

Microsoft is Dead - rajivn
http://paulgraham.com/microsoft.html
Would like to know if PG's stance on MS has changed
======
AlexC04
According to analytics, I've had 20,000 hits to my website in the last 30
days. 75% of those are reported to be running a windows operating system.

As much as I respect the interesting point of view presented in the article, I
sometimes wonder if sites like Hacker News and Slashdot don't put us all into
some sort of exceptionally nerdy bubble-think.

Like with the last week or so when everything I read seemed to say "google
sucks", "lynch google", "burn and raze googles offices so they can never spam
search results again"

What was the rest of the world's reaction to this seemingly endless flood of
histrionic blog posts about broken google search results? Crickets chirped and
a tumbleweed yawned with boredom.

Microsoft isn't dead. From what I see, in the last 30 days Microsoft is a
minimum of 75% alive and we'd all be very much richer if we didn't forget
that.

With the utmost respect of course.

Without exaggeration, hyperbole will literally be the death of us all.

~~~
TomOfTTB
There's certainly some truth to what you say but I'd encourage you to look at
the context of the conversation here. pg's blog and Hacker News appeal to
people who are generally looking at the world from one of two perspectives:
investing or as a startup.

Keeping that in mind shapes the conversation differently

In Microsoft's case I can absolutely see how 75% of the people visiting your
website might be Windows Computers. But how many of those people want to be on
Windows? How many are using it because there's simply nothing else or because
they're just too lethargic to switch? How many are using it simply because
they're on their work computer and no one's seriously challenged MS in the
corporate space?

So Microsoft could very well be dead and not even know it (as pg's addendum to
this post makes clear). If you accept that thesis it has very relevant
implications to the intended audience.

From a startup's perspective it means you shouldn't rely on Microsoft
technology and need to pursue a strategy that supports Microsoft's desktop but
doesn't build on it (which probably means web apps). From an investing
perspective it means looking down the line for any possible desktop competitor
that could be viable. Because once that viable competitor comes along the
bottom will fall out of Microsoft's profits.

~~~
Tichy
"How many are using it because there's simply nothing else or because they're
just too lethargic to switch?"

Isn't that true for any conceivable product? I am using cars because there are
no teleporters. I am using a keyboard because I don't have a good brain to
computer interface yet. If I had a tablet, it would only be because there
isn't a nano computer in my eyeball yet that projects directly on my retina
(the real retina, not the Apple display).

~~~
armandososa
The point here is that most people who have the luxury (and information) to
chose their platform won't use Windows.

If teleporters were invented today, chances are that you wouldn't be able to
afford one for the next 20 years.

~~~
Tichy
I know several people who willingly chose Windows 7, and who are knowledgeable
about computers.

In fact, 75% of IT people I know could be about right.

~~~
lukeschlather
I've intentionally chosen Windows 7 + Windows Server to run my IT
infrastructure, but the majority of the factors that motivated that choice
were not due to much real work on Microsoft's part. QuickBooks, an internal
Access database, our bookstore's POS software, and CAD software. All are
needed, none of them run on Linux (and most of them don't run on Macs.)

Windows being the best choice of operating system is an entirely orthogonal
issue from Microsoft being dead.

~~~
wtracy
So your reasons for choosing Windows have everything to do with third-party
software that only supports Windows, and nothing to do with Windows itself.

From a strategic perspective, that should be scary to Microsoft and anyone who
is betting on Microsoft.

------
kbob
Remember IBM? From 1960 through ~1985, IBM was the only answer for enterprise
computing. And there really wasn't any other kind of computing then. IBM
Research did everything from semiconductor research to databases to virtual
machines. IBM was the hottest stock in the market in the 1960s, passing
$600/share. (That's about $4,000 in today's money.) They eventually faded, as
their customers moved to a combination of desktop PCs and servers and other
companies' servers.

IBM is still with us. They're having to reinvent themselves regularly, because
the only concept they own is still "Mainframe", and they failed to hold on to
"PC". But they're still a huge company selling systems and professional
services.

I expect Microsoft to go the same way. There will be significant but dwindling
demand for Windows for 30 more years. (But probably not Azure, Windows Mobile,
or XBox.) They will stay alive, and even prosper moderately, on that business.

~~~
TomOfTTB
To me the cogent point is that IBM re-invented itself but only after it broke
from a line of internally groomed CEOs leading all the way back to the
Watsons. IBM was about to be split into pieces when Lou Gerstner was hired
from the outside.

He's the one who saw the advantage in IBM's footprint and the value it could
add to a service based business. He's also the one who put an end to several
sacred cows like OS/2 and took IBM's focus almost completely off mainframes.

The parallels to Microsoft are actually pretty compelling (For example
"Windows Everywhere" is Microsoft's Mainframe imho). I don't think Ballmer has
been a bad CEO (like some do) but his time is done. The old tricks aren't
working anymore. They need to find someone with a fresh vision if they want to
survive.

~~~
klbarry
This is a little off-topic, but I've heard a lot of bad things about Gerstner
as well (read the one star reviews on Amazon for his book). It is pretty well
accepted that he saved IBM, or is it controversial amongst people in the know?

------
Matt_Cutts
I remember when pg first wrote this. A lot of people misunderstood the
headline. From the pg's Cliffs notes: "What I meant was not that Microsoft is
suddenly going to stop making money, but that people at the leading edge of
the software business no longer have to think about them." That's at
<http://paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html>

So the two definitions pg gave in 2007 were "You don't have have to be afraid
of Microsoft" and the definition above.

~~~
jdp23
When this came out I was still at Microsoft with a charter of "game changing
strategies". There were (and still are) quite a few things that MS could do to
reinvigorate itself, but the corporate culture keeps them from gathering
momentum: the company's success came in a PC-oriented world, so they don't
think from a phone, device, or web perspective; and the lack of understanding
of win/win dynamics (which Google rode to success) means they're not able to
leverage their huge assets. Since then, the ongoing loss of great people has
deepened a huge generational hole. So yeah, this essay has held up real well.

~~~
kenjackson
Jon, as someone from MS (and with great repute), I'd be curious to get your
take on something I've heard from ex and current MS employees I talk to
regularly.

One issue that seems to come up a fair bit (often not directly) is that MS has
a hypercritical culture, where there's always a reason NOT do something. Since
they had big money makers in Office and Windows, no one really noticed for a
long time..

I hear constant grumbling that people with ideas get their ideas shot down
with lots of criticism. Many of these people say that MS would have killed the
iPhone, iPad, and Wii had they been proposed at MS in final form.

It sounds like a company made of bright people who have no problem finding
issues with products, but less good at fighting for new innovation against
these same critics.

~~~
jdp23
Very true -- in fact Microsoft's values include being self-critical, but not
being self-aware. Also, it's a very competitive culture, and the easiest way
to show you're smarter/better/more powerful than somebody else is to attack
them. The net result is that it's an incredibly negative culture, and it
really affects people both on the professional and personal side.

~~~
ardit33
Seems to be a Seattle thing. I feel Amazon has a similar culture too.

Or perhaps it is just a big company problem. When the two ways to get ahead
is: 1. Do something and brag as much as you can about it (shameless self
promotion) 2. Criticize everything about everybody around you, even for the
most minute details (make your self look good, by putting down everybody else
ideas or way to do things).

Not helpful behavior, all disguised in the name of the company's 'good' of
course.

~~~
enjalot
there are two ways to build the tallest building; build it higher, or destroy
the buildings around you

------
zdw
There are two Microsofts:

\- The one that does interesting, innovative stuff but a failure/modest
success in the marketplace (online, xbox, sync interface for cars, zune,
windows phone 7)

\- The "legacy" one that makes windows, office, and server apps, which makes a
ton on licensing.

Nobody likes "legacy" microsoft, and it's the most vulnerable, but also has
the most momentum behind them. People develop on or support the dominant
platform to earn a paycheck, thus the dominant platform stays in place.

Until the PC goes away, and there's a huge shift to do real work off our
phones/tablets/other non-legacy devices, MS will most likely be dominant in
terms of market share.

~~~
wh-uws
I feel like products like Windows 7 and the Kinect among other things are a
sign of a rally from the Microsoft camp.

Agree / disagree?

~~~
Zak
I don't think Win7 is a sign that MS is making a comeback; it's the final
product that Vista was a massive public beta for. I don't know anyone who
loves it - the usual opinion of people who choose to use it is "good enough".

The Kinect is pretty impressive though. I wonder what the per-unit cost is for
MS - are they making a direct profit on sales?

~~~
te_chris
I disagree. I know lots of people who love it but, really, neither of us are
being scientific and we're both just making sweeping generalisations on an
internet forum that are based on hear-say.

------
swombat
1) Yes, it still holds.

2) Don't editorialise the headline. It gives a distinctly Reddit-like feel to
the place. The correct way to post this would have been to do an Ask HN and
include the link in the body.

3) "How many...?" is obviously a poll question, so create a poll.

------
mooism2
Microsoft still matter: they control Internet Explorer and they control
Windows. If they were to add SNI support to Windows XP, for example, https
sites could be hosted more cheaply.

But Microsoft is not the monopolist it used to be. PG used "dead" to mean "is
not scary any more", not "is slowly going bankrupt". So I think his conclusion
still holds.

~~~
raganwald
Absolutely.

I think the key point of the article was this phrase: _No one is even afraid
of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that
matter. But they're not dangerous._

And I think that's still true, even with the popularity of their latest hand-
waving thing. Back in the day, almost everybody writing a business plan had to
answer the question: "What will you do if Microsoft decides to crush you?"
Nowadays, I imagine they ask that question about Google or Facebook.

~~~
kenjackson
Actually the climate has fundamentally changed in a way that is even bigger
than the article.

Nowadays people no longer generally fear companies at all. In the 80s
companies were much more prone to just crush you outright. Now companies
"seem" more likely to buy you out. There is a lot more positioning now for
acquisition. When I talk to founders they aren't worried about Google or
Facebook crushing them, but are more focused on acquisition, even when
attacking core businesses like search.

Ppl are no longer not afraid of MS because of something inherent in MS, but
because the world has changed.

------
rywang
Microsoft Research is one of the top 10 computer science research
organizations in the world. Some of the work done there (such as the Kinect)
is game changing and will continue to be a resource Microsoft can draw upon.

As an MIT PhD student, I know many people who are eager to work at Microsoft
research.

[1]
[http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=7...](http://academic.research.microsoft.com/RankList?entitytype=7&domainID=24&last=0&start=1&end=100)
[2]
[http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the...](http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the-
game-changer)

~~~
rchowe
But aside from vacuuming up some talent, Microsoft Research isn't going to be
a part of any startup or VC's equation.

------
jcfrei
The perception of who's 'alive' really depends on the perspective. If you're
dealing with software solution consultants you can't get around IBM - but if
you're a small software developer you might just as well never have heard of
them.

just for the record, take a look at the revenue and employe numbers to see
what has changed since the 1960s (big blue is still on top):

IBM $95.75 billion / 399'409 (2009)

Microsoft $62.48 billion / 89'000 (2010)

Apple $65.23 billion / 49'400 (2010)

Google $23.65 billion / 23'331 (2010)

~~~
nivertech
Notice that IBM and Apple revenues are higher, because they selling mostly
hardware. MSFT selling mostly software with exception of XBox.

~~~
dgudkov
This isn't true for IBM. In 2009 IBM's revenue from hardware was less than 17%
from total revenue.

<http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2009/2009_ibm_annual.pdf>

~~~
nivertech
Services revenue is mostly consultants salaries too. What I mean, that
software and advertisement margins are generally higher, than for hardware and
services.

------
Stormbringer
Wow, lots of hatorade on the drinks menu today. I of course had the same
reaction as everybody else to the sensationalist headline... but when I read
the article I agreed with pretty much everything he said.

I suppose that is fair and preserves my strong PG contrarian streak, the
articles everyone else loves I hate, and the articles everyone else hates, I
love.

==== From the article:

So if they wanted to be a contender again, this is how they could do it:

(1) Buy all the good "Web 2.0" startups. They could get substantially all of
them for less than they'd have to pay for Facebook.

(2) Put them all in a building in Silicon Valley, surrounded by lead shielding
to protect them from any contact with Redmond.

I feel safe suggesting this, because they'd never do it. Microsoft's biggest
weakness is that they still don't realize how much they suck. They still think
they can write software in house. Maybe they can, by the standards of the
desktop world. But that world ended a few years ago.

====

This is brilliant. And when we look at the Microsoft Kin Phone Debacle of
2010, we see that indeed they splashed the cash to buy a startup (Danger) to
get into the smartphone game, but they critically failed the second part of
the plan, which is the lead shielding bit.

This is why PG is a genius, and this is why we can say that Microsoft is dead.
Because they are the problem. The problem with Microsoft _is_ Microsoft.
Because they are irrelevant, and to Microsoft being irrelevant is worse than
death.

One of the things I've noticed about Microsoft over the last couple of years,
is that when someone leaves Microsoft, and they blog about it (as you do), and
then you get ex-Microsofties arguing with current-Microsofties, is that they
have their own weird sub-culture and language that is incomprehensible to
anyone on the outside. The more inward focused they become, the less and less
relevant to everyone on the outside they will be. This is another sign of
their decline.

Joel Spolsky said some interesting things about this, on the topic of hiring
programmers. Someone asked him how much a programmer should be paid, and he
said that across the industry there was a pretty uniform amount of profit that
a company can make per programmer - something like $100k-200k, but that there
are a couple of exceptions to this rule, one is Microsoft, because the Windows
and Office parts of their business are ridiculously profitable, and the other
is Google. And that Microsoft makes millions per programmer, so they can
afford to go out and hire the good and the bad, in order simply to prevent
them from working for their competitors. So they hire all these people, and
then ignore them or put them to work on bike sheds. I think it is very
dangerous for a company of any size to ignore their smart people, and this is
another sign of their decline.

------
GeorgeTirebiter
This sentiment is not new. See "Microsoft at Apogee" by John Walker (founder
of Autodesk, and a really brilliant guy):
<http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/msapogee.html>

Note the date: 9 Feb 1997 (!)

------
patrickk
I remember reading somewhere that IBM makes something like _$8bn per year_
still from mainframe computer sales. If IBM are doing that - two major
computer architecture iterations along the line - (client-server and now cloud
coming along), then that bodes well for Microsoft's survival, but perhaps not
their relevance.

Startups aren't going to go after highly conservative organisations like banks
who won't risk changing from mainframes for no obvious gain. So there will be
a market for Microsoft technologies (their OS and Office in particular) for a
long, long time; long after consumers are mainly using
Android/Linux/Macintosh-based tablets or other portable devices to do their
personal computing.

~~~
rbanffy
> like banks who won't risk changing from mainframes for no obvious gain. So
> there will be a market for Microsoft technologies

Comparing Microsoft products with the kind of reliability banks require from
mainframes misses the point. No product Microsoft offers can match 5 nines
outside a controlled environment (and most probably, neither inside one)

~~~
patrickk
Perhaps the point I was trying to make wasn't clear.

Certain enterprise customers will always want to work with what they know,
(i.e. typically Windows XP and Microsoft Office currently.) So this will be
the long tail that Microsoft will coast along, if/when consumers migrate their
personal computing to other platforms. Granted, there are certain situations
when using an older technology such as mainframes makes complete sense, and
there is little benefit to risk a major system upgrade; but there are many
other situations where not upgrading seems lunacy (e.g. in an era when people
want to have much of their banking online, the old mainframes in the
background struggle to cope with the demand.)

As an aside, I interned at a bank where one of the tasks I did was adding HTML
tags to predefined paragraphs that were in plain English. I did this in Excel,
manually, line by line, on a PC sporting Windows XP and a 15" monitor. This
could have been done in seconds with a shell script if anyone there had a
clue. This kind of ignorance is a godsend to Microsoft who will continue to
sell software licences to clueless companies for the foreseeable future.

------
ankimal
Even 3 years later, this is still true. The only thing MS has is Windows and
Office (the only MS product, in my opinion that is real quality). MS will not
die but will become irrelevant. The way they kept jacking up PC hardware
requirements for Windows, Internet bandwidths will keep becoming bigger and
better and "thick" clients will become irrelevant. Everything eventually will
be on the web and that day is sooner than we think it is. (For some its
already here)

------
kingsidharth
> I know they seemed dangerous as late as 2001, _because I wrote an essay_
> then about how they were less dangerous than they seemed.

Didn't get it. They seemed dangerous because Paul wrote an essay?

~~~
corin_
The ' _because_ ' refers not to them seeming dangerous, but to his knowing, in
2007, that they did seem dangerous in 2001.

------
noelchurchill
Can someone please make a website ismicrosoftdead.com similar to
<http://isitchristmas.com/>.

------
Encosia
I doubt that anyone working at Sony or Nintendo shares this apathy toward
Microsoft's continued ability to enter and disrupt an industry.

------
Aegean
"A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead." haha that's a great
sentence to start an article.

------
j_baker
I find pg's proposed way of Microsoft becoming a contender again interesting.
I don't doubt that he'd like Microsoft to start buying up more Web 2.0
startups. Granted, that doesn't make him wrong. I just find it interesting.

------
nivertech
What means death of Microsoft? It means fragmentation on the desktop (similar
to what we have on the mobile):

    
    
      * MacOS X on x86, maybe even desktop version OSX/iOS on ARM?
      * Wintel (Windows on x86), WARM (Windows 8 on ARM)
      * ChromeOS on x86 and on ARM
      * Linux on x86 and ARM (Gnome, KDE, Unity, etc.)

I predict that native desktop software will become more expensive, while
generic HTML5 versions will be ad-supported or subscription based. Assuming,
that HTML5 family of standards will be fully adopted.

With all these new AppStores and Marketplaces ISVs will be able to save money
on marketing and sales, but they will need to spend several times more money
on developing for several desktops platforms/CPU architectures.

------
kehers
_Checks post date. Noticed it is 2007. Moves on_

------
DealsForHackers
Replace "Microsoft" with "Google", and this article suddenly captures the
zeitgeist of today's startup environment.

------
Hov
I understand he meant that nobody is scared of Microsoft anymore. I guess the
question I have is, is there a company that exists that everybody IS scared
of? No. So I rather chalk it up to a sign of the times.

~~~
zmmmmm
As recently as last year I was reasonably scared of Apple because they
appeared to be accumulating a market power that was transforming the industry
itself into something I didn't like.

Fortunately, however, Google came to the rescue with Android and I'm now far
more relaxed about it.

A lot of people claim to be scared of Google though ...

