It is very late and I am too tired for a more detailed reply to this. The dude is wrong.
By the way, isn't anyone else tired of this endless "shift to services" BS that we've been fed by tech-media since around year 2000? And even if it's a "shift" indeed, as opposed to just another possible option, isn't Microsoft in the best position to simply start charging everybody $XX/mo for Vista subscription?
Microsoft does have its problems, but they certainly have nothing to do with their business model or "lack of friends". As much as I dislike their products these days, nobody else managed to charge people for software as much as they did (and still do). Almost everybody else, having failed to produce something valuable enough to have users pay them money, is busy deciding on the same lame question: "shall we put the ads up or we still have enough cash to wait until someone acquires us?" The business is simple: make something people want and they will pay you. Either up front or monthly - is it really that important?
Every point he makes is either invalid or plain stupid. How can one say that "Microsoft is doomed because their stock isn't rising anymore"? He is confusing a reason with consequence.
"Not this year, not next year... but soon - almost certainly by the next decade."
More likely is that they simply won't be nearly as dominant as they are now. They have like 50,000 employees.
There are still plenty of great people at Microsoft and if someone can cut down on the bureaucratic bullshit that keeps everyone from getting stuff done they'll be a force to be reckoned with for decades to come.
allow me to doubt someone who calls eyeOs window management code as "a full operating system"! this guy is out of boundaries!
How is an empire like Microsoft worthing approx. 289 billion dollars doomed?
seems like somebody needs a wake up call! MS may not threaten Web 2.0 startups in their early steps. Actually it can be the good guy when they come and buy you...And that is not because MS can't innovate. It's just the nature of startups to bring the little thing called innovation to the world. Every big company has this problem! Only that MS has the luxury to buy their mistake...
when PG throwed the bomp MS is dead, I remember there were like 250 comments on YC.news covering every single argument someone could come up with about this subject that probably everyone on YC.news already read...so it really seems worthless that I added this comment...
1) The fundamental workings of the software business are pretty much unchanged since they were created by MSFT back in the day: It's relatively cheap to develop something worth a lot of money. As far as service and maintenance goes, I'd say Microsoft on average is pretty good about both. They are absolutely the kings of hot-fixes/service packs and absolutely the kings of keeping backwards compatibility wherever possible, which is about all you can ask for.
2) Let's not pretend like Internet Explorer wasn't a huge product for Microsoft (and the world). There's nothing worth arguing there. As for the web 2.0 stuff, Microsoft has demonstrated that it's not going to be a pioneer here (and it isn't in many businesses, actually). That said, they're making money from their search product, and MSN/Live.com is still quite popular. I don't know what metrics you want to judge Microsoft by here, but if they're behind it's not to the point of death. Especially since we still haven't seen any billion-dollar ideas out of web 2.0 (short of ad platform stuff a la Google, whic MSFT is copying).
3) When has Microsoft really had that many friends in the first place? They run a business that's especially large, so they'll be stepping on toes all over the place. I'm not entirely sure how this points to their ultimate demise, so long as they're still making more money than the competition is... (That means they're winning)
4) You only need one cash cow (ask Google). Microsoft has two clear clear money winners. The rest of the products are ultimately investments more than anything, but I'll go one by one just for fun. MSN is indeed taking over web search share recently, and has always had a super popular destination page and email. The Zune didn't beat the iPod, but neither is anything else. For a first try, the Zune actually didn't suck too hard. Microsoft is working their way into the consumer entertainment space here, though, is the real point. The surface computer isn't a real product, so I don't think anyone's bought it. MS research kicks out a lot of stuff that's just worth thinking about, not worth making. IIS is a pretty popular web server. It's not free though, so Apache makes for pretty tough competition. Ultimately, IIS is more a part of MS's entire web stack, and so if you buy into that, you're giving MSFT a lot of money, which is good, even if it's not #1. The Xbox, again, is a consumer entertainment play, and the Xbox 360's killing it in the US console market. Microsoft has a lot of money, and they throw it around. You don't have to win markets to make money, and they know that fact well.
5) It's way too early to tell for sure, but if XP's launch is any basis for comparison, Vista has some great years ahead. We'll see how the Vista hate keeps up when people realize it's, like XP is now, the standard OS everyone's running. Even if Mac OS tripled up, its share would still be basically irrelevant to MSFT's bottom line.
6) Compare Microsoft's stock price to Ford's over the last few years. Both companies are such long-standing giants that there's no excitement to be had in trading the stock. If you don't buy that, you could at least accept that if confidence in Microsoft were tanking, the stock would be too. It's actually up 10% on the year.
7) PC makers aren't turning their backs on Microsoft. They're trying to pick up some sales from the Microsoft haters (who they would prefer not also become Dell haters by association). Dell is gaining customers with the deal, and Microsoft's not losing any (since Dell buys the licenses, not the buyer). This is as much of a non-point as the rest.
Is Vista the standard OS everyone is running? Back in 2001, there were people saying "Windows 98 is just fine, thank you." But those people were drowned out by 1. Gamers and 2. all the people who were buying a new PC didn't really have a choice about the OS they got.
Now, the people saying "XP is working just fine, thank you" are probably a majority, and the relatively few people buying new hardware can choose OS X (And today, Ubuntu is a more serious contender than any open source OS was in 2001).
I don't think that vista will kill MS, nor will losing money on Zune, but I think that the bureaucratization of MS will kill them. Would you buy an OS from the DMV?
Anyone who suggests that "You can even get a full operating system to run in your browser!" has no understanding of technology or how it's applied. Also, how me makes the jump from "Dell starts selling Ubuntu machines," to "PC makers are starting to turn their backs on Microsoft", I have no clue. It's like saying "NVIDIA DOOMED!!!! Future Shop starts selling ATI, too!"
By the way, isn't anyone else tired of this endless "shift to services" BS that we've been fed by tech-media since around year 2000? And even if it's a "shift" indeed, as opposed to just another possible option, isn't Microsoft in the best position to simply start charging everybody $XX/mo for Vista subscription?
Microsoft does have its problems, but they certainly have nothing to do with their business model or "lack of friends". As much as I dislike their products these days, nobody else managed to charge people for software as much as they did (and still do). Almost everybody else, having failed to produce something valuable enough to have users pay them money, is busy deciding on the same lame question: "shall we put the ads up or we still have enough cash to wait until someone acquires us?" The business is simple: make something people want and they will pay you. Either up front or monthly - is it really that important?
Every point he makes is either invalid or plain stupid. How can one say that "Microsoft is doomed because their stock isn't rising anymore"? He is confusing a reason with consequence.