Microsoft: Satya Nadella steers Windows giant to recovery(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Microsoft: Satya Nadella steers Windows giant to recovery
http://bbc.com/news/technology-29900969
90 comments
Why is that American tech companies fail at the conglomerate-ization of their various units?
Has any American tech company been able to successfully pull off, making markedly different products aimed at very different consumers and still corner a large market share in those areas?
Companies abroad don't seem to have this problem. It is not very uncommon to find the same brand selling sewing machines and precision optics and a whole host of other products, in the same market, without much brand dilution.
Is there something uniquely limiting about the American market that prevents an Intel or HP from making medical imaging equipment, drill bits for the petroleum exploration and a slew of other things, leveraging the same brand but in self-composed business units?
Critics have even called for Microsoft to be broken up in to two - consumer and enterprise - divisions. But why?
Samsung sells everything from rice cookers to acoustic equipment.
Yamaha sells everything from motorbikes to soundbars.
If push comes to shove, why not just have multiple CEOs for the same Microsoft, like a Deutsche Bank? [1]
[1] https://www.db.com/ir/en/content/management_board.htm
Has any American tech company been able to successfully pull off, making markedly different products aimed at very different consumers and still corner a large market share in those areas?
Companies abroad don't seem to have this problem. It is not very uncommon to find the same brand selling sewing machines and precision optics and a whole host of other products, in the same market, without much brand dilution.
Is there something uniquely limiting about the American market that prevents an Intel or HP from making medical imaging equipment, drill bits for the petroleum exploration and a slew of other things, leveraging the same brand but in self-composed business units?
Critics have even called for Microsoft to be broken up in to two - consumer and enterprise - divisions. But why?
Samsung sells everything from rice cookers to acoustic equipment.
Yamaha sells everything from motorbikes to soundbars.
If push comes to shove, why not just have multiple CEOs for the same Microsoft, like a Deutsche Bank? [1]
[1] https://www.db.com/ir/en/content/management_board.htm
The following is my 2 cents based on opinion from what I've learned in business school.
The American way is about focusing on your core competencies and what you're good at. Banks outsource their IT services, real estate and etc to free up capital to focus on their banking services. This is what they've taught at my particular business school and this is how business "should" be done. It's just not efficient to spread yourself into other markets.
Asian businesses sometimes form large conglomerates because of the lack of infrastructure in place in emerging economies. There aren't many smaller companies that can make rice cookers. There aren't many entrepreneurs that will want to make innovative rice cookers. Access to capital and VC money, I would assume, is really tough in Asia. Samsung makes chips but there's no buyer for those electronic chips so they start to make products that use those chips and handle every aspect of the supply chain all the way to the end-consumer. You'll see that in North America, many companies are broken up to focus on just 1 part of the chain. Other parts of the chain may be less profitable and often gets divested or spun off. Shareholder pressure sometimes dictate that.
The American way is about focusing on your core competencies and what you're good at. Banks outsource their IT services, real estate and etc to free up capital to focus on their banking services. This is what they've taught at my particular business school and this is how business "should" be done. It's just not efficient to spread yourself into other markets.
Asian businesses sometimes form large conglomerates because of the lack of infrastructure in place in emerging economies. There aren't many smaller companies that can make rice cookers. There aren't many entrepreneurs that will want to make innovative rice cookers. Access to capital and VC money, I would assume, is really tough in Asia. Samsung makes chips but there's no buyer for those electronic chips so they start to make products that use those chips and handle every aspect of the supply chain all the way to the end-consumer. You'll see that in North America, many companies are broken up to focus on just 1 part of the chain. Other parts of the chain may be less profitable and often gets divested or spun off. Shareholder pressure sometimes dictate that.
Hmm. Interesting.
Historically, was there ever a period when American companies - tech or not - ever dabbled in this sort of thing, I describe? Or they simply haven't experimented in conglomerates, even prior to the WWs.
I am trying to see if this was a measure, reactive to some historic event or if American makers from day one, have always preferred specialization in vertically siloed businesses.
Increasingly, software companies like Amazon (with Kindle, Fire phone, Fire TV, Echo etc) are finding that they are having to foray into things like hardware which they are ill-suited for, even if ideally they'd very much like to remain software companies.
These new developments are interesting to watch.
Historically, was there ever a period when American companies - tech or not - ever dabbled in this sort of thing, I describe? Or they simply haven't experimented in conglomerates, even prior to the WWs.
I am trying to see if this was a measure, reactive to some historic event or if American makers from day one, have always preferred specialization in vertically siloed businesses.
Increasingly, software companies like Amazon (with Kindle, Fire phone, Fire TV, Echo etc) are finding that they are having to foray into things like hardware which they are ill-suited for, even if ideally they'd very much like to remain software companies.
These new developments are interesting to watch.
Microsoft has been "dying" for as long as I can remember.
The truth, however, is that they have continued to be a very healthy and well run business for far, far longer than any of their peers can ever claim.
The "Microsoft is in crisis" meme has always been popular but has never even remotely come close to being true.
The truth, however, is that they have continued to be a very healthy and well run business for far, far longer than any of their peers can ever claim.
The "Microsoft is in crisis" meme has always been popular but has never even remotely come close to being true.
You clearly can't remember very far back. Barely more than a decade ago Microsoft was widely accepted as the largest 600 pound gorilla in the industry, with its future cemented to the floor with almost universal reliance by most governments and businesses on the Windows ecosystem. Microsoft Office dominated education and small business. Enterprise and vertical software was almost exclusively built as Windows binaries. Its market position seemed impossible to budge.
Of course, we know better now -- the one-two punch of standards-based web browsers and mobile computing revolution saw off that. Microsoft aren't an unassailable gorilla any more. But let's be clear, their "crisis" is one of future relevance; it's certainly not existential.
Of course, we know better now -- the one-two punch of standards-based web browsers and mobile computing revolution saw off that. Microsoft aren't an unassailable gorilla any more. But let's be clear, their "crisis" is one of future relevance; it's certainly not existential.
[deleted]
I suppose you can debate the definition of "crisis", but how you can you even suggest that Microsoft is not in crisis with a straight face? This is the same logic of RIM or Nokia circa 2008: sales are up, profits are up, what's the concern?
If Mocrosoft were not in crisis, Steve Ballmer would still be CEO.
The crisis is that the once dominant markets of Windows and Office are now becoming marginalized as PCs become dwarfed for mobile devices. The iPhone - laughed at by Ballmer in 2007 - by itself makes more annually than all of Microsofts businesses combined. Microsoft was an early mobile device player and yet was almost completely out-competed.
Microsoft's only remaining stronghold, as with IBM, is the enterprise. And that's also under heavy attack by Amazon, Google, and the Linux/BSD development ecosystem.
If Mocrosoft were not in crisis, Steve Ballmer would still be CEO.
The crisis is that the once dominant markets of Windows and Office are now becoming marginalized as PCs become dwarfed for mobile devices. The iPhone - laughed at by Ballmer in 2007 - by itself makes more annually than all of Microsofts businesses combined. Microsoft was an early mobile device player and yet was almost completely out-competed.
Microsoft's only remaining stronghold, as with IBM, is the enterprise. And that's also under heavy attack by Amazon, Google, and the Linux/BSD development ecosystem.
This in part because MS is operating like a pre-80s company. Old divisions support new by virtue of providing an economic war chest. so while IBM, HP and others are downsizing and "streamlining" MS is expanding and diversifying.
I don't know, I remember Lotus seemingly collapsing overnight.
One minute it was playing catchup all the time, but still a major player in office software, the next, it was just gone.
One minute it was playing catchup all the time, but still a major player in office software, the next, it was just gone.
The same pretty much happened to Nokia and Blackberry. Those were all one trick ponies though. MS is a huge company with numerous product ranges operating in many different markets. Many of those businesses are doing very well, and have been for a decade or more. If any one of their Office, exchange, SQL Server, Azure, Windows desktop, etc businesses almost completely failed the others would largely be fine.
They can't afford to be complacent of course. They need to be able to crack new markets and execute effectively on their current products. Their failure in mobile and two botched updates to Windows are very worrying. But Satya was instrumental in building their Azure business, a very successful new revenue generating product in a space not generally seen as an MS strength.
They can't afford to be complacent of course. They need to be able to crack new markets and execute effectively on their current products. Their failure in mobile and two botched updates to Windows are very worrying. But Satya was instrumental in building their Azure business, a very successful new revenue generating product in a space not generally seen as an MS strength.
"Dying for as long as I can remember"?
Are you sure you're not talking about Apple circa 2001?
Are you sure you're not talking about Apple circa 2001?
Bailed out by Microsoft's $150 million investment?
An investment that Microsoft cashed out as quickly as they could. If only they knew -- their shares would be worth over 100 billion dollars today.
I've said this earlier and as an iOS developer, I am excited for the new Microsoft. Some of the best minds in programming (ScottGu, SHanselmann, etc) are behind this new face of MS and they're well know for their contribution to opens source.
I think this is a win-win-win situation for Developers, Enterprises and Microsoft.
I think this is a win-win-win situation for Developers, Enterprises and Microsoft.
I'm struck by how the tech media deems every other Windows release a "disaster" that Microsoft has to recover from, yet Windows marches on and each version is actually quite stable and usable.
From the article "In desktop, the upcoming Windows 10 promises to fix the damage wrought by Windows 8, appealing to both desktop users, as well as the "corridor warrior" tablet devotees."
I have run every Windows OS since 3.1 and used all of the "duds" exclusively (as did almost the entire PC world).
I'm currently using Windows 8 and if you get beyond the "surface outrage" repeated insistently by the tech media, it's the same Windows that you use (and love - gasp!) exactly like Windows 7, or Vista, or XP, or 2000 or 98.
We all need to look beyond the "2 hour" blog review which all to commonly throws an entire product under the bus when the author spent all of a couple hours using it.
From the article "In desktop, the upcoming Windows 10 promises to fix the damage wrought by Windows 8, appealing to both desktop users, as well as the "corridor warrior" tablet devotees."
I have run every Windows OS since 3.1 and used all of the "duds" exclusively (as did almost the entire PC world).
I'm currently using Windows 8 and if you get beyond the "surface outrage" repeated insistently by the tech media, it's the same Windows that you use (and love - gasp!) exactly like Windows 7, or Vista, or XP, or 2000 or 98.
We all need to look beyond the "2 hour" blog review which all to commonly throws an entire product under the bus when the author spent all of a couple hours using it.
Microsoft is changing under Nadella but you can't tell if it has recovered for a few years yet. Windows and Office are under attack from multiple fronts.
More people are joining OSX every year. Schools and other institutions are moving to Chromebooks and Google apps.
It might not seem a big deal at the moment but Microsoft major strength was the they had people locked in and used to their apps.
Now web based games and applications are slowly weaning people off the Microsoft ecosystem.
Effect of it wont show for a few years yet so Microsoft has a chance to be the part of it.
And Nadella's moves so far have shown that they see it happening and have started positioning it for it.
But its to soon to tell if they have recovered or not.
IMO Microsoft has made progress, but has clearly not turned the corner. Nadella made a good start, it just isn't enough.
Let's keep the hate aside and forget MS's past. The biggest problem facing MS now is the loss of mind share on the Windows platform. The brightest minds aren't programming on Microsoft platforms if you look at colleges and conferences worldwide. This cannot be reversed; Open Source products are now technically superior, the community is very well organized, and it is free. Interesting research, frameworks, libraries and programming languages spawn on Open Source before they show up (if ever) on Windows. Windows engines have run out; though they will keep going for a while.
MS had a great run for over twenty years because the entire world ran on DOS and then Windows. That gave them enormous influence and power, power to make mistakes, fail over and over, and yet succeed. The real challenge will be in adapting to a future in which Windows is irrelevant. The long-term future of Azure, Windows Phone, Windows Desktop, Windows Server and their overpriced Office Tools looks bleak to me.
Let's keep the hate aside and forget MS's past. The biggest problem facing MS now is the loss of mind share on the Windows platform. The brightest minds aren't programming on Microsoft platforms if you look at colleges and conferences worldwide. This cannot be reversed; Open Source products are now technically superior, the community is very well organized, and it is free. Interesting research, frameworks, libraries and programming languages spawn on Open Source before they show up (if ever) on Windows. Windows engines have run out; though they will keep going for a while.
MS had a great run for over twenty years because the entire world ran on DOS and then Windows. That gave them enormous influence and power, power to make mistakes, fail over and over, and yet succeed. The real challenge will be in adapting to a future in which Windows is irrelevant. The long-term future of Azure, Windows Phone, Windows Desktop, Windows Server and their overpriced Office Tools looks bleak to me.
> Interesting research, frameworks, libraries and programming languages spawn on Open Source before they show up (if ever) on Windows
You might not realize it hanging around on HN, but a huge portion -- dare I say a majority -- of developers don't give a hoot about this.
New languages don't matter. They've already seen a bunch. Their employers aren't interested.
New frameworks especially don't matter. If they ignore the new frameworks, 90% of them will be gone in three years, and most of what's left that's useful will be pulled into .NET or Java.
You might not realize it hanging around on HN, but a huge portion -- dare I say a majority -- of developers don't give a hoot about this.
New languages don't matter. They've already seen a bunch. Their employers aren't interested.
New frameworks especially don't matter. If they ignore the new frameworks, 90% of them will be gone in three years, and most of what's left that's useful will be pulled into .NET or Java.
Open Source products are now technically superior
Name one open source IDE which is superior to Visual Studio. Or an open source database that is better than SQL Server. Not to mention C# which imho is the best language out there (arguably .NET though isn’t that good). I won’t argue that there are aspects of the ecosystem that can’t hold a candle to open source solutions especially in the administration tools area.
As for community, have you bothered to take a look at MSDN? There is an insane amount of free information online for their APIs. In terms of documentation MS is light years ahead of everyone.
Lastly, the “Windows/Microsoft is irrelevant” argument is very prevalent amongst our ranks but only there. MS might be irrelevant in our industry but in the enterprise, where by the way the big bucks are, they’re dominant.
Name one open source IDE which is superior to Visual Studio. Or an open source database that is better than SQL Server. Not to mention C# which imho is the best language out there (arguably .NET though isn’t that good). I won’t argue that there are aspects of the ecosystem that can’t hold a candle to open source solutions especially in the administration tools area.
As for community, have you bothered to take a look at MSDN? There is an insane amount of free information online for their APIs. In terms of documentation MS is light years ahead of everyone.
Lastly, the “Windows/Microsoft is irrelevant” argument is very prevalent amongst our ranks but only there. MS might be irrelevant in our industry but in the enterprise, where by the way the big bucks are, they’re dominant.
>Name one open source IDE which is superior to Visual Studio.
Here's a list in no particular order of open source editors/IDEs I would use over Visual Studios.
1. Vim.
2. Atom.
3. Brackets.
4. LightTable.
5. Codebox.
6. Slap.
> Or an open source database that is better than SQL Server.
Depends on what you mean by better and what compliance you need I guess? MongoDB can provide benchmarks better than SQL Server.
> Not to mention C# which imho is the best language out there...
Language preferences obviously change based on the needs of the developer. I prefer javascript just because I need a language that can run anywhere and I prefer prototypal inheritance over classical.
> In terms of documentation MS is light years ahead of everyone.
What about MDN?
Here's a list in no particular order of open source editors/IDEs I would use over Visual Studios.
1. Vim.
2. Atom.
3. Brackets.
4. LightTable.
5. Codebox.
6. Slap.
> Or an open source database that is better than SQL Server.
Depends on what you mean by better and what compliance you need I guess? MongoDB can provide benchmarks better than SQL Server.
> Not to mention C# which imho is the best language out there...
Language preferences obviously change based on the needs of the developer. I prefer javascript just because I need a language that can run anywhere and I prefer prototypal inheritance over classical.
> In terms of documentation MS is light years ahead of everyone.
What about MDN?
I use vim and brackets (in addition to Visual Studio), but is codebox even an editor? I thought it was just a snippet organizer. Also, Atom can't open files greater than 2MB at the moment.
Even as a vim user, this post has lifted my sides into the orbit.
> Or an open source database that is better than SQL Server.
Erm... PostgreSQL?
Or at least on par with.
Erm... PostgreSQL?
Or at least on par with.
The OSS IDE community is trapped between eclipse, emacs, and vim...these projects are all based on mostly stale ideas and I'm pretty sure when the right project starts with better ones, you'll see great open source IDEs that compete with and even surpass VS. Perhaps lighttable is that, but it's too early to say.
It's just that IDE developers would want to eat as well. For some reason open-source only works for frameworks and libraries. But it works really great for them!
> Name an open source database that is better than SQL Server.
OK I'll name two: SQLite and MongoDB. I suspect that both of these are better than SQL Server on criteria I care about: ease of deployment on Linux systems, lack of issues around licensing.
OK I'll name two: SQLite and MongoDB. I suspect that both of these are better than SQL Server on criteria I care about: ease of deployment on Linux systems, lack of issues around licensing.
> ease of deployment on Linux systems, lack of issues around licensing
Midnight Commander or Emacs is better than SQL Server if those are the criteria you care about.
Midnight Commander or Emacs is better than SQL Server if those are the criteria you care about.
If you dont care about robustness, not losing data, etc there are a lot of great databases out there.
> MongoDB
Have you ever used SQL server and do you know what type of problems it aims to solve?
Have you ever used SQL server and do you know what type of problems it aims to solve?
PostgreSQL?
I'm probably working in different environment than you, because I have never seen SQL Server used, when we want something with support we use Oracle.
I'm probably working in different environment than you, because I have never seen SQL Server used, when we want something with support we use Oracle.
Speaking of programming: I have recently tried the free version of Visual Studio - Community 2013. To my surprise (I had tried Visual Studio Express before and wasn't exactly impressed) it is hands down the best IDE for Cordova/PhoneGap environment I ever worked on. The killer feature: DOM inspector and JS debugger/console inside the IDE.
But the funny thing is: even in a Microsoft product it's way easier to debug Android than Windows Phone.
Nonetheless, I agree that Nadella made a good start, and that (despite the good impression) it's certainly not enough for now, but - unlike you - I don't think it's a lost cause. Not yet.
Nonetheless, I agree that Nadella made a good start, and that (despite the good impression) it's certainly not enough for now, but - unlike you - I don't think it's a lost cause. Not yet.
Doesn't Windows still have around 90% desktop market share?
The open-source community simply refuses to do the work necessary to harm Microsoft on the desktop. Developers would rather fork another version of open office, create a new Linux distribution, or start a new window manager.
The only way the Microsoft monopoly will be harmed is if Google turns Chrome OZs/Android into a real competitor.
The open-source community simply refuses to do the work necessary to harm Microsoft on the desktop. Developers would rather fork another version of open office, create a new Linux distribution, or start a new window manager.
The only way the Microsoft monopoly will be harmed is if Google turns Chrome OZs/Android into a real competitor.
So what, though? The vast majority of people running Windows are using it to run 2 things: web browsers and Office. IE no longer has a dominant share of browsers, and Office is available across many platforms besides Windows.
Yes, IE still is the dominant desktop browser.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...
Microsoft still gets paid for its 90% market share. Developers still target it, and often release the best versions of their apps for Windows. Office isn't available for Linux. Adobe products? AutoCAD? Games? Nope!
Microsoft makes a lot more money than it did five years ago. The only real difference is that Apple and Google have grown a market and Microsoft has been unable to gain traction. Give them long enough and I'm sure they will. After all, the can afford to because Windows and Office are huge cash cows, and they've got the money to burn.
http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...
Microsoft still gets paid for its 90% market share. Developers still target it, and often release the best versions of their apps for Windows. Office isn't available for Linux. Adobe products? AutoCAD? Games? Nope!
Microsoft makes a lot more money than it did five years ago. The only real difference is that Apple and Google have grown a market and Microsoft has been unable to gain traction. Give them long enough and I'm sure they will. After all, the can afford to because Windows and Office are huge cash cows, and they've got the money to burn.
58% of desktops is not dominant browser share. IE does not today, in any way, set a standard that web-based companies feel that they need to meet.
That's the thing with Microsoft: I doubt they will go out of business or anything; in fact I think they will continue to have lots of success.
But they don't dictate anything to the rest of the computer industry anymore. And that's a big transition because for decades, their business model and culture were built around their ability to do that.
That's the thing with Microsoft: I doubt they will go out of business or anything; in fact I think they will continue to have lots of success.
But they don't dictate anything to the rest of the computer industry anymore. And that's a big transition because for decades, their business model and culture were built around their ability to do that.
So we can drop support for IE8 and IE9? Almost 6 out of 10 people on a desktop use IE. Most corporations in the world still run on Windows, and 9 out of 10 people still do. If you get a corporate job, you'll be plopped in front of a Windows PC. There's no option B.
But hey, you feel good because people have smartphones that aren't Windows based.
But hey, you feel good because people have smartphones that aren't Windows based.
Those stats just don't create leverage for Microsoft anymore outside of the enterprise. And even within the enterprise, their influence is shrinking with the growth in hosted SaaS applications like Salesforce, Basecamp, Google Apps, etc. Heck, even MS themselves are going down this route with purchases like Skype and Yammer.
I work in a corporate job; almost everyone has a Windows PC on their desk. Here are the stats for our Sharepoint intranet:
Open source doesn't need to dislodge Windows from the desktop. Instead they just used the server/client model to commoditize desktop OS's in general. Heck, Microsoft is the only company still trying to charge money for their desktop OS at all.
I work in a corporate job; almost everyone has a Windows PC on their desk. Here are the stats for our Sharepoint intranet:
IE- 47%
Chrome - 47%
Firefox - 5%
Safari - 1%
Open source doesn't need to dislodge Windows from the desktop. Instead they just used the server/client model to commoditize desktop OS's in general. Heck, Microsoft is the only company still trying to charge money for their desktop OS at all.
Office is overpriced? The personal edition is $6.99 / month, or $9.99 for a household (5 licences). SaaS doesn't get much cheaper than that.
Google's offerings are free. For a lot of users, it's more than enough.
Well, Google Docs is free -- and Office Online is free. The subscription is for the desktop software (that Google doesn't have) and 5x unlimited OneDrive storage and some Skype minutes -- for the same price, you get 10TB storage at Google and no desktop software.
I can see the reasons why one would go for the Google suite -- just wanted to point out that MS is not more expensive, it's actually cheaper.
Google's offerings are worth exactly what they charge for them. Whether they're "enough" for "a lot of users" depends on how you define the market--by number of users or by potential revenue? They're enough for grandma writing a letter or similar informal communications, but I imagine that's a niche wholly usurped by e-mail.
Fortunately for both Google and Microsoft, most businesses are willing to pay as you typically can't get decent support for a free product or service.
There are plenty of free Office alternatives already that work for 90% of the people. The Web, Android and iOS has made such tools far more accessible for non-technical users. On the computer, use Google docs, on the tablet use QuickOffice. MS has had to react to this, Office on tablets and phones are now free. For general purpose software like document editing and presentations, people might pay $4.99 max, for lifetime.
There'll be another 5-10% of users who need advanced features. That will not sustain the multi-billion revenue coming from Office products.
There'll be another 5-10% of users who need advanced features. That will not sustain the multi-billion revenue coming from Office products.
I don't think I've ever seen a large organization that doesn't have a critical dependency on Excel - usually with Excel plugged directly into their core financial/ERP/CRM.
Replacing Excel in most large organizations would be like trying to give a human being a skeleton transplant.
Replacing Excel in most large organizations would be like trying to give a human being a skeleton transplant.
Sure, but that's not relevant to individual and family licenses, though.
85% of the Microsoft Business division that is responsible for Microsoft Office comes, not unsurprisingly, from businesses:
http://www.tannerhelland.com/4993/microsoft-money-updated-20...
Edit: The point I was trying to make is that I wonder how important personal use of Office is to Microsoft. Arguably people either want to use what they use at work or they use something other product (in the past one of the competing office suites, probably one of the online offerings these days) - I wonder if the size of the latter category has actually changed over the years?
http://www.tannerhelland.com/4993/microsoft-money-updated-20...
Edit: The point I was trying to make is that I wonder how important personal use of Office is to Microsoft. Arguably people either want to use what they use at work or they use something other product (in the past one of the competing office suites, probably one of the online offerings these days) - I wonder if the size of the latter category has actually changed over the years?
There is a clever saying about MS Office.
90% of its users use only 1% of its capabilities. But they all use a different 1%.
At this point in time, MS Office may well be more a RAD than a traditional office suite.
90% of its users use only 1% of its capabilities. But they all use a different 1%.
At this point in time, MS Office may well be more a RAD than a traditional office suite.
I don't understand your point, Open Source programming is what it's always been. It's just that proprietary programming has switched from Windows to iOS now.
Exactly. Apple took a chunk of Microsoft's market when it comes to developers. Now this has some benefits for open source, as a more balanced market will discourage predatory behavior, but otherwise it's more of the same.
Apple has also been historically far more closed than Microsoft, in part because they also designed the hardware for their systems.
I'm no apple fan, but Apple does contribute a fair amount of resources to open source. If you're running a typical GNU/Linux distro, go to http://localhost:631/ for fun.
Yes they do, but so does Microsoft.
https://github.com/Microsoft
I don't think Microsoft are going anywhere soon, if at all. They are too established in the corporate world and while there are still I.T managers that have the philosophy of 'I won't get fired for buying IBM' then there will be a requirement for developers to make software for them.
What they have done last week is a massive step, but its just one step and many more need to be taken to catch up on lost ground.
What they have done last week is a massive step, but its just one step and many more need to be taken to catch up on lost ground.
Google, Facebook, Amazon and just about every big internet company (with the possible exceptions of EBay and, well, Microsoft) are NOT using windows in the backend and never have. They could probably afford Windows server licensing, database licensing, etc NOW, but they would not have been able to while growing.
Now, if you start a company and you think you might grow ... which stack will you use?
Now, if you start a company and you think you might grow ... which stack will you use?
Not much of an issue with programs such as BizSpark. You have 3 years to 'grow' and afterwards you have to fork over a couple thousand bucks, depending on what you use.
The thing is, Unix systems (OSX included) are much more developer friendly. Windows doesn't even have a decent terminal emulator yet, you have to resort to things such as conemu.
Now, if Windows can be 'unixified', then I believe the trend may be reversed. As is is, you can't compete with the amount of utilities and server software for all unix flavors.
The thing is, Unix systems (OSX included) are much more developer friendly. Windows doesn't even have a decent terminal emulator yet, you have to resort to things such as conemu.
Now, if Windows can be 'unixified', then I believe the trend may be reversed. As is is, you can't compete with the amount of utilities and server software for all unix flavors.
>Now, if Windows can be 'unixified'
It can. It has, actually, but Microsoft doesn't want Windows to be a generic unix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
It can. It has, actually, but Microsoft doesn't want Windows to be a generic unix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX
Yes, one has been able to graft nix to Windows since NT; however, it's still like a third arm dangling off of C:\whatever.
If Microsoft can make a POSIX layer like OS X did -- one that ships with the OS and feels like it is part of the OS -- I'd be very, very interested.
I've been on OS X since Apple was nearly dead (still have my 10.0.6 CD somewhere around here). Before jumping on, I bounced from the promise of Linux distro to FreeBSD, to OpenBSD -- trying to find something that worked as a desktop environment. Once OS X was released, I knew I found what I had been looking for. It definitely wasn't because it was from Apple (back then, using Apple was being counterculture, if not somewhat risky as the business wasn't doing so well); it was because there was finally a desktop OS that had a POSIX layer and a GUI that didn't feel like a third arm grafted on to /usr/local/whatever.
I'm hoping that MS catches the drift that DOS is dead & can kill that sacred cow; I'd love to get a Surface tablet & develop for Windows Phone, but having to deal with DOS is like moving out of a house and trying to live in a tent. My experiences with Powershell haven't been all that much better. It's definitely not got the same problems as DOS, but in my experience it didn't implement the paradigm of a pipeable set of simple tools to accomplish singular tasks.
I'd love to see a POSIX compliant Microsoft OS. And to me, these recent changes bode well -- it seems that Microsoft realizes it must be a part of a larger ecosystem. The is the kind of OS I want to work with has this kind of thinking at its core.
If Microsoft can make a POSIX layer like OS X did -- one that ships with the OS and feels like it is part of the OS -- I'd be very, very interested.
I've been on OS X since Apple was nearly dead (still have my 10.0.6 CD somewhere around here). Before jumping on, I bounced from the promise of Linux distro to FreeBSD, to OpenBSD -- trying to find something that worked as a desktop environment. Once OS X was released, I knew I found what I had been looking for. It definitely wasn't because it was from Apple (back then, using Apple was being counterculture, if not somewhat risky as the business wasn't doing so well); it was because there was finally a desktop OS that had a POSIX layer and a GUI that didn't feel like a third arm grafted on to /usr/local/whatever.
I'm hoping that MS catches the drift that DOS is dead & can kill that sacred cow; I'd love to get a Surface tablet & develop for Windows Phone, but having to deal with DOS is like moving out of a house and trying to live in a tent. My experiences with Powershell haven't been all that much better. It's definitely not got the same problems as DOS, but in my experience it didn't implement the paradigm of a pipeable set of simple tools to accomplish singular tasks.
I'd love to see a POSIX compliant Microsoft OS. And to me, these recent changes bode well -- it seems that Microsoft realizes it must be a part of a larger ecosystem. The is the kind of OS I want to work with has this kind of thinking at its core.
When you talk of DOS, are you referring to Powershell?
There's an enormous difference there.
> Not much of an issue with programs such as BizSpark. You have 3 years to 'grow' and afterwards you have to fork over a couple thousand bucks, depending on what you use.
Are you sure? Facebook and Google both had thousands of servers when they were three year old (they are in the millions now), and facebook already had sizable databases that would have cost a small fortune had they been MSSQL (or Oracle or DB2 for that matter).
I was under the possibly mistaken impression the BizSpark covers your devtools, not your deployment.
And the costs are just the most easily quantifiable advantage - Google, Facebook and Whatsup have all modified their stack (Linux Kernel, MySQL, Erlang VM) in ways that are simply not available with the Microsoft stack.
Granted, not every business is Google or Facebook - but anyone who dreams big enough sees Microsoft's stack does not make sense .... and even when you are thinking small, there are really few reasons to rely in Microsoft except at the edges.
Are you sure? Facebook and Google both had thousands of servers when they were three year old (they are in the millions now), and facebook already had sizable databases that would have cost a small fortune had they been MSSQL (or Oracle or DB2 for that matter).
I was under the possibly mistaken impression the BizSpark covers your devtools, not your deployment.
And the costs are just the most easily quantifiable advantage - Google, Facebook and Whatsup have all modified their stack (Linux Kernel, MySQL, Erlang VM) in ways that are simply not available with the Microsoft stack.
Granted, not every business is Google or Facebook - but anyone who dreams big enough sees Microsoft's stack does not make sense .... and even when you are thinking small, there are really few reasons to rely in Microsoft except at the edges.
But they still use Windows in other areas. Watch the Apple production lines with Windows on every PC there.
Windows isn't going away anytime soon.
I'm not a fan of windows either, but this is pure ideology.
>The brightest minds aren't programming on Microsoft platforms if you look at colleges and conferences worldwide. This cannot be reversed; Open Source products are now technically superior, the community is very well organized, and it is free.
All I see at colleges and conferences worldwide are Macbooks. How is OS X Open Source? It actually seems to be worse, since it's legally tied to expensive hardware.
Also, Open Source products aren't really technically superior for a number of categories. I am sorry but Photoshop, Office, Exchange etc. are definitely technically superior. Software like Windows Server and SQL Server are competing with free products and still doing very well.
Imagine how much marketshare they would have if they were free of cost and MySQL/PostgresSQL and Linux cost the same as SQL Server and Windows Server now. How many would buy them instead of the free MS products? How many would pay the same as Office costs now for OpenOffice if Office was free? How is this technically superior?
Also, Azure runs Linux and other open source products quite well.
All I see at colleges and conferences worldwide are Macbooks. How is OS X Open Source? It actually seems to be worse, since it's legally tied to expensive hardware.
Also, Open Source products aren't really technically superior for a number of categories. I am sorry but Photoshop, Office, Exchange etc. are definitely technically superior. Software like Windows Server and SQL Server are competing with free products and still doing very well.
Imagine how much marketshare they would have if they were free of cost and MySQL/PostgresSQL and Linux cost the same as SQL Server and Windows Server now. How many would buy them instead of the free MS products? How many would pay the same as Office costs now for OpenOffice if Office was free? How is this technically superior?
Also, Azure runs Linux and other open source products quite well.
>All I see at colleges and conferences worldwide are Macbooks.
I know anecdotal evidence does not equal real data, but I'm a sophomore/junior (switched majors) in college and I prefer to use Linux over OS X or Windows.
Also, IMO open source products are usually better than their closed source counterparts. I know what is actually running on my computer. I can alter the program how I need. Everyone who contributed to the project did so out of their own enjoyment. Being open source means experts in different fields can make the product better, safer, further optimized.
Gimp does the job for me, I personally use Google Docs because I switch computers a lot. Microsoft Office is just as bad LibreOffice in terms of usability, so I wouldn't call either superior. Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure lots of technically superior closed source products are developed with the help of open source software.
If Linux came at the cost of SQL Server... that's a weird question. How does something open come at cost to the consumer? I can see donations being greatly appreciated, but not required payment. There's to many rabbit holes I could go down here.
But I could be completely wrong, I'm just a 20 yr old dude trying to figure out if Computer Science is even the right degree for me.
I know anecdotal evidence does not equal real data, but I'm a sophomore/junior (switched majors) in college and I prefer to use Linux over OS X or Windows.
Also, IMO open source products are usually better than their closed source counterparts. I know what is actually running on my computer. I can alter the program how I need. Everyone who contributed to the project did so out of their own enjoyment. Being open source means experts in different fields can make the product better, safer, further optimized.
Gimp does the job for me, I personally use Google Docs because I switch computers a lot. Microsoft Office is just as bad LibreOffice in terms of usability, so I wouldn't call either superior. Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure lots of technically superior closed source products are developed with the help of open source software.
If Linux came at the cost of SQL Server... that's a weird question. How does something open come at cost to the consumer? I can see donations being greatly appreciated, but not required payment. There's to many rabbit holes I could go down here.
But I could be completely wrong, I'm just a 20 yr old dude trying to figure out if Computer Science is even the right degree for me.
OS X provides a user friendly interface on top of a unix like system. It's easy to develop for linux and unix-like systems in general on OS X. Not so much on Windows. Also, we like bash/zsh, and PowerShell doesn't appeal to many of us. Many of us also don't see much of a difference between running a Linux distribution and running OS X, other than the desktop user interface. The differences in the underlying layer get blurry. With Windows, no.
PowerShell isn't the only option available for Windows. You can install Cygwin or other alternatives and have your bash and linux-y environment on Windows.
True. But if you spend most of your time in and around cygwin, it makes sense to switch to some kind of Unix -- while cygwin is marvelous, the nearly perfect Posix layer comes with a non-trivial performance cost - e.g., fork() is horribly slow in cygwin, as are many forms of I/O.
> How is OS X Open Source?
It isn't, but a lot of people develop on open source environments running on OS X. E.g. Python/Django. Because OS X is a Unix, moving between it and Linux for web development is easy.
> Azure runs Linux and other open source products quite well
This may be the case, but there is the perception (possibly an unfounded one; I've never used Azure) that Linux will always be a second-class citizen on Azure.
It isn't, but a lot of people develop on open source environments running on OS X. E.g. Python/Django. Because OS X is a Unix, moving between it and Linux for web development is easy.
> Azure runs Linux and other open source products quite well
This may be the case, but there is the perception (possibly an unfounded one; I've never used Azure) that Linux will always be a second-class citizen on Azure.
Not easy enough apparently, as there seems to be a concerted effort to clone OSX on top of Linux these days...
> Let's keep the hate aside and forget MS's past.
Even if that past is very much part of Microsoft's present? Such as threatening companies with patent lawsuits at a rate that has never been seen before in Microsoft's history, or its continuous collaboration with the NSA [1]? (especially after it bought Skype, and built lawful intercept technology for Skype [2] - before actually buying it).
I'm almost certain Microsoft keeps some vulnerabilities on purpose to the help the NSA, and only patches them when other parties report those bugs. In fact, I think the recent "WinShock" or whatever they're calling it, with the remote execution for its TLS library was known by Microsoft. This sort of thing is so much easier to use as an "effective backdoor", than something nefarious NSA would have to implant into Windows such as a key escrow or whatever (not saying those don't/won't exist in TPMs).
[1] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2mWqX0CQAAqKxP.png:large
[2] - http://www.computerworld.com/article/2509604/data-privacy/mi...
Even if that past is very much part of Microsoft's present? Such as threatening companies with patent lawsuits at a rate that has never been seen before in Microsoft's history, or its continuous collaboration with the NSA [1]? (especially after it bought Skype, and built lawful intercept technology for Skype [2] - before actually buying it).
I'm almost certain Microsoft keeps some vulnerabilities on purpose to the help the NSA, and only patches them when other parties report those bugs. In fact, I think the recent "WinShock" or whatever they're calling it, with the remote execution for its TLS library was known by Microsoft. This sort of thing is so much easier to use as an "effective backdoor", than something nefarious NSA would have to implant into Windows such as a key escrow or whatever (not saying those don't/won't exist in TPMs).
[1] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B2mWqX0CQAAqKxP.png:large
[2] - http://www.computerworld.com/article/2509604/data-privacy/mi...
"...or its continuous collaboration with the NSA"
Oh, you mean like Google [1]?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8614933
Oh, you mean like Google [1]?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8614933
Recovery of what exactly? Just because a bunch of mid-twenties think Microsoft isn't hip anymore doesn't mean Microsoft is somehow slowly collapsing. They are still making billions in profits, their stock is climbing and all of their platforms are rising in popularity.
This bunch of 'mid-twenties' is probably gonna drive your future growth for the next 10-20 yrs, and probably the next generation after that as well (think their kids).
Think why Whatsapp/Facebook is really valued at such 'billions' of dollars? They are going to have user-engagement for a decades!
I am not disagreeing with your point, but lots of tech companies target this 'mid-twenties' and 'early-thirties' bunch, at least today.
Think why Whatsapp/Facebook is really valued at such 'billions' of dollars? They are going to have user-engagement for a decades!
I am not disagreeing with your point, but lots of tech companies target this 'mid-twenties' and 'early-thirties' bunch, at least today.
To be specific, their sales have never stopped climbing, and their profits are sitting near all-time highs ($22 billion in profit last fiscal year).
The only reason this is a popular topic right now, is because the stock is at $50, thanks to the stock market bubble. The CEO had absolutely nothing to do with that. That's purely multiple expansion, not earnings growth. Apple is currently enjoying the same exact multiple expansion, which has pushed its stock back up despite zero earnings growth since fiscal 2012.
The only reason this is a popular topic right now, is because the stock is at $50, thanks to the stock market bubble. The CEO had absolutely nothing to do with that. That's purely multiple expansion, not earnings growth. Apple is currently enjoying the same exact multiple expansion, which has pushed its stock back up despite zero earnings growth since fiscal 2012.
>That's purely multiple expansion, not earnings growth.
Where do you see "multiple expansion" and "no earnings growth"?
MSFT:
Where do you see "multiple expansion" and "no earnings growth"?
MSFT:
Year ~P/E EPS
2010 20.24 $2.10
2011 12.09 $2.69
2012 9.70 $2.00
2013 14.50 $2.58
2014 13.94 $2.69[deleted]
I've reached the indifference stage of my relationship with Microsoft. They just aren't relevant to me. And I don't say that insultingly: tech is a huge ecosystem and there are more companies that aren't relevant to me than are. (but I understand they're super relevant to a lot of people. cool.)
Therefore, I feel that I can unemotional say: the patent lawsuits are a massive issue when it comes to talking about a "new" Microsoft. It's a major issue for me. Software patents are bad, and as long as they're using them offensively (and at this point, it would take a very long time before I trusted them to use them defensively), I'm not sure how justified the celebration of "open" and "new" is.
Therefore, I feel that I can unemotional say: the patent lawsuits are a massive issue when it comes to talking about a "new" Microsoft. It's a major issue for me. Software patents are bad, and as long as they're using them offensively (and at this point, it would take a very long time before I trusted them to use them defensively), I'm not sure how justified the celebration of "open" and "new" is.
Microsoft clearly isn't alone (on both sides) in the software patent fiasco. I'm curious, what companies approach software patents correctly in your eyes?
I'll be disappointed if you tell me that I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that Google has been stellar with respect to patents.
The only thing I'm aware of is that HTC used Google patents to counter-sue Apple a while ago, but that seems to fall under the "defensive" usage.
At one point Microsoft was vocal about its patent portfolio being only defensive. Then mobile happened. I'm not sure if Apple, Samsung and others also did such an about-face.
The only thing I'm aware of is that HTC used Google patents to counter-sue Apple a while ago, but that seems to fall under the "defensive" usage.
At one point Microsoft was vocal about its patent portfolio being only defensive. Then mobile happened. I'm not sure if Apple, Samsung and others also did such an about-face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone_patent_wars
Basically no one company's hands are clean, whether it be "defensive" in nature or not, patents are a necessary evil.
Some highlights relating to Google which I guess if you were to pick a favorite, Google comes out decently as most of their patent buys were defensive.
2011, Jun 30: A consortium of companies made up of Apple, EMC Corporation, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion and Sony win against Google[50] in an auction of over 6,000 Nortel mobile-related telecommunications patents for $4.5 billion USD.[51][52]
2011, Jul 11-12: Google acquires 1,029 Patents from IBM for an undisclosed amount.[64][65]
2011, Aug 15: Google announces its intention to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion USD. Eighteen of Motorola's patents could potentially be used for defense or countersuits against Apple and Microsoft, and may influence the smartphone war. These patents may change the balance of power, and force the various players to settle their lawsuits.[71][72]
2011, Aug 17: Google acquires 1,023 more patents from IBM for an undisclosed amount (not revealed until 13 Sep 2011).[75]
2011, Sep 07: HTC countersues Apple using nine patents from Google. The move is seen as a possible first step for Google giving direct support in lawsuits involving manufacturers using Android.[81][82][83][84]
2013, December 23: Google initiates legal action against Rockstar Consortium with a countersuit filed in San Jose, California.[141]
Basically no one company's hands are clean, whether it be "defensive" in nature or not, patents are a necessary evil.
Some highlights relating to Google which I guess if you were to pick a favorite, Google comes out decently as most of their patent buys were defensive.
2011, Jun 30: A consortium of companies made up of Apple, EMC Corporation, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion and Sony win against Google[50] in an auction of over 6,000 Nortel mobile-related telecommunications patents for $4.5 billion USD.[51][52]
2011, Jul 11-12: Google acquires 1,029 Patents from IBM for an undisclosed amount.[64][65]
2011, Aug 15: Google announces its intention to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion USD. Eighteen of Motorola's patents could potentially be used for defense or countersuits against Apple and Microsoft, and may influence the smartphone war. These patents may change the balance of power, and force the various players to settle their lawsuits.[71][72]
2011, Aug 17: Google acquires 1,023 more patents from IBM for an undisclosed amount (not revealed until 13 Sep 2011).[75]
2011, Sep 07: HTC countersues Apple using nine patents from Google. The move is seen as a possible first step for Google giving direct support in lawsuits involving manufacturers using Android.[81][82][83][84]
2013, December 23: Google initiates legal action against Rockstar Consortium with a countersuit filed in San Jose, California.[141]
This seems like a very premature post. Microsoft still hasn't tackled mobile, and the latest reports show Windows Phone to be declining at a fast rate. Its market share in China is now less than at launch.
China is absolutely dominated by Android, even more so than most markets. Microsoft is used to playing the long game (it paid off with the Xbox division, for example), as long as their phones remain competitive, and their app ecosystem continues to grow, it's just a matter of time before more people see them as a strong option.
China is an insanely complicated marketplace (No offense meant).
You cannot judge a company or predict its downfall, just by failing at China. I think its still a market that needs a lot of studying. Lots of companies have failed there, and changed their strategy.
US marketplace is the backbone for all of these companies.
The losses are happening all over, not just China. In China they've seen the biggest loss though, at a time when Apple for example is doing very well, and of course Android has like 90 percent market share in China already. The Chinese market has rejected Windows Phone.
Microsoft is behind in the game. It´s starting (only now) to focus on cloud and mobile. It´s like they are chasing the big players. But they should be leading the changes in the industry.
IMO it´s a natural consequence of the past decade's focus: personal computers. To be the top player at 1999 on this high demand market, they had to focus. And now they need to reinvent their entire business. It´s hard, but hey have some advantages: good people (as this new CEO) and money, tons of it.
Azure was launched 2010, and if you don't count Windows Mobile, Windows Phone was also launched in 2010. You could argue that one or both were not "significant efforts" but they certainly didn't start this year.
I remember ballmer saying something about "we're all in" for cloud just after I started. Also, I started in 2007 and windows mobile was definitely a thing, if not the right thing. Cloud and mobile have been priorities for awhile.
Well, give them time. I also agree that Microsoft has the potential to be a big player in the future outside the enterprise "market". I think it will not just chase, but also innovate. The only drawback I see is while innovation is happening in a platform agnostic way, it's still mostly happening in a very unix centric way.
Microsoft might be the only player in it's court, and that isolation might become a tax on them.
Microsoft might be the only player in it's court, and that isolation might become a tax on them.
When computers were large, and only government and fortune 500's could afford them IBM was a dominate force. When they got cheaper/more common. They still participated, but Microsoft came to dominate this new particular market. As Bill gates himself said, the hardware was now a commodity (but not for IBM's customers) it was the software that was valuable. It took a different company culture to rule that market.
In mobile, hardware has not been successfully made into a commodity. Apple as a mobile company looked more like IBM as a mainframe company. So far they've done a great job at sticking to their niche. They excel at making consumer friendly hardware devices, with supporting software.
Google obviously has mastered building free cloud services for consumers, however they seem to fail in every endeavor that's different. They struggle to understand people as people, and really haven't developed a company culture to build great products for them.
I think Microsoft is making progress on reducing the scope of sub optimal market's they are attacking, and is currently in the process of defining a culture to attack this new narrower scope. They may just be successful.