Microsoft and Nokia join forces in smartphone market

Of all the analysts who publicized their reactions to the Microsoft-Nokia smartphone deal announced on February 11, Blue Badge Insights founder Andrew Brust seemed to be the most rational I have seen so far. He said (in an interview with http://www.eweek.com/), "The two companies are on their respective back feet."

Brust added, "But they can certainly help each other: Microsoft gets global reach and market share from Nokia; Nokia upgrades from the somewhat stunted Symbian OS to something modern, touch-centric and contemporary in design value, through Microsoft's WP7."

Nokia president and CEO Stephen Elop and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Now, compare that with the vitriol and beratings mouthed by some other analysts, industry rivals and partners, and even consumers. These people seem to remain unable to forgive Microsoft for its role in the Wintel homogeny during the 1990s and early 2000s.

Coming from business rivals whose business models were trampled upon and demolished by the Redmond behemoth a decade or two ago, I can understand that. And, to a lesser degree, as well as from those companies coerced by the whims and caprices of the market's "biggest bully."

But for the life of me, I cannot discount the idea that some analysts seem to have this fetish for bashing Microsoft, its products, and how it conducts its business. In fact, too many of them have been predicting the software vendor's demise. Something that reminds me of those dime-a-dozen doomsday forecasters, this has been going on for almost a couple of decades already.

But what I find funny, albeit increasingly less so, is that when their predictions failed to pass, they would never ever admit their mistake. They would just come up with another date, as easily as most people change their shirts, or charlatan prophets pick another end-of-the-world date and scenario.

So, when would these people see the light? Microsoft is just like any other company in the software market. Its only fault might have been its huge marketing muscles and, of course, its willingness to use it in ways that would advance its business and strategic interests.

Has the company been enamored with monopolistic ways? Of course. Anything, any business moves and tactics a corporate giant does will always be construed as a monopoly-promoting act. Look at San Miguel Corp. The company does everything it can to grab an ever bigger share of the market.

This "competitive urge" can sometimes (and it happens) drive competitors to extinction or acquisition (a more benign form of the former). Last thing I heard of Purefoods, the former Ayala-owned company is now part of the country's largest food and beverage conglomerate.

But has anybody accused San Miguel of being the equivalent of a corporate bastard?