Microsoft has had the benefit of a market lead over it's competitors because they were pioneers in the field of HCI (Human computer interface) streaking ahead of their only competitors of the day (Apple).
Yet they had an endemic problem that they never really seemed to get to grips with and ultimately has cost them dearly.
Bloatware and reliability.
The visual programming code generators they used created massive binary files that took up more memory and more disk space - more or less forcing people to upgrade their hardware each time there was a new release (The laptop I have now has more computing power than the first supercomputer I worked on - and that processed the accounts and pay cheques for the whole UK government and all their employees).
Equally - there always seemed to be a rush to get the software to market before it was completely finished - hence all the updates and service packs. Unreliable base operating systems have meant that the base has had to be changed twice - meaning a complete redesign and port.
Whilst that was going on UNIX and LINUX which had a much more stable and mathematically designed OS has been used by others to create alternatives that are now as user friendly. So much so that OS 10, Chrome OS and Android are now all based on them.
Microsoft's Spectacular Decline | Business | Vanity Fair: Is Steve Ballmer to blame?
Heisenberg
2012/08/08 15:16:26
|
|
|||||
|
11 votes
|
|
48% | |||
|
12 votes
|
|
52% | |||
VANITYFAIR.COM reports:
Since 2000, Microsoft has lost its lead—and its mojo. With the tech giant’s future in question, Kurt Eichenwald computes how bad C.E.O. Steve Ballmer has been for business.
Read More: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microso...
Top Opinion
-
JMCC 2012/08/08 15:35:18
Corporate Culture started them down the wrong path and Stevie facilitates their self destruction. If the article is to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt it, MS is facing certain doom without getting rid of Steve (kinda like a sacrificial lamb) and a major restructuring.
I think they had an identity crisis from day one. As the article quotes from Jobs, Gates was more of a business person. To me, Gates had always been a "wannabe." Gates is pictured as this Geeky Tech Genius, because that's what he wants us to see. But besides developing DOS and some opportunistic business decisions, he has been playing catch-up his entire life.
Windows, his pride and joy was simply an Apple like GUI made to run on DOS. Then, when he got laughed at by Apple for the DOS requirement for Windows, Gates spent all his resources getting rid of the subsystem that made him famous. They spent too much time and effort hiding and getting rid of something that a great deal of their fan base enjoyed.
Licensing was another downfall. I remember the days when, while working on a PC, if somebody's copy of DOS or Windows was damaged or lost, you could borrow a copy or run to the store and buy another. Those days are gone and people don't forget. I bet there are a number of Open Source develo...
Corporate Culture started them down the wrong path and Stevie facilitates their self destruction. If the article is to be believed, and I have no reason to doubt it, MS is facing certain doom without getting rid of Steve (kinda like a sacrificial lamb) and a major restructuring.
I think they had an identity crisis from day one. As the article quotes from Jobs, Gates was more of a business person. To me, Gates had always been a "wannabe." Gates is pictured as this Geeky Tech Genius, because that's what he wants us to see. But besides developing DOS and some opportunistic business decisions, he has been playing catch-up his entire life.
Windows, his pride and joy was simply an Apple like GUI made to run on DOS. Then, when he got laughed at by Apple for the DOS requirement for Windows, Gates spent all his resources getting rid of the subsystem that made him famous. They spent too much time and effort hiding and getting rid of something that a great deal of their fan base enjoyed.
Licensing was another downfall. I remember the days when, while working on a PC, if somebody's copy of DOS or Windows was damaged or lost, you could borrow a copy or run to the store and buy another. Those days are gone and people don't forget. I bet there are a number of Open Source developers that were born out of the decision to try and clamp down on licenses.
Everything Windows! The article mentions that everything they develop must run on Windows. Another tragic mistake. Ever since I started working with computers, everything I did was to try and facilitate interoperability between different platforms. I think if Windows tried to enhance cross platform computing instead of trying to be the "be all and end all" of computing, they would have been better off.
It seems that they are trying to succeed by eliminating the competition, They remind me of how IBM tried to ensure their profitability by patenting the MCA Bus. Well look what happened to them; they were only one of the few PC manufacturers to produce PCs in the late 80's that were not "BM Compatible."
I work in the IT industry. Microsoft has done a LOT towards being more open and realistic about how people use their products. From embracing odata in their data exchange protocols and building it into sharepoint 2013, to being active in developing linux, which was for a very long time seen as an arch enemy. With these changes, they have done more to make my job easier then ever.
They have NOT lost their mojo.
Yet they had an endemic problem that they never really seemed to get to grips with and ultimately has cost them dearly.
Bloatware and reliability.
The visual programming code generators they used created massive binary files that took up more memory and more disk space - more or less forcing people to upgrade their hardware each time there was a new release (The laptop I have now has more computing power than the first supercomputer I worked on - and that processed the accounts and pay cheques for the whole UK government and all their employees).
Equally - there always seemed to be a rush to get the software to market before it was completely finished - hence all the updates and service packs. Unreliable base operating systems have meant that the base has had to be changed twice - meaning a complete redesign and port.
Whilst that was going on UNIX and LINUX which had a much more stable and mathematically designed OS has been used by others to create alternatives that are now as user friendly. So much so that OS 10, Chrome OS and Android are now all based on them.