Is Microsoft's Surface a mistake?

The famous analyst Tim Bajarin believes that Microsoft's launch of the Surface tablet has been betrayed hardware partners, it should be a strange trade protectionism argument that it should give up its baby hardware business, and it is completely wrong.

Bajarin's argument can be summed up as follows: After seeing Apple and Google control the ecosystem, Microsoft also decided to do the same thing. But after doing so, Microsoft has alienated its partners and has maintained a certain relationship for the time being. They will not accept Microsoft in the future.

Apple and Google have their own hardware

Bajarin’s first point of view is more obvious, Apple puts it on a Macintosh computer and iPod The operating system is tied together, then the iPhone a and iPad, combined with hardware, software (including applications), media, services and dual operating systems. Google handles the problem in another direction, launching a comprehensive set of services, then adding devices, and finally Google Play's media service. Amazon established a media business, entered a forked Android operating system, and designed its own tablet.

Microsoft delayed this game due to a number of factors:

1. It failed to immediately recognize the importance of the Internet;

2, it depends on its hardware partners;

3, strive to pursue such hardware, like Xbox, Zune and computer mouse, is tangential personal computer.

Modern ecosystems or computer platforms contain hardware, software, services, and media. Microsoft is the last three to maintain control (software, services, media), but not the first (hardware).

Does Microsoft need to create a Surface? It does not need to. Microsoft's hardware partners have attacked their core and created personal computers with enough profits to sustain their business. Yes, sales partners will block when any Surface tablet is sold by Microsoft.

They already know that it is very likely that these partners are not happy. Surface may become the most popular Windows tablet, just because Microsoft is working on its own large-scale marketing. It simply drowns out any promotions from its hardware partners. The most compelling selling points of these partners so far seem to be cheaper than Surface.

Co-opetition strategy is commonplace

In a recent report, Apple CEO Tim Cook was asked The gap between the cooperation with Samsung and Apple's largest component supplier, and the infringement of Samsung's equipment business infringement of its patent rights. Cook's answer is “ this is awkward.

Microsoft needs its manufacturing partners, but they also need Microsoft. But this does not prevent Microsoft from trying to center their core, while cooperation and competition are a matter of course. Take a look at Twitter and its app partners and get the same opportunities at Apple.

But this does not mean that Asus, Acer and others just get water from Microsoft. Any manufacturer in the world, including component manufacturers like Super Micro, tries to differentiate itself from capturing more sales and greater profits. For example, Asus was founded in 1989 as a motherboard and card manufacturer, and today it is the fifth largest PC manufacturer in the world. The world's top five PC manufacturers: HP, Lenovo, Dell, Acer and Asus have entered the tablet market. Like HP and Dell have not yet turned their tablet products into viable products.

What do you want to say about Microsoft's Surface tablet itself, there are a lot of criticisms to choose from, such as price, small app store and Surface's limited RT operating system. But Microsoft's mistake in making Surface is due to the fact that it didn't catch the point.

Microsoft's manufacture of Surface is a strategy, but it is only relative to Apple and Google, which does not affect its development.