[macspoofing]

>"There was a fundamental disagreement about how important it was to be in the hardware business,"

And that's not a settled answer. The two giants in mobile, Apple and Google, have diametrically opposite approaches. Apple has the entire verticle, from SOC to the OS. Google controls primarily the OS and application stack. Both are incredibly successful. Microsoft could never have been an Apple. But they could have been a Google. They could have had Android, and I don't think they would have complained if that was the case.

>Ballmer said the mistake was getting into handsets and tablets too late.

What is he talking about? Microsoft was in the handset and tablet business since the 90s. Their offering didn't resonate. They were also always afraid of cannibalizing their Office and Windows business. Their actions in the 90s and early 2000s also built up a lot of ill-will, so nobody was rooting for them.

>Apple Inc.'s iPhone would never sell because it cost too much? He now wishes he'd realized how Apple was going to make it work -- through mobile carrier subsidies.

That's also part of the problem. Ballmer was obsessed with Apple and while he focused on Apple, Android took over the market.

[mc32]

I remember when the Courier[1] demo came out. I was excited about it... Then deeply disappointed when it was unceremoniously shelved. It's speculation whether it would have been a successful product, but I think the idea back then had potential but Ballmer was unwilling to gamble on it.

[PS] On the other hand, he did gamble on long-term things like Azure, so it's not like he made all the wrong bets --but it seemed like an obvious bet to go with something like a Courier, specially after all the buzz it created.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Courier

[jalfresi]

To this day, I sometimes come across images of the Courier, and day-dream about what was possible the ideal portable for me. I loved everything about the potential of that project.

Still do.

[FreezerburnV]

You and me both. To this day I deliberately don't think about it, because it just makes me sad that what seemed to be incredible potential was shelved. I guess the Surface products are the closest to that potential, but for a long time all we had was the iPad and awful Android tablets. And I still feel like all of it doesn't live up to the ideals the Courier had.

I'm now going to go and forget this comment happened so I don't spend the day depressed about where technology went.

[protomyth]

> What is he talking about? Microsoft was in the handset and tablet business since the 90s.

I think he means to directly make the handset as the earlier offerings were on the PC model (Microsoft does OS, Manufacturer does phone).

> That's also part of the problem. Ballmer was obsessed with Apple and while he focused on Apple, Android took over the market.

In a lot of ways, I think the crux is they wanted the same profit Apple was getting and forgot that's not how they won the PC industry. Android succeeds in numbers because it is now the default free phone or the phone offered for non-contract folks. Android basically because the dumb phone replacement. Microsoft probably would have better off going for that market and making their money off apps and services. Other than Samsung and Google, the phones I see are the cheapies. I know LG makes a good phone, but the Android LG phones Walmart has are not them.

I still think RIM (and Verizon if the book Losing the Signal is to be believed) made a huge error in the Storm and should have hit the low-end phone market with the messaging (ok, they did need the big software improvement but the Passport looked good from a keyboard UI point of view). Apple really didn't execute its iPod strategy in the phone market and left a lot of room at the bottom.

[reacweb]

IMHO the failure of RIM was to copy Apple instead of focusing on their identity: an enterprise friendly phone with a good keyboard.

[protomyth]

I think they had to move into the consumer market, but they should have used their ability with messaging to get them their. Developing something like the Passport instead of the Storm would have been a much better deal.

[pjc50]

Microsoft seem to have believed that they shouldn't compete with their OEMs by offering their own hardware. This doesn't seem to be a problem for Android.

CE Pocket PC et al suffered the same problem as Symbian and everything before iOS: they didn't have the App Store, and as such it was a pain to get software for the devices other than through the OEM. And OEM bundled software is always terrible.

[romaniv]

> CE Pocket PC et al suffered the same problem as Symbian and everything before iOS: they didn't have the App Store, and as such it was a pain to get software for the devices other than through the OEM.

Huh? Software could be installed by downloading a file and clicking on it. In many ways was a simpler and more pleasant process than interacting with App Stores. The problem wasn't with finding or installing anything, it was with monetization. App Stores and always-online model made it trivial to charge people and show them ads.

Overall, I remember my Windows CE PDA with fondness. Using it was a positive experience, which I can't say about any smartphone I owned.

[pjc50]

Chicken and egg though, surely? The inconvenience of selling apps to people was a disincentive to writing them.

(Didn't they all have resistive touchscreens too? That was the other big iPhone launch advantage, much better touch)

[ableal]

> What is he talking about? Microsoft was in the handset and tablet business since the 90s.

But not manufacturing hardware under their own brand. MS had software for Dell and HP hardware - I have a couple of Windows CE Pocket PCs in a bin somewhere ...

[macspoofing]

Again, who says that was the only path to success? Microsoft made billions by letting others handle the hardware. If Microsoft was in Google's position and controlled a dominant mobile OS, I think they would be very happy. Microsoft could never have pulled off Apple's mobile strategy of controlling the entire verticle. It's not in their DNA.