Microsoft Is a Dying Consumer Brand 585
Taxman415a noted a CNN story on the dying Microsoft brand where they talk about "The less than stellar performance of, and problems in, nearly every consumer division. It cites StatCounter's data showing IE's market share falling below 50%, and is even smart enough to note that's just one statistic with various problems, though the trend is clear. It also seems that MS doesn't want to compete with Android, so it plans to charge royalty fees to handset makers to discourage them from using it in their products. The conclusion is that MS will just be a commercial, not consumer company."
Really??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most people are even aware that there are alternatives, which isn't the case with Windows.
Firefox and others can be sold as being easy to understand and FASTER. Performance is the biggest buzzword that there is, it's music to everyone's ears.
With IE6 being the Vista of browsers, a lot of people's eyes were opened. There are still tons of corporate apps that depend on IE6, but as the next things come along, they are going to be a lot more browser independent.
Yeah, really (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft encouraged companies to build in-house web apps on top of IE6, using its many poorly-documented proprietary features. Many of those features were so poorly documented and maintained by MS that they won't even work with newer versions of IE!
Obviously, this was a poor decision on the part of a lot of IT departments and corporate web app developers, but I do think Microsoft deserves a good part of the blame for encouraging such departures from web standards.
(Writing this from Chrome, while I wrangle
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nine years ago IE6 and specifically ActiveX offered a lot of functionality. Users were given a web browser that could function as an application platform. We take that for granted now. Microsoft's biggest mistake was trading functinoality for security. They provided an app development platform, but failed to secure it. They were so focused on pushing functionality that they neglected security.
It wasn't until JavaScript matured and other browsers arrived that people were able to start moving away from I
Re:Yeah, really (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody can handle upgrading IE6? Nobody can rewrite some code?
Nope. In many cases, the vendor for the in-house app is some obscure two-bit company that folded, taking the source code with them. So the customers are stuck with the app as-is, until they can migrate to something else. Budgets are tight these days, and specialty apps are very, very expensive. Companies are reluctant to change something that works when their business depends on it, even if the app is buggy or shitty.
In other cases, the app was written in-house, so they're stuck with what their in-house developers can come up with. Contracting a custom app is expensive, and their budget is probably tight. The developers who wrote the app have probably left the company anyway, leaving it unsupported, and it probably wasn't even developed properly with version control or any documentation, so getting someone else to pick it up and modify it would not be trivial, and it'd probably make more sense to start from scratch, which again means a big expenditure.
Microsoft is misunderstood. (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is misunderstood. Microsoft is not a software company that sometimes does evil. Microsoft is an evil company that sometimes delivers products.
That's my opinion, but I'm not the only one.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is /. any anti MS stuff gets a horde of comments in seconds.
The underhanded, questionably ethical, and sometimes downright illegal (as determined by courts of law around the world) actions Microsoft has repeatedly taken have earned them the disdain they now experience. I don't like fanboys either, but there are perfectly objective non-fanboy reasons to dislike Microsoft.
Their love of vendorlock and their embrace-extend-extinguish practices are among the biggest. They avoid open standards and easy interoperability because that would mean having to compete on the merits of their implementation. Why should I support a company that has so little faith in their own products that they avoid letting them compete on merit alone whenever possible? If the vendor (whom you can expect to be biased in favor of its products) feels this way about its offerings, why would I argue with them?
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Excellent question (to which there is no good answer).
I too used to deride MS for these nasty business practices. Now Apple has emerged as the primary competitor to MS (for consumer products) and I feel pretty silly.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft may be commercially dying but as for Linux, it's hard to commercially die when you haven't even been born. And that's why it's going to stay around for a nice long time. It's free, and the type of people who read /. are generally the type of people willing to separate from the herd and try something new. Especially if it's free. And being free and opensource, Linux doesn't really have to get popular in order to survive.
And what's more, you guys shouldn't WANT it to get popular. Remember yesterday'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They perform extraordinarily well, for a failure. Their profits are still twice as big as Apple's, for instance. Perhaps the media and the stock market simply are delusional.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Interesting)
And before digital photography came along, Kodak was insanely profitable. There are disruptive technologies all around Microsoft. At this point, they should be disrupting themselves, but like IBM 30 years ago, they are going to have an awfully difficult time doing so.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's profits last quarter - 4.308 Billion
MS profits last quarrer - 4.518 Billion
From finance.google.com
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do I really need to quote finance.google.com for the quarter before that to also show you that MS's profits weren't twice as high?
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, but it used to be 2 times higher. They are trending down. No one is saying they are dead, just that they are trending that way. MS needs to do something they are very bad at: re brand themselves and create new value.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just blew away a bunch of mod points to say this, so pay attention.
They perform extraordinarily well, for a failure. Their profits are still twice as big as Apple's, for instance. Perhaps the media and the stock market simply are delusional.
Microsoft's profits are only twice as large as Apple's? How interesting, since Windows is dominating the desktop market, with eight times Apple's market share. It does, indeed, sound as if they are failing. They have a lot of capital to work with before it really impacts their bottom line, but by the time they start feeling the crunch, it will be too late (See: Overshoot).
Microsoft is already being downgraded by stock brokers [cnn.com], and downplay
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is the difference between a company that does nothing but milk its market share versus a company that innovates and moves with the market. Sales numbers can be huge and impressive, it says nothing about the long term potential of the company.
Ray Ozzies departure addresses this as well.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft dominate the OS marketshare - on laptops and desktops. When it comes to servers, gaming consoles, smart phones, tablets, or any other internet devices: not so much.
MS is not dead by any stretch, but the market is changing, the paradigms are shifting, and MS is not dominating the new market. If MS were to lose it's strangle-hold on document formats, then MS might become a far less relevant company.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, MS is huge in the server market. There are certainly more Windows servers in existence than ones running Linux, for example.
Share in terms of sales that's probably right: http://blogs.computerworld.com/16263/windows_widens_lead_over_linux_in_the_server_market [computerworld.com]
But that's probably wrong in terms of units in existence. There are lots of Linux servers out there because it's free. When you need an extra one, you install one and that's it. No need for licenses.
The fact that people are actually buying Linux servers and they make up 20% of the sales (as per the IDC numbers) indicates to me that there could be more Linux servers installed than Windows servers, because the ratio of nonpurchased Linux servers to purchased Linux servers is very likely to be higher than 4:1. Many places do buy and use Redhat, but guess how many Centos servers they would also have installed and used. Many companies have installed many free Linux servers without _ever_ buying any at all. A previous workplace had lots of such free Linux servers scattered around the world. And they weren't "desktops", Windows was the standard for desktops there.
I'm not including stuff like linux based APs, DSL routers etc. I'm talking about those towers and rack stuff.
Google alone has quite a number of Linux servers. http://gizmodo.com/5517041/googles-insane-number-of-servers-visualized [gizmodo.com] :).
I doubt they'd do so well if they had to resort to paying for say Win2K8 R2
Microsoft doesn't have a dominating presence in the server market. They do have stuff like AD, Exchange and Sharepoint. But the way I see it, if the OSS bunch start moving up the ladder it's going to get ugly there for MS.
The desktop market will probably remain Microsoft's for years to come, unless someone finishes something like ReactOS soon (and even so they'd probably get tied up in court).
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even Ray Ozzie has admitted that a fundamental shift in today's computing environment is underway. Microsoft has traditionally used its Windows operating system as a means of controlling other markets, and he basically admits that this business model is done [ozzie.net]. The future is all about embedded devices and cloud computing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft dominates DESKTOP OS market share. I doubt if it dominates OS market share, considering Android, Symbian, iOS, OSX, Palm, Linux .....
I've said this before, but it fits here. Microsoft is a WINDOWS company (with exceptions), it is NOT a technology company. Almost everything they do is for WINDOWS, and WINDOWS is their primary focus. Apple and Google have let Microsoft have the WINDOWS market. They are after other markets, and why they are killing Microsoft in the process.
I'm reminded of an old story, from the late 1800s. The story is about a Railroad Magnate who saw his business as being "railroading". That was his focus. The problem was, that view was myopic and very short sighted. IF he had a broader viewpoint, saying instead he was in the "transportation" business, he would have able to incorporate automobiles/trucks and aircraft when those came onto the scene.
What business is Microsoft in? It is in the WINDOWS business. THAT is their product, that is their service, that is what they do. That is their Achilles Heel, and why they are dying (Netcraft Confirms it)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Interesting)
MS is a large company that does not react quickly. They have skilled people but are hampered by management. One of the reasons the Kin failed [blogspot.com] was that it was 18 months late. It was decisions by management that caused problems. The original idea was they wanted to quickly release a product. If MS had tried to build one from scratch it would have taken years. Thus MS bought Danger. Danger made the HipTop (commonly known as the SideKick) and the original plan was to release a SideKick successor within 6 months.
[Now all of the following are rumors as no one in MS has officially confirmed them. You can read about them by googling.]
But then came the management decisions that would doom it. SideKick applications ran on Java. Being MS, it was decided that Windows CE would be used. That decision alone would push back product launch by many months. There was also rumors of infighting. The head of Windows Mobile didn't want the Kin so he did not allocate any resources to help the Kin team (Project Pink). So the team had to implement an OS with which they were not familiar without the help of those that knew the OS well.
As the project became hopelessly delayed, features like the App store were cut in order to make some sort of release date. Also since the phone was so delayed, it was going to be obsolete by the time it would have been released as many of the competing products released new features in the meantime and the market place was changing. When the SideKick was popular among teens, texting with some photosharing were the functions that they used most. But by the time the Kin was released, consumer smartphones like iPhone and Android that did more than text were becoming the desired products.
In the original plan, Verizon wanted to woo these texting teenagers as customers from T-Mobile. So they were willing to offer a cheap data plan. By the time the Kin was launched, the phone itself would consume more data than originally planned (texting phone vs smartphone). Verizon did not feel they needed to honor the original agreement as MS delivered 18 months late. Thus the Kin got the normal smartphone rate. The combination of late, few features, and high data plan would make the Kin not desired by the target market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See there? THAT is exactly what I was saying. Microsoft is not a tech company, it is a "WINDOWS" company, in this case WINCE.
Windows Mobile 7 is further evidence it is WINDOWS company.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't Microsoft dominate the OS marketshare, wasn't Windows 7 a huge hit
Take a poll on people about who is more [insert positive phrase] , Apple, Google, Microsoft and some others and Apple and Google will show up more highly ranked than MS. It is their brand that is tarnished - their desktop OS monopoly is not threatened. Windows version xxx will dominate, no matter how crappy. They got away with XP for 6 years with only fairly minor updates, and it still captured almost all of the market.
Come on CNN atleast don't make link baiting so obvious
Hey, they have to eat! :) To be fair to CNN, Wall Street is eating MSFT alive.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was thinking the same, but look at the video of the interview on the TFA page and look closely at their faces. Balmer seems defeated. His posture is slumped, he mostly says Win Phone is "different," and you can see contempt in the bitchy reporter's face -- when she talks about her experience with Win Phone, when she mentions Bing, when she barks at him telling him "Explain this" and so on. And all the while he only tries to be attentive, smiling, and upbeat. Even the article ridicules him as struggling with the "vision thing."
That's not a sign of a company doing well. But I think it's just a phase, and that they will eventually reposition themselves not as a consumer brand, but as a company that enables you to get things done.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows 7 is seen as an expensive Windows Vista Service Pack. It doesn't run well on older machines, it requires a lot of change in how people work and it still isn't intuitive to use. I would even dare say it's downright clunky compared to the age-old Windows way. People stay with Windows XP because it works well or they go to Mac or even Linux if they need to change anyway.
Windows 7 is only a hit because it's better than Vista and all computers in the last 4 years have come either with Vista or 7. But even so, most corporate users as well as a lot of home users still decide to downgrade to XP which most 7 licenses except for retail allows you to do. So actually the count for sold licenses is high but a bunch of them have downgraded again.
XBox 360 is old and everybody has been waiting for the new one for at least 2 years now. Sure it sold a lot of consoles only because Sony was priced too high and Wii seemed downright juvenile. XBox 360 is cheap enough for most gamers older than 12 to get one but afaik the division has been making a loss ever since the inception. However the RROD, the issues with EA stopping to host older games and a bunch of other issues have given a lot of gamers no incentive to buy any further into the XBox (Kinect has flopped) and instead wait on the next generation. The only thing that keeps XBox sales up imho is Rock Band.
Windows 7 Phone - at this point I think you're being sarcastic. Nobody has a Windows 7 phone, nobody wants a Windows phone. The 5 and 6 versions have forever poisoned the user base (and you thought Mac fans were frothing at the mouths, you should've seen Windows smartphone fans 5 years ago). Most people here where I work (where Windows phone was kinda the only choice 2-3 years ago) are heavily lobbying to get permission and some infrastructure for the iPhone with some already getting through. It is plain out buggy, crashes and is very very complicated (Who has place and the precision to use a start menu drop down & multi-paged, multi-tabbed configuration menu on a 3" screen). To enable Bluetooth on one of these phones you literally have to tap through 3 levels of crap you don't need and about 9 clicks + the menu's are super redundant in naming. Is Bluetooth in connectivity, networking or wireless
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
its not a totaly bad summary though. The problem is twofold:
firstly, we have a stock market that (for all its ills) does collect the predictions of a great many people together and effectively calculates the true worth of a company. All those analysts who are paid to determine who's going to be a winner or a loser in the future really do their best, as they get paid a lot if they get it right. These guys all think Microsoft is going nowhere. I mean, their PE ratio is 12 (ie the share price compared to sales
Yes, really. And it's "brand", not "company". (Score:3, Interesting)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 wasn't a huge hit. It just wasn't the steaming pile of crap the Vista was. Water tastes as nectar to a thirsty man, but it remains plain water. Windows 7 sells, as part of new PC's. But many a company and consumer is still on XP. For MS, this is lethal. It NEEDS the continues upgrade revenue to fund its many programs. And those who are still on Windows XP also didn't upgrade their office. A double blow.
The original xbox was a disaster, the 360 slightly less so but remember that MS counts replacements as sales. So how many 360 sales are really replacement units for the countless ring of death failures? Count these out and suddenly the figures look very different AND no matter how you count the Wii outsold it by far. The 360 is a decent performer, but that was NOT MS ambition. Sony and Nintendo are still ticking over for the next round meaning MS has yet another round to fund with its diminishing Office and Windows income.
Windows Phone 7 SEVEN, SEVEN and it is still crap. So much for the third release being the charm. While Rim, Android, Nokia and Apple are biggering about who is biggest MS is lingering at the bottom. Yet again.
A bit to early for judging Windows Mobile 7? Hardly, it is after all not the first time we handled this beast. We can judge it very easily, has MS learned from mistakes in the past? No? Then it will fail for the same reasons as before.
As for dominate the OS marketshare? Oh boy, you are a fanboy aren't you. OS market share on what? Tablets? No, that is Apple. Mainframes? No IBM. Servers? No that is Linux. Smart Phones? No that is... Apple again (at least not MS) Handheld gaming consoles? MP3 players? Media players? Oh, the desktop... yeah and Apple who does NOT sell Windows is the biggest PC seller right now. Doesn't that give you a bit of a clue?
I know it must hurt for a MS fanboy but their performance of late isn't up to form. MS has a VERY large warchest and can keep the fight going for a long time but they would be smarter to re-examine who and what they are. Their constant shifting position on Windows gaming is just a very obvious clue. Then it is "Everything must be on the console" then combined, then windows gaming alone, then windows live then back to gaming on the PC again. MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND. IE9 shows just how little the company understands about its own products. It claims IE9 can be Windows 7 only because it needs some special shit to run... there are FOUR browser makers who have FASTER browsers AND have it running on XP. But MS itself can't fix the crap IE6. That shows how little MS cares about its customers who might be running OLD software but BUGGY software that MS sold them. And don't come with IE is free because then you are to stupid to talk to.
Recent events like the London stock exchange going to linux after MS putting major money into it AND using it in ads, that shows an MS that is no longer the power it once was. IE has dropped to 50%. This is the browser installed by default as you claim by the company that controls the OS marketshare. Doesn't that TELL you something? Browsing is what most consumers use their computer for and they replaced the default browser with their own choice. It doesn't matter how you measure it, this is LOW.
And how do you measure MY pc in your OS dominance? My work PC? My servers? Running linux all, but either barebones or replaced Windows installs. In my department, the windows guys are in the minority. Granted the Apple guys help with that but still. The days when you would find only Windows machines in a company are gone. This means the days of forced use of the latest office products is gone. The boss with his apple book is a powerfull driver to use an exchange EVERYONE can use.
Bye bye lockin, the prime mover and shaker behind Microsofts success.
No, MS is far from gone, but it can't afford to many more mistakes. In many ways I think MS has become its ancient enemy, IBM. IBM could have owned the PC, it didn't because it made all the wrong choices. IBM is still there, but it no longer controls the industry as it used to. MS might end up the same if it hasn't already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...how could it have been getting its ass kicked since day one if it came out a year before the Wii and PS3? /semantics
Re: (Score:2)
the xbox 360 is getting its ass kicked right now
I don't think you're reading it right. Hint: Big numbers are better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ONLY advantage that the XBOX360 has right now is developers, developers, developers, developers. Hell, with a major cock-up that cost billions to Microsoft (with a 60% failure rate on those consoles) people only stayed with the XBOX360 because of their prior investment in the game purchases. Hell, if you had thousands invested in games wouldn't you go get another couple hundred dollar XBOX360 so you could continue to play them? Basically, games on a console are DRM, based solely on vendor lock in via
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't understand how people like you are judging these statistics.
So the Wii has sold more units than the 360 or the PS3 - which ultimately makes both of them failures, right? I mean, there's no POSSIBLE way either of them could be a success if they weren't number one, right?
Look at that, almost 44 Million units sold. That can't possibly be any indicator of how well its doing on its own. No, you HAVE to look at Nintendo's statistics to gauge success. You can't be making money if you don't sell more than y
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You don't consider Linux Desktop a success? I think Ubuntu is a huge success. Just because it's not the one on top doesn't mean it isn't successful, my whole point.
360 beats PS3 in North America (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the xbox 360 is getting its ass kicked right now
According to the cumulative sales numbers at VGChartz, Xbox 360 has found its niche. It is still the leader among high-definition-capable video game consoles in alphabetic locales. Xbox 360 is neck-and-neck with PS3 in Europe and significantly in front (60-40) in Americas. I don't call that "getting its ass kicked" unless you're talking about Japan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Xbox 360 nearly dominates the console gaming market right now in the United States
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, WP7 will likely do fairly well among 18-25 year old men from the suburbs.
I hate to say it, but I think Apple still has the best chance of huge growth in the smartphone market. They control the hardware and software and have a sense of style. Android might be great, but Google is letting their partners screw it up. Can you imagine the iPhone having something like a Nascar or Blockbuster app that you can't delete? Apple has it's flaws, but the crap the carriers do to Android phones is ridiculous.
I have a
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Informative)
MS has been an also ran in the mobile OS market for as long as it's been in it
Did you already forget how WinMo owned Palm back in the day? Or do you think that the mobile market only started with iPhone?
As for potential of WP7, it's too early to tell either way. We'll see when the sales figures for the first quarter come in.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is an entirely different market and a market I can't see Microsoft making a dent in. Windows Phone 7 has plenty of terrible design decisions, for example what does the YouTube app do? It is a shortcut to IE which goes to YouTube's mobile site which then loads in a Zune player. WTF? No multitasking for third-party apps? Even Apple allows that now!
Yes, I know that the iPhone/Android/BlackBerry/WebOS/Symbian/whatever wasn't perfect on day 1 either but Microsoft has no excuse to be making such brain-dead decisions. The way I see it, the iPhone can win for the UI, Android can win for openness, BlackBerry can win for corporate drones, WebOS can win in design elegance, Symbian can win in it seems like every market other than the US. But Windows Phones I don't think have a chance anymore unless MS releases a big "service pack" that puts them up to speed with iOS and Android at the very least.
Is RIM Microsoft's target? (Score:3, Interesting)
Most commentators like this CNN reporter immediately position WinPhone7 in competition with the iPhone, but just maybe it's RIM who's really the initial target. Consider the enormous investment large corporations have in a Blackberry infrastructure that co-exists with their Exchange servers. Having Outlook on a cell phone with a secure connection to Exchange makes RIM rather superfluous.
There were 10 million Blackberries sold in the first quarter of 2010 according to Gartner [gartner.com]. Devices running the iPhone a
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, WM2003 was a very decent mobile OS for its time. Unfortunately, WM5 really sucked before the release AKU3.5, WM6 was what WM5 actually was supposed to be, and WM6.1 and WM6.5 were downward disappointing.
WP7 lacks everything I actually liked at Windows Mobile. It is probably interested for social networking kind of people, but not for those who want a mobile PC in their pocket.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think 'potential' in the poster's context could be infinite. Such are optimists.
And reality, the potential is near zero, and will remain near zero. Microsoft has lots this, and numerous other values. Hence what Ray Ozzie connoted when he left with an exit memo that ought to shake Wall Street into a regime change in Redmond.
Microsoft's oil well, the Windows Franchise, is losing steam, and steadily. That's the crux of CNN's observation. I agree with them, and the inflection point was Windows Vista, and the denial that open source and Steve Jobs could do it better. Maybe the PC isn't dead, it's just one more device. Microsoft doesn't understand this, and the incestuous products they make, coupled with a not-invented-here mentality means their distant and certain future death if they don't wake up.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Courier, slate, RROD, Zune, Vista. Failures abound, then Apple passed them by. The "flyover" states are indeed buying lots and lots of iPhones and iPods, and now iPads. I don't like them myself, but the proof is in the pudding. MS is a dying brand, if they don't turn it around and start to think (sorry) different. Not "just like Apple" I mean different, as in get some real ideas and stop focusing on the now declining bottom-line. Bean-counters don't make good software engineers, still you have to win on both sides of the house. Sorry, MS is just an over-sized company that might not be able to maneuver through this new world like a smaller, or more nimble thinking companies do. I'm no Apple fan anymore, MS may not want to follow the leader here either. Innovation is a mystery to them. Period.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
This ... slowly crush the competition..rubrik may have been true years ago. It's not true now.
IE is losing share, slowly steadily, assuredly. There's a fanboi contingent that will longingly await each new IE release. Fine. That contingent gets smaller each year.
The xbox is out of my vision; I'm not a gamer at all. I don't follow gaming machines, or their software. I follow personal and large systems, and communications infrastructure of all kinds.
In terms of pioneering markets, Microsoft voluntarily gave up that effort. The Windows franchise was botched by horrendous architectural mistakes, and business practices punished the world over--> and for good reason.
Just like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq spawned a reactionary counter-force, MS business practices fueled the evolution of open source models. Lack of product vision means that Microsoft stood by to watch iStuff pioneer new markets and satisfy consumer demands in ways never seen before. It meant that they lost the market cap war to Apple, and Apple's quality hard work.
Microsoft has a powerful developer network and business partnering has helped them enormously. Don't think for a minute that Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt don't understand that. And Microsoft didn't do developers first in this industry-- they copied Novell and others.
The XP-Vista-7 evolution has been a disaster. Microsoft and cloud has been a disaster. Microsoft and smartphones has been a disaster. Microsoft and servers have been better than expected, and part of the reason that they own a lot of corporate turf is because of the success of Active Directory, which for better or worse, is the de facto DS on corporate networks today.
Developers get pissed off by a lot of organizations. In the end, Microsoft ends up losing because they're desperately behind in each and every area that I track (again, I don't track gaming in any way). If the love of money is a metric, MS has friends. But there's little warmth there, little of the 'good fight' that motivates people to do more than 9-5. They need a Wall Street electrical jolt in a big way. I nice sell-off ought to get their attention. Heavens knows nothing else does.
Re:Really??? (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but don't forget that Apple, Android, and even WebOS have a several-year head start on Microsoft in the mobile space.
Several years.
That's a lot of lost ground to recapture before you can even begin to overtake any of them.
Zune was DoA. Kin was DoA. Courier was vaporware. XBox 360 bet heavily on HD-DVD, and lost.
Was Vista part of the "getting better" process? IE6 stagnated for years until they were forced to begin upgrades again by Firefox. WP7 is several years behind its competitors, and for all its promise, it still has to make up that lag if it wants to seriously compete.
This is not to say that MSFT is a 'dead' or 'dying' company. But they've gotten complacent as the 800-pound gorilla, and other companies are capitalizing on their inability to adapt & move quickly, and in many cases, beating the pants off them. I think Microsoft's success is far from guaranteed, and it's clear that they are mostly in a reactive mode, rather than an "innovate & open new markets" mode -- they're *responding* to Apple & Android tablets. They're *responding* to Apple and Android phones. They're *responding* to the iPod. They're *responding* to other gaming consoles, other browsers, other search engines, other social networks. And every misstep they make, you can bet one of their competitors will capitalize on it.
If they don't get out of that reactive mode, they will slide towards irrelevance, and end up a "me too" brand on the market. It's not that MSFT is a "bad" company - they have a lot of bright people working there. But I don't think management has a clear strategic vision for the company, and it shows in the clear "nobody will take this segment seriously until there's a *MICROSOFT* product there" attitudes that Ballmer et. al convey. Nobody was going to take the iPhone seriously. Nobody was going to take the iPad seriously. Nobody would want an iPod once Zune was available. That's coasting, not leading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't just anybody's game, it is anybody's game from month to month. 6-8 Months ago, everyone wanted to make an iPhone app. Now everyone wants to make an Android app. The truth is, the cellphone market is insane.
Re:Really??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Visual Studio is pretty much liquid digital sex
Not breaking Microsoft up into pieces was the worst thing that ever happened. We could be buying Visual Studio for Linux and Android right about now if they had been.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By "niche" product, I mean most people don't have a need for an Xbox360. It's a solid product in its niche, however. Your iPhone comment is irrelevant.
"Fastest selling OS ever?" That is news to me. Might well be true, but I'm not sure the global explosion of sales of PCs (due to historic low prices) pre-bundled with Win7 is any indication of Win7's success. How many people ran out to Best Buy to get their copy of Win7 when it came out? How many are doing so now? I bet, at the consumer level, more people
good (Score:5, Insightful)
When I think hip, happening, cutting edge, pushing the envelope, fun.... I don't think Microsoft.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, as a consumer, he actually wants some more innovation and coolness in his products.
In terms of producing a "game changer" in any consumer segment, Microsoft isn't really doing much of that these days. Microsoft has become like IBM used to be ... somewhat stodgy, a little stuck in their ways, a safe bet for IT, but not making anything "fun" or "innovative". Certainly, nothing you might call "cool".
Looking at what people want these days, it's tablets, smart-phones, and media players -- it's really hard to see Microsoft as having any real foothold in these markets. Between Google and Apple (and a few others) products are getting made that people want; Microsoft comes out with a "me too" product (eg Zune) that most people disregard. (OK, there was that fat guy who got the Zune logo tattooed on his arm, but even he's moved on.) I'm just not seeing the results of their "freedom to innovate".
Their XBox is still strong, but that's selling to a specific kind of gamer. Except for the OS on my computer, for personal stuff, I can't name a single Microsoft product that I use. Sure, I need Office for work, but they make neither hardware nor software that I want for in the home. In fact, if they do make something like that, I'm completely unaware of it.
For the most part, as a consumer (and not as someone who works in the industry and uses a lot of MS stuff), they don't make any shiny toys that appeal to me. They're just not that kind of company.
Royalty fee (Score:5, Insightful)
AND, the summary leaves out that Microsoft is trying to leverage this to prevent companies like Acer from choosing Android for their netbooks or tablet PCs, not phones.
Maybe Microsoft is different? (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it. Microsoft has no tablet because they don't make the hardware. They make the software which allows other smaller companies like Asus, HP, Acer etc to use in their hardware. IE never made them any money instead it brought on tons of headaches and a bad reputation, we should be happy that it is dying.. not sad. Their money makers are windows, xbox, office etc.. none of which are mentioned in the article.
It's like saying Intel is dying.. oh wait I saw that the other day too!
Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not xbox-- that division has lost billions since inception. And not "etc.", either. Just Window and Office [osnews.com]. Really, Microsoft never WAS a consumer company; it's always been a business company. So saying it's "no longer" a consumer brand is like saying that Apple no longer dominates the enterprise market.
False (Score:4, Funny)
They first made a profit in 2008, of $524 Million [joystiq.com]. While it hasn't made money every quarter, to say it's "lost billions since its inception" is misleading at best. Unless you're claiming that zune sales and PC games are making up for "billions" lost (LOL!), your claim is bogus.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't gone back far enough. http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-operating-income-by-division-2010-2#comment-4b73deb8000000000031ec9b [businessinsider.com]
Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? (Score:4, Funny)
Not xbox-- that division has lost billions since inception.
Curse you Leonardo!
Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? (Score:5, Interesting)
Their money makers are windows, xbox, office etc.. none of which are mentioned in the article.
Microsoft has an incredibly great balance sheet and is making shitloads of money, and that's good news.
The bad news is that Redmond has developed a nasty habit of releasing incremental improvements and lackluster copies of what the competition is doing.
It's not that what they sell is bad, Windows Seven is actually a very good operating system (and this is said by someone who switched to Ubuntu, but I still see enough Windows Seven to like what I see). The xbox obviously gets great reviews (I'm not a game machine owner, so I can't judge for myself). Windows phones have always had a good reputation as decent phones. Hell, you can have my Microsoft Natural Keyboard when you pry it from my cold, dead, grateful-not-to-have-needed-carpal-tunnel-surgery hands. Microsoft makes some really good stuff.
The problem with Microsoft is that they aren't trying to make brand new stuff any more, and their copies of others' work has become really lackluster. Windows Seven is great, but set Windows 2000 next to Windows Seven and tell me there's 10 years of significant innovation there. Tell me how many revolutions that product has gone through since they dumped the 95/98/ME kernel. No, I'll tell you. Zero. Nada. Zip. It doesn't make Seven BAD, it just makes it BORING.
Where are they in social networking? Where are they on mobile stuff? Search? Bing? Really? Where's my Microsoft Flying Car? Why am I carrying a cell phone at all? Where's my glasses with a heads-up display, eye tracking, and an earpiece built into the wing? What is Microsoft Labs working on? Oh, right, a ribbon interface for Office, a poor clone of Google, and an update to Windows CE. Yawn. Snore.
That's how the market works, if you don't come out with something that makes people go "WOW!" every now and then, you're dying. That doesn't mean bankruptcy is imminent or your shareholders should be concerned about not making a dividend 3 years from now. It just means that you aren't a leader any more, and you need to get off those laurels before they leave a permanent mark on your ass. Because once people start looking to others for new stuff, they'll start drifting away from you on your cash cow products.
Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? (Score:4, Insightful)
if you don't come out with something that makes people go "WOW!" every now and then, you're dying
The problem is, if you're largely a software-only company like Microsoft it's very hard to come out with something that makes people go "wow." What are the things that have made people go 'wow' over the past 30 years? iPhones, TiVos, Digital Cameras, Plasma TVs, Priuses, Netbooks, CD Players, webcams... They've all been hardware.
...and sure MS sells xboxes, mice and the odd webcam and zune, but for real hardware they depend on the hardware manufacturers, and it's very very hard to get the likes of HP or Dell to innovate on Microsoft's behalf. Things are further complicated by the fact that Microsoft, as a software vendor, has to be reasonably hardware-supplier-neutral. They last thing they want to do is get in bed with Sony and then piss off Toshiba.
Of course there have been some Googley exceptions like Facebook and YouTube but they're the exception.
When you own the hardware and the software, you can truly innovate when it comes to gadgets - When you only own the software, you can't.
Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? (Score:4, Insightful)
I could have a cutesy "FTFY" moment, but this is far too serious of a problem:
Microsoft has ALWAYS "released incremental improvements and lackluster copies of what the competition is doing." This is their business model, and it has worked for two and a half decades. They won't change until they HAVE to change (which might be what this story is insinuating).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has an incredibly great balance sheet and is making shitloads of money, and that's good news.
The bad news is that Redmond has developed a nasty habit of releasing incremental improvements and lackluster copies of what the competition is doing.
Microsoft have been doing that for the better part of thirty years. It's just that it's become much easier to spot these things since the web became mainstream.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where are they in social networking? Where are they on mobile stuff? Search? Bing? Really? Where's my Microsoft Flying Car? Why am I carrying a cell phone at all? Where's my glasses with a heads-up display, eye tracking, and an earpiece built into the wing? What is Microsoft Labs working on? Oh, right, a ribbon interface for Office, a poor clone of Google, and an update to Windows CE. Yawn. Snore.
The interesting thing, to me at least is that they actually do seem to be researching things like this but it never makes it to market. I've heard different reasons, including infighting between departments, but the end result almost always seems to be that they had something really need going and then it disappears with an accompanying statement of "oh that was just for internal research".
A good example would be the Courier [wikipedia.org].. the first concept designs I saw online for that thing were just awesome in what
Netcraft confirms it (Score:5, Funny)
Windows is dying!
Re:Netcraft confirms it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Netcraft confirms it (Score:5, Funny)
Damn right.
Netcraft couldn't confirm a restaurant booking.
Re:Netcraft confirms it (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows is like the sick old man of Europe.
It may be a zombie but it will probably outlive all of it's contemporary commercial competitors.
those who don't remember the past... (Score:5, Insightful)
The company I work for is currently positioning itself for the post-PC era, when mobile devices take over the jobs that used to require a big-box PC, or at least a laptop. Very soon these devices will wirelessly talk to keyboard, monitors, each other, the public internet... but they'll fit in your shirt pocket. And they *won't* be running Windows. That's what scares the shit out of Microsoft. The world is changing out from under them, and they are not positioned to be a player in the upcoming mobile and cloud computing world.
Remember the past. This isn't the first time such market forces have killed dominant players in the industry. Remember minicomputer, back in the 60's and 70's? Gone. Remember technical workstations? Killed by the PC. Well, mobile computing is about to do this to the PC, and by extension, to Microsoft.
Microsoft's problem summed up: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lenovo's technology director recently told PC Mag that his company won't be building around the platform: "The challenge with Windows 7 is that it's based on the same paradigm as 1985 -- it's really an interface that's optimized for a mouse and keyboard."
MS wants to build everything off of Windows. That's where Apple was smart, they created different OS for the hand held devices.
Re:Microsoft's problem summed up: (Score:4, Informative)
Bill
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does Windows Phone 7 act and feel like Windows 7 on the desktop?
Re:Microsoft's problem summed up: (Score:4, Informative)
MS wants to build everything off of Windows. That's where Apple was smart, they created different OS for the hand held devices.
You realize that Windows 7 and Windows Phone have absolutely nothing in common, right? Not even the kernel, much less UI. In fact, OS X and iOS share significantly more components.
The branding is confusing, though. Maybe the phone version should've been called "Tiles" instead. ~
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> That's where Apple was smart, they created different OS for the hand held devices.
No. They just changed the desktop shell and the application API.
Underneath it's still Darwin and looks very much MacOS or Unix like if you bother to peek under the covers.
It's interesting how much this "myth of PhoneOS uniqueness" gets repeated despite how bogus it really is.
No. This is all down to branding and adversing and propaganda. In truth, Microsoft's phone tech probably shares less with it'd Desktop cousin than Ap
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Windows 7 Mobile isn't a new OS. It's Windows CE.
The article has some serious errors in it! (Score:4, Informative)
Also, it states that Microsoft wants the vendors to use Windows Mobile on their Netbooks and Tablets, which is also not true. Currently, Microsoft is using Windows 7 for those devices, not Windows Mobile, which is for their older handsets. There is no Windows Phone OS 7 based software for Tablets or Netbooks either.
Bill
Late to the game? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has been late to the game in crucial modern technologies like mobile, search, media, gaming and tablets.
Microsoft was doing tablets (since 2002!) and mobile long before Apple kicked out the iPhone and the iPad (yes, I'm aware of the Newton, but it wasn't directly involved in the successes of the recent mobile efforts).
Just because they haven't been doing it right doesn't mean they haven't been doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the writer know anything about Microsoft?
Microsoft a Dying Brand? On which planet are you? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder whether the author of this piece knows what he's talking about. I will agree with such a statement if I see just 10% of alternative desktops on my University Campus.
Over here, Microsoft and its products represent almost 100% of IT desktop infrastructure. It would not be far fetched to say "Microsoft all the way." This is despite the fact that general student computers we use take at least 8 minutes to boot! This is a major pain every morning. Ee just have MS Office on them and they still run Windows XP.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That doesn't say something of the BRAND Microsoft. People are using Microsoft because the market dictates the use of Microsoft products, not because they have warm fuzzy feelings about Microsoft. As a brand Microsoft has a piss poor image by a lot of consumers imho.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, there are people who's PERCEPTION is that the market dictates it. I made lots of money for 1995-2005 using zero Microsoft products in the tech industry (Macs and Macromedia + Adobe).
The market dictates you need a tool to access email, write a document, or produce a spreadsheet. Consumers dictate which product they THINK they have to have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you understand the argument? Did you purchase those copies of Windows or did they come with the computers?
You are still running Windows XP so clearly you are just running the OEM bundled software that came with the computers. This is the point being made, that people like you are NOT going out and buying Microsoft, you are using Windows because it was bundled with the computer.
Re:Microsoft a Dying Brand? On which planet are yo (Score:5, Informative)
Just curious as what kind of Universities you people hang out at? I've graduated from three Universities (Penn State in 1998, Manchester in 2005, then Texas in 2009) and they all were overwhelmingly (9 of every 10 computers) Mac OS based (at least in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, Natural Sciences, and Education, respectively)
The community college system that I work in uses Windows for some administrative stuff, but the academic side is nearly 100% OSX as well. Ditto for Texas State University down the road.
And before you dismiss this as Hoidy-Toidy Mac-usin College Folk...this is Texas, after all.
Re:Microsoft a Dying Brand? On which planet are yo (Score:4, Insightful)
And in engineering it's almost 100% Windows. Why? Software.
Poor Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
If their consumer brand continues to erode like this, they might end up with the likes of IBM, which as we all know is not a very successful company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree... if I was only half as unsuccessful as Microsoft has been... I'm pretty sure I'd still be happy about it.
Bill
Re:Poor Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Poor Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM was NEVER much of a consumer brand so they never "ended up" that way.
Microsoft doesn't have the breadth and depth of product that IBM does, not by a long shot.
Royalties (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure many phone makers are very happy with the fact that MS charges royalties for Windows Phone 7. This is because MS will be the one defending any IP/patent lawsuits, etc. Why do you think people are suing HTC and other Android phone makers instead of Google? Google probably isn't legally responsible. MS will be, so they are charging a small amount for it.
Do we still hate Microsoft here on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Get off my la.. bah. Nap time.
Microsoft just doesn't make my blood boil the way they used to. Sure, I still hate them out of habit, but I'm old and tired now. I feel like a bed-ridden, old and gray, Elmer Fudd who still mumbles that he "could have had that wascilly wabbit', but in reality doesn't really care and just wants you to leave him alone so he can watch Diagnosis Murder.
That fact alone is a bad sign for Microsoft. They just don't matter in the same way they used to and they certainly don't drive Technology the way they did in the past few decades. Their tactics are less of a threat than they used to be. Sure, they'd do evil if they could, but they are just fruit flies at my picnic, and I've got my eyes peeled for bears.
No no no. I plan on stepping aside and enjoying my Golden Years while the next generation shakes their fists at their Apples and Googles and Facebooks.
Re:Do we still hate Microsoft here on Slashdot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft just doesn't make my blood boil the way they used to.
I don't know about "we," but Microsoft's crass manipulation of the ISO standards process sure pissed me off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Microsoft is nowhere near as threatening as they used to be.
Apple has taken their place as the media darling and geek bogeyman.
MS has always been a "commercial" brand (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has always been a commercial brand and not a consumer one. I've never purchased (or used freely) a Microsoft product because I wanted to. (Xbox being an outlier, even though I have a PS3 now).
I think most people feel this way. It's weird to find somebody who actually chooses an MS product willingly.
With that, Windows 7 is really nice. Too bad it's about 15 years too late.
The fundamental difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamental difference between Microsoft and Apple (or other consumer product companies) is that people like you or I are not MS customers.
Microsoft's customers are Dell, HP and Acer, and large corporate IT departments. That's where most of their money comes from, and they know it. MS cares about their needs and not ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be too sure. Other products have been well entrenched. Remember dBase, WordPerfect, Wordstar, Lotus 1-2-3?
Nobody will be able to compete with MS-Office, or Windows, directly. But, with changing technologies, other companies will not have to compete directly. The world is going to SaaS, and to mobile internet devices, and MS is not keeping up.
Re:Ford did drop Microsoft plugs from their ads (Score:4, Informative)
It seems now they don't do that.
I just watched a commercial for the 2011 Ford Fiesta... and lo and behold it talked about Sync, Powered By Microsoft.
I guess that kind of debunks that myth.
By the way, you can also see it on their website here. [fordvehicles.com]
Bill
Japan is not Xenophobic (Score:5, Insightful)
The area they're [Microsoft] failing nearly completely in is Japan... who are very Xenophobic.
Japan loves em some games and mobiles and tech. Guess what, the top selling phone in Sept [wirelesswatch.jp] was the iPhone 4 (and it has been previously numerous times).
Is that xenophobia, or does Microsoft just care to not understand Japan?