Microsoft is Dead

http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

by kkim • 19 years ago

77 445 19 years ago

gibsonf14• 19 years ago

I agree, the shadow is gone - but for how long?

As much as I am frustrated with having to use XP (My Autodesk BIM cad system only runs on it), I wouldn't underestimate MS's ability to bounce back from bad directions/decisions like they have in the past.

If Gates radically changes his vision and business model to the new web world and gets Balmer to agree, they could dominate again. But can a company that has written extensively buggy software in the least lean way transform at this late date?

If it were anyone else other than Gates at the top of the company, I would say no. But does Gates have the energy this late in his career to make such a dramatic change in his business? Maybe not.

ph0rque• 19 years ago

Speaking of CAD software, how long until we will have an online version? (I would guess CAD software is on the same order of complexity as photoshop.) Are any perspective YCers working on it?

gibsonf14• 19 years ago

It's highly unlikely in the near term. The software my firm uses is Autodesk Revit's "Building Information Modeling", a highly evolved "intelligent" 3d modeling database system. The software uses every byte of ram, every hz of cpu, every byte & hertz of video interface on a users system - it takes serious horsepower to run a large model which is accessed over the network by multiple users. (Refreshing the model remotely via vpn over dsl can take 15 minutes) I don't see AJAX coming close to handling this kind of load for a long while. Also, the files can be huge, and in a web-hosted environment, the file storage would have to be absolutely massive and absolutely fast.

An interesting note is that Autodesk started out with Autocad, which they coded in lisp (eventually transformed into autolisp.) They took the MS model to software development and proceeded to make bigger and more complex versions with increasing quantities of bugs to the extent that multiple crashes per day were the norm. But they owned 80% of the world cad market, they became the 2nd largest software company in the world.

Revit was developed by a small company with an incredibly sound software architecture with a database at the core(without the massive bandaids that had piled up in Autocad and are still there today.) and developed a devoted cult following. Autodesk fought back with "Architectural Desktop", which I bought (before I knew about Revit). Their version: Cut a section through a building, wait 30 minutes. Revit, Cut a section through a building - instantly. Autodesk got very scared, then bought Revit. They saw the writing on the wall and undersood that Revit would be completely replacing Autocad in the next few years, which it is doing now.

So if MS can buy Google, they'll be all set :)

lak• 19 years ago

I guess I must be old now, because I find it hard to believe that a company that still has their software running on 95% of the world's computers is "dead". I just don't get this argument.

I totally agree that there's this very small, very insular part of the world that thinks it's dead, but that part of the world is apparently not working in large companies, or trading files with professionals in any profession other than design (e.g., try to find an Architect using Mac-based software -- they can't, because they couldn't trade files with each other or clients).

I'll believe MS is dead when they have, say, less than 70% of the world's computers running their operating system and when my corporate clients stop asking for files in Word format. Until then, they're just a monopoly that has massive amounts of power but that the cool kids aren't interested in.

It's like saying POTS telephones are dead -- they might not be interesting, but that's a big difference from being dead.

gibsonf14• 19 years ago

I think PG's point isn't that MS will vanish or is vanishing from the current installed user base point of view (mainly their OS), but that they no longer control the direction of software development. This is a major opening for us Entrepreneurs that, as PG pointed out, has never happened before.

MS Office is clearly under serious attack now, and I'm sure the OS will follow in a few years unless MS takes a major tack in their business, which seems unlikely but is possible. If you are a top-notch programmer brimming with big ideas, do you want to work for MS? Probably not, and I think that is the biggest barrier they have to succeeding in the new web world. You can buy programming mercenaries with enough cash, but the genius paradigm-shifters will be hard to find over at MS.

hello_moto3• 19 years ago

May I know whom attacking MS Office?

Last time I checked, none of the online web two point ooh software can open big documents. These web-apps only match probably 20% of MS Office features and it's simply not enough these days when people are more tech-savvy than in the past.

pixcavator• 19 years ago

Quote: "I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows". "Insular" indeed!

mdakin• 19 years ago

The architecture example is a bad one. While AutoCAD on Windows is by far the dominant setup there is a product for Macs called Vectorworks that is used by many firms. Several in the Boston area alone.

zach4• 19 years ago

Someone tell Paul Graham he's made a huge mistake -- I just called Microsoft's phone number and got through! Yup, Microsoft is as vital as they come.

look• 19 years ago

POTS is a good example. Despite the wording, I think Paul was saying that: Microsoft isn't interesting anymore. It's unavoidable, sure, but it's just more brain-damaged infrastructure to work around.

Microsoft is now a nuisance, not a competitor. They can make business painful, but they aren't scary anymore.

joeschmoe4• 19 years ago

Total agreement here.

gommm• 19 years ago

Quick reply for architects, well here in japan it's the contrary... Try to find an architect that doesn't use mac based software - you can't. (and even though autodesk tools are nicer than vectorworks....)

They are dead in the sense that while they still keep their old monopoly, it's slowly crumbling away... Files in word format can be read on almost any plateform now (maybe not always perfectly but still good enough) and the file formats for texts or other things will change as people start using new software (web applications).

As a matter of fact, you can see the death of microsoft by the fact that it's not a problem to run another platform anymore (in 90% of the cases) and that it becomes more and more easier...

It's mostly because microsoft doesn't bring anything new to the table anymore... Before, they didn't really innovate but they often came with really good implementations of good ideas other people had (lotus 1-2-3 - excel, wordstar - word, netscape - internet explorer) and took the market. They don't seem to be able to do this anymore

busy_beaver2• 19 years ago

In 1925, the British Empire controlled 25% of the earth's surface, but it was dead nonetheless.

far33d• 19 years ago

I can't decide whether etiquette requires you to allow the author of an article to post it if they are members (founders) of the site.

Then again, etiquette doesn't help entrepreneurs much.

ehabkost• 19 years ago

I read this comment multiple times, but I just couldn't understand what is it about.

nostrademons• 19 years ago

He's wondering if PG should have been the one to post this article, given that PG wrote it and also wrote this site.

And I dunno about news.YC, but Reddit at least doesn't work that way. I've written pieces that were picked up on Reddit and posted by other people. I found it rather flattering; it meant other folks thought it was interesting enough to post without my intervention.

mukund2• 19 years ago

Well what hurts me is the thing they have forced people like me to stick to MSFT. Atleast in our univ, they have exclusive tie up with MSFT and they install 99.99% windows only. Its rather 0.01% apple. But some who have admin access put on linux. Most of standard mech engg softwares run on windows. MSFT gives their products at dead cheap prices ... as low as $5 a CD. These dirty tactics are seeing them ahead, but it may not continue as people start seeing the reality. For MSFT to die, these loops must be plugged and nailed to accelerate its death.

jellerbee2• 19 years ago

So let me get this straight: Microsoft offers your university worthless software that provides no value to end users. The university knows its worthless software, you know its worthless, but the university is forced to buy it anyway because the dirty rotten scoundrels at Microsoft set the price so low.

University S/W Buyer: "We have to buy some MS Software." University S/W Boss: "Why?" University S/W Buyer: "Its $5.00 dollars per CD" University S/W Boss: "Ok, then I guess we have no choice."

jjrs5• 19 years ago

kind of. look at it from the competitor's end. they can't afford to sell at $5, they'd go under. It's like wal-mart putting mom and pop record stores out of business by selling CDs at cost.

So MS keeps their software standard at colleges, which influences students' buying habits (god forbid they grow accustomed to Mac or Linux and lose their fear of them).

theoutlander6• 19 years ago

I feel lucky to have experienced Solaris which I loved back in school... of course now I am into Redhat / freeBSD ... and of course Windows!

dawie• 19 years ago

I agree Paul, but Microsoft is still running that boring Enterprise Software that you always talk about. Also Microsoft's shitty software pays for my lunch,dinner, beer and women.

Goladus4• 19 years ago

Microsoft has the corporate desktop, but it's ripe for the taking. Google and various startups are trying to get their foot in the door. Big corporations don't do anything fast and no one expects windows to be wiped out. There are still mainframes out there running ancient software. In some cases simple terminal emulator front ends still outperform newer, browser-based alternatives.

And microsoft will still probably come out with new useful and popular products, but they won't be the sort that cause shockwaves throughout the whole industry (well maybe the Game Industry but that wasn't the point).

amichail4• 19 years ago

I think the situation is somewhat unpredictable since Microsoft could try to break AJAX apps by introducing all sorts of problems in IE.

Unreliable AJAX apps under IE would discourage users from using web apps. Most users are generally clueless and will not try to switch to another browser.

Microsoft could also undermine the business model of many web services by providing free advertising. The ads could even appear on users' desktops so improving their search engine may not even be necessary.

brett3• 19 years ago

It would take an incredible amount of sack for Microsoft to deliberately break IE; there's no way they would ever take a risk like that and I really doubt it would play out like you think. Web based applications have way too much momentum. Initially the clueless would go without, but the backlash would be so severe in the development and tech communities that pretty soon the clueless would have a working alternative preinstalled. The big internet companies (the ones we should still actually fear) would step in right away and partner with consumer hardware companies to make this happen.

amichail4• 19 years ago

Even if Microsoft does not intentionally break IE, what incentive would it have to improve support for AJAX apps?

For example, what incentive would it have to support an offline mode for AJAX apps?

randallsquared4• 19 years ago

Microsoft is still an enormously profitable and powerful company in the real world, and you should be more careful about drawing conclusions based on what a few people think in your insular little "Web 2.0" bubble.

More seriously, I mostly do business right now with small businesses (2-8 people), and some stupidly high proportion of these businesses run totally on Windows. When they go to buy the computer(s) they need, it never even occurs to them that there is any choice about whether to buy Windows, because Windows is just what programs run in. This kind of customer laughs ruefully along with the Apple commercials they see on TV, but I don't think it ever crosses their mind that they could actually buy a Mac for their business, much less a Linux box.

Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, Outlook, and Exchange are the core software apps of 90+% of small businesses.

zach4• 19 years ago

Come on, we're not talking about the homefront here, we're talking about the frontier. This is the startup news site; we're not here to talk about the current industry standard.

randallsquared4• 19 years ago

Well, the first part of my comment was a joke, and the second part was only asserting that Microsoft wasn't going to go away soon, because they're a de facto standard.

I'm not saying that I worry about them for my own projects, or that you should for yours. :)

jonhendry3• 19 years ago

"Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, Outlook, and Exchange are the core software apps of 90+% of small businesses."

You forgot the CPU-sucking antivirus apps they need to run that still can't guarantee that the business won't be brought to a standstill by a worm.

randallsquared4• 19 years ago

Well, there is that. I spend rather more time gloating about my Macs than I should, I suppose, and much of the gloating is about antivirus suckage for the Windows boxes. :)

hello_moto3• 19 years ago

Paul, I think you're being an ignorant a little bit in this case. Have you seen how Microsoft become the second major player in the game industry behind Sony PS brand? I think right now more people own XBOX 360 compare to Sony PS3. Of course there's Wii, the Apple of Console machine.

Google is popular because people like Michael Arrington, Walleywag, and those biased non-professional bloggers-turned-online-reporters sing praises toward Google. How many Google apps dying? How many Google apps that people use these days? AdSense, GMail, GMap, and of course, their search engine.

I think you read online hi-tech newspaper or surf reddit.com too much where of course the content is full of new startup that does pretty much nothing astonishing.. "Scribd, the YouTube of document..." or.. the X-programming language and how X is cool but C# isn't.

Apple is sort of the "new trend" these days because it looks good. Most of the computer science students in my university now are switching to Apple of course because they saw the cool/smart kids are using it.. for browsing reddit.com and talk how cool ruby on rails and DHH are.

I bought Apple 2 weeks ago and by the 3rd day, I installed Parallel Desktop with Windows XP loaded with MS Office and Visual (C# and Web Developer) Express Studio 2005. By the way, I'm a long time FreeBSD users and I have a machine with XP dual boot + Ubuntu (now Ubuntu on the other hand is one piece of distribution... respect..!)

Microsoft is not dead. They're still up and running. They're just not visible in your path Paul. They're doing other things that do not interfere with your Web 2.0 posse. One IPTV company gave a talk in my e-Business course a month ago, she sang praise for Microsoft because they have the most complete strategy in IPTV world. FYI, IPTV is better than YouTube.

Let's admit it, people need to hear new information, new gossips, new products and new toys. But only time will tell if these new stuffs can replace Microsoft.

The other thing is, if Desktop is dead, why am I keep hearing news about Slingshots, Apollo and WPF/E ?

Maybe Microsoft knows how broken the WWW is and they prefer not to build their interest around it (other than just to be another big player next to Yahoo! and Google because they have pride and they want to be acknowledged that they still can be a big player in any field..)

MS isn't dead yet, not until they stop creating software/hardware and move to the business/consulting field. It's true that they lost the "touch" and that they lost in understanding their customer, but they're not as bad as you envisioned.

Of course you're writing this essay to fire up these hotshots or web 2.0 wannabes to quit their jobs and to forget applying for big companies and make a web2.0 thing for YCombinator (^_^)

schoudha2• 19 years ago

"FYI, IPTV is better than YouTube."

If such blunt and sweeping statements are being made in Redmond then surely Paul Graham is right. Microsoft is dead.

To even think that IPTV and YouTube are 1 on 1 competitors represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what YouTube is all about.

papersmith2• 19 years ago

"How many Google apps dying? How many Google apps that people use these days? AdSense, GMail, GMap, and of course, their search engine."

Google's way is to play with dozens of ideas in the hope that somewhere around 10% of them succeed to cover their growth, sort of like an in-house venture capital. In that respect they're doing remarkably well.

nonrecursive• 19 years ago

Did you read the article? By "dead", pg does not mean that Bill Gates has to resort to dumpster diving to get his evening meal. He's not saying that they're not still up and running, or that that they're not enormously profitable. He's saying that its "shadow is gone", that startup founders aren't afraid of it anymore. He's saying that another company, Google, is now the leader where Microsoft once was.

I'm not sure why you think it's necessary to dismiss the accomplishments of Google and Apple while at the same time being condescending toward the people who use their products. For example, to say "Google is popular because people like Michael Arrington, Walleywag, and those biased non-professional bloggers-turned-online-reporters sing praises toward Google" is to imply that Google's products are basically worthless and the people who use them are too foolish to realize it because they've been duped into using them by a cadre of clever bloggers. This doesn't logically support your argument that Microsoft isn't dead, so why say it?

If you want to show how pg is wrong, I suggest starting by rebutting his arguments, not putting down most of the people who enjoy this site.

zach4• 19 years ago

The Xbox is a red herring. Microsoft's "Home and Entertainment" division still loses millions a day, six years after the Xbox unveiling, and has very little to do with technology in the first place, much less software innovation.

JMiao4• 19 years ago

This isn't a fair analysis. XBOX is probably one of the only groups that is moving in a positive direction at Microsoft. Yes, they've lost billions, but Microsoft expected that going in. The billions they've spent over the last few years is a small price to pay for making Windows technology the center of the home entertainment experience as well as owning a significant content pipeline into the living room.

However, despite my confidence in XBOX, Microsoft is still going to experience a lot of bleeding because XBOX at its best isn't enough to cover for the fact that the Desktop and Windows OS are becoming irrelevant.

Elfan5• 19 years ago

It's not unusual for companies to sell game consoles at a large loss in hopes of increasing market share and making the money back on licensing. Pretty much everyone who isn't Nintnedo seems to do it that way.

juwo2• 19 years ago

Microsoft died shortly before Bill Gates became a saint. Anyone who knows religion knows that you become a saint only when you die. - Anil Philip

schoudha2• 19 years ago

Microsoft is still and will likely continue to be the world's most profitable software company. OS X will not reach 20% global marketshare by the end of the decade and Goldman Sachs IBankers will still be punching away on MS Excel for the foreseeable future.

What does it mean to be dead then?

What I think Paul Graham is saying, and this is underscored by the notion of "being dangerous," is that Microsoft is no longer the place where new ideas and true innovation is going to come from. Startups are born from fresh ideas, and the companies that are dangerous to them are places like Google which seem to being designed to produce competitors to startups.

Microsoft will continue to sell $50 OEM copies of Windows to Dell and licenses of Office but this is a business on the decline. Microsoft is Old-tech stuck in the era of desktop applications, closed development strategies, and the economics of software licensing.

The financial effects of MS being dead are already showing some effect, MSFT has moved much since the dot-com boom, but it will take 5-10 years and continued blunders from MS to see some real damage.

amichail4• 19 years ago

Startups are the ones with fresh ideas because larger companies don't want to take the risks. Larger companies could later acquire those cutting-edge startups when it is more apparent that their ideas are good ones.

alive886• 19 years ago

I wouldn't discount large company innovation, but certainly acquisition becomes part of their innovation model.

pg4• 19 years ago

Microsoft was never the place new ideas and true innovation came from. But they did once have the power to shut down people who had them. They no longer do; that's what's changed.

jellerbee2• 19 years ago

Can you explain the power Microsoft had to shut down people where "true innovation" came from? and who or what stopped them from doing this?

What is the difference between "true innovation" and -- I don't even know how to ask this exactly -- "untrue innovation"?

mojuba• 19 years ago

At least they invented and marketed OLE. The importance of this technology seems to be underestimated. OLE for windowed environments is the same as the streams/pipes philosophy in UNIX. In fact OLE/COM is something that's still missing in UNIX (and don't tell me about gtk which is a shitty and buggy piece of software).

From GUI perspective MS did a lot of things that X and MacOS "adopted" or tried to adopt silently, so to say.

After all, MS does hire talented staff. Just don't underestimate them.

Benja2• 19 years ago

I guess I'm in the younger half, because on reflection, I realize that not only do I agree, but that this is old news to me. I'm not complaining, though -- this article made me realize something I didn't know consciously.

A lot of commenters here seem to argue that Microsoft still has the vast majority of desktop installations, and that this isn't likely to go away soon. I agree (I don't like it, but I think it's true). But I also agree that Microsoft isn't a threat any more, like it used to be. And, on reflection, I agree that it is web apps that are making the difference.

I don't think that Word or Photoshop moving online is what really makes the difference, though. Every hoary Windows competitor has had a word processor and an image editor. (Sure, they didn't match Word feature-for-feature; does Writely?) But I believe a major reason that prevented people from switching has been the long tail of applications: "It doesn't have any accounting software for plumbers!"

The feeling that Microsoft had a secure monopoly came from the fact that these long-tail programs were all written for Windows, because that was what was economic for its developers. Word and Photoshop always had a Mac version. Accounting for Plumbers never did.

Now, these applications live on the Web. And while the people using them still might use Windows, it doesn't matter; it makes Microsoft money, but it doesn't buy them any leverage.

stolennomen6• 19 years ago

yes.

hello_moto3• 19 years ago

I think this is a little bit ironic. One of Paul's YCombinator companies, Loopt.com is using Microsoft/IIS 6.0 and Paul has been touting them to be one of the best of his startup investments. I agree with you on this one Paul, Loopt.com is the only one that is actually doing something real.

Another startup that just caught Techcrunch attention (and apparently got financed because the company has a real business model) is Gigya (http://www.gigya.com/) and they, too, are using Microsoft/IIS 6.0.

I'm not saying that there's a strong correlation between Microsoft and your success rate, but I just find it ironic.

The rest startups seem to not to have their business models and hoping for a buyout. Actually that includes Reddit as well. If you read Aaron's blog and see how they're desperate to get a "deal" from PG.

Note: I assume Microsoft/IIS 6.0 = ASP.NET

Benja2• 19 years ago

I don't find it ironic. I find it unrelated. If you could find a successful startup today that used a lot of IBM technology -- even if you could show that a startup today succeeded only because they were using IBM technology -- that wouldn't turn IBM back into the dangerous monopolist it once was (which was what Paul's article was about).

volida2• 19 years ago

I think Microsoft is playing it safe. And don't forget everyone, that MSN Messenger is being used by as much x20 times the users of Facebook. Microsoft did the smartest acquisition in 1997 when they bought Hotmail and caught the train. What would it stop them from doing that again? I don't know. And what if they took PG's advice and their new move was his suggestion to buy all new startups?!

They introduced VS.Net and again they were able to provide services to the enterprise. Then it killed the Sony Playstation.

And to everyone who missed the point, I think thats what PG means with dead. They are not direct threat to someone starting-up --because their products are on the market which is the platform for accessing web services (Windows and IE), which web services is the new trend to bringing something of value to users), as much as Google is (because web services is their essential market) or another startup doing something similar.

I think MS will really worry when mobile devices become your desktop...But they seem to be catching up there too... Maybe that explains acquiring Tellme for 800 million few weeks ago...

But does anybody even remembers MS's attempt to make a video sharing site. Whats was its name? I can't even remember...

theoutlander6• 19 years ago

Soapbox

papersmith2• 19 years ago

I think despite Steve Ballmer's fanaticism, Microsoft knows its dying. They're already diversifying into safer industries like enterprise, gaming, and media. These are not hostile takeovers like in the old days, they're major moves trying to position MS as a major player in the respective fields. I think the MS identity well remain, but it will become a much more diluted entity, with branches each going its separate way.

abstractbill• 19 years ago

Media isn't a safe industry. Not for very long at least.

TrueOrient• 19 years ago

To paraphrase how management guru Peter Drucker put it "Growth that increases productivity is healthy, growth without an increase in productivity is fat, and growth that decreases productivity is cancer...."

Lately, MS has been coming up with nothing but Bloatware. To be productive these days, all I need is a Live CD of Linux Puppy and connect to the net to access all the online applications I need for work.... I store all my files online and access them from anywhere in the world....

Once I am on the net, it matters little if I use OSX, Windows or Linux. It is only a matter of time before Web based applications will be as good as desktop applications....

aston• 19 years ago

I disagree with the general sentiment of the article (mostly the hyperbole), but one quote hit the nail on the head: "They're in a different world."

There's no question that Microsoft is still dominant in the areas they care about, and because of that dominance they're likely to stay there. At this point, I think people understand that dominance intuitively and so don't really even try to beat Microsoft, especially since the web-as-a-platform thing is looking so exciting.

dfranke• 19 years ago

The link to 'The Other Road Ahead' is broken.

Edit: looks fixed now.

jmpeters• 19 years ago

I agree with the article in general, but you lost some credibility by equating Snipshot to Photoshop. I realize that you have an investment to promote, but please.

pg4• 19 years ago

You missed the point. I was using it as an example of how the canonical application that's hard to make web-basd (and which I used as an example thereof in "The Other Road Ahead") can be made web-based. Adobe's making a web-based image editor themselves, but I can't link to that because the only trace of it so far are their FUD press releases.

dpapathanasiou• 19 years ago

That's exactly what made the Graham essays (pre-YC) so compelling: this wasn't someone with a vested interest, just an astute observer making comments few others were.

Blurring that line is a mistake.

raganwald2• 19 years ago

If PG has something worthwhile to say, it is true whether he has a vested interested in the truth or not. If it is false, it can be debunked without questioning his motives.

Here is what I have observed about people. In general, people with vested interests do not lie. What they do is pick and choose the truths they want to share.

So someone with an investment in an online photo editor might say that "people are now writing online photo editing applications," but is unlikely to say, "that are faster and have more features than Photoshop."

Is that bad? Of course not. There are this other group of people with no alleged interest in the subject. They are called journalists. And you know what? My observation is that they are much less reliable than peopel with a "vested interest."

BobG• 19 years ago

Being nearly 50years old, what frightens me about MS is that they think they can sell an OS which they can remotely turn off without out a court warrant and then its up to you if your business hasn't gone bankrupt to sue them . This just shows complete and utter contempt for their customers.Which will do for them in the long run.My next box will be linux. Maybe the apple setup etc looks attractive to the younger generation but its only superficial. They have their own history of arrogant greed too. Bob G

erdos2• 19 years ago

I recently acquired a Mac Book Pro. There was precisely one Windows program I wanted to run on it (SuperMemo) under Parallels, which received good reviews. Rather than wait to purchase a copy of Windows from the local CompUSA, I used an OEM copy of Windows from a defenestrated a DELL box (I replaced Windows with Debian). After installing XP as a guest OS under Parallels, I activated XP online by purchasing a product key through the Genuine Advantage program.

But that wasn't good enough for Microsoft. Microsoft informed me in their emailed order acknowledgment that I was some kind of felon: "To convert your counterfeit Windows XP software to a genuine copy of Windows XP using the new Product Key, you will need to download and run the Windows Product Key Update Tool on the same computer you used to purchase the electronic license for Windows XP."

The following week I received in the mail a Windows Genuine Advantage Kit for Windows XP Professional; it contained a letter asserting that I had "submitted a counterfeit report" with my order, and that this report would be "treated as confidential." Moreover, "...Microsoft's anti-piracy team investigates each and every lead we receive. Since investigations are ongoing and extremely confidential, we are unable to provide you with the status of the particular lead you have submitted. The length of time to bring about enforcements varies depending on the nature of a particular investigation."

Hateful monsters! Frightful miscreants! I suppose I deserve this for having anything to do with Windows.

grauenwolf2• 19 years ago

Technically it isn't a legit copy of Windows. OEM versions are usually tied to the computer they are originally sold with.

Personally I don't think it is fair, but that's how licensing works under a monopoly.

Jonathan Allen

Goladus4• 19 years ago

The language makes it sound more like they are going after people who mass-produce illegal copies of windows.

linuxiac4• 19 years ago

That is how convicted felons think, everyone else is a felon, or is going to be one!

But, yep, you now deserve this for having anything to do with multiple convicted felon and pirate Microsoft.

Nobody of integrity openly deals with convicted felons, for the taint will corrupt our customer trust. We all switched a decade ago. Where were you?

Well, never too late!

brett3• 19 years ago

You bring up a hilarious caveat to "No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore."

The people now afraid of MSFT are not their competitors but instead their customers.

BrandonM14• 19 years ago

I did a presentation a few months ago on Microsoft's DRM technology in Vista: http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~mintern/601/presentation.pdf

It was when I first read about that and researched it that I realized just how bad it was. It's like the customer isn't even #2 or 3 anymore. It goes something like:

1. Money

2. Killing competition (including open source)

3. Hollywood

4. Locking out hobbyists and increasing licensing restrictions

...I'm sure I'm missing some...

n. Serving the customer

weblivz2• 19 years ago

They're are easy target and i had this discussion over drinks with some friend last night. I actually think their software in the last few years and what is coming through is getting great respect from hackers.

Also, a few things to remember.

1. Search in only 10% done.

2. Pervasive devices are taking over as the key interface to systems.

3. Collaboration is the big wave on the web.

4. Privacy/Trust - things like google apps work for some data (and are a great addition) but add in trust and privacy in business and they're screwed. Open ID is thinking about identity, but there's a long way to go.

For these reasons there is a long way to go before anyone can be considered alive or dead. I for one think Google will be overtaken by someone in the not too distant future as well. It may be a resurgent Microsoft - remember Netscape.

Oh, the have an ace in their cards. Ray Ozzie is Chief Software Architect (a position Gates himself used to hold) and created probably the more powerful collaboration software in its time at Groove. He's been very quiet recently and his emergence may be their resurgence.

Not everyone is going to want to create 5 minute web 2.0 software to get bought by Google - a big change will emerge as happened with Netscape and AltaVista. Stay tuned.

alive886• 19 years ago

important post with some meat to follow up.

Next Gen Search is exciting to think about. Pervasive - I personally want to degadgetize and surround myself with inexpensive, pervasive technology. (Why isn't bluetooth inexpensive?) Collaboration - If you listen to MS talk, they are significantly ahead in collaborative technologies. I can't speak to that, but would personally like a movement toward open document formats. OpenID - why are they important? I should do more reading, I might not understand the scope of that project. web 2.0 is bubblific. good luck to those hoping to make a quick buck. I wish better luck to those that aspire to create value, change computing and create sustainable business models.

BitGeek6• 19 years ago

Don't be silly Bob. Apple is not arrogant nor greedy... unless you're a socialist who thinks that all companies that actually sell software are "arrogant and greedy".

The stallman cult thinks this and they have gone so far as to have protests against Apple when they sued microsoft! That's how twisted their socialist thinking is-- they support the monopolist against the underdog!

If you're 50 years old, get a mac, you'll find that its a hell of a lot easier to use than Linux.

To claim that its "superficial" is to not understand the real advantages of the Mac... alas, I suspect too many people like you reject microsoft and then reject Apple (because of FUD spread by MS or linux fans) and then go back to microsoft when they discover that Linux is a damn hard to administer desktop (for most people.)

I have been using unix for 20 years and I only run Linux in particular situaitons because generally the admin load is just not worth it. Why deal with it when Mac OS X is so much better? So, I use it on servers, but only when I am not able to use apple hardwware (They make great servers too....)

The thing about Apple is, its far better than people think... and most people have never tried it, and yet many of these peopel have a negative impression of it based on propaganda from MS proponents.

stolennomen6• 19 years ago

Its very difficult to be honest and altruistic when your sole reason for being is to make money. This is the motivation for these men that run businesses. Or do you suppose their motivation is to bring happiness to people? Morals and money dont really mix very well. When a companies board of directors sit down to discuss the bottom line, how often do you think moral issues are discussed? Ive never heard any in all my years in the IT industry.

BitGeek6• 19 years ago

I realized Microsoft was dead in early January 2007 when it occured to me that vista was about to come out and I didn't see anyone who really cared. Of course now that Vista has failed to garner any real attention, this view is confirmed.

Further, I think that even on the desktop things are going to change and fast.

I don't think people realize just how well Apple is doing.

Their Mac sales are up something like %50, but they havent' really experienced network effects yet... as MS fails to come up with anything inspiring, PC owners are going to try switching in larger and larger numbers.

We aren't yet seeing the watershet that this is yet-- but the Mac has moved from the margins to a viable maisntream possibility.... and as PCs bought between 2004-2006 come up for replacement, a huge number of those machines will be replaced with Macs.

It was only in 2006 that people outside the software and web industry really started to see the Mac as a viable alternative.

Personally, I am starting to feel a bit odd, since suddenly there are all these new Mac users.

When the Mac becomes mainstream, I'll lose the comfortable non-conformity I've enjoyed since 1988.

brad• 19 years ago

This is a very thought provoking essay. Very forward thinking. I agree with many of the things that you say, but the fact of the matter is that much of the economy - domestic and global - runs in a Windows environment. Most consumers still run Windows. Am I missing the point? Perhaps. I suppose it is true that anybody who takes personal computing seriously is running Firefox and Thunderbird and Google Desktop on Windows. In that sense, yeah Windows is dead. Personally, I use Macs, so I am well insulated from Microsoft. However, they are alive and well if only because of the Office suite. If I send a an OpenDocument file to ten of my friends, they won't be able to open it. If I send a Word file, everybody can open it. The point is, Microsoft is still quite relevant today. Although, I can see your points and would fully agree that free Linux could easily supplant Windows as a desktop environment (to run your stated Web 2.0 apps) or Macs. I applaud your essay; you take some interesting positions and provide some profound insight. Very interesting. Brad Engelmann.

gabrielroth• 19 years ago

Wanted to point out a typo. You have:

"Thanks to OSX, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare technology."

I think that should be "extremely rare IN technology."

celoyd• 19 years ago

And s/OSX/OS X/

gknauth• 19 years ago

Is IBM dead? Maybe Microsoft is just another IBM. In 30 years, they may even be backing free software.

william423• 19 years ago

IBM basically did what PG says MS should do. They started concentrating on PCs.

apansari• 19 years ago

Paul, excellent article. I have two additional reasons behind why Microsoft is "dead."

Reason (5): Steve Ballmer took over from Bill Gates as CEO in Jan 2000. Chief Sales Guy takes over from Chief Egghead and the company stops building products for its real users.

Reason (6): Web 1.0 hiring. Microsoft hired a huge number of people in 1998-2001, people who were too stupid or incompetent to get a job pretty much anywhere else. The good people all went to web startups then. This was the first crack in Microsoft's "we have the world's best people" armor. B players hire C players, and it goes downhill from there.

projectileboy• 19 years ago

I agree strongly with reason (5) - whatever anyone thinks about Bill Gates, Microsoft was clearly a different company when Mr. Gates was at the helm.

jjrs5• 19 years ago

It's true...what bright, iconoclastic young thinker applies for a job at microsoft these days? It's a stuffy drone corporate gig, and those are the people that'll gravitate to it.

Elfan5• 19 years ago

Maybe there arn't any wizardly hackers applying for a job at Microsoft , but there are smart people interested in a steady pay check.

chai• 19 years ago

"As Google becomes more and more application-oriented, it will look more like MS. While MS is pushing itself to be more web-based, it is snapping up Google's market share as well and therefore more Google-ish. The clash of titans will definitely be interesting. The winner will rewrite the rule of future computing platforms, while the loser will be left in oblivion and soon forgotten."

Full text here:

http://not-your-cup-of-chai.blogspot.com/2007/03/distributed-vs-centralized-entities.html

Peter_G• 19 years ago

Like an Oliver Stone movie, this entry is interesting and fun to read despite being entirely wrong in every major respect.

jim-in-austin• 19 years ago

I no longer consult but if I had a small business or non-profit as a client today I would:

- Hook everyone up to a high speed connection.

- Not worry about OS or platform as long as they could run Firefox or IE

- Sign them up with Google Apps ( http://www.google.com/a/ )

- Sign them up with a web-based accounting system such as ACCPAC Online, ePeachtree, Oracle Small Business Suite, etc if they do in-house accounting

- Spend 45 minutes showing them how to admin the system via the web

- Present my bill

Of course Microsoft is dead.

fishcar222• 19 years ago

Don't think that would work unless you intend to be out there on a weekly basis. We as IT people can get around any system but throw an average user in front of something they haven't seen before and they refuse to even try to learn.

Also what I think most people are overlooking is that while you can run INFRASTRUCTURE services on any OS, those are services that everyone has. Most companies out there have some custom grown app that differentiates them. They use this app internally to do their specialized work on. These apps run almost exclusively on windows simply because it has not been worth it to develop them for the other operating systems.

Everyone is trying to find a reason not to use Microsoft, but it is my opinion that if you take an objective look at the operating systems out there (right now) it is still the best OS. Do you think it is easier to find someone to support windows or do you think it is easier to find someone to support OS X? If you hire an employee, what are the odds that they will be familiar with Windows vs Linux? Do you have an existing investment in Windows? If so how long a ROI is there on scrapping your existing config for something new? What are the odds that the software that someone suggests to you will run on Windows vs running on Unix? Why would you want to limit your options to only those programs that have web front ends when you can have a rich selection of Desktop programs and web interface programs?

Maybe in 10 years we will be at a point where Microsoft isn't in control but its also possible in 10 years that someone new will come on the scene and own everyone. While different can be good, different for the sake of different is not usually worth it.

Also as a side note: Google Apps may be a killer in about 5 years but right now its pretty infantile. I've really tried to use it but honestly OpenOffice or Microsoft Office as so much better its not even funny.

cweekly• 19 years ago

"[E]ventually the open source world triumphed, in the form of Javascript libraries that grew over the brokenness of Explorer the way a tree grows over barbed wire."

${applause}

This is a beautiful simile, one I will repeat to others. Also (I'm 32) this feels like old news but hearing it put so succinctly by you, well, it puts a big ol grin on my face. =D

Thanks, Paul -- and keep it up!

nicodaemos• 19 years ago

Just two days ago I wrote an article about web server stats and noticed that a) Microsoft is almost nonexistent amongst the geek programming community and b) that contrary to Netcraft's numbers, Microsoft servers are in a small minority of sites frequented by geeks like myself.

http://hitesh-jasani.blogspot.com/2007/04/web-server-stats.html

grauenwolf2• 19 years ago

Have you taken a look at their developer toolkit?

ASP.NET is a really strong player in the web, and ATLAS has given them serious AJAX support. It is still pretty buggy now, but has the promise of the same easy drag and drop development that revolutionized Windows developement.

Or XNA? The next generation of game deveopers are already cutting their teeth on C# and XBox.

Or Robotics Studio? They are positioning themselves to corner the OS market for Robotics the same way they did for PCs back in the 80s.

As long as Microsoft has the hearts and minds of millions of developers, they aren't dead.

bartsimpson0072• 19 years ago

Paul, I have great respect for you. But I think you contradit yourself a bit when you say this "..everyone can see the desktop is over. It now seems inevitable that applications will live on the webÂnot just email, but everything, right up to Photoshop". That by itself is a accuate and I can agree with. But you go on to rant about how Apple has put MS on the run and how you fund people that use Mac etc etc. Don't you consider Apple a desktop too??

jjrs5• 19 years ago

He basically said that all they have is the desktop...but that even that market is getting chewed away too.

microsoft can be getting hit by web apps and competing desktops simultaneously...no contradiction there. He just chose to choose one as a bigger factor than the other, that's all.

bartsimpson0072• 19 years ago

To rephrase, does Paul suggest that Apple is dead as well? If not, how are they going to survive according to paul in the Google Apps/Web 2.0 Era?

joeschmoe4• 19 years ago

"Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows. Nearly all the people we fund at Y Combinator use Apple laptops."

I love "essays" where someone has experience from the last few years and says stupid things like this. "I'm surprised" when I see people using laptops their companies buy...and they run windows? That's just naive and foolish to say. Yes, Apple is cool, but that's like me saying I'm surprised when I DON'T see a laptop running Linux. Hey, I go to little conferences too, and everyone is using a Linux laptop. See how dumb it sounds? Now think that Linux and Mac have close to the same market share.

joeschmoe4• 19 years ago

Secondly, I believe that this "essay" sounds young, and a bit smarmy. Like a first-year sophomoric newbie would write, trying to sound like they are so surprised that the students in dorm 13 haven't been going to the new dining hall, because everyone knows it's the best.

joeschmoe4• 19 years ago

I think this is an essay for people who want to be MS is dead, but it just ain't true.

rrameshp• 19 years ago

When articles like this stop appearing on the web only then can one assume that Microsoft is dead. The barometer of a Organizations success can be gauged by the number of enemies they have.

dietzsignals• 19 years ago

old news.

aprocrastinator• 19 years ago

It's not dead, just a paper tiger. The final nail in the coffin will come with Web 3.0/4.0 when the operating system will be accessed on the web in the same way apps are now and the need for a system like Vista or OSX will go the of the dinosaurs.

danielha2• 19 years ago

They are so enormous that they stifle themselves. Sometimes Microsoft seems to put out something, from some division, that makes one think: "Hey, this is a good move -- maybe they're starting to get it." But before one can utter those words, another of Microsoft's many appendages does something to completely nullify those sentiments.

That "appendage" is usually the head itself. Microsoft often acquires a good thing (many times a catchup move) but this thing only stays good for a short time. When integration is complete, it's a single bumbling Microsoft entity once again.

jjrs5• 19 years ago

what are some examples of that?

mrpostmaster3• 19 years ago

Anything that Microsoft perceives itself to be bad at, and wants to be better at.

1) xbox (though, at this point it has not really been adsorbed back in yet) 2) IE 3) MS Office 4) MS Windows 5) MS-DOS 6) Hotmail

flarosa• 19 years ago

Microsoft used to be my hero, ever since the day I turned on my first TRS-80 and saw the Microsoft Basic copyright notice.

For 20 years Microsoft was my whole world. MS-DOS, old Windows, new Windows. DLLs, ODBC, IIS, and all the rest of it. Keeping up with Microsoft was a chore. I'd learn to program DLLs, and by the time I was good at it, they were pushing Active X. Or I'd learn to use named pipes, only to find that everyone was using sockets. Everything was a confusing mismash of competing APIs, old code, new code, multiple ways of doing the same thing with no good explanation. Finding help in MSDN was a nightmare. Sometimes they'd just repackage or rebrand the same technology for no other reason than to confuse you. DNA? What the hell was that?

One day my boss asked me to do a project in Java. What an eye-opener. Everything made sense. Everything I needed was there, but without tons of redundant, obsolete material. Today I run Linux servers, program in Java, deploy on JBoss with MySQL databases. I ditched Visual Studio in favor of Eclipse. I love working with this stuff. I feel truly sorry for people who are forced to limit themselves to Microsoft technology.

frobot• 19 years ago

Java used to be my hero, ever since the day I learned it would manage memory for me, while still scaling to the heights demanded by the enterprise.

For 10 years, Java was my whole world. Servlets, old EJB, new EJB, JSP, JDBC, Spring, Hibernate, JSF, and all the rest of it. Keeping up with enterprise Java was a chore. I'd learn to program EJB 1 and by the time I finally figured it out, they were pushing EJB 2. Or I'd learn Entity Beans or Struts, only to find nobody was using it anymore. Everything was a confusing mismash of competing APIs, old code, new code, multiple, dogmatic ways of doing the same thing with no good explanation. Finding help with this J2EE crap was a nightmare. Somtimes they'd just repackage or rebrand the same technology for no good reason. Hibernate? EJB3? J2EE? JEE 5? WTF?

One day, in spite of my boss's mandate that we were strictly a Java shop, I started to rewrite a struggling project in Ruby on Rails. What an eye-opener. What took months and 5 people now took days and 1 person. Everything I needed was there, but without tons of redundant, repetitive lines of boilerplate code and XML -- and without endless compile-deploy-restart cycles.

Today I run Linux servers, program in Ruby, have abandoned JBoss, and use Apache and Mongrel with MySQL databases. I ditched Eclipse in favor of TextMate. I love working with this stuff. I feel truly sorry for people wo are forced to limit themselves to Java technology.

(Sorry for the too-obvious, too-easy parody. But I couldn't help myself -- it was the natural response to someone praising the virtues of Java during a discussion about a dying, irrelevant company.)

chris_l• 19 years ago

So what's next? Shall I make the same joke on you using Common Lisp and the the user named pg can then pull up Arc...?

knewter3• 19 years ago

GUI text editors used to be my hero, ever since the first one I used that supported regular expression find and replace (dreamweaver's crap crap crappy editor, shudder).

For, heck I don't know, maybe two years, GUI text editors were my whole world. UltraEdit (needed it for reading EBCDIC data), JEdit, Eclipse, Komodo, Kate, GEdit, each with their uniquely useful featuresets.

One day I determined that I would run vim and vim only for all of my text-editing needs. Since that day roughly a year and a half ago I've developed some quadzillion immediate-throwaway macros via 'q1q@1', developed a .vimrc that follows me from machine to machine that I couldn't survive without, integrated into various little ruby scripts that I use.

I don't have the passion to do the parody right, but I figure while we're at it I'll push vim where I can. And I've pair coded for around a year on a RoR project where we've done all of the development in TextMate, so it's not like I don't have any TM experience :) ++| ft(m)w

I love working with this thing. I feel truly sorry for people who are limiting themselves to a single-mode text editor.

h3h• 19 years ago

Awesome.

stolennomen6• 19 years ago

Didnt Paul Allen write most of the Basic Interpreter rather than Gates? I think he should be your hero.

theoutlander6• 19 years ago

Windows has its quirks, but it is still the OS regular users choose. Visual Studio (THE BEST PRODUCT FROM MSFT!) beats everything out there! Although, my startup is not using ANY Microsoft technology, I am using Windows to code! Unix is GREAT for server-side....terrible for client-side and Windows is GREAT for client-side, but terrible on server-side!

Google owns search but they are losing focus, just like MSFT. Remember that if it weren't for MSFT, Apple wouldn't have taken the PC market too far .... this is just the beginning of the IT revolution!

IBM - MSFT - GOOGLE - ADOBE - WHO'S NEXT?

They are all gonna slow down at some point.... I am not afraid of Google... Even if a company is a mammoth, it HAS its limitations!!!

BrandonM14• 19 years ago

If you think that Unix is terrible for client-side, then I don't think you've been working in Linux for long. How about the ability to install any of 20,000 programs from a convenient package/portage/rpm directory for free in seconds? How about updating every single program on your computer, including the OS, and recompiling everything, with one command?

And as for programming, whenever I'm working in Visual Studio, I feel like I'm working in Notepad. Honestly, if you take the time to learn the keybindings for vi or emacs (I won't say which, I use both :-), you will find that a much more lightweight program can manage projects just as well, and you can code many times faster.

Honestly, it's hard to get away from what you're used to, but immerse yourself in a non-Microsoft environment for a few months (I've been using Unix heavily for less than a year), and you'll realize that Microsoft is the one with the bad interfaces. For years they have been catering to the lowest common denominator. The people who want true control over what they are doing use or write an open source program.

theoutlander6• 19 years ago

I do like the ability to install on demand! Why is Windows leading client-side? Because it is easy! I am speaking from an average users perspective. Not us! I have used VI and I love it! Visual Studio is NOT like notepad. I'm sorry but AFAIK, VI or Emacs cannot provide intellisense can it? I have used both environments for development and based on my productivity, I concluded that Windows is a better environment for ME. Ultimately, it is about getting the job done FAST and using what works for you. I have used freeBSD and it is definitely STABLE, but really not something I would like to sit and develop on. Think about the millions of END-USERS??? Windows is really the solution for them... at least for now. Although Windows has its issues, I think Microsoft has improved its product in many ways. Do you realize how hard of a problem it is to solve, making the OS secure and user-friendly at the same time? I like Windows, Redhat and freeBSD... I wish Windows stayed away from the Server market and likewise Redhat stayed away from the client!

BearOfNH• 19 years ago

I think Windows Vista (tm) is going to go down in history as the best thing that ever happened to Linux. MS has done the equivalent of pointing the pistol straight at their shoes.

"...How about the ability to install any of 20,000 programs from a convenient package/portage/rpm directory for free in seconds?..."

Well, I tell you, it's just not that simple. Linux distributions may or may not work. Just yesterday (Friday) I installed Ubuntu Drake (you know, the STABLE version) only to find it boots to ... a command line. No graphical desktop. Command 'startx' unrecognized. Try to install xserver-xorg. It appears to succeed but startx complains about font 'fixed' not found. I Google some forums, they say font directories have moved, but by golly I can't find the new directories the forums mention. I'm not alone, but no further advice is to be found. Just for fun I try to install ubuntu-desktop in the early afternoon only to find the installation grinding on for a couple hours then dying with my network partner disconnecting the logical link. The better part of a day wasted trying what should be a simple installation. Right.

If you find Linux installs fine and upgrades painlessly, then I'm happy for you. But don't claim Linux makes MY life any easier. In return, I won't demand support from providers of free software.

Maybe MS has the bad interfaces, but they work where others fail. You've got to give them some credit for that. Of course, this can all change with Vista and maybe even XP eventually. And eventually, when XP is bloated with DRM, maybe even Ubuntu will boot my system to a graphical desktop.

bobsil1• 19 years ago

Remind me which Web-based apps make money again?

pg4• 19 years ago

The very first one did.

BrandonM14• 19 years ago

I agree that Microsoft is on the decline, but I disagree that web applications will totally replace the desktop. It's still way too convenient to have hundreds of programs a mouse-click away, and to be able to fire up 50 of them at once on new hardware without any lag. It is true, however, that that desktop needn't be Windows anymore.

I agree that OS X has been partly responsible for converting people away from Windows, but equally responsible is a growing Linux community. Since Linux came out, it has been slowly gaining some of Microsoft's desktop market share, especially since Gnome and KDE have gotten more polished and Ubuntu made its number 1 bug Microsoft.

I was a bit disappointed to see no mention of open source software, because it is not Google Docs that is replacing MS Office, but Open Office. GIMP has been slowly replacing Photoshop since it came out, not Snipshot. Likewise with Firefox overtaking Internet Explorer, Thunderbird being the first to stand in for Outlook, and gcc has been the compiler of choice for years.

In summary, I agree that Microsoft is on the decline and that we are seeing software shift to the Internet, but I never think the desktop will go away. The number of desktops running Windows and other Microsoft software, however, is going to continue to decline. It's one thing to offer free software on the Internet alongside Google ads, it's another entirely to be able to install entirely free, ad-free software with no strings attached, which is an opportunity that the open source community has afforded us.

stevecla• 19 years ago

Micrsoft is very much alive and though Paul makes some great observations about the challenges that lie ahead this discussion seems to be centred on people who want Microsoft to be dead and why Microsoft is such a threat. That's the real challenge...changing years of negative sentiment. That's what I care about

slk• 19 years ago

Nice article! Quick question: by Nero, do you mean the Roman emperor, or the CD/DVD burning software?

jmd• 19 years ago

Obvious, but necessary. The most obvious of ideas are often the hardest to articulate.

Google seems destined to become the world's most valuable corporation[1]. Who wants to be Pepsi?

To compete with Google, copy Google's game plan. Focus on search. Evolve to AI.[2] (An AI is something that can give me a useful answer to my question.) Organize the world's information. Everything else Google does is cover fire.[3]

What I'm really asking is, why can't I name a single pure play search company other than Google?

[1] Besides oil.

[2] http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dyson05/dyson05_index.html

[3] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html

shiv• 19 years ago

There have been multiple instances when the same grand declarations have been made and Microsoft has only survived and remain dominant.This is just the next cycle of competition. Microsoft is paranoid enough and this article makes the assumption that they have blinders on and while the move to web etc is happening people at Microsoft are twiddling their thumbs and will say please come and take our business away. Maybe they are in a good position to take advantage of these new paradigms. Of course there is a fight out there but declaring death is premature, significantly challenged, yes.

jjrs5• 19 years ago

Excellent post. Not only did you nail the growing feeling that Microsoft is gradually becoming irrelevant, but you gave the best explanation as to why that I've seen anywhere.

I think another reason is that younger people are more computer literate and more open to new OS's and software. Mom and Dad were intimidated by computers and just wanted the simplest, most common software (microsoft/IBM), which they'd learned to use at work.

juwo2• 19 years ago

Here is a piece I wrote: Java has harmed Unix but helped Windows win http://juwo.blogspot.com/2006/11/flatface-musings-java-has-harmed-unix.html

polibius• 19 years ago

I agree with you: Microsoft is dead, long ago. However you fail to note that another famous victim of Google, Javascript and broadband is Apple itself. In fact desktop software in general is dead. Word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, image editing, project management and many other traditional desktop killer-apps are now offered for free on the web. Let's face it: only professional graphic designers and architects really need the power of Adobe Creative Suite or Autodesk Autocad and, as a consequence, a Windows or Apple machine.

How people are coping with this new reality? There are, in my view, two different attitudes. People more sensitive to hype are buying expensive Apple laptops even when they are simply overkill for their real needs. Programmers buying Apple laptops just to run Textmate are similar to fashion victims buying the latest Gucci handbag. Other people are more rational and choose cheap but sound Linux boxes (especially the Ubuntu flavor).

I think 90% of computer users can live with Ubuntu without any problem. Of course the desktop software libraries for Linux are very meagre compared to Microsoft and Apple's universes but we've just stated that desktop software is dead: web apps' user experience is the same on every platform. The operating system really doesn't matter. Don't you have other needs to satisfie instead of buying an expensive and useless Apple fashion laptop? Buy a cheap laptop, install Linux and enjoy your life!

And what about the business side of the moon? What will happen when companies will suddenly discover they don't longer need desktop software? Companies are more cost-conscious and I assume they will migrate to Linux en masse.

fuzzyman4• 19 years ago

I think the death of the desktop is much exaggerated.

AJAX is better than the last generation of web-apps, but the browser still basically sucks as a platform. Latency is a bitch. :-)

Elfan5• 19 years ago

But is it unsucky enough in a "worse is better" sort of way?

knewter3• 19 years ago

There are, for me, quite a few reasons it's unsucky enough in a 'better is better' sort of way these days. I use Foxmarks to synchronize my bookmarks, and I keep a detailed bookmarks toolbar folder categorized into tons of nested folders. Thousands of bookmarks by now I'm sure. I also use deskbar so I can just start typing the title of one of my bookmarks to launch it. This is far more intuitive for me than any previous way of running web applications, and the level of organization and interoperability I've achieved between all the apps I use (most of which have some form of live collaboration built in these days) makes any computer I'm ever at just feel right.

I feel there's money (or fame, failing that) to be made in a competitor to or addition to foxmarks that allows feeds of bookmarks to be easily subscribed to, so I could distribute a bunch of links in structured format to a development team, say, right in their web browser, that they could all collaborate on. Would take very little effort, and at least I myself could see immediate benefit.

fuzzyman4• 19 years ago

How many developers of startups do you know who actually use a browser based IDE ?

There are a couple and they only suck a bit, but they don't compare to the desktop ones.

I don't use a browser based text editor when I want to make a quick note. Actually a couple of my friends do with google docs - but not too many.

For the apps I use everyday, the browser sucks. It's not just latency, although this is a big contributor to why web apps feel sucky and clunky, but the browser just isn't a very good platform for rich applciations.

The google integration between their applications is very good, and getting better, but it isn't enough to make me forget that the interface sucks...

jganetsk• 19 years ago

Latency is fine, I think, and gets better all the time.

The browser is a fantastic platform. You never have to install web apps. You never have to patch web apps. And you are automatically connected through the client-server paragidm that proved to be so wonderful before desktops ever came about.

Remember, dumb terminals were around long before PCs.

fuzzyman4• 19 years ago

"The browser is a fantastic platform. You never have to install web apps. You never have to patch web apps."

Fantastic for the developer maybe - not so for the user.

"Remember, dumb terminals were around long before PCs."

Right. How was that for the user ?

niklas72• 19 years ago

My problem with this essay is that it could just as well have been written in 1985, 1990, 1995 or 2000. Microsoft has always been slow in responding to new threats.

1985: Windows 1.0 was a totally insufficient response to the Macintosh. There were plenty of other Window Managers too, all superior (oops, not Topview, now that was an inferior product). Lotus and Borland is going to kill Microsoft with superior applications. 1990: Microsoft put out Windows 3.0. Still DOS inside. ACE consortium wants to kill Microsoft with Motif. 1995: Netscape is the latest presumptive Microsoft killer, IE is an inferior product. Sun unveils Java, purported Microsoft killer. Windows 95 looks nice, still very much DOS at heart. Constant refrain during the latter 90's: Desktop Linux is going to kill Microsoft... 2000- The Web/Sony is going to kill Microsoft.

And it's not like the cool kids ran Microsoft products in 1990 or 1995 either. The tastes of an elite doesn't necessarily reflect the future of the broader market.As long as Apple won't let you run OSX on non-Apple hardware it can't be anything but a niche product.

Sure, Microsoft is vulnerable, but so is Google or Apple or any other company in this business. I don't know why Microsoft are underestimated so often, it might be that we root so much for the underdog that we fail to see what the big meanies strengths are.

mrpostmaster3• 19 years ago

No, he is not saying microsoft is vulnerable, but that no one fears microsoft any more. In the past, if you were trying to get VC money, one of the questions they would ask you is - why should I fund you? Can't Microsoft do this?

That question is not asked today, even as a few years back. I was trying to get a patch management company going, and that 8 or so VCs I met didn't even asked if this is something Microsoft would get into.

And from what I understand, today's questions are more along the lines of - how can you beat google.

-Tai

artsnooze• 19 years ago

rsheridan6• 19 years ago

I wouldn't count them out just yet. It's true that they can't kill a web 2.0 businesses like youtube the way they could kill desktop-based competitors in the past, but don't forget that the browser itself is a desktop-based app.

If I controlled MS, I would try to develop a better platform for web apps than Firefox (which is definitely possible). I'd use patent-encumbered APIs, which I would share while trying to build market share, and then force my competitors to stop using once they were entrenched. Maybe somebody smarter than me could come up with a better idea, but the point is that it's probably still possible for them to leverage their OS near-monopoly into a web near-monopoly.

It would have been far easier for them if they had started earlier. Firefox would have been easy to kill 3 or 4 years ago. But MSFT has so much money and such a large installed base that they can get away with a lot of screw ups before they really cease to be a threat.

I agree that, for the time being, entrepreneurs don't really have to worry about MS. But they're not really dead. They're just comatose.

gwint• 19 years ago

Photoshop itself will soon have an online version: http://news.com.com/2100-7345_3-6163015.html

atanas• 19 years ago

It is a cultural shift that will bury Microsoft. Much like the Walmart distribution deal killed Levi's as a brand.

morlock_man• 19 years ago

Microsoft isn't dead. They're still killing startups. There was a perfect DRM model evolving that would have killed Major Record labels while saving the local music stores... and Microsoft killed it with Windows Media Player updates and Vista.

What's sad is that now they've fallen below everyone's radar. Which makes it that much easier to get away with shit like this.

pyite• 19 years ago

I somewhat agree with you.

However, it is obvious that hardware vendors still fear Microsoft. The day that they stop fearing Microsoft is the day that just about every PC will have the option of either Windows or Linux.

Last time a company tried something like this was IBM in the mid-90's and Microsoft made quite an example of them by increasing their annual Windows licensing charge by $200 million.

marksashton2• 19 years ago

It's intersting that you highlight GMAIL as the point where Google became scary. If anthing, GMAIL is another example of how Google's efforts outside of Search have largely failed...at least by the standard they set with Search. I used tried to find the latest marketshare numbers using Google but could't find anything current :) but as of the middle of last year they had about 2% of the Web mail market. Hmmm... Huge success?

I think their only real succcess outside of Search is mapping but even there they're trailing Microsoft (local.live.com) in innovation. Check out the 45 degree angle photos on local.live.com if you don't believe me.

dougo• 19 years ago

2% is not bad for a product that's still "beta".

marksashton2• 19 years ago

LOL! Let's see...three years of beta... Talk about plausible deniability. Hey, we can't vouch for the quality. It's only beta! :)

pablos• 19 years ago

Nice text. Did you take your medicines today ?

justified• 19 years ago

Please let's continue not to care about Mikrosopht (sorry, I don't recall the correct spelling, and I'm no slave of internet search either, but to me it sounds much antique, so I hope my guess is right...).

Instead, people of worth, let's help pushing stuff like this: http://www.cs.stevens.edu/~dlong/software/kamen/index.php (Note that I'm not the author, just heard of it recently.)

mrpostmaster3• 19 years ago

Well, you said Apple's board made a mistake - however, I think it was a necessary move. If you think about all the great movements in the history of mankind, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, etc, all of them had to be kicked out, suffer in the desert, receive enlightenment/burning bushes/next/pixar and then come on back as the conquering hero. Would Jobs be as good as he is now, if he didn't do Next and Pixar? Maybe, maybe not.

-Tai

fryke• 19 years ago

old news. (just wanted to be young again.)

teddlesruss• 19 years ago

dunno which place you pulled the Mac/Linux observation from but I can assure you that finally Microshaft are actually getting it right, and company IT departments are finally realising that TCO and facilities is tipped in MS's favour. I would thus say that your observation comes from clique formation, and perhaps doesn't reflect the overall industry. I freelance IT for organisations which go all the way from accountancy firms, to car sales chains, market chains, Art and Commercial offices, and realtime tracking/monitoring of heavy equipment. Out of all those (and there are often several under each heading,)I visit one Citrix office but they are going to Terminal Server ASAP. One company is busily switching from OSS server structures to Windows 2003 Servers. Cannot argue with it - MS often comes out cheaper, there is definitely more skill in the arena than there is skill in the Linux / OSX area, and tens of thousands of users still want a cute Window Start button. Out of some 20 businesses I do on demand IT for, one - only one - is a Mac shop, and a shambles it is too. They are graphics artists. One shop has custom boxes at the mineface talking to Windows 2003 Servers back at the office. One uses their own proprietary Application between mobile trucks and huge Wintel servers. The other 18 are MS shops doing everything from running fish markets all over town on RDP links, to monitoring, to aerial surveying, to good old accountancy under a wall to wall Windows environment. I see Linux boxes as routers and firewalls, Macs as the liberal arts students' foolproof workstation. Everyone I work for who is serious, runs Wintel machines. And I work across a wide sector of a fairly large city.

linuxiac4• 19 years ago

You have been infected with the disease of Microsoft, rose colored glasses, greed in the marketplace, tunnel vision...

Wake up and shake off the shackles of corporate greed! Gnu/Linux processes upto 50X faster, runs on any platform, DEC Alpha to Sparc. Why else is Microsoft using 'Nix in front of all servers, on all Redmond networks, for all routers (Aruba leased routers are on all MS nets), and etc.?

Learn the new revenue streams, or go bankrupt with them.

rickt287• 19 years ago

MS isn't dead. People aren't afraid, but have accepted the reality of them being who they are. Just like oppressive governments; eventually they beat you down so much that you stop caring and just accept it.The fact that articles still bash them proves who is top dog. To quote a famous line, "...we're better than you" "...it doesn't matter..."

poopstech• 19 years ago

Nice "Essay". I also bet that you dream in complete Eastman Color as well, right? MS is to big - too powerful and has it's hands in too many things to simply "die"! I read somewhere that if MS decided to pay off all the share holders and close its doors tomorrow, may western governments have to scramble to hire all the MS staff just to maintain the status quoi! As I guessed - you do dream in color...

PooPsTech Sr. Software Eng.

MikeLevin• 19 years ago

Yeah, the reason this is going to take so long to shake out is that there can be only one dominant platform. And Microsoft is it. The Web interface even with Ajax is still kludgey in comparison. And things like Apollo from Adobe will take a long time to reach critical mass. The only thing I see chaniging the platform are endeavors like Nick Negroponte's one laptop per child (OLPC), which will force down hardware costs until it's eventually completely off-set by advertising. When PCs are free, a major platform shift can occur. Steve tried to get OSX on OLPC and was rebuffed by Nick, from what I hear.

blabla2• 19 years ago

Hahahahaha.

What are you trying to do? Apply the John Dvorak method to Microsoft?

I can't seem to find any other way to account for that accumulation of the absurdest possible statements that this "essay" essentially is.

BTW: I suppose I am in the younger half.

blabla2• 19 years ago

http://tinyurl.com/2kwrbo

wanderson2• 19 years ago

Your story maybe correct, but I would not bet on majority of Americans supporting the theory, simply because Microsoft "remains" the largest, independent software company. I will laugh beforehand at all the comments from Microsoft supporters, shills and apologists. They will inevitably content that because Microsoft products - Windows and Office have the "most market share" by far, they (automatically) are the best and bravest. Pretty sic thinking, but that which proliferates.

wanderson2• 19 years ago

Your story maybe true, but probably unacceptable by most all the Microsoft supporters, shills and apologists, who content quite proudly that because Microsoft products, primarily Windows and Office have the "largest market share by far", the company is therefore the best, with the greatest products. Quite sick thinking really, but pervasive and illogical. I wonder if these same group think GM is the greatest car company compared to Honda, simply because of the disparate market share. Never mind the issues of quality, reliability, creativity or other important criteria.

leoderja• 19 years ago

Bill Gates a bigger hero that Alexander Magnus. HE is the way...

mikev• 19 years ago

You say: "Ironically, Microsoft unintentionally helped create Ajax. The x in Ajax is from the XMLHttpRequest object, which lets the browser communicate with the server in the background while displaying a page. (Originally the only way to communicate with the server was to ask for a new page.) XMLHttpRequest was created by Microsoft in the late 90s because they needed it for Outlook. What they didn't realize was that it would be useful to a lot of other people tooÂin fact, to anyone who wanted to make web apps work like desktop ones."

I think that's slightly off -- I think the folks who designed XMLHttpRequest fully understood its general utility. I think they're thrilled that lots of really interesting apps are being built on top of it. I think the problem was that the people writing apps at Microsoft didn't realize you could now use this to write compelling web-based apps.

jetforme• 19 years ago

I think there's one more cause of death, tangentially related to "everyone can see the desktop is over." It is the reason Microsoft did so well in the first place: people will use seemingly arbitrarily bad software. Even with Ajax, the best web applications still fall far short of the best desktop applications. I guess even Microsoft underestimated users' ability (and willingness) to adapt to constrained or poorly-designed software, and thus use (relatively great) web software.

As a born-and-raised Mac user, I still think web apps suck, and for that matter, most Mac apps suck. But the few gems out there are phenomenal (or at least, approach the standard I hold). I wish more apps worked as well.

weblivz2• 19 years ago

Also, a few things to remember.

1. Search in only 10% done.

2. Pervasive devices are taking over as the key interface to systems.

3. Collaboration is the big wave on the web.

Not everyone is going to want to create 5 minute web 2.0 software to get bought by Google - a big change will emerge as happened with Netscape and AltaVista. Stay tuned.

wykthorr• 19 years ago

Now that I read this I realize that I haven't been paying any attention to Microsoft lately and that is because they don't matter anymore.

The clearest proof of their death is their failure to launch an improved operating system. Vista was a big failure and I think they are starting to realize it. I think this particular piece of software is going to kill them for good. (that being 6ft under) Though this process could take some time it has started and it's not going to stop.

Bye Bye Microsoft. Hope not to see any lookalikes any time soon.

Victor

Skyhoper• 19 years ago

Besides from talking about how young entrepreneurs like myself do not see Microsoft as a threat, a photo in the middle of the article links to my picture!

http://pieceofpaper.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/all_macs_and_all_writing.jpg I think Im picking a pimple on my cheek

rickygee• 19 years ago

eh, I still find Windows 2000 perfectly adequate for everything I do - including reading your excellent essay. That said, VISTA may well be a coffin nail. R/G

redbeard• 19 years ago

I actually respected Paul Graham and linked to him in his article about starting a startup. Now I see he is basically not even serious enough to keep reading. What a dork.

talkingtab• 19 years ago

I agree with everything you said, but there is one crucial bit more. MS is like the Soviet economic model competing against the "free trade" model. One is adaptive and the other isn't. Here it is the collaborative, adaptive model of software development (y-combinator like) versus the large monolithic MS development culture. Which is why MS will just not come back ever. They may be able to use Ajax, or other technologies, but they will never be able to change their culture. Doing so would require them to repudiate Bill Gates , et al and they are not going to do that.

We should thank them in a way, because rather than having to compete against a mob of dinosaurs, MS has killed the others off for us - Novell for example. Thanks Bill.

rayteagarden• 19 years ago

WOW! This is right on the money, the future of computing is getting even more interesting.

gregshortdotcom• 19 years ago

Your observation that Macs and Linux machines outnumber computers running Windows is either humorously incorrect, or an outright lie. I work at a newspaper and the only people using Macs are the graphic designers. The rest of us, the vast majority of the company, use Windows.

You need look no further than any old web stats program to see who is online. (A quick look in Omniture at the stats for our newspaper web site shows that 74.4% of the operating systems are running Windows XP. Only 5.2% are using Macs. And just 3.9% are using other operating systems, i.e. Linux.) Or, for the less tech savvy, check the software shelves and see just how many programs support Macs.

It's really too bad. Your essay is otherwise very well written. It's just not founded in fact.

busy_beaver2• 19 years ago

"I work at a newspaper"

Which is another dying industry, in case you hadn't noticed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/26/business/media/26paper.html?ex=1176091200&en=870eff3de332e892&ei=5070

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8HFM6GOB&show_article=1

http://www.journalism.org/node/797

I work at an R1 research institution. When I attend talks in EE and CS (i.e., the ones attended by the guys doing research for tomorrow's technology), I see essentially nothing but Linux and Mac notebooks. 3-4 years ago it was about 50-50 Linux and Windows, rarely a Mac.

I don't think Graham is disputing that there are a lot of Windows machines out there (in fact, I seem to remember the article explicitly acknowledging this). He's talking about tomorrow, not today.

I'll bet if someone had visited your newspaper 25 years ago they'd have seen CP/M or Wang systems.

Wanderlust• 19 years ago

old news

sachman• 19 years ago

You nailed it - I think it is a cultural and mindset issue and unless they change at the core they are never going to intimidate anyone nor be the powerhouse they were once. Here is an interesting piece that complements yours...

http://republicofinternets.com/2007/03/17/is-microsoft-done/

yaddoshi• 19 years ago

Please tell all my customers for me so I can start making the switch to providing Apple and LINUX systems.

I'm confounded by the number of customers I run into who are convinced they either need a new Windows Vista computer, or worse, that they need to install Windows Vista on their old computer.

ernie• 19 years ago

MS is no longer significant to startups because (at large companies):"No one was ever fired for buying Microsoft"

It's a value proposition that panders first to management's Fear Uncertainty and Doubt and second to actual results.

DITSS• 19 years ago

When did Microsoft die? That's simple. It is the day that Bill Gates decided to leave Microsoft. Not the day he left, but the day that privately, to himself, he decided to leave and devote his life to philanthropy. Everything since then has been just a desperate attempt to grip the sand as it flows through their fingers. The harder they sqeeze, the faster it flows through their fingers (cough Zune and PlaysForSure)

ka• 19 years ago

I suspect that you're right, but MS is not quite fully dead as yet, but they are dying a long, slow, lingering death because they have been so entrenched for so many years past.

Think of it as a layer of skin tissue. When the a layer of skin tissue is replaced by the body, it doesn't just disappear overnight. Rather, it starts cracking and peeling first, then over time, it is gradually replaced by a new fresh layer from underneath.

MS is currently peeling...

yb927• 19 years ago

Paul, As usual brilliantly written and fantastically succinct-even though it is indeed 'Old News'.

Lessien• 19 years ago

Don't discount the impact of the antitrust suits. The lawyers get a veto on nearly everything within Microsoft now. A company simply cannot be agile when the balance of power is skewed like that.

prometheas• 19 years ago

I feel like Steve had to get ousted and come back for the dramatic resurgence Apple has seen. It seems to me that both Apple and Steve needed to walk down their roads, and work things out for themselves, before they could both be ready to make the accomplishments they've made since 2000.

I don't think Apple would have allowed Steve such free reign as they did after his return, had he never left. Conversely, I don't think Steve had the contacts to do what was done with OS X, had he never met Avie and created NeXT.

That's just my $0.02, though. :-)

twocents• 19 years ago

I agree, MS is definitely moving in this direction... though not quite dead. They just need a little help getting there. A few additional points...

1. Data formats: The Operating System is becoming less important. The focus should continue to be toward standards. Proprietary Data formats, such as DOC are slowly dying. This is absolutely one of the keys (as evidenced by MS's reaction to Massachusetts when they attempted to pass legislation requiring the use of Standards on their documents).

MS has spent nearly their entire dev cycle ensuring "vendor lock in". This is beginning to end. You mentioned JavaScript as an attempt to compromise popular 3rd party solutions. Further research will turn up an unbelievable number of attempts at this (some successful others just a joke and a waste of the customer's time).

The message to ALL users is this: Keep your data open It's your data and you should have access to it from more than one company or Application. Avoid forced upgrades and security issues when MS decides to stop supporting an application.

2. Hasta la Vista: BrandonM pointed out MS's apparent contempt for the customer - and contempt is what it is. This is why Windows XP will absolutely be the last OS I ever use from MS. It doesn't make a difference to me if Vista is the greatest OS ever or can be completely killed by an animated cursor. MS has done more to alienate their customers than all the competing products and companies together have been able to do. Alternatives are now ready and available.

3. Alternative OSes: The re-emergence. This area has continued to rise in prominence thanks in large part to Linux, BSD and OS X as well as serverLinux on hosting accounts. Upper-tier Operating systems such as Apple's OS X, Linux, BSD and Solaris are exciting viable alternatives. Second-tier Operating Systems such as OS/2 (eComStation) - capable of running modern browsers (Firefox) and applications can also fill a niche.

Even fundamentally sound and high-quality third-tier OSes; such as AmigaOS4 and The RiscOS are beginning to see new momentum, as a result of Web Apps and the kind of backlash Microsoft has created among too many users. While I think these 3rd-Tier OSes need additional modern softTek, I hope they hang in there and continue to progress forward. The OS battle is a war not a battle won within a year or two.

4. Web 2.0 Apps: not just Internet/WAN-based... There is no reason why internet enabled apps couldn't reach any desktop OS. A complete local LAMP environment, for example, can easily be set up on any number of alternative Operating Systems. So if your needs can be filled with Web-based Applications, they can also be run locally (or over a LAN) for enhanced speeds. Even portable computing devices (Nokia N800, Pepper Pad, etc..) shouldn't have a problem setting up this environment.

By default, these types of apps are network-centric. Businesses already loves and need them but many solutions are currently custom-built. Web Apps will continue to grow in functionality and will find a home on low-cost LAMP infrastutures as opposed to the more expensive WIMP or proprietary windows architecture.

5. Pointed out in the article was the power of a monopoly. A user commented on it's ability to kill competition. There was at least one objection to this. Below is only one example of the many instances of mafia-like bahavior by Microsoft:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microsoft/

In general, arrogant and abusive behavior by any company has a negative effect (google: Sony, DRM, backdoor rootkit OR Intel cpu tracking ID privacy). Are commercial software and digital media companies in danger? Yes... Google (as well as many users) are aware of the dark side of capitalism. This dark side has opened the door to GPL software (as well as various other open source licenses) and the famous "do no evil" guarantee from a major international vendor - probably a first in the history of commerce (maybe someone can verify this).

6. Newbies: The most important segment of the population and the hardest to reach. It wasn't until the emergence of Firefox that this group began to take notice of the failings of MS. Microsoft has never recovered from this. IE7 with it's built-in advertising, constant registry writes and lack of portability to even other MS OSes was not the solution.

Thanks but no thanks, Microsoft. You are a dinosaur, a relic from a time we will all hopefully soon forget.

peter• 19 years ago

I also hate microsoft. When I learned of the xbox elite I returned my xbox. Now I don't have any microsoft products.

I disagree with the end of desktops however. I'd prefer to be a geek at home, not show geekery everywhere I go. I don't like how much time people (including myself) spend on computers and its sad that they bring their laptops with them everywhere they go. A PDA makes more sense. I know two people in my class who have laptops. Everytime I see them open the laptops the battery is dead and they look for an outlet to plugin. They also use the laptops while in class and distract people with windows startup music and MSN messenger beeps. This is a recent addition to cell phones going off in class.

JoeDuck• 19 years ago

For a company to be'dead' yet still make lots of money is a questionable concept. Invoking the fear of startups should not be a goal for MS, rather pulling an IBM and staying viable while Google and Yahoo innovate their pants off. I think MS is (slowly) figuring this out, and they have a lot of momentum and cash to help them along.

dogbert• 19 years ago

Old guy here (54). Great piece 100% on target. To quote one of my favorite movies, "your saying its all swirling around the drain. Had to end sometime." (Chhronicles of Riddick). Classic disruptive technology (web 2.0) transition, but still about five to ten years away from completion. Remember, Microsoft, like any adversary, has a vote.

A couple of things still slowing down the transition.

1.) Broadband is not yet universal. Rural areas don't have it always and it they do, it is pricey to get. 2.) The installed base will use Win OS's for quite a while still (i.e., Office, engineering apps, business apps), my bet is on a ten year transition. 3.) There is still and will always be value in a stand alone system with an operating system and a cpu onboard for the same reason that the internet was invented. Millions of independently functional and capable cpu's+OS is a million times more robust than central-source server farms having it all. It will only take one war and one EMP burst to prove that.

PeterdeLaat• 19 years ago

It used to be the case, that if you created an application, you could be crushed very easily by Microsoft if they copied your functionality, because they owned the dominant platform.

I think Paul is right that Microsoft cannot do that anymore. The dominant platform is the web now, and Microsoft is not a dominant player there, let alone the owner. The web platform does not have an owner.

Currently Google is the most dangerous company for companies who bring a new application, but even they are not as dangerous as Microsoft was. It is still not perceived by its users as the company that brings the web platform.

For Google to crush MySpace or YouTube for instance, is not as easy at all as it was for Microsoft to crush Netscape.

davewhittle• 19 years ago

Dead? I know you're making a dramatic overstatement, but as long as Bill Gates is still Chairman of the Board, I hardly think they're dead. How could you not even include Gates' diminished role in your list of reasons why they're "dead?" Gates is clearly the evil genius behind Microsoft. Look at the early flopping around of Vista and the Outlook slowdown fiasco - clear evidence that Gates isn't paying as much attention as he once did. He conquered the industry and doesn't much care any more - now he's off to conquer disease and ignorance and perhaps even world hunger some day.

Microsoft dead? Not yet. If they were dead, NOBODY in their right mind would be buying Vista - but just try buying a new PC without Vista... Lame maybe, big and increasingly incompetent, clearly - but certainly not dead.

Dave Whittle - Former IBM OS/2 Evangelist

vzakharov• 19 years ago

Be afraid of Microsoft or be afraid of Google - what's the difference, if you're a startup?

SFBayman• 19 years ago

It's always funny to see people with Apple laptops struggle to get their presentations up and running when they come to my company in hopes of a partnership.

reality2345• 19 years ago

Need a Dose of Reality

From TFA: "Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows. Nearly all the people we fund at Y Combinator use Apple laptops. It was the same in the audience at startup school. All the computer people use Macs or Linux now. Windows is for grandmas, like Macs used to be in the 90s. So not only does the desktop no longer matter, no one who cares about computers uses Microsoft's anyway."

This guy needs a dose of reality. If he is "surprised" running across Windows computers, he needs to visit a business, any business. I'd say...99.9% of them use Windows. Perhaps he is just surrounding himself with counterculture hippies, or perhaps he wants to ignore reality.

From TFA: "Nearly all the people we fund at Y Combinator use Apple laptops" well perhaps they need to fund more broadly. Cool is cool, but not always profitable.

From TFA: "Windows is for grandmas"...and 99.9% of corporate users, and most home users, and many students.

rinconj• 19 years ago

I work for one of the $100B+ market cap companies that officially is windows only, but internally 20% of people have already replaced their windows with Linux or Mac for superior performance. The OP of this is all about the new breed of startups not the grandma companies you see or work for.

ar• 19 years ago

Microsoft has just moved-on in scope. If you're running a $60B business and you need to grow it to make shareholders happy, you look for the next $10B business. A small project would be something that is a $1B business. It's an amazing scale--growing your business by a billion dollars is less than 2% growth and barely moves your stock price (you know, the CEO's goal).

In the space of YCombinator, start-ups are lucky to be targeting a tenth of that small move. They're not dangerous to those players because they've simply stepped beyond that level of playing the game. Sure, one of those start-ups could emerge to be the next big idea, but Microsoft can afford to sit back and acquire them or jump into the market when they see the opportuntity, after a couple attempts at a profitable model have assumed some of the risk. They have no need or incentive chase every little opportunity. Their not going to get it right every time, they missed both online auctions (eBay) and walk-up ad serving (Google), but missing these hardly renders the company dead or irrelevant.

starman• 19 years ago

I'll suggest one other disruptive piece of the puzzle. What's the sound of...

BILLIONS of copies of Mac OS X interconnecting?

- iPhones, iPods/tablets(soon), notebooks, desktops, media nodes, wearables (see shuffle jewelry to come).

And yes, something else will displace the Apple universe.

stopbuggingme2• 19 years ago

This article is absolutely ridicolous. First of all, "Web 2.0" and "AJAX" software won't ever replace Desktop Software, period. The first issue is Performance. JavaScript is awfully slow compared to real programming languages, and this won't change because of some language-specific features. An eMail or calendar application is certainly doable with JavaScript (even though they still aren't as good as desktop software because of the latency). Perhaps even word processing and spreadsheets will be possible with an AJAX app, even though the current AJAX "word processing" and "spreadsheet" apps are ridiculous compared to MS or OpenOffice. But other things, like image editing, video editing, rendering and 3D games just aren't feasible with AJAX. JavaScript is too slow to compute stuff on the client and the latency is too high to do everything on the server, and also someone would have to pay for the server the work is being done on. It won't happen. But even if it were technically feasible it wouldn't happen. That's because it doesn't offer many advantages over traditional apps. Sure, you can access your data from everywhere, but for everything that matters, that is already the case. For example, IMAP is spreading more and more - why on earth would i use some crappy AJAX eMail client? And there's another very important reason why AJAX won't take over the World: privacy. There are a lot of things that i just don't want to lie around on someone elses server.

Secondly, high-bandwith connections aren't available for everyone. Think of people living in rural areas, and of people who just don't need it. Yes, those people do exist, and they won't spend 20Â/Month just to do what they already do with conventional software.

Thirdly, it's just not true that "All the computer people use Macs or Linux now". I study CS, and while most of my fellow students have tried Linux, nearly everyone returned back to Windows. That's because nearly every interesting piece of open source software is available for Windows too, while there is a lot of software that is Windows-only. An OS is just a platform for running software, and the software is what matters.

In the end, you even claim that Microsoft sucks. Well, the truth is, they don't really suck very hard anymore. Yes, Windows 1.0-ME were crap, but the Windows NT/2000/XP series is good enough for most people (I haven't tried Vista yet). I've never worked with Visual Studio, but a lot of people claim it's a superb IDE for C/C++. Then you have MS Office. It's not perfect, but it's good enough for almost everyone, and it doesn't suck any harder than it's primary competition, OpenOffice.org (In fact, OpenOffice.org's Base doesn't even come close to the functionality of Access and there is also no good replacement for Visio - no, Dia and Kivio aren't, and then there is Sharepoint and Exchange and a lot more). Claiming that Microsoft Software generally sucks doesn't help, because it's simply not true, and by expressing stuff like that you only make a fool of yourself.

stopbuggingme2• 19 years ago

sorry for double posting...

jacksprat• 19 years ago

It appears that the business life cycle has sped up in the last century. If it took Standard Oil 50 years,IBM 30 years and MS 20 to enter the decline phase, what should we expect GOOG's life cycle to be ?

Ironically, the business that views their 'competitors' as harmful and does not embrace and view them in a positive way, will not benefit long term and will create many enemies - besides losing public trust . If Google is true to their 'do no evil' mantra, then they may possibly be the nemesis of big business and enjoy a very long business life cycle.

stephenrwalli• 19 years ago

Well said. I have a couple of blog wrinkles on your view from a year ago:

http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/11/msft_will_not_b.html OpenOffice on /Windows/ actually has the ability to perturb the revenue stream in interesting ways.

http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/11/i_started_the_w.html Why they can't just spend their way out of the hole, and why they can't actually motivate the troops under Ozzie.

djasek3• 19 years ago

Microsoft will still be THE MAN on the desktop and enterprise for a long time (I just switched to Mac however. Parallels rocks). And .Net is what will keep them ticking. (Office too, but that's a different post. Have you seen what MindManager has done with Word?) If anyone wants to put the last nail in their coffin, build a better .Net. And do it with Lisp.

.Net shows what we have needed for a long time. A consistent development platform where it doesn't really matter what language you program in. Everything gets compiled down the same way, everyone uses the same API and libraries. But the syntax is locked away and guarded (big surprise coming from a monopolist). You can't easily find it, and you sure as hell can't easily change it. And even if you do, the byte-code doesn't offer any more power than the over-language. All you can do is beg for a change, and maybe a year later you will get a watered down version.

Free us from our syntax chains.

You've gone on at length about how cool Lisp is. How it can be morphed into whatever language is needed at the time. So prove it. Fix .Net by describing the language syntax in Lisp. Give the end programmer the ability to see and adjust their chosen language to behave as needed on a project by project basis. And do it in a way that will actually get used.

Instead of making a 100 year language, make a 100 year platform where the language can shift as the problems and fads do. It won't be easy, but it might just change the world.

Bogo• 19 years ago

I'm not sure you realize the can of worms you would be opening up by feeing up the syntax chain. I agree freeing up syntax is a very viable method for imporving codeing, but it is also very easily leads twards confusion in the minds of code maintainers. The idea is old and has been implemented a number of times, but also it has never taken off because of the major problem with what does "for (x) in Y {;;some more code here}" mean? FYI, I've implemented a flexible programming language. They are a bear to implement. I'm positive you don't want to go there. Think about this. The developer tweeks the syntax translation for the code he is working on. What happes to all the other uses of that syntax in the program?

djasek3• 19 years ago

The appropriate use of namespaces and developer discretion would be needed to ensure you don't F up your other code. If you want a switch that checks if one string is contained in another, you don't modify the switch syntax. You make a switchContain.

And you know what "for (x) in Y {;;some more code here}" means the same way you know what "x= someFunc(a,b,c)" means. You look it up. Of course it is best if the developer uses good names and comments so you can make a good guess by looking at it.

Yea it's hard, and yea it's dangerous. All powerful things are. I don't like being told I can't have something because you think I am too stupid to use it safely. Some people won't be able to use it, and everyone at one point will be too inexperienced to use it correctly. But thats why you layer the more common languages on top. And if you are running an enterprise shop where you can't guarantee the quality of the maintenance developers, don't let your developers use it. etc...

Because it's too powerful is not a very convincing argument for me.

djasek3• 19 years ago

dupe.

biofusion• 19 years ago

This could quite possibly be one of the worst written articles I've read this year. The points your bring up are beyond childish and really have little information to back it up. So you claim a few groups of yours are using Apple computers, my god that must mean everybody is! I really am not going to argue with you here, Microsoft is clearly not dead.

jvdvyah• 19 years ago

MS is dead that in that it doesn't need to be feared anymore, yes. Nowadays, when MS peceives a startup to be a threat, they rather them acquire them than out-compete them; it's cheaper.

Also, I can see Microsoft changing already. .Net Framework v3.0 is actually impressive (which follows tradition: MS always needs three tries to deliver something that is any good).

They're definitely catering to the web now with WPF+WPF/E+XML+Atlas+Expression tools, etc.; these are acually great tools (even if rough around the edges) and they can exist and be used alongside all the open source and standards stuff (yes, WPF/E runs on say Firefox on Linux as well); there is no conflict anymore.

So, take your average Windows developer/ISV: they know Windows stuff and now they get a bunch of extra tools to help them develop for the web. Why on earth would they switch to Linux or Apple development? By staying with Windows they can slowly migrate their apps and their customers to the web without disrupting anything.

And MS has both the resources and the patience to go the distance with this.

MS Dead? Nah, don't see it happening. MS no longer to be feared? Sure, but, uh, in what way does that matter, except to incumbent startups?

RamonFHerrera2• 19 years ago

MS no longer to be feared? Sure, but, uh, in what way does that matter, except to incumbent startups?

What kind of world do you live in, jvdvyah?

Suppose you spent considerable resources learning Java, and one morning M$ wakes up a says; "what company or technology should I kill today?" and they decide to kill Java.

Suppose M$ bribes a public (or private) manager, or a State Senator (Marc Pacheco from MA comes to mind) because they don't like ODF. If you were betting on ODF you are suddenly collecting unemployment.

-RFH

seandc• 19 years ago

Quote: "It now seems inevitable that applications will live on the web."

Well.......... 1. I don't trust the web providers server security. 2. I don't trust the network security on the Internet. 3. I don't trust that the Feds - they can obtain my "web-based" stuff through subpoenas or other means.

....so I won't be usimg web-based applications for anything personal any time soon!

Sean

RamonFHerrera2• 19 years ago

A dead snake can still kill you.

-Ramon

mint• 19 years ago

well, is IBM dead?

It seems to me that the word dead really sends people off the edge.

IBM is doing better than they were when they made computers. To give them credit, Microsoft could be in the transitional phase. I mean, can you honestly say that you've never played 20 straight hours of Halo on an XBox? I know I can't.

Call me optimistic or just crazy, but I still believe that Microsoft is a competitor in technological innovation. I think Google will suffer from the same condition that plagued Microsoft during 2001-2005 (massive egos). This will help other companies (including Microsoft) get their footing and potentially launch a comeback (as Apple did).

It seems easy to denounce Microsoft as an evil corporation. It's harder to recognize that they have battles of their own. Remember those antitrust cases? Microsoft was given grief for packaging IE into Windows (let's see, who else packages a wad of their own software into their operating system? hmmmmm.....). Do a search for torrents and you can find the latest Windows (or any windows version). Did geeks believe that stealing someone's hard work was cool? Hell yes. Microsoft is the paranoid old man that it is because we helped put it there while we give graces and laud Google and Apple.

I use a Thinkpad running Windows XP (and Ubuntu).

To address your Apple computer usage by geeks: it's the same problem with most amateur photographers, they still think fancy toys are vital in making a photograph (ie having Mac OSX in no way improves your abilities as a designer).

Like many others have said: stick around and let's see what happens.

Meanwhile, anyone up for a game of ultimate frisbee?

ecuzzillo• 19 years ago

I think the link from the essay to this comment page caused an enormous number of dumb users to register here, much like the Web 2.0 article with reddit.

kawabago• 19 years ago

Will the corpse of Microsoft be considered toxic waste?

tapp• 19 years ago

With regard to the thesis Microsoft is Dead and it was Google that killed them, some food for thought:

How Microsoft could crush Google in one easy step: http://tinyurl.com/2y8dbh

Goladus4• 19 years ago

Block all Google ads?

It might be a viable strategy, but hardly an easy step. If Microsoft simply offered it as an option, it's unlikely that anyone would care.

"Hey users, download this and block Google ads!"

Users say, "What are google ads and why should I care about blocking them?"

Or, Microsoft sneaks a blocker in via internet explorer and enables it by default. If they're lucky, it won't break anything else and Google won't be able to hack around it, but either way Google would sue.

pythonic• 19 years ago

Paul Graham, you are so Not Enterprisey. Thank You!

What some of the (ok, us) "older" folks don't realize is that the younger generation will bring their technology to work with them and it will eat away at the corporate desktop from within despite all the "we need a big vendor to cover our asses when the Fed regulators come a knockin'" attitudes that prevail in that world. And IBM is still there to beat them down from above.

Richard• 19 years ago

I would like to accept that MS is dead, but I can't until MacOS and Linux start making a better showing in my webserver logs. MS can't die as long as they still have a lock on the end user.

ynotds• 19 years ago

25 years ago I grabbed a job writing for ComputerWorld Australia and quickly settled on a methodology of getting two more names from anybody I spoke to. Within months I had had contact with just about everybody in the local computer industry with the exception of IBM. No leads led there, at least not until much later when I heard from Boyd Munro who had been our IBM rep back when I was learning to program (Assembler) and to analyse and design systems, but even he did not provide much in the way of links back to IBM as he was busy with his own software company by then.

A generation later "They're in a different world." clearly applies to M$ the way it did to IBM in 1982, though IBM's shadow was still large enough to inspire Apple's 1984 commercial.

bitemebiteme• 19 years ago

It's pretty obvious to the MILLIONS of developers and hackers that not only survive but thrive in the Windows world that you really have ignored them for your entire career. You live in one ecosystem we live in another,

The main difference between us and you is that you feel it necessary to throw stones at us (or in this case verbal diarrhea) every so often and we are happy to let you live in your world, and respect you for it, while we happily go about our business shaking our heads at how absolutely uninformed you are about our world.

You are part of the problem not part of the solution.

See you in a couple of years when you pop your head out of your hole and shit all over us again.

BrandonM14• 19 years ago

Did you just say "MILLIONS of [...] hackers [...] in the Windows world"? Wow, that's pretty funny, because Windows isn't really designed for hackers, you know? I mean, sure, they can go out and buy Visual Studio and write some programs, but why not just get an OS that supports real hacking out of the box, and is free?

I mean, either the definition of "hacker" has expanded quite liberally, or we should start seeing a slew of awesome apps start rolling out any minute now...

FritFrut2• 19 years ago

"designed for hackers"??? Haha, what a load of... You could look at the many definitions of 'hacker', and none of them precludes hackers on Windows. But, if you believe that 'real hacking' is wasting hundreds of hours trying to make your graphics card work, then yes, by no means use the free one, and consider yourself 'a real hacker', when you manage to get the sound out of your soundcard.

bfarmer• 19 years ago

Great points. I think that part of what microsoft doesn't understand is that it's no longer completely about the bottom line. Customer satisfaction is the driving force of the web 2.0 movement, and while I think that microsoft is hardly dead, it needs to evolve a great deal (basically reiterating what Paul said). I disagree that the desktop is dead though, I think that many people overestimate the capabilities of the of the web as it is today (give it a few more years). This might just be me overreaching and being completely wrong, but I believe that desktops will have a greater role in the far future because people will be able to host and manage their own slices of the internet. In a few years the desktop will be the equivalent of a glorified facebook profile and weblog hosted by the individual, and the user experience will be something of an integrated desktop/internet environment with web 2.0 companies reduced to widgets downloaded onto the desktop. Maybe. Thanks for the good essay Paul.

raj• 19 years ago

the only issue i take with this article is the following (and its an issue that, when i hear someone say it, it almost immediately calls everything else into question about their logic and reasoning): not everyone can get broadband. not everyone can AFFORD broadband. get your head out of the Valley, out of San Fran, out of Austin or California or New York city, and go ANYwhere in Everywhere, USA, or Anywhere Else, Rest-of-the-World, and you'll see that broadband is either insanely prolific or utterly non-existent, government-funded or tough-to-afford for the working class, and a complete scattershot congregation of technologies, hardware and security.

tshelton• 19 years ago

Speaking to a microsoftie this evening about all this and another lightbulb went on -- one of the things hobbling Microsoft is its historical focus on the partner as the channel for connecting with customers. Think about it -- how often do you buy a Microsoft product directly from Microsoft? Never? You always buy it through someone else, through the "channel" -- which might be a reseller, a var, or an oem. This disconnection from the customer is killing microsoft in the NEW world...

hyoussef• 19 years ago

Paul realizes that he cannot win by predicting market dynamics. Instead, this is his shot at shaping it.

stolennomen6• 19 years ago

Lets hope he succeeds.

noway• 19 years ago

Might be true if you live in "Silicon Valley lead shielding" talking only with startup guys. Completely wrong outside. How many people know Y-combinator? Here you are...

Robby• 19 years ago

I really don't get the hype about Ajax etc. This (and maybe the younger ones are lacking this knowledge) effect could be done since the mid 90s.

In those days, you eithr used a frameset with a hidden frame to get the update stuff from the server and put it into the browser via DOM access. Or, to stay with MS, you could use a hidden IFRAME.

Really no rocket science... so, the killer apps these days are small, simple and FAST desktop apps (whatever desktop people use). We will see...

dhpeterson• 19 years ago

Old news! I've been using Linux since 1993, been involved in startups since 1999, and about the last time that I paid any attention to Microsoft was when they launched .NET (around 2003). In fact, the .NET implementation (a belated catch-up in many ways to Java) was about the only semi-innovative development effort I have seen come out of MS in the last 10 years. Even so, it was little more than a tarted-up virtual machine, a cleaned-up set of Java-equivalent programming APIs, and a couple of cool features like crypto-signed DLLs, a global assembly cache (hmm - where do you put all your JAR files, then?!) and the ability to mix and match programming languages in a single application (though only one target language per DLL, or more strictly, per .NET "assembly").

Then, Miguel and the gang came along and wrote Mono, and pretty much re-implemented everything of value from .NET, without the licencing overheads of running in a windoze only environment. That basically took the wind out of the sails for Microsoft, and they've been floating around, almost impassive, pretty much just watching the emergence of ASP/SaaS computing, web 2.0, AJAX, Ruby on Rails, blogging, wikipedia, bittorrent, skype, asterisk and everything else from the sidelines ever since.

I think the real problem comes back to people. It's a bit like Paul's articles on Great Hackers and what motivates them. I know plenty of great hackers (and I would like think that a couple of startups later I am at least a good one! - though I find myself more and more on the business side in recent times, growing our company and developing our people - good young hackers themselves). I even used to know a few guys at Microsoft (Australia and Singapore). The last "good" person that I knew who went to Microsoft (from a PhD programme at Melbourne Uni) joined in 2002. Since then, nobody I know even went near the place. If you can't attract great people, then you won't build great products, and everything else is a forgone conclusion. Microsoft has built great cash-cow businesses, and great fortunes for its founders, but I don't believe it will ever be a player again.

rbirkby• 19 years ago

Sorry to be really anal and pedantic, but you can have more than 1 language in a .Net DLL (assembly). You compile the code for each language to a .Net module, then bind these together with a manifest into a .Net assembly. I told you it was anal.

bobb2• 19 years ago

C# is so much better than Java it's not funny - sorry - I guess you would have to try it out to know...

JamesPunk• 19 years ago

You've got to be an idiot to think Microsoft is dead. Ever seen WPF/e? Photosynth? Xbox 360? Virtual Earth 3D? Not to mention the framework for 90+% of computers and one of the biggest R&D initiatives of any private company. Then there's that little $60 BILLION nestegg sitting in the bank waiting for new oppotunities.

Is there even one synapse in your whole head firing? You've got to be cold stupid to think they're dead.

deep_throat• 19 years ago

Microsoft makes more money than any Y Combinator startup ever will. Bill Gates is off saving the world with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, while PG is busy exploiting young talent.

pio• 19 years ago

Paul, have you heard anything about enterprise software? :)

amoroso• 19 years ago

More online Web 2.0 image editing tools: http://www.dailyblogtips.com/free-online-photo-editors/

AndyDavies• 19 years ago

MS may be past their peak but they're certainly not dead and won't be while they've still got large corporations willing to buy their software.

Some of your arguments just don't hold water, at one point you're arguing the desktop is dead but then oh one of the reasons MS is in trouble is Apple's desktop?

Web based applications may be on the rise but there are plenty of problems with them too, disconnected operation, lack of backups etc. being some of them.

The platform of the future is the phone - you've only got to look at how it's used to fuel innovation in some of the third world countries.

VinnyLingham• 19 years ago

In a recent blog post, I explain why Web Applications are far superior to Desktop Applications. Desktop apps are by and large OS dependent and the economics of running a desktop business are not as good as a web app business.

My post here : http://www.vinnylingham.com/2007/02/top-20-reasons-why-web-apps-are-superior-to-desktop-apps.html

I totally agree with Paul in almost everything, however I don't believe buying up all the web 2.0 companies would work. Microsoft has to actually concede that web apps are the future - they still don't believe that it is!

danw• 19 years ago

Microsoft is dead because we no longer use windows as a platform. We mostly stay away from desktop applications and instead develop web apps. We build on browsers now. They're easier to develop for, there's no need to install apps and compatability is easier (compare porting an app between mac, linux and win to firefox, IE, safari).

Now that getting apps to the users is easier I think people need to tackle the next problem: Mobile. Currently developing apps for mobile is possibly harder than for the desktop. The operators restrict you and the handsets are fragmented and inconsistent. Even with the supposedly crossplatform java has different api's on different handsets.

Perhaps the mobile problem could be solved in the same way as the desktop with web apps. We would need reliable, fast wireless broadband coverage and good mobile browsers that follow the same standards. I dont see this happening for 5 or so years.

Without allowing web apps to access phone api features I'm not sure if this is the best solution. All I can see is that whoever solves the mobile problem has a chance to be a new tech giant.

terrycojones• 19 years ago

Another telling sign: in the late 90s when trying to raise money for a startup you had to have an answer to the M question. These days you need an answer to the G question. No-one asks the M any more, it's just not relevant.

xemacs5• 19 years ago

Almost exactly ten years after John Walker (founder of Autodesk) wrote "Microsoft at Apogee" - http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/msapogee.html . I have to admit I was surprised that no-one mentioned this essay.

linuxiac4• 19 years ago

Surprisingly eye opening to me, who is still trying to educate WinIdiots and WinMorons, by handing out free LiveCDs like http://pclinuxos.com in Costco, and WalMart.

CompUSA and BestBuy seem to be dead, ala Microsoft. They have a few devoted WinIdiots and WinMorons, but, most folks just shop on the Internet, now, for high tech. goodies, running upto 50X faster in GNU/Linux, on an old PC, so it all looks as great as Mac, at reduced investment, that recycles systems for another 10 years!

Anybody who knows a school kid, or, a geek, has heard of Linux, and probably even has at least one computer that runs it! Exception is School Boards in 10 remaining states who still support convicted felon Microsoft, desktop Windows, and the "trusted partner" protection racket, while Linux is faster, safer, runs on old equipment, and is FREE!

310 of the distros are at http://livecdlist.com

ngift• 19 years ago

You article sums up what I think as well. Microsoft no longer has an technical relevance, and many other companies have taken the lead in innovation. I blogged about this in December in an article I called "The Microsoft Bubble in 2006":

http://www.osxautomation.com/2006/12/10/the-microsoft-bubble-in-2006/

linuxiac4• 19 years ago

Deep thoughts. Thanks for them.

Exeeding my goal since 1997, converting one computer and/or person each week to Open Source, usually GNU/Linux, but, have done some BSD (yes, there are some 25 of them!), I am fighting the lock-in monopolism of BOTH Apple/Macintosh and the multiple convicted felon Microsoft.

Major reasons people switch, from my experience: 1. Simplicity of use - GNU/Linux and BSD are immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions" and provide thousands of included applications: games, suites, browsers.

2. Users are tired of having to become a computer technician and spend 2 hours or more each week trying to clean or prevent Microsoft virus, trojan, malware infestations.

3. Disgruntled that Microsoft treats paying customers like criminals, but, now aware that convicted felons act that way, thus, WGA, and in Vista, corporate Microsoft spyware with a "shutdown feature"! Why would anyone accept this?

4. Realization that Microsoft and Mac will sell included free stuff, without proper conscience, and worry about the 'details' such as royalties, customer support, or customer satisfaction, "later"!

5. Awareness that 15 day TRIAL WARE is NOT a selling point for new Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway computers... it is a dis-incentive, thus the great migration to FOSS, where all the FREE software is self protecting, at no extra penalty to the customer.

Yeah, http://distrowatch.com has it, and http://livecdlist.com has it Live!

trek• 19 years ago

Microsoft recently came to my graduate school to recruit for user experience design and user experience research positions. 10 folks out of my program (about 25% of us) scored and interview.

Every single one of us had no intention of working for Microsoft and joked about it intensely. Microsoft had be relegated to the realm of other boring places to do our type of work but that you interview at for practice (and, you know, just in case that job at google doesn't pan out).

In my interview, the topic of digg.com came up and neither interviewer had heard of them. I said they were like a type of slahsdot, or maybe magnolia. Never heard of those either I quipped "oh, maybe you're not involve much in the web / web development world".

"Actually, I'm one of the project managers for Internet Explorer."

The interview went downhill, from Microsoft, from that point forward. My heart wasn't even in it "just in case" anymore.

iamwil• 19 years ago

I'm a little bit surprised that pg posted this article at all. It's probably a bad choice of words, as "dead" can mean lots of things other than what I think pg means: it's not as intimidating to startups as it use to be. It will not be the source of technical innovation that attracts the best minds in the world, as it once was.

In any case, a couple days ago, I was on the john, reading Hackers and Painters, and there's a chapter on "What you can't say" dealing with controversial thoughts. Apparently, this is one of them. pg's advice in the end of the article was not to say anything at all, so you don't have to deal with bickering with others, and go about your merry way.

But then again, I don't see pg here in the trenches. In fact, most of us have wasted our time (some more than others) posting 200+ posts here, instead of working on our startups.

agkjgh4kjghkjh• 19 years ago

As a developer of MS web solutions that people are happy with, and can be developed quite quickly, many of these points fail to resonate with me. Users pretty much don't care what the file extension of the page is serving up their content, they just want it to work. I can develop develop rich UI pages with the MS AJAX controls very easily and users are happy.

As a developer, working in the open source, 5 billion different products in various stages of non-existant support and working in a single consistent framework with fabulous support, it isn't a difficult decision which way to go... Unless you are one of those "software tools should be free" kind of people who doesn't mind not getting paid either.

zackola2• 19 years ago

Old news! Death to Microsoft! The more interesting question is do they really not realize they suck? When you have Google as the #1 search engine being used within Microsoft and iPods as the #1 music players being used by Microsoft employees, I find it very hard to believe they don't know they suck.

http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=189500876&cid=RSSfeed_TechWeb

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2005/02/66460

alive886• 19 years ago

In your two examples MS acknowledges the comparison (1) they entered search late, with the wrong strategy. they admit it. (2) Zune also entered late. but was an effort to get established in those markets.

Both examples do not comprehensively define MS, or future of core MS strategies, or of the future of MS including search and player strategies

zackola2• 19 years ago

Out of morbid curiosity, what would you say comprehensively defines MS, or future MS strategies? They seem to constantly try to branch out into established markets by throwing tons of money at every area they can think of without actually doing innovative work in any area. It seems they are generally left in the dust trying to catch up to established markets because they lack the innovation to develop and market anything new and interesting on their own.

tetley2• 19 years ago

I find this unnecessary and to refer to Microsoft as being for Grandmas, I hope all the Grandmas land on this guys head and trample him. Such an unfortunate phrase for him to use. I sure hope Microsoft rises up and pounds h... out of such superegos.

microsoftx3• 19 years ago

what he actually means is that windows is Intuitive enough for even a grandma to use. That in my opinion is a tremendous compliment.

Ask yourself this : Can a grandma install Debian? Is a grandma interested in setting herself apart from the masses with a trendy powerbook? No and No. A grandma only wants something that works well. Like 99.999% of the world's population.

People want what is easy and intuitive. Geeks, hackers and trendy insecure people revel in the obscure and fashionable (Linux and Macs).

tetley2• 19 years ago

rhue• 19 years ago

Dear Paul,

While you lay out several interesting point and are right on the fact that Microsoft is facing some serious challenges. It is not dead by any means and still exists in the game.

You point out some reasons Microsoft why is "dead": "AJAX and Javascript is the new programming model of choice" I am currently developing a web 2.0 venture namely UReporting. Our Project is based almost entirely on Microsoft technologies. We had the option to use both LAMP based development or ASP.Net/ MS Sql. We chose Microsoft as it served all our needs and then some. Mapping, mobile, streaming, AJAX, Scalability, Community building you name it we are doing it. I have nothing against Javascript or AJAX but I can assure you Microsoft technologies can do everything that AJAX or Javascripting can. Also Ajax for ASP.NET is widely avaialable and used. This is a view not from someone who funds ventures but an actual entreprenuer seeking to minimize costs and develop a scalable and efficient platform.

"Buy all the good "Web 2.0" startups. They could get substantially all of them for less than they'd have to pay for Facebook."

Interesting point especially coming from someone who funds such venture...

In conclusion, While microsoft is definately facing some challenges today (normal for all major businesses), there is no indication they are even close to where you claim them to be.

Have a Good Day

Danial Jameel www.UReporting.com

Nakarti• 19 years ago

I don't think the desktop is dead, but I will agree that it's retired: It will pick up new jobs(programs) just for something to do, but it will be part-time(eg Openoffice) whereas the real effort will go to vacations(games) and hobbies like collecting videos(YouTube) which won't even always need so much effort. I'll stop because my thoughts aren't making sense anymore, but yes the Desktop is retired, and the desktop companies are dead. You can tell some of them(Adobe) know this because they're buying webtop application(Macromedia) companies to stay alive.

I just wish Flash would work better on Linux instead of worse.

And if I ever buy another prebuilt computer, it probably will be a Mac, since Linux doesn't get the same recognition or money for its similar market share.

bongokarl• 19 years ago

all the game-developers and 3d-technology-people use windows. they are pretty strong in this field. thats because osx and linux dont natively and fully support the gfx-hardware...

BrandonM14• 19 years ago

...and of course, with that reply you actually mean that the gfx-hardware doesn't natively support osx and linux :). I, for one, marvel at the sheer number of drivers that have been written for free for hardware manufactured by companies who still think Windows is the only OS.

malkia5• 19 years ago