Slashdot Mirror
Can Microsoft Survive If Windows Doesn't Dominate?
Nerval's Lobster writes "In his latest Asymco blog post, analyst Horace Dediu suggested that Windows' share of the personal-computing market is declining at a faster rate than many believe, once Microsoft's cash cow is put in direct competition with Android, iOS, and other platforms built for tablets. In that context, Windows' share of the personal-computing market has dipped past 60 percent on its way to 50 percent. The big question is whether it'll keep plunging. 'If Windows tablets start growing as fast as the tablet market overall then Windows could stabilize in share,' Dediu wrote. 'But if Android and iOS tablets follow their phone brethren in growth then it will be far harder for Microsoft to maintain share.' Yet despite that gloomy scenario, Dediu doesn't necessarily see a market-share dip as a cause for concern on Microsoft's part: 'Even if Windows dips to only 20 [percent] of the world's computing market it will still be perfectly 'viable' for some time to come,' he wrote. But even if Windows can perpetuate, will its decline fatally undermine Microsoft as a company? All that Windows (and Office) money also allows Microsoft to launch projects that lose money for years before they gain traction. Without that monetary base, for example, it's possible that the Xbox (which bled money for the first few years of its existence) wouldn't have survived long enough to become a viable platform from a financial perspective—much less the center of Microsoft's future plans for living room domination."
Microsoft owns both gaming and workplace PC's. Nothing is going to take that from them. Tablets aren't meant to replace PC's, they're just too different kind of devices. Microsoft has nothing to worry about.
Not to mention the Server & Tools Division that sells Windows Server, IIS, SQL Server,Lync Exchange, Visual Studio etc. keeps getting record revenue every quarter.
From http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/20/with-19b-in-revenue-microsofts-server-and-tools-chief-says-hes-just-getting-started-interview/
Meet Satya Nadella, president of Microsoft’s server and tools division, a division that builds and runs the company’s computing platforms, developer tools, and cloud services. Nadella leads a team of over 10,000 employees, and his group alone makes $19 billion in annual revenue – which is more than the combined revenues of Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Zynga, Netflix, and a few others in the Valley.
That doesn't even include Office and Azure recently became a one billion dollar business by itself. Microsoft is pretty well diversified, unlike Apple with it's reliance on iPhone and iPad and Google with 95% of revenue from ads. As usual, Asymco comes with shortsighted analysis that mistakes the trees for the forest.
That's why the people with their own money on the line are buying up MSFT (stock went from $27 to $35 due to the last earnings report) instead of the air-headed armchair analysis that we see on here of 'lol my grandma ditched her PC and got an iPad so that means M$ is dying'.
A real challenge to the Microsoft hegemony would squeeze out the idiocy and arrogance that currently dominates the company. Forced to pay attention to users and developers, Microsoft would never have created a disaster like windows 8, or the developer-hostile policy of allowing languages and platforms to "dead end."
Heck, someone at Microsoft might actually wake up and figure out that the policies and strategies that benefit Microsoft in the long run are those that benefit users and developers, not the marketing department, or upper management bonuses.
I joke. I joke. Of course this will never happen.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Android is most certainly Linux.
What it is not is GNU.
Stallman's rants about "GNU/Linux" were actually onto something.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Let's rewind to a previous millennium long ago swept away in the sands of time. Let's go way back to . . . 1990.
Then the sudden realization hit. IBM's PCs were priced at monopoly prices and people were not buying them. The company was in crisis and had to reinvent itself. It got new management. Times got leaner. And they weren't committed to past management decisions.
By 2000 we had a much nicer IBM that was focused on its profitable mainframes and was friendly to both Linux and Java.
After Microsoft reinvents itself, it will have retreated to and focus on its profitable business. Microsoft has a very profitable and serviceable business with its Enterprise software Windows, Outlook, Exchange, Office, SQL Server, etc. Like IBM before it, Microsoft has already begun embracing open source (Apache, PHP, etc etc) that enabled its enterprise customers to do what they do.
Like IBM, Microsoft won't go away. Probably ever. But it will become a smaller and gentler Microsoft without the nastiness and bullying once it has been de-fanged of its monopoly power.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
I've thought a lot about this exact point. I, too, would like to see Apple come out with less expensive and expandable systems. I think the main reason they maintain their tight lock is they don't want the plague of problems that Windows users experience due to IDIC: Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. Anyone can make hardware that works, to varying degree, with MS OS, and MS will try to support it. And sometimes fail. And most frustratingly, fail intermittently. Apple maintains extremely tight control to try to minimize the IDIC problem and improve the user experience through higher reliability and fewer crashes.
There's no way Microsoft can fully test their products against the infinite combinations of hardware, old and new and forthcoming, that are possible in the world outside of their labs. Users are going to pay for this in the form of crashes and problems, it's unavoidable.
Apple, OS-X, iOS, etc., is not perfect. It has problems, but in my experience much fewer than Windows. I've used MS operating systems professionally since Dos 1.0 through Win 7 and currently use it, but I'm infinitely happier with my Mac equipment like the Air that I'm typing this on. OS-X has its limitations and problems, and though Win 7 is a very good product, I'm still a lot more frustrated with it than I think I should be. We pay a higher price for hardware, and it's fairly high-end hardware and lasts a long time. I would really like less expensive and expandable hardware, I'm just not sure that fits Apple's culture.
When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.