4 ms·

"success requires moving to monetization through enterprise subscriptions, hardware gross margins, and advertising revenues" That's a big step for Microsoft.

"success requires moving to monetization through enterprise subscriptions, hardware gross margins, and advertising revenues" That's a big step for Microsoft. My opinion is that they are late on subscriptions and ad revenues.

jusben1369 12y ago
If they were early Steve probably would still be running the ship.
angersock 12y ago
They were too busy building real value instead of chasing ad revenue for a long time--I'm okay with that.
- Pxtl 12y ago
  You mean churning by creating frameworks and brands and then dropping them within a year or two? Quick, what's their free email service called today?
  - angersock 12y ago
    outlook.com? Also, note that Google/Apple can be quite gnarly about frameworks and brands, right? How's that Wave thing going? Groups? Reader?
    - jenscow 12y ago
      Most of us who have been developing with the Microsoft stack have been burnt at least twice with key frameworks/technologies that have been artificially end-of-lifed while at their peak, leaving our projects based on obsolete technologies at v1. I suspect that is what the parent comment is about, and not immature projects that were discontinued (with ample warning and exit) due mostly to lack of interest, as mentioned in your counter-bicker.
      - Pxtl 12y ago
        Exactly. Linq2SQL, launched in .NET 3.5, superceded by EF in .NET 3.5SP1. Silverlight, which was launched into a state of immediate torpor. XNA, first release in 2006, last release 2010, incompatible with Windows 8 which was launched in 2012. That's a pretty short lifespan for an entire development environment, especially considering that most folks don't touch these things on a first release. And MS tools aren't just little libs. They're things that take a heavy time investment to learn - they're practically languages and even IDEs in their own right. Almost every .NET release has completely changed the data layer, RPC, serialization. The only thing that hung on for a respectably long time was the abominable trainwreck that was ASP.Net WebForms. Did anybody out there suffer through WCF? Ouch. This was Ballmer's microsoft. The new MS has nothing anywhere close to that kind of churn, and the platforms are developed out in the open.
    - Pxtl 12y ago
      And Google in particular is rightfully pilloried for it.
angersock 12y ago
They were too busy building real value instead of chasing ad revenue for a long time--I'm okay with that.

jusben1369 12y ago

If they were early Steve probably would still be running the ship.

angersock 12y ago

They were too busy building real value instead of chasing ad revenue for a long time--I'm okay with that.

Pxtl 12y ago
You mean churning by creating frameworks and brands and then dropping them within a year or two? Quick, what's their free email service called today?
- angersock 12y ago
  outlook.com? Also, note that Google/Apple can be quite gnarly about frameworks and brands, right? How's that Wave thing going? Groups? Reader?
  - jenscow 12y ago
    Most of us who have been developing with the Microsoft stack have been burnt at least twice with key frameworks/technologies that have been artificially end-of-lifed while at their peak, leaving our projects based on obsolete technologies at v1. I suspect that is what the parent comment is about, and not immature projects that were discontinued (with ample warning and exit) due mostly to lack of interest, as mentioned in your counter-bicker.
    - Pxtl 12y ago
      Exactly. Linq2SQL, launched in .NET 3.5, superceded by EF in .NET 3.5SP1. Silverlight, which was launched into a state of immediate torpor. XNA, first release in 2006, last release 2010, incompatible with Windows 8 which was launched in 2012. That's a pretty short lifespan for an entire development environment, especially considering that most folks don't touch these things on a first release. And MS tools aren't just little libs. They're things that take a heavy time investment to learn - they're practically languages and even IDEs in their own right. Almost every .NET release has completely changed the data layer, RPC, serialization. The only thing that hung on for a respectably long time was the abominable trainwreck that was ASP.Net WebForms. Did anybody out there suffer through WCF? Ouch. This was Ballmer's microsoft. The new MS has nothing anywhere close to that kind of churn, and the platforms are developed out in the open.
  - Pxtl 12y ago
    And Google in particular is rightfully pilloried for it.

angersock 12y ago

They were too busy building real value instead of chasing ad revenue for a long time--I'm okay with that.