

The Perpetual Microsoft Canard - kenjackson
http://drdobbs.com/windows/229301144

======
latch
When people talk of the demise of a company with billions in cash (and more
billions coming in every year), they are generally talking about the demise of
its _influence_.

The question isn't whether Microsoft will vanish next year (or even in a
decade), because it won't. The question is _will Microsoft be a leader or a
follower? An innovator or a copy-cat?_

It isn't inconsistent to say that Microsoft will continue to sell a lot of
copies of Windows and Office and remain very relevant in the enterprise, while
at the same time saying that Microsoft, on its present course, is doomed (for
lack of a better word). Because, the Microsoft that we know from the 80s and
90s just isn't the same Microsoft in a lot of ways that matter to geeks and
investors. Much like GM isn't the same car company it was a couple decades
ago.

Things can always change. It's probably easier to claim the #1 spot or fall
from the #1 spot, than to _reclaim_ it, but it isn't impossible.

As for XBox's success, I remain highly skeptical of that division. First, they
haven't recouped the billions it took to enter the market. Most importantly
though, you are only as good as your current console. There's little loyalty
in the video game console market. Had the PS3 been better priced and launched
sooner, the red-ring would have been a far bigger disaster. It's cut
throat...which is great, but you simply can't say Xbox 720 will succeed
because Xbox 360 [barely] came in 2nd place in a 3 person race.

~~~
kenjackson
Actually XBox 360 is #3 in the race (just fell behind PS3 WW sales -- XBox
kills the PS3 in the US, but the PS3 kills it in Asia by a HUGE margin. PS3
has a slight lead in Europe, but pretty much a wash there).

With that said, for MS the "race" in the console wars really isn't a race.
They want to be in the race, but it doesn't really matter that much if they
are #1, #2, or #3, as long as #3 isn't 5M units sold WW. The XBox has always
been strategic to be in the living room. And for that it is succesful.

The real question is can MS leverage that to do something bigger? That remains
to be seen, although so far they've been a bit slow with it. Fortunately Sony,
Apple, and Google have been even slower.

------
drewcoo
I'm an ex-'softie and proud of the work I did there. It seems every current or
past employee of Microsoft has some story to tell about "the good old days"
when everything was smaller or faster or they were all only X steps from BillG
or everyone was just more "hard core". Most of the stories I personally hear
(or comments I read on minimsft.blogspot.com) about the impending implosion at
Microsoft seem more like seeing greener engineering grass somewhere else.
Usually in the past at Microsoft.

The internal politics are often toxic and the raw amount of stuff for someone
new to learn is so daunting that someone who's been there for a while seems
like a god relative to the newcomer. I think that probably helps grow this
kind of mythology. More experienced people leave (by choice or because of the
draconian review system) and the newer 'softies think the golden age is
ending.

Externally, it's a lot of fun to talk about Microsoft dying. In the face of
record profits, wasn't it? Yeah, whatever. Are they relevant? What does that
mean? Is my sewer bill relevant? I still pay it. People still pay Microsoft.

I could use their stock chart as a straight edge but that doesn't mean they're
dying.

------
georgemcbay
"I don't like how much Microsoft charges for its tools"

I've got plenty of issues with Microsoft but the cost of their developer tools
isn't one of them. I mean, sure Visual Studio Ultimate Super Turbo Edition
Alpha X costs $11k, but who actually needs that? The Express Editions are
free, which is very favorable pricing compared to say MonoTouch for Android or
iOS which cost $400 just to get your foot in the door.

