> I meant that they're a vendor at the market, they aren't the vendor, or a central vendor. Depends. In corporate environments, which is still a massive marke

> I meant that they're a vendor at the market, they aren't the vendor, or a central vendor. Depends. In corporate environments, which is still a massive market, they are the central vendor. At it seems they're actually making even more headway there. Microsoft hasn't really lost influence, it's just the market is so much bigger now that influence isn't total. And they're making in-roads in those other markets. Microsoft missed out on mobile but that's a new market rather than a loss of their existing market. And now that's a growth opportunity for them. > IBM did exactly the same thing. I think you're point is to say that Microsoft is the new IBM but I don't think that follows. IBM has always been IBM even when they owned much more of the market. Even Microsoft hated working with them. > And FWIW, the overwhelming bulk of Microsoft's revenue comes from enterprise sales of Office and Windows. Less than 50% now (see my other comment).