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."
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.
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
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.
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?
Windows is dying!
I am officially gone from
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.
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
The article clearly has errors in it. First of all, it makes it seem that the $10-15 royalty fee goes all to Microsoft. That is simply not the case... Google charges the largest Royalty Fee for their applications. Microsoft also charges for their stuff, but it's not the entire $10-15... it's more like $1.
Also, it states that Microsoft wants the vendors to use Windows Mobile on their Netbooks and Tablets, which is also not true. Currently, Microsoft is using Windows 7 for those devices, not Windows Mobile, which is for their older handsets. There is no Windows Phone OS 7 based software for Tablets or Netbooks either.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Microsoft has been late to the game in crucial modern technologies like mobile, search, media, gaming and tablets.
Microsoft was doing tablets (since 2002!) and mobile long before Apple kicked out the iPhone and the iPad (yes, I'm aware of the Newton, but it wasn't directly involved in the successes of the recent mobile efforts).
Just because they haven't been doing it right doesn't mean they haven't been doing it.
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.
It seems now they don't do that.
I just watched a commercial for the 2011 Ford Fiesta... and lo and behold it talked about Sync, Powered By Microsoft.
I guess that kind of debunks that myth.
By the way, you can also see it on their website here.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
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.
No, it is still Microsoft. My 2011 Ford has sync and there is a small little thing in the car next to the USB port that says "SYNC Powered By Microsoft.". And sync works pretty damn well so far for me, I only wish you could customize the voice.
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.
I'm sure many phone makers are very happy with the fact that MS charges royalties for Windows Phone 7. This is because MS will be the one defending any IP/patent lawsuits, etc. Why do you think people are suing HTC and other Android phone makers instead of Google? Google probably isn't legally responsible. MS will be, so they are charging a small amount for it.
That doesn't say something of the BRAND Microsoft. People are using Microsoft because the market dictates the use of Microsoft products, not because they have warm fuzzy feelings about Microsoft. As a brand Microsoft has a piss poor image by a lot of consumers imho.
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.
Get off my la.. bah. Nap time.
Microsoft just doesn't make my blood boil the way they used to. Sure, I still hate them out of habit, but I'm old and tired now. I feel like a bed-ridden, old and gray, Elmer Fudd who still mumbles that he "could have had that wascilly wabbit', but in reality doesn't really care and just wants you to leave him alone so he can watch Diagnosis Murder.
That fact alone is a bad sign for Microsoft. They just don't matter in the same way they used to and they certainly don't drive Technology the way they did in the past few decades. Their tactics are less of a threat than they used to be. Sure, they'd do evil if they could, but they are just fruit flies at my picnic, and I've got my eyes peeled for bears.
No no no. I plan on stepping aside and enjoying my Golden Years while the next generation shakes their fists at their Apples and Googles and Facebooks.
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.
It made $145 million last quarter.
They first made a profit in 2008, of $524 Million. While it hasn't made money every quarter, to say it's "lost billions since its inception" is misleading at best. Unless you're claiming that zune sales and PC games are making up for "billions" lost (LOL!), your claim is bogus.
"recent failures suggest otherwise"
Microsoft is misunderstood. Microsoft is not a software company that sometimes does evil. Microsoft is an evil company that sometimes delivers products.
That's my opinion, but I'm not the only one.
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
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.
Just curious as what kind of Universities you people hang out at? I've graduated from three Universities (Penn State in 1998, Manchester in 2005, then Texas in 2009) and they all were overwhelmingly (9 of every 10 computers) Mac OS based (at least in the Colleges of Liberal Arts, Natural Sciences, and Education, respectively)
The community college system that I work in uses Windows for some administrative stuff, but the academic side is nearly 100% OSX as well. Ditto for Texas State University down the road.
And before you dismiss this as Hoidy-Toidy Mac-usin College Folk...this is Texas, after all.
No, there are people who's PERCEPTION is that the market dictates it. I made lots of money for 1995-2005 using zero Microsoft products in the tech industry (Macs and Macromedia + Adobe).
The market dictates you need a tool to access email, write a document, or produce a spreadsheet. Consumers dictate which product they THINK they have to have.
The CNN piece asks whether Microsoft is a dying consumer brand , which they clearly are, not a dying company , which they clearly are not, and it's important to note the distinction. Their brand is their corporate identity, how they are perceived by the public, and I happen to agree that consumers are thinking less and less of Microsoft. The simple fact that half of Macs purchased in Apple Stores are bought by users new to OS X speaks to this. All those new Mac owners damn sure aren't migrating from Linux, and those are all consumer machines, which means fewer average folks using Windows. Macintosh now has market share north of 10% in the U.S., up from about 3% when Jobs returned to Apple; Macintosh sales have continued to grow at a faster rate than PC sales year over year; Internet Explorer market share has fallen to approximately 50% from the high 90's in only a couple years; and with the Vista catastrophe and Kin embarassment, Microsoft is being increasingly viewed by the general public as the tech equivalent of The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight. Microsoft's grip on the consumer market is loosening, and if that's not a reflection of how their brand is being perceived by the public, I don't know what is.
As to the 240 million Windows 7 licenses that Mr.Softee's defenders like to point to as evidence that the company is doing well, there's no argument here. They are doing well. Very well indeed. Microsoft still makes jaw-dropping profits on astonishing revenues, mostly from their core businesses, Windows and Office. But the good news about Windows 7 uptake is largely tempered by the fact that it was due to pent-up demand from companies, not consumers, as the CNN piece points out. Companies avoided Vista like it was a child molester and chose to cling to XP until Microsoft could address the problems. They deferred their refresh cycles again when the recession took hold,and only when it became apparent that the new OS was what they'd been waiting for did they migrate to new desktops, resulting in a tsunami of sales for Windows 7. What's important to note is that it is the enterprise that's largely responsible for Windows 7's success, not consumers. So yes, while Microsoft remains extremely important to corporate customers, they are increasingly irrelevant to consumers.
Times change. Companies change. Apple dropped the "Computer" from their name a couple years ago in recognition of the fact that they are much more of a consumer electronics manufacturer now, even though Macs are still a significant part of their business. Microsoft is simply too rich and powerful to fade away overnight, and to my mind they'll eventually become much more of an enterprise services company, a la the transformation of IBM under Lou Gerstner. Apple has moved away from their roots and Microsoft has been slowly doing the same, and I haven't considered either company to be rivals for years now. Apple and Microsoft both have a common adversary in Internet services in Google, but in terms of Microsoft's core businesses, their major rival is much more Oracle than Apple.
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.
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
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.
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... )
My bicyles
And in engineering it's almost 100% Windows. Why? Software.
Most commentators like this CNN reporter immediately position WinPhone7 in competition with the iPhone, but just maybe it's RIM who's really the initial target. Consider the enormous investment large corporations have in a Blackberry infrastructure that co-exists with their Exchange servers. Having Outlook on a cell phone with a secure connection to Exchange makes RIM rather superfluous.
There were 10 million Blackberries sold in the first quarter of 2010 according to Gartner. Devices running the iPhone and Android OS accounted for about thirteen million. If I were running Microsoft, I'd start by leveraging my existing clients and targeting those RIM devices. Switching a single large enterprise from Blackberries to WinPhones brings a lot of business Microsoft's way in a hurry.
First quarter year-on-year growth was 40% for RIM compared to -0.9% for Windows Mobile and 117% for iPhones. Sales of Android devices grew a whopping 800% but did not overtake the iPhone in total. Most of those phones were being sold to consumers, of course. Denting that market would be nice for Microsoft but not as lucrative as converting corporate Blackberry accounts.
Yes. Xbox fans have been making this inane claim for the past eight years.
The eight year long Xbox fiasco has racked up some 4-4.5 billion in losses for the first Xbox, another 3-4 on the second Xbox. And these are just the visible losses that come after all the other profitable software products Microsoft mixes the Xbox losses in with.
I've heard Microsoft people say the actual Xbox losses are in the 15 billion range when you separate them out from all the profitable products thrown in to hide them.
Just last quarter the E&D division that includes the Xbox lost 180 million. That means that even with all the other profitable products in E&D plus the hundreds of millions in online fees Microsoft charges a year, the Xbox still after five years losses enough money to help drag the entire division into the red.