4 ms·

Microsoft used to completely dominate everything, and now they dont, so people think they have 'failed' in some way. But if you look at their profits they're st

Microsoft used to completely dominate everything, and now they dont, so people think they have 'failed' in some way. But if you look at their profits they're still making out like bandits. Over the last 5 years they've made a ton more money than everyone except Apple. So perhaps Microsoft did the right thing by not jumping in the direction Ozzie said straight away? stats: https://twitter.com/janettu/status/380824535714377728 https://twitter.com/janettu/status/380824535714377728

paganel 13y ago
I'm not a business analyst or anything related, but I think the issue is that in this day and age even huge profits don't mean a thing even when it comes to a business's future. Just look at Nokia, which was dominating its market 7-8 years ago, or Blackberry/RIM. You really do have to be paranoid to survive, and the memos in the article are an example of that.
- codeulike 13y ago
  We don't really know what a successful tech company looks like over longer than 5 or 10 years, because no-ones ever stayed dominant longer than that. Perhaps IBM is the only model - greatness that fades to a reasonable profitable longevity. Perhaps thats the only way to go long term?
jamesrcole 13y ago
The fact that they're still making huge profits is also consistent with that being the result of the momentum of a slowly-dying behemoth. I'm actually not trying to argue that this definitely is the case, I'm just saying those profits don't automatically support the case you're making.
- jgreen10 13y ago
  Is it? Do you have any examples?
  - jamesrcole 13y ago
    I didn't say it was. I was making a point that the parent comment's evidence did not automatically support their claim. But since you ask, IIRC these make such a claim (especially the latter): http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html http://paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html
badman_ting 13y ago
The iPhone is bigger than their whole business. I don't see how this can be anything other than a huge failure for MS. The PC market is declining year over year and all the growth is in mobile, an area where MS is a bit player. And they were in the smartphone and tablet markets way before Apple! How is this not a disaster? RIM made money for a while too, but in the end they were doomed. I don't think that is true of MS, because they are just too big and do too many things. But people arguing that everything is OK because of the top line, I don't get.

paganel 13y ago

I'm not a business analyst or anything related, but I think the issue is that in this day and age even huge profits don't mean a thing even when it comes to a business's future. Just look at Nokia, which was dominating its market 7-8 years ago, or Blackberry/RIM. You really do have to be paranoid to survive, and the memos in the article are an example of that.

codeulike 13y ago
We don't really know what a successful tech company looks like over longer than 5 or 10 years, because no-ones ever stayed dominant longer than that. Perhaps IBM is the only model - greatness that fades to a reasonable profitable longevity. Perhaps thats the only way to go long term?

jamesrcole 13y ago

The fact that they're still making huge profits is also consistent with that being the result of the momentum of a slowly-dying behemoth. I'm actually not trying to argue that this definitely is the case, I'm just saying those profits don't automatically support the case you're making.

jgreen10 13y ago
Is it? Do you have any examples?
- jamesrcole 13y ago
  I didn't say it was. I was making a point that the parent comment's evidence did not automatically support their claim. But since you ask, IIRC these make such a claim (especially the latter): http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html http://paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html

badman_ting 13y ago

The iPhone is bigger than their whole business. I don't see how this can be anything other than a huge failure for MS. The PC market is declining year over year and all the growth is in mobile, an area where MS is a bit player. And they were in the smartphone and tablet markets way before Apple! How is this not a disaster? RIM made money for a while too, but in the end they were doomed. I don't think that is true of MS, because they are just too big and do too many things. But people arguing that everything is OK because of the top line, I don't get.