Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft, Past and Future

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 203 posts

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#11

Post by stormbrew »

gnaffle wrote: post #8
stormbrew wrote: post #4

> No company today has reach or influence anything like what Microsoft had during the golden era of the PC. Not Apple, not Google, and not Microsoft itself. I think Google is pretty close, really. They obviously don't have an operating system for laptops or desktops that everyone uses, but using a computer without Google products is something that people just don't really do anymore. iOS, Android, OSX, Windows, Ubunt…

> Google recognized that the OS doesn't matter anymore and Microsoft continued to believe it was everything. I think they recognize all too well that it matters, which is seen by the massive effort in developing and supporting Android, Chrome OS etc. This is just Googles version of Microsoft giving away IE.

I think they do these projects more out of a concern of being shut out of other OS' the way Netscape was effectively shut out of Windows. And that shows in which of those platforms they've placed the most effort: the one where their competitor is the most likely to shut them out.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#12

Post by tempestn »

This piece seems pretty spot-on all around. That said, I don't know anything about Mr. Nadella, but I have spent a significant chunk of time trying to use the Bing API from the Azure market, as well as competing products from Yahoo and Google. I found the Microsoft API to be significantly behind both competitors in features, performance, documentation, terms of use, and price. Even with Yahoo BOSS using Bing's index, it manages to offer significantly better search features, a lower price, and less restrictive terms. (You can't use the paid Bing search API if you run any ads other than the Bing network!) And neither one holds a candle to Google in most cases.

Anyway, but experience with Azure was deep rather than broad, but it was enough to give me a strong belief that if this represents the great hope for Microsoft's future, things aren't looking so bright.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#13

Post by csmithuk »

stormbrew wrote: post #9
csmithuk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

using a computer without Google products is something that people just don't really do anymore This is rather naive. In certain circles yes but by far the majority of people use just their search.

Is there some particular reason to exclude that? Because most of those people who 'just' use their search use their search a lot.

Yes because it is instantly replaceable with nothing more than a meh on the part of the user.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#14

Post by stormbrew »

csmithuk wrote: post #13
stormbrew wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some particular reason to exclude that? Because most of those people who 'just' use their search use their search a lot.

Yes because it is instantly replaceable with nothing more than a meh on the part of the user.

So many people will be so happy to learn how easily people will give up google search. Maybe that's the secret that got Nadella the job? He knows he just has to ask people nicely and they'll all use Bing. No more spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns, silly Balmer.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#16

Post by corresation »

One angle that I expected Microsoft to eventually leverage is playing to their traditional strengths -- diversity, openness, freedom (and what that meant for the platform. GPUs, storage, media -- Microsoft and the Windows platform made that evolution happen): The classic montage through the computer age sort of thing, culminating in the Microsoft platform of today. Instead they fell for the trap of cargo culting off of what Apple was doing, essentially becoming a desperate wannabe, the Microsoft store being the ultimate demonstration of how utterly self-defeating that can be.

Microsoft is still great -- even outside of raw financial might, they continue to make great software and tools (as one aside, it is quite remarkable how enormous of an impact Bill Gate's trustworthy computing manifesto had) -- but from an influence perspective they have had little for quite a few years.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#17

Post by gnaffle »

tempestn wrote: post #12

This piece seems pretty spot-on all around. That said, I don't know anything about Mr. Nadella, but I have spent a significant chunk of time trying to use the Bing API from the Azure market, as well as competing products from Yahoo and Google. I found the Microsoft API to be significantly behind both competitors in features, performance, documentation, terms of use, and price. Even with Yahoo BOSS using Bing's index,…

I think it is spot-on right up to the conclusion, which I disagree with.

> The next ubiquity isn’t running on every device, it’s talking to every device.

I don't see how Gruber can come to this conclusion unless he has suddenly changed position and thinks the open web will eventually win out over native apps.

The problem, of course, is that for a company that wants to be Microsofts size, they _need_ to own the platform, because the platform owners have an incentive to limit their dependence on you and make sure that their cloud services work better on their platform. iMessage and Hangouts? Integrated. Skype? Not so.

The only way to "own" the platform owners is to have an essential, popular product that customers demand. As much as Microsoft would want to, they don't have such a product (perhaps Office in the business market, but that's about it).

Edit: Wanted to add "How Microsoft Lost the API war" which is another interesting take on the platform thing and how Microsoft lost it: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#18

Post by gnaffle »

stormbrew wrote: post #11
gnaffle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google recognized that the OS doesn't matter anymore and Microsoft continued to believe it was everything. I think they recognize all too well that it matters, which is seen by the massive effort in developing and supporting Android, Chrome OS etc. This is just Googles version of Microsoft giving away IE.

I think they do these projects more out of a concern of being shut out of other OS' the way Netscape was effectively shut out of Windows. And that shows in which of those platforms they've placed the most effort: the one where their competitor is the most likely to shut them out.

Exactly.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#19

Post by acqq »

csmithuk wrote: post #7
NDizzle wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to take a hell of a lot from MS in order to have someone like me buy back in. I'll present one of the other perspectives. I was all-Microsoft, from MS DOS up through Windows Server 2003. Late 90s MCSE, nothing but MS. Most of my time was spent building and maintaining NT4.0 installations and then migrating to 2000. I got tired of keeping pace with the amount of changes in all of the services somewhere betw…

I did the opposite. I was a Unix/netware guy for years. Netware fell off a cliff and so did commercial Unix. Left me with Linux and FreeBSD. Whilst I rather like FreeBSD, when I have to throw an architecture together that will survive over a decade, Microsoft wins every time. They're the only company which provides certainty. RedHat are close but their support sucks.

I'm sorry but I just can't believe you're real. Red Hat has the most stable (measued in the years of support without the change in the underlying technologies) OS configurations of all commercial offerings.

What was that that you got better supported from Microsoft than from Red Hat? Specifics please.

Re: Microsoft, Past and Future

#20

Post by csmithuk »

stormbrew wrote: post #14
csmithuk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because it is instantly replaceable with nothing more than a meh on the part of the user.

So many people will be so happy to learn how easily people will give up google search. Maybe that's the secret that got Nadella the job? He knows he just has to ask people nicely and they'll all use Bing. No more spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns, silly Balmer.

Not suggesting Bing. I'm only suggesting "not Google".

Times change. Google's core business doesn't.

Post reply on HN