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
>>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.<<
The reality was that Microsoft did everything in its POWER including legal and illegal methods to get there. It was by no means a “natural monopoly” unlike the ipod/itunes situation as it stands now.
First, let me point that I’m not one to advocate that Apple or Macs would’ve won if the fight was fair (as much as I’ve been a Mac user since 1986). Microsoft was simply more interested in selling to the corporate marketplace (Just as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates switched places in 1980, things would not be automatically reversed because they built companies around their philosophies).
Microsoft was in a way, lucky but also because BG knew how to press an advantage. By leveraging his Office Suite, he was able to hold off any comeback attempt by CP/M or the growth of OS/2 as competitors (and also Apple of course but to a lesser extent).
If you wanted to be able to license & load Office, you had to commit to DOS/Windows and as they added server services and other backend options, their power only grew. If you could sell X amount of Pc’s with Win & Office - you got X+% discount ...
Of course, it’s complex. Part of MS’ success was they were willing to deliver what corporate & enterprise wanted ... you want login, you got it - you want 175 starbursts in Powerpoint, you got it - if that’s what the specs say, we’ll give you that and 100 more - doesn’t matter that 99.99% do not care there are 175 starburst but it’s brochureware. IBM & other platform choices (unix, CP/M, and then called mini system OSes from Digital and others) were not nearly as responsive.
In a way, it was a perfect storm. BG was tenatious. Whatever would get a sale, they would do it - from the “good” (you want this feature, we’ll add it in) to later-ruled illegal, “Why buy Harvard Graphics for $399 when for $379, we’ll sell you an entire suite of apps - Word, Excel, etc ...) Because no one had an entire suite to compete just yet and MS would go to PC manufacturers and say if you ONLY bundle Office with Windows, you get another X discount. So to save money and time, what buyer would turn down MS’ offer? Why not get Office for $300 per machine or spend another $1,200 to get WordPerfect, Harcvard graphics, Lotus 1,2,3, etc?
As things progressed, MS used leverage both ways - once Office was in - who was going to switch? And then it became a two way street of leverage from both the buyers and PC manufacturers and later leveraging what PC manufacturers could put on the desktop (the famous edict to Compaq - bundle IE only or we yank your license to sell Windows).
Fast forward to the post internet era. And you are correct here, MS is lost because their company culture is built upon signing up every small manufacturer and distribution so their version of choice is really one choice but in the world of the internet and global OEM, you can no longer lock anyone up because some new guy will spring up. That’s why MS dismissed Apple & Google because they wree still playing old rules. Unlike before where Windows would sign an exclusive deal with record labels (we’ll give you a discount on your Pc purchases next year), MS could no longer leverage that illegal or legal means anymore. And consumers can now just go around you. Even 10 years ago, google would’ve needed to have millions to be able to get on desktops but now, you & I can post an app online and thousands/millions can start using the app in 10 minutes. MS has only one game plan and this new world confounds them - that’s why they can longer “kill” anyone anymore.
To go further, consumers confound MS because unlike enterprise, we don’t issue a list or request for propsal and if you hit them and are the lowest price, we’ll buy it - otherwise we’d all be driving KIA sedans - sure, we say we want things like we want an mp3 player with FM but clearly by the number of non FM ipods sold - we don’t really care that much.
And to compound the problem, MS is now full of bureacrats who are there because it’s a “safe” place to work towards retirement ... every entrepenur there has abondoned ship for more thrilling waters. MS is the DMV of technology.
Yeah bsuiness needs the computers and phones to go down together due to a virus or other Microsoft bugs in the software!
Corporatations lose billions of dollars worldwide now due to virus attack to Microsoft Windows or all the other Microsoft software in use by them. Does anyone think corporations will put ALL of there communications (phones and computers) eggs in a Microsoft basket?
Another vapor ware project IMO from Microsoft. It will be postponed into non-existence. Like Vista.
And Gates bailing out is just so sweet.
As things progressed, MS used leverage both ways - once Office was in - who was going to switch?
This is EXACTLY what Apple is doing now with the iPod/iTMS. Get everyone to use your product, then leverage your monopoly power to lock out competitors.
When it comes down to it, big greedy corporations are big greedy corporations. Apple’s going to use slave labor in China to increase their profit margins just like everyone else. They’ll extort accessories manufacturers like everyone else (okay, they’re worse than almost everyone else in this regard, but you get the idea). And they’ll abuse their monopoly power, like they’re doing with the iPod, just like everyone else.
JBelkin, you sure can talk a mouthful. Very clever points. I can agree to most of your M$ appraisals and reasons. Well done.
Chris, another superb article to munch on. <doing Arsenio Hall intro monkeys>
“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?”
I can relate to this target market for M$‘s Phone. Although, they will not manufacture the hardware, and this is true to M$ ways (except the XBox), they are so paranoid at growing their revenue that they will try anything and everything to get there.
Now, who are the colossus in this market? The Avayas, the Lucents, the Nortels, the Alcatels, and don’t forget the biggest VOIP hw provider - Cisco. Do you think M$ was sober when they had those project brainstorming and feasibility sessions? Dream on, Balmer (Bill’s on sabbatical now), keep on pressing the Staples “Easy” button but I give to you, M$ will stumble here just as bad as Bill’s tablet PC project. Thanks, Chris for making a deft note about the Origano, ehh, Origami.
“This is EXACTLY what Apple is doing now with the iPod/iTMS. Get everyone to use your product, then leverage your monopoly power to lock out competitors.”-Beebx
And when that prophecy is fulfilled, then they should be summoned to the great hall of justice we call the U.S. Federal Court System and let the facts be laid down for all of us lay people to witness.
Beeb, when are you going to halt branding the iPod/iTunes a monopoly. You need to go read up long, yet in-depth articles in Wikipedia (or attend college on antitrust law) then re-read all your comments if they make valid claims.
“Apple’s going to use slave labor in China to increase their profit margins just like everyone else. They’ll extort accessories manufacturers like everyone else”-Beebx
Since when slave labor in China legalized? Is this another one of your ASS*UMPTIONS? People working overtime to support their families are not considered “forced” labor. Contrast that to forced overtime without pay with meager working conditions and shelter - that is slave labor. So, what are you saying exactly, Beeb. You definitely ASS*U*ME too much of anything Apple-oriented. Just be grateful you got that Mac mini at mere $499 with the help of those productive Chinese peasants.
Next time you trot over to Fry’s, Best Buy, or <gasp> Apple Store, do not buy anything “Made in China”. See if you can spot one made in the good ol’ USA.
Beeb, when are you going to halt branding the iPod/iTunes a monopoly.
When they stop being one. And unlike you hypocritical Apple apologists, I’m applying the SAME standard (A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service.—dictionary.com) to BOTH Apple and Microsoft.
According to the strict definition, NEITHER company is a true monopoly since competition does exist. But the loose venacular term liberally applied to Microsoft Windows certainly applies to Apple in the portable/downloadable music market.
Not that ANY of this makes one whiff of difference to you, but to those who haven’t volunteered for the Job$-branded labotomy, I would hope that arguments that illustrate why its best for Apple to compete fairly will have some impact.
Just be grateful you got that Mac mini at mere $499 with the help of those productive Chinese peasants.
Speaking of ASS-UMING, I wasn’t commenting on the use of slave labor per se (and again, I’m sorry if the venacular confuses you; perhaps I should refer to it as the economically depressed labor force under the Chinese totalitarian regime), but rather the quickness and infallability in which the Apple-bot drones rush to Apple’s defense, be it anti-competitive practices or sweatshops in China.
Frankly, whether you call it slave labor or not, it doesn’t matter. You will find a way to defend it, whatever big greedy corporate practice it is.
And you have, as the loyal Apple-bot drone you are, done so admirably.
A monopolists, Beeb, can in its granted powers as one, can charge you more than $499 for a Mac mini or $99 iPod Nanos, $69 Shuffles. 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? Perhaps, he is no monopolist all along but a tenacious businessman who knows how to outdo the competition?
A competition? So, there are competetive companies in this iPod-dominated universe. All are pronouncing themselves - “iPod-Killers” or “The Next iPod”, such and such. In a pure monopoly, there are no competitions - every level of the industry is controlled by one entity -that would be Apple, in your whack mind. In such mind, Apple single-handedly control both the “supply” and “demand” curves and thus, by nature of the business, control prices. And how great Steve really then when he is only charging you $99 iPod nano vice $499, or how generous Steve really is when he priced those sweet Mac minis at mere…$499 <applause in the crowd>...
You see Beeb, Steve is no monopolist. He is a very voracious for respect, very tenacious in all things Apple. No, I haven’t attended one of Steve’s $1000-per-head fund-raising home dinners so I haven’t been exposed to his distortion field. My mind is unwarped and undistorted, unlike yours with Bill’s (and now Balmer’s) whacked minds. My unmitigated reality thus can present information - both fact and reality by pure 100% reason.
“I’m sorry if the venacular confuses you; perhaps I should refer to it as the economically depressed labor force under the Chinese totalitarian regime”-Beebx
I do not worship your religion so unless you were referring to your followers, I would not see your venacular subliminals.
Back to the Chinese labor question. I work with a bunch of talented Chinese doctorate (that’s phD to you Beeb) engineers. These good fellas are good sources of information regarding working conditions in China. They are very hardworking and the sincerest loyalty you can buy this side of Cyberspheria. No, not all come from the Chinese mainland. Some from Taiwan, some from Hong Kong, etc. so the “truth"s from them all synergies in my undistorted mind.
Macolanian defenders like myself are keen to the smell of cynicisms throughout Cyberspheria and we are, by our allegiance to pure 100% truth and reason, will pounce on your unkind comments in a matter of expeditious convenience. No we Mac defenders of truth are not “bots” as you kindly refer us. Bots are mindless entities with one singular purpose programmed by their creators. We Mac defenders will never contain singularity in our mind unless you refer to our unified purpose of spreading the joyful experience of owning Macs.
Those folks who insist that Apple should be forced to make iTunes/Fairplay compatible with any old MP3 player should also insist that Microsoft be forced to port Office to any old operating system.
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.
Of course we all think it’s ludicrous for the feds to force MS to port Office into Linux. No, that’s a violation of their commercial rights. It is not a legal remedy to the Office/Windows monopoly. But it’s okay if it’s the iTunes/iPod monopoly, eh?
We Mac defenders will never contain singularity in our mind unless you refer to our unified purpose of spreading the joyful experience of owning Macs.
And let’s be clear that all of us here partake of the “joyful experience of owning Macs”. So can we all just take a moment and agree that they offer a good platform?
There.
Now the problem I think Beeblebrox is perceiving is that spreading the joyful experience (tm) is not incompatible with the view that not everything Apple does is necessarily right. And not everything they do should be defended. Beeblebrox takes a firmer view on Apple’s dealings than some people, and frankly I think that’s admirable. I find when I really consider Beeb’s point of view I find it quite objective, even if it is slightly laced in acrimony.
But these differences of opinion don’t have to be the basis for a slanging match, people!
“Both products (iTunes music/MS Office) dominate their respective markets. iTunes/Fairplay shores up the iPod monopoly. Office shores up the Windows monopoly.”-tboy
Tundraboy, I commend your spirit in being a Macolania defender. But one recommendation for a good fighter is to absolve your mind from Beeb’s venacular subliminals that the iPod/iTunes is a defined monopoly.
Their market leadership is awe-inspiring, indeed, but not at the levels enveloping a monopolistic entity. Even OPEC with all that supply control, are not exacting a “monopoly” label - they do not have TOTAL control of 100% of the world’s supplies. Therefore, the conclusion is they are not monopoly. The word, CARTEL, is more fitting and that is just shy south of being a MONOPOLY.
Tundraboy, you are ready for your crusader training at the Macolania Recruit Facility (http://macolaniaextreme.blogspot.com/2006/06/macolania-elite-commandos-wanted.html). All other interested in becoming elite Mac Commandos are welcome.
“Now the problem I think Beeblebrox is perceiving is that spreading the joyful experience (tm) is not incompatible with the view that not everything Apple does is necessarily right.” -Mr. Hall
I agree 100% that not all of Apple’s moves are prudent and glorious but yet they are defendable if that particular move makes common sense. If any move by Apple, or Steve in particular, somehow skews a tangent off my unwarped and undistorted common sense, I will be the first to admit and apologize for the Macolanian peasants.
“And let’s be clear that all of us here partake of the “joyful experience of owning Macs”. So can we all just take a moment and agree that they offer a good platform?” -Mr. Hall
From the deepest, sincerest part of my courage in this crusade, Mr. Hall, I shall bow to your wisdom.
“Beeblebrox takes a firmer view on Apple’s dealings than some people, and frankly I think that’s admirable.”-Mr.Hall
A warped view is not admirable, I simply regret to inform you that Mr. Hall. If he comes out clean and sober and gives me a rational viewpoint that I can chew on while sipping tea, then I might be able to have a good discussion. For as long as the Beebx is as disjointed as ever, I will take my courage as a Mac defender for as long as Macolania exists.
A warped view is not admirable, I simply regret to inform you that Mr. Hall
Beeblebrox’s views are not “warped” and it is the acrimonious nature of this debate that makes them appear so.
Mr. Hall stay in that distant land of Macolania for you will be taken into custody by my Mac crusaders upon sight. You have been drinking Beebx “cool-aid” potion for too long.
BusinessWeek Online reports that: “Authorities in Brussels may demand $2.3 million daily from the software giant for failing to provide Windows protocols to competitors”.
Isn’t that a complete disrespect of authoritative enforcer of justice (the E.U. Competition Commission)? What of M$ think they are? A behemoth that can do as they please in Cyberspheria? Please. Even that dwindling $37 bln and change cash horde will not be enough to overcome such just verdict as a monopolist.
To again gain respectability, M$ needs to find a new path to Eden in Cyberspheria. That is called ingenuity and creativitism in Macolania. M$ needs to come up with a genuine and novel idea and not coyingly duplicating every little effort their dwindling followers comes up with. These small yet creative companies are devoured by M$ billions and becomes assimilated in the M$ losing, unethical, and disrespectful, corporate culture.
So, M$ comes up with a net phone idea. How genuine! How novel! To the Supreme Commander of Macolania’s (http://www.blogger.com/profile/26593025) point-of-view, it spews rotten sulfuric odor. That stench will be put out by the likes of Cisco Systems, Alcatel, Avaya, Nortel, and other untamed giants in this market segment, that M$ will be, in the end, will end up chasing its matted tail.
Mr. Hall stay in that distant land of Macolania for you will be taken into custody by my Mac crusaders upon sight. You have been drinking Beebx “cool-aid” potion for too long.
Macolania? Care to explain?
I’m just dedicated to giving people a chance Robotech. That’s all.