hardcore_gamer
Distinguished
- Mar 27, 2010
- 540
- 0
- 18,980
- Status
I could tell this was written by Wolfgang Grüner just by seeing the title. 
His "articles" are all alike - an opinion of one guy. Why should it be any more relevant than an opinion of anyone else? What's so "special" about him that it gets published on TH?
His "articles" are all alike - an opinion of one guy. Why should it be any more relevant than an opinion of anyone else? What's so "special" about him that it gets published on TH?
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]theshonen8899[/nom]The day Steam goes on Linux is the day I abandon Windows. The world needs to understand that there is a capable OS that doesn't cost them a foot.[/citation]
[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]This^ 1,000%. I'm tired of dealing with Windows. Linux is faster, lighter, and more reliable and also there a are tons of distro's to choose. Ubuntu being my favorite of course.If I owned a lappy just for average usage I'd install Linux on it right away.[/citation]
linux is also less user friendly, code heavy, and ultimately like every thing else that is open source ... not unififed enough to attract a alrge crowd. sorry to burst your geeky bubbles but until linux can adress those issues don't expect it to ever grace main stream computing. the average useer wants something that works with as little know how as possible. as for gaming , i doubt you'll see steam on linux ever, game companies don't tend to code their games in linux because thiere is just not enough customers to out weigh the cost of recoding a game. you can cry f---ing rivers of tills till your eyes fall out but it won't cahnge the fact that the game indsutry is an industry and money is what drives it.that said even if steam did show up on linux it's very likely that only Valve made games would get a "recode" job so many people would find only half or less of their steam games would work on linux. In short i just don't see it happening.
now don't get me wrong i got nothing against linux myself, i do have a problem with people repeating the same old pipe dreams over and over about how they wish a minority "geek" heavy OS would take over the industry forcing millions of users to learn to be uber geeks , not to forget leaving countless older people out on their cyber butts.
as much as you may hate MS , you got to give them points for what they did right , and that is design an OS that is user freindly , works on a number of hardware configurations, and bassically borught PC's to main stream market. with out MS , PC's would still be a compeletely "tech thing". not something joe average would care to deal with inside of his /her home.
[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]This^ 1,000%. I'm tired of dealing with Windows. Linux is faster, lighter, and more reliable and also there a are tons of distro's to choose. Ubuntu being my favorite of course.If I owned a lappy just for average usage I'd install Linux on it right away.[/citation]
linux is also less user friendly, code heavy, and ultimately like every thing else that is open source ... not unififed enough to attract a alrge crowd. sorry to burst your geeky bubbles but until linux can adress those issues don't expect it to ever grace main stream computing. the average useer wants something that works with as little know how as possible. as for gaming , i doubt you'll see steam on linux ever, game companies don't tend to code their games in linux because thiere is just not enough customers to out weigh the cost of recoding a game. you can cry f---ing rivers of tills till your eyes fall out but it won't cahnge the fact that the game indsutry is an industry and money is what drives it.that said even if steam did show up on linux it's very likely that only Valve made games would get a "recode" job so many people would find only half or less of their steam games would work on linux. In short i just don't see it happening.
now don't get me wrong i got nothing against linux myself, i do have a problem with people repeating the same old pipe dreams over and over about how they wish a minority "geek" heavy OS would take over the industry forcing millions of users to learn to be uber geeks , not to forget leaving countless older people out on their cyber butts.
as much as you may hate MS , you got to give them points for what they did right , and that is design an OS that is user freindly , works on a number of hardware configurations, and bassically borught PC's to main stream market. with out MS , PC's would still be a compeletely "tech thing". not something joe average would care to deal with inside of his /her home.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 1,492
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]applegetsmelaid[/nom]I'd be willing to bet that this article was written on a Microsoft based workstation.Definition of INSIGNIFICANT: not significant: asa : lacking meaning or importb : not worth considering : unimportantc : lacking weight, position, or influence : contemptibled : small in size, quantity, or numberNone of these are a description of Microsoft. I doubt that in our lifetime and our children's lifetime will MS fit this definition. Just because MS does not make products in a new category or fit niche markets does not mean that they are insignificant. Major food companies don't become insignificant because they don't create some new exotic food no one has heard of. Consistency is more important to significance than innovation.[/citation]
smartest thing posted by far ...
actualy considering this fact , i'd have to say this was the dumbest tom's article i've ever seen on toms... oh god wait i just insulted toms ... i guess they'll ban me for a month or so now ..Stil dumbest f---ing article ever on a tech site.
smartest thing posted by far ...
actualy considering this fact , i'd have to say this was the dumbest tom's article i've ever seen on toms... oh god wait i just insulted toms ... i guess they'll ban me for a month or so now ..Stil dumbest f---ing article ever on a tech site.
feeddagoat
Distinguished
- Apr 11, 2010
- 329
- 0
- 18,790
I think theres a problem with the market atm in the sense that companies dont fully know where its going to go. Apple being trend setters can drive a market in any direction and tell their zelots whats gonna be the next big thing. While they do produce excellent products the market is ultimately driven by apples flavor of the month.
Microsoft on the other hand have appeared to me to focus in on one product and neglect others. Just look at windows xp to vista. It felt like reinventing the wheel for the sake of it and the "oh we should do something with our os" after focusing on xbox. Even now xbox is still their main focus with their mobile OS getting some attention but its all went quiet on that front. Im starting to see then as a home entertainment company with their focus on home media (ie windows media player)and fancy interfaces and controls with kinect. Their only other "revolutionary" achievement to date is DX11.
Microsoft on the other hand have appeared to me to focus in on one product and neglect others. Just look at windows xp to vista. It felt like reinventing the wheel for the sake of it and the "oh we should do something with our os" after focusing on xbox. Even now xbox is still their main focus with their mobile OS getting some attention but its all went quiet on that front. Im starting to see then as a home entertainment company with their focus on home media (ie windows media player)and fancy interfaces and controls with kinect. Their only other "revolutionary" achievement to date is DX11.
gamerk316
Glorious
- Jul 8, 2008
- 13,233
- 130
- 44,840
They can't. Kinnect is nothing more then a rangefinder, period. Not particularlly accurate down to something as small as a finger, and VERY limited application [waving arms and the like]. Theres a reason so few console hardware addons have ever had any amount of success after all...
-Fran-
Illustrious
- May 3, 2007
- 8,937
- 2,109
- 42,140
[citation][nom]applegetsmelaid[/nom]I'd be willing to bet that this article was written on a Microsoft based workstation.Definition of INSIGNIFICANT: not significant: asa : lacking meaning or importb : not worth considering : unimportantc : lacking weight, position, or influence : contemptibled : small in size, quantity, or numberNone of these are a description of Microsoft. I doubt that in our lifetime and our children's lifetime will MS fit this definition. Just because MS does not make products in a new category or fit niche markets does not mean that they are insignificant. Major food companies don't become insignificant because they don't create some new exotic food no one has heard of. Consistency is more important to significance than innovation.[/citation]
Considering the article talks about "main stream innovation", makes the IBM analogy correct IMO. If we talk about enterprise... Uhm... I don't know, IBM + Linux is a hard rock to swallow there (though WebSphere sucks ass xD). Even more when Oracle now has Solaris with them and can deliver embedded solutions. MS has a tough spot in the enterprise in years to come if they don't deliver something solid that IBM and Oracle can't. Back into the consumers world, its simpler to have a good product and milk it for years with a good marketing campaign (you can do "lobby" in enterprises, but they dingle in the thin red line of corruption IMO), and that's what the article points out I think.
Now, on the food companies analogy... They do need innovation. How the hell do you think they can produce more and with better quality? They need to improve quality of products, quality of production lines, schemes and machinery; hell, they even have to improve the FOOD itself. Basically, nope, I don't agree with you there. Staying like a mammoth in the long run, means you'll get eaten sooner or later. Innovation is the way to survive for ALL companies, ALL of them. IBM knows this, MS knows this, Oracle knows this, Apple knows this, the company I work for knows this, my local milk producing "factory" (farm plus? XD) knows it. Maybe we have to agree on "size of innovation": step by step or revolutionary. We can agree there about "keep the wheel spinning"; MS has to answer to share holders, sure, but that doesn't mean they can't do R&D.
On the other hand, if you take one comment from a MS employee it might not mean the whole company's opinion at all, granted, but it might give you an idea of what SOME of them might think about FOSS and Open technologies per sé: "a waste of time cause no money is involved for me". That's just being short sighted.
Anyway, this ain't a bad opinion article at all; gives you a good brain massage, lol.
Thanks, Mr. Gruener.
Cheers!
Considering the article talks about "main stream innovation", makes the IBM analogy correct IMO. If we talk about enterprise... Uhm... I don't know, IBM + Linux is a hard rock to swallow there (though WebSphere sucks ass xD). Even more when Oracle now has Solaris with them and can deliver embedded solutions. MS has a tough spot in the enterprise in years to come if they don't deliver something solid that IBM and Oracle can't. Back into the consumers world, its simpler to have a good product and milk it for years with a good marketing campaign (you can do "lobby" in enterprises, but they dingle in the thin red line of corruption IMO), and that's what the article points out I think.
Now, on the food companies analogy... They do need innovation. How the hell do you think they can produce more and with better quality? They need to improve quality of products, quality of production lines, schemes and machinery; hell, they even have to improve the FOOD itself. Basically, nope, I don't agree with you there. Staying like a mammoth in the long run, means you'll get eaten sooner or later. Innovation is the way to survive for ALL companies, ALL of them. IBM knows this, MS knows this, Oracle knows this, Apple knows this, the company I work for knows this, my local milk producing "factory" (farm plus? XD) knows it. Maybe we have to agree on "size of innovation": step by step or revolutionary. We can agree there about "keep the wheel spinning"; MS has to answer to share holders, sure, but that doesn't mean they can't do R&D.
On the other hand, if you take one comment from a MS employee it might not mean the whole company's opinion at all, granted, but it might give you an idea of what SOME of them might think about FOSS and Open technologies per sé: "a waste of time cause no money is involved for me". That's just being short sighted.
Anyway, this ain't a bad opinion article at all; gives you a good brain massage, lol.
Thanks, Mr. Gruener.
Cheers!
Many people love to hate Microsoft. This entire article is based on the flawed opinion of one person who is obviously in their marketing department. Kinect is a great technology, and Microsoft invented it. Simple as that. They technology isn't going anywhere, and you can bet that it will eventually work its way into many aspects of computing.
Also, Windows Phone is way under-hyped. It's a solid MOS and is going to take a fair share of the market. One of it's best advantages is the amazing developer tools. I expect to see the WP7 app store far outshine the Android marketplace within a year.
Office is still the gold standard in word processing and consumer data management.
Xbox is a competitive gaming system.
Quit hating and recognize.
Also, Windows Phone is way under-hyped. It's a solid MOS and is going to take a fair share of the market. One of it's best advantages is the amazing developer tools. I expect to see the WP7 app store far outshine the Android marketplace within a year.
Office is still the gold standard in word processing and consumer data management.
Xbox is a competitive gaming system.
Quit hating and recognize.
brisingamen
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2009
- 201
- 0
- 18,680
how about stupid articles like this die until microsoft starts losing money, . . . or atleast making less money than thier competitors, or even, . . less money than they made last year. . . . none of which is the case,
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]linux is also less user friendly, code heavy, and ultimately like every thing else that is open source ... not unififed enough to attract a alrge crowd. sorry to burst your geeky bubbles but until linux can adress those issues don't expect it to ever grace main stream computing. the average useer wants something that works with as little know how as possible.[/citation]
In one respect you're right. Linux can be a bit more complicated, but that complication only arises if you start delving into code and various options that are unnecessary and only feed to the user's curiosity. You can find linux distros that work out of the box with practically any hardware you have and are easier to manage/use then windows (mint and PClinuxOS specifically). It's far safer and forgiving to boot. You can always repair/backup a linux installation and data far easier than you can a windows OS-based HD/PC, and bear in mind the chances of that happening on a linux distro are far less than on your windows machine. I used to think that linux-based OSes were just a bunch of nerdy folk who sniffed their own farts and would bad-mouth MS/apple under their penguin hoodies, but it's just not that way anymore. Booting up to a linux machine just feels like I'm actually in control of my own PC and have the right to do with it as I please, and that's far more than I can say about booting up win7.
They do need to fix up just how the OS is packaged, ubuntu in particular. They lack some vital codecs -- video/audio and java/flash, but Linux Mint and PClinuxOS are better "out of the box" in that sense. But you need to download/install the same codecs on a windows machine as well, so that's no different.
Canonical has been doing a fantastic job with Ubuntu thus far and it's been showing. Ubuntu has become very popular and even spawned offspring. But can it package itself in such a way that any idiot who switches from windows can use it? I'm not sure... but quite frankly, I don't think I'd want it either. Developers require a stable platform where their products can reach the masses for an extended period of time, and though linux distros seem to be popping up every 5 minutes, the code is open-source and in that respect would actually favor said developers more.
I've recently read (forgive me, I can't seem to find the url) a statistic that said around 50% PCs of shipped in china are now using some sort of a linux distro. I was doubtful of the statistic, but found myself asking why the hell not? Because it's open-source, very malleable, there's no doubt in my mind you're bound to find a linux distro that is more novice-friendly than any version of windows/mac. Though that programmer/fart-sniffing niche will always be there, I think it has the potential of making up far more ground.
Did I mention it's free?
In one respect you're right. Linux can be a bit more complicated, but that complication only arises if you start delving into code and various options that are unnecessary and only feed to the user's curiosity. You can find linux distros that work out of the box with practically any hardware you have and are easier to manage/use then windows (mint and PClinuxOS specifically). It's far safer and forgiving to boot. You can always repair/backup a linux installation and data far easier than you can a windows OS-based HD/PC, and bear in mind the chances of that happening on a linux distro are far less than on your windows machine. I used to think that linux-based OSes were just a bunch of nerdy folk who sniffed their own farts and would bad-mouth MS/apple under their penguin hoodies, but it's just not that way anymore. Booting up to a linux machine just feels like I'm actually in control of my own PC and have the right to do with it as I please, and that's far more than I can say about booting up win7.
They do need to fix up just how the OS is packaged, ubuntu in particular. They lack some vital codecs -- video/audio and java/flash, but Linux Mint and PClinuxOS are better "out of the box" in that sense. But you need to download/install the same codecs on a windows machine as well, so that's no different.
Canonical has been doing a fantastic job with Ubuntu thus far and it's been showing. Ubuntu has become very popular and even spawned offspring. But can it package itself in such a way that any idiot who switches from windows can use it? I'm not sure... but quite frankly, I don't think I'd want it either. Developers require a stable platform where their products can reach the masses for an extended period of time, and though linux distros seem to be popping up every 5 minutes, the code is open-source and in that respect would actually favor said developers more.
I've recently read (forgive me, I can't seem to find the url) a statistic that said around 50% PCs of shipped in china are now using some sort of a linux distro. I was doubtful of the statistic, but found myself asking why the hell not? Because it's open-source, very malleable, there's no doubt in my mind you're bound to find a linux distro that is more novice-friendly than any version of windows/mac. Though that programmer/fart-sniffing niche will always be there, I think it has the potential of making up far more ground.
Did I mention it's free?
-Fran-
Illustrious
- May 3, 2007
- 8,937
- 2,109
- 42,140
[citation][nom]jaglows3[/nom]Kinect is a great technology, and Microsoft invented it. Simple as that.[/citation]
Nope, it ain't. They bought the tech from the Israeli (PrimeSense).
[citation]Also, Windows Phone is way under-hyped. It's a solid MOS and is going to take a fair share of the market. One of it's best advantages is the amazing developer tools. I expect to see the WP7 app store far outshine the Android marketplace within a year.[/citation]
Nope, it won't. WP7 adoption rate is low to say the best. No market, no development.
[citation]Office is still the gold standard in word processing and consumer data management.[/citation]
With absolutely nothing new to show, and selling less and less copies by the year.
[citation]Xbox is a competitive gaming system. Quit hating and recognize.[/citation]
Yes it is, but it's far from being "innovative" which is the main topic of the article.
So yes, quit hating and recognize.
Nope, it ain't. They bought the tech from the Israeli (PrimeSense).
[citation]Also, Windows Phone is way under-hyped. It's a solid MOS and is going to take a fair share of the market. One of it's best advantages is the amazing developer tools. I expect to see the WP7 app store far outshine the Android marketplace within a year.[/citation]
Nope, it won't. WP7 adoption rate is low to say the best. No market, no development.
[citation]Office is still the gold standard in word processing and consumer data management.[/citation]
With absolutely nothing new to show, and selling less and less copies by the year.
[citation]Xbox is a competitive gaming system. Quit hating and recognize.[/citation]
Yes it is, but it's far from being "innovative" which is the main topic of the article.
So yes, quit hating and recognize.
I think this view is a little narrow minded... For Microsoft, the consumer market is a small portion of their total sales. XBox makes millions, but their enterprise software is what makes the Billions.
On the other hand, I believe you're right about the opinion of the poster. With the original XBox, it was almost a sport to hack the box. Microsoft encouraged it as a whole and kept track of what was being done. A good bit of the experiment was actually incorporated into the 360. I could only hope that the same mentality would be carried forth with new product, but I doubt it.
On the other hand, I believe you're right about the opinion of the poster. With the original XBox, it was almost a sport to hack the box. Microsoft encouraged it as a whole and kept track of what was being done. A good bit of the experiment was actually incorporated into the 360. I could only hope that the same mentality would be carried forth with new product, but I doubt it.
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
First, I cannot believe that one guy's opinion is spun into a whole article criticizing Microsoft for the perceived lack of significance.
Secondly, Microsoft is very much relevant today as it was 15 years ago. Not every company needs an evangelizing crowd that will buy up anything it makes, after all.
Secondly, Microsoft is very much relevant today as it was 15 years ago. Not every company needs an evangelizing crowd that will buy up anything it makes, after all.
akula2
Distinguished
- Jan 2, 2009
- 408
- 0
- 18,790
@MU-TechTrainer: No...they are just a good computer. At what cost do we get this stability? We have limited abiltiy to upgrade components and soft backward compatibility. Macs stability comes at a cost. Since it inception what have the Mac OS's done? They have built on their same product. Just like Windows.
Is that dumb defense of yours is a kinda tit-for-tat to this statement made in this article?
"but we already know that Microsoft is modeling the OS after Apple ideas and there is not much we can say would be especially revolutionary!"
@antixbaby: Most larger companies don't "innovate" or invent much more anyway. They just buy patents!
Really? Such as? You meant Microsoft? HP? Canon? Sony? IBM? Samsung? or who? You know what?
IBM is the first company on this planet to break 5,000 patents/year mark! All those companies I've mentioned are global giants and also in the Top 10 list of innovative companies.
@jamessneed: You lost me at IBM... True they are business focused but find one business with over 100 employess that does not use IBM products. I would even venture a guess that IBM inovates more than any other company. For example IBM are showing silicon at 11nm this week, anyone else got that, nope. Wolfgang, get a grip IBM and MS rule the business and consumer markets they are in.
You were spot on! Author has got it wrong for sure.
Is that dumb defense of yours is a kinda tit-for-tat to this statement made in this article?
"but we already know that Microsoft is modeling the OS after Apple ideas and there is not much we can say would be especially revolutionary!"
@antixbaby: Most larger companies don't "innovate" or invent much more anyway. They just buy patents!
Really? Such as? You meant Microsoft? HP? Canon? Sony? IBM? Samsung? or who? You know what?
IBM is the first company on this planet to break 5,000 patents/year mark! All those companies I've mentioned are global giants and also in the Top 10 list of innovative companies.
@jamessneed: You lost me at IBM... True they are business focused but find one business with over 100 employess that does not use IBM products. I would even venture a guess that IBM inovates more than any other company. For example IBM are showing silicon at 11nm this week, anyone else got that, nope. Wolfgang, get a grip IBM and MS rule the business and consumer markets they are in.
You were spot on! Author has got it wrong for sure.
The M$ blogger quoted in this article is a moron; kinect is a gateway technology that, when developed with technologies like 3-D monitors, can change how users interact with every computer/os enabled device they own. Shame on this guy for playing down his company's product and it's ability to be used out side of its original scope.
On the linux vs M$ debate I have one word for you: Android. Android introduces a simi-standardized OS that is gaining major face time in the phone and tablet market. IF Android gains traction as a tablet OS the next logical step is a move to the desktop/laptop space. It will encounter major resistance from M$, but will have product recognition among the masses and a million applications ready to be sold on it out of the gate.
Add on top of that, the very successful marketing campaign used by Google and the fact it can be sold for free and M$ has a problem. Android will not have to fight the negative perception that every M$ offering endures (how many of us recommended going to get the latest greatest OS before the first service pack?), in fact the public could be kept in eager anticipation by the shinny new toy of Android desktop. As apposed to M$ OSes that are met with a "What will break now" attitude. Gaining 5-15% market share wouldn't be hard and if M$ is counting counterfeit OSes as it's market share a free Android OS could shift the market in a major way.
Or it could be an epic fail and be the downfall of google.
I use M$ products every day, I have yet to find a Linux distro that made me happy enough to keep it, and the apple tax keeps me on PCs. My experience is that of 75% of the users in the world M$ may not always be the best new idea, but they produce the broadest computing platform in the world and do so with some great products. Every company produces a dud from time to time. For example Apple was a nobody in the 90's with crap computers and consumer eletronics most have never heard of, and still today releases disasters like "Ping", google's ChromeOS and social networking site both bombed. M$ may not be hot to trot these days but is still a dynasty and will continue to be so for a long time.
On the linux vs M$ debate I have one word for you: Android. Android introduces a simi-standardized OS that is gaining major face time in the phone and tablet market. IF Android gains traction as a tablet OS the next logical step is a move to the desktop/laptop space. It will encounter major resistance from M$, but will have product recognition among the masses and a million applications ready to be sold on it out of the gate.
Add on top of that, the very successful marketing campaign used by Google and the fact it can be sold for free and M$ has a problem. Android will not have to fight the negative perception that every M$ offering endures (how many of us recommended going to get the latest greatest OS before the first service pack?), in fact the public could be kept in eager anticipation by the shinny new toy of Android desktop. As apposed to M$ OSes that are met with a "What will break now" attitude. Gaining 5-15% market share wouldn't be hard and if M$ is counting counterfeit OSes as it's market share a free Android OS could shift the market in a major way.
Or it could be an epic fail and be the downfall of google.
I use M$ products every day, I have yet to find a Linux distro that made me happy enough to keep it, and the apple tax keeps me on PCs. My experience is that of 75% of the users in the world M$ may not always be the best new idea, but they produce the broadest computing platform in the world and do so with some great products. Every company produces a dud from time to time. For example Apple was a nobody in the 90's with crap computers and consumer eletronics most have never heard of, and still today releases disasters like "Ping", google's ChromeOS and social networking site both bombed. M$ may not be hot to trot these days but is still a dynasty and will continue to be so for a long time.
akula2
Distinguished
- Jan 2, 2009
- 408
- 0
- 18,790
This Android fever is mostly due to the hype surrounded against iPhone. Look I use Mac/Linux/Apple products but I do see and understand who's doing what. Andriod is a great thing from the Open Source point of view but the company behind it who's deliberately pitching against iPhone with nefarious designs for sure. So, for Google it's Andriod a good 'tool' to counter its competitions coming from Apple, Microsoft etc. But hey, Andriod is facing a big challenge: Code theft case! So, now the equilibrium has changed totally because Oracle entered into the fray against Google. No wonder why Apple suddenly shut down its ZFS port project (coz Oracle bought Sun).
Brainstorms
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2009
- 24
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]cronik93[/nom]This^ 1,000%. I'm tired of dealing with Windows. Linux is faster, lighter, and more reliable and also there a are tons of distro's to choose. Ubuntu being my favorite of course.If I owned a lappy just for average usage I'd install Linux on it right away.[/citation]
Wait no more... Surf on over to CodeWeavers website and download Crossover Pro and get Crossover Games for free. The product will let you run Windows apps in Linux as though they were native, and the Games product supports Steam. Bye-bye Windows, no more need for VirtualBox...
Wait no more... Surf on over to CodeWeavers website and download Crossover Pro and get Crossover Games for free. The product will let you run Windows apps in Linux as though they were native, and the Games product supports Steam. Bye-bye Windows, no more need for VirtualBox...
sudeshc
Distinguished
- Apr 30, 2009
- 261
- 0
- 18,780
totally agree the kind of organization MS is they should have been setting trends instead now a days all they are doing is trying to catchup be it mobile or windows or anything. It seems more like what author said they don't have there own vision and are trying to fit in new trends in the existing products somehow.
ronindaosohei
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2006
- 47
- 0
- 18,530
Two significant considerations:
1. In terms of product development and innovation I'm less concerned than I am about their marketing. If you consider Microsoft's history their strength was always in their ability to market and distribute their products as opposed to being especially revolutionary. In fact, it's pretty common for Microsoft to release products that aren't really top notch yet and incrementally improve them, a great example is Dynamics, which is now arguably one of the best CRMs available but started out lagging far behind the competition. Zune is similar, and we could go on. The concerning thing for Microsoft's survival is their seeming inability to market. Office Accounting, canceled, their VOIP system, canceled, I tell people about Office 365 and BPOS and they've never heard of it, in meetings people ask me about SalesForce.com and when I recommend Dynamics they've never heard of it. The list goes on and on. It's not that Microsoft products are so bad, in fact, they've done a great job over the last 12-18 months in really playing some impressive catch-up and releasing quality products but for the most part no one knows about them and that's the big problem, one I'm not sure they've recognized or are going to be able to correct. Business success isn't nearly so much about the product and far more about the marketing. They've killed pretty much any cult following they had so word of mouth is pretty much dead unlike for Google and Apple who get a huge amount of exposure from their user base.
2. A friend of mine works high up in Microsoft and he was explaining that Microsoft's strategy isn't to be cutting edge, it's to provide platforms and technology to support those who drive the innovation. For example, he pointed out the development of silverlight, you could similarly look at Direct X, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft is a platform and standards based company. It has such a large installed enterprise user base that it needs to progress relatively slowly to allow proper enterprise adoption and transition. With some luck, they'll really succeed in cloud technologies with Office 365 and Azure, but those are designed to provide platforms to allow others to drive end user innovation as opposed to actually driving that innovation themselves.
1. In terms of product development and innovation I'm less concerned than I am about their marketing. If you consider Microsoft's history their strength was always in their ability to market and distribute their products as opposed to being especially revolutionary. In fact, it's pretty common for Microsoft to release products that aren't really top notch yet and incrementally improve them, a great example is Dynamics, which is now arguably one of the best CRMs available but started out lagging far behind the competition. Zune is similar, and we could go on. The concerning thing for Microsoft's survival is their seeming inability to market. Office Accounting, canceled, their VOIP system, canceled, I tell people about Office 365 and BPOS and they've never heard of it, in meetings people ask me about SalesForce.com and when I recommend Dynamics they've never heard of it. The list goes on and on. It's not that Microsoft products are so bad, in fact, they've done a great job over the last 12-18 months in really playing some impressive catch-up and releasing quality products but for the most part no one knows about them and that's the big problem, one I'm not sure they've recognized or are going to be able to correct. Business success isn't nearly so much about the product and far more about the marketing. They've killed pretty much any cult following they had so word of mouth is pretty much dead unlike for Google and Apple who get a huge amount of exposure from their user base.
2. A friend of mine works high up in Microsoft and he was explaining that Microsoft's strategy isn't to be cutting edge, it's to provide platforms and technology to support those who drive the innovation. For example, he pointed out the development of silverlight, you could similarly look at Direct X, etc. etc. etc. Microsoft is a platform and standards based company. It has such a large installed enterprise user base that it needs to progress relatively slowly to allow proper enterprise adoption and transition. With some luck, they'll really succeed in cloud technologies with Office 365 and Azure, but those are designed to provide platforms to allow others to drive end user innovation as opposed to actually driving that innovation themselves.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Gigabyte B760 GAMING X DDR4 or MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4
- Started by Samuel-212
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question What Cat6 Ethernet Cable Should I Get? I'm From The UK
- Started by legendairyjoe
- Replies: 7
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram