Microsoft's smart phone strategy: Copy, copy, and then copy again

I see no windows key. Wonder what they plan to do with the OS for it.

Just adding to the "If they're the same form factor they just copied" The Apple ][ is just a copy of the Processor Technology SOL20 The IBM PC is just another 3-box like virtually every system out there since people hooked keyboards and video displays to their Altairs. The Compaq Portable is just a copy of the Osborne 1 The Apple Macintosh is just a copy of the HP-150 but without the touch screen

And just to add to that The Microsoft Courier Tablet (yet to move on beyond anything rendered on a screen) is just a copy of the Apple Knowledge Navigator from 1987.

I think the focus is on the software and developing reference designs - as opposed to any specific, or past/existing hardware design, including those pictured here. Like the Zune HD appears to be as much of a reference design as a product in and of itself, I assess the pictured devices to be as much design mules as they may eventually emerge as actual products. I think Paul's stated perspective is unfortunate, because it seems short sighted. Nothing Microsoft has done the past couple of years has been anything but indicative of the execution of long term strategies populated with solid intermediate products and releases.

While I might give you some latitude on these supposed leaked shots, the Pure isn't really a copy of anything, it's just a continuation of the slide out keyboard form factor, as Mike and others have stated. Can you call it unoriginal? Yes. A copy? Not really. I'd really like to see the software, though. The Pre form factor itself is blah in my mind, but I like the WebOS software very much, and that is what attracts me to the device. Regarding form factors, there is really only a few different ways to make them. The only one that actually had a different form factor is the new Nokia Twist. Everything else is pretty much either a clamshell or a candybar.

I wish Paul would share with us what he's trying to accomplish. I mean, if he's trying to get Microsoft to do something in particular, or innovate around a specific feature - I wish he'd just say up front what that is and if that is the case (or not). I think purpose and intent matter a lot when interpreting what our industry's pundits have to say - it is very easy to misinterpret their work and some context is needed.

I dig that Jessica Smithson chick.

If the form factor of the "Turtle" phone doesn't require displacing a 16:9 widescreen display, I would favour the smaller design in a natively front-facing style over a larger side-slider phone. It just looks more easily pocketable.

lotsa The question isn't whether Paul thinks Apple intentionally changing iTunes' sync interface to keep competitors out is "innovative", or whether the USB consortium thinks it's inside the letter of the spec, it's whether the DOJ thinks it's "anticompetitive"...

Mikey, we all know how you feel about standards and specifications. "If Microsoft didn't make 'em, they don't matter." I'm going to swim past your irrelevant "DOJ" bait. It has EVERYTHING to do with Palm breaking the rules. Period.

Now that is funny..... http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/24/google_sneaks_webkit_html_...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/09/24/gmail.crash/index.html again......who is looking like a fool?

Totally OT (but a great article) http://4sysops.com/archives/seven-reasons-why-it-pros-who-skipped-vista-...

"NoNameAtAll said:...I have a phone already and it works fine still. Pass." Right. You, personally, are not in need of a phone at present. Well, thanks for that. Are there any other banal fact about your current condition you think we should know? Have you just had your shoes resoled? Too cold? Not hungry at the moment?

"lotsamystuff said: Nice try, Mikey. Your body must hurt from stretching like that." That's good enough for me. I mean, if you've sneered at something, then it must be wrong. Who needs reasons anyway?

"Microsoft's smart phone strategy: Copy, copy, and then copy again" Take out "smart phone" and you have a good summary of Microsoft's approach: "As the war of Operating System dominance wages on, Microsoft is taking a new approach to solidify itself as a premiere but-not-so innovative company. Their plan: blatantly copy Apple’s computer store experience and brand it as their own." http://www.steele-agency.com/2009/09/innovation-vs-carbon-copy/

Mike, I think you need to look up the definition of a Monopoly. While the IPod/ITunes combo is certainly the most popular way that consumers choose to buy their music players and music, it shows none of the price discriminating or market controlling behavior. Q) Does Apple have the power to dictate pricing to their suppliers? A) No. While a few years ago, Apple was able to keep the record labels from raising prices above $.99, that is no longer the case. In fact, all suppliers of content to the itunes store can pretty much name their price. Apple is not able to unilaterally dictate pricing to their suppliers. Q) Does Apple charge a monopolist premium for ITunes content or iPods. A) Certainly not for content. The prices at Itunes are pretty much the same as every other store out there. As for the hardware, their prices are in line with other hardware in the same range. Zune HD vs. Ipod Touch. Ipod Classic vs. Zune, etc. Q) Is there a lack of competition in the market. A) No. There are literally dozens of on-line stores where consumers can purchase content. In additional there are hundreds of devices available in a variety of shapes, sizes, forms and functionality available for consumers to choose from. Q) Does Apple in any way prevent competition from creating their own hardware, software, or on-line stores to compete with iTunes/iPods. A) No. Apple does nothing to prevent others from marketing their own devices, or creating their own stores. As evidenced by the above, there is significant competition as choice available to consumers. Just because Apple chooses not to license their property to others, does not prevent others from creating their own.

@wae, I would never use gmail for anything other than a front to my personal email. I would use in this order..... hosted exchange for small company...... SBS/Exchange for a small to growing company that has an office/s 10-250 full blown Exchange for a corporation. Kerio makes some interesting stuff for the small - medium. For a small all Mac shop, SL server's email would work fine.

These phones look like pieces of crap. I hope these are only concepts. The form factors are horrible; the Turtle looks like its made for a 5 year old or something. The keyboards are incredibly sparse (but then again I'm used to my Touch Pro's 5 row keyboard with 57 keys, which is far above average). Surely they could fit a few more keys without cluttering it. And apparently these aren't even smartphones. Does Microsoft even care about Windows Mobile anymore?

yoshipod, Bravo! An outstanding reply! Indeed. It's not like Apple is coercing stores to sell only iPods (like Microsoft did with OEMS to thwart sales of the Be OS). Nor does Apple require something proprietary like AppleScript to access the iTunes store now that they've established dominant marketshare (like Microsoft did with ActiveX and IIS). Now sit back and watch as the resident history revisionists pop their heads out of the sand and pipe out their zealous dismissals.

rr0de "Mike can I plug my iPod or Palm Pre into the Zune software and sync with it?" Nope and if Microsoft had a dominent position in the portable music player market that would be an issue. But, it turns out, Apple DOES have monopoly power in that market. As such, the rules are different.

Yoshipod Actually, I have quite a bit of experience with US antitrust laws so I'm not as confused as you appear to be. Your "Q&A" shows you don't understand the terms "monopoly", "supplier", "price control" or "competition" as they're used in antitrust law. You see, making up your own meanings for terms really doesn't mean that words now mean what you wish they did. I may not be a lawyer but I sure know that what you wrote bears no resemblence to the law. Apple has monopoly power in the music sale market, the music retail store market and the music player market. At each possible interface Apple exerts control beyond what a monopoly can do to prevent competitors from participating in the controlled markets. Can non-Apple music players interface with iTunes? Nope Can non-Apple stores interface with iPods? Nope Can non-Apple software interface with the iTunes Store? Nope Can users use iTunes to purchase products from non-Apple stores? Nope Can users use their iPods to sync with non-Apple software (using Apple released and supported APIs)? Nope Just a few examples of Apple's abuse of their monopoly power.

" I don't dig paying the $30/month for the iPhone data plan when her usage would be 0 MB/month, but she can use the big screen." I wish my data plan only cost me $30/mth. My current data plan is $45/mth, was "unlimited" (up to 5GB) when I started, but has now been reduced to 500MB for new subscribers. I'd really like to see all data offered at the same rate, not this segregated data packages where IM data is different from web/app data, is different from TXT'ing data, is different from email data, etc.

IANAL but isn't it great that not only does mikegalos develop software he is also a lawyer. It can surely only be a matter of hours before a competitor of Apple reads this blog, exclaims 'Why did we not see this all along' and complains to the DOJ. Sell! Sell! Sell your Apple shares now!

Mike - "Apple has monopoly power in the music sale market, the music retail store market and the music player market. At each possible interface Apple exerts control beyond what a monopoly can do to prevent competitors from participating in the controlled markets." No it does not. There are many competitors to Apple. Apple does nothing to prevent such competitors from existing. It does not interfere with other online stores making deal with content providers. It does not try to stop hardware manufacturers from coming out with new music players. In no way does Apple do ANYTHING to prevent competition. It simply does not let others take advantage of their work. "Can non-Apple music players interface with iTunes? Nope" There is nothing wrong with that. They don't need to support their competition. Why can't Palm write its own software to interface with the Pre. Apple is surely not preventing them from doing so. They are not preventing ANYONE from writing software for either OS X or Windows that syncs with a music player. They are simply not allowing competitors to use their software which costs them millions to develop. "Can non-Apple stores interface with iPods? Nope" But you can put any non DRM music you own on your ipod regardless of where you get it from. Apple does not prevent you from buying your music from other on-line stores and playing it on your iPod. In fact, there are numerous ways to get music to play on your ipod. The itunes store is just one of many. "Can non-Apple software interface with the iTunes Store? Nope" "Can users use iTunes to purchase products from non-Apple stores? Nope" Once again, since there is plenty of competition who cares. Does Target have the right to sell CDs in Walmart's stores? Apple created their software and store, and does not have to open it. Market share does not equal monopoly. Monopoly and anti-trust are about preventing competition. Apple is in no way preventing competition by not opening up itunes/ipods. There is a vibrant market for both music players and music purchases. Consumers have plenty of choice and price competition. "Can users use their iPods to sync with non-Apple software (using Apple released and supported APIs)? Nope" I have not tried it with my iPhone,but in the past there were plenty of software programs not written by Apple that allowed you to access iPods. Once again, because it is not an open system, does not mean it is an abuse of monopoly. "Just a few examples of Apple's abuse of their monopoly power." Nothing you have said shows any abuse or even the existence of monopoly power on Apple's behalf. All you have shown is that Apple has a relatively closed system with iTunes/iPod. However, since there is plenty of competition, and Apple does NOTHING to prevent others from entering the market or negotiating with the same suppliers and distributors, is not illegally undercutting the prices to drive out competitors or engaging in monopoly pricing towards consumers (eliminating the consumer surplus), there is no monopoly and therefore no abuse. In short, Apple does have by far a very large market share. However, there is plenty of competition in every area of the music industry from distribution, to software, to hardware. Apple does not use its market share in anyway to illegally manipulate the market. Closed System != Monopoly Power