13 ms·

Microsoft’s Long, Slow Decline

142 points by tumult 17y ago

tumult 17y ago
Normally, I wouldn't submit something with what I might consider to be an inflammatory title, but I think John Gruber raises some interesting points on Microsoft's current situation. They're a huge company with products which register on my likability meter from "this is awesome" to "what is this crap?" It will be interesting to see what happens with Windows 7. It's a good chance for them to turn around the bad image that became associated with Vista. This doesn't necessarily need any technical bearing. Windows Mobile, to me, seems like a pretty dead platform. I've gone through a couple of WM phones and I have no intention of going back, either as a developer or a user.
- tvon 17y ago
  I'm picking on you a bit here, but "Microsoft's Long, Slow Decline" is about as gentle a title can be while indicating that the article is about the general decline of Microsoft. Inflammatory would be "Microsoft is Dead", "Microsoft has Jumped the Shark" or "Microsoft Causes Cancer".
  - mechanical_fish 17y ago
    I can't resist forwarding Gruber's most recent Twitter: (The working title was ‘Microsoft Is Fucked’.) Judiciously edited, I'd say. ;)
    - antidaily 17y ago
      That probably would have gotten more clicks.
      - nudded 17y ago
        Not only that. It would also be taken less seriously.
  - Arubis 17y ago
    Or the working title, per Twitter: http://twitter.com/gruber/status/2940843840 http://twitter.com/gruber/status/2940843840 I wish this all weren't the case. Competition benefits everyone, and Apple's had fairly free reign over the improving-your-consumer-OS space for quite a while now.
    - access_denied 17y ago
      Talk is cheap. If you really care than I see you contributing to an OSS desktop project.
- tjmc 17y ago
  My personal prediction is that Windows 7 will be a big hit for Microsoft. I installed the RC on a 3yo media PC with 1GB RAM and it’s really been quite good – it found all the hardware including slightly obscure things like dual tv tuners and an IR receiver on install. The only thing it missed was the graphics card driver but it found it on the first update. The digital tv playback is smoother than XP and it “just works” as a PVR – you can fully control it with a remote from across the room. It plays Xvid and can burn DVDs out of the box. Gruber’s right that MS have lost the enthusiasts and yes, they’re now a bit player at the top end of the market. But then again, so is Toyota. People who use Windows are like people who have a car to get from A to B. MS have always been about the mass market and that’s not changing. There’s still substantial advantages in being the dominant platform – especially as the default business desktop. I think Windows 7 is good enough that the great, unwashed hoards will switch from XP in surprising numbers. But we’ll see…
  - shin_lao 17y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. Windows 7 is an excellent operating system. People jump to conclusions too quickly. The challenger of Windows Vista is not MacOS X or Linux, it's Windows XP.
  - dememarc 17y ago
    Very good point to parallel MS to Toyota. However, unlike MS, Toyota has Lexus, a brand that does very well with consumers that are willing to pay a premium for a premium experience. MS has no such offering. (see also VW/Audi, Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura, etc)
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
adamhowell 17y ago
The 91% retail computers number is crazy. My guess is it has to do with several different factors, a few of which might be: * Circuit City going under * Best Buy now stocking Apple merchandise * Wal-mart going almost entirely sub-$1000 * No one wanting a computer that comes with Vista (even my Mom bought a laptop the other day b/c it was $400 and came w/ XP) * More Apple stores, meaning more free tech support (which is why Microsoft's going down that route soon)
- Kadin 17y ago
  I think it's probably due in large part to near-total destruction of the $1000-plus PC market. It's not that Apple has really gained there as much as the numbers would suggest, it's just that they've managed to hold on and get people to continue shelling out, while other computer manufacturers have been forced into a price war. I suspect, if you were to go into Best Buy or Walmart, you would find only a handful of non-Apple PCs for $1k+, if any at all. Apple is doing well in the high end because they've successfully resisted commoditization in a way that none of the other manufacturers have. (Sony has tried hard, but they're not half as cool as they want to be in the eyes of the average buyer.) Toughbooks are probably the only other brand that stick out as demanding a premium and being likely to get it, but they're a specialty product.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    This is something I've been saying all along - and Sony too. Last year someone at Sony lambasted the Eee PC, saying that netbooks will destroy the industry by causing a "race to the bottom". People fought against that idea - and many loudly proclaimed Sony to be a sore loser and sells overpriced crap. Quote here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9879798-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9879798-7.html And then it turns out they were right. The netbook has absolutely gutted the over-$1000 PC market to the point where Apple is now the only real player. Margins are thinner than ever and I would not be surprised if manufacturers start keeling over from selling too many netbooks. I mean, that's what happens when you give up the business of selling kobe beef and get into the business of selling grade-D ground beef...
edw519 17y ago
Has OP ever been in one of the 6 million businesses is the U.S. lately? If he had he probably would have noticed that over 90% of the desktops running Windows. Many of them with ie locked down. With the server rooms full of Microsoft products. And those responsible for procurement unaware of much else. Microsoft may be in a long, slow decline in the consumer marketplace, but you'd never know from those 100 million desktops. Do you think that maybe Microsoft was smart enough to foresee this so that's why they're so locked in in the enterprise?
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  I also see a lot of office furniture when I look inside a business. But nobody cares much about office furniture. For most of the market, it's a boring commodity that is bought by professional office managers who care a lot about the price. It lasts a relatively long time and doesn't change very often. It's also an intensely cyclical business, which is no doubt a big reason why Microsoft's financials are so screwed. The moral of this story is that the notion of Apple vs Microsoft is more stale than it has ever been. They aren't even in the same industry anymore. You could imagine investing in both of them at once and calling it diversification.
  - angstrom 17y ago
    Apple has turned computer sales into a question of quality, much like the Japanese manufacturers gained control of the domestic car market by making it a question of quality. Meanwhile, there are businesses that still want to run full screen 16-bit DOS programs in emulated Windows XP on 64-bit Windows 7. Windows has become a metaphor of the Russian Matryoshka nesting dolls.
    - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
      Actually, Japanese car companies gained control of the US market because they offered affordable cars that were more efficient. Once consumers saw that they were getting equal or better quality for less money, they switched.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
microsoft is guilty of hubris. their corporate culture has convinced itself that because it supplies the OS it needs to compete for your attention with every aspect of computing. Microsoft could benefit greatly from shrinking and gaining some focus.
- DrJokepu 17y ago
  Agreed. I wouldn't be very surprised if we were seeing Bill Gates returning to the cockpit again to sort things out in five years or so.
  - itgoon 17y ago
    I could see him doing it, but I don't see him actually sorting anything out. His last years were not stellar. He did a fantastic job building the company, but I don't think he's the right person to rebuild it.
    - streetstealth 17y ago
      There's one MS higher-up who I could see actually pulling it off: J Allard. If the future of Windows were a tenth as innovative as the XBox division or even Zune, MS could probably swing a turnaround like Palm is in the middle of. In fact, I'm calling it now: Allard's going to be CEO of MSFT before 2020. Maybe before 2015. You heard it here first.
joechung 17y ago
If you ignore the global economy, the magnitude of the sub-$1000 PC market relative to the $1000+ PC market, and the fact that you can run Windows on an Apple PC, then this article makes sense. Otherwise...
- markerdmann 17y ago
  You make a good point, joechung, and I've been trying to find the related statistics. This is what I've been able to come up with so far: Apple had 14% of the US retail PC market in Feb. 2008 - http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/apple_snags_14_percent_of_us_based_pc_retail_sales_in_february.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/apple_snags_14... This article claims the number was 8.7% in the 2nd quarter of 2009 - http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/15/single_digit_growth_boosts_apples_share_of_us_pc_market_to_8_7.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/15/single_digit_g... According to this article on theappleblog.com, Apple has 4% of the global PC market as of July 2009 - http://theappleblog.com/2009/07/25/does-apple-have-a-91-percent-share-of-the-high-end/ http://theappleblog.com/2009/07/25/does-apple-have-a-91-perc... If anyone has more, I'd be very curious to see them (especially the ratio of sub-$1000 retail PC sales to $1000+ retail PC sales).
  - trapper 17y ago
    Listening to "statistics" from people who quote percentages is really dangerous. Percentages are really, really, easy to lie with. And for people who only quote percentages, this is usually what they are trying to do. Spin.
    - GQB 17y ago
      You need both. Percentages are better for showing movement (e.g. growth), while absolute numbers give context.
  - eli 17y ago
    4% globally could be right. Keep in mind that retail is just one slice of the pie. PCs dominate overwhelmingly in the enterprise.
froo 17y ago
I think the OP is completely ignoring Microsoft's previous years financials (strong consistent growth since before Vista and after) and instead basing his argument on two data points (and not the whole data set) and pointing and saying the sky is falling. It appears that Microsoft can blame their quarterly's on the global financial thing as that is a valid reason, when you take all other financial data points into account. Saying it is all Vista's fault is a straw man argument, given ALL of the data shows otherwise. If anyone cares to look at the actual financial data, rather than making wild claims, you would notice that Microsoft's Growth alone last year was about half of Google's total revenue. Sure, Google is doing fantastic, but that's not to say Microsoft is completely F-ing it up (like the Author claims when comparing the two). Secondly, I won't dispute the figures that Apple are outselling Microsoft in the >$1000 market, because I don't have access to all the figures but I personally would expect that would be the case given that is the market Apple targets. I would suggest that if the Author wants to take a realistic view of Microsoft's position in the computer market, he should look at TOTAL machines sold, not just one market segment. It would be like arguing that Ferrari dominate every other car manufacturer worldwide because they make the most cars that are red that come from Italy... [Disclaimer: Not a Microsoft Employee or Fanboy, just sick of propaganda] EDIT - fixed an error with Google/Microsoft revenue/growth comparison
- nwjsmith 17y ago
  You are wrong to call this propaganda. The core of Gruber's argument is that Apple's market share (not Google's) is growing quickly, whereas Microsoft's is falling. Gruber also acknowledges that the numbers don't take into account the whole of the PC market, and he brings up a couple of important points you need to consider before thinking that Microsoft is making up for its losses in the sub-$1000 PC market. Quotes: "What is particularly alarming about Microsoft’s numbers is that revenue from its Windows PC division suffered an even greater year-over-year revenue decline than the company as a whole: 29 percent." "Even given that NPD’s numbers represent only retail sales, is there any reasonable doubt that Apple’s share of the non-retail market for $1,000+ computers is also growing?" Also, it's misleading for you to suggest that Gruber implies that Microsoft is "completely F-ing it up" when comparing them to Google. His 'working title' aside, the purpose of the comparison was to demonstrate that other companies in the industry are not falling short of projections, as Microsoft has. He is suggesting that blaming the revenue decline on the economy isn't a strong argument. You use the term 'propaganda' pretty loosely. Many things written on Daring Fireball are sarcastic and overly-dismissive when it comes to Microsoft, but it's clear that John Gruber put a lot of thought and work into this essay. Try to do the same with your criticism.
ajg1977 17y ago
Hey guess what - I'm one of those 91% consumers who bought an Apple computer (a Macbook pro to be precise) this year. Now, guess what OS I'm running? Not OSX that's for sure. I'm also not really sure what DF's aim is here beyond recycling the favorite talking points of Apple fans. Vista sucks - check. Windows 7 is a do-over - check Consumers love Apple - check Mac's can run Windows - check Laptop hunter Ads are lame - check PC's are $700 pieces of crap - check There's nothing really new here. Just some viewpoints with questionable objectivity while conveniently ignoring the fact that a) The vast majority of computers sold do not fall into the "$1000+ at retail" category and b) The majority of users are perfectly happy with both Windows and their sub $1000 machines.
- s3graham 17y ago
  Agreed here. I don't know how common it is, but since OSX purchases can't really be separated from hardware, and the hardware is basically vanilla x86 in a snazzy case, it (theoretically) doesn't prove anything.
- ptomato 17y ago
  Anecdotal evidence from a single source does not a compelling argument make. b) "They still dominate in terms of unit-sale market share, yes, but not because people don’t recognize Windows as second-rate, but because they don’t care, in the same way millions of people buy metric tons of second-rate products from Wal-Mart every hour of every day." a) Well, honestly, did you even read OP?
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  There's nothing really new here. Did you notice the part about the financial results? The historic financial results? The point of the entire article? Microsoft's year-over-year revenue has gone up since before I or Gruber knew what a computer was. So this is big news. Maybe not as big as the terrifying numbers would suggest (the last year did also feature the worst possible coincident timing of business events in Microsoft history) but still big.
- erlanger 17y ago
  > Now, guess what OS I'm running? Not OSX that's for sure. I'm actually curious. BSD? Linux? The only things that have kept me on OSX for so long (steep decline since Panther) are Finder and Photoshop. Well, those and that I'm hopelessly tied to the  key since I've only used Macs...+Option+O will never cease to please me. But mainly it's Finder. Why won't other desktop environments copy Apple's excellent combination of +Tab and +`, opting for the inefficient, app-flattening Alt+Tab?
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Today, though, Microsoft is increasingly left only with customers whose priority is price. Yeah, but that's probably like 95% of people and companies. Computers may not be commodities for the types of people who frequent HN, but they are for almost everyone else.
- thenduks 17y ago
  He's saying that the kind of people who frequent HN are indicators of what the future might be like: Regular people don’t think about their choice of computer platform in detail and with passion like nerds do because, duh, they are not nerds. But nerds are leading indicators.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    Nerds are leading indicators for some things, but not everything. Once something has become commoditized, nerds may be leading indicators of what a small niche will prefer, but most people will compare that commodity primarily on price. Reversing commoditization is difficult and rare.
    - simonw 17y ago
      If nerds aren't going to be leading indicators for computers, what are they going to be indicators for?
      - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
        Are nerds the leading indicators for handheld calculators?
        blasdel 17y ago
        Not at all: witness TI's total dominance of the graphing calculator market, selling millions a year with a fucking Z80 and dogshit software for $80 each. Their 'high-end' calculators have decent software with an easy-to-use CAS, but are crippled by their slow M68k processors, and cost $120.
mrshoe 17y ago
I think Gruber makes a lot of great points here and I agree with most of what he says. However, I think he's missing one important point. Microsoft doesn't think "it is sitting pretty because Best Buy has a 17-inch Dell for $650." I can assure you that internal talks at Microsoft include very worried discussions about how they're going to deal with Apple's quickly growing market share. Microsoft's response to "Macs are better" is "PCs are cheaper", not because they think more PCs will sell because of these ads, per se, but because they want computers to be cheaper. They want to frame the buying decision in terms of price so they can drive prices down further. Oddly enough, this kind of worked. Apple lowered their prices. As Joel Spolsky says, "Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements... Microsoft's goal was to commoditize the PC market." (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html) Microsoft does not think that it's OK to be inferior to Apple as long as they're cheaper. They just really really want computers to be cheaper. They always have. That's how they've made billions of dollars over the years. They tie the success of their software business directly to falling prices in the computer hardware industry. If they see any hint of that trend reversing (rising prices in hardware), they're going to fight it tooth and nail. I think what they really need to understand is that the race to the bottom in the computer hardware market is generally over. We've arrived at (or near) the bottom. People can afford just about as many computers as they could possibly want now. If they want to further commoditize the personal computer, they should be doing what Google is doing and writing a stripped-down OS that runs on much weaker hardware but relies on the web for processing power. Insisting on machines that are both cheaper and more powerful than the PCs of yesteryear has reached the point of diminishing returns.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Excellent points about commoditisation. I don't think Microsoft wants Macs to be cheaper (though they still probably see increases in windows sales to mac users if there is more money left over) but they do want this to be a price argument because right now that's where they win. I think Microsoft should do two things: 1. Push Windows 7 as superior. In my experience and that of others who have used it, so far it really is. (NB: The people that have used it were not die-hard fans either way, so naturally there will be Mac fans who disagree but this isn't the point). 2. Offer a Mac-Only version of Windows at a cheaper price to get more windows installs on mac (price of Windows OS for someone using it as a second OS is quite prohibitive).
frosty 17y ago
you seem to be missing a very critical point in using financial projections. Yeah, apple will keep gaining share in US but guess who will win in the emerging markets like China, India and Brazil. Microsoft will now start reaping rewards for its years of giving OS for free to these markets (basically by not cracking on piracy). In these countries, its not about coolness or design. Its about the price. Want an example? Guess how many iPhones sold in India?
- jemmons 17y ago
  Do you even know? Or are you really keen to make us guess?
  - blasdel 17y ago
    I've seen numbers stating it's under 20k to date. The midtown Manhattan Apple store probably sells that many in an average week!
- GeneralMaximus 17y ago
  iPhones are not sold here because they cost about $700. If they were as cheap as they are in the US, everyone would have an iPhone. In India, even the people who don't have the resources to feed themselves own mobile phones. And people do buy Macs here (mostly computer enthusiasts or programmers). You can find many Macs at FOSS conventions (I know, ironic).
  - vetinari 17y ago
    The iPhone is not cheap in US. Yes, you don't pay $700/€500 upfront, but you will pay the amount through duration of the contract and by losing the option to switch carriers during the next year or two. The cost is the same, just hidden.
    - anatoli 17y ago
      I don't think you have an understanding of how much people make/stuff costs in India, if you're actually comparing prices of iPhones in US with prices of iPhones in India. Hint: why do you think there's so much outsourcing to India?
brisance 17y ago
Microsoft is making the same mistake that Creative made with respect to the iPod as an MP3 player. They are still stuck in the "hard disk size, amount of RAM" rut. When was the last time you bought a computer (other than for gaming) that really required that extra 0.2 GHz? Even then, MSFT makes an disingenuous argument since they make no PC hardware. So it is all spin. People are buying solutions, not hardware. This is partly why the iPhone is so successful even though there are literally hundreds of cheaper phones on the market.
- quantumhobbit 17y ago
  Agreed. Comparing something like a laptop on just memory and hard drive is ignoring a huge list of other aspects which affect the quality of the user experience such as battery life, keyboard and trackpad, and heat(Apple is just as bad here if not worse than some). To extend the GM analogy, it is like comparing sports cars based on horsepower alone. You can get an American muscle car with a ton of power cheaply but it will handle like crap or you can get a more expensive sports car with less power but is actually pleasant to drive.
jwhitlark 17y ago
"That’s the business Wal-Mart wants to be in — selling a zillion cheap low-margin items and turning a profit on volume. That’s not the business Microsoft is in." It should be noted that one of Wal-Mart's greatest advantages is that it manages it's resources more efficiently than it's competitors. Being always willing to risk that you can do a satisfactory job cheaper than anyone else is a great attitude for a company that can out innovate its opponents. I can't think of MS in those terms with a straight face.
- jtfc 17y ago
  Apple (and Steve Jobs) has never tried to market anything in it's product line to all consumers, they concentrate on the mid-high and highend market. I don't want to sounds like a snob, I use macs for 20 years (I am a designer) and I never go to Wal-Mart, but we have a Prius. Low price is never the first priority for my family to choice any kind of product, and we try to not purchase anything influence by marketing/advertising. I do use VMWare with XP on my mac. Honestly I was very happy when Apple switched to Intel so I never have to buy those not so well make hardware again. There will always be people that shop everything at Walmart, and people shop at target/traderjoe, and another group shop only at Wholefood. We all different but I am happy that we have different choice. Can you imagine if Apple died in the 90s and nongeek like me now have to choice between Windows and Linux?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
csomar 17y ago
windows will remain dominant in OS shares at least for the next 15 or 20 years; after that something new need to be made. Like the jump from Dos to win 3.1 or win 3.1 to Win95; Microsoft needs to make something more spectacular than an upgrade to 7; something more innovative and productive. if it does, than there are another 30 years for msft life.
- Mark2000 17y ago
  Srsly? 15-20 year? I think Windows will be dead in 7-10 years. It shouldn't still be alive today. Windows is an OS for physical media. It wasn't built for networking and security. Windows'core needs to be scraped and MS needs to come up with something fresh from the bottom up. Actually, they don't need to do anything. Others have already. MS just needs to bow out. You can't be on top forever.
fauigerzigerk 17y ago
So when was Microsoft successfully competing in the market of fashionable consumer gadgets? If you're looking for Microsoft's decline you must look at the sectors they actually dominate. And considering this whole question by way of intense californian navel gazing is not going to predict anything in a world where 100% of growth happens in Asia. Personally I don't get the kind of collective, almost supremacist, enthusiasm for the quality of Apple products. I've been using some Apple products pretty intensively (MacBook/MacOS X, iPod, Xcode) and I remain largely unconvinced. I love computing. I love what I can make computers do in terms of analysing and transforming data. But I don't like computers. So when the first thing Apple tells me on their homepage is that some hardware thingy is now "unibody" they get blank stares from me. I guess people are just very different in that regard.
jsz0 17y ago
Microsoft is getting its first taste of reality for a variety of different reasons. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest they are in for a slow bell curve style decline. Their business model will change of course but probably won't decline much or at all. Eventually the economy will recover and enterprise PC sales will pickup. On the consumer side it's probably inevitable that Windows revenue will continue to shrink as consumers move more of their computing online and to mobile devices. The one area they can build on is the Xbox platform as a general purpose set top platform that might serve some of the same functions as a traditional desktop PC. For example: It could be a file server, print server, home automation controller, media store, shopping front end, etc, etc. No other company is in a good position to control the living room. Apple isn't interested, Sony is patiently waiting to die, and Nintendo is firmly a gaming company completely incapable of making a general purpose platform. Most importantly the Xbox is one of the only new Microsoft products in the last decade that has really caught on with consumers. Eventually they can probably build on the success of the Xbox platform into mobile devices.
tybris 17y ago
The legacy will make sure Microsoft is still the #1 Software company in 10 years and Windows the #1 Operating System.
- lallysingh 17y ago
  Meh. Windows boxes are a bit of a pain to maintain. For legacy, it's not hard to imagine a small number of citrix servers for legacy software.
- olefoo 17y ago
  This is what IBM kept telling themselves in 1986. The installed base of a legacy platform is not a guarantee of the health of the platform owner. Other companies that made this mistake; DEC, SUN, AOL. In ecological terms, MSFT has overshot the carrying capacity of it's niche, and has not been able to exploit or create new habitat as an operating systems company.
  - tybris 17y ago
    Are you referring to "the IBM"? The company with a Market Cap of $150 billion, larger than Google, Apple, Cisco and every other IT company except Microsoft? There's a big gap between what is true on the web and what is true in reality. IBM is very much alive and kicking, still building mainframes and whatnot.
    - olefoo 17y ago
      Yes, after they lost something like a third of their market cap and shrank, and reorganized and clawed their way back. """Gerstner quarterbacked one of history's most dramatic corporate turnarounds. For those who follow business stories like football games, his tale of the rise, fall and rise of IBM might be the ultimate slow-motion replay. He became IBM's CEO in 1993, when the gargantuan company was near collapse.""" From one of the reviews here http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Dance-Inside-Historic-Turnaround/dp/0060523794 http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Dance-Inside-Historic-Turnar...
cturner 17y ago
When I buy a linux server at work, or one of those Linux Dells home machine (not sure if they're still around - I got this end of last year), I feel like I get a raw commodity. I wipe whatever crap the idiot manufacturer put on it, install my OS on it with ease, and then it does what I want for the rest of time. Server or desktop. Or both if I want. Multi-user from that moment, apt-get takes care of my problems. When I buy a mac it's about the same. It's a little harder to get new packages and some of the unix decisions are brainless but it's better with drivers. The commodity feel is not remotely the case with Windows. The manufacturer may have left all sorts of crap over the install (toolbars and the like). I'll need to download or even buy a bunch of stuff to get it to do stuff that for a geek is basic (a pdf viewer and all of them stink, expandrive to be able to mount drives effectively, virus protection in case I get compromised but this makes my system less nice to use, putty so I can get to a real console). It doesn't come with anything approaching an adequate text editor or basic development tools. If it's a reinstall on a Dell the driver situation is very painful, and product activation might require me to make phone calls.
lamnk 17y ago
"Even without turning the machines on, anyone can see the difference in design and build quality. In fact, you don’t even need eyes — just pick them up and see which one squeaks. Apple is selling more MacBooks every quarter." Give me a break ... Design ? Yes. Build quality ? Hardly. The Macbook (not pro) is a plastic toy. Its quality is just the same as of those Dell's Inspirons. The Macbook Pro unibody may made a difference in build quality, but definitely not the Macbook.
- aichcon 17y ago
  There are 13" unibody Macbooks (not Pro). I have one. http://www.apple.com/macbook/ http://www.apple.com/macbook/
  - allertonm 17y ago
    Not anymore - the 13" unibody became a "Pro" after the recent refresh.
- cwilson 17y ago
  I'd have to disagree with this. Have you owned one of the plastic Macbooks? Regardless of it being plastic it was still the toughest notebook I had owned to date. Yes, the Pro's are MUCH tougher and I'm glad I upgraded when I did, but I had no complaints or issues with the build quality of my plastic Macbook. It was a great machine. My comparison was HP's, Dell's, and even an IBM that all ended up falling apart with only a few years of regular use. With the Macbook this was not so.
- GQB 17y ago
  Picking the (legacy) white MacBook as representative of the entire line is disingenuous. 100% of the modern line is unibody and does indeed represent superior design, from battery life to multi-touch trackpad.
- donw 17y ago
  I have a plastic, black, 13" Macbook, and the quality is much, much higher than any Inspiron or Latitude that I've ever owned. The case is visibly seamless, and the system doesn't rattle if I shake it. The little touches like a battery-level indicator on the battery, and the MagSafe adapter, are also rather nice, as is not having a laptop that looks like it was designed to appeal to ten-year-olds. If you want a PC manufacturer that's comparable, look to Lenovo, not Dell.
budman 17y ago
This guy is a tool. I stopped reading once I read this blanket assumptive statement: People who love computers overwhelmingly prefer to use a Mac today Really? Did he go door to door? Because he missed my house and MANY other people I know..
- kgelner 17y ago
  Go to any modern technical conference (except the Microsoft specific ones of course) and you can see the truth in what he is saying.
  - atacrawl 17y ago
    Better yet, go to an airport. Every time I go to the airport, any airport, I see a higher percentage of Apple logos staring back at me than I did the previous visit. It's kind of amazing. It wasn't that long ago that you almost never saw any Apple laptops. Now they're everywhere.
hcschmid 17y ago
Seems to me, whatever problems Microsoft has, they'd do a lot better to not give Apple an attention or comment. They should stick to the ignoring Apple. Answer questions about "We do not comment on competitors or their products". It certainly won't fix their products, but it would reduce the chances of them putting their foot in their mouth, and that might be a starting point for turning their image, then, their products around.
pbsteve70 17y ago
Funny how this devolves into Apple v. Mac. Apple has gained share but I don't believe Apple has much to do with MS' decline. The real cause is the internet... it has slowly busting MS' monopoly power. It might have been inevitable but I think MS helped cause it. Way back in the 90s, every time MS saw a profitable Windows developer, they saw an opportunity to grow their own software business. They would even advise Venture Funds not to invest in certain areas. (Guess what.. venture investors want to make money, not battle MS.) Funding and innovation for desktop development (read: Windows development) plummeted. Sure existing companies continued with their product lines and hobbyists built a huge shareware market. Meanwhile MS got fat dominating the market for software on their own platform, and with the increased PC sales for the ultimate killer app--the internet. They looked brilliant. BUT... innovation didn't die. It moved to the web. And today, while most computers still run Windows, the dominant platform is NOT windows, it's the internet itself. Cloud computing has some real advantages but real disadvantages as well. But one of the advantages is that it was a workaround for the 80 billion pound gorilla, when every business analysis started with: Does this compete with MS? Ironically, I see hints of Apple repeating the same mistake in its iphone... a platform that really has the legs to dominate in a way the mac never has. Financially and short term they're doing everything right and making billions. And they'll grow much more, just like MS in the 90s. But their whole app store/review approach is hostile to developers. In fact they're building a market that resembles the modern Windows market--only its 99c instead of shareware. Professional developers and capital and innovation is going away. The PageMakers and Photoshops of this stage of computing are going to happen on another platform. And Apple, like MS, a huge successful company with a strong embedded culture is unlikely to see the cause and effect and change its ways.. In the iphones case it won't take 15 years. But it will take a while. The iphone's current momentum is daunting. However, when you're a platform, your most valuable long term asset is your developers. But when your platform is a runaway success it appears to be too tempting to abuse those developers for short term gain. The absurdity of the Apple case is that Apple would seemingly make more money if they loosened up on the app restrictions. MS at least made serious money putting its developers out of business...
- kgelner 17y ago
  I write iPhone applications for a living. I don't see the App Store process as being developer hostile, at all. Yes there are a few specific areas where it's basically a hostile environment for development. But there is a far wider range of categories where the space is wide open. And that space is wider still now that Apple is finally letting people go hog wild with live video overlays in 3.1 (augmented reality stuff). You only see the contractions, but it's more than offset by expansion... and the contractions we do see, are bound to be temporary if other phones end up having compelling things the iPhone does not because of them (and the inevitable loss of AT&T exclusivity). That's far sooner than the 15 years you give them...
kgelner 17y ago
This new quote from Gruber underlies exactly where the decline really matters most: "It’s not that they need those customers, but that they used to drive the industry’s technical agenda, but now they don’t." Where is Microsoft really driving anything at this point? It's not on the desktop. It's not in the mobile space. It's not even really in the enterprise. The whole video tag argument in HTML 4 for example, is really between Apple and Mozilla. Microsoft is not really even a consideration. If Microsoft is not really driving anything anymore, then they are just another company trying to comply with standards - and that means the inevitable (although slow) end of dominance they once enjoyed. For the computer industry, this is a good thing...
Mark2000 17y ago
Could someone PLEEEEAAASE tell me what makes 7 better than Vista? Please??!!! The taskbar is changed to icons and there is a preview for each one. That's really about it. The interface is still a mess with menubars hidden sometimes and not others, there are still several hundred control panels, and the system is still based on DLLs and a registry. Network navigation is a total joke. Built in media viewing is not even a joke. And, yes, I've used 7 quite a bit for my gaming needs so I know what a turd it still is. It's a fundamentally confusing, unsafe, and bloated OS with the slightest amount of polish added.

142 points by tumult 17y ago

Normally, I wouldn't submit something with what I might consider to be an inflammatory title, but I think John Gruber raises some interesting points on Microsoft's current situation. They're a huge company with products which register on my likability meter from "this is awesome" to "what is this crap?" It will be interesting to see what happens with Windows 7. It's a good chance for them to turn around the bad image that became associated with Vista. This doesn't necessarily need any technical bearing. Windows Mobile, to me, seems like a pretty dead platform. I've gone through a couple of WM phones and I have no intention of going back, either as a developer or a user.

tvon 17y ago
I'm picking on you a bit here, but "Microsoft's Long, Slow Decline" is about as gentle a title can be while indicating that the article is about the general decline of Microsoft. Inflammatory would be "Microsoft is Dead", "Microsoft has Jumped the Shark" or "Microsoft Causes Cancer".
- mechanical_fish 17y ago
  I can't resist forwarding Gruber's most recent Twitter: (The working title was ‘Microsoft Is Fucked’.) Judiciously edited, I'd say. ;)
  - antidaily 17y ago
    That probably would have gotten more clicks.
    - nudded 17y ago
      Not only that. It would also be taken less seriously.
- Arubis 17y ago
  Or the working title, per Twitter: http://twitter.com/gruber/status/2940843840 http://twitter.com/gruber/status/2940843840 I wish this all weren't the case. Competition benefits everyone, and Apple's had fairly free reign over the improving-your-consumer-OS space for quite a while now.
  - access_denied 17y ago
    Talk is cheap. If you really care than I see you contributing to an OSS desktop project.
tjmc 17y ago
My personal prediction is that Windows 7 will be a big hit for Microsoft. I installed the RC on a 3yo media PC with 1GB RAM and it’s really been quite good – it found all the hardware including slightly obscure things like dual tv tuners and an IR receiver on install. The only thing it missed was the graphics card driver but it found it on the first update. The digital tv playback is smoother than XP and it “just works” as a PVR – you can fully control it with a remote from across the room. It plays Xvid and can burn DVDs out of the box. Gruber’s right that MS have lost the enthusiasts and yes, they’re now a bit player at the top end of the market. But then again, so is Toyota. People who use Windows are like people who have a car to get from A to B. MS have always been about the mass market and that’s not changing. There’s still substantial advantages in being the dominant platform – especially as the default business desktop. I think Windows 7 is good enough that the great, unwashed hoards will switch from XP in surprising numbers. But we’ll see…
- shin_lao 17y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree. Windows 7 is an excellent operating system. People jump to conclusions too quickly. The challenger of Windows Vista is not MacOS X or Linux, it's Windows XP.
- dememarc 17y ago
  Very good point to parallel MS to Toyota. However, unlike MS, Toyota has Lexus, a brand that does very well with consumers that are willing to pay a premium for a premium experience. MS has no such offering. (see also VW/Audi, Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura, etc)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

adamhowell 17y ago

The 91% retail computers number is crazy. My guess is it has to do with several different factors, a few of which might be: * Circuit City going under * Best Buy now stocking Apple merchandise * Wal-mart going almost entirely sub-$1000 * No one wanting a computer that comes with Vista (even my Mom bought a laptop the other day b/c it was $400 and came w/ XP) * More Apple stores, meaning more free tech support (which is why Microsoft's going down that route soon)

Kadin 17y ago
I think it's probably due in large part to near-total destruction of the $1000-plus PC market. It's not that Apple has really gained there as much as the numbers would suggest, it's just that they've managed to hold on and get people to continue shelling out, while other computer manufacturers have been forced into a price war. I suspect, if you were to go into Best Buy or Walmart, you would find only a handful of non-Apple PCs for $1k+, if any at all. Apple is doing well in the high end because they've successfully resisted commoditization in a way that none of the other manufacturers have. (Sony has tried hard, but they're not half as cool as they want to be in the eyes of the average buyer.) Toughbooks are probably the only other brand that stick out as demanding a premium and being likely to get it, but they're a specialty product.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  This is something I've been saying all along - and Sony too. Last year someone at Sony lambasted the Eee PC, saying that netbooks will destroy the industry by causing a "race to the bottom". People fought against that idea - and many loudly proclaimed Sony to be a sore loser and sells overpriced crap. Quote here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9879798-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9879798-7.html And then it turns out they were right. The netbook has absolutely gutted the over-$1000 PC market to the point where Apple is now the only real player. Margins are thinner than ever and I would not be surprised if manufacturers start keeling over from selling too many netbooks. I mean, that's what happens when you give up the business of selling kobe beef and get into the business of selling grade-D ground beef...

edw519 17y ago

Has OP ever been in one of the 6 million businesses is the U.S. lately? If he had he probably would have noticed that over 90% of the desktops running Windows. Many of them with ie locked down. With the server rooms full of Microsoft products. And those responsible for procurement unaware of much else. Microsoft may be in a long, slow decline in the consumer marketplace, but you'd never know from those 100 million desktops. Do you think that maybe Microsoft was smart enough to foresee this so that's why they're so locked in in the enterprise?

mechanical_fish 17y ago
I also see a lot of office furniture when I look inside a business. But nobody cares much about office furniture. For most of the market, it's a boring commodity that is bought by professional office managers who care a lot about the price. It lasts a relatively long time and doesn't change very often. It's also an intensely cyclical business, which is no doubt a big reason why Microsoft's financials are so screwed. The moral of this story is that the notion of Apple vs Microsoft is more stale than it has ever been. They aren't even in the same industry anymore. You could imagine investing in both of them at once and calling it diversification.
- angstrom 17y ago
  Apple has turned computer sales into a question of quality, much like the Japanese manufacturers gained control of the domestic car market by making it a question of quality. Meanwhile, there are businesses that still want to run full screen 16-bit DOS programs in emulated Windows XP on 64-bit Windows 7. Windows has become a metaphor of the Russian Matryoshka nesting dolls.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    Actually, Japanese car companies gained control of the US market because they offered affordable cars that were more efficient. Once consumers saw that they were getting equal or better quality for less money, they switched.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

microsoft is guilty of hubris. their corporate culture has convinced itself that because it supplies the OS it needs to compete for your attention with every aspect of computing. Microsoft could benefit greatly from shrinking and gaining some focus.

DrJokepu 17y ago
Agreed. I wouldn't be very surprised if we were seeing Bill Gates returning to the cockpit again to sort things out in five years or so.
- itgoon 17y ago
  I could see him doing it, but I don't see him actually sorting anything out. His last years were not stellar. He did a fantastic job building the company, but I don't think he's the right person to rebuild it.
  - streetstealth 17y ago
    There's one MS higher-up who I could see actually pulling it off: J Allard. If the future of Windows were a tenth as innovative as the XBox division or even Zune, MS could probably swing a turnaround like Palm is in the middle of. In fact, I'm calling it now: Allard's going to be CEO of MSFT before 2020. Maybe before 2015. You heard it here first.

joechung 17y ago

If you ignore the global economy, the magnitude of the sub-$1000 PC market relative to the $1000+ PC market, and the fact that you can run Windows on an Apple PC, then this article makes sense. Otherwise...

markerdmann 17y ago
You make a good point, joechung, and I've been trying to find the related statistics. This is what I've been able to come up with so far: Apple had 14% of the US retail PC market in Feb. 2008 - http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/apple_snags_14_percent_of_us_based_pc_retail_sales_in_february.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/17/apple_snags_14... This article claims the number was 8.7% in the 2nd quarter of 2009 - http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/15/single_digit_growth_boosts_apples_share_of_us_pc_market_to_8_7.html http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/15/single_digit_g... According to this article on theappleblog.com, Apple has 4% of the global PC market as of July 2009 - http://theappleblog.com/2009/07/25/does-apple-have-a-91-percent-share-of-the-high-end/ http://theappleblog.com/2009/07/25/does-apple-have-a-91-perc... If anyone has more, I'd be very curious to see them (especially the ratio of sub-$1000 retail PC sales to $1000+ retail PC sales).
- trapper 17y ago
  Listening to "statistics" from people who quote percentages is really dangerous. Percentages are really, really, easy to lie with. And for people who only quote percentages, this is usually what they are trying to do. Spin.
  - GQB 17y ago
    You need both. Percentages are better for showing movement (e.g. growth), while absolute numbers give context.
- eli 17y ago
  4% globally could be right. Keep in mind that retail is just one slice of the pie. PCs dominate overwhelmingly in the enterprise.

froo 17y ago

I think the OP is completely ignoring Microsoft's previous years financials (strong consistent growth since before Vista and after) and instead basing his argument on two data points (and not the whole data set) and pointing and saying the sky is falling. It appears that Microsoft can blame their quarterly's on the global financial thing as that is a valid reason, when you take all other financial data points into account. Saying it is all Vista's fault is a straw man argument, given ALL of the data shows otherwise. If anyone cares to look at the actual financial data, rather than making wild claims, you would notice that Microsoft's Growth alone last year was about half of Google's total revenue. Sure, Google is doing fantastic, but that's not to say Microsoft is completely F-ing it up (like the Author claims when comparing the two). Secondly, I won't dispute the figures that Apple are outselling Microsoft in the >$1000 market, because I don't have access to all the figures but I personally would expect that would be the case given that is the market Apple targets. I would suggest that if the Author wants to take a realistic view of Microsoft's position in the computer market, he should look at TOTAL machines sold, not just one market segment. It would be like arguing that Ferrari dominate every other car manufacturer worldwide because they make the most cars that are red that come from Italy... [Disclaimer: Not a Microsoft Employee or Fanboy, just sick of propaganda] EDIT - fixed an error with Google/Microsoft revenue/growth comparison

nwjsmith 17y ago
You are wrong to call this propaganda. The core of Gruber's argument is that Apple's market share (not Google's) is growing quickly, whereas Microsoft's is falling. Gruber also acknowledges that the numbers don't take into account the whole of the PC market, and he brings up a couple of important points you need to consider before thinking that Microsoft is making up for its losses in the sub-$1000 PC market. Quotes: "What is particularly alarming about Microsoft’s numbers is that revenue from its Windows PC division suffered an even greater year-over-year revenue decline than the company as a whole: 29 percent." "Even given that NPD’s numbers represent only retail sales, is there any reasonable doubt that Apple’s share of the non-retail market for $1,000+ computers is also growing?" Also, it's misleading for you to suggest that Gruber implies that Microsoft is "completely F-ing it up" when comparing them to Google. His 'working title' aside, the purpose of the comparison was to demonstrate that other companies in the industry are not falling short of projections, as Microsoft has. He is suggesting that blaming the revenue decline on the economy isn't a strong argument. You use the term 'propaganda' pretty loosely. Many things written on Daring Fireball are sarcastic and overly-dismissive when it comes to Microsoft, but it's clear that John Gruber put a lot of thought and work into this essay. Try to do the same with your criticism.

ajg1977 17y ago

Hey guess what - I'm one of those 91% consumers who bought an Apple computer (a Macbook pro to be precise) this year. Now, guess what OS I'm running? Not OSX that's for sure. I'm also not really sure what DF's aim is here beyond recycling the favorite talking points of Apple fans. Vista sucks - check. Windows 7 is a do-over - check Consumers love Apple - check Mac's can run Windows - check Laptop hunter Ads are lame - check PC's are $700 pieces of crap - check There's nothing really new here. Just some viewpoints with questionable objectivity while conveniently ignoring the fact that a) The vast majority of computers sold do not fall into the "$1000+ at retail" category and b) The majority of users are perfectly happy with both Windows and their sub $1000 machines.

s3graham 17y ago
Agreed here. I don't know how common it is, but since OSX purchases can't really be separated from hardware, and the hardware is basically vanilla x86 in a snazzy case, it (theoretically) doesn't prove anything.
ptomato 17y ago
Anecdotal evidence from a single source does not a compelling argument make. b) "They still dominate in terms of unit-sale market share, yes, but not because people don’t recognize Windows as second-rate, but because they don’t care, in the same way millions of people buy metric tons of second-rate products from Wal-Mart every hour of every day." a) Well, honestly, did you even read OP?
mechanical_fish 17y ago
There's nothing really new here. Did you notice the part about the financial results? The historic financial results? The point of the entire article? Microsoft's year-over-year revenue has gone up since before I or Gruber knew what a computer was. So this is big news. Maybe not as big as the terrifying numbers would suggest (the last year did also feature the worst possible coincident timing of business events in Microsoft history) but still big.
erlanger 17y ago
> Now, guess what OS I'm running? Not OSX that's for sure. I'm actually curious. BSD? Linux? The only things that have kept me on OSX for so long (steep decline since Panther) are Finder and Photoshop. Well, those and that I'm hopelessly tied to the  key since I've only used Macs...+Option+O will never cease to please me. But mainly it's Finder. Why won't other desktop environments copy Apple's excellent combination of +Tab and +`, opting for the inefficient, app-flattening Alt+Tab?

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

Today, though, Microsoft is increasingly left only with customers whose priority is price. Yeah, but that's probably like 95% of people and companies. Computers may not be commodities for the types of people who frequent HN, but they are for almost everyone else.

thenduks 17y ago
He's saying that the kind of people who frequent HN are indicators of what the future might be like: Regular people don’t think about their choice of computer platform in detail and with passion like nerds do because, duh, they are not nerds. But nerds are leading indicators.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  Nerds are leading indicators for some things, but not everything. Once something has become commoditized, nerds may be leading indicators of what a small niche will prefer, but most people will compare that commodity primarily on price. Reversing commoditization is difficult and rare.
  - simonw 17y ago
    If nerds aren't going to be leading indicators for computers, what are they going to be indicators for?
    - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
      Are nerds the leading indicators for handheld calculators?
      - blasdel 17y ago
        Not at all: witness TI's total dominance of the graphing calculator market, selling millions a year with a fucking Z80 and dogshit software for $80 each. Their 'high-end' calculators have decent software with an easy-to-use CAS, but are crippled by their slow M68k processors, and cost $120.

mrshoe 17y ago

I think Gruber makes a lot of great points here and I agree with most of what he says. However, I think he's missing one important point. Microsoft doesn't think "it is sitting pretty because Best Buy has a 17-inch Dell for $650." I can assure you that internal talks at Microsoft include very worried discussions about how they're going to deal with Apple's quickly growing market share. Microsoft's response to "Macs are better" is "PCs are cheaper", not because they think more PCs will sell because of these ads, per se, but because they want computers to be cheaper. They want to frame the buying decision in terms of price so they can drive prices down further. Oddly enough, this kind of worked. Apple lowered their prices. As Joel Spolsky says, "Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements... Microsoft's goal was to commoditize the PC market." (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html) Microsoft does not think that it's OK to be inferior to Apple as long as they're cheaper. They just really really want computers to be cheaper. They always have. That's how they've made billions of dollars over the years. They tie the success of their software business directly to falling prices in the computer hardware industry. If they see any hint of that trend reversing (rising prices in hardware), they're going to fight it tooth and nail. I think what they really need to understand is that the race to the bottom in the computer hardware market is generally over. We've arrived at (or near) the bottom. People can afford just about as many computers as they could possibly want now. If they want to further commoditize the personal computer, they should be doing what Google is doing and writing a stripped-down OS that runs on much weaker hardware but relies on the web for processing power. Insisting on machines that are both cheaper and more powerful than the PCs of yesteryear has reached the point of diminishing returns.

nopassrecover 17y ago
Excellent points about commoditisation. I don't think Microsoft wants Macs to be cheaper (though they still probably see increases in windows sales to mac users if there is more money left over) but they do want this to be a price argument because right now that's where they win. I think Microsoft should do two things: 1. Push Windows 7 as superior. In my experience and that of others who have used it, so far it really is. (NB: The people that have used it were not die-hard fans either way, so naturally there will be Mac fans who disagree but this isn't the point). 2. Offer a Mac-Only version of Windows at a cheaper price to get more windows installs on mac (price of Windows OS for someone using it as a second OS is quite prohibitive).

frosty 17y ago

you seem to be missing a very critical point in using financial projections. Yeah, apple will keep gaining share in US but guess who will win in the emerging markets like China, India and Brazil. Microsoft will now start reaping rewards for its years of giving OS for free to these markets (basically by not cracking on piracy). In these countries, its not about coolness or design. Its about the price. Want an example? Guess how many iPhones sold in India?

jemmons 17y ago
Do you even know? Or are you really keen to make us guess?
- blasdel 17y ago
  I've seen numbers stating it's under 20k to date. The midtown Manhattan Apple store probably sells that many in an average week!
GeneralMaximus 17y ago
iPhones are not sold here because they cost about $700. If they were as cheap as they are in the US, everyone would have an iPhone. In India, even the people who don't have the resources to feed themselves own mobile phones. And people do buy Macs here (mostly computer enthusiasts or programmers). You can find many Macs at FOSS conventions (I know, ironic).
- vetinari 17y ago
  The iPhone is not cheap in US. Yes, you don't pay $700/€500 upfront, but you will pay the amount through duration of the contract and by losing the option to switch carriers during the next year or two. The cost is the same, just hidden.
  - anatoli 17y ago
    I don't think you have an understanding of how much people make/stuff costs in India, if you're actually comparing prices of iPhones in US with prices of iPhones in India. Hint: why do you think there's so much outsourcing to India?

brisance 17y ago

Microsoft is making the same mistake that Creative made with respect to the iPod as an MP3 player. They are still stuck in the "hard disk size, amount of RAM" rut. When was the last time you bought a computer (other than for gaming) that really required that extra 0.2 GHz? Even then, MSFT makes an disingenuous argument since they make no PC hardware. So it is all spin. People are buying solutions, not hardware. This is partly why the iPhone is so successful even though there are literally hundreds of cheaper phones on the market.

quantumhobbit 17y ago
Agreed. Comparing something like a laptop on just memory and hard drive is ignoring a huge list of other aspects which affect the quality of the user experience such as battery life, keyboard and trackpad, and heat(Apple is just as bad here if not worse than some). To extend the GM analogy, it is like comparing sports cars based on horsepower alone. You can get an American muscle car with a ton of power cheaply but it will handle like crap or you can get a more expensive sports car with less power but is actually pleasant to drive.

jwhitlark 17y ago

"That’s the business Wal-Mart wants to be in — selling a zillion cheap low-margin items and turning a profit on volume. That’s not the business Microsoft is in." It should be noted that one of Wal-Mart's greatest advantages is that it manages it's resources more efficiently than it's competitors. Being always willing to risk that you can do a satisfactory job cheaper than anyone else is a great attitude for a company that can out innovate its opponents. I can't think of MS in those terms with a straight face.

jtfc 17y ago
Apple (and Steve Jobs) has never tried to market anything in it's product line to all consumers, they concentrate on the mid-high and highend market. I don't want to sounds like a snob, I use macs for 20 years (I am a designer) and I never go to Wal-Mart, but we have a Prius. Low price is never the first priority for my family to choice any kind of product, and we try to not purchase anything influence by marketing/advertising. I do use VMWare with XP on my mac. Honestly I was very happy when Apple switched to Intel so I never have to buy those not so well make hardware again. There will always be people that shop everything at Walmart, and people shop at target/traderjoe, and another group shop only at Wholefood. We all different but I am happy that we have different choice. Can you imagine if Apple died in the 90s and nongeek like me now have to choice between Windows and Linux?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

csomar 17y ago

windows will remain dominant in OS shares at least for the next 15 or 20 years; after that something new need to be made. Like the jump from Dos to win 3.1 or win 3.1 to Win95; Microsoft needs to make something more spectacular than an upgrade to 7; something more innovative and productive. if it does, than there are another 30 years for msft life.

Mark2000 17y ago
Srsly? 15-20 year? I think Windows will be dead in 7-10 years. It shouldn't still be alive today. Windows is an OS for physical media. It wasn't built for networking and security. Windows'core needs to be scraped and MS needs to come up with something fresh from the bottom up. Actually, they don't need to do anything. Others have already. MS just needs to bow out. You can't be on top forever.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

So when was Microsoft successfully competing in the market of fashionable consumer gadgets? If you're looking for Microsoft's decline you must look at the sectors they actually dominate. And considering this whole question by way of intense californian navel gazing is not going to predict anything in a world where 100% of growth happens in Asia. Personally I don't get the kind of collective, almost supremacist, enthusiasm for the quality of Apple products. I've been using some Apple products pretty intensively (MacBook/MacOS X, iPod, Xcode) and I remain largely unconvinced. I love computing. I love what I can make computers do in terms of analysing and transforming data. But I don't like computers. So when the first thing Apple tells me on their homepage is that some hardware thingy is now "unibody" they get blank stares from me. I guess people are just very different in that regard.

jsz0 17y ago

Microsoft is getting its first taste of reality for a variety of different reasons. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest they are in for a slow bell curve style decline. Their business model will change of course but probably won't decline much or at all. Eventually the economy will recover and enterprise PC sales will pickup. On the consumer side it's probably inevitable that Windows revenue will continue to shrink as consumers move more of their computing online and to mobile devices. The one area they can build on is the Xbox platform as a general purpose set top platform that might serve some of the same functions as a traditional desktop PC. For example: It could be a file server, print server, home automation controller, media store, shopping front end, etc, etc. No other company is in a good position to control the living room. Apple isn't interested, Sony is patiently waiting to die, and Nintendo is firmly a gaming company completely incapable of making a general purpose platform. Most importantly the Xbox is one of the only new Microsoft products in the last decade that has really caught on with consumers. Eventually they can probably build on the success of the Xbox platform into mobile devices.

tybris 17y ago

The legacy will make sure Microsoft is still the #1 Software company in 10 years and Windows the #1 Operating System.

lallysingh 17y ago
Meh. Windows boxes are a bit of a pain to maintain. For legacy, it's not hard to imagine a small number of citrix servers for legacy software.
olefoo 17y ago
This is what IBM kept telling themselves in 1986. The installed base of a legacy platform is not a guarantee of the health of the platform owner. Other companies that made this mistake; DEC, SUN, AOL. In ecological terms, MSFT has overshot the carrying capacity of it's niche, and has not been able to exploit or create new habitat as an operating systems company.
- tybris 17y ago
  Are you referring to "the IBM"? The company with a Market Cap of $150 billion, larger than Google, Apple, Cisco and every other IT company except Microsoft? There's a big gap between what is true on the web and what is true in reality. IBM is very much alive and kicking, still building mainframes and whatnot.
  - olefoo 17y ago
    Yes, after they lost something like a third of their market cap and shrank, and reorganized and clawed their way back. """Gerstner quarterbacked one of history's most dramatic corporate turnarounds. For those who follow business stories like football games, his tale of the rise, fall and rise of IBM might be the ultimate slow-motion replay. He became IBM's CEO in 1993, when the gargantuan company was near collapse.""" From one of the reviews here http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Dance-Inside-Historic-Turnaround/dp/0060523794 http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Dance-Inside-Historic-Turnar...

cturner 17y ago

When I buy a linux server at work, or one of those Linux Dells home machine (not sure if they're still around - I got this end of last year), I feel like I get a raw commodity. I wipe whatever crap the idiot manufacturer put on it, install my OS on it with ease, and then it does what I want for the rest of time. Server or desktop. Or both if I want. Multi-user from that moment, apt-get takes care of my problems. When I buy a mac it's about the same. It's a little harder to get new packages and some of the unix decisions are brainless but it's better with drivers. The commodity feel is not remotely the case with Windows. The manufacturer may have left all sorts of crap over the install (toolbars and the like). I'll need to download or even buy a bunch of stuff to get it to do stuff that for a geek is basic (a pdf viewer and all of them stink, expandrive to be able to mount drives effectively, virus protection in case I get compromised but this makes my system less nice to use, putty so I can get to a real console). It doesn't come with anything approaching an adequate text editor or basic development tools. If it's a reinstall on a Dell the driver situation is very painful, and product activation might require me to make phone calls.

lamnk 17y ago

"Even without turning the machines on, anyone can see the difference in design and build quality. In fact, you don’t even need eyes — just pick them up and see which one squeaks. Apple is selling more MacBooks every quarter." Give me a break ... Design ? Yes. Build quality ? Hardly. The Macbook (not pro) is a plastic toy. Its quality is just the same as of those Dell's Inspirons. The Macbook Pro unibody may made a difference in build quality, but definitely not the Macbook.

aichcon 17y ago
There are 13" unibody Macbooks (not Pro). I have one. http://www.apple.com/macbook/ http://www.apple.com/macbook/
- allertonm 17y ago
  Not anymore - the 13" unibody became a "Pro" after the recent refresh.
cwilson 17y ago
I'd have to disagree with this. Have you owned one of the plastic Macbooks? Regardless of it being plastic it was still the toughest notebook I had owned to date. Yes, the Pro's are MUCH tougher and I'm glad I upgraded when I did, but I had no complaints or issues with the build quality of my plastic Macbook. It was a great machine. My comparison was HP's, Dell's, and even an IBM that all ended up falling apart with only a few years of regular use. With the Macbook this was not so.
GQB 17y ago
Picking the (legacy) white MacBook as representative of the entire line is disingenuous. 100% of the modern line is unibody and does indeed represent superior design, from battery life to multi-touch trackpad.
donw 17y ago
I have a plastic, black, 13" Macbook, and the quality is much, much higher than any Inspiron or Latitude that I've ever owned. The case is visibly seamless, and the system doesn't rattle if I shake it. The little touches like a battery-level indicator on the battery, and the MagSafe adapter, are also rather nice, as is not having a laptop that looks like it was designed to appeal to ten-year-olds. If you want a PC manufacturer that's comparable, look to Lenovo, not Dell.

budman 17y ago

This guy is a tool. I stopped reading once I read this blanket assumptive statement: People who love computers overwhelmingly prefer to use a Mac today Really? Did he go door to door? Because he missed my house and MANY other people I know..

kgelner 17y ago
Go to any modern technical conference (except the Microsoft specific ones of course) and you can see the truth in what he is saying.
- atacrawl 17y ago
  Better yet, go to an airport. Every time I go to the airport, any airport, I see a higher percentage of Apple logos staring back at me than I did the previous visit. It's kind of amazing. It wasn't that long ago that you almost never saw any Apple laptops. Now they're everywhere.

hcschmid 17y ago

Seems to me, whatever problems Microsoft has, they'd do a lot better to not give Apple an attention or comment. They should stick to the ignoring Apple. Answer questions about "We do not comment on competitors or their products". It certainly won't fix their products, but it would reduce the chances of them putting their foot in their mouth, and that might be a starting point for turning their image, then, their products around.

pbsteve70 17y ago

Funny how this devolves into Apple v. Mac. Apple has gained share but I don't believe Apple has much to do with MS' decline. The real cause is the internet... it has slowly busting MS' monopoly power. It might have been inevitable but I think MS helped cause it. Way back in the 90s, every time MS saw a profitable Windows developer, they saw an opportunity to grow their own software business. They would even advise Venture Funds not to invest in certain areas. (Guess what.. venture investors want to make money, not battle MS.) Funding and innovation for desktop development (read: Windows development) plummeted. Sure existing companies continued with their product lines and hobbyists built a huge shareware market. Meanwhile MS got fat dominating the market for software on their own platform, and with the increased PC sales for the ultimate killer app--the internet. They looked brilliant. BUT... innovation didn't die. It moved to the web. And today, while most computers still run Windows, the dominant platform is NOT windows, it's the internet itself. Cloud computing has some real advantages but real disadvantages as well. But one of the advantages is that it was a workaround for the 80 billion pound gorilla, when every business analysis started with: Does this compete with MS? Ironically, I see hints of Apple repeating the same mistake in its iphone... a platform that really has the legs to dominate in a way the mac never has. Financially and short term they're doing everything right and making billions. And they'll grow much more, just like MS in the 90s. But their whole app store/review approach is hostile to developers. In fact they're building a market that resembles the modern Windows market--only its 99c instead of shareware. Professional developers and capital and innovation is going away. The PageMakers and Photoshops of this stage of computing are going to happen on another platform. And Apple, like MS, a huge successful company with a strong embedded culture is unlikely to see the cause and effect and change its ways.. In the iphones case it won't take 15 years. But it will take a while. The iphone's current momentum is daunting. However, when you're a platform, your most valuable long term asset is your developers. But when your platform is a runaway success it appears to be too tempting to abuse those developers for short term gain. The absurdity of the Apple case is that Apple would seemingly make more money if they loosened up on the app restrictions. MS at least made serious money putting its developers out of business...

kgelner 17y ago
I write iPhone applications for a living. I don't see the App Store process as being developer hostile, at all. Yes there are a few specific areas where it's basically a hostile environment for development. But there is a far wider range of categories where the space is wide open. And that space is wider still now that Apple is finally letting people go hog wild with live video overlays in 3.1 (augmented reality stuff). You only see the contractions, but it's more than offset by expansion... and the contractions we do see, are bound to be temporary if other phones end up having compelling things the iPhone does not because of them (and the inevitable loss of AT&T exclusivity). That's far sooner than the 15 years you give them...

kgelner 17y ago

This new quote from Gruber underlies exactly where the decline really matters most: "It’s not that they need those customers, but that they used to drive the industry’s technical agenda, but now they don’t." Where is Microsoft really driving anything at this point? It's not on the desktop. It's not in the mobile space. It's not even really in the enterprise. The whole video tag argument in HTML 4 for example, is really between Apple and Mozilla. Microsoft is not really even a consideration. If Microsoft is not really driving anything anymore, then they are just another company trying to comply with standards - and that means the inevitable (although slow) end of dominance they once enjoyed. For the computer industry, this is a good thing...

Mark2000 17y ago

Could someone PLEEEEAAASE tell me what makes 7 better than Vista? Please??!!! The taskbar is changed to icons and there is a preview for each one. That's really about it. The interface is still a mess with menubars hidden sometimes and not others, there are still several hundred control panels, and the system is still based on DLLs and a registry. Network navigation is a total joke. Built in media viewing is not even a joke. And, yes, I've used 7 quite a bit for my gaming needs so I know what a turd it still is. It's a fundamentally confusing, unsafe, and bloated OS with the slightest amount of polish added.