4 ms·

I don't see it as inherently a good or a bad thing tbh. Microsoft has realised that the desktop market is basically tapped out (they took as big a share as the

I don't see it as inherently a good or a bad thing tbh. Microsoft has realised that the desktop market is basically tapped out (they took as big a share as they ever will and it's mostly going to decline as computing changes, it'll be a long slow decline but the writing is on that wall). So they've doubled down on cloud services. Where this is a good thing is for them to run those services and for people to trust them they have to be mostly be good actors - if they piss off the big linux distro's/upstream (as an example) the damage could be quite severe and while each of the clouds is happy to lock you in they can't forcibly lock you in since multicloud is something the really big customers (the ones spending millions up) actually do require. I figure that what open sourcing .net, typescript, the github, vscode was/is all about - they want to keep making the shovels in the gold rush. If that is the case then I've benefitted despite never giving a cent to Azure :).

lenkite 5y ago
I wish Microsoft would re-enter the mobile market. It is certainly not tapped out and there is a lot of pent up demand for a platform other than Android and iOS.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  I honestly don't think Microsoft can compete in this market, which is a shame. First, what would MS do? Follow the Google approach and make a platform or follow the Apple approach and make a full phone? Google makes a platform, leaving the major handset makers to provide the hardware, UI, and support. Google is not really making a lot of money on that platform, it only makes money from the playstore - say $10 Billion/year. That's nothing to MS. One can argue that the Google apps installed in android phones make some more money (e.g. maps, search), but those apps are also installed on iPhones. The amount of money involved in the platform game is not really worth it to Microsoft given the engineering required, and android is a market leader -- MS would make a small fraction of that. Of course MS could try to charge a lot for its platform, but with android being (effectively) free, it's not clear how this would work. So then MS could get into the phone business and be a real hardware company. Here, I just don't see them beating Apple. They don't design their own chips. They don't innovate as quickly. Job's famous quip that MS "has no taste" is still true, IMO. There was a reason they exited this market, and it was that they couldn't compete in it. Not sure which of their most recent moves into cloud would suggest that this has changed.
  - noir_lord 5y ago
    I agree. Google makes android so they can stay the default search engine on the device in your hand and sell advertising so it can be revenue neutral or slightly net-negative and they don't care. Microsoft would have to make actual money to make it worth it re-entering and it's not a high margin market (well not true, it has a high margin market but that's Apples side and good luck competing with them).
  - lenkite 5y ago
    MS has crossed 2 billion in a quarter in Surface book sales. So they have proved they can deliver a full platform by themselves in the laptop market - which is even more saturated and competitive than the mobile market. What is lacking is vision and will here.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > which is even more saturated and competitive than the mobile market. I disagree. It was the decline of PC laptop build quality that prompted MS to get into this game, after years spent vainly begging OEM partners to sell at least something whose build quality, finish, and overall appearance could compete with Apple's wares. And this strategy worked, as PC laptop build quality has improved a bit. That market was huge and wide open for MS. But still Apple outsells them more than 4 to 1.
agustif 5y ago
Github was acquired and isn't open source though. VSCode is nice and open-source core maybe, but most important parts like server plugins remain proprietary. Found this about TypeScript, Guessing some times the people can change the company? Maybe? https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-built-microsoft-typescript-and-why/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-built-microsoft-typescript... Thank you microsoft, just don't do anything stupid to the great commons and trust you have build out over the last years..
- noir_lord 5y ago
  I've been a Linux user since just after the mid-90's so you can imagine what my opinion of Microsoft you used to be (I was that annoying guy who used Micro$oft etc). They still act like a basket case occasionally (product of been a large company with divisions that don't always play well with each other) but they have been mostly playing ball and playing it well for years now, so they've earnt some trust. Also TypeScript is Anders Hejlsberg and if I had to pick a hero under duress he's mine, he's written basically all of my favourite languages (or been the lead/architect). * Turbo Pascal * Delph (Object Pascal) * C# (.net) * TypeScript When it comes to building tools that an average dev like me likes using he's been killing it since the eighties :D.

lenkite 5y ago

I wish Microsoft would re-enter the mobile market. It is certainly not tapped out and there is a lot of pent up demand for a platform other than Android and iOS.

rsj_hn 5y ago
I honestly don't think Microsoft can compete in this market, which is a shame. First, what would MS do? Follow the Google approach and make a platform or follow the Apple approach and make a full phone? Google makes a platform, leaving the major handset makers to provide the hardware, UI, and support. Google is not really making a lot of money on that platform, it only makes money from the playstore - say $10 Billion/year. That's nothing to MS. One can argue that the Google apps installed in android phones make some more money (e.g. maps, search), but those apps are also installed on iPhones. The amount of money involved in the platform game is not really worth it to Microsoft given the engineering required, and android is a market leader -- MS would make a small fraction of that. Of course MS could try to charge a lot for its platform, but with android being (effectively) free, it's not clear how this would work. So then MS could get into the phone business and be a real hardware company. Here, I just don't see them beating Apple. They don't design their own chips. They don't innovate as quickly. Job's famous quip that MS "has no taste" is still true, IMO. There was a reason they exited this market, and it was that they couldn't compete in it. Not sure which of their most recent moves into cloud would suggest that this has changed.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  I agree. Google makes android so they can stay the default search engine on the device in your hand and sell advertising so it can be revenue neutral or slightly net-negative and they don't care. Microsoft would have to make actual money to make it worth it re-entering and it's not a high margin market (well not true, it has a high margin market but that's Apples side and good luck competing with them).
- lenkite 5y ago
  MS has crossed 2 billion in a quarter in Surface book sales. So they have proved they can deliver a full platform by themselves in the laptop market - which is even more saturated and competitive than the mobile market. What is lacking is vision and will here.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > which is even more saturated and competitive than the mobile market. I disagree. It was the decline of PC laptop build quality that prompted MS to get into this game, after years spent vainly begging OEM partners to sell at least something whose build quality, finish, and overall appearance could compete with Apple's wares. And this strategy worked, as PC laptop build quality has improved a bit. That market was huge and wide open for MS. But still Apple outsells them more than 4 to 1.

agustif 5y ago

Github was acquired and isn't open source though. VSCode is nice and open-source core maybe, but most important parts like server plugins remain proprietary. Found this about TypeScript, Guessing some times the people can change the company? Maybe? https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-built-microsoft-typescript-and-why/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/who-built-microsoft-typescript... Thank you microsoft, just don't do anything stupid to the great commons and trust you have build out over the last years..

noir_lord 5y ago
I've been a Linux user since just after the mid-90's so you can imagine what my opinion of Microsoft you used to be (I was that annoying guy who used Micro$oft etc). They still act like a basket case occasionally (product of been a large company with divisions that don't always play well with each other) but they have been mostly playing ball and playing it well for years now, so they've earnt some trust. Also TypeScript is Anders Hejlsberg and if I had to pick a hero under duress he's mine, he's written basically all of my favourite languages (or been the lead/architect). * Turbo Pascal * Delph (Object Pascal) * C# (.net) * TypeScript When it comes to building tools that an average dev like me likes using he's been killing it since the eighties :D.