Blu vg

3 Comments

    • Microsoft's Current Situation: Like IBM in the '80s [view article]
      Not to beat a dead horse, but so many still don't realize that Microsoft *has* updated its "monopoly products" in the past five years (as I pointed out). XP SP2 alone was a huge release... and furthermore, it was free! Maybe this is a failure in marketing more than anything. If they had called it "XP R2" and slapped a $130 price tag on it, these discussions wouldn't exist (except instead everyone would complain that they charged for it). I remember not all that long ago (as 98, 98SE, 2000, and ME came out) many people complained that they "had to upgrade" way too often. Microsoft is everyone's favorite punching bag--no matter what they do, people will complain.

      I agree, though, that they haven't had a good track record in some other markets. However, the Windows Server market is relatively new, and there is still a lot of room for growth there. The Dynamics division has products that are getting attention and making inroads. As I mentioned above, the XBox may not be profitable by itself (and subsidies in that market are nothing new), but this is the price they're paying to get their foot in the door--and it has been very successful so far. They've pushed Sony into a tough corner, and who's to benefit? The consumer. This is hardly stagnation.

      I've seen in recent history some of the strongest products they've ever made. Attitudes among many who hated the company are thawing, particularly because some of their products have improved so dramatically, but also because they are more transparent than ever. They still have plenty of faults, of course, but I hardly see a company that is stagnant. Like all, with the new ventures, they will win some and lose some. Their failures receive much more of the spotlight. They very likely will fall someday (although perhaps just like IBM "fell"), but again, I don't think the examples given here really point to that conclusion.       Jul 27 07:03 PM
    • Microsoft's Current Situation: Like IBM in the '80s [view article]
      Yes... I guess I am conforming to the stereotypical "draconian IT Director" mold a bit! But that shouldn't be reason to dismiss my comments categorically. There is no reason to believe that the IBM PC example will hold true today as it did then. For instance, I've worked in a half-Mac, half-PC environment--I've dealt with the issues personally and am in an industry where my peers/friends are dealing with the same thing. A very high percentage of the time, those "switch to Mac" projects fail, and come the next hardware cycle, those groups go back to PC. I assure you, it's not that they didn't try to make it work!

      I think perhaps some industry watchers get stock/financial performance and industry performance mixed up a little bit. Take the XBox 360--Microsoft has produced a device with performance that many developers are saying is better than Sony's, and yet the cost is about half. They both are selling the consoles at a loss, and in Sony's case, it will be a huge, huge amount. From a financial standpoint, the numbers right now are terrible for both... but both companies are looking at a bigger long-term picture. Within the industry, the XBox is a tremendous success--but there is a short-term pain for a long-term gain. One thing is for sure, though--a company isn't going to pick its next computer or software package based on the stock performance of the vendor. Excitement--whether real or, more often than not, perceived--and speculation don't push product in the IT world.

      Where is IBM today, anyhow? They are still huge and very relevant. However, the desktop market is a commodity market, and IBM is simply not good at that; they aren't even willing to play that game. It's not that IBM lost the PC business. They tried to turn it into something it's not, and when they realized that, they gave up.

      Don't get me wrong--Microsoft is not invincible by any means, but the examples used here just don't support the conclusions.       Jul 27 06:36 PM
    • Microsoft's Current Situation: Like IBM in the '80s [view article]
      There are a lot of gaps/leaps of reasoning and non sequiturs in this article. Where to start?

      IBM may have "dominated" in the early 1980s, but that was based on hardware, it wasn't the same degree of domination of that market, and the market was completely different. Now, just about everyone owns a computer in the US. That certainly wasn't the case back then, when computers were mostly geeks' toys.

      It's easy to talk about things like Google's spreadsheet offering from a consumer perspective, but these applications receive spotty traction in the business market. One big reason is that enterprises have to be able to implement change management processes, particularly with applications. So far, this is not an option with most widely-hosted applications--when Google makes an update, you're getting it, ready or not, and like it or not. Another reason is that you need a reliable offline mode--essentially a thick/fat client... at which point it's simply Google reinventing the wheel.

      Macs are not accepted in most corporations, for a whole host of reasons: premium cost (though it's not as great as before), additional support requirements, additional security considerations, integration costs, application availability, 3rd party support, etc. etc. And to clarify, the application availability is a huge problem for Mac adoption--there are tons of odd apps (particularly old and/or vertical market stuff) that are critical to businesses and simply have no functional equivalent on the Mac. If there is a cross-platform version, it is often a couple revs behind, lacks features, and/or is marginally supported. Furthermore, XP has been updated significantly since it was released (many add-ons, service packs, updates, etc.), but the difference is that Microsoft did not charge for them--think how everyone would complain if they took a cue from Apple and charged yearly for a package of updates! Plus, they've released several editions: Media Center (original, 2004, 2005), Tablet PC (original and 2004), x64 edition, the Starter Edition, an Embedded Edition, and more. And despite the oft-repeated notion that Apple is growing and changing the game, the numbers don't agree--yes, their shipments are up, but PC shipments as a whole are also up. Their market share remains unchanged (2.28% in 2005).

      Those are just a few examples. I have read a host of articles like this as well, but working in the IT industry, I think a lot of them are really out-of-touch, or perhaps just wishful thinking for those that have a bone to pick with Microsoft (e.g., the suggestion that the next version of Office was "designed to befuddle" users... ignoring how much user testing goes into these changes, and that users are affecting the final outcome through the beta process--and even via Microsoft's blogs; in other words, people give them grief when they don't innovate, and give them even more when they do). It's easy to throw stones at the big guy.

      Applying double-standards to them is also in fashion, such as the accusation that they have tried to buy their way into new industries. So, why not apply the same logic to Google with Writely, or Keyhole/Google Earth, and so on? For some reason, Google gets a pass--because they're Google. For some reason, there's this desire to perceive the facts differently when it comes to Microsoft.       Jul 27 03:57 AM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»