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:2)
On hardware? By nature? You certainly never heard of programmed obsolescence...
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:3, Insightful)
"Profits" vs "Market Share" (Score:5, Interesting)
Read about it here [bloomberg.com]
Wrong - Windows sales still increased (Score:3, Informative)
How can the OSS community accuse MS of spreading FUD when the article was not only FUD but making a totally untrue statement - "In the face of a declining market for MS Windows" - a 5.6% increase is not a decline.
Im no MS fan but it really gets me when the
OK, Ill beat you all
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:2)
Netcraft confirms it: Windows is dying.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Funny)
*Cough*Valve*Cough*.
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, sure, but they only resent it if they know about it. Obviously if software had started out as a subscription, it would be easier for people to accept that business model (although it's hard to imagine other companies wouldn't compete by coming up with the idea of buying the software once and -- dare I say it? -- owning it). But I don't think you can really compare software and a TV. A computer and a TV would be a little more analogous, and it's obvious that pe
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Funny)
It self-contradicting to talk about immortal things in the past tense ;).
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:2)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:2)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:2)
I vote for: Toasters, for gods sake make good toasters. The entire time I was growing up my house had *1* toaster. It broke, and now every 6 months I buy a new one because they break that fast. You cannot but a good toaster at target, sears, jc penny, walmart, for any price. I suspect i could get a good toaster from some kind of chef supply, which I shall endeavour to find the next time mine breaks :)
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?
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:Don't think that's what consumers are doing (Score:2)
It weighs a TON, too. I'd like to see some thief crack his back open trying to lift *my* television while we're on vacation...
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Funny)
In the real world, many people are still running Win95 because that is what they are used to, and they don't want to run something new.
Many others are not connected to the internet, and live hundreds of miles from a phone socket.
Some parts of the world are not even American (yet).
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:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Funny)
They got rid of that damn paperclip!
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:2)
My old Sony TV, which was approximately seven years old, was finally replaced not because it broke (it didn't), but because I found something better (27" to 36" and standard 480i to 1080i/480p);
My Yamaha RX-V995 that I've had for nigh on six years is going to be replaced this month or next with an RX-V1500 not because there are any problems with it (there aren't), but because the new model gives me significant improvements (component input/output,
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Interesting)
The consumer is wiling to pay for the Plasma TV that has a specific lifespan because the technology doesn't exist to make a plasma TV that lasts longer. Also, hardware (whether TV, Radio, computer, whatever) often is obsolete before it wears out.
There is no reason to buy software with an expiration date. You mention Open Source and Freeware as influences that prevent major software makers from ganging up, but that's bogus. Other than Office and Windows, there's sufficient
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:2)
Dude, you've gotta relax.
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
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:Wear & Tear (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wear & Tear (Score:5, Funny)
He says this has been true since windows 1.0, and who an I to query a professional?
New product line (Score:5, Funny)
Here is a sneak peek at Microsoft's latest offering: cans of MicrosoftAir(tm). Tired of the same old boring air? With new MicrosoftAir(tm), there is a cornucopia of smells in every butterfly festooned can! Order a case for only $368.00 today!
Note: Microsoft is not responsible if sniffing MicrosoftAir(tm) makes the user more likely to catch a virus. Not compatible with any other kind of air. Due to licensing agreement, once you have used product, you will be never be able to breath regular air again. Void where prohibited by law.
Consumer mindset (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Consumer mindset (Score:2)
Re:New product line (Score:2)
I love writing under time pressure! :-)
Re:New product line (Score:2)
So why are you ?
And, to be pedantic, sentences really should be started with a capital letter.
Quick ! Call an ambulance !
Actually, it's both. From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=breath [reference.com]:
Strategy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Strategy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Strategy? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Bill's pet project (Score:5, Interesting)
MS has screwed up so many times in the handheld arena, but now the technology is getting to the point where maybe they can get their bloatware to work: i. mobile devices are getting powerful enough and cheap enough; ii. 3G and effective wireless netweorking are getting to the stage where they are reasonable as mobile data carriers.
MS has been losing money in mobile for many years. This might give them an edge in the future.
Re:Bill's pet project (Score:3, Funny)
That sounds like the sort of spam I get.
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 certai
Microsoft Strategy (Score:3, Funny)
See what everyone else is doing.
Copy it, tying it to your own IP, proprietary architecture and co-opting it to erode better strategies and make it your own.
Bundle it.
???
Fail to Profit!!!
Re:Microsoft Strategy (Score:2, Funny)
If it weren't for the OS, Office and Server divisions, they'd be dead.
Many companies would have spun divisions like those off and retained some large chunk of stock to profit from as the new entity fought on even ground to survive. That Microsoft has kept each of these divisions under one roof has a lot to say about the shoddy security, bloat and often annoying 'features' in each pac
Re:Microsoft Strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
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 grip
My conspiracy theory... (Score:2)
j/k
It doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Millions trained in MS Windows? Where? (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps millions of Americans, but it's a big world, and a lot of third-world countries are modernizing on open-source software. I think Microsoft is destined to be an America-only thing, like football.
Yeah Right..... (Score:2)
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.
Jail and mail? (Score:2)
How do you mean? Do you have examples?
Courier services, or even inter-city FedEx/UPS would all seem to be examples of "setting up a small-time mail service". Yet they get by.
I don't understand when the Post Office has ever strong-armed anyone who was doing something similar, though I am open to the possibiliy if you have a link or two.
Re:Jail and mail? (Score:2)
But they are not allowed to carry standard, first-class mail. And they are not legally allowed to put stuff in your mailbox.
"I don't understand when the Post Office has ever strong-armed anyone who was doing something similar, though I am open to the possibiliy if you have a link or two."
Here's a blurb from a page that discusses the USPS monopoly:
"The most controversial business was
Some points... (Score:2)
The point about the mailboxes is a really good one, though aren't other companies allowed to use mail slots? It seems like that only matters for personal mail.
The last blurb was rather interesting, though at the end it would seem to argue against what you are saying with the ending "other mail companies--more intent on making a profit than making a point-
Re:Some points... (Score:2)
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
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:2)
Incidentally, I just did a Google search for post office pynchon [google.com], and the search results include the term "postal service," bolded. Is Google smarter than it lets on?
Back to school for you (YOU FAIL IT)! (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's monopoly came about mostly by their exclusive contracts with hardware vendors, agressive bundling, and buying up competitors. This is the antithesis of a natural monopoly.
Re:Back to school for you (YOU FAIL IT)! (Score:3, Informative)
A natural monopoly occurs when a company (not an industry... that suggests 'several' companies) can only become efficient once it reaches a certain size, meaning that they only become profitable once a certain economy of scale is reached. These are companies with high fixed costs, and anybody that's had some business training know that if you spread out the fixed costs over more units of production there is less fixed cost attached to each unit. In a natur
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:2)
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:2, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
Also, if Microsoft carries out their software patent threats, that will make Microsoft a coercive monopoly as well. Hell, I guess breaking your competitor's legs is just another way of trying to make their product more attractive than the next guys.
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to carry standard, first-class mail, then the "what is there to prevent you" is the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7: [The congress shall have the power] To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
This has been repeatedly interpreted to give the U.S. authority to create and maintain a monopoly on d
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:2)
Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies (Score:2)
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:Do something well. (Score:3, Informative)
umm..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:umm..... (Score:2)
Strategic retreat... (Score:5, Interesting)
Next port Office to
Linux? OSX? Windows? Bah, who cares, so long as you're running a
...or the next front (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, the real news is that Firefox has hit 20%, with other non-IE taking the total to over 25%. Yeah, I know, "lies, damn lies and statistics, and all that", but it should mean the end of IE only sites, when it can be shown that they are turning away 1 out every 4 site visitors.
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.
Re:Windows CE Strategy? Right . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
consumers only have one pc (usually. maybe two)
however, I've also got a
cell phone
music player (iPod)
radio
router
stereo
gaming console
tv
coffee maker
fridge + other kitchen appliances
digital camera
You see, even if Microsoft charges $5 per license to run CE on some embedded device which has a $10 microcontroller, they're
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Only on
Re:FUD (Score:3)
11% growth in Windows XP/2000 revenue
19% growth in server revenue (2003/SQL/Exchange)
17% growth in Office/Project/Visio revenue
Yea, I don't think the guy writing this article has a clue what he's talking about.
Re:FUD (Score:2)
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.
Shyte? (Score:2)
"Stinky Shit In The Air At Microsoft"
I need more caffeine.
doubtful (Score:2)
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.
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 o
In decline my ass... (Score:2)
"For Microsoft, fiscal 2004 was a great year, marked by strong growth and development of exciting new technologies. All of our businesses grew during the year, increasing total revenue by $4.65 billion, or 14 percent, to $36.8 billion. Profit margins from continuing operations improved, particularly in our emerging businesses."
"Our Information Worker (home of office) business continues to grow, with
Perhaps they'll make things a little easier then (Score:4, Interesting)
First I already have visual studio
Second I know that I need SQL server to replicate the DB's with so I head off to MSDN and grab it.
500 or so meg later and I burn it to a CD(my media versions of the subscription haven't arrived yet) and start the install. Installation doesn't appear to do anything. After messing with it for a bit I remove it. Remove the desktop edition, and remove the old sql client tools. run the install again and it works. Fine I can live with that.
So I install sql 2000 CE It tells me that I need sql 2000 SP1 installed. I assumed that the newest version on MSDN would have the service pack installed already but I would be wrong.
So 430 meg later I have downloaded SP2 (sp1 is rolled into it) and another 120 or so meg and I have SP3. Install those. Reinstall sql CE. I get further but I now need to install IIS so that the two can comunicate. It didn't come preinstalled on this XP pro SP2 PC so I get to track the program down, set it up then get the database installed then I can get back to the 20 minute tutorial I was following.
Deploying programs to the device is trivial. If all the rest of the software was at the same level as visual studio I wouldn't be using linux as my desktop at home.
Why MS bought VirtualPC _and_ What .NET is about!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, they bought VirtualPC so their future customers, running on some non-x86 processor, can run legacy x86 Windows programs along side their .NET-based programs. The detail being that of course, the .NET-based apps are running in a ( licensed ) Microsoft operating system environment. As an added bonus, the OS used in VPC is yet another licensed MS operating system! Even _more_ software sales for M$!!
It's just the M$ way of _not_ betting the farm on x86... which is the true point of .NET, at least according to this guy.
Hey, they're not stupid at M$, they just like *MONEY*!!!
Re:Why MS bought VirtualPC _and_ What .NET is abou (Score:2)
Microsoft seems to be looking to use Longhorn as an opportunity to break free from the backwards compatibility that affords them little room for flexibility in how they can implement changes, and now they can do so via the same emulation idea Apple succeeded with in their transition to
Re:Why MS bought VirtualPC _and_ What .NET is abou (Score:3, Interesting)
As a side note, the NT 4 kernel also ran on Alpha, and I recall it could emulate x86 WinNT apps already.
So would that mean Office in .Net? (Score:2)
One interesting aspect is that it seems to me the whole support for unsafe code and for differnet languages is perhaps all to make it easier to port Office to
The funny thing is that other compan
I think the author missed something important (Score:5, Interesting)
The absolute worst thing that could happen to Microsoft would be for Windows to lag in sales. So much of their company rides on the success of Windows and Office that if one of those gets badly damaged it would have very damaging results for the entire company.
Re:I think the author missed something important (Score:2)
IMHO, that honour falls to the Win2000 --> WinXP upgrade. You're right, though, that there may be even *less* incentive for XP --> Longhorn.
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.
.Net == .Not (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many in the world who have had enough of the instabilities and insecurity of microsoft software who will do just the same. Just look at the ratio of enterprise applications running on java vs
Time to buy those Options on Microsoft Stocks.
JsD
[karma=(moz+nix+ooo)-ms]
Re:.Net == .Not (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ever tried
Remove your tin foil hat and get the facts. I'm not pro-Microsoft, i'm happy not to use their products when I can. However,
Please give some examples to support your claims.
does this mean MS on parallel track with Sun? (Score:2)
[A] Sun's reaction to Microsoft's ubiquity and its anticipation of declining market for its workstations and its earlier [than MS] grasp of what the WWW would do to the software world was to make java the languange and eventually J2EE the hardware independent platform.
[B]And if, as the post suggests,
Then
Uh...who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just another PT Barnam special; it'll put more immature code onto the streets, require we buy new, bigger, faster computers, and still have viruses (or purchase of the latest companies would be meaningless) and it'll be the same old thing.
Sure, it's pretty, and sure parts of it (like printing services) work very well. But it's still that same old plantation on which we all have lived. And those of us without courage to fight it will live there until they close, and beyond.
Guys, don't think for
I RTFA, and was not amused... (Score:3)
Organizations are using Microsoft products, and are not switching (to other Microsoft products). Sounds like a net zero change in market share to me.
Yes, Linux is expected to close in [infoworld.com] on Windows in a couple of years. From a 90% dominance today, to a projected 58% dominence. Oh yeah, only if you count dominance on PDAs. You see, Microsoft has 48.1% [itfacts.biz] of the PDA market in Q3 2004, with Palm at #2 at 29.8%, and is expected to decline.
In the browser usage stats [w3schools.com], Microsoft is dropping, with a 64.9% share, compared to up and coming FireFox at 20%. The problem is, FireFox looks like it hasnt gained any share since it peaked in Nov 2004. That's the best I could find for FireFox, since other studies put Microsoft's Internet Explorer at around 92.9 % dominance worldwide. Its very hard to get any two companies to agree on stats, because they're both approaching the question with different agendas.
But desktops, well, the statistics for Microsoft and Linux are all over the place [technewsworld.com]. Last spring, Microsoft had 93% of the worldwide desktop market in their corner, but was still fighting (in Jan 2004) the business side to upgrade to the latest and greatest MS products. Microsoft really starts to cry in the server market, where IBM via Linux are barrelling through to win. Except Microsoft still has 59% of the server market, 3:1 today and 2:1 on projected Linux share. This was one [itfacts.biz] of the few business statistic sites that actually had hard numbers, and even there, desktop stats appear pretty stale.
In conclusion, from browsing through Google, people have been making these same claims on market share dominance since 2001, "Linux is the up and comer, watch out!" and noone seems to ever back up their sides with hard numbers... nothing that actually shows a survey on how Windows:Linux ratios that actually shows Linux having a chance... every year, "we're coming to get you, this year is our year!" Maybe its because for all the talk, Linux really is a niche market after all...
Empire Strikes Back (Score:3, Interesting)
All that follows Intel's growth in the Linux market. Linux runs on many CPUs that aren't Intel, but most Linux installs are on Intel, thereby displacing copies of Windows and the rest of its lockin environment. The WinTel alliance, that for years fed each company on the other's monopoly, might be dysfunctional already past the point of no return. That in itself was such a powerful anticompetitive setup, that its loss might represent the greatest opportunity for Linux and other OS'es. Since Microsoft's strategy so far seems to be a cross-platform approach, and since
typical (Score:3)
pure drivel (Score:4, Interesting)
"What Microsoft really needs is some way of ensuring that software wears out at a similar speed to hardware. Unfortunately for them, although fortunately for the consumer, it is quite hard to build planned obsolescence into software."
WTF? That is utter nonsense. The Windows security model dates from before ubiquitous internet. It was not designed for a modern threat level and has NOT been adequately updated to deal with it. It does not get any more worn out than that.
The article makes it out that Microsoft's problem is that there is no market for innovation in operating systems. Bullshit. There is a huge market for innovation. Just look at all the features Apple is adding to MacOS (quartz extreme, spotlight..) and look at how the Linux Kernel continues to improve (real time support, reentrent kernel, massive multi-CPU scaling and clustering, constant time scheduler, ever more platforms). Microsoft's real problem is that their Windows development operation has become so bloated and inept that they can not supply timely improvements. They have not kept up with the competition or with the hackers, and are only falling further behind. And most of the "innovative" features announced in Longhorn seem to be inspired by OS X.
This does not seem to be a problem with Microsoft generally. They do execute well in other areas. IMHO Halo and the Xbox are good products, whatever their profitability. The
Cell distribution I don't get... (Score:2)
I think if MS wants to do per-CPU licensing, customers are going to be displeased when multi-core chips come on the market or more manufacturers start making systems with multiple moderate power CPUs. Dist
Re:.NET can't save MS -- Mono exists (Score:2)