Microsoft Software Blueprints
- Thread starter james ungehajer
- Start date
As some of you know, I've never been much of a Microsoft fan (although I recently bought a copy of Windows XP to run on my MacBook Pro 
). Nevertheless, they were quite a force to be reckoned with in the industry for many years. So it's kind of sad to see what they've become today, with their embarrassing hostile takeover attempt at Yahoo. I mean really, they already have all the money and resources in the world - can't they get anything right on their own?
As that article points out, this latest move is a response to pressure from EU, and Microsoft's very real concern that government bodies will embrace open source applications. And the real pain is being felt by their shareholders. Remember that nice spike in their stock last fall? It's all gone now: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Meanwhile, this chart should also speak for itself...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl
But it never ceases to amaze me how there's a constant drone of "experts" saying what a great value their stock is, and how bright the future is going to be. The reality is, your money would do better in a savings account, or even under the mattress. I think they're a sad example of a company that's just gotten too big to manage and lacks talented leaders. Bill Gates, love him or hate him, was a true visionary and a genius. But now he's lost interest in Microsoft and has taken on the task of solving all the world's problems.
). Nevertheless, they were quite a force to be reckoned with in the industry for many years. So it's kind of sad to see what they've become today, with their embarrassing hostile takeover attempt at Yahoo. I mean really, they already have all the money and resources in the world - can't they get anything right on their own?As that article points out, this latest move is a response to pressure from EU, and Microsoft's very real concern that government bodies will embrace open source applications. And the real pain is being felt by their shareholders. Remember that nice spike in their stock last fall? It's all gone now: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=MSFT&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
Meanwhile, this chart should also speak for itself...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl
But it never ceases to amaze me how there's a constant drone of "experts" saying what a great value their stock is, and how bright the future is going to be. The reality is, your money would do better in a savings account, or even under the mattress. I think they're a sad example of a company that's just gotten too big to manage and lacks talented leaders. Bill Gates, love him or hate him, was a true visionary and a genius. But now he's lost interest in Microsoft and has taken on the task of solving all the world's problems.
I certainly don't see the attempt to acquire Yahoo as embarrassing for the company. Gates is still very much in charge of the overall vision, and he articulates the strategy quite well here:
http://www.news.com/Gates-explains-why-Microsoft-needs-Yahoo/2008-1014_3-6231341.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc
You can argue whether they should be trying to compete in search, but if you accept that they feel they need to, then Yahoo makes sense, and frankly most of the objections to it from the Yahoo side are ideological. It's highly unlikely Yahoo shareholders will get a better deal from anyone else, as evidenced by the rapid collapse of all the other discussions that have occured.
As to the release of the binary file formats, see Joel Spolsky's recent post on the history of those formats.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
Microsoft is trying to learn how to be a good neighbor and be open about assets that have been in development for over twenty years. Their reluctance is not competitive in nature, so much as it is due to complexity. As Joel points out: there are literally thousands of developer years of work in the Microsoft Office suite; nobody is going to replicate all those features anytime soon.
Lastly, there is still no threat to Microsoft's complete dominance of the desktop, except the threat that the desktop disappears (thus their focus on mobile technologies and the desire to compete in search). Apple has had a little bump recently. Linux remains mired in single-digits and will stay there as long as it remains a geek-fest for people who love the arcane (and I do). MS's share price certainly has tabletopped over the last few years, but the same can be said of many of the big, established tech companies both on the hardware and software sides.
http://www.news.com/Gates-explains-why-Microsoft-needs-Yahoo/2008-1014_3-6231341.html?tag=ne.fd.mnbc
You can argue whether they should be trying to compete in search, but if you accept that they feel they need to, then Yahoo makes sense, and frankly most of the objections to it from the Yahoo side are ideological. It's highly unlikely Yahoo shareholders will get a better deal from anyone else, as evidenced by the rapid collapse of all the other discussions that have occured.
As to the release of the binary file formats, see Joel Spolsky's recent post on the history of those formats.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
Microsoft is trying to learn how to be a good neighbor and be open about assets that have been in development for over twenty years. Their reluctance is not competitive in nature, so much as it is due to complexity. As Joel points out: there are literally thousands of developer years of work in the Microsoft Office suite; nobody is going to replicate all those features anytime soon.
Lastly, there is still no threat to Microsoft's complete dominance of the desktop, except the threat that the desktop disappears (thus their focus on mobile technologies and the desire to compete in search). Apple has had a little bump recently. Linux remains mired in single-digits and will stay there as long as it remains a geek-fest for people who love the arcane (and I do). MS's share price certainly has tabletopped over the last few years, but the same can be said of many of the big, established tech companies both on the hardware and software sides.
Well you're certainly welcome to your opinion, and it sounds like a lot like what others have said. And what do I know anyway? I'm a Piney and an artist... but also an investor who puts his money where his mouth is and I've done quite well in recent years. Let's just say I couldn't disagree more on this topic. It's kind of comical the way they trot out Bill Gates to get media coverage these days, then he goes back to his real passion, which is his foundation of course. Microsoft looks like the ultimate example of "design by committee" to me, and that's something I have no patience for personally. And look at the vast resources they devoted to Vista, with such lackluster results. I agree they desperately needed something new, but they can't get around their proprietary mindset and it continues to hold them back. Jobs took a huge gamble in moving the Mac to unix, and had to endure some rough times along the way, but it has really paid off in the long run.
I think you're failing to see what's really going on when you say "Apple has had a little bump recently". Take another look at that link I posted: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl
That's hardly a "little bump", but a steadily rising mountain with Apple increasing shareholder value by about 2,000% over the past 5 years while Microsoft has flatlined. Yes, I've heard all the apologies about iPod fads, but don't think that explains it. Now I know... you're talking about operating system market share. And to me, those numbers are even more remarkable and many people don't seem to understand the significance. Apple is approaching an 8% market share now, and again this chart looks like a steady progression to me and not a "little bump": http://marketshare.hitslink.com/rep...=4&qpcustom=Mac&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=85&qpnp=24
That's a 76% rise in the last two years. Now there's no argument that Microsoft is still king of the heap there, but its market is steadily eroding. Will it vanish overnight? Of course not. But the point is, when you have a 91% market share, the only direction is DOWN, but when your share is 8% then the sky's the limit. And Apple's share of the laptop market is over 17% which truly boggles my mind; they've become a major player in that category: http://arstechnica.com/journals/app...otebook-market-share-making-gains-over-summer
I just got a MacBook Pro and am running both Windows XP and MacOSX on it. It's FAST under both systems (2.4ghz core2 duo with 4GB RAM and 256MB GeForce 8600M GT). It can boot directly into either OS, or it can run XP as unix processes in MacOS using Parallels which I find works very well. So if you could have it all, why wouldn't people buy a machine like this instead of just a PC? It brings it all down to a question of price and software licensing. Steve Jobs has steadfastly resisted licensing MacOSX to other companies, but my guess is that he will eventually cave in because the astronomical profits to be made. Michael Dell said he was interested several years ago. But we shall see. If and when that happens, Microsoft may really have something to worry about...
Now I guess this is sounding like a Ford vs. Chevy debate - sorry. I just enjoy digging into this issue, and I have been a Microsoft contrarian for a number of years now, much to my profit. My only regret is that I didn't sell my MSFT stock sooner. Your post is thoughtful and probably represents the prevailing wisdom. I just don't buy it. Recently I read an article that said the Microsoft-Yahoo deal smelled like "AOL Time Warner 2.0". My sentiments exactly.
OK, sorry for the rant, now back to the Pines!
I think you're failing to see what's really going on when you say "Apple has had a little bump recently". Take another look at that link I posted: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5y&s=MSFT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=aapl
That's hardly a "little bump", but a steadily rising mountain with Apple increasing shareholder value by about 2,000% over the past 5 years while Microsoft has flatlined. Yes, I've heard all the apologies about iPod fads, but don't think that explains it. Now I know... you're talking about operating system market share. And to me, those numbers are even more remarkable and many people don't seem to understand the significance. Apple is approaching an 8% market share now, and again this chart looks like a steady progression to me and not a "little bump": http://marketshare.hitslink.com/rep...=4&qpcustom=Mac&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=85&qpnp=24
That's a 76% rise in the last two years. Now there's no argument that Microsoft is still king of the heap there, but its market is steadily eroding. Will it vanish overnight? Of course not. But the point is, when you have a 91% market share, the only direction is DOWN, but when your share is 8% then the sky's the limit. And Apple's share of the laptop market is over 17% which truly boggles my mind; they've become a major player in that category: http://arstechnica.com/journals/app...otebook-market-share-making-gains-over-summer
I just got a MacBook Pro and am running both Windows XP and MacOSX on it. It's FAST under both systems (2.4ghz core2 duo with 4GB RAM and 256MB GeForce 8600M GT). It can boot directly into either OS, or it can run XP as unix processes in MacOS using Parallels which I find works very well. So if you could have it all, why wouldn't people buy a machine like this instead of just a PC? It brings it all down to a question of price and software licensing. Steve Jobs has steadfastly resisted licensing MacOSX to other companies, but my guess is that he will eventually cave in because the astronomical profits to be made. Michael Dell said he was interested several years ago. But we shall see. If and when that happens, Microsoft may really have something to worry about...
Now I guess this is sounding like a Ford vs. Chevy debate - sorry. I just enjoy digging into this issue, and I have been a Microsoft contrarian for a number of years now, much to my profit. My only regret is that I didn't sell my MSFT stock sooner. Your post is thoughtful and probably represents the prevailing wisdom. I just don't buy it. Recently I read an article that said the Microsoft-Yahoo deal smelled like "AOL Time Warner 2.0". My sentiments exactly.
OK, sorry for the rant, now back to the Pines!
Yeah, no need for an Apple-MS war in here 
. But it's worth pointing out that Apple's share value has come from their success with consumer devices, not much from system sales. Nothing wrong with that.
I don't disagree at all with respect to what usually happens to large companies, but people who don't like MS tend to read more into every setback, naturally. Vista's release isn't substantially different from the move to Windows ME then 95, or from the initial release of NT. The new OS is always a pile of junk, but they have also always stayed on it and fixed it.
I'm a programmer, so perhaps I have a different perspective. People don't give MS credit for the things they have done well over the years, back when priorities were different. Used to be compatibility was the mantra, and they have done a better job than anyone else, period. I still have assembly code that writes directly to hardware, written in 1988, that runs fine on my windows XP box today.
With Vista they have had to rethink that, because compatibility with old stuff brings problems. But such a big change brings problems of its own.
But at the fundamental level you're right: tough to build on 91% market share. There is little growth left in desktops; they have improved server share, but probably will never dominate that segment. So they're definitely looking for the next big thing. I don't happen to think MS/Yahoo is it, either. I would prefer they focus on mobile devices even more than they have. I don't think Google is really a threat to them, but in that I am the contrarian.
. But it's worth pointing out that Apple's share value has come from their success with consumer devices, not much from system sales. Nothing wrong with that.I don't disagree at all with respect to what usually happens to large companies, but people who don't like MS tend to read more into every setback, naturally. Vista's release isn't substantially different from the move to Windows ME then 95, or from the initial release of NT. The new OS is always a pile of junk, but they have also always stayed on it and fixed it.
I'm a programmer, so perhaps I have a different perspective. People don't give MS credit for the things they have done well over the years, back when priorities were different. Used to be compatibility was the mantra, and they have done a better job than anyone else, period. I still have assembly code that writes directly to hardware, written in 1988, that runs fine on my windows XP box today.
With Vista they have had to rethink that, because compatibility with old stuff brings problems. But such a big change brings problems of its own.
But at the fundamental level you're right: tough to build on 91% market share. There is little growth left in desktops; they have improved server share, but probably will never dominate that segment. So they're definitely looking for the next big thing. I don't happen to think MS/Yahoo is it, either. I would prefer they focus on mobile devices even more than they have. I don't think Google is really a threat to them, but in that I am the contrarian
.
Apple only came back because the company is more or less incapable of running without Steve Jobs at the helm. It's truly a cult of personality, which is why he's the guy doing all of the keynote speeches, and people hang on his every word. The iPod certainly helped build up the brand again, and is probably responsible for getting people to consider switching. Hell, I even tried it for a while, but the MacBook Pro I had ran way too hot, and wasn't really all that great for the work I do. (I'm a sysadmin in charge of several hundred Linux, UNIX, and Windows servers.)
People can knock MS all they want, but they are the dominant force on the corporate desktop, mostly because a lot of apps are written for that space. With the development of web based apps you'll starting to see a shift away from that, however you're still seeing people write for compatibility with Internet Explorer over other browsers.
Linux on the desktop is getting better, but it's still geared towards enthusiasts and tinkerers such as myself. The OSX desktop is nice, so long as you really don't want to color outside of the lines that Apple draws for you.
People can knock MS all they want, but they are the dominant force on the corporate desktop, mostly because a lot of apps are written for that space. With the development of web based apps you'll starting to see a shift away from that, however you're still seeing people write for compatibility with Internet Explorer over other browsers.
Linux on the desktop is getting better, but it's still geared towards enthusiasts and tinkerers such as myself. The OSX desktop is nice, so long as you really don't want to color outside of the lines that Apple draws for you.
Figured you were in the business, Ben. You do too good a job with this site. Anyway, while some desktop apps might move into the browser, many of the more complicated and powerful ones will not. In general people overestimate the importance of end-user applications in the stickiness of MS's operating systems. Its important, for sure, but what's also important, and what will/would take years of effort and billions in expense to replicate, are the guts of the system that knit together all the thousands of different hardware components that can possibly fit into a PC case.
The Linux guys have found this out the hard way: high performance kernel - check; excellent file system - check; cool desktop managers - check; slick package management technology - check; compatibility with 99% of all microcomputer hardware... uncheck.
It's no surprise they've done an excellent job on the things totally under their control. It's all the rest that is hard.
Well, things like 3D rendering, CADD, etc. probably won't be web based. But productivity apps, etc. will be moved to web based apps. Microsoft is working on a web based version of Office. Google has it with Google Apps for Domains.
With all of the goodness of AJAX, there's not much you really can't do via the browser now.
As for Linux device driver support, the GPL actually stops some things because the hardware manufacturers either have to release drivers as binary only kernel modules, or have to open source the drivers, which they may or may not be able to do because of various other IP restrictions.
With all of the goodness of AJAX, there's not much you really can't do via the browser now.
As for Linux device driver support, the GPL actually stops some things because the hardware manufacturers either have to release drivers as binary only kernel modules, or have to open source the drivers, which they may or may not be able to do because of various other IP restrictions.
I agree, certainly with the second point, and largely with the first. In any case, it's all the stuff below Win32, and 20 years of evolving BIOS standards, that make it tough to compete with the platform. I'm one of those who think MS cannot be deposed from the desktop, but that the desktop will slowly wither away from under them.
Looks like it didn't work out. But of course one never knows what might happen next...
http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/html_...120986002095265343.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news