No One Will Take Down Microsoft But Microsoft
from the bloated-and-arrogant dept
Bob Cringely is back with his latest piece on the future of Microsoft where he predicts that no one will be able to “take down” Microsoft at this point. They’ve successfully outmaneuvered every real challenger and have enough cash to coast their way past any threats from open source offerings (why he thinks open source offerings will just fade away is unclear). However, he thinks that, because of this, Microsoft will grow arrogant and bloated (as opposed to just plain arrogant?) and will miss the boat down the road, leading them to their own destruction. This seems like it’s all relative. If they miss the boat, it’s because another company (or group or set of people) builds that boat and goes with it. In other words, Microsoft doesn’t fail (or succeed) in a vacuum – though Cringely seems to think that maybe they’ve created one.
Comments on “No One Will Take Down Microsoft But Microsoft”
MS missing the boat
Microsoft so far has been an expert of hijacking other people’s boats. That is their forte.
They haven’t designed squat; or anything worth mentioning in their 20 something year existence.
What they are is one tight, mean marketing machine.
The original article mentioned in this thread does make some sense though. Co’s go through cycles. MS will probably get unfocused eventually and make enough space (niche) for some contender to rise. That is the history of capitalism.
G.
No Subject Given
I tend to lean towards Cringely’s opinion on this one. I mean, Microsoft has gotten so huge and has so much liquid assets that:
1 – they’ve proven they can ignore the law because they’ll either get only a slap on the wrist too late or a fine they can pay out of petty cash (after profiting from whatever methods are judged unlawful by an order of magnitude…or at least many times the value of the fine)
2 – Even if any fine is substantial, they’ve successfully parlayed two judgements to their advantage…if I recall (and if I’m in error, please correct and forgive) one judgement they paid out in Microsoft software (at market value) thereby solidifying the monopoly…and in the recent European judgement, they’ve just gotten carte blanche to charge huge amounts for access to the windows API, effectively allowing them to shut out smaller competitors.
3 – with the large amounts of cash on hand, they can lobby and change laws to try and effectively shut out or limit the impact of open source.
4 – with economic threats they can start iniatives that can also shut out open source (for example, paladium..which would prevent unsigned code from running on a system, or isolating systems that DO run unsigned code…if signatures are only available for high money amounts, it will be the rare open source project that can afford it..even a price tag of 1000$ shuts out most independendant /hobby developpers)
I don’t believe that any ONE of these things I point out above CAN’T be overcome..or that ALL of them together are the makings of an invincible monopoly. However, they do make a powerful armor that will lengthen the life of a company that has definitely perverted capitalism to further its goal of inserting a large probosis into every user’s wallet whether they like it or not.
Its not “where do YOU want to go today?” anymore…its “You’ll go where WE want you today” that they want to push on us. Sadly..most people don’t understand this at all.
No Subject Given
Westerners who try to conquer the world have a habit of underestimating the size of Asia…
Re: Just posted at USA TODAY
Yankee Group: Linux doesn’t save money
By Brian Robinson, FCW.com
Although Linux delivers first-rate technical performance it’s not superior to either Unix or Microsoft’s Windows and swapping either of those for Linux could actually work out to be more expensive, according to a report from The Yankee Group.
A survey of over 1,000 information technology administrators and company executives showed that replacing either Windows or Unix by Linux only saves money in small engineering or scientific firms with customized applications used by technically knowledgeable people, or where newer networks were being deployed. The study was sponsored by Sunbelt Software, a major provider of tools and utilities for Windows operating systems, including NT, 2000 and XP.
“In large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive, and take three times as long to deploy, as an upgrade from one version of Windows to newer Windows releases,” said Laura DiDio, Yankee Group’s application infrastructure and software platforms senior analyst.
A huge majority of the 300 large enterprises of 10,000 or more end-users that were surveyed believe a significant or total switch to Linux would be prohibitively expensive. Just 4% of Unix customers and 11% of Windows users plan to replace servers with Linux, the survey found, and less than 5% of all organizations expect to replace their Windows desktop with Linux.
Perhaps an even bigger bite in the Linux vs. Windows debate is the study’s finding that Linux is not a long-term guard against security problems. Although it is considered somewhat more secure than Windows, Linux is expected to come under increasing hacker scrutiny in the future and companies seem to prefer sticking with the devil they know.
All in all, according to DiDio, Linux is unlikely to make much of a dent in the Windows market share over the next couple of years, and it could be another five years before open source operating system gets a real chance.
Re: Re: Just posted at USA TODAY
The study was sponsored by Sunbelt Software, a major provider of tools and utilities for Windows operating systems, including NT, 2000 and XP.
You could have posted just this part and we could have inferred the rest.
Re: Re: Re: Just posted at USA TODAY
You could have just skipped my post too !
I posted the article in it’s entirety so you could make that determination on your own.
Re: Re: Re:2 Just posted at USA TODAY
You could have just skipped my post too!
No problem, I (and many others) certainly did.