Microsoft’s Turf

Thus, we make direct comparisons between the products and services offered the companies; for example, how Apple is churning out those tablets and the neat, trendy smartphones, while Microsoft appears to have been in a slumber. We also talk about Microsoft entering the tablet market with Surface late, and we use convenient phrases like “too […]

Thus, we make direct comparisons between the products and services offered the companies; for example, how Apple is churning out those tablets and the neat, trendy smartphones, while Microsoft appears to have been in a slumber. We also talk about Microsoft entering the tablet market with Surface late, and we use convenient phrases like “too little, too late.” It even appears that Microsoft also thinks the same way (about itself), and makes important corporate decisions on such belief!
Apple’s core vision has been consistent, at least up till now, and the company has been putting its money where its mouth is. Desktop publishing, computer graphics and animation, digital music and sound mixing, and movie editing, are within the vision, as are easy-to-use and aesthetically awesome phones and computers.
Honestly, Apple’s products are not really very useful, from the standpoint of business productivity, an area where Microsoft has excelled, effectively taking over the role of IBM in churning out productivity tools. I have not been a fervent fan of Apple products, although I have found myself purchasing a few of them of late.
I am not suggesting that Microsoft should focus exclusively on the productivity tools per se – Office and Microsoft’s systems tools and networking credentials. Indeed, there are threats coming from newer OS’s (Android) and browsers (Chrome, Firefox), both of which are needed to deliver Microsoft’s productivity tools to consumers and developers. It is even believed by some that the desktop (laptop) PC is in imminent danger of disappearing, in favor of smartphones, thereby undermining Microsoft’s core business. Therefore, it would be foolish for Microsoft to not take a preemptive position along the path of deploying better operating systems (OS), browser, and coming up with its own tablets or smartphones.
Microsoft needs to adapt, but should also maintain the core. I will give you an example of what I mean. I used to own HTC smartphones that ran the Windows Mobile OS. I found the phones to be extremely powerful: QWERTY keyboard, access to MS Office, advanced network tools, etc. In fact, in terms of capabilities, the phones operated almost like desktop PCs, but they were very difficult to use. Carrying out simple tasks was like being in a battle field. It was difficult to know what was where, and setting up e-mail service was excruciatingly difficult, requiring you to know networking jargons. Contrast this with the iPhone running Apple’s iOS operating system, or the various devices that are driven by Google’s Android OS from companies such as Samsung. Compared to the Windows Mobile-based smartphones, these other ones are extremely easy-to-use. For example, to set up an e-mail, you only need to specify your e-mail address and password; the OS takes care of the rest. I learnt that the iPhone was developed with the specification of not having more than one button, leading to a visually sophisticated device, with pizzazz. Android devices follow suit! (Folks copy each other in this business!) However, beyond making phone calls, sending e-mails/texts, and downloading apps, these iOS and Android phones don’t do much else! They are consumer products in the true sense of the phrase, and they sell a lot. Thus, Microsoft should not compete blindly with these folks and should focus on developing hardcore productivity tools, like the old IBM, which require more original computer smarts than what Apple and Google are doing. However, as pointed out above, Microsoft needs to ensure its survival, without losing its core.
Even though nomadism and contents are in, two areas of technology where Microsoft is seriously behind the big players, the company should be careful in its catching-up efforts, so as not to burn out. Was the Zune project necessary? Should Microsoft have acquired Skype?  What about Microsoft foray into the Nook e-reader; was it a good business move? Was the Nokia acquisition a smart decision? Does Microsoft have any business going into gaming? Should Microsoft have developed Surface? How much focus should Microsoft place on its app store? And so on.
I think most of Microsoft’s acquisitions and deployments alluded to above are probably not smart business moves, except perhaps those related to tablets and smartphones. These devices, which are the ones that people are buying these days, are needed to deliver the productivity tools. Beyond this, Microsoft needs to significantly improve its browser and make its operating systems (Windows and Windows Mobile) much easier to use. That is, the company should focus on whatever is necessary to competitively deploy productivity tools, and should cede stuff like app store, gaming, etc. to others.
A testament to Microsoft’s superiority in developing productivity tools came on 30 September 2013 when Delta Airlines broke ranks with three major U.S. airline rivals in selecting Microsoft (over Apple) as the electronic flight bag (EFB) provider.  Delta purchased 11,000 Surface 2 tablets for its pilots as part of a move to increase productivity and situational awareness. (American Airlines and United Airlines had chosen iPad.) Steve Dickson, Delta’s senior vice president for flight said that they had tested iPad, but found the Apple OS to be too limiting: “Our choice of the Surface 2 was driven by its being very scalable and flexible. It is a tool for us to stay in touch with a mobile workforce.” Thus, Delta opted for real functionality over pizzazz.
The main idea of this article is that Microsoft develops the best productivity tools, with Apple, Google, Samsung, etc.