5 ms·

Bill Gates: “Our Most Potent Operating System Competitor is Linux”

24 points by rms 17y ago

otoburb 17y ago
Fascinating insight into the level of visionary thought that goes into managing a sprawling product portfolio fighting for survival. This is an excellent read if only to appreciate the level of complexity that Microsoft deals with at the top.
- bad_user 17y ago
  Their business model is coming to an end. What keeps them going is the large customer base and Windows-specific applications people are accustomed to. Historically advancement in technology does tend to have this effect on businesses. The operating systems and dev platforms are a commodity and of course people are wondering why should they pay for this stuff when you can get them for free. Not to mention alternatives are often technologically superior and have stronger communities, and because of their closed-nature they really can't do anything about it. I would like to say that competition benefits consumers, but because Microsoft can still exert a huge influence on the industry without technical merits, consumers won't benefit until they reinvent themselves. I know they will, but it may take some time.
  - froo 17y ago
    "Their business model is coming to an end." Do you have any data supporting your claim or is this just a gut feeling? Here's what we know about MS's business model (I just quickly skim read their annual reports to gather these figures). Revenue in 2008 was $60.8 Billion, up 18% from the previous year Revenue in 2007 was $51.12 Billion, up 17% from the previous year Revenue in 2006 was $44.28 Billion, up 11% from the previous year Revenue in 2005 was $39.79 Billion, up by about $3 billion from the previous year Revenue in 2004 was $36.8 Billion, up by 14% from the previous year Revenue in 2003 was $32.19 Billion, up by $3.82 billion from the previous year Revenue in 2002 was $28.37 billion, up by $3.07 billion on the previous year So since the date these internal memo's were written, their business has only managed to steadily grow each and every year by more than 10% per year, with their total revenue having doubled since these memo's were written. Or that Microsoft's growth alone in 2008 was around half of internet golden-child Google's total revenue for the same period? Yes, their business model is coming to an end, they really should be scared.... </sarcasm> (Disclosure: I don't work for microsoft, or a competitor, nor am I an investor. I'm just sick of the unnecessary FUD)
    - berntb 17y ago
      If nothing else... Microsoft owns the desktop until they are unable to e.g. scare netbook builders to stop selling preinstalled Linux.
      - froo 17y ago
        "If nothing else... Microsoft owns the desktop until they are unable to e.g. scare netbook builders to stop selling preinstalled Linux." I know we discussed this the other day (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666787 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666787) but I think it's more a case of brand imprinting than anything. When you have clueless people who buy new computers (which make up the vast majority of the consumer market), one of the things they look for is what version of windows does it come with. To me, for another OS to actively take significant market share in this dominated space, they would have to overcome this preconception that consumers have. To liken it to another industry, it would be like a new softdrink manufacturer having to compete against Coca Cola (with Apple being Pepsi) with their own cola brand. People instinctively go for one or the other when they go buy a cola, even if there are better products that are cheaper on the shelf. That's really what it boils down too. So while Linux may be free and a superior product (I personally switched to Ubuntu about 8 months ago) - it requires much more momentum than what the Linux community has right now. Which is a damn shame.
        berntb 17y ago
        Microsoft has a history of pressuring computer manufacturers to not install anything else. This is well documented in court.
    - rjurney 17y ago
      Its not that they don't make money. Its that in terms of innovation - and more specifically in hampering innovation - Microsoft no longer matters. At least we like to think so, because we can remember when they were in the way of developing most anything cool.
      - 17y ago
  - vorador 17y ago
    I think that there's something you aren't realizing : the open source communities don't scale. After a certain limit, they tend to go downhill.
jsz0 17y ago
Although this document is old the thing that strikes me reading it is how utterly irrelevant and cryptic it is/was. Perhaps the closed nature of Microsoft's technologies makes it harder to understand but isn't that the problem? I don't know why I might want my Federation server to talk to my extranet server through passport via Yukon calls, based on the BizTalk platform, and highly integrated with the CLR but only for a 3 month trial period if my Office license is up to date. Assuming of course my Trident version is new enough to support my VS Forms. I'll have to check my MSMQ in MMC first though.
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  It's an internal memo, not a Microsoft HOWTO - it's not trying to explain to you what the jargon means. You can't take competing technologies and tell me they have any fewer awkward acronyms, buzzwords, competing technologies, license limitations, interconnectivity and so on.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    That's true. I understand that angle of it. I just think Microsoft should be asking themselves what can we do to improve the experience of 90% of our users instead of spending all our time worrying about how to improve the amount of money we make from the 10% of our most profitable users which is, I think, what all this jargon adds up to. It seems like with Windows 7 they have taken the 90% approach more so than in recent years which is certainly a good thing.
dsturnbull 17y ago
Site zoomed down to an inline IRC client. WTF? immediately closes tab
- buugs 17y ago
  I'm thinking it is unexpected side effect of the embedded client rather than site design.. article wasn't much of anything anyways.
iigs 17y ago
This is presumably the genesis of several directives that resulted in derailing Vista (mentions "Blackcomb", currently the codename for W7, I guess, but were eventually targets for "Longhorn", now Vista, see: http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp ), specifically the SQL FS, as part of Yukon. Ooops. You can see Mr. Gates struggling with positioning the OS as something more than a web browser, but seems to miss a point that (in retrospect, I suppose) seems pretty obvious to me: I want us to be able to construct rich UI easily simply by editing an XML document. I want us to be able to bind to XML data easily using the new forms environment. We have compatibility issues to consider with all of the above systems. Trident will be a piece of the solution as the HTML displayer but it will likely not be at the center of the system. This is the directive (I suspect) that resulted in XAML. The concept is great, I suppose, and would certainly be convenient for building business applications, but you can, crudely speaking, think of a web browser as a device that turns an XML (HTML) document into native labels, buttons and drop-down boxes. To reduce the [presentation layer of an] OS to the moral equivalent of a freebie competitor software seems counterproductive. I don't know what a better response would be, though. It's also interesting to note that most of the explicit technical directives (make a new graphics driver model: check -- vista) were met but one that would have arguably done the most to stem the migration away from Win32 applications to web applications was ignored, or bungled to the point of non-recognition: software distribution and reducing the barriers to entry for installing and using additional applications. It's so much easier to get semi-trustworthy binaries onto my Debian or FreeBSD (ignoring Fedora or Ubuntu because it's 2001 in this email) machines than onto anything Windows even in 2009. I suspect things would have been a lot different if they'd focused more effort on a site and delivery executables for application distribution and support, and then shipped them in the Windows Update suggested downloads area. Man I'm glad I don't have to defend an empire. Not saying it wouldn't have been nice to collect the taxes on one for a while though. :)
skwaddar 17y ago
It's like choosing which dogshit to tread in.
lionhearted 17y ago
Links to all the memos cited are here: http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/gates-exhibits/ http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/gates-exhibits/ Worth taking a look at those links - the most interesting part for me was getting a feel for his casual writing style to his staff. Very blunt, but the quotes don't get it quite right - they're just excerpts of a line or two from longer, coherent thoughts. Worth taking a look at the originals.
rythie 17y ago
As everything moves into the browser they become irrelevant. A large proportion of the 'cloud' runs on Linux and the client doesn't really matter so long as it runs a decent web browser and that can Linux, OS X or Windows at this point.
joeycfan 17y ago
You're screwed, Bill. Linux is following Windows like Frankenstein's monster - slow but inexorable. Eventually a version of Linux (probably an Ubuntu version) will surpass Windows in every way and the tipping point will have been reached. MS is not longer a buy.

24 points by rms 17y ago

Fascinating insight into the level of visionary thought that goes into managing a sprawling product portfolio fighting for survival. This is an excellent read if only to appreciate the level of complexity that Microsoft deals with at the top.

bad_user 17y ago
Their business model is coming to an end. What keeps them going is the large customer base and Windows-specific applications people are accustomed to. Historically advancement in technology does tend to have this effect on businesses. The operating systems and dev platforms are a commodity and of course people are wondering why should they pay for this stuff when you can get them for free. Not to mention alternatives are often technologically superior and have stronger communities, and because of their closed-nature they really can't do anything about it. I would like to say that competition benefits consumers, but because Microsoft can still exert a huge influence on the industry without technical merits, consumers won't benefit until they reinvent themselves. I know they will, but it may take some time.
- froo 17y ago
  "Their business model is coming to an end." Do you have any data supporting your claim or is this just a gut feeling? Here's what we know about MS's business model (I just quickly skim read their annual reports to gather these figures). Revenue in 2008 was $60.8 Billion, up 18% from the previous year Revenue in 2007 was $51.12 Billion, up 17% from the previous year Revenue in 2006 was $44.28 Billion, up 11% from the previous year Revenue in 2005 was $39.79 Billion, up by about $3 billion from the previous year Revenue in 2004 was $36.8 Billion, up by 14% from the previous year Revenue in 2003 was $32.19 Billion, up by $3.82 billion from the previous year Revenue in 2002 was $28.37 billion, up by $3.07 billion on the previous year So since the date these internal memo's were written, their business has only managed to steadily grow each and every year by more than 10% per year, with their total revenue having doubled since these memo's were written. Or that Microsoft's growth alone in 2008 was around half of internet golden-child Google's total revenue for the same period? Yes, their business model is coming to an end, they really should be scared.... </sarcasm> (Disclosure: I don't work for microsoft, or a competitor, nor am I an investor. I'm just sick of the unnecessary FUD)
  - berntb 17y ago
    If nothing else... Microsoft owns the desktop until they are unable to e.g. scare netbook builders to stop selling preinstalled Linux.
    - froo 17y ago
      "If nothing else... Microsoft owns the desktop until they are unable to e.g. scare netbook builders to stop selling preinstalled Linux." I know we discussed this the other day (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666787 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=666787) but I think it's more a case of brand imprinting than anything. When you have clueless people who buy new computers (which make up the vast majority of the consumer market), one of the things they look for is what version of windows does it come with. To me, for another OS to actively take significant market share in this dominated space, they would have to overcome this preconception that consumers have. To liken it to another industry, it would be like a new softdrink manufacturer having to compete against Coca Cola (with Apple being Pepsi) with their own cola brand. People instinctively go for one or the other when they go buy a cola, even if there are better products that are cheaper on the shelf. That's really what it boils down too. So while Linux may be free and a superior product (I personally switched to Ubuntu about 8 months ago) - it requires much more momentum than what the Linux community has right now. Which is a damn shame.
      - berntb 17y ago
        Microsoft has a history of pressuring computer manufacturers to not install anything else. This is well documented in court.
  - rjurney 17y ago
    Its not that they don't make money. Its that in terms of innovation - and more specifically in hampering innovation - Microsoft no longer matters. At least we like to think so, because we can remember when they were in the way of developing most anything cool.
    - 17y ago
- vorador 17y ago
  I think that there's something you aren't realizing : the open source communities don't scale. After a certain limit, they tend to go downhill.

jsz0 17y ago

Although this document is old the thing that strikes me reading it is how utterly irrelevant and cryptic it is/was. Perhaps the closed nature of Microsoft's technologies makes it harder to understand but isn't that the problem? I don't know why I might want my Federation server to talk to my extranet server through passport via Yukon calls, based on the BizTalk platform, and highly integrated with the CLR but only for a 3 month trial period if my Office license is up to date. Assuming of course my Trident version is new enough to support my VS Forms. I'll have to check my MSMQ in MMC first though.

jodrellblank 17y ago
It's an internal memo, not a Microsoft HOWTO - it's not trying to explain to you what the jargon means. You can't take competing technologies and tell me they have any fewer awkward acronyms, buzzwords, competing technologies, license limitations, interconnectivity and so on.
- jsz0 17y ago
  That's true. I understand that angle of it. I just think Microsoft should be asking themselves what can we do to improve the experience of 90% of our users instead of spending all our time worrying about how to improve the amount of money we make from the 10% of our most profitable users which is, I think, what all this jargon adds up to. It seems like with Windows 7 they have taken the 90% approach more so than in recent years which is certainly a good thing.

dsturnbull 17y ago

Site zoomed down to an inline IRC client. WTF? immediately closes tab

buugs 17y ago
I'm thinking it is unexpected side effect of the embedded client rather than site design.. article wasn't much of anything anyways.

iigs 17y ago

This is presumably the genesis of several directives that resulted in derailing Vista (mentions "Blackcomb", currently the codename for W7, I guess, but were eventually targets for "Longhorn", now Vista, see: http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/longhorn.asp ), specifically the SQL FS, as part of Yukon. Ooops. You can see Mr. Gates struggling with positioning the OS as something more than a web browser, but seems to miss a point that (in retrospect, I suppose) seems pretty obvious to me: I want us to be able to construct rich UI easily simply by editing an XML document. I want us to be able to bind to XML data easily using the new forms environment. We have compatibility issues to consider with all of the above systems. Trident will be a piece of the solution as the HTML displayer but it will likely not be at the center of the system. This is the directive (I suspect) that resulted in XAML. The concept is great, I suppose, and would certainly be convenient for building business applications, but you can, crudely speaking, think of a web browser as a device that turns an XML (HTML) document into native labels, buttons and drop-down boxes. To reduce the [presentation layer of an] OS to the moral equivalent of a freebie competitor software seems counterproductive. I don't know what a better response would be, though. It's also interesting to note that most of the explicit technical directives (make a new graphics driver model: check -- vista) were met but one that would have arguably done the most to stem the migration away from Win32 applications to web applications was ignored, or bungled to the point of non-recognition: software distribution and reducing the barriers to entry for installing and using additional applications. It's so much easier to get semi-trustworthy binaries onto my Debian or FreeBSD (ignoring Fedora or Ubuntu because it's 2001 in this email) machines than onto anything Windows even in 2009. I suspect things would have been a lot different if they'd focused more effort on a site and delivery executables for application distribution and support, and then shipped them in the Windows Update suggested downloads area. Man I'm glad I don't have to defend an empire. Not saying it wouldn't have been nice to collect the taxes on one for a while though. :)

skwaddar 17y ago

It's like choosing which dogshit to tread in.

lionhearted 17y ago

Links to all the memos cited are here: http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/gates-exhibits/ http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/gates-exhibits/ Worth taking a look at those links - the most interesting part for me was getting a feel for his casual writing style to his staff. Very blunt, but the quotes don't get it quite right - they're just excerpts of a line or two from longer, coherent thoughts. Worth taking a look at the originals.

rythie 17y ago

As everything moves into the browser they become irrelevant. A large proportion of the 'cloud' runs on Linux and the client doesn't really matter so long as it runs a decent web browser and that can Linux, OS X or Windows at this point.

joeycfan 17y ago

You're screwed, Bill. Linux is following Windows like Frankenstein's monster - slow but inexorable. Eventually a version of Linux (probably an Ubuntu version) will surpass Windows in every way and the tipping point will have been reached. MS is not longer a buy.