-
Website
http://www.louisgray.com/live/ -
Original page
http://blog.louisgray.com/2008/10/microsoft-and-rim-i-dont-think-so.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Thanks for your comment. :)
And indeed, it IS an exciting time!
You mention the platform difficulties. That's what MS faced when buying Hotmail, but they did it anyway. And more relevantly, that's potentially what they faced when trying to buy Yahoo, but they put a huge bid in anyway. I don't find that argument against a MS RIM deal very convincing.
There's also the chatter in recent months of a Zune phone. How this would exactly fit in with RIM is another matter, but it would rebut the idea that MS is not interested in hardware markets.
I have no idea what the state of play is in the MS RIM 'deal'. But the reasons given for it not happening seem poorly thought out to me.
1. Aside from Xbox, the Zune, and mice - which you left out, I agree MSFT's next logical move will be cell phones. The question, like I said in the post is: can they compete? They clearly do not have a strong track record in mobile. Period. Microsoft has been a mobile contender since 2003 - Pocket PC 2003 or Windows Mobile 2003 ring a bell? And technically, they have been in compact or "mobile" development since 2001, with Pocket PC 2002 - the base of Pocket PC, loaded on the PPC. Currently, MSFT's WinMo is v. 6, yet they only take up 12% of the mobile market pie. Only 12%? Apple launched a year ago is already at 2.8%. Why doesn't MSFT dominate more of the market? It's been TEN years. With such a weak history, I do not think a newly formed MSFT-RIM team would be able to keep up.
2. If the merger did happen, I highly doubt Microsoft will even attempt to integrate the RIM server with their Exchange server. RIM's number one selling point is: providing all three aspects of the device - hardware, applications, and sync software. They have a proven track record with connection time, since RIM's focus is on reliability. With two involved co-CEOs, I don't think they would risk tarnishing their brand with an integration disaster. You mention Hotmail but do you realize MSFT acquired Hotmail in 1997? It took them almost four years to integrate the FreeBSD and Solaris reliant Hotmail to their systems. Even then, it's still unclear if the original Hotmail was fully supported on a Windows machine. MSFT ended up building a mail system from scratch (Kahuna) which was announced in 2005. Mind you, this is almost 10 years after the acquisition. That example as well as the Yahoo-Microsoft rumor that didn't even happen, is a weak one.
3. No where in the post did I mention they are not interested in hardware. My question was: How will they. Where is their place? And would they be a contender?
I'm sorry but for stating something bold as my arguments being poorly thought out, those words apply right back to you. :(
You didn't mention they are not interested in hardware? You declared the merger to be unlikely and immediately quoted another article with the keywords "Microsoft has never been in hardware" seemingly in support of your argument. " We could argue semantics here, but you left a clear impression.
You opened several questions, some of which you list above. The one you are now omitting is the question you pose in title of the post - Microsoft and RIM? I Don't Think So. This was clearly the question I referred to.
I don't doubt that their ability to compete is also a valid question - MS's decision on putting in a bid will no doubt hinge on their own take on the answer to that question.
You claim the Hotmail purchase, proposed Yahoo purchase are weak examples, one because it was some time ago, and the other because it failed. Not so in my opinion. They, amongst other examples I could list demonstrate MS willingness to go down unlikely, even improbable avenues. They have a long track history of making acquisitions that raise an eyebrow or two.
Is the 'can they compete' argument valid? I could equally provide two excellent (and just for you, more recent) examples that MS are willing to attack mature markets with dominant players, from scratch, whilst everyone around suggests they are slightly mad for doing so. These examples being the Xbox and Zune.
I maintain your arguments are poorly thought out. Some of your responses to my post even more so.
Thank you and have a nice day!
I'm really sorry, but you 'told me so'? You told me nothing. I argued against your reasoning. Which is as faulty now as it was then. Perhaps you should have re-read the comments.
never had as much problems communicating with someone as much as you, but
then I realized: You only hear what you want to hear and say waht you want
to say. We should both stop wasting time because clearly there's no point.
:)
m.
going to hell. You are so smart. You win the Internet! Hooray!
m.
I remember that news and it's still bizarre to me. Danger is a platform that runs on Sharp and Motorola, so MSFT's need for more software was confusing. The only two reasons I came up with were: 1. backend. Danger's servers and email system, perhaps. and 2. Zune phone. -- which still doesn't make sense since Zune has still yet to move to MSFT's PlayReady DRM. Unless MSFT isn't planning to migrate Zune to PlayReady, which wouldn't make even more sense (imo).
Considering MSFT's history, the current market, their current state, and WinMo licensees, it's unlikely we will see a MSphone in the near future. So I am curious as to what (if anything) they have in their pipeline. :)
They made a terrible error in not making the closest table to the graph the one that the data is pulled from. That can make things very hard to read.