Microsoft's Future 486
cyberkine writes: "The Economist has an interesting article on Microsoft's technology strategies that ends with a very astute comparison with IBM's downfall and resurrection in the wake of its own antitrust battles. 'Microsoft's biggest underlying fear is that it will become like IBM - --a company that still has a strong business but no longer sets computing standards.'"
Interesting comment in related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
OSS ranked along side AOL in the battle against Microsoft. Interesting, if not frightening.
like it or not... (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft != IBM (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is not exactly like IBM. IBM's market was in business whereas Microsoft's market combines both business and consumer. IBM sold hardware as well as software. Microsoft sells only software (unless you count those stupid mice and keyboards). IBM sold huge mainframes for huge price that requires months of sales work to get the dotted line signed. Microsoft products can be grabbed in retail stores. That doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft won't run out of steam with its flattening markets, but the mechanisms and potentials will certainly be different than they were with IBM. IBM didn't have a lot of options it could so easily move into. Microsoft has some more, and is more diverse than IBM ever was in a market that can buy things on a whim. So don't count on what happened to IBM necessarily happening to Microsoft. Maybe it will, or maybe it won't.
Microsoft's biggest fear (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft setting standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the wierd thing I learned from this guy was that the upper management at Microsoft actually plans to be collecting revenue from basically every computer user in the world through liscenses and
anyway, I'm not religious, I use Microsoft stuff all the time. More power to them. But its just not gonna happen...Microsoft has had its glory days, and now I am starting to see the seeds of the computer world "moving on". People simply don't have the cash or interest now that the Internet boom is gone to pretend that they are gonna get rich by installing XP server for their company. Those days are gone, now people want the basic functionality they need at the lowest possible prices.
Reminder to self: must let PHB read this (Score:2, Interesting)
It shows two roads ahead instead of just the one BG sees through his (obviously worn out) glasses.
One road is that where Microsoft gets new leadership because BG steps down in time. Down that road lies an IBM-like future for Microsoft with plenty of opportunities and a more 'normal' growth pattern for the company.
The other road is the one where BG isn't willing or capable of stepping down and Microsoft will go on with it's current practices. The writer doesn't really predict what might happen but has a swing at it by saying (between the lines) that revenue-growth may not be able to keep up it's march forward.
The bottom line is that if your PHB isn't _real_ dimwitted _and_ has an idea of economics (I know it might be too much to ask but still) he may get this. The fact that it reads "The Economist" on top should at least help a bit.
Karma? What's that again?
Becoming another IBM is not the worst case (Score:3, Interesting)
I was amused by the notion that for Microsoft to follow in the footsteps of IBM, as a company that no longer sets standards, would somehow be the bad scenario. Well, things could have been worse for IBM. They had a near-death experience in about 1993. Sure, they had inertia, it could have taken them decades to finally fade away (a la Control Data, Unisaurus, DEC, and many others), but that they revitalized themselves rather than fade away is thanks to having reinvented the company (including their first-ever layoffs, just to pick one example). The best reference I could quickly find was an article [businessweek.com] from Business Week, which seems to capture the essential points.
The significance for Microsoft? Well it is pretty early to start pondering a post-Microsoft era and I'm not sure I see any signs of collapse in the various cracks which appear around the sides of the empire. But if a collapse does come, it could be more catastrophic than you'd think.
Re:Who is this guy? (Score:1, Interesting)
If by "All Win32s" you mean Windows 95 through XP then no, that is particularly painful, and sometimes impossible.
If you mean just 95-ME then it's certainly much more doable (though I won't claim easy).
More often than not, it's just easier to develope seperate versions of a program for the 9x platforms and the NT/2K platforms.
While I agree it shouldn't have to be this way, it is just how things are.
Setting standards... I think not.. (Score:4, Interesting)
MS is worried that it won't be setting computing standards ? But it _never_ _ever_ has. Its forte has been ignoring standards and setting out on its own. Its problem now with the concept of the pervasive web and pervasive computing is that its #1 reason for this succeeding, its OS is not longer going to be ubiquidous.
IBM failed because they didn't see the PC revolution, MS have seen the pervasive web, and are trying to get onto it, but their problem is that by its very nature its a non-MS world. Where IBM missed the bandwagon the issue here is that MS want to get onto the one that it has previously tried to blow off the rails. Will Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, IBM, HP, Sun allow MS to join their tea party.
Hopefully not. But there is no accounting for CEO stupidity. MS have to undergo a culture change, their adoption of XML and SOAP looked good, until they haven't implemented the SOAP stuff to the SOAP standard yet (and they are on the bloody standards body!). That underlying aim of embrace, extend, extinguish was fine while they controlled the OS, but with internet aware consumer devices the bar of quality, reliability and interoperability has been raised.
To quote my wife "So people accept that Microsoft write crap code, and even blame themselves for problems, thats the reason I gave up using the PC"
Its true my wife uses the PC very rarely for a bit of browsing and email... but there is no way she would put up with a mobile phone that hangs.
Microsoft vs. IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
I think people have a basic misunderstanding about Microsoft. They think:
Microsoft makes lots of money. Therefore it must be a good, strong company.
However, I believe if you ignore the profits, Microsoft is actually a very weak company. Crazy point of view? My logic:
Ignore for a moment the size of Microsoft's profits, and look at where they come from. A hugely disproportionate amount come from Microsoft Office. It's worth thinking about this a moment - despite Microsoft's multiheaded and complex strategy at the moment, a significant proportion of its profits come from a product the functionality of which isn't that difficult to copy. A bunch of people in their spare time have put together software that has much of the same functionality. Sun has a nearly equivalent product that they are giving away for free. Is MS Office really a sound basis for a strong company? Similarly with its operating systems - Linux is an increasingly tough competitor, and it's free. Much of it was originally developed by a bunch of students and enthusiasts (absolutely no disrespect intendended).
Now look at IBM. Increasingly its profits come from providing complex bespoke services at enterprise level to global companies. It also creates hardware, from breakthough advances at the molecular level to the worlds fastest supercomputers. Try copying that.
Bill Gates says he doesn't want Microsoft to become another IBM. I say, Microsoft is a pathetic company in comparision.
Re:Did Microsoft set any standards? Yes. (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, surprisingly enough, the answer is, Yes, Microsoft has set good (that is, open) standards.
Off the top of my head I can think of RTF (Rich Text Format), SMB, and DHCP. That last one's a pretty good example, since even in pure UNIX shops it's all but eradicated bootp.
--b9
Re:Since when did MS ever set any standards? (Score:3, Interesting)
An interesting comment.
1. Stac Electronics was a patent infringement suit. I thought every good slashdotter was anti patent-abuse? Or are you the odd man out?
MS infringed their patent on compressing data as it is written to the disk/decompressing it as it's read from the disk. Sounds really original and innovative that does.
The same guy is now running this outfit:
X-Sides [xsides.com]. Check out their new product:
Scary, huh? [xsides.com]
If that doesn't make you sit back and think "OH MY GOD... PERMANENT BANNER ADS!", and then shriek in horror, I don't know what will. This is not the kind of person who shies away from a filing trivial patents.
2. Apple -- see Xerox.
As for the others, I'll let someone else answer them.
Simon
OT but Interesting question (Score:4, Interesting)
I think hacking Xbox into a Linux box in iOpenner fashion might make a few MS executives blink!
Anyway... just a thought... anyone doing this already? Is there any web site to show?
MS doesn't actually turn a profit. (Score:2, Interesting)
How? They claim the value of stock options used to pay employees as expense. Between that and cash outlays, they are losing money, and have been for years.
When they claim profit to their shareholders, and for the stock markets in general, they don't count the stock options they give out as anything. IOW, they would report the exact same profits if their employees' pay was cut to only their cash salaries. IOW, if they paid their employees entirely in stock options, they would report no spending on employees, exactly as if it was all-volunteer labor.
MS does have (or has had) a positive cash inflow, but only because they are constantly creating new stock and selling it, diluting existing shares to create the illusion of profit.
The stock market is not a source of investment for them, but primary revenue.
It works exactly like a Ponzi scheme: early investors are paid off with later investments. Unsurprisingly, like any cash pyramid, it showed exponential growth, roughly doubling in value every year.
This has broken down, though. Forget technical competition, they are on the edge of a financial collapse. They are being supported by the wishful thinking of their employees, who still think the stock will resume its growth, and so are willing to accept stock options as pay. Once they insist on payment in cash, MS will not be able to show even a fraudulent profit, and the company will come crashing down.
The question is what will come crashing down with them...
Re:Microsoft vs. IBM (Score:2, Interesting)
I would go farther than than. Microsoft sells commodity software. Commodity software is software that changes little and is used by millions of people. In economic terms what happens to any commodity? Its price drops to the marginal cost of manufacture. For software that is the cost of stamping the cd. So in the long term it Microsoft's current business model is going to break.
Sounds far fetched? It's not really. Even Microsoft knows it. That is why they are pushing renting software rather than selling it. With renting they have an income stream without having to sell new software. I did not think they would succeed in renting software, until it dawned on me that already had succeeded with Windows. Why do you think you can't resell Windows when you sell your PC? I thought it was because Microsoft wanted get another sale of windows to the new owner. But no. It's so you can't reuse your Windows licence when you buy yourself a new machine. Effectively you are renting Windows for the life of the PC you bought.
However renting is only a short term solution. In the longer term competitors will come out of the wood work. In 5 to 10 years KDE Office/StarOffice/Gnome will be almost as good as Office. If it is not open source then it will be commercial in a longer time frame. But whatever. The trigger is having your revenue stream based on selling software that does not change, that has finished evolving, that you can no longer add features to make people upgrade. Office has reached that trigger and Windows can't be far away.
BTW, IBM is a total different kettle of fish. They sell hardware. In order to push their hardware they sell services, one of them happens to be software. IBM will install your software, customise it for you, and run your IT department if that is what you want. Like the other 99% of software companies in the world IBM sells a service, not a commodity. The contrast with Microsoft could not be more stark.
In order to survive in the long term Microsoft is going to have to change their business model completely. They are going to have to stop selling software and start selling services. I don't know it they will be able to do it - it is a huge cultural change. Unlike the rabid minority on Slashdot I think Microsoft has contributed a lot to the software engineering community. I wish them luck.
Think about this... (Score:2, Interesting)
If the truth be known, Windows will never be a completely bug-free and stable OS. Sure, it may come close, but it's never going to be perfect. And this isn't because of the natural human nature of programmers, either. I'm not talking about minor/very small bugs - but rather bugs that are at least rather annoying.
Why? It makes perfect sense as a corporation to release a product that is perpetually "almost there" as far as QA is concerned (especially if they charge for upgrades.) Simply put, if Microsoft can create an image of, "Dangit, we ALMOST had all the bugs out... maybe next time!" to its customers, then those customers are probably going to purchase the next release of Windows in hopes that those bugs are fixed. Of course, fix those bugs, but make sure to add some sort of new stuff (features, eye candy, etc.) that have a few bugs, so that the same cycle repeats itself.
Why woulod they do this? Think about it this way... If WinXP turned out to be a completely stable, bug-free version, and taking into consideration their track record of being rather buggy at times, would you upgrade past WinXP? If you're like a lot of people, probably not. I know several people who have told me already that they are 95% happy with their Win98, and will NOT ugprade past Win98 for fear that the new versions may be buggier. I am sure a lot of people have that same general feeling, and if they ever got their hands on a "good" version, they'd stick with it.
I will give them this much - creating the "Bother, we THOUGHT we had all the bugs out!!! But, we'll get it next time around!" look to all its customers has seemed to keep them on the upgrade track rather well. :) Question is, how long before the customers catch on?
Bullies are Bad Business (a repeat of the 80s) (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I don't have children, but people younger than me think that Microsofties are a bunch of bullies (or so I tell them). And rather than investing our attention in another company, I think we may have collectively learned our lesson. We are investing our time in open source software that is publically owned.
It took over two decades for Microsoft to catch up to IBM ('75-'95). I think it is fair to give open source a fair shake ('85-'2005). Sometime soon the pendilum will swing away from Microsoft and towards the next monopoly. Guided not by technology decisions, but by personal choice not to support the bullies. This time the monopoly holders will be the public, through licenses like the GPL.
looking beyond (or why M$ will fail) (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM has this thought out. Their revenues going forward are more and more service-based. That's something you just can't steal.
Microsoft shouldn't be afraid of becoming IBM. They should be afraid of not becoming IBM.
Re:Like olde AT&T (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft hopes to put this same tried and true method of earning money to use with your computer. If you look at the situation with the telco's and TV cable ccompanies. Innovation, better service, and more choice came about once there was a choice between telco's and TV service. If you didn't want TCI or Time Warner you went with a dish. If you don't like AT&T, there is Sprint or MCI. The problem with the computer industry is the limited choices between MAC OS, Linux, and Windows to name a few.
Once MS squeezes out any other choice for OS or for Internet access (.NET or Hailstorm) we will all suffer and have no other choice than to pay MS whatever they want.
After all. What was the last innovative thing to come out of MS? Nothing. They've only been "Improving" their exsisting software. They don't have any innovations, so the only thing left is to narrow the field and leave you no other option than to pay them.
Goran
Re:The New Microsoft?? (Score:2, Interesting)
The help I was talking about was how to install the C2 orange book certification on NT,
[C2 = unplug the network, secure = MS Personal Security Advisor]
how to reduce the transaction latency in COM,
[all Com Trans are distributed. Use a local transaction and do custom transaction enrollment.]
such as removing unexplained and arbitrary DNS lookups in COM,
[use a Sane ActiveDirectory environment; hire a useful infrastructure guy; devs are bad at setting up large networks that work]
how to format dates in VB Script,
[formatDate]
how to do regular expressions in VB,
[Can't in VB. Can in VBScript (new RegExp). Workarounds: create a Windows Script component to expose a VBScript RegExp to VB (bad perf); or call a C++ implementation via a DLL]
how to keep Visual source safe from regressing for no apparent reason,
[Don't try to do stuff VSS doesn't do well]
how to interface IDL's for VB encryption with CryptAPI, etc, etc.
[VB cannot call Com interfaces that are not automation compatible. There are workarounds.]
Agreed, there are two sets of problems here: administration and development.