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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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".
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?