In my previous blog post, I stressed that Microsoft must build on its strengths to succeed. Now, Microsoft bought Nokia’s phone business and this warrants a look at some of the strengths that Microsoft might build on. Microsoft has strengths in its Windows and Office product lines, and Microsoft’s position in corporate and business markets is also a strength.
As I said in my previous post, Microsoft’s eroding market dominance makes it harder to succeed as a late entrant. Thus, Microsoft shouldn’t be striving for latecomer success in so many major hot areas of high tech, like it did with search engines, Microsoft stores, and even with computer games, where its X-Box line reportedly is only marginally profitable. Instead, Microsoft needs to be more selective about what it chooses to pursue, focusing more heavily on and expanding upon its strengths.
So, Microsoft should be taking a good hard look at how it might build upon Windows, Office and its solid position in corporate and business markets. Although the Windows smart phone is not in a position of market dominance, its success thus far is something Microsoft should be evaluating. Microsoft should determine if it can combine its traditional Windows and Office strengths with the newer Windows smart phone to offer integration advantages that would appeal to corporate and business markets as technology changes.
This doesn’t mean merely trying to stop the cannibalization of the Windows/Office line, but it does mean evolving that line forward toward newer technology in a stepwise fashion. And, it doesn’t mean accelerating the decline of Microsoft’s desktop market position by overdoing the adoption of smart phone like features on desktop Windows products. Microsoft needs to look for ways to move forward in an evolutionary way that capitalizes on its past, takes gradual evolutionary steps to move forward, does so in ways that take advantage of its previous strength in the corporate marketplace, and integrates its Windows and Office strengths into newer technologies. Furthermore, Microsoft should not lose sight of the fact that its strengths are in software, not in hardware.
Microsoft’s strengths differ markedly from those of hardware maker Apple. Apple’s strengths concentrate more heavily on the consumer side, although Apple did start to infiltrate the corporate market as products like its iPhone were put to both personal and corporate use. Thus, Microsoft may be able to tap its corporate market strengths to build on opportunities that may suit it better than they suit the more consumer oriented Apple. This can help Microsoft succeed as a latecomer, since late-to-market success generally requires advantages. With its eroding position of overall market dominance, Microsoft should be looking at whether Windows, Office and its corporate relationships can become the advantages it needs.
