Comments on: Microsoft’s New Strategy of Vertical Intergration http://www.businesspundit.com/microsofts-new-strategy-of-vertical-intergration/ Entrepreneurship, Startup Companies and Business Philosophy Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:31:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Rob http://www.businesspundit.com/microsofts-new-strategy-of-vertical-intergration/comment-page-1/#comment-1424 Rob Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:15:28 +0000 http://www.businesspundit.com.php5-6.websitetestlink.com/?p=2840#comment-1424 David F, The truth though, is that Microsoft isn't as competent in embedded operating systems. The many flavors of Windows CE/Mobile/Smartphone don't have near the market penetration that "big Windows" has. David F,
The truth though, is that Microsoft isn’t as competent in embedded operating systems. The many flavors of Windows CE/Mobile/Smartphone don’t have near the market penetration that “big Windows” has.

]]> By: david foster http://www.businesspundit.com/microsofts-new-strategy-of-vertical-intergration/comment-page-1/#comment-1423 david foster Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:58:39 +0000 http://www.businesspundit.com.php5-6.websitetestlink.com/?p=2840#comment-1423 In general, the trend in the computer industry has been *away* from vertical integration. In the mainframe days, IBM used to assemble the hardware, make many of the integrated circuits going into it, write the operating system, and provide the maintenance for the whole affair. Very profitability if you can pull it off. The main argument of vertical integration these days would be in terms of ease of use, and also reliability. Makes sense, for example, for an aircraft autopilot or even an automotive GPS. But there are already people in these markets, and I'm not sure what MS's competitive advantage would be versus a Honeywell or a Garmin. There is arguably no need for an autopilot or GPS maker to provide its own operating system (which should be as basic as possible) but MS is likely to view its competency in that field as a major advantage. In general, the trend in the computer industry has been *away* from vertical integration. In the mainframe days, IBM used to assemble the hardware, make many of the integrated circuits going into it, write the operating system, and provide the maintenance for the whole affair. Very profitability if you can pull it off.

The main argument of vertical integration these days would be in terms of ease of use, and also reliability. Makes sense, for example, for an aircraft autopilot or even an automotive GPS. But there are already people in these markets, and I’m not sure what MS’s competitive advantage would be versus a Honeywell or a Garmin.

There is arguably no need for an autopilot or GPS maker to provide its own operating system (which should be as basic as possible) but MS is likely to view its competency in that field as a major advantage.

]]> By: Rob http://www.businesspundit.com/microsofts-new-strategy-of-vertical-intergration/comment-page-1/#comment-1422 Rob Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:11:26 +0000 http://www.businesspundit.com.php5-6.websitetestlink.com/?p=2840#comment-1422 David, I agree with you on this. I didn't mean to imply that the web will diminish in usefulness. I just think the browser in it's current form will lose importance. ASP models are fine for some things, but I don't see a day where, for every program I want to use, I have to visit a different web address. And I don't see a day where my devices won't function without a connection to the web because their OS is run over the web. The connectivity of everything to everything else is only going to increase. Processing power for some complicated things may be remote, but there will always be lots of processing power local too. David,
I agree with you on this. I didn’t mean to imply that the web will diminish in usefulness. I just think the browser in it’s current form will lose importance. ASP models are fine for some things, but I don’t see a day where, for every program I want to use, I have to visit a different web address. And I don’t see a day where my devices won’t function without a connection to the web because their OS is run over the web.

The connectivity of everything to everything else is only going to increase. Processing power for some complicated things may be remote, but there will always be lots of processing power local too.

]]> By: David G http://www.businesspundit.com/microsofts-new-strategy-of-vertical-intergration/comment-page-1/#comment-1421 David G Fri, 08 Sep 2006 17:20:20 +0000 http://www.businesspundit.com.php5-6.websitetestlink.com/?p=2840#comment-1421 The web can obviously never be the operating system - simply by definition - but that shouldn't lead you to conclude that the web's usefulness will diminish. The most valuable data isn't the stuff you already have - it's the stuff your "loose ties" have. Making those connections and accessing their data will always be more valuable than accessing the data in your personal data store. The web is a distribution and connectivity device - its existence is what creates the massive potential demand for mobile devices. Where I agree with you is that the browser may slowly loose importance away as devices become net-native and yes, apple's the device manufacturer that seems to have the best understanding of where CE is headed. The web can obviously never be the operating system – simply by definition – but that shouldn’t lead you to conclude that the web’s usefulness will diminish.

The most valuable data isn’t the stuff you already have – it’s the stuff your “loose ties” have. Making those connections and accessing their data will always be more valuable than accessing the data in your personal data store.

The web is a distribution and connectivity device – its existence is what creates the massive potential demand for mobile devices.

Where I agree with you is that the browser may slowly loose importance away as devices become net-native and yes, apple’s the device manufacturer that seems to have the best understanding of where CE is headed.

]]>