And once again, they are trying to chase Apple when they really need to be watching out for Google with not only Android, but Chrome OS. Google has been rather careful in trying to push Chrome OS as something intended primarily for netbooks (essentially computers with lower hardware specs including most apps and documents, stored online in the cloud) as opposed to being direct competition to Windows.
If Microsoft even believes that, they would be fooling themselves. There is nothing to stop Google from eventually scaling the operating system to work as a more than capable lower end desktop replacement once they’ve managed to capture gain more mindshare at that low end (replacing Windows systems at the low end). That mindshare is important because it will bring about developer support. Google already has a leg up there though if they can leverage Android developers.
Apple has never played in that low end space, consciously choosing to go towards the premium end. The current day results speak for itself where many of Apple’s former hardware rivals in the PC desktop space, no longer exist; merged with another and are much smaller shells of themselves; divested the PC hardware line (like IBM); or in Dell’s case, went private. The following is going to go off on a tangent to make some points.
Microsoft’s approach with their mobile and desktop products lines is very different from Apple’s. Apple has made a very conscious decision to maintain a distinct line between OS X and iOS. I’ve already written before that those lines may blur in the future; but I get why they decided on keeping them separate (it’s about distinct user interfaces which makes sense for the form factor). Microsoft on the other hand is taking an “all in” approach where the objective is get everything, running under one unified operating system (branded as Windows).
When Microsoft first came out with Windows 8, executives billed the new tiled interface as being one that would offer no compromises. Unfortunately, it did have many compromises. Myself, I ended up test using it and saw the promise of their new UI. It was a fresh take from everything else and made sense as a touch interface. But as I noted in that consumer preview posting, the old elements of Windows were all still there, making for a jarring user experience. Additionally, you are mixing two paradigms (old keyboard/mouse along with touch).
Taking a book out of Apple’s playbook, Microsoft also decided to build their own tablets for use with a touch based Windows 8 operating system since it would allow them to better control the entire user experience. Microsoft’s initial Surface tablets were a horrible mess though when it came to branding as well as causing confusion that further muddied the user experience.
There were two Windows 8 operating systems; RT (for ARM based tablets) and Pro (for Intel based ones). While Pro could run Intel based Windows apps (thus having compatibility as a huge selling point), RT (ARM based tablets) could not run those same desktop apps. And that confused non-technical buyers. The end result is that these Surface tablets did not sell well at all (sales were always claimed as being modest).
This is a key reason Apple kept the branding between the Mac and i-devices separated. Apple initially referred to the underlying operating system of the iPhone as OS X but quickly buried that (initially calling it iPhone OS before eventually rebranding it as iOS). OS X at the time was distinct from Mac OS X even though the lineage of all of Apple’s current day operating systems, come from the same code (just re-compiled for different architectures, and with the appropriate frameworks, user land binaries, and more importantly, specifically designed user interfaces for each intended device). Beginning with Mavericks, Apple dropped the Mac from Mac OS X to just refer to the desktop operating system as simply, OS X.
I wrote awhile ago that it was a very subtle change but one that makes sense to setup for the future. Apple’s public message to date has been to keep both OS X (Mac) and iOS (iPod touches, iPhone’s, iPad’s, Apple TV, and Apple Watch) separate. Furthermore, Apple has kept touch input on the Mac, one that is currently separated from the display. This makes sense; desktop hardware comes in a variety of form factors, some which aren’t conducive for direct input via that display (a current day iMac for example) unless that display can lay on a table or used as how much tablets/smartphones are today. Right now, I don’t see Apple going that direction even with an iMac or their laptops. Desktop apps are also primarily designed to be keyboard/mouse driven. A hybrid approach can often times yield usability issues where that app, does neither well.
With Microsoft’s latest Surface (the Surface Pro 3), the focus is on an Intel based system that can function as both a tablet, as well as a laptop via a display which can be removed from the keyboard unit (which also doubles as a cover); the display is basically a touch tablet. It’s actually a smart/slick bit of marketing since it puts it all into a package this is familiar to people. Microsoft has de-emphasized an ARM based version of the Surface though. On the smartphone side, Microsoft has rebranded Windows Phone into just Windows. With their new single brand philosophy, this makes some sense. Though the branding is consistent, they will probably have less confusion with the phone part and peoples expectations of full Windows (desktop app) compatibility because for many people, smartphones are still just seen as phones as opposed to being these very portable computing devices (that happens to have telephony capabilities).
As I noted back in 2012, the tile interface was actually a pleasant change. As a smart phone UI, Microsoft actually has a very key differentiator from both Android and iOS. The problem for Microsoft though has been a lack of execution in their mobile strategy. Their focus has been consistently on Apple and the iPhone, iPad, and now the MacBook Air (the best head to head comparison to make with the Surface Pro 3). I’ve written before they are making a strategic mistake; they really should be focusing on Android first.
Android software running on Chrome OS is going to represent the biggest game changer not to Apple (initially), but to Microsoft’s entire Windows platform. Microsoft’s remaining stronghold is the desktop (they are entrenched in many homes as well as corporations). But from a mobile perspective, they are not operating from a position of strength. Matter of factly, they are losing key mindshare where younger generations, are not tied to that old desktop paradigm. And the key players are both Apple’s iOS ecosystem and Android.
Google’s Chrome OS and eventual ability to run a lot of Android apps, represents an end run initially at the low end desktop/laptop (a space where Apple does not play in); eventually, there will be no money to be made for making low end Windows based systems. That’s already the case today but it’s only going to get worse for Microsoft. Eventually, there’s also going to be a less compelling need for Windows desktops in the enterprise. Apple is eating into that space with the iPad (and that dominance is only going to grow with the IBM partnership). This is going to attack Microsoft’s big cash cow, Office.
Sure, there is the subscription based Office 365 (basically Office in the cloud), but Google has their Docs, Sheets, and Slides suite of “free” cloud based offerings which ties into their whole Chrome OS strategy. Apple themselves has been giving away their own iWork (de-emphasized) office suite of Pages, Numbers, and Keynote for free on both the Mac and iOS. They are also continually working on their cloud based components on iCloud.com. Furthermore, Apple now provides each subsequent release of OS X for free as well (since 10.9 – Mavericks).
Microsoft has had to cut the prices of their Windows upgrades drastically and will also begin feeling the revenue pain with their “legacy” bread and butter with Office. Meanwhile, they miss that it is Google that is going to be eating into their lunch at the low end where Apple does not play. And in that niche space that Apple does play, they have found it to be very profitable. Apple’s entire operating system strategy is one that is scalable though. As mentioned before, OS X (Mac) and iOS share a lot in common. Apple probably has several strategies for dealing with crossover when it comes to application and dealing with UI differences (touch versus keyboard/mouse). In other words, they will deal with as the situation/business environment requires.
But Microsoft has been and still is continually more fixated on Apple than Google. They pit the Surface Pro 3 against the 13″ MacBook Air (as opposed to focusing on the smaller 11″ MacBook Air not to mention, the iPad Air). The iPad itself cannibalizes Mac laptop sales and the app ecosystem continually creates solutions that challenges even Apple, the line between iPad (mini and Air) and MacBook Air.
Yet, Microsoft can’t gain any reasonable traction in the mobile space (which is what matters). And now they plan to open yet another retail store (this one being a flagship) as a means to try and counter Apple’s retail presence. It’s not like I don’t understand the idea of being able to better control the message as far as Microsoft’s offerings go; that after all is why Apple first opened up their retail stores during a time when it seemed dumb (Gateway was closing many of their Gateway Country Stores).
For Apple though, it made sense because their entire approach was one of a vertically integrated approach; it also made sense because every retailer they partnered with at the time, didn’t provide the best experience (Sears, CompUSA, Circuit City, Kmart, etc). They controlled both the hardware and software. Microsoft’s entire philosophy was different though with Windows as well as their original mobile strategy which tried to mimic their desktop one (license Windows Mobile to phone manufacturers). While Microsoft’s retail stores allows them to showoff their offerings, it lacks the same effect that Apple Stores have. They’ve basically copied Apple’s entire template including the look but one thing that Microsoft cannot copy is Apple’s corporate DNA.
And it is that intrinsic DNA (a fundamental underlying foundation) that drives the entire user experience at an Apple Store. That DNA is of course included in the hardware that sits on the tables in those stores. That DNA permeates itself in the software that resides on that hardware that sits on the tables in those stores. It’s that exact DNA that is lacking in Microsoft’s retail presence. It’s something that the smartest executives don’t get (I use “smartest” loosely because most executives aren’t actually all that smart; they’ve just rigged the entire system to their advantage). In a nutshell, just like Microsoft Windows copied the facade of the original Mac operating system, their retail presence is no different. It lacks that soul and will never be able to replicate the intangibles.
So now they are going to sink money into a very expensive piece of real estate and expect to have some kind of meaningful impact with gaining more mindshare. It unfortunately, does not work that way if you are talking about trying to even begin to replicate Apple’s magic in this area. Let me put it this way; they could hire Apple’s former retail SVP Ron Johnson (who came up with Apple’s retail template), and he would not be able to replicate that success at Microsoft (because they don’t have that corporate culture Apple has).
And while Microsoft is continually fixated with Apple, Google’s approach is to give away software and services for “free” so that they are on as many devices as possible with the express purpose of gaining a foothold in every facet of your life in order to build that perfect profile of you (as a means to give their actual customers, the advertisers, the best targeted ads as possible <- this is where the bulk of Google’s revenues are from).
My point is that Microsoft should be taking on Google. I’ll be honest, out of this rivalry, there is very little about Google that I like. With Google, its users are actually the product. Google actually make their users work for them by way of feeding a lot of personal information to them. At least Microsoft users are still customers and not products meant to be datamined in order to build advertisement profiles.
Sure, this current rivalry between Apple and Google has led to unprecedented innovation compared to the stagnation that occurred with the Wintel duopoly that existed with the PC. The mobile space has turned out to be very different though (Microsoft has learned that the hard way). If it weren’t for the absolutely long leash that former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had that allowed so many mistakes by Microsoft in the mobile market, we’d likely be singing a different tune today where Google may not have gotten such a strong foothold with Android (where it would be Apple and Microsoft continuing their long running rivalry but in a very different mobile space).
