The article is from 2007, right in the middle of Ballmer's lead when I think the writing on the wall seemed much different from today. :) Hell, didn't the Microsoft stock take a jump when Ballmer left before investors even knew who'd succeed him?
I think Nadella took Microsoft for a turn no one had expected, especially tackling open source software so differently that they now drive the leading open source hub on the web. Given this, I'd say this article is an interesting historical document that bears little relevance today. It's one that would probably hold true if Microsoft had never reacted and still tried to drive their company mostly through Windows and Office sales.
The one point that I think still stands though is that "No one is afraid of Microsoft anymore" -- this is true especially because they couldn't enter the mobile market like they intended and that's where computing is radiating from today in so many respects (and especially those of which where Microsoft has traditionally often operated in).
A lot of people here are too young to remember the overwhelming influence Microsoft had on the industry. As such they can't grok the intention of the essay.
If Microsoft introduces a new product today, a new browser, a new toolset, a new standard -- even a new OS -- it Just Doesn't Matter to most people. You can be perfectly content ignoring them entirely and if it eventually rises through the market naturally, maybe then give it a bit of attention.
In Microsoft's halcyon -- smaller revenues but exponentially more influence -- Microsoft's every move shifted industries. You'd sign up to every beta program and read every tea leave to know what they'd do before it kills your product or renders your work futile.
> They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous
It's not "unfair" to not match your definition. The author is making the case about a particular definition of a predatory force in software, at large.
There's perhaps an argument that they are dangerous in a way we haven't yet seen, due to their involvement with the US military and the corruption inherent in that terrible choice.
In a sense, they aren't dangerous because you wouldn't dare to compete with them in some areas. Most notably, every freakin business in the world uses their Office Suite and there's no serious competitor. Think about that... software that everyone from college students to accountants to lawyers to investment bankers uses and there's only a single vendor.
In some of their other businesses, I'd argue that they are very scary. If you work at AWS they are a formidable competitor. If you are in the video game industry, they are a behemoth. But very few startups can really compete in this space, other than for the niches.
Microsoft isn't dead, but Windows is. They've allowed the web, and more specifically Chrome, to take over for desktop apps.
On the other hand, Azure is the closest thing to an actual competitor to AWS, and in that sense Microsoft is very much not dead in the sense that pg means it.
"They've allowed the web [...] to take over for desktop apps."
Nope. Once the net became fast and mobile devices became prevalent, it was inevitable.
True, they were late to the game, but they still had enormous piles of cash, existing relationships with virtually all corporations, and a strong brand.
Nadella finally stopped leaving all the money on the table by pushing to embrace open source, web-based apps (Office 365), and Azure, and now Microsoft is back to being the third-largest company by market cap.
How is Windows dead? How else does over a billion people access tools like Chrome and Google Docs, if not through Windows? iPads? Android Tables? Windows don’t have to be the dominant force, they just have to exist as the glue (or foundation) for everything else to work.
>"Microsoft isn't dead, but Windows is. They've allowed the web, and more specifically Chrome, to take over for desktop apps"
Frankly while I do use some web apps / services like Netflix, Amazon store etc. for which web app model is a natural the rest of my the software I use on Windows or Linux is native. The sheer amount of high grade consumer and pro level native applications for Windows is insane. I do not think Windows is even remotely close to being dead.
It's irrelevant for 90% of the users that use a computer to read email, browse facebook, twitter, and dozens of connected apps. I don't think my mom has installed an application in the past 5 years.
My workflow includes locally installed IntelliJ, Confluence, Jira, GitHub Enterprise.
> And somebody on HN told that 90% of the people use Phone/Tablet for those tasks. Not PC.
That too. I also use a browser (or Workday's Android app) to do a lot of things that used to require a physical trip to HR or an unpleasant session with SAP.
A lot of professionals, depending on what area they are in, need to run tools that work best when locally installed (even though I saw some interesting things going on with CAD over web interfaces that'll end up being like Google Docs in terms of collaborating over complex designs). Besides, it makes it possible not to have a ridiculous 17" laptop heavier than most boat anchors and still run the heavy stuff on a beefy server somewhere else. Locally installed software is also a bit of a pain for the user, as they need to jump through different hoops to keep everything up to date, something that is simply not there with web-based software.
When computers got high speed always on connections, distributed computing became the norm. Kind of the same we did with X11 in ages past (and I'd gladly do again - I just love my IBM RS/6000).
I think Nadella took Microsoft for a turn no one had expected, especially tackling open source software so differently that they now drive the leading open source hub on the web. Given this, I'd say this article is an interesting historical document that bears little relevance today. It's one that would probably hold true if Microsoft had never reacted and still tried to drive their company mostly through Windows and Office sales.
The one point that I think still stands though is that "No one is afraid of Microsoft anymore" -- this is true especially because they couldn't enter the mobile market like they intended and that's where computing is radiating from today in so many respects (and especially those of which where Microsoft has traditionally often operated in).
But they're absolutely alive and kicking!