Cringely thinks that will happen unless Windows 8 flies:
We’ll start with Microsoft and Windows 8, which I’ll argue are going to be formidable competitors in the tablet space, primarily because it’s that or start spending all that cash on diversified investments to turn Microsoft into a Berkshire Hathaway. This is probably Ballmer’s last stand as a high tech CEO.
There doesn't need to be a series of failures to predict the future. Both RIM and Nokia were very successful two years ago but anyone could see there were troubles ahead.
With MS it's no different. PC growth is declining rapidly in favor of tablets and the consumer market is becoming far more important than the enterprise market. It's a direct attack on MS's core strengths.
"Kicking off Microsoft Corp.’s annual Worldwide Partner Conference (WPC), a four-day event that celebrates the accomplishments of the company’s 640,000 global partners, CEO Steve Ballmer today thanked partners for helping make Windows 7 the fastest-selling operating system in history"
That, I assume, has nothing to do with all OEMs bundling Win7 with the computers they sell (and Win7 having no provision to be downgraded to XP like Vista had).
When OEMs tie their products to Win7, it's expected record hardware sales will translate precisely to "software success".
I think every PC around me (about 40 in this floor) counts as a Win7 sale. Two of them run Windows.
Widely adopted? Not causing a mass Windows Exodus? Almost entirely supplanting XP? Sure, it didn't get the press coverage that OSX gets every time it adds a forgettable feature, but look around. If it's not a Mac and it's not a server, the smart money is betting it's Windows 7.
Can people still buy computers capable of running XP without extensive tweaking? Last time I saw someone installing XP on a modern, post-Vista, PC the process included downloading stuff into usb drives so that the PC could use the network.
Windows 7 sells because Dell, HP and Acer sell and the machines that were in service running XP had to break some day. Normal people use whatever their computers come with and almost nobody buys boxed Windows. Vista was an exception - it was so bad people preferred using XP, even if installing it took a whole day of boots and downloads. When OEMs start to integrate 8 into their boxes you'll see 8's adoption match OEM shipments very closely. Microsoft even declared Vista was very successful based on that kind of number.
> FWIW I am typing this in Firefox on Redhat.
I don't see what effect this has on your reasoning. You won't be "more right" because you don't use Windows.
Just to point out that, maybe, it's not Windows 7 that's successful, but Intel's Core i-something family of processors you can't buy computers with unless they are bundled with Windows 7.
Someplace else I pointed out Microsoft has only 5 clients they really care about: Dell, Lenovo, Acer, HP and Asus.
How wide would that adoption be if not for bundled sales?
Competing with 'free' is only hard once the cost is broken out and made visible.
I was personally responsible for the purchase of 3 windows licenses last year, but I didn't use any of them. The Microsoft tax makes it seem as though things are better than they really are, it's only a couple of percent but it does make a difference and I think that percentage would be higher if people had to pay the full list price for their windows licenses.
Win7 is doing incredibly well at retail sales and enthusiasts who build their own computers and buy OEM copies.
Besides, if people wanted something else, they would get that. Every year Linux is ready for the desktop yet isn't and for many people Macs are too expensive for their budget. Both also have the associated learning cost which for many consumers who are not enthusiasts can't afford. It's up to ? to get Linux recognised and lamenting about how mean Microsoft is won't get ? anywhere. It's only for so long ? can blame others.
How wide would the adoption of Mac OS X be without bundled sales? Yes, Windows as sold to consumers is largely driven by new PC purchases, but I don't think that is in any way indicative of its success or lack thereof, just of how consumers think of computers.
The problem for them is that their core markets, the desktop and the non-web server, are becoming less and less relevant in comparison to mobile and web-based technologies. When people say the PC is dead, it's not that the desktop computer is dead - the form factor will continue to be popular - it's the local OS + applications + data model that was made popular with the 8-bit computers of the late 70's is losing space to a model where your apps and data reside on servers accessible through the internet using a wide assortment of different devices.
If Windows 8 becomes a big hit, then, perhaps, Microsoft will survive long enough to completely switch its own model of selling software licenses to selling hosted services and the attention of its users through their app store model. In any case, it will be a very different Microsoft than the one that sold me the FORTRAN/77 compiler I used in college.
They have to maintain a viable product lineup to create a smooth transition from their current PC software licensing model (and that includes their w8 app store) to a subscription or service-based model. If they cease to have attractive products for too long, their customers, who are getting more mobile as we speak, will easily move to their competition. And their competition doesn't have the burden of maintaining a lineup transition.
Throughout its history, Microsoft almost always won by persistence, by being there to exploit their competitors' mistakes (and, sometimes, inducing them). I don't see Microsoft having this luxury now.
Of course not, because according to your strong "Microsoft anything sucks" comment history, I don't see how you'd deem anything they could do as right in your eyes...
Actually I am always ready to say how much I love their keyboards (I am on my 4th natural keyboard now), mice (lost count) and I also have a healthy dose of respect towards SQL Server (it IS a very decent database server). The fact I dislike Windows, Exchange, Sharepoint and other miscellaneous infrastructure technologies they build has nothing to do with my opinion that they have bad HR problems, a spotty product lineup and questionable business methods.
Just like RIM and Nokia were tremendously success within their markets as these markets were once defined.
The crazy or impressive or disturbing thing about the present management/investment environment is that these successful companies panic and do a 180 turn based on a whiff that their markets are going change fundamentally, often killing themselves before anyone else kills them - look at Netflix.
Microsoft profiting from Linux by extorting companies who use it is just plain wrong. But then, show me a patent system that wouldn't permit this kind of behaviour.
Software patents need to go. Microsoft is a prime example of why.
To the down-voters, I tried to Google some data and the best I could come up with is that 63% of the top 100 software companies are in the US [1]. That isn't 90%, but I said it was a wild ass guess, and there's no denying that the US is by far the biggest software producer.
If Linux powers such large chunks of the Internet and many other systems, is this not an issue that would ultimately affect every human using such technology? All those companies who have signed, including Amazon, are paying an extra amount, no matter how small, and ultimately it affects how the end user is charged, right?
Maybe... Amazon doesn't sell a lot of commodities and non-commodity goods are usually priced by consumer surplus, rather than cost. (eg. You're paying $5.00 for a latte because of the convenience rather than the cost of the coffee + overhead)
Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer. (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major portions of the linux kernel)
The issue is muddy enough that you can make a good case either way.
> Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer. (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major portions of the linux kernel)
Makes no sense. "license" from MS does not reduce the cost of implementation. The cases discussed in the article refer to paying MS to use Linux. There is NO WAY that this reduces costs for the consumer. They did not get anything from Microsoft except the promise not to sue.
Last time I checked lawsuits cost lots of money, this saves the consumer the expense of paying for the lawsuit. Whether the law should or shouldn't be this way is a matter for another discussion. The current reality is that getting sued for patent infringement can be VERY costly.
Assuming Amazon is a reasonably rational economic agent they would probably choose the lawsuit if it had a lower expected cost compared to licensing the patent portfolio, or reimplementing the infringing code in a non-infringing manner.
Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer, of course it could be argued that with out patents Amazon wouldn't have to pay, but the current situation is that we have patents.
It's actually pretty clear, Microsoft is extorting small players. If Microsoft had patents that were actually valid it would go after IBM, Intel, Google or Red Hat. They all have more money and use Linux far more widely and deeply. But Microsoft doesn't go after those companies because it would lose those cases. Microsoft is targeting companies without the power or will (it isn't their core business at stake) to make a buck off other people's innovations. I think someone should call Microsoft's bluff already.
If a company with Microsoft's legal resources loses a patent infringement suit initiated by Microsoft, chances are very good that they deserved to lose. Besides that, a valid patent is not enough; they would need patents that are valid (meaning novel, non-obvious, and no prior art from academia or commerce), and infringed by Linux.
The main problem is that MS won't state what patents it believes are being violated, so the community can't evaluate that for itself. We just have to take their word for it.
I don't think it helps to be located outside the problematic jurisdiction - as soon as you sell your products there, you are once again subject to the laws you're trying to avoid. Avoiding the United States as a market is probably more costly than just putting up with the "patent tax".
It's not possible with hard goods, but with services, it looks like the way to go.
If my company and my servers are based on someplace sane, it's not that I am exporting it to you, who lives in a crazy place, but it's you who are importing it from me.
I don't think it's quite so clear-cut. If you're selling downloadable apps (like mobile or desktop apps) you're almost certainly liable. What about the JavaScript code you're "exporting" to your users? That runs in their jurisdiction.
Surely some organization at some point is going to have to start paying licencing deals for using Microsoft products which violate some other organization's patents (I'm looking at you Google).
Has there been any instance of this patent protection actually coming into effect? I would have thought this would just have led to multiple trolls targetting Microseft customers to access Microsoft's deep pockets.
Since I've not heard of this happening I'm inclined to believe this is a hollow offer.
An NPE with Microsoft's patent portfolio is something very, very dangerous.