
Why Microsoft’s reorganization closes the books on an era of computing - titlex
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/14/why-microsofts-reorganization-closes-the-books-on-an-era-of-computing/
======
zw123456
I have been in this business a very long time (ahem, over 35yrs) and the one
thing I have observed over the years is that it seems like there is a cyclical
nature to they way tech companies go up and down. There was a time when
everyone thought Apple would rule the world with the Mac, it was so much
better than DOS, and then MS came roaring back with windows, then people
thought Apple was down for the count and they came roaring back with the the
Ipod and Iphone. Sure some companies drift into obscurity and go out of
business while new ones come on the scene (eg. Google) but the really good
ones figure out a way to become relevant again (e.g. IBM, Watson etc.). It
will be interesting to see if MS is able to do the same. I hope so, we still
need some big companies like that that are willing to invest huge sums of
money on research, it cannot all be done with start ups.

~~~
kkowalczyk
You picked one example (Apple) that supports your thesis (technology is
cyclical).

It is, however, an exception to the rule.

Computer industry is littered with bodies of slain giants: Borland, Sybase,
Lotus, Wordstar, Personal Software (VisiCalc) etc. The rest are companies that
stabilized into a success (Oracle, eBay, Microsoft).

It's exceedingly rare to make a come back (IBM, Apple are 2 examples I can
think of).

~~~
apapli
Would we really consider IBM as a come back? From a B2B and patent revenues
perspective I concede this could be a possibility, but from a B2C perspective,
surely that ship has already sailed?

~~~
whatusername
Remember that IBM Posted an 8 Billion Dollar loss in 1992. It was on the verge
of being broken up. To go from there to a ~$212B Company with Revenues of
$104B and Income before tax of $21B. --> I think IBM still counts as one of
the biggest corporate turn-arounds in history.

IBM was never any good at B2C. Getting back to B2B played to it's strengths.

------
coldcode
They can survive for a long time still but in the end they will be just
another dinosaur. Apple was lucky, Steve came back and had ideas that changed
the world in many ways and at the exact right time in history. I was at Apple
a year before he came back and left thinking it was doomed. MS is still a
strong company with a lot of money, but they have nothing that will change the
world and their own future. The future belongs to those who can invent it but
revolutions are hard to come by. What do they have that will give them a
massive advantage over everyone else? Nothing I can see.

~~~
lotso
The combination of PCs, tablets, phones, search, consumer services, living
room entertainment, a compelling software and server stack, and the best R&D
in the world gives them the potential to do things other companies can't do.

Microsoft is incredibly well suited to compete in the future. Although it is
easy to dismiss Microsoft due to their stumbling in the consumer market in the
past couple years, you have to realize this is going to be a decades long
battle for Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft.

Out of those 4 companies, I'd say Apple is the one who needs to diversify
their profits and rapidly improve their ability to create services.

~~~
bilbo0s
"...and the best R&D in the world..."

Xerox had the best R&D in the world as well. (PARC)

What MS needs is that ability to turn R&D into products.

Of the 4 companies... I would say only Apple has the DEMONSTRATED ability to
turn R&D into products. I would say MS is the CLEAR leader of the 4 in terms
of raw R&D. Google really does look more and more like a one trick pony. And,
curiously enough, Amazon is the company I could see getting its tentacles into
the most parts of the global economy over the long term. (Well... Amazon and
Facebook)

But all of that ignores unexpected external influences... like the NSA
scandal.

~~~
acchow
> Google really does look more and more like a one trick pony

Curious, to which trick do you refer?

~~~
bilbo0s
The one that makes them money.

Advertising.

------
igravious
Do you know what I'd love to see? Somebody building gorgeous Linux laptops and
desktops. As in Apple-gorgeous. With all the drivers working fine and dandy.
With awesome specs, with half-yearly updates or even rolling updates. I
thought Canonical might do it but they seem intent on partnering with hardware
vendors. Why is this not doable? I think there is System 76 but they are not
drool- and lust-worthy and I don't now why. It must be possible. Android shows
that it can be done for a certain class of devices, why is it not possible in
the laptop and desktop space? All you'd want is say 5% of the dwindling PC
market to make an absolute bundle.

Oh yeah, the Microsoft reorg. Yay, go Ballmer, yay!

~~~
bluedino
Linux 'is free'. Very difficult to get people to pay a premium for 'free'. You
have to charge less for a PC with Linux on it, since there's no Windows
license it should cost less, right?

Without getting people to pay a premium, it isn't possible to make things that
are 'Apple-gorgeous'. Not to mention the Linux market is so small to begin
with...

~~~
igravious
But Android proves it can be done.

You just have to make the hardware very very desirable and do the integration
right. Like what Sony does with consoles, Microsoft does with consoles, Apple
does with nearly everything, and most Android phones do now.

~~~
artsrc
A big part of these products is the software. You would have to create desktop
software to deliver this, and that is not cheap.

~~~
venomsnake
Linux has a lot of high quality desktop software. What is needed is polishing.

------
rbanffy
"The new Microsoft is no longer the enabler of technology delivered to
consumers with help from Intel, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and other partners. The new
Microsoft has realized that it’s going to need to do it all itself"

This changes a lot

~~~
kvb
It would change a lot if it were true. I find it hard to believe that
Microsoft plans to build the expertise necessary to abandon Intel, though. And
though they're making inroads into building their own hardware, I don't think
they're in any position to abandon their OEMs yet, either.

~~~
lttlrck
Abandon is too strong. Microsoft depends on PC OEMs for most hardware
innovation (for Intel that includes Ultrabook). Microsoft could become more
proactive and lead, it has the talent and the desire; it is already doing it
with Phone and Surface.

~~~
yulaow
Let's look at the surface rt (also if it has a really low market share in the
tablet worldwide market), it has destroyed the others wrt-tablet. Look at
microsoftnok... ehm, nokia. They are pratically a branch of microsoft and
infact they have discouraged other competitors to join the windows phone
ecosystem.

It means that, if microsoft starts to make its own hw also for the pcs market,
there will be a big problem for other manufacturers to stay in the same
market.

Apple may live in a world where it is they only manufacturer for the hw in
which runs his sw because they have create the first recognized brand in the
world and they are like the "cool people of tecnology", but microsoft can try
it? Looking at the actual marketshare of wp8 and surface RT or PRo, i think
nope.

~~~
geon
Their first iteration of Surface was weak. Win8 is really rough around he
edges, and the hardware was awkward in some areas.

But they have strong points too, and the next version will probably be better.
They are still experimenting, trying to figure out exactly they want to do.

Market share right now means nothing.

------
shmerl
Too little, too late. Windows is going to linger for quite a long time still
just because of the massive market penetration, but it's getting obsolete.

------
flatfilefan
So in effect ms has enacted the screw over Nokia plan just now?

