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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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'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.
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
Microsoft talks about innovation.
Google actually innovates.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
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
Holy fearmongering for +5 insightful batman!
Hint: Who the hell's forcing this down your throat. Don't like it? Don't use it.
Hint 2: Like this is anything new fer chrikeys sake!
No Comment.
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.
...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.
...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.
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 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.
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."
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.
This is great analogy. Imagine Google came along and said, "Hey, we have this fleet of shuttles that'll take you anywhere you want to go, just pay us a fare every time you ride." You think about it. Because of the scale of their operations, they could be a lot more reliable, but you wouldn't actually own a vehicle, there would less choice and flexibility, and those afternoon drives along the coast would come to an end.
Now imagine that your car crashed as often as your PC. Vandals routinely tagged it, punks would take it for joyrides, and it gets recalled several times a year to fix some flaw. Even worse, the manufacturer wants to track where you're going, limit what you do, and charge you whenever you play the radio.
Microsoft has done wonders to reduce the value of actually owning a PC. If the trend continues, then there will still be plenty of us who own machines, developers, designers, gamers and the like. But for your basic office applications, it's entirely possible that people will get frustrated enough that they'll turn over the headache of software maintenance to someone else.
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.
But when has Microsoft ever provided innovation on a technical level that lead to a successful product? I can't think of any such case. Everything is either a copy of something else, or purchased from someone else. Even DCOM is just a subset of DCE/RPC (which is now open source).
Microsoft's problem is that, from the very beginning, they substituted acquisition for innovation. Now what are they going to do? Acquire Google? Acquire RedHat? They have reached the end of their rope.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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."
The web is already a compute platform.
Don't think that the opposite of the PC is an Xterm moving mouse clicks and raw pixels around a network. It's the client/server model, where the server is anywhere, INCLUDING your own desktop machine!
The web browser long ago went well past being an HTML renderer. As all these networkable (but not neccessarily networked) methods of user interface advance, it becomes a standard GUI API that developers can use to create applications.
What threatens Microsoft is that the most popular network GUI API's are not their own, and are typically open source, therefore they are not in control of the future of computing.
What applications are not already available from your web browser? I'm sure there are some, but there is no technical reason some clever group can't take up the challenge and provide it. We're only at the start of this shift.
Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
In the same vein, Microsoft is not entitled to innovative hard work out of those employees either.
To be successful, employers and employees need to cooperate above and beyond what they're entitled to.
The grandparent poster was suggesting strategy, not charity. We both agree that Microsoft can get whatever they pay for when it comes to employees. If they choose to continue undercompensating them (with below competitive benefit packages which include rising stocks in a good company) they will continue to deliver underperforming products. TFA's all about Microsoft not losing to Google - and that depends on them having at least as good people working at least as hard.
With Microsoft's stock&options packages, they're stuck with mediocre people working the minimum not to get fired.
We both agree it's fair. Both microsoft and whatever employees remain there are both getting exactly what they deserve.
An employment contract doesn't entitle you to anything more than the pay and benefits (if any) you agree upon.
And likewise, and employment contract doesn't entitle the company to anything more than a guy sitting in a cubicle for more than 8 hours, or whatever else is agreed upon.
Sure, fine...buy stock. But just sitting on your ass in a chair all day doesn't mean that you deserve a cut.
And that is exactly the issue at hand. Microsoft is filtering for employees who sit their ass in a chair all day. Google is filtering for employees who invent billion dollar advances in computer science.
They both get what they deserve.
It sounds like everyone's in vehement agreement that it's totally fine for Microsoft to continue undermotivating employees and for their undermotivated employees to continue underperforming as they have been since their stock peaked in Jan 2000.
TFA article had nothing to do with Linux. It was about Google marginalizing Microsoft's core business (desktop OS) with Google's web offerings. Frankly any desktop OS (including Mac and Linux) will be marginalized by what Google does. It's just that it hit's MS where it counts ($$$). And any change to the way MS does business will affect the entire world. That's the news item here.
But in the end Google is an advertizing company. It's clients are the companies who advertize with them. The users are the mere bait to draw the advertizers. MS can steal the users (with better alternatives) or the advertizers (with better bang-for-the-buck ads). Google's problem is that it has no installed base. There's no part of Google that people are forced to use. Even now there is an alternative for every single Google "product". MS will have no problem cutting into Google's business. Give MS a year or two and you'll be seeing more and more headlines about Google trouble.
If you're going to compare market caps, the compare *one* market cap with *another* market cap, not with an orange, cash in bank or whatever else. MSFT market cap = $270 billion.
But when has Microsoft ever provided innovation on a technical level that lead to a successful product?
Not to defend Microsoft or anything but... ever hear of AJAX ?