Is Microsoft's end near?

[Zelig]

It's worse than Ubuntu!

How? It's better than Windows 7 and I don't see Ubuntu and Windows as even being competing products, Linux isn't appropriate for desktop use for most people.

But I hope it fails badly!

Why?

Anyway, where they are having their lunch eaten is in the mobile market.

Yeah, I've pointed that out already in one of my earlier posts - but they've currently got nowhere to go but up, and they've got the resources and talent to succeed.

And the day is not far that the PC will be entirely replaced (by most users) by a simple phone plus some kind of docking station, I think.

Certainly not by an Android system in the near future, they're far too hackish, non-standard and user-unfriendly. The MS Surface is the closest to doing this well of any announced technology, and I've got more far faith in Apple to come out with a good phone docking station that becomes popular than I do in Google and friends.

 

[Mise]

Personally I think that as mobile devices become more and more powerful, and as screens get bigger and more sensitive, this will only play to Microsoft's traditional strengths, and its current software portfolio. Right now, my Q1 2011 phone is just about fast enough to run Open Office to an acceptable level of responsiveness for viewing & updating spreadsheets on a train. It's not fast enough to really do *work* on it, but if I want to open an Excel file attachment and piss about with it using my lapdock, or if I'm on my way to a meeting/pitch and I want to run a few different scenarios than what I did in the office, then I can do that on a train quite happily. If MS start making really good productivity software for mobile platforms, they could really start making some serious money from a business world that is already invested in its ecosystem.

 

[Antilogic]

Why did so many people hate Vista anyways? On a decent computer, i found it more stable than XP.

UAC. I get tired of copying files in and out of program files and other "protected" areas, having to constantly click yes, I want to do this, twice, for each action. I'm glad they gave us the option to turn that off.

 

[duckstab]

Microsoft is basically following in the footsteps of IBM. Compare their current stature to the dominant position they enjoyed 15 years ago, when they were getting hit by antitrust suits. Today, there are hundreds of millions of mobile devices that are running Android or iOS, neither of which has a single line of Windows code. Bing isn't Google by a long shot. They released .NET 10 years ago, and last time I checked I was still drawing a fat paycheck as a Java developer. They're actually advertising to get people to try IE9, a product they give away for free, fer pete's sake.

I don't know the current mix, but I'd bet that they're getting more and more of their money from professional services and less and less from software licenses. Just like IBM. If they're smart, they can continue to milk that revenue stream for a long time. But their days at the center of the computing universe? Long over.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

UAC. I get tired of copying files in and out of program files and other "protected" areas, having to constantly click yes, I want to do this, twice, for each action. I'm glad they gave us the option to turn that off.

I dont find it annoying.

 

[Zelig]

Microsoft is basically following in the footsteps of IBM. Compare their current stature to the dominant position they enjoyed 15 years ago, when they were getting hit by antitrust suits. Today, there are hundreds of millions of mobile devices that are running Android or iOS, neither of which has a single line of Windows code. Bing isn't Google by a long shot. They released .NET 10 years ago, and last time I checked I was still drawing a fat paycheck as a Java developer. They're actually advertising to get people to try IE9, a product they give away for free, fer pete's sake.

I don't know the current mix, but I'd bet that they're getting more and more of their money from professional services and less and less from software licenses. Just like IBM. If they're smart, they can continue to milk that revenue stream for a long time. But their days at the center of the computing universe? Long over.

Almost everyone in IT wants to follow in the footsteps of IBM. MS has a much stronger software position than IBM every had, mostly to to the size of the enterprise market now, compared to when IBM was dominant.

.NET is pretty good - it's not displacing Java by any means, but I generally see more interest in new .NET stuff than in Java stuff. Oracle seems to be doing its best to make open cross-platform Java licensing more onerous than .NET/C#.

FWIW, MS revenues in USD billions by division for Q3 2012:
Windows & Windows Live: 4.62
Business Division: 5.81 (licensing 60% of revenue)
Server & Tools: 4.57 (licensing 50% of revenue)
Online Services: 0.7
Entertainment and Devices: 1.62


I realize I'm spending most of my effort in this thread defending MS, but I certainly don't think they're going to regain, or even retain their current dominance on the consumer OS front - there are excellent alternatives, and MS is still dominant enough that they don't really have anywhere to go but down.

In mobile, on the other hand, Windows Phone is way underrepresented given its quality, and has nowhere to go but up.

 

[duckstab]

I think we're basically in agreement. Microsoft will continue to be a very large and very profitable company for a very long time. But it won't be the 500-pound gorilla, or, at any rate, not the only one.

 

[Zelig]

Yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just sharing some thoughts.

 

[caketastydelish]

I am proud of what I am about to say, as it breaks a stereotype that many civfanatics users believe in: "Anyone that uses Apple products is an apple fanboy."

I am a hardcore apple user, but not a fanboy.

I criticize Apple when I think they've done wrong, and will defend their competitors when I think they've done right. In this case, I'm going to have to defend Microsoft.

1. Microsoft owns part of Apple. Not the whole company, but a significant percentage. So when Apple does well, Microsoft partially benefits.

2. Windows 8 is actually decent. People will hate it at first just because its different, but its actually a pretty user friendly OS.

3. You have a somewhat adequate point about Steam, but not completely. On Steam, I see a "Windows" section, and a "Mac" section. There are far more people that download games off the Windows section than the Mac section. Thus; the Windows OS is doing pretty well.

4. Microsoft is coming out with their own tablet and now even phones that will run on the Microsoft OS, which is just an entire new dimensions for them to make profits. It's taken them quite a while do to this, but now that they finally are, I'm sure they'll make an impact. The Zune was a fluke, and I doubt the stuff they're doing now would be a repeat of it.

I will say more points as I think of them. But seriously, I don't think this is the end of Microsoft.

If I may make a suggestion for Microsoft though?

MAKE MORE OF YOUR OWN HARDWARE!!!!

Microsoft makes no computers. But why shouldn't they? One of the reasons people buy Apples is for the simple reason that the same company that makes the OS also makes the computer. If Microsoft were to start making computers, Apple would lose that advantage.

These Windows phones are not made by Microsoft either, I don't think. Just the windows operating system. For the same reason I just listed, Microsoft should make phones and tablets themselves. That is, the hardware. Not just the OS.

I've heard that even the Xbox 360 is technically not made by Microsoft. At least that's what I've read in an article. Perhaps this explains the "red circle of death?"

I seriously don't understand why Microsoft doesn't make more of their own stuff.

 

[Zelig]

1. Microsoft owns part of Apple.

No they don't, not for quite some time. They got rid of all their Apple stock a while ago.

If I may make a suggestion for Microsoft though?

MAKE MORE OF YOUR OWN HARDWARE!!!!

Microsoft makes no computers. But why shouldn't they? One of the reasons people buy Apples is for the simple reason that the same company that makes the OS also makes the computer. If Microsoft were to start making computers, Apple would lose that advantage.

Microsoft's OEM partners would scream bloody murder if MS started manufacturing their own PCs. The Surface is already pretty touchy, with Acer flat-out saying it's going to fail, and MS isn't pushing distribution, they're only selling it online and in physical MS stores.

I don't think anyone purchases Apple products specifically because both the OS and the hardware are Apple - it's because of the advantages that the vertical integration provides, not because of the actual integration.

These Windows phones are not made by Microsoft either, I don't think. Just the windows operating system. For the same reason I just listed, Microsoft should make phones and tablets themselves. That is, the hardware. Not just the OS.

Nokia is close enough to being "made by Microsoft".

I've heard that even the Xbox 360 is technically not made by Microsoft.

Almost nothing is "technically" made by companies whose brands you're familiar with.

iPhones are manufactured by Foxconn (who also make the xbox 360 and the playstation 3, among other things), with parts from Samsung, LG, Hynix, Avago, Qualcomm, Sony, Omnivision, Murata, Broadcom and Cirrus Logic.

 

[Tom|420]

If I had been here 5 months ago, I would have agreed with everything Zelig had to say. Well, mostly everything.

But now, just 5 months later, a lot has changed. Now I'd tend to say: Yes, Microsoft's end *is* near.

Windows 8 *is* a flop. On all accounts. It became obvious when the guy behind the new UI was shown the door just 2 weeks after its release, but now that the numbers are out, what was already obvious can be seen.

Microsoft, like many other companies, think that the PC is dead. Even worst, they think the laptop is also near it's death. Windows 7 didn't do well, so they were about to lose a market and be unable to jump on the new one. So they decided to jump into the tablet market both eyes closed.

Understanding that their only hope was to make the hardware, they decided to build their own tablet and put their new OS on it. But...

The bright idea: Make a new Windows interface which would help people jump from the PC/laptop to the tablet. Now what do we get? A Windows which does not appeal to PC/Laptop users and a tablet which nobody wants to buy.

Fact is, part of the laptop market was caught by tablets. But it wasn't the case for PCs which sales went almost unchanged. PC isn't dead, and neither is the laptop. But MS just screwed their market there, and won't get any market in tablets.

The numbers: Windows sales is down 21% compared to the same period last year. Tablet sales is almost non-existent, with only 1% of the total Windows sales.

At this point in time, I will confess, I think Windows 7 is a superb OS. I went through the Beta and had it installed on my computer the day of the release, and never looked back. But when it comes to Win8, the only occasion I tried it was in a store a few weeks ago, and I couldn't believe it, it was worst than I thought. I might look at it again if they provide a better UI through a service pack (as I believe the underlying OS is probably fine, it's the interface which makes no sense at all), but for now I don't see a reason, Win7 isn't obsolete of even close, it still has a bright future for several more years. There is a reason why Apple has a different OS for their laptops and their phones/tablets.

So, what do people think now? Anyone changed their mind, or am I alone here?

 

[Zelig]

I don't think anything has materially changed in the past 5 months. Windows 8 was feature complete in the release preview which was released over 5 months ago, if anyone has changed their mind since then they weren't paying attention at that time.

There's a bunch of speculation about Sinofsky's departure, and none of credible speculation point to his leaving because of Windows 8.

I have no idea how you're measuring Windows sales as being down 21% of this time last year. They're actually up roughly 100%, which is pretty meaningless since you're comparing a launch OS vs. a mid-lifecycle OS.

Overall PC shipments are down roughly 8% year-over-year, but this is pretty much unrelated to Windows sales, pretty much nobody syncs up their PC buying with Windows releases. (Lenovo gained about as much %-wise as Apple lost, FWIW.)

I honestly cannot take anyone seriously who thinks Windows 7 is better than Windows 8. Windows 8 is a superset of Windows 7, there is not a single substantial thing which Windows 7 does better than Windows 8. (I do get the initial feeling of dislike with the UI - I had the same initial feeling, but it goes away once you realize you never need to see the Metro UI on a desktop.)

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

UAC. I get tired of copying files in and out of program files and other "protected" areas, having to constantly click yes, I want to do this, twice, for each action. I'm glad they gave us the option to turn that off.

Perhaps you overlooked it but UAC can be disabled, as a matter of fact I use a Vista machine and I have UAC disabled.

Also I find it worth pointing out that Windows 7 had an almost identical UAC, it was just toned down a bit to make it less intrusive but if you wanted it you could turn it up to be just as sensitive as Vista UAC.

Maybe to causal PC users the over restrictive UAC on Vista was a turn off but to anyone in total control of their machine it really doesn't intrude.

 

[Antilogic]

The last sentence of the post you quoted acknowledges you can disable it (and I certainly did).

I'll be finding out about Windows 8 firsthand--my new PC is coming with 8, although I really wanted to just get 7 because I like the looks of it from my friends' PCs. Don't have any prior experience with 8, and since they've changed the interface so much I'm thinking there will be a steeper learning curve while I get back up to speed.

As far as Microsoft's greater viability is concerned, I haven't seen anything that would give me more pause. Things don't seem to have changed too much against them in the last few months. I must have seen the same articles as Zelig.

 

[wolfigor]

Microsoft, like many other companies, think that the PC is dead. Even worst, they think the laptop is also near it's death. Windows 7 didn't do well, so they were about to lose a market and be unable to jump on the new one. So they decided to jump into the tablet market both eyes closed.

MS didn't "jump into the tablet market both eyes closed", they created a UI for Win8 that can serve both the traditional desktop use as well as the touch-screen.

They understood that people find touch extremely appealing and just adding touch functionality on top of the traditional desktop UI does not work: That's why we have Win8 and Metro.

Users can use the traditional UI when they at a desk and move to a touch UI (Metro) when they are on the move.
This is perfect for business people who don't have to change OS and/or set of tools between sitting at their desk or moving around... often without having to change device at all.

You can see that a large number of hybrid/transformer devices are coming to the market: they are laptops transforming into tablets (by detaching the screen or by folding it).
They also cover the nice use case of touch enabled laptops that seems becoming very appreciated by (business) users.

Various manufacturers are also supporting MS to have plenty of advanced functionalities based on Haswell chipset by Intel... the platforms built around their new processor is really amazing and they learned from the smartphone world to make sue that all certified machines provide the full set of hardware and software support.

In conclusion, I still have doubt of Win8 for pure smartphones but I'm pretty sure that it's a great OS for a desktops, laptops, hybrids, and (potentially) tablets too.

 

[Iranon]

Regarding making its own hardware:
Political problem. Other hardware vendors would expect little tricks to give Microsofts own hardware products an advantage. Or worse, killing off competition through convenient technical problems if Microsoft wants a niche to itself.

*

Microsoft offers an appealing ecosystem.
Windows comes with the vast majority of PCs.
Things will keep working for some time without ongoing effort (Apple is all too willing to let old tech die without prior notice. Linux is fractured and keeps changing under the hood.)
Third party vendors compete on a level playing field, major source of applications isn't baked into the OS (eroded somewhat but still holds true on the desktop).
Less intrusive zealotry (Apple: user experience. Linux: libre low-level stuff).

Microsoft wants to take advantage of current opportunities (software store for a cut, fondleslabs) while maintaining dominance on the desktop.
Windows 8 makes serious design concessions to accommodate tablets, but in the end it's a better desktop Os than Windows 7.
Yes, a few interface elements remain tacky and things are scattered even more haphazardly. That's more than offset by improvements under the hood and search-based interaction that actually makes the mess manageable.

So... they managed to upset players like Valve who put a lot of money into their own delivery services. Cost of going with the times and becoming one's own consumer platform rather than just an operating system. Windows is still the most appealing platform for that class of players, I expect more posturing than real changes.

 

[illram]

So in Win 8, is there a way to set the computer to start to the desktop permanently and avoid Metro all together, forever? I read somewhere there are Metro apps that will force you into metro to use the program. (Maybe it was vice versa, can't remember.)

 

[Zelig]

Assuming no third party apps to alter behavior:

Regarding the start screen:
I don't really consider this a Metro app (which it isn't from a technical standpoint), its method of interaction is different from apps (typing vs touching) or the desktop (typing vs pointing), and its multi-app behavior is different from either desktop or Metro apps. (Its a fullscreen launcher overlay, which will cover either multiple desktop or multiple Metro apps.) I don't think the start screen is particularly good, but I don't think the start menu is particularly good either; it's pretty much a wash in usability if you're using them both optimally, by typing program names. Quicksilver is the best launcher I've used for any OS.

Regarding boot behavior:
Default boot location is the start screen. If you put the desktop tile in the first spot on the start screen, you just need to hit enter from the start screen to return to the desktop. Alternatively you can set a task in the task scheduler to go to the desktop on startup.

I don't think even setting the task to run is of much value, quite a lot of work has gone into implementing effective low-power states in Win8, and engineering updates to require fewer reboots, so full shutdown/reboot should be required very infrequently.

Regarding default apps:
Metro apps are set as the default programs for a bunch of file types by default. You can change the default program for any file type to whatever desktop program you want, same as always.

 

[Zelig]

I don't think anything has materially changed in the past 5 months. Windows 8 was feature complete in the release preview which was released over 5 months ago, if anyone has changed their mind since then they weren't paying attention at that time.

There's a bunch of speculation about Sinofsky's departure, and none of credible speculation point to his leaving because of Windows 8.

I have no idea how you're measuring Windows sales as being down 21% of this time last year. They're actually up roughly 100%, which is pretty meaningless since you're comparing a launch OS vs. a mid-lifecycle OS.

Overall PC shipments are down roughly 8% year-over-year, but this is pretty much unrelated to Windows sales, pretty much nobody syncs up their PC buying with Windows releases. (Lenovo gained about as much %-wise as Apple lost, FWIW.)

I honestly cannot take anyone seriously who thinks Windows 7 is better than Windows 8. Windows 8 is a superset of Windows 7, there is not a single substantial thing which Windows 7 does better than Windows 8. (I do get the initial feeling of dislike with the UI - I had the same initial feeling, but it goes away once you realize you never need to see the Metro UI on a desktop.)

I see where you got the 21% now, it's NDP numbers for PC retail sales in the US. It seems like more of a drop than I would have expected, but I don't think it's particularly important.

In other stats, Steam already has nearly double the number of Windows 8 users as it has Mac OS users of any version.

 

[innonimatu]

So in Win 8, is there a way to set the computer to start to the desktop permanently and avoid Metro all together, forever? I read somewhere there are Metro apps that will force you into metro to use the program. (Maybe it was vice versa, can't remember.)

No way with the control settings provided by Microsoft, they went out of their way to force users to eat their "metro" UI.

Users can use the traditional UI when they at a desk and move to a touch UI (Metro) when they are on the move.
This is perfect for business people who don't have to change OS and/or set of tools between sitting at their desk or moving around... often without having to change device at all.

Oh, a choice of UI... Windows is finally starting to catch up with Linux and the unixes, it now has two UI to choose from!

Nope! They tried to shove their new "metro" UI down the throat of their users as a way to promote their attempt to enter the phone and tablet markets. It has been a failure, the only place Windows 8 is being used is desktops and laptops, as usual, and the users are pissed at metro being the default UI. You just don't do that to your paying costumers, not when there are so many good alternatives available.

You can see that a large number of hybrid/transformer devices are coming to the market: they are laptops transforming into tablets (by detaching the screen or by folding it).

You mean what Asus did right with Android two years ago?

In conclusion, I still have doubt of Win8 for pure smartphones but I'm pretty sure that it's a great OS for a desktops, laptops, hybrids, and (potentially) tablets too.

"Doubts" on smartphones!

I don't think anyone has any real doubt there! Microsoft failed with the stupid "let's force the same UI everywhere so we can promise to manufactures of phones that they'll be able to sell this OS no one wants, windows phone". Microsoft can spend an entire year's revenue on marketing and paid astroturfing all over the Internet (just look at all the pieces about Windows 8), it won't change that. Those who decide - the phone manufacturers - don't want to touch Windows Phone with a 10ft pole. Same for tablets. Windows Phone could conceivable sell as easily as Android or iOS; but the manufacturers don't what to be dependent on Microsoft and won't carry it. Nokia got "bought" to use windows phone, but it can't compete with the eastern ones. And Microsoft's delivery for them so far has been less than stellar. The end result is Nokia going the way of the dodo, and Microsoft getting an ever worse reputation as a company you should never work with!