

For Microsoft to succeed, must Windows die? - rbanffy
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17286/for_microsoft_to_succeed_must_windows_die

======
azeemazhar2
Like IBM wrestling with the PC vs the mainframe, you need to find some
critical way of transitioning into the new paradigm. IMHO Microsoft's web
businesses are too close to the existing cash cows and that pollutes the
offering. They have two masters: the masters of the new (cloud based market)
and the master of the old business. Perversely what could have been an asset
(the cashflows and distribution and brand awareness of the existing business)
turns out to weaken and confuse the proposition. Unsurprisingly (if you are an
observer of this industry) being a startup focussed solely on your product
confers you real advantage. What Microsoft needs to do is put some of the $2bn
a year it loses being 3rd in a range of markets (some of which only have two
players) into building offerings that don't encapsulate Msft DNA but purely
focus on what this new world needs. They can then bolt on distribution via the
Windows platform as icing on the cake, rather than a core part of the
proposition. Windows doesn't need to die. It needs to be ignored by Microsoft
and Redmond.

------
metageek
> _Contrast that with Android, which Google continually updates, and which is
> then automatically updated on consumer's phones._

I thought this was weak, given how long it can take for an Android update to
reach some phones. My wife has a Motorola Backflip. It was released 8 months
ago with Android 1.5, which was then 11 months old. Sometime this quarter it's
supposed to get 2.1, which is already 10 months old.

If MS wanted to go to a continuous update model, they could probably do better
than Android does, since there's a lot more homogeneity in PCs than in phones.

~~~
rbanffy
The problem with Android is the phone manufacturers. The more they customize
the base software, the longer it takes for updates to arrive. There is also an
incentive not to update - you'll end up buying another phone.

~~~
metageek
Yes, I know. My point is that MS wouldn't have anywhere near that much
trouble, since they exert more control over the PC vendors.

~~~
rbanffy
There are very few WinMo phones that have upgrades. If this would be as easy
as you imply, phone OS upgrades would be more common.

Phone manufacturers prefer you buy another phone instead of upgrading yours.
The only reason iPhones allow software upgrades is because Apple wants you to
perceive them as high-value items instead of disposable ones (like most phones
are). Making upgrades easy for the manufacturer would not help much.

What would help is a clear separation of OS and application layers that could
be upgraded independently. In this way, the core OS would be the hardware
specific part and the rest of the platform could become user-upgradable.

------
qjz
Microsoft tends to play a zero sum game where it will innovate like mad until
it dominates a market sector, then let it stagnate until threatened, having
moved on to other areas. Anyone who operates a web server has seen a
noticeable shift away from Microsoft platforms (both OS and browser) in the
last couple of years. This has spurred the recent IE development, and I don't
expect Microsoft to settle on Windows 7 when it's so much easier to "just buy
a Mac" and get everything a consumer needs or wants in a computer these days.

I have shelves of Windows software sitting right next to me as I type, and I
just realized I don't use any of it anymore. Moving on wasn't hard, and
Microsoft's promise of backwards compatibility was uneven and ultimately
unnecessary. They have the resources to retool overnight and release a
streamlined OS, which is what they need to do to get back in the game, _when_
they decide they're losing.

------
gdltec
Why kill the money making machine? I think they are doing just fine, I don't
understand why people think Microsoft needs to change to be successful... as
if they aren't very successful already :)

~~~
rbanffy
How many licenses of Windows will Microsoft sell 5 years from now? 10? 15?

Microsoft has huge inertia today, but markets change. And change really fast.
Had Microsoft missed the web by two years and insisted on the Microsoft
Network, we would not be having this discussion now.

