I'm just wondering :
Back, a long time ago, in a galaxy far fa- whoops, wrong room - ok, back when IBM was king (70& 80's), it was assumed they would be a powerhouse for a long time to
come. And now look where they are : I KNOW they're still a huge company (designed the microprocessors for the Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Gamecube) and have sales of
almost 100 billion last year, but they're not the monolith what they used to be - more behind the scenes.
I wonder, and without bashing, what will become of Microsoft in the future - Google become the next Microsoft?
What do you think Microsoft will be like in 20 years? Or, if Google is king, who or what will replace them?
Just something to get the neurons firing - and I'd just to hear what everyone's opinion is.
For examples in both directions, look at what happened to various companies when Unix took over the workstation market. One one hand you have DEC, which in the timespan of just a few years went from "Unix is snake oil" to "We're one of the biggest Unix vendors in the industry." On the other hand, there's Apollo, who started out as top dog, fought Unix to the bitter end, and eventually withered away.
Paul Graham declared Microsoft dead about a year and a half ago [http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html].
When faced with this reality, most Microsoft apologists point to the most recent quarter's revenue figures and point out what a powerhouse Microsoft still is. Perhaps, but that's not what he meant. While still dangerous, and still pulling cheap punches (for example, buying its way into getting the Office 2007 file formats declared an ISO standard), Microsoft no longer controls the end-to-end computing experience.
A decade ago, any new Microsoft product could achieve market dominance from a standing start in about a year, simply by virtue of being tied into Windows somehow. Those days are over. Microsoft still holds a commanding lead in desktop operating systems, but even those numbers are inflated -- every computer that has its preload thrown away is counted as a Windows sale, and then for corporate customers who then load a locally standardized image, Windows is counted *twice*. The methodologies used for tallying market share are flawed in other ways, too -- for example, because of the preload problem, most Linux installations are tallied as Windows. I believe that Linux's market share approaches or even meets Apple's. (Comments from the fanbois regarding this will be politely IGnored.)
But where's the end-to-end lock-in? Why hasn't Windows Media Player wiped everyone else off the map the way Internet Exploder destroyed Netscape? Why aren't we all running Silverlight? Why do Sony and Nintendo still have huge market share against the Xbox?
Microsoft is still way up on top, but the requirement of 100.0% market share is baked into their business model, which is now a big problem. It's clear at this stage that they will never be able to monopolize (or even lead) the server market as they had planned to, and even the desktop market is *slowly* slipping away from them. Meanwhile, end-user applications continue to move off the desktop, which is even worse because it changes the marketplace in the same way applications moving off the mainframe spelled the end of IBM's dominance.
So what about Google? Will they be the next top dog? We don't know yet. I personally don't care. Some people like to trash-talk whoever is on top at the moment. Not me. I hate Microsoft, specifically Microsoft. Windows is an abomination that no one should be forced to use (except perhaps the people responsible for designing it). If and when the Microsoft nightmare is over, I will happily live in a world where some other leader is on top. If it turns out to be Google then I'm ok with that because Google has no problem with people using Linux desktops.
used some windows today. well, actualy ran firefox, X11 and putty on it...
it simply doesn't scale well to user more than 5 windows at the sam ime.
maybe thats the reason why they made it with such a poor multitasking ability...
In the late 90'ies I drowned wintendos with my simple multitasking behaviour...
I wonder, and without bashing, what will become of Microsoft in the future-
Google become the next Microsoft?
Google is the next microsoft.
What's not microsoft about that?
They're the name everybody thinks of when you think of the biggest mover in the sector for the past bunch of years. They are a huge goliath of a company. They are trying to take over desktop application, they are trying to take over the browser, so they can do more stuff on your desktop (if they were truly not evil they'd have helped an existing product).
They make more money than anybody else in their market.
I rather thought everybody figured they were already the next microsoft.
IBM is like britian, once on top and now happily living life as a very successful has been.
Maybe saying google is the next microsoft is a big too much, but they're in a similar position to microsofts historical position.
If so, then what's the difference.
It's an issue of anti-competition, I think.
Microsoft leveraged their monopoly to prevent others from participating int he operating system space by preventing vendors from selling any operating system but theirs (in a variety of ways).
Consider what is good for the consumer: anti-competitive practices that prevent any hope of improving a product line at all, or a competition waged entirely on whether or not the merits of the product hold up to user demand?
I'm not quite ready for direct-to-neural netting.
anti-competitive tactics. Google *earned* their market share with a
I'll concede the google superior product.
Wed Oct 01 2008 15:41:21 EDT from fleeb@uncnsrd
I'm not quite ready for direct-to-neural netting.
Heh, my spoken language is sometimes shocking for people. I hate to think what they'd make of my thought language 8-)