John Dvorak's Eight Signs MS is Dead in the Water 711
j79 writes "John Dvorak has written an opinion piece on why he believes Microsoft is dead in the water. He discusses Vista, Office 2007, MSN and MSN search, the Xbox 360, Pad-based computing, .Net, and Microsoft's obsession with Google. "
If Dvorak is right (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this (Score:3, Insightful)
~S
Another BS prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
The obsession with Google (Score:5, Insightful)
MS has taken their eye off of the ball and has been concentrating on everything but the user.
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net] -- A workout plan that doesn't feel like homework.
Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
With a 90% installbase and billions and billions of dollars... Microsoft isn't going anywhere. People are still addicted to their software and will keep coming back for more. They can sustain a lack of creativity for many many years.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Mine (Score:3, Insightful)
.NET is dead in the water? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, is Dvorak an idiot this time or a genius? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The future is now! (Score:3, Insightful)
And soon will come the flood (Score:5, Insightful)
of Slashdrones denouncing Dvorak as a troll. Well, that might be right, but he's a successful troll. You can only accomplish that if you put enough truth and insight, wacky and wrongheaded though it may eventually turn out to be, into your communications as to make for interesting reading. Dvorak does that.
Take this article. I don't know about all the reasons. For example, I'm not a gamer so I don't know crap about the 360. But there's something here for everyone. He says that Vista OS and Office 2007 will be problematic letdowns. He says MSN and the MSN Search Engine are essentially useless. He points out an abandoned former focus, pad-based computing. Is there anything there that's really all that nuts?
No, there isn't. But then, like a good troll who has thrown out a couple of interesting statements to which nearly everyone can say "He's got a point," he then moves on to the provocation - Preoccupation with Google. He calls it a distraction. He tosses out opinions like they're facts. No matter how you view the relationship between Google and MS, there's something in that paragraph to disagree with.
Thus, conversation ensues. Slashdot stories get posted. Traffic gets created.
The man is a damn good troll and he deserves far more props (for that) than he gets around here.
ENOUGH OF THIS TROLL!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
25-40 Billion Reasons Dvorak Is Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
he may have some valid points. (Score:5, Insightful)
Six years ago I had a heated debate with a friend about what should be done about Microsoft. I was (and still am) adamant Microsoft needs legal throttling. Microsoft escaped by the hair of their chin with a fortuitous changing of the guard shortly after losing their DOJ battle (Clinton and Democrats to Bush and the big-money-friendly Republicans). Clearly the new regime had no appetite for any meaningful punishment for Microsoft.
My friend waved his hands and said, "Let the market forces settle it", to which I pointed out Microsoft had gained so much power and momentum that market forces may have become irrelevant.
While better late than never, I think Dvorak makes some good points, but would focus on one I think he misses the mark:
I think Microsoft is right to worry about Google. Google has blind-sided Microsoft on yet another "it's the internet" facet they either glibly ignored, or just didn't see. Google has planted the seed that maybe, just maybe, the OS isn't going to be relevant in the future, thus allowing more free choice, and less dependence on Microsoft. Google's "proof" that XMLHTTPREQUEST can provide responsive web apps as stopgap technology (I can't believe that there eventually will be some better replacement) has spawned many other interesting companies and application.
Some of these "AJAX" apps are downright useful, and for the casual user, can completely replace their office suites in functionality (for their purposes), and then some (remote, network accessible from anywhere).
The amazing irony in all of this is Microsoft invented what may end up being the Silver Bullet that defeats them (XMLHTTPREQUEST). And, finally, maybe market forces will level the playing field.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the tech industry , the market leader can lose ground EXTREMELY rapidly. Anyone seen a Hayes modem recently?
As for Dvorak (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If Dvorak is right (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, wait...
Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is headed for diminshed expectation land - but Dvorak is like the IT version of Limbaugh. What a maroon.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Very good point. For a long time the PC's were synonymous with IBM-Compatible. Now IBM's not even in the PC game.
Re:The future is now! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And soon will come the flood (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
I'll put it this way--Sony has abandoned Betamax. They must be dead in the water. DAT was a let-down. No more movies on UMD. DRMed CDs. Time to start short-selling Sony.
The facts on Sony's failures are not in despute. It's the conclusion, that Sony is dead in the water, that would be nuts.
Likewise, Microssoft has made mistakes. But with huge leads in the desktop OS, web browser, office suite markets, with signifigant presence in the server OS and application markets, plus the gaming, and, oh yeah, a couple billion in the bank, I would LOVE to be that kind of dead in the water.
Dvorak throws out some statements to which people who don't think for themselves and figure, it's on the internet it must be true, can say, "he's got a good point." For the rest of us who use our brains, he's full of shite.
Eight signs Dvorak is dead in the water (Score:2, Insightful)
Well I'll do just that right now, and I don't care what you think, CUZ I'M PISSED OFF.
1. Vista OS. It's now so delayed that its consumer version will miss the 2006 Christmas season. It's now supposed to arrive in early 2007. Even when it does, all of its promised cool features have been removed and it appears to be little more than a gussied-up version of Windows XP. It appears as if it is going to be a great disappointment. This should have been the company's number one priority.
For the developers and consumers, the coolest features are Aero Glass, Indigo, Avalon, Net 2.0 and the rest of the WinFX framework. They were ultra cool but now they are just "gussied-up" XP upgrade? Get your facts straight.
Almost anything in Vista was rebuilt/enhanced: the framework, the interface, the IP stack, the color profiles, there's actually a new advanced printing standard, the audio system, EVERYTHING.
So they dropped WinFS and a few other features for a later update, and suddenly the rest is "boring"? Gimme a break!
2. Office 2007. There is nothing in this new suite that is going to do much more than sustain the product as a dominant office suite. Unfortunately seven different versions are going to be released which will just confuse things. A new enterprise version has been added which appears to have a Lotus Notes-like element called Microsoft Groove. This is being sold as some sort of solution for online collaboration. If it is anything like Notes it will create a lot of anguish with users.
"If it is anything like Notes it will create a lot of anguish with users"? what kind of a nonsense argument is that?! Is this what you have as a sign MS is dead in the water. Have you used Office 2007, what would you do better than Microsoft if you were in their place? Just flamebaiting as always.
3. MSN. Microsoft should have abandoned MSN a decade ago. There is a lot of talk about Microsoft becoming more of a publisher and selling advertising. Microsoft should be buying advertising not selling it. This is not a media publishing company; it's a software publishing company. Why people keep encouraging Microsoft to go in this direction is baffling.
Maybe they should've stuck to making Basic compilers for 8-bit computers? Grow up, companies evolve and adapt to a changing market. You were whining when Microsoft was slow to discover the Internet, now whining they are discovering it.
4. MSN Search Engine. Again more of the same and pointless. Selling ads
Yea shit, selling ads and pocketing the money. Totally pointless, why would anyone care about this thing called uhmm, revenew... uhmm reveneu, revenue, what was it anyway? Totally pointless.
5. Xbox360. The potential to become the dominant game platform and an eventual and enviable profit center. Unfortunately the company did not foresee the Sony delays and failed to manufacture enough units to satisfy the demand. This was an exhibition of poor planning and bad business intelligence gathering.
That's total nonsense again. The initial shortage of units happened because of simultaneous world wide release. It had nothing to do with "foreseeing" the Sony delays.
And right now Microsoft is making and selling enough units to meet the demand. So where is the damn issue?
6. Pad-based computing. According to Gates just a few years back this was to become the dominant form of computing by now. What happened?
You said Apple is buying Adobe, Adobe buying Microsoft buying RedHat buying the Moon and blah blah.
What happened? What happened is you had no idea what you're talking most of the time, while Microsoft knows what it's doing most of the time. Noone is protected from errors, neither is Microsoft.
7. Dot Net initiative. The
Re:The obsession with Google (Score:2, Insightful)
um... MS innovating? other than MS Bob, which innovations are you refering to?
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bottom line is, this is indeed a very rapidly changing industry. As long as compatibility (and I mean more than WINE) exists, people will easily switch.
Im not holding my breath though
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:5, Insightful)
The Office UI is 100% different form every previous Office version. 16 years of training - down the Toilet!
I may be "better", but the adoption curve is huge, and the backlash will be tremendous. There is no "fallback" or "training-wheels" mode for the old Office UI - and it STILL won't render correctly under Vista. All of this has escaped Mr. Know-It-All Dvorak.
Dead in the water != dead (Score:4, Insightful)
For better or worse, Microsoft will be around for a long, long time. Look how long Western Union lasted after the telephone replaced the telegraph. However, what Dvorak may be saying is that the days of Microsoft being a driving, innovative, vibrant force in the computer industry have long since passed. Microsoft's stock price illustrates [yahoo.com] this [yahoo.com] nicely.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
How many of the above were knocked off by Microsoft products?
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they rethink the UI and people start going "OMG! Training!". Let's be realistic here -- a substantial portion of the userbase is still on MS Office 2000 -- companies will have at least 5 years to get ready to adapt to this, and by that time it will be quite easy to hire people who know the new UI.
Slashdot is the kind of place where everyone thinks that enveryone should all switch to Linux/Mac/OpenOffice/Whatever tomorrow as the magic bullet. Nobody here ever seems to care about training until MS Office comes up.
you ALMOST got it (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is starting to look lost because it is focusing so much attention at so many businesses that are not its core: software development. Things like MSN, search, xbox are cash sinkholes that are not what makes Microsoft the powerful and respected (well, maybe not at Slashdot) company that it is. Up to here, everybody is getting.
But what Dvorak and most of everybody here on Slashdot is missing is that this is not a choice Microsoft has. Microsoft sees 5, 10, 15 years ahead and knows that the days of its packaged software dominance are going to end. With computers reaching the power and speed of "good enough for daily tasks," consumers are less and less likely to want to pay to upgrade to a new operating system. With the emergence of browser applications and the gradual (albiet not full) maturation of free open source alternatives to Office and Windows, Microsoft has serious looming threats in the near future.
Microsoft is smart. It is trying to reinvent itself BEFORE the trends of technology FORCE it to. By finding a new cash cow to rely on, it can sit comfortable the day a new version of Windows *doesn't* gain wide adoption (thinking - of course - two or three versions from now). Traditionally, that cash cow was and is Office. Let's not forget many people are perfectly content with Office 97 and see no need to upgrade to the newest version. This will only become more common as the Office product matures further. And as I stated above, and with the news that ODF is now an ISO standard [slashdot.org], even Office is no longer a safe bet *in the long term.* Microsoft execs realize this threat is not yet mature as everybody here on Slashdot wishes, but DOES realize that given enough time, their Office revenue stream will dwindle as well.
So what happens? Microsoft looks at the current fastest growing technical market and tries to enter that race: search (Google), online ads (Google), online content deliver (iTunes). Microsoft is banking on online content distribution and services. If they're smart, they will tie their Office products with various online services to create the next generation online desktop Office applications. They will then charge a subscription fee and serve ads. THAT is where Microsoft is going. And they've got 40 billion dollars to ensure it happens.
And what about the xbox? It's got NOTHING to do with anything. It is Bill Gate's life long dream to make Microsoft an entertainment hub. But if all the threats mentioned above come around in full force as they probably will in 10 years, this dream will probably never fully materialize. It's just the world's richest man making his company invest in his pet project.
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And soon will come the flood (Score:3, Insightful)
Dvorak is no business man (Score:3, Insightful)
No fan of Microsoft here, but I think Dvorak really misunderstands the problem. Yeah, Vista slipped, and that probably sucks for Microsoft. Not sure it's really the death of Microsoft.
I think what we're really seeing is that Microsoft is a much further thinker than Dvorak is. Not that outhinking Dvorak is really a hard accomplishment. What amazes me is that Dvorak thinks Microsoft is just making an enemy out of Google because they're successful. I think Microsoft is much smarter than that.
What is Google's business model? Advertising. What does Google create? Just about everything. Google is looking at old products and businesses and thinking about how to make them free of cost but full of ads. This definitely should scare Microsoft.
Google has search, mail, and now calendar. What happens when they get a word processor, spreadsheet, and a presentation program? And what happens when consumers look at the money they are paying for MS Office when they are no longer using it?
If Microsoft doesn't at least consider being able to switch to an ad-supported services company, then I think this might just happen and then Microsoft truly will be dead in the water.
However, for some reason John Dvorak sees Microsoft competing with Google as purely a distraction. I think Dvorak needs to be thinking on a grander scale.
Re:Another BS prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:3, Insightful)
EVERYONE: But what about the new Office? It is totally different, and will require retraining everyone.
MICROSOFT: Well...Uh...that is...uh...maybe so, but at least it isn't Linux!
Microsoft and innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Those nifty AJAXified updating stock quotes are using an XmlHTTPRequest.
The XmlHTTPRequest was developed by Microsoft and later implemented in other browsers.
Its been around a long time, and MS never really did much with it.
It took a bunch of open source coders to make anything cool or useful with it.
But MS should get the props for inventing it.
It is the one example of innovation I can think of from them that has ever amounted to something.
I think the fact that Microsoft avoids innovation like the plague is actually one of their secrets to profit and success.
Let others waste their time and money innovating. Innovation is for the losers. Wait, stall, and make empty vaporware promises, then buy someone else's finished product at the last minute and rebrand it as yours.
It has always made them the most profitable software vendor in the past, why should they change now?
Where will the giant fall? (Score:5, Insightful)
History is littered with many examples of sudden changes in power structure causing a lot of pain all around (Roman Empire, break up of USSR,...). Far better would be shift so that MS no longer abuses its power and instead becomes a contributory member of the industry.
Never Expected This: I Agree with Dvorak!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems they really need to refocus on individual consumer needs instead of what businesses need, and not be afraid to refactor their software with top-to-bottom interface redesigns when functionality and/or workflow changes significantly.
Re:Dvorak has some insight (Score:3, Insightful)
*That's when a doctor puts in a clear plastic panel in your stomach, so you can see the way forward whilst your head is jammed up you ass.
Re:From a politically conservative perspective... (Score:2, Insightful)
2.) 1 Million. 1.2 million if you include people who don't fit into your left-right world.
A possible other explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
For someone currently using the new Office beta, and having been intimately familiar with previous versions, I'd just like to say that the learning curve is suprisingly low.
While I'm sure your familiarity is a factor, could the reason for the low learning curve also be the fact that it's a word processor?
No offense, but a word processor shouldn't really have much of a learning curve at all in the first place. The task it was created to fulfull is a simple one. Create a new document, then type. Save or print.
Re:Eight signs Dvorak is dead in the water (Score:3, Insightful)
A 926-word metaphor for what truly ails Microsoft: the company and its supporters spend more time defining and rationalizing why MS is great than they do making something great
FWIW, yes, Dvorak is an idiot...
Re:Eight signs Dvorak is dead in the water (Score:3, Insightful)
For the developers and consumers, the coolest features are Aero Glass, Indigo, Avalon, Net 2.0 and the rest of the WinFX framework. They were ultra cool but now they are just "gussied-up" XP upgrade? Get your facts straight.
For consumers? Really? Try Aero, but that's about it. Most users don't know what .Net 1 is, much less .Net 2.0.
Almost anything in Vista was rebuilt/enhanced: the framework, the interface, the IP stack, the color profiles, there's actually a new advanced printing standard, the audio system, EVERYTHING.
All under the hood... What's visible to users? More pop-up alerts for security stuff, and eye candy that looks like what Macs have had for several years. That's why Dvorak says MS is fading.
So they dropped WinFS and a few other features for a later update, and suddenly the rest is "boring"? Gimme a break!
No, just non-innovative. They also dropped Monad.
"3. MSN."
You were whining when Microsoft was slow to discover the Internet, now whining they are discovering it.
They're "discovering it" a decade late. MSN was built to compete with AOL. Remember AOL? Yeah, they're still out there... but technically, so are Compuserve and Delphi. Why waste money on something that has already been obsoleted?
"4. MSN Search Engine."
Yea shit, selling ads and pocketing the money. Totally pointless, why would anyone care about this thing called uhmm, revenew... uhmm reveneu, revenue, what was it anyway? Totally pointless.
Maybe you missed that line in the article about MS making gobs of money for years to come... but not innovating, and as a result fading in the public's mind. That's the point, not that they're going to declare bankruptcy next week.
"5. Xbox360."
And right now Microsoft is making and selling enough units to meet the demand. So where is the damn issue?
The issue is that XBox is still a horrible money-loser for Microsoft, and they're not gaining marketshare fast enough for when the PS3 comes out. If Sony sells 1 million units in the opening weekend or 510k in the first 24 hours, like they did with the PS2, that's going to really hurt the XBox360. In all of 2005, MS sold a total of 1.5 million units... while Sony easily topped that in three days in 2000 with the PS2. If Sony launches the PS3 the same way, or better, the XBox360 will be left in the dust.
Also, there are 100 million PS2s out there... and all of their games are compatible with the PS3. That's 100 million people that won't mind upgrading.
I mean, they are just the largest software/IT company in the world, what were they thinking?
IBM was the largest software/IT company in the world.
Was.
Dvorak won't be dead in the water... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:happend long before that (Score:3, Insightful)
My assumption is that MS is going to have to lose in the market for a while if it's going to lose the corporate fat. The question is, will MS be able to hold onto these employees as it endures its swing downward? With the right leadership, MS can weather this and be reborn. That leadership is definitely not Balmer, and I don't think it's Gates, either. Gates needs to find the right visionary (Ozzie), annoint him, then step back. If MS is going to have long term relevance, it is going to have to take major risks. One of those risks is putting leadership into place that is totally different from anything MS has seen so far.
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:3, Insightful)
A new UI is going to confuse a user for all of 5 minutes while they navigate through it and find where their favorite functions are
Your typical go-through-the-motions formulaic user who merely repeats a set of memorized steps with no understanding of what they are doing and why may have problems, however. The thing is, if you subsidize something, you tend to get more of it. Do we really want to go to any great lengths to make life any easier for people who just want to be automatons? And is this the kind of element that we would like to see thrive in our society? Resistance to change (rather than fascination by it) and a hatred of learning (rather than a joy of discovery) also go with the package when you are talking about this type of person, not to mention they tend to be content with mediocrity as evident by a lack of a deep understanding of their skills and the tools necessary to perform them.
What would you think about an automobile mechanic who knew internal combustion engines inside and out, but who felt that how to properly and safely use an engine hoist or a floor jack or any other machine necessary to perform his job was knowledge suitable only for the machinists who built them? Or how about a doctor who knew all about the human body but who felt that knowledge of pharmacology was only for drug companies? I feel the same way about anyone who must use a computer as a tool in order to perform their job but who feels that anything resembling a deep understanding of this tool is "only for technicians" and not only does not know, but does not want to know.
Shit goes wrong, things happen, events don't work out as planned, programs crash, computers get misconfigured. Why the hell would anyone find it desirable to be unprepared for these things when they happen to a tool that has become so indispensable? People who give a damn about excellence enjoy learning something new each day about the things they do and the tools they use. And no, everyone can not and probably should not be a computer specialist, but when someone has been on IRC every day for the last three years and still needs handholding to register a nick, or when someone has used e-mail for seven years and has never heard of blind carbon copy, you have to wonder what the hell is wrong with them and how much it could be holding back our brightest people when they have to deal with an environment (read: nearly all of them) which caters to this kind of mediocrity.
As an aside, if you want to know frustration, start expecting better of people than they do, based on a realistic idea of what is and is not possible. But either way, why do we support people who are willfully helpless?
Re:he may have some valid points. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a moron. The very idea that anyone (or a significant number of people) would want to use a browser based office suite is just... stupid. There is really no polite way to put it. Not only is the technology for it just not there, but the whole idea is just dumb. Who needs to use an office suite "from anywhere?" Do you find yourself in Internet cafes just dying to open up Excel so you can go over your employer's sales figures? Guess what? The kind of people who need to do this sort of thing already have laptops with MS Office installed. And If, for some reason, they can't afford MS Office, there is OpenOffice.
Who in their right mind would give up a full featured, locally installed, copy of MS Office for some browser based, Javascript powered, HTML monstrosity? Say what you want about MS Office and bloat, but a browser based version would be 1000 times worse. Ajax applications only make sense when dealing with network sensitive information and services such as email, which doesn't even require ajax.
No, the amazing irony in all of this (AJAX powered desktop-like appliations) is that it was already tried before with Java applets.
-matthew
Re:Mine (Score:3, Insightful)
A. The have little or no competition so they can charge whatever they feel like for their product
B. Their product is preinstalled on most new computers sold on the planet and so they get a tax for every machine so shipped.
C. Developing software is expensive but manufacturing and shipping it costs next to nothing, especially when manufacturers preinstall it for you so once you factor out the development and support costs, everthing else is gravy and in the volumes they ship they get a lot of gravy.
Microsoft may be dead in the water as far as innovation goes but their entrenched monopoly will keep them rich for a long time so there really is no correlation between these two issues.
One has to wonder what kind of wonderful stuff an organization like PARC, Google or MIT labs could turn out if they had Microsoft's R&D budget. Microsoft does in fact innovate very little for the amount they spend so in a way that is a kind of dead in the water. My first impression of Microsoft Research is they churn out huge volumes of research papers, and dominate many conferences, but very little of it seems to make the jump in to products that change people's lives.
Re:A possible other explanation (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken like someone who has never had to put a word processor to any serious use. Try the equivalents on for size:
Just because you only use word processors for simple things doesn't mean everyone else does.
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:5, Insightful)
MICROSOFT: Are you retraining everyone for something better, or are you using something that's "10 years behind" like OpenOffice.
The idea being that the new Office UI improves effeciency and therefore has a Training ROI and isn't just gratuitiously different.
Obsession with Google is smart (Dvorak is wrong) (Score:3, Insightful)
I can make a pretty good guess as to what that is--Google provides rich software as a service and they make money doing it. Microsoft has known for almost a decade now that the continual growth in networks will enable software to be provided as a service. And the continued increase in the acceptance of open source means that the perceived value of software as a product will continue to decrease...how much could the Office product be worth if 90% of the most-used functionality is available for $0.00? Meanwhile the greater sophistication and reliability of software means that replacement cycles are slowing down, and the ever-more-common use of updates and patches reinforces the service aspect to software.
When software is available as a service, the business model changes dramatically--it's not (just) a product sale anymore. So what does it become? On-demand, pay as needed? Monthly or annual subscription? Advertising supported? Google has gone with the latter, and they are making money with software services--effectively establishing themselves as threats to a future Microsoft direction.
.Net is dead (Score:2, Insightful)
How dead is it?
It's so dead, that recently
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/
But sure, Microsoft is dead in the water.
Hey, I heard they just released a special pink IPod!! Apple is really going places!
Re:Where will the giant fall? (Score:5, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:The obsession with Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft exists only because investors (the owners) have continuing confidence in it.
Re:The obsession with Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, MS innovates a lot. The fact that you do not see that, is because you confuse "innovating" with "inventing". "Inventing" means doing something new. MS does nothing new. So they coined the term "innovating" to refer to slapping a label saying "new and improved" on an existing product.
Re:Dvorak is right about this - but not the reason (Score:1, Insightful)
[. . . ] The reason is that Bill wants everybody else's money - not just his own. The magnitude of greed in this asshole is mind-boggling.[. . . ]
From the wikipedia entry about the Gates Foundation: [wikipedia.org]
And from the wikipedia entry about Bill Gates: [wikipedia.org]
So um... yeah... next time you donate more than 50% of your net worth to charity, you be sure to let us know, you pompous douche.
Re:Making sense for once (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, you ALMOST got it (Score:1, Insightful)
All you say is true. But the point is not what you say.
Of course, Microsoft is clever enough to know that its current cash cows (Windows and Office) won't last forever.
But the point is "what is doing Microsoft to prepare itself for this future?". As you say, entering the race that other companies started: search (Google), music (iTunes), games (Sony). That is to say, screaming "me too!" for any profitable business related to technology that is fashionable. I'm amazed that they haven't launched nakedmicrosoftbabies.com. At least so far.
Microsoft should start new races, new paths to meet the user's needs (not everything is invented and there is a lot of room for improvement in software industry). Instead of this, Microsoft is a follower of other companies' paths, not a leader.
I am old enough to remember the days when Microsoft was the leader in PC industry. Back then, everything Microsoft did was received with excitement. These were the days. Since five years ago, every news that comes from Redmond makes me yawn.
These is the point Dvorak is trying to make. Microsoft will keep make lots of money but what they do is more and more irrelevant for software industry.
Re:ENOUGH OF THIS TROLL!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:he may have some valid points. (Score:3, Insightful)
These are rhetorical questions which have had an effect opposite of what was intended by trying to make something look stupid which is obviously not. People use word processors because typesetting is not suited for casual use and plain text is just, well, plain text. That is not stupid.
Sometimes people want stupid things.
I don't think people want a browser based office suite. Especially when there is a free, cross-platform office suite available now. Maybe you AJAX hype-whores should try to create NEW applications and services rather than just port existing stuff to the browser. Here's a hint: start with something that is essentially network based or shared. Word processing is not it!
-matthew
Re:Dvorak is a Goofball Gasbag (Score:3, Insightful)
MS Office, several hundred dollars, the defacto standard for documents.
OpenOffice, free or up to $100, pretty much the same thing, and fairly capable of converting MS Office documents in both directions.
How about the people that DON'T want to afford MS Office? You know, the ones that would rather have a second, cheap computer for the kids for the price of MS Office Pro? The ones that would rather have a better video card for their favorite game, or a couple gig more memory? The ones that would rather pay the rent on their apartment, or a month on their college tuition.
The list goes on, but if I were MS, this would be the group I would be most worried about.
Re:Where will the giant fall? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, Yes. But the hypothesis that the demise of Microsoft (which looks pretty lively for a corpse incidentally) is somehow equivalent to the fall of Rome, the end of the Caliphate; or the French Revolution seems to be a bit overblown. The original Dow-Jones Industrial average consisted of twelve stocks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Industrials [wikipedia.org] of which many are gone and only General Electric is still a major company. In the 110 years since the DJI index first appeared, a number of huge companies have risen, thrived, and faded. United States Steel. American Telephone and Telegraph, Enron, Digital, Polaroid. The total disappearance of a company seems to be rare unless, like Enron, it has so utterly disgraced itself that no one wants of be associated with the brand or products, but one would be hard put to identify remaining fragments of once thriving companies like CDC, Digital, Wang, etc.
The likely demise of General Motors will, in fact, cause a great deal of pain in places where it has plants. The same for Kodak. I don't see a lot of concern outside of Detroit, Rochester, and the various smaller towns where plants are closing Microsoft? I don't expect it to die off anytime soon. But if it did, who, other than realtors and property owners in the Northern Seattle suburbs would much care? The techies would move on. The products and patents would wind up in someone's inventory. In fact, one could make a case that the company has fulfilled its mission, has no especially interesting avenues for expansion and should simply liquidatea and distribute its assets to the stockholders.