| dallas said:
It's better than msfts revenue growth, which is mabey 10% for the last couple anyway. As I mentioned, google will be catching up financially speaking, and that will bode some trouble for msft wanting to get into the tablet market and smartphones (if it hasn't already lost this) |
Nah, I don't really see it that way. Both companies have very deep pockets. Either one has the financial resources to execute whatever strategy they think best in mobile. The bigger issue is which one has better strategic resources and a better strategy, period.
Both companies have billions and are spending billions on mobile. Google has an advantage in having a huge, established user base. Microsoft has an advantage in intellectual property. Which is the better move, Microsoft's spending billions to fund Nokia, developers and Windows Phone marketing, or Google spending billions to acquire Motorola and move into hardware?
I'll say this, Microsoft's strategy outsources a lot of risk onto Nokia, Google's incurs a lot of risk on itself.
Actually, I'm leaving something out. Microsoft is trying to leverage its desktop dominance into tablets, and it's taking a pretty big risk to do it. Windows 8 is the most radical departure in the history of the desktop GUI, and it risks pissing off a lot of desktop users if MS doesn't get it right.
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
