4 ms·

I think the title was (perhaps intentionally) overstated, but the content of the essay is correct. The better title (in the sense of more accurate, perhaps not

I think the title was (perhaps intentionally) overstated, but the content of the essay is correct. The better title (in the sense of more accurate, perhaps not for getting clicks) would have been "Microsoft Is The New IBM". And that is still true.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
No, it's not correct. MSFT is a $3+ trillion market cap company doing $200+ billion revenue which is growing mostly organically at a very good clip and has a product line people and companies use mostly by choice. IBM is 20x smaller by market cap, 4x smaller by revenue, they are shrinking organically because they forgot how to make anything and no one starting any business from scratch would use any of their products. He got it completely wrong. It is what it is. If you comment on enough things you are going to be very wrong sometimes.
- rossdavidh 2y ago
  Microsoft in 2007 is where IBM was prior to that. Which, by the way, was once invoked as the prototypical example of the "old guard tech company reinvents itself". Also, the basic thesis of the essay is that new companies don't worry about Microsoft squashing them anymore, the way they once had (and did about IBM before that). That is, I believe, still true.
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    I don't think that is as true now. Microsoft has made in-roads in a number of markets, which has to concern some competitors. Within the last few years they left slack in the dust by bundling teams. They also bought github just a few years ago. A couple years before that linkedin, which there are still no real competitors to. Their cloud market share has been increasing and they're increasingly pushing the integration of the Microsoft 365 suite and github with azure, which has been pushing more enterprises towards their offerings. Microsoft has also started throwing money around to organizations which they want to work with, such as OpenAI and G42, effectively choosing winners.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    Slack?
- ksec 2y ago
  >He got it completely wrong. PG was referencing pre Nadella Era.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    If all a company needs to do is change CEOs to be fine, it is by definition "not dead".
doe_eyes 2y ago
But I don't think it is? IBM is, in essence, irrelevant. It keeps milking legacy customers, but it has no competitive edge otherwise. Microsoft was never this far gone. PG was proclaiming their death because startups no longer feared them. But they no longer fear Google either, not the way they used to. Google's last truly disruptive and unexpected projects - Android, Chrome, Maps, Docs, etc - happened 15+ years ago. Now, the company sticks to established niches instead of trying to constantly reinvent themselves (or when they try, they almost always fail). There's a spectrum between "dead" and "taking on the world".
- pjmlp 2y ago
  An irrelevance that powers Linux, Java, Red-Hat, GCC, Eclipse, Go,...
  - doe_eyes 2y ago
    I mean, yes? IBM is profitable and is spending some of its money on projects we all benefit from - just like Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Apple, and just about any other larger tech company out there. That doesn't mean that their core business is on a healthy trajectory. Transmeta was paying Linus' salary for a good while, it didn't save them.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Plenty of Y Combinator companies dream of being 1% as healthy as IBM in 2024.
skilled 2y ago
IBM invested in OpenAI? IBM bought GitHub? IBM doesn't move like this, even if those are acquisitions. Microsoft is very focused on where the money flows, and they have adapted to the change of times.
- rossdavidh 2y ago
  When IBM bought/merged with Red Hat, it seemed like a big deal. For that matter, IBM was a big reason why Linux became a mainstream technology. IBM doesn't move like this any more, but then we haven't seen Microsoft's investment in OpenAI actually pay any dividends yet, either.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Still is, who do you think puts money on GCC, for example?
- chucke1992 2y ago
  Nadella is extremely effective and aggressive in his moves. He always impresses me in that regard. While Ballmer built a solid cash foundation - he would never have done a move like Linkedin or Github acquisition. And I would not be surprised if Github acquisition was a part of the plan about AI.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago

No, it's not correct. MSFT is a $3+ trillion market cap company doing $200+ billion revenue which is growing mostly organically at a very good clip and has a product line people and companies use mostly by choice. IBM is 20x smaller by market cap, 4x smaller by revenue, they are shrinking organically because they forgot how to make anything and no one starting any business from scratch would use any of their products. He got it completely wrong. It is what it is. If you comment on enough things you are going to be very wrong sometimes.

rossdavidh 2y ago
Microsoft in 2007 is where IBM was prior to that. Which, by the way, was once invoked as the prototypical example of the "old guard tech company reinvents itself". Also, the basic thesis of the essay is that new companies don't worry about Microsoft squashing them anymore, the way they once had (and did about IBM before that). That is, I believe, still true.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  I don't think that is as true now. Microsoft has made in-roads in a number of markets, which has to concern some competitors. Within the last few years they left slack in the dust by bundling teams. They also bought github just a few years ago. A couple years before that linkedin, which there are still no real competitors to. Their cloud market share has been increasing and they're increasingly pushing the integration of the Microsoft 365 suite and github with azure, which has been pushing more enterprises towards their offerings. Microsoft has also started throwing money around to organizations which they want to work with, such as OpenAI and G42, effectively choosing winners.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  Slack?
ksec 2y ago
>He got it completely wrong. PG was referencing pre Nadella Era.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  If all a company needs to do is change CEOs to be fine, it is by definition "not dead".

doe_eyes 2y ago

But I don't think it is? IBM is, in essence, irrelevant. It keeps milking legacy customers, but it has no competitive edge otherwise. Microsoft was never this far gone. PG was proclaiming their death because startups no longer feared them. But they no longer fear Google either, not the way they used to. Google's last truly disruptive and unexpected projects - Android, Chrome, Maps, Docs, etc - happened 15+ years ago. Now, the company sticks to established niches instead of trying to constantly reinvent themselves (or when they try, they almost always fail). There's a spectrum between "dead" and "taking on the world".

pjmlp 2y ago
An irrelevance that powers Linux, Java, Red-Hat, GCC, Eclipse, Go,...
- doe_eyes 2y ago
  I mean, yes? IBM is profitable and is spending some of its money on projects we all benefit from - just like Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Apple, and just about any other larger tech company out there. That doesn't mean that their core business is on a healthy trajectory. Transmeta was paying Linus' salary for a good while, it didn't save them.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Plenty of Y Combinator companies dream of being 1% as healthy as IBM in 2024.

skilled 2y ago

IBM invested in OpenAI? IBM bought GitHub? IBM doesn't move like this, even if those are acquisitions. Microsoft is very focused on where the money flows, and they have adapted to the change of times.

rossdavidh 2y ago
When IBM bought/merged with Red Hat, it seemed like a big deal. For that matter, IBM was a big reason why Linux became a mainstream technology. IBM doesn't move like this any more, but then we haven't seen Microsoft's investment in OpenAI actually pay any dividends yet, either.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Still is, who do you think puts money on GCC, for example?
chucke1992 2y ago
Nadella is extremely effective and aggressive in his moves. He always impresses me in that regard. While Ballmer built a solid cash foundation - he would never have done a move like Linkedin or Github acquisition. And I would not be surprised if Github acquisition was a part of the plan about AI.