Strategy Shift In The Air For Microsoft 439
mrdaveb writes "In the face of a declining market for MS Windows and MS Office, Microsoft's recent statements and acquisitions point to a future in which .NET is a key driver behind a strategy which will see Windows CE devices taking the limelight. This article explores the problems which Microsoft face in maintaining their stranglehold, and their likely route to keeping Windows on top."
Wear & Tear (Score:3, Insightful)
It gets me wondering why consumer is willing to pay $4999 for a Plasma TV that has a specific (say 20,000 hours) lifespan, but can't stand paying a $49 software that has an expiry date.
Hardware used to last for 10-20 years (like old radios), but hardly live past 3 years nowadays, yet consumers are rushing out buying and replacing gadgets every day.
I guess the main influence is Open Source and freeware, which sort of prevent major software makers to gang up on consumers.
Wear & Tear on hardware is by nature, Wear & Tear on software is by design, and people can choose against that design, but not many people can break nature's monopoly.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:1, Insightful)
witness this [danamania.com]
It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:3, Insightful)
Now enter the US postal service. You try setting up a small time mail service in your city and go to jail. You try using FedEx for what the Postal Inspectors deem regular mail, and you go to jail. Similarly, if you try to stop paying into the government retirement system and start your own with higher returns.... guess what happens? Or what if you try to open your own liquir store in Virginia or Pennsylvania across from a state run ABC. Jail.
We throw this monopoly term around way to much without acknowledging the difference between a natural, earned monopoly and a violent, coercive one.
Nohing new... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Microsoft has had the Office no-upgrade problem for a long time...
- .NET was specifically developed to (appear to) run multi-platform (or was this an accident on the part of microsoft?)
- The first full release of .NET was in 2002... The beta period was long before that...
- Of course MS wants development for WinCE/PocketPC to be as easy as developing for the deskptop... Perhaps that's why you can write a PocketPC/WinCE program right on MS Developer Studio?
- Yes, Microsoft would want everyone to rent out Office instead of buy a perpetual license. Every app developer wants that. Remember ASPs (Application Service Providers)?
This article sounds like its written by someone who just got into computers and is just finding out what's gone on for the last 5 years...
Do something well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strategy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Strategy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of Microsoft's success can be chalked up to two failures by one other company...
IBM allows Bill Gates to own and sell MS-DOS under his own company's name, as IBM doesn't take the PC seriously.
IBM fails to protect their PC design, not taking PC's seriously, and clones flourish providing a ready market for MS-DOS
Most of everything else Microsoft has profited wildly from is centered around these two items. Microsoft has demonstrated that they are not a very inventive company by buying up lots of technology companies and immitating others. Where they have attempted to innovate in new markets they have usually fallen flat on their face and lost hundreds of millions of $. If it weren't for the O/S, Office and Server divisions Microsoft wouldn't be able to sputter so frequently.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, right, wishful thinking. "consumers" buying plasma TVs and other "gadgets" you are talking about hardly know about open source software.
i think it's mostly because it's not "physical." unlike TV, software feels so... not real. it's just something that runs on the computer - why is it "worth" so much money?
Windows CE Strategy? Right . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Win CE devices are going to continue dropping in price as they become more common. There's no way Microsoft is going to be able to earn anywhere near the margins they make in the PC business on a $100 cell phone, and there's no reason why hardware makers in the competitive electronics marketplace won't switch to open source (i.e. free) alternatives in the not too distant future in order to make their products more competitive. It's not like there's a huge inventory of Win CE software out there that absolutely must be run on these portable devices.
If MS is betting the future on CE devices, dump your MS stock right now while it's still worth something. MS remains a one trick pony, and their one trick is their OS monopoly in the PC marketplace. In spite of their billions, they've never been able to dominate any other industry and they never will because they're incapable of innovation. Their entire culture involves around theft, acquisition and intimidation. Expecting Microsoft to compete in a more open marketplace and win would be like expecting the Mafia to get into the automobile manufacturing business and compete with Toyota. They aren't structured for that kind of business, have no aptitude for it, and their strong-arm techniques only alienate customers and potential partners.
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on
Re:Strategy? (Score:4, Insightful)
But they may not be capable. The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" explores cases where corporations were not capable of adapting to changes in the market space caused by "low-end" competitors moving upward into the formerly plush (well-controlled) market.
Open source has the potential for doing this to Microsoft, IMHO.
Don't think that's what consumers are doing (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that yet people are fully bought into the notion of device failure in a year rather than ten. After all, people are used to the TV's they had before which did last perhaps ten years or so (that was the case for my last TV, even really a bit longer than ten years).
People still get refrigerators that last for a while, and other appliances they probably plan to keep as long as the house.
I think also there's a function of money where people expect for hosuehold electronics/appliances to last longer as the cost increases. Certainly a lot of people expect this of cars, preferring to keep a car ten years or longer and assuming it will hold up.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:4, Insightful)
Declining market for MS Windows??? Show me some facts that says the market is declining for MS Windows! Microsoft just posted record profits for the quarter. How is MS Windows declining???
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:1, Insightful)
Would you pay $10 for a t-shirt you *could not* use after a year?
A customer is willing to pay $4999 for a plasma tv that will last 20,000 hous because it could just as well last 21,000 hours or 22,000 hours. The makers of plasma TV's aren't sabotaging their products.
Cell not a general purpose CPU (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, Cell isn't a general purpose CPU. In fact, it may be slower for general purpose computing than today's CPUs. According to the Ars Technica article posted earlier today, they trimmed a lot of the out-of-order execution logic out of the main PowerPC component to make room for the SPEs and to let it be clocked faster. It also seems to only have a single FPU on it -- a logical move since the SPEs are vector FPUs primarily. Code not optimized for Cell (which is going to be a limited subset of multimedia applications) will run slower. The
Overall, I don't see MS trying to abandon x86 for Cell any time soon since x86 multimedia processing power is more than enough for most consumer applications. While Cell may take off for games, it's not going to make Office or Explorer run any faster.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Insightful)
a lot of people can see an 3 year improvement on tvs stereos, pvrs, etc. a lot of people couldn't tell you what got better in office xp over office 2000.
Re:Strategy? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, who wouldn't, that MS' historic stance was against inter-op in so far as inter-op harmed their business model. I see this as the primary reason they got Googled and that they are getting out-Fire Foxed. They tried to have it both ways with their approach to the Internet, but could not bend it sufficiently to the anti-inter-op will which worked for them so well, for so long.
Not only the natural trends in technology driven by human behavior and the Net's architecture, but also the courts have certainly weighed in, and they have demonstrably changed MS. I disagree that MS would continue in the same vein, against inter-op. They are out to earn, and earn big. No one can deny smaller devices already supplanting PCs, call them "phones" if you must, and the near-future trend toward ever more hardware integration with previously offline environs (LCD paint, anyone?). MS will change their strategy to be more pro-inter-op, because that is the only way in which they can continue to earn, and maybe the only way in which they can continue to (legally) exist as MS.
BG
The writing is on the wall. (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't NEED a new bug ridden Microsoft OS or Office suite. Microsoft is starting to see what the rest of the computing world has been dealing with for the last couple years.
The industry is stagnant and there are now tons of 1 ghz machines out there that will run any old os and suit most people just fine. Business is starting to smarten up. I pity those guys that bought into the Microsoft subscription service. How much longer for Longhorn? I don't think they're getting their monies worth and I doubt they would continue the subcription the next time.
The sooner Microsoft dies a horrible death, the happier I'll be!
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:4, Insightful)
In effect they behave as does orginized crime.
What was it that Argentinian minister said? Oh yes, that they do business like a drug dealer.
KFG
Consumer mindset (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is Microsoft's big problem. Can you imagine asking your neighbours over to look at an update to an OS, or word processor?
There are only so many
Google! (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at it this way... Which would you rather have: this [microsoft.com] or this [google.com]? One of them comes on a CD, and becomes outdated very quickly unless you continously patch and upgrade it. The other is just a URL that you type into a browser, and you can let them (Google) worry about keeping it up to date.
Re:Microsoft Strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Insightful)
The old Western Electric phones are a great example of what manufacturers are capable of, if they put quality and durability first. Since making people buy a new X every couple of years is profitable, they design X to fail after a couple of years; preferably after the warranty.
-Z
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Insightful)
If you watch TV 8 hours a day, five days a week, that translates to a 10 year lifespan. I realize that you probably picked that figure out of the air, but here's a site that says 30,000 hours [plasmatvbuyingguide.com].
Hardware used to last for 10-20 years (like old radios), but hardly live past 3 years nowadays, ...
A 10 to 15 year lifespan isn't too terrible for hardware, which naturally wears out. Plasma TVs seem to be about as long-lasting as cars.
As another post mentioned, most folks are willing to accept the idea that hardware naturally wears out, even if well made. In contrast, the idea of paying for something that is made to die before it wears out, just to make you pay for it again, rubs most of us the wrong way.
Re:Microsoft Strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
General Motors and Ford have, for the past couple years, only shown a profit in the finance divisions. Automotive operations have broken even at best, but usually are racking up losses.
Microsoft is an OS (Desktop & Server), and Office software company!
Microsoft should be a technology company. They're still very profitable, thanks to all the locked in customers and upgrade paths, but for how much longer? We gripe a lot about their products for good reason, they don't have adequate competition to keep them on the rivet, making their products the best they can be, rather than the slop they release.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Being the most profitable company in the world and being in decline are two separate statements that in no way contradict each other. Neither do record profits contradict decline, due to the rather ambigious nature of the word "decline".
Consider a corporation that is steadily losing markets to other corporations (and yes, this is happening to Microsoft - Linux market share is growing, and since all market shares must add up to exactly 100%, someone else must be declining). If the total market is growing, that corporation could easily be making record profits (by growing its absolute sales) while still losing market share (declining).
What makes it worse in Microsoft's case is that their business model is based on being the best known alternative. Windows and Office are so widely used that they are de facto standards. If Microsoft loses market share, this position is threatened, which will lead to further losses - applications will get ported to other operating systems and other file formats will be used for document exchange (and secretaries will learn to use other office programs), making Microsoft's programs seem worse and worse in comparison. So any decline in market share is very bad news for Microsoft. This might also tempt Microsoft to try and make it look like it was having record revenue, to imply that it had record sales and is therefore not going anywhere and therefore still the wise choice.
Disclaimer: I haven't read the article, nor have I examined either market shares of various products or Microsoft Corporation in any detail. I'm just speculating how these seemingly contradictory claims could be true simultaneously.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:1, Insightful)