How Microsoft Respond To Competition

It is interesting to see Microsoft response to the iPhone challenge. Instead of tackling it directly, on their website Microsoft advertise something like this:

"Windows Mobile -- Over 20 3G phones to choose from".

Reading such respond, and comparing it to similar approach that is taken by Microsoft in defending Vista, perhaps we can now postulate Microsoft "overall approach" in tackling its innovation and excellence based competition:

• If competitor threatened with perfection, answer such perfection with abundance of selection that only Microsoft can provide.
• If competitor threatened with product/design excellence, answer such excellence with scale of market domination that only Microsoft (currently) had.

That means:

• If other company (e.g Apple) threatened Microsoft domination based on perfection of their new product, Microsoft would try to answer that with selection. They might argue: "Why choose 1 (perfect) phone, if you got 20 variety of phones to choose from" ?
• If other company (e.g. Apple) threatened Microsoft domination based  on excellence of their innovative product, Microsoft would try to answer that with dominating market share that Microsoft currently had. They might argue: "Why choose the (excellent) MacOSX, if dominant number of people around the world uses Windows" ?

At a glance, this seems like a perfect answer.Yet as history repeatedly show, such arrogance could be dangerous. It usually also not last very long. Across time: customer typically would choose the most perfect product, at the most affordable price, with the most excellent innovation around.

If such "wording game" continue being used without significant innovation and excellence being introduced back into the company and its product, eventually customer preference might change, and gradually -- as time goes by, the company's product and existence increasingly become irrelevant.

Case 1: at IBM (1980s)

• During the dominant era of Mainframe, IBM people reportedly used to say: "Nobody gets fired buying IBM". Such is a true statement of that time when IBM was dominant, and IBM Mainframe product is a must.
• Yet few years later, when Mini and PC innovation fast forward at rapid pace, unless Lou Gertsner turn IBM to become the "Watson Sr's IBM" as it once was, the fate and future of IBM was in serious danger.

Case 2: at Microsoft itself(1980s)

• During the reign of DOS, Lotus (at that time the largest software company in the world) reportedly used to say: "The Windows market is minuscle (compared to the DOS based 123 market of that time), that way: Microsoft Excel (innovative) development would definitely have small chance to destroy domination of Lotus' DOS-based 123.
• Yet years later, the innovative Microsoft Excel (which runs on Windows) outpace Lotus 123 (which runs on DOS) in its development, innovation and market penetration, and turns Microsoft to be the new king of spreadsheet and office productivity tool of the future.

Lesson learned:

• Perfection could not be answered with abundance of selections.
• Excellence and innovation can not be answered with (current) domination.

Instead the only thing company can do to ensure its survival in stiff innovative/excellence based competition is perhaps to continuously keep its innovation going; and to keep on producing "perfect", "excellent" product that resonates very well with the market preference and needs.

Only through this the company's leadership in the marketplace could be secured; and only NOT through this the company's future could be risked and jeopardized significantly.