Is Microsoft Headed Towards Extinction?
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
Microsoft does need to be so much innovative as long as users buy Windows and Office. Windows 7 has been selling at 15 million copies a month. This just proves that whether or not Microsoft is innovative these days, Windows and Office sells like hot-cakes.
Same goes with IBM and their mainframes. A lot of IBM haters kept predicting that IBM and mainframes would be extinct just because they are not innovative, but the reality is that it does not matter. What matters is that they have millions of loyal customers that other companies envy.
This article said Microsoft wouldn't go extinct for decades, but it would still be pretty ugly in the meanwhile if it followed IBM's mainframe path. Especially since Windows is a lot less alien that that ecosystem, porting is much more of an option.
As a side note, IBM mainframes were massively innovative in their day. System 360 defined the 8 bit oriented CPU approach, there's virtualization (the real OSes haven't been able to boot on bare metal for a long time), there's something to be said for their channel IO architecture (although they regret not making them full fledged CPUs), etc. etc. And they're rock solid and generally responsible about that mission, something Sun notably stumbled on.
There attempts in search reek of desperation, paying people to use Bing. Xbox is just now starting to pay off. They have lost mobile. They are losing market share in their webserver and development tools.
That doesn't matter, what matters is that lately their execution has sucked.
DevDiv is on a pretty good roll right now. It is still many steps behind other communities in a lot of regards (and likely always will be), but LINQ was a huge milestone in 3.5 and the new dynamic integration options of 4.0 is a big step forward for a mainstream static language.
The XBox division continues to do cool things. Last year's dashboard revamp was a huge face lift for the system, XBox Live may continue to be a wretched hive of scum and villainy but it is a well-implemented one. I'm skeptical of Kinect's value for the type of games I play, but I believe it'll be very popular amongst casuals and should be a compelling addition to the XBox's UI for non-gaming apps. Oh, and the "instant-on" 1080p streaming of pay-per-view and Netflix movies is really sick and feels like living in the future.
The Zune may always be an niche choice, but its the best option if you'd prefer to spend $15/mo for "unlimited" music rather than purchasing music at $10/album. Which situation makes the most sense will vary from person to person. Last year Zune started handing out 10 song credits per month to each subscriber as well, which helped take the sting out of the normal arguments against subscription services.
I don't particularly follow the Windows Phone 7 / Kin stuff, but it seems obvious they screwed up royally on at least half that proposition (and I don't expect big things out of the Win Phone 7 half either).
Windows 7 has been very well perceived, though it still lags behind Linux/OSX.
Office 2007 was a pretty good redesign of the suite, but Office 2010 doesn't seem to have raised the bar much. I don't think OpenOffice will ever replace MS Office, rather Office will continue to lead until GoogleDocs is fully ready to take over (its getting closer & closer every day and I don't think MS's new web-based Office will be able to compete).
In retrospect, after reviewing what I've written so far, my opinion seems to be that Microsoft's offerrings haven't been that bad execution-wise lately, but that most are plagued by the fact that they are "also rans": decent products that have some strong merits, but offer no compelling reason to leave the market leader or community favorite.
Lags behind in what sense?
My major pain points on Windows that lag behind Linux/OSX:
- Scripting. PowerShell is getting there, and is fine for system related tasks, but it remains a second-class citizen.
- Application Installation. No apt-get; no simple dragging an app into the Apps folder. Same for uninstallation.
- Security. I don't hate UAC nearly as much as everyone else seems to, but give me sudo any day. I'm also concerned by reports I've read of how easy it is for malicious software to get around UAC.
- Settings/Configuration. Control Panel is still a cluster fuck and every app on my computer seems to have a different route to their custom config screen.
- Startup. Yes I know about msconfig, but my wife certainly doesn't, nor does my mother.
I don't hate Windows. I make my livelihood from it, use it all day with little complaint (Win7 is my favorite Windows version since Win2000), and its clearly the only real choice for PC gaming (I have like 3 games for my Macs via Steam). That doesn't mean I am or should be blind to where it falls behind its competitors.
For what its worth, I have the same feeling about .NET: I use it, love it, make money off it, have fun with it; but I'm not blind to its faults.
I don't know if you use Outlook (I'm guessing not) but Outlook 2010's handling of threading makes it a huge improvement over 2007, IMO.
That said, I'm not using Office for anything fancy: lots and lots of Outlook, some basic Word-based requirements docs, a bunch of Excel, and the rare Powerpoint. I also have a pretty monster rig at work, and never had any performance problems with 2007. I upgraded to 2010 during beta and am running the release right now. I like it (the UI improvements in Outlook are nice), but it doesn't strike me as a "must have" upgrade over 2007. It _certainly_ isn't an upgrade I would've spent $100+ of my _own_ money on.
I use GoogleDocs at home for personal use.
In any case, Microsoft's success was based on innovation in the business model, and they've done a lot of innovation with their software over the years.
The real problem with Microsoft if the insider stories are anything to go by is that it's full of bureaucratic middle management self-sabotaging with no real leadership. All you have to do is listen to Steve Ballmer bluster his way through an interview to realize that being a good sales guy in no way confers the ability lead a technology company.
However Microsoft still has a ton of successful products and great people. I imagine if they were to do some kind of massive internal housecleaning and layoff of underperforming and territorial middle management based on interviews of the rank and file that they could restore quite a bit of their product development savvy overnight.
Windows 7 seems noticeably absent from the list of stuff the R&D department produced.
Apple didn't invent the phone, is the iPhone a flop and will Apple die next?
And MS hasn't made anything in the last few years that is worthy of mentioning? What about Windows 7, love it or hate it, it's the fastest selling OS in history.
Inventing something isn't a sign of success. Taking an idea, whether it has already been invented or not, then creating the best (or at least the most popular) iteration of that idea, is what matters. I'm no Microsoft fan-boy (I use Linux, have an Android phone, although I do own and love my Xbox 360 to be fair).. but even I can't deny Microsoft's ability to consistently churn out some pretty amazing products (yes, and their fair share of flops too.. but no-one is immune to that.. Apple Newton anyone?).
• Toyota brought hybrids to market.
• Apple elevated cellphones to a completely new level, inventing underlying technology along the way.
I consider both to be bold, innovative moves. I think you are defining "invention" far too narrowly. Edit: Name a single completely new "invention" from software industries. Nothing? Then stop being so pedantic.
Toyota didn't "invent" the Hybrid, if anything that's another case that perfectly proves my point.. Toyota took an existing invention, the Hybrid car, and created a brilliant marketable implementation of that pre-existing idea.
Apple didn't "invent" the touch screen, multi touch, the cell phone, or any of the other stuff that makes the iPhone such a good phone. It just once again took pre-existing ideas and created a brilliant marketable implementation of the combined ideas into a product that has netted them billions of dollars.
Office and Windows are effectively “first” because they have incredible traction.
Oddly, though, I found myself realizing just today that when Kinect comes out that I want to buy an Xbox 360 (which are finally quiet enough thanks to a 45nm process) just to play EA Sports Active 2.0. It's crazy how things change.
Not everything is squished.
Heck, they're so messed up they almost destroyed one of their foundational cash cows (Windows with the Vista debacle), which would have killed another (Office). A commentator to Mini-Microsoft's previous blog item claimed that the Windows group engineers are now required to fill out by the hour time sheets. The mind boggles ... even if that's not true, the fact that it's believable says enough.
Microsoft sells Windows and Office because companies don't like the cloud (less stable, speed, privacy) and don't like Apple (expensive, re-education of employees...). So Microsoft products are a good solution.