“For a company that helped create the personal computer, it seems Microsoft wants to talk about anything these days but the PC. And for good reason. With PC sales slumping, the world’s biggest software company is turning to everything from video game consoles to watches to help it maintain its status as one of the most successful technology companies ever. With about 70 percent of its revenue still coming from software for traditional computers, Microsoft’s ongoing diversification push is a gamble that puts a company that has grown accustomed to a monopoly in cutthroat competition with a host of adversaries.” Read the article at ajc.com.
Microsoft Runs Big Risks as it Works to Diversify
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
If I decided to start an operating system company that was going to write an OS from the ground up that would be better than, and replace windows. How much money would it cost? Answer: many billions of dollars.
Sow how do I go about this? Well since early on, my OS will be small I will target small imbedded devices. Routers, PDA’s, watches, cell phones. And later add functionality to those devices as I go. Then move the smallish OS to the desktop at a very low price to compete for a small percentage of market share to later be leveraged against windows.
So MS pushes into these markets with their own software aimed to integrate well with desktop computers. Now my company can never really gain momentum because MS now occupies the very niche market I was going to do business in. Competing w/ MS here would mean very low profit margins for my company.
This is not Microsoft “risking it big”, it’s MS winning and moving the front line of the battlefield. Microsoft is spending all this money right now to expand its line but still managing to rake in a pretty heavy profit.
MS is not going to die, it has virtaully (sp?) no competition, any mention of linux needing to get easier the linux wolves jump on you. Come on guys if you want linux to become a viable alternative to windows some stuff needs to get easier. How would you feel if you went to a car lot, but when you picked out a car they just gave you a shell & you hade to find the right motor, then put it together?
is designed to make Microsoft programs such as Outlook, Internet Explorer, Media Player and MSN Instant Messaging as commonplace on telephones as they are on desktops
I think that is the main problem with Microsoft’s efforts. It’s a one trick pony that tries to fit Windows on everything.
The approach is like having one tool and trying to apply it to every problem. Kind of like an auto mechanic trying to fix everything with a hammer.
How would you feel if you went to a car lot, but when you picked out a car they just gave you a shell & you hade to find the right motor, then put it together?
that is a really flawed analogy. Linux distros come with more software that you can shake a stick at whereas Windows comes with a couple of little apps (Notepad, Calculator etc.) the Media player and the browser. For eveything else you are on your own.
The analogy would be more like when you got Linux you got a car that you had to know how to fix yourself most of the time and did not always run one every road out there. When you get Windows you lease a car that you have to bring back to the dealer every couple of weeks for some fixes you cannot ever do yourself.
that is a really flawed analogy. Linux distros come with more software that you can shake a stick at whereas Windows comes with a couple of little apps (Notepad, Calculator etc.) the Media player and the browser. For eveything else you are on your own.
Ya, if you want to install anything most of the time you have to compile it yerself (that is where the analogy came from) you are lucky if you can find a binary .rpm.
Yes installing software could be easier BUT most of the time customisation and ease of use are conflicting interests.
Compiling from source sounds scary and complicated but it’s really a couple of commands away.
Binaries are easy to install but you have no control over their behavior. For example I downloaded AIM yesterday:
-It tried to add about about 5 registry keys that I deleted
-It tried to change my homepage to Netscape.com
-Everytime it starts it tries to add itself to my Startup in the Registry
-It added one of those annoying “Join AOL now and get 5,000,000 free hours your first month” links on my desktop.
I had to spend 15 min cleaning up after that install. As a binary I have no control over the program’s behavior. I would much rather have the source thank you very much…
I don’t know if this applies to any of the particular posters who madereferences to Linux being “hard” or not, but there
is something going on that needs a comment.
Linux is easier today than it ever has been. Yet we are going
to be getting a continual crop of Windows users trying Linux
for the first time, and talking about how Linux needs to get
easier. Even Windows has a learning curve.
In fact I would argue that Windows is not really that much
easier to use than Linux. ( Better support from hardware mfr would go a long way to removing the elements of Linux that really are difficult) It is what people are used to.
There is an incredible number of people who cannot use
Windows without some guru holding their hands.
Check out the Windows help newsgroups.
“what’s a task bar?
how do i use a taskbar?
So I have seen Windows users come to Linux, complain it’s
not Windows, then spend a little time on the learning curve
( and I am _not_ talking command line here) come to appreciate the benefits of Linux vs Windows and settle down with all the ” it’s not Windows” comments.
Then comes a whole new crop of first timers going on
about how Linux is hard. Then they try it and find it is
not that tough after all.
And another crop ….. etc. etc.
In short, Deja Vu is rolling in, and the sets are really
close ( to use a little surfer lingo)
As to Microsoft a pox on it.
May we all live to dance on it’s grave.
Microsoft and big risks? Backed by $40B in cash and the power of two monopolies? Backed by the US Federal Government and Department of Justice?
The USDOJ has blessed Microsoft’s attack on every market using the full leverage of their Windows and Office monopolies.
Yep, we’ve got the best ‘democracy’ money can buy.
>If I decided to start an operating system company that was
>going to write an OS from the ground up that would be better
>than, and replace windows.
Almost every modern OS out there is better than Windows, maybe not userfriendly, but far more better.
>How much money would it cost?
>Answer: many billions of dollars.
That should only cover part of the promotion and campaign money..
“Ya, if you want to install anything most of the time you have to compile it yerself (that is where the analogy came from) you are lucky if you can find a binary .rpm.”
yeah and thats as hard as ’emerge gimp’ or emerge [insert favourite app here], with 4000 packages to make a selection from. Also, all the dependencies gets listed and installed.
Or maybe try ’emerge -u world’ for a complete system upgrade with the latest versions of programs. Emerge is by the way the ‘package manager’ in gentoo linux.
All the people whining about how hard linux is doesnt seem to have realized how far it has gotten in the last years.
There are many distributions, like redhat and suse, that is far easier and straightforward than windows to install.
And it seems to me that the fact that people cant get into a discussion about OS’es without starting to flame linux only shows that it no longer can be disregarded in such discussions
Good point by ‘pnghd’, by the way.
To pnghd:
You are correct. There is a learning curve with Windows, as there is with anything new. I made my living for 14 years teaching people how to use the new computers they had.
I got tired of instructing people how to double-click and altered my career track.
The original students I had came from the mainframe world and their primary complaint was, “This isn’t how it works on the Honeywell system! My reply was, “Do you see Honeywell written anywhere on this system (the original IBM PC)?
Three years later we changed hardware platforms and I heard the same people making the same complaints. Only they were complaining that the UNIX systems didn’t do things the same way that their PCs did.
The main advantage that Microsoft has now is 20 years of history and familiarity. However, notice that people are still making a not-so-small mint writing books on the different versions of Window and Office for Dummies. It won’t end any time soon.
How would you feel if you went to a car lot, but when you picked out a car they just gave you a shell & you hade to find the right motor, then put it together?
If they were giving it to me for free I would be quite pleased with it. I sure wouldn’t gripe about recieving something for nothing just because I am too ignorant to understand it.
MS will die sooner or later…it won’t last forever, it will die in peices here an there first then they will become a former shadow of themselves.
Its just died in my household as i’ve just bought a mac (nice new iBook)…the rest of the desktops here also run SuSE, i only dual boot for games and game companies still have titles that are going to be released for 2 or 3 years yet since alot of people are still running win 9x.
I’m not in no rush for the next upgrade and i’m more likley to spend it on alternatives.
I know very well that MS will never die, or at least currently linux will never win over MS on the client side. Here is why, all those open source projects make sense only for the server side stuff. For the client side, people do not have enough time and energy to develop good quality products. What’s our best option in Linux, KDE? I like KDE, but some of its programs are so primitive that, in some cases it is a total disappointment.
I also have ideas that I would like to turn into open source projects, but it turns out that, some of the projects are so tedious that, you just can’t find people that will dedicate their whole time to those projects. So you end up with buggy projects. In the open source community there are so many such projects. Somebody starts the project with great enthuaism but later on run out of energy, time… So all you have is a project sitting there half-completed.
What we need is definitely a way to make money and keep the code open. That’s exactly what we need. In this case, we can keep people working on the projects. Otherwise it is almost impossible.
” I know very well that MS will never die, or at least currently linux will never win over MS on the client side. Here is why, all those open source projects make sense only for the server side stuff. For the client side, people do not have enough time and energy to develop good quality products. What’s our best option in Linux, KDE? I like KDE, but some of its programs are so primitive that, in some cases it is a total disappointment. ”
I assume you’re a history major. If you remember Linux history there was a time when people were saying it wasn’t ready for the server, now look at it. Can you come up with a good reason why history will not repeat itself in any other market. Hopefully something that will stand the test of time.
” I also have ideas that I would like to turn into open source projects, but it turns out that, some of the projects are so tedious that, you just can’t find people that will dedicate their whole time to those projects. So you end up with buggy projects. In the open source community there are so many such projects. Somebody starts the project with great enthuaism but later on run out of energy, time… So all you have is a project sitting there half-completed. ”
And the source is available to someone with more time, any time. And BTW by your logic commercial software should be bug free and complete (if it was, then why do they keep trying to convince me to buy this years version?).
“What we need is definitely a way to make money and keep the code open. That’s exactly what we need. In this case, we can keep people working on the projects. Otherwise it is almost impossible.”
I’d recommend the BSD license, but you can’t force people to do things they don’t want to. That applies as much to commercial enterprises as well as open. That’s why the states are “at will” when it comes to work.
Taking the word “use” in general, I think the following is true:
Linux is not as easy to use as Windows.
Windows is not as easy to use as Mac OS.
Mac OS is not easy to use.
Therefore, computers are not easy to use.
If Linux could refocus itself and learn to attack personal computing from a different angle than which has already been tried, it could become easier to use than most existing systems. This requires a huge amount of admission of fault by many people in the tech arena and in the Linux developer community. Until technical people admit to not crafting computers and software for normal people, until they realize just how difficult computers are for regular people, just how unfriendly and unwelcoming and overcomplicated they are, there will be no progress at all. You can tell people they are lamers for only so long. You can only push the blame onto the user for so long. If you REALLY want to make these things accessible and useful, you have to change your approach.
I say to the Linux community, prove to everyone just how flexible the Open Source system can be and rearchitecht a Linux that is designed for one, two or three functions, that is intended to turn a small computer into an appliance. Something that a buyer and/user will take from the box, plug in, turn on and begin to work with within 3 seconds.
The big mistake with technical people, especially in the Linux community, is their belief that computer software must be built and then, somewhere along the way, made easier for people to use. The ease of use aspect must be the first step, during the original conceptualization. Not after the product is built.
Linux (and OpenBeOS, once it gets there) has the potential to become something that it is not: the core of the world’s first simple, purpose-based, computer-like appliances that will change computers from being one-size-fits-all to “one device per purpose.” There is endless evidence that computers are more reliable and easier to use when dedicated to a specific task. Why not shoot for the goal of reliability and simplicity instead of making all computers be the geektech do-everything monsters they are and then force everyone else to use the same systems?
So far, this potential is unmet. The only attempts at this were half-assed and were only created for quick-profit and buzzword stock-attention-getting, not for revolution and not to provide for a need. The Internet Appliance has soured the minds of many investors because the people who tried to do it first did not have their heart in the right place. You can’t just skin a web browser, place that as the “UI” and expect to sell them like hotcakes.
I know I’m ranting. I hope it is somehow relevant and that someone reacts to it in some useful way…
MS is definitely failing. Their attempts to extend their monopoly into phones, Pda, gaming have not worked and i doubt they will. Their attempts to stop open source and apple are also failing. Open source keeps scoring one small victory after another and apple is pushing into higher margin server products. Symbian is looking better and better on phones and phones keep pushing into more computing territory.
That means that MS will face the music sooner as opposed to later. I doubt they’ll die but nothing lasts forever and neither will MS’s position in the market. The same is likely to happen to intel.
Actually,
I could compete against Microsoft, and be formidable, with $10 million.
Secret? Play their game against them. DO NOT BE open. That is an end-all in competition. You just gave your only chance of gaining interest away. You make multiple variants.
A version for the Linux converts, a version for the Windows converts, then the best version goes to the geniuses running BeOS or MacOS pre X (X users are more stupider..heh ;-))
You license technology on a per-sale basis, if you can manage. Only worry about primary use functions. This is *NOT* what you think. Gaming is #1 user task on a PC.. so that is a priority.
You make generic drivers for non-supported devices, if possible (VESA 2.0 for video). And.. you can just run a few tests on a peice of hardware to find out how to talk to it.. though it may not be the quickest thing in the world ( all you saying.. “oh man your dumb” just realize I’ve done it, not really easy, mind you.
You cover your bases. You work in all primary areas evenly, you get good print support, good USB support, good sound, etc… Then you find your entry area. Your target users.
Well, wait.. You have to hit where M$ hits, otherwise you will be niche.. which does no good. So you produce it for mass consumption, by BEGINNERS. Yep, people just learning computers. Then you call it YourCompany Windows, letting M$ sue you, they can’t do anything about it with your $5 mil invested in lawyers (yep, you read right 50% of your costs is to protect yourself from M$).
When you get that done, your set to find a way in. You need to produce your own harwdare and sell it. No, not Apple like stupidity, but normal x86. And the biggest thing you do, is NOT SELL CHEAP!!
You take your price to the same level of M$. $ per $. I’m serious. If your looking at the cost of the “standard” stuff, and it is all $189 or more, and you see this thing for $29.. what are you gonna think about that $29 copy as a n00b?? “WHoa.. that must be junk, I’ll by the second cheapest.”
Trust me, it makes sense.
Okay, so, why then is yellowTAB (of which I am a part) charging $39 for Home Edition, and then slowly going up per distro?? Well, because we are for a niche market.. oh sorry, several niche markets.
We also do not have $5 mil for lawyers.. lawyers are already becoming a huge expense to YT, and a release hasn’t even been made.. stupid world M$ made for us.. oh well.
Microsft will fail eventually. I will be heading the attack, I promise. And be glad that I am, because I am about as crazy as they come in this world, and I’m Texan.
–The loon
NOTE: I won’t be paying attention to this thread.. so flaming is just wasting your time.
I assume you’re a history major. If you remember Linux history there was a time when people were saying it wasn’t ready for the server, now look at it. Can you come up with a good reason why history will not repeat itself in any other market. Hopefully something that will stand the test of time.
I assume you are one of the simple minded people, since you make stupid assumptions. The fact that some people claimed that Linux is not ready for server business do not interest me, I wasn’t one of those people. I am directly explaining why Linux became successful on the server, and why it can’t be as successful on the client side as it is on the server side. Instead of understanding what I say, you say somethingelse.
The main avantages of windows over other operating systems are the great avariablility of entertainment software AND the bad os design itself I think, cause solving a ploblem for this complex and overwhelming os can be like playing a game for many users.