Here is the major fact… People are tired of waiting. When you buy your new Windows Vista computer you turn it on and wait 90+ seconds for it to boot up. Then, you begin installing software – Microsoft Windows, Mozilla Firefox, Stardock ObjectDock (to imitate that cool dock on Apple’s OS X), virus software, a firewall and iTunes. That’s pretty standard fare, I think. Next thing you know, your computer that already took 90 seconds to load now takes three minutes to load and the best part of that three minutes is watching the ever increasing number of items added to your system tray. We didn’t like it in a desktop-centric world, but it really sucks in today’s everything-that-means-anything-to-me-is-on-my-laptop world. I don’t want to wait three minutes (five if on battery) to be able to create a quick note or look at a web page in a client meeting. I want to do it now.

Microsoft currently leads the pack when it comes to operating systems. Maintaining that hegemony is not a given. People are tired of its slow, bloated, do-what-I-say-the-way-I-want-you-to-do-it behavior. Already, computer manufacturers including HP, Dell and Lenovo are turning to companies like Splashtop which uses Linux to enable instant-on access to functionality on newer laptops. Windows still loads, but it’s Linux that allows you to begin using your computer immediately. And that brings me to my real point of consideration for Microsoft…

One of the best decisions ever made in Cupertino was Apple’s switch to Unix as the underlying platform for OS X. Perhaps it’s time for Microsoft to consider the same. Whether FreeBSD or Linux, Windows would undoubtedly be quicker and lighter on Unix. In my mind, this decision is a critical one. Consumers are already used to any number of operating systems because of their mobile phones. Symbian is the top mobile operating system. What’s to prevent Symbian from making a play for laptops? People already familiar with the device (millions throughout the world) would not face much of a learning curve. Far-fetched but not impossible…

Microsoft’s survival depends on creating a lighter, more nimble OS and in a sense, a lighter, more nimble Microsoft. Let’s see if they’re up to the task.

Everyone, it seems, is creating the next iPhone. Google’s G1 is the most recent device to throw its hat into the ring, but they’re not at all alone. Blackberry is on its way with the (initially) Verizon Wireless marketed “Storm”, also called the Thunder. Nokia will soon be launching the Nokia 5800 Tube, the first phone that implements its S60 Touch UI. And, let’s not forget the Samsung Instinct, which actually sold well, and their beautiful but not yet available in the States, Samsung Innov8. Each of these phones are being released to provide competition to the iPhone – in some ways, to be the next, but better, iPhone. I’m sick of it.

The iPhone is a great phone. I do not have one, but often wish I did. My Nokia N95 is very nice, but there’s something excellent about a touch screen. I like the idea of being able to browse the web almost as I would on my desktop or notebook. I think the UI is amazing – especially for a company taking a first shot (technically, 2nd if you include the Newton) at a mobile OS. It’s size is almost perfect and now that it has 3G, it really is a killer phone. The thing is, for what they did, they nailed it. They got it right. They left little room for error and the marketplace acknowledges that with its demand. Given that, why is everyone stuck on creating the next iPhone? Apple created the next iPhone with the 3G iPhone.

The phone manufacturers should be looking at creating some above and beyond the iPhone. RIM should be looking at creating the next Blackberry, Nokia, the next Nokia and Samsung, the next Samsung. What does that mean? These companies need to focus on their strengths. RIM should be looking to revolutionize what business users can do on their touch-screen Crackberries. People should feel almost as if they don’t even need their laptop because they can do 75% of what they need to do on the Blackberry. Nokia, on the other hand, should focus on reliability, functionality and its ability to stay slightly ahead of the curve. Nokia doesn’t create the greatest looking phones. They create the most reliable phones and, with its S60 platform, highly functional phones with lots of capabilities. Honestly, I don’t know what the hell Samsung does well, but people are beginning to like their phones judging by the reaction to the Sprint Instinct and the Innov8.

To my mind, each of these companies will only succeed if they stick to their core strengths and stop worrying about the iPhone so much. If Blackberry users wanted an iPhone, they’d buy one (and may have already), but they’d likely still keep their Blackberry. If, as an N95 owner, I wanted an iPhone, I’d go out and get one, but I trust Nokia’s reliability and like the options I have with the N95. When competing with the iPhone, other manufacturers will only be also-rans and the more time they spend competing solely against the iPhone, the more time they will spend as also-rans. It’s a sad truth. However, if they focus on their core strategies, do what they do well and bring devices to market that exceed expectations, they easily stand more than a fighting chance of giving the iPhone true competition.