Microsoft by the Numbers(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Microsoft by the Numbers
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/26/microsoft-numbers/
106 comments
For the "Global Windows Live Mail users", it would be nicer if they used active users (signed in during the past 90 days) to compare. I know I have a few Windows Live email accounts sitting around that I haven't touched in forever.
Wouldn't that defeat the original purpose of posting it? ;)
I believe his stats - but WHO are all these people using Windows Live Mail/Messenger, Azure, Windows 7, Windows server, etc? I have yet to meet one. Are these middle America and international markets?
I use Windows Live Messenger, Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and will likely use Azure at some point (love the tech, but don't have anything for it yet). We exist.
I use MSN as long as most people I know still login to MSN even if they aren't using it as their primary chat. I use hotmail for a lot of my emailing mainly because I've been using it for 8 years, so everyone has the email and a hotmail account works quiet well for MSN/ windows live mail integration.
Not claiming they are the best tools out, just that they get the job done for me.
You haven't met people using windows 7? Moving away from the tech crowd pretty much everyone I know is using one of xp/vista or 7.
Not claiming they are the best tools out, just that they get the job done for me.
You haven't met people using windows 7? Moving away from the tech crowd pretty much everyone I know is using one of xp/vista or 7.
I'm in the UK, a lot of less sophisticated users use MSN chat and many still have hotmail accounts. I guess Microsoft is the default until you know about other alternatives.
Also number of people using Azure isn't the metric that's really interesting, a better metric would be something that shows how many server hours were bought in a way that you could compare with EC2.
I know Microsoft goes around university campuses trying to get students to use Azure for projects, and hand out a lot of test accounts in the process, inflating their numbers.
I know Microsoft goes around university campuses trying to get students to use Azure for projects, and hand out a lot of test accounts in the process, inflating their numbers.
but WHO are all these people using Windows Live Mail/Messenger, Azure, Windows 7, Windows server, etc?
Guilty one here. While I use Windows 7, Windows server (multiple licenses) etc at home, I guess just Windows 7 is the norm for most people I know.
At work I can attest to having some hundred Windows Servers and not a single Linux box. As we were a consulting firm, we had lots of different customers but our focus-area was MS-tech. Ofcourse my numbers will be biased, but let me tell you: there are lots of Windows Servers out there. Lots. Sure some Linux-servers here and there as well, but Windows Servers are having pretty good days all in all.
As for Windows Live Mail... I dunno, I like gmail better.
As for Windows Live Messenger though... At first that seems like a really odd question to me, but really, it's not that special.
In my experience IM software is one of the categories of software with the highest geographically variation of any I've come across. In the US I hear people actually use AIM, which is entirely unheard of in the rest of the world. In Europe, you will find MSN is the status quo. In Australia Yahoo Messenger seems to be pretty big (or so it seems), but I've never seen anyone use it elsewhere.
The interesting thing about this kind of software is how it's not the software itself which is drawing users. It's who you can reach (ie, userbase). So if everyone in your area is using product X, it doesn't matter if product Y does everything ten times better, it will still be useless to you unless you can reach the userbase of product X.
Whoever gets users first wins (because who seriously bothers to run several IM applications?). And then it just seems to stay that way.
If I were to take my (severely) biased impression and generalize, I would say everyone is using every product from Microsoft, with the noteworthy exception of BizTalk. Linux can only be seen on netbooks or as a means of bypassing the corporate web-filter. Oracle does exist, but only in very few companies which rakes in billions. MySQL doesn't exist at all, except for in the bottom-tier web-hosting basket.
But I'm not going to do that, and I suggest you don't take (what I assume is) your Linux-hacker biased experiences and overgeneralise them either. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Guilty one here. While I use Windows 7, Windows server (multiple licenses) etc at home, I guess just Windows 7 is the norm for most people I know.
At work I can attest to having some hundred Windows Servers and not a single Linux box. As we were a consulting firm, we had lots of different customers but our focus-area was MS-tech. Ofcourse my numbers will be biased, but let me tell you: there are lots of Windows Servers out there. Lots. Sure some Linux-servers here and there as well, but Windows Servers are having pretty good days all in all.
As for Windows Live Mail... I dunno, I like gmail better.
As for Windows Live Messenger though... At first that seems like a really odd question to me, but really, it's not that special.
In my experience IM software is one of the categories of software with the highest geographically variation of any I've come across. In the US I hear people actually use AIM, which is entirely unheard of in the rest of the world. In Europe, you will find MSN is the status quo. In Australia Yahoo Messenger seems to be pretty big (or so it seems), but I've never seen anyone use it elsewhere.
The interesting thing about this kind of software is how it's not the software itself which is drawing users. It's who you can reach (ie, userbase). So if everyone in your area is using product X, it doesn't matter if product Y does everything ten times better, it will still be useless to you unless you can reach the userbase of product X.
Whoever gets users first wins (because who seriously bothers to run several IM applications?). And then it just seems to stay that way.
If I were to take my (severely) biased impression and generalize, I would say everyone is using every product from Microsoft, with the noteworthy exception of BizTalk. Linux can only be seen on netbooks or as a means of bypassing the corporate web-filter. Oracle does exist, but only in very few companies which rakes in billions. MySQL doesn't exist at all, except for in the bottom-tier web-hosting basket.
But I'm not going to do that, and I suggest you don't take (what I assume is) your Linux-hacker biased experiences and overgeneralise them either. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
“In Europe, you will find MSN is the status quo.”
Not everywhere. Mostly ICQ here in Germany.
Not everywhere. Mostly ICQ here in Germany.
See Seven Copies of Windows 7 Per Second: Fast! But How Fast? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1466549 for a fun way to put the numbers in perspective.
(links to http://technologizer.com/2010/06/27/seven-copies-of-windows-...)
(links to http://technologizer.com/2010/06/27/seven-copies-of-windows-...)
I just finished reading the MSFT blog post that this TechCrunch piece got its info from. I then went to nytimes.com and an ad on the site was "While you were reading this, 21 people bought Windows 7...Click here to learn more" and it takes you right to the MSFT blog with these numbers. I don't think this site and these numbers are a professional way to run a marketing campaign. Especially when your campaign lists net income on it and compares it with two of your growing, trendy competitors. It just feels...tacky. And that is coming from a user who switched to Windows 7 after using OSX for 4 years.
I don't believe the Linux vs windows server market share numbers.
My current company has about 40 linux servers and 3 windows. My previous company had 1 windows server to 5 linux. The one before that was a similar ratio.
I'm looking around online to see how IDC collected/calculated this data but can't see anything that actually says. The only thing I can think of is if they are taking commercial unixes like redhat and suse and comparing them against windows. If that is the case these numbers are beyond worthless due to the fact that most linuxs end up being centos, debian, ubuntu or other free distros.
My current company has about 40 linux servers and 3 windows. My previous company had 1 windows server to 5 linux. The one before that was a similar ratio.
I'm looking around online to see how IDC collected/calculated this data but can't see anything that actually says. The only thing I can think of is if they are taking commercial unixes like redhat and suse and comparing them against windows. If that is the case these numbers are beyond worthless due to the fact that most linuxs end up being centos, debian, ubuntu or other free distros.
I was thinking the same thing; Apache has double the marketshare on the web, and all the computationally intensive plays that I know of use Linux or BSD clusters on the backend. Google alone has somewhere over a million boxes, Amazon isn't exactly tiny, neither is Facebook, and most of the banks that I know of are still Big Iron on the backend.
I think Windows Server has a large market share in medium size businesses. Note: they didn't specify "web" server. They didn't specify much. Who knows, maybe they count google as one server?
Also, I sometimes think the experiences of us here may be out of touch with what most ordinary businesses do.
EDIT funfacts: Here's their source for "linux servers, 21.2%" http://blogs.computerworld.com/15675/idc_windows_dominates_l... which quotes: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/behind-the-idc-data-wind... which in turn quotes: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/server-sales-show-signs-of-lif... which quotes this IDC press release: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?sessionId=&containerId=prU... and here's IDC's description of their information product: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P348
I couldn't see linux units mentioned there, nor their methodology, or definition of "server".
EDIT2 The bottom of the press release: includes quarterly shipments (both ISS and upgrades) and revenues (both customer and factory), segmented by vendor, family, model, region, operating system, price band, CPU type, and architecture. Doesn't really help, but there's also a phone number and email address.
EDIT funfacts: Here's their source for "linux servers, 21.2%" http://blogs.computerworld.com/15675/idc_windows_dominates_l... which quotes: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/behind-the-idc-data-wind... which in turn quotes: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/server-sales-show-signs-of-lif... which quotes this IDC press release: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?sessionId=&containerId=prU... and here's IDC's description of their information product: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P348
I couldn't see linux units mentioned there, nor their methodology, or definition of "server".
EDIT2 The bottom of the press release: includes quarterly shipments (both ISS and upgrades) and revenues (both customer and factory), segmented by vendor, family, model, region, operating system, price band, CPU type, and architecture. Doesn't really help, but there's also a phone number and email address.
These numbers almost assuredly are based on "units shipped" which means you only count a Linux sale if someone orders a server from Dell or HP and requests a RH or Suse Linux license with it, rather than a Windows Server 2008 license or the default.
Because, as others have mentioned, the vast majority of large webhosts or Linux users "roll their own free distro" or purchase an enterprise agreement from RH or Suse, they will never be counted.
Microsoft always plays games with the numbers. They are playing a similar game with Windows 7 numbers - You can buy a Windows 7 upgrade for $99, which only gives you a single license, or you can buy a "family upgrade pack" for $99, which gives you 3 upgrade licenses.
Guess which one allows them to count 3x the number of licenses sold? Right, and they made it so that the family pack can even upgrade pirated versions of XP (I know this because I used this to bring one of my home copies up to legit status). It's a genius marketing move because for basically $33 per computer they get all the pirate computers to become fully legit, counted installs of Windows.
Never mind all the double-counting and triple-counting of licenses - MS has always been king at this. They force Dell/HP to bundle a license of Windows 7 with every computer sold knowing that corporations have Volume License Keys and wipe and reinstall Windows with their corp version. 2 copies of Windows sold for every physical computer.
What I would really like to see are the numbers of Windows computers receiving updates. That would be a legitimate number.
Because, as others have mentioned, the vast majority of large webhosts or Linux users "roll their own free distro" or purchase an enterprise agreement from RH or Suse, they will never be counted.
Microsoft always plays games with the numbers. They are playing a similar game with Windows 7 numbers - You can buy a Windows 7 upgrade for $99, which only gives you a single license, or you can buy a "family upgrade pack" for $99, which gives you 3 upgrade licenses.
Guess which one allows them to count 3x the number of licenses sold? Right, and they made it so that the family pack can even upgrade pirated versions of XP (I know this because I used this to bring one of my home copies up to legit status). It's a genius marketing move because for basically $33 per computer they get all the pirate computers to become fully legit, counted installs of Windows.
Never mind all the double-counting and triple-counting of licenses - MS has always been king at this. They force Dell/HP to bundle a license of Windows 7 with every computer sold knowing that corporations have Volume License Keys and wipe and reinstall Windows with their corp version. 2 copies of Windows sold for every physical computer.
What I would really like to see are the numbers of Windows computers receiving updates. That would be a legitimate number.
>What I would really like to see are the numbers of Windows computers receiving updates. That would be a legitimate number.
Actually, that number wouldn't be valid either. How many corporations block Windows Update because new versions of IE break some intranet we app?
Actually, that number wouldn't be valid either. How many corporations block Windows Update because new versions of IE break some intranet we app?
Good point - simply take # of PCs receiving updates + number of Volume licenses sold. That = total number of operating copies of Windows.
Search engines would have statistics on market share of public web servers.
> I sometimes think the experiences of us here may be out of touch with what most ordinary businesses do
Not necessarily ... at least not in Europe where I live ... if you're a consultant that gets hired, try explaining to a client that they need to also buy a Windows Server license (or several); or pay extra per instance (in the case of cloud computing like EC2).
Not necessarily ... at least not in Europe where I live ... if you're a consultant that gets hired, try explaining to a client that they need to also buy a Windows Server license (or several); or pay extra per instance (in the case of cloud computing like EC2).
Apache works on Windows too! In my experience, most companies ditched IIS for Apache because it was better. Not to mention a lot of companies building web products for Windows that build on Apache.. That would increase Apache usage numbers too.
Web Server share is definately going to Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if you could flip those numbers (20% Win, 70%+ Linux)
Server encompasses a much bigger sphere than 'web-server'. It's in the back room of your local council, the car parts company with a few stores across a couple of states, and all those damn sharepoint installs..
Server encompasses a much bigger sphere than 'web-server'. It's in the back room of your local council, the car parts company with a few stores across a couple of states, and all those damn sharepoint installs..
It sounds like they're only counting SALES of Linux machines - e.g. bought at Dell or whatnot. I'd assume that means the true 80% number of Linux machines that exist is very difficult to determine. Most of the servers at my company (40+, plus a TON of VMs) are Linux and I'd bet most companies that manage large farms of servers are similar.
That's likely what is happening. My notebook came with Windows 7 installed. Corporate IT installed Vista on it. Now I run Linux.
My netbook at home came with Windows XP. It received a full install of Linux the day I laid my hands on it.
They probably count as three Windows users.
My netbook at home came with Windows XP. It received a full install of Linux the day I laid my hands on it.
They probably count as three Windows users.
Anecdotal evidence isn't to be trusted. You haven't seen much Windows in your world, I've seen very little linux in mine.
A finance firm with over $50bn under management had over 300 Windows servers and maybe a dozen linux machines. Mostly security appliances, firewalls, etc.
A law firm with offices across the globe has over 600 Windows servers and not more then 2 dozen linux machines. Again, mostly security appliances.
Having worked at both these places I can assure you that the licensing fees are a rounding error in the overall expense budget.
That said, I run only linux and mac at home :)
A finance firm with over $50bn under management had over 300 Windows servers and maybe a dozen linux machines. Mostly security appliances, firewalls, etc.
A law firm with offices across the globe has over 600 Windows servers and not more then 2 dozen linux machines. Again, mostly security appliances.
Having worked at both these places I can assure you that the licensing fees are a rounding error in the overall expense budget.
That said, I run only linux and mac at home :)
The only thing I can think of is if they are taking commercial unixes like redhat and suse and comparing them against windows.
Based on the linked sources from the Microsoft blog post, I'm pretty sure that's what they are referring to.
Based on the linked sources from the Microsoft blog post, I'm pretty sure that's what they are referring to.
They might be even comparing licenses, which makes it even worse. If an enterprise uses Redhat, dollars to donuts they stage things on CentOS before they ever spend a dime. That wouldn't show up either.
Well your combined 49 servers must be a solid representation of the entire market.
Also, "server" can mean a lot of things, more than just "box that serves up websites". Fortune 500s often have a giant slew of them just serving email to employees.
Also, "server" can mean a lot of things, more than just "box that serves up websites". Fortune 500s often have a giant slew of them just serving email to employees.
What I'm trying to get at is the percents (70% windows vs 25% linux) seem very counter intuitive. Microsoft links to another company who provides little to no information about how they are making their claims.
From http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21703309 I've even more willing to believe that the numbers are BS and are entirely about revenue.
From http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS21703309 I've even more willing to believe that the numbers are BS and are entirely about revenue.
Well, if we're doing the anecdotal thing, then I'll be happy to back up mr. maroon. My current contract is with one of those Fortune 500 companies. I work in server ops, and am very much aware of what we have.
There are a couple of thousand servers, across three DCs, a mix of HPUX, Solaris, and Windows.
Not one Linux server. Maybe there's a few dozen running in VMs on developer's workstations, but even they tend to prefer Solaris, since that's their target, anyway.
At this scale, nobody really cares about the licensing costs of an OS. There's no reason not to buy RedHat, if only to keep the PHBs happy.
OS license costs are a smidgen, a rounding error, damn near nothing compared to the costs associated with standing them up, not to mention development, ongoing operations, etc. I'm pretty sure our storage costs, per month, exceed all the money we've spent on licenses in the last year (if not longer).
I also know of a lot of small businesses which have nothing but Windows. I know of few that have even heard of Linux. I'm talking about every law office, every doctor's office, every real-estate office...well, you get the idea.
I like Linux. I've been running it on servers and desktops of my own for over about fifteen years (since the 1.x kernel). I seldom see it in the field.
There are a couple of thousand servers, across three DCs, a mix of HPUX, Solaris, and Windows.
Not one Linux server. Maybe there's a few dozen running in VMs on developer's workstations, but even they tend to prefer Solaris, since that's their target, anyway.
At this scale, nobody really cares about the licensing costs of an OS. There's no reason not to buy RedHat, if only to keep the PHBs happy.
OS license costs are a smidgen, a rounding error, damn near nothing compared to the costs associated with standing them up, not to mention development, ongoing operations, etc. I'm pretty sure our storage costs, per month, exceed all the money we've spent on licenses in the last year (if not longer).
I also know of a lot of small businesses which have nothing but Windows. I know of few that have even heard of Linux. I'm talking about every law office, every doctor's office, every real-estate office...well, you get the idea.
I like Linux. I've been running it on servers and desktops of my own for over about fifteen years (since the 1.x kernel). I seldom see it in the field.
Since we're comparing anecdotal evidence, for the past 10 years I've been contracting at all manner of large banks, finance companies, telcos, payment processors, and healthcare. They are overwhelmingly using Linux, and mostly Red Hat, in their data centers now. In the early 2000s it was mostly Solaris on Sparc on the back end, but in the last 10 years it has switched to mostly Linux on x86-64, with a smattering of Solaris 10 to run "legacy" applications.
Of course they also run Windows, but it's only for Exchange, Windows file servers, and Active Directory for desktops.
Your environment running only HPUX, Solaris, and Windows, is far from the norm. Linux is widely supported, and most importantly, cheap, compared to HPUX or Solaris (running on custom hardware like Itanium or Sparc).
Of course they also run Windows, but it's only for Exchange, Windows file servers, and Active Directory for desktops.
Your environment running only HPUX, Solaris, and Windows, is far from the norm. Linux is widely supported, and most importantly, cheap, compared to HPUX or Solaris (running on custom hardware like Itanium or Sparc).
[deleted]
[deleted]
Especially with cloud offerings. It just dawned on me that there are a ton of people who are able to set up and run a VPS/Cloud instance with only a command line interface. That's really comforting.
I'm not sure of the context of those numbers. Not in direct business ratios but I'm not sure how they count VM instances. FYI this is said while I work in STB (Server Tools and Business).
see netcraft:
http://news.netcraft.com
~54% apache + 5% nginx + 1% lighttpd.
~54% apache + 5% nginx + 1% lighttpd.
The post wasn't about Windows servers.
Sure, maybe MS won't ever win in servers or smart phones.
Will the PC just die and give way to these?
Not likely, not while most WORK is done with client PCs. How many mid-level bureaucrats are going to be banging away on their IPADS?? five years from now? How much is the client side worth? Lots. WORK? Companies? Sure, big areas that isn't MS has opened up. But the PC is going to be an ocean for a long time and MS, if anything, is cementing it's control of that. I'm no MS booster - I'd like to see a real Linux desktop but I can see MS is better positioned on the desktop than three years ago.
Sure, maybe MS won't ever win in servers or smart phones.
Will the PC just die and give way to these?
Not likely, not while most WORK is done with client PCs. How many mid-level bureaucrats are going to be banging away on their IPADS?? five years from now? How much is the client side worth? Lots. WORK? Companies? Sure, big areas that isn't MS has opened up. But the PC is going to be an ocean for a long time and MS, if anything, is cementing it's control of that. I'm no MS booster - I'd like to see a real Linux desktop but I can see MS is better positioned on the desktop than three years ago.
Microsoft is a great company, I don't know why a lot of people dislike them. Look at their track record, look at the numbers they're impressive. Perhaps it's jealousy, who knows? Sure they have done several mistakes along the way ahem ie6... But you know what, at the end what matter is the profits. I don't know why people bash on them for their closed source technologies. They're here to make money, if they wanted to give away everything they would have been a charity not a business! You might as well go bash on coke, their ingredients are "closed source." In order for a taco truck to make money they got to sell their tacos, can't give them away now can they? In a nutshell all you who hate Microsoft, find a better reason to hate them. You can't say ie9, because it's beginning to look like it'll be an awesome browser for users and developers alike. End rant. Sorry if this is a little off topic. :)
You might be too young to remember the days when MS ruled with an iron fist. When they got IBM to use their DOS, they structured the licensing so that the only affordable one was to pay MS for every box that went out the door, no matter which OS was on it. So a shop could either sell only MS-DOS, or not offer it at all, and any shop that didn't offer it couldn't stay in business, once IBM "approved" of MS-DOS.
When they came out with any software, they chose the most confusing name possible. "Windows" was a generic term for any the panes in windowing GUI, until MS appropriated the word. Then came "Word", which sounded like about all the competition out there. Once they had the OS market sewn up, they used that to make their other software work better than anyone elses, with undocumented APIs. Then they offered "bundles" which meant, if you used their OS, which of course every business had to, you couldn't afford to turn down their other offerings. This might sound like fair, tough competition, but the reality was that they used their money and clout to run the competition out of business, then their de facto monopoly to make a fortune.
And tough but fair, often gave way to threats. If a retailer didn't play ball, getting rid of competition, they would pull their joint marketing/advertising deals. If a small business came up with anything interesting, they'd swallow it, or run it out of business by any means necessary. This did more to stifle innovation for about 15 years than anything else.
This is only the beginning of why people don't like MS. If we were to all post here, it would become an encyclopedia.
When they came out with any software, they chose the most confusing name possible. "Windows" was a generic term for any the panes in windowing GUI, until MS appropriated the word. Then came "Word", which sounded like about all the competition out there. Once they had the OS market sewn up, they used that to make their other software work better than anyone elses, with undocumented APIs. Then they offered "bundles" which meant, if you used their OS, which of course every business had to, you couldn't afford to turn down their other offerings. This might sound like fair, tough competition, but the reality was that they used their money and clout to run the competition out of business, then their de facto monopoly to make a fortune.
And tough but fair, often gave way to threats. If a retailer didn't play ball, getting rid of competition, they would pull their joint marketing/advertising deals. If a small business came up with anything interesting, they'd swallow it, or run it out of business by any means necessary. This did more to stifle innovation for about 15 years than anything else.
This is only the beginning of why people don't like MS. If we were to all post here, it would become an encyclopedia.
Wow. You are completely misinformed and, I suspect, just trolling (and presuming to instruct others) based upon events you had no connection with and only understand second-hand from others. By the way, your allegation that Microsoft "stole all the simple-sounding names" is just laughable. I'd dissect the rest of your argument but frankly, I got tired of swatting flies like you years ago. The only accurate statement in your entire rant? MS-DOS. And even that's slanted.
He is not.If you think he is the misinformed person is you.
You can inform yourself.Search for DRDOS.Search for windows trademark issues,lindows, you know what? they were an entire line of windows branded products before MS, MS destroyed them all, you can search what happened to them.
Windows is a generic word, it can't never be trademarked(unless you are rich to get over the law), that applies to "word", "powerpoint", "project", "excel", "exchange". A word in the English dictionary just can't be trademarked, by law.
Maybe you were a kid then, but there was a time when "word" was not the most used word processor, it was "WordPerfect", and people used Lotus123 instead of "excel". What did MS did? They made windows but didn't let WordPerfect and Lotus123 people(and everybody else, like compiler builders) use the windows API, so MS had a 4 year period of advantage. Once they did, the high level exposed API was slower than what MS used.
I'm tired too. When people don't know they don't know what they don't know.
You can inform yourself.Search for DRDOS.Search for windows trademark issues,lindows, you know what? they were an entire line of windows branded products before MS, MS destroyed them all, you can search what happened to them.
Windows is a generic word, it can't never be trademarked(unless you are rich to get over the law), that applies to "word", "powerpoint", "project", "excel", "exchange". A word in the English dictionary just can't be trademarked, by law.
Maybe you were a kid then, but there was a time when "word" was not the most used word processor, it was "WordPerfect", and people used Lotus123 instead of "excel". What did MS did? They made windows but didn't let WordPerfect and Lotus123 people(and everybody else, like compiler builders) use the windows API, so MS had a 4 year period of advantage. Once they did, the high level exposed API was slower than what MS used.
I'm tired too. When people don't know they don't know what they don't know.
Well, not quite. Lindows certainly wasn't around before MS. According to Wikipedia the company was founded in 2001.
Edit: On further reading, Microsoft didn't manage to force them to change over in court - they just paid $20 million and Lindows changed over. Hardly "destroyed" them.
Windows is an English word, however that doesn't mean it doesn't enjoy some trademark protection in an arrangement like "Microsoft Windows". The protection is not as significant as it would be on an invented word (like, say, "Microsoft") but it's still there if you come up with something that's judged to be similar enough to cause confusion.
Similarly, try founding an IT company called Apple and see how far you get - that's an English word too.
Windows is an English word, however that doesn't mean it doesn't enjoy some trademark protection in an arrangement like "Microsoft Windows". The protection is not as significant as it would be on an invented word (like, say, "Microsoft") but it's still there if you come up with something that's judged to be similar enough to cause confusion.
Similarly, try founding an IT company called Apple and see how far you get - that's an English word too.
And the nerds will tear down their walls with the cry of "REMEMBER STACKER" in their throats.
And CP/M-86, and DR-DOS, and GEM, Geoworks...
IIRC Gary Kildall special on The Computer Chronicles show mentioned the case when DR agreed with IBM to bundle CP/M-86 on IBM PCs only to discover IBM set the price of MS-DOS at $40 and CP/M-86's at $240...
If nerds ever tear down MS's walls, it will be well deserved.
http://www.archive.org/details/GaryKild
IIRC Gary Kildall special on The Computer Chronicles show mentioned the case when DR agreed with IBM to bundle CP/M-86 on IBM PCs only to discover IBM set the price of MS-DOS at $40 and CP/M-86's at $240...
If nerds ever tear down MS's walls, it will be well deserved.
http://www.archive.org/details/GaryKild
Beyond being convicted of abusing their monopoly, Microsoft has a long history of pulling dirty tricks on its competitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
http://grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
http://www.technologyevangelist.com/2007/02/microsoft_dirty_...
Apple has been doing way worse things and nobody (of importance) seems to care.
In the 1990's Microsoft forced every computer vendor to pay them for a DOS license regardless of whether they shipped DOS on the PC (did this apply to Windows?) They basically killed any chance of a competing OS in the PC world (4DOS, Quarterdeck, BeOS, Unix, OS/2). The US govt eventually forced them to stop this practice, but it was too late by then. Competition all dead.
Another example, they built the browser into the operating system, thus killing of Netscape. Once they did that they let IE stagnate for several years, providing no innovation (IE6 is 2001). We are finally crawling out of that hole. IE9 is going to be good because it has competition and Microsoft now must compete or see further erosion in their browser market share.
In short, because Microsoft has a desktop monopoly (90% for 15 years), and they've used it aggressively, they make people a bit unhappy. Personally, I don't care if people choose to use Windows, but many people don't want to, yet they must because of "corporate standards."
The only other thing that bugs me is people always want the govt to look into Apple and Google. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Microsoft still has this huge 90% market share. If it could be reduced to 70%, for example, everyone would benefit, including Microsoft users. What's the reason to go after a couple of "small" fish nipping at the heals of Microsoft?
Another example, they built the browser into the operating system, thus killing of Netscape. Once they did that they let IE stagnate for several years, providing no innovation (IE6 is 2001). We are finally crawling out of that hole. IE9 is going to be good because it has competition and Microsoft now must compete or see further erosion in their browser market share.
In short, because Microsoft has a desktop monopoly (90% for 15 years), and they've used it aggressively, they make people a bit unhappy. Personally, I don't care if people choose to use Windows, but many people don't want to, yet they must because of "corporate standards."
The only other thing that bugs me is people always want the govt to look into Apple and Google. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Microsoft still has this huge 90% market share. If it could be reduced to 70%, for example, everyone would benefit, including Microsoft users. What's the reason to go after a couple of "small" fish nipping at the heals of Microsoft?
I'm with Steve Jobs (from back in the day):
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products.... I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success — I have no problem with their success. They've earned their success, for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products."
"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste. They have absolutely no taste. And I don't mean that in a small way, I mean that in a big way, in the sense that they don't think of original ideas, and they don't bring much culture into their products.... I am saddened, not by Microsoft's success — I have no problem with their success. They've earned their success, for the most part. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third-rate products."
Microsoft seems to be working on it. They are pushing design HARD for their devs. Silverlight and WPF were designed with design in mind. I went to Mix a couple years ago and half the sessions there dealt with design or user experience in some way.
Their hardware is not shabby either...zune, xbox 360 (well hardware quality aside), mice, keyboards.
Their hardware is not shabby either...zune, xbox 360 (well hardware quality aside), mice, keyboards.
>> Sure they have done several mistakes along the way ahem ie6
IE6 is not a mistake. It's old. It first come with Windows XP and Windows XP is 8 years old. At the time, IE6 was fine.
IE6 is not a mistake. It's old. It first come with Windows XP and Windows XP is 8 years old. At the time, IE6 was fine.
It depends what part of the process yor're referring to. IE6's initial development wasn't a mistake. But disbanding the IE specific development team, abandoning all platforms that weren't windows and not updating it for years and years were mistakes and all those things happened in the era of IE6
Disbanding of the team appears to have a lot to do with the anti-trust cases though.
Yep, this always bugs me too. When it came out it had quite a good rendering engine compared to most (all?) competitors.
The problem arose from Microsoft disbanding the IE team and not releasing a new version for so many years. It fell behind from age.
The problem arose from Microsoft disbanding the IE team and not releasing a new version for so many years. It fell behind from age.
Microsoft wanted ppl to develop Win32/.NET apps, not Web stuff. So no reason to improve IE 6.
this might shed some light on how M$ used to play:
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
I just bought a netbook with Windows 7 starter, and I did not wipe the Windows partition.
That said, the only reason I'm trotting out that installation is to test my sites on IE. Otherwise, It's Ubuntu all the way. Probably Android when Intel releases the Froyo build. Also maybe Chrome, just for fun.
In other words, the only reason I'm keeping Windows is I like playing with barely functional software. (I kid, I kid. Though it did hang for 4 hours on the logout screen.)
That said, the only reason I'm trotting out that installation is to test my sites on IE. Otherwise, It's Ubuntu all the way. Probably Android when Intel releases the Froyo build. Also maybe Chrome, just for fun.
In other words, the only reason I'm keeping Windows is I like playing with barely functional software. (I kid, I kid. Though it did hang for 4 hours on the logout screen.)
I'm not sure what everyone else's experience is, but the MSN Messenger # feels a bit inflated. I'm in Australia so MSN was the dominant chat platform in the early 2000's. But these days if I want someone to chat to -- they're going to be on FBchat and not MSN. (Which also puts MSFT in second place there behind facebook)
I honestly didn't think anyone used FBChat. You are literally the first person I've ever seen anywhere mention using it. Windows Live Messenger has a pretty good stranglehold in the business world, which is a pretty large segment of IM usage.
:) Always nice to be "cutting edge".
Facebook chat is crap - but it works (most of the time at least). It drops out, the text input is tiny, you're tied to FB, etc. But it's good enough. And I'll clarify that that is purely personal use - never used it for work.
Do Microsoft have an Intranet focused IM solution ala Lotus Sametime? Notes shops all seem to be running sametime, Exchange shops seem to be not running IM or running public Messenger.
Do Microsoft have an Intranet focused IM solution ala Lotus Sametime? Notes shops all seem to be running sametime, Exchange shops seem to be not running IM or running public Messenger.
Yes, Microsoft has Office Communicator. However, it's a terrible client, it's about on feature parity with AIM version 0.5. It doesn't even turn "http://... strings into hyperlinks.
I'm 18 and all of my friends use MSN. I'd never even heard of Facebook Chat until I saw your comment. Everyone I know uses MSN, except for my parents who use Yahoo messenger in addition to MSN but I think the Yahoo thing just comes from a different time.
It's possible that the reason MSN is so popular with my age group is that we grew up with it. MSN was completely tied in with hotmail which was the email service of choice for most of us when we were getting our first email account in the early 2000s (age 9+). Then again my 8 year old cousin also uses MSN.
It's possible that the reason MSN is so popular with my age group is that we grew up with it. MSN was completely tied in with hotmail which was the email service of choice for most of us when we were getting our first email account in the early 2000s (age 9+). Then again my 8 year old cousin also uses MSN.
Yes, FBchat serves as a quick medium to chat with friends; but once I want to go in a long chat (and may be video/audio), FBchat is unreliable (slow/disconnect).
I would agree with this to, maybe it's an Australian thing?
The techcrunch article is full of pointless commentary, I recommend just reading the original article: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/06/25...
But the original article is a selective disclosure of numbers carefully massaged for showing Microsoft as a solid company with a bright future. TC's commentary is to point this fact out.
MSFT never gets enough credit for what they've done with the Xbox. They've got the #1 machine (by games sold, the metric that counts) in their second at-bat in an industry that has historically dashed consumer electronics companies to bits. They somehow charge 23 million users for the same thing Nintendo and Sony give away for free. They've been at the forefront as far as connectivity and media consumption since the original Xbox. Despite the fact that everyone I know is already on their third or fourth unit due to Red Rings of Death, they all love it.
According to VGChartz the Wii has 490,542,492 total titles sold vs the 360 with 359,051,266.
http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly.php
http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly.php
I believe he's talking about "attach rate" - the magical metric that drives the console hardware industry (i.e., games purchased per console).
That's not such a magic number in this case. In most cases, console manufacturers make a loss on the console, and profit on the titles. Nintendo makes money on the console too, so it's not such an important figure.
Nintendo makes money on their hardware; the DS and the Wii were never sold under cost.
Sony definitely loses money on every console.
Don't know about MS.
Sony definitely loses money on every console.
Don't know about MS.
IIRC, the PS3 slim is profitable. The PS2 has also been profitable and has been a consistently good seller (with some decrease in late 2009 and early 2010 (but that's expected - the PS2 is old). Console death rate is also a problem: even if it's not replaced under warranty, it's still a loss for the 360.
I also have a Wii ... it's just lying there. I just don't like it ... once you get passed the initial "wow" when trying out that controller, the games are pretty shallow and it is not capable enough to at least dazzle me with beautiful graphics.
Should really subtract out the 63M for Wii Sports though.
Microsoft has not actually made a profit on the whole xbox debacle, something Sony managed in the first generation. Microsoft does not know how to not waste money, because they haven't had to for so long. They do it with everything, sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.
If Microsoft had just invested all that money in the bank, they would be a far richer company than they are now.
Of course, the xbox may start returning benefits now, or it may disapper in the next generation.
If Microsoft had just invested all that money in the bank, they would be a far richer company than they are now.
Of course, the xbox may start returning benefits now, or it may disapper in the next generation.
Xbox has been profitable for some time now (over two years), not sure where you're getting your info from.
Xbox has started to make a profit, year over year, but they have still not made up for the millions they plowed into the overall project.
XBox has cost MS an enormous amount of money and they haven't recouped much of it as yet.
By late 2006, MS had already lost $4 billion to the XBox project 2 years later this was out to $7 billion. I think recently they've been turning a profit of about $200 million+/quarter
By late 2006, MS had already lost $4 billion to the XBox project 2 years later this was out to $7 billion. I think recently they've been turning a profit of about $200 million+/quarter
When you look at XBox as a business, it still have quite a long way to go. The amount of money sunk into the business is just astronomical. It may be profitable now on a Q by Q basis, but it will take years to pay the bill and there is no guarantee they can stay profitable as they invest in the next generation.
As for XBox Live, it is an impressive service, but the numbers may not tell the whole story. The article cites 23M XBox subscribers, but doesn't say whether these are paying (gold) or free members. I wonder what that mix is.
As for XBox Live, it is an impressive service, but the numbers may not tell the whole story. The article cites 23M XBox subscribers, but doesn't say whether these are paying (gold) or free members. I wonder what that mix is.
I'm not sure that's true anymore. I can't find a total figure but they turned the corner and became profitable in 2008, meaning they've now been running at a profit for 2 years. They now even make money on consoles.
Even if they're still in the red, the amount they've invested in it is trivial to MSFT. Whatever they spent, it was well worth it to get a web-connected, media-centric device connected to 40 million TVs.
Also there are ovre 40 million consoles sold, so that 23 million must be paying users. I can't imagine anyone having an Xbox without the free service (I'm not even sure you can).
Even if they're still in the red, the amount they've invested in it is trivial to MSFT. Whatever they spent, it was well worth it to get a web-connected, media-centric device connected to 40 million TVs.
Also there are ovre 40 million consoles sold, so that 23 million must be paying users. I can't imagine anyone having an Xbox without the free service (I'm not even sure you can).
So true, MSFT actually got online gaming right for the console and Kinect seems very cool even for the basic media manipulation - beat that, Apple Tv.
> They've got the #1 machine (by games sold, the metric that counts)
That's not quite true, unless you're talking about games sold per console (which isn't that interesting when you're getting outsold by 30% overall)
That's not quite true, unless you're talking about games sold per console (which isn't that interesting when you're getting outsold by 30% overall)
And I'm looking forward to being able to watch ESPN 3 on the xbox. Another reason to never, ever consider getting cable again (could Live be the future of cable tv?)
Not likely - I found out that in order to receive ESPN on your Xbox360, your cable operator has to pay ESPN a monthly fee. So, your chances of getting it without also paying for the ESPN cable channel are practically nil.
Yet another example of ESPN being one of the worst content cartels of them all.
Yet another example of ESPN being one of the worst content cartels of them all.
your cable operator has to pay ESPN a monthly fee
Your ISP has to pay ESPN a monthly fee. I imagine mose cable companies don't, but as noted in another comment AT&T definitely does.
Your ISP has to pay ESPN a monthly fee. I imagine mose cable companies don't, but as noted in another comment AT&T definitely does.
Well I've got ESPN 3 through AT&T with just internet service, so that's incorrect.
Your ISP (AT&T) is paying them. Sorry, it sucks, but media cartel extortion is the new business model for sports.
Huh? I wasn't talking about that. I don't have to pay for cable tv to get ESPN 3. I have to pay for internet. I'm very aware of that.
Well said. I'm almost as die-hard anti MSFT as they come (example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1462403 ), but I love my XBox360 (and the first XBox before that). They've done a great job with it, even through the hardware issues early on. I've been through three, but I was only without the machine for about two weeks total, and I didn't pay a dime to get them fixed.
The problem with Techcrunch's implicit interpretation of the Microsoft stats is that they mostly are trailing indicators of a business model. Let's take Office as an example. Does anyone seriously think that it will still enjoy network effects five years from now? It was an exciting (at least financially) business model 15 years ago when Microsoft could basically tax the electronic exchange of business information. Now, Office documents can be at least read, if not written, without paying the tax. Word is hurt by the cultural shift away from using it as a means of generating pretty pieces of paper. Better collaboration tools are slowly eroding the Excel as database-synchronized-by-email model that dominates its use (as a percentage of documents). A large user base is nice, but it doesn't justify a high P/E ratio unless it can be leveraged in the future.
Look at the "smartphone" numbers. The implicit message was that Apple doesn't really have all that much marketshare. Whatever. But, what's Microsoft have? Close to nothing, and there's little evidence that it's going to catch up. No one in his right mind can claim that the "phone" won't replace many (more) current desktop/laptop use cases in the coming years. What slice of that goes to Microsoft?
I don't know much about the CRM space, so I can't comment on the Salesforce.com vs. MSFT thing. But, what's notable is that Microsoft doesn't really enjoy network effects in that space. It must compete like other enterprise software companies -- again, not a model to justify a high P/E. The netbook numbers can be counted as a "save" against consumer-facing Linux distros, but I understand Microsoft to be practically giving away Windows 7 "starter" edition to keep share. Hardly a great model. Furthermore, the OS is little more than a platform for a web browser. Microsoft is doing all the dirty work and making little in return.
What if IBM blogged about its huge mainframe market share in the Fortune 500? Should we be excited about the future prospects of z/OS? How many mainframe customers would gladly get rid of their mainframes if switching costs were lower? 80+%? Look at the number of skilled COBOL programmers out there. Surely such a large development community will continue to propel the platform forward?
What's causing Microsoft's stock to stagnate is that the company has failed to maintain the network effects that fueled its growth and pricing power. They're becoming yet another company competing for consumer nickels and corporate dollars. While that's well and good, it's not the stuff of hocky stick growth curves.
And, Bing? I started using it because of 15% Bing Cash Back deals. Forget doing an actual search or clicking an ad.
Look at the "smartphone" numbers. The implicit message was that Apple doesn't really have all that much marketshare. Whatever. But, what's Microsoft have? Close to nothing, and there's little evidence that it's going to catch up. No one in his right mind can claim that the "phone" won't replace many (more) current desktop/laptop use cases in the coming years. What slice of that goes to Microsoft?
I don't know much about the CRM space, so I can't comment on the Salesforce.com vs. MSFT thing. But, what's notable is that Microsoft doesn't really enjoy network effects in that space. It must compete like other enterprise software companies -- again, not a model to justify a high P/E. The netbook numbers can be counted as a "save" against consumer-facing Linux distros, but I understand Microsoft to be practically giving away Windows 7 "starter" edition to keep share. Hardly a great model. Furthermore, the OS is little more than a platform for a web browser. Microsoft is doing all the dirty work and making little in return.
What if IBM blogged about its huge mainframe market share in the Fortune 500? Should we be excited about the future prospects of z/OS? How many mainframe customers would gladly get rid of their mainframes if switching costs were lower? 80+%? Look at the number of skilled COBOL programmers out there. Surely such a large development community will continue to propel the platform forward?
What's causing Microsoft's stock to stagnate is that the company has failed to maintain the network effects that fueled its growth and pricing power. They're becoming yet another company competing for consumer nickels and corporate dollars. While that's well and good, it's not the stuff of hocky stick growth curves.
And, Bing? I started using it because of 15% Bing Cash Back deals. Forget doing an actual search or clicking an ad.
"Let's take Office as an example. Does anyone seriously think that it will still enjoy network effects five years from now?"
Absolutely.
Office isn't going anywhere in most business settings. If anything, the last two Office and SharePoint releases have only continued strengthening its position.
I definitely wouldn't bet that the desktop/Windows/Office thick client paradigm will last forever, but I also wouldn't dare bet against it in the near-term.
Absolutely.
Office isn't going anywhere in most business settings. If anything, the last two Office and SharePoint releases have only continued strengthening its position.
I definitely wouldn't bet that the desktop/Windows/Office thick client paradigm will last forever, but I also wouldn't dare bet against it in the near-term.
Considering where OpenOffice.org is today, and the use it's already getting in small companies and even various government departments around the world, it would not be hard to imagine it making a very significant dent in Office profits for Microsoft over the next five years. That's not even getting into the cloud options, however successful those turn out to be on the corporate desktop.
Off-topic, anyone know of a good open source web-based office suite project? It would be nice to have the collaboration benefits of web-based productivity software run from a centralized location, combined with the data security of being hosted on private equipment on the LAN.
Off-topic, anyone know of a good open source web-based office suite project? It would be nice to have the collaboration benefits of web-based productivity software run from a centralized location, combined with the data security of being hosted on private equipment on the LAN.
Oh boy... My wife led the project of her company's local branch intranet. She wanted to do it in Plone (probably my fault, as I introduced her to it), but central office demanded it to be done in Sharepoint because that's what they use.
I feel sorry for the companies who use Sharepoint for its document sharing/management... In time, it will prove a huge competitive advantage for their competition.
I feel sorry for the companies who use Sharepoint for its document sharing/management... In time, it will prove a huge competitive advantage for their competition.
SharePoint is a great intranet and collaboration product, but it's not a document management system. However, you can extend SharePoint with Laserfiche document management. Check it out on our site www.aisww.com or read more on our document management blog: blog.aisww.com
Was this spam? My whole point is that Sharepoint is not a great intranet and collaboration product. It's unnecessarily tied to Microsoft Office products (and it's that way by design), has simply appalling content management (why would I want to buy a second product from a second vendor to make what I bought bearable to use?). The point was that the Sharepoint intranet had half the functionality for twice the budget and twice the maintenance cost of the originally designed Plone-based solution.
Hi,
No, its not spam. I don't know enough about the installation to be able to speak intelligently on the specifics of that project, but we have many clients that use SharePoint for intranets and collaboration while its not perfect for every situation that does not mean its not a good intranet/collaboration product.
My point about extending SharePoint was that you said "I feel sorry for the companies who use Sharepoint for its document sharing/management" and I was addressing that by mentioning a product we use to fill that gap in SharePoint.
There are many reasons for using SharePoint, there's no need for me to get into that here. If you need to add document management to SharePoint, Laserfiche is a nice easy way to do that.
My point about extending SharePoint was that you said "I feel sorry for the companies who use Sharepoint for its document sharing/management" and I was addressing that by mentioning a product we use to fill that gap in SharePoint.
There are many reasons for using SharePoint, there's no need for me to get into that here. If you need to add document management to SharePoint, Laserfiche is a nice easy way to do that.
Has Sharepoint helped Microsoft preserve cross-organizational network effects? I perceive it to be used mostly as an intranet.
Indirectly, yes.
SharePoint integrates impressively well with Word and Excel, for version control and as a data store. Using Office with SharePoint definitely adds value in ways that Office replacements don't currently.
In that way, SharePoint strengthens Office's hold on the desktop, which strengthens the resulting network effect.
SharePoint integrates impressively well with Word and Excel, for version control and as a data store. Using Office with SharePoint definitely adds value in ways that Office replacements don't currently.
In that way, SharePoint strengthens Office's hold on the desktop, which strengthens the resulting network effect.
What's your point? Did you read the article?
To refresh your memory, the article point is that MS is going to be making bank with PCs for a while. End of story (literally - used correctly for once). MS will be selling a gazillion copies of office five years from now.
IBM is still cleaning up with mainframes BTW.
As to whether you should get excited, well I'm not your emotion manager.
To refresh your memory, the article point is that MS is going to be making bank with PCs for a while. End of story (literally - used correctly for once). MS will be selling a gazillion copies of office five years from now.
IBM is still cleaning up with mainframes BTW.
As to whether you should get excited, well I'm not your emotion manager.
In a way, that is evidence of a very impressive model that they built in their earlier years. Very robust.
These numbers would've bothered me ten years ago, but they don't any more.
Because no matter how many units Microsoft continues to sell, they no longer set the agenda, and that's the important shift. 10 years ago, the entire industry had to dance around MS on tiptoe. That's over.
There is no longer a single app platform that one company controls that dominates the industry. Microsoft is continuing to milk their golden cow by copying all the best features from everyone else's products and using their sales muscle to push their products in large volumes, good for them.
But they no longer dictate the technical specifications and business models of the platforms I write for, and as long as that's true they can sell a billion smart phones for all I care.
Because no matter how many units Microsoft continues to sell, they no longer set the agenda, and that's the important shift. 10 years ago, the entire industry had to dance around MS on tiptoe. That's over.
There is no longer a single app platform that one company controls that dominates the industry. Microsoft is continuing to milk their golden cow by copying all the best features from everyone else's products and using their sales muscle to push their products in large volumes, good for them.
But they no longer dictate the technical specifications and business models of the platforms I write for, and as long as that's true they can sell a billion smart phones for all I care.