MS is not dying soon. But it's business model is dead. The way it was making money does not work anymore. The pressure from several sides is pretty high and growing. MS can no longer kill it's competitors in a blink. MS can no longer kill existing superior product by announcing vaporware. MS missed the boat on all new fronts (search engine, Zune, mobile OS). The only more or less successful new product category was the Xbox, but the respective department is still LOOSING money. Windows 7 might be a success (not a flop, that is) but listen to Dell and other PC players! They are no longer Microsoft's slaves, ant that is forever. Currently, the chances [future version of] WinMobile taking the world the way MS wants and claimed it will are as slim as chances of Linux taking over the desktop, and this seems to be the war for the future. So no, MS is not dead yet. And no, MS is not a good investment.
Not to sound nitpicky, but the correct spelling, and the resulting appropriate pronunciation, is Gandhi (an aspirated soft 'd' sound). It's a fairly important distinction (e.g., just as one might typically not pronounce SJ's name as, say, Stefan Jobs).
Right of course. I was being lazy and just typed what was in front of me. The point still stand one hopes.
No, they don't. Apple is in the business of making money (which is does very well), not gaining market share. Apple is doing very well considering the economic climate, much better than competitors, and will most likely continue to grow at a slow but steady pace, all with out sacrificing those healthy margins investors love.
I would of course like to see Apple cut prices across their product lines, but not to the point where they have to sacrifice quality. If they can leverage new technologies, like the unibody manufacturing process, to drive down costs in the long run I'm all for it. But I don't want to see reactionary price cuts that will damage the quality of their products.
I'd actually like to see quality go up, so if they continue to create better and better products, I'm fine with paying the kinds of prices we see now.
Did you miss the news that Apple told MS to stop their laptop hunter commercials because Apple lowered prices on their laptops? Seems to me that means they care about marketshare and that was a pretty reactionary move. All the while they added features.
There's a little thing called buying in bulk. The more product Apple ships the more they can demand better bulk rate component prices. We see that with the iPod and iPhone lines with Apple making long-term component deals with the likes of Samsung and at other times switching component manufacturers completely. Marketshare matters because it drives prices down. Lower prices on quality goods drives marketshare. If it ain't quality no body will buy at the lowered prices at least en masse.
The Mac Mini is $100 too expensive. The Mac Pro is several hundred too expensive and the iMac is long-in-the-tooth - meaning the price should have come way down by now. Is it any wonder that Mac desktop sales are lower than notebook sales. Believe it or not many people still prefer the desktop computer. It is just that manufacturers are focusing on the higher margin notebooks and netbooks.
Microsoft should do a desktop hunter series of ads as well and force Apple's hand there as well. You watch, if MS does do that Apple will have a reactionary move there as well.
Just like all of the boring Camrys you guys buy. My plates say it all - MAZDWGN...
Are you actually saying that Mazda/Ford has better quality than Toyota? Get real. Next you will be saying they are better than Honda too.
I think you are confused; "boring" (as you put it) does not equate to mediocre. I traded my Mazda 3 (junk) for a Honda CRV (90,000 miles and noting but standard maintenance) and have never looked back.
No, they don't. Apple is in the business of making money (which is does very well), not gaining market share. Apple is doing very well considering the economic climate, much better than competitors, and will most likely continue to grow at a slow but steady pace, all with out sacrificing those healthy margins investors love.
I would of course like to see Apple cut prices across their product lines, but not to the point where they have to sacrifice quality. If they can leverage new technologies, like the unibody manufacturing process, to drive down costs in the long run I'm all for it. But I don't want to see reactionary price cuts that will damage the quality of their products.
I'd actually like to see quality go up, so if they continue to create better and better products, I'm fine with paying the kinds of prices we see now.
Well said.
Hopefully Apple will keep working toward ensuring that those involved in putting their products together are provided a fair wage and working conditions too.
Are you actually saying that Mazda/Ford has better quality than Toyota? Get real. Next you will be saying they are better than Honda too.
I think you are confused; "boring" (as you put it) does not equate to mediocre. I traded my Mazda 3 (junk) for a Honda CRV (90,000 miles and noting but standard maintenance) and have never looked back.
and I've been spending close to $1000-$1400 a year to fix a peice of crap 2003 Honda Accord V6 and my last straw was a bad transmission and $2500 later where American Honda picked up only 25% of that bill. Honda ain't all that great just because you decide so. Clunkers come in all forms including Honda where I will never look back. You should read about all the brake problems on all 2008/09 Accords as well.... Honda says it's acceptable to replace brakes every 12K miles at $400 a job. Just fyi....
Will people stop comparing cars to Microsoft and Apple already to make a silly point.
Are you actually saying that Mazda/Ford has better quality than Toyota? Get real. Next you will be saying they are better than Honda too.
I think you are confused; "boring" (as you put it) does not equate to mediocre. I traded my Mazda 3 (junk) for a Honda CRV (90,000 miles and noting but standard maintenance) and have never looked back.
Toyota Camry
A perfect vehicle for people who have zero interest in automobiles and driving them. They just want to get to places and I'm fine with that. The car does last forever and is dependable as brick.
My gripe is that Camry drivers' in general tend to drive 5 mph under the speed limit, stop for no apparent reason and haven't a clue how to operate turn signals. For some odd reason they also leave 7 car lengths in front of them in stop-and-go traffic which leaves plenty of room for other drives to cut in front of them.
Now back to our normally scheduled discussion on computers.
Why isn't anyone talking about MS's plans to offer Office via the web?
Ok, these are not particularly swift reactions by Microsoft, but they could be very appropriate.
If there's anything that Microsoft doesn't need to survive and maybe even grow, that is swiftness.
My opinion is that Apple, Google and Microsoft each have business models that are so completely different from eachother (in terms of target market, ways to be profitable, etc), that it makes no sense to predict the profitability of one by how successful the other two are.
Microsoft's profitability lies in serving the corporate market.
If there's one threat to their position there, it's the slowness, rigidity and complexity of MS Outlook. Outlook is one big, tedious, confusing hell. Our company relies on it and we don't have the time or the money to replace it. Ok we're not a corporation - we're small. But still.
there are increasing signs that the beginning of the end of microsoft's monopolistic dominance of the industry has started. but it's going to take a LONG time. the majority of the world's computer users aren't even aware that there is a separation between computer use and microsoft. for them computer = windows, web browser = internet explorer, word processor = word. it wasn't like this for a long time, but MS were allowed to take a vice-like grip over the industry. i would suggest that ending this would require banning commercial software from schools and raising children on open source, linux/open office sort of stuff. that way they will be just as able to use windows, but will be aware of the alternatives and not brainwashed into being another generation of loyal MS customers
MS has no threat of losing their majority dominance with their OS. Even when ChromeOS running on very simpler devices does quickly outgrow other OSes it will still maintain it?s dominance overall and in businesses for a long time to come. MS also won?t be closing its door anytime soon yet I?m sure some will interpret this article as proof of that very occurrence being right around the corner.
Just like the "Apple is doomed" crowd likes to say all the time. Any day now.
Redmond hasn't done a single thing right since Bill Gates retired and Steve (the fratboy/Bozo) Ballmer took the helm.
I shorted MS last month and am delighted analysts are now following my put.
Bill gates was the tech guy and did some programming. Ballmer was an MBA. He went to harvard business at the same time as cramer and the former ny governor were at harvard law school
Why isn't anyone talking about MS's plans to offer Office via the web?
Ok, these are not particularly swift reactions by Microsoft, but they could be very appropriate.
If there's anything that Microsoft doesn't need to survive and maybe even grow, that is swiftness.
My opinion is that Apple, Google and Microsoft each have business models that are so completely different from eachother (in terms of target market, ways to be profitable, etc), that it makes no sense to predict the profitability of one by how successful the other two are.
Microsoft's profitability lies in serving the corporate market.
If there's one threat to their position there, it's the slowness, rigidity and complexity of MS Outlook. Outlook is one big, tedious, confusing hell. Our company relies on it and we don't have the time or the money to replace it. Ok we're not a corporation - we're small. But still.
Once ms and google go at each other in each others business it's all over for the stocks. No growth and just pinching each others customers. Like the cell phone companies. I'm not excited by windows 7 or SL
Why isn't anyone talking about MS's plans to offer Office via the web?
Ok, these are not particularly swift reactions by Microsoft, but they could be very appropriate.
If there's anything that Microsoft doesn't need to survive and maybe even grow, that is swiftness.
My opinion is that Apple, Google and Microsoft each have business models that are so completely different from eachother (in terms of target market, ways to be profitable, etc), that it makes no sense to predict the profitability of one by how successful the other two are.
Microsoft's profitability lies in serving the corporate market.
If there's one threat to their position there, it's the slowness, rigidity and complexity of MS Outlook. Outlook is one big, tedious, confusing hell. Our company relies on it and we don't have the time or the money to replace it. Ok we're not a corporation - we're small. But still.
Office 2010 64bit is 2x better atleast in performance. I am using it (tech preview) and imap performance and general performance rocks.
I think Bill Gates leaving is the best thing they could have ever done. Windows 7 is proof of that. It frees up microsoft for new blood and they can try things that they would have never tried with Bill Gates there.
Like I stated before for corporate anyway windows 7 is much much much better then Vista. Apple has a long way to go in this regard because of one thing , Group Policy.
PS I would love to have an al lmac network but group policy missing is the main reason why. (i wish apple and microsoft can get together and work out away for a windows server to have group policy like control over a mac osx desktop)
[QUOTE=solipsism;1450054]MS has no threat of losing their majority dominance with their OS. Even when ChromeOS running on very simpler devices does quickly outgrow other OSes it will still maintain it?s dominance overall and in businesses for a long time to come. MS also won?t be closing its door anytime soon yet I?m sure some will interpret this article as proof of that
Ageed.
And msft can still make a ton of money by wholesale labour cuts and tread water with its software .
The software they make costs very little to make or maintain. So say what you will they will make a high profit with a lowering overhead for yrs to come .
Also with there installed base of hundreds of millions of clients, guarantees a large migration to whatever smaller window run devices ie net-books and such. X-box may have some surprises coming soon.
Comments
MS is not dying soon. But it's business model is dead. The way it was making money does not work anymore. The pressure from several sides is pretty high and growing. MS can no longer kill it's competitors in a blink. MS can no longer kill existing superior product by announcing vaporware. MS missed the boat on all new fronts (search engine, Zune, mobile OS). The only more or less successful new product category was the Xbox, but the respective department is still LOOSING money. Windows 7 might be a success (not a flop, that is) but listen to Dell and other PC players! They are no longer Microsoft's slaves, ant that is forever. Currently, the chances [future version of] WinMobile taking the world the way MS wants and claimed it will are as slim as chances of Linux taking over the desktop, and this seems to be the war for the future. So no, MS is not dead yet. And no, MS is not a good investment.
Not to sound nitpicky, but the correct spelling, and the resulting appropriate pronunciation, is Gandhi (an aspirated soft 'd' sound). It's a fairly important distinction (e.g., just as one might typically not pronounce SJ's name as, say, Stefan Jobs).
Right of course. I was being lazy and just typed what was in front of me. The point still stand one hopes.
No, they don't. Apple is in the business of making money (which is does very well), not gaining market share. Apple is doing very well considering the economic climate, much better than competitors, and will most likely continue to grow at a slow but steady pace, all with out sacrificing those healthy margins investors love.
I would of course like to see Apple cut prices across their product lines, but not to the point where they have to sacrifice quality. If they can leverage new technologies, like the unibody manufacturing process, to drive down costs in the long run I'm all for it. But I don't want to see reactionary price cuts that will damage the quality of their products.
I'd actually like to see quality go up, so if they continue to create better and better products, I'm fine with paying the kinds of prices we see now.
Did you miss the news that Apple told MS to stop their laptop hunter commercials because Apple lowered prices on their laptops? Seems to me that means they care about marketshare and that was a pretty reactionary move. All the while they added features.
There's a little thing called buying in bulk. The more product Apple ships the more they can demand better bulk rate component prices. We see that with the iPod and iPhone lines with Apple making long-term component deals with the likes of Samsung and at other times switching component manufacturers completely. Marketshare matters because it drives prices down. Lower prices on quality goods drives marketshare. If it ain't quality no body will buy at the lowered prices at least en masse.
The Mac Mini is $100 too expensive. The Mac Pro is several hundred too expensive and the iMac is long-in-the-tooth - meaning the price should have come way down by now. Is it any wonder that Mac desktop sales are lower than notebook sales. Believe it or not many people still prefer the desktop computer. It is just that manufacturers are focusing on the higher margin notebooks and netbooks.
Microsoft should do a desktop hunter series of ads as well and force Apple's hand there as well. You watch, if MS does do that Apple will have a reactionary move there as well.
Did you miss the news that Apple told MS to stop their laptop hunter commercials because Apple lowered prices on their laptops?
Did you miss the part where it was some guy from Microsoft making this claim? Kind of deletes the word "news" from the thing.
Seems like a double standard to me...
Just like all of the boring Camrys you guys buy. My plates say it all - MAZDWGN...
Are you actually saying that Mazda/Ford has better quality than Toyota? Get real. Next you will be saying they are better than Honda too.
I think you are confused; "boring" (as you put it) does not equate to mediocre. I traded my Mazda 3 (junk) for a Honda CRV (90,000 miles and noting but standard maintenance) and have never looked back.
Same goes for Windows immobile.
No, they don't. Apple is in the business of making money (which is does very well), not gaining market share. Apple is doing very well considering the economic climate, much better than competitors, and will most likely continue to grow at a slow but steady pace, all with out sacrificing those healthy margins investors love.
I would of course like to see Apple cut prices across their product lines, but not to the point where they have to sacrifice quality. If they can leverage new technologies, like the unibody manufacturing process, to drive down costs in the long run I'm all for it. But I don't want to see reactionary price cuts that will damage the quality of their products.
I'd actually like to see quality go up, so if they continue to create better and better products, I'm fine with paying the kinds of prices we see now.
Well said.
Hopefully Apple will keep working toward ensuring that those involved in putting their products together are provided a fair wage and working conditions too.
Are you actually saying that Mazda/Ford has better quality than Toyota? Get real. Next you will be saying they are better than Honda too.
I think you are confused; "boring" (as you put it) does not equate to mediocre. I traded my Mazda 3 (junk) for a Honda CRV (90,000 miles and noting but standard maintenance) and have never looked back.
and I've been spending close to $1000-$1400 a year to fix a peice of crap 2003 Honda Accord V6 and my last straw was a bad transmission and $2500 later where American Honda picked up only 25% of that bill. Honda ain't all that great just because you decide so. Clunkers come in all forms including Honda where I will never look back. You should read about all the brake problems on all 2008/09 Accords as well.... Honda says it's acceptable to replace brakes every 12K miles at $400 a job. Just fyi....
Will people stop comparing cars to Microsoft and Apple already to make a silly point.
Are you actually saying that Mazda/Ford has better quality than Toyota? Get real. Next you will be saying they are better than Honda too.
I think you are confused; "boring" (as you put it) does not equate to mediocre. I traded my Mazda 3 (junk) for a Honda CRV (90,000 miles and noting but standard maintenance) and have never looked back.
Toyota Camry
A perfect vehicle for people who have zero interest in automobiles and driving them. They just want to get to places and I'm fine with that. The car does last forever and is dependable as brick.
My gripe is that Camry drivers' in general tend to drive 5 mph under the speed limit, stop for no apparent reason and haven't a clue how to operate turn signals. For some odd reason they also leave 7 car lengths in front of them in stop-and-go traffic which leaves plenty of room for other drives to cut in front of them.
Now back to our normally scheduled discussion on computers.
Why isn't anyone talking about MS's plans to offer Office via the web?
Ok, these are not particularly swift reactions by Microsoft, but they could be very appropriate.
If there's anything that Microsoft doesn't need to survive and maybe even grow, that is swiftness.
My opinion is that Apple, Google and Microsoft each have business models that are so completely different from eachother (in terms of target market, ways to be profitable, etc), that it makes no sense to predict the profitability of one by how successful the other two are.
Microsoft's profitability lies in serving the corporate market.
If there's one threat to their position there, it's the slowness, rigidity and complexity of MS Outlook. Outlook is one big, tedious, confusing hell. Our company relies on it and we don't have the time or the money to replace it. Ok we're not a corporation - we're small. But still.
Why is it that when these "experts" speak ill of Apple, they are vilified, but when they speak badly of MS it is okay?
Seems like a double standard to me...
Microsoft is always vilified on AI, this is nothing new.
MS has no threat of losing their majority dominance with their OS. Even when ChromeOS running on very simpler devices does quickly outgrow other OSes it will still maintain it?s dominance overall and in businesses for a long time to come. MS also won?t be closing its door anytime soon yet I?m sure some will interpret this article as proof of that very occurrence being right around the corner.
Just like the "Apple is doomed" crowd likes to say all the time. Any day now.
Why is it that when these "experts" speak ill of Apple, they are vilified, but when they speak badly of MS it is okay?
Seems like a double standard to me...
For the same reason Apple is vilified on sites like C|net. Depends on whose Ox is getting gored.
Redmond hasn't done a single thing right since Bill Gates retired and Steve (the fratboy/Bozo) Ballmer took the helm.
I shorted MS last month and am delighted analysts are now following my put.
Bill gates was the tech guy and did some programming. Ballmer was an MBA. He went to harvard business at the same time as cramer and the former ny governor were at harvard law school
Why has Windows 7 not been mentioned yet?
Why isn't anyone talking about MS's plans to offer Office via the web?
Ok, these are not particularly swift reactions by Microsoft, but they could be very appropriate.
If there's anything that Microsoft doesn't need to survive and maybe even grow, that is swiftness.
My opinion is that Apple, Google and Microsoft each have business models that are so completely different from eachother (in terms of target market, ways to be profitable, etc), that it makes no sense to predict the profitability of one by how successful the other two are.
Microsoft's profitability lies in serving the corporate market.
If there's one threat to their position there, it's the slowness, rigidity and complexity of MS Outlook. Outlook is one big, tedious, confusing hell. Our company relies on it and we don't have the time or the money to replace it. Ok we're not a corporation - we're small. But still.
Once ms and google go at each other in each others business it's all over for the stocks. No growth and just pinching each others customers. Like the cell phone companies. I'm not excited by windows 7 or SL
Why has Windows 7 not been mentioned yet?
Why isn't anyone talking about MS's plans to offer Office via the web?
Ok, these are not particularly swift reactions by Microsoft, but they could be very appropriate.
If there's anything that Microsoft doesn't need to survive and maybe even grow, that is swiftness.
My opinion is that Apple, Google and Microsoft each have business models that are so completely different from eachother (in terms of target market, ways to be profitable, etc), that it makes no sense to predict the profitability of one by how successful the other two are.
Microsoft's profitability lies in serving the corporate market.
If there's one threat to their position there, it's the slowness, rigidity and complexity of MS Outlook. Outlook is one big, tedious, confusing hell. Our company relies on it and we don't have the time or the money to replace it. Ok we're not a corporation - we're small. But still.
Office 2010 64bit is 2x better atleast in performance. I am using it (tech preview) and imap performance and general performance rocks.
I think Bill Gates leaving is the best thing they could have ever done. Windows 7 is proof of that. It frees up microsoft for new blood and they can try things that they would have never tried with Bill Gates there.
Like I stated before for corporate anyway windows 7 is much much much better then Vista. Apple has a long way to go in this regard because of one thing , Group Policy.
PS I would love to have an al lmac network but group policy missing is the main reason why. (i wish apple and microsoft can get together and work out away for a windows server to have group policy like control over a mac osx desktop)
Ageed.
And msft can still make a ton of money by wholesale labour cuts and tread water with its software .
The software they make costs very little to make or maintain. So say what you will they will make a high profit with a lowering overhead for yrs to come .
Also with there installed base of hundreds of millions of clients, guarantees a large migration to whatever smaller window run devices ie net-books and such. X-box may have some surprises coming soon.
9
Why is it that when these "experts" speak ill of Apple, they are vilified, but when they speak badly of MS it is okay?
Seems like a double standard to me...
Well, the partisanship of this audience is right there in the URL, innit?