" I think that MS does actually care about where Apple is going. They watch their every move because they need to copy it in their own way. MS is what Apple was but the equation MSFT= AAPL-12months."
The thing I'm telling you is that this is NOT the case--they really do not care or notice to any great degree.
<strong>MICROSOFT DOES NOT CARE, KNOW OR NOTICE PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING APPLE DOES.</strong><hr></blockquote>
'course not. That's why they changed the name of their "latest" and "greatest" OS to XP to steal thunder from X. That and the addition of the Aqua attempted look added to XP just to make it "feel" more Mac like.
MICROSOFT DOES NOT CARE, KNOW OR NOTICE PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING APPLE DOES.
?.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
funny - my first thought reading this line was: "How do other markets care, know or notice each other?"
e.g. fashion: one company "invents" trousers for women - the other will wait , until every woman wants to wear trousers; after a while, every taylor will produce trousers?- (no, this example is not meant as a joke).
e.g. cars: one company "invents" button-controlled gear shifting on the wheel (Porsche); except some "hardcore" drivers nobody needs this feature - so, no other company produces this item.-
what i want to say: in matter of "fashion" = design (hardware/software) i'm quite sure M$ is watching Apple; in matter of standards, M$ doesn't have to worry (except: Quicktime); in matter of market-share, M$ doesn't have to care at all (1% more or less - anyhow!!).
M$ missed the iNet hype - but a company this size is able to catch the leaving train. Apple has to be innovative in all sectors, and still is. the market niche designer/print/video is a good one. the iApp idea is/will be adopted by M$. the "everybody is a movie maker"idea is still unique Apple (hurray to FCExpress!). next stops: everybody is a painter, a book writer/publisher, a muscian.
M$ will not care - as long as they doesn't smell BIG bucks.- but who cares ;-)
<strong>They didn't know that Auto-Fill was in IE for Mac, and when the IE Win team saw it they were boggled.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that's the best you can come up with you do need to keep trying. What the Windows section of the company knows about the MacBU's developments is kind of irrelevent considering their work is really just direct ports from the PC side. The MacBU has never really been about innovative development and there is no reason to care what they're doing.
That's a completely different issue to looking at what Apple itself is doing.
[quote]Originally posted by mrmister:
<strong>They had to have Rendezvous demonstrated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what exactly? Unless you actually developed Rendezvous or worked with the ZeroConf working group I am pretty certain at some time you had to have rendezvous demonstrated to you. Technology demonstrations aren't anything new for any industry. The point is Microsoft looked when Apple released Rendezvous.
[quote]Originally posted by mrmister:
<strong>I have a thousand of these stories...and I can tell you for certain that MSFT only notices Apple when they get kicked, and even then it is barely noticed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I won't ask for the whole thousand but even half a dozen would be nice. Hey maybe you can even just find one or two worth a cent.
[quote]Originally posted by mrmister:
<strong>Opera runs on Windows machines and competes with IE...I don't know what they are all about over there. I *do* know they don't care about developments on the Mac front, except within the MacBU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh huh so the basis of your argument is they don't care about macs but they care about a smaller niche product in the form of Opera?
I have a feeling you really aren't meeting all that many executives. Good management stays abreast of what developments are being made around the place and public reactions. If it's worthy of note they'll eventually work on copying it. This is very common practice.
Now given Apple is a company that currently bases their business around innovation it is fair to say Microsoft execs, like those in a lot of IT companies, watch when Apple releases something. To turn a blind eye on such a R&D freebie would be negligent.
It isn't about watching any company in particular it's about watching the marketplace and developments as a whole and Microsoft's management does it as much as any company's.
"If that's the best you can come up with you do need to keep trying. What the Windows section of the company knows about the MacBU's developments is kind of irrelevent considering their work is really just direct ports from the PC side."
Well, that *would* be true, except that they did innovate--they had a one-click Auto Fill button, a feature I still wish was in more browsers.
"The MacBU has never really been about innovative development and there is no reason to care what they're doing."
And that is exactly the kind of attitude MSFT displays each and every day
"That's a completely different issue to looking at what Apple itself is doing."
Yes, except that it points to a pattern--if it is about the Mac, they really couldn't care less.
"Unless you actually developed Rendezvous or worked with the ZeroConf working group I am pretty certain at some time you had to have rendezvous demonstrated to you. Technology demonstrations aren't anything new for any industry. The point is Microsoft looked when Apple released Rendezvous."
Well, no, they didn't. An executive who wasn't even in the Longhorn group had to bring in two PowerBooks and show them Rendezvous--they didn't read about it in all the media, somehow, b/c they do not have the inclination to care. Even as the demo was about to happen the project lead was saying it wasn't possible.
Same exact thing with Quartz Extreme--in that case they actually laughed, and said that tech was at least 3-4 years away.
Then, I said:
"Opera runs on Windows machines and competes with IE...I don't know what they are all about over there. I *do* know they don't care about developments on the Mac front, except within the MacBU."
And you responded:
"So the basis of your argument is they don't care about macs but they care about a smaller niche product in the form of Opera?"
Maybe you didn't read the section you quoted from me...it says:
"Opera runs on Windows machines and competes with IE...I don't know what they are all about over there."
In other words, I don't know what their deal with Opera is--I'm just speculating. I only know about their opinions viz a viz the Mac because I have a vested interest in the platform.
"I have a feeling you really aren't meeting all that many executives."
Your insight is penetrating. Yes, you found me out--I'm a freaky troll who pretends he lived in Seattle for six years and pretends to know people at MSFT. I know a janitor, but I like to pretend he's Steve Ballmer.
"Good management stays abreast of what developments are being made around the place and public reactions. If it's worthy of note they'll eventually work on copying it. This is very common practice."
Yes, that does sound like good management. I think it is safe to say that one of my central contentions is that MSFT's management is not very good.
"Now given Apple is a company that currently bases their business around innovation it is fair to say Microsoft execs, like those in a lot of IT companies, watch when Apple releases something. To turn a blind eye on such a R&D freebie would be negligent."
Yes, they are negligent.
"It isn't about watching any company in particular it's about watching the marketplace and developments as a whole and Microsoft's management does it as much as any company's."
Yes, that would be the conventional thinking for any company. MSFT, however, is so large in the marketplace and as a company that it spends most of its time and energy looking inward...and even when it does look outward it sees only what it wants to see.
Uh...I know this thread was probably a spill over from the Connectix purchase, but should this be in General Discussion?
Regardless, I think for the most part, MS really doesn't care what Apple does. There is no imminent threat as long as Apple doesn't make inroads into mainstream business and governments.
They and rightly so see Apple as a niche product for a niche market catering primarily those who are either:
a) creative types
b) willing to pay more for hardware/software
c) posers
d) all of the above.
Now that's not a knock against Apple and it's users. The greatest asset Apple has is it's brand and reputation as an innovator. It's the many who buy into these principles who continue to support Apple regardless of price.
Microsoft and the rest of the PC industry will simply sit back and let Apple drive innovation while they own the bulk of the marketshare.
When I said I wouldn't mind seeing MS buy out Apple, I was thinking of how great the OS "could" be.
Right now Windows looks and feels like crap. Imagine if they were able to incorporate the two OS's into one awesome operating system.. Of course it's just a dream.
I mean, wouldn't we all like to see the features that Mac the mac great go mainstream? Can't a guy dream?
Back in 1998, I used to work for Microsoft and a channel of MacBU. (I will explain this in more detail below) I was a VPNS Systems Engineer working in tandem with AT&T WorldNet. Our division was responsible for creating/administrating the Microsoft's Global Roaming Tunnel Servers here in the Midwest using AT&T's pipes. Ok... So you get the jist of this.
Every Friday at developers meeting, we would discuss the weeks projects that each team was working on and the state of those projects. One team, "my team", was the Mac Division. It was our PRIME responsibility to ensure our VPN clients and Servers would stay compatible and connected with MACs running PPTP over our pipes. We understood (MicroSoft) that our clients used MACs as well to tunnel in to their corporate networks.
MacBU would keep in direct contact with Apple's networking developers, and pass this data on to us. So to make a long story short ... we kept an eye on everything Apple (network wise) was doing in order to:
1: ensure connectivity for our MAC users
2: pass this data over to R&D for further research. (both platforms)
I will say this, Back then, the code for a VPN client running on MAC was MUCH more stable and secure than that of a MS client.
Our Team DID care what Apple was doing, and we were PROUD that WE supported APPLE!
"So to make a long story short ... we kept an eye on everything Apple (network wise) was doing in order to:
1: ensure connectivity for our MAC users
2: pass this data over to R&D for further research. (both platforms)"
There is a world of difference between what coders and techs are doing, and how the corporate/executive branch plans strategy. I have no doubt there's a lot of Mac support in and around MSFT, as otherwise my life would be more difficult...I'm just saying that on a corporate level they don't think about Apple.
"Our Team DID care what Apple was doing, and we were PROUD that WE supported APPLE!"
Mrmister's account of MS culture sounds about right to me. Just goes to show how potentially vulnerable they are due to their monopoly. It's breeding complacency on some levels. However, the account of Microsoft's fairly insular culture does certianly generate more resentment towards them from Mac users. Surely, they should at least respect the fruit company a bit, right? In any case, this isn't surprising. MS is a big enough company that while there probably are a few people in corners who pay attention to Apple's work, the vast majority of their programmers and engineers are oblivious. I imagine that's true of a lot of drones in tech companies.
While open-source software has yet to put a noticeable dent in Microsoft's hefty profit margins, Wall Street appears to be waking up to the risks the movement may pose to the company's future dominance.
In a report inspired by the advice of a departing Microsoft manager, a Merrill Lynch technology analyst wrote that the software company must "notch up the innovation component" if it wants to succeed in an era of networked systems and increased pervasiveness of open-source applications.
The report, released Wednesday by Merrill tech strategist Steven Milunovich, analyzes points raised in an <a href="http://www.synthesist.net/writing/onleavingms.html"; target="_blank">essay</a> recently published by retiring Microsoft program manager David Stutz.
Stutz, who participated in a broad range of projects during his tenure at Microsoft, including Xbox, server architecture and peer-to-peer networking, left the company earlier this month. He said his current plan is to "decompress" and to spend time pursuing non-tech-interests such as music.
But before departing, Stutz laid out some words of advice for his now ex-employer. Although he still insists Microsoft was a "great place to work," Stutz says he finds the company "overly conservative at the moment in terms of their strategy for innovating."
In what he describes on his website as a "sanitized version" of an e-mail he sent to Microsoft colleagues, Stutz warns that his former employer's strategic vision is too narrowly focused on the PC.
"Windows has yet to move past its PC-centric roots to capture a significant part of the larger network space," he writes.
Eventually, Stutz believes, software for networks of multiple devices will eclipse the market for PC-specific applications. As a result, successful developers should create applications that are interoperable among multiple devices.
In the essay, he also contends that open-source software is "as large and powerful a wave as the Internet was" and is rapidly emerging as a legitimate alternative to Windows.
Ideally, Stutz says, he'd like to see Microsoft incorporate some of the finer points of the open-source movement -- such as public collaboration and the ability to quickly adapt to change -- more deeply into its own product development.
"To avoid dire consequences," he writes, "Microsoft should favor an approach that tolerates and embraces the diversity of the open-source approach."
Stutz's departing advice comes as Microsoft itself is making more disclosures about the potential impact of open-source software. The company's last quarterly earnings report stated that "the popularization of the open-source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the company's business model."
As an example, Microsoft cited recent efforts by proponents of the open-source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of their software. As the open-source model gains increasing market acceptance, Microsoft warned that sales or prices of its own products could decline.
That point wasn't lost on Milunovich, who wrote that Microsoft must find ways to incorporate open source and reinvent itself. The Merrill analyst said he was also concerned that, without an effective strategy, Microsoft's strength in the era of the PC could turn out to be a weakness in an era of networked systems.
But Milunovich's critiques are tempered by his firm's bullish outlook for Microsoft. Currently, Merrill maintains a "buy" recommendation on Microsoft (MSFT) shares, with a price target of $30.50 for the stock, which closed Wednesday at $24.53.
"so, mrmister, are you gonna tell us some stories ?"
I already have--and they tell better in person--but if you like, I can write out a few more in the next few days. It's geeky shit, you know--but it amuses me a lot to hear about their inner workings.
"so, mrmister, are you gonna tell us some stories ?"
I already have--and they tell better in person--but if you like, I can write out a few more in the next few days. It's geeky shit, you know--but it amuses me a lot to hear about their inner workings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I speak for many (if not all) when I say, YES, please, Amuse Us ! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Microsoft is an entity at war. and as in any war there are many fronts.
the global adoption of Linux is a major problem for MS.
Apple has to be watched because they are an entity still in flux. that's always dangerous. Apple's vulnerability and 'worst case' contingencies make them a threat.
any smart tactition knows not to lose sight of those with the potential to hurt you.
<strong>IBM was huge, larger than microsoft in some regards (especially with business).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, IBM software is STILL bigger than MS today. Its jut that IBM is no the one calling the shots anymore.
[quote]<strong>IBM systems were INCREDIBLY proprietary, far worse than Microsoft! No TCP/IP, Ethernet, etc. Nothing standards compliant. They had their proprietary terminals, proprietary protocols, heck, even proprietary cabling! None the less, IBM eventually fell...and they were entrenched as much as Microsoft (especially in business)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isn't a doubt in my mind that Microsoft would go this direction, albeit slowly, if given the opportunity. Mind you, it will all be in the name of "security" or "innovation" or some such malarky.
[quote]<strong>I'm not saying apple will eventually dominate, I don't think they will...but things will change, and market leaders will shift around...given TIME.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This I agree with. At some point, the need to maintain current business models becomes to great a tension to be able to hop onto the next great wave. Many people thought the Internet was it for MS (and may still be). But this is what happened to IBM. Mainframe and "big iron" were there business. PCs were not. Microsoft caught the next wave. Someone else will do the same to MS someday. In the meantime we have to endure them.
In my view, the ideal situation is the "Coke vs. Pepsi" scenario that someone else (in this thread) suggested. Or maybe a "triopoloy" consisting of Apple, Microsoft/Dell and someone (to be named later). Each is big enough to be taken seriously. Each is balanced enough to be kept "honest". Apple needs to get to 10% first though.
[quote]<strong>FYI...IBM Mainframes are becoming more and more popular once again. I, for one, hope IBM does very well. People who need powerful servers are loving the decentralized processing IBM can offer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>" I think that MS does actually care about where Apple is going. They watch their every move because they need to copy it in their own way. MS is what Apple was but the equation MSFT= AAPL-12months."
The thing I'm telling you is that this is NOT the case--they really do not care or notice to any great degree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MS did become upset after Apple started the "Switch" program. Having worked for a large, aggressive corporation for many years, we watched all competitors and knocking off a small one was part of the game.
Comments
The thing I'm telling you is that this is NOT the case--they really do not care or notice to any great degree.
<strong>MICROSOFT DOES NOT CARE, KNOW OR NOTICE PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING APPLE DOES.</strong><hr></blockquote>
'course not. That's why they changed the name of their "latest" and "greatest" OS to XP to steal thunder from X. That and the addition of the Aqua attempted look added to XP just to make it "feel" more Mac like.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
MICROSOFT DOES NOT CARE, KNOW OR NOTICE PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING APPLE DOES.
?.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
funny - my first thought reading this line was: "How do other markets care, know or notice each other?"
e.g. fashion: one company "invents" trousers for women - the other will wait , until every woman wants to wear trousers; after a while, every taylor will produce trousers?- (no, this example is not meant as a joke).
e.g. cars: one company "invents" button-controlled gear shifting on the wheel (Porsche); except some "hardcore" drivers nobody needs this feature - so, no other company produces this item.-
what i want to say: in matter of "fashion" = design (hardware/software) i'm quite sure M$ is watching Apple; in matter of standards, M$ doesn't have to worry (except: Quicktime); in matter of market-share, M$ doesn't have to care at all (1% more or less - anyhow!!).
M$ missed the iNet hype - but a company this size is able to catch the leaving train. Apple has to be innovative in all sectors, and still is. the market niche designer/print/video is a good one. the iApp idea is/will be adopted by M$. the "everybody is a movie maker"idea is still unique Apple (hurray to FCExpress!). next stops: everybody is a painter, a book writer/publisher, a muscian.
M$ will not care - as long as they doesn't smell BIG bucks.- but who cares ;-)
<strong>They didn't know that Auto-Fill was in IE for Mac, and when the IE Win team saw it they were boggled.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that's the best you can come up with you do need to keep trying. What the Windows section of the company knows about the MacBU's developments is kind of irrelevent considering their work is really just direct ports from the PC side. The MacBU has never really been about innovative development and there is no reason to care what they're doing.
That's a completely different issue to looking at what Apple itself is doing.
[quote]Originally posted by mrmister:
<strong>They had to have Rendezvous demonstrated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what exactly? Unless you actually developed Rendezvous or worked with the ZeroConf working group I am pretty certain at some time you had to have rendezvous demonstrated to you. Technology demonstrations aren't anything new for any industry. The point is Microsoft looked when Apple released Rendezvous.
[quote]Originally posted by mrmister:
<strong>I have a thousand of these stories...and I can tell you for certain that MSFT only notices Apple when they get kicked, and even then it is barely noticed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I won't ask for the whole thousand but even half a dozen would be nice. Hey maybe you can even just find one or two worth a cent.
[quote]Originally posted by mrmister:
<strong>Opera runs on Windows machines and competes with IE...I don't know what they are all about over there. I *do* know they don't care about developments on the Mac front, except within the MacBU.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh huh so the basis of your argument is they don't care about macs but they care about a smaller niche product in the form of Opera?
I have a feeling you really aren't meeting all that many executives. Good management stays abreast of what developments are being made around the place and public reactions. If it's worthy of note they'll eventually work on copying it. This is very common practice.
Now given Apple is a company that currently bases their business around innovation it is fair to say Microsoft execs, like those in a lot of IT companies, watch when Apple releases something. To turn a blind eye on such a R&D freebie would be negligent.
It isn't about watching any company in particular it's about watching the marketplace and developments as a whole and Microsoft's management does it as much as any company's.
Well, that *would* be true, except that they did innovate--they had a one-click Auto Fill button, a feature I still wish was in more browsers.
"The MacBU has never really been about innovative development and there is no reason to care what they're doing."
And that is exactly the kind of attitude MSFT displays each and every day
"That's a completely different issue to looking at what Apple itself is doing."
Yes, except that it points to a pattern--if it is about the Mac, they really couldn't care less.
"Unless you actually developed Rendezvous or worked with the ZeroConf working group I am pretty certain at some time you had to have rendezvous demonstrated to you. Technology demonstrations aren't anything new for any industry. The point is Microsoft looked when Apple released Rendezvous."
Well, no, they didn't. An executive who wasn't even in the Longhorn group had to bring in two PowerBooks and show them Rendezvous--they didn't read about it in all the media, somehow, b/c they do not have the inclination to care. Even as the demo was about to happen the project lead was saying it wasn't possible.
Same exact thing with Quartz Extreme--in that case they actually laughed, and said that tech was at least 3-4 years away.
Then, I said:
"Opera runs on Windows machines and competes with IE...I don't know what they are all about over there. I *do* know they don't care about developments on the Mac front, except within the MacBU."
And you responded:
"So the basis of your argument is they don't care about macs but they care about a smaller niche product in the form of Opera?"
Maybe you didn't read the section you quoted from me...it says:
"Opera runs on Windows machines and competes with IE...I don't know what they are all about over there."
In other words, I don't know what their deal with Opera is--I'm just speculating. I only know about their opinions viz a viz the Mac because I have a vested interest in the platform.
"I have a feeling you really aren't meeting all that many executives."
Your insight is penetrating. Yes, you found me out--I'm a freaky troll who pretends he lived in Seattle for six years and pretends to know people at MSFT. I know a janitor, but I like to pretend he's Steve Ballmer.
"Good management stays abreast of what developments are being made around the place and public reactions. If it's worthy of note they'll eventually work on copying it. This is very common practice."
Yes, that does sound like good management. I think it is safe to say that one of my central contentions is that MSFT's management is not very good.
"Now given Apple is a company that currently bases their business around innovation it is fair to say Microsoft execs, like those in a lot of IT companies, watch when Apple releases something. To turn a blind eye on such a R&D freebie would be negligent."
Yes, they are negligent.
"It isn't about watching any company in particular it's about watching the marketplace and developments as a whole and Microsoft's management does it as much as any company's."
Yes, that would be the conventional thinking for any company. MSFT, however, is so large in the marketplace and as a company that it spends most of its time and energy looking inward...and even when it does look outward it sees only what it wants to see.
Regardless, I think for the most part, MS really doesn't care what Apple does. There is no imminent threat as long as Apple doesn't make inroads into mainstream business and governments.
They and rightly so see Apple as a niche product for a niche market catering primarily those who are either:
a) creative types
b) willing to pay more for hardware/software
c) posers
d) all of the above.
Now that's not a knock against Apple and it's users. The greatest asset Apple has is it's brand and reputation as an innovator. It's the many who buy into these principles who continue to support Apple regardless of price.
Microsoft and the rest of the PC industry will simply sit back and let Apple drive innovation while they own the bulk of the marketshare.
Hold on a minute.
When I said I wouldn't mind seeing MS buy out Apple, I was thinking of how great the OS "could" be.
Right now Windows looks and feels like crap. Imagine if they were able to incorporate the two OS's into one awesome operating system.. Of course it's just a dream.
I mean, wouldn't we all like to see the features that Mac the mac great go mainstream? Can't a guy dream?
Back in 1998, I used to work for Microsoft and a channel of MacBU. (I will explain this in more detail below) I was a VPNS Systems Engineer working in tandem with AT&T WorldNet. Our division was responsible for creating/administrating the Microsoft's Global Roaming Tunnel Servers here in the Midwest using AT&T's pipes. Ok... So you get the jist of this.
Every Friday at developers meeting, we would discuss the weeks projects that each team was working on and the state of those projects. One team, "my team", was the Mac Division. It was our PRIME responsibility to ensure our VPN clients and Servers would stay compatible and connected with MACs running PPTP over our pipes. We understood (MicroSoft) that our clients used MACs as well to tunnel in to their corporate networks.
MacBU would keep in direct contact with Apple's networking developers, and pass this data on to us. So to make a long story short ... we kept an eye on everything Apple (network wise) was doing in order to:
1: ensure connectivity for our MAC users
2: pass this data over to R&D for further research. (both platforms)
I will say this, Back then, the code for a VPN client running on MAC was MUCH more stable and secure than that of a MS client.
Our Team DID care what Apple was doing, and we were PROUD that WE supported APPLE!
1: ensure connectivity for our MAC users
2: pass this data over to R&D for further research. (both platforms)"
There is a world of difference between what coders and techs are doing, and how the corporate/executive branch plans strategy. I have no doubt there's a lot of Mac support in and around MSFT, as otherwise my life would be more difficult...I'm just saying that on a corporate level they don't think about Apple.
"Our Team DID care what Apple was doing, and we were PROUD that WE supported APPLE!"
That's nice.
<strong>but should this be in General Discussion?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yup. That's how I see it.
Moving now.
Mrmister's account of MS culture sounds about right to me. Just goes to show how potentially vulnerable they are due to their monopoly. It's breeding complacency on some levels. However, the account of Microsoft's fairly insular culture does certianly generate more resentment towards them from Mac users. Surely, they should at least respect the fruit company a bit, right? In any case, this isn't surprising. MS is a big enough company that while there probably are a few people in corners who pay attention to Apple's work, the vast majority of their programmers and engineers are oblivious. I imagine that's true of a lot of drones in tech companies.
By Joanna Glasner
While open-source software has yet to put a noticeable dent in Microsoft's hefty profit margins, Wall Street appears to be waking up to the risks the movement may pose to the company's future dominance.
In a report inspired by the advice of a departing Microsoft manager, a Merrill Lynch technology analyst wrote that the software company must "notch up the innovation component" if it wants to succeed in an era of networked systems and increased pervasiveness of open-source applications.
The report, released Wednesday by Merrill tech strategist Steven Milunovich, analyzes points raised in an <a href="http://www.synthesist.net/writing/onleavingms.html"; target="_blank">essay</a> recently published by retiring Microsoft program manager David Stutz.
Stutz, who participated in a broad range of projects during his tenure at Microsoft, including Xbox, server architecture and peer-to-peer networking, left the company earlier this month. He said his current plan is to "decompress" and to spend time pursuing non-tech-interests such as music.
But before departing, Stutz laid out some words of advice for his now ex-employer. Although he still insists Microsoft was a "great place to work," Stutz says he finds the company "overly conservative at the moment in terms of their strategy for innovating."
In what he describes on his website as a "sanitized version" of an e-mail he sent to Microsoft colleagues, Stutz warns that his former employer's strategic vision is too narrowly focused on the PC.
"Windows has yet to move past its PC-centric roots to capture a significant part of the larger network space," he writes.
Eventually, Stutz believes, software for networks of multiple devices will eclipse the market for PC-specific applications. As a result, successful developers should create applications that are interoperable among multiple devices.
In the essay, he also contends that open-source software is "as large and powerful a wave as the Internet was" and is rapidly emerging as a legitimate alternative to Windows.
Ideally, Stutz says, he'd like to see Microsoft incorporate some of the finer points of the open-source movement -- such as public collaboration and the ability to quickly adapt to change -- more deeply into its own product development.
"To avoid dire consequences," he writes, "Microsoft should favor an approach that tolerates and embraces the diversity of the open-source approach."
Stutz's departing advice comes as Microsoft itself is making more disclosures about the potential impact of open-source software. The company's last quarterly earnings report stated that "the popularization of the open-source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the company's business model."
As an example, Microsoft cited recent efforts by proponents of the open-source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of their software. As the open-source model gains increasing market acceptance, Microsoft warned that sales or prices of its own products could decline.
That point wasn't lost on Milunovich, who wrote that Microsoft must find ways to incorporate open source and reinvent itself. The Merrill analyst said he was also concerned that, without an effective strategy, Microsoft's strength in the era of the PC could turn out to be a weakness in an era of networked systems.
But Milunovich's critiques are tempered by his firm's bullish outlook for Microsoft. Currently, Merrill maintains a "buy" recommendation on Microsoft (MSFT) shares, with a price target of $30.50 for the stock, which closed Wednesday at $24.53.
- From the <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,57735,00.html"; target="_blank">Wired Web Site...</a>
All this Microsoft stuff seems to be the main discussion everywhere right now...it'll be interesting where it'll all go.
"so, mrmister, are you gonna tell us some stories ?"
I already have--and they tell better in person--but if you like, I can write out a few more in the next few days. It's geeky shit, you know--but it amuses me a lot to hear about their inner workings.
<strong>Buon is right on the money.
"so, mrmister, are you gonna tell us some stories ?"
I already have--and they tell better in person--but if you like, I can write out a few more in the next few days. It's geeky shit, you know--but it amuses me a lot to hear about their inner workings.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I speak for many (if not all) when I say, YES, please, Amuse Us ! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
the global adoption of Linux is a major problem for MS.
Apple has to be watched because they are an entity still in flux. that's always dangerous. Apple's vulnerability and 'worst case' contingencies make them a threat.
any smart tactition knows not to lose sight of those with the potential to hurt you.
<strong>IBM was huge, larger than microsoft in some regards (especially with business).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, IBM software is STILL bigger than MS today. Its jut that IBM is no the one calling the shots anymore.
[quote]<strong>IBM systems were INCREDIBLY proprietary, far worse than Microsoft! No TCP/IP, Ethernet, etc. Nothing standards compliant. They had their proprietary terminals, proprietary protocols, heck, even proprietary cabling! None the less, IBM eventually fell...and they were entrenched as much as Microsoft (especially in business)</strong><hr></blockquote>
There isn't a doubt in my mind that Microsoft would go this direction, albeit slowly, if given the opportunity. Mind you, it will all be in the name of "security" or "innovation" or some such malarky.
[quote]<strong>I'm not saying apple will eventually dominate, I don't think they will...but things will change, and market leaders will shift around...given TIME.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This I agree with. At some point, the need to maintain current business models becomes to great a tension to be able to hop onto the next great wave. Many people thought the Internet was it for MS (and may still be). But this is what happened to IBM. Mainframe and "big iron" were there business. PCs were not. Microsoft caught the next wave. Someone else will do the same to MS someday. In the meantime we have to endure them.
In my view, the ideal situation is the "Coke vs. Pepsi" scenario that someone else (in this thread) suggested. Or maybe a "triopoloy" consisting of Apple, Microsoft/Dell and someone (to be named later). Each is big enough to be taken seriously. Each is balanced enough to be kept "honest". Apple needs to get to 10% first though.
[quote]<strong>FYI...IBM Mainframes are becoming more and more popular once again. I, for one, hope IBM does very well. People who need powerful servers are loving the decentralized processing IBM can offer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes they are.
<strong>" I think that MS does actually care about where Apple is going. They watch their every move because they need to copy it in their own way. MS is what Apple was but the equation MSFT= AAPL-12months."
The thing I'm telling you is that this is NOT the case--they really do not care or notice to any great degree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MS did become upset after Apple started the "Switch" program. Having worked for a large, aggressive corporation for many years, we watched all competitors and knocking off a small one was part of the game.