4 ms·

From the article: "So what happened? Why did Microsoft lose its lead? Simply put, the technological winds shifted, starting around 1997, to favor vertical integ

by crag 14y ago

From the article: "So what happened? Why did Microsoft lose its lead? Simply put, the technological winds shifted, starting around 1997, to favor vertical integration." Well ok.. I mean, "is the sky blue"? Tell me something I don't know. And next time, (to the author) tell me on page 1. Don't make me wade though 2 1/2 pages of historical crap to get your point. My thoughts on the author's profound (sic) reason: Change is constant. Those who recognize that win. MS didn't. They might in the future though. Look, not even [his holiness] Steve Jobs recognized change. He finally came around after failures; like the near collapse of Apple; or him being forced out of the company he help create; and of course Next. I remember when Next was first shown at Comdex. What an amazing machine. I was working for Novel at the time (anyone remember Netware?) at the booth. I ran over to see this Cube. It was beautiful. Ahead of it's time. Which is why it' failed. Actually I think Next marks when Steve did recognized change. He just had bad timing. Eventually it all came together for him... I mean look at the Mac now. Of course I state all of this in hindsight. I didn't recognize change either. Though my guesses are better now. That comes with age. :) Sorry got off topic.. look my point is, isn't not seeing change the reason ALL companies decline? MS will either reinvent itself, or when enterprise dries up, it will too.

bdunbar 14y ago
when enterprise dries up By Enterprise you don't mean 'large companies that have 24/7 operations' because .. that category is not going away. What do you mean by 'dries up'?
- veidr 14y ago
  I think what was meant was something like "when the enterprise market reaches a tipping point and gravitates en masse to substantially less expensive but more or less equally effective technologies, the way that consumers and smaller businesses have already done."
- crag 14y ago
  I mean when there is no "enterprise" market. Tech is changing, devices are getting smaller and more powerful. The need for "enterprise" software/hardware is slowly dying. Eventually "enterprise" will mean big servers of data. And that's about it. Look at Google Apps (and others like it). It's fee for services to anybody. You pay for what you want and it's accessible to everyone - corporate and the joe on the street. Now granted, Google Apps (and all the rest) have a long way to go. But they will get there. And sooner or later, companies won't have to buy 10,000 copies of Office, or spend $300,000 on a database. I see the day when a company joins Google Apps, and says "I need 25TB on Big Table".
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    You might be simplifying the argument too much; I don't see it. The complexity (and expense) isn't Office or a database, but relationships between the various bits. Move it to Google ... the complexity doesn't go away. Might increase, depending on the legal bits.

by crag 14y ago

bdunbar 14y ago

when enterprise dries up By Enterprise you don't mean 'large companies that have 24/7 operations' because .. that category is not going away. What do you mean by 'dries up'?

veidr 14y ago
I think what was meant was something like "when the enterprise market reaches a tipping point and gravitates en masse to substantially less expensive but more or less equally effective technologies, the way that consumers and smaller businesses have already done."
crag 14y ago
I mean when there is no "enterprise" market. Tech is changing, devices are getting smaller and more powerful. The need for "enterprise" software/hardware is slowly dying. Eventually "enterprise" will mean big servers of data. And that's about it. Look at Google Apps (and others like it). It's fee for services to anybody. You pay for what you want and it's accessible to everyone - corporate and the joe on the street. Now granted, Google Apps (and all the rest) have a long way to go. But they will get there. And sooner or later, companies won't have to buy 10,000 copies of Office, or spend $300,000 on a database. I see the day when a company joins Google Apps, and says "I need 25TB on Big Table".
- bdunbar 14y ago
  You might be simplifying the argument too much; I don't see it. The complexity (and expense) isn't Office or a database, but relationships between the various bits. Move it to Google ... the complexity doesn't go away. Might increase, depending on the legal bits.