Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Businesses Iphone Microsoft Apple

Microsoft Passed On iPhone-Like Device In 1991 184

theodp writes "Microsoft apparently could have been a contender in the smartphone market, instead of what WP7 is today. Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold says he tried to convince Microsoft to make an iPhone-like device more than two decades ago. 'The cost will not be very high,' Myhrvold wrote in 1991. 'It is pretty easy to imagine a $400 to $1,000 retail price.' So is Myhrvold bitter that cost-conscious and risk averse Microsoft opted not to pursue his vision? Nope. 'Hey, it was better than predicting the wrong thing,' Myhrvold explains."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Passed On iPhone-Like Device In 1991

Comments Filter:
  • Microsoft blew it. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Sunday April 15, 2012 @11:11AM (#39693229)

    Windows mobile was really pretty great for when it came out. It had decent integration with office, a more extensive library of programs then any competing system, and a similar structure to windows in many respects. It even had a registry.

    But MS blew it. They didn't take the platform seriously and they left it to rot on the vine.

    That said, lets not forget that what is really making apple so strong here is itunes. And that isn't MS's mistake so much as it is the content providers. Apple is eating the publishing industry and nibbling on MS, motorola, and a few other companies. But indifferent to apple's successes, MS screwed up on windows mobile.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 15, 2012 @11:54PM (#39697527)

    Allow me to disagree.

    I am one of those people who are naturally good at things involving coordination and timing, but I've known many people (maybe half?) who JUST ARENT.

    I've had friends invite me to come participate in their *insert physical activity*. One was sword fighting, for example. He'd been practising for a year or so, weekly and could not improve his rank in their tournaments no matter how much more he trained and I beat him in the first few hours.

    I'ts not a "woohoo I'm awesome" post, because I got my ass handed to me by many other people there. But those were people who had natural talent AND training.

    The point is that half of people will hit a ceiling that is barely above the entry-level for someone who is naturally talented at the activity. It is said that 80% of fighter pilots washed out of the U-2 spyplane training program. Even 80% of fighter pilots who have spend 10,000 hours training couldn't fly the U2 because at operational altitude, even at maximum speed it flies on a knife edge of a stall and requires a DAMN skilled pilot to keep it in the air.

    It might be a crutch for someone to say "I won't try because I'm not talented", but there is also a lot of truth in pointing out that some people, after 1000 hours of training will be barely better (if any) than others after 10 hours. That's just how it works.

If you suspect a man, don't employ him.