[narrow]

Henry Ford once said that "the competitor to be feared is one who never bothers about you at all, but goes on making his own business better all the time." Microsoft's history of wallowing in denial whenever something new emerges to threaten its legacy product is indicative of the reason why they always react defensively vs Apple. Google on the other learned from IOS and was quick to go on the offense with Android.

[homosaur]

I think the most obvious case where this might be wrong in Microsoft's case is the Xbox. The original one was a salvo against Sony into a collapsing market. The new one is maybe the best general use consumer set top box on the market. Roads don't always lead you where you think they will, but if you focus on quality you can often come out ahead.

Of course, Microsoft has billions to sit on while they iterate. Most companies don't have that luxury.

[rdl]

Exactly -- I was really critical of the xbox at the time, but now I have a PS3, Google TV, Apple TV, and XBox 360, and the one I use for gaming the most is the XBox. PS3 for bluray, and probably Apple TV (2012) for netflix and other streaming content (due to 1080pness; using the PS3 for that now). Microsoft is relentless and has deep pockets and more than adequate technical skill.

I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft manages to get an xbox-level win out of Windows Phone just by throwing absurd resources at it, along with great integration with their platform, as RIM self destructs.

Especially if Microsoft can use Nokia to pitch itself as the "European alternative" to Google or Apple, that plus enterprise is a pretty big protected niche.