The big 3 (Microsoft, Google and Apple) revisited.
It hasn't been a very exciting year for gadget or operating systems or platforms really. And as such I haven't blogged nearly as much as I used to. Especially not on this topic. But, a ton of minor changes along the way have changed my opinions on many things. I felt it was time for a recap.
I'll start with Microsoft. I once thought Nadella would be a smart choice. Perhaps he is too methodical and calculating. But the rate at which Microsoft is killing products and services makes me feel like Ballmer would still have been the right person for a few more years. Hearing about how he continually invested in Xbox because he knew the platform needed to succeed definitely sounds like the thing Microsoft was missing after the acquisition of Nokia/Lumia. The slow death they are dealing to Band matters less in my mind, but then I don't own one. To be clear, Microsoft hasn't formally killed Band yet, but they've announced the end of Microsoft Health (and Fitness). Since Band was marketed not as a smart watch, but as a glorified fitness tracker, the end of Health certainly marks plans to kill of Band.
I'm not saying Nadella was a terrible choice. In fact, I can see how the decision made sense at the time. As revenues were moving towards their software and services and away from things tied strictly to hardware like OS licenses and devices a leader from one of their cloud services makes a lot of sense. And under Nadella those areas have both not been axed and improved. Though, it is hard to say that they wouldn't have improved under someone else.
But, software and services need a platform as well. And a voice to speak for them. And hardware is one of the best ways to get that done. And for this reason, I tend to think Ballmer's focus was more effective, at least for the short term. They had a number of hardware areas which were still small enough to fail and which needed a champion. Nadella seems to have no interest in that.
Nokia for instance. They took the best available path (buying Nokia's hardware line) and killed it. It was the best available path because all signs pointed to Nokia going under if no one bought them, and no one else seemed interested. And Windows Phone needed a hardware champion as well. But then Microsoft bought Nokia, and basically sold whatever devices were already in the pipeline when they closed the deal. Made 2 more (after a MASSIVE delay between quality new phones). Then threw in the towel. One would be forgiven for thinking they wanted Nokia and Windows Phone to die.
Xbox, I wager, is only still around for two reasons. Nadella became CEO before he could stop the Xbox One from seeing the light of day, and because it seems largely run by a team with less supervision. Shortly after it came out, I doubted rumors that Nadella wanted to axe it. Now I feel almost certain he is just lying in wait for the right time.
Surface is the last thing I'll talk about with Microsoft before I conclude. I have few doubts that if Nadella had been around for the first and second iterations of the Surface Pro, that the 3rd gen unit which actually got them to a decent point, never would have seen the light of day.
Microsoft was never great with hardware to begin with. They don't seem to know how to market or sell it. But it is an undeniably critical element of their success. Whether it be their own hardware or OEMs. Ballmer seemed to at least understand the important of hardware and make the right decisions, even if he never seemed to sort out the marketing and distribution. So, while it is true that a lot of revenue is heading away from hardware, what Nadella isn't seeing is that customers don't think they buy a product for the services. The average person isn't excited by a product for the prospect of what services they can run on it. And they tend to have more faith in software associated with the hardware they've bought. In other words, Microsoft's services continue to grow and be successfully, most likely, because Windows is still the leader in the PC market. But, as that market shrinks, new customers will become more likely to go with their competitors.
Moving on to Google. In the past year, about the only gripe I have is their ongoing, ridiculous lawsuit with Oracle. I, personally, wholly disagree with their stance here. I think a win for Google would be devastating to the industry I work in (in the long term). But, from a products and services perspective... I generally agree with everything they're doing. I can't say I'm thrilled about Nexus phones becoming "Pixel" phones and dropping the vanilla Android experience. But, I haven't experienced that yet, and there is certainly room for me to be dazzled. Though, in the absence of first hand experience I would say this; I would rather they simply make those experiences available to all Android phones.
And that is about it. I've said the rest in the past. And using a Nexus phone for the past few months hasn't changed a ton. I feel like they're becoming what Microsoft was (anti-trust lawsuits and all). And while I know that may feel like an insult to those in the Google camp. I don't think or mean it as a negative.
Apple continues to disappoint. I have a totally open mind here. And I really wish I felt differently about Apple. I'm genuinely interested in seeing them surprise me in a positive way. With Windows Phone effectively dead and my feeling on Google/Oracle, I'd really love for their to be another option for me. But there isn't. Apple has the most dated OS now. I don't deny, there was a time when it was the top. They have allowed themselves to be beholden to the past and have been unable to move forward. Either that, or they simply don't care to.
Yes, Apple devices are simplistic, and many of the things people pine for would add potential complications. But I'm not a 2 year old. I'm a 33 year old software developer. I need a real phone. Not a toy one. And I hate to say it, but even with all of the productivity apps and developer support, the iPhone (and iPad) have become very expensive children's toys. Add to that the fact that they really haven't changed the designs much recently, drastically improved hardware or added anything innovative and you have a company at a standstill.
Perspective may be important here. People hailed the iPhone interface as innovative when it came out. I barfed, and then laughed. The home screen reminded me of Windows 3.1. The fact that you could only have 1 app active at a time reminded me of DOS. It has WiFi? Now we're a 90's era laptop. The gamble on putting a touchscreen and those elements on a phone was the extent of the innovation. And with the exception of supporting Windows 8 style multi-tasking nothing has really changed since the original. And the original was out so long ago now... come on people... wake up. Even if you disagree with how I felt about the original iPhone... you can't possible STILL think the UI isn't dated. Can you?
Yes, people expect a lot from Apple. But, Apple charges a LOT for their products. Other companies which charge similar amounts for similar products also take bigger risks now and produce more interesting devices. See Samsung for example.
I'll start with Microsoft. I once thought Nadella would be a smart choice. Perhaps he is too methodical and calculating. But the rate at which Microsoft is killing products and services makes me feel like Ballmer would still have been the right person for a few more years. Hearing about how he continually invested in Xbox because he knew the platform needed to succeed definitely sounds like the thing Microsoft was missing after the acquisition of Nokia/Lumia. The slow death they are dealing to Band matters less in my mind, but then I don't own one. To be clear, Microsoft hasn't formally killed Band yet, but they've announced the end of Microsoft Health (and Fitness). Since Band was marketed not as a smart watch, but as a glorified fitness tracker, the end of Health certainly marks plans to kill of Band.
I'm not saying Nadella was a terrible choice. In fact, I can see how the decision made sense at the time. As revenues were moving towards their software and services and away from things tied strictly to hardware like OS licenses and devices a leader from one of their cloud services makes a lot of sense. And under Nadella those areas have both not been axed and improved. Though, it is hard to say that they wouldn't have improved under someone else.
But, software and services need a platform as well. And a voice to speak for them. And hardware is one of the best ways to get that done. And for this reason, I tend to think Ballmer's focus was more effective, at least for the short term. They had a number of hardware areas which were still small enough to fail and which needed a champion. Nadella seems to have no interest in that.
Nokia for instance. They took the best available path (buying Nokia's hardware line) and killed it. It was the best available path because all signs pointed to Nokia going under if no one bought them, and no one else seemed interested. And Windows Phone needed a hardware champion as well. But then Microsoft bought Nokia, and basically sold whatever devices were already in the pipeline when they closed the deal. Made 2 more (after a MASSIVE delay between quality new phones). Then threw in the towel. One would be forgiven for thinking they wanted Nokia and Windows Phone to die.
Xbox, I wager, is only still around for two reasons. Nadella became CEO before he could stop the Xbox One from seeing the light of day, and because it seems largely run by a team with less supervision. Shortly after it came out, I doubted rumors that Nadella wanted to axe it. Now I feel almost certain he is just lying in wait for the right time.
Surface is the last thing I'll talk about with Microsoft before I conclude. I have few doubts that if Nadella had been around for the first and second iterations of the Surface Pro, that the 3rd gen unit which actually got them to a decent point, never would have seen the light of day.
Microsoft was never great with hardware to begin with. They don't seem to know how to market or sell it. But it is an undeniably critical element of their success. Whether it be their own hardware or OEMs. Ballmer seemed to at least understand the important of hardware and make the right decisions, even if he never seemed to sort out the marketing and distribution. So, while it is true that a lot of revenue is heading away from hardware, what Nadella isn't seeing is that customers don't think they buy a product for the services. The average person isn't excited by a product for the prospect of what services they can run on it. And they tend to have more faith in software associated with the hardware they've bought. In other words, Microsoft's services continue to grow and be successfully, most likely, because Windows is still the leader in the PC market. But, as that market shrinks, new customers will become more likely to go with their competitors.
Moving on to Google. In the past year, about the only gripe I have is their ongoing, ridiculous lawsuit with Oracle. I, personally, wholly disagree with their stance here. I think a win for Google would be devastating to the industry I work in (in the long term). But, from a products and services perspective... I generally agree with everything they're doing. I can't say I'm thrilled about Nexus phones becoming "Pixel" phones and dropping the vanilla Android experience. But, I haven't experienced that yet, and there is certainly room for me to be dazzled. Though, in the absence of first hand experience I would say this; I would rather they simply make those experiences available to all Android phones.
And that is about it. I've said the rest in the past. And using a Nexus phone for the past few months hasn't changed a ton. I feel like they're becoming what Microsoft was (anti-trust lawsuits and all). And while I know that may feel like an insult to those in the Google camp. I don't think or mean it as a negative.
Apple continues to disappoint. I have a totally open mind here. And I really wish I felt differently about Apple. I'm genuinely interested in seeing them surprise me in a positive way. With Windows Phone effectively dead and my feeling on Google/Oracle, I'd really love for their to be another option for me. But there isn't. Apple has the most dated OS now. I don't deny, there was a time when it was the top. They have allowed themselves to be beholden to the past and have been unable to move forward. Either that, or they simply don't care to.
Yes, Apple devices are simplistic, and many of the things people pine for would add potential complications. But I'm not a 2 year old. I'm a 33 year old software developer. I need a real phone. Not a toy one. And I hate to say it, but even with all of the productivity apps and developer support, the iPhone (and iPad) have become very expensive children's toys. Add to that the fact that they really haven't changed the designs much recently, drastically improved hardware or added anything innovative and you have a company at a standstill.
Perspective may be important here. People hailed the iPhone interface as innovative when it came out. I barfed, and then laughed. The home screen reminded me of Windows 3.1. The fact that you could only have 1 app active at a time reminded me of DOS. It has WiFi? Now we're a 90's era laptop. The gamble on putting a touchscreen and those elements on a phone was the extent of the innovation. And with the exception of supporting Windows 8 style multi-tasking nothing has really changed since the original. And the original was out so long ago now... come on people... wake up. Even if you disagree with how I felt about the original iPhone... you can't possible STILL think the UI isn't dated. Can you?
Yes, people expect a lot from Apple. But, Apple charges a LOT for their products. Other companies which charge similar amounts for similar products also take bigger risks now and produce more interesting devices. See Samsung for example.
Comments
Post a Comment