Slashdot Mirror


Strategy Shift In The Air For Microsoft

mrdaveb writes "In the face of a declining market for MS Windows and MS Office, Microsoft's recent statements and acquisitions point to a future in which .NET is a key driver behind a strategy which will see Windows CE devices taking the limelight. This article explores the problems which Microsoft face in maintaining their stranglehold, and their likely route to keeping Windows on top."

13 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Nohing new... by PincheGab · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is it just me or does this article state nothing new?

    - Microsoft has had the Office no-upgrade problem for a long time...

    - .NET was specifically developed to (appear to) run multi-platform (or was this an accident on the part of microsoft?)

    - The first full release of .NET was in 2002... The beta period was long before that...

    - Of course MS wants development for WinCE/PocketPC to be as easy as developing for the deskptop... Perhaps that's why you can write a PocketPC/WinCE program right on MS Developer Studio?

    - Yes, Microsoft would want everyone to rent out Office instead of buy a perpetual license. Every app developer wants that. Remember ASPs (Application Service Providers)?

    This article sounds like its written by someone who just got into computers and is just finding out what's gone on for the last 5 years...

  2. Do something well. by paithuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally I would just like to see Microsoft do something really well for the first time. They seem to take the approach I use at University: Do it as quickly as possible and put effort in where it can be seen. This is not what I would expect when it comes to a commercial product, and only works for proof on concepts. Now 21 years later, it's pretty clear Windows isn't a POC, so buck up and give us something we can really love. (For more information, visit www.apple.com)

  3. Re:Wear & Tear by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a difference between the physical limits of hardware and designed-in product failure. People simply don't like it when a company deliberately breaks their product to soak more money out of them when they could've given people a better product that they wanted in the first place. $49 software with an expiry date is software that could've lasted you for life for $49. People resent being treated that way.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  4. Re:Strategy? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Microsoft will never change their strategy.... It's always going to be keep the markets cornered, and allow as little interoperability as possible.

    Most of Microsoft's success can be chalked up to two failures by one other company...

    IBM allows Bill Gates to own and sell MS-DOS under his own company's name, as IBM doesn't take the PC seriously.

    IBM fails to protect their PC design, not taking PC's seriously, and clones flourish providing a ready market for MS-DOS

    Most of everything else Microsoft has profited wildly from is centered around these two items. Microsoft has demonstrated that they are not a very inventive company by buying up lots of technology companies and immitating others. Where they have attempted to innovate in new markets they have usually fallen flat on their face and lost hundreds of millions of $. If it weren't for the O/S, Office and Server divisions Microsoft wouldn't be able to sputter so frequently.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Windows CE Strategy? Right . . . by sunspot42 · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Win CE devices are going to continue dropping in price as they become more common. There's no way Microsoft is going to be able to earn anywhere near the margins they make in the PC business on a $100 cell phone, and there's no reason why hardware makers in the competitive electronics marketplace won't switch to open source (i.e. free) alternatives in the not too distant future in order to make their products more competitive. It's not like there's a huge inventory of Win CE software out there that absolutely must be run on these portable devices.

    If MS is betting the future on CE devices, dump your MS stock right now while it's still worth something. MS remains a one trick pony, and their one trick is their OS monopoly in the PC marketplace. In spite of their billions, they've never been able to dominate any other industry and they never will because they're incapable of innovation. Their entire culture involves around theft, acquisition and intimidation. Expecting Microsoft to compete in a more open marketplace and win would be like expecting the Mafia to get into the automobile manufacturing business and compete with Toyota. They aren't structured for that kind of business, have no aptitude for it, and their strong-arm techniques only alienate customers and potential partners.

  6. FUD by X43B · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Microsoft's profit is currently focussed on two major products - MS Windows and MS Office. Both of these are in decline."

    Only on /. can one of the most profitable companies in the world with record profit and revenue for this past quarter be considered in decline. I'm not saying I approve of how they do it, but it is funny how FUD can go both ways.

    1. Re:FUD by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only on /. can one of the most profitable companies in the world with record profit and revenue for this past quarter be considered in decline. I'm not saying I approve of how they do it, but it is funny how FUD can go both ways.

      Being the most profitable company in the world and being in decline are two separate statements that in no way contradict each other. Neither do record profits contradict decline, due to the rather ambigious nature of the word "decline".

      Consider a corporation that is steadily losing markets to other corporations (and yes, this is happening to Microsoft - Linux market share is growing, and since all market shares must add up to exactly 100%, someone else must be declining). If the total market is growing, that corporation could easily be making record profits (by growing its absolute sales) while still losing market share (declining).

      What makes it worse in Microsoft's case is that their business model is based on being the best known alternative. Windows and Office are so widely used that they are de facto standards. If Microsoft loses market share, this position is threatened, which will lead to further losses - applications will get ported to other operating systems and other file formats will be used for document exchange (and secretaries will learn to use other office programs), making Microsoft's programs seem worse and worse in comparison. So any decline in market share is very bad news for Microsoft. This might also tempt Microsoft to try and make it look like it was having record revenue, to imply that it had record sales and is therefore not going anywhere and therefore still the wise choice.

      Disclaimer: I haven't read the article, nor have I examined either market shares of various products or Microsoft Corporation in any detail. I'm just speculating how these seemingly contradictory claims could be true simultaneously.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  7. Re:Strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Microsoft is capable of adapting to changing market conditions, they may adapt.

    But they may not be capable. The book "The Innovator's Dilemma" explores cases where corporations were not capable of adapting to changes in the market space caused by "low-end" competitors moving upward into the formerly plush (well-controlled) market.

    Open source has the potential for doing this to Microsoft, IMHO.

  8. Don't think that's what consumers are doing by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When a consumer is buying a plasma at Best Buy (for example), I don't think in fact they are buying a TV with a life of 20,000 hours. I think they have no idea that is the case, and as far as they are concerned that TV should last for years and years.

    I do not think that yet people are fully bought into the notion of device failure in a year rather than ten. After all, people are used to the TV's they had before which did last perhaps ten years or so (that was the case for my last TV, even really a bit longer than ten years).

    People still get refrigerators that last for a while, and other appliances they probably plan to keep as long as the house.

    I think also there's a function of money where people expect for hosuehold electronics/appliances to last longer as the cost increases. Certainly a lot of people expect this of cars, preferring to keep a car ten years or longer and assuming it will hold up.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  9. Re:Wear & Tear by WesG · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In the face of a declining market for MS Windows...

    Declining market for MS Windows??? Show me some facts that says the market is declining for MS Windows! Microsoft just posted record profits for the quarter. How is MS Windows declining???

  10. Re:Wear & Tear by ecalkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because so far the consumer entertainment industry has made products that were better *enough* (and *cheaper*) that 3-5 years later, people are motivated to replace rather than repair

    a lot of people can see an 3 year improvement on tvs stereos, pvrs, etc. a lot of people couldn't tell you what got better in office xp over office 2000.

  11. Re:Natural and unnatural monopolies by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And yet, Microsoft was not found guilty of being a monopoly, but of employing that natural monopoly power in a criminally coercive manner in an attempt to leverage into an unnatural one.

    In effect they behave as does orginized crime.

    What was it that Argentinian minister said? Oh yes, that they do business like a drug dealer.

    KFG

  12. Re:Wear & Tear by RealAlaskan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It gets me wondering why consumer is willing to pay $4999 for a Plasma TV that has a specific (say 20,000 hours) lifespan, ...

    If you watch TV 8 hours a day, five days a week, that translates to a 10 year lifespan. I realize that you probably picked that figure out of the air, but here's a site that says 30,000 hours.

    Hardware used to last for 10-20 years (like old radios), but hardly live past 3 years nowadays, ...

    A 10 to 15 year lifespan isn't too terrible for hardware, which naturally wears out. Plasma TVs seem to be about as long-lasting as cars.

    ... but can't stand paying a $49 software that has an expiry date.

    As another post mentioned, most folks are willing to accept the idea that hardware naturally wears out, even if well made. In contrast, the idea of paying for something that is made to die before it wears out, just to make you pay for it again, rubs most of us the wrong way.