When Apple brought out the iPod, Microsoft quickly copied all of the features and released the Zune, which quickly stole the market. Apple then added in the new feature of having your iPod be a phone and released the iPhone. Microsoft quickly copied that feature and released Windows Phone by combining their Windows Mobile offering with Zune to copy all those features and stole the market again! Apple released some nice new hardware Macbook Airs - but not to worry, Microsoft and partners quickly brought out 'ultrabooks' which are beating all sales records and nobody would touch a Macbook Air anymore!

On the Google side, Google gives away their search with some mere advert backing. Google obviously doesn't care too much about search, they just throw it around to everyone! Their maps too. Given away for free. Anybody could easily come and charge money for maps and just take all of Google's maps users away. Users want 24/7 phone support for their maps, and search! Clearly, Microsoft can come into any market Google plays in and quickly beat Google out by offering far superior solutions. Bing is a clear example - it's just about killed off any reason to use Google Search and shows how good Microsoft is at features.

Can't believe how anybody could argue against Microsoft at this point - their record of success over the last 10 years speaks for itself!

</sarcasm>

I would have enjoyed reading a more detailed presentation of Charles Sizemore's analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the three companies he discusses; this soundbite-y stuff is a bit weak and unsatisfying. Why, for example, is end-to-end control of the platform worse than only owning a bit of it? Why is advertising unsustainable as a business model? There isn't enough here to agree or disagree with, it's just an opinion by someone who's (probably unfairly) made to sound like another ex-frat boy with an MBA and a limited supply of non-sporting metaphors.

That guy is an idiot.

Indeed, just a few years ago an advanced research team at Microsoft found out that any rectangle may be closely approximated by a sufficiently straight parallelogram, thus reopening the door to the World of Innovation.

"You really thought", commented Steve Ballmer, Chief Officer of Plane Geometry, "that all those squares in Metro were actually square? Foo!"

Apple did not comment on the issue. However, rumors about the NeXT cube "not being exactly a cube, either" started to run rampant on the 'net.

Sounds more to me like an analyst who either a.) bought a lot of MSFT shares or shorted Google/Apple, or b.) works for a company that bought a lot of MSFT shares or shorted Google/Apple. His 'criticisms' of both are specious at best. To rebut his claims about Apple: "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". And as for Google, RedHat has a $1b a year business case for free software.

This guy doesn't understand mobile at all. It's sad if he's able to move the markets with his comments.

Microsoft will win when they design great things that make their users happy. It's that simple. That's the world we live in now.

These guys had to cut component orders for the Surface because they skipped the part where they made a product people would enjoy using. There's too much choice now, the standards have grown too high. Microsoft has to compete on day-to-day ownership happiness. And that's tough because they've been leaning on vendor lock in and Enterprise IT fiats for their success a little too long.

Ballmer's the one who needs muscling out. Microsoft needs a leader with a deep understanding of consumer products if they want a seat at the table for the next generation.

I hope MSFT does great, not going to make crazy statements like that though.