Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Under Attack - Part 2
bugbeak writes "Part 2 of BBC's report on Microsoft at its 'most vulnerable moment in history' is available. According to the article, there are six battles Microsoft must go through in order to stay afloat and win, ranging from 'sort out security' (#1) to 'get them young' (#3). The first part of the article series was also linked by Slashdot." From the article: "Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues, [Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
What an oportune moment for that message.
That said, the bigger problem, as I have stated in the past, is internal. In the past Microsoft has been able to respond to a siege by motivating the troops and getting the job done. IE was possibly the last great example of the Microsoft development engine at work. Now, it is almost impossible for Microsoft to rally the developer troops for that kind of siege-mentality response. The employee apathy is thick. The old-timers can still get it up, those that are still there and haven't joined Ignition Partners or retired, but you have to keep in mind that most of the developers and program managers there today weren't there 5 years ago, and only know Microsoft as a bloated software factory. The glory years, the rally cry of Ballmer and Gates, the late night and weekender coding marathons and the 'death march' mentality are all just stories of the past. The current typical Microsoft employee is more of the 'hey, I have a family and a life, this can wait' style. Certainly there are pockets of exceptions, but generally speaking, the engine is running a bit cold.
Without the means to execute, the siege will take its toll.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
From the article:
And it takes a fairly computer-literate user to install and maintain the open source operating system on a personal computer.
I read this and instantly started thinking about this exactly how many window users can maintain there windows box properly? 90% of the users out there have no idea how to keep there windows updated, how to reinstall windows. The only difference is that Windows came preloaded on their machines. Now this is the only difference between the two operating systems. If a Linux machine came preloaded on a computer already with all the drivers installed it is the same exact thing on how people get their machines from dell.
Microsoft earned $0.75 per share in its 2004 fiscal year. That's hardly impressive for a stock that sells for nearly $28 a share. If Microsoft is done growing then its investors are going to be very unhappy. That's a return of just under 3% a year. A year with no revenue growth would be even worse.
Not to mention the fact that there is little guarantee that Microsoft will continue to be able to rake in the kind of money that they are currently pulling in. Unearned revenue continues to go down, and Linux continues to gain marketshare. Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock. When that happens Microsoft is going to *look* vulnerable. Right now the folks selling for Red Hat and Novell have to convince their clients that they aren't crazy when they forgo the safe path of purchasing Windows. Folks that roll out Linux solutions are still taking a fairly big risk. They are betting on a David facing up against the biggest Goliath in the history of industry, and the reason that the story of David and Goliath made it into the Bible was because in real life David's get squashed. Everyone likes an underdog, but only when they win.
A serious drop in MSFT would be hitting the behemoth right smack between the eyes, and such a drop is overdue.
Before I say this, let it be known that I am just as much of a Linux zealot as you probably are.
My father works for the local power company developing customer support systems. Rather than an Open Source alternative, such as Linux, they opted to go with Microsoft Windows. The reason? Costs. They figured that the TCO of Linux, including support, training developers, etc. would actually be more expensive than the licensing fees that a Windows solution would incur.
This being said, I would have personally gone with a Linux setup. I think that the former situation exemplifies one of the biggest misconceptions about Linux: people think that, because it's not provided by a corporation, if you have a problem, you're screwed. That's why the support services provided by Red Hat and IBM are so vital. Corporations can't just go on a developer's word that their system works well. They need someone that they can sue if something goes hugely wrong and they lose everything due to an operating system glitch. Red Hat provides a much-needed corporate backing to an already-great operating system. Most of the misconceptions out there about Linux are due to FUD spread by MS. If the open source community can simply overcome the stereotypes of Linux as having no support at all, then I think we'll see Linux begin to totally take over MS's marketshare.
Ride the skies
Clothing and toy manufacturers have managed to get their customers to be brand concious by age 2.
(Thanks Barney, Elmo)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
He'll do it by changing the definition of malware.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Microsoft will not be "defeated" in the sense of vanishing from the field as a software company. Ever. They have achieved what is probably the most pervasive and addictive vendor lock-in situation in all of human history. An incredible amount of the information critical to maintaining our society at its current level is stored on, written for, and run by Windows computers.
g one they will be able to do it.
Remember, users will now INSIST on Windows, because they want it/know it/are used to it. This is even better than making it a legal requirement to use Windows or threatening people (by whatever means) to use Windows or else. A vast number of addicts (the situation is surprisingly analogous) to Windows will DEMAND it in spite of anything else, becasue for them it makes life easier.
What might happen is Microsoft will lower their prices and improve their quality to prevent the beginnings of a migration to another product - if they make their customers unhappy (i.e. take away what they're plugged in to) something might happen. But Microsoft will never do this. Their tendancy towards not changing anything is actually a bonus for most people, who want to learn a computer once and never have it do anything unexpected for the rest of their lives. (Please note that although I find this frustrating, it is neither surprising or blameworthy - I don't want to relearn how to drive or perform basic car maintainance every few years.) Competition does not produce products like that, since change is integral to competition. And if by some chance real innovation becomes a requirement, Microsoft may in fact be able to achieve this. We don't know - they haven't had to try. But Microsoft R&D has some good people, and it may be that if Microsoft's survival suddenly depends on an innovate product rather than an essentially-unchanging-but-incrementally-improvin
Microsoft is here to stay, in all cases where users choose stability/familiarity over performance. There are, of course, areas of society where the choice will go the other way, where people are willing to put in the extra time and effort to learn something out of the ordinary. But those will always be the exceptions, and they will only serve as a minor annoyance for Microsoft. Linux only gets so much press because of the novelty of it's pricetag and philosophy. There is no such thing as an "up and coming" Microsoft competitor. Apple produces an infinitely better product, and their market share is fairly fixed. Linux is decimating commercial Unix, but Unix users are both more familiar with the basic principles of the system and (of sheer necessity) more adaptable.
Linux will have successes - it will displace Windows in some cases, maybe even a lot of them. But most of the market share is businesses, and businesses will avoid risks that are not integral to their core business if they can. Microsoft is The Standard (de facto) and that fact is unlikely to change for the forseeable future.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org