

The Microsoft Tanker Has Turned and You Ignore it at Your Own Peril  - rodh257
http://newsgrange.com/the-microsoft-tanker-has-turned-and-you-ignore-it-at-your-own-peril/

======
cryptoz
> Windows Phone 7 is about to be released (and after seeing it in action
> during a short trip to Redmond earlier this week, I’m convinced that it will
> be a huge hit).

That's the first time I've heard someone positively speak about Windows Phone
7. Everyone I know (myself included) seems to think it will be a disaster. But
as I've said before, I haven't actually seen it in person yet - the marketing
videos online make me think I'll hate it, but perhaps I should reserve
judgement until I can use one.

If the Microsoft Tanker is actually turning around, then why is Windows losing
more and more of the consumer markets every single day? MS is about _three
years late_ to the phone party, and they don't have a damn clue about tablets
or anything mobile. Windows 7 is a "huge success" only because it works
properly; that's no innovation, and that's not going anywhere for the future.
MS is doing well with IE9, but you will still need Windows to run it! One of
their main competitors is about to release an OS (I'm referring to Chrome OS),
and Chrome (the browser) has been gaining and gaining market share while IE
loses and loses.

I do not agree with the conclusions of this article at all. MS is still
fumbling and bumbling about, with no clear path for the future. They're still
mostly ignoring the web (sure, IE9 and Bing are great, but why are they so
forcefully shoving Silverlight plugins everywhere?! That's not the web!) and
they're ignoring the fact that consumers won't care what OS they're running in
the next few years.

Microsoft will grip the business world for a very long time, but they haven't
got long to live in the consumer market.

 _Edit_ TL;DR: Microsoft isn't turning around because they're still mostly
ignoring the Internet.

~~~
kenjackson
Do you not read Engadget or ZDNet ever? Both have been pretty complimentary
about WP7. But everyone is also waiting until release. There's just too much
we don't know... in particular the strength of their app ecosystem.

Why is having a plugin incompatible with the web? Sure it's not THE web, but
getting the web doesn't mean that you ignore all other methods of delivering
experiences. It's like saying that Apple doesn't get computers, because they
also make phones.

And I'm sure MS does get that the OS is becoming less relevant. They've
probably known this for longer than most people here have been devs.

That statement you made is one of the naive statements I often see from kids
who just got out of college. The issue isn't if they know that the OS is
becoming less relevant, but the real question (the one that is actually hard
to answer) is what do you do about it when you generate $30B/year revenue from
it? I'm sure from your perspective they should just drop Windows and move
everything to Linux starting yesterday. They'll make that $30B back on ads,
right?

~~~
cryptoz
> Why is having a plugin incompatible with the web?

The very basis of the web is open protocols and open access: anyone running
any networked computer can access any web content. That's how the web grew to
be so big: it didn't matter if you were running UNIX or Windows or Mac, you
could access the same information as anyone else, and you could contribute
back.

Content that is produced with Silverlight is Microsoft-only, so if you are in
an environment where you can't install closed plugins, or if you just don't
want to, then you can't see the content. The same goes for Flash of course:
the only reason it took off is because it could do things that the regular web
couldn't. That's slowly becoming less and less true now, and Silverlight is
just not needed.

However, Microsoft is pushing Silverlight because it locks people into their
software: if enough people use it to build content, then everyone will _have_
to continue using Microsoft software. That is completely incompatible with The
Web and all it stands for.

I don't know how Microsoft should make money. But the way they're aiming
themselves into the future is doomed to fail. I get that they probably
understand their space is dying, but the problem is that they're not looking
for alternatives. They're just pushing the same products they have been for
decades.

If they know that won't work, why are they trying it? Look, I haven't got the
answer and if I did I'd be rich. But pushing your users into anti-Web, locked-
in environments is going to fail in a web-driven world run by Google.

~~~
kenjackson
I think you misunderstood my post. My point was that Silverlight was NOT the
web, but was not incompatible with it. By this I meant that having Silverlight
doesn't destroy the web. The same way gay marriage doesn't effect your
marriage. They can both coexist. And you can choose what you want to use.

I disagree about your reason why the web because so big. Frankly, I think what
caused to become so big was ease and speed of deployment. If the web was PC
only it would have grown on marginally slower.

I don't know how MS is trying to make money, but I think I see what they're
doing:

1) Focus on Bing Search. Search revenue is a huge chunk of money and allows
them to move to the web more easily.

2) Make IE the BEST browser experience. I think they've finally decided that
the web can actually have differentiated experiences, and I think they want
IE/Windows to be the best platform for it.

But at the same time they continue to also focus on business users. And the
fact that a lot of consumers still need a desktop OS. I spend a fair bit of
time editing movies, and while I'm sure there's a web app that will render
BluRay movies from HD video, I've yet to find one as good as the desktop tools
I have.

You don't leave money on the table when you're a business. Just like Google
won't leave money when it comes to selling your eyeballs.

------
pohl
The last time I recall the metaphor of the slow, lumbering giant turning
around to - at long last - deliver the dreaded fatal blow was when the
internet appeared and they eventually responded by delivering enough versions
of IE (culminating in version 7) to dominate the market for web browsers.

In order to do so, they had to leverage the ubiquity of their desktop
operating system, which they then used to lock in web developers to a broken
implementation (a pain that we're still feeling to day every time we need to
ensure stuff works in IE6) so they they could further solidify the dominance
of Windows, which has has always been their one, true, and unwavering goal:
"Windows Everywhere".

How could they do this with phones & tablets? It's not like they can just
bundle a phone or tablet with every desktop PC that gets sold, thereby
leveraging their existing channel like they did with IE.

------
Ennis
"What’s interesting is that most of these apps and services are only one or
two iterations removed from really horrible products like Windows Mobile 6.5,
Internet Explorer 7, Live Search."

Microsoft uses a 3-year release cycle for most of its products. Only 2 years
ago did they switch to a 1 year release cycle for the internet services
division.

One or two iterations is actually 4 to 6 years. That is a long time to make
Messenger not slow. And they are still not there.

But I agree it's not a sinking ship. WM7 is pretty good interface and sdk
wise. The licensing terms will have to convince device makers to adopt it
instead of free android. That's where it gets interesting.

~~~
cryptoz
See, this is the thing about Microsoft and the Web. You can't release software
that's web-based in cycles measured in _years_! Microsoft is still completely
stuck in the '90s. Google is releasing Chrome on something like a 6-week
development cycle. That's how it should be done. The web changes all the time,
and Microsoft's products don't. That's the problem.

Also, from other comments on this story, I've discovered that Windows Phone 7
won't be HTML5-capable. If IE Mobile isn't even near IE9's level of
sophistication, it seems unlikely that they'll ever update it to be
compatible. Otherwise, why not ship something at least as good as IE8?!

In two to three years, much of the web will be HTML5. And Windows Phone 7
devices will be left in the dust.

~~~
kenjackson
I think you may be surprised at how fast MS revs the phone. They've already
hinted that IE9 will be on the phone. One of the reasons why MS said no skins
to the OEMs is that they want to be able to rapidly rev all phones.

I wouldn't be surprised if less than a year after launch they have IE9 on the
phone.

------
aresant
Despite the string of successes mentioned, MSFT is still in need of a
breakaway hit to translate to shareholder value.

The successes mentioned (outside of Windows 7) barely show up on the MSFT
revenue chart:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-
op...](http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-operating-
income-by-division-2010-2)

