Referring to this post, here's my thoughts.
Google has significant inertia right now. Microsoft has (very) effectively abandoned the Smartphone market, allowing Apple and their "more proprietary and more closed than anyone" iPhone to make significant inroads and almost totally wipe Microsoft out of this marketplace. Then along comes Google with Android, taking the Smartphone market by storm... if not by surprise.
Google is so obviously the dominant search player.
Android, laughed at by many, has stood up well so far, and with Google's CEO actually having a clue about it's client base (as compared to The Steves who are both relatively clueless, but each in their own special way) this OS looks to have a bright future. The consumer electronics market is *massive* and until TV is (almost) totally replaced by on demand web-based content in the forseeable future, a device that acts like a toaster which combines the two will be welcomed in many homes and office lunch rooms. Windows Media Center is great for geeks, but *way* too unlike a toaster to work in a regular consumer environment and Apple TV is too proprietary and closed to be taken seriously.
Google has the world at it's fingertips here. I just hope they can pull off what has eluded so many before them.
Regards,
The Outspoken Wookie
20 comments:
You say "Microsoft has (very) effectively abandoned the Smartphone market" i say they are working very hard at correcting the mistakes of the past and looking to the future... Clearly they are laser focused on getting Windows Phone 7 right... While i will admit the v1 product will not have every feature it is certainly a good foundation. Do you Agree?
G'day Alan,
No, I don't agree at all. Microsoft had a decent (in its day) SmartPhone OS out, then as I blogged in June 2008, Microsoft started treating it like a redheaded stepchild (http://hiltont.blogspot.com/2008/06/windows-mobile-redheaded-stepchild.html).
In September 2009 - over 15 months later - Steve Ballmer finally agreed with me (http://hiltont.blogspot.com/2009/09/steve-ballmer-finally-agrees-with-me.html).
We're now 8 months on since then as Windows Phone 7.0 still doesn't exist. Microsoft has totally lost focus in the SmartPhone market - and with sales figures as they are currently, I wonder if they should even bother trying to get back into it - Apple took the market from them and Google is taking it from Apple! There's no room left for Microsoft in the SmartPhone market.
There is heaps of room left... Smartphone market at least in the USA is only 25% but it is predicted that it will be over 50% of the phone market yet and it is growning very quick... Therefore i think that Microsoft have done the rest of their mobile OS just in time...
Remember that iPhone only has 15% of the smartphone market Android has 9.6% and Windows Mobile (YES MOBILE) has 6.8%...
Nokia and RIM are still by far and away the dominant smartphone leaders... which everyone seems to forget...
I also point to Android stellar rise in the past 12 months shows that people are willing to change phone OS's very quickly. Which i believe is due to people normally replacing their phone every 2 years... (unlink the PC industry).
Source IDC (via Engadget): http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/19/idc-and-gartner-award-smartphone-growth-prizes-to-apple-and-goog/
Source 2: http://www.ozymandias.com/nielsen-smartphones-to-overtake-feature-phones-by-2011
Agreed. It sucks when large companies outsource. But that is a totally different argument. You comments was it was "too hard" which i dissagreed with... my point is that it not hard its just cheaper... and like it or not Microsoft are a public company and they do have an obligation to the share holders...
Not an excuse and i am not defending the move... but it is just the way it is...
... or is it too hard? We don't know the reasoning - maybe they couldn't afford, train and keep happy their IT staff because their products are too difficult to maintain! :)
UGH... streams have colided... clearly this comment was for the other blog post.
Agreed. It sucks when large companies outsource. But that is a totally different argument. You comments was it was "too hard" which i dissagreed with... my point is that it not hard its just cheaper... and like it or not Microsoft are a public company and they do have an obligation to the share holders...
Not an excuse and i am not defending the move... but it is just the way it is...
We don't know for sure what Microsoft reason for outsourcing are... but normaly companies outsource High Volume/Low complexity tasks becuase these are the tasks that take a lot of time but can easily be done by anyone.
and i have NEVER hear of anyone outsourcing a task to India (or any other contry) because it was not cheaper...
That's it - Microsoft haven't told us why they can't support their internal IT systems themselves. It well could have been because it was too hard.
Actuall.... the did say...
“This is simply a consolidation of work that used to be provided by multiple vendors to a single provider, Infosys. Microsoft has had a concentrated effort to be more efficient and save money. This was a major area where it could do this. This new contract will not impact internal resources.”
So they did do this to save money... and to good news is that no one lost their job becuase of it...
Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-downplays-infosys-it-outsourcing-deal/5891
So, they still can't service their own internal IT support needs. Says a lot, eh?
HUH!!! How do you conclude that from that statement... It does not take a team of expert IT staff to reset the passwords of 100,000 user... They also said "MS has retained strategic functions in IT." meaning they still do the more technically challenging stuff...
Im sorry, there is just nothing in this announcment that say's anything other than Microsoft is trying to save money...
You attempts to paint them as so incompetent at managing their own IT infrastructure that they need to outsource to India is nothing more than fiction...
(I love a good debate... so this has been good)
G'day Alan,
Can you not see the irony in Microsoft, who writes operating systems and software for other companies to use, not being able to support their own operating systems and applications internally?
That's like the Ford Motor Company issuing Segways to their staff as they are easier to drive than their own cars. Like Coca Cola Amatil having a Pepsi fridge in their staff cafeteria! It is just *wrong*! :)
No i dont... becuase its the Microsoft tools (SCCM,GP,AD etc) that enables them to do this remotley and thus allows them to move this work off shore... your annology is more like saying Microsoft uses a third-party product (like HP OpenView_ to manage and monitor thier IT systesm (which is not the case)...
G'day Alan,
You're totally missing my point. Microsoft makes OSes, apps and tools designed to make your network (and therefore your business) run smoothly, yet they can't manage these themselves for their own network. You're totally msising the irony of this.
They CAN!!!! (and up until now they have) manage their own networks, its just it's CHEAPER to out source this work...
Like is also quoted "MS has retained strategic functions in IT." So they are still in control of the network... Its only the grunt work they outsource...
G'day Alan,
Aahhh, you need to take a step back, chill out and re-read this all again. You're now contradicting yourself! :)
You earlier stated that "This is simply a consolidation of work that used to be provided by multiple vendors to a single provider, Infosys" and now you are stating that this is incorrect as they used to manage this themselves. So, which one are you claiming to be true and which one false?
Microsoft isn't (and maybe can't) providing their own internal IT support - and as I've said all along, isn't this ironic for a company who products OSes, apps and management tools they sell to us to manage our networks?
"This is simply a consolidation of work that used to be provided by multiple vendors to a single provider, Infosys" is not a contradiction... this just means that where they had multiple outsourcing companies before they now have one... this obviously would save money as well...
So they probably have been outsourcing this work for a while... but I still maintain that your stance that Microsoft CAN'T maintain thier own systems is just ludocras and has no basis... these are the people who wrote the software... of coure they could maintain their own systems... but doing so would not be the most effective use of their time and money...
Again... you say "maybe CAN'T" why on earth would you think they CAN'T do this...
There is a big difference in not being able to do something and having it not be cost effectve to do something...
Aahhh, so you're saying that they haven't been able to cost effectively maintain their own systems for some time now. Excellent. You're starting to see what I've been saying all along.
Microsoft, who writes these products, can't even support them internally at a decent price point - they can't support their own systems cost effectively and therefore outsources the management of their own internal IT to an offshore company. If their products were good enough, don't you think they'd be able to cost effectively support their own infrastructure?
You're almost starting to understand "irony". My work here is almost done! :)
Their products ARE good enough... and my point is that they can outsoruce becuase their products are so good... If they did not have these products they would need an army of staff walking aournd via sneakernet troubleshooting their systesm... This would cost them a LOT more money becuase they would be locally hired staff who's labour cost would be far more expensive than someone doing the same job remotley sitting in India...
Post a Comment