Well, we all know that Ballmer's predictions about the phone market are often non-prescient.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/managem...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10170883-94.ht...


Also, you say that "Apple seems focused on making a closed mobile environment that begins and ends with the iPhone," so I assume that you discount the fairly strong rumors that Apple will introduce a tablet computer at some point next year?

And I'll say "ditto" to the previous comment about the xbox and the Zune. The Zune seemed to be a response to lukewarm consumer acceptance of the "Plays For Sure" software model sold by hardware partners that just never caught on; the xbox and Zune seem to be a pretty closed environments themselves, more closed than the iPod/iPhone.

Comparing the Zune may be fair game, but the XBox isn't. What major gaming consoles are open? Can you allow that some market segments may be open and others closed?

However, you "neglected" Windows Mobile phones in the discussion. Developing for them is very open, and you don't need to kiss Microsoft's feet to get your app out.

As for the Apple tablet, let's see if it's open like the Mac or locked down more like the iPhone.

Steve

Just going by Ballmer's logic, why should gaming consoles can be closed - so I can't buy the console software OS from Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo for hardware designed by somebody else, at perhaps a better price - but phones *must* be open, that open will be better? By that logic, would not open gaming console OS be better for consumers?

As for WM, I can find merely hundreds of fairly mediocre applications for my "open" WM Standard phone (and most of them are truly mediocre; I'm glad to have Evernote with me, for example, but, man,that app just can't compared with the iPhone/Touch app), and in a far shorter period of time in existence, the "closed" iPhone market delivers tens of thousands of apps that have sold billions of downloads, and this is "worse"? Worse for whom? This WM openness has delivered phones that rarely get OS updates (even when the hardware could support it), extremely long OS development cycles, tired built-in apps with a tired user interface to boot.

In another recent interview (maybe the same), Ballmer criticized IBM for selling out their various hardware businesses. So, wait - it's better for Microsoft *not* to sell hardware, but for IBM it's better to hold on to these low-margin, competitive markets rather than concentrate on the higher-margin services that they do so much better anyway?

I get it, Ballmer is selling Microsoft's strategy, but I don't think he's doing it very well.

Just going by Ballmer's logic, why should gaming consoles can be closed - so I can't buy the console software OS from Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo for hardware designed by somebody else, at perhaps a better price - but phones *must* be open, that open will be better? By that logic, would not open gaming console OS be better for consumers?

First, "open" is a relative term. WM is open to developers, but it's not Open Source, like Android.

Second, I think you're still comparing apples and oranges by bringing game consoles into the mix. I won't try to justify why gaming consoles are closed; I'm just pointing out that they are and that comparing them to phones is not reasonable. The only truly open "console" out there is the PC, but I'm not sure you can call it a "console".

As for WM, I can find merely hundreds of fairly mediocre applications for my "open" WM Standard phone (and most of them are truly mediocre; I'm glad to have Evernote with me, for example, but, man,that app just can't compared with the iPhone/Touch app), and in a far shorter period of time in existence, the "closed" iPhone market delivers tens of thousands of apps that have sold billions of downloads, and this is "worse"?

You can find merely hundreds of mediocre apps on WM compared to the thousands of joke, demo and mediocre apps on the iPhone? That sounds like a better signal-to-noise ratio to me. ;)

As for iPhone "apps that have sold billions of downloads", you've lost me. Have billions of apps actually been sold or just downloaded? That's a big difference.

As for who it's worse for, it's worse for everybody not working for Apple. It's worse for developers because it takes their apps longer to get to market (if they don't get rejected outright) and it's worse for users who can't get apps from anywhere else (unless they jailbreak, but that's a whole new risk).

Just because there are lots of apps for iPhone doesn't mean things are ideal. Volume does not equal quality or "goodness". Imagine if Apple let Handango sell apps or even let developers sells apps directly. How would that that be worse? There's really only one way -- apps might be a bit more dangerous (buggier or less secure), but word tends to spread quickly about hackers or bad developers. You haven't heard about lots of Trojan Horses on Windows Mobile, right? And many WM vendors provide trial versions of software, so you don't have to buy a pig in a poke.

This WM openness has delivered phones that rarely get OS updates (even when the hardware could support it), extremely long OS development cycles, tired built-in apps with a tired user interface to boot.

And Ballmer has admitted they blew it with Windows Mobile and things are changing. Yes, the process before stunk, but until the iPhone came out, was the competition much better? Let's see how things change now before passing judgement.

As for the "tired" built-in apps and UI, I've got no problems with the UI and the apps, while they could be improved, aren't bad. By the way, does the iPhone include an office suite?

Also, how significantly has the main part of the Mac OS changed since 1984? If it's mostly still the same, are you calling it "tired", too, or is it more like "comfortable"?

In another recent interview (maybe the same), Ballmer criticized IBM for selling out their various hardware businesses. So, wait - it's better for Microsoft *not* to sell hardware, but for IBM it's better to hold on to these low-margin, competitive markets rather than concentrate on the higher-margin services that they do so much better anyway?

Yes, that's odd, but it's also odd hearing you criticize the criticism, given that your beloved Apple is in the hardware business. :D

I can see both sides of the argument.

By not selling hardware, Microsoft stays out of the low-margin part of the business (although that doesn't explain the XBox, which, at one time, supposedly lost Microsoft money for every console sold; I assume it was viewed as a loss leader).

However, somebody has to sell hardware, and who better than the company that knows the software the best? The downside is that doesn't tend to scale well -- one company won't end up with the vast array of form factors that exist in the PC and Windows Mobile (and probably Android) spaces. (The one exception may be Nokia, but I'm not really familiar with Symbian.)

That may be one reason that Apple -- who most people seem to believe has better hardware and software (albeit more expensive) -- doesn't control more of the market. (Not licensing things is also one big reason why Betamax lost to VHS.)

Steve

Remember a key distinction....IBM is a hardware company that moonlights in software, Microsoft is a software company that dabbles in hardware, and always will be.

Microsoft is the living embodiment of the business adage that you make more selling razor blades then you do razors.

Actually, when I worked at IBM, they called themselves the world's largest software company. Yes, it was still secondary to hardware, but it's like California calling themselves the world's 7th largest economy (well, back in the day; I'm not sure about now :D).

Steve

People complain about their size now, but imagine how monolithic the company would be if the actually manufactured every PC that runs Windows?

They may not have ended up monolithic at all; they may have ended up like Apple. Windows might run a bit better, but the company might not be able to produce the volume of PCs the world has used, either.

Steve

Probably the only point he is missing is that Google is doing the same thing. So, it´s not Apple the want that Microsoft should be checking but Google.

moving information between your phone and computer should be seemless, but the phone shouldn't be running a pc or pc-like OS. The phone should function as an appliance that can communicate with your pc.

Also i actually think MS making their hardware is better than outsourcing to other companies. MS has really good concepts, but they put them in someone else's hands and somehow the vision get's lost....think UMPC....yet on the other hand the products that they have done their own hardware, Xbox, the Zune, are better offerings...i get the concern about spurning partners who have been supporting windows mobile for years...but i think there needs to be better synergy between the hardware and the software and that is only going to happen if both are being made by the same company.

moving information between your phone and computer should be seemless, but the phone shouldn't be running a pc or pc-like OS.

The iPhone runs a PC OS (Mac OS/Unix); it just has a different UI shell. That's no different than having the Windows Mobile UI running on top of the PC-like Windows CE. (If you ever used a Windows CE device, like a Handheld PC, it was very much like Windows 95. It had a Start button, a task bar, a tray, an icon-based desktop, a menu bar, etc. I thought that worked quite well on a Handheld PC. It broke down on a smaller device like a Pocket PC, which is why Microsoft came out with the Pocket PC 2000 system.)

Also i actually think MS making their hardware is better than outsourcing to other companies.

Technically, Microsoft doesn't "outsource" when it comes to Windows and PCs). Outsourcing is having somebody else do the work and you claiming it as your own. That's what Apple does with the iPhone hardware, I believe; the manufacturing is outsourced to China (as the articles Zealot wrote about the worker who committed suicide show).

Microsoft just produces the software and licenses it to system builders, who can do pretty much what they want hardware-wise. The system builders pay Microsoft for the license and they get the profit from the sale of the PC.

However, I don't think either model is inherently "better". As I mentioned before, the upside is that Windows might run a little better and people wouldn't have to worry about compatibility as much if Microsoft made PCs. You can also deliver software updates faster because compatibility testing is easier.

However, there's a steep downside. You probably wouldn't have the breadth of alternatives in hardware and form factors that you do now. How many Mac models are there? Now compare that with the wide variety of PCs, from low end netbooks running XP to notebooks to tablets to high-end gaming machines to servers.

Or compare the iPhone, with its one form factor and once-per-year new hardware release, to Windows Mobile devices, with a huge variety of form factors and many devices coming out throughout the year. It's been reported that we'll have 30 new Windows Phones running WM 6.5 from 15 different companies by the end of the year. How many models would we have if Microsoft had to make them all?

What Microsoft needs to do is speed up the software release process, I think.

On PCs, you should have one release every year or two, with maintenance versions (perhaps with minor new features) between releases. Waiting 5+ years between XP and Vista or even 2.5-3 years between Vista and Windows 7 is too long. (Well, maybe it's fine for corporate users.)

For phones, which seem to have a shorter lifespan that PCs, the software release cycle should be even faster. You shouldn't go longer than 18 months without a release, and a year would be better.

Steve