I strongly agree with you that competition is good so far as motivates further innovation and, to a much lesser extent, lowers prices.
The idea that "profits should not matter to anyone but...investors" I think may be a shortsighted view. In the short term obviously everyone loves low prices, it let's us get more fun geek gear and more often. In the long term I think an "adequate" profit is necessary for these companies to continue innovating. When a company interested primarily in one area (say, advertising) moves into another area (say, hardware) in a manner that attempts to eliminate the profits from the new area are cause, in my opinion, for concern.
In this regard, MS's approach with Surface, while very very challenging to its "partners" (perhaps unfairly challenging), is at least an approach that makes it clear that MS expects a reasonable profit margin on Surface. I don't see such behavior with Google and the Nexus 7.
The idea that "profits should not matter to anyone but...investors" I think may be a shortsighted view. In the short term obviously everyone loves low prices, it let's us get more fun geek gear and more often. In the long term I think an "adequate" profit is necessary for these companies to continue innovating. When a company interested primarily in one area (say, advertising) moves into another area (say, hardware) in a manner that attempts to eliminate the profits from the new area are cause, in my opinion, for concern.
In this regard, MS's approach with Surface, while very very challenging to its "partners" (perhaps unfairly challenging), is at least an approach that makes it clear that MS expects a reasonable profit margin on Surface. I don't see such behavior with Google and the Nexus 7.