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

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#81

Post by Lewisham »

chrismealy wrote: post #17
encoderer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the nature of the game; loss on the razors (consoles), profit on the blades (game licenses).

Microsoft ate a huge amount of cash to push Sony into a game they thought Sony wouldn't win: they invested heavily in the Xbox being a software hub that connected with media over the Internet. I would argue they were pretty much successful.

The belief is that 360 launched with HD-DVD not because Microsoft didn't think Blu-Ray was a worse bet, but because Microsoft wanted to delay HD physical media long enough for digital distribution to take hold. They made a huge loss on marketing and manufacturing a losing piece of hardware, but like I said, it probably worked.

So, by the games Microsoft was playing, I would say they view Xbox as a major success.

They are now making a profit [1], but the cyclical nature of console lifespans means money is now going to have to get sunk into R&D then the marketing of a new console, which will push profits down in about 2-3 years. I'd also expect the WP7 push to eat up revenue as well.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-op...

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#82

Post by enjalot »

ardit33 wrote: post #52
jdp23 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true -- in fact Microsoft's values include being self-critical, but not being self-aware. Also, it's a very competitive culture, and the easiest way to show you're smarter/better/more powerful than somebody else is to attack them. The net result is that it's an incredibly negative culture, and it really affects people both on the professional and personal side.

Seems to be a Seattle thing. I feel Amazon has a similar culture too. Or perhaps it is just a big company problem. When the two ways to get ahead is: 1. Do something and brag as much as you can about it (shameless self promotion) 2. Criticize everything about everybody around you, even for the most minute details (make your self look good, by putting down everybody else ideas or way to do things). Not helpful behavio…

there are two ways to build the tallest building; build it higher, or destroy the buildings around you

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#83

Post by ankimal »

Even 3 years later, this is still true. The only thing MS has is Windows and Office (the only MS product, in my opinion that is real quality). MS will not die but will become irrelevant. The way they kept jacking up PC hardware requirements for Windows, Internet bandwidths will keep becoming bigger and better and "thick" clients will become irrelevant. Everything eventually will be on the web and that day is sooner than we think it is. (For some its already here)

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#84

Post by corin_ »

kingsidharth wrote: post #27

> I know they seemed dangerous as late as 2001, because I wrote an essay then about how they were less dangerous than they seemed. Didn't get it. They seemed dangerous because Paul wrote an essay?

The 'because' refers not to them seeming dangerous, but to his knowing, in 2007, that they did seem dangerous in 2001.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#85

Post by ankimal »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #31
AlexC04 wrote: post #25

According to analytics, I've had 20,000 hits to my website in the last 30 days. 75% of those are reported to be running a windows operating system. As much as I respect the interesting point of view presented in the article, I sometimes wonder if sites like Hacker News and Slashdot don't put us all into some sort of exceptionally nerdy bubble-think. Like with the last week or so when everything I read seemed to say "…

There's certainly some truth to what you say but I'd encourage you to look at the context of the conversation here. pg's blog and Hacker News appeal to people who are generally looking at the world from one of two perspectives: investing or as a startup. Keeping that in mind shapes the conversation differently In Microsoft's case I can absolutely see how 75% of the people visiting your website might be Windows Comput…

We switched an entire team of about 10 people to Ubuntu just because we couldnt afford to buy any more Windows licenses. The only thing the team missed was Office and had a few issues with audio/video plugins for the browser which we solved mostly without any headaches. They re now happily using Google docs and Open Office.

Unfortunately, we are a race of habit and being served tea instead of coffee every morning is gonna piss us off but eventually we ll get over it.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#86

Post by dgudkov »

nivertech wrote: post #66
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.

This isn't true for IBM. In 2009 IBM's revenue from hardware was less than 17% from total revenue.

http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2009/2009_ibm_annual.pdf

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#87

Post by oiuyuikuhygt »

alexqgb wrote: post #64
kenjackson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

It's because in large companies you don't get promoted (and so more money, escape the next redundancy axe) by producing good stuff but by being ranked higher than everyone else on your grade.

So you do this by pointing out to your manager all the good things you have done and shooting down anything anyone else does - since everybody knows this and everybody does it you have a catastrophic situation.

Ultimately the only solution if to have them crash their cars into each on the way to work to decide who gets the corner office (gratuitous Richard Morgan link)

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#88

Post by mikeklaas »

ankimal wrote: post #85
TomOfTTB wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's certainly some truth to what you say but I'd encourage you to look at the context of the conversation here. pg's blog and Hacker News appeal to people who are generally looking at the world from one of two perspectives: investing or as a startup. Keeping that in mind shapes the conversation differently In Microsoft's case I can absolutely see how 75% of the people visiting your website might be Windows Comput…

We switched an entire team of about 10 people to Ubuntu just because we couldnt afford to buy any more Windows licenses. The only thing the team missed was Office and had a few issues with audio/video plugins for the browser which we solved mostly without any headaches. They re now happily using Google docs and Open Office. Unfortunately, we are a race of habit and being served tea instead of coffee every morning is…

I would seriously rather switch OS's than switch to tea from coffee :)

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#89

Post by Someone »

Jeema3000 wrote: post #40
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…

Yes, you're correct, and that's how it should be for any successful technology company I think: they should have their legacy products which may or may not be fading into irrelevance, and their new stuff which embraces the future. There's nothing wrong with that, though. No aspect of technology remains dominant forever and the web is not the end-all of computing, just as the mainframe and the desktop were not the end…

I agree with that. However, Microsoft's problem is that the volume of its new products is too low relative to the volume of its established products.

It is a bit like population pyramids; every country has one, but some are signs of (future) population decreases. Microsoft's, according to one viewpoint, looked like it was on track to expand forever and occupy the whole world (oops; mixing metaphors here), but now looks as if it will/already has reached a plateau, or even will/already has started shrinking/collapsing (there are many variations here; I think they still have chances to win big in another field (for example, XBox or .NET seen as 25-year investments may turn out to be huge cash cows) but I doubt whether that 'big' will be big relative to their current size.

Re: Microsoft is Dead

#90

Post by rbanffy »

patrickk wrote: post #8

I remember reading somewhere that IBM makes something like $8bn per year still from mainframe computer sales. If IBM are doing that - two major computer architecture iterations along the line - (client-server and now cloud coming along), then that bodes well for Microsoft's survival, but perhaps not their relevance. Startups aren't going to go after highly conservative organisations like banks who won't risk changing…

> like banks who won't risk changing from mainframes for no obvious gain. So there will be a market for Microsoft technologies

Comparing Microsoft products with the kind of reliability banks require from mainframes misses the point. No product Microsoft offers can match 5 nines outside a controlled environment (and most probably, neither inside one)

Post reply on HN