>>>>>OK, so again, Baller was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're implying that there was a correct strategy and he missed it.
>>>>>
>>>>>What was it?
>>>>
>>>>Mobile OS mimicking the phone he thought of as irrelevant, and Open Source. Google just mixed those 2 things together...
>>>
>>>Google gets almost 70% of its revenue from advertising.
>>>Should MS have gone into the advertising business?
>>
>>They should have gone after the non-iOS mobile market using the strategy of Google to stay in pole position of deployed OS and to milk that via xxStore and utilizing inside info on tech development further down the pipe for their own apps
>
>As I said
>Google get almost 70% of its revenue from internet advertising.
>Without advertising Google wouldn't exist.
>Their revenue from xxStore is a rounding error on their income statement.
>Their strategy has been no different from MS' - protect the cash cow by planting compatible products - e.g Google Maps, Google Apps, and Android.

MS wanted to monetarize the OS for mobile up front, created closed source again. They should have viewed mobile as leverage, not as potential direct cash cow via licensing fees - which was one of the recurring themes before buying Nokia. And even Nokia only kept them from being eliminated from the mobile game, doubtful they will recover the investment, but they HAD to do something...