Did you read the article? By "dead", pg does not mean that Bill Gates has to resort to dumpster diving to get his evening meal. He's not saying that they're n

Did you read the article? By "dead", pg does not mean that Bill Gates has to resort to dumpster diving to get his evening meal. He's not saying that they're not still up and running, or that that they're not enormously profitable. He's saying that its "shadow is gone", that startup founders aren't afraid of it anymore. He's saying that another company, Google, is now the leader where Microsoft once was. I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to dismiss the accomplishments of Google and Apple while at the same time being condescending toward the people who use their products. For example, to say "Google is popular because people like Michael Arrington, Walleywag, and those biased non-professional bloggers-turned-online-reporters sing praises toward Google" is to imply that Google's products are basically worthless and the people who use them are too foolish to realize it because they've been duped into using them by a cadre of clever bloggers. This doesn't logically support your argument that Microsoft isn't dead, so why say it? If you want to show how pg is wrong, I suggest starting by rebutting his arguments, not putting down most of the people who enjoy this site.