Slashdot Mirror
Why is Microsoft Making its Own Life Difficult?
sebFlyte asks: "Asking Slashdot readers what they think of Microsoft's methodology and ethos might seem like a silly thing to do, but a ZD-Net article raises some interesting points. The main one is that: 'Microsoft's behaviour is technically, morally and practically indefensible. It could publish its CIFS specification tomorrow if it so chose, an act that would correspond closely to the spirit and letter of the European decision. The company would then be free to compete through the simple process of making better products, something it claims to favour, while also encouraging precisely the sort of interoperability it says is missing.' The question I'm curious to canvas opinion on is why Microsoft is taking an attitude that is believed by so many to be damaging to their market position."
And you think any other major company is in it to provide a better product or service?
Did I say I thought that? Where did I say I thought that? Where did I imply I thought that?
Microsoft is the company under discussion, so my comments were about Microsoft.
So how, exactly, did you infer that I felt no other company behaves the same way.
The world revolves around money, power, and influence.
Yeah, I thought that way at one point. I'm glad I dropped out of the rat race and found I can live without taking part of that lifestyle. It makes life much easier and enjoyable. I've also left a lot of stress behind and am much healthier. The world is what we make of it. If you want to insist it is about money and power, than I hope you find a lot of money and power. I'm sure with your insights, you've found it wasy to start your own business and will soon be dominating your own field of endeavor.
The question I'm curious to canvas opinion on is why Microsoft is taking an attitude that is believed by so many to be damaging to their market position.
Because their actions have not been damaging to their market position; they have succeeded wildly with those tactics. Why should they change? What could they possibly gain from a change in strategy that they don't already have? "Good feeling"? "Competitive instincts"? You can't take either of those to the bank.
The only interesting question is: if, and this is a big if, if they they ever find themselves to be losing marketshare in a substantial way, will they be able to move fast enough to change and adapt? or will they maintain their mantra to the end?
And by substantial, I don't mean FireFox and it's 3%--I mean, for a serious threat to emerge, it would have to be somewhere above 20% of the market Microsoft wants to own. Otherwise it's just an outlier.
--
$tar -xvf
"MS's behavior is no different than IBM's was at its peak. Look at the history of IBM's antitrust problems with the US government, and the lock-in that IBM achieved with its customers. "
How very true. in IBM's case, it continued on and off for years,like a bear hounded by a pack of dogs, until market realities, and Microsoft, reached them.
Think about this: the original IBM pc used Ms DOS. Do you all see MS saying: "we see Office as our core product"?
Sadly, I don't. Their core asset is the operating system, and to keep us all on the merry go round they have to change frequently, not for efficiency's sake, but to keep one step in front of GPL'd software.
my personal opinion is that the US lost a major opportunity when it did not order MS breakup into operating system and everything else.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
What, the financial record that shows a decline in revenues, while at the same time an increase in profits due to less spending on R&D? Is that the financial you are talking about?
It sounds great to say that Microsoft just posted the most profitable quarter ever. But if you look behind the scenes, you see that Microsoft did less business than the previous quarter.
You have to realize that Microsoft can almost live on its investments alone, without even being the #1 player in the market. I'm not suggesting that MS is not the #1 player right now, but I am suggesting that you have to look at revenues, not at profits. What you see might tell you another story - a different story from the one you are preaching.
I don't study MS financials, so I am no expert. But I do get the impression that Microsoft has reached a plateau, in terms of revenues, with its current product offerings. It seems that people are slowly getting interested in other things: Like OSX. Like OpenOffice. Like Firefox. Like Linux.
Microsoft drove their growth with a certain appeal. It was a cost appeal. Microsoft let you do things with computers for not a lot of money. This was appealing to people who were interested in computers at the time, but not initially to average consumers. Now Microsoft has eliminated its own cost appeal by virtue of its monopoly. The computer enthusiasts have become disillusioned with Microsoft, and have moved on to other things (cheaper, more open, more curious other things). These people are beginning to drive the next wave of technical innovations that will later become the staple of the common consumer. At the same time, MS is cutting its R&D and relying on its monopoly position and same old predatory practices to cast the illusion of growth.
The fact is, there is no room for a monopolist to grow without getting into other markets. Yes, we see that Microsoft is trying this. I think it is because they understand the doom that is coming on the shink-wrapped software front. The good news is that, in these new markets, Microsoft is not yet a monopolist. They will try to leverage one monopoly to build the other, but I don't think they will succeed.
Of course, we will see Microsoft as a big player for many years to come. That just gives everyone more time to see the writing that is on the wall.
Microsoft has become big and inbred. I'm not as sure as you that they can change. The people I know who work for Microsoft sound like they've been brain washed. That's bad for a company in the long run. As the article says, it looks like the strategy they've followed forever is starting to fail and they show no signs of changing in response. You can hold by your faith that they will change, but you'll have to point to some evidence to convince me.
I read somewhere a story about a guy at Microsoft who fixed the buggy flood-fill code in the graphics for Microsoft Basic. He showed his fix to Bill Gates and wondered aloud about who had written the original code, it was such a piece of garbage. Gates nodded, said nothing, and left. An old hand who had witnessed this then told him that the author of the original code was Bill Gates.
It seems clear from the history we have that Gates was once a real programmer. He knew assembly language and knew enough to write a Basic interpreter. That may not be rocket science, but it requires more than novice programming skills. So I think it is safe to say that he knows the basics and that he has some experience of real programming projects. What I can't tell from what I know about him is whether he has kept up at all and whether he has a broad view of CS and programming. Does he know C? LISP? Python? Does he grok object oriented programming? How about functional programming? Has he worked with both polling and interrupt-driven GUIs and does he appreciate the differences? I have no idea.