Slashdot Mirror
Five Ways Microsoft Could Change After Gates
Might Squirrel noted a perfectly mediocre story to chat about on a boring post-holiday weekend Monday. This one is a look at 5 ways Microsoft could change after Gates. From accepting Open Source to serious interoperability work, there are definitely 5 things on that list there. Nothing about my solid gold rocket car.
They could design a whole new OS from the ground up, abandoning much of the legacy code in Windows that makes it a bit flaky and adopting the "Ã la carte" modular design. They could even make it more secure. But that would risk alienating a huge chunk of traditional Windows users (who still want their old stuff to work, will be confused by a modular design, and who *hate* security popups asking for a password every time they install something). It would be a major risk to the dominance of one of their two big cash cows and could open the door for Apple to swoop in for some market share.
They could fully embrace open source. But that means risking the dominance of Office--their other cash cow. And they're not going to do that.
Basically, I don't expect them to change much at all in the post-Gates era. They may embark on some new initiatives and head in some new directions. And I do expect they will be a LOT more internet-oriented in the future. But they're not going to change their fundamental business model, or abandon their core apps to some radical new ideology.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
... is to rename themselves TriOptimum.
1. It could get much worse
2. It could get worse
3. It could stay the same
4. It could get better
5. It could get much better
We all know that this is not in line with M$. It's more likely that they'll try to find new ways of fighting it. Unfortunately they will probably succeed quite well too.
From Microsoft's attempts at documenting their file formats and interfaces I can say that Microsoft does not work to specifications or standards. They make the code work then make the working code the standard. That is bad practice and leads to, as all can see, bloated, undocumented and overly large interfaces.
I believe the biggest change for Microsoft, whether or not they embrace openness, is to work to a specification driven development rather than a code driven development system. Spend the timing working on the specification and interfaces, get a workable interface and security model then implement it.
So Slashdot is now posting 'perfectly mediocre' stories? Come back Roland, all is forgiven.
Without Gates Microsoft runs the risk of becoming a faceless super-corporation focusing on sales rather than developing the tech that could give the company an edge.
Runs the risk? Isn't this what Microsoft is now?
Would be for microsoft to simply go away.
Thanks Bill for all you've done, now donate some of those billions (bill & billions ;) ) to open source to remedy some of the damage.
I realize without microsoft the PC would never be where it is today but I can't help but wonder where we'd be instead. Possibly some place much better.
MP3 Search Engine
I have yet to RTFA, but I have been anticipating a time when M$ abandons the legacy OS and follows Apple's lead, building a new Windows GUI wrapped around some Unix variant.
And, from the "what-am-I-smoking" department, how about this one: M$ dumps the Windows OS entirely and adopts/licenses OS X, focusing more on the applications front? Yes, I know, fat chance. A lad can dream, though, can't he?
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
And kill linux and OSX at the same time...
Yeah, it seems Taco is having a bit of an identity crisis. Either that, or he's just grumpy about having to work at such an ungodly early hour.
EagerEyes.org: Visualization and Visual Communication
#1:
Yes, Gates has been an opponent of Free Software ever since his famous first letter. However, he's not been as vocal regarding Open Source Software, and that's where it's our loss that we forgot about the difference between them. MS has made some early attempts with "shared source", and like other stuff, they'll refine it.
#2:
Nonsense. That's got absolutely nothing to do with Gates, and everything with the fact that MS simply can't write another windos. After the entire NT team packed up and left, it's been going downhill, and one of the reasons Vista sucks so much is that they shipped something that nobody in the company understood how it worked. If you thought Vista was a trainwreck, wait for Win7.
#3:
What this shows even more is how MS works. Despite their total lack of experience and ability, they enter the game like they own it, and get a bloody nose. But they come back - and get another beating. Just that they keep coming back. You can see that modus operandi in almost every area. Hardware, consoles, much of their non-core software. Usually, it doesn't matter much because they don't learn and keep on sucking, but sometimes along the way they get some wits, or acquire another company, and suddenly they matter (e.g. hardware) or the market is just so small that by sheer power they force their way in (e.g. consoles).
#4:
Pfft. Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 20 years or so, you know that MS announcement regarding ODF is simply the opening stage of EEE. MS has replaced the "then you win" step of the "first they laugh at you..." thing with "then they embrace you, extend you, extinguish you", and fairly successfully at that. With MS as you enemy you don't win when they give up the fight. That's just their way of saying "ok, the cheap and easy way didn't work, we'll have to take you down the old way".
#5:
Yes, maybe. The only point that holds some merit, and even includes both sides of the story. Personally, I think MS will break apart. It'll be a long time, but a disorganized, never-grown-up company like MS simply needs a strong man to hold it together, and for all I know, the ape simply won't do.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
1,2,4: Wishful thinking
3,5: yes, of course
"are you sure you want to change Microsoft?" (confirm) (cancel)
"are you really sure you want to change Microsoft? Like sure, sure?"
(confirm) (cancel)
"performing this action can be dangerous, are you sure?"
(confirm) (cancel)
"ok really this time...
Maybe Microsoft will change for the better after Ballmer leaves. But not while he's in charge. At least, that's what I think.
6) Liquidate the company and distribute the proceeds to the shareholders.
There's a fair amount of information on MS protocols and standards on MSDN - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc216514.aspx
and their source-code is available for review at least @ http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx ... which 10 years ago would've been unthinkable; but yeah, although it's a far cry from the GPL, is still hugely better than it was.
throw new NoSignatureException();
BASIC was never a good language, even in the 1970's. Pascal or C would always have been better for personal computers. There's not even a clear advantage of BASIC over FORTRAN or even COBOL. The best thing that can be said about BASIC is that it is a higher level language than assembly. The best thing that can be said about Microsoft BASIC is that it is slightly closer to Pascal and C than BASIC was.
Oh, and this has nothing to do with the revolutionary component-based RAD developed by Simonyi. That was a work of genius. It's just too bad it was hobbled by Basic.
I hope that nothing changes. That way, people will continue to pour over to Ubuntu. More people using Ubuntu will mean more apps written for Linux. Everybody (for values of everybody outside Redmond) wins.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
and as we know from history of extinct species, those who could not adapt and change died out and made way for the ones that could.
And the reason Microsoft can't change is because they are catering now to huge bureaucratic corporations (think insurance companies, banks, etc, some of whom are still running Windows NT 4.0), and these are not exactly at the forefront of technological adoption let alone innovation. I.e. they cater to a market that doesn't like change.
If Microsoft decided to do an "apple" and ditch Win32 for solid proven UNIX kernel and build their own APIs around that, these businesses would be creaming bloody murder and literary make Microsoft support their old crud.
Now this could be done through VM these days (but then again most of businesses don't have powerful machines for their users), or perhaps MS could split consumer and business OS further, since consumers are more likely to follow latest trends.
But all this seems to iffy and risky decision for Microsoft to make. So I don't expect any change from them.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Or is that too much to ask for?
---
Confirm-I'm-not-a-script image: corrupts
Think about it - if you're making a clean break from Windows, would you choose a mature, well established alternative like Linux or MacOSX
By your logic, Mac OS X would have been a complete failure, *especially* after they moved to the Intel platform and parted ways with System 9 compatibility.
The business model required to purchase a Windows machine is broken.
There are no retailers who sell, out of the box, any kind of optimally adapted PC, configured correctly and free of junkware.
Because margins are so low, they stoop to ludicrous scams like putting junk components next to good ones, or (as Dell is famous for doing) buying everything on the cheap for a computer that crashes -- and the users blame Windows.
Microsoft's #1 challenge is to overcome this deficiency.
I would suggest they do as Apple did and open a chain of stores to sell preferred machines, configured well, or find someone who can.
The consumer faces a series of bad options when buying a Windows machine, and most won't understand how to build their own, even though it's simple even for the layman at this point.
Selling desktop software, including the OS, is Microsoft's biggest business. They need to tackle this gaping crack in their armor before they move on to any fancier but less necessary visions.
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
I guess the approach to this depends on your medium-term strategy. If you are concerned that Linux and OS X market share is likely to increase significantly based on current trends, and you acknowledge that Vista has been a failure in the market but there is still a lot of demand for XP today, then this indicates a need to move in a different direction where you can compete effectively with Linux and OS X a few years down the line but no desperate need to shift dramatically in the near future.
If you assume that the thing most holding back Linux and OS X today is application (including driver) support, and you acknowledge that this is the major technical reason people are still using Windows, then from the previous assumptions you must expect software companies to focus more on portability and use of cross-platform libraries in future as the target markets using alternative operating systems grow. However, you can use this to your advantage, because it means if your new direction plays nicely, it will continue to be at least as attractive for software developers to support your platform as any of your rivals when they go cross-platform.
If you look at the major competition in Linux and OS X, both are based on decades-old concepts that are tried and tested, but also aren't particularly well suited to current trends in networked access, mobile devices, and the like. This creates an opportunity for your new direction to provide genuine improvements for the users while learning from the successful ideas that have gone before, and thus to make your new platform the more attractive one.
And here's the kicker. If you're Microsoft, you are one of the few companies on the planet that has sufficient development resources, financial reserves and attention from software developers to have a credible shot at this. But you need to be honest about the situation, and make a few hard choices about who you're going to put in charge, since your problem is not your generally very smart technical people or your generally very effective marketing people, it's your generally missing the point management people.
I don't really expect them to do this, because I don't think they have the guts to bet the house on such a big move. But I honestly believe their best strategy in the market today is to sit in a holding pattern on the XP/Vista line for the near future (when neither Linux nor OS X is a serious threat to their dominance), aim to have a serious alternative a few years down the line that can compete on merit in a market where one-OS software is increasingly rare and the threats from alternative platforms like Linux, OS X, and whatever new trends emerge in web-based and mobile computing are growing. Along the way, they could move towards open standards and continue their strategy of basically giving away powerful development tools that support their platform, which would undermine some of the key selling points of the opposition, and continue to support the company via sales and incremental improvements to XP and Office for the immediate future.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Huh?
(They might even host on themselves on a stripped down core Windows server 2008. Given their preocupation with DRM I'm guessing that's their future direction).
Andy
The only big change I can see for now is whenever anything bad happens with a Microsoft product I can just say 'this damn thing is driving me balmy!' in lieu of Mr. Ballmer taking over.
I see two problems. First, Gates remains even in retirement the driving force behind Microsoft. With his marginalization, the usual parasitism of bureaucracy, empire building, backstabbing, office supply theft, etc is going to grow. Second, the company has yet to come up with alternate revenue streams to replace Office, Windows, and the MS upgrade cycle that made so much money for them in the past couple of decades.
Given that, here's my take what will happen:
There have been a number of open source projects over the years that have been kept under the control of a single source (by dual licensing, for example), and others that have ignored, ridden down, and flagrantly broken standards. There's been at least two high profile projects that have deliberately used embrace-end-extend to knock competing software (including other open source projects) out of the ring. Open source is not the same as open standards... hell, the software that really started the whole open systems movement in the '70s didn't have a good open source implementation until the '90s.
Both open source and open standards are important, vitally important, but they are not the same thing and mixing up the two just muddies the water and hurts both movements.
Without Gates Microsoft runs the risk of becoming a faceless super-corporation focusing on sales rather than developing the tech that could give the company an edge.
But, Doctor Evil, that already happened.
Microsoft has not made any fundamental improvements to Windows since Windows 2000, and I'd have to look back even further than that to find any major improvements to Office.
Change won't come until Steve Ballmer is gone. Seriously, the behavior of Microsoft can traced directly to him. Get that dinosaur out of the way and change can truly begin.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Microsoft is a big company, and there's no way they would have promoted a bunch of free-software (or even interoperability) zealots to a senior management role.
Gates would have employed people who were broadly-speaking like minded to senior roles. Once the company became big enough that he didn't really need to be involved in every senior person the company employed, the job would have been delegated - to others who Gates employed in the first place.
The only way we'll see major changes is if there's enough demand (probably from shareholders) for a major change - which I would expect to see culminate in new people with radically different ideas installed at board level. Think Lou Gerstner and IBM. Unless Bill Gates has single-handedly been sailing the ship on a course which most of his staff disagreed with (which I doubt), it certainly won't come from within.
But if Microsoft breaks backward compatibility they can support it (probably as well as they do now) using virtualization for essentially free, as opposed to Linux or OS X, which can do the same but not for free.
#2 New approach to releases? Oh yes, but then going to a subscription based software infrastructure only compounds the current problems of being tethered to the M$ name brand. Microsoft will invent many new ways to deactivate "their" software whenever you forget to pay tribute.
#3 Secure revenue by buying out? Whats new about this? Microsoft has always bought out or simply crushed their financially for years.
#4 Interoperability? What? Microsoft? Get real! Microsoft's only use for "standards" is so they have a way to be incompatible. If everybody follows the standard they are guaranteed not to interoperate with MS software.
#5 More Microsoft than Gates? What is that about? Who cares who is shown as running the show? I don't buy software because of who markets it, I would only buy it because it solves a problem. Lately they have only created problems to be solved, so I generally look elsewhere for my solutions unless the 800 lb gorilla gets in my way and I am forced to buy something in order to "interoperate" differently than any other software that is available.
There are another issue that I think is being overlooked is the 64-bit issue. This also adds to be backwards compatibility issues. Here's the way I understand it: The LP64 model (used by Linux and Unix) redefines long (32-bit) to 64-bit. The model MS chose is the LLP64 model which introduces a new integer type called long long which is 64bit. The effect of this is that a 32bit MS program will work in a 64bit Windows, but a 64bit MS program will not work in 32bit Windows. So companies who want to take advantage of 64bit Windows will have to develop 2 different versions of the same software. This hinders some companies from moving forward to 64 bit. In the LP64 model, a company would have to compile 32bit and 64bit versions but their code can be the same.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have a serious question -- this isn't supposed to be flae-inciting Microsoft or Ballmer bashing:
I keep thinking that, in the last 5 years, Ballmer has done nothing to extend the profits or grow Microsoft. The company seems trapped like an animal in the headlights of a car. The XBox is a cash-eater; the Zune, too. Office may have become elegant in the 2007 edition, but only if you have a huge computer to run it on. Vista's developmental delays (pun intended) were very costly. None of these have improved the share price value in real terms or in plain dollar value. There's been no dividends. The kindest thing you could say is that it's underperforming -- a state borne from a lack of direction and leadership. I am genuinely surprised that Ballmer and others have not been ousted.
(Perhaps you can't write letters to the Microsoft Board and Shareholders in Word any more -- Clippy's evil DRM twin steps in and says "I see you want to have Ballmer sacked. Reporting your location to the Orbiting Chair-Dropper...")
Most of you seem to be saying no, but I think you've forgotten about Singularity. Sure, it's a research OS, but rumor has long had it that it's more stable than Windows. All the Windows apps could be run via virtualization -- since they have the original code, they should be able to make it work better than even the Wine project, right? (Cue the MS incompetence jokes....) The only real problem is legacy hardware but a lot of that could be abandoned; some Mac-users were pissed off when old apps and hardware didn't work with OS X, but they got over it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that some of the initial negative reactions would really hurt them in the long run. Lots of people would buy new hardware after a while rather than be left behind (with an appropriate amount of grumbling, of course).
Security? At first glance it well seems that Vista hurt more than it helped, but I think maybe it did help. A lot of Vista users did gain a little awareness of security. What they really need to do is introduce some consistency there, something a lot closer to Unix-style permissions instead of constant pop-ups. Make it a little easier to deal with -- BSD and Linux did. Contrary to popular belief among Vista-users, most forms of Linux and BSD do not nag you constantly for the root password, actually a bit less than Vista. Yes, I have used both Linux and Vista recently. And that brings me to another point: Vista's memory usage, even with SP 1, still sucks in comparison to XP. XP on my other computer is using 619 MB of RAM right now and it has a explorer window open, Jet Audio running, plus a small host of other apps running in the background. The Vista computer I was using Saturday was using 820 MB of RAM while idle! And it was a fresh install. Sure, I expect that memory-usage is going to go up as the OS itself advances, but Vista isn't advanced enough in comparison to XP to justify that. I've heard Server 2008 is better even though it also has Aero. If that's true, MS needs to figure out how to do that with Vista.
I suppose the real problem is that management dictates what is supposed to be done and doesn't make good decisions. Security? Meh, who cares, we want features! We want to continue supporting old, unstable code! We want a shiny new interface! Give users choices? Ha! We're qualified to make the choices, not them! So, if MS were to become a decent company, I think it would have to be not after the departure of Gates, but after the departure of Ballmer and other powerful individuals in management. In short, what MS really needs is for the biggest part of their management to be replaced with people who know about writing software and some from among their "dogfood-eaters" who use the software on a daily basis.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
MS only has one - Office
Their OS marketing is all about market share.
OEM's (big ones) pay mere pennies on the dollar for licenses to ship windows on new pc's.
MS started that strategy long ago, along with really loose protections on piracy.
The whole goal has been to maximize the wintel boxes in the workplace by subsidizing the OS, then supplying the productivity software at a hefty profit.
Why hasn't anyone else developed an Office killer?
Because it's difficult, costly, and most likely to fail in the marketplace due to MS huge head start.
There is a huge user base for whom just turning on the pc is a challenge.
If most corps announced that they would be migrating to OpenOffice, complete with retraining and hand-holding techs, the legions of the dull would rise en masse and slay them.
[Apologies to Lewis Black]
Maybe they will finally pay up on all the email tracking they promised a long time ago.
I bet Gates is the reason behind the failure to pay up.
Last time I checked, Red Hat wasn't doing so hot. So... I hardly think MS is going to follow their business model. If they want to stay in business, I mean.
Apple switched from an in-house kernel to an in-house version of UNIX. They did this when NeXT acquired Apple (some people claim it was the other way around :-) and Steve wanted to merge the Apple GUI into NeXTStep, which was then Mach-UNIX. I recall they Apple basically built an Apple emulator into NeXTStep (Carbon?). Of course it wasnt perfect, but did more or less run old software.
There are several Windows emulators out there running on Linux and Apple-OS. These suggest a migration path to something else.
MicroSoft is where IBM was 25 years ago - the creaky old behemoth. Its still pretty much on top of the pack, but more in computer services rather than hardware and software. The transistion was pretty painful to employees too, shedding generous pension and other benefits of the old IBM to what most companies offer today.
Take Gates, remove his vision and innovation, you get Ballmer.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
If Taco is that pissed off about doing Slashdot these days then why doesn't he step down so he can go run his multi-billion dollar charity organization?
Now that Bill Gates is retired, do you think Slashdot could replace the little Bill/Borg icon that it uses to denote a Micro$oft-related article. Personally, I think a little icon of Steve Ballmer throwing a chair would be appropriate,... ;-)
1. Embrace FOSS (Embrace != consume) 2. Bankrupt 3. Bankrupt 4. Bankrupt 5. Bankrupt?
That red underline feature is standard in Office 97, which I use all the time (and never intend on "upgrading" either.) I think it was there in Office 95 too, but I'm not near that PC at the moment.
...then they should make their main page a search box ala Google.
Microsoft doesn't trust that their development base will follow them if they radically redefine what it is to create applications under Windows. And now Vista has just confirmed their worst fears - developer loyalty at MS has crumbled. To get them back, they need to do what they hate the most: focus on interop and start to accept that the new hotness is Not Invented Here.
Instant spelling error detection was a big deal in Word *BEFORE* Windows. I know as I was working at another company and we were competing with it.
Personally, I think there must be some recent real improvements to Word but Belial6's attempt to come up with one is a hilariously massive failure.
I reckon a big road block to writing completely new kernel + OS for Microsoft is the need to support the huge backlog of hardware, a thing which XP does, and Vista is not perfect at. I would guess that this is something that stops Apple from allowing OSX to be installed on a wide range of hardware. This also is where Linux excels, as anything which is supported by Linux works out of the box. Most other things which aren't supported out of the box can usually be installed with a bit of forum browsing. In fact I find it easier to install Ubuntu on my old desktop than XP, even though I know well what hardware I have in the box and have a copy of all required drivers and softwares for hardware, for both Ubuntu and XP.
like phosphorescent desert buttons singing one familiar song
One of my sources in the Redmond entity worked on the project to release documentation for the protocols to comply with the EU's demands. The major problem with that project was finding out what the protocols were. They had to document them from scratch. The internal documentation wasn't being kept secret for anti-competitive reasons, it simply didn't exist.
It's ironic that Mr. Bill's chief stated worry early on was that Msoft would become arrogant like IBM was.
The Lesson from the XP/Vista story is that the plan of just adding features and expecting a new generation of HW to cope doesn't work anymore.
This coupled with fact the customers didn't really need the new 'festures' makes XP sell at a premium over Vista.
Since customers don't seem all that interested in Vista, perhaps they should make a new release of XP which actually works.
Of course an arrogant company doesn't have to make stuff that works.
(At least for a while...)
so you can have a windows XP disk with the drivers and you will not need a floppy disk.
http://driverpacks.net/DriverPacks/
Fat bald guys running around screaming developers at the top of their lungs.
if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why change a successful strategy to obviously unsuccessful ones? "Embrace open source" WTF? Don't be dim, people: open source == no profits. duh.
They are CONVICTED MONOPOLIST felons, and thanks to money even justice could not do anything when it came time to punish them. Hopefully these robber barons will continue to allow their own greed to be their own worst enemy and eventual undoing. All the fawning by so called "news" outlets caused by the recent retirement of a liar and one of the worst offenders - who has the personality of the most insecure creep your likely meet, is getting old.
None of the software development is happening in the "vacuum", but is constrained by economics.
There is considerable cost associated with supporting even the previous releases (service packs, hot fixes etc) let alone a completely different code base with people who need to have completely different skill set needed for the old code base.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.