A November post from my old blog
In developing the Xbox, Microsoft took the unusual step of allowing the R&D staff total control for the software and hardware design. This was done because of the missteps in the late 1990's with Sega. Microsoft provided Sega with a version of Windows for game consoles. It was a total flop for many reasons, but the lack of a single vision between Sega and Microsoft was a main factor. Although the original Xbox had some issues; in terms of customer satisfaction it has been a success. I attribute part of that success to one stop shopping for both the consumer and the Microsoft engineers. The Xbox 360 looks to be a total success.
In the general computing PC world, Microsoft has dictated how the hardware would integrate with the operating system forcing hardware vendors to build to an industry standard specification or be forced to write driver code which does not make economic sense. The result is a single vision and Microsoft can ship a single version of the OS for all hardware vendors. The hardware is just a commodity as it should be. At this point I don't see Microsoft moving to the Xbox model, given Apple's lack of market share for a proprietary general purpose computer, and Linux. It does not make sense, although Apple's play with Intel might make things interesting in the future.
In the PDA space, Microsoft has chosen a different approach which allows the hardware or telecom vendors to manage and distribute the Windows Mobile OS. The thought was to minimize commodity pricing by allowing the vendors to add value to the OS software. I have not yet purchased a Windows Mobile based product with any real value add from a hardware or telecom vendor. The devices basically come with the Microsoft OS, some minor tweaks, software bundles and sometimes features like WIFI turned off. Because of this model, users have suffered with stability issues and lack of commitment to a given hardware platform. The stability issues have been due to the lack of real world QA by the vendors. On the commitment front Microsoft hides behind the vendors, claiming that it is not economically feasible for the vendors to continually update ROM images. If Microsoft was managing those images there would be no need to hide. Hardware and software vendors are not software developers and do not have the same vision that Microsoft has. By putting them in a position to support software only leads to frustration on the part of consumers. Just take a look at the MP3 segment, yes Windows Mobile can play music and videos, but is it as easy to use as the iTunes / iPod combination? No way. Well maybe with Windows Media Player 10 and Mobile Player 10, but with my Windows Mobile 2003 device I am out of luck unless the vendor provides an upgrade and few have. I think it is just too little too late.
I would like to see Microsoft adopt either option 1, build their own hardware or option 2 set strict hardware standards and distribute / support Windows Mobile themselves. As a user, throughout my journey with PDAs, the 3rd model of allowing the vendors to control the OS has not worked. All I want is a converged device (PDA/Cell/MP3 Player/Camera) that is stable, easily upgradeable and integrates seamlessly with my world. What do you think?
Read some comments from my post at pocketnow.com
Comments