Microsoft Sees IBM as Biggest Threat

Anonycat writes "Bill Gates gave an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show, claiming that IBM is the rival company Microsoft has their sights set on. From the article: 'People tend to get over focused on one of our competitors ... We've always seen that ... I'm never going to change the press' view about what the cool company to write about is. That's Google number 1 and Apple number 2 ... [IBM has] four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have.'"

Comments

Is bill gates an ego-driven individual?

[inertialmatrix]

"The biggest company in the computer industry by far is IBM. They have the four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have. IBM has always been our biggest competitor. The press just doesn't like to write about IBM."

I find it fascinating how he uses the term "I" when referring to the company he founded. I wonder how much of his motivation to succeed is pure ego driven. I always found it interesting how all these iconic leaders in silicon valley all know each other, and have all had personal interactions going back 20 years. The old question of whether or not bill and steve really dislike each other, and if that dislike stems from some initial interaction at a computer show in SF back in the 70's.

Strange indeed.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Pxtl]

Speaking of Words, you notice the inverse relationship? Word, Excel, Windows... MS turns dictionary words into trademarks, while their competators do the opposite.

And of course Microsoft's enemies will be talked about - that's what Microsoft does, they fight. They move into an industry with established technology companies with the expressed purpose of taking it over by dumping wads of development cash into it and making their product tightly interoperable with the rest of the MS family. Microsoft moving into a new niche is a full-fledge onslaught to everyone else in that niche. No wonder they're famous for their enemies.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[AKAImBatman]

Microsoft never had to work hard for the money. Everyone jumped on the Windows/Office bandwagon.

That's just simply not true. Microsoft has worked it ass off to convince the public it needs what its selling. That's been particularly difficult as Microsoft products have traditionally not been very innovative. So Microsoft has taken the tack of marketing the heck out of their product, and crushing the competition in the process.

Take the matter of the VisiOn GUI. Microsoft had nothing to compete. Zip, Zilch, Nada. So they see this VisiOn and realize that they'll soon be irrelevant. To counter this threat, Microsoft annouces that they will be releasing a product known as "Windows" Real Soon Now(TM). Everyone then puts off purchasing VisiOn while Microsoft goes and makes something up. Microsoft is late shipping (since they didn't actually have a product), and ends up bleeding Visi-Corp out of the market. Microsoft then delivers a steaming pile of software known as "Windows" which gains absolutely no foothold on the industry up until the point where it copies the Macintosh. Poorly.

Windows was then scheduled for demolition right up to the point where a couple of smart guys saved the company by getting Windows to run in 32 bit mode. Microsoft throws their marketing muscle behind this new version of "Windows", and the rest is history.

So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them. Always give the devil his due, or you may get complacent.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Google and MS are software companies. All they need is a few programmers to write some software, and they can duplicate that software and minimal cost and sell it millions of times over.

IBM is a consulting, maintenance, and support business. If you're hired to consult for someone, you actually have to send people there. Problem is, people can only be at one place, or do one thing at a time. Unlike software, you can't copy or clone or consultants, or have them in two places at once. If you get a new support contract, you have to hire additional support staff. If you get a new maintenance contract, you have to hire additional maintainers.

IBM sells people's labor. If they sell additional product, they have to hire addtional people - the cost is almost directly proportional.

Google and MS sell software. If they sell more software, they just print up a few more copies, or purchase additional bandwidth for downloads. The additional costs are minimal.