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

231–237 of 237 posts

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#231

Post by mixmastamyk »

ghc wrote: post #201
scarface_74 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article is not the greatest citation and is factually wrong. Even the article admitted that It was dubious to think that Microsoft only had such a small share of the “compute” market in 2005. > That Microsoft is dead, killed off by antitrust remedies and the web The slap on the wrist that Microsoft got had nothing to do with them first losing the MP3 player market which led to Apple’s resurgence (remember the pl…

It's true that it's not the best article, but I'm not entirely sure the Goldman Sachs chart should be treated as factually wrong. The article misses that 2005 was the heyday of Blackberry and iPod (iPod sales did something like 10x that year), and it's conceivable that Goldman included those devices as "compute". At worst, it's just shifted for a couple of years. The decoupling of IE from Explorer is what really kill…

Early webcams needed drivers before UVC, proper digital cameras used CF or SD, and often still do.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#232

Post by etothepii »

sylware wrote: post #80
etothepii wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real difference with tech is that this isn't true. If you make something people want you can sell it. When I started our company 4 years ago I'd have considered $1m ARR a massive achievement. Now I'm here in my heart I feel a need to grow and raise or we'll die - but In my head I don't think this is actually true. I don't think there has been a time in human history before where a company of our size (30x median…

This is delusional: If you bother them and you are to follow the basic 'economic rules', you have zero chance. If you want to exist in that case: 1 - you must have the will to resist them (for how long, since they will always be around in some shape due to unlimited funding). 2 - you must have some kind of mechanism to be 'outside of the basic economic rules' (usually subsidies or similar).

Which part is delusional?

Yes most people would struggle to resist a $5m buyout (e.g. Larry and Sergey) but if you had $5m in the bank you would be quite robust in your ability to resist further economic pressure - if you wanted to.

Most 20 year olds can get by on The vast, vast amount of software is unbelievably bad. It does the task it's designed for just barely, the idea there isn't massive opportunity for improvement, fun and profit is patently absurd.

Not sure what part of this is delusional.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#233

Post by DanielHB »

gadders wrote: post #58
DanielHB wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair in 2007 it really did seem like google could completely destroy microsoft monopoly on enterprise software with google docs, google sheets and google workspace. And then they just didn't? They just gave up, only small companies use google workspace these days and excel is as entrenched as ever. I suppose the google meet/google talk/google hangouts explains a lot of why this hypothetical future didn't happen…

Yes, I don't disagree. Microsoft did seem to be going the way of IBM. But yeah, Google had no long term strategy, or ever gave any impression of a road map.

It is funny how it is easier for google to acquire companies than do strategy in-house. Like they buy Youtube and Android and then pump them with resources instead of trying to do in-house.

If they had bought a video-call company instead of doing inhouse with google meet they would probably have monopoly on that too.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#234

Post by sylware »

etothepii wrote: post #232
sylware wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is delusional: If you bother them and you are to follow the basic 'economic rules', you have zero chance. If you want to exist in that case: 1 - you must have the will to resist them (for how long, since they will always be around in some shape due to unlimited funding). 2 - you must have some kind of mechanism to be 'outside of the basic economic rules' (usually subsidies or similar).

Which part is delusional? Yes most people would struggle to resist a $5m buyout (e.g. Larry and Sergey) but if you had $5m in the bank you would be quite robust in your ability to resist further economic pressure - if you wanted to. Most 20 year olds can get by on The vast, vast amount of software is unbelievably bad. It does the task it's designed for just barely, the idea there isn't massive opportunity for improve…

Huh? This is much more complicated than a ridiculous $5m buyout. They will spend you out of business, financially chock you if you follow the 'basic economic rules', they even won't know you exist.

Yes, this is delusional. You would need infinite subsidies, an iron will, hardcore regulation, all that for forever to have a little chance at being significant.

(side note: on HN, many are aware than most software, open source or not, are brain diarrhea).

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#235

Post by [deleted] »

hajile wrote: post #143
pjmlp wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if we are counting only game consoles, now if we count game studios owned by each company, and they earnings across all platforms, it is a complete different picture. Microsoft owns PC, and even Valve has forced to emulate Windows/DirectX to have any games on SteamDeck. The amount of office worker typing Excel sheets on mobile phones is rather tiny.

Even if you look at just computer games, Windows has a smaller share than any time since the 1980s. If you include the massive mobile gaming market, Windows gaming is an even tinier percentage of the overall market (maybe even <10%).

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#236

Post by theragra »

carlosjobim wrote: post #227
theragra wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I live, people buy apple because you can show it off. That's why you see these in cafes and airports.

Of course it's just for showing off, just like carpenters and plumbers buy expensive professional tools to show off. The worst I saw was an office worker who had a comfortable chair, when everybody knows you can work just as well sitting on a cheap stool. Show offs...

If this were true, people who have most money and need tools most would be people buying Apple.

Instead, people take loans to buy Apple to show how cool and rich they are.

Re: Microsoft Is Dead (2007)

#237

Post by JohnHaugeland »

jasode wrote: post #90
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been hearing people say this since this incorrect essay was written almost 20 years ago Microsoft had 74% of the desktop then and has 72% today Microsoft had 0% of hosting then and has the world’s second largest share, 23%, today Microsoft had, in 2007, 18% presence share in console gaming. Today they have 65% They were one of the four tech orgs present at the presidential inauguration They have grown enormously…

>I’ve been hearing people say this since this incorrect essay was written almost 20 years ago Microsoft had [...list of significant statistics...] Whenever someone writes a provocative article about something being "dead" , they are almost always talking about influence and mindshare -- rather than business statistics. Yes, Microsoft is still a huge behemoth being a $3+ trillion cap company with a overwhelming market…

I understood the writer's flourish.

If you want to understand my reaction, take two steps:

1. Note which companies do in fact have mindshare

2. Check which of those are owned by Microsoft

Post reply on HN