in time since Microsoft Bob was foisted on the computing world.
This glee must be tempered with the knowledge that Microsoft has long surpassed its original goal. That goal, the Wall Street Journal tells us, was a PC on every desk running Microsoft software. Not only did the Redmond giant hit that goal, they surpassed it. Today every desk has a PC, and seemingly so does every lap, ATM, checkout scanner, car, (feel free to continue this list for as long as you desire) and the vast majority run some form of Microsoft software.
The model Microsoft used to achieve such massive success was fairly straightforward, the company produced software and let hardware manufacturers take care of the rest. It worked great, in the early days of personal computing most PCs came with an operating system designed by the company that made the computer. HP, for example, was sued along with Microsoft for infringing on the Mac’s look and feel because, irony of irony, HP licensed Microsoft’s license to use Mac technology. Thing is, it is a hassle to create your own OS and, even if your OS is spectacular, the other companies making hardware aren’t going to want to license a competitors operating system. Microsoft just sold software so when the hardware was seen as the profit center the hardware manufacturers were more than happy to license the OS from a non-competing company.
In the world of software, a world of natural monopolies, compatibility is king. As Microsoft grew it went from an easy way to get an operating system to the only place to get the OS that 98% of the consumers demanded. The battle for the desktop is long since over and Microsoft is looking for ways to expand past the original mandate and gadgets seem to be the way to grow. This is where the company is beginning to flail like a drunken log roller; there is nothing in Microsoft’s corporate experience that shows them the way to gadget dominance.
Microsoft’s past attempts at gadget dominance generally proceed as follows: Microsoft writes some software for a piece of delicious new technology. Hardware partners come on board and the masses of geeks wait for the new technology to take over. Thing is they wait a long time. Microsoft iPod killer? The thing has been released by several Microsoft partners multiple times and the iPod isn’t taking notice. Tablet computers? You can get one if it would sate your desire for pen based computing but the concept, despite predictions by Bill Gates, hasn’t taken the world by storm. We would be remiss not to note the recent introduction of the Origami, that super small fully powered PC. Despite the viral marketing campaign and the palpable anticipation for the product, the Origami just folded up and went home.
Now it is time for Microsoft’s next big flop: The Microsoft phone. Likely, you’re visualizing some super slick cell phone upon hearing that phrase, think bulkier. If you’re now thinking of an Origami-sized cell, while giggling softly, you need to think more stationary. If you’re imagining a tethered phone with some questionable bells and whistles congratulations, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Microsoft’s phone amounts to a business oriented VoIP system. Routers made by Cisco and other giants, phones made by Logitech, Motorola and the other usual suspects. Basically, an entire office phone makeover. The plan seems reasonable, businesses could use their existing computer equipment to also manage the phone system thus eliminating the largely (with today’s technology) superfluous PBX switches and phone system infrastructure.
The trouble is going to be that today’s systems work fairly well. Users are used to hitting “9” to dial out and pounding “1234” to access their voicemail. The new phones promise more features, video conference calling, screens telling you if the party you’re calling is at their desk and, well a bunch of other stuff no one is really sure they need. The uncertainty about what features any particular business will need coupled with a system that is low maintenance means the Microsoft business phone plan is going to be a tough sell.
If Microsoft is serious about dominating the business phone market, serious about being just as large a part of spoken communication as they are about written communication, they need to tell the phone makers to forget it and design a Microsoft phone. By designing the phone to work with Microsoft software the phone of tomorrow can highlight what the software is best at and the software can focus on the enhancements users want the most. If Microsoft stays the current course Logitech will offer one phone (using a made up example) with the ability to transmogrify voice mail into text. Motorola will let you put your kids pictures on the screen and the morass and yet another maker will offer a phone that doubles as a TiVO. Inevitably, offerings from the phone makers will feature wildly disparate capabilities and turn the entire project into a morass of confusing phones that only seem more complicated than the phones of today instead substantially better.
The best way to get a new gadget over is to make it work almost exactly like the gadget it is meant to replace. A TiVO is powered by a chip and a hard drive but it works a lot like a VCR. People can relate to it. Surely, the little box is capable of much more than it is being asked to do, the thing could probably check your e-mail, but it is important not to put too many features on new technology lest the users become overwhelmed. It is left as an exercise for the reader to compare the functionality of the original iPod to the original Walkman. This is something Microsoft needs to realize, don’t make a phone with more freaking gadgets that starts to suck at being a phone, make a better phone that happens to other, related, things.
Taking that tactic would be taking a page out of the Apple playbook. Apple controls the experience from sweatshop to consumer and people are very happy with the end result. Someone is bound to object that there is no way Microsoft can match Apple’s deft touch when it comes to industrial design, and they’ll be right. However, in the business world clever design takes a back seat to durability and price, mostly price. Microsoft doesn’t need to produce a great looking phone, just one that works very, very well and saves businesses a little money and a lot of headaches. Microsoft should know this from their experience with the Xbox or Apple’s experience with the iPod. The question is why, for a company full of very bright people, they aren’t catching on?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Both products (iTunes music/MS Office) dominate their respective markets. iTunes/Fairplay shores up the iPod monopoly. Office shores up the Windows monopoly. If Apple has to open up iTunes, then Microsoft has to port Office to Linux.
This is, not surprisingly, a completely erroneous analogy. For one thing, Microsoft does port Office to the Mac and to markets where it thinks there is profitability. Second, there is a distinct difference between FORMAT compatibility and DRM restrictions.
But in similar situations, in which Microsoft forced vendors to keep an otherwise compatible browser out of pre-installs, the govt rightly took action to prevent this anti-competitive practice. The restrictions, like those of Fairplay, were artificial and imposed solely because Microsoft wanted to keep out competitors.
And in point of fact, those browsers were simply prevented from being pre-installed. Users could still install them later if they wanted. For Microsoft to adopt Apple’s egregious restrictions, they would have prevented Windows from running those alternative browsers completely.
And again I ask the question that the Apple apologists REFUSE TO ANSWER: Why is Apple afraid to compete fairly?
<i>If Steve, in your very descriptive but foul assumptions, are keen to charge all of humanity every cent out of their coin pockets, then why aren’t these prices higher?</i>
Are you serious? Is this the best counter argument you can come up with?
I put it to you then, if Microsoft is a monopoly and CAN charge $1000 for a single copy of Windows, then why don’t they? Does the fact that they make Windows affordable mean that they are NOT a monopoly? The price of the product has nothing to do with the definition of a monopoly as described above.
Bots are mindless entities with one singular purpose programmed by their creators.
This pretty much defines you and your Apple-bot apologist screeds. And those who bandy about words like “truth” as cheaply as you do are obviously using volume to hide what you lack in sincerity or rationality.
Macolania? Care to explain?
Anyone who’s engaged even tangentially in political or philosophical discussions knows full well the tactics RI is employing: Accuse the opponent of using the tactics you yourself are using; get him to spend his time defending against false accusations (RI’s accusations of my “warped” reality as a case in point) while piling on more and more ad hominem points.
But even a cursory glimpse at this thread by any non-partisan illustrates clearly who is the shameless apologist, who is the hypocrite that uses two clearly different standards for Microsoft and Apple, and who has devolved the discussion into attacking as “warped” any minor or factual report even minutely unfavorable to Apple.
And while I admit to a bit of acrimony, you’ll see that I usually do so as a response in kind.
Even that dwindling $37 bln and change cash horde will not be enough to overcome such just verdict as a monopolist.
While further proof of RI’s hypocrisy and fact-free, logic-free brainless defense of Apple is hardly necessary, I just thought I’d put a final nail in the double-standard coffin.
Microsoft is a “monopolist,” according to RI. And this is all well and good, UNTIL you look at RI’s defense of why Apple is NOT a monopolist:
“They do not have TOTAL control of 100% of the world’s supplies. Therefore, the conclusion is they are not monopoly.”
Anyone with the exception apparently of Apple-bot RI, can tell you matter-of-factly that Microsoft does not have 100% control of the OS market. The mere existence of the Mac makes this so.
Ben, I admire your defense of my objectivity despite your bristling of my acrimony (which is a polite way to put it). But I hope you see why I take the tone I do when up against this kind of dunder-headery.
“Macolania? Care to explain?”-BH
For the last time, Mr. Hall, the name is Robotech Infidel. You are not permitted to give me acronym of my hallowed virtual identity.
Since, this is my last communication with you, scroll up a few posts and get the answer yourself about the Macolania, understood? But remember do not show yourself in Macolania for thy will be tried for treason.
“I put it to you then, if Microsoft is a monopoly and CAN charge $1000 for a single copy of Windows, then why don’t they? Does the fact that they make Windows affordable mean that they are NOT a monopoly? The price of the product has nothing to do with the definition of a monopoly as described above.”-Beebx
Oh, Beeb, you are surely distorted and completely misunderstands the forces of the market. M$ having >90% of the market should have priced XP to $10 (or less) a copy by now and still makes a couple of billions to their dwindling treasury. >90% btw is >400 million unit per year by 2008, or so. At $10 a pop of XP that you should have been enjoying instead of “forking” over $199 to the tag-team duo of Bill & Balmer, M$ treasury still grows quite comfortably at $4 bln gross revenue on XP alone! O my great lord of Macolania, these XPinians are mindless followers.
Now, to Apple with a meager 2% of all Cyberspherian market share only charges $129 for a n elegant system software. Why? If they are a monopolists (and how do you do that with 2% share? I have no clue.) then why wouldn’t they charge $499 to break-even on those billions spent on development?
So, let’s move to the MP3 segment. Apple is on target to ship >40 mils of all things iPod - Apple will not break down each model’s exact number but we can assume the Shuffle has to make at least half of that. Does >20 million/year with perhaps $100/unit profit compare nicely with >400 million/year at $199/unit profit?
Remember Macolanians, M$ makes completely pure 100% profit on each XP unit sold. M$ broke-even a long time ago and what do they give to their followers? More of the same - inflated prices, shoddy system software, buggy codes, “me too” user experiences, and on, and on.
“Anyone with the exception apparently of Apple-bot RI, can tell you matter-of-factly that Microsoft does not have 100% control of the OS market.”-Beebx
Did that concept of yours inspired the justices that gave M$ its lasting fate as a monopolist? Hardly. They were convicted for “illegally” manipulating their market powers and not because they had total monopoly which is a pure/natural monopoly. Apple in any definition that you are so freely concucting is not a pure, not a natural, not a cartel, not an oligopoly, not a legal, or illegal monopoly. So, the conclusion must be, and I repeat again for your pleasure Beeb, they are not a monopoly until proven by the great Halls of Justice and not you.
I as a faithful defender of all Macolania, whether good or bad, will preside in the trial of Apple to face justice in the great Halls of Justice by the treacherous accusers of Cyberspheria.
Beeb, did you read-up my definition for a bot? Read again and again. Perhaps by the millionth time you try to comprehend the answer, a vision of YOU starts to collagelate inside that distorted mind. An XPinian spy in Macolania should be exterminated.
Beeb, did you read-up my definition for a bot?
Yep. It perfectly explains what you are. A mindless entity with one singular purpose, in this case defending Apple at any cost, even if it means becoming a fantastically outrageous hypocrite.
Obviously your personal credibility and integrity are expendible to the cause.
And since you are either a mindless entity devoid of any integrity, honesty, or rationale; OR you are pretending to be one (which I grow increasingly convinced is the case since no Apple-bot I’ve dealt with is nearly so cartoonish—and that’s saying something), then I’m done here. Bots don’t change their minds unless programmed to do so, and since Jobs isn’t likely to bother, then nothing I say to you is going to make any difference.
For further truth of M$ irrational disrespect of justice, see my blog at Macolania Extreme (http://macolaniaextreme.blogspot.com/2006/06/microsofts-armada-losing-in-european.html). You will begin to realize who exactly is the stubborn, monopolistic empire that is Microsoft.
There you shall find additional armaments of truth and the power of reason against hypocrites who label themselves Mac defenders.
“And since you are either a mindless entity devoid of any integrity, honesty, or rationale”-Beebx
Beeb, a mindless entity does not have a capability of reason to battle your twisted one. A mindless entity is not capable of such ingenuity and creativity as creating a perfect world where you are one.
You see Beeb, I should be the filmmaker since you haven’t provided any infinitesimal creative commenting or posting credibility to tickle the interest of all true Mac defender. I should be the one directing and creating those fantastic sceneries and battle scenarios. I should..nah, what’s the use.
Enjoy your quick takes. I will be the first to review your first production, whenever that may be and you will know my judgment at Macolania Extreme (http://macolaniaextreme.blogspot.com/).
“Obviously your personal credibility and integrity are expendible to the cause.”-Beebx
We are in a virtual world remember, Beeb? We are not in a physical world. That is why you have a virtual handle? Hmmm?
Yet, in our virtual world I call Cyberspheria, reason and facts are laid down just as in the real physical world.
If you mean the credibility of the Supreme Commander of Macolania, the great Robotech Infidel, with his vast trove of facts and information collected from credible sources as the WSJ, eWeek, or BWeek, you can only dream of chipping his credibility.
“This is, not surprisingly, a completely erroneous analogy. For one thing, Microsoft does port Office to the Mac and to markets where it thinks there is profitability.”
Yes, in fact Apple and MS even signed a contract about Office for Mac. We should then be crying Collusion! between Microsoft and Apple. This is obviously an attempt to injure Linux by denying it compatibility to the de facto standard office suite.
Seriously though, the Windows-for-Mac rebuttal fails because it’s immaterial. So what if there are two OSes that can run Office. There are still people (Linux users) who are prevented from using Office because MS chose not to let them. Probably because MS saw no profit in it.
Oh wait, could it be that Apple sees no profit in opening up iTunes?
———————————-
“Second, there is a distinct difference between FORMAT compatibility and DRM restrictions.”
False distinction. From the point of view of the customer it doesn’t matter whether the inaccessibility is due to FORMAT compatibility or DRM restrictions. The effect is the same on the customer. MS gets to choose who can use Office, Apple gets to choose who can use Fairplay.
—————————
“But in similar situations, in which Microsoft forced vendors to keep an otherwise compatible browser out of pre-installs, the govt rightly took action to prevent this anti-competitive practice.”
There you have it. Touche. In your own words: ‘situations in which Microsoft FORCED vendors’. I have been hammering on this theme over and over in previous posts. This is what MS did that Apple has not. This is why MS was in trouble with the feds and Apple is not.
Repeat after me: A monopoly by itself is not illegal. Coercive action to establish or protect a monopoly is illegal.
——————————
“And in point of fact, those browsers were simply prevented from being pre-installed. Users could still install them later if they wanted. For Microsoft to adopt Apple’s egregious restrictions, they would have prevented Windows from running those alternative browsers completely.”
And in point of fact, Fairplay does not really prevent you from putting iTunes music into your Zen player. You just need to burn it into CD format first and rip from there. That would be an egregious restriction if a blank CD-R costs $100. But it doesn’t. A CD-R costs pennies. And if anyone says that burn-then-rip is an egregiously complicated and time-consuming task. All I can say is are you kidding me? Get off your lazy ass!
But there again, the bias reveals. MS is forgiven because there is a backdoor route to circumvent the restrictions on alternative browsers. But Apple is not even though there is a backdoor route to circumvent Fairplay.
——————————
“And again I ask the question that the Apple apologists REFUSE TO ANSWER: Why is Apple afraid to compete fairly?”
The short answer is:
Apple has no obligation to compete fairly. Its obligation is to maximise shareholder value.
Now the long answer:
If you are the executive, legislative and judiciary branches all rolled into one then yes definitely we shall all have to abide by your definition of what fair competition is.
But this is not your or anybody else’s perfect world. Antitrust legal theories and legislation continue to evolve and so far they haven’t gone over to your point of view.
Companies have no obligation to compete ‘fairly’ whatever that word means. Companies though do have the obligation, under threat of legal sanction, to compete LEGALLY.
Now that is an honest-to-goodness genuine distinction.
“Apple controls the experience from sweatshop to consumer and people are very happy with the end result. “
i can’t help but imagine happy chinese sweatshop workers sweating along in an apple controlled color-coordinated and ergonomically optimized designer sweatshop.
stop,please you’re killing me - monty python were are thou.
There are still people (Linux users) who are prevented from using Office because MS chose not to let them. Probably because MS saw no profit in it.
Oh wait, could it be that Apple sees no profit in opening up iTunes?
Again, you are mixing two completely different situations. Apple isn’t refusing to license iTM$ because there is no market for it. They are refusing to license iTM$ because there IS a market for it, a market that they want to keep to themselves and keep competitors from accessing.
Apple could easily allow access to its store by competitors, or allow other online stores to sell to iPod owners, simply by licensing Fairplay.
Under any other circumstances, their refusal would be an understandable position. No company likes competition, Apple included. But Apple is a MONOPOLY, and the rules are different for monopolies.
——————————————————-
From the point of view of the customer it doesn’t matter whether the inaccessibility is due to FORMAT compatibility or DRM restrictions.
Oy.
Listen, people know when they buy an X-box that they can’t run Playstation games on it. People know when they buy a VCR that they can’t play DVDs. Those are incompatible FORMATS. Those are not “false” differences, they are physical.
Apple’s restrictions are in the encryption, not format.
It would be like Sony building a DVD player that only played movies with Sony DRM from the Sony Movie Store, and Sony had a monopoly on DVD movies. Would you actually defend that?
Did you defend Sony during the rootkit debacle? After all, not only did the law allow them to do what they did, the law actually forbid customers from removing the rootkit. It was only through the sheer force of customer outrage that Sony backed down, not from any court of law.
—————————————————
Coercive action to establish or protect a monopoly is illegal.
The coercive action in this case, which is much more egregious, is against CUSTOMERS instead of vendors. Apple isn’t forcing vendors to do anything because its not even allowing vendors to participate (although one could certainly argue that its wildly disproportionate licensing fees for accessories manufacturers qualifies, but that’s a different area of Apple’s monopoly abuse).
Apple is forcing customers who wish to buy an iPod to buy from the iTunes Music Store owned by Apple. And it’s forcing iTunes Music Store customers who wish to put their music on a portable player to buy an iPod made by Apple.
How much more blatant can it be?
———————————————
But this is not your or anybody else’s perfect world. Antitrust legal theories and legislation continue to evolve and so far they haven’t gone over to your point of view.
To say that because they haven’t been prosecuted means that they are not guilty of anti-competitive practices is not only MORONIC, but absurdly disengenous.
Your statement presumes that IF a court did prosecute, that you’d swiftly change your moral view to reflect this new legal status, which is preposterous. We’ve seen enough reaction from Apple-bot apologists over the French govt actions to know better. They DID find that Apple’s policies were not in the best interest of the customers. Clearly you don’t agree DESPITE any kind of legal ruling.
Second, do you REALLY withold any and all judgement about everyone and everything until a court of law tells you what to think about a moral or ethical question? Did Microsoft’s exhoneration in its copyright infringement case with Apple render for you the final word on whether or not Windows stole features from the Mac?
If so, then you are morally vacuous, unable to divine your own opinions as you await others to tell you what to think.
If not, then you’re simply lying, adopting a disengenous position with the sole purpose of defending Apple no matter what.
”...In your own words: ‘situations in which Microsoft FORCED vendors’. I have been hammering on this theme over and over in previous posts. This is what MS did that Apple has not. This is why MS was in trouble with the feds and Apple is not.
Repeat after me: A monopoly by itself is not illegal. Coercive action to establish or protect a monopoly is illegal. -tundraboy
B*I*N*G*O Tundraboy. You are a true Mac defender with the power of 100% reason and FACTS! I can’t comprehend how some other false prophets cannot understand when a mere peasant can sniff it at a distance. Tundraboy, in my grateful heart you are thus receive this medal of commendation for placading a well-though-of scouting report.
Beeb, that is more like it buddy. Bring out all your anger of Apple and Steve and soon you will have no choice but commit as a faithful Mac commando.
“I shall return…” as the great Macolania commando, Gen. Douglas McArthur once proclaimed to peasants of a distant land. I have to earn my living working in a real physical world. TB, you can take my place to battle the distorted BBx.
But Apple is a MONOPOLY, and the rules are different for monopolies.
Yes, but you obviously don’t know what those rules are. You have your own belief/values system and from there you try to navigate into what you think Apple should be forced to do with insufficient knowledge of the law and economics of it all. That’s what drives you in this argument.
I on the other hand, have studied Economics a total of 8 years in undergrad and grad level in a top 20 Econ department, field of concentration in Industrial Organization -the branch that studies monopolistic behaviour and antitrust. So though I have my own value system about what is fair competition, I am arguing based on what I believe are the limits posed by economic forces and legislation on Apple’s behaviour as a dominant firm.
Because of our disparity in knowledge about the matter we will forever be arguing past each other so I leave it at that. You either don’t or refuse to understand what I’m saying, meanwhile you persist in employing classic sea lawyer tactics like false distinctions, forced dichotomies, and spurious analogies.
And of course being the Beeb we’ve come to know, eventually a Karl Rove moment comes up where you try to pass off a subtly shaded lie as fact. When truth and logic fails, start making up things eh? Here’s Beeb’s Karl Rovian moment of the day:
“(Apple) is forcing iTunes Music Store customers who wish to put their music on a portable player to buy an iPod made by Apple.
This is your prima facie evidence of coercion by Apple. See below why this is just a stupid lie.
So I give up Beeb. It’s pointless to engage you in intelligent debate. This is my last rebuttal to any post you ever put up.
———————
The following then is meant to inform others who might be interested in a deeper understanding of the iPod/Fairplay issue.
1. There is no consumer market for Fairplay or any other DRM. No consumer buys DRMs. There is a market for recorded audio, and within that market, there is a subset called the market for downloaded music. That is the market iTunes is in and it has plenty of competitors although albeit the competitors right now are ineffectual.
2. Although some people might say Fairplay restrictions amount to COERCING THE CONSUMER, no such thing is happening. It limits the consumer choices but whether it limits it enough as to amount to illegal behaviour, well that’s highly doubtful. Why? Let’s look at things a little closer. Remember, the market is downloaded music not DRMs.
Exactly how injurious is the iPod/iTunes/Fairplay restriction to consumers?
Does Fairplay prevent Zen owners from downloading any music? No. In fact, and this is key, EVEN IF YOU DON’T HAVE AN IPOD YOU CAN BUY AND LISTEN TO ITUNES MUSIC ON YOUR MAC OR WINDOWS COMPUTER! iTunes does not require any proof of iPod ownership to buy iTunes music. If it did, then that could be argued as coercion.
So that’s settled. THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON WHO CAN BUY FROM ITUNES.
Furthermore, YOU CAN LOAD YOUR ITUNES PURCHASES INTO ANY MP3 PLAYER. It’s just not as easy but it’s certainly not an egregiously burdensome procedure. And here’s the kicker: APPLE DOESN’T OBJECT TO YOUR DOING IT! So far, they don’t care!
3. Whether the restrictions on consumer accessibility is caused by a ‘natural’ barrier (OS incompatibility) or an ‘artificial’ barrier (DRM encryption) is, from an economics point of view, beside the point. If the effect on the consumer is the same, there is no difference.
Here’s how false that distinction is. Software vendors claim that MS is intentionally sabotaging interoperability between their software and Windows. Microsoft claims they’re doing their best but it’s just so darned complicated and they don’t want to reveal trade secrets. Natural or artificial barrier to accessibility? You be the judge. Effect on the consumer if it’s one or the other? Nothing.
4. Bottomline is antitrust is always a balancing act between the consumers’ welfare and the firm’s right to reap the rewards of producing and selling an innovative, well-made, quality product that hits the spot with consumers.
Apple designed a line of products called the iPod. To make it more attractive to customers they came up with iTunes which offered a fantastic buying/browsing experience for iPod owners. If you just want to download some music, you can buy that from lots of places. But if you want the great buying experience you have to buy it through iTunes. Is the iTunes music restricted to iPods only? No. Do you need to own an iPod to buy from iTunes? No. Did Apple make it a little harder to load iTunes music into non-Apple MP3 players? Yes. Is it so much harder that it amounts to an unlawful restriction? I say no but you be the judge. Does Apple have a right to give this much preferential treatment to iPod customers? I say yes, but again you be the judge.