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

Microsoft is Dead

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#11

Post by patrickk »

raganwald wrote: post #5
mooism2 wrote: post #2

Microsoft still matter: they control Internet Explorer and they control Windows. If they were to add SNI support to Windows XP, for example, https sites could be hosted more cheaply. But Microsoft is not the monopolist it used to be. PG used "dead" to mean "is not scary any more", not "is slowly going bankrupt". So I think his conclusion still holds.

Absolutely. I think the key point of the article was this phrase: No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous. And I think that's still true, even with the popularity of their latest hand-waving thing. Back in the day, almost everybody writing a business plan had to answer the question: "What will you do if Microsoft decides to cru…

"Nowadays, I imagine they ask that question about Google or Facebook."

Does anyone really think Facebook or Google will really crush them, unless you are targeting their vertical directly or you get unlucky and they move into your niche before you gain a proper foothold? I know YC's Kiko got crushed by Google a few years back, but that seems an exception rather than the rule. It seems those companies are more likely to buy you, if what you are doing would add to their existing services.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#12

Post by kenjackson »

aristidb wrote: post #6
zdw wrote: post #4

There are two Microsofts: - The one that does interesting, innovative stuff but a failure/modest success in the marketplace (online, xbox, sync interface for cars, zune, windows phone 7) - The "legacy" one that makes windows, office, and server apps, which makes a ton on licensing. Nobody likes "legacy" microsoft, and it's the most vulnerable, but also has the most momentum behind them. People develop on or support t…

I like your analysis, but this statement is self-contradictory: "it's the most vulnerable, but also has the most momentum behind them". I think that Windows, Office... is the least vulnerable part of Microsoft, but it's also low-growth.

Office is low growth with respect to percentage growth. It makes massive money now, and needs massive new revenue to grow quickly. With that said, their growth in absolute dollars is money that every other company would love to have, including Apple, Google, and Facebook.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#13

Post by kenjackson »

raganwald wrote: post #5
mooism2 wrote: post #2

Microsoft still matter: they control Internet Explorer and they control Windows. If they were to add SNI support to Windows XP, for example, https sites could be hosted more cheaply. But Microsoft is not the monopolist it used to be. PG used "dead" to mean "is not scary any more", not "is slowly going bankrupt". So I think his conclusion still holds.

Absolutely. I think the key point of the article was this phrase: No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous. And I think that's still true, even with the popularity of their latest hand-waving thing. Back in the day, almost everybody writing a business plan had to answer the question: "What will you do if Microsoft decides to cru…

Actually the climate has fundamentally changed in a way that is even bigger than the article.

Nowadays people no longer generally fear companies at all. In the 80s companies were much more prone to just crush you outright. Now companies "seem" more likely to buy you out. There is a lot more positioning now for acquisition. When I talk to founders they aren't worried about Google or Facebook crushing them, but are more focused on acquisition, even when attacking core businesses like search.

Ppl are no longer not afraid of MS because of something inherent in MS, but because the world has changed.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#14

Post by trotsky »

raganwald wrote: post #5
mooism2 wrote: post #2

Microsoft still matter: they control Internet Explorer and they control Windows. If they were to add SNI support to Windows XP, for example, https sites could be hosted more cheaply. But Microsoft is not the monopolist it used to be. PG used "dead" to mean "is not scary any more", not "is slowly going bankrupt". So I think his conclusion still holds.

Absolutely. I think the key point of the article was this phrase: No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous. And I think that's still true, even with the popularity of their latest hand-waving thing. Back in the day, almost everybody writing a business plan had to answer the question: "What will you do if Microsoft decides to cru…

I think this applies to Microsoft these days as well. With hindsight, it seems like a lot of the anti-Microsoft sentiment that bubbled up in the 90's and persists to this day coincided with their highly predatory business practices.

It always seemed a bit odd when you heard another story of them rifiling through a small startup in "due diligence" only to drop the offer and duplicate in house. In most of those cases the purchase price would have been peanuts to them. I'd say it had more to do with a culture at Microsoft than it did with good business practice. It seems like they realized this and toned down the jackassery.

I'm sure someone can point to some counter examples (every megacorp has to have some) but it's undeniable that things have changed.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#15

Post by encoderer »

zdw wrote: post #4

There are two Microsofts: - The one that does interesting, innovative stuff but a failure/modest success in the marketplace (online, xbox, sync interface for cars, zune, windows phone 7) - The "legacy" one that makes windows, office, and server apps, which makes a ton on licensing. Nobody likes "legacy" microsoft, and it's the most vulnerable, but also has the most momentum behind them. People develop on or support t…

How is xbox and sync only a "modest success"?

Perhaps only in the context of Microsoft where they're not a billion dollar business so therefore their success is "modest."

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#16

Post by TomOfTTB »

kbob wrote: post #7

Remember IBM? From 1960 through ~1985, IBM was the only answer for enterprise computing. And there really wasn't any other kind of computing then. IBM Research did everything from semiconductor research to databases to virtual machines. IBM was the hottest stock in the market in the 1960s, passing $600/share. (That's about $4,000 in today's money.) They eventually faded, as their customers moved to a combination of d…

To me the cogent point is that IBM re-invented itself but only after it broke from a line of internally groomed CEOs leading all the way back to the Watsons. IBM was about to be split into pieces when Lou Gerstner was hired from the outside.

He's the one who saw the advantage in IBM's footprint and the value it could add to a service based business. He's also the one who put an end to several sacred cows like OS/2 and took IBM's focus almost completely off mainframes.

The parallels to Microsoft are actually pretty compelling (For example "Windows Everywhere" is Microsoft's Mainframe imho). I don't think Ballmer has been a bad CEO (like some do) but his time is done. The old tricks aren't working anymore. They need to find someone with a fresh vision if they want to survive.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#17

Post by chrismealy »

encoderer wrote: post #15
zdw wrote: post #4

There are two Microsofts: - The one that does interesting, innovative stuff but a failure/modest success in the marketplace (online, xbox, sync interface for cars, zune, windows phone 7) - The "legacy" one that makes windows, office, and server apps, which makes a ton on licensing. Nobody likes "legacy" microsoft, and it's the most vulnerable, but also has the most momentum behind them. People develop on or support t…

How is xbox and sync only a "modest success"? Perhaps only in the context of Microsoft where they're not a billion dollar business so therefore their success is "modest."

A few years ago I read that xbox had lost $10 billion so far.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#18

Post by wh-uws »

zdw wrote: post #4

There are two Microsofts: - The one that does interesting, innovative stuff but a failure/modest success in the marketplace (online, xbox, sync interface for cars, zune, windows phone 7) - The "legacy" one that makes windows, office, and server apps, which makes a ton on licensing. Nobody likes "legacy" microsoft, and it's the most vulnerable, but also has the most momentum behind them. People develop on or support t…

I feel like products like Windows 7 and the Kinect among other things are a sign of a rally from the Microsoft camp.

Agree / disagree?

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#19

Post by techdmn »

zdw wrote: post #4

There are two Microsofts: - The one that does interesting, innovative stuff but a failure/modest success in the marketplace (online, xbox, sync interface for cars, zune, windows phone 7) - The "legacy" one that makes windows, office, and server apps, which makes a ton on licensing. Nobody likes "legacy" microsoft, and it's the most vulnerable, but also has the most momentum behind them. People develop on or support t…

>Until the PC goes away

I have a sneaking suspicion this may happen much sooner than I initially expected. Currently working on business software for a non-U.S. market, word is that our customers have more smart-phones than PCs.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#20

Post by Matt_Cutts »

I remember when pg first wrote this. A lot of people misunderstood the headline. From the pg's Cliffs notes: "What I meant was not that Microsoft is suddenly going to stop making money, but that people at the leading edge of the software business no longer have to think about them." That's at http://paulgraham.com/cliffsnotes.html

So the two definitions pg gave in 2007 were "You don't have have to be afraid of Microsoft" and the definition above.

Post reply on HN