
Siracusa on Microsoft - tmoretti
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2005/11/1816/
======
beloch
There are a couple of interpretations that makes this article interesting 7
years after it was written.

1\. Is MS now "risking it all" with Windows 8? Windows 8 is certainly ballsy,
but no, MS is not risking it all. The worst case scenario for Win8 is another
epic marketing fail like Vista and slow adoption, followed by immediate uptake
of Win9. Unlike companies such as RIM that have been largely banished from
their core markets by Apple, MS's core market hasn't gone anywhere and isn't
going anywhere. MS has expanded their hardware division somewhat (e.g. the
Xbox), but to nowhere near the same extent as Apple. MS has not been pushed to
the brink such that they need to risk it all to survive. MS hasn't shrunk in
fact. The company just looks small now that Apple has shot past them to become
so big. Win8 is not a desperate bid for survival, but rather, a new foray into
areas MS hasn't been successful in to date.

2\. Is Apple now in MS's shoes from half a decade or so ago? iPod - 2001,
iPhone - 2007, Ipad - 2010. While Apple hasn't exactly disrupted any
industries lately, it's not as if they've had a long dry spell. Still, there
are some worrying signs. The iPod was immensely profitable for Apple because
it took so long for halfway decent competitors to arise. The iPhone was under
siege by Android in a much shorter period of time and the iPad in a shorter
time-frame still. The iPad mini actually arrived after it's competition, with
inferior specs and a higher price to boot. The only thing it has going for it
is branding. Was this a fluke or is Apple losing ground? What is beyond
question is that Apple is now a giant with everything to lose rather than the
nearly bankrupt company of the late 90's that had just two choices: innovate
or die. Apple is sitting on such a giant pile of cash that, instead of trying
to innovate, they could easily decide to just keep making their stuff smaller
(or bigger) and sue the pants off of anyone who makes anything similar. They
could do this, but it's very premature to say that they have. Apple is leaking
more product info these days, but it's not like a retina 13" macbook pro was
such a surprise that it had to be kept secret. Apple may still have disruptive
stuff under wraps somewhere in the dark recesses of Cupertino.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> 7 years after it was written

Funny, I didn't even realize this while I was reading the article. My only
thought that aligned with this was "it's an odd mistake for him to refer to
WinRT as WinFX."

~~~
shrikant
The giveaway for me was where he linked the 'products' in "technically
impressive new products" to the Windows Vista page..

~~~
adambyrtek
In his defense, the concepts behind Vista (or Longhorn) were truly
revolutionary, only when the ambitious project started to run late Microsoft
decided to cut corners.

------
fauigerzigerk
_"Abandon Windows and Office? Sure, it sounds like madness."_

And it is. It's not an Apple bubble that John Siracusa is living in (if that
is still his opinion). It's a consumer/fashion/leasure products bubble.
Microsoft is an enterprise software company, and the enterprise is all about
managing slow transitions and dealing with a heterogenous hodgepodge of
technologies permanently.

A company like Microsoft that can build on a broad base of ubiquitous products
that their custumers just cannot throw out over night has a very good chance
of surviving by evolution not revolution.

What could be Microsoft's undoing is if they start to look too much like a
desperate also ran in the consumer space instead of telling its enterprise
customers how they can transition to the cloud, use virtualization, do big
data analysis, manage compliance with regulations, allow secure access through
mobile devices, etc.

I think what makes Microsoft try so desperately to be a consumer play is that
they remember the past when they undermined IBM's power through a partly
consumer driven grassroots strategy. They don't want that to happen to
themselves and that's what their paranoia makes them focus on.

But there's an important difference. Apple doesn't want to be in the
enterprise space. They are completely uncompromising about that and for good
reason. Apple's strength is to control the entire experience and that's just
not possible in the enterprise.

Microsoft should certainly help businesses to manage Apple gear, but most of
all they should take on Oracle and SAP much more aggressively. Both are
vulnerable to a competitor that understands the enterprise, makes software
that people don't hate and doesn't overcharge as egregiously as these two do.

~~~
realo
Hum... To paraphrase your comment:

"RIM (of BlackBerry fame) is an enterprise smartphone company, and the
enterprise is all about managing slow transitions ... blah blah..."

RIM is dying. Fast.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
There's a reason why enterprises often transition slowly: Dependencies. Lots
of dependencies between platform components, third party applications, in-
house code and data, etc.

You picked a single function device that isn't intertwined with much else. Not
a good counter example. Just a special case.

------
randomfool
After being at Microsoft for 5+ years, I consider it much more cocky than
paranoid. Cocky because there is a pervasive mindset that if Microsoft builds
it that customers will automatically flock. Windows Phone was a wake up call,
but most of the company still believes this.

Also, their continued focus on Windows and Office continues to suck the life
out of many smaller products. There is no escaping the gravitational pull of
Windows or Office.

~~~
jbigelow76
You hit the nail on the head about Windows and Office. I think Microsoft could
bank (and has to an extent) on customers flocking to its services if they
could work on delivering specifics instead of, what seems like for the last
decade, just reactions. There are a lot of purchasing managers and CIOs that
know that if MS puts out a product in the enterprise space it's at least a
safe bet. But they lose that as the enterprise blurs into the realm of the
personal and MS makes larger bets into the personal space.

Microsoft's problem is that while Windows and Office give MS the freedom to
explore new markets those same two things let them treat these new markets as
nothing more than multi-billion dollar whims that ultimately leave customers
gun shy. I'm probably one of the last ten or so people that still has a Zune
subscription (because the price and software are really compelling) but I also
know that if they shut the entire thing down tomorrow and told all their Zune
customers to go pound sand it wouldn't make a single penny's worth of
difference on the Earnings Per Share report at the next quarterly earnings
conference call.

But while you say that Windows Phone was a wake up call it doesn't seem like
it from the outside. When Apple announces things they give dates and prices,
Microsoft announces things like the Lumia line, which look great, but they
lose when they fail to deliver specifics instead just relying on everybody
knowing that anything the demo will be available in the next 6-18 months.

MS may have finally turned a corner by not releasing a half baked tablet OS in
an effort to fight for the number 2 spot in the tablet wars, they waited until
their "perspective" on tablet usage was ready. But still, they failed to
outline specific dates and prices until relatively recently. People will
"flock" to commitments to specifics, not so much so to "oh, shit if we don't
find a MS response to threat X it's going to be bad".

~~~
randomfool
Windows Phone was a wakeup call, but they are still trying to figure out what
to do about it. It's sort of like the villain in a movie who thinks he's
invincible then sees his blood for the first time. That 'oh crap' moment.
Before then, it was just a matter of lack of trying.

You're right about the personal devices, and it's a big deal. Microsoft's
strong point has been a full stack, but the issue is that the ecosystem is
evolving faster than Microsoft is. I don't think it's as much of a safe bet
anymore- Microsoft's inability to execute is causing a lot of concern for
partners.

~~~
bztzt
I'm actually not sure what you mean by Windows Phone being a wakeup call ... ?

~~~
dnissley
I think he means that MS put their best foot forward for WP7 and it still
didn't do that well. They're still in fourth place in the smartphone market,
even behind the stumbling blackberry.

Before WP7, they had not really tried very hard in the smartphone market (no
innovation, windows mobile was just a poor mans symbian) so it was a no-
brainer that they had not done well.

~~~
bztzt
OK, but I'm not sure what you can point to that they're currently doing that's
a reaction to that. The products you're seeing now (Windows 8, WP8, etc.) were
all put into motion before WP7 was released.

------
Gring
This needs [2005] in the title.

Prescient timing in the article: "If it's not Google that finally subverts the
power structure of the industry, then it'll be someone else...eventually."

Just at that time of publication (Nov 2005), Apple worked intensively on the
first iOS device (iPhone, first shown 14 months later).

John was right - but even he didn't dare to dream that his favorite company
(Apple) is the one that eventually subverted the power structure.

------
benferris
A year or two ago I would have sided with the dominance that the iPad exerts
in the market and felt that Microsoft was doomed without a tablet available
until Fall 2012, but honestly -- I'm about to switch from my iPhone to Android
and purchase a Galaxy Note II as soon as I can get my hands on it and frankly
I've got a Mac and several Windows PCs and I still prefer the clusterfuck that
is Windows 8 over OS X. Interestingly I think Microsoft still has a chance.

------
nostromo
I think Microsoft would be better off today if they had been broken up by the
government.

Windows, Server, Office, Gaming, and Online as individual companies would all
have been powerful, fierce competitors in the aughts. A few of them would
already be dead, but others could be incredibly strong.

Instead they are a huge conglomeration that lacks vision and direction.

~~~
kooshball
> Instead they are a huge conglomeration that lacks vision and direction.

Have you read this?

[http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar12/shareholder-l...](http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar12/shareholder-
letter/index.html)

This is the vision. Device and services.

~~~
mtgx
I think this point was that this needed to happen a long time ago, and not
just now as a _response_ to Apple and Google.

------
cageface
_Put simply, to win in the long run, Microsoft must be willing to risk losing
it all._

The one thing I _wouldn't_ accuse MS of right now is playing a conservative
game. If anything I think shoving the "Metro" UI on desktop users is a step
too soon, too far.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I think the UI is the less radical part of their current gambit. Risking their
OEM channel by selling their own hardware and risking their VAR channel by
encouraging people to do their Windows 8 purchases directly are both major
cards that MS has thrown down.

What I'm not clear on is whether this is an intentional effort to circumvent
the Innovator's Dilema or just chasing Apple. If it's the former, there should
come other, interesting steps. If it's the latter, it will just be sad to
watch.

~~~
mun2mun
If Microsoft was serious about ditching OEMs on device sales then surface and
surface pro would have been priced at $300 and $600 respectively and would
have been shipped with touch cover. They have enough cash to subsidize them.
It is not about bypassing the OEMs. Surface devices are Microsoft's attempt to
set a standard on Windows 8 devices. It is a signal to OEMs that they must
think twice before installing a crapware that hampers usability.

~~~
podperson
I don't think subsidizing the surface to get volume would be a winning move
either.

Selling heavily discounted surface tablets today would alienate and possibly
kill their OEMs and set forward price expectations that would preclude future
profitability.

Microsoft needs to establish a position for themselves that is profitable,
otherwise they're burning their bridges behind them AND in front of them. It's
hard to see whether Surface is going to succeed -- the reviews thus far are at
best equivocal.

------
comex
Note: 2005.

~~~
Metrop0218
Ah, I suppose this is on the front page then because some people feel like
this is what they're doing. I don't really think so but I do see the train of
thought.

------
janisjanis
I don't see the financial incentive to develop for Windows RT and the Surface.
The iPad is too dominant. Android tablets are munching on the periphery. I
just don't see the market acceptance of the Surface. It is not "better" than
the iPad. It is a different vision and direction. But why would millions of
users follow that vision when iOS and Android offer a compelling enough
platform already?

~~~
kooshball
Any app you write for Windows RT will also run on Windows 8, which will have
millions of users.

~~~
captaincrowbar
Yeah, but why bother targeting RT when you can just continue to target plain
old Windows? You still run on Windows 8 either way, but you gain Windows 7,
Vista, and XP users in exchange for losing the RT tablet users. Unless RT
tablets sell beyond anyone's wildest dreams, that's still going to be a net
win for a good many years to come.

------
majormajor
Interestingly, I can see arguments from both sides about whether or not the
Windows 8/WinRT moves are risking everything or whether they're just further
digging in trying to defend Windows/Office. The changes are big and bold, and
a lot of the prerelease Windows 8 criticism has been centered around "they're
going to drive all their old users into the hands of Apple/Linux." But at the
same time, they're still Windows/Office: a big part of their push is a tablet
(and a phone) that can actually use real Office apps. It's adapting what they
have to the new market that Apple discovered.

------
b1daly
The big problem for the successful incumbent in these innovators dilemma
scenarios is that most innovations fail. Most of the upstart challengers will
fail. To risk for dominant position for the sake of a long shit chance a
second life as upstart innovator is not rational. What is rational is to
defend your dominant position to the end as the odds that your company can
dominate in New territory is tiny.

------
zimbatm
It strikes me at odds when he says that IBM "lost". Sure they're not
controlling the desktop market but in terms of revenue they're very well of.
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+revenue+vs+micros...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+revenue+vs+microsoft+revenue+vs+ibm+revenue)

~~~
nmcfarl
Per employee, the spread opens way up, and they aren't looking quite as good.
[http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+revenue+per+employe...](http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+revenue+per+employee+vs+microsoft+revenue+per+employee+vs+ibm+revenue+per+employee+&x=0&y=0)

------
allenbrunson
Can anyone think what Microsoft is doing now with the Surface is "risking it
all?" Because to me, it looks like yet another round of Microsoft's answer to
absolutely every new development: Hey, I know, we'll put Windows on it.

Here's what "risking it all" would look like: Finally declare Windows is EOL.
Put it in maintenance mode, no further updates. First step after that would be
to work on an entirely new OS specifically for tablets and phones, without a
hint of the old Windows UI anywhere. Then think about what they're going to do
next for corporate clients, home PCs, and so on.

Yes, it would be massively painful in the short term. But Apple got through a
similar transition just fine, when they ditched Mac OS 9. And if Microsoft
does _not_ do this, it's just a matter of time until some other company does
it for them.

~~~
wrath
So easy to say when you're not responsible for billions dollars of licensing
fees for Windows, Office and all the supporting products. I think the new
metro UI is risking quite a lot and just this change has everyone up in arms.
They have more customers then most of us can every wish for and investors to
answer to, so let's not start to assume that change is that easy.

------
zimbatm
It strike me at odds that IBM "lost". Sure it's not controlling the desktop
market but in terms of revenue they're very well of.
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+revenue+vs+micros...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=apple+revenue+vs+microsoft+revenue+vs+ibm+revenue)

------
manojlds
> dominates the experience of the entire (+/- 5%) personal computer market.

How can there be entire + 5%? Sometimes people try to be too clever.

------
drivebyacct2
Compete with your competitors and compete with yourself. RIM slacked off, I
would argue Microsoft slacked off.

