Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Cellphones Handhelds Windows Wireless Networking Hardware

Microsoft Reportedly Working On Its Own Smartphone 215

Posted by Soulskill
from the seeing-what-sticks dept.
According to a (paywalled) report in the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft is experimenting with its own smartphone design. "Officials at some of Microsoft's parts suppliers, who declined to be named, said the Redmond, Wash.-based company is testing a smartphone design but isn't sure if a product will go into mass production." The article continues: "If Microsoft pushes ahead with its mobile phone, it would underscore how far Microsoft has moved away from its long-standing practice of making software and leaving decisions about design, features and marketing of the computing hardware to partners such as Hewlett-Packard or Samsung Electronics. ... As it does so, Microsoft pulls from a modified playbook of Apple—whose hardware-plus-software approach Microsoft officials long have scorned. ... Smartphones running Microsoft's two-year-old Windows Phone operating software for cellphones haven't sold well, and Microsoft may want to leave itself an option to test whether its own phone would spur sales."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Reportedly Working On Its Own Smartphone

Comments Filter:
  • by faragon (789704) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:26PM (#41859491) Homepage
    That's terrible for Nokia. The few chances for its survival, IMO, now are gone :-S
    • by lobiusmoop (305328) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:34PM (#41859573) Homepage
      • by Samantha Wright (1324923) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:54PM (#41860595) Homepage Journal
        Nokia's recent history is more like "kidnap, ravage, dump." Extending? Embracing? Nope, nope.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hairyfeet (841228)

        Oh please! The triple E strategy actually requires planning and thought...from Steve Ballmer? Are you serious?

        Here is the "New MSFT Strategy" under Steve Ballmer..."What does Apple do? Well we'll do that too, only it'll be half assed, half baked, and poorly thought out...yeah that'll work"...Look at how pathetic the apps on Win 8 and WinRT are, think Jobs would have allowed that shit? Hell think Gates would have allowed that shit?

        Ballmer is a disaster, MSFT is a trainwreck, they are throwing crap at a wal

        • I see what you did there. You're a 10 digit Slashdot ID sent back from the future by the Society of Meme Preservation as part of their MMC Centennial retrospective.

          Microsoft was good at something once upon a time. It was akin to charging a man a fee to have sex with your own wife, but let's not go there. It was a cool place to work (if you had a high tolerance for stomach meds) because one morning you would wake up and the tooth fairy would have replaced your non-vested shares with a vintage Jaguar and w

    • by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:40PM (#41859643)

      In case you are wondering what Elop thought of this news.

      "in a conference call two weeks ago, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop said that he would welcome such a rival. Elop said that a Microsoft smartphone would act as a “stimulant” to all companies making Windows Phone 8 devices, but added that he wasn’t aware of any plans to do so." http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/microsoft-smartphone-windows-phone-8-98096 [techweekeurope.co.uk]

      Whatever you think of Steve Ballmer how he for the record got for a bargain the most expensive advertising campaign in history for next to nothing, and a patent cartel with Nokia, and it seems things are unlikely to change in the future.

      I'm astonished the Finnish Government has done nothing all I can find is this quote http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/20/us-finnish-government-wont-buy-nokia-sha-idUSBRE85J15V20120620?irpc=932 [reuters.com] "This is not our business. We are developing Finland into a country where companies can do well, but this is not the way of support along which the government will go,"

      • by base2op (226729) <spambait@bunkergate.org> on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:53PM (#41859807) Homepage

        What's funny to me is that Elop went all-in on the Windows Phone strategy because he didn't want Nokia to be just another Android device maker. Now they're just another Windows Phone maker.

        • by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:24PM (#41860221)

          What's funny to me is that Elop went all-in on the Windows Phone strategy because he didn't want Nokia to be just another Android device maker. Now they're just another Windows Phone maker.

          The reasoning made no sense then. The weirder one was they didn't hedge there bets with something else, Android and Meego being the obvious choices.

          • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Friday November 02, 2012 @08:32PM (#41860953)

            even hedge bets with Symbian and featurephones would have been good enough, they were selling very well until the pillock stood up on his burning platform and, well, pushed the company off.

            I'm sure he'll still get his million dollar bonus when they sack him though.

            • I'm sure he'll still get his million dollar bonus when they sack him though.

              Yep. That's the problem with such high positions. Failure is worth a gazillion times the success of any other job.

            • by symbolset (646467) *
              Nokia's Symbian still sold more smartphones last quarter than all of Windows Phone and Windows Mobile combined. Probably the last time that happens though.
            • by Luckyo (1726890)

              There was actually a pretty good analysis on Elop, and the game he's in. His chances are basically that Nokia will either die and microsoft get smartphone division out of the wreck and he gets to be the boss of that, or Nokia manages to survive and he becomes unemployable as a CEO that destroyed a fortune500 company in a record time with a lot of personal mistakes.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Billly Gates (198444)

            Meego didn't have the developer ecosystem.

            I wonder if there is anything Nokia could have done? I see his point with Android and since Windows Phone is a new OS with MS providing a huge developer base and tools not to mention hope that it might be compatible with METRO be a boon.

            Investors hate people who say it is a hot market I want in!!! That makes them yawn as consumers prefer other players who are already in psychologically. Symbian didn't have the developer support or ecosystem either or the mass market

            • by girlinatrainingbra (2738457) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @05:53AM (#41863305)
              regarding your statement "...since Windows Phone is a new OS with MS providing a huge developer base...":

              Did you happen to see Windows Phone 8 Having Trouble Attracting Developers [slashdot.org] on /. just about three days ago? What kind of huge developer base is that? MS is not being very developer friendly, considering that last week, /. featured "Trouble For Microsoft Developers With the Windows Store" [slashdot.org]. Maybe they are letting WPhone7 applications run on 8 and that's what they're counting as part of that "huge developer base."

        • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:25PM (#41860241)

          He decided he didn't want to be part of an expanding market if he had to share it (and, granted, Android isn't doing that great for people not in the front rank). So now he's in a dying market. And he has to share it.

          • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Saturday November 03, 2012 @07:15AM (#41863515)

            What's even worse is that Nokia make some excellent hardware.

            If you look at the reviews of the Lumia 920 the hardware is top notch. What is a problem is that no one (well to reasonable assumption) wants Windows Phone.

            A lot of people do want Android though. And Nokia has a chance of competing with Samsung which makes excellent but (compared to Nokia) rather pricey hardware.

            If you look at phones like a Nokia Express Music series they are pretty damn good. And very cheap. If they'd launched them with Android instead of Symbian I think they'd sell well, especially in poorer countries. And an Android Lumias would be bound to sell better than an WP ones.

            Also WP doesn't help Nokia's real problem which is its long development cycles. That's something Sony Ericsson suffered from too. Making phones in unionised Nordic countries is always going to be slower than doing it in Asia. Nokia were well aware of this

            http://www.fonearena.com/blog/30489/nokia-ceo-stephen-elop-nokia-our-platform-is-burning.html [fonearena.com]

            "Chinese OEMs are cranking out a device much faster than,the time that it takes us to polish a PowerPoint presentation"

            If I were in charge of Nokia here's what I'd do with smartphones.

            I'd keep the industrial design in house. I'd should outsource the hardware design and manufacturing to Taiwanese ODMs and switch to Android (if Microsoft want WP support they'd need to pay and I'd do as HTC and Samsung do and still sell mostly Android phones). So you'd have a basic case design done in Europe shared across a series but rapidly redesign the internals - baseband chip up - to keep the performance current. In terms of baseband I'd buy from anyone who would sell chips that could run Android - i.e. Qualcomm, Samsung, TI, ST Ericsson. Nokia would sell its baseband business and let it operate in competition with these suppliers, but Nokia would only buy from it if its designs were competitive.

            The bundled apps - Nokia's maps for example - could be either done in house or outsourced.

            The idea is that the things that make a Nokia a Nokia - industrial design and bundled apps - would be decoupled from the hardware design which would then happen more quickly.

            Also the underlying base band chip would change from phone to phone. So if Qualcomm had the best chip in one generation, they'd get the order. If Samsung had the best chip in the next one they'd get it.

            Sony Ericsson originally bought all its baseband chips from Ericsson Mobile Platforms. They got further and further behind Qualcomm in terms of performance, particularly after Qualcomm launched the Snapdragon. Eventually Sony bought out the phone business and started to buy Qualcomm chips. The Ericsson Mobile Platforms was 'cast out of the Ericsson group' (think Adam and Eve being expelled from the garden of Eden) and ended up being part of ST Ericsson.

            Basically if you want to get people in Nordic countries to work hard they need to know that they are competing on the open market and their company will be shut down if it is unprofitable. Back when Sony Ericsson only bought from EMP that was not the case.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by oztiks (921504)

        He's right and the truth of the matter is with the exception of Acer who has basically signed its own death warrant by not consigning to windows will be suddenly left in the cold. Push vendors to create competitive devices by brandishing your own is a good strategy.

        Sorry guys, nobody cares what OS is on a phone. Only Geeks do and normal people will by Nokia because its a good brand and if half the devices out there run the same system (like what surface+windows8 is doing) users will just buy it without a ca

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Billly Gates (198444)

          People do care. Average users as they want something that looks cool that their friends use and has all the cool apps they are familiar with.

          I spoke to a phone salesmen and he told me Nokia has the highest returns in his store. The Nokia luima actually and didn't recommend it!

          That says a lot right there.

          It is the classic example of MBAs trying to get ahead by staying behind the competition with excessive cost cutting. Not trying to make a better phone to gain more marketshare which is what Apple and Samsung

        • by LongearedBat (1665481) on Friday November 02, 2012 @11:51PM (#41862197)

          nobody cares what OS is on a phone

          A few years ago, yes. But I think things have changed with advent of apps.

          So many people are now used to running a variety of apps, that those who buy smartphones opt for iOS or Android. (Users might not know what an OS is, but they will ask the salesman "Does it run apps?")
          Lack of apps -> Lack of interest in the high end user base -> Lack of sales

          Sure, many low end users still don't care about apps. "Why should I pay for a smartphone when all I want is a cheap and simple phone?" This is why WP7 has not yet gained traction.

          Consequently, if WP claws it's way to populatity, it must be due to some clever business strategy.

          Part of such a clever business strategy might be to ensure a high minimum quality/performance of the devices, achieved by actively taking control of the building process.
          Another part might be to "train" the existing user base into using and liking Metro. When a phone works seamlessly with the computer and "it just works", then that phone will be more attractive, thus making it easier for users to migrate to WP (mainly Windows users who are not yet avid app users).

          In other words, Microsoft is beginning to compete toe to toe against Apple, using strategies similar to Apple's. And with enough strong business practices, MS might actually succeed. But it won't be quick.
          What worries me is that if MS succeeds, then Android might fall behind. That would be sad.

          However it plays out, I don't see WP becoming one of the big OS's in a hurry. It's more of a medium term plan. The catch up will take a few years.

    • by dmbasso (1052166)

      It will be really funny if they bring back Nokia's CEO to manage this new failure^Wsmartphone product.

    • by roc97007 (608802) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:08PM (#41859989) Journal

      That's terrible for Nokia. The few chances for its survival, IMO, now are gone :-S

      True. But it's a logical move for Microsoft. The world has changed. The paradigm of selling an operating system at high profit margins is failing against the paradigm of giving the operating system away in order to sell devices. Microsoft can't compete with that without changing the way they do business.

      Frankly, Nokia should have seen this coming.

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:20PM (#41860173) Journal

        The problem here is that it is now going to do battle against companies who have years of experience as *hardware* manufacturers. Yes, Microsoft has some experience, but on the level of Apple or Samsung? And just how far can Microsoft intrude into the world of manufacturing before it starts stepping on the toes of OEMs? If Microsoft is just planning a few flagship devices to demonstrate Windows on smartdevices, I can understand it, though I have a hard time seeing how they can hope to make money with it, but if Microsoft is deciding, after literally decades of essentially being a software company, that now it is going to become a manufacturer, then it's entering territory it has little direct experience with, and is going to be going head to head against very big players like Apple.

        I'm not saying it might not work. Who knows? Maybe in five years, it will be a major rival against Apple and the Android ecosystem. But even success in this new strategy carries risks of damaging core business units.

        • by roc97007 (608802)

          All those things are true. But succeed, fail, or eck out a meager existence, Microsoft really has no choice if they're going to play at all in this space.

    • by paladinsama (1831732) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:27PM (#41860277)

      Nokia is the company that closed a digital store and revoked the access to all purchases to their customers. Death is an appropriate fate for them.

    • by 21mhz (443080)

      Really? Just like Surface doomed the prospects of Asus, Samsung, and the few other manufacturers who have announced Windows RT tablets?

      You armchair business analysts seem to assume that there is no OEM differentiation in the Windows world. I can't see why. Lumia 920 is a very impressive device, and it's selling as of today, while the MS phone is only an industrial rumor.

    • by grcumb (781340)

      That's terrible for Nokia. The few chances for its survival, IMO, now are gone :-S

      Indeed, once the database-driven file system, enhanced security and eye-movement-driven interface of Microsoft's phone are completed, they will crush everything else on the market....

      Truly, 2016[*] is going to be a big year for Microsoft.

      ______
      [*] Okay, 2018. Maybe. 2020[**] at the very latest.
      [**] No, really.

  • by Andy Prough (2730467) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:28PM (#41859507)
    The case will be a pleasant earthy-brown color.
  • I am sure MS is capable of creating a smartphone design that "works well" for what that's worth, but it's pretty evident that this category is led by devices that are functional and aesthetically pleasing. I don't think MS is painted in a corner to have to make a Microsoft iPhone (Apple will probably try to sue them in any case) but in playing "offense" it would be great for Microsoft to focus on elevating or evolving the smartphone category and not try to be a "me too" device.

    If they can pull this off,
    • by jbolden (176878) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:48PM (#41859757) Homepage

      Apple has already stated in court that Win8's design does substantially differ from Apple's. Apple has a problem with Android. They've been unequivocal about MeeGo, Tizen, Win8, BBOS9, BB10... not being a violation of their patents.

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:59PM (#41859883) Journal

        Apple has a problem with Android because Android is a major competitor. It has no problem with Microsoft because it does not foresee any point in the near future when Microsoft will be a major competitor.

        Getting hauled into court by Apple is a sign that you're on to something. Not getting hauled into court by Apple is a sign that you're probably going to fail.

        • by jbolden (176878)

          I don't think that's true. When Apple released the iPhone they had many competing operating systems. RIM outsold them several times over. There has only been one that they have been upset with.

          • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:14PM (#41860101) Journal

            They were the bit player in those days. Blackberry was the big guy on the block. What reason would there have been in the last two years to sue Blackberry? It's market share has collapsed quite nicely without needing to set Apple's legal hounds on it.

            • reply to undo accidental mod bad mod

            • by jbolden (176878)

              The lawsuits started in 2009. When Android came out and Jobs started laying the groundwork to sue, RIM was about 45% of the smartphone market. By December 2009, RIM was still 42% and Android was still under 6%.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            Apple knew with utter certitude that they would absolutely murder RIM in the marketplace, because RIM's interface was pure shit, and Apple's was (is) pure gold. As in, that's what they get by selling it. I have honestly never used iOS, because almost nobody I know has an iDevice, and also, I don't care. I have barely used new versions of Android, either, but I have used them in the emulator, because Google gives the images for free.

            • by jbolden (176878)

              I think that's a bit rear view mirror. RIM had huge advantages in enterprise integration that Apple still doesn't quite match. I don't think Apple had anyway of knowing that RIM would get so distracted and lose years getting their new kernel to work.

              The GUI wasn't a huge problem for RIM in 2007 though it certainly was an advantage for Apple.

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                I think that Apple knew that the majority care more about shiny than workgroup integration. There's nothing rear view mirror about it. RIM took the approach of selling to business. Apple took the approach of making something the masses of asses would like to hold up in the sky to take pictures of themselves. Apple made the right decision, and RIM is well on its way to being a short footnote.

        • by theurge14 (820596)

          I thought it was Samsung that got hauled into court not Android.

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      I am sure MS is capable of creating a smartphone design that "works well" for what that's worth

      Why? What event from history would give you that idea?

      I don't think MS is painted in a corner to have to make a Microsoft iPhone (Apple will probably try to sue them in any case) but in playing "offense" it would be great for Microsoft to focus on elevating or evolving the smartphone category and not try to be a "me too" device.

      The problem is, even Apple only made a nicer version of concepts that were around before.

      Can they compete with a smartphone design? Sure but I wouldn't bet money on it.

      No, no they can't. They might be able to buy one though.

  • I don't think so (Score:3, Informative)

    by AbhiTheOne (2717543) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:44PM (#41859697)
    The reasons Microsoft built Surface were:
    1. MS felt the OEM Win8 tablets not upto the mark with iPad.
    2. There is no dedicated OEM working on Win8 tablet.
    3. MS thinks there isn't OEM with market perception comparable to Apple in tablet space.

    All these issues aren't present in WP8 space, as Nokia has history of marking amazing phones, it is dedicated to WP8 and market perception of Nokia isn't bad in phone space. So it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to make their own phone.
    • I used a Win8 tablet prototype a couple months ago, I find it hard to believe nobody has announced one yet.
    • by tuppe666 (904118)

      The reasons Microsoft built Surface were:
      1. MS felt the OEM Win8 tablets not upto the mark with iPad.
      2. There is no dedicated OEM working on Win8 tablet.
      3. MS thinks there isn't OEM with market perception comparable to Apple in tablet space.

      ...So Microsofts failure in the tablet space was not anything to do with the inappropriate software, that limited the hardware, in both its input method, CPU, battery life etc etc.

      Microsoft are in the Mobile space to soak up all that early adopter money.

      Nokia has already bled dry, Microsoft have already flirting up to HTC, while Elop lives in denial.

      • by HiThere (15173)

        I really doubt that Elop lives in denial. What would you expect him to say, whether he as an MS partisan or not?

        My personal expectation is that he knew this was in the offing before he signed the deal with MS, and probably before he was hired by Noika. I know, however, that I have no faintest hope of proving this.

        • by tuppe666 (904118)

          I really doubt that Elop lives in denial. What would you expect him to say

          I would expect him to say nothing, he didn't. He should be having a team working secretly somewhere to be ready to respond to a Microsoft announcement of a launch Phone with "People loved out Lumia range range, but wanted Android on it. This is out new range of Fuck-You-Ballmer Phones"

          I don't really understand Elop thing why is nobody sacking him; having him arrested? Why is nobody at Nokia going "this is not a burning platform we are hurting for real"? I don't really care if he is inept; stubborn; bribed;

      • Microsoft have already flirting up to HTC, while Elop lives in denial. Interesting, maybe that's their strategy, "ally" themselves with the smaller players one by one and suck them dry, then move up the chain. Not that I'd miss HTC currently, my older phone was great, but the one I just replaced with a Samsung was unalloyed crap!
    • "market perception of Nokia isn't bad in phone space" I just bought a new phone last week and the shops were really down on Nokia and windows phones, lots of faulties apparently. It was all iPhone this, Samsung that....
  • In Other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday November 02, 2012 @06:51PM (#41859785)

    LG is profitable again after dumping windows and focusing on Android.
    Asus have also having good fortune from Android Tablets.
    Sony after dumping Ericsson is profitable again with Android.

    Nokia gets burnt once with Windows Phone 8 incompatibilities
    Nokia gets thrown under a bus with the Surface tablet
    Nokia gets B*******d new Microsoft Phone

    Now I'm not saying Nokia should have gone Android...just that Android has a 75% share , and Nokia has well a share of what 2%

    • Re:In Other news (Score:4, Insightful)

      by laffer1 (701823) <`luke' `at' `foolishgames.com'> on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:00PM (#41859887) Homepage Journal

      Android is a race to the bottom just as PC sales were. If you're Samsung or Moto, it's great to be in android. They have the higher margin devices. Too bad most devices are crap. The same can be said for the PC. Google has used microsoft's own battle plan against them. Microsoft sees this and uses the Apple battle plan because somehow they always survive. In 15 years, will we see google giving microsoft a loan or investment so there is still competition?

      Nokia has a microsoft fanboy working for them. There is nothing left for them. They could have owned the dumbphone market and worked on something decent or acquired RIM and tried to do something with it. They could have tried to get webos from HP or partnered with them. There are many things they could have done, but they chose to be the launchpad for microsoft as a hardware company. (ignoring the xbox and input device lines) Best case, Nokia is bought by Microsoft. I don't even see that future.

      • By and large I agree with you, though there are some pretty nice Android devices out there if you're willing to spend the money. The fact is that the market seems to be shaping up to be a two horse race with the likes of Blackberry fading quickly, or at least doomed to niche positions. Can Microsoft make it a three horse race? Who knows, but history suggests that Microsoft's forays into this market have been pretty dismal failures. In fact, outside of the Xbox division, Microsoft's attempts to break out of

      • Re:In Other news (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tuppe666 (904118) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:14PM (#41860093)

        Android is a race to the bottom...Too bad most devices are crap

        There is no part of that that is true. Current Windows Phones won't run WP8 [seriously single processor], Iphones had a disappointing launch is reflected marketshare is down from 23.1% to 14.9% in a couple of quarters. RIM is yet to come out with a compelling product...and Elop killed Symbian

        Android had waterproof phones; projectors; massive phones; value phones; keyboard phones; cutting edge phones...and a marketshare of 75%...they are buying them because they are great innovative hardware and more importantly software. They are building market share not a desperate dying monopolist trying to gain market share through its usual bully tactics[Microsoft] or maintain it through Litigation.

        • by Scowler (667000)
          There is only room for one or two vendors to fully PROFIT (that's the word you don't seem to get) from Android. The rest? A race for very thin margins. Witness HTC.
          • by tuppe666 (904118)

            There is only room for one or two vendors to fully PROFIT (that's the word you don't seem to get) from Android. The rest? A race for very thin margins. Witness HTC.

            ...but that is clearly not true ZTE; Hweui is making massive market share gains. Asus is doing well with Android tablets, LG is profiting again from dumping Windows Phone, Sony after dumping Ericsson with its Android phone is profitable...Even HTC is profitable its just been less competitive than other Android phone manufactures. I believe Google are doing quite well too.You are aware than HTC [and ironically Samsung] make windows phones too :)

            Seriously stop spreading this lie, Even Apple manage to make a

      • Android is a race to the bottom just as PC sales were. If you're Samsung or Moto, it's great to be in android. They have the higher margin devices. Too bad most devices are crap.

        "Crap" is relative. While I've complained a lot about the old Froyo-based phone I eventually ditched, you only have to look at what passes for "apps" on a non-smartphone to see what a step up even a crap Android phone is over that.

        Remember dumb phone calendars? Remember having to sync your phone calendar with your computer, and having to buy terrible software just to do that? Remember how bad contacts managers were on dumb phones? Remember how, for a lot of phones, you just couldn't sync anything at all - i

        • by 21mhz (443080)

          "Crap" is relative. While I've complained a lot about the old Froyo-based phone I eventually ditched, you only have to look at what passes for "apps" on a non-smartphone to see what a step up even a crap Android phone is over that.

          The game has changed a bit. Pick a cheaper Lumia or an Asha touch phone (to talk about ostensible non-smartphones). Most cheap Android phones are crap compared to that.

      • Microsoft sees this and uses the Apple battle plan because somehow they always survive.

        I might be wrong, but I somehow recall MS buying $150 million worth of Apple stock in '97 to help keep the company afloat. Am I wrong on this? I recall it very clearly, so I'm pretty sure there was a significant MS investment in Apple at that time. I think it was tied to putting MS Office on the Macintosh. I thought at the time that MS needed Apple as a competitor due to all the anti-trust investigations? And did IBM and/or Motorola throw some money into Apple in the '90's related to the Power PC project?

        • by symbolset (646467) *
          This investment was temporary, and part of a lawsuit settlement between the companies. If Microsoft has retained that investment its value would now be one third of their market cap.
      • They could have tried to get webos from HP or partnered with them.

        This makes a shit load of sense. A great OS looking for hardware matched with a great hardware manufacturer looking for a popular OS. WebOS wasn't *that* popular but the firesale gave it a lot of publicity and everyone seems to love it. Too bad.

      • Re:In Other news (Score:4, Insightful)

        by symbolset (646467) * on Saturday November 03, 2012 @12:28AM (#41862355) Journal
        Nokia is losing a billion dollars a quarter focusing on Windows Phone, and you think Android is a race to the bottom.
  • by Dracos (107777) on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:02PM (#41859919)

    The two phones MS made a couple years ago that sold ridiculously poorly and were pulled from the carrier (Verizon, I think) after only a few weeks. Yeah, a Microsoft phone will change everything.

    • by roc97007 (608802)

      The two phones MS made a couple years ago that sold ridiculously poorly and were pulled from the carrier (Verizon, I think) after only a few weeks. Yeah, a Microsoft phone will change everything.

      Yeah, but the difference is that the Kin was a piece of cra....

      Wait a minute.

      Never mind.

    • by HiThere (15173)

      You can't be sure they learned nothing from the experience. And now they have scavanged skills and materials from Noika. So they might succeed.

  • When you have an OS that is specifically created for a specific hardware set you control, *everything* becomes simpler and easier.
  • by Dr. Tom (23206) <tomh@nih.gov> on Friday November 02, 2012 @07:57PM (#41860629) Homepage

    There can be no better proof that MS is irrelevant and dying. If they had any balls, they'd reinvent the PC, create something new that people might want, but instead they opt for imitating their competitors, a continuing spiral into failure.

    MS employees must be thinking about new careers.

    • MS is far from irrelevent and dying... they still dominate the business world and Apple's own cloud utilizes Microsoft's Azure... Obviously you have no experience in corporate IT and are simply using consumer devices to from wihch to draw your incorrect conclusion.
      • by tuppe666 (904118)

        MS is far from irrelevent and dying... they still dominate the business world and Apple's own cloud utilizes Microsoft's Azure... Obviously you have no experience in corporate IT and are simply using consumer devices to from wihch to draw your incorrect conclusion.

        Here is the thing, Apple & Google dominate the Mobile and Internet [as well as a whole host of other giants like Facebook and Amazon]. Microsoft is a bit Player in markets where it should have been a leader. Its not and its efforts to Bully its way into these markets have failed. Look at the topic "Microsoft reportedly working on its own smartphone"...Its not 2007 its nearly 2013 that is 5 years too late.

        My guess is people will stop buying office first. Microsoft has already started giving it away to th

      • They only dominate the business world because their monopoly is still relevant in that sphere. Anywhere they actually have competitors, they are like a dead whale on the beach.

  • I think I remember seeing an ad for it a few years back ;-)

    (Quite comical!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRLRjKCGHek [youtube.com]

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Working...