For Microsoft to succeed, must Windows die? | Hacker News Reader

For Microsoft to succeed, must Windows die?

blogs.computerworld.com

3 pointsrbanffy8 comments

Like IBM wrestling with the PC vs the mainframe, you need to find some critical way of transitioning into the new paradigm. IMHO Microsoft's web businesses are too close to the existing cash cows and that pollutes the offering. They have two masters: the masters of the new (cloud based market) and the master of the old business. Perversely what could have been an asset (the cashflows and distribution and brand awareness of the existing business) turns out to weaken and confuse the proposition. Unsurprisingly (if you are an observer of this industry) being a startup focussed solely on your product confers you real advantage. What Microsoft needs to do is put some of the $2bn a year it loses being 3rd in a range of markets (some of which only have two players) into building offerings that don't encapsulate Msft DNA but purely focus on what this new world needs. They can then bolt on distribution via the Windows platform as icing on the cake, rather than a core part of the proposition. Windows doesn't need to die. It needs to be ignored by Microsoft and Redmond.

>Contrast that with Android, which Google continually updates, and which is then automatically updated on consumer's phones.

I thought this was weak, given how long it can take for an Android update to reach some phones. My wife has a Motorola Backflip. It was released 8 months ago with Android 1.5, which was then 11 months old. Sometime this quarter it's supposed to get 2.1, which is already 10 months old.

If MS wanted to go to a continuous update model, they could probably do better than Android does, since there's a lot more homogeneity in PCs than in phones.

The problem with Android is the phone manufacturers. The more they customize the base software, the longer it takes for updates to arrive. There is also an incentive not to update - you'll end up buying another phone.

Yes, I know. My point is that MS wouldn't have anywhere near that much trouble, since they exert more control over the PC vendors.

There are very few WinMo phones that have upgrades. If this would be as easy as you imply, phone OS upgrades would be more common.

Phone manufacturers prefer you buy another phone instead of upgrading yours. The only reason iPhones allow software upgrades is because Apple wants you to perceive them as high-value items instead of disposable ones (like most phones are). Making upgrades easy for the manufacturer would not help much.

What would help is a clear separation of OS and application layers that could be upgraded independently. In this way, the core OS would be the hardware specific part and the rest of the platform could become user-upgradable.

Microsoft tends to play a zero sum game where it will innovate like mad until it dominates a market sector, then let it stagnate until threatened, having moved on to other areas. Anyone who operates a web server has seen a noticeable shift away from Microsoft platforms (both OS and browser) in the last couple of years. This has spurred the recent IE development, and I don't expect Microsoft to settle on Windows 7 when it's so much easier to "just buy a Mac" and get everything a consumer needs or wants in a computer these days.

I have shelves of Windows software sitting right next to me as I type, and I just realized I don't use any of it anymore. Moving on wasn't hard, and Microsoft's promise of backwards compatibility was uneven and ultimately unnecessary. They have the resources to retool overnight and release a streamlined OS, which is what they need to do to get back in the game, when they decide they're losing.

Why kill the money making machine? I think they are doing just fine, I don't understand why people think Microsoft needs to change to be successful... as if they aren't very successful already :)

How many licenses of Windows will Microsoft sell 5 years from now? 10? 15?

Microsoft has huge inertia today, but markets change. And change really fast. Had Microsoft missed the web by two years and insisted on the Microsoft Network, we would not be having this discussion now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com