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."
Here is a sneak peek at Microsoft's latest offering: cans of MicrosoftAir(tm). Tired of the same old boring air? With new MicrosoftAir(tm), there is a cornucopia of smells in every butterfly festooned can! Order a case for only $368.00 today!
Note: Microsoft is not responsible if sniffing MicrosoftAir(tm) makes the user more likely to catch a virus. Not compatible with any other kind of air. Due to licensing agreement, once you have used product, you will be never be able to breath regular air again. Void where prohibited by law.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
- 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...
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)
I've been wondering about this for awhile. Microsoft's overall strategy has always been to be the mediator between your computer/data and you. At the beginning this was DOS, then it became Windows on top of DOS. Then Office to get to your business data, etc; Netscape was a major threat because they could usurp that position and allow you to get to your data through the web browser on a PC without needing a MS product. .NET is the ultimate implementation of this strategy. If they can really make it run anywhere: PCs running Windows, OSX or Linux on various hardware flavors AND on palms, consumer electronics devices, etc; Then they'll have succeeded in making a standardized "glue" layer between you and the hardware.
.NET and you have practically the same scenario as you have today except now Windows(.NET) runs anywhere.
.NET license...
Next port Office to
Linux? OSX? Windows? Bah, who cares, so long as you're running a
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").
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
He says this has been true since windows 1.0, and who an I to query a professional?
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
"Microsoft's profit is currently focussed on two major products - MS Windows and MS Office. Both of these are in decline."
/. 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.
Only on
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.
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
MS has screwed up so many times in the handheld arena, but now the technology is getting to the point where maybe they can get their bloatware to work: i. mobile devices are getting powerful enough and cheap enough; ii. 3G and effective wireless netweorking are getting to the stage where they are reasonable as mobile data carriers.
MS has been losing money in mobile for many years. This might give them an edge in the future.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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???
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.
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
a lot of people couldn't tell you what got better in office xp over office 2000.
They got rid of that damn paperclip!
It self-contradicting to talk about immortal things in the past tense ;).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
About Longhorn. It was supposed to be the Great Leap Forward for Microsoft and yet most of the cool features have either been pulled for future releases or being backported to XP. This will probably be the first version of Windows where there is very little incentive to upgrade from the previous version for most of Microsoft's users.
The absolute worst thing that could happen to Microsoft would be for Windows to lag in sales. So much of their company rides on the success of Windows and Office that if one of those gets badly damaged it would have very damaging results for the entire company.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Read about it here
OCO is Loco
A natural monopoly is an industry where the most efficient production is through a monopoly. This means Municipal water supply, electricity distribution, local telephone service, public postal services, etc.
Microsoft's monopoly came about mostly by their exclusive contracts with hardware vendors, agressive bundling, and buying up competitors. This is the antithesis of a natural monopoly.
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.
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.
See what I've been reading.
Ignorance must not be modded as interesting.
.NET? This is not VB. .NET is very stable, in fact if all Microsoft applications were written in .NET they would be a lot more stable and secure. I'm really starting to get pissed off about people who haven't even used .NET and talk crap about it.
.NET is pretty rock-solid. I've used it for dozens of projects and I've had a better overall experience than Java (faster, more coherent, less bloat).
Have you ever tried
Remove your tin foil hat and get the facts. I'm not pro-Microsoft, i'm happy not to use their products when I can. However,
Please give some examples to support your claims.