Hacker News Reader

Comment by melling | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't Microsoft have 90% of the desktop? About the same dominance in "Office apps", along with their proprietary formats keeping people uncomfortable using "compatible" software. That dominance is almost 2 decades old and it's quite hard to fix.

When most people get a job, they're going to be using Microsoft because that's what they will be given. I've never been somewhere where I'm told which search engine to use. Most places still don't offer an alternative to IE in the work place. That's why developers are still coding to IE7.

It really is frustrating that people don't understand this. I wouldn't mind a better Microsoft, except for the fact that people have short memories and don't really understand how powerful Microsoft currently is. Google is the the same ballpark? Seriously!?!

View on HN

And Google has an absurd share of the search market, with which they can make or break (and have made or broken) all sorts of businesses. Consumers can choose not to use Google, but businesses can't opt out of how they're listed.

The Office formats, for all their quirks, are open and documented. There's no one forcing you to use MS Office. You probably can't switch which OS you're using at work, but Windows is fairly permissive of portable apps that evade most of the security restrictions. We're locked into using IE8 at work for compatibility reasons, but I'm able to use Chrome on my work computer just fine.

If you don't think Google is heading down the old Microsoft route, I point you to the bundling of Google+ with all of their other apps. Yes, it delivers value. But that's what Microsoft said when it started bundling IE with Windows.

> Consumers can choose not to use Google, but businesses can't opt out of how they're listed

A better way to put that would be businesses can't opt out of consumers using Google. Obviously you can not be listed simply by using robots.txt or not having a website.

>businesses can't opt out of how they're listed.

This makes 0 sense. You can absolutely opt out, but wouldn't every business want to be at the top. I imagine if someone comes up with a better page ranking algorithm they definitely have a shot at beating google.

>bundling

I think its referred to single sign on in the enterprise world. Its much better than having to remember different logons and profiles for every google service (which youtube did)

I imagine if someone comes up with a better page ranking algorithm they definitely have a shot at beating google.

Not a chance... about the same as Linux has at beating Windows on the desktop, in my opinion. It's too entrenched, too far ahead, barrier to entry to even get to a level playing field is too high...

I'd love to see it, to be honest. I hope beyond hope it will happen. But I think it's more likely to see something remove the need to search entirely than have a new search engine take out Google's dominance.

I agree. It's not just the algorithm, scale etc. It's the chicken/egg problem - to have a good page ranking you need a lot of usage data from a lot of users and to get a lot of users you need a good page ranking.

we'll have to agree to disagree. Search is plain and simple a utility. If the utility is better then people will switch.

You're mistakening Microsoft's residual momentum for current acceleration.

The technology sphere is a lot bigger than the desktop now. This year there will be almost twice as many Android devices shipped than Windows + iOS/OSX devices combined. The future of technology is going to decrease the importance of the desktop even further, and Google has 90s-Microsoft level market share of every other type of consumer networked device. This is what scares people about Google.

http://redmondmag.com/articles/2014/01/07/android-growth-ecl...

I don't entirely buy that argument.

The "decreased importance" you cite is only relative; I for one don't see the desktop becoming unimportant any time soon.

For one thing, my aging parents need 24 inch or bigger screens to adequately see what they're doing. As a programmer and watcher of digital video I need a minimum of 24 inches of 1080p screen.

Then there's the enterprise, where biggish screens are needed for basic IT.

You can connect a monitor and keyboard to a tablet. Desktop/Other is a dichotomy that didn't age well. My "desktop replacement" is a laptop from 2009, and I expect to replace it with a docking station and something like the Surface in the next few years.

I said decreased importance, not unimportant. There will always be a need for PCs in development and enterprise, my comment was simply with regard to consumer use.

And I agree there will always be a need for large screen devices, but this doesn't necessarily mean desktops. Smart TVs or set-top boxes like Apple TV or streaming devices like Chromecast or consoles like the Xbox are where the growth is happening in the large format market. The Playstation 3 is the most popular Netflix streaming device.

I'm one of the dinosaurs that uses my laptop for everything these new consumer devices provide, but it doesn't mean I ignore that most people are moving away from this use case.

.... and Microsoft makes more off Android then Google does. :)

I thought they lost that patent dispute recently?

That remaining 90% share is having a severe chilling effect on general-purpouse computing. That share needs to get eaten up by Linux and Mac OS if we want to keep open computing healthy.

Who ares about the market share or the desktop? Microsoft does not make significant new revenue from their installation base. Google however does with their platforms (web and mobile), so does Apple (on mobile mainly).

I think it's very interesting to see an internal MS manager with a background in Bing and Azure to become CEO, interesting times are sure ahead.

Their influence on desktop is slowly eroding, though, and the new battlefield is the internet.

Furthermore, either desktop is no longer relevant as the New Guard (Apple, Google) want us to believe, in which case Microsoft's past and current dominance on desktop is a fairly moot point as far as today's technology is concerned OR desktop remains relevant and we should be pressuring the New Guard to prioritize innovation in that space.

I personally strongly prefer modern "desktop" computing (that is, working with a computer with large displays while at a desk; I don't care what form factor the actual box takes) to computing on small devices.

Separately, I tend to like Microsoft's products more than Apple's and Google's even though I'm not a .NET developer. I'm weird, I suppose.

But all that said, Apple and Google are right that desktop is not hot—even a fan of desktop computing like myself must admit it's fallen out of favor. I've had my share of rants about why that is and what could be done to address it if firms are interested. But putting that tangent aside, I find those who bemoan Microsoft's dominance on desktop are using the wrong angle. If you like desktop computing like I do, but you don't like Microsoft, don't attack Microsoft. Instead, ask your favored firm (Apple, Google, whatever) why they don't offer you something you'd like in the desktop space.

I for one never agreed with past depictions of Microsoft as a monopolist on the desktop even through my experiments with oddball alternatives like OS/2. Their tricky business being what it is, they were not a monopoly. There were other options, but I eventually realized that I didn't like the alternatives.

Finally, I'm not sure I precisely agree with the implied shift from "desktop" and "the Internet." I figure I understand what you mean, but I can't help but envision the popular Homer Simpson quote: "Wait, they have the Internet on computers now?" Being a desktop aficionado, my desktop computing environment is all about network-enabled consumption and creation.

I see the chief battlefronts as:

* Small-screen versus large-screen (where I favor large screen and want small screen devices to be subservient views on applications running on my application server).

* Federated or self-control with sharing via documented protocols versus the plain cloud (where I favor federated or self-control because I feel the plain cloud we have today has brought us tremendous lock-in and multi-device/multi-cloud chaos).

All of these involve "the Internet," being the common communication medium.

I agree with most of your points, but I think the key missing piece is integration.

IMHO, it's not an issue of "desktop" vs. small device, but integrated applications and presence that works smoothly across platforms vs. monolithic and siloed apps that keep you on one device.

Nobody does this well yet, but the holy grail of computing is to be able to move from desktop to tablet to laptop to phone and have your apps, data, and presence seamlessly follow you around.

Mobile has lept ahead in perceived value because it provides an illusion of that integration. Since you have the device with you always, you get a taste of what having everything everywhere would be like. However, that is fleeting and the providers have jumped at the chance to make it a walled garden that feels open (since the device is always with you), but doesn't share or play with others.

Eventually, people will become aware that mobile only is closed and bad, and integrated open multiplatform will rise, whether that is based on multi cloud or personal cloud or whatever technology best supports that seamless transition between devices.

Exactly, Ubuntu is actually working on this. http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android

Yep. I honestly could see the desktop being relegated to only scientists, programmers, IT, and possibly gamers, with mobile and tablet devices replacing it for nearly everyone else. This kinda makes me sad, seeing as I'm in the programmers group, and our fun toys (desktops) are starting to go away, but ultimately it's probably the right direction for society.

It's worth noting that desktop computing is being relegated to the groups that you mentioned only because they are the only groups remaining that have a compelling use for a full-sized desktop, not because of some innate laws of the universe.

It's at least partially on Microsoft to come up with good reasons for normal people to use their platform over all other options, and they've fallen very flat on that note in the past 15 or so years - particularly in the consumer space. It'd be interesting to see a revitalized Microsoft really attacking this space, but the promotion of Nadella makes me think that this isn't really what the MS board has in mind.

As long as the fun stuff is still available, I don't much care if my mother uses it all that often. If I can still put together a kickass gaming/programming PC, with nice big monitors and a comfortable chair, I'm happy.

Yeah but desktops will be irrelevant in a couple of years. Consumers are moving towards mobile platforms very quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com