# Microsoft is a dying consumer brand



## win2kpro (Jul 19, 2005)

By David Goldman, staff writerOctober 27, 2010: 5:23 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Consumers have turned their backs on Microsoft. A company that once symbolized the future is now living in the past.

Microsoft has been late to the game in crucial modern technologies like mobile, search, media, gaming and tablets. It has even fallen behind in Web browsing, a market it once ruled with an iron fist.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/27/technology/microsoft_pdc/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

I stopped using ALL Microsoft products in 2004 when I switched to Linux.


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

I can't help noticing that there's no mention of Office.


----------



## win2kpro (Jul 19, 2005)

I started following this blog during the developement stage of Longhorn (Vista). Since the posts are primarily from MS employees you can get a true picture of what is actually taking place at MS rather than reading the "spin" the company releases.

http://minimsft.blogspot.com/


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

I don't buy it. 

1) MS is so entrenched in the enterprise that not only businesses, but consumers cannot escape easily.

Active Directory, domains, Exchange, Sharepoint, Office, Windows Phone 7, Server, Windows... these are what business user need to function now, and I doubt that will change. I will use at work what works best for the business, and most likely use at home what works with everything!

My home has Linux sure, but it does not replace Windows, nor my Zune and XBox.


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

But isn't that what they're saying? Microsoft will remain a business supplier for ages, but its days of producing for the average technology user are numbered to say the least.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

AD -> ???
domains -> Apache/Linux
Exchange -> gmail & Google Docs
Sharepoint -> Google Docs
Office -> OpenOffice.org
Windows Phone 7 -> iPhone, Android, Blackberry
Server -> Apache

I don't see any reason to use Microsoft, almost everything you listed has an alternative product out there.


----------



## Ent (Apr 11, 2009)

> I don't see any reason to use Microsoft, almost everything you listed has an alternative product out there.


The assumption being that said alternative products are superior to the Microsoft one, which is not inherently true. Without backing it up, you might as well say there are Microsoft alternatives for all of the mentioned solutions, so why use Apache, OOo, etc?


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

Ent said:


> The assumption being that said alternative products are superior to the Microsoft one, which is not inherently true. Without backing it up, you might as well say there are Microsoft alternatives for all of the mentioned solutions, so why use Apache, OOo, etc?


In my opinion, Apache servers are a bit quicker than IIS servers. (webpages tend to load faster)
Also, I just mentioned OOo because it's cross-platform, but actually if you want an office suite that beats MS Office hands down, I would have to say it's Apple's iWork. I have used both MS Office and iWork for years, and can say with all certainty that iWork is lightyears ahead of MS Office.


----------



## SevenUp132 (Oct 22, 2010)

"Windows Phone 7 is a good start. Internet Explorer 9 has some exciting new features that other browsers lack. And Xbox's controllerless Kinect -- the first of its kind -- is coming this holiday season."

At least now they are forced to make good products! i mean xp pre sp1 was crap.. same for vista... xbox= fail and firsts xbox360 had problems, the other generation seems to be okay!
i hope they did their homework and learned to get rid of bugs before launching their products!!
thats seriously the biggest problem of MS!


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Ent said:


> But isn't that what they're saying? Microsoft will remain a business supplier for ages, but its days of producing for the average technology user are numbered to say the least.


That is what they are saying, but thats what I am saying is wrong. People generally use at home what they use at work. There are exceptions, but most baby boomers for example have a PC because they know it from work, or school or whatever got them using a computer in the first place.



namenotfound said:


> AD -> ???
> domains -> Apache/Linux
> Exchange -> gmail & Google Docs
> Sharepoint -> Google Docs
> ...


Yes, Apache and Linux can replace some functionality, and some of it very well. But I think there is a huge cost difference between maintaining those MS Enterprise environments and moving or starting Apache/ Linux. In my experience a Linux Admin is worth considerably more then a MS admin. There are less Linux / Unix admins, more flavors of the OSs, and depending on backing less support. Red Hat of course is one exception in the Linux world.

Exchange -> gmail & Google Docs
Sharepoint -> Google Docs
Office -> OpenOffice.org

Not for a serious business.
Open Office might get you some interoperability, but it is also crap. Java is slow, and OoO is clunky. Office is across the board the best Office suite in every comparison I have ever heard of or seen.
Gmail, google docs... nice for a home user. In an enterprise though: You have next to no support if something goes wrong, and you add layers of breaks. Everything is in the cloud, and you have zero access. You have zero say in security, and you have no logging. What you gain: Google's infrastructure, a reliance on an always present internet connection. What you lose is everything you need in an enterprise. You need top notch security, access to the box, and the ability to work in some form when there is a problem. If your internet should somehow fail is it reasonable to stop working on a proposal in Word? If MS ever gets their cloud docs moving at full speed then I see no room at all for Google Docs, Lotus may have a better chance of gaining that market share.

Windows Phone 7 -> iPhone, Android, Blackberry
Blackberry is the only true Enterprise device here. I love Android... but its security is also sub-par. 2.2 broke many features needed for an Enterprise. I hope it gets fixed, but its not today. Apple has proven they don't care about security, and it will probably never fit the bill. Just as the Apple PCs have never been suited for a business machine, they will remain niche consumer devices.

Windows Phone 7 however has the ability to overcome RIM and best all of the devices. I can see a day when you pull out your Windows Phone 7 device and edit and Excel file from an email in Excel on your phone. Send mail directly through Exchange, and not through RIM and a BES. In fact, there could be no BES. 7 could instead integrate directly into Exchange, and the Exchange Tools could easily have an Active Directory snap-in to allow phone provisioning, mail activation, security, and troubleshooting build into an object. An admin open AD, clicks the 7 tab and wham, bam boom. Phone troubleshot, wiped, reactivated and out the door with out opening another snap-in, website or server directly.


----------



## sockerdudex (Jan 4, 2008)

Yea i mean microsoft started everything but now other companies are taking over while microsoft's innovation runs dry. The vista was mediocre and 7 was decent but these OS seem a bit stuck in the past and other companies are being much more creative, stylish, and featureful with their products. It's only a matter of time before apple and other companies catch up in productivity and then things will change for sure.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

sockerdudex said:


> Yea i mean microsoft started everything ...


What did Microsoft actually start?

Xerox invented the Graphical User Interface (GUI).
Apple invented the first [usable] personal computer.
IBM had pretty much all of the business-class computer market.

1st point: If Apple didn't start making personal computer, and having them become popular, IBM wouldn't have gotten into the business of making their own personal computer.

2nd point: IBM didn't hire Microsoft to make an operating system for them until they decided to build personal computers.

3rd point: Microsoft didn't invent the operating system they licensed to IBM (which was DOS), they instead bought it from a hobbyist who invented it.

4th point: If Xerox didn't invent the GUI, then there would be no Windows (because Windows is a GUI OS)

So how did Microsoft start everything?


----------



## Stisfa (Nov 13, 2009)

win2kpro said:


> By David Goldman, staff writerOctober 27, 2010: 5:23 AM ET
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Consumers have turned their backs on Microsoft. A company that once symbolized the future is now living in the past.
> 
> ...


Microsoft's was never late for this: HPC.

In fact, Microsoft doesn't really exist in the HPC world.

I realize this discussion is aimed at the consumer side of things, with a slight tangent on the commercial aspects, as other posts have demonstrated, but I can't help myself: Linux is the predominant component for HPC.

Call me ignorant, but I have yet to hear of an M$ OS scaling for IBM's Roadrunner .

Yes, I'm slightly digressing here, so I'll quote "namenotfound" so that I can segue back into the conversation at hand:



namenotfound said:


> So how did Microsoft start everything?


It is undisputable that Microsoft did not really "start everything", rather, Bill Gates was an opportunist and took advantage of the plays that many of the other companies made. In fact, Bill Gates played his cards so well, he's reached his goal of 'a computer in every home [in the Developed World]'. Regardless of whether one loves or hates Microsoft and it's products, it's thanks to Microsoft's stealing, competing and fighting between Xerox, IBM, Apple and Lotus that's moved computing to where it is today. Is it possible that mainstream computing could be better than it is now?  Yes, but the inverse is an accompanying given.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an M$ fan boy, rather I'm just another person who leverages what is available to me. I love O for it's price point (which is now becoming LibreOffice), but I prefer Microsoft's Office Suite for it's ubiquity, despite the appalling cost. Thunderbird's replaced Outlook, for me. I'm regularly using Linux distros to clean up infected Windows boxes, yet I find myself using Windows 7 Professional at home, albeit, I did completely avoid Vista.

"Rome conquered Greece, but Greece conquered Rome"; Rome's influence is still seen today, beyond that it is but a city in Italy, yet Greece still exists as a culture, a people and a country, a debt-strapped one at that, but it still exists. It's immaterial to me as to whether you see M$ as either Greece or Rome, since it can reflect either entity in the coming future; in my opinion, Microsoft isn't truly dying, rather, I see it being relegated, against it's will, to a different role in the consumer's lifestyle.


----------

