Slashdot Mirror
John Dvorak's Eight Signs MS is Dead in the Water
j79 writes "John Dvorak has written an opinion piece on why he believes Microsoft is dead in the water. He discusses Vista, Office 2007, MSN and MSN search, the Xbox 360, Pad-based computing, .Net, and Microsoft's obsession with Google. "
...and he almost never is.
Some more of John Dvorak's keyboard drooling... Why did anyone give this guy a job writing?
~S
People always fail to take into account that MS has a war chest comprising some tens of billions of dollars. Love them or hate them, MS is going nowhere anytime soon.
Is where Microsoft stopped innovating. Whenever you get into a "one-up" cold war, your thinking becomes limited to finding features that are just over what the competitor is doing and not necessarily related to what makes the life of the user easier.
MS has taken their eye off of the ball and has been concentrating on everything but the user.
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- A workout plan that doesn't feel like homework.
With a 90% installbase and billions and billions of dollars... Microsoft isn't going anywhere. People are still addicted to their software and will keep coming back for more. They can sustain a lack of creativity for many many years.
http://religiousfreaks.com/My #1 sign that Microsoft is going over the water at 100MPH in a speedboat while her competitors drown: 38B USD in profit.
I wish I could write something that is as 'dead' as .NET is. I'd be a billionaire.
Oh, yeah, he's always an idiot. One of the few examples of where Slashdot hypocricy doesn't happen. We can all agree a monkey with a blackboard and chalk could do a better job.
The Future is Now
I hate Grammar Nazi's
of Slashdrones denouncing Dvorak as a troll. Well, that might be right, but he's a successful troll. You can only accomplish that if you put enough truth and insight, wacky and wrongheaded though it may eventually turn out to be, into your communications as to make for interesting reading. Dvorak does that.
Take this article. I don't know about all the reasons. For example, I'm not a gamer so I don't know crap about the 360. But there's something here for everyone. He says that Vista OS and Office 2007 will be problematic letdowns. He says MSN and the MSN Search Engine are essentially useless. He points out an abandoned former focus, pad-based computing. Is there anything there that's really all that nuts?
No, there isn't. But then, like a good troll who has thrown out a couple of interesting statements to which nearly everyone can say "He's got a point," he then moves on to the provocation - Preoccupation with Google. He calls it a distraction. He tosses out opinions like they're facts. No matter how you view the relationship between Google and MS, there's something in that paragraph to disagree with.
Thus, conversation ensues. Slashdot stories get posted. Traffic gets created.
The man is a damn good troll and he deserves far more props (for that) than he gets around here.
Can we please have a 6 month moratorium on NOT posting Dvorak's trolls on the front page of slashdot?
Test your net with Netalyzr
Cash on hand. (This Forbes article was the latest numbers I could find, from 2005.)
Six years ago I had a heated debate with a friend about what should be done about Microsoft. I was (and still am) adamant Microsoft needs legal throttling. Microsoft escaped by the hair of their chin with a fortuitous changing of the guard shortly after losing their DOJ battle (Clinton and Democrats to Bush and the big-money-friendly Republicans). Clearly the new regime had no appetite for any meaningful punishment for Microsoft.
My friend waved his hands and said, "Let the market forces settle it", to which I pointed out Microsoft had gained so much power and momentum that market forces may have become irrelevant.
While better late than never, I think Dvorak makes some good points, but would focus on one I think he misses the mark:
I think Microsoft is right to worry about Google. Google has blind-sided Microsoft on yet another "it's the internet" facet they either glibly ignored, or just didn't see. Google has planted the seed that maybe, just maybe, the OS isn't going to be relevant in the future, thus allowing more free choice, and less dependence on Microsoft. Google's "proof" that XMLHTTPREQUEST can provide responsive web apps as stopgap technology (I can't believe that there eventually will be some better replacement) has spawned many other interesting companies and application.
Some of these "AJAX" apps are downright useful, and for the casual user, can completely replace their office suites in functionality (for their purposes), and then some (remote, network accessible from anywhere).
The amazing irony in all of this is Microsoft invented what may end up being the Silver Bullet that defeats them (XMLHTTPREQUEST). And, finally, maybe market forces will level the playing field.
There are more than 8 signs that Dvorak is a gasbag. I site his numerous rambling predictions in the past that have turned out to be wrong more often than not. He just likes trying to raise a stink to maintain his dwindling readership.
C'mon. He is supposed to be an "expert" but doesn't know what Groove is? Lotus Notes? Gee, John. What did Ray Ozzie do at the time he was recruited?
MS is headed for diminshed expectation land - but Dvorak is like the IT version of Limbaugh. What a maroon.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Ok do you know those nerds that apparently have too much free time on their hands and like to make uberlong posts that refute parent posts sentence by sentence? They're pathetic, aren't they?
.Net fra
Well I'll do just that right now, and I don't care what you think, CUZ I'M PISSED OFF.
1. Vista OS. It's now so delayed that its consumer version will miss the 2006 Christmas season. It's now supposed to arrive in early 2007. Even when it does, all of its promised cool features have been removed and it appears to be little more than a gussied-up version of Windows XP. It appears as if it is going to be a great disappointment. This should have been the company's number one priority.
For the developers and consumers, the coolest features are Aero Glass, Indigo, Avalon, Net 2.0 and the rest of the WinFX framework. They were ultra cool but now they are just "gussied-up" XP upgrade? Get your facts straight.
Almost anything in Vista was rebuilt/enhanced: the framework, the interface, the IP stack, the color profiles, there's actually a new advanced printing standard, the audio system, EVERYTHING.
So they dropped WinFS and a few other features for a later update, and suddenly the rest is "boring"? Gimme a break!
2. Office 2007. There is nothing in this new suite that is going to do much more than sustain the product as a dominant office suite. Unfortunately seven different versions are going to be released which will just confuse things. A new enterprise version has been added which appears to have a Lotus Notes-like element called Microsoft Groove. This is being sold as some sort of solution for online collaboration. If it is anything like Notes it will create a lot of anguish with users.
"If it is anything like Notes it will create a lot of anguish with users"? what kind of a nonsense argument is that?! Is this what you have as a sign MS is dead in the water. Have you used Office 2007, what would you do better than Microsoft if you were in their place? Just flamebaiting as always.
3. MSN. Microsoft should have abandoned MSN a decade ago. There is a lot of talk about Microsoft becoming more of a publisher and selling advertising. Microsoft should be buying advertising not selling it. This is not a media publishing company; it's a software publishing company. Why people keep encouraging Microsoft to go in this direction is baffling.
Maybe they should've stuck to making Basic compilers for 8-bit computers? Grow up, companies evolve and adapt to a changing market. You were whining when Microsoft was slow to discover the Internet, now whining they are discovering it.
4. MSN Search Engine. Again more of the same and pointless. Selling ads
Yea shit, selling ads and pocketing the money. Totally pointless, why would anyone care about this thing called uhmm, revenew... uhmm reveneu, revenue, what was it anyway? Totally pointless.
5. Xbox360. The potential to become the dominant game platform and an eventual and enviable profit center. Unfortunately the company did not foresee the Sony delays and failed to manufacture enough units to satisfy the demand. This was an exhibition of poor planning and bad business intelligence gathering.
That's total nonsense again. The initial shortage of units happened because of simultaneous world wide release. It had nothing to do with "foreseeing" the Sony delays.
And right now Microsoft is making and selling enough units to meet the demand. So where is the damn issue?
6. Pad-based computing. According to Gates just a few years back this was to become the dominant form of computing by now. What happened?
You said Apple is buying Adobe, Adobe buying Microsoft buying RedHat buying the Moon and blah blah.
What happened? What happened is you had no idea what you're talking most of the time, while Microsoft knows what it's doing most of the time. Noone is protected from errors, neither is Microsoft.
7. Dot Net initiative. The
For better or worse, Microsoft will be around for a long, long time. Look how long Western Union lasted after the telephone replaced the telegraph. However, what Dvorak may be saying is that the days of Microsoft being a driving, innovative, vibrant force in the computer industry have long since passed. Microsoft's stock price illustrates this nicely.
Dvorak almost had it. People here almost had it.
Microsoft is starting to look lost because it is focusing so much attention at so many businesses that are not its core: software development. Things like MSN, search, xbox are cash sinkholes that are not what makes Microsoft the powerful and respected (well, maybe not at Slashdot) company that it is. Up to here, everybody is getting.
But what Dvorak and most of everybody here on Slashdot is missing is that this is not a choice Microsoft has. Microsoft sees 5, 10, 15 years ahead and knows that the days of its packaged software dominance are going to end. With computers reaching the power and speed of "good enough for daily tasks," consumers are less and less likely to want to pay to upgrade to a new operating system. With the emergence of browser applications and the gradual (albiet not full) maturation of free open source alternatives to Office and Windows, Microsoft has serious looming threats in the near future.
Microsoft is smart. It is trying to reinvent itself BEFORE the trends of technology FORCE it to. By finding a new cash cow to rely on, it can sit comfortable the day a new version of Windows *doesn't* gain wide adoption (thinking - of course - two or three versions from now). Traditionally, that cash cow was and is Office. Let's not forget many people are perfectly content with Office 97 and see no need to upgrade to the newest version. This will only become more common as the Office product matures further. And as I stated above, and with the news that ODF is now an ISO standard, even Office is no longer a safe bet *in the long term.* Microsoft execs realize this threat is not yet mature as everybody here on Slashdot wishes, but DOES realize that given enough time, their Office revenue stream will dwindle as well.
So what happens? Microsoft looks at the current fastest growing technical market and tries to enter that race: search (Google), online ads (Google), online content deliver (iTunes). Microsoft is banking on online content distribution and services. If they're smart, they will tie their Office products with various online services to create the next generation online desktop Office applications. They will then charge a subscription fee and serve ads. THAT is where Microsoft is going. And they've got 40 billion dollars to ensure it happens.
And what about the xbox? It's got NOTHING to do with anything. It is Bill Gate's life long dream to make Microsoft an entertainment hub. But if all the threats mentioned above come around in full force as they probably will in 10 years, this dream will probably never fully materialize. It's just the world's richest man making his company invest in his pet project.
No fan of Microsoft here, but I think Dvorak really misunderstands the problem. Yeah, Vista slipped, and that probably sucks for Microsoft. Not sure it's really the death of Microsoft.
I think what we're really seeing is that Microsoft is a much further thinker than Dvorak is. Not that outhinking Dvorak is really a hard accomplishment. What amazes me is that Dvorak thinks Microsoft is just making an enemy out of Google because they're successful. I think Microsoft is much smarter than that.
What is Google's business model? Advertising. What does Google create? Just about everything. Google is looking at old products and businesses and thinking about how to make them free of cost but full of ads. This definitely should scare Microsoft.
Google has search, mail, and now calendar. What happens when they get a word processor, spreadsheet, and a presentation program? And what happens when consumers look at the money they are paying for MS Office when they are no longer using it?
If Microsoft doesn't at least consider being able to switch to an ad-supported services company, then I think this might just happen and then Microsoft truly will be dead in the water.
However, for some reason John Dvorak sees Microsoft competing with Google as purely a distraction. I think Dvorak needs to be thinking on a grander scale.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
Those nifty AJAXified updating stock quotes are using an XmlHTTPRequest.
The XmlHTTPRequest was developed by Microsoft and later implemented in other browsers.
Its been around a long time, and MS never really did much with it.
It took a bunch of open source coders to make anything cool or useful with it.
But MS should get the props for inventing it.
It is the one example of innovation I can think of from them that has ever amounted to something.
I think the fact that Microsoft avoids innovation like the plague is actually one of their secrets to profit and success.
Let others waste their time and money innovating. Innovation is for the losers. Wait, stall, and make empty vaporware promises, then buy someone else's finished product at the last minute and rebrand it as yours.
It has always made them the most profitable software vendor in the past, why should they change now?
History is littered with many examples of sudden changes in power structure causing a lot of pain all around (Roman Empire, break up of USSR,...). Far better would be shift so that MS no longer abuses its power and instead becomes a contributory member of the industry.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Wow, that's one of the more sensible things I've ever read by Dvorak. I can't say I disagree with any of his arguments, and MS truly is unexciting and completely lacking in vision and direction (except for the Xbox division). Then again, the Xbox division is pretty much the only one that makes products that target consumers instead of targetting corporate IT as their market. The major problem with MS software is that they've completely lost touch with consumers, and haven't the slightest idea of how to design software that consumers want to use. They add requested feature after feature, without any oversight on workflow or comprehensive interface design. In the end, we just get incredibly bloated software with functionality randomly scattered throughout the interface in inconsistent ways.
It seems they really need to refocus on individual consumer needs instead of what businesses need, and not be afraid to refactor their software with top-to-bottom interface redesigns when functionality and/or workflow changes significantly.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Any interesting points he might make get lost in his bombastic troll-mudgeon generalizations. His "insights" are obvious and commonplace, and he misses the significance of what is really interesting. His head is firmly up his ass, and if he is ever to get a clear view of the modern computing world, he will need to get a windectomy*.
*That's when a doctor puts in a clear plastic panel in your stomach, so you can see the way forward whilst your head is jammed up you ass.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
1.) Conservatives doen't care about legitimate anti-trust complaints unless it affects their company because they dream of doing the same thing. Secondly, antitrust complaints aren't complaints against capitalism, they are complaints to maintain capitalism. Capitalism requires many sellers competing against one another, because without competition and without CHOICE there is no capitalism. How much does it matter if your one seller is a gov't run company or a single company with equivalent power? I don't know of any large political party in the US that is against capitalism.
2.) 1 Million. 1.2 million if you include people who don't fit into your left-right world.
For someone currently using the new Office beta, and having been intimately familiar with previous versions, I'd just like to say that the learning curve is suprisingly low.
While I'm sure your familiarity is a factor, could the reason for the low learning curve also be the fact that it's a word processor?
No offense, but a word processor shouldn't really have much of a learning curve at all in the first place. The task it was created to fulfull is a simple one. Create a new document, then type. Save or print.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
...as long as his columns keep appearing as Slashdot stories.
Much like its flagship software, MS the corporation is bloated and slow. But hidden under those layers of fat is a thin and sleek company. The truth is, there are a lot of very talented and creative people at MS that do some pretty cool stuff, and that could be doing world changing stuff if they weren't weighted down with corporate obesity.
My assumption is that MS is going to have to lose in the market for a while if it's going to lose the corporate fat. The question is, will MS be able to hold onto these employees as it endures its swing downward? With the right leadership, MS can weather this and be reborn. That leadership is definitely not Balmer, and I don't think it's Gates, either. Gates needs to find the right visionary (Ozzie), annoint him, then step back. If MS is going to have long term relevance, it is going to have to take major risks. One of those risks is putting leadership into place that is totally different from anything MS has seen so far.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
He says that Microsoft is too easily distracted by companies who are not competitors. Not competitors right now is more like it. 20 years ago Bell Atlantic and Cox Communications weren't competitors either, neither were Sony and Apple. Microsoft obviously sees something in Google that makes them think they WILL be a direct competitor in the future, even if they are only an oblique competitor now.
I can make a pretty good guess as to what that is--Google provides rich software as a service and they make money doing it. Microsoft has known for almost a decade now that the continual growth in networks will enable software to be provided as a service. And the continued increase in the acceptance of open source means that the perceived value of software as a product will continue to decrease...how much could the Office product be worth if 90% of the most-used functionality is available for $0.00? Meanwhile the greater sophistication and reliability of software means that replacement cycles are slowing down, and the ever-more-common use of updates and patches reinforces the service aspect to software.
When software is available as a service, the business model changes dramatically--it's not (just) a product sale anymore. So what does it become? On-demand, pay as needed? Monthly or annual subscription? Advertising supported? Google has gone with the latter, and they are making money with software services--effectively establishing themselves as threats to a future Microsoft direction.
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.
How dead is it?
It's so dead, that recently
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/
But sure, Microsoft is dead in the water.
Hey, I heard they just released a special pink IPod!! Apple is really going places!
[. . . ] The reason is that Bill wants everybody else's money - not just his own. The magnitude of greed in this asshole is mind-boggling.[. . . ]
From the wikipedia entry about the Gates Foundation:
And from the wikipedia entry about Bill Gates:
So um... yeah... next time you donate more than 50% of your net worth to charity, you be sure to let us know, you pompous douche.
credit where credit is due: Microsoft BASIC (1977?) was awesome. Apple licensed it, and all the Apple ][s came with AppleSoft BASIC, which was MS BASIC with a new name tacked on. And that BASIC rocked.
In fact, you almost got it.
All you say is true. But the point is not what you say.
Of course, Microsoft is clever enough to know that its current cash cows (Windows and Office) won't last forever.
But the point is "what is doing Microsoft to prepare itself for this future?". As you say, entering the race that other companies started: search (Google), music (iTunes), games (Sony). That is to say, screaming "me too!" for any profitable business related to technology that is fashionable. I'm amazed that they haven't launched nakedmicrosoftbabies.com. At least so far.
Microsoft should start new races, new paths to meet the user's needs (not everything is invented and there is a lot of room for improvement in software industry). Instead of this, Microsoft is a follower of other companies' paths, not a leader.
I am old enough to remember the days when Microsoft was the leader in PC industry. Back then, everything Microsoft did was received with excitement. These were the days. Since five years ago, every news that comes from Redmond makes me yawn.
These is the point Dvorak is trying to make. Microsoft will keep make lots of money but what they do is more and more irrelevant for software industry.