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

Microsoft is Dead (2007)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#161

Post by coldtea »

ksk wrote: post #84
coldtea wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty terrible title considering Xbox 360 had taken off in 2006. Not one mention of Xbox in the whole post, indicating how much PG is out of touch. Yes, clearly he's not a 17-something gamer. He also focused on things that matter. In Microsoft's bottom lime, the Xbox is marginal at best. For ages it has not even be profitable. Every gamer could as well only use an Xbox, and it still wouldn't matter much for the ki…

>To put it in another way. Gaming (put together): not much of an industry, compared to IT/mobile sales. Why are you comparing gaming to IT/mobile? It should be compared to other entertainment industries. It has already surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue in the US ($17bil vs $9bil in 2011). Having a dominant product in the gaming industry begets a lot of influence. Worldwide, The VG industry generates around $70…

>Why are you comparing gaming to IT/mobile? It should be compared to other entertainment industries.

Because we're discussing a company, Microsoft, that has most of its business and revenues in the IT/mobile space and a small part of it in gaming. And I want to see if the gaming market is as large and important as the main market the company is involved in.

>Please explain what you mean..

I mean that even if Microsoft was the most succesful and relevant gaming company in the world, it would still not mean its relevant in the IT space.

And MS's relevance in the IT space (compared to the nineties) is what Paul Graham's post we're discussing is all about.

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#162

Post by teh_klev »

codeulike wrote: post #124
yzzxy wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that just net profit, or does it account for growth? Net profit is not always a good metric for a large company's performance, as there are a lot of incentives to keep that number down and invest money back into the business (such as taxes). Amazon, for example, almost always operates near or at a loss from a quarterly or yearly perspective, but makes huge growth as business.

This Ballmer slide from a few months ago compares Microsoft financials to some of the other big players. https://twitter.com/janettu/status/380824535714377728 Pretty interesting: they are still big, and they are arguably much more diversified than any other the other big players.

"and they are arguably much more diversified than any other the other big players"

"Diversified"...that's the keyword here and I guess the key to their continued success at putting money in the bank.

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#163

Post by yread »

I don't think they are dead. Just look at design. WP7 brought forward the flat style. First everybody laughed at it. Now it's the new hip. iOS got converted into flat. Lots of websites are being redesigned for flat. How many examples of flat design would there be if MS didn't have any mindshare?

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#164

Post by coldtea »

sz4kerto wrote: post #99
coldtea wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty terrible title considering Xbox 360 had taken off in 2006. Not one mention of Xbox in the whole post, indicating how much PG is out of touch. Yes, clearly he's not a 17-something gamer. He also focused on things that matter. In Microsoft's bottom lime, the Xbox is marginal at best. For ages it has not even be profitable. Every gamer could as well only use an Xbox, and it still wouldn't matter much for the ki…

> In Microsoft's bottom lime, the Xbox is marginal at best. In other comments people argue that Microsoft is dead despite their bottom line, because bottom line is not what matters. (pg essentially says the same) Now you say Xbox does not matter because it produces marginal income only?

First, that was said "in other comments" by people other than me. I, for one, think bottom line is part of what matters (just not the most important metric).

Second, no I say Xbox does not matter because not only it produces only marginal income, it belongs to a marginal industry itself.

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#165

Post by rivd »

jader201 wrote: post #139
Thiz wrote: post #137

Microsoft wanted to destroy the web, and they lost. They tried to destroy linux, and they lost. They tried to destroy apple, and they lost. They tried to destroy android, and they lost. That's why we, web, linux, apple, android fans hate microsoft with a passion. While they succeeded in destroying so many other companies and technologies, we were there and we fought those fights. We never forget.

But seriously, aren't all competitors just trying to destroy each other?

You're right of course, but the tactics they used (especially against oss/linux and the web) pissed off a lot of people.

If destroying meant: making yet a better product and marginalizing the competition (with the product or through marketing) it would be business as usual, but it seems microsoft didn't understand that their embrace-extend-extinguish method would backfire in the internet age.

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#166

Post by kbutler »

Paul Graham isn't saying that MSFT isn't a viable, powerful business, just that it no longer has the potential to use technology to change the world.

As a dominant monopolist, MSFT had little incentive to change the world, and as a large, mature company, it is much more likely to be reactive to change than to be the source of change.

There more interesting question to me now is, "Is Apple 'dead'?" Apple has similarly been reacting to change, rather than driving it since the iPad (yes, others may view this differently). Will they be able to create something new and revolutionary? Or will that be left to new, scrappy "startups"?

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#167

Post by cgh »

72deluxe wrote: post #109
gaius wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, there are "forms" (interfaces for entering data) and "reports" (interfaces for extracting data) and that's really it as far as 99% of apps go. Even massively complicated things like Amazon are really just a form for you to say what you want, and a report they run in the warehouse to tell them what to pack. There's nothing to it that would be unfamiliar to a programmer from the '70s.

Even better, Amazon don't need to get a physical report but use hand-held devices. So, clearly the plan is: 1. Write a good database (as Oracle say "the database is the application") 2. Put a dummy interface on it (RESTful HTTP anyone?) 3. Write a native client for each platform (or maybe a web based one if you want endless testing and pain) 4. Profit? (Or perhaps running costs... and no profit) Weirdly, they recycle…

Feels like you've taken the red pill, right? It's the major reason I find web development, particularly front-end stuff, so dull and the hyperbole so grating. I heard and saw all the same stuff from VB developers in 1996.

As you implied, the nitty-gritty is in the db for most applications. And I've come to accept that much of the most interesting and innovative stuff happens in game programming.

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#168

Post by at-fates-hands »

Sometimes I wonder if people who write this stuff actually understand how businesses operate.

Microsoft is dead because of competition? How does that even make sense? Like I've said many times before, competition actually makes a company and their products better, not make them die. MS has had to turn their huge ship around and its a slow process.

Sure, they're making baby steps and getting there, but the hatred for them is beyond what I've seen for other companies. It's not just that they dominated and killed a bunch of competition in the 80's and 90's. Even now with the new products they're bringing to market, people are still hazing them and won't let them get off the mat.

It's almost fashionable these days to hate MS. They can't do mobile like Android and Apple, they can't do cloud stuff like Amazon and Salesforce. .Net is dead, everybody loves Ruby. MS can't do anything right, blah, blah, blah.

Nobody wants to see the small victories, they just want to pile on enough dirt and hope they go away.

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#169

Post by wernercd »

kbutler wrote: post #166

Paul Graham isn't saying that MSFT isn't a viable, powerful business, just that it no longer has the potential to use technology to change the world. As a dominant monopolist, MSFT had little incentive to change the world, and as a large, mature company, it is much more likely to be reactive to change than to be the source of change. There more interesting question to me now is, "Is Apple 'dead'?" Apple has similarly…

Microsoft is Dead! LONG LIVE MICROSOFT!

Apple is Dead! LONG LIVE APPLE!

Re: Microsoft is Dead (2007)

#170

Post by VikingCoder »

Wow, reading an article saying that MSFT is dead, with this line, "And of course Apple has Microsoft on the run in music too, with TV and phones on the way."

ON THE WAY. This article is before the iPhone came to dominate. Wow, did Microsoft miss that boat.

Post reply on HN