Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Jan 2014 01:56 UTC

Although Apple and Google officially sit out the biggest tech trade show of the year, their platforms are well represented by the third parties that create thousands of products for them. This year it feels like Microsoft is simply being left out.

Windows has virtually no presence in the two biggest things to hit computing in a long time, and it's starting to show. Microsoft may not be in trouble - but Windows is.

Thread beginning with comment 580468
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Backwards perhaps?
by tylerdurden on Sat 11th Jan 2014 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Backwards perhaps?"
Member since:

It depends on the metrics. E.g. Windows Server accounted for 1/4 of installed servers on some estimates last year. IMO that figure is unrealistically high. The volume of FOSS (Linux and *BSD) units being deployed in the wild by organizations, with in house experience and w/o service contracts or 3rd party licenses, is becoming overwhelming.

However, even if windows servers installed volume is not that high (if I were to pull a number out of my ass, I'd say 20% tops of machines being used as servers run Windows), Microsoft stills commands around 40% of that market segment's overall REVENUE. So even though they may command the market in volume, they're the ones making the most money on server OS licenses.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Backwards perhaps?
by Soulbender on Sat 11th Jan 2014 18:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Backwards perhaps?"
Soulbender Member since:

Yeah but we're talking about market share, not market revenue. Market revenue is not really that useful a metric when your biggest competition cost nothing and requires no license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Backwards perhaps?
by tylerdurden on Sat 11th Jan 2014 19:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Backwards perhaps?"
tylerdurden Member since:

True, which is why I personally think the best metric is the percentage of servers being sold without a windows license.

I simply provided revenue to expand the context. Microsoft could be commanding a minimal part of the server space, and yet they would be the OS vendor making the most money in it.

The point I was trying to make is that the equivalence between Linux on the desktop and Windows on the server is not correct. IMO.

Although I can see the writing on the wall for Microsoft's current business model (and perhaps the company itself if it can't adapt), once free is good enough you better be able to make it up on services or you are toast.

Reply Parent Score: 3