The United States Dept. of Justice wants Google to give up the keys to Android — Should Microsoft give the "Surface Phone" another try?

[HeyCori]

Hot take: Microsoft should either stick with Android or build a custom OS using AOSP with pre-configured easy sideloading of the Play Store.

Hotter take: Microsoft should build phones exclusively for the Surface ecosystem. Every Surface Phone should come with a mobile version of the Snapdragon X and offer deep integration with ARM Surface PCs. The same level of integration that you can get with an iPhone and Mac is exactly what MS should be offering, if not more given the numerous services that MS offers.

Hottest take: This should all be aimed at businesses. Embrace the niche. An organization that goes all in on Surface PCs might also take a chance on a Surface phone IF it offered a level of integration that other manufacturers can't.

Unfortunately, Satya seems allergic to such a notion. Take the Surface Duo for example, it lagged in features behind Samsung phones. It's shocking that a CEO would allow themselves to be upstaged by a competitor on their own platform. And it's not just the Duo. Windows Mixed Reality never integrated with Hololens which never integrated with Xbox. There's a slew of gaming handhelds being held back because Microsoft hasn't customized Windows for them. Microsoft Movies & TV still hasn't made it to other platforms. And that's despite the fact that the its predecessor, Zune Video Marketplace, was released in 2006!

Basically, if you buy one Microsoft product, buying another won't enhance your MS ecosystem any differently than buying a competitor's product. Sometimes, Satya's one-size-fits-all approach is great for certain situations. But sometimes you just want your $1,000+ device to be able to do something that cheaper devices can't.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Hot take: Microsoft should either stick with Android or build a custom OS using AOSP with pre-configured easy sideloading of the Play Store.

Hotter take: Microsoft should build phones exclusively for the Surface ecosystem. Every Surface Phone should come with a mobile version of the Snapdragon X and offer deep integration with ARM Surface PCs. The same level of integration that you can get with an iPhone and Mac is exactly what MS should be offering, if not more given the numerous services that MS offers.

Hottest take: This should all be aimed at businesses. Embrace the niche. An organization that goes all in on Surface PCs might also take a chance on a Surface phone IF it offered a level of integration that other manufacturers can't.

Unfortunately, Satya seems allergic to such a notion. Take the Surface Duo for example, it lagged in features behind Samsung phones. It's shocking that a CEO would allow themselves to be upstaged by a competitor on their own platform. And it's not just the Duo. Windows Mixed Reality never integrated with Hololens which never integrated with Xbox. There's a slew of gaming handhelds being held back because Microsoft hasn't customized Windows for them. Microsoft Movies & TV still hasn't made it to other platforms. And that's despite the fact that the its predecessor, Zune Video Marketplace, was released in 2006!

Basically, if you buy one Microsoft product, buying another won't enhance your MS ecosystem any differently than buying a competitor's product. Sometimes, Satya's one-size-fits-all approach is great for certain situations. But sometimes you just want your $1,000+ device to be able to do something that cheaper devices can't.

I never knew Microsoft had a movies & TV. Then again, I have Netflix.

 

[GraniteStateColin]

The thing is, for consumers, Microsoft products are commodities. Windows and Office are what they use for work. The average consumer at home isn't interested in using at home what he or she spends using all day at work. The brand value Microsoft has it for business purposes, not for consumers to enjoy.

Laura, I know you're right for many business-only users. But MS does have consumer-facing brands. Xbox is the most obvious, but Windows USED TO BE one too. It still has consumer value for gaming. Probably less than Steam at this point, but consider things like the Asus ROG Ally and Lenovo Legion Go: to the extent those have appeal over the Steam Deck, it's largely because they run Windows out of the box.

Microsoft is one of a small handful of giant corporate members of the Movies Anywhere alliance (the only safe group to purchase movies because buy it from any of them and watch it across all and if any go out of business, your movies are still yours to watch digitally) and is one of the best places to purchase or rent new movies. This was a capability that seemed especially important when the Xbox One was new (and when MS also had a decent chunk of the music market). The Xbox One was one of the best tools for playing movies whether disc-based or streaming, the only mainstream device that you could play and control entirely with voice controls (I still miss it).

A lot of us also use Excel and OneNote for personal notes and tracking. Kids use PowerPoint for school presentations. I'm (slowly, on my personal time) writing a novel in Word. If MS hadn't stabbed Skype in the back by rolling out Teams Personal without any transition plan, Skype would also be a powerful personal brand. There are others outside of gaming; these are just a few examples.

Oh, and arguably, the Surface line has been more of a consumer line than a business line (Surface PCs and phones weren't even sold through typical enterprise retailers for its initial iterations, though I believe Surface PCs are now).

The key point here is that MS has brand value with BOTH enterprise and consumer users, but it's pissing away the consumer brand (maybe it's almost already all gone). Ultimately, that will harm the enterprise brand too, because enterprises are comprised of people who are consumers outside of work. And if those people love Google or someone else for competing products or services that resemble what they use at home, then some of them will flip their enterprises to what they know and love (ironically, this is probably why MS released Teams Personal, but the rollout was so consumer-naive that MS damaged both brands). Even if the IT manager at their enterprise ultimately decides to stay with MS, it makes it more work for MS to keep those customers. This is the importance of brand value -- it's easiest to win a sale when you're already top-of-mind and viewed favorably; it's cheaper to keep customers than to win new ones or win back previously lost customers; and brand-positive customers are far more likely to try out something new and react positively than brand-apathetic or brand-angry customers.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Laura, I know you're right for many business-only users. But MS does have consumer-facing brands. Xbox is the most obvious, but Windows USED TO BE one too. It still has consumer value for gaming. Probably less than Steam at this point, but consider things like the Asus ROG Ally and Lenovo Legion Go: to the extent those have appeal over the Steam Deck, it's largely because they run Windows out of the box.

Microsoft is one of a small handful of giant corporate members of the Movies Anywhere alliance (the only safe group to purchase movies because buy it from any of them and watch it across all and if any go out of business, your movies are still yours to watch digitally) and is one of the best places to purchase or rent new movies. This was a capability that seemed especially important when the Xbox One was new (and when MS also had a decent chunk of the music market). The Xbox One was one of the best tools for playing movies whether disc-based or streaming, the only mainstream device that you could play and control entirely with voice controls (I still miss it).

A lot of us also use Excel and OneNote for personal notes and tracking. Kids use PowerPoint for school presentations. I'm (slowly, on my personal time) writing a novel in Word. If MS hadn't stabbed Skype in the back by rolling out Teams Personal without any transition plan, Skype would also be a powerful personal brand. There are others outside of gaming; these are just a few examples.

Oh, and arguably, the Surface line has been more of a consumer line than a business line (Surface PCs and phones weren't even sold through typical enterprise retailers for its initial iterations, though I believe Surface PCs are now).

The key point here is that MS has brand value with BOTH enterprise and consumer users, but it's pissing away the consumer brand (maybe it's almost already all gone). Ultimately, that will harm the enterprise brand too, because enterprises are comprised of people who are consumers outside of work. And if those people love Google or someone else for competing products or services that resemble what they use at home, then some of them will flip their enterprises to what they know and love (ironically, this is probably why MS released Teams Personal, but the rollout was so consumer-naive that MS damaged both brands). Even if the IT manager at their enterprise ultimately decides to stay with MS, it makes it more work for MS to keep those customers. This is the importance of brand value -- it's easiest to win a sale when you're already top-of-mind and viewed favorably; it's cheaper to keep customers than to win new ones or win back previously lost customers; and brand-positive customers are far more likely to try out something new and react positively than brand-apathetic or brand-angry customers.

I'd consider school use to be in the business category. Other than potential gaming, kids aren't using Windows for enjoyment. The PC gaming industry isn't doing well at this time, either. https://www.businessinsider.com/vid...nsive,and sophisticated, costs are ballooning.