72 posts in this topic

I had discovered this article a while back, but while searching for Windows information I stumbled upon it again. The author of the article describes how Microsoft had an application store prior to the one released by Apple, which I believe provides another example of how Microsoft is ahead of its competition. I had wondered if I should post it on Neowin due to its age (it's from 2011), but after reading Dot Matrix's new status update about the lack of an application store in Windows Vista (what are the odds of that timing?) I have decided to share.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/jan/08/apple-mac-app-store-windows-marketplace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I never knew that Vista had anything like that. It was never on my Vista PC, or I didn't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that many of us here didn't know it existed says a lot. It just shows that while Microsoft was ahead of its time they either thought it was something that wouldn't catch on or just didn't market it well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best part of the article:

There's a pattern here. Microsoft gets bright idea ? Tablet, Windows Marketplace, Passport. Does half-baked implementation which flops. Apple or Google works out how to do it right. Microsoft copies them.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best part of the article:

Now that I think about it, it makes sense.

No it does not.

Tablet? MS was ahead of it's time, the hardware required just wasn't there. It was never a half baked implementation, they just forgot / couldn't care enough to keep it updated. And that's something that's an issue with all companies that are in a dominant position. There was really no threat to the MS tablet or Windows Mobile for a long time. They got complacent because "well no competition, why bother spending the money on it." Then when another company poised a threat, they were left like a deer in the headlights. It happened with IE, it happened with Windows Mobile, and that's just from Microsoft products. Any product that has no real competition will eventually end up becoming stagnant because the motivation to innovate gets lost. Competition drives innovation.

Marketplace? Oh you mean something that was similar to the repository that Linux had? Or Steam? Or Direct2Drive? It was never something MS, Apple or Google created or perfected for that matter.

Passport? Since when did Apple or Google ever have something similar to Passport?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that knew Marketplace was there? :/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it does not.Tablet? MS was ahead of it's time, the hardware required just wasn't there. It was never a half baked implementation, they just forgot / couldn't care enough to keep it updated. And that's something that's an issue with all companies that are in a dominant position. There was really no threat to the MS tablet or Windows Mobile for a long time. They got complacent because "well no competition, why bother spending the money on it." Then when another company poised a threat, they were left like a deer in the headlights.Marketplace? Oh you mean something that was similar to the repository that Linux had? Or Steam? Or Direct2Drive? It was never something MS, Apple or Google created or perfected for that matter.Passport? Since when did Apple or Google ever have something similar to Passport?

Awesome excuses....

Hardware wasn't there? Remember, Apple created an operating system specifically for their smartphones and tablets, bc their hardware wouldn't support OSX.

It actually makes perfect sense. Rushing products to the market is never a smart idea. Waiting for someone to do it right and then copying them isn't either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome excuses....

It actually makes perfect sense. Rushing products to the market is never a smart idea. Waiting for someone to do it right and then copying them isn't either.

They aren't excuses, they're actually facts. But your blatant hatred for MS and love for anything Apple doesn't allow you to see past your bias.

Hardware wasn't there? Remember, Apple created an operating system specifically for their smartphones and tablets, bc their hardware wouldn't support OSX.

The MS tablet came out in 2002. Touchscreens weren't anywhere NEAR as good as they were in 2008. Computer hardware alone wasn't near as good or as portable.

It actually makes perfect sense. Rushing products to the market is never a smart idea. Waiting for someone to do it right and then copying them isn't either.

It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with competition drives innovation. No competition means no reason to spend the money to innovate.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that knew Marketplace was there? :/

 

I hope not since there was a shortcut to it right in the Start Menu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They aren't excuses, they're actually facts. But your blatant hatred for MS and love for anything Apple doesn't allow you to see past your bias.The MS tablet came out in 2002. Touchscreens weren't anywhere NEAR as good as they were in 2008. Computer hardware alone wasn't near as good or as portable.It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with competition drives innovation. No competition means no reason to spend the money to innovate.

Spend less time labelling others and more time arguing. It would make your post seem half educated.

MS tablets were junk before the iPad. It's not like they were selling tons and MS just ignored their users. They were all collecting dust on the shelves and had an unusable OS on them. Apple showed the world how it's done first with the iPod, then with the iPhone and then the iPad. Those are simple facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spend less time labelling others and more time arguing. It would make your post seem half educated.

MS tablets were junk before the iPad. It's not like they were selling tons and MS just ignored their users. They were all collecting dust on the shelves and had an unusable OS on them. Apple showed the world how it's done first with the iPod, then with the iPhone and then the iPad. Those are simple facts.

If you actually read my post you wouldn't be posting "half educated crap'. I never said anything about how well the tablet was selling and how it was the best thing since sliced bread, but keep trying and showing your ignorance.

When MS first demoed the tablet it was actually a pretty good product for it's time, which was 2002. Same thing with Windows Mobile. The problem was for the next few years MS had 0 competition in that area. So they let their product stagnate, and stagnate, and stagnate. Then as the hardware kept getting better, the product started to show it's true age because well MS didn't bother to keep it updated with the times or innovate anymore. I clearly even stated this in my first post.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that knew Marketplace was there? :/

I knew about it, but it was pretty much worthless.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you actually read my post you wouldn't be posting "half educated crap'. I never said anything about how well the tablet was selling and how it was the best thing since sliced bread, but keep trying and showing your ignorance.When MS first demoed the tablet it was actually a pretty good product for it's time, which was 2002. Same thing with Windows Mobile. The problem was for the next few years MS had 0 competition in that area. So they let their product stagnate, and stagnate, and stagnate. Then as the hardware kept getting better, the product started to show it's true age because well MS didn't bother to keep it updated with the times or innovate anymore. I clearly even stated this in my first post.

Right. So clearly it's Microsofts fault. But then again, Apple wasn't in their respective markets (mp3 player, smartphone, tablet), yet they still released market defining products. Your "excuses" about innovation and stagnation are old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing it in Windows XP, with SP2, it debuted in 2004. I never used it so I can't really comment on it's efficacy but it's pretty well known that Apple didn't invent this idea given that it's been in most Linux distros since the 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. So clearly it's Microsofts fault. But then again, Apple wasn't in their respective markets (mp3 player, smartphone, tablet), yet they still released market defining products. Your "excuses" about innovation and stagnation are old.

Please point to where I said it wasn't MS' fault. Oh wait....I didn't. I even clearly said that MS did not continue to innovate. And those "excuses" are facts, whether you choose to believe it or not. A company has 0 incentive to innovate when there is no competition. That's why monopolies are bad for progress.

I never even underplayed Apple's technological advances either. I even clearly stated that MS got caught like a deer in a headlights. They didn't have any competition, they didn't expect any competition and they left their product to rot. Apple saw a gap, took it and came out ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please point to where I said it wasn't MS' fault. Oh wait....I didn't. I even clearly said that MS did not continue to innovate. And those "excuses" are facts, whether you choose to believe it or not. A company has 0 incentive to innovate when there is no competition. That's why monopolies are bad for progress.I never even underplayed Apple's technological advances either. I even clearly stated that MS got caught like a deer in a headlights. They didn't have any competition, they didn't expect any competition and they left their product to rot. Apple saw a gap, took it and came out ahead.

You never did say it, I did. I also said the quote I wrote makes perfect sense, and you proved that it does. MS released the tablet pc and it didn't sell and was poorly received because of (insert any excuse here). Then Apple came in and did it properly and redefined the market. Same happened with the iPhone. And Microsofts tablets and smartphones after the iPhone/iPad came out has changed a lot.

That quote cannot possibly be more correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never did say it, I did. I also said the quote I wrote makes perfect sense, and you proved that it does. MS released the tablet pc and it didn't sell and was poorly received because of (insert any excuse here). Then Apple came in and did it properly and redefined the market. Same happened with the iPhone. And Microsofts tablets and smartphones after the iPhone/iPad came out has changed a lot.

That quote cannot possibly be more correct.

My post wasn't about "Oh MS was right 100%" It was disagreeing with the half ass implementation and how Apple / Google perfected the App Store.

The first version of Tablet PC and Windows Mobile were pretty dam good at the time. The versions that came after that became half-assed, but the original version wasn't, and at times clearly showed MS wasn't spending any money on it. Or enough money on it.

As for the app store, MS, Google or Apple didn't invent, or perfect it. Tons of companies had repositories and stores well before those 3 did.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post wasn't about "Oh MS was right 100%" It was disagreeing with the half ass implementation and how Apple / Google perfected the App Store.The first version of Tablet PC and Windows Mobile were pretty dam good at the time. The versions that came after that became half-assed, but the original version wasn't, and at times clearly showed MS wasn't spending any money on it. Or enough money on it.As for the app store, MS, Google or Apple didn't invent, or perfect it. Tons of companies had repositories and stores well before those 3 did.

Apple and Google perfected the App Store, not invented. A fact that is only backed up by numbers. Of course there were repositories/stores beforehand.

Let me refresh this for you. The article basically said that MS came out with a marketplace, as well as a tablet before the Apple. But they were not successful. Then Apple did it right and changed the market. Afterwards Microsoft came out with changed products. Can't get any more basic than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that knew Marketplace was there? :/

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apple and Google perfected the App Store, not invented. A fact that is only backed up by numbers. Of course there were repositories/stores beforehand.

Compared to what? Steam? Linux? Both those products were actually pretty popular and well used and received. Just because they don't have the amount of users that Apple does with the iPhone doesn't mean Apple or Google perfected the App Store. They all work exactly the same. Apple and Google just have a larger market than Steam and Linux does, that's all.

If we're going purely by numbers then I guess Windows is the most perfected OS of all time. Toyota Corolla is the most perfected car of all time. Samsung is the most perfected TV of all time.

 

Let me refresh this for you. The article basically said that MS came out with a marketplace, as well as a tablet before the Apple. But they were not successful. Then Apple did it right and changed the market. Afterwards Microsoft came out with changed products. Can't get any more basic than that.

And I was never talking about the entire article, I was talking about the single quote you took from the article.

And the changed product pretty much agrees with my "competition" point which you claim is just an excuse. MS now has competition so to stay relevant they are forced to innovate. That's one of the reasons I wish OS X and Linux were more popular. Imagine the things we would have coming out of all those companies and open source distros (MS, Google, Apple, Debian, Canonical etc etc) if they were constantly forced to update, refine, and innovate their products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Microsoft had an application store prior to the one released by Apple, which I believe provides another example of how Microsoft is ahead of its competition

 

What good is it being first if "the user experience was poor, it was insufficiently prominent in the Vista user interface, setup could be troublesome." ? Doesn't really sound like they were ahead of anyone... For the record, I used Vista and I was never even aware of this Marketplace, or if I was I must have forgotten about it in the meantime...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to what? Steam? Linux? Both those products were actually pretty popular and well used and received.

Compared to App Stores that were out before and after. Apple iOs store redefined the marketplace in the same way iPhone did the smartphones, iPod did the MP3 players and ipad did with tablets.

Companies can innovated without competition. Complacency and no competition is a very weak excuse to the lack of innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies can innovated without competition. Complacency and no competition is a very weak excuse to the lack of innovation.

Of course companies can innovate, but there's no incentive for them to do so and eventually complacency will set in. Companies exist to make money not to innovate. When there's competition then the only way a company will make money is to make a product that's better than the competition.

When there's no competition? Why spend the money on research and development when they can just sit back and collect in the profits. Companies have shareholders, and most shareholders want to see more and more profit. Of course, eventually a competitor will arise anyways and try to shake things up by innovating.

Competition drives innovation. That is a fact and not an excuse (a word that you should probably learn the definition for).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course companies can innovate, but there's no incentive for them to do so and eventually complacency will set in. Companies exist to make money not to innovate. When there's competition then the only way a company will make money is to make a product that's better than the competition.When there's no competition? Why spend the money on research and development when they can just sit back and collect in the profits. Of course, eventually a competitor will arise anyways.Competition drives innovation. That is a fact and not an excuse (a word that you should probably learn the definition for).

What profits though? MS tablet pc didn't sell well at all. As far as profits go it was a failure. The incentive for MS would have been to release a product that actually made money. Or improve upon the existing one. But they didn't and it failed. Not like they released the tablet pc to no competition and raked in the cash. They failed again with the surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.