Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Nightmare Scenario
unityxxx wrote to mention a News.com article about Microsoft's nightmare scenario - the Web as the next platform. From the article: "The nightmare is inching closer to reality and Microsoft execs are apparently paying attention to the decade-old alert. As part of a management shuffle, Microsoft said Tuesday it would make hosted services a more strategic part of the company and fold its MSN Web portal business into its platform product development group, where Windows is developed. Another memo, called 'Google--The Winner Takes All (And Not Just Search),' is also making the rounds. This internal memo, written in 2005, argues that Google threatens Microsoft and the company's crown jewel, Windows."
Digging in on the PC platform was a winning strategy, and still is at this point, but the rules will be changing sooner rather than later. When they do, will Microsoft be able to overcome its own inertia and innovate fast enough to stay in the game? Probably not, but the good news for Microsoft is that it doesn't have to...it just has to acquire a company that can. As it's been said ad nauseum here by myself and others, Microsoft isn't about innovation...haven't been for a while...in fact, whether they ever were is a subject for debate.
As for when this paridigm shift will occur, it won't be able to until broadband access is as cheap, plentiful, and above all, dependable as electricity or running water. Givin the fact that many areas of the world are still having issues with those, I'd wager we have a while to wait before the Web-as-platform paradigm really takes off.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
From the post: as part of a management shuffle, Microsoft said Tuesday it would make hosted services a more strategic part of the company
I remember a few (several?) years back, this is the very thing Microsoft was proposing as a new business model and technology approach for their products. Interestingly, it's almost as if they'd considered this but deemed it unnecessary in light of their near world dominance and there never were any developments around it. Now, once again they're running scared and this time the threat could be real. I don't doubt their tenacity and ability to respond but I do hope at some point here they stumble badly enough that by the time they get back up the playing field will have leveled (even if only somewhat).
Interestingly in this case they're going to be playing catch up with a concept they first looked at.
Wait, I thought that was Eric Raymond.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The MSN shuffle and that familiar-sounding memo come just as Google is poised to become the biggest threat to Microsoft's hold on the tech industry since Netscape shipped its first browsers.
Not the best comparison to make since, ya know, Microsoft killed Netscape.
N... Net.... Netsca.... damn, can't quite remember the name of that outfit...
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
It's only a nightmare because there are free alternatives that do exactly what their software already does (and sometimes good enough to replace it for home users). But! Microsoft would *love* to host web-based application services (i.e. Office). It would enable them even greater control over the end-users and piracy and ends a lot of media creation and distribution costs.
They can still hold their stranglehold on the OS market but they could also gain tighter and higher profits on their software.
Will Google Office/Phone/Internet/Talk/Browser/etc take the OS market from Mircosoft? Who knows. But it could happen. If it doesn't, Microsoft better make damn sure that they are building the OS to be the best it can be to keep people from switching to GoogleOS and Apps.
And yes, I am still grumpy about the forced upgrade to XP yesterday.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
The BBC have an article on the same theme today.
It's interesting that the article almost takes it as read that just about everything will become a service, and accepts the arguments from a senior marketing guy at a software-as-a-service firm apparently without question. I'm not sure I'd agree with that view; some applications have a lot of potential here, but AFAICS, others just... don't. What am I missing?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Easy life over there at news.com -- pull up old articles from 1996, replace "Netscape" with "Google", "Marc Andreesen" with "Larry Page" and "bring your dog to work" with "20% of employees time working on their own projects". The "nightmare scenario" line in the headline, both here and there, even comes out of a Microsoft memo from 1995.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The last time it was Netscape. So they cut the legs out from under them. The good news is they can't do the same to Google. They've already set the default home page to MSN. But people still go to Google.
Developers: We can use your help.
Referring to "Another memo, called 'Google--The Winner Takes All (And Not Just Search),' is also making the rounds. This internal memo, written in 2005, argues that Google threatens Microsoft and the company's crown jewel, Windows." It was about time for Microsoft to feel threated, but is Google really doing a good thing? Google used to be the company that all techies loved, but is that still really the case?
The web is an infrastructure that lets our individual machines communicate with one another. I very much doubt the web will be a viable platform anytime soon, for bandwidth reasons if nothing else.
I think about how I use programs like photoshop and flashmx when i'm developing web sites. There's no way those huge-ass programs are going to be hosted and downloaded/run on demand. On the other hand, I need connectivity to upload my work to the web and test/publish it. The internet facilitates a good deal of things we do, but there's no way it could be a platform anytime in my lifetime.
It's like the relationship vehicles and highways have. Everyone owns their own vehicle, and they're responsible for the good running condition of that vehicle, and the highway facilitates the usefulness of that vehicle.
Sony ha
Why dont my windows desktop preferences follow me around? This has been obvious to me for years, why haven't they done it?
Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!
http://financialpetition.org/
For those who insist that Microsoft has not stymied but rather advanced personal computing, here's the best evidence yet that it ain't so. Had Microsoft been a real innovator, they would have invested in Internet technologies to their benefit back in 1995 and as such we would have likely been 10 years further down the road in terms of development and capabilities. But Microsoft, because of their monopoly position, chose to try and tighten their control across the OS and application space even further in an attempt to relegate the Internet phenomenon to an also ran status. Not only have they failed in this goal, they failed despite their best efforts (both legal and illegal). In spite of Microsoft's efforts the Internet is emerging as the dominant and preferred platform with open standards, open file formats, open source software, and uncontrolled by any single company.
Let's keep it that way, shall we?
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Yeah that's what I want, all my applications to be server side web-based. That way I can't stop them when they "call home" and report back things like what I'm searching for on the net, the names of the files I'm opening. And I can't stop them from a hacker switching out a DLL on the server side suddenly corrupting or infecting my data. AV and firewalls become useless at that point, and the way modern apps try agressively to monitor what you do and call home, I'm not comfortable with losing the ability to control them.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Microsoft will be just fine for the moment. I agree with you 100%. To me, the article is mostly hype but worth a read.
They could call it something catchy, like .NET!
So no worries for Microsoft. There'll always be a place for the operating system. In fact, web services simply create more opportunities for Microsoft. The more useful a computer is, the better they do. Microsoft just has to be perceived as providing enough value beyond a dumb Net terminal that it makes it worth it to buy a computer. Given the price difference between the two, it's not that difficult a proposition.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Netcraft? I thought I heard that they were dead or something...
Microsoft is trying to handle a lot threats at once. But the biggest one is really a combination of a number of other threats: Open Standards
Microsoft can't support Open Document Format in Office because they would lose a good part of their customer base. Web apps using standards such as Javascript, HTML, CSS, etc. are also a threat (part of the reason why IE is so incompatible with some of these standards). Linux, and the resurgance of nearly POSIX-compliant environments is another threat.
In every case, this means that it is far easier to support many different operating systems with a single application. So Microsoft is in trouble.
The real nightmare is the standardization of the platforms and file formats that impact Microsoft markets. Web apps are only a small part of this.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I hit Submit anyway, though.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Microsoft: Oh noes! People are actually using the internet! Google: Well.. duh... that would be why y'know.. people develop for the internet Microsoft: But internet software doesn't care about our stranglehold! Google: And? Microsoft: We'll throw chairs at you! and lawyers! Google: Now you're just being silly. Microsoft: We'll have Balmer do a "rally" at Google. Shirtless. Google: NO! ANYTHING BUT THAT! WE QUIT! WE QUIT!
Code. Writing. Writing Code. Writing in general. What? They aren't -that- differnet.
Why don't they just buy Google?
I mean now that Google is public what's stopping Microsoft just buying a controlling share and claim it as it's own?
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
I'm very excited about the possibility of this happening. However, before it does, I think we're going to need better and easier-to-use AJAX tools. Right now cranking out advanced web apps is mainly a text-editor proposition. There aren't any AJAX RAD/IDE tools, and there really aren't any good, easy-to-use, well-integrated tools that will generate the JS, HTML, CSS code necessary to make this happen...yet. Once it does, it will make life SO much easier. Among other things, JavaStations, which were a great idea (except for the fact that they ran Java instead of JavaScript, and were about ten years ahead of their time) drastically reduce the probability of virus, trjoan horse, and spyware infections. They're less complicated, and they're cheap.
Of course there still needs to be some underlying OS, and this approach doesn't appear ready to do everything a PC can do (flash games are ok, but they're not Unreal, but as the Japs say "Games are for Consoles". It would be so much easier to not have to deal with a tech support calls with every little stupid user problem because the Windows/OSX/Linux/whatever configurations are so different from each other.
So give me an AJAX tool that does what my existing GUI IDE/RAD does now, and I'm done building non-webbased apps.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
Let me help you - .NET?
With billions of $, there are no nightmares. If A is no longer profitable you just reinvest your $ in B.
because:
1. Consumers will still need -some- kind of OS even after their "computer" is roughly equivalent to a Tivo.
2. The doomsday assumption is roughly based on "network provides the computing"/thin client kind of environment where I just don't see that happening everywhere with most devices.
3. It ignores Microsoft's wise practice of marketing a chain of products that work pretty well together and block competitors at the same time.
4. It assumes their monopoly is somehow threatened and it's not. Even if they lose 10-30% of their desktop marketshare, they've still got a monopoly.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
It wasn't designed for it. The web is meant as a documents platform. Trying to use it for applications is a recipie for security problems that'll make Windows look like fort knox, not to mention all the other problems that go with misusing a system like that. There are plenty of perfectly good systems for remote applications, X is great if you're willing to accept server-side execution, if you prefer client-side then for all its faults Java at least handles it with dedication and a modicum of security. Stop trying to make the web the medium for everything, there are 65535 other ports and superior specialised protocols.
I am trolling
"MSN could be what Windows could never be: a Net platform that allows developers to write and distribute their code quickly."
MSN ??? MSN is just a web portal that, as a 15 year developer, I had never used for anything related to software development. Don't confuse MSN with MSDN!!!
Please give one example in which MSN helps a developer "write code".
"Google threatens Microsoft's position on the Internet, and could potentially lock Microsoft out of its existing distribution channels and reduce the value of Windows."
Ok editor.... Here you should ask: "What distribution channels?"
To this day, Windows is shipped with new computers, and I challenge you to present any study that can correlate Google's success with declining windows shipments. Bear in mind that Microsoft's must successful products, Office and Windows, are not shipped electronically.
"Yet MSN's new prominence makes it clear that Redmond is focused on bringing a Web platform closer than ever to the operating system, analysts said."
Ok, editor. Alleging that "Redmond is focused on bringing a Web platform" because of MSN needs supporting facts; where is the analyst's study? And by the way, what "Web Platform" are we talking about?
IMHO this is a wise guy juts trying to make up a story to cash on the recent news about Ballmer swearing at Google (He succeed, it seems.). First, that has not even been confirmed, second this guy has no idea whats he talking about.
Once their URL has been validated, most users will never use Google again.
Microsoft talks about innovation.
Google actually innovates.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Isn't this what Gates "Road Ahead" book was about? Wasn't Oulook Exchange Online the first AJAX application? Didn't they originate the XML http request that most AJAX applications use?
Nightmare? Hell. This is Microsoft's wet dream. Watch. They have a plan. They've had one for far longer than anyone else. Why do you think they put Netscape out of business? Because they're just mean?
No. It's because they know that the web is the next platform, and they want to 0wn it.
click me
I'm sorry, but Microsoft Office is the crown jewel, not Windows. Let's take a hypothetical scenario wherein MS fails completely in
A) the OS market (losing to Apple, Linux) and
B) the database/CRM market (their MS Project / MS Access / MSSQL suite and to some degree Outlook are all presently being made irrelevant by Salesforce.com).
The Microsoft Office core apps (Word, Excel, Outlook, Powerpoint) would easily exist as web based applications and remain clear leaders in their field. Nobody is even close to touching these applications. I'm sorry OpenOffice, I love you philosophically but you're miles away for business professionals.
It stands to reason that these web-based offerings of MS Office core apps would render the software piracy issue moot, give the "periodic user" a more affordable price point, allow everybody to pay by subscription instead of buying software off-the-shelf at BestBuy, paying for an expensive supply chain including trucks and highways and warehouses and other such things that make no sense for software delivery in an online world.
Microsoft could easily turn this around in the space of a year or less. They will always be a global player, there's no looking back.
However it overlooks the point that Microsoft has extreme execution problems. Consider that even in the operating system "that was fanatically focused on" Microsoft lags Linux
Microsoft's real problem is that with a stagnant company they can't motivate their employees; so all the good ones leave for places like Google. Back when MSFT stock was doubling every few months, it was quite reasonable and fun for a microsoftie to work 18 hours and see his 1 million dollar option package multiply to 2 million and on to 10 million. Now, however, Balmer yells at his developers only to have them check their underwater options from Jan 2000 and realize it's just not worth it.
Could microsoft change? Yes, by sharing some of the billions of profits they make with their employees. But will they? Nope - they're busy saving that money for their shareholders.
If you're a decent engineer, there's no reason to work for microsoft anymore. You're far better off quitting, competing with them, and letting them buy you back. That's the only way to get your fair share of the billions that microsoft's been hording over the past few years.
And that is the problem with Microsoft today.
Perhaps MS is realising that the WinTel combo -- a software platform based on the 8086 family -- is threatened by a new foundation to which applications can be written: the "virtual machine" of Javascript/DHTML with XSLT (and other XML processing) based in the browser.
That was certainly the vision for TIBET(tm) when conceived 5 years ago.
PS: Yes -- Java applets have been out there all the time and failed for the very good reason that they aren't an integral part of the presentation engine of the browsers.
Seastead this.
Yeah, I guess the web could be its own platform and ultimately give Windows (and Macs and Linux and...) a run for their money. Of course, that's assuming everyone with a computer has access to the Internet. Having your computer and running it purely as a web platform will do you no good if you don't have connectivity. The world isn't THAT connected yet. And even worse...just because you're connected doesn't mean you've got a broadband connection.
I guess in a way, Microsoft doesn't have that much to worry about. Not now at least. But they'd better start planning for the future for when we do get world-wide broadband Internet access.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Sometimes I wonder if 80% of Earth's people knows WHY does Windows, Linux, Solaris, PalmOS, whatever, must be present on our computers. Do they really care? I think not, as long as they have Word, Excel, Photoshop, and a good web browser. Oh, and, OF COURSE, Google.
I'd like to point out the obvious. You know...that Microsoft and Google are two completely different companies with two totally different ways of doing things. Microsoft has been mainly concerned with protecting its desktop dominance, mostly with Windows and Office. Google, which started as an Internet (search) company is continuing to grow in Internet-based outreaches. So if we truly are heading toward the web as a platform, yes, Microsoft should be scared and Google is probably sitting pretty.
I'd point that out, but I'm sure I'll get the people screaming at me going "why is it when Microsoft does something, it's bad, but when Google does something, it's good?" Simmer down people...I'm just pointing out the obvious.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Really, I'm confused by all tis talk of Google challenging Microsoft. Until Google launches a new Office suite or perhaps even a browser, I don't see what exactly is supposed to be hurting the guys at Redmond. What web sevices, other than hotmail (which hasn't gone away) and MSN does Microsoft depend on.
As soon as they gained victory over netscape their next plan of attack was to minimise the potential damage by web services. Their only solution was to break the standards so developers would have to choose sides or do mad trying to please both. Since they controlled the browser market anyone who chose standards over MS would obviously lose. If they created a web service for MS then there was no problem. MS is ready for thin clients, embeded devices, they would be on top of the next revolution. You can check your mail and file your taxes on your fridge, powerd by Microsoft.
So it breaks down into a browser war again. He who controls the viewer controls the world.
When in late 2005 I still have trouble downloading simple text (*.html) files on the Web due to network connectivity issues I seriously doubt the Windows platform will be in jeopardy. Oh, it will happen eventually, but later rather than sooner.
I just don't get the big deal with google and microsoft. Aren't you still going to need an OS to access these web based services? Or do they plan on using some kind of boot rom in the NIC so you can access the web based apps.
We've talking about the web as the next platform for a long time. Who remembers the hype around Netscape back in the mid to late 90s? It was supposed to be the next platform to replace Windows back then. Of course, Microsoft turned around and destroyed them. Don't get your hopes up that Google will succeed where Netscape failed. The web has a long way to go before it can compete with a desktop.
Narrator: In A.D. 2008, Price war was beginning.
....
Captain: What happen ?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb (Vista).
(spoken in the Flash animation as Someone set up us the bomb.)
Operator: We get signal.
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Captain: It's you !!
JOBS: How are you gentlemen !!
JOBS: All your base are belong to us.
JOBS: You are on the way to destruction.
Captain: What you say !!
JOBS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
JOBS: Ha Ha Ha Ha
(spoken in the Flash animation as Ha Ha Ha.)
Operator: Captain !! *
Captain: Take off every 'Zig'!!
Captain: You know what you doing.
Captain: Move 'Zig'.
Captain: For great justice.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Google is great and all but it really CANT touch MS's share in the OS industry.
It's pretty hard to threaten a company with, what, $40 bn in cash?
Google in my experience makes better products, but that won't get them past shady business practices and a multi-billion dollar monster attempting to utterly crush them.
Of course, I think that Google still has quite a ways to go before they really pose a threat to Microsoft.
FanFictionRecs.net
...is Microsoft itself. If it doesn't pull off some magic for this next release, I think it's going to have to lose to more innovative and competent OSes: OS X and KDE/Gnome on top of BSD/Linux.
Honestly, once you make the switch, the crappyness of Windows becomes so obvious that one wonders why people are putting up with it. I wholeheartedly regret not abandoning the Windows platform back when it was obvious Win98 wasn't much more than a GUI-glorified DOS. Biggest mistake I've made, in terms of lost productivity and expense of maintenance.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The worst nightmare of Microsoft involves pizza and pencaces. And mustard, lots of mustard.
Sounds pretty damn scary to me, too.
...to name a few problems individuals and corporations will have.
Why does everyone try to make the web more than what it is- an interactive information platform? Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Please help metamoderate.
Microsoft is boring. When's the last time microsoft produced a cool product that captured your imagination? What is vista? why should I care? office 12 ? Menus are now "ribbons" .. woo hoo
I can't wait to install that baby and stay up all night playing with it and then show it to all my friends and family.
When I read "google" in a headline, I pay more attention...I am thinking "what cool thing has google com up with now?" google earth, cool , installed it, showed it to my elderly parents and they were impressed; Adwords,Adsense - cool how can I earn some extra bucks playing with this.
google wifi? google tv? sounds interesting. Go Google.
...and this is what's hurting them. Not what their competitors are doing.
In The Science Of Getting Rich, Wallace Wattles talks about how money is primarily made on the creative plane rather than the competitive plane; where the focus is on solving problems or adding real value to people's lives, not on knocking everyone else out of the race.
Microsoft's biggest problem in this regard is that everyone is seen as an enemy, and everything is seen as a threat. If Steve Ballmer actually had a brain in his head, he might realise a couple of things:-
1) Microsoft CAN'T be everywhere at once. It isn't possible. They can't be developing new operating systems, upgrading Office, creating development software, and conquering the Web all at once.
2) Because of 1, other companies are going to be in some computer-related niche somewhere.
3) While Microsoft are busy upgrading Windows or Office, if they want to have some kind of online service, what they could do is what I saw Yahoo doing a few years back. Instead of re-inventing the wheel with their own search, outsource to Google as a backend. Google are still going to have their own site, of course, but what this would mean is that Microsoft could market their own content (syndicated news and so on) on top of Google's search, and if Microsoft's extra content was good enough, they might find that MSN became more popular than Google's plain site anywayz.
4) In doing 3, Microsoft would still have a web presence, (which they want) people could keep using Google, (which they want) and both companies would make money. The reason why Steve Ballmer wouldn't accept an idea like this is because he is insistent on Microsoft completely cornering any and every market it enters, and if they keep doing this, eventually they will end up with nothing.
There are other reasons why Steve Ballmer should be fired, as I've said before...but the monopolistic attitude is the main one. If he is allowed to stay in charge and maintain it, it will eventually destroy the company, and possibly hurt a lot of other people in the process. The bottom line is that, contrary to the popular opinion on Slashdot, there was a time when Microsoft actually did do some genuine good...but with Ballmer at the helm, that is no longer possible. All he cares about is monopoly and economic self-preservation...not about providing a service.
Well, see, Google is valued at some 30 billion odd dollars. And is considered overpriced by most investment firms.
If Microsoft bought all of that, they would immediately lose a large amount of money, as they would have to buy out all of that stock, which would plummet in price if it was known that Microsoft bought it. Google isn't worth anything unless its owned by google- they're valued due to the whole "trust" thing. Plus, this assumes that over 51% of the available control share of the company is available. Publically traded doesn't automatically mean that a controlling margin is possible to aquire.
So yes.. it's possible that Microsoft could buy Google, but it'd be damned hard without risking alot of money, and could even be seen as illegal due to anti-trust laws (however shaky they are).
Code. Writing. Writing Code. Writing in general. What? They aren't -that- differnet.
It's only a nightmare because there are free alternatives that do exactly what their software already does
Yahoo's new beta email app is very similar in functionality to Outlook, and it's free. (Obviously it doesn't replicate Outlook features like Calendar and others, but it's a step towards that).
You realize that for the longest time MSN.com used Google as it's search, same with AOL.com, and Yahoo. As more and more companies offer the same search power as google (pagerank is no secret now) Google will need to make it's actual search better...which seems to be the ONLY thing they don't focus on these days. Just like Microsoft, they are happy to sit at the top of the heap and not innovate, meanwhile going down all sorts of other rabbit holes that have nothing to do with search... Microsoft still has an advantage in "telling" people where they should search by default. Google can be gone as quick as Netscape until they offer something truly unique.
Web services aren't going to fly if consumers (and business consumers) don't like the idea. Has anyone got around to asking them? For a start, web services presuppose a level of infrastructure and sophistication that only the very wealthy currently enjoy. That isn't likely to change for decades, so what are Microsoft going to do until then? I guess web services may just turn out to mean a subscription model for MS Windows. Sigh.
... out in the boonies, all over the world ... folks are doing very nicely without infrastructure or gadgets. Pop one Ubuntu CD (or several other Linux single-CD distributions) into an old PC, half an hour later you have a completely modern operating system and scores of programs, including Open Office, coding environments, whatever. At nil cost. You can't compete with that. And what you can't compete with strikes me as a lot scarier than folks you can compete with (like Google) because they follow the same business rules that you do. But what do you do when it's a case of "Charlie don't surf"?
Meanwhile
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
What alternative?
I fail to see how Google and Microsoft's core products compete. Google's profit model depends on targeted adds and data mining for market trends; everything else is a loss-leader. Microsoft derives nearly all of its revenue from Windows and Office; nearly everything else is a loss-leader.
Again, how does Google's success bite into Microsoft's profit margin? The web as a platform has its place. However, until my DSL connection is as fast as the bus speed between my CPU and memory, no web app will replace my operating system.
I read
Does this mean we should make bootable versions of browsers with inbuilt support for flash/shockwave/java/javascript/AJAX/... ? therefor having no need for an OS? or just make the OS more like a web browser?
How in the hell is Google threatening Windows? Google has no OS. Hell, it's dependent on an OS for someone to even reach it's content! This is the kind of paranoia that make Microsoft look like a bunch of idiots.
I'm pretty sure that since 1997 or so ESR has been Microsoft's nightmare.
The pieces are already in place. If Google were to use NX No Machine or FreeNX technologies M$ is in for a hellish XPerience. Ballmer vows to bury google? Well Steve, the grave you dig may be your own. Here's how it's done. 1. Offer people free WiMax 2. The device that connects them to this service? Thin clients for home use, or just use a client in Windows. That takes them out of Windows and into a remote Linux OS (or any OS of their choosing for that matter). It has OpenOffice and Firefox + all the other goodies. TV? Sure, why not. Music? I'm sure that can be arranged. Integrate MythTV and it's a no brainer. Add VoIP with it, no problem!! 3. The Fat Lady Sings! How many Joe Public's would love to be freed from the daily virus and adware removal and updates? And if mass produced these clients would be sub $100, maybe even $50. Damn near disposable. It's not only M$ that should be VERY worried, the telcoms and cable industries will be in for the fight of their lives. With WiMax one can envision IP cell phones ( oh there already here). No need for those rip off providers. All these industries are guilty of treating their customers like crap, so no tears will be shed. They'll get what they gave. For those unaware, No Machine open sourced some of it's code. Now M$ can't just make it go away by buying their way out of this one.
Or something like that. I wonder if this may have something to do with the coziness between sun and MS lately...
Right, I hear what you're saying. I think an LCARS-type system would be really useful. You buy an appliance that has a "best purpose", but is compatible with other purposes.
For example, developers like you and I might get a 31" wide-screen display with a tablet whose "best purpose" is developing. We can log in, run Photoshop 9000, etc, but also check email and do word processing.
Grandma on the other hand, buys a 15" terminal with a webcam so she can chat with the grandkids. Could she run the developer's programs? Of course, her terminal just isn't ideal for it.
I honestly stole that idea from LCARS (other real-life applications may exist), but wouldn't it be cool? A common library of apps with different terminals which are best suited to a category of them?
Sony ha
We've seen this before.
You host Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Adobe crap, etc. on the web for use, then call it a platform. Filling out forms and data entry, not interested.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Microsoft tries to think of new ways to make money by locking customers in.
Google tries to think of new ways to make money by bringing customers in (voluntarily, by making stuff people want to use).
I personally think a lot of Google's stuff is overrated (Desktop Search, Gmail, Talk, some features of Maps), but I'm apparently in the minority according to their huge success. Google's web/image search features are still king, though.
When a company first goes public people are excited and the possibilites are limitless. But as time goes by Google will be increasingly pressured to cut costs, lose the fat, concentrate on the core revenue earner (ads) and kill off any development projects that are not generating revenue, and maximize the revenue of popular features like Google Maps (expect to see advertising attached to the maps sometime in the near future).
What it comes down to is Google sells ads. That's its core business. Google is a media company. Reinventing a company is expensive and dangerous, few survive reinvention, that's why Google will always be a media company and Microsoft will always be a software company and Ford will always sell cars.
See, what the slashdo community calls "okay" and what Microsoft calls "okay" are not the same thing.
Slashdot see's work as work. You got to work, come up with a new idea, change a very small pocket of the world, make a paycheck and go home. This is their idea of fine and after Google gets done with MS this is exactly where MS will be, a company that is smaller but makes software, turns a profit, and goes on their merry way.
Microsoft see's work like any major company. We need growth, greater profits, more control, higher market share, more more more! If you aren't, you are either shrinking or just about to, because you won't be able to get capital if you aren't growing. The stock market is all about growth. Companies need to be turning more and more profits. If you aren't no one buys your stock and you don't get any capital.
The web will be a platform, not the platform. As a platform its far cheaper to develop and companies retain more control of their own creations if they develop it themselves. They create the application they want, market it to their niche, or use it internally to cut costs, and completely cut microsoft out of the equation. You can't use it for everything, but that's the point, there really isn't one answer for everything out there. Microsoft has been pushing their one size fits all philosophy but corporations are outgrowing that, like children outgrowing their shoes.
So as more web platforms are developed, fewer people buy windows solutions for their specific tasks. Some companies find that web based solutions may work on Linux or Mac, and decide to switch. Not everyone will do it, but there will be options, and corporations will take it.
Then Microsoft will lose revenue. They'll shrink. Windows will not be the choice for everyone. They'll scale back to a majority player, maybe retain a #1 status, but not the same dominant force. They'll effectively lose money and control. Microsoft is basically afraid of losing control and losing money. In that way they won't be fine. They won't be "Microsoft, ruler of the computer universe." Anything that threatens that is not fine to them.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
The FTC. Other than that, cash, the fact that IIRC google didn't release enough for a controling share.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
"the Web as the next platform"
I have never known a business person who would allow confidential letters to be typed in such a manner that they travel outside the company while being prepared. The same applies to all company data.
It's possible to buy a laptop for $500, and a desktop computer for $200. There is no financial pressure to rent software. Open Office 2.0, out soon, is all that 98% of companies need.
I have never known a business manager who would allow an important letter to travel anywhere except on paper between his secretary and himself. Even typing letters over an Intranet would be an extremely unpopular idea.
The only network preparation of data typically allowed is over heavily guarded intranets, in cases where there must be a shared database, such as sales data entry.
The Court's Findings of Fact in the Microsoft antitrust case lists 207 pages of abuses. I'm finding that even computer users with no interest in technical things know that Microsoft is an abusive company, and more intense knowledge of that abusiveness is traveling fast.
The most important thing the CNET article indicates is that bored, underpaid business writers often write nonsense about computers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1.5%? Lucky barsteward.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
For some things, having the bulk of the app on a central server is definitly the way to go. I think a great example of this is Google Earth. Client side app for acessing the server data. Since you cant access it all at once theres no need to have the, probably, TBs of data on the local machine. On the other hand, having say, a word processor on a server would be a waste of bandwidth. Although it would be feasable if office weren't several GB, thats another thing all together...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
You know, there's lot's of ways to do the "web services" approach to software, but most involve a client-server setup where the bulk of the app is on the server, right?
I'd really like to see that, and here's why: let's see MS try to run their own crap for while instead of package it and ship to us to install and support. Yeah, they can sell stuff, but they can't create solid software as far as I've seen. If the bulk of the app is sitting on their server and they have to keep it running, I think that would be a good punishment for them!
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
You do realize your argument really isn't against "software as a service", but "remote data" and "closed data formats"?
If your data was stored locally in an open data format? The "software as a service" would be viable. Especially with every geeks push for more and more bandwith, and computers becoming smaller.
"Google threatens Microsoft's position on the Internet, and could potentially lock Microsoft out of its existing distribution channels and reduce the value of Windows."
Let's see, several companies come to mind that the Microsoft juggernaught has killed or severely crippled. I say Microsoft deserves what is coming to it...a good pummeling. The time of Microsoft is over and their new Vista OS won't save them. What we are seeing is what Microsoft's execs fear most -- the slow decline of a monster that should have been slain in the antitrust courts.
Chances that I'll use or purchase Windows Vista - ZERO!
Why? I am no longer a brainwashed Microsoft follower.
Good riddance to the awful OS known as Windows.
It'll be interesting to watch this unfold. When we do get to that point...the point where the desktop OS doesn't matter that much, where will the people go? Right now, the two mainstream OS choices are Mac and Windows. Price-conscious and total-mainstreamers (ie, "everyone else has Windows...") will go Windows. More security-minded or people who don't feel like dealing with Windows headaches (that is, if they're just beyond the mainstream Windows people that actually think about security and know that there is an alternative to Windows out there) will go Mac. Then you have Linux...right now it's still just outside the reach of mainstreamers. But when the world is connected, will it still be outside, or will it be the third main option? And at that point, that's when it's more of a hardware issue.
People will still rely on desktop apps and the desktop OS no matter how connected we get, but that reliance on the desktop will diminish. You are absolutely right though...and good googly this will be interesting to watch. I'll just have to become proficient on all three and then use the best one.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
Goodows - Linux/Linspire/Java powered OS that installs on top of windows, installing its own (BSD)kernel.
Googfs - Ultrafast searching filesystem that replaces NTFS, and allows you to search files on your system and network using Gooogles technology.
"Google" - next gen web browser that allows you to search from... well.. you know.
Google Office - Type your office document from your web browser.(see above)
Gooverquest. - High fantasy rpg that... uh... nevermind.
There is just one problem with Microsoft focusing on hosted services to compete with Google. Just ask yourself: do you trust Microsoft with your data? These are the same people that have repeatedly forgotten to renew domain registrations. The same people that let hackers download their crown jewels (Windows source). Do you really trust them not to disclose your company data to your fiercest competitors? Or even worse, do you trust them not to steal you business model and start competing with you? Partnering up with Microsoft has been the kiss of death for more companies than I can name...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Microsoft sell two things of importance - windows and office, and mostly at OEM. Even if a significant number of apps went over to the internet, people would most likely still use windows and want computers with office bundled. Certainly the web as a way of deploying apps is likely to make microsofts traditional approach less profitable. But this does not mean that windows won't be running under it all. I think that microsoft will continue to be profitable (based on windows) but maybe not have such high growth. Of course, the threat comes if people switch away from windows to linux. The best strategy they have is to stop worrying about security. Security matters, but not as much as features. The web as the next platform may well need core change to the operating system. For windows to survive they must make these changes before anyone else and put them above any other priority. In short the best approach is to actually drive the move towards the web as a platform, with windows at its centre.
Not specifically directed at your comment, but it sure is surprising how much Microsoft defending has grown in Slashdot comments each year. Five years ago, everyone saw Microsoft's transparent practices clear as day. Today, in any Microsoft article, you get a bunch of +5 upmodded apologists claiming "Gee, whiz, Microsoft is swell...they will overcome...Windows is just great and works like a well-oiled machine (once you've installed vast layers of anti-virus, anti-spyware, firewall, and registry cleaner software)."
Just because this threat to Microsoft was recognized in 1995 and overcome doesn't mean the News.com article is a fluff piece. Google is a very, very real threat to Microsoft, is draining their employees, and killing their morale as Microsoft works overtime to update old cashcows while Google explores new territories. All Google has to do is release an online office suite that never needs to be installed and is always up to date, and Office will start to die off (see Salesforce.com versus Microsoft CRM).
Google is threatening their platform, and Apple is threatening their control over the digital media platform (and therefore Microsoft's bid to control the living room via media devices). Along with the creaking management structure, this is the beginning of a decline in their power.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Front page of todays WSJ had a great article on MSFT. It's a tale of two or three individuals that are making a change in the way MSFT develops software. There is some great stuff in there.
They are trying to consolidate the platform into a small core with more of an add-in technology--it looks like they are starting over with a different core based on an enterprise-only version of NT.
They also had some great new procedures like continual builds and automated testing. (Can you imagine that those are NEW in Microsoft??? What kind of stupid kid-games have they been playing???)
One concept I really liked was BUG-Jail. When too many bugs are found from a single developer, that developer is not allowed to write code for a while. They didn't say what they did with 'em, but I think an appropriate task would be to put them on the QA team for 6 months.
I wonder if some of the changes mentioned in this article are more a result of this restructuring...
I think that, while the article makes some good observations (as well as the posters in this thread), what is missing are talks of a third party. Something like Java. Isn't Wal-Mart selling java based computers now? Granted something like this is in it's infancy but in this industry, things tend to move rather swiftly, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a platform independant development platform that already has deep roots in the web, could totally overtake Microsoft and Google if implemented and properly brought to market.
It seems to me that it would offer a fair balance for anyone, from disconnected users, connected users, and advanced users alike.
I think something along these lines is what will really be the killer for Microsoft, and any possibility of a Google OS.
If not Java, something equally capable will come along out of the blue and take the world by storm.
"I still cringe whenever Microsoft announces a new initiative or product. Invariably, the proposal is designed to step on the toes of other companies that already have products or services supplying the same items in a cost-efficient manner." --Alan Farley
http://www.hardrightedge.com/realmoney1.htm
Let me know when I can reliably use the keyboard shortcuts my hands have memorized over the last ~15 years. As in, command-shift-s to save as a new file. If I do that in a web app, what happens? Well, perhaps my browser tries to save the html file I'm viewing, not save the file I'm remotely editing. Or command-f -- what happens? Oh, the browser looks for matching text in the page, not the app.
And I know that you can make custom command shortcuts that the *app* not the browser responds to. But that's retarded. I have to now think of my shortcuts like nested namespaces? Is this the mnemonic for the hosted app or the host? No way.
ZUL is the best bet here, I and I applaud that effort. But traditional HTML web apps simply don't cut the mustard. They aren't applications, in my mind, if they don't behave the way applications have behaved for 20 years. And frankly, it's not like I need to just get with the program and accept the new. The new sucks, it isn't as good as what we've got today. I refuse to adapt to an inferior process.
Wake me up when they can make an app as rich as Flash MX, or Photoshop, or XCode run in a browser.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Google is currently a marketing firm. If Google moves into the "web desktop" world and continues to be a direct marketeer, they will not please consumers for long. Business users, due to looming privacy and information security laws, will be prohibited from storing PII or other confidential data on 3rd party, public systems.
The one's to watch are firms developing toolsets like those of Salesforce.com and then selling local, turnkey solutions for businesses to host in their own data centers. MS has been talking about a subscription model for a decade now, and they could just as easily move this way.
BUT...hubris is a mighty nemesis. MS's current leadership is focused on monopoly above all else, and this limits their freedom of movement and ability to develop cool stuff for the sake of developing cool stuff. Everything is developed within the prism of how does this reinforce the monopoly. Bring a new breed of internet-savvy,leadership into MS, who can ignore monopoly to develop unbundled, boutique products (high margin, high "it-factor")and you will have a monster on your hands.
To be brutally honest, Google offers me nothing that I just "can't live without". They offer nothing that I have not seen before, although they do have elegent implementations. The best thing I can say about Google is that at least their directmarketing ads are not as annoying as Yahoo!, but at the end of the day they are a direct marketing firm whose sole purpose is to monitor my behavior and bombard me with ads. I despise that business model.
I have some ideas on this in my blog http://goolocalizations.blogspot.com/, in the 'Googler' section. Hope someone at Google will take note.
...is like turning on your TV, we will know that MS competitors free-but-advertisement-laiden services have transformed the web into a platform. Remember, the Google business model centers around advertisement, and so do the business models of most major television networks. That's not to say that software as a service isn't the new paradigm... but service as a platform is quite a ways off, and if it sucks because it's just like television, we should have seen it coming.
.LOL
The appliance would be a display, a network client and an input device. The OS would likely be embedded Linux or BSD. Simple, cheap and reliable, all under Google's control.
My God, they could be the next Microsoft!
As they should be.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Whorevalds and Coxsucker realized a nightmare scenario: That everyone would soon realize that linsux sucked more than anything, and then they would be left with no more dick to suck themselves.
"What will we do?" Cried Whorevalds
"Suck eachother's dicks, I guess," Replied Coxsucker
And they did, until they both died from zealot monkey-ism, which is what the ungreat Open Suck Software revolution was built on in the first place. Are you a zealot monkey faggot? Probably. Is it too late for you? Not at all. Switch to Genuine Microsoft products now, and watch all your troubles and worries go away.
I want to say that i'm a long time windows user, i'm on windows for a long long time, but there's not a lot of things that keeps me on windows. Usually people dont want to switch to linux because they 1. play games or 2. they use some windows/mac only tools like photoshop. What i think is that the nightmare scenario for m$ is quite different. Less and less games come out on PC if you're a hardcore player you own a console. Gaming quality is not comparable. On consoles you put cd in, and play no worries about drivers/ram/cpu/gpu/installing etc. and the game is optimized to use full potential of your hardware. Only fpp shooters and rts's are more playable on pc than on consoles, but nintendo will change that. So if you want to play you'll be better off with console rather than pc/windows. As to point 2 applications. There is already quite good replacement for ms office and it can only get better. But what about other tools for web developers or artists. Well we can only hope that when adobe/macromedia will join their strengths they will begin to sell linux versions of their software. If that would happen ms nightmare would really come true. Web application revolution could also make it worse for m$ but i dont think it's such a big threat.
This is equally a problem for desktop Linux acceptance. As Linux pushes for the desktop, the desktop moves to the network ... no place for Linux to land if the desktop is gone. Of course, Linux might drive the lightweight access device but this is a far cry from Linux on the desktop.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Everything looks like a web service. I do not believe that Google is the end all and be all of computing, any more than I think that Microsoft is the end all and be all of computing either. My own feeling is that once we get the "the Network is the computer" sort of stuff out of our thinking and realize that actual usage is going to be some balance of locally hosted programs and data and Web-based applications and data, then we'll be able to make real progress.
Google Maps work because people don't want to allocate terabytes of storage for maps of the world. Web-based mail and homepages work because most people don't want the work of maintaining their own mail servers and web servers.
However that doesn't apply to an office suite, when you get down to it, or something using a local database on your machine. There aren't a huge number of advantages to hosting your office suite on a remote server and pulling the apps down the network when you want to run them, and there are a number of downsides.
I'm not saying that Google isn't going to become a major player in the web services business, or that MSN in time won't become an equally big player. But what I am saying is that locally hosted applications aren't going to go away either, and ultimately, the security of the PC depends on the security of the operating system running on it.
MS Office is by far the larger profit source for MS. Although it goes hand and hand with Windows and without the OS dominance, Office would fizzle. Which is what the argument is exactly I suppose. That if, or once, the Web becomes the platform for everything, MS Office would simply be another option. An option among many, and likely superior options. Still if Google "wins" or for that matter if anyone "wins", and topples MS as the dominant software giant. They will be the single most dominant provider but undoubtedly not as dominant as MS currently is. zbend
My advice. DO NOT LOOK AT YOUR MOM'S WEB CACHE. Some things you just don't want to know.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sure, web apps may present some threat to Microsoft, but I don't see them as a nightmare scenario.
What I consider the first part of MS nightmare scenario is working itself out in Massachusets right now: the state government has established a policy on open formats and protocols that wipes out Microsoft's ability to lock people into applications. The second part will start rolling in within the next five years, as Open software starts to establish itself on the corporate desktop.
Microsoft's main profit center is the symbiotic lock-in between Office and Windows. Those two business units support all the other development Microsoft does. People buy Windows in order to run Office, and they buy Office because, among other things, they have to buy it to maintain the investment they've sunk in thousands of documents over the years.
Micorosft got rich targeting the corporate desktop, because that's the low-hanging fruit of the software industry. It offers large numbers of machines all doing basically the same thing. The required feature set is well-defined, and it tends to remain stable over the years. They managed to hold that market by locking users into Office with proprietary formats, and by making Windows a more or less necessary requirement for running Office.
Thing is, OSS is heading for the very same market, because once again, it's the low-hanging fruit of the industry. It's so easy to build a positive feedback cycle around an office suite that you'd almost have to work *not* to do it.
OSS applications are on the leading edge of being mature enough for regular desktop use, and as more people adopt them, you get more pressure to make them even more mature. Sooner or later (and getting sooner all the time), OSS products will be be seen by the regular public as suitable competition for Office and Windows.
When that happens, Microsoft's main revenue stream will be under attack by a set of products that can't be killed by normal business methods. And to be perfectly honest, Microsoft has a lousy track record of trying to diversify into other markets. Its core markets will start drying up, and it won't have any new markets to move into.. certainly not at a level that will replace what it's losing from its core markets, at any rate.
When the money goes, so does the support for peripheral development, experimental products, and just plain 800-pound-gorilla domination tactics. Microsoft won't have the resources to fight an indefinite war against Google, try to edge its way into the online music market, subsidize its Xbox foothold in the console market, and so on. It will have to tighten its belt and fight to hold its ground, and sit around watching opportunitiues pass by because it just can't afford to take a strong, committed risk outisde its core market.
*That's* Microsoft's biggest nightmare the way I see it.
>> Can you imagine that those are NEW in Microsoft??? What kind of stupid kid-games have they been playing???
No I can't. Because they're not new. I've seen this done a DECADE ago there. It's just that there's a lot more emphasis on automated testing. Which is not necessarily a good thing.
The core product, Windows, became bigger and more complicated, and getting updated versions became harder to get out the door.
That's because their code is all integrated instead of neatly modular. It now resembles a famous Italian dish a lot more than it should...
Not to blow a huge hole in your theory, but Microsoft's focus has ALWAYS been on beating their competitors. Look at the way they handled:
- the Mac
- OS/2
- GO Corp's PenPoint
- Netscape
- Palm
- Playstation
- Logitech
- etc.
In each case the competition drove them to get off their asses and create products. Were they amazing, groundbreaking innovations? No. That is not their game. Their game is mass-market, high volume sales, which means they must to some extent conform to their customers' existing expectations.
Other companies innovate and begin the process of changing personal habits...it's at that point that MS moves into the market. They throw a ton of resources at the problem with a tight focus on beating the competition...and they often do. Only when the competition is as well-funded as they are do they run into problems, and even then they manage to compete.
That's why it's ludicrous to think that Microsoft has the wrong focus...they have enjoyed almost unparalleled corporate success over the last 20 years based on that focus. They've never been in debt. They make obscene margins on their products and turn a profit every quarter. They've achieved immense market share in their core markets. They've successfully entered a number of new markets.
Personally I don't think Microsoft has a problem right now. They have business challenges, but their core profit generators are as secure as they have been for years, and their new entries are competing strongly.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
No competition and they own your projects. Why end up spending more money on defending their business when they can just buy the competitor?
Google or any ISP could use NX (from NoMachine) to create a "Desktop on the Internet". NX makes X Windows (and MS Windows) fast so that an ISP could set up servers and serve a remote desktop over the Internet. The ISP would provide encrypted disk space and all the needed applications. The PC would become a thin client. The ISP could provide a way to rsync all the changes back to your PC if a storage medium was available (hard disk, usb flash drive, ...). As one travels, one would still have access to the desktop and all one's files.
What you describe sounds interesting on paper and could potentially work well in the corporate environment, but there are simply too many issues that need quality resolutions for it to become viable. And even if resolved, it still absolutely sucks for the average consumer.
Aside from being forced to pay for a service that I may only occassionally, or never use, there's dealing with the software chosen by the ISP. If you want to use an alternative, you're going to have to essentially pay additional for that choice.
In my experience, nothing is free. Somewhere, somehow the cost will get passed to consumers. So the cost of the "ISP freebies" you mention will really just be rolled into an already overinflated connectivity bill.
And forgive me for laughing at your statement that current technology can do all of what you say right. When it comes to the internet as a platform in general, the current state is FAR from being a acceptable for you what you desribe, for a variety of reasons:
Finally, there's the issue of privacy, security, control and legality. Performing any kind of document editing over the wire that wasn't already intended for public eyes and/or maintaining a library of content online is downright scary. And if it were done via the SSL of today (assuming someone doesn't find a flaw in that anytime soon), it'd probably be painfully slow on top of that.
I mentioned control and legality -- and this is a big one -- once you upload your content to these ASPs, who has control over the digital data? Certainly not the user of the service. Do you really thing the terms of service for each ASP will:
No thanks. Count me out. I'd rather use outdated software that I already licensed and installed on my local desktop thank you very much.
When technology has caught up in 10-15 years, perhaps it'll be a viable option. But even then, some of the not-easily-resolved challenges I've mentioned will still exist.
"There is no doubt that whatever Microsoft will be offering vis-à-vis MSN, and how MSN goes forward, it is going to be strongly integrated back into the whole Windows platform,"
If that's true it's fine with me, because it'll never work. Windows Vista has huge hardware requirements and most people just won't want to upgrade regardless. Just look at how many people today haven't yet upgraded to Windows XP and it's been around since 2001. If all those MSN Web-apps are only going to be available to Vista users, everybody else will simply stay with Google. Finally, M$ will loose it's stranglehold on the market.
However, if things really do pan out this way, where will this leave the open source community? If Google becomes the next Microsoft, it'll be due in part to the massive mountain of hardware that their services are built upon. How can the open source community offer an alternative to that?
There already is banking online... for one example.
Ok but how is this a "nightmare" for Microsoft? It's more like they have to dominate the web instead of your local drive. Which is probably something they want to do anyhow. So it's more like "waking up from a beautiful dream of Windows monopoly" than having an actual "nightmare". It's not like the web excludes Microsoft -- quite the opposite given IE's dominance -- and MS has shown that it isn't afraid of new technologies and paradigms, they just shift their mass to concentrate on the next big thing.
>> Microsoft said Tuesday it would make hosted services a more strategic part of the company and fold its MSN Web portal business into its platform product development group...
Oh great. Yet more redundant bloatware in Windows. yippee.
Eric Raymond was Microsoft's "worse nightmare".
Differnce now is that Netscape was beaten because MS could give away IE to undercut Netscape.
But now the competition is Google and MS still hasn't figured out how to beat "free" (to the user at least)
I want to shoot the messenger!
Their real fear should be Google Office. When Google implements a web-based Office Suite that uses open formats, has all the Office features, is free, and is available (including instant upgrades) from anywhere then Microsoft Office will seem laughable.
If Sun had more vision they'd morph OpenOffice into such a service but it seems that Sun just doesn't know what to do with itself either. To bad for them. They have everything then need to rise again if only they'd use it correctly.
This is plausible (not hard to do) and would be a strong win for Google (showing content-related ads along-side documents could be very profitable) and with features like intergrated search and cross-referencing they could really make such a tool worth switching to. Having Google-based document mgmt would be a serious power feature for users and especially to businesses.
That product alone could quickly unravel Microsoft. With that kind of max exodus of customers it'd shatter Microsoft's profits which would in turn cause investors and employees to flee. Without Office lock-in Windows lock-in would be seriously weakened and OS X and Linux would start making more serious gains which in turn makes Microsoft's other products less desirable. Office is really the cornerstone holding the Microsoft empire together. How long until Google attacks? Well.. they did hire some Firefox developers and Google Mail would be a good testing ground for Google Office technology. Everything they need is ready.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
If the web were the platform they could charge a monthly fee for www.microsoftword.com etc. That's what they really want to do anyway.
Though I agree with what you're saying, I think a google model of subscription software would work quite well, because you wouldn't be paying a monthly subscription fee. You'd just have to put up with google's usual level of advertising.
You're typing away at your little online word processor, and there are non-obtrusive text ads in the right-hand side, perhaps relating to the content you're typing. If they didn't refresh, or only refreshed after you saved or something, then I think most customers would love this model. It's not in my face and it lets me get work done, for free. Why not?
True, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the intention of the original designers has anything to do with what is going on now. History is rife with examples of inventions being shoehorned to suit purposes other than those originally intended. In fact, Slashdot tends to celebrate novel applications of technology. Stories of web servers on Newtons, KDE on OS X, Linux on the XBox, and so on abound. Development of the Web is being driven by economic, not technology forces at this point in its lifecycle. It is a medium that the public knows, using metaphors people understand. There is also an established base of experienced Web developers, who have become comfortable with the tools of the medium. Think about how long it took for anything truly useful to be produced with Java. Even though the technological advantages of using other ports, developing other protocols, and so on are numerous, it will be very difficult to deflect the momentum that the Web has established.
This isn't necessarily a good thing, but I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. If anyone is going to break the stranglehold the Web has on Internet apps, it's going to be with something along the lines of iTunes, which fairly gracefully merges offline and offline activity into a moderately seamless experience.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
they want their topic back.
Surely you must be joking, Mr. Kerstetter!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
did anyone else read ...and the company's clown, Windows."
?
Absolutely right, thousands of MS employees are reading this, some with moderator points.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Google as a real threat to MS' core business? This is alarmist nonsense.
The true threat to Windows continued prosperity is the Xbox 360 and the PS3.
PC sales have been dominated by growth since 1998 in two sectors:
1 - Home PCs
2 - Notebook sales (which has just this past year also shifted to personal use notebooks and away from business use notebooks as the main growth factor in main growth)
Business desktop sales no longer lead market growth and there is no reason to believe that is going to change anytime soon. There is simply no killer app which requires it. There are none on the horizon either.
The new sales of personal use PCs critically depends upon continued hardware evolution and "killer apps" to fuel demand for those platform upgrades. It is those upgrades which is the source of all Microsoft's future growth.
Home sales rely upon PC games as their primary killer app with evolving hardware requirements. It's that simple. Reduce demand for that natural hardware churn and you have a REAL problem with your bottom line in Redmond.
And that business is seriously imperiled.
Make no mistake: PC Game developement of Triple A titles is essentially dead in the water. And I don't mean maybe. I mean STONE COLD FUCKING DEAD. It's a mere FRACTION of what it was even five years ago. Piracy is the perceived problem and the publishers have bailed en masse from funding development for the PC platform in favour of the PS3 and Xbox.
We are NOT in a market lull in PC games. We are in a wholesale abandonment of the market by hundreds of game developers and virtually every software publisher. It's been happening for three years and the effects are really starting to show up now. From here on in for the next 36 months - it only gets worse and worse.
Introduce Windows Vista? To that market? Dream on guys. Dream on.
Without new PC Games fueling demand for new PCs - there is a vastly reduced need for new operating systems. Microsoft's sales of Windows Vista OS are already sharply imperiled.
If Redmond wants to worry - worry about that. Google is a hiccup in history. The disappearance of the renewable killer app which has fueled continuous platform upgrades, on the other hand, is a grave and serious problem for the entire PC industry.
They's better hope business takes to Skype in a hurry - or the whole industry is in for a wave of depening red ink and contracting sales.
.Robert
I don't see what exactly is supposed to be hurting the guys at Redmond.
The Web as a platform removes the reliance on Win32 as a platform.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Well I'm a Microsoft Apologist.
I'm so sorry your computer crashed! I'm so sorry we attacked Stac Electronics, and Go Computers. I'm so sorry we destroyed OS/2 and pissed off IBM. I'm so sorry we invented Visual Basic, and MSCE's. I'm so sorry we changed and hid the API from our competitors. I'm so sorry we let Balmer do the monkey dance. I'm so sorry about those Halloween memos. I'm so sorry about Outlook. I'm so sorry about those fake grassroot movements. I'm so sorry we copied Apple's "look and feel". I'm so sorry about that "per processer" arrangement with OEM's. I'm so sorry about bad mouthing linux. I'm so sorry about invading Europe...er, never mind.
I imagine M$ will become like IBM and Google will become the new M$, and then people will apologize for Google because we all saw it as someone that could topple the evil empire but then it became what we hate and we do not want to admit it. Pass that torch, yeah!
Or something entirely different could happen and I am totally wrong, :-).
From 30K feet MS has a big advantage in that native apps look better, perform better and are preferred by users over today's web/html apps.
:-) )
However...
Eventually there will be a framework or set of standards that enables the delivery of rich client applications over the internet. I am waiting for the day when I can download a client application that presents me with a desktop look and feel and lets me surf to a url that brings up an app that looks and behaves as good as any native app. When this happens todays tortured web/html based apps will go away and users will be happy. The real driver besides the underlying technology (most of which is available today in various nascent pieces) is that the programming environment must be easy enough for the long tail of developers to grok and code in. To fuel uptake all that is needed are a few decent apps that blow away their html/form based versions. (e.g. online banking, travel reservations, an office suite?
You can bet that if Bank 1 has a nice internet based rich client interface to your accounts, Bank 2 will be keen to deploy one as well. Then two guys in a dorm will figure out they can deploy a nice word processor and spreadsheet and charge 10 bucks a year for it thereby giving birth to the Internet Bubble 2 ?
Or is this a nice friday afternoon pipe dream?
The idea of using the Internet as an operating system for a computer reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the pointy headed boss asks Dilbert to combine their accounting system with their email system. They can't be serious can they?
Fata viam invenient.
Nightmares ? I thought the worst nightmares floating around redmond where bog balls and wee willies. Something to do with being pursued down a darkened passage with their trousers around their ankles by a demonic penguin armed with very large frozen herrings. They wake up screaming just before those herrings find their way one into darkened passages within a darkened passage ;-).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Go and buy "The road ahead" by a certain Billy Gates.
Here was the "visionary" geek planning the future. And in the early 90s, when any techy worth his salt was involved with the internet, Mr Gates did not mention the Internet on his book. THe future was steamrolling and they were igonring it.
And this showed on their strategy, they were pushing MSN as an AOL lookalike that basically constrained what you could do.
Back on the day I had to dial in to MSN (it was one of the only companies offering global email back then) to read my email and then turn them off and dial in to a local ISP to connect to the real Internet.
Certainly MS managed to stear the ship in the correct direction in a manouvre akin to trying to change the collision course of the Titanic (eviscerating Netscape mostly due to anticompetitive practices, IE was better, but not that much better).
Unfortunately for MS the inertia is far to big, they may have avoided the Internet iceberg, but I begin to wonder if it is in them to avoid the much bigger iceberg of software comodization. If Bill GAtes and co (lets be realistic here, Ballmer does not have the vision to make the company innovative) want to evade this one they will have to compromise in a way or another, they either embrace open formats (before they are forced to do so) or open the code of their apps (otherwise a combination of factores will eat their lunch). Or even worse, they may have to do both.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I rather think that MS will create web based office servers. Imagine i have a company, i wouldn't type my data on a public webserver. No i would use company servers for security reasons, but the thin client market isn't going that rapid either, and that's an example i gues for the webclient market. At the home side probaply we would see some, small web office version. But think again fully blown text editor, based on some kind of java tech. naah to slow, only if it would be some kind of a terminal server perhaps.
I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.