5 ms·

It looks like pg was right 3 years ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

• watmough 16y ago
  Yeah, Microsoft was relevant to me when the launched Access in about '96 or so. Then there was a brief spell of relevance with .NET and all the cool stuff attached to that. Since then, Linux or OS X have become the OS' of choice for many techies, and open software has eaten the lunch of MS when it comes to internet development. MS are on life support (though in a quite comfortable state!) kept alive by a HUGE installed and locked-in base. There are flickers of life in Office and Windows 7, but they may be fighting a losing battle in future markets, likely to be more cost sensitive than the high productivity and high-priced US.
  • lenni 16y ago
    I think they will go the way of IBM: Relevant and profitable but not the all-encompassing mega-monopolist.
    • rbanffy 16y ago
      Microsoft has to mature a lot to become an IBM. Check what IBM's basic research did and compare it with what Microsoft Research outputs.
• arethuza 16y ago
  About the comment on Microsoft being evil like Commodus - I've been listening to the excellent "History of Rome" podcast and it points out that the real Commodus was quite a bit nastier/madder than the character in Gladiator. http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2010/06/97-the-fall-of-hercules.html http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/the_history_of_rome/2010...