> By that logic, Bill Gates should have sold Microsoft to IBM
False analogy, because:
- Software provides the most utility, not the hardware, which is why IBM needed Microsoft more than vice versa, and why Android wouldn't have been nearly as much of a success if they'd been absorbed into a single phone hardware company.
- Google in 2005-2010 was a very different company to IBM in 1980; i.e., much more innovative, fast-moving and highly motivated to grow fast to rival the iPhone.
False analogy, because:
- Software provides the most utility, not the hardware, which is why IBM needed Microsoft more than vice versa, and why Android wouldn't have been nearly as much of a success if they'd been absorbed into a single phone hardware company.
- Google in 2005-2010 was a very different company to IBM in 1980; i.e., much more innovative, fast-moving and highly motivated to grow fast to rival the iPhone.