Why would anyone bother with a copy of android when the original just works? it makes no sense.
Microsoft strategy was just bad. It tried to copy the iPhone when it should have tried to copy its own strategy on PC, which is creating a OS and letting other companies build Windows Phones. The only person who got something out of the Nokia deal is Elop, which is curiously similar to how bad Macromedia/Adobe deal was. What is left of both deals? nothing.
Microsoft isn't that good at consumer hardware, the only exception is the Xbox. Look at the surface book, full of issues when it should have been a hit.
Eventually MS will try a comeback in the mobile OS market, in 5/10 years, because it's essential for MS survival. But it needs to build the services to back that up.
> Microsoft strategy was just bad. It tried to copy the iPhone when it should have tried to copy its own strategy on PC, which is creating a OS and letting other companies build Windows Phones.
That wouldn't have worked either. Microsoft has the desktop market today because they had it in 1981 when the IBM PC was released. Operating systems have huge network effects.
There is very little they can do today that will cause them to lose that. People hate that there is no simple off switch for all the Windows 10 telemetry, but is it causing all those people to switch to Ubuntu? No. They're mostly sticking with Windows 7, and when support runs out on that, they'll grit their teeth and use Windows 10. Because they have no choice. They need Office and Photoshop and Active Directory and some weird printer thing from their weird printer support company and a dozen other things like that. Which kind of maybe have Linux equivalents but some of them aren't as good and all of them have some initial switching cost which would all have to be taken on at the same time. So when the choice comes to either let Microsoft punch you in the face or walk away, most people still aren't willing to walk away.
But with Android the shoe is on the other foot. Microsoft can't dislodge Android for the same reasons that Canonical can't dislodge Windows.
> It tried to copy the iPhone when it should have tried to copy its own strategy on PC, which is creating a OS and letting other companies build Windows Phones.
We tried this. Manufacturers weren’t very interested because the users weren’t. Samsung and HTC and others made windows phones and they stopped investing because they didn’t sell well enough.
The Nokia purchase was a reaction to the reality that no one else was going to build Windows phones in the future.
Disclosure: Microsoft employee (not involved in phone or OS)
I don't know that the Macromedia deal was all that bad.
While there are few, if any, surviving remnants of Macromedia software within Adobe, the acquisition of Macromedia both eliminated its most serious competitor and provided an influx of engineering talent.
Using stock price as a surrogate for overall performance, they went from ~$35 at the time of the acquisition to ~$155 today, with annual net income rising from $600M to $1.6B today.
Microsoft strategy was just bad. It tried to copy the iPhone when it should have tried to copy its own strategy on PC, which is creating a OS and letting other companies build Windows Phones. The only person who got something out of the Nokia deal is Elop, which is curiously similar to how bad Macromedia/Adobe deal was. What is left of both deals? nothing.
Microsoft isn't that good at consumer hardware, the only exception is the Xbox. Look at the surface book, full of issues when it should have been a hit.
Eventually MS will try a comeback in the mobile OS market, in 5/10 years, because it's essential for MS survival. But it needs to build the services to back that up.