Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Expects 1 Billion Windows Users by 2010
prostoalex writes "The head of Microsoft Windows client division claimed there will be 1 billion Windows users by 2010, while nowadays there are 600 million of them, Microsoft-Watch reports. 35% of Microsoft's enterprise customers are still running Windows 9x and they are ripe for upgrade. Currently Microsoft's desktop PC market share is at 96%, with the closest rival - MacOS from Apple Computer - being installed on 2.8% of the desktops."
As they say, predictions are difficult, especially about the future. What we have here is either bravado or, at best, a marketing goal. Lots of thunder and very little rain. What it's doing in ./ other than as a troll, I don't know.
What's wrong with being a good server OS, with 1% desktop share?
1% is still a hell of a lot of people, more than enough to keep linux a viable platform worth supporting.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Indeed it does. However, look at the growth it has had in the last six years, and project that into the next six years ...
Another MS prediction based on propaganda. Like the Gus Van Sant film, makes me wonder if they see the elephant.
Unplug the mainframe, and 500 little peer to peer servers emerge.
What this article neglects to indicate is, ironically, Fear, Unvertainty, and Doubt. Open source. MS only sees FUD when it is convenient!
tell me I am wrong. Afraid or uncertain that I right?! Ha!
The Custom Mary
Allthough I can't quote any scientific studies or reports I can FEEL something is changing. Everywhere around me people are throwing out Windows, replacing it with Mac OS X or Linux. Internet Explorer is slowly losing market share. A general awareness of alternative platforms is beginning to progress. There have been so much talk in the media about the insecurity of Windows and how other operatingsystems don't have these problems. I really really doubt there will be one billion Windows users by 2010.
The report does not say where these extra 400 million are coming from. I doubt China would embrace MS, with "Red Flag" their pretty puppy.
Short of the smaller emerging countries, which seem to embrace non-MS more often than not, India seems the only place likely being targeted.
Interestingly, the one fact they report - 35% of users in Win9x/NT - would be a perfect focal point for an all-out Linux/Mac ad blitz (whoever wants it the most). That would take over 200 million away from their current base.
yeah! who cares? until companies stop buying windows for their pcs - this won't change. I'm an admin for Solaris and Linux -- and I have to use Windows on my laptop....(managed desktop) something to do with exchange something or other...
so we make do with exceed, scrt and putty. poor windows.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Do you think they adjust for all the PC's sold with a licensed copy of Windows, then wiped and imaged with a corporate version of Windows that's separately licensed? I think every PC I've seen at work has a Windows product sticker on it, but it doesn't match the actual version installed.
All the article really says is that Microsoft expects all those myriads of people still running Win 95/98/ME/NT workstation to upgrade. Basically, they're counting in much the same way McDonald's counts, in this case, by number of licenses sold. This number is not a measure of active users.
Linux has an opportunity to beat Microsoft to the punch with Longhorn. Application learning curve? Given that few of your existing applications will work in Longhorn, why not learn Linux? Fully developed suite of utilities and applications, you say? Buy a distribution from SuSE, Redhat or Mandrake [insert your distro here]. With Longhorn, Microsoft is giving up the one advantage they really had, the Win32 APIs (a position elaborated very well by Joel Spolsky in his Joel On Software column--sorry I don't have the link handy).
I'm surprised that a comment like this comes from an MS spokesman. While there may well be that many Windows desktops, they're clearly missing the big picture if that's their target.
Even people who don't use a windows PC will be using windows. Even Linux users, if they use the web. Many sites, like Slashdot, are running through a windows server. And even if you're not interested in the net, Windows will be on a PDA, in your car, and on your set top box.
how many of these people are actually using a legally licensed version of windows, and how many people "pirated" it?
...but, does it matter? People using pirated copies of Windows are prime candidates for purchasing Windows once their local laws on copyright are toughened-up/enforced. I'm sure Bill Gates et al would prefer folk to pirate Windows than download Linux, say.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Personally, over my multiple machines, I am probably counted as 4 users going back over my last 4 machines.
After all, machines may die, but licenses live on forever.
I don't think the average user switches his OS. He (unwittingly) gets a new OS when he buys a new PC. And when he buys a new PC he goes to the shop, sees 4GHz Intel at $1000, 1GHz Mac at $1500, and buys the PC. There's really not a lot linux can do about that.
New server shipments??
I know all the servers we run here are not bought with Linux on them. We generally either buy servers or parts, and put Linux on it ourselves.
It's not surprising that MS appears to be gaining when you look at something like preloaded servers. It's not an accurate reflection of the real world though.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Right now, high cost of entry is the barrier. In Linux's case it's in time, in Apple's case, it's monetary. This is coming from someone who runs a single Windows box for gaming, 3 Linux boxes, and will be buying an Apple portable in a couple of weeks when the cash is available.
When it comes to Linux, it's just plain easier to run the copy of Windows that came on their $499 Dell than it is to spend time installing and learning a completely different operating system. It's what everyone else uses, so they might as well. Intertia is the cause more than anything.
The same goes for Apple here. While the hardware may be of higher quality and the overall experience for your average user may be higher, the fact remains that your minimum investment into a Macintosh is a $799 eMac, which is more expensive than that $499 Dell. And besides, nobody in the "real world" uses Macs and they're not compatible with anything, right? That's the mindset of the average user, whether it's based on fact or prejudice is another story entirely.
So what it comes down to is that, while I agree with you that all three platforms are perfectly adequate for the needs of most desktop users, Windows maintains its market share through pure inertia. It's what people know, it's what every one else uses, and it's basically just the path of least resistance all around. This, in turn, makes moving to an alternative more difficult, which means fewer people are likely to switch.
I seriously quiestion their reveny is going to be this high in the future even if they succeed in bringing home additional markets like China or India. Pirating is rampant and not many are aware of license costs. Recent discounts MS have been handing out seems to indicate that prople just dont want to pay that much money for MS Windows. Constant upgrading of the operating system isnt something the users want either. The day of printing money seems to be coming to an end.
Suppose Microsoft somehow makes the ultimate DRM system effectivly killing all the pirating in the world? Would the users gladly pay or would they just switch to something free and gratis instead?
Microsoft is in for a ride and i hope it makes them a teamplayer like IBM and others who once was big and without concious.
HTTP/1.1 400
Simple, lack of interest. I'm a geek (hence posting on Slashdot), so I actually care about what I use for my day to day work/play.
But do most people really give a damn? All most people want is email, an internet browser, Kazaa, and maybe some games. These are the people who go buy the cheapest PC they can find at the nearest store... and can you guess what comes preinstalled on those machines?
It's come to the point where most people wouldn't even buy a machine with Linux pre-installed because it wouldn't be what their friends use (and hence, they probably can't drag some poor relative/friend into fixing it for them when they screw up the system).
In 2010, 35% of Microsofts enterprise customers will still be using Windows 95. Why? Because who these companies are and what they are using the operating system for. When Windows 95 first came out, several VP's and CEO's bartered a deal with Microsoft to purchase UNLIMITED LICENSES for their company. Microsoft more than willingly accepted their money believing that they would quickly upgrade anyway... But most of these companies are for data entry, and have computers for grunt speed-typers. Windows 95 is all these companies need. Maybe the CEO, VP, and important managers will have upgrades so they can enjoy the latest MS-wingdings... not the rest. A speed-typing grunt worker does not need Internet access, email, fancy word processing (such as an office suite), instant messaging, or any type of meaningful software that anyone would try to sell other than the data entry software. These Windows 95 computers can be kept behind firewalls so tight with the only hole being the data entry conectivity. Should one the computers rarely be infected, just format and slap on a new image of Win95 with data entry software. Microsoft's worst enemy is its own greed coupled with content corporate users of Windows 95.
As a side note: Should these companies ever desire to upgrade their grunt-workers desktops in 10 or 20 years, it would be easy enough to convert to stripped down Linux or UNIX desktop environments.
Best Regards,
A Technology Guru that has seen the unbelievable.
FTA:
------------------
Poole said Microsoft expects the demand to come from enterprises in developed countries, all sizes of companies in developing markets and from OEMs that tailor Windows for specific markets.
Many industry watchers have talked about the Windows desktop market as being a saturated one, with little potential for the huge unit and revenue growth of the past. But that's not the picture Microsoft's painting.
"PC replacements are at the top of what IT will be spending on this year," Poole predicted.
----------------
I know at work it seems that everyone is getting a laptp in addition to their workstation, and sometimes we are given workstations to take home for "remote office" capability. If this is a widespread business trend, then yeah their perceived OS sales would "double" even though their user base doesn't really.
Aside from this possibility I think the article is just MS wishful thinking. Open Source isn't going away. On the contrary, it will only get better and better. I see MS having blinders on when it comes to OSS. They are in denial, and they are trying to distract everyone from realizing how truly innovative and progressive OSS is.
Once the Linux vendors of the world achieve hardware driver, gaming, and interoperability capability on the order of Windows (and they are VERY close to this) then there will truly be NO reason to buy Microsoft.
Longhorn is MS' next big thing. Linux has an opportunity between now and then to seize the tactical initiative. GO FOR IT!!
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
The cold hard truth is that MSFT is still vastly overvalued. In the late 90's Microsoft looked like the company that will take over everything
No, in the late 90's, virtually everything in the tech sector was overvalued. In the 90's, there was vast any wide speculation about the future of MS as a single company. Remember that?
The stock was valued this high because of these huge perceived future earnings.
I disagree. The stock was valued high because it is a stunningly profitable company. And because despite its legal problems it continues to earn a tidy profit.
Now things have changed a lot and Microsoft is struggling everywhere outside their core-market (which is desktop software) and even their core-market is threatened.
Let's get real. Their core market isn't going anywhere. For the forseeable future - 5 to 10 years, Microsoft will still rule the desktop. Period. Prices may have to be cut a bit, but it's not going anywhere. It would take a generation - twenty years at least - to remove MS from the desktop just by sheer force of momentum.
Microsoft has 60 billion in the bank, but will they ever be able to earn enough to justify their market cap of 300 billion?
That's a real question. But the original question is not.
How does Microsoft expect to increase their market share 35% in the next 6 years[..]
Is a bogus question. They are not trying to from 60% market share to 95% market share. What MS is projecting is the global growth of the PC market, applied to their 95% shared. Over the next 6 years is it reasonable to add 400 million Windows PCs world wide?
Yes, absolutely.
If Windows is really so bad as many people claim, why does it have so many users?
Well, suppose the situation were reversed, with Linux being the entrenched monopoly product, and Windows the upstart. What would the situation be then?
* All consumer computers would come pre-installed with Linux.
* If you wanted Windows pre-installed, you could forget about it from the usual vendors - even offering to sell you a copy of Windows along with the new computer for you to install yourself would expose the vendor to retribution, as Linus would triple the cost of Linux for that vendor, pricing them out of the market.
* If you spent a lot of time researching, you might be able to find a specialty vendor who would put Windows on for you instead, but you'd still have to pay for the Linux you're not going to be using.
* Most Windows users would have to install the OS themselves - in the process, learning the arcana of drive letters, config.sys and autoexec.bat files, and worst of all, how to use GUI tools for the install. Much moaning and whining on /. about how Windows won't really be ready for the desktop until it has a modern CLI installation ensues. Where's my familiar, easy-to-use fstab and inittab files? And file-level permissions? And whattaya mean I can't mount anything into arbitrary filesystem directories, yeesh!
* Having done the above, Windows users would find that they are unable to use many important (to them) websites and applications, which were coded to use Linux-only extentions.
* Back on Slashdot, someone would ask, If Linux is really so bad as many people claim, why does it have so many users?
Didn't mean to flame you with that last one. It's just that really, the reason why Windows is so ubiquitous just might have something to do with the fact that computer buyers are forced to purchase Windows whether they want it or not, and unlike any other alternatives, it comes pre-installed. Maybe that's it?
As for the Apple case, aside from that rather awful mid-90s period that gave us System 7/8 and the PowerPC debacle, Macs have always been slicker than a greased pig. If they ever decide to try a price point that's within what the market will bear, they might just take over. Macs running OSX are my #1 recommendation to new users. Too bad I can't get many of them to go for it, given the gaping price differential between x86 and Mac systems. Apple's front-loaded price structure has been holding them back since the early days of the Mac, when they could (and should) have mopped the floor with Gates's DOS offering.
What I'm seeing now is that even the least tech-savvy newbies I encounter know that they don't want to get stuck in the Windows trjan/spyware/popup/virus-hell, but rather than shell out the big bux for an Apple, they just decide not to get a computer after all.
So there you go, I think people don't switch to Linux because it's a PITA to install unless you know what you're doing (or have some interest in climbing a steep, if rewarding, learning curve, though Mandrake in particular has been making great strides in this department). And they don't switch to Macs because they're too damn expensive. [This is not my assessment, as I recommend Macs and consider them a better value from a TCO perspective. But it's what I hear from potential Apple users when I make that recommendation. Anyone in Cupertino hearing me on this?]
1.1 billion people in the world live without access to safe running water
2 44 .asp
2.4 billion people in the world without access to sanitation (toilets etc)
So thats 3+ billion people out of the worlds 6 billion population who can't afford the vital things in life that we should all have access to, by default.
Who cares about Microsoft
http://www.wateraid.org.uk/what_we_do/the_need/
7-10 billion profit per year is a lot, but the number by itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is how much had to be invested to get that 7-10 billion/year, and 300 billion is way too much.
If you have 300 billion, you will make more profit/year when you put it in the bank instead of buying Microsoft. - And with much less risk, too.
To make things much more understandable, replace "billions" with "thousand". Would you buy a company for 300 000 that only makes 10 000 in profit per year?
So, at 300 billion, Microsoft is clearly overrated - UNLESS there are some huge market opportunities out there.... But those have evaporated. Currently Microsoft is only defending the status-quo and is forced to give discounts, all bad for revenue and profits.
Let's get real. Their core market isn't going anywhere. For the forseeable future - 5 to 10 years, Microsoft will still rule the desktop. Period.
Depends on what you mean by "rule the desktop". If you mean "having 51% or more of the installed base", then almost certainly yes, at least in North America.
Prices may have to be cut a bit, but it's not going anywhere.
A price cut costs Microsoft a lot of money. See above. That's not good for the stock price.
And lately, Microsoft has risen prices. Their new licensing scheme is great for short-term earnings, but bad for long-term marketshare. Why is everybody assuming that Microsoft is thinking long-term? If they would, then, yes, they would drop prices. But they don't, instead they rise prices to squeeze out the last penny out of their existing customers. That's a great short-term strategy, which is much better for Gates/Ballmer, because they are selling MSFT now and not in 10 or 20 years.
Please don't think that the interests of Gates/Ballmer are the same as those of Microsoft the company.
It would take a generation - twenty years at least - to remove MS from the desktop just by sheer force of momentum.
Yes, that's true. However, there is something in between "ruling the market" and being completely "removed".
My wife and I have valid windows licenses. These licenses started when I purchased a Windows 95 computer. Then I upgraded to 98, then to XP. My wife along the way picked up a similar upgrade path. I wonder if I count as one user, or as 3 (95, 98, XP).
Also, consider that I don't even USE Windows anymore, even though I've purchased multiple licenses for the software.
So, if Microsoft is like McDonalds, will using Windows every day for a month have the same effect as eating McDonalds everyday for a month? Maybe we should ask Morgan Spurlock if he is a Windows user too, eh?
This message was posted using recycled electrons.
A clue is in the article, where they state the fact that 35% or corporate desktops are still running Windows 9x as support for their theory. They are clearly talking about 400 million sales over the next 6 years, and if some of them are upgrades from the 600 million they have already counted, then they are going to get counted twice.
Of course the capitalist arguments are quite different than the marketshare arguments. MS can become a 'normal company' with normal profit margins but still dominate huge segments of the market.
Their new licensing scheme is great for short-term earnings, but bad for long-term marketshare.
The point of the article was that MS believes Windows will keep its marketshare throught the end of the decade, and that PC growth will be quite good. Mark that up to the usual linux advocacy wishful thinking.
Most people don't know what an OS is. For most, a computer is just a device, like a TV, or video player. As long as it runs The Sims, The Internet, and downloaded Porn vids, what does it matter.
Go into a high street store, ask for a computer, you get shown a Windows PC.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
"Over the next 6 years is it reasonable to add 400 million Windows PCs world wide?"
Yes, but it's highly unreasonable to expect them to be running full-cost, legitimate copies of Windows. To get that kind of increase you'd mostly be selling to China, India and other countries where $100 or more for an OS is far more than most customers would want to pay.
This article, written in 1999, predicted 10% of the desktop in 2000 (which never happened), 40% of the desktop in 2001 (which never happened), and market saturation in 2002. So reality is somewhere inbetween Microsoft being write, and this article being totally wrong?
And it's quite possible that fiscal year 2004 (which ended 2 weeks ago) will be Microsoft's worst since fiscal year 1998, we'll see soon. That gives more credence to Ballmer's "cut a billion" memo. Makes you wonder where they're generating that revenue from, could it be XBox sales? Those would generate a lot of revenue but negative profits.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Slashdotters tend to say things like this. "I just FEEL something changing!" Well, that's because you visit Slashdot everyday, read posts day after day criticizing Microsoft, and form your perspectives based on the headlines posted on Slashdot. Yeah, if I did that, I can imagine I'd "feel" something changing too, because human perceptions are easy to shape.
You say everywhere around you people are throwing out Windows, which is either not true or means you have very techie friends. You claim Internet Explorer is losing market share without citing a single figure or study to prove that (Google Zeitgeist shows otherwise). You vaguely claim a "general awareness of alternative platforms" that is "beginning to progress," which is silly since I doubt you've scientifically polled the general public on this and are yet again just going by what you perceive your friends doing. There has been a lot of Windows insecurity talk, but it's mostly been on tech sites like Slashdot. The general public is busy with other things. Besides, tech studies have shown that Windows is no more insecure than OS X or major Linux distributions, according to that study Slashdot itself posted.
I would not be surprised one bit if there were one billion Windows users by 2010.
Exactly. Seeing a price-earning ratio of 40 should be cause for concern. Even if you take out the cash reserve, that's only 7 Billion earnings for 260B in capital, a P/E of of 37. That's not normal for a mature company.
And the P/E is not going to improve any time soon, at least not sustainably. OOo is squeezing their margins on their productivity suite, and they are apparently coming out with an Access alternative. After the productivity suite is cross-platform, what's to keep clients on Windows? Add to that people using cross-platform browser and mail software... and Windows is in a terrible position.
I've no idea what it is, but investors may soon realize that MSFT is not going to be a good investment... the increase in computers is not going to increase their profits sufficiently to make it an attractive investment any time soon. If I had investment money, I would be selling short.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
They expect a lot of this growth to be due to world-wide PC sales expansion, which is where organized piracy and government Linux users will hit them the hardest, so the numbers may be more difficult to achieve than they think.