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."
Microsoft's corporate culture, from day one, has been to "game" the system, treat the source as the family jewels and play fast and loose with truth and rules. I honestly believe that they don't know how to behave any differently. Just as Gates used university time on the mainframe to develop his first product then condemned the hobbyists that distributed a few copies, the corporation was built on taking as much out of the community and giving as little back as possible.
BTW, I am aware of Gates' philanthropic endeavors and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about how he treats his customers and the computing industry in general.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
And that's why... Because Microsoft actually believes the above post.
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
It doesn't matter whether Microsoft is really interoperable or not. Nor does it matter how secure the OS is, or how stable it is, or anything like that.
How can this be? Because 99% of the population either doesn't know or doesn't care. All they hear is Bill Gates saying "We are focusing on security" or "We are focusing on interoperability", and that's what sticks.
Whether or not the security or interoperability are actually addressed is irrelevant - the terms have been associated with Microsoft in peoples' minds. All it takes is some repetition and maybe an ad campaign or two to drive it home. Then in six months, some poll will come out saying that people associate Microsoft with interoperable products.
And that's what it's all about, boys and girls.
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.