Microsoft is Dead

I can't remember where I caught this link but I thought it was a great read. (I hope it hasn't been posted in M-F yet... )

Anyway here's the link, Microsoft is Dead:

A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead. I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized he didn't understand. It was as if I'd told him how much girls liked Barry Manilow in the mid 80s. Barry who?

Microsoft? He didn't say anything, but I could tell he didn't quite believe anyone would be frightened of them. ...

Click to expand...

What do you guys think of the article?

Good read - thanks. I can't help but wonder though: is using an app that is web-based really THAT appealing??

Well it seems to be and someone should explain why to us, Papa.

I do know that Adobe will have an online Photoshop version. I think, but am not sure, that not only will you be able to store your stuff online, I think you'll be able to work online as well.

Edited to add:

We do know now that even with the intended creation of internet aiming it to be multi-platform in use, it isn't safe from a company with little scruples like M$ and its Internet Exploder to restrict its use to one platform. Witness all the video stuff that, with the encoding, will only play on PeeCees. So I dunno. All this talk of web-based apps does not protect us from losing the cross-platform goal along the way.

Interesting read. I wonder where this leaves Apple then?
Personally, I'm not all for online apps. Some are nice, but I don't want to live and breathe the internet. I don't want to have to rely on another element to get my work done. I think it'll just mean tighter security, more scams and a whole lot of stress. The idea is nice, but I'd rather have something I can access without a connection.

I'm not sure when Aus will get high speed broadband - maybe not for some time from what I've heard. I'm sure this would only hinder the service here and the support for it too.

I'm considering showing that article to certain PC enthusiats - see what they think of it. No doubt a violent defence will spring from their mouths, heheh

Especially considering the lack of security on internet websites. And even if sites are secure, there always comes a time when it can be cracked or so it seems.

The article is a lot of noise. The author brings little to the table that hasn't already been talked about, and given his vested interests, he's bound to promote this kind of thinking.

I was at a presentation hosted by Computerworld in 1995 where the death of the desktop and Microsoft was predicted, because, we were told, everything will be web-based by 1998.

In 1997, I was at a presentation by Scott McNealy of Sun where he predicted that everything would be run on the network as Java-based applications, and they invested huge money in a JavaStation appliance ("thin client") that would be the wave of the future.

I was at a dinner hosted by Larry Ellison in 1999 where he predicted the death of the desktop and Microsoft by 2001 because everything will be web-based and housed in Oracle databases. A month earlier, an executive from EMC Corporation said that their storage solutions will house everything in web-based environments.

In 2007, we have a lot of web-based applications, and some of them have been successful, but Microsoft and the desktop as strong as ever. Some steps are indeed being made (e.g. Larry Ellison is still gunning for Microsoft as he continues to buy up application software companies), but we're not there yet.

The truth is that this is not going to happen until Internet access is completely universal. I spend hours every day using my computer as it's disconnected from the internet-- and I can tell you that if I want to work on my budgets while disconnected from the 'net I sure can't use a web-based version of a spreadsheet.

As an IT director, I've heard these arguments over and over. Some of them hold some potential, but anything that's painted with such a wide brush tends to be overblown.

Yes, Microsoft is similar to what IBM was in the 70s and 80s, but we're not in the 70s and 80s any more, and Microsoft is well aware of this. I dislike them as much as anyone, but I wouldn't predict their death just yet.

I agree with Caribiner.

Microsoft are far from dead and to understand why this is the case, you have to understand where Microsoft's core business lies. It isn't with Tom, **** and Sally buying Excel Home or Word 2007, it's with massive multinationals like the one I work for who license 50,000,- 100,000 copies of XP, Office Professional, Visio, MS Project etc every year, not to mention enterprise versions of MS Server and all the support that comes with is. Large companies are not about to move to Google Office anytime soon as they need fully supported, robust, locally installed applications with virtually universal standards - and they, not home consumers, are the main base of Microsoft's vast profits.

Even for the home consumer, MS is actually growing, not shrinking. MS operating systems are appearing in phones, PDAs (where 5 years ago they were non existant), not to mention that MS has had a serious bid at the console market, worth billions, and looks like it's on the verge of stealing a lot of Sony's market (unthinkable 5 years ago) - whilst MS's applications may not be o critical to the desktop, the desktop itself is shrinking in popularity. Almost half of all new phones and PDAs sold have some sort of MS application or OS.

Besides, any internet based office app still has to confirm to the standard. The same Standard Neo Office and OpenOffice.org have to adhere to and that standard is Microsoft's. Linux isn't really growing as much as their fans would like to believe and in fact has many problems of its own, with various companies trying to make it work commercially - only Ubuntu IMO has the ability to support users AND stick to the founding principles of Linux BSD - but Ubuntu is nowhere near as easy to use as their forums would lead you to believe.

MS is as vulnerable now as ever, with billions invested in Xbox360, a new OS which is having the usual teething issues, a resurgent Apple outselling everyone at the notebook level (although corporations are again ignoring Apple), a complete failure to penetrate the MP3 market, complete failure to grab any search engine share and still with a worrying lack of vision. And yet, Vista sales have been strong and MS profits show little sign of slowing. Even in the browser market, where they have been hit by Firefox, the IE population has steadied at a not unhealthy 75 - 80% depending on who you believe.

Anyone who underestimates MS will be in for a shock.

About the console market thing, zoolook, isn't this the same tactic M$ used to implant Windows? I remember having read they didn't make it particularly hard to copy the OS on computers when they started making their move. In fact I heard that for businesses, they even encouraged copying the OS o all the workplace computers.

So when I saw they were selling the Xbox each unit (yes, the unit word! *wink*) at a loss, I kinda figured where they wanted to go with that practice...

MacHeadCase said:

About the console market thing, zoolook, isn't this the same tactic M$ used to implant Windows? I remember having read they didn't make it particularly hard to copy the OS on computers when they started making their move. In fact I heard that for businesses, they even encouraged copying the OS o all the workplace computers.

So when I saw they were selling the Xbox each unit (yes, the unit word! *wink*) at a loss, I kinda figured where they wanted to go with that practice...

Click to expand...

Consoles have traditionally been sold at a loss when 1st launched, with the money recouped at the software level (via licensing to 3rd parties), so MS is not really starting any new trend with this practice. Sony were hugely successful at this, installing a huge user base and then reducing the cost of the console as manufacturing costs fell.

What MS did differently (and to the annoyance of their shareholders) was design a console that could not be redesigned or reduced in cost at all (the original Xbox) and so every time Sony reduced the price of the PS2 and MS had to compete, they simply lost more and more money - any other company would have sunk, but of course MS has almost bottomless pockets. Right now, Sony makes a profit on every PS2 being sold, whereas MS doesn't even sell Xbox anymore, because every sale is a financial loss. Sony has a lot of bad press right now, but their business model purely in the console world has been flawless up to now. MS abandoned Xbox within a 6 month period, whereas even with the launch of PS3, the PS2 still sells strongly and has a healthy games market which is profitable.

This generation, MS have learned their lesson and built something that is scalable and where they will have opportunities to reduce manufacturing costs and to put the screw of Sony as and when they please.

Hmm. Quite interesting info there. Thanks!

MacHeadCase said:

About the console market thing, zoolook, isn't this the same tactic M$ used to implant Windows? I remember having read they didn't make it particularly hard to copy the OS on computers when they started making their move. In fact I heard that for businesses, they even encouraged copying the OS o all the workplace computers..

Click to expand...

This is something of an urban legend.

Yes, it used to be trememdously easy to copy the OS between computers (not to mention the Office apps), but they never encouraged it. In fact, in 1992 Microsoft went on a crusade to bring everyone in the corporate space into compliance with licensing-- and this was before they had the lion's share of the office technology space.

A company I worked for at the time was a founding member of the Software Publisher's Association, and they were on the verge of getting kicked out because they had something like 200 people using Microsoft Windows for Workgroups and only 100 licenses.

What did happen was that IBM and Microsoft left it open for other manufacturers to build machines that ran DOS and Windows, unlike Apple's tightly-held approach. But we all know that story...

Ugh! I fell victim to an urban legend... :bomb:

The article's mentioning of IBM reminds me of a theory I heard about 20 years ago regarding rousing success and the top billing it brings before obscurity returns once more.

The theory (the underpinnings of which is the rise and constant acceleration of the industrial age, morphing into the technical and information age) holds that there are gradations in this cycle's length of time, depending on the size of the entity. But the time involved across the board always grows shorter, whether it be the waxing and waning of political empires (a couple of thousand years in the case Rome's as compared to a couple of hundred in the case of Britain's, down to 80 years for the Soviet Union's ramshackle construct) business empires or those made up of nation-corporation conglomerates.

It took about 50 years for the clout wielded by the so-called Big 3 automakers to reach its nadir and begin its decline, from the 1920s to the 1970s. The 1920s — nine-tenths of it, anyway — were no less heady than the race-to-the-moon '60s, with money by the shovelful leaving a trail to the edge of the cliff.)

Ford is deep in the red and on the ropes. GM has never faced such a threat as it does now. The soap opera that is Chrysler never ends; with Chrysler, surviving another day has long been considered a rousing success all by itself.

The Japanese car industry demolished that of Britain's and North America's, but Japan's clout is less now than it was in the '80s and '90s, thanks to China that also is making South Korea's bid for the brass ring have the life of a Roman candle. So it's down to maybe 20 years.

The theory allows 15 years tops for fame and glory to peak for individuals, such as scientists, inventors, musicians, actors and people famous merely for being famous. The strength of youth and youth's attractiveness are the chief determinants, the theory as I heard it advances, along with total life span of the individuals and fans, and the theory extends these to politics and business.

So Microsoft would bear out the theorist. It's taking Microsoft less time to decline that it took IBM, certainly less than 30 years. If the time involved continues to shrink, Apple's rise may last only another five years before the promise of its "empire" yet under construction loses its lustre, though I doubt it would ever be as universally hated as is Microsoft for its tactics that loom large as a reason for the state its in.

Growing conservatism of advancing age, the reluctance to take risks and upsetting the financial apple cart, doing today what was done yesterday and fighting this war with the last war's tactics — remaining safe — are all easy to see with Redmond's favourite son. Now people are being fired for buying Microsoft, as occurred when IBM found itself peering over the precipice.

So if the theory holds water, Apple is no less immune than anything or anyone else. For the principals of Microsoft and Apple, the gold is safe in the bank or buried, so the cycle continues.

Zoolook has it right. You have to look at where Microsoft is targeting their products. They live and die on the big commercial enterprise. John and Jane Consumer are good customers, but the big enterprise is where Microsoft's head is at. Apple is different. They more or less lost the "big enterprise" war when Win95 came out, and are now squarely focused on John and Jane Consumer.

It is worth noting though that Microsoft's core product lines, Windows and Office, are under heavy attack. Mac OS X and Linux are giving Windows a real run these days, and are cheaper. OpenOffice in particular is an increasingly appealing alternative to MS-Office. Over time, I expect that Windows and MS-Office will start to decline. I believe that Microsoft believes so as well - hence their new investments in Office Live Communicator and the whole enterprise communication area. They are working now to move up the value chain.

Meantime they will flog Windows and Office for as long as they can. Remember the big splash when Bill Gates took one last flog at the DOS market with the last version of MS-DOS (6.22, I think)? They have a history of riding their "cash cows" until the money fades away. It is a smart business practice actually.

Zoolook said:

I agree with Caribiner.

Microsoft are far from dead and to understand why this is the case, you have to understand where Microsoft's core business lies. It isn't with Tom, **** and Sally buying Excel Home or Word 2007, it's with massive multinationals like the one I work for who license 50,000,- 100,000 copies of XP, Office Professional, Visio, MS Project etc every year, not to mention enterprise versions of MS Server and all the support that comes with is. Large companies are not about to move to Google Office anytime soon as they need fully supported, robust, locally installed applications with virtually universal standards - and they, not home consumers, are the main base of Microsoft's vast profits.

Even for the home consumer, MS is actually growing, not shrinking. MS operating systems are appearing in phones, PDAs (where 5 years ago they were non existant), not to mention that MS has had a serious bid at the console market, worth billions, and looks like it's on the verge of stealing a lot of Sony's market (unthinkable 5 years ago) - whilst MS's applications may not be o critical to the desktop, the desktop itself is shrinking in popularity. Almost half of all new phones and PDAs sold have some sort of MS application or OS.

Besides, any internet based office app still has to confirm to the standard. The same Standard Neo Office and OpenOffice.org have to adhere to and that standard is Microsoft's. Linux isn't really growing as much as their fans would like to believe and in fact has many problems of its own, with various companies trying to make it work commercially - only Ubuntu IMO has the ability to support users AND stick to the founding principles of Linux BSD - but Ubuntu is nowhere near as easy to use as their forums would lead you to believe.

MS is as vulnerable now as ever, with billions invested in Xbox360, a new OS which is having the usual teething issues, a resurgent Apple outselling everyone at the notebook level (although corporations are again ignoring Apple), a complete failure to penetrate the MP3 market, complete failure to grab any search engine share and still with a worrying lack of vision. And yet, Vista sales have been strong and MS profits show little sign of slowing. Even in the browser market, where they have been hit by Firefox, the IE population has steadied at a not unhealthy 75 - 80% depending on who you believe.

Anyone who underestimates MS will be in for a shock.

Click to expand...

Excellent posts by all.

The one thing to remember on top of all this is that the person who wrote the article has a vested interest in what he's saying coming true.

One of my favorite technology writers once told me that you have to keep in mind that people who write articles like this have two outcomes to their work: either (a) they're correct and can then bill themselves as visionaries and ultimately charge more for their work; or (b) they're wrong and they get to shrug their shoulders and say "Oops, I guess I was wrong."

It's a lot like being a weatherman in Chicago.

So I guess that as long as Apple really concentrates on making the OS as compatible as they can to Windoze, it should gain market share in homes across the world?

Brown Study has an interesting point. I guess a thought I would add to that is a reflection on where Apple is in that cycle. They rose and fell quickly in the 70s-80s, but are roaring back again. If we tie the start of the "roar" to the debut of the iPod, which I believe is really where it all started to take off again, we see that Apple should have 10 good years or so ahead of it now, before it too perhaps starts to decline again.

One other, and perhaps controversial, comment I would make on Brown Study's observation is that he left the United States out of the timing for major empires to decline.

a couple of thousand years in the case Rome's as compared to a couple of hundred in the case of Britain's, down to 80 years for the Soviet Union's ramshackle construct

Click to expand...

I woud argue that the United States is in the same area. Was a real super power from post World War I through the turn of the century - thats about 80 years - but is clearly declining at this point, with China and India ascending at this point. My two cents anyway ...

Agreed with everyone here. I can't add anything that has not already been stated except my personal feelings.

I am against my data being on someone else's servers. I want everything right here on my own computer thank you! :spook:

Microsoft, Apple and the desktop is far from dead! I remember not all that long ago people saying Apple was a goner, then Jobs came back and look at them now!

Long live the Desktop and both Microsoft AND Apple!

Yeah servers are easily cracked/hacked into. Makes me squeamish too.

dtravis7 said:

Agreed with everyone here. I can't add anything that has not already been stated except my personal feelings.

I am against my data being on someone else's servers. I want everything right here on my own computer thank you! :spook:

Microsoft, Apple and the desktop is far from dead! I remember not all that long ago people saying Apple was a goner, then Jobs came back and look at them now!

Long live the Desktop and both Microsoft AND Apple!

Click to expand...

Well Said. I especially agree with the bit about data on other peoples servers. That is the attitude that is going to hold things like this back for a long time. My data, my drive, in my house. It's all about privacy and so far the industry has a poor record at that at best.