Better to live a miserable life than to die? Compatible with Android and iOS: Windows loses its platform advantage

Following the delivery of Microsoft's killer app Office to its mobile market rivals iOS and Android platforms, free Windows system for tablets under 9 inches, and comprehensive free Win10 (including traditional PCs, smartphones and tablets in the mobile market, etc.), Microsoft announced again at the Microsoft Build 2015 Developer Conference held recently that Win10 will be compatible with iOS and Android applications.

When it comes to Microsoft, whether in the past or now, the combination of the Windows platform and the popular applications (experiences) developed based on it is not only Microsoft's core advantage and competitiveness, but also the main source of Microsoft's revenue and profit (Windows and core applications are both licensed and charged). However, since Nadella took over as Microsoft CEO, especially after announcing the so-called "mobile first" and "cloud first" strategies, Microsoft's core advantages and competitiveness have disintegrated, at least on the mobile side, and this effect may spread to the traditional PC market in the future. What is the reason?

As mentioned above, Microsoft's core advantages can be simply divided into two parts, namely the Windows system (platform) and applications (developed based on the Windows platform). However, it should be noted that although there are two parts, the two are inseparable and help each other. This is the main reason why we emphasize that applications are developed based on the Windows platform. Because only in this way can the user experience be the best. This is due to the fact that both the system and applications are closed source. Just like Apple's closed iOS ecosystem (iOS system based on iOS system The application developed) brings a better user experience than the Android platform. We are not saying here that a closed source ecosystem is necessarily better than an open source ecosystem, but which ecosystem is more suitable for the company itself, or what was the core competitiveness of the company when it rose?

However, as Microsoft provides killer applications (such as Office) for free to rival mobile platforms (smartphones and tablets), Microsoft has first given up its advantage in ecosystem applications to its rivals. Although Microsoft claims that the number of Office downloads has exceeded 100 million since it opened its applications to rival platforms, everyone knows that it uses a free strategy, and it remains to be seen how many paying users it ultimately converts into. In addition, the biggest question is why Microsoft released its own killer application before its own Windows Phone platform?

Maybe some industry insiders will explain that Microsoft's Windows Phone market base is too small, then the question is, why is Microsoft's Windows Phone market base small? Is it because there are few applications based on the Windows Phone platform and the quality is poor? In this case, let's not talk about Microsoft should encourage developers to develop high-quality applications for the Microsoft Windows Phone platform, but open the only killer applications on its own platform to competitors. Isn't this obviously boosting others' ambitions and destroying its own prestige? What's more contradictory is that if these killer applications on the opponent's platform exceed the experience on its own platform, does Microsoft still expect these developers and users to return to the Windows Phone platform (continue to develop applications for the Windows platform and users continue to use Windows platform phones)? Similarly, if the performance is not good, it will undoubtedly increase the impression of Microsoft's applications that are not as good as those of competitors, so that users will stay away from the Windows Phone platform and Microsoft's applications. In short, Microsoft's strategy of opening applications in the middle is that the pros and cons offset each other, and it will not bring much substantial improvement to Microsoft's Windows platform market share. But it is an indisputable fact that applications are separated from the Windwos platform.

Of course, Nadella's so-called "mobile first" strategy does not stop at opening up his own applications to rival platforms. At the Microsoft Build 2015 Developer Conference held recently, Microsoft announced that on Windows 10, Microsoft will provide developers with multiple ways to migrate applications to the WIn10 system. This includes support for Android applications. Microsoft will pre-install an "Android subsystem" on Win10 phones to enable full operation of Android programs. At the same time, Microsoft also announced that iOS applications compiled in the Objective C language can also be converted into Windows 10 applications.

At this point, after Microsoft opened its own applications to rival platforms and lost its core competitive advantage on the application side, it also weakened the influence of its own Windows system (platform) on the system side by using rival applications. There will also be people who come out to defend that Microsoft is compatible with Android and iOS applications in order to make up for its own shortcomings in the number and quality of applications (mentioned earlier), but the biggest question we still have is, if the applications developed based on its own Windows platform are of poor quality, why should the experience of applications developed with the help of development tools or some subsystems on the Windows platform be better than that of applications developed on its own platform? What we can't understand even more is that since the market and users can enjoy the best applications based on Apple's iOS and Google's Android platforms (let's call them native applications for the time being), why do we have to experience similar cross-system applications, but the experience does not exceed that of the original platform?

In addition, from the previous open strategy of BlackBerry to support Android applications (supporting Android applications on its own BlackBerry 10 system), the user experience and market effect were not ideal, and the shipment volume and market share of the BlackBerry 10 system (BlackBerry phones) were not increased. On the contrary, the fact that Microsoft's "grafting" trick may not necessarily have a good effect. According to a certain analyst in a recent foreign media report: there will be a "lowest common denominator phenomenon" in software transplantation (a metaphor for the most mediocre popular products). Those who most want to use low-cost means to transplant software to other platforms are also the least willing to make the user experience the most refined on each platform. In other words, Microsoft's "grafting" approach does not attract high-quality developers and applications, which will undoubtedly be counterproductive. That is, it makes the previous users more sticky to the iOS and Android ecosystems, while its own Windows ecosystem pales in comparison. The more likely negative effect is that developers who used to develop applications for Windows will lose confidence in the Windows platform.

Similar to the aforementioned Microsoft open applications, there are considerable variables in the open system platform supporting competitor applications, but the only certainty is that Microsoft's Windows platform no longer exists compared to previous Windows applications.

Based on the above analysis, we believe that the move of Windows to be compatible with Android and iOS applications marks the complete disintegration of Microsoft's inherent advantages on the mobile side, that is, the platform and applications have been completely separated and both support the opponent (the system supports the opponent's applications, and the applications support the opponent's system). In view of Microsoft's "grand unification" strategy, this disintegration is likely to spread to the traditional PC field in the future. Where will Microsoft's core advantages be by then? What is the value of Microsoft's "grand unification" strategy? Has Microsoft thought it through?