| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft's Current Situation: Like IBM in the '80s | |
|
||
| Time: 00:47 EST/05:47 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
A flurry of stories about Microsoft recently got me thinking today about computer history. First was the story yesterday in the Wall Street Journal about whether it's Time to Dump Your Desktop? Another was the recent revelation that Microsoft is developing its own Zune music player and is creating yet another music store to compete with iTunes. Another was about how Google's new spreadsheet service could ultimately dent Microsoft's Office business. And then there was this compendium of articles about Bill Gates stepping down and another marketing executive leaving. These stories seemed to be saying something, but no one told the whole story. And then it hit me. Microsoft is about to lose the software business the same way that IBM lost the PC business in the 1980s. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 444 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:52:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 7/27/2006 4:03:09 AM |
| I think this fellow is taking writing lessons from Dvorak.... |
| #2 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 7/27/2006 10:45:42 AM |
|
As a shareholder, these are exactly the things that piss me off about MS. The MS zealots should be mad too and demand better performance.
Microsoft suffers from a classic case of American obesity. It is too rich and comfortable to move quickly and win in new markets without its monopoly to prop it up. It [sic] me-tooing the toy companies. Two sure signs of a company that needs to get back to its roots. Reacting to change will only carry you so far, so long. The two monopoly products that fund Microsoft's are falling subject to David Pogue's software paradox: "if you upgrade software enough times, you eventually ruin it." Windows 2000 was the last relevant version of Windows. You only buy back stock when you can't earn more using that money in the business. Ding. Winner. Thanks for playing... |
| #3 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 7/27/2006 11:08:29 AM |
|
"They insist Apple's (AAPL) Macs will never be accepted in corporations."
I just replaced my Athlon 64 3200+ with 1-GB dual channel memory with a Mac-mini running XP Pro. I guess the writer didn't know that the powerful new Intel Macs run Windows XP just fine. The new Core, and newly released Core 2, processors kick ass. Macs are now just another brand of PC. "And they insist Linux is just too difficult to work for real business." Linux isn't diffcult at all. Peachtree, QuickBooks, and other programs that companies are used to don't natively run on Linux. This is a difficulty issue. Its a lack of software support issue. |
| #4 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/27/2006 12:19:39 PM |
|
"Microsoft is about to lose the software business the same way that IBM lost the PC business in the 1980s."
Losing the "PC Business" was tough on IBM. Just kidding. "IBM’s 2004 results pushed the company’s aggregate sales during its 92-year history to over $1.8 trillion, and its cumulative earnings to over $126 billion. Both figures represent a compound annual growth of over 11% during more than nine decades of its existence; nearly double the U.S. Gross Domestic Product’s (GDP) growth rate during the same period (6%)." http://www.djurdjevic.com/Bulletins2005/B02_IBM_History.html #2 "Windows 2000 was the last relevant version of Windows. " The new anti-Microsoft FUD. Windows 2000 never had a market share close to what XP has. |
| #5 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 7/27/2006 1:59:26 PM |
|
#4: The new anti-Microsoft FUD. Windows 2000 never had a market share close to what XP has.
Market share does not necessarily equal quality. NotParker, are you a MSFT shareholder? |
| #6 By 665 (67.185.84.40) at 7/27/2006 2:19:51 PM |
| ch, I actually have to go with Parker on this (unless I'm missing your point). XP may not be a great OS, but would you rather consumers be running 98 or ME? XP was very relevent at the time it was released. And it's kind of funny to declare 2000 relevent and not XP, as XP is 2000 with a bit of consumer gloss. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/27/2006 2:26:08 PM |
|
#4: IBM has a lot more going for it than MS does as far as revenue-generating business is concerned. MS is a two-trick pony. IBM has its fingers in many, many pies. The PC game was a blip on their radar.
And as ch already pointed out, quantity != quality. |
| #8 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 7/27/2006 3:31:31 PM |
|
#6: And it's kind of funny to declare 2000 relevent and not XP, as XP is 2000 with a bit of consumer gloss.
And that is my point exactly. What is XP, but a pretty GUI on top of Windows 2000? When a company's "innovation" becomes new packaging, there's a problem. |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 7/27/2006 6:39:43 PM |
|
As someone who uses Windows 2000 Server intermittently and XP daily and Windows 2003 R2 daily, I would not go back to Windows 2000. It feels archaic now.
Nostalgia for ancient software is a waste of time. What is XP? The merging of Win9x codebase with the Win2K codebase and 85% plus of the market. What a huge success it was to bring consumers the stability of Win2K plus the ease of use and compatibility of millions of applications of Win98. Two trick? Windows Server is now outselling all of Unix combined. Linux is still 1% of the desktop market and a slowly growing percentage of the server market. Exchange dominates email. Dozens of other products have huge sales. 12 trick? 24? "Server and Tools delivered 18% revenue growth for the quarter, fueled by an increase of over 35% revenue growth for SQL Server. Healthy Client revenue was driven by continued growth in the PC market as well as improvements in its commercial and retail licensing results. The Microsoft Dynamics CRM 3.0 product continues to show robust customer acceptance, adding more than fifty thousand seats during the quarter, while licenses for Windows Mobile®-based phones grew by 90% in fiscal year 2006." etc etc. |
| #10 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 7/28/2006 12:34:17 AM |
|
hey, latch... you should drive over to Wall Street and make sure they know how much more worthwhile IBM is than MSFT. Because they appear to disagree with you, given that msft has TWICE the market capitalization. Check your FACTS latch&2sugars.
NotParker, obviously SQL Server, Exchange and WinServer are all dragging Microsoft down, and don't qualify as successes by any stretch of the imagination... or so latch would have you believe. LOL @ the sheer incompetence of that idea. |
| #11 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 7/28/2006 8:58:13 AM |
|
It should be noted that IBM is not in the PC business at all. They sold the whole thing to Lenovo, as that business division was not a big money maker for them, as they define it, especially in terms of IBM Global Services, for example. And they have never been a huge PC supplier. To them, it was never a big deal. By the time they actually thought to care about it, it was too late. The clones had overrun the Empire. :-)
After all, it took an aweful lot of PC sales to match the profit of a single $10 million or $100 million dollar contract. They make huge amounts of profit from their services offerings. As for Windows 2000, I would have to agree with Parker. Windows XP was a big improvement. Keep in mind that the successor to Windows 2000 was not XP, it was Windows 2003, which added some nice polish, and stability, to the server side. Given a choice between 2003 and 2000, I will take 2003 any day. XP is the replacement for Win9x, and a nice improvement it is. They took the stability improvements of the NT line of products, and added the 9x consumer programs and polish, and made a nice OS. And for those who think Apple always innovates, keep in mind that Apple *bought* OS X, along with their CEO. It was Steve Jobs, and NeXT Computer, Inc., that had the innovation. When Apple bought NeXT, they got a good, solid, workstation OS, and Steve Jobs. Mac OS X is merely NeXTSTEP with the UI changed to be more Mac-centric. So, I guess it is fair to say that it is more Steve Jobs that is the catalyst to innovation, not Apple itself, given Apple's own lack of innovation in the "Non-Steve Jobs" years. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 7/28/2006 9:16:06 AM |
|
#10: Just how retarded do you have to be to refute statements nobody said, mini-Parkkker? If you try reading again, you might see that I said that IBM has more revenue-generating streams. I did NOT say they made more money. MS has Windows and Office driving the majority of their revenue and that's it ie. a two-trick pony. IBM has their software business, the hardware business, and finally the service & consulting. They may make less money overall, but their business is more spread out. That's why MS is fighting tooth & nail not to lose their precious monopoly, because without it they'd be done for. Check my facts, indeed. Try opening your eyes, reading what's written and comprehending its meaning. That way you won't look like such a dork in your rush to slam me. This post was edited by Latch on Friday, July 28, 2006 at 09:50. |
| #13 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 7/28/2006 10:17:44 AM |
|
#9: Nostalgia for ancient software is a waste of time.
Believe it or not, sometimes an older product is actually better. The HP 12-C was introduced in the early 1980s and is still a strong seller today in it's same basic form-factor. I wouldn't call Windows 2000 "ancient" unless I was a sales guy trying to foist an upgrade on my customer. #9: What is XP? The merging of Win9x codebase with the Win2K codebase and 85% plus of the market. What a huge success it was to bring consumers the stability of Win2K plus the ease of use and compatibility of millions of applications of Win98. I have yet to find an application that runs on Windows XP, but not Windows 2000. Oh, wait IE 7... time to call the slick sales guy above if I want to be modern and secure... #9: Windows Server is now outselling all of Unix combined. Linux is still 1% of the desktop market and a slowly growing percentage of the server market. Exchange dominates email. Dozens of other products have huge sales. I never mentioned Linux. This Linux hatred of yours has to be unhealthy. #9: "Server and Tools delivered 18% revenue growth for the quarter, fueled by an increase of over 35% revenue growth for SQL Server. Healthy Client revenue was driven by continued growth in the PC market as well as improvements in its commercial and retail licensing results. The Microsoft Dynamics CRM 3.0 product continues to show robust customer acceptance, adding more than fifty thousand seats during the quarter, while licenses for Windows Mobile®-based phones grew by 90% in fiscal year 2006." When will that be reflected in MS stock price? |
| #14 By 17996 (66.235.19.95) at 7/29/2006 12:50:08 AM |
|
It's wrong to call XP the "merging of Win9x codebase with the Win2K codebase", because it's not. It's the 2K codebase with changes and new features. None of the 9x code is present in XP.
It *is* correct to call XP the merging of the Win9x and WinNT/2K *markets*. As for whether XP was a big step over 2000... XP Gold may have been mostly smaller, UI-related changes. But XP SP2 had tons of underlying security improvements throughout the product (some of which were in Server 2003 Gold, and others which 2003 got in 2003 SP1). |
| #15 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 7/29/2006 2:07:06 AM |
|
latch@2sugars - "I did NOT say they made more money"
Your sheer ignorance would be funny, if not so overwhelmingly sad. latch&2sugars, I didn't accuse you of saying your quote above. I see the disconnect. I assume you would know what "market capitalization" meant or at least look it up. Instead, you think it means 'to make more money'. Here's a link for you to follow. Let me know if you need instructions on how to click it. http://www.investorwords.com/2969/market_capitalization.html |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 444 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:52:12 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
