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

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#61

Post by dpcan »

nailer wrote: post #50
dpcan wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The date of this article is April 2007. My guess is that it was re-posted here for a some humor or entertainment purposes only. I think everyone knows MS is far from "dead".

I think most people here know that MS is indeed dead in terms of not controlling things anymore (which is exactly what the article stated if you read it). Who cares about browser percentage scores? People stopped making websites for IE-only years ago.

I was replying to the comment which argues MS is not dead because he gets a lot of Windows-based hits on his website.

And, to reply to your reply to my reply, I disagree. Microsoft is very much in control. I think Microsoft is the competitor you always have to worry about which makes them a powerful force, which puts them in control.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#62

Post by klbarry »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #16
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 an…

This is a little off-topic, but I've heard a lot of bad things about Gerstner as well (read the one star reviews on Amazon for his book). It is pretty well accepted that he saved IBM, or is it controversial amongst people in the know?

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#63

Post by Aaronontheweb »

zdw wrote: post #41
brudgers wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Until the PC goes away, and there's a huge shift to do real work off our phones/tablets/other non-legacy devices, MS will most likely be dominant in terms of market share." In the past year with Windows Phone and "the next Windows" support for ARM, they have shown just how competitive they intend to be in those markets. They have spent the last 10 years moving toward hardware independence via .NET, and they are sh…

How portable is .NET? Is it as simple as with Java - ie, the same .jar that has minimal requirements, such as a CLI-only program, can be taken from one platform (say Windows) and run on another (say Mono on Linux) without a recompile? Or is it more complex than that?

.NET compiles everything down to an intermediate language which is then JIT-compiled to assembly - the assembly can either be generic (something that will run across a wide array of Intel 64bit processors, for instance) or it can be something that takes advantage of very specific chip features (like special math instructions or caching features.) Depends on the build instructions you send to the CLR.

I believe the issue with porting is that there's some key components in the .NET framework that rely on the Windows OS kernel behavior and won't play nice with POSIX, but I haven't taken a close enough look under the hood to say that with 100% certainty.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#64

Post by alexqgb »

kenjackson wrote: post #30
jdp23 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this came out I was still at Microsoft with a charter of "game changing strategies". There were (and still are) quite a few things that MS could do to reinvigorate itself, but the corporate culture keeps them from gathering momentum: the company's success came in a PC-oriented world, so they don't think from a phone, device, or web perspective; and the lack of understanding of win/win dynamics (which Google rode…

Jon, as someone from MS (and with great repute), I'd be curious to get your take on something I've heard from ex and current MS employees I talk to regularly. One issue that seems to come up a fair bit (often not directly) is that MS has a hypercritical culture, where there's always a reason NOT do something. Since they had big money makers in Office and Windows, no one really noticed for a long time.. I hear constan…

Why should innovative engineers who cost a lot to hire have to fight so hard in the first place? If out-of-control critics are creating an innovation-hostile environment, shouldn't their aggressive suppression be a basic problem for management? Something like cleaning the toilets and taking out the trash; constant chores that turn into genuine health-hazards if ignored, but easily handled when reduced to systematic housekeeping.

I'm also wondering how many of the accurate "it'll never work" calls are based on internal realities? As in "this awesome tablet won't fly because there's no way the Windows 7 people are going to allow us to create our own dedicated OS."

Also, about the criticism - what form does it take? Does it sound like people saying "Due to my lack of imagination and generally fearful demeanor, I say it can't be done for this BS reason"? Or does it carry the more savvy and well-informed tone of "Doing that at Microsoft will get you killed, and here's where you'll find the bodies to prove it"?

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#65

Post by nailer »

dpcan wrote: post #61
nailer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people here know that MS is indeed dead in terms of not controlling things anymore (which is exactly what the article stated if you read it). Who cares about browser percentage scores? People stopped making websites for IE-only years ago.

I was replying to the comment which argues MS is not dead because he gets a lot of Windows-based hits on his website. And, to reply to your reply to my reply, I disagree. Microsoft is very much in control. I think Microsoft is the competitor you always have to worry about which makes them a powerful force, which puts them in control.

Yep, I thought you were agreeing with him, and that MS was still relevant in 2010.

To your second point: I disagree that Microsoft is the competitor you always have to worry about. They were in 2000. They stopped a long time ago. Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine, we'll leave it at that.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#66

Post by nivertech »

jcfrei wrote: post #53

The perception of who's 'alive' really depends on the perspective. If you're dealing with software solution consultants you can't get around IBM - but if you're a small software developer you might just as well never have heard of them. just for the record, take a look at the revenue and employe numbers to see what has changed since the 1960s (big blue is still on top): IBM $95.75 billion / 399'409 (2009) Microsoft $…

Notice that IBM and Apple revenues are higher, because they selling mostly hardware. MSFT selling mostly software with exception of XBox.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#67

Post by jdp23 »

Lewisham wrote: post #47
jdp23 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this came out I was still at Microsoft with a charter of "game changing strategies". There were (and still are) quite a few things that MS could do to reinvigorate itself, but the corporate culture keeps them from gathering momentum: the company's success came in a PC-oriented world, so they don't think from a phone, device, or web perspective; and the lack of understanding of win/win dynamics (which Google rode…

Isn't this why the stuff out of the Entertainment & Devices division is doing so well? My understanding is that E&D are not as strongly shackled to corporate culture and runs as a semi-autonomous unit making its own decisions, albeit with a healthy cash flow. This is why Xbox has done so well, and Windows Phone 7, for all its critics, is really the epitome of something Microsoft simply couldn't have designed when thi…

Yes, when XBox started out they very intentionally decoupled it from the rest of corporate culture. I'm out of touch with the more recent reorganizations so not sure about where Bing and WP7 are these days, but agree that they're showing positive signs as well.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#68

Post by jdp23 »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #48
jdp23 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this came out I was still at Microsoft with a charter of "game changing strategies". There were (and still are) quite a few things that MS could do to reinvigorate itself, but the corporate culture keeps them from gathering momentum: the company's success came in a PC-oriented world, so they don't think from a phone, device, or web perspective; and the lack of understanding of win/win dynamics (which Google rode…

I feel like I should add that I have a very healthy respect for Microsoft and their continuing influence/power. It's unwise to underestimate Microsoft.

agreed. tens of thousands of committed, passionate, and persistent people -- along with multiple billion-dollar businesses that have held up longer than expected -- mean that they'll continue to be a force to be reckoned with.

that said, Paul was completely right: it's been a long time since they've inspired fear.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#69

Post by nivertech »

What means death of Microsoft? It means fragmentation on the desktop (similar to what we have on the mobile):

  * MacOS X on x86, maybe even desktop version OSX/iOS on ARM?
  * Wintel (Windows on x86), WARM (Windows 8 on ARM)
  * ChromeOS on x86 and on ARM
  * Linux on x86 and ARM (Gnome, KDE, Unity, etc.)
I predict that native desktop software will become more expensive, while generic HTML5 versions will be ad-supported or subscription based. Assuming, that HTML5 family of standards will be fully adopted.

With all these new AppStores and Marketplaces ISVs will be able to save money on marketing and sales, but they will need to spend several times more money on developing for several desktops platforms/CPU architectures.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#70

Post by zmmmmm »

Hov wrote: post #22

I understand he meant that nobody is scared of Microsoft anymore. I guess the question I have is, is there a company that exists that everybody IS scared of? No. So I rather chalk it up to a sign of the times.

As recently as last year I was reasonably scared of Apple because they appeared to be accumulating a market power that was transforming the industry itself into something I didn't like.

Fortunately, however, Google came to the rescue with Android and I'm now far more relaxed about it.

A lot of people claim to be scared of Google though ...

Post reply on HN