How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around

But then, maybe I could be wrong a killing could be made selling linux boxes to be servers on the intranets around the world.

[0]: https://www.iis.net/overview

The path is: Network & Internet -> Status -> Network&Sharing center -> -> Wireless properties -> Security -> show characters.

The fastest way to get to that is via a google search: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/find-your-wi-fi-...

I still don't know how you can see the password for a network without being connected to it.

I would really like to agree with that, but no matter how much they screw up, it won't matter if there isn't a viable alternative strategy anyway. With basically all of Big Tech pushing the same way right now, I think the momentum is too much for any of those things to cause a significant change in direction in the near future.

We've already seen some pretty horrendous failures in terms of reliability, privacy and security. Some of them have come from some very big names. And yet so far I see little if any consequence, other than perhaps some regulatory slaps on the wrist. The big customers paying the big bills are still paying, because what choice do they have? It doesn't gain them much to migrate to a competitor that is still pushing in the same basic direction and vulnerable to the same basic threats, and migrations of key software at corporate scale are financially expensive and have timescales measured in years so there's a big incentive to accept the devil you know.

All of the above being said, it still I think reinforces the point that Microsoft's shift from boxed software to services is superbly well done. Whether or not we want that as our future, they've handled the shift toward the current vision of the future well.

Indeed. As I wrote in another comment, it's tough to argue with success. It's unfortunate that Microsoft's success here doesn't necessarily correlate positively with a better experience for the users of Microsoft software, and the lack of competition for the desktop market is going to leave a lot of people and businesses vulnerable to whatever Microsoft decides is best for Microsoft over the next few years.

Of the possible big events you mentioned, I suspect that means regulatory break-up in an attempt to rejuvenate effective competition in the market is the most promising. But I still wouldn't bet on that happening faster than a grass roots effort powered by the kinds of people who believe in things like rights to repair and meaningful online privacy, and who enjoy writing their own software or experimenting with things like 3D printers and Raspberry Pis. A young generation might take a different view of programming and hobbyist hardware than those 20 or 40 years older who have perhaps become too accepting of the way things are. They might be driven by not wanting to feel trapped by big businesses they think aren't acting in their best interests, or perhaps other concerns about longevity and adaptability driven by positive motivations from outside of pure tech fields, such as protecting the environment. Given the right figurehead(s) to lead a movement, I could believe that might actually happen, but probably over the next decade or two more than the next year or two.

In fact according to the CAPM economic model, it is impossible. The assets of the company decrease by the money spent on buybacks, which matches the value of stock bought and destroyed. This should leave the price per remaining stock unchanged.

As for losing out on programmers which (my words) essentially reduce the exponential behavior that tech was experiencing. I'll say this. It is sad. Rent seeking is a typical behavior of any company that gets large.

I'm actually now wondering if something is preventing these companies from growing very fast, like a national actor.

If you look at Amazon, they are in numerous industries and have a little market share of them and are trying to innovate in them. Amazon isn't slowing down either. I find it an interesting case study. Only AWS is helping programmers, many other products are actually against user's interests.

Another case study would be Tesla. They are emerging as a most likely monopoly due to their relentless innovation. But they don't harness community programmers either. I believe this will change overtime, since Musk has said this for many years but I doubt there will be a lot of freedom in their system either.

I want to see a company that is innovative and allowing others to innovate on their platform. It would be very valuable to society if we do this.