InfoWorld's Crystal Ball Predicts the Future of Microsoft 376
museumpeace writes "InfoWorld executive editor Galen Gruman has brainstormed five different scenarios for Microsoft in the coming decade and solicits the reader's vote on which is more likely. Does it tank? Does it go open source? Does it out-Google Google? Does Ballmer really fill Gates' shoes?"
Does Ballmer really fill Gate's shoes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you ask?
Bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
What a bundle of bollocks. I've read better in /. comments.
My vote? None of these. They're all in the "dumb and dumber" category.
6. The "same procedure as every year" scenario. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS will continue to force OEM installations on the market, non-it companies will still be afraid of FOSS and MS lobbyists will still do their part on locking down IT departments in public sectors. (In even some of the most "socialist" countries Windows is still used on 99% of desktop PCs in public (school, administration) services, where no special software is needed.
Cloud computing, Web 3.0, "web-bases OSes (!)" and whatnot buzzwords won't change that.
What we could hope for is that the Recession will create focus on cost linked to software licenses, and more focus on saving old hardware. (With software needing updating.)
The greatest thing that could happen is that MS invented some 100% waterproof way of securing Windows against piracy (of Windows itself). Ofcourse, *if* that would happen, they'd just drop the prices substansually in 3rd world contries to regain the lost marked share. (Just look at the netbook rebate. They had to loose half the market shares before slashing prices)
Re:Bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you click through to the descriptions of each? Two of them actually make some sort of sense. (The rest don't.) I can see MS going into a slow decline, or surviving without adapting much. Of course, that assumes that Windows 7 doesn't suck anywhere near as much Vista when it comes out - if it does suck, Microsoft might as well find themselves a black hole to go jump in, because Linux is becoming a viable alternative even for Joe Six-pack.
On another note, every time I see the phrase "cloud computing" I mentally replace it with "The network is the computer". I'm pretty sure that they'll both be equally forgotten in ten years. Like thin clients before them. They've all got their place, but it's not as the primary computing method for everyone.
What "cloud?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember "grid computing"? Remember "application service providers"? Remember how that was supposed to change everything? Right.
The current appeal of "cloud computing" is that some companies are willing to give it away to get market share. That won't last. Google is cutting back on their freebies. The day is probably coming when "Google Apps" won't be free. Gmail is already a paid service for businesses. Google runs those services mostly to cost Microsoft money.
As a business, "cloud computing" looks a lot like shared web hosting. The price competition is fierce and the service levels aren't very good.
A few niche applications have been outsourced well, like "Salesforce.com". In fact, that's the leading commercial outsourced application. But Salesforce doesn't compete with Microsoft.
None of this looks like a real threat to Microsoft.
Re:Bollocks (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. More wishful tinking by Microsoft bashers. What a silly waste of time.
This is all FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Desktop Operating Systems: Granted, Microsoft's cash cow of Desktop operating systems better evolve. I don't agree with the statement on Office 12 which is much better than previous versions. The same can't be said of Windows Vista or Windows 7. They better start working on IE 9 which should be open source and standards compatible for starters. The future of desktop OS is the browser and technologies like gears, silverlight and AIR.
2. Server OS: Microsoft will probably retain the 50-50 ratio on the server side and Server 2008 is excellent with AD. However, it may have to think long and hard about Hyper-V because virtualization is going to be the future on the server OS side.
2. Gaming: With the XBOX division, they will be making their $$ of Xbox live and not by selling the console. Xbox live is very stable and provides an excellent online gaming experience. Sony's victory of Blue Ray won't be longer because for movies and all, its going to turn to a streaming model. So MS better start putting TB drives in there or make them generic for the users to swap them out.
3. Application Dev: Eclipse is a good alterative but MS Visual Studio is one of the best IDE's out there. It is not going to die anytime soon.
4. R&D: Microsoft's labs may not match Google currently but they are coming out with some cool stuff. Photosynth comes to mind. With their "surface" technology evolving it will be interesting.http://livelabs.com/projects/ [livelabs.com]
Microsoft will NOT tank (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still got 10 to 15 years of lingering life in it before it falls.
Can Ballmer fit Gate's shoes? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you are that large, you need to be everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
The article accuses Microsoft of going in too many different directions at once, but when there are so many possible outcomes, how can they not. Microsoft can't affort to miss out on the next big thing, whatever it may be, so they play in every market.
Microsoft was already late to the internet (Netscape), virtualization (VMWare), Business Apps (SAP), internet search (lots of companies), and then improved search + ads (Google), Virtual Meetings (WebEx), next gen programming (Java/Eclipse), media players (IPod), video game systems (PlayStation/Nintendo), phones (IPhone)... and they can't afford to miss the next big thing. Sure, in some of these industries they were in the market, but maybe their product was inferior and it didn't take off (Zune, early revs of Windows Mobile).
So they must maintain a market presence in business apps, touch computing, mobile computing, cloud computing, game systems, video streaming, health care... just in case that is the next big thing.
What most Microsoft bashing tends to miss is that being in the market isn't enough.
Sometimes first to market is enough (Playstation 2 vs Xbox). Othertimes it is tie-ins with 3rd parties (IPod with the ITunes library). Sometimes it is price driven (Linux) and sometimes the quality of the product matters most (IPhone). I never see anyone do a full review Microsoft except as a list of bullet points for the markets that they play in.
Re:more importantly: (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmm... you think they are becoming irrelevent, but that doesn't seem to be the case. FWIW, MS Research is one of the largest research companies in the world. We heard the same thing by the way years ago; MS is late to the internet party (with IE, IIS, etc) and it will spell their doom. It didn't happen; they don't turn on a dime, but they do turn. They'll figure out how to make money on netbooks, and they'll figure out a compelling reason for people to WANT to purchase their software.
Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to.
Re:more importantly: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nobody buys MS that doesn't want to"? Say that to about every user that's had a problem with something with MS.
Meanwhile, just because they're the biggest company doesn't mean they're relevant. It just means they WERE relevant. Past tense.
Re:Slow decline it is (Score:5, Insightful)
You are 100% correct, if you completely ignore corporate America using Windows.
Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:
Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment.
Training for the end users for a new OS.
Training for the end users for a new Office suite.
Training for the end users for any critical applications.
A new desktop management software roll-out for IT.
Any server changes for IT.
Training for IT in the new OS/Suite/Apps/Management software/servers.
Time to convert from the old systems to the new ones.
and a few dozen problems that will spring up during the transition.
Now, after the millions spent on the above, you can wait a few years for the ROI in your new MS free environment.
Most laughs - door number five (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What "cloud?" (Score:2, Insightful)
I can imagine a niche for cloud computing, maybe even a big one. But...my crystal balls say that it will not completely dominate computing. No way, no how.
I want more control of my computer and data, not less. I want to decide if and when to change versions of software.
Imagine waking up one morning, at the peak of panic on a late project, only to find that all your cloud apps have been "improved" with a new interface that takes a week to learn.
Cloud computing is driven by software publishers, eager to gain a revenue stream and eliminate piracy. Unfortunately, the technical press drinks the Koolaid and pronounces it inevitable. Remember bubble memory? Remember pen based computing?
Re:more importantly: (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh please. There's a difference between someone having a "problem" with something MS and that person abandoning MS. My Honda has had it's problems too, but they were insignficant or properly handled by the vendor. If it got to the point were someone didn't want MS anymore, they go find something else. Simple as that.
And I never said they were relevent because they were big; they're relevent because they actually DO give customers what they want. I know, you can't possibly fathom it's true. But people aren't flocking to Linux; they know it's out there, but MS fits their needs better. I know apple has gained some marketshare. Personally, I don't think that will continue as people continue to realize that Apple has it's own problems as well... just like I learned the hard way that Linux isn't perfect either.
Re:This is all FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Only the "slow decline" option seems plausible. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not even mentioning the stuff they make that people actually like. Visual Studio +
MS is at considerable risk of losing its status as de facto standard, and of suffering significant erosion of its margins, and I hope both things happen; but the notion that it will actually die is implausible at best. Companies with far weaker products have held on for ages on legacy deployments alone.
Re:This is all FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, MS is now finally making profit with Xbox. However, the project has cost the company $6 billion in losses over its lifetime. At the current rate of profits, it will take decades just to break even. Their online gaming is far better than Sony's. Both however lag behind Nintendo even though the Xbox 360 had a year head start on the Wii and the Wii was profitable from the beginning.
Re:Microsoft will NOT tank (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
see how long SCO stuck around far after they were no longer relevant.
Re:more importantly: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a ridiculous statement. I have bought and wiped clean close to a hundred MS pre-installations because getting either another os or applying for a refund was more expensive.
Re:more importantly: (Score:5, Insightful)
If it got to the point were someone didn't want MS anymore, they go find something else. Simple as that.
Many companies have invested millions of dollars in Microsoft software as a core part of their computing infrastructure. That's not something that can be replaced quickly, easily, or cheaply.
Re:more importantly: (Score:5, Insightful)
Haha. You are truly Captain Wishful Thinking. You people that think if you come on a board with a bunch of like minded "thinkers" and say something, that makes it true. "Microsoft is irrelevant!" "See how I've made my hatred known by saying something nonsensical and dismissive of an entity I hate!?". You just did the equivelent of a 13 year old girl's "wha-EVA!"
If you hate MS that much, a better tact would be to not underestimate the enemy in your little nerd battle. They're not irrelevant, to say they are is laughable and shows how provincial and limited your experience in the computing industry is.
Re:Microsoft will NOT tank (Score:3, Insightful)
Good/Bad for Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has some good and bad things going for them.
Good stuff includes a large bank account, established market share, some measure of trust in some organizations (yes, heavily qualified but true), some interesting technology on the horizon.
The things going against them are formidable though:
1) They are the market leader; or rather, they hold the lion's share of the market. The market leader traditionally bears the brunt of costs to develop new technology. This is not just coding costs, but intangibles like pushing standards that have significant up-front costs and barriers to acceptance. With the heterogenous mobile computing environment, their previous strategy of closed "standards" no longer work.
2) Their traditional cash cows (OS, Office) are becoming commodities. Everyone and their little sister seems to be putting out OSes with enough functionality to be "good enough". Microsoft now has to fight for the niche markets. This is more expensive than appealing to the masses. In contrast, startups can target the niche easily. For MS, it could be death by a thousand cuts as they bleed money going after tiny markets. (Sound eerily like the Republican Party???)
3) Barrier to entry for new markets is getting very expensive. Google has built an infrastructure on search and Internet connectivity. To enter this market is difficult. In fact, many people think that Google is purposely developing throw-away technology knowing that Microsoft is going to jump/react and try to match it.
4) Vista sucks. Their next revision may be a lot better, but Vista missed a critical salvo. Windows is not going to die anytime soon, but the problems with Vista has tarnished an already battered image.
5) Competition is much fiercer.
Predictions schmedictions (Score:3, Insightful)
Making predictions about the future of computing (or about anything else for that matter) is useless. Most likely things will develop in a totally unforeseen way that is not described in the five models. That is why I didn't read the fine article.
Wang Labs as example (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always felt Microsoft is likely doomed to follow Wang Labs [wikipedia.org] decline from huge success to irrelevancy. The only real question is the timeline.
Wang, like Microsoft, dominated for a long time with proprietary OS and software, generating gobs of money and being a huge company. Then one day it seemed like the world just walked by them and they stopped selling new stuff and just sort of faded away.
Microsoft's decline will could be more complex, largely due to the Xbox and Windows Mobile markets with their own cycles, but Microsoft seems stuck in their tell-the-market-what-it-wants mindset instead of adapting to changes.
Re:Bollocks (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is becoming viable for people who just want to surf the web or write term papers. Microsoft is sufficiently entrenched in the enterprise and SMB market, and will continue to do just fine. Linux might be good enough for stand alone home desktops, but it lacks polished tools to ease enterprise deployment. I understand that they are there, but they aren't mature. Linux needs a Group Policy equivalent that is as polished and easy to use as Group Policy. Linux needs an Exchange server equivalent that integrates with an LDAP directory. Once those two are up and running, then maybe people can start talking about Microsoft coming tumbling down.
MS is an oil tanker (Score:4, Insightful)
You can switch the engine off and it will continue to move forwards for a long, long time, simply due to its mass and momentum. The same is true for MS. They have a lot of long term contracts with companies that cannot simply cancel them. Companies in turn have long term plans that include licensing plans for MS products.
The IBM case and how big blue "lost touch" with its customers around the early 80s, when they missed the rise of the PC and how mainframes lost their importance, does not really apply either. There is no "PC" that MS would have missed. And the times are quite different. Computers are today in every home (ok, not every, but close). And for the average person, computer means MS operating system. Yes, that was similar with IBM and computers back in the 70s. But when you bought one for your home, you had no option to get a mainframe (unless you were some super rich geek). So you had to get "something else", which was a PC with a MS OS. Today, people get a "computer for their home", so they don't look around for an alternative.
Yes, one of the things MS benefits from is the lazyness of people. And that's why this oil tanker is going to go forwards for a long, long time to come. They'd really have to do something insanely stupid or piss off their users in some really insane way to change this, because nothing could come from the outside that could change that. People are too used to MS systems and they will continue using them because they're used to them. Why learn new tricks when the old ones were already hard to grasp? Unless users are really, really pissed and fed up so they start looking for alternatives, this won't change.
Re:MS is an oil tanker (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just laziness, but ignorance about computing as well.
People like my parents blame computers for "problems", like not being able to navigate easily to connect to wireless networks while using windows or not being able to figure out how to disconnect a drive.
These things piss people off, but while the solutions are there, and relatively easy, they're well hidden. The icons are in the taskbar in XP and Vista too, as far as I know, but that's pretty much useless for anyone who doesn't already know what the green arrow means, or a computer beside three arcs. They're too ambiguous, and too hard to find.
I honestly believe that Windows isn't bad, and it's my platform of choice mainly due to AutoCad software. But from using both Ubuntu and OSX infrequently they're more intuitive systems that are easier for the casual user to pick up.
People like my parents would probably pick up OSX quite quickly without too much help, but don't know that the problems that they complain about aren't computer issues, but are Windows problems.
Windows does have other problems, which have been talked about ad nauseum here already, but one of the biggest issues with the casual user is the GUI.
If Windows 7 fixes the GUI, amongst other things *cough*UAC*cough*, then they'll have a system that people will stay with.
And maybe I'll stop getting calls asking how to connect to the internet :)
Technology goes the way of fashion (Score:3, Insightful)
We are nearing a point where technology - both hardware and software - are going to reach a plateau. Let me use Microsoft Word as an example. Twenty years ago the software available to do desktop publishing was pretty poor. The interfaces were primitive, there were severe limitations of what could achieved, and the integration of intelligence to aid humans (spell checking, thesaurus, grammar checking, language translation, etc) was non-existent. There was a massive amount of room for improvement, and thus Word was created and has steadily grown in features and capability ever since. Because there was so much improvement to be made in that market, there was room for Word to progress, perhaps ahead of the curve, to set itself apart from similar products. So what is left to be implemented in modern word processors? What groundbreaking feature remains to be invented that can really set one product far above the others? There's not much. GUIs can be tweaked and redesigned. File formats can be updated and made more portable. But the simple fact of the matter is competition, like Open Office, can chug along in development at a leisurely pace, and before anyone realizes it, Open Office is suddenly completely on-par with Microsoft Office.
We're heading towards the same end with operating systems, web browsers, and even hardware. Every now and then something new will come along (multitouch iPod / iPhone comes to mind - Microsoft was idiotic not to encourage that simple and logical progression with the Windows Mobile OEMs) that will set a product far apart. However, eventually we will have, for the most part, equivalency throughout.
So what will dictate what companies or products are popular and which are not? Take a look at the fashion industry. The whole skirt-length, tie-thickness phenomenon will occur in the technology arena. Fads will come and go. Specific products will become popular because of subtle differences between them and competing products that the masses somehow identify as "modern" or "cool". Eventually the recycling process will begin, probably on a 15-20 year cycle, but perhaps even faster in the technology market. Some company will dredge up a GUI or method of doing something that was popular a couple product generations back, and it will make a resurgence for a while. Speech driven interfaces will become popular, then eventually be perceived as stupid and primitive. Gesture driven interfaces will become popular, then people using them will eventually be seen as old-fashioned and out of vogue. Direct interfacing to the human neurological system will become practical and popular, then later will be seen as too unnatural and invasive, leading full circle back to some other method of interfacing.
So I don't think any one company is going to dominate for any duration, because they will not be able to make their product different enough (for better or worse) to make it stand up against the alternatives. This is where open source will really make a huge impact. The odds of a company like Microsoft managing not just to survive, but to dominate these kinds of drastic changes in technology paradigms is very, very unlikely.
Re:Missed one mac os x for all systems comes out a (Score:1, Insightful)
Mac OS for all systems will come out only when you have prised the licensing agreement from Steve Jobs' cold, dead hands.
A few things.. (Score:3, Insightful)
MS's venture into the PDA/Smartphone realm has been problematic. It seemingly remains low on their list of priorities. A WinMo phone currently implies a further investment in third-party commercial applications to actually get suitable experience. Meanwhile, Apple and Google are getting a number of things right. Apple's out of the box experience is usable for most, and the App store is a much more well organized approach to third-party applications. Android is similar, but with the added benefit of the lowest barrier to entry for development and plenty of free apps in the 'Market'. I might have to give Google the long-term market edge in this market. We have a market that is still nearly a clean slate, fundamentally distinct from the ecosystem that MS flourished in (move the cost from developers, resellers, and users to advertisers given the ubiquitous internet access that wasn't possilbe as MS formed), and could become many people's dominant method of interaction with the internet. This would be akin to the mainframe to PC revolution you mentioned.
In terms of laziness, that also backfires too. Maybe not in marketshare, but in revenue. For example, most still run XP that was licensed long ago. Those users are not a revenue stream for MS. In terms of Linux defualt being shipped on systems, the eeepc was the best chance to date at evaluating it, and both sides of the debate find the statistics they want somehow, making it still inconclusive. Maybe Dell has some telling statistics, but if MS OS was an expensive addon to a computer, would people just get the cheap-o option?
1992-2008 "year of the Linux desktop" too - b.s. (Score:1, Insightful)
I heard a rumor that 2009 is going to be the year of the Linux desktop too... oh wait: That was also said all the way back to 1992, up to this year in 2008, & every year in between also. Funny that hasn't come to pass, lol!
Re:This is all FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
One, considering the site, he is probably posting anonymously to save his karma. You know as well as I do that he would be modded -9472 troll for posting something that doesn't support the FLOSS party line.
Two, MySQL may be "the number 1 database for web servers", but at every major company I have worked at the database servers have been either Oracle or DB2. At my current company, we have two MySQL servers compared to over one hundred Oracle servers.
Just because some thing is number one for web servers, it does not follow that said thing is number one for all servers.
You are right that this is a website, but it is not an engineering website and it is in no way exclusive, or apparently mostly, populated by computer scientists. I would say the population is made up of mostly FLOSS zealots and college kids. Speaking of which, don't you have a class you should be getting to?
Re:This is all FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bollocks (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the fact that the relative advantages of the two platforms has changed in the last 5 years is a reflection that neither has stood still in that period.
MS has poured enormous resources into Enterprise software - Exchange, Sharepoint, WMI, SMS, unattended installs, group policies, etc.
Meanwhile, Linux has focused on attacking the consumer polish. Both platforms are much improved compared to 5 years ago.
Re:This is all FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
This means nothing. For one, you are obviously exaggerating (100 Oracle servers???) and two, that MySQL server could be one cluster and handling 100 terabytes of data transfers like at my old telecom vs just data storage on the Oracle machines. This would imply that the MySQL server are doing the workload of 100 Oracle servers... so I would ask what your point is of pointing out the number of servers and not their workload?
... we just use them where we need too. The right tool for the job. Unfortunately, Windows devs and sys admins believe their companies marketing hype and think their platform is the right tool for EVERY JOB ... as you seem to be under the delusion of.
The fact that you think this is a site made up by open source zealots shows your bias (read said sig). We all use Macs, Linux and Windows here (well maybe you don't and hence you shouldn't wear that engineering title)
Stop smoking the Microsoft crack pipe for a couple seconds and think for yourself. Every tool has a use and not every tool is good for everything as you are implying. Some tools just naturally are better at certain things and Linux and open source just happen to make better servers. Microsoft happens to suck as a server, Linux happens to suck as a desktop. I wouldn't deploy either for either if I didn't have to. I of course use Linux for MY desktop at work but there is no way in hell I would have a whole company deploying it. And we use Microsoft for exchange server but I have never seen a stable Microsoft server in my life in comparison to Linux server which you can 'set and forget' for months.
It's a harsh fact. Some things are just better at some things than others. Windows is great at playing games though. You should be proud of that, right?
Re:more importantly: (Score:2, Insightful)
OTOH, at least all of those distros would still use common and open protocols (real LDAP, NFS, etc) to interconnect, instead of a locked-down/munged/proprietary set, which means that you either buy from one vendor alone, or you get screwed.
Re:more importantly: (Score:4, Insightful)
As you say, my daughter's Ubuntu machine plays perfectly nicely with my Gentoo infrastructure, and my son's WinXP machine does too, for that matter. I'll presume that my daughter's boyfriend's Mac will plug into my network and run just fine, whenever that becomes necessary.
It all runs on standards - real, open, cross-platform, public standards.