A few years ago, while browsing a local book store, 'Invisible Engines' caught my eye; an enlightening book detailing "How Software Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries." Thinking back on the book a few chapters gained my attention, one main one was the detailing on how Microsoft succeeded against Apple.

The crux of the argument Microsoft vs. Apple is based around Microsoft's ability to manage economics across multiple markets, price points and foster the market effects of IBM Clones. Apple had a much earlier start in the PC business; Wozinack and Jobs developed the first modern PC during the mid-to-late 70s and early 80s; allowing Apple to control most aspects of this growing industry. Hardware, software and just about everything else related to the Apple line of computers was in some way controlled by Apple, this was a great assurance of product quality, and appeal (much as it is today). VisiCalc was Apples first killer app; a spreadsheet program for the masses, businesses finally started to see computers were not "toys; they really could provide important productivity tools for their workers." (pg. 98). In contract, Microsoft sold software (some of which successfully ran on Apple Macs) which made Microsoft's incentives aligned to sales of Macs.

IBM helped court Microsoft into the platform market with DOS. Since Microsoft was not in the hardware business, quality control of the end product was much more constrained and at the same time much bigger. To become successful Microsoft needed to manage four main markets: Computer Manufacturers, Peripherals, Software Developers, and Computer Users. Unlike Apple who only worked in two market, encourage developers and consumers and build critical mass. However Apple had one main drawback: its price point. A major reason for Microsoft's success has to do with Pricing. A lower price point meant Microsoft was able to get many more manufactures and developers, with the fact Spreadsheet program were not ported to PCs business had a lower and just as effective alternative to a higher priced Apple machine. Some of these factors still exist today, Microsoft's PCs are marginally cheaper than Apple PCs and they already have a deep business following which is hard to beat by many competitors including Linux. However, the Linux vs. Apple vs. Microsoft vs. Sun vs. BeeOS vs. OS2 is not what's up for debate. The question which comes to my mind is, can we look at this to build some type of success criteria for future technologies.

Being a staunch believer in Black Swans (The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb) , I don't believe we can model the future completely on the past; too many complexities to take into account. However, we can always learn from the past. Microsoft succeed while Apple withering away (only to resurrect in a different form later) breaks down to a few key characteristics:

1. Multiple markets: Computer Manufacturers, Peripherals, Software Developers, and Computer Users
2. Price point: Less control over hardware and a bigger manufacturing base did in part lead to lower prices
3. Market Effect: More IBM clones meant more developers would have people to sell to which meant IBM clones were more worthwhile etc.

If we break down the current mobile market we can learn what might come:

PC costs became lower with a larger base of generic hardware manufacturers, similar effects may occur for mobile products running Android and Windows Mobile. Since Google and Microsoft are not held back by hardware, at the same time more exposed to hardware issues. However, RIM and Apple can't be undercut for their product quality; both have a large following with a large developer base.

Since all of these products price about the same for the consumer, where does this leave us for the future of the mobile industry? Would lower cost and marginally different product have a large enough impact? Which platform is best suited to fill those needs?