Additionally, Microsoft doesn't have a good tradition of clean breaks (they are rightly anal about backwards compatibility and decades-long support windows). And they've never had to cannibalize their own products with new, better products.
As for Google, Google never understood why it would ever need hardware. Their livelihood is online ads and tracking people behaviour across devices. Custom Google-only hardware is a colossal money sink with negative-to-zero ROI compared to their software that is currently anywhere and everywhere thanks to Android and Chrome.
Xbox has always been a weird one for Microsoft, it seems: they never made money on the actual hardware, and it originally existed only to compete with Sony as the media box for the living room.
I'd say Microsoft still doesn't really know what to do with it because it's so far removed from everything else Microsoft does.
At what cost though. When you control every single aspect, and know exactly what hardware you have, this simplifies things enormously.
Also, this evergreen article from Ars Technica on owning the stack (it's more about the politics and money of controlling everything): https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/owning-the-stack...
- Because their processors are so overpowered, their phones last a long time. This adds to the premium experience (e.g. put a 3 year old galaxy and a 3 year old iPhone side by side).
- Fast hardware lets them innovate on the edges; e.g. folks here don’t take AR seriously because they use androids and AR sucks on Android; the power just isn’t there to make it work well. 3 year old iPhone runs AR experience at 60fps no problems. Not many people use it daily, but if you need it, it is nice to have.
- Being able to sell 3 year old devices as new allows Apple to target multiple market segments without having to develop separate low end hardware. They don’t need iOS Go because all recent hardware can run iOS with a flagship like experience, even the low end SE. They also don’t take the reputation hit of selling a $400 device that doesn’t work well or runs ads on the Lock Screen to get a subsidy.
- By ensuring all components in their devices work to a minimum standard, they make the rest of the system look good. Example: compasses in android devices, even flagships, are of variable quality. No one ever writes reviews about the compass, so it goes unnoticed, but trying to get a mapping application working well on Android is an absolute nightmare by comparison. Similar situation applies to: GNSS receivers in phones, gyro/accelerometers, trackpads in laptops, haptics in phones and watches, screens on all devices, among others. They also benefit from being able to assume every recent device has a secure element and a UWB radio, among other features.
- They’re able to innovate through connection to other hardware in the ecosystem. Spatial audio seemed like a gimmic, but I’ve recently come around. It is amazing to have an almost theater-like experience watching Hulu on my iPad in the gym. Microsoft and Google can’t really do that because they don’t ship high-quality earbuds at anything like Apple’s scale/reach. Microsoft and Google can’t use my Watch to log in or authorize purchases because they don’t have a watch business (I mean google’s been trying, they might get somewhere with it someday). Microsoft can’t use their smart speaker as surround sound for the Xbox because they don’t sell a smart speaker. I count the integrations and broad business as part of Apple’s hardware advantage.
Anecdotally, all my friends mocked the Windows Phone. This is after they didn’t care about webOS too but didn’t actively mock it.
The few people I knew who did have a WP, three others, all loved their phones. We all gave up on it as the public and Microsoft gave up on it too.
I do think Microsoft should’ve kept on with the Windows Phone. But If they were never going to be able to have even a 3rd of the top couple hundred apps, how would they ever survive? Common rhetoric is to say most people don’t use many apps. Core basic apps are enough. That isn’t the same thing as the general zeitgeist and perception of the device though. Windows Phone was looked down on. They didn’t ever have a majority of the top used social media and other core apps. But I bet even if they did. The PR battle would’ve been a bigger hurdle. Other major hurdles would’ve been Google being in my opinion anti competitive as hell. How they treated Google Maps, YouTube, etc, on Windows Phone. Two apps you need to have on your mobile platform.
My fantasy is for Microsoft to have consumed webOS much earlier on. Fast tracked development of that and merge their code bases to that more than change webOS to their code base. If webOS stayed at 7.5% worldwide penetration in the west and 10% in other countries (cheap phones, deals, etc), I’d still be on that and likely never would’ve left it.
True. I only used it briefly and I really liked it.
There was some anti-monopoly trial around that time, and some of the unsealed documents (which are now impossible to Google for) where emails from Bill Gates where he raged "why can't Creative make something similar to iPod? Bring them here, give them money, get them early API access". In the end they had to do everything themselves :) And they didn't do a bad job of it!
> I do think Microsoft should’ve kept on with the Windows Phone.
True. And it was the only one daring to explore something new with phone UI/UX. As with Zune, it wasn't half bad. I'd even say WIndows Phone was good, and onto something new.
> The PR battle would’ve been a bigger hurdle. Other major hurdles would’ve been Google being in my opinion anti competitive as hell.
Sadly, also true.
> If webOS stayed at 7.5% worldwide penetration in the west and 10% in other countries (cheap phones, deals, etc), I’d still be on that and likely never would’ve left it.
Ah, the lost opportunities that never came to be :(
And even that is stretching it, all they had to do to get started was to throw a gsm modem into a zune and ship it in the first place.
Inept, is more like it.
Microsoft Kin Discontinued After 48 Days https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/technology/01phone.html
For Microsoft to replicated Apple's success with their ecosystem experience, they would need an entirely new OS built from the ground up for that. Essentialy breaking free of Windows legacy and possibly their partners-driven strategy to have tight control over hardware and software.
But past a certain point, the investment and risk would be massive and success uncertain. Microsoft made the call to focus on what they do best wich is enterprise and "productivity" and they're doing really well.