you seem to be back-pedaling with this cliff-notes post. so you are going to be the first to "call it"... call what exactly? that seems to be your cliff notes discussion... it required several paragraphs to define what you mean. nobody is going to remember what you exactly called.
you say the following...
"When I said that Microsoft was dead, I meant they had, like IBM before them, passed across into this underworld."
so you are basically saying now that ibm is dead... in which you define it as "people at the leading edge of the software business no longer have to think about them."
i guess many would disagree with you on what "leading edge" or relevance in software is about. if you think these web2.0 companies, then perhaps, then many will disagree with you whether there's much new tech coming out of these web 2.0 companies.
you seem to be back-pedaling with this cliff-notes post. so you are going to be the first to "call it"... call what exactly? that seems to be your cliff notes discussion... it required several paragraphs to define what you mean. nobody is going to remember what you exactly called.
you say the following... "When I said that Microsoft was dead, I meant they had, like IBM before them, passed across into this underworld."
so you are basically saying now that ibm is dead... in which you define it as "people at the leading edge of the software business no longer have to think about them."
i guess many would disagree with you on what "leading edge" or relevance in software is about. if you think these web2.0 companies, then perhaps, then many will disagree with you whether there's much new tech coming out of these web 2.0 companies.