The problem with the Enterprise-focus strategy is that in neglects the consumer market influence and the influence of the tech-savy youth who would be completely alienated from Microsoft products.
Just as a comparative, bare with me for a minute:
There are numerous reasons why RIM has fallen so hard over the past decade but remember when Blackberry was the ever powerful smartphone every company needed for its secure email service? Governments and business loved it for the security and connectivity and those who used it were beholden to the functionality of the keyboard and how well integrated the software was (such as the Calendar, contact list, email etc.) Before the company fell into a quagmire of mismanagement, production delays and untimely service outages it felt enormous pressure from the rising iPhone. Kids bought Apple's phone because it was the next cool thing extending from the iPod line and their parents saw the new apps and tools and thought "all my blackberry has is push email and an aging product line". Eventually those parents, who worked at companies supplying blackberries, started carrying two phones and looked for ways to integrate the iPhone into the corporate IT infrastructure... leading to the Bring Your Own Device practice. Surely the dagger to RIM's heart. Apps superseded the utility of the BB keyboard, bbm and accelerated RIM's charge to irrelevance.
All this to point out that Enterprise is susceptible to the influence of the consumer market. Any tech company that is as mature as Microsoft, and which has it's resources, MUST look to a balanced approach to product development. One sphere merges into another through the evolution of a device and through the generational change in a company's workforce. (Those same kids who bought the first iPod are now executives or decision makers in companies, you think Apple's products aren't following them in?)
Apple's success, in my view is (aside from their obvious strength at design) that their products provide a platform that encompasses a consumers entire .. for lack of a better phrase...daily cycle. Desktops for home, laptops for travel, iPhone/iPad for mobility and limited (very limited) productivity at work and abroad all connected by compatible OS's that seamlessly integrate all the devices. Anything someone wants to do, Apple is there.. want to watch the boob tube? Apple TV. Make a call? IPhone. Write a report? MacBook... RIM only had the mobility and its functionality stopped at email. I remember how long it took to consolidate my BB contact list with Outlook, or worse, copying a video to the phone for playback while in transit! OMG what a nightmare. Half hour episodic took 45 minutes to transfer sometimes!!! RIM was on its way to extend its influence with the introduction of its tablet (Which was a pretty awesome machine at the time in my opinion, just app bare and released a year too early) but that's as far as it could go. RIM didn't have an OS or hardware for home desktops/laptops. MSFT is in a far better position than RIM ever was, no real need to build laptops/desktops, their software are already in the home and office. Surface however is the bridge that can connect all windows based platforms to achieve what apple has. The surface and the pro are to me the most exciting products MSFT has released ever because while the surface can be improved to erode iPad market share, the surface pro line is a statement that says "There is nothing apple has that compares". MSFT still has a long way to go but I think they are well on their way to being very competitive in the consumer space. Just need to flex that 'innovation and creativity' muscle once in a while.
Just this guy's humble opinion.