"Most people I know of know Microsoft as simply the company who makes the software they are familiar with."
Those people are not the one who are deciding the future in companies and organisations. If websites are built for standards, why should we use internet explorer?
If documments are open office or pdf, why should we use MS office?
Microsofts software are only good att Microsofts own specifications. With the move to mobile, they have lost their monopoly on clients which was their reason to exist.
Hardware has never been their problem, their problem has always been their strategy that has led them wrong.
By building products that are incompatible with others and refusing to open up Office files, they have implanted themself as the evil company in the mindset of those afffected. Those affected are those that realise that the world is always changing and want to be free to use any product.
Those are also the people that end up makeing decisions about what products to use.
Microsoft has "closed" them self out of the market.
Expensive and proprietary?
Free and Free?
Which would the market choose?
If you continue to maintain that view, please present some evidence in favor of that. Microsoft has not succeded with that.
I am not saying that it is doing better, I say that they try to take all the profit from the new technique.
We have now a system for cheap and rapid distribution of digital media, and the problem is that the media industry want to take all the profit from that. The obvious answer to that would be that the market forced them to lower the prices, but it doesnt work. The industry is using their monopoly to raise their margins instead of lowering the prices. As long as they do that, they will need laws and police to hunt those that try to escape the monopoly.
The politicians need to rework the copyright laws or deal with the media industry abuse of their monopoly. Lobbying has so far prevented our representatives do represent us.