Would like to know if PG's stance on MS has changed
Microsoft is Dead
paulgraham.com
Microsoft is Dead
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#2Microsoft 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.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#31) Yes, it still holds.
2) Don't editorialise the headline. It gives a distinctly Reddit-like feel to the place. The correct way to post this would have been to do an Ask HN and include the link in the body.
3) "How many...?" is obviously a poll question, so create a poll.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#4There 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 the dominant platform to earn a paycheck, thus the dominant platform stays in place.
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.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#5Microsoft 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 crush you?" Nowadays, I imagine they ask that question about Google or Facebook.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#6There 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.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#7Remember 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 desktop PCs and servers and other companies' servers.
IBM is still with us. They're having to reinvent themselves regularly, because the only concept they own is still "Mainframe", and they failed to hold on to "PC". But they're still a huge company selling systems and professional services.
I expect Microsoft to go the same way. There will be significant but dwindling demand for Windows for 30 more years. (But probably not Azure, Windows Mobile, or XBox.) They will stay alive, and even prosper moderately, on that business.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#8I 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 from mainframes for no obvious gain. So there will be a market for Microsoft technologies (their OS and Office in particular) for a long, long time; long after consumers are mainly using Android/Linux/Macintosh-based tablets or other portable devices to do their personal computing.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#9There 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.
There's a format lock-in in place. Microsoft's greatest asset is the fact that it controls the file formats used by business (.doc/.xml, and the new xml based ones aren't better or more open).
This creates a de-facto requirement to buy microsoft software - in many cases you need a copy of MS Office to render or interact with a document in a way they're used to, and all the documents in a company already are in that format, so the path of least resistance is to buy another copy of MS Office.
The web avoids the issue as it embraces non-proprietary formats (or ones that are well understood). Once people get their data in a better place, that's the beginning of the end for MS.
Re: Microsoft is Dead
#10Microsoft 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…
[deleted]