Microsoft sues Salesforce • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft sues Salesforce

#41

Post by rbanffy » Wed, May 19, 2010, 11:12 AM UTC

codexon wrote: post #33

rbanffy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a dying company. They just have too much inertia. It will take a while. Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly, as will the personal computer as we knew it. Companies will redeploy internal desktop apps as web apps, first to their own servers, then for cloud platforms like GAE. Microsoft is doomed. This is its future.

Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly Desktop software will never become irrelevant. I will continue to choose MS Word for the foreseeable future because the documents are on my machine, and not on the web where it is vulnerable to MITM attacks or the whim of Google employees and government agencies.

Never confuse "never" with "foreseeable future". I, too, won't give up my hard drive for cloud storage for the foreseeable future. But I already did that for e-mail and do a lot of collaboration through Google Documents. All the source code I write is versioned on private servers that could, conceivably, be called a "private cloud", albeit a very small one.

And, BTW, by being on your machine, they may not be vulnerable to government agencies (unless you cross a border) and Google employees, but, as was shown a couple weeks back, it's vulnerable to borked anti-virus updates.

Not to say the viruses themselves.

Re: Microsoft sues Salesforce

#42

Post by rbanffy » Wed, May 19, 2010, 11:34 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #35

rbanffy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are a dying company. They just have too much inertia. It will take a while. Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly, as will the personal computer as we knew it. Companies will redeploy internal desktop apps as web apps, first to their own servers, then for cloud platforms like GAE. Microsoft is doomed. This is its future.

Funny, I've been hearing this for at least 15 years now.

It just takes a lot of time. Network effects and lock-in ensure it takes a while, but the industry is changing towards models that are incompatible with what Microsoft offers.

Re: Microsoft sues Salesforce

#43

Post by arethuza » Wed, May 19, 2010, 12:02 PM UTC

papachito wrote: post #14

roc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've come to terms with the fact that even here on HN, many people still mistake a summary for a legal definition of the invention covered. But I had held out hope that this wasn't the sort of place where one could condemn patents by title alone, let alone the sort of place where a false argument like that would find approval. No point is bolstered by pretending the titles have any bearing on the legal or philosophic…

Software patents are always ridiculous.

I agree - and I have two.

Re: Microsoft sues Salesforce

#44

Post by ZeroGravitas » Wed, May 19, 2010, 12:15 PM UTC

thasmin wrote: post #30

Microsoft says it only uses lawsuits as a last resort when a licensing agreement can't be reached. It sounds like they're trying not to be bad guys, but I read this as Microsoft using lawsuits to force companies to license their patents. I'm not under the illusion that any other company does differently, just commenting on their attempted PR spin.

Yeah, the bully only hits you if you force him to by not handing over your lunch money. He's not really a bad guy.

Re: Microsoft sues Salesforce

#45

Post by Sindisil » Wed, May 19, 2010, 2:04 PM UTC

jcooney wrote: post #34

andreyf wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desktop software will be irrelevant shortly Shortly? To me, it's pretty damned irrelevant now.

Unless it runs on OSX, in which case it's cool and edgy, right?..right?

No, unless it runs on iP* OS.

Re: Microsoft sues Salesforce

#46

Post by rbanffy » Wed, May 19, 2010, 3:20 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #40

robryan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a crazy world where a company like microsoft with almost 100000 employees and $58 billion on yearly revenue is dying. Whereas something like Twitter which may have just become profitable with about 150 employees is the future. I guess it depends how you define dying, dying as in no longer being the most influential player in all of computing, probably. Dying as in a failing business with in eventually go bankrup…

Same crazy world where Lotus and Novell died despite massive revenues and lots of employees (if you consider number of employees as a measure of success).

Same crazy world where GM had to receive government support in order not to fail.

There is no mercy for those who make things the market doesn't want.