Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Is a Dying Consumer Brand

Taxman415a noted a CNN story on the dying Microsoft brand where they talk about "The less than stellar performance of, and problems in, nearly every consumer division. It cites StatCounter's data showing IE's market share falling below 50%, and is even smart enough to note that's just one statistic with various problems, though the trend is clear. It also seems that MS doesn't want to compete with Android, so it plans to charge royalty fees to handset makers to discourage them from using it in their products. The conclusion is that MS will just be a commercial, not consumer company."

58 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Really??? by adeelarshad82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is? Doesn't Microsoft dominate the OS marketshare, wasn't Windows 7 a huge hit, isn't xbox 360 kicking ass right now, or are we just judging Windows Phone 7? Cause if we are then i gotta say it's a bit early for that. Come on CNN atleast don't make link baiting so obvious and Slashdot stop putting inaccurate shit on the front page.

    1. Re:Really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I completely agree. Personally, I have a Droid X and I love the phone, but the potential for Windows Phone 7 is enormous. Compatibility with XNA and Xbox Live is going to give WP7 a nice advantage in the gaming segment, and a fairly large, talented developer pool to work with. The Xbox 360 nearly dominates the console gaming market right now, W7 is a good consumer operating system, so I don't think MS is going anywhere anytime soon.

    2. Re:Really??? by Sunshinerat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is the difference between a company that does nothing but milk its market share versus a company that innovates and moves with the market. Sales numbers can be huge and impressive, it says nothing about the long term potential of the company.

      Ray Ozzies departure addresses this as well.

      --
      Load New Commander (Y/N)?
    3. Re:Really??? by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, Microsoft dominate the OS marketshare - on laptops and desktops. When it comes to servers, gaming consoles, smart phones, tablets, or any other internet devices: not so much.

      MS is not dead by any stretch, but the market is changing, the paradigms are shifting, and MS is not dominating the new market. If MS were to lose it's strangle-hold on document formats, then MS might become a far less relevant company.

    4. Re:Really??? by gblackwo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Xbox 360 nearly dominates the console gaming market right now in the United States

    5. Re:Really??? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even Ray Ozzie has admitted that a fundamental shift in today's computing environment is underway. Microsoft has traditionally used its Windows operating system as a means of controlling other markets, and he basically admits that this business model is done. The future is all about embedded devices and cloud computing.

    6. Re:Really??? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft dominates DESKTOP OS market share. I doubt if it dominates OS market share, considering Android, Symbian, iOS, OSX, Palm, Linux .....

      I've said this before, but it fits here. Microsoft is a WINDOWS company (with exceptions), it is NOT a technology company. Almost everything they do is for WINDOWS, and WINDOWS is their primary focus. Apple and Google have let Microsoft have the WINDOWS market. They are after other markets, and why they are killing Microsoft in the process.

      I'm reminded of an old story, from the late 1800s. The story is about a Railroad Magnate who saw his business as being "railroading". That was his focus. The problem was, that view was myopic and very short sighted. IF he had a broader viewpoint, saying instead he was in the "transportation" business, he would have able to incorporate automobiles/trucks and aircraft when those came onto the scene.

      What business is Microsoft in? It is in the WINDOWS business. THAT is their product, that is their service, that is what they do. That is their Achilles Heel, and why they are dying (Netcraft Confirms it)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, not really. Maybe you're too young, but there was a time when "you couldn't get fired for buying IBM." Then Windows NT and Visual Basic happened. Microsoft is in the same position IBM was in: supporting old platforms because customers don't want to spend the money to change. The general view was that IBM was old, tired and a behemoth. IBM adjusted and became more of a services company. The still make mainframes and mids, but that's now a smaller part of their business.

      The question is whether MS can do the same. Their recent failures suggest otherwise. However, a change of management could fix all of that.

    8. Re:Really??? by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They might have "owned" Palm but both platforms were complete crap when it came to actually getting stuff done. Not to mention the hardware has advanced to the point where mobile devices are at par with slower computers.

      It is an entirely different market and a market I can't see Microsoft making a dent in. Windows Phone 7 has plenty of terrible design decisions, for example what does the YouTube app do? It is a shortcut to IE which goes to YouTube's mobile site which then loads in a Zune player. WTF? No multitasking for third-party apps? Even Apple allows that now!

      Yes, I know that the iPhone/Android/BlackBerry/WebOS/Symbian/whatever wasn't perfect on day 1 either but Microsoft has no excuse to be making such brain-dead decisions. The way I see it, the iPhone can win for the UI, Android can win for openness, BlackBerry can win for corporate drones, WebOS can win in design elegance, Symbian can win in it seems like every market other than the US. But Windows Phones I don't think have a chance anymore unless MS releases a big "service pack" that puts them up to speed with iOS and Android at the very least.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:Really??? by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that's all commercial, and we're specifically talking consumer. You might not get fired for shopping around for a new back-end infrastructure (although I've worked at places where it'd certainly mean you weren't in danger of any immediate promotion/raise), but take away management's Windows/Office/Powerpoint and see how long you stay in a job. I think we're stuck with Windows on the desktop for a while yet, although if we could just see the end of the dominance of IE it'd be a start.

    10. Re:Really??? by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Windows 7 is seen as an expensive Windows Vista Service Pack. It doesn't run well on older machines, it requires a lot of change in how people work and it still isn't intuitive to use. I would even dare say it's downright clunky compared to the age-old Windows way. People stay with Windows XP because it works well or they go to Mac or even Linux if they need to change anyway.

      Windows 7 is only a hit because it's better than Vista and all computers in the last 4 years have come either with Vista or 7. But even so, most corporate users as well as a lot of home users still decide to downgrade to XP which most 7 licenses except for retail allows you to do. So actually the count for sold licenses is high but a bunch of them have downgraded again.

      XBox 360 is old and everybody has been waiting for the new one for at least 2 years now. Sure it sold a lot of consoles only because Sony was priced too high and Wii seemed downright juvenile. XBox 360 is cheap enough for most gamers older than 12 to get one but afaik the division has been making a loss ever since the inception. However the RROD, the issues with EA stopping to host older games and a bunch of other issues have given a lot of gamers no incentive to buy any further into the XBox (Kinect has flopped) and instead wait on the next generation. The only thing that keeps XBox sales up imho is Rock Band.

      Windows 7 Phone - at this point I think you're being sarcastic. Nobody has a Windows 7 phone, nobody wants a Windows phone. The 5 and 6 versions have forever poisoned the user base (and you thought Mac fans were frothing at the mouths, you should've seen Windows smartphone fans 5 years ago). Most people here where I work (where Windows phone was kinda the only choice 2-3 years ago) are heavily lobbying to get permission and some infrastructure for the iPhone with some already getting through. It is plain out buggy, crashes and is very very complicated (Who has place and the precision to use a start menu drop down & multi-paged, multi-tabbed configuration menu on a 3" screen). To enable Bluetooth on one of these phones you literally have to tap through 3 levels of crap you don't need and about 9 clicks + the menu's are super redundant in naming. Is Bluetooth in connectivity, networking or wireless

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re:Really??? by dgower2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is so funny! You just described my wife and I to a tee. I'm on my Windows 7 system playing COD and she's on the Vista Dell Inspiron reading Facepuke or watching Hulu. (We were contemplating getting a Wii a few months back, but your post just confirmed my convictions with the idea - thanks)

      --

      Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.

    12. Re:Really??? by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They perform extraordinarily well, for a failure. Their profits are still twice as big as Apple's, for instance. Perhaps the media and the stock market simply are delusional.

    13. Re:Really??? by Device666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft was a successful fast growing me-too company, especially during the windows 95 and office. But they have became so big, because they were trying to control every software market. Now they're just me-too company with organisation-obesitas, and that doesn't bode well for innovation (which they sure need). Google and Apple are the booming innovative companies of late. Me-too ideas just happen not work so well for them anymore.

    14. Re:Really??? by rraylion · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Really in what world do you live...??

      Linux has been a dominating force in the server world for a while now and the upcoming year more servers are expected to be running*nix then anything else... not to mention the companies tired of paying MS per core... Anyway I normally keep my finger shut ... but Linux is taking the server market.. if you don't agree its because your company just hasn't annoced its going to switch to Linux and the message hasn;t gotten to you yet..

    15. Re:Really??? by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is /. any anti MS stuff gets a horde of comments in seconds.

      The underhanded, questionably ethical, and sometimes downright illegal (as determined by courts of law around the world) actions Microsoft has repeatedly taken have earned them the disdain they now experience. I don't like fanboys either, but there are perfectly objective non-fanboy reasons to dislike Microsoft.

      Their love of vendorlock and their embrace-extend-extinguish practices are among the biggest. They avoid open standards and easy interoperability because that would mean having to compete on the merits of their implementation. Why should I support a company that has so little faith in their own products that they avoid letting them compete on merit alone whenever possible? If the vendor (whom you can expect to be biased in favor of its products) feels this way about its offerings, why would I argue with them?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    16. Re:Really??? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Visual Studio is pretty much liquid digital sex

      Not breaking Microsoft up into pieces was the worst thing that ever happened. We could be buying Visual Studio for Linux and Android right about now if they had been.

    17. Re:Really??? by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This ... slowly crush the competition..rubrik may have been true years ago. It's not true now.

      IE is losing share, slowly steadily, assuredly. There's a fanboi contingent that will longingly await each new IE release. Fine. That contingent gets smaller each year.

      The xbox is out of my vision; I'm not a gamer at all. I don't follow gaming machines, or their software. I follow personal and large systems, and communications infrastructure of all kinds.

      In terms of pioneering markets, Microsoft voluntarily gave up that effort. The Windows franchise was botched by horrendous architectural mistakes, and business practices punished the world over--> and for good reason.

      Just like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq spawned a reactionary counter-force, MS business practices fueled the evolution of open source models. Lack of product vision means that Microsoft stood by to watch iStuff pioneer new markets and satisfy consumer demands in ways never seen before. It meant that they lost the market cap war to Apple, and Apple's quality hard work.

      Microsoft has a powerful developer network and business partnering has helped them enormously. Don't think for a minute that Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt don't understand that. And Microsoft didn't do developers first in this industry-- they copied Novell and others.

      The XP-Vista-7 evolution has been a disaster. Microsoft and cloud has been a disaster. Microsoft and smartphones has been a disaster. Microsoft and servers have been better than expected, and part of the reason that they own a lot of corporate turf is because of the success of Active Directory, which for better or worse, is the de facto DS on corporate networks today.

      Developers get pissed off by a lot of organizations. In the end, Microsoft ends up losing because they're desperately behind in each and every area that I track (again, I don't track gaming in any way). If the love of money is a metric, MS has friends. But there's little warmth there, little of the 'good fight' that motivates people to do more than 9-5. They need a Wall Street electrical jolt in a big way. I nice sell-off ought to get their attention. Heavens knows nothing else does.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    18. Re:Really??? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, MS is huge in the server market. There are certainly more Windows servers in existence than ones running Linux, for example.

      Share in terms of sales that's probably right: http://blogs.computerworld.com/16263/windows_widens_lead_over_linux_in_the_server_market

      But that's probably wrong in terms of units in existence. There are lots of Linux servers out there because it's free. When you need an extra one, you install one and that's it. No need for licenses.

      The fact that people are actually buying Linux servers and they make up 20% of the sales (as per the IDC numbers) indicates to me that there could be more Linux servers installed than Windows servers, because the ratio of nonpurchased Linux servers to purchased Linux servers is very likely to be higher than 4:1. Many places do buy and use Redhat, but guess how many Centos servers they would also have installed and used. Many companies have installed many free Linux servers without _ever_ buying any at all. A previous workplace had lots of such free Linux servers scattered around the world. And they weren't "desktops", Windows was the standard for desktops there.

      I'm not including stuff like linux based APs, DSL routers etc. I'm talking about those towers and rack stuff.

      Google alone has quite a number of Linux servers. http://gizmodo.com/5517041/googles-insane-number-of-servers-visualized
      I doubt they'd do so well if they had to resort to paying for say Win2K8 R2 :).

      Microsoft doesn't have a dominating presence in the server market. They do have stuff like AD, Exchange and Sharepoint. But the way I see it, if the OSS bunch start moving up the ladder it's going to get ugly there for MS.

      The desktop market will probably remain Microsoft's for years to come, unless someone finishes something like ReactOS soon (and even so they'd probably get tied up in court).

      --
    19. Re:Really??? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, WP7 will likely do fairly well among 18-25 year old men from the suburbs.

      I hate to say it, but I think Apple still has the best chance of huge growth in the smartphone market. They control the hardware and software and have a sense of style. Android might be great, but Google is letting their partners screw it up. Can you imagine the iPhone having something like a Nascar or Blockbuster app that you can't delete? Apple has it's flaws, but the crap the carriers do to Android phones is ridiculous.

      I have a theory about how to succeed with gadgets - make them appeal to women. Nintendo did it with the Wii and Apple did it with the iPhone. It's amazing how bad some companies are at doing this. Dell and HP have both tried and failed comically. Remember Dell's Della site with recipes and calorie counting tools? That still makes me laugh.

      I've said this before here: I think Microsoft's biggest mistake with WP7 was putting "Windows" in the name. It sounds like Windows 7 for your phone. Sounds great, right? I totally expect WP7 to succeed in the smartphone space the same way the Zune succeeded in the music player space. Succeed but not dominate.

    20. Re:Really??? by kismet666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IE6? You're criticizing Microsoft's web browser by looking at IE6??? Its NINE years old! Of course its outdated and slow, try looking at something current, like IE8 or IE9.

    21. Re:Really??? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't just anybody's game, it is anybody's game from month to month. 6-8 Months ago, everyone wanted to make an iPhone app. Now everyone wants to make an Android app. The truth is, the cellphone market is insane.

    22. Re:Really??? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But then came the management decisions that would doom it. SideKick applications ran on Java. Being MS, it was decided that Windows CE would be used.

      See there? THAT is exactly what I was saying. Microsoft is not a tech company, it is a "WINDOWS" company, in this case WINCE.

      Windows Mobile 7 is further evidence it is WINDOWS company.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:Really??? by avandesande · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please name a major proprietary software company that doesn't operate this way.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    24. Re:Really??? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, WM2003 was a very decent mobile OS for its time. Unfortunately, WM5 really sucked before the release AKU3.5, WM6 was what WM5 actually was supposed to be, and WM6.1 and WM6.5 were downward disappointing.

      WP7 lacks everything I actually liked at Windows Mobile. It is probably interested for social networking kind of people, but not for those who want a mobile PC in their pocket.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:Really??? by Trufagus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Excellent question (to which there is no good answer).

      I too used to deride MS for these nasty business practices. Now Apple has emerged as the primary competitor to MS (for consumer products) and I feel pretty silly.

    26. Re:Really??? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yes, but it used to be 2 times higher. They are trending down. No one is saying they are dead, just that they are trending that way. MS needs to do something they are very bad at: re brand themselves and create new value.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Really??? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple is the hot chick that gets pulled over for speeding. You know she's breaking the law, but you let her go without even a warning because you're hoping she'll blow you.

    28. Re:Really??? by znerk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just blew away a bunch of mod points to say this, so pay attention.

      They perform extraordinarily well, for a failure. Their profits are still twice as big as Apple's, for instance. Perhaps the media and the stock market simply are delusional.

      Microsoft's profits are only twice as large as Apple's? How interesting, since Windows is dominating the desktop market, with eight times Apple's market share. It does, indeed, sound as if they are failing. They have a lot of capital to work with before it really impacts their bottom line, but by the time they start feeling the crunch, it will be too late (See: Overshoot).

      Microsoft is already being downgraded by stock brokers, and downplayed across the board. They may be an industry giant, but they've made a lot of poor decisions recently. Nearly all of their current products are flawed, with many of them seriously crippled or broken in comparison to competitors' products. They're bleeding market share out of every pore, and even their new OS is failing to pick up the slack, despite how easy it is to be "better than Vista".

      In my opinion, Microsoft is going to die unless they do something differently; Unfortunately, they have shown no indication that they are even aware of the issue, much less attempting to do anything about it. "Business as usual" is going to do the same thing to Microsoft, Blizzard, and Sony that it has done to the RIAA and the MPAA; people will begin to treat them as if they are irrelevant, they will respond by increasing the litigation rate, and then there will come a turning point where they truly are irrelevant, and everyone is ignoring them (How many file-sharing suits have you read about recently? They seem to be tapering off a bit, perhaps in response to the Streisand Effect). Are torrents still going strong?
      How about those ISPs that cut off their customers in response to C&D letters, how are they doing? Didn't they lose customers in droves, overnight, and decide that was a bad idea?

      Customers can only be pushed so far (at least, all in one shove), and patents are just one more issue where the more strongly they're enforced, the less people pay attention to them, and the more people deliberately act against them. Copyright litigation has actually already stoked this fire, and the pendulum is already very close to swinging the other direction.

      Corporations are growing more powerful every day - I will not be surprised when they are hands-down more of a "governing body" than the governments (that day is coming, more quickly than most people realise; Google got away with spitting in China's eye, the biggest companies are becoming less concerned with obeying the law than with protecting profits... Governments need to chop the legs out from under these unaccountable organisations before it's too late; if it's not already. To be honest, many of the largest corporations have more money than many of the smaller countries, and we all know the Golden Rule (He who has the gold makes the rules).

      --
      If you feel there's a flaw in my reasoning, please respond instead of modding me down; put your own karma on the line and explain why you feel that way.

      --
      This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    29. Re:Really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Palm was crap? No, that's not a fair statement. In its class, when it was introduced, it was the defining OS.
      Windows Mobile and Symbian caught up because Palm failed to innovate. The iPhone and Android caught up because Windows Mobile and Symbian failed to innovate.

      The lesson? Unless Apple and Google continue innovation, someone else will come up with an iPhone/Android replacement.

  2. good by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what you get for resting on your laurels.

    When I think hip, happening, cutting edge, pushing the envelope, fun.... I don't think Microsoft.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:good by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, apparently you're alone with a marketing book from the 90's.

      Or, as a consumer, he actually wants some more innovation and coolness in his products.

      In terms of producing a "game changer" in any consumer segment, Microsoft isn't really doing much of that these days. Microsoft has become like IBM used to be ... somewhat stodgy, a little stuck in their ways, a safe bet for IT, but not making anything "fun" or "innovative". Certainly, nothing you might call "cool".

      Looking at what people want these days, it's tablets, smart-phones, and media players -- it's really hard to see Microsoft as having any real foothold in these markets. Between Google and Apple (and a few others) products are getting made that people want; Microsoft comes out with a "me too" product (eg Zune) that most people disregard. (OK, there was that fat guy who got the Zune logo tattooed on his arm, but even he's moved on.) I'm just not seeing the results of their "freedom to innovate".

      Their XBox is still strong, but that's selling to a specific kind of gamer. Except for the OS on my computer, for personal stuff, I can't name a single Microsoft product that I use. Sure, I need Office for work, but they make neither hardware nor software that I want for in the home. In fact, if they do make something like that, I'm completely unaware of it.

      For the most part, as a consumer (and not as someone who works in the industry and uses a lot of MS stuff), they don't make any shiny toys that appeal to me. They're just not that kind of company.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Royalty fee by mark72005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a royalty fee in the traditional sense. They are essentially patent trolling.

    AND, the summary leaves out that Microsoft is trying to leverage this to prevent companies like Acer from choosing Android for their netbooks or tablet PCs, not phones.

  4. Maybe Microsoft is different? by js3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Think about it. Microsoft has no tablet because they don't make the hardware. They make the software which allows other smaller companies like Asus, HP, Acer etc to use in their hardware. IE never made them any money instead it brought on tons of headaches and a bad reputation, we should be happy that it is dying.. not sad. Their money makers are windows, xbox, office etc.. none of which are mentioned in the article.

    It's like saying Intel is dying.. oh wait I saw that the other day too!

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
    1. Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? by samkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their money makers are windows, xbox, office etc.

      Not xbox-- that division has lost billions since inception. And not "etc.", either. Just Window and Office. Really, Microsoft never WAS a consumer company; it's always been a business company. So saying it's "no longer" a consumer brand is like saying that Apple no longer dominates the enterprise market.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you don't come out with something that makes people go "WOW!" every now and then, you're dying

      The problem is, if you're largely a software-only company like Microsoft it's very hard to come out with something that makes people go "wow." What are the things that have made people go 'wow' over the past 30 years? iPhones, TiVos, Digital Cameras, Plasma TVs, Priuses, Netbooks, CD Players, webcams... They've all been hardware.

      Of course there have been some Googley exceptions like Facebook and YouTube but they're the exception.

      ...and sure MS sells xboxes, mice and the odd webcam and zune, but for real hardware they depend on the hardware manufacturers, and it's very very hard to get the likes of HP or Dell to innovate on Microsoft's behalf. Things are further complicated by the fact that Microsoft, as a software vendor, has to be reasonably hardware-supplier-neutral. They last thing they want to do is get in bed with Sony and then piss off Toshiba.

      When you own the hardware and the software, you can truly innovate when it comes to gadgets - When you only own the software, you can't.

    3. Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I could have a cutesy "FTFY" moment, but this is far too serious of a problem:

      Microsoft has ALWAYS "released incremental improvements and lackluster copies of what the competition is doing." This is their business model, and it has worked for two and a half decades. They won't change until they HAVE to change (which might be what this story is insinuating).

    4. Re:Maybe Microsoft is different? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft has an incredibly great balance sheet and is making shitloads of money, and that's good news.

      The bad news is that Redmond has developed a nasty habit of releasing incremental improvements and lackluster copies of what the competition is doing.

      Microsoft have been doing that for the better part of thirty years. It's just that it's become much easier to spot these things since the web became mainstream.

  5. those who don't remember the past... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The company I work for is currently positioning itself for the post-PC era, when mobile devices take over the jobs that used to require a big-box PC, or at least a laptop. Very soon these devices will wirelessly talk to keyboard, monitors, each other, the public internet... but they'll fit in your shirt pocket. And they *won't* be running Windows. That's what scares the shit out of Microsoft. The world is changing out from under them, and they are not positioned to be a player in the upcoming mobile and cloud computing world.

    Remember the past. This isn't the first time such market forces have killed dominant players in the industry. Remember minicomputer, back in the 60's and 70's? Gone. Remember technical workstations? Killed by the PC. Well, mobile computing is about to do this to the PC, and by extension, to Microsoft.

  6. Microsoft's problem summed up: by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lenovo's technology director recently told PC Mag that his company won't be building around the platform: "The challenge with Windows 7 is that it's based on the same paradigm as 1985 -- it's really an interface that's optimized for a mouse and keyboard."

    MS wants to build everything off of Windows. That's where Apple was smart, they created different OS for the hand held devices.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Microsoft's problem summed up: by radish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does Windows Phone 7 act and feel like Windows 7 on the desktop?

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  7. Microsoft a Dying Brand? On which planet are you? by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder whether the author of this piece knows what he's talking about. I will agree with such a statement if I see just 10% of alternative desktops on my University Campus.

    Over here, Microsoft and its products represent almost 100% of IT desktop infrastructure. It would not be far fetched to say "Microsoft all the way." This is despite the fact that general student computers we use take at least 8 minutes to boot! This is a major pain every morning. Ee just have MS Office on them and they still run Windows XP.

  8. 360 beats PS3 in North America by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, the xbox 360 is getting its ass kicked right now

    According to the cumulative sales numbers at VGChartz, Xbox 360 has found its niche. It is still the leader among high-definition-capable video game consoles in alphabetic locales. Xbox 360 is neck-and-neck with PS3 in Europe and significantly in front (60-40) in Americas. I don't call that "getting its ass kicked" unless you're talking about Japan.

  9. Poor Microsoft by RaymondKurzweil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If their consumer brand continues to erode like this, they might end up with the likes of IBM, which as we all know is not a very successful company.

    1. Re:Poor Microsoft by wjsteele · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Man, I wish I could mod you up!

      I agree... if I was only half as unsuccessful as Microsoft has been... I'm pretty sure I'd still be happy about it.

      Bill

      --
      It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    2. Re:Poor Microsoft by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IBM was NEVER much of a consumer brand so they never "ended up" that way.

      Microsoft doesn't have the breadth and depth of product that IBM does, not by a long shot.

  10. Website Churn by userw014 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The CNN article is just trolling, designed to create churn for their website and show advertisers that CNN is still relevant.

    Sure, a move to tablet IT and personal/handheld IT presents a risk to Microsoft - and Dell, HP and Lenovo - and even Apple to some extent. It also presents a risk to software developers due to the always-on nature of the devices. Windows users have gotten used to frequent (daily or more) reboots, and this has more to do with the erratic quality of various third party software. Because MS doesn't control the hardware as tightly as Apple does, it isn't able to integrate device drivers as well. Third party software will need to cope better with applications that run for weeks or months, rather than just hours.

  11. MS has always been a "commercial" brand by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft has always been a commercial brand and not a consumer one. I've never purchased (or used freely) a Microsoft product because I wanted to. (Xbox being an outlier, even though I have a PS3 now).

    I think most people feel this way. It's weird to find somebody who actually chooses an MS product willingly.

    With that, Windows 7 is really nice. Too bad it's about 15 years too late.

  12. Re:Do we still hate Microsoft here on Slashdot? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes. Microsoft is nowhere near as threatening as they used to be.

    Apple has taken their place as the media darling and geek bogeyman.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  13. Japan is not Xenophobic by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The area they're [Microsoft] failing nearly completely in is Japan... who are very Xenophobic.

    Japan loves em some games and mobiles and tech. Guess what, the top selling phone in Sept was the iPhone 4 (and it has been previously numerous times).

    Is that xenophobia, or does Microsoft just care to not understand Japan?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  14. Re:Microsoft a Dying Brand? On which planet are yo by FranTaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you understand the argument? Did you purchase those copies of Windows or did they come with the computers?

    You are still running Windows XP so clearly you are just running the OEM bundled software that came with the computers. This is the point being made, that people like you are NOT going out and buying Microsoft, you are using Windows because it was bundled with the computer.

  15. No by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Windows 7 wasn't a huge hit. It just wasn't the steaming pile of crap the Vista was. Water tastes as nectar to a thirsty man, but it remains plain water. Windows 7 sells, as part of new PC's. But many a company and consumer is still on XP. For MS, this is lethal. It NEEDS the continues upgrade revenue to fund its many programs. And those who are still on Windows XP also didn't upgrade their office. A double blow.

    The original xbox was a disaster, the 360 slightly less so but remember that MS counts replacements as sales. So how many 360 sales are really replacement units for the countless ring of death failures? Count these out and suddenly the figures look very different AND no matter how you count the Wii outsold it by far. The 360 is a decent performer, but that was NOT MS ambition. Sony and Nintendo are still ticking over for the next round meaning MS has yet another round to fund with its diminishing Office and Windows income.

    Windows Phone 7 SEVEN, SEVEN and it is still crap. So much for the third release being the charm. While Rim, Android, Nokia and Apple are biggering about who is biggest MS is lingering at the bottom. Yet again.

    A bit to early for judging Windows Mobile 7? Hardly, it is after all not the first time we handled this beast. We can judge it very easily, has MS learned from mistakes in the past? No? Then it will fail for the same reasons as before.

    As for dominate the OS marketshare? Oh boy, you are a fanboy aren't you. OS market share on what? Tablets? No, that is Apple. Mainframes? No IBM. Servers? No that is Linux. Smart Phones? No that is... Apple again (at least not MS) Handheld gaming consoles? MP3 players? Media players? Oh, the desktop... yeah and Apple who does NOT sell Windows is the biggest PC seller right now. Doesn't that give you a bit of a clue?

    I know it must hurt for a MS fanboy but their performance of late isn't up to form. MS has a VERY large warchest and can keep the fight going for a long time but they would be smarter to re-examine who and what they are. Their constant shifting position on Windows gaming is just a very obvious clue. Then it is "Everything must be on the console" then combined, then windows gaming alone, then windows live then back to gaming on the PC again. MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND. IE9 shows just how little the company understands about its own products. It claims IE9 can be Windows 7 only because it needs some special shit to run... there are FOUR browser makers who have FASTER browsers AND have it running on XP. But MS itself can't fix the crap IE6. That shows how little MS cares about its customers who might be running OLD software but BUGGY software that MS sold them. And don't come with IE is free because then you are to stupid to talk to.

    Recent events like the London stock exchange going to linux after MS putting major money into it AND using it in ads, that shows an MS that is no longer the power it once was. IE has dropped to 50%. This is the browser installed by default as you claim by the company that controls the OS marketshare. Doesn't that TELL you something? Browsing is what most consumers use their computer for and they replaced the default browser with their own choice. It doesn't matter how you measure it, this is LOW.

    And how do you measure MY pc in your OS dominance? My work PC? My servers? Running linux all, but either barebones or replaced Windows installs. In my department, the windows guys are in the minority. Granted the Apple guys help with that but still. The days when you would find only Windows machines in a company are gone. This means the days of forced use of the latest office products is gone. The boss with his apple book is a powerfull driver to use an exchange EVERYONE can use.

    Bye bye lockin, the prime mover and shaker behind Microsofts success.

    No, MS is far from gone, but it can't afford to many more mistakes. In many ways I think MS has become its ancient enemy, IBM. IBM could have owned the PC, it didn't because it made all the wrong choices. IBM is still there, but it no longer controls the industry as it used to. MS might end up the same if it hasn't already.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  16. The fundamental difference... by ameline · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fundamental difference between Microsoft and Apple (or other consumer product companies) is that people like you or I are not MS customers.

    Microsoft's customers are Dell, HP and Acer, and large corporate IT departments. That's where most of their money comes from, and they know it. MS cares about their needs and not ours.

    --
    Ian Ameline
  17. They've got marketshare and mindshare mixed up. by achyuta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Walk through the offices any of the Fortune 2000 companies of today. On the ground, Microsoft has a death grip on IS infrastructure and the desktop.

    People are underestimating Microsoft's trajectory in the mobile computing space.

    Remember how Window 3.1 and Windows 95 took off? It needed the hardware to reach that level in order for people to adopt the GUI based desktop in enterprise as a mainstream device and not just for the book keepers and the odd manager (and of course enthusiasts in the consumer space).

    Today's phones are reaching that tipping point in hardware maturity (1GHz processors and 1GB RAM) where a common software layer (the operating system) is an acceptable overhead and people can expect to do more than just text and email.

    We're approaching a situation where the PC type software-OEM model is viable in the mobile space - and Microsoft has proven before that it can wield partners in such an environment to a common goal unbelievably well. And then the management of the enterprise sales.

    But the problem Microsoft is now seeing is that not as many articles are being written about it as before in the press.

    I guess Facebook with the farmtards, Google and Apple just have sexier stuff to report on. But that is mindshare.

    In 1985, Microsoft was a $15M company, and Apple was at $300M. Things turn around. There have been several articles in the past where Microsoft has been cited as a late entrant into a space only to dominate it later. (leave antitrust out of this argument, the means are not the point of the discussion)

    To call it a "dying" brand would only apply in reference to the public's short memory.

  18. Yeah, really by MoxFulder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft encouraged companies to build in-house web apps on top of IE6, using its many poorly-documented proprietary features. Many of those features were so poorly documented and maintained by MS that they won't even work with newer versions of IE!

    Obviously, this was a poor decision on the part of a lot of IT departments and corporate web app developers, but I do think Microsoft deserves a good part of the blame for encouraging such departures from web standards.

    (Writing this from Chrome, while I wrangle a recalcitrant IE6 web app in another window... )

    1. Re:Yeah, really by dave562 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nine years ago IE6 and specifically ActiveX offered a lot of functionality. Users were given a web browser that could function as an application platform. We take that for granted now. Microsoft's biggest mistake was trading functinoality for security. They provided an app development platform, but failed to secure it. They were so focused on pushing functionality that they neglected security.

      It wasn't until JavaScript matured and other browsers arrived that people were able to start moving away from IE.

      I think the "locked into IE6" meme is a bit over blown. We have an app like that. The vendor released a new version that does not work with IE6. They realized IE6 was an albatross and dropped it. Change is a gradual process. As customers demand better products, vendors deliver. We can't blame Microsoft forever that vendors and IT departments aren't keeping up with new software releases.

      How many companies are still running SQL Server 7, or Exchange 5.5, or NT 4.0? I can't name a single one. But for some reason IE6 gets a pass. Nobody can handle upgrading IE6? Nobody can rewrite some code?

    2. Re:Yeah, really by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody can handle upgrading IE6? Nobody can rewrite some code?

      Nope. In many cases, the vendor for the in-house app is some obscure two-bit company that folded, taking the source code with them. So the customers are stuck with the app as-is, until they can migrate to something else. Budgets are tight these days, and specialty apps are very, very expensive. Companies are reluctant to change something that works when their business depends on it, even if the app is buggy or shitty.

      In other cases, the app was written in-house, so they're stuck with what their in-house developers can come up with. Contracting a custom app is expensive, and their budget is probably tight. The developers who wrote the app have probably left the company anyway, leaving it unsupported, and it probably wasn't even developed properly with version control or any documentation, so getting someone else to pick it up and modify it would not be trivial, and it'd probably make more sense to start from scratch, which again means a big expenditure.

  19. Re:Microsoft a Dying Brand? On which planet are yo by jpmorgan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And in engineering it's almost 100% Windows. Why? Software.