| About InfoWorld : Advertise : Subscribe : Contact Us : Awards : Events : Store |
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
||||
|
|
|
||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 COLUMN
I see dead companies IN THE MOVIE The Sixth Sense, Bruce Willis was dead, only he didn't know it. I'm beginning to wonder how many mobile and wireless companies are in the same boat.
What does almost every mobile company proclaim about its hardware, software, or services? Compatibility with Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Outlook, and coming up fast, Microsoft .Net. When I mentioned this to a Palm executive, he said, "I can see you swallowed the Microsoft marketing pill." Maybe. I don't doubt that Microsoft execs will enjoy this column. Even if I go on to demonize the Big Red One, at the same time I will contribute to the myth that Microsoft is invincible and that consequently there's no reason to buy anyone else's products. But it is fair to ask this question: How far a step is it from an IT manager listening to vendors claim compatibility with Outlook, Word, and Excel to that manager taking the easy way out and just specifying the Pocket versions of those applications, rather than fiddling with third-party solutions? In the days when PCs had to be "IBM-compatible," Osborne Computer execs delivered their own coup de gr?1226?ce by proclaiming that they were "level-3 compatible" with the IBM PC. Great news, I'm sure, but somehow it did not inspire confidence among potential customers. If you can still see Osborne Computer, you really do have a sixth sense. It's not that the competition hasn't tried to fight back. There have been numerous attempts through the years to make Microsoft technology irrelevant. What do you think the Sun Thin Client was all about? Likewise Linux. Web services had or perhaps have the best shot at it. After all, Microsoft has already taken what I would call a fall-back position by accepting a standard platform that it did not create. Therefore, all Microsoft can say is, "We do the best implementation of that platform," a sales pitch that might be construed as defensive. But how could the Redmond giant truly become irrelevant when with every breath every rival promotes Microsoft products by promising compatibility? Talk about subliminal advertising. At some level, we must admit that Microsoft has won. Yes, one vendor, one solution is a danger. It stifles innovation and allows the winner to say, "My way or the highway." But I'm wondering what the consensus is in the real world. Where is the balance between "If it works, it's for me" and "I'd rather struggle a bit and keep things more open"? The answer to the question "Do I see dead companies, or am I hallucinating?" lies with you, the reader. I'd like to hear which mobile platform you've decided to implement and why. I'll publish, either anonymously or not, the best responses. Ephraim Schwartz is editor at large at InfoWorld. Contact him at ephraim_schwartz@infoworld.com. Click here for all of Ephraim Schwartz's past columns. SPONSORED WHITE PAPERS 
SPONSORED LINKS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
