MSFT could have opened up retail stores with their boatloads of cash like Apple.

But they didn’t want to take the risk with a low margin high cost center activity like providing in person support and expanding headcount. Hence no reward.

And with their recent closing of Microsoft stores, it’s clear that they are doubling down on rent seeking from Office and Windows licenses.

I still think Retail Stores were a red herring. Even if people bought unlocked Windows phones directly from Microsoft Stores they couldn't get SIMs from half the major carriers at any given time as Microsoft was forced not to support given Verizon SIMs as one point due to a dumb war with them and Verizon flat out refusing to allow the devices on to the network. (At a different point AT&T almost did the same thing, but relented.)

On top of that, even though that was towards the end of the era of massive phone hardware subsidies from the carriers, it was still the era of massive phone hardware subsidies from the carriers if you bought directly from them.

Apple had/has "luxury brand" caché that Microsoft couldn't build into its stores if it wanted to, and first mover advantage on top of that. Many consumers didn't blink if there was a huge sticker price difference between the iPhone in the AT&T Store and the unlocked one in the Apple Store, because it was a luxury brand. Microsoft was never going to earn that. Additionally, if a lot of people showed up to an AT&T or Verizon store with an unlocked iPhone and were refused a SIM that would be a major scandal, and would get a lot of luxury good "entitlement" people out of the woodwork. People told that they couldn't buy an unlocked Microsoft phone and use it on their carrier just shrugged and moved on (to an iPhone or an Android).

> And with their recent closing of Microsoft stores, it’s clear that they are doubling down on rent seeking from Office and Windows licenses.

Windows and Office are still getting improvements, it is a bit disingenuous to consider those products "rent seeking".

Xbox and Surface are doing just fine with or without Microsoft-specific Stores.

Besides, both before and after the Microsoft Stores, Microsoft had good retail relationships with Best Buy and others. It's not like there is "zero" Microsoft retail exposure without Microsoft owning their own boutique retail stores.

> Apple had/has "luxury brand" caché that Microsoft couldn't build into its stores if it wanted to, and first mover advantage on top of that.

I disagree. It takes time, money, and effort to earn people’s trust, but it’s possible. They obviously weren’t going to reverse a decade of shipping malware ridden computers, but they could have put out quality Microsoft products, and spent years earning back people’s trust.

And yes, maybe it wouldn’t work, and taking risks is part of business. But this is one of the most profitable companies in the history of the world, and they could have afforded it.

Up until the Surface line, Microsoft never shipped any computers at all, much less "malware ridden" ones. I think that exactly illuminates how high of a mountain Microsoft would have needed to climb to earn people's trust when Microsoft is also in general mainstream mindsets saddled with the problems of other company's behaviors.

But if the point was to save the marketshare of Windows phone products via retail store presence, Microsoft didn't have time, they were racing a losing money clock and the shareholders were watching retail operations worried Microsoft was just "throwing good money after bad".

> they couldn't get SIMs from half the major carriers at any given time

... in the USA.

Meanwhile the other 90% of the global market awaited.

Yes, that was it's own failure. Especially given some of the big numbers Windows Phones had briefly in major countries like India.

I think it is another reason why doubling down on US retail store operations as an attempted run around the US carriers was ultimately the wrong plan.