What the hell is with all that anti-microsoft hatred. I'm really tired of reading articles about how MSFT took NOK over and are gonna screw them big time for free. It's like seventh or eighth article in hn top with that mood.
Alliance with Microsoft seems to be the only sensible choice for Nokia at the moment. True story.
I believe the most relevant at IBM and the OS/2 story, and the SGI move to Windows NT.
In both cases, the other party made many strategic mistakes, but Microsoft did many things to contribute to their downfall.
Others have mentioned Compaq (whose history is not one of unmarred success) and Dell, but those are companies that exist because of Microsoft, and have pretty much never gone against Microsoft's wishes. It took years before Dell started offering Linux boxes, and even now, the Dell Linux line is more expensive and lower quality than the equivalent Windows systems. For instance, when I was shopping for a laptop, the only Linux laptop from Dell had a non-LED and lower resolution display than the much cheaper Windows equivalent. Same model number, but the Linux version was crappy and $200 more. I bought the Windows version and put Linux on it with no driver issues, so it wasn't that they had to make compromises to make it all work...they just like toeing the line for Microsoft. (It's turned out to be a crappy laptop, anyway, so I won't be buying another Dell.)
Most of those examples are basically "company x tried to sell a Windows Mobile phone back when smart phones weren't anywhere near the market they are today, and when Windows mobile was very average and it didn't work out." Hardly seems like Microsoft was at fault for anything other than not making a better Windows Mobile. And most of the companies in that list were notorious for selling poor quality phones anyway, regardless of the software.
Partnerships don't work out, but there doesn't seem to be many examples in that list of Microsoft leaving those partners out to dry, it's just a case of the product wasn't good enough (from both Microsoft and the phone manufacturers).
IBM has a $201 billion market cap. Their problems of 20 years ago were due to changes in the industry, not Microsoft (their contract with Microsoft was not the first one they ever signed).
IBM has recovered extremely well from their partnership with Microsoft, but it took them over a decade to do it.
OS/2 was a horrible hit to IBM, and Microsoft is a huge part of why OS/2 went so horribly awry (IBM also made many strategic mistakes of their own, so it's not just that Microsoft behaved in a duplicitous way).
I think you may be underestimating the misstep IBM took with the PS/2 and the impact that tying their desktop systems to a proprietary MicroChannel Architecture had on their ability to compete with clone makers at a time when the PC market was rapidly expanding. They could not compete on price and could not compete on specs - and could not compete on customization in the PC market; the model 25 and 30 had limited expandability despite their ISA architecture. Throw in that they were pushing two obscure OS's and it's hard to lay the blame at Microsoft's door.
Furthermore, to characterize Microsoft as the dominate player in that partnership is simply rewriting history.
> Alliance with Microsoft seems to be the only sensible choice for Nokia at the moment. True story.
Your wisdom ends where Nokia's share price begins. Seriously, the whole market read this as a stupid move where far better, saner, alternatives were available.
Alliance with Microsoft seems to be the only sensible choice for Nokia at the moment. True story.