4 ms·
I agree with this article on the basis that if Microsoft's incentives haven't changed, then there's no reason Microsoft should be expected to behave any differe
by doubleunplussed 8y ago
I agree with this article on the basis that if Microsoft's incentives haven't changed, then there's no reason Microsoft should be expected to behave any differently to the nineties.
Arguing that they're a different company I think should require arguments that their incentives are different, and I don't see that they are.
- hiccuphippo 8y agoI think for them today selling Azure is a bigger incentive than selling Windows and Office.
- kthejoker2 8y agoLet me clarify: Selling Azure is absolutely a bigger incentive than selling Windows and Office. And more generally, selling solutions instead of technology. Their #1 competitor is AWS. They don't even mention Oracle, Apple, or really even Google.
- raesene9 8y agoI'd suggest that MS incentives are very different to the 90's. In the 90's they made their money from on-premises software installations, Windows/Office/SQL Server etc. So their incentives then were to ensure that people used their software as much as possible. Now the growth engine for Microsoft's platform is services (e.g. Azure). On Azure you can deploy Linux and Windows based applications, the underlying OS doesn't matter, Microsoft still make money on it. This means that their incentive is to have a good and smooth developer experience and to get as many people onto the Azure platform.