[businezguy]

I've been thinking about how the computer industry is taking shape, and it is fascinating. We seem to be at a very important moment in the computer industry. There are several topics that I can think of off the top of my head.

Are we in a post-Microsoft world?

Microsoft was a dominant part of the computer industry with DOS, and was able to use that leverage to continue dominance with the GUI interface, despite the challenge from superior Apple technology. Microsoft was saw their real dominance begin with the release of Windows 95. Along with that release though, the Internet was taking its first steps to enter the people's homes. At the time Bill Gates didn't think it would succeed (or rather hoped), but was forced to release the OS with a web browser. When Microsoft knew of the success of the Internet was a force they could not ignore, they wisely began strong development of a web browser, and integrated it with Windows.

Now that the Internet is a dominant force in the PC industry, does this spell an end to the Microsoft's dominance? One can argue that Microsoft is a monopoly, and they stopped development of IE because they were so dominant and had such a large user base. Is it that simple? We are getting to the point, with XML, and other advanced languages, could allow for a full integration of office/database capabilities in web pages and web browsers. Fully functioning web sites, or web services could take place of Microsoft office, which remains 45 percent of Microsoft's revenue. As this technology develops, businesses have the option to sit back and wait, while using older versions of Microsoft Office, like Office 97.

This puts Microsoft in a real pickle. They don't want to develop the features users want into the web browser, because the browser itself could be a portal to find alternatives to Microsoft. If that is the case, Microsoft can only cease development of their browser, in hopes of stopping this movement. They will not move a muscle as browsers such as Firefox slowly chip away at IE's userbase. Also, since the media at large hasn't grappled to this concept yet, and it doesn't have a name like Linux, silence would be Microsoft's most prudent means of survival. Don't mention the threat, and people might not realize an alternative is available, or could be available in the future.

Could Apple gain market share?

Apple doesn't have the same limitations as does Apple. The fact that Apple has a smaller user base than does Microsoft, makes them far more able to make important transitions to new technologies, such as Mac OS X vs. Mac OS 9. Also, Apple doesn't have dependance on software like Microsoft Office, etc.

Whereas the Internet could be a threat to Microsoft, it could be a friend to Apple. .Mac and the iTunes Music store, along with the popularity of the iPod have already proven that to be the case.

People were always confused about what .NET meant with Microsoft. The fact is, Microsoft didn't know--it was really their answer to their own fear that they would be replaced by services, as I mentioned above. However, while Microsoft has no online services, Apple has an important head start in this area. There's the old argument that you don't get yoru $99 worth with .Mac. Honestly, I don't think, in the scheme of things, that is as important as the fact that Apple is selling online services, and Microsoft isn't. Web services could be the future, and Apple could have a huge head start in this area over Microsoft. For Microsoft to even COMPETE in services, would be to admit there was an existing threat. Make no mistake, Microsoft is a company used to shipping software and selling licenses. They want no part in changing this.

The Apple iPod wouldn't have really become the hot success it was, if not for the Internet. The same could be said for Dell, but for a different reason. There is no way a device like this would have been given the publicity it has been given, if not for the Internet. Apple always advertises on TV, you might mention, but things wouldn't have even gone that far if not for the Internet, and it's ability to spread the word about popular products. I know I purchased my first iPod before TV ads were ever made for the iPod. How did I hear about it? The Internet, of course.

The Music Store, Apple's second, and more public attempt to get into "services" has been a means of promoting the iPod. But, this is a huge opportunity for Apple to promote Apple. Apple is becoming a dominant force in music, and has a better general ability to manage handle all things media than does Microsoft. For all of its posing, Microsoft has an old outlook on technology, and how it will enter the home. Apple has a chance to become a media force, in some respects. Don't expect them to become Time Warner Cable. Still, I can't see Apple stopping at music, when it comes to pioneering online technologies.

Could the Linux threat ruin Microsoft?

I think it would take many many years to see Microsoft go out of business, so I'm not proposing that's going to happen. However, if Linux can put together a free desktop version of Linux (or low cost), with a friendly GUI interface, and advanced searching tools, along with a wider compatibility with games, and office software, they could become a huge threat to Microsoft (and potentially Apple, although less likely). One thing Microsoft has a lot of, that they can just as soon lose, it's market share. Linux could, slowly at first, start to eat away at that market share.

Other thoughts:

Are we moving into services, and away from bundled software with patches?

Will hardware and services become the only costs to computer, entirely phasing out software purchases?

Will there come a time when Linux goes under the same attack as does Microsoft when it comes to security?

Will Microsoft's security risks play a factor in their downfall?

Will Microsoft's Longhorn keep Microsoft as the dominant figure in the computer industry?

[businezguy]

Sorry for the REALLY long post. You needn't answer even any of the thoughts I have put forth above. I'm really just looking to start a discussion on this general subject. I think it's actually UNDERSTATED how important the times are in the PC industry right now. What do you think? Will we be looking back at this decade as a very important part of this new century for the computing world?

[Mafia]

Originally posted by businezguy:
if Linux can put together a free desktop version of Linux (or low cost), with a friendly GUI interface, and advanced searching tools, along with a wider compatibility with games, and office software,

This is exactly why linux hasn't posed a major threat on microsoft in t he world of operating systems. linux has a great interface and nice office software but most people are familiar with windows and it is the standard. i don't see linux gaining on windoze until more businesses start incorporating linux.

Will hardware and services become the only costs to computer, entirely phasing out software purchases?

I don't see software being completely phased out any time soon but online services are def. making a impact in the tech world.

Will Microsoft's security risks play a factor in their downfall?

DEFINITELY

Will Microsoft's Longhorn keep Microsoft as the dominant figure in the computer industry?

we'll see

[Eriamjh]

Are we in a post-Microsoft world?

Heck, no. It's still everywhere and they are still making billions.

[MilkmanDan]

Umm... its kinda like saying we're in a 'Post Modern' era. Damn you post modernism!

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by businezguy:
Are we in a post-Microsoft world?

No, not in the slightest... operating system alone... Microsoft Office is a standard business application. I use MS Office more then I use my phone or stapler.

Could Apple gain market share?

Apple is gaining market share... albeit slowly... The trick is and always be hardware. Apple needs cheaper hardware while still making similar profits off of the hardware.

Could the Linux threat ruin Microsoft?

Linus >> IS << a threat to Microsoft. Just look at the number of servers that have gone from Microsoft IIS to Linux (an any various flavor of Unix). While the migration to the desktop is a difficult one... it's starting. For those that surf the web, email and IM, they can get away without Microsoft for the most part. There are a few last mile hurdles that Linux needs to surpass to make it, but it's getting there. The critical flaw with Linux in my opinion is it's still viewed as a geek OS and it also has a major identity crisis.

Are we moving into services, and away from bundled software with patches?

I'm not sure. I sure hope not. I don't want another $20 bill in the mail every month.

Will hardware and services become the only costs to computer, entirely phasing out software purchases?

I don't see that happening anytime soon. Hardware will never be free and neither will software. What keeps me coming back to the Macintosh platform is software. I could care less about my box (naturally I want a fast machine) but my money is on the OS. OS X works with me and not against me. XP still works against me for the most part. I'll give Longhorn a look, but unless there is something amazing that I just can't live without (I doubt that), I"m not jumping ship anytime soon.

Will there come a time when Linux goes under the same attack as does Microsoft when it comes to security?

It already is under attack... and from some of the most gifted... but because of the nature of Linux (Open Source) issues are resolved MUCH faster as the world can look at the problem... not a small group of coders in Redmond.

Will Microsoft's security risks play a factor in their downfall?

I believe it will... along with cost... Also, it's part of popular culture to not like Microsoft.

Will Microsoft's Longhorn keep Microsoft as the dominant figure in the computer industry?

Yes... because that's what IT people do... talk up something until they are blue in the face... implement it... iron out all the bugs.. and just about the time it works properly... it's time for Windows Longhorn 2010!!!1!1!

[DeathToWindows]

unfortunately... no.

I use office because everyone else uses it...

[turtle777]

Originally posted by DeathToWindows:
I have to use office because everyone else has to use it...

Fixinated !

-t

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

I really don't think we are in a post Microsoft world when they have 95% of the market.

[businezguy]

Generally, historically speaking, something has to be at it's peak before it declines. By Post-Microsoft, I mean are they now fighting a downhill battle. Is this as far as they will go? Will they lose dominance from here on out?

Don't look at your personal circumstances i.e. whether you use Microsoft at work, etc. Look at the big picture, and think abstract for a moment. I think there is a chance Microsoft's best moments are behind them.

If they release Longhorn, and it's a disapointment, that could be their swan song.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by businezguy:


If they release Longhorn, and it's a disapointment, that could be their swan song.

No matter how bad it is people will still buy it (Windows 98).

What would they switch too? Mac??? Ya right.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by Landos Mustache:
No matter how bad it is people will still buy it (Windows 98).

What would they switch too? Mac??? Ya right.

I agree, and I don't agree. Microsoft has 95 percent of the market. Sure, the majority of customers will probably jump at Longhorn. But, will 95 percent of Microsoft's installed base remain Microsoft customers? If that number goes below 95 percent, that is the beginning of a slide in marketshare.

The old cliche really needs to be used here; the bigger they are, the harder they fall. In the case of Microsoft, the longer it would take. I'm not saying Microsoft will go out of business. I'm arguing Microsoft's best days may be behind them.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by businezguy:


The old cliche really needs to be used here; the bigger they are, the harder they fall. In the case of Microsoft, the longer it would take. I'm not saying Microsoft will go out of business. I'm arguing Microsoft's best days may be behind them.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

[Thilo Ettelt]

Originally posted by businezguy:
...
If they release Longhorn, and it's a disapointment, that could be their swan song.

Vaporware is never a disappointment, except it won't be released at all. But Vaporware generally lives from the marketing. And since Vaporware, by its name, is a wanted software, Microsoft will have great success with Longhorn. That might also be because it will be on every new computer being sold. And that are a dozens of millions per month?


- Thilo

[Link]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Linus >> IS << a threat to Microsoft. Just look at the number of servers that have gone from Microsoft IIS to Linux (an any various flavor of Unix).

According to Netcraft's Web server survey archive, Microsoft IIS has NEVER once been a majority in webservers on the internet.

The fact is, it went up for "Standardized" businesses and basically hung, stayed put, and has just slowly fallen apart since then. Microsoft IIS, while a minority in server marketshare, is hit harder than any other server config with exploits, viruses, etc.

It is things like this that disprove the "obscurity is security" theory a lot of people used to toss FUD into linux/unix/bsd security, heheh.

[Link]

Originally posted by Thilo Ettelt:
Vaporware is never a disappointment, except it won't be released at all. But Vaporware generally lives from the marketing. And since Vaporware, by its name, is a wanted software, Microsoft will have great success with Longhorn. That might also be because it will be on every new computer being sold. And that are a dozens of millions per month?


- Thilo

Don't forget the release of Longhorn Embedded, which will end up on every ATM, Checkout counter, Dell Printer, and vending machine Microsoft can possibly sell. Those marketshare numbers are total BS, you know

[itai195]

Originally posted by businezguy:
The old cliche really needs to be used here; the bigger they are, the harder they fall. In the case of Microsoft, the longer it would take. I'm not saying Microsoft will go out of business. I'm arguing Microsoft's best days may be behind them.

That isn't much of an argument since it's almost obviously true. Growth in the operating systems and productivity markets is stagnating, so obviously their best days are behind them unless they can figure out new ways to grow those markets, or ways to leverage their strengths in those markets into new growing markets. They've had some success at the latter, for example with Pocket PC. As much as I may want to pick on Microsoft, they are a very smart company... they know there are threats out there and they take them seriously. They know they need to find new growth opportunities and they're pursuing those aggressively.

I don't know quite what to say to your original post regarding the Internet. Microsoft is very much a player in web services since they control one of the two major platforms, .NET. As they continue to gain server marketshare, use of .NET will only grow. The connection you're drawing between services and Office is pretty tenuous IMO. What's more important is that Microsoft's control over development and server platforms only continues to grow as they integrate more services and products into their Windows platform stack. The only area where Apple has a head start is in selling services to consumers, but Apple hasn't shown that this is actually a lucrative market... I suspect the number of .mac subscriptions is dwindling. On top of that, the impressive thing about .mac isn't the features, but the integration of services with the operating system and applications. Still, there's nothing there that remotely approaches the idea of offering a productivity suite web service.

Linux on the desktop will need more than just a nice GUI (contrary to what some people think, it still doesn't have one IMO). There are also a lot of issues regarding licensing of open source software that enterprise customers are concerned about. I think the window of opportunity for Linux on the desktop may have passed, if there ever was one. I just don't see much demand for it. Someone else said that it's part of popular culture to hate Microsoft, that isn't true. Microsoft, IIRC, is the most popular brand name in America.

I don't know if security will play a part in Microsoft's downfall. People still seem hesitant to hold them accountable for security issues. Same with a host of other issues... Microsoft put out a total flop of an update in Windows XP SP2 a couple months ago and basically got away with it.

What's more likely to be Microsoft's downfall is their startling inability to execute their strategy in a timely manner. It seems like every major product release faces continual delays... Yukon, Whidbey, Longhorn, Longhorn Server, etc. If this trend continues they could be in trouble if a small, swift, aggressive software company (Apple?) mounts a serious challenge. Apple would have to sort through their hardware issues first, though.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by itai195:
That isn't much of an argument since it's almost obviously true. Growth in the operating systems and productivity markets is stagnating, so obviously their best days are behind them unless they can figure out new ways to grow those markets, or ways to leverage their strengths in those markets into new growing markets. They've had some success at the latter, for example with Pocket PC. As much as I may want to pick on Microsoft, they are a very smart company... they know there are threats out there and they take them seriously. They know they need to find new growth opportunities and they're pursuing those aggressively.

I don't know quite what to say to your original post regarding the Internet. Microsoft is very much a player in web services since they control one of the two major platforms, .NET. As they continue to gain server marketshare, use of .NET will only grow. The connection you're drawing between services and Office is pretty tenuous IMO. What's more important is that Microsoft's control over development and server platforms only continues to grow as they integrate more services and products into their Windows platform stack. The only area where Apple has a head start is in selling services to consumers, but Apple hasn't shown that this is actually a lucrative market... I suspect the number of .mac subscriptions is dwindling. On top of that, the impressive thing about .mac isn't the features, but the integration of services with the operating system and applications. Still, there's nothing there that remotely approaches the idea of offering a productivity suite web service.

Linux on the desktop will need more than just a nice GUI (contrary to what some people think, it still doesn't have one IMO). There are also a lot of issues regarding licensing of open source software that enterprise customers are concerned about. I think the window of opportunity for Linux on the desktop may have passed, if there ever was one. I just don't see much demand for it. Someone else said that it's part of popular culture to hate Microsoft, that isn't true. Microsoft, IIRC, is the most popular brand name in America.

I don't know if security will play a part in Microsoft's downfall. People still seem hesitant to hold them accountable for security issues. Same with a host of other issues... Microsoft put out a total flop of an update in Windows XP SP2 a couple months ago and basically got away with it.

What's more likely to be Microsoft's downfall is their startling inability to execute their strategy in a timely manner. It seems like every major product release faces continual delays... Yukon, Whidbey, Longhorn, Longhorn Server, etc. If this trend continues they could be in trouble if a small, swift, aggressive software company (Apple?) mounts a serious challenge. Apple would have to sort through their hardware issues first, though.

I agree disagree with some parts of what your saying, and I disagree on other fronts. For instance, productivity software and operating software sales are stagnating, and I agree that is a part of the change to Microsoft I haven't mentioned. But I think that the IT industry is taking a long pause for new innovation to take place. I'd argue this new innovation would involve services more than software.

I really have to go back, and use .Mac as an example. You point to the fact that maybe only 500,000 users use .Mac, and it is marketed towards consumers. I agree, but that doesn't diminish its potential. A huge challenge for chose in charge of IT is to distribute and control information. For instance, if you want to have a uniform address book on everybody's outlook, with Microsoft you have to purchase a server, and pay licensing, and than seat licensing. Apple has a concept with iSync, that could evolve into something far more important, and offer a more affordable, convenient, and relaible way to implement that kind of functionality.

This type of development isn't going to happen over night. It's going to take a few years. In the early stages of such movements, it can be hard to discern it happening. But as companies catch on, they will go with the company who can offer this convenience, and ease of use, and integration, and it doesn't have to be Microsoft (or Apple).

Also, take a look at Windows XP. This operating system is what Microsoft has to work with for the next 3 years. I remember when XP first came out, experts in security warned Apple not to release such a flawed operating system. At the time, Microsoft acted as if they didn't know what these wackos were talking about. Now things have come to light, and Microsoft may have proven their worst enemy by releasing XP with severe security flaws.

Microsoft is really the company you love to hate. I know they have their supporters, but these are people who profit off the ineptness of their software. In this case, this hate comes from the fact that people don't have a choice, and while Microsoft does some things well, they put out some pretty unreliable products at times.

Working in tech support for Windows (and Mac systems), I sometimes find the problems with IE so bad, I need to have the customer install and use Firefox instead. Of course the customer is surprised about the speed difference, and tabbed browsing features, but as somebody who does tech I find it appalling that some of the issues I encounter require me to install another piece of software to work around the issue.

You mention more businesses using .NET, but I find that a bit mystifying. Would you like to explain to me the benefits and purposes of .NET? The fact is, you won't be able to come up with an answer other than to go to Microsoft, and read off some marketing buzz words from Microsoft's website. .NET is an abstract concept looking to find a meaning, and Microsoft has yet to find one to link to it. In the mean time, marketing has put a name to this abstract, yet-to-have-meaning concept.

I don't agree that Microsoft's slow production of Longhorn is going to have potential to harm Microsoft. As much as I made a big thing of Microsoft relying on Windows XP for the next three years, that wouldn't be enough to undo that company. In fact, they could swing in miss for the next 10 years, and still be a wealthy company because of the amount of capital they possess.

I'm arguing that Microsoft's dominance of the computing market has hit its peak, and from now on, things will not improve for this company. Rather Microsoft will go the way of IBM or worse, and still be an important part of the industry, but lose their status as a single, dominant factor in this industry. They will lose their relevance, to an extent.

Where Microsoft really has potential to lose market share is if they do something I suspect they ARE going to do. Microsoft has a culture problem, as well as a problem controlling their code. Too many people, spread over too many places (and countries), all of whom have talent and ambition and egos, are working on various parts of the next operating system to be released by Microsoft. I think things are a bit out of control, and the project is so large, the end product will not mesh together to make an easy to use, or secure product. Also, Microsoft's oft stated features, will not prove to be as good as they are hyping them to be.

You might argue that Microsoft doesn't have to make an extremely user-friendly operating system with a coherent UI to continue to be the largest software developer in the world. Microsoft only needs to release a product that does a decent job with the release to keep customers. Honestly, I'll go along with that argument.

The fact is, however, Microsoft has competition. And this competition could have an important effect on this company. And while not on a short term basis (the next five years), this company could lose the long term battle to remain a relevant and growing company.

First, they need to convince customers to upgrade from older operating systems to Longhorn. If the product turns out to be mediocre, less customers (and especially businesses) will be willing to upgrade. Such customers could either stay with an older version of Windows, or move to an alternative (Linux/Apple).

Second, there is Linux. For businesses looking for an alternative to Windows, the general market has a magic way of finding alternatives. I doubt very much that Linux has lost its chance to become an operating system on a desktop computer. If there is an opening, the open source community can always adapt to these changes, as can companies that work with Linux as a whole. Don't think for a minute, if there is an opportunity, investment dollars wouldn't pour into Red Hat to build the next great desktop operating system, built for Linux.

There is also Apple. Don't write Apple off, folks. This is not a stupid company, and there is no reason this company needs to limit themselves to just the consumer. Apple's focus on selling hardware instead of software, along with their tight control over their operating system, could be a huge advantage in the next evolution of the business world. From the standpoint of cost alone, companies want to get way from paying licensing if they can avoid it. In the past, justification for paying for Microsoft products has been a lack of choice, along with the fact that Microsoft products HAVE been beneficial to companies. But all good things must become commodities as some point, and I'd argue Microsoft's software is on the verge of becoming one. Companies will expect Microsoft to sell newer versions of its operating system, along with Microsoft Office at lower prices than previous. For a company dependent on software such as Microsoft, this is a huge problem. Also, what is Microsoft's loss, could be Apple's opportunity to add a new profit stream to the company. They have proven to have talent for both software and services. They could very well offer services to companies, which save the company money over licensing fees, and allow Apple a reliable stream of revenue, along with the ability to develop and evolve services for a companies needs. And for the hardware, Apple could sell affordable machines to businesses with tight integration, and free of licensing fees. Don't think for a minute a company wouldn't look to consider increasing reliability of, decreasing cost of, and enhancing integration and work flow of their IT department.

I believe we are in a historical time. The monopoly that is Microsoft will die a slow, and unpleasant death. The open source community, and smaller companies with superior technology will take root and grow, and become formidable challengers to Microsoft. Combine that with Microsoft's own challenges, such as the need to sustain growth, an unproven track record to innovate, an over dependance on software as a means of income, the fact that the company needs to compete with older versions of their old products, and I would argue Microsoft will decrease in dominance, and eventually relevance in the new computing world.

When that happens, look for a new growth of innovation in computing and beyond.

[businezguy]

Wow, nobody's going to respond to my long-ass post? I suppose it's because I just produced an argument that couldn't be disputed. I shouldn't be surprised that everybody agrees with what I've said. Thanks guys!

[storer]

Originally posted by businezguy:
There is also Apple. Don't write Apple off, folks. This is not a stupid company, and there is no reason this company needs to limit themselves to just the consumer. Apple's focus on selling hardware instead of software, along with their tight control over their operating system, could be a huge advantage in the next evolution of the business world.

If apple was a stupid company, they would not still be around after Microsoft has been trying to write them off all these years. Apple has a lot going for it, and perhaps one day, it will be as big as, the world dominating, Microsoft. Lets hope they aren't as stupid and tactless.

[itai195]

You certainly are perseverant

But I think what you're writing makes it pretty clear you should do a bit more research. You're coming from a tech support perspective, which should give you a good understanding of the problems inherent in Microsoft software and also some of the benefits of Microsoft software... But I don't know your background in terms of software development or industry analysis, but it seems a bit lacking.

Originally posted by businezguy:
I agree disagree with some parts of what your saying, and I disagree on other fronts. For instance, productivity software and operating software sales are stagnating, and I agree that is a part of the change to Microsoft I haven't mentioned. But I think that the IT industry is taking a long pause for new innovation to take place. I'd argue this new innovation would involve services more than software.

The PC market is basically saturated, and everyone has an OS and productivity software. That's the issue Microsoft faces. You essentially seem to agree with that. But again, I'm not sure what you mean by saying innovation would involve services more than software. You seem to have this monolithic view where all software will be replaced by services, but personally I don't think that's going to happen. What's been happening is the integration of services into software where they serve a valuable purpose, for example the integration of collaboration services into Office 2003. This integration of services has been a major area of innovation over the last couple years, but we haven't seen services replace software by any means.

I really have to go back, and use .Mac as an example. You point to the fact that maybe only 500,000 users use .Mac, and it is marketed towards consumers. I agree, but that doesn't diminish its potential. A huge challenge for chose in charge of IT is to distribute and control information. For instance, if you want to have a uniform address book on everybody's outlook, with Microsoft you have to purchase a server, and pay licensing, and than seat licensing. Apple has a concept with iSync, that could evolve into something far more important, and offer a more affordable, convenient, and relaible way to implement that kind of functionality.

Yes, but no enterprise is going to outsource that function to .mac. If they want to outsource their Exchange (or other mail/calendar service), they can already do that... there are plenty of vendors out there that offer this kind of service for enterprises. Besides, iSync's function isn't nearly what Exchange is capable of doing. Apple has no answer to some of the other services provided by Microsoft products, such as Live Meeting (web conferencing), Live Communications Server (enterprise IM), SharePoint Services (collaboration), etc. If you want to talk about Apple and services, talk about WebObjects! An excellent product that apparently doesn't even receive any attention from Mac services enthusiasts...

Working in tech support for Windows (and Mac systems), I sometimes find the problems with IE so bad, I need to have the customer install and use Firefox instead. Of course the customer is surprised about the speed difference, and tabbed browsing features, but as somebody who does tech I find it appalling that some of the issues I encounter require me to install another piece of software to work around the issue.

I'm not a fan of IE, but I've never encountered a situation where it was absolutely necessary to install an alternative browser.

You mention more businesses using .NET, but I find that a bit mystifying. Would you like to explain to me the benefits and purposes of .NET?

.NET is a development platform, including frameworks, tools, languages, servers, etc. Go read about it

I agree that .NET itself is rather meaningless to consumers and that Microsoft's marketing team confused everyone. But what you're writing is basically an archaic opinion. For talking so much about services, I'm not sure you know how they are implemented.

I don't agree that Microsoft's slow production of Longhorn is going to have potential to harm Microsoft. As much as I made a big thing of Microsoft relying on Windows XP for the next three years, that wouldn't be enough to undo that company. In fact, they could swing in miss for the next 10 years, and still be a wealthy company because of the amount of capital they possess.

I disagree strongly. Read up on all the enterprises renewing their licensing contracts with Microsoft last summer. The delays are a serious issue and are one of the reasons a lot of companies are close to opting out of Software Assurance maintenance programs, potentially causing major revenue loss for Microsoft. The uproar was certainly loud enough for Microsoft to extend support for systems with Win2K or newer and they also gave many customers deep discounts on licensing.

Longhorn is the tip of the iceberg anyway. The delays for Yukon and Whidbey are also serious and, though Microsoft denies this, are most likely partially responsible for the Longhorn delays.

I'm arguing that Microsoft's dominance of the computing market has hit its peak, and from now on, things will not improve for this company. Rather Microsoft will go the way of IBM or worse, and still be an important part of the industry, but lose their status as a single, dominant factor in this industry. They will lose their relevance, to an extent.

Funny, because IBM has again become a rather dominant force in the IT industry... They're the only platform vendor that competes directly with Microsoft in a broad range of markets. Again, you denigrate .NET and IBM yet talk a lot about services -- who do you think are the dominant services platform vendors? (answer: Microsoft and IBM)

Where Microsoft really has potential to lose market share is if they do something I suspect they ARE going to do. Microsoft has a culture problem, as well as a problem controlling their code. Too many people, spread over too many places (and countries), all of whom have talent and ambition and egos, are working on various parts of the next operating system to be released by Microsoft.

Again, you don't know much about Microsoft or software development in the real world. MANY companies have software developers spread all over the country or all over the world. It's not exactly a novel concept.

Microsoft is in fact relatively unique, because almost all of their R&D is done in the Seattle area. They claim that it's very important to them to maintain that kind of environment.

I think what you're getting at here is that Microsoft is too large a company to put out a quality, complex product. I don't think so... I personally work at a company larger than Microsoft that puts out large, quality products all the time... Microsoft has clearly been trading off on their schedule to avoid the problems you've outlined. It's too early to say that Longhorn will be more secure, less buggy, or easier to use than previous versions of Windows, but it's also too early to claim otherwise. Longhorn is also not as ambitious a project as it once was, because Microsoft has cut out some features for now. So your concerns don't apply quite as much anymore.

First, they need to convince customers to upgrade from older operating systems to Longhorn. If the product turns out to be mediocre, less customers (and especially businesses) will be willing to upgrade. Such customers could either stay with an older version of Windows, or move to an alternative (Linux/Apple).

Maybe. Even if Longhorn is mediocre, I don't know that there will be enough justification to switch to an alternative. I think one area that you're missing, however, is that a lot of companies have already essentially bought Longhorn upgrades because they signed new 3 year licensing agreements with SA last summer. This would probably be a bigger issue for consumers, because switching platforms isn't nearly as difficult when you only have one PC to replace.

Second, there is Linux. For businesses looking for an alternative to Windows, the general market has a magic way of finding alternatives. I doubt very much that Linux has lost its chance to become an operating system on a desktop computer. If there is an opening, the open source community can always adapt to these changes, as can companies that work with Linux as a whole. Don't think for a minute, if there is an opportunity, investment dollars wouldn't pour into Red Hat to build the next great desktop operating system, built for Linux.

Last I checked, investment dollars were already flowing into Linux development. The reason I think Linux has missed its window of opportunity is because Microsoft is moving rapidly, and gaining share, in servers. All these companies investing in Windows servers aren't going to just turn around and throw that investment away any time soon. Quite the contrary, one of the reasons companies are buying up Windows servers and associated products/services is because they're demanding better integration with their Windows desktops. This is one of the trends that's been eating away at Sun's lower end business, for example.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by itai195:
You certainly are perseverant

But I think what you're writing makes it pretty clear you should do a bit more research. You're coming from a tech support perspective, which should give you a good understanding of the problems inherent in Microsoft software and also some of the benefits of Microsoft software... But I don't know your background in terms of software development or industry analysis, but it seems a bit lacking.

The PC market is basically saturated, and everyone has an OS and productivity software. That's the issue Microsoft faces. You essentially seem to agree with that. But again, I'm not sure what you mean by saying innovation would involve services more than software. You seem to have this monolithic view where all software will be replaced by services, but personally I don't think that's going to happen. What's been happening is the integration of services into software where they serve a valuable purpose, for example the integration of collaboration services into Office 2003. This integration of services has been a major area of innovation over the last couple years, but we haven't seen services replace software by any means.

Yes, but no enterprise is going to outsource that function to .mac. If they want to outsource their Exchange (or other mail/calendar service), they can already do that... there are plenty of vendors out there that offer this kind of service for enterprises. Besides, iSync's function isn't nearly what Exchange is capable of doing. Apple has no answer to some of the other services provided by Microsoft products, such as Live Meeting (web conferencing), Live Communications Server (enterprise IM), SharePoint Services (collaboration), etc. If you want to talk about Apple and services, talk about WebObjects! An excellent product that apparently doesn't even receive any attention from Mac services enthusiasts...

I'm not a fan of IE, but I've never encountered a situation where it was absolutely necessary to install an alternative browser.

.NET is a development platform, including frameworks, tools, languages, servers, etc. Go read about it

I agree that .NET itself is rather meaningless to consumers and that Microsoft's marketing team confused everyone. But what you're writing is basically an archaic opinion. For talking so much about services, I'm not sure you know how they are implemented.

I disagree strongly. Read up on all the enterprises renewing their licensing contracts with Microsoft last summer. The delays are a serious issue and are one of the reasons a lot of companies are close to opting out of Software Assurance maintenance programs, potentially causing major revenue loss for Microsoft. The uproar was certainly loud enough for Microsoft to extend support for systems with Win2K or newer and they also gave many customers deep discounts on licensing.

Longhorn is the tip of the iceberg anyway. The delays for Yukon and Whidbey are also serious and, though Microsoft denies this, are most likely partially responsible for the Longhorn delays.

Funny, because IBM has again become a rather dominant force in the IT industry... They're the only platform vendor that competes directly with Microsoft in a broad range of markets. Again, you denigrate .NET and IBM yet talk a lot about services -- who do you think are the dominant services platform vendors? (answer: Microsoft and IBM)

Again, you don't know much about Microsoft or software development in the real world. MANY companies have software developers spread all over the country or all over the world. It's not exactly a novel concept.

Microsoft is in fact relatively unique, because almost all of their R&D is done in the Seattle area. They claim that it's very important to them to maintain that kind of environment.

I think what you're getting at here is that Microsoft is too large a company to put out a quality, complex product. I don't think so... I personally work at a company larger than Microsoft that puts out large, quality products all the time... Microsoft has clearly been trading off on their schedule to avoid the problems you've outlined. It's too early to say that Longhorn will be more secure, less buggy, or easier to use than previous versions of Windows, but it's also too early to claim otherwise. Longhorn is also not as ambitious a project as it once was, because Microsoft has cut out some features for now. So your concerns don't apply quite as much anymore.

Maybe. Even if Longhorn is mediocre, I don't know that there will be enough justification to switch to an alternative. I think one area that you're missing, however, is that a lot of companies have already essentially bought Longhorn upgrades because they signed new 3 year licensing agreements with SA last summer. This would probably be a bigger issue for consumers, because switching platforms isn't nearly as difficult when you only have one PC to replace.

Last I checked, investment dollars were already flowing into Linux development. The reason I think Linux has missed its window of opportunity is because Microsoft is moving rapidly, and gaining share, in servers. All these companies investing in Windows servers aren't going to just turn around and throw that investment away any time soon. Quite the contrary, one of the reasons companies are buying up Windows servers and associated products/services is because they're demanding better integration with their Windows desktops. This is one of the trends that's been eating away at Sun's lower end business, for example.

The market is saturated, and computers are a commodity for a company with 95 percent market share, yes. For a company with 3 percent market share, there is always something to be gained.

The REASON for saturation is in the United States is simply that everybody who wants a computer, generally has one. That isn't to say there isn't a market for information technology. There's always room for spending on information, and how it is presented/located/entered. Right now, because of lack of innovation, the industry has taken a pause, if you will. When a company finds a way to improve upon the current situation (Windows/Microsoft Office), there will be new demand. The replacement of the current situation doesn't need to involve a BETTER technology. It can involve a cheaper way of getting similar technology to a company. That's why I speak of services.

It's not likely a company used to the status quo would ever want to get involved in new technology that means less profit. Microsoft needs to grow. There are other companies that can grow, while offering a lower cost product, and at the same time raid Microsoft's dependence on licensing fees. It could be a company we've never heard of, although I find that less likely than Linx/Apple being the ones to do this.

I used iSync as an example. But, is such a capability were brought to the level of enterprise, with the functionality of Exchange, and it was a service not tied to licensing fees, it could certainly gain, and chip away at the market share of Microsoft. If Apple sees an opening such as this, they could take it. It doesn't have to be Apple, but why not argue that a company that has a unique product such as iSync couldn't expand it's functionality. Nobody is better at Apple at starting with a simple, well designed foundation, and building on it.

I've found reasons for it to be necessary to install IE. I can't be too specific about that. Needless to say, if things don't change, over the next couple of years you won't be saying that anymore.

I understand that .NET is a proprietary set of languages and frameworks to build services, and even web services (for instance, SOAP). But all of this is tied to licensing, and servers, and the Windows operating system. Microsoft originally said it wasn't to be that. They stated they were going to make .NET a service (the exact thing they realize to be the future). Microsoft is not in a position to market services, when the very point of services is to charge less money, while offering the same functionality. That's why .NET never came to be a coherent thing. It's just an idea, that will never see its time.

You've contradicted yourself a bit, though. At first you say how the delay of Longhorn is going to hurt Microsoft, and there were article written about companies jumping ship from Microsoft's licensing program. You end your argument pointing out to me that companies have already paid for Longhorn. If they've already paid for Longhorn, than how is Microsoft in danger?

Of course this contradiction is because only some companies have signed contracts and agreed to Longhorn. That's fine, but a company that has 95 percent of the market place (and that's been my argument the whole time) needs practically ALL of the customers, not SOME or even a large number; they need practically the whole market to stay where they are.

As you've pointed out, Microsoft can just delay dropping operating systems to delay companies from dropping Microsoft. That's why I'm arguing that TIME is not the problem here (to an extent) as much as Microsoft getting it right. The last thing Microsoft can afford to do is release an operating system that isn't secure, reliable, or has some application/driver support.

It's not the delay of Longhorn that could harm Microsoft, as much as it is the transition to, and risk involved with this transition. And where I argue the time to release Longhorn won't kill Microsoft, the time to transition companies and consumers TO Longhorn AFTER it is released is a very vulnerable time for Microsoft. There's no reason to believe this will be a smooth transition by any means.

IBM has seen a resurge, but they don't fit my definition of dominance. IN fact, they most certainly take a very distant second seat to Microsoft at this time. That could change very much, as IBM seems to be backing a possible winner (Linux).

Integration with the desktop won't be as important when services come to the forefront. If the web browser morphs into a means of replacement for MS Office, the operating system would become less important, and so would the server retrieving that data.

You can argue I haven't done my research. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the problems Microsoft faces, and the opportunities other companies have to take advantage of Microsoft's situation. I'm using that basis to do something more difficult. I'm using Microsoft's plight to offer a general blueprint of why other companies, and not Microsoft, will become the dominant force on the Internet.

I haven't even mentioned a certain company that is already making the web browser a potential threat, and at the same time showing the potential of services. This company doesn't charge, but relies instead on advertising. You shouldn't right off services when there is Google.

[11011001]

So many words.. head going to explode.. never seen so much language used at once in forum. Gah...

Anyways, I am really looking forward to seeing how the adoption of Linux among major world governments will impact the general publics awareness and use of Linux. I can see it as an entry point. First governments start using it, then businesses that interact heavily with those governments.. and so on, till people start using it at home. It's far fetched.. but I am still curious what will happen.

I think the next historical point in computer history will be quantum computing or some new networking technology that gives use ridiculously huge pipes such that no longer is our information stored on our PCs, but instead is available wherever there is an internet connection. So far everything since the last major revolution (GUIs) has been evolutionary. So, I guess we are due for something revolutionary.

Beyond that there is AI. What we have now is no where near what people imagine AI to be. It's just glorified search at this point. But with the huge computing resources of the future, and continuing development in the field, we might start seeing programs that can write programs, and even more sophisticated systems. Once this starts happening a lot of people are going to be out of jobs, and a lot of companies are going to go boom. At the same time, however, we will start seeing software more complex and sophisticated than anything that is possible in todays world. It's an exciting prospect, and the possibilities are beyond my imagination.

(note, i didn't really mention anything about sentient programs.. that's intentional, since right now, it's not what AI is about)

[PurpleGiant]

This thread sounded interesting. Started reading. Started to skim the bigger paragraphs. Then the bigger posts. Then single posts started taking up a whole screen. Stopped reading. Posted this response.

[itai195]

Just a couple points. There was no contradiction when talking about the Longhorn delays -- they made companies think twice about paying for SA. Yes, a lot of companies are still going to upgrade, but now they're really beginning to reevaluate their relationship with Microsoft. Additionally, the delays are indicative of what might be a larger trend -- Microsoft failing to execute their strategy on time. That could lay the groundwork for major problems in the future. Ability to execute is absolutely critical in the IT industry. Quality (which is what you think will matter) is also important to Microsoft... but they've always released insecure and buggy software. People still buy it. I don't think that's sufficient reason for many organizations to switch. If you think a transition from XP to Longhorn will be hard, a transition from XP to Linux or Mac OS would be harder by several orders of magnitude. Plus I think you've also ignored the server market. Once companies have invested heavily in servers that integrate well only with Windows desktops, they're somewhat locked in.

Second, I don't want to be blunt, but I'm not sure you understand what services are. They're not about running Office applications in a web browser. That's really kind of an archaic idea... People don't want that, they want web services integrated into their existing applications and systems (Aside: That's what .mac is, which is why you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit). The best aspects of that idea have been integrated into Office -- web enabled collaboration, software updates, etc. Microsoft's .NET marketing was confusing, but .NET itself isn't any kind of service. It's, amongst other things, a platform for developing and deploying web services. The only alternative is a J2EE platform, and both have been pretty successful. When you say .NET is an idea that will never see its time, sorry, but you really sound like someone from 1999

You are right to criticize .NET slightly for being proprietary, but then any serious J2EE deployment will also use proprietary application servers, databases, etc. I don't know how you can say Microsoft isn't involved in services. You can't just deploy services in a vacuum, you need a lot of infrastructure behind that.... that's a good business and one Microsoft is very involved in.

If Google is your example of a success for 'services,' I don't know what services Google offers that Microsoft doesn't (other than Orkut).

Okay, one last thing... iSync isn't functionally anything like Exchange, that's what I was getting at.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by itai195:
Just a couple points. There was no contradiction when talking about the Longhorn delays -- they made companies think twice about paying for SA. Yes, a lot of companies are still going to upgrade, but now they're really beginning to reevaluate their relationship with Microsoft. Additionally, the delays are indicative of what might be a larger trend -- Microsoft failing to execute their strategy on time. That could lay the groundwork for major problems in the future. Ability to execute is absolutely critical in the IT industry. Quality (which is what you think will matter) is also important to Microsoft... but they've always released insecure and buggy software. People still buy it. I don't think that's sufficient reason for many organizations to switch. If you think a transition from XP to Longhorn will be hard, a transition from XP to Linux or Mac OS would be harder by several orders of magnitude. Plus I think you've also ignored the server market. Once companies have invested heavily in servers that integrate well only with Windows desktops, they're somewhat locked in.

Second, I don't want to be blunt, but I'm not sure you understand what services are. They're not about running Office applications in a web browser. That's really kind of an archaic idea... People don't want that, they want web services integrated into their existing applications and systems (Aside: That's what .mac is, which is why you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit). The best aspects of that idea have been integrated into Office -- web enabled collaboration, software updates, etc. Microsoft's .NET marketing was confusing, but .NET itself isn't any kind of service. It's, amongst other things, a platform for developing and deploying web services. The only alternative is a J2EE platform, and both have been pretty successful. When you say .NET is an idea that will never see its time, sorry, but you really sound like someone from 1999

You are right to criticize .NET slightly for being proprietary, but then any serious J2EE deployment will also use proprietary application servers, databases, etc. I don't know how you can say Microsoft isn't involved in services. You can't just deploy services in a vacuum, you need a lot of infrastructure behind that.... that's a good business and one Microsoft is very involved in.

If Google is your example of a success for 'services,' I don't know what services Google offers that Microsoft doesn't (other than Orkut).

Okay, one last thing... iSync isn't functionally anything like Exchange, that's what I was getting at.

I'll try to keep the words down this time:

1) If Longhorn doesn't support enough applications when it is released, the transition will take longer as companies wait for these to become available. This will give them time to second guess Microsoft's ability to deliver on promises. I believe the transition is the point where Microsoft could fail, and will be its most vulnerable point.

2) Microsoft Office is archaic, in many respects. That's why it isn't so farfetched to have it replaced by services through web browsers. Remember, as archaic as you might thing it is, 45 percent of Microsoft's income comes from this. Why would it be an archaic idea for a service to take place of MS Office, if that service could save companies huge amounts of money?

3) .NET was supposed to be Microsoft offering services. Instead it has become a buzzword for programming languages, etc. Not very impressive, and also mostly proprietary.

4) Google offers services that are superior. This isn't about who offers services. This is about who offers useful services that function well.

5) I'm you'd agree companies like to save money. I'm arguing Micorosoft depends on money, and companies smaller than Microsoft can grow, while undercutting Microsoft.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by PurpleGiant:
This thread sounded interesting. Started reading. Started to skim the bigger paragraphs. Then the bigger posts. Then single posts started taking up a whole screen. Stopped reading. Posted this response.

You just need to use a higher resolution. Than the posts won't take up the entire screen. Where there's a problem, there's a solution.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by businezguy:
You just need to use a higher resolution. Than the posts won't take up the entire screen. Where there's a problem, there's a solution.

Click the thumbnail for a 1600x1200 screen shot. Huge posts!!

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by businezguy:
Will Microsoft's Longhorn keep Microsoft as the dominant figure in the computer industry?

No, I think their illegal strongarm tactics and billions of dollars will.

[Xeo]

I think we can declare a post Microsoft era when over 50% of the people are using something else.

[itai195]

Originally posted by businezguy:
1) If Longhorn doesn't support enough applications when it is released, the transition will take longer as companies wait for these to become available. This will give them time to second guess Microsoft's ability to deliver on promises. I believe the transition is the point where Microsoft could fail, and will be its most vulnerable point.

I doubt this will happen, but that is a good point. Not sure you've brought it up before. I did bring up how companies basically gave Microsoft a pass on XP SP2. They're not installing it for now, but they're also not about to abandon Microsoft because of it.

2) Microsoft Office is archaic, in many respects. That's why it isn't so farfetched to have it replaced by services through web browsers. Remember, as archaic as you might thing it is, 45 percent of Microsoft's income comes from this. Why would it be an archaic idea for a service to take place of MS Office, if that service could save companies huge amounts of money?

I didn't say I think Office is archaic. Just because businesses can save money on an alternative doesn't mean they will choose the alternative, and just because something is a service doesn't mean it will cost less. I'll point you in the direction of examples for the former and latter -- StarOffice and .Mac.

3) .NET was supposed to be Microsoft offering services. Instead it has become a buzzword for programming languages, etc. Not very impressive, and also mostly proprietary.

I've corrected you on this multiple times. Their original marketing didn't make any sense, so I can see why you think that. But again, if you've followed developments for the last few years, you'd know better. You also still didn't address the fact that developers and enterprises have invested millions (billions?) of dollars in .NET training and products. Personally, I also think .NET is pretty impressive! I don't program on or for Microsoft platforms, but they did a pretty good job. It's a lot less complex and confusing than many of its J2EE cousins.

4) Google offers services that are superior. This isn't about who offers services. This is about who offers useful services that function well.

And has that brought about the fall of Microsoft? No. Microsoft's services in the same functional areas are also competitive and are improving. Of course, web search is not nearly the same class of application as office suites. Some tasks are well suited for small, thin [client] services. Some tasks are better suited for large, rich [client] applications. This is one area where software engineering shows its colors: developers must use the best tools for the task at hand. You could write a command line office suite in Tcl and give it away for free, but nobody in their right mind would think that's an alternative to MS Office.

5) I'm you'd agree companies like to save money. I'm arguing Micorosoft depends on money, and companies smaller than Microsoft can grow, while undercutting Microsoft.

And? Be was smaller than Microsoft, and their product was 'superior' and cost less. Where did they go? I'm not saying you're wrong on this point, it's just not really an argument. There's more to cost than just the pricetag on a desktop OS or office suite. And there's also more to IT acquisition than JUST the pricetag.

[storer]

Originally posted by businezguy:
You just need to use a higher resolution. Than the posts won't take up the entire screen. Where there's a problem, there's a solution.

It's then, and how big a monitor do you think we have?

[Thilo Ettelt]

Originally posted by Xeo:
I think we can declare a post Microsoft era when over 50% of the people are using something else.

Amen.

And as for the software services. They were orginally pushed into the market as a great idea. Remember there were people who preached the net computer, and what not. But after all what remains in the market is an implementation of the ideas which really works. You see it as .mac, software update, RSS feeds. But I don't think you will see it as whole software. An analogy might be Sherlock vs. Cocoa applications. Sherlock channels are coded in JavaScript. Not a compiled programming language like a Cocoa app. One reason is probably because the code is easier to control and spread this way.

And as for the long post: I appreciate them. Courage for long posts! This will make people smarter in regards of reading comprehension and concentration. (If you cannot concentrate, please sleep more; it really works! )

- Thilo

[ort888]

The computer revolution is still young enough that ever second of it has historical importance. That will probably be the case for the next twenty years.

[bradoesch]

Originally posted by storer:
It's then, and how big a monitor do you think we have?

1600x1200 on my 21" still requires scrolling.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by itai195:
I doubt this will happen, but that is a good point. Not sure you've brought it up before. I did bring up how companies basically gave Microsoft a pass on XP SP2. They're not installing it for now, but they're also not about to abandon Microsoft because of it.

I didn't say I think Office is archaic. Just because businesses can save money on an alternative doesn't mean they will choose the alternative, and just because something is a service doesn't mean it will cost less. I'll point you in the direction of examples for the former and latter -- StarOffice and .Mac.

I've corrected you on this multiple times. Their original marketing didn't make any sense, so I can see why you think that. But again, if you've followed developments for the last few years, you'd know better. You also still didn't address the fact that developers and enterprises have invested millions (billions?) of dollars in .NET training and products. Personally, I also think .NET is pretty impressive! I don't program on or for Microsoft platforms, but they did a pretty good job. It's a lot less complex and confusing than many of its J2EE cousins.

And has that brought about the fall of Microsoft? No. Microsoft's services in the same functional areas are also competitive and are improving. Of course, web search is not nearly the same class of application as office suites. Some tasks are well suited for small, thin [client] services. Some tasks are better suited for large, rich [client] applications. This is one area where software engineering shows its colors: developers must use the best tools for the task at hand. You could write a command line office suite in Tcl and give it away for free, but nobody in their right mind would think that's an alternative to MS Office.

And? Be was smaller than Microsoft, and their product was 'superior' and cost less. Where did they go? I'm not saying you're wrong on this point, it's just not really an argument. There's more to cost than just the pricetag on a desktop OS or office suite. And there's also more to IT acquisition than JUST the pricetag.

1) You may doubt it's going to happen, but I think Microsoft will lose market share during the transition to Longhorn. Linux and Apple will benefit.

2) The Office products have been stagnant in features, for the most part. There will be a way to offer a lower cost replacement of Office with the same or better functionality.

3) .Net is only valuable if the browser running it can display the information correctly. If IE loses market share, that would be pretty interesting. This wouldn't be the first time companies invested billions, only to find their investment to be of less value than what was paid.

4) Google just started getting into things like desktop searching days ago. I've made it clear, the downfall of Microsoft will not be overnight.

5) Apple is small, and they have proven the ability to innovate very quickly. This is an advantage over the slow moving Microsoft. When a company doesn't innovate quickly enough for the industry, the industry will generally find a replacement.

[businezguy]

Originally posted by Xeo:
I think we can declare a post Microsoft era when over 50% of the people are using something else.

I disagree very strongly with this statement. If Microsoft were to completely flop, and another company came out with an operating system SO almost everybody purchased it and not Windows, Microsoft would still have over 50 percent market share for a long time. However, since they wouldn't be selling anything, I think it would be safe to say the company has seen better days, and has lost dominance.

Microsoft may be at the peak of market share, and may see market share numbers fall from now on. I believe that would mark the end of the Microsoft era.

[businezguy]

To take the focus off Microsoft for a minute. Could Apple become a dominant player in the media in the future? Look at their iTunes Music Store, and the success of their iPod. Also consider that Steve Jobs is the CEO of Pixar, a company that has become a huge player in the movie industry, and the best company for animated films.

Sony doesn't look very promising to dethrone Microsoft. This schizophrenic company just figured out consumers want MP3 players that actually play MP3s. To add to the irony, the music side of Sony is afraid of the consumer electronics side of Sony, and they tend to harm each rather than compliment each other.

Disney was caught off guard by the greater technology of computers to create animated films. Since than, they have also proven to be very weak at making animated films with the new technology. They now seem doomed to outsource their animated movies (if they want good selling movies), to Pixar.

Microsoft has been talking out their ass about delivering music and movies to the PC for a long time now. They dropped the ball with music, and Apple picked it out and made a convenient way of buying tons of music online. It doesn't seem like Microsoft would do any better in the future, when downloadable movies become possible. Besides, what were they thinking with the Media Center? Like I really want a computer sitting by my TV as a glorified TIVO.