There is no doubt that Microsoft (MSFT) has been unable to get mobility right. But I don't think the biased explaination in the NY Times July 4 has anything to do with it.
How come -- if as the author says correctly Apple (APPL) is the big winner in mobile -- the author concludes that the reason Microsoft has not succeeded is because of open source license terms and conditions. Apple does not embrace open source terms and conditions either?
Could the reason be that the only source for the story -- and person quoted contemporaenously -- is a leading proponent of open source terms and conditions (and giving away data, and a lot of other such stuff)? Of course -- in the slanting style of the NY Times -- Tim O'Reilly is identified only as the publisher of "a popular line of software development guides" and it is not mentioned that he is an investor in a couple of dozen companies that compete with Microsoft.
In reality, although Microsoft sure can't figure out the phone, it figured out five years ago that most open source licensed software runs on Windows. Quietly since that time it has joined IBM, HP and others in co-opting the open source culture.
Lesson learned: don't get your investment research from the mainstream media. Or as your father surely told you: "Don't believe what you read in the newspaper."
-- Dennis Byron
(no financial interest in companies mentioned)
Comments