They lose money. Being that making money is the objective of business, this constitutes a failure. But I know I made that very clear early on. So speaking of things getting a little old...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft's Shifting Strategy in Response to Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They lose money. Being that making money is the objective of business, this constitutes a failure. But I know I made that very clear early on. So speaking of things getting a little old...
A lot of companies lose money in certain divisions in order to make money elsewhere.
You think Google makes money on every division they have given that they've branched out in so many fields in the past couple of years? Certainly not, but it boosts their primary business: making money.
And likewise, the rest of MS is meant to boost its primary businesses: its operating systems, and its enterprise solutions.
You think Google makes money on every division they have given that they've branched out in so many fields in the past couple of years? Certainly not, but it boosts their primary business: making money.
And likewise, the rest of MS is meant to boost its primary businesses: its operating systems, and its enterprise solutions.
Trust me, Microsoft wants to profit from these products, they often just don't know how. They've been trying to find the formula for making money in online services for 15 years, culminating with their failed effort to acquire Yahoo.
I think the mistake is being made here is holding to the theory that if Microsoft has managed to make a pile in one business, and they don't in another, it's because they don't care to. People still seem to invest a lot of awe in Microsoft, which if you get down into the details, seems quite undeserved.
I think the mistake is being made here is holding to the theory that if Microsoft has managed to make a pile in one business, and they don't in another, it's because they don't care to. People still seem to invest a lot of awe in Microsoft, which if you get down into the details, seems quite undeserved.
Oh yes, I'm sure they would like to profit, but its not always possible. Microsoft was late to the internet/advertisements market, and that's why their playing catch up.
Yep, being the largest software company in existence who happens to power 95% of our computers is bound to cause some awe. My awe comes from the fact that Microsoft is able to compete with so many large companies, often who specialize in such field, all at once. Just think about it.
Sony, Nintendo, Google, Yahoo, Apple, Mozilla, Oracle, IBM, RIM, Nokia, AOL, Logitech, and Adobe.
Any company that is able to compete with so many A-list companies, and have a noteworthy presence in each and every one of these markets, earns my gratitude. Not only that, Microsoft gives away billions of dollars to non-profit organizations. There's a lot to be in "awe" of Microsoft, actually.
Oh yes, I already know your thoughts that anything that doesn't turn a profit immediately is a failure. We all know Microsoft was late getting into the online business, and this is the price they have to pay for it. Microsoft doesn't expect to turn a profit in this division until 2012, but considering the advertising market be worth substantially more than it is now, Microsoft sees it as a worthy investment. (Especially considering 2/3rds of their investments are going towards this division.) It will eventually pay off, just like the E&D division did.
Microsoft was late to the internet market? A ten year head start on Google, a virtual monopoly in operating systems, and billions in cash wasn't enough?
And the argument that Microsoft "gives away billions" is too ludicrous to even warrant a response.
This grows very tiresome.
And the argument that Microsoft "gives away billions" is too ludicrous to even warrant a response.
This grows very tiresome.
A 10-year headstart on Google? Don't over exaggerate. And by "late", I mean Microsoft didn't give the internet the attention it needed (i.e. wasn't serious), which allowed competitors to swallow up the market share, and now Microsoft is playing catch up.
And why is that?
Indeed, it does.
To coerce people to utilize their 'Live Search,' MS will donate money as an incentive? This is desperately pathetic.
Getting me to use a product by getting payed or tricking me into installing a product? Both evil, but if I must choose I rather get payed.
What are you talking about? If your talking about the CashBack program, look at this, because you are mistaken.
Anyways, I'm talking about the money they donated for 9/11, the money they donated for Katrina, and the billions of dollars they donated to other occasions. In fact, Microsoft employees (not including Bill Gates) have given over $2.5 billion dollars to non-profit organizations worldwide, which makes Microsoft the #1 company in per-employee donations in the world.
Not all that money is completely clean though. I remember one anecdote where Microsoft aggressively campaigned to prevent Peruvian schools from using open source software to save money, and instead donated some cash in order for the schools to keep buying microsoft software. I actually kind of like Bill Gates, but remember sometimes "donation" is code for something a little more morally gray.
I remember that. Bill flew down personally to donate $500,000 to the Peruvian school system. Overall, the donations totaled $50 million. These were schools that had trouble even paying the water & electric bills, and I'm sure that much money was well received. Besides, some of that money went towards buying more internet-connected computers. Yeah, I'm sure them continuing to use Microsoft's software was a big motivation of the donation, but it was a donation, none the less.
It's not an exaggeration. Google didn't start having a real impact until a few years ago, perhaps five. Before then, they were a tiny startup that hardly anyone had heard of. I remember this very distinctly. When I covered the Internet World 2000 Expo I went home with Google luggage tag. I carried it around for years on my briefcase -- and was asked countless times "what's a Google?" Everybody knows now of course. Microsoft was trying to figure out how to address the Internet beginning in the early '90s. First they tried modeling MSN after AOL and when that failed to catch on, shifted to a portal model when Netscape threatened. Now they're trying emulate Google. So no, they've been out there for a long time trying. And failing.
Because this is how Microsoft has handled "donations."
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-276216.html
Right. Having to restate my position over and over, and reiterating the history, which anyone can learn if they make the effort, does get tiresome, probably for everyone involved.
Again, by "late", I mean Microsoft was late to capitalize on the internet. Like you said, they modeled MSN after AOL after seeing their success. Next, Internet Explorer after Netscape, and now Live Search after Google. And that's why its always playing catch up. However, if you notice, being behind is not always as bad, as your not always deeply rooted in your ways. AOL is now defunct, same with Netscape. MSN has been drastically transformed over the years to cater to the competition. Of course, being "behind" is not something Microsoft is fond of.
Considering that proposition was thrown out, it doesn't take anything away from Microsoft. The company as a whole donated money to Katrina, 9/11 and other disasters. In fact, Microsoft matches any donations made by its employees every year. In total, Microsoft & it's employees (not including Bill Gates) have given over $2.5 billion dollars to non-profit organizations worldwide, which makes Microsoft the #1 company in per-employee donations in the world. And now Bill Gates himself heads the world's largest philanthropist organization.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/sep06/09-21CharitableDonationsPR.mspx
Well, you know, that's the point of a debate.
Yes, late -- as in always playing catch-up and never catching up, despite their huge natural advantages. Being perennially behind the technological curve is not a good place to be for a technology company. You are just restating what I've said many times, and trying to turn it into a positive. It isn't going to work. Even Microsoft would not believe it. They know they need to get ahead of the curve, they just don't seem to know how.
But as I have said so many times before, this is Microsoft's history. They have not competed well at all in markets where they've faced active competition, where they haven't been able to leverage their existing dominant market share. The various antitrust law rulings against them have severely restricted their ability to leverage Windows to give them the automatic competitive advantages which in the past they've exploited to maximum effect. For a long time, if they wanted a competitor snuffed, they snuffed them. Retooling their corporate culture for competing successfully on a more level playing field is a massive task.
Once again if the question is whether Steve Ballmer has what it takes to point this ship in another direction, I'd have to say the evidence argues against it, if only on the basis of the company's performance to date. IMO, he is too much of a product of the company's old way of doing business to make the needed changes. Microsoft appears to be shuffling off in the direction of GM and other companies of their ilk, who were too fat and too happy for too long to change without being faced with a major crisis, and possibly more than one.
But as I have said so many times before, this is Microsoft's history. They have not competed well at all in markets where they've faced active competition, where they haven't been able to leverage their existing dominant market share. The various antitrust law rulings against them have severely restricted their ability to leverage Windows to give them the automatic competitive advantages which in the past they've exploited to maximum effect. For a long time, if they wanted a competitor snuffed, they snuffed them. Retooling their corporate culture for competing successfully on a more level playing field is a massive task.
Once again if the question is whether Steve Ballmer has what it takes to point this ship in another direction, I'd have to say the evidence argues against it, if only on the basis of the company's performance to date. IMO, he is too much of a product of the company's old way of doing business to make the needed changes. Microsoft appears to be shuffling off in the direction of GM and other companies of their ilk, who were too fat and too happy for too long to change without being faced with a major crisis, and possibly more than one.
The most logical definition of success for a technology company is money and influence and Microsoft fits this better than most. While Microsoft may be trailing some of its competitors, its also leading many of them too. Like I said, Microsoft is competing with more A-list companies than most, and It would be a little foolish to think Microsoft is able to stay ahead of the curve in all of them.
Please, stop with the absolutes. Microsoft has competed in numerous markets that it holds no influence over. The Xbox/360 are prime examples. What about Microsoft's computer hardware? The Zune? Besides, since when is leveraging your past successes considered bad? Ever heard of Apple? I bet you have...
I don't understand why you see the need for drastic changes in the way Microsoft operates. It's very profitable, which as you said, is the definition of success for a business.
Your comparing Microsoft, who just recorded their largest revenue growth in 10 years, even with the so called "blunder" of Vista, the Xbox, search, and the Zune to an automotive company who just posted their largest revenue loss in 100 years? That's a little extreme, don't you think? When Microsoft's records a $40 billion year loss, maybe that comparison will become a little more relevant.
I think there's another important factor though.
Their dominant market share also forces them to be technologically conservative. They can't easily do what Apple effectively did with OSX - basically start with a blank sheet of paper and build a new OS and development frameworks.
They can't afford to make Office 2009 or Windows Vista II incompatible with, or different from previous iterations of Office or Vista. People have huge investments in software, hardware and time/training in Microsoft software; and as such are tied into Microsoft.
If MS change too much or too fast, these clients could just as easily switch to a competitor as switch to the latest MS product. IMO, this is largely what's holding MS back.
Microsoft has constraints on Windows development that Apple may not have, I agree, but not so many that they are compelled them to drop major announced features, and then ship very late anyway. This is quite clearly a competence issue, not a function of being technologically conservative.
The concept that all Office documents are fully compatible is a fallacy, really. In a sense, all new versions of Office are incompatible with previous versions, because they introduce new features, and often very different methods, which require retraining. It seems that these incompatibilities and learning curves are widely tolerated, but they do exist nonetheless.
Use Live Search and We'll Donate to Team Seattle
http://blogs.msdn.com/livesearch/ar...nate-to-team-seattle-and-ninemillion-org.aspx
Any employee donations are tax write-offs - money that would be payed to the government instead. It certainly makes them appear to be generous.