MS has a lot of money and still makes a lot of money. So long as they have excessive resources at their disposal I wouldn't count them out. Well, so long as Ballmer is at the helm I would count them out, but he'll be long gone before the company is in jeopardy of going under.
They are irrelevant in the same way IBM, who also have great resources at their disposal, are irrelevant. Nothing they are doing has any significant effect on the direction of technology, nor has it for at least a decade.
That doesn't mean they'll go out of business, it just means no one cares what they are up to.
And, no, that isn't an inevitable trend, with MS following IBM, and Apple or Google soon to follow them. Although, it is interesting to note that both IBM and MS were hobbled by consent decrees targeted at curbing their monopolistic, anticompetitive excesses. Of major companies that are relevant in tech these days, Google is most likely to end up hobbled by a consent decree for that reason, given the, "take over the world," psychology they share with the Microsoft of old. The psychological and behavioral parallels between MS and Google are striking. One was a classic tragedy in the making, it wouldn't be surprising if the other turns out to be as well.
They are irrelevant in the same way IBM, who also have great resources at their disposal, are irrelevant. Nothing they are doing has any significant effect on the direction of technology, nor has it for at least a decade.
That doesn't mean they'll go out of business, it just means no one cares what they are up to.
And, no, that isn't an inevitable trend, with MS following IBM, and Apple or Google soon to follow them. Although, it is interesting to note that both IBM and MS were hobbled by consent decrees targeted at curbing their monopolistic, anticompetitive excesses. Of major companies that are relevant in tech these days, Google is most likely to end up hobbled by a consent decree for that reason, given the, "take over the world," psychology they share with the Microsoft of old. The psychological and behavioral parallels between MS and Google are striking. One was a classic tragedy in the making, it wouldn't be surprising if the other turns out to be as well.
They are both very much relevant. You can't remove either one of these companies from the world without the world halting. What they don't have is mindshare. That's a society as a whole not caring but they aren't consumer-focused. That's a very different thing from deeming something to have no importance in the world or their area of expertise.
This situation came up today, and made me think of this. If I'm on Google's search engine (at www.google.com), and I search for 'Books', and I don't live under a rock, I'll expect Google to take me to their 'Books' service - it makes logical sense. Now, it's the top result, as it should be, and Amazon, Chapters, and other vendors come up immediately below them. Why shouldn't Google Books be on top on Google.com?
People can always use Bing if they don't want Google's services.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
MS has a lot of money and still makes a lot of money. So long as they have excessive resources at their disposal I wouldn't count them out. Well, so long as Ballmer is at the helm I would count them out, but he'll be long gone before the company is in jeopardy of going under.
They are irrelevant in the same way IBM, who also have great resources at their disposal, are irrelevant. Nothing they are doing has any significant effect on the direction of technology, nor has it for at least a decade.
That doesn't mean they'll go out of business, it just means no one cares what they are up to.
And, no, that isn't an inevitable trend, with MS following IBM, and Apple or Google soon to follow them. Although, it is interesting to note that both IBM and MS were hobbled by consent decrees targeted at curbing their monopolistic, anticompetitive excesses. Of major companies that are relevant in tech these days, Google is most likely to end up hobbled by a consent decree for that reason, given the, "take over the world," psychology they share with the Microsoft of old. The psychological and behavioral parallels between MS and Google are striking. One was a classic tragedy in the making, it wouldn't be surprising if the other turns out to be as well.
They are both very much relevant. You can't remove either one of these companies from the world without the world halting. What they don't have is mindshare. That's a society as a whole not caring but they aren't consumer-focused. That's a very different thing from deeming something to have no importance in the world or their area of expertise.
This is stupid.
This situation came up today, and made me think of this. If I'm on Google's search engine (at www.google.com), and I search for 'Books', and I don't live under a rock, I'll expect Google to take me to their 'Books' service - it makes logical sense. Now, it's the top result, as it should be, and Amazon, Chapters, and other vendors come up immediately below them. Why shouldn't Google Books be on top on Google.com?
People can always use Bing if they don't want Google's services.
From last year:
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2013/04/the-google-eu-settlement-full-details/?
Then today:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b652fa42-8e50-11e3-98c6-00144feab7de.html
Microsoft is almost certain to be unhappy.