Poor execution of the right strategy will most likely lead to failure
Example: Bill Gates and others tried to push tablet computing about a decade before Apple did. I have one, and it's phenomenal. However, it's not good enough for the mass market.
Poor execution of the right strategy gives away "the right strategy" while leaving an opening for someone else to do it right. So one of the questions you must first ask yourself is, "Can I execute -- on a world class level?"
In cases like tablets, market timing also matters.
It's not really fair to cite poor execution if things like the supply of suitable parts, supply chains, price-points etc don't combine in the right way.
That's true, but I wonder how much better Microsoft's tablet strategy would have fared 5, 10 years ago had they not been developing essentially a tablet version of Windows.
(It's hard to know just how sticky the iPad would actually be if, say, there had never been an iPhone. The iPhone established iOS and Apple as the best choice in non-computer computers for consumers. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume the iPad would be just as successful regardless of the success of the iPhone.)
So, back to the original argument -- MS was busy making Windows on a tablet computer. The failure of this effort can probably be attributed to two main points:
1 - The tablet computer hardward tended to suck for a lot of people. Bulky, slow, stylus-based, etc. This is the point you're making.
2 - As Apple an iOS have shown us, people don't necessarily want [Desktop OS] on their tablet. They just want a great tablet experience, even if that means throwing away years worth of desktop paradigms. As hackers, we can see the similarities between OS X and iOS, but to your average user, there's almost nothing similar between iOS and OS X.
I think point #2 could have been done by MS 10 years ago, had they had stumbled upon the same happy accident that I think hit Apple with the iPhone and then iPad: a dedicated phone OS works much better on a tablet than a tablet-versioned desktop OS. We can probably trace this back even further to the original iPod, with Apple gaining a lot of knowledge about what people like and dislike on portable electronic devices.
In summary: while you're right, MS's tablet ambitions were hindered by the hardware-of-the-day, I think stcredzero is more right: had Microsoft's execution been better, they wouldn't have been held back by lesser hardware.
I think point #2 could have been done by MS 10 years ago, had they had stumbled upon the same happy accident that I think hit Apple with the iPhone and then iPad: a dedicated phone OS works much better on a tablet than a tablet-versioned desktop OS.
My understanding is that they were developing the iPad first, but realized they should first do a phone.
Shouldn't the title be the other way around? "Be Prisoner Of Your Destiny - Not Captain Of Wishful Thinking".
It might sound a bit less appealing, but by definition you can't control your destiny. You could at least make a case for that you can control your thoughts.
"Don't be that person, folks. So much of the pain in life, over time, is caused by distance from the truth. And the same is true in business."
Love this line. Just because you hate the alternative of a job, or really want to change the world doesn't mean much. If anything it just adds undue stress and pressure.
Though it is really good advice, it's hard to both receive and give it. The stories we usually hear are the "she believed and persevered and prevailed through sheer will...".
We rarely want to hear the: "He didn't face reality and overestimated his own ability given the situation..."
Example: Bill Gates and others tried to push tablet computing about a decade before Apple did. I have one, and it's phenomenal. However, it's not good enough for the mass market.
Poor execution of the right strategy gives away "the right strategy" while leaving an opening for someone else to do it right. So one of the questions you must first ask yourself is, "Can I execute -- on a world class level?"