Microsoft is Dead(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Microsoft is Dead
http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html
445 comments
Being nearly 50years old, what frightens me about MS is that they think they can sell an OS which they can remotely turn off without out a court warrant and then its up to you if your business hasn't gone bankrupt to sue them . This just shows complete and utter contempt for their customers.Which will do for them in the long run.My next box will be linux. Maybe the apple setup etc looks attractive to the younger generation but its only superficial. They have their own history of arrogant greed too. Bob G
Microsoft used to be my hero, ever since the day I turned on my first TRS-80 and saw the Microsoft Basic copyright notice.
For 20 years Microsoft was my whole world. MS-DOS, old Windows, new Windows. DLLs, ODBC, IIS, and all the rest of it. Keeping up with Microsoft was a chore. I'd learn to program DLLs, and by the time I was good at it, they were pushing Active X. Or I'd learn to use named pipes, only to find that everyone was using sockets. Everything was a confusing mismash of competing APIs, old code, new code, multiple ways of doing the same thing with no good explanation. Finding help in MSDN was a nightmare. Sometimes they'd just repackage or rebrand the same technology for no other reason than to confuse you. DNA? What the hell was that?
One day my boss asked me to do a project in Java. What an eye-opener. Everything made sense. Everything I needed was there, but without tons of redundant, obsolete material. Today I run Linux servers, program in Java, deploy on JBoss with MySQL databases. I ditched Visual Studio in favor of Eclipse. I love working with this stuff. I feel truly sorry for people who are forced to limit themselves to Microsoft technology.
For 20 years Microsoft was my whole world. MS-DOS, old Windows, new Windows. DLLs, ODBC, IIS, and all the rest of it. Keeping up with Microsoft was a chore. I'd learn to program DLLs, and by the time I was good at it, they were pushing Active X. Or I'd learn to use named pipes, only to find that everyone was using sockets. Everything was a confusing mismash of competing APIs, old code, new code, multiple ways of doing the same thing with no good explanation. Finding help in MSDN was a nightmare. Sometimes they'd just repackage or rebrand the same technology for no other reason than to confuse you. DNA? What the hell was that?
One day my boss asked me to do a project in Java. What an eye-opener. Everything made sense. Everything I needed was there, but without tons of redundant, obsolete material. Today I run Linux servers, program in Java, deploy on JBoss with MySQL databases. I ditched Visual Studio in favor of Eclipse. I love working with this stuff. I feel truly sorry for people who are forced to limit themselves to Microsoft technology.
Old news! I've been using Linux since 1993, been involved in startups since 1999, and about the last time that I paid any attention to Microsoft was when they launched .NET (around 2003). In fact, the .NET implementation (a belated catch-up in many ways to Java) was about the only semi-innovative development effort I have seen come out of MS in the last 10 years. Even so, it was little more than a tarted-up virtual machine, a cleaned-up set of Java-equivalent programming APIs, and a couple of cool features like crypto-signed DLLs, a global assembly cache (hmm - where do you put all your JAR files, then?!) and the ability to mix and match programming languages in a single application (though only one target language per DLL, or more strictly, per .NET "assembly").
Then, Miguel and the gang came along and wrote Mono, and pretty much re-implemented everything of value from .NET, without the licencing overheads of running in a windoze only environment. That basically took the wind out of the sails for Microsoft, and they've been floating around, almost impassive, pretty much just watching the emergence of ASP/SaaS computing, web 2.0, AJAX, Ruby on Rails, blogging, wikipedia, bittorrent, skype, asterisk and everything else from the sidelines ever since.
I think the real problem comes back to people. It's a bit like Paul's articles on Great Hackers and what motivates them. I know plenty of great hackers (and I would like think that a couple of startups later I am at least a good one! - though I find myself more and more on the business side in recent times, growing our company and developing our people - good young hackers themselves). I even used to know a few guys at Microsoft (Australia and Singapore). The last "good" person that I knew who went to Microsoft (from a PhD programme at Melbourne Uni) joined in 2002. Since then, nobody I know even went near the place. If you can't attract great people, then you won't build great products, and everything else is a forgone conclusion. Microsoft has built great cash-cow businesses, and great fortunes for its founders, but I don't believe it will ever be a player again.
Then, Miguel and the gang came along and wrote Mono, and pretty much re-implemented everything of value from .NET, without the licencing overheads of running in a windoze only environment. That basically took the wind out of the sails for Microsoft, and they've been floating around, almost impassive, pretty much just watching the emergence of ASP/SaaS computing, web 2.0, AJAX, Ruby on Rails, blogging, wikipedia, bittorrent, skype, asterisk and everything else from the sidelines ever since.
I think the real problem comes back to people. It's a bit like Paul's articles on Great Hackers and what motivates them. I know plenty of great hackers (and I would like think that a couple of startups later I am at least a good one! - though I find myself more and more on the business side in recent times, growing our company and developing our people - good young hackers themselves). I even used to know a few guys at Microsoft (Australia and Singapore). The last "good" person that I knew who went to Microsoft (from a PhD programme at Melbourne Uni) joined in 2002. Since then, nobody I know even went near the place. If you can't attract great people, then you won't build great products, and everything else is a forgone conclusion. Microsoft has built great cash-cow businesses, and great fortunes for its founders, but I don't believe it will ever be a player again.
I no longer consult but if I had a small business or non-profit as a client today I would:
- Hook everyone up to a high speed connection.
- Not worry about OS or platform as long as they could run Firefox or IE
- Sign them up with Google Apps ( http://www.google.com/a/ )
- Sign them up with a web-based accounting system such as ACCPAC Online, ePeachtree, Oracle Small Business Suite, etc if they do in-house accounting
- Spend 45 minutes showing them how to admin the system via the web
- Present my bill
Of course Microsoft is dead.
- Hook everyone up to a high speed connection.
- Not worry about OS or platform as long as they could run Firefox or IE
- Sign them up with Google Apps ( http://www.google.com/a/ )
- Sign them up with a web-based accounting system such as ACCPAC Online, ePeachtree, Oracle Small Business Suite, etc if they do in-house accounting
- Spend 45 minutes showing them how to admin the system via the web
- Present my bill
Of course Microsoft is dead.
Great points. I think that part of what microsoft doesn't understand is that it's no longer completely about the bottom line. Customer satisfaction is the driving force of the web 2.0 movement, and while I think that microsoft is hardly dead, it needs to evolve a great deal (basically reiterating what Paul said). I disagree that the desktop is dead though, I think that many people overestimate the capabilities of the of the web as it is today (give it a few more years). This might just be me overreaching and being completely wrong, but I believe that desktops will have a greater role in the far future because people will be able to host and manage their own slices of the internet. In a few years the desktop will be the equivalent of a glorified facebook profile and weblog hosted by the individual, and the user experience will be something of an integrated desktop/internet environment with web 2.0 companies reduced to widgets downloaded onto the desktop. Maybe. Thanks for the good essay Paul.
Speaking to a microsoftie this evening about all this and another lightbulb went on -- one of the things hobbling Microsoft is its historical focus on the partner as the channel for connecting with customers. Think about it -- how often do you buy a Microsoft product directly from Microsoft? Never? You always buy it through someone else, through the "channel" -- which might be a reseller, a var, or an oem. This disconnection from the customer is killing microsoft in the NEW world...
Microsoft recently came to my graduate school to recruit for user experience design and user experience research positions. 10 folks out of my program (about 25% of us) scored and interview.
Every single one of us had no intention of working for Microsoft and joked about it intensely. Microsoft had be relegated to the realm of other boring places to do our type of work but that you interview at for practice (and, you know, just in case that job at google doesn't pan out).
In my interview, the topic of digg.com came up and neither interviewer had heard of them. I said they were like a type of slahsdot, or maybe magnolia. Never heard of those either I quipped "oh, maybe you're not involve much in the web / web development world".
"Actually, I'm one of the project managers for Internet Explorer."
The interview went downhill, from Microsoft, from that point forward. My heart wasn't even in it "just in case" anymore.
Every single one of us had no intention of working for Microsoft and joked about it intensely. Microsoft had be relegated to the realm of other boring places to do our type of work but that you interview at for practice (and, you know, just in case that job at google doesn't pan out).
In my interview, the topic of digg.com came up and neither interviewer had heard of them. I said they were like a type of slahsdot, or maybe magnolia. Never heard of those either I quipped "oh, maybe you're not involve much in the web / web development world".
"Actually, I'm one of the project managers for Internet Explorer."
The interview went downhill, from Microsoft, from that point forward. My heart wasn't even in it "just in case" anymore.
It used to be the case, that if you created an application, you could be crushed very easily by Microsoft if they copied your functionality, because they owned the dominant platform.
I think Paul is right that Microsoft cannot do that anymore. The dominant platform is the web now, and Microsoft is not a dominant player there, let alone the owner. The web platform does not have an owner.
Currently Google is the most dangerous company for companies who bring a new application, but even they are not as dangerous as Microsoft was. It is still not perceived by its users as the company that brings the web platform.
For Google to crush MySpace or YouTube for instance, is not as easy at all as it was for Microsoft to crush Netscape.
I think Paul is right that Microsoft cannot do that anymore. The dominant platform is the web now, and Microsoft is not a dominant player there, let alone the owner. The web platform does not have an owner.
Currently Google is the most dangerous company for companies who bring a new application, but even they are not as dangerous as Microsoft was. It is still not perceived by its users as the company that brings the web platform.
For Google to crush MySpace or YouTube for instance, is not as easy at all as it was for Microsoft to crush Netscape.
Microsoft is still and will likely continue to be the world's most profitable software company. OS X will not reach 20% global marketshare by the end of the decade and Goldman Sachs IBankers will still be punching away on MS Excel for the foreseeable future.
What does it mean to be dead then?
What I think Paul Graham is saying, and this is underscored by the notion of "being dangerous," is that Microsoft is no longer the place where new ideas and true innovation is going to come from. Startups are born from fresh ideas, and the companies that are dangerous to them are places like Google which seem to being designed to produce competitors to startups.
Microsoft will continue to sell $50 OEM copies of Windows to Dell and licenses of Office but this is a business on the decline. Microsoft is Old-tech stuck in the era of desktop applications, closed development strategies, and the economics of software licensing.
The financial effects of MS being dead are already showing some effect, MSFT has moved much since the dot-com boom, but it will take 5-10 years and continued blunders from MS to see some real damage.
What does it mean to be dead then?
What I think Paul Graham is saying, and this is underscored by the notion of "being dangerous," is that Microsoft is no longer the place where new ideas and true innovation is going to come from. Startups are born from fresh ideas, and the companies that are dangerous to them are places like Google which seem to being designed to produce competitors to startups.
Microsoft will continue to sell $50 OEM copies of Windows to Dell and licenses of Office but this is a business on the decline. Microsoft is Old-tech stuck in the era of desktop applications, closed development strategies, and the economics of software licensing.
The financial effects of MS being dead are already showing some effect, MSFT has moved much since the dot-com boom, but it will take 5-10 years and continued blunders from MS to see some real damage.
From Eastern Europe ::: for us, the real life hackers with only 1% of your GDP, it is obvious to _USE_ a software or any IP product, service rather than paying for it. We have money only for cheap hardware (forget macbook), broadband, and maybe some for hosting. These trends represent the future: 4/5 of world population the chinese, indian, arabs, or latinos won't have more money to spend going online.
From this entire business scene only Google is able to get money from us. We are willing to pay only for Google Ads because they are cheap, straight, and delivers ROI next minute.
We go connected for nothing, we create for nothing and we get revenue by partnering Google.
Any other company who does not follow this business model is, or will be dead. Nobody ever will pay for any tools to create an online business but we will share our revenue with who generates us profit.
From this entire business scene only Google is able to get money from us. We are willing to pay only for Google Ads because they are cheap, straight, and delivers ROI next minute.
We go connected for nothing, we create for nothing and we get revenue by partnering Google.
Any other company who does not follow this business model is, or will be dead. Nobody ever will pay for any tools to create an online business but we will share our revenue with who generates us profit.
I agree with the article in general, but you lost some credibility by equating Snipshot to Photoshop. I realize that you have an investment to promote, but please.
7 years ago, we started a company called Collaxa. At that time, all our intranet servers and developer machines where dell/windows with a couple of linux machines only (CVS, build). Most people where using Office.
This year, we are starting a new venture. This time, all the developers run on Mac and all the servers are either hosted or running linux. All the presentations are make using Keynote, the intranet is a wiki (no more word) and some google spreadsheets. No one is using Office. The end result: we have not payed a single dollar to Microsoft.
Although big corporations are locked in, the trend is clear. MSFT is going to need a major turn around to get back on their feet.
This year, we are starting a new venture. This time, all the developers run on Mac and all the servers are either hosted or running linux. All the presentations are make using Keynote, the intranet is a wiki (no more word) and some google spreadsheets. No one is using Office. The end result: we have not payed a single dollar to Microsoft.
Although big corporations are locked in, the trend is clear. MSFT is going to need a major turn around to get back on their feet.
Paul,
I think Apple's resurgence required that Jobs be pushed out. I feel that his time in the wilderness helped him grow in ways that would not have been possible if he had stayed safely ensconced at Apple.
Instead of being at a hugely successful company like Apple, he spent 12 years focused on the challenges at NeXT and Pixar. And the challenges at NeXT were significant. Both companies brought him into contact with very different customer bases. For example, NeXT had a number of major investment banks as big clients. (Granted, Jobs would have had contact with them as CEO of Apple, but as their customer, which is rather different.)
I think Apple's resurgence required that Jobs be pushed out. I feel that his time in the wilderness helped him grow in ways that would not have been possible if he had stayed safely ensconced at Apple.
Instead of being at a hugely successful company like Apple, he spent 12 years focused on the challenges at NeXT and Pixar. And the challenges at NeXT were significant. Both companies brought him into contact with very different customer bases. For example, NeXT had a number of major investment banks as big clients. (Granted, Jobs would have had contact with them as CEO of Apple, but as their customer, which is rather different.)
Paul, excellent article. I have two additional reasons behind why Microsoft is "dead."
Reason (5): Steve Ballmer took over from Bill Gates as CEO in Jan 2000. Chief Sales Guy takes over from Chief Egghead and the company stops building products for its real users.
Reason (6): Web 1.0 hiring. Microsoft hired a huge number of people in 1998-2001, people who were too stupid or incompetent to get a job pretty much anywhere else. The good people all went to web startups then. This was the first crack in Microsoft's "we have the world's best people" armor. B players hire C players, and it goes downhill from there.
Reason (5): Steve Ballmer took over from Bill Gates as CEO in Jan 2000. Chief Sales Guy takes over from Chief Egghead and the company stops building products for its real users.
Reason (6): Web 1.0 hiring. Microsoft hired a huge number of people in 1998-2001, people who were too stupid or incompetent to get a job pretty much anywhere else. The good people all went to web startups then. This was the first crack in Microsoft's "we have the world's best people" armor. B players hire C players, and it goes downhill from there.
Well what hurts me is the thing they have forced people like me to stick to MSFT. Atleast in our univ, they have exclusive tie up with MSFT and they install 99.99% windows only. Its rather 0.01% apple. But some who have admin access put on linux. Most of standard mech engg softwares run on windows. MSFT gives their products at dead cheap prices ... as low as $5 a CD. These dirty tactics are seeing them ahead, but it may not continue as people start seeing the reality. For MSFT to die, these loops must be plugged and nailed to accelerate its death.
It appears that the business life cycle has sped up in the last century. If it took Standard Oil 50 years,IBM 30 years and MS 20 to enter the decline phase, what should we expect GOOG's life cycle to be ?
Ironically, the business that views their 'competitors' as harmful and does not embrace and view them in a positive way, will not benefit long term and will create many enemies - besides losing public trust . If Google is true to their 'do no evil' mantra, then they may possibly be the nemesis of big business and enjoy a very long business life cycle.
Ironically, the business that views their 'competitors' as harmful and does not embrace and view them in a positive way, will not benefit long term and will create many enemies - besides losing public trust . If Google is true to their 'do no evil' mantra, then they may possibly be the nemesis of big business and enjoy a very long business life cycle.
Have you taken a look at their developer toolkit?
ASP.NET is a really strong player in the web, and ATLAS has given them serious AJAX support. It is still pretty buggy now, but has the promise of the same easy drag and drop development that revolutionized Windows developement.
Or XNA? The next generation of game deveopers are already cutting their teeth on C# and XBox.
Or Robotics Studio? They are positioning themselves to corner the OS market for Robotics the same way they did for PCs back in the 80s.
As long as Microsoft has the hearts and minds of millions of developers, they aren't dead.
ASP.NET is a really strong player in the web, and ATLAS has given them serious AJAX support. It is still pretty buggy now, but has the promise of the same easy drag and drop development that revolutionized Windows developement.
Or XNA? The next generation of game deveopers are already cutting their teeth on C# and XBox.
Or Robotics Studio? They are positioning themselves to corner the OS market for Robotics the same way they did for PCs back in the 80s.
As long as Microsoft has the hearts and minds of millions of developers, they aren't dead.
Microsoft will still be THE MAN on the desktop and enterprise for a long time (I just switched to Mac however. Parallels rocks).
And .Net is what will keep them ticking. (Office too, but that's a different post. Have you seen what MindManager has done with Word?)
If anyone wants to put the last nail in their coffin, build a better .Net. And do it with Lisp.
.Net shows what we have needed for a long time. A consistent development platform where it doesn't really matter what language you program in. Everything gets compiled down the same way, everyone uses the same API and libraries. But the syntax is locked away and guarded (big surprise coming from a monopolist). You can't easily find it, and you sure as hell can't easily change it. And even if you do, the byte-code doesn't offer any more power than the over-language. All you can do is beg for a change, and maybe a year later you will get a watered down version.
Free us from our syntax chains.
You've gone on at length about how cool Lisp is. How it can be morphed into whatever language is needed at the time. So prove it. Fix .Net by describing the language syntax in Lisp. Give the end programmer the ability to see and adjust their chosen language to behave as needed on a project by project basis. And do it in a way that will actually get used.
Instead of making a 100 year language, make a 100 year platform where the language can shift as the problems and fads do. It won't be easy, but it might just change the world.
.Net shows what we have needed for a long time. A consistent development platform where it doesn't really matter what language you program in. Everything gets compiled down the same way, everyone uses the same API and libraries. But the syntax is locked away and guarded (big surprise coming from a monopolist). You can't easily find it, and you sure as hell can't easily change it. And even if you do, the byte-code doesn't offer any more power than the over-language. All you can do is beg for a change, and maybe a year later you will get a watered down version.
Free us from our syntax chains.
You've gone on at length about how cool Lisp is. How it can be morphed into whatever language is needed at the time. So prove it. Fix .Net by describing the language syntax in Lisp. Give the end programmer the ability to see and adjust their chosen language to behave as needed on a project by project basis. And do it in a way that will actually get used.
Instead of making a 100 year language, make a 100 year platform where the language can shift as the problems and fads do. It won't be easy, but it might just change the world.
I agree that Microsoft is on the decline, but I disagree that web applications will totally replace the desktop. It's still way too convenient to have hundreds of programs a mouse-click away, and to be able to fire up 50 of them at once on new hardware without any lag. It is true, however, that that desktop needn't be Windows anymore.
I agree that OS X has been partly responsible for converting people away from Windows, but equally responsible is a growing Linux community. Since Linux came out, it has been slowly gaining some of Microsoft's desktop market share, especially since Gnome and KDE have gotten more polished and Ubuntu made its number 1 bug Microsoft.
I was a bit disappointed to see no mention of open source software, because it is not Google Docs that is replacing MS Office, but Open Office. GIMP has been slowly replacing Photoshop since it came out, not Snipshot. Likewise with Firefox overtaking Internet Explorer, Thunderbird being the first to stand in for Outlook, and gcc has been the compiler of choice for years.
In summary, I agree that Microsoft is on the decline and that we are seeing software shift to the Internet, but I never think the desktop will go away. The number of desktops running Windows and other Microsoft software, however, is going to continue to decline. It's one thing to offer free software on the Internet alongside Google ads, it's another entirely to be able to install entirely free, ad-free software with no strings attached, which is an opportunity that the open source community has afforded us.
I agree that OS X has been partly responsible for converting people away from Windows, but equally responsible is a growing Linux community. Since Linux came out, it has been slowly gaining some of Microsoft's desktop market share, especially since Gnome and KDE have gotten more polished and Ubuntu made its number 1 bug Microsoft.
I was a bit disappointed to see no mention of open source software, because it is not Google Docs that is replacing MS Office, but Open Office. GIMP has been slowly replacing Photoshop since it came out, not Snipshot. Likewise with Firefox overtaking Internet Explorer, Thunderbird being the first to stand in for Outlook, and gcc has been the compiler of choice for years.
In summary, I agree that Microsoft is on the decline and that we are seeing software shift to the Internet, but I never think the desktop will go away. The number of desktops running Windows and other Microsoft software, however, is going to continue to decline. It's one thing to offer free software on the Internet alongside Google ads, it's another entirely to be able to install entirely free, ad-free software with no strings attached, which is an opportunity that the open source community has afforded us.
Nice essay, however, I do not actually think that M$ is dead. They are actually recovering from a very chaotic phase of restructuring after the old king was declared dead and with the new ones taking over lead of the company.
Not that I like that company very much, I'd rather go without them as they are not only causing shadows to fall on an otherwise fertile ground, but they also manage to dry out those fertile grounds by taking over and taking in.
And now that they have finally found that they could do patents by means of bribing and replicating existing technology and forge that into something that would even more so protect their grounds, i.e. the global IT market, it seems to me as if we were in for something more, even more treacherous than what we have seen so far.
Now, what is true is that M$ has long led the pack and they for sure have left that pole position of being the scapegoat running, but they sure will manage to take the lead back by simply replicating existing technology and research. By that they have gone through a process of accepting other people's technological advances and by incorporating them into their infrastructure and overall corporate culture they will slowly try to regain their old status.
It would be a nice move, however, to give them the death blow by asking them, in court, how many LOC of open source software they have included in their past projects by simply rewriting the existing code?
Not that I like that company very much, I'd rather go without them as they are not only causing shadows to fall on an otherwise fertile ground, but they also manage to dry out those fertile grounds by taking over and taking in.
And now that they have finally found that they could do patents by means of bribing and replicating existing technology and forge that into something that would even more so protect their grounds, i.e. the global IT market, it seems to me as if we were in for something more, even more treacherous than what we have seen so far.
Now, what is true is that M$ has long led the pack and they for sure have left that pole position of being the scapegoat running, but they sure will manage to take the lead back by simply replicating existing technology and research. By that they have gone through a process of accepting other people's technological advances and by incorporating them into their infrastructure and overall corporate culture they will slowly try to regain their old status.
It would be a nice move, however, to give them the death blow by asking them, in court, how many LOC of open source software they have included in their past projects by simply rewriting the existing code?
With regard to the thesis Microsoft is Dead and it was Google that killed them, some food for thought:
How Microsoft could crush Google in one easy step: http://tinyurl.com/2y8dbh
How Microsoft could crush Google in one easy step: http://tinyurl.com/2y8dbh
My problem with this essay is that it could just as well have been written in 1985, 1990, 1995 or 2000. Microsoft has always been slow in responding to new threats.
1985: Windows 1.0 was a totally insufficient response to the Macintosh. There were plenty of other Window Managers too, all superior (oops, not Topview, now that was an inferior product). Lotus and Borland is going to kill Microsoft with superior applications. 1990: Microsoft put out Windows 3.0. Still DOS inside. ACE consortium wants to kill Microsoft with Motif. 1995: Netscape is the latest presumptive Microsoft killer, IE is an inferior product. Sun unveils Java, purported Microsoft killer. Windows 95 looks nice, still very much DOS at heart. Constant refrain during the latter 90's: Desktop Linux is going to kill Microsoft... 2000- The Web/Sony is going to kill Microsoft.
And it's not like the cool kids ran Microsoft products in 1990 or 1995 either. The tastes of an elite doesn't necessarily reflect the future of the broader market.As long as Apple won't let you run OSX on non-Apple hardware it can't be anything but a niche product.
Sure, Microsoft is vulnerable, but so is Google or Apple or any other company in this business. I don't know why Microsoft are underestimated so often, it might be that we root so much for the underdog that we fail to see what the big meanies strengths are.
1985: Windows 1.0 was a totally insufficient response to the Macintosh. There were plenty of other Window Managers too, all superior (oops, not Topview, now that was an inferior product). Lotus and Borland is going to kill Microsoft with superior applications. 1990: Microsoft put out Windows 3.0. Still DOS inside. ACE consortium wants to kill Microsoft with Motif. 1995: Netscape is the latest presumptive Microsoft killer, IE is an inferior product. Sun unveils Java, purported Microsoft killer. Windows 95 looks nice, still very much DOS at heart. Constant refrain during the latter 90's: Desktop Linux is going to kill Microsoft... 2000- The Web/Sony is going to kill Microsoft.
And it's not like the cool kids ran Microsoft products in 1990 or 1995 either. The tastes of an elite doesn't necessarily reflect the future of the broader market.As long as Apple won't let you run OSX on non-Apple hardware it can't be anything but a niche product.
Sure, Microsoft is vulnerable, but so is Google or Apple or any other company in this business. I don't know why Microsoft are underestimated so often, it might be that we root so much for the underdog that we fail to see what the big meanies strengths are.
Dear Paul,
While you lay out several interesting point and are right on the fact that Microsoft is facing some serious challenges. It is not dead by any means and still exists in the game.
You point out some reasons Microsoft why is "dead": "AJAX and Javascript is the new programming model of choice" I am currently developing a web 2.0 venture namely UReporting. Our Project is based almost entirely on Microsoft technologies. We had the option to use both LAMP based development or ASP.Net/ MS Sql. We chose Microsoft as it served all our needs and then some. Mapping, mobile, streaming, AJAX, Scalability, Community building you name it we are doing it. I have nothing against Javascript or AJAX but I can assure you Microsoft technologies can do everything that AJAX or Javascripting can. Also Ajax for ASP.NET is widely avaialable and used. This is a view not from someone who funds ventures but an actual entreprenuer seeking to minimize costs and develop a scalable and efficient platform.
"Buy all the good "Web 2.0" startups. They could get substantially all of them for less than they'd have to pay for Facebook."
Interesting point especially coming from someone who funds such venture...
In conclusion, While microsoft is definately facing some challenges today (normal for all major businesses), there is no indication they are even close to where you claim them to be.
Have a Good Day
Danial Jameel www.UReporting.com
While you lay out several interesting point and are right on the fact that Microsoft is facing some serious challenges. It is not dead by any means and still exists in the game.
You point out some reasons Microsoft why is "dead": "AJAX and Javascript is the new programming model of choice" I am currently developing a web 2.0 venture namely UReporting. Our Project is based almost entirely on Microsoft technologies. We had the option to use both LAMP based development or ASP.Net/ MS Sql. We chose Microsoft as it served all our needs and then some. Mapping, mobile, streaming, AJAX, Scalability, Community building you name it we are doing it. I have nothing against Javascript or AJAX but I can assure you Microsoft technologies can do everything that AJAX or Javascripting can. Also Ajax for ASP.NET is widely avaialable and used. This is a view not from someone who funds ventures but an actual entreprenuer seeking to minimize costs and develop a scalable and efficient platform.
"Buy all the good "Web 2.0" startups. They could get substantially all of them for less than they'd have to pay for Facebook."
Interesting point especially coming from someone who funds such venture...
In conclusion, While microsoft is definately facing some challenges today (normal for all major businesses), there is no indication they are even close to where you claim them to be.
Have a Good Day
Danial Jameel www.UReporting.com
Deep thoughts. Thanks for them.
Exeeding my goal since 1997, converting one computer and/or person each week to Open Source, usually GNU/Linux, but, have done some BSD (yes, there are some 25 of them!), I am fighting the lock-in monopolism of BOTH Apple/Macintosh and the multiple convicted felon Microsoft.
Major reasons people switch, from my experience: 1. Simplicity of use - GNU/Linux and BSD are immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions" and provide thousands of included applications: games, suites, browsers.
2. Users are tired of having to become a computer technician and spend 2 hours or more each week trying to clean or prevent Microsoft virus, trojan, malware infestations.
3. Disgruntled that Microsoft treats paying customers like criminals, but, now aware that convicted felons act that way, thus, WGA, and in Vista, corporate Microsoft spyware with a "shutdown feature"! Why would anyone accept this?
4. Realization that Microsoft and Mac will sell included free stuff, without proper conscience, and worry about the 'details' such as royalties, customer support, or customer satisfaction, "later"!
5. Awareness that 15 day TRIAL WARE is NOT a selling point for new Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway computers... it is a dis-incentive, thus the great migration to FOSS, where all the FREE software is self protecting, at no extra penalty to the customer.
Yeah, http://distrowatch.com has it, and http://livecdlist.com has it Live!
Exeeding my goal since 1997, converting one computer and/or person each week to Open Source, usually GNU/Linux, but, have done some BSD (yes, there are some 25 of them!), I am fighting the lock-in monopolism of BOTH Apple/Macintosh and the multiple convicted felon Microsoft.
Major reasons people switch, from my experience: 1. Simplicity of use - GNU/Linux and BSD are immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions" and provide thousands of included applications: games, suites, browsers.
2. Users are tired of having to become a computer technician and spend 2 hours or more each week trying to clean or prevent Microsoft virus, trojan, malware infestations.
3. Disgruntled that Microsoft treats paying customers like criminals, but, now aware that convicted felons act that way, thus, WGA, and in Vista, corporate Microsoft spyware with a "shutdown feature"! Why would anyone accept this?
4. Realization that Microsoft and Mac will sell included free stuff, without proper conscience, and worry about the 'details' such as royalties, customer support, or customer satisfaction, "later"!
5. Awareness that 15 day TRIAL WARE is NOT a selling point for new Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway computers... it is a dis-incentive, thus the great migration to FOSS, where all the FREE software is self protecting, at no extra penalty to the customer.
Yeah, http://distrowatch.com has it, and http://livecdlist.com has it Live!
MS dead - yes, just because it has no good moves for a long time now. In my humble opinion last turn point were the times of the first browser's wars.
BitGeek wrote this -
"That's a very sick and twisted view of the world-- and it is from Karl Marx." - it is a bit out of context here, but stil.
Yes M$ dying has to do somethng with Karl Marx, too - let me put aside "sick and twisted" for a moment. Not even prime flagships of economy, which of BitGeek knows about, weren't able to undermine one simple sentence from Marx's "Das Kapital" - Only (human) labour and labour only can produce new value. Not money - labour. There is no need, I presume, to point out the quantity of labour pumped into the "market" since early 1990's on radically different principals then ones driving the dead.
Another view could also come from the economy principals. Shortly it is a story of smart and dumb monopols. The smart ones optimize the production level - the dumb ones optimize the profit. The dead rocketed profit (and extra-profit) sky high.
Personally I do not thik that the future is in web-based IT. It simply is not cost effective - why the hack should I have powerfull desktop just to run application on the server. For me it server centric IT was already seen and the come back is (could be) no more than a cycle in everladting evolution of IT.
Yes M$ dying has to do somethng with Karl Marx, too - let me put aside "sick and twisted" for a moment. Not even prime flagships of economy, which of BitGeek knows about, weren't able to undermine one simple sentence from Marx's "Das Kapital" - Only (human) labour and labour only can produce new value. Not money - labour. There is no need, I presume, to point out the quantity of labour pumped into the "market" since early 1990's on radically different principals then ones driving the dead.
Another view could also come from the economy principals. Shortly it is a story of smart and dumb monopols. The smart ones optimize the production level - the dumb ones optimize the profit. The dead rocketed profit (and extra-profit) sky high.
Personally I do not thik that the future is in web-based IT. It simply is not cost effective - why the hack should I have powerfull desktop just to run application on the server. For me it server centric IT was already seen and the come back is (could be) no more than a cycle in everladting evolution of IT.
I think you're thinking too much in sort of "playground politics" and not about capitalist systems. It doesn't matter who is afraid of who, or who the big mean kid is. Microsoft dominates the charts in the Amazon software bestsellers: google doesn't have anything in that list. What does that tell you? You're comparing apples and oranges. The "IT industry" is no longer a single industry, so it's no longer about getting a bigger slice of a single cake.
When Microsoft does a major product launch that bombs (in the sense of Battleship Earth), then I'll take this proposition seriously. While they have chart topper after chart topper, there isn's a case.
I can see that your response to the "well they sell lots of software" argument is dismissive, but the fact that they do says a lot. It speaks to: market dominance due to historical monopoly; continued product development and support; and continued acceptance of Microsoft products by the marketplace.
This might sound simplistic, but these are the hard, cold facts. It's fun to predict the demise of a giant (and exciting and controversial). It's boring to predict that they'll lumber on, giant-like, for years to come. That's not interesting or newsworthy!
But sometimes the boring predictions are the most likely ones to occur.
I disagree with the general sentiment of the article (mostly the hyperbole), but one quote hit the nail on the head: "They're in a different world."
There's no question that Microsoft is still dominant in the areas they care about, and because of that dominance they're likely to stay there. At this point, I think people understand that dominance intuitively and so don't really even try to beat Microsoft, especially since the web-as-a-platform thing is looking so exciting.
There's no question that Microsoft is still dominant in the areas they care about, and because of that dominance they're likely to stay there. At this point, I think people understand that dominance intuitively and so don't really even try to beat Microsoft, especially since the web-as-a-platform thing is looking so exciting.
Well,
I have to be honest, I loved the article, it gave "kind of" the same information but from a different view.
I agree to the most of what has been said, and I do NOT disagree with the rest, but it seems to be little bit early to say so, and I am talking about Web Applications, I teach computer technical certification curriculum (A+, Network+ Server+, and yes some of MCSE's courses as well), when my students (the young ones mostly) ask me what career path do you advice us to pursuit, I say IMHO, MS is an old news, look how Google is changing the way we live, the way we think, I would say, go for web development (AJAX), yes there would still be need for C# and the rest of the other programming languages (at least at the server side and the client OS), but the real volume would be at the web.
The part on which I think it is too early to say so is : On other part of the planet (and I am sure in some part of the US as well as I've read in some of the comments below) the fast internet connection is not available (if any in some parts of the world), I agree that one day sooner or later this is inevitable, but it might not be as soon as (NOW).
Somewhere else we have discussed this issue few months ago, it can be found here.
http://www.syrian-it.net/forum/index.php?topic=25.0
Regards
CerberuS
I have to be honest, I loved the article, it gave "kind of" the same information but from a different view.
I agree to the most of what has been said, and I do NOT disagree with the rest, but it seems to be little bit early to say so, and I am talking about Web Applications, I teach computer technical certification curriculum (A+, Network+ Server+, and yes some of MCSE's courses as well), when my students (the young ones mostly) ask me what career path do you advice us to pursuit, I say IMHO, MS is an old news, look how Google is changing the way we live, the way we think, I would say, go for web development (AJAX), yes there would still be need for C# and the rest of the other programming languages (at least at the server side and the client OS), but the real volume would be at the web.
The part on which I think it is too early to say so is : On other part of the planet (and I am sure in some part of the US as well as I've read in some of the comments below) the fast internet connection is not available (if any in some parts of the world), I agree that one day sooner or later this is inevitable, but it might not be as soon as (NOW).
Somewhere else we have discussed this issue few months ago, it can be found here.
http://www.syrian-it.net/forum/index.php?topic=25.0
Regards
CerberuS
I agree with you: Microsoft is dead, long ago. However you fail to note that another famous victim of Google, Javascript and broadband is Apple itself.
In fact desktop software in general is dead. Word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, image editing, project management and many other traditional desktop killer-apps are now offered for free on the web. Let's face it: only professional graphic designers and architects really need the power of Adobe Creative Suite or Autodesk Autocad and, as a consequence, a Windows or Apple machine.
How people are coping with this new reality? There are, in my view, two different attitudes. People more sensitive to hype are buying expensive Apple laptops even when they are simply overkill for their real needs. Programmers buying Apple laptops just to run Textmate are similar to fashion victims buying the latest Gucci handbag. Other people are more rational and choose cheap but sound Linux boxes (especially the Ubuntu flavor).
I think 90% of computer users can live with Ubuntu without any problem. Of course the desktop software libraries for Linux are very meagre compared to Microsoft and Apple's universes but we've just stated that desktop software is dead: web apps' user experience is the same on every platform. The operating system really doesn't matter. Don't you have other needs to satisfie instead of buying an expensive and useless Apple fashion laptop? Buy a cheap laptop, install Linux and enjoy your life!
And what about the business side of the moon? What will happen when companies will suddenly discover they don't longer need desktop software? Companies are more cost-conscious and I assume they will migrate to Linux en masse.
How people are coping with this new reality? There are, in my view, two different attitudes. People more sensitive to hype are buying expensive Apple laptops even when they are simply overkill for their real needs. Programmers buying Apple laptops just to run Textmate are similar to fashion victims buying the latest Gucci handbag. Other people are more rational and choose cheap but sound Linux boxes (especially the Ubuntu flavor).
I think 90% of computer users can live with Ubuntu without any problem. Of course the desktop software libraries for Linux are very meagre compared to Microsoft and Apple's universes but we've just stated that desktop software is dead: web apps' user experience is the same on every platform. The operating system really doesn't matter. Don't you have other needs to satisfie instead of buying an expensive and useless Apple fashion laptop? Buy a cheap laptop, install Linux and enjoy your life!
And what about the business side of the moon? What will happen when companies will suddenly discover they don't longer need desktop software? Companies are more cost-conscious and I assume they will migrate to Linux en masse.
A lot of commenters here seem to argue that Microsoft still has the vast majority of desktop installations, and that this isn't likely to go away soon. I agree (I don't like it, but I think it's true). But I also agree that Microsoft isn't a threat any more, like it used to be. And, on reflection, I agree that it is web apps that are making the difference.
I don't think that Word or Photoshop moving online is what really makes the difference, though. Every hoary Windows competitor has had a word processor and an image editor. (Sure, they didn't match Word feature-for-feature; does Writely?) But I believe a major reason that prevented people from switching has been the long tail of applications: "It doesn't have any accounting software for plumbers!"
The feeling that Microsoft had a secure monopoly came from the fact that these long-tail programs were all written for Windows, because that was what was economic for its developers. Word and Photoshop always had a Mac version. Accounting for Plumbers never did.
Now, these applications live on the Web. And while the people using them still might use Windows, it doesn't matter; it makes Microsoft money, but it doesn't buy them any leverage.