Microsoft Under Attack - Part 2 472
bugbeak writes "Part 2 of BBC's report on Microsoft at its 'most vulnerable moment in history' is available. According to the article, there are six battles Microsoft must go through in order to stay afloat and win, ranging from 'sort out security' (#1) to 'get them young' (#3). The first part of the article series was also linked by Slashdot." From the article: "Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues, [Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
The problem is internal (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, the bigger problem, as I have stated in the past, is internal. In the past Microsoft has been able to respond to a siege by motivating the troops and getting the job done. IE was possibly the last great example of the Microsoft development engine at work. Now, it is almost impossible for Microsoft to rally the developer troops for that kind of siege-mentality response. The employee apathy is thick. The old-timers can still get it up, those that are still there and haven't joined Ignition Partners or retired, but you have to keep in mind that most of the developers and program managers there today weren't there 5 years ago, and only know Microsoft as a bloated software factory. The glory years, the rally cry of Ballmer and Gates, the late night and weekender coding marathons and the 'death march' mentality are all just stories of the past. The current typical Microsoft employee is more of the 'hey, I have a family and a life, this can wait' style. Certainly there are pockets of exceptions, but generally speaking, the engine is running a bit cold.
Without the means to execute, the siege will take its toll.
Computer literacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
And it takes a fairly computer-literate user to install and maintain the open source operating system on a personal computer.
I read this and instantly started thinking about this exactly how many window users can maintain there windows box properly? 90% of the users out there have no idea how to keep there windows updated, how to reinstall windows. The only difference is that Windows came preloaded on their machines. Now this is the only difference between the two operating systems. If a Linux machine came preloaded on a computer already with all the drivers installed it is the same exact thing on how people get their machines from dell.
microsoft is done (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that there is little guarantee that Microsoft will continue to be able to rake in the kind of money that they are currently pulling in. Unearned revenue continues to go down, and Linux continues to gain marketshare. Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock. When that happens Microsoft is going to *look* vulnerable. Right now the folks selling for Red Hat and Novell have to convince their clients that they aren't crazy when they forgo the safe path of purchasing Windows. Folks that roll out Linux solutions are still taking a fairly big risk. They are betting on a David facing up against the biggest Goliath in the history of industry, and the reason that the story of David and Goliath made it into the Bible was because in real life David's get squashed. Everyone likes an underdog, but only when they win.
A serious drop in MSFT would be hitting the behemoth right smack between the eyes, and such a drop is overdue.
Microsoft v. Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
My father works for the local power company developing customer support systems. Rather than an Open Source alternative, such as Linux, they opted to go with Microsoft Windows. The reason? Costs. They figured that the TCO of Linux, including support, training developers, etc. would actually be more expensive than the licensing fees that a Windows solution would incur.
This being said, I would have personally gone with a Linux setup. I think that the former situation exemplifies one of the biggest misconceptions about Linux: people think that, because it's not provided by a corporation, if you have a problem, you're screwed. That's why the support services provided by Red Hat and IBM are so vital. Corporations can't just go on a developer's word that their system works well. They need someone that they can sue if something goes hugely wrong and they lose everything due to an operating system glitch. Red Hat provides a much-needed corporate backing to an already-great operating system. Most of the misconceptions out there about Linux are due to FUD spread by MS. If the open source community can simply overcome the stereotypes of Linux as having no support at all, then I think we'll see Linux begin to totally take over MS's marketshare.
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently not even Sir William H. Gates III can [eweek.com]*. He has been hit by malware and spyware in the past.
*Details in the fifth paragraph.
Re:heh (Score:5, Interesting)
(Thanks Barney, Elmo)
That battle the article missed... (Score:4, Interesting)
I like how they use the word battle. Lately I've been reading a book called The Dynamics of Military Revolution, 1300-2050 [amazon.com]. The book centers around what makes a succesful military revolution. Since they are using the term 'battles' and are in need of a revolution of sorts I'll point out what the book stated.
The basic crux of the book is that concentrating on technology doesn't make a revolution nor does it win battles. All 6 battles in the article revolve around marketing and technology. It's pretty sad state of affairs when people solely concentrate on technology and the marketing thereof over other aspects. What makes a more successful state of revolution in battle is the coalescing of technology, organization, strategy, internal culture and leadership. I would like to see such an analysis done on Microsoft.
How is M$ leadership?
How is M$ internal culture? Does it have low morale or high hopes for the future?
What is the make up of M$ strategic culture? Do they have any other strategy apart from monopolizing?
Such questions would give a much more accurate picture for the future of M$ success.
Mod parent up! (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:The problem is internal (Score:2, Interesting)
uh, EA? Well, I suppose they don't "talk" their employees into it anymore, more like threaten...
Re:Microsoft v. Linux (Score:1, Interesting)
Nobody's thinking about suing anyone for lost data. That's just stupid. It's all about political fingerpointing within the IT organization. (Oh the system crashed. That damn Microsoft/IBM/RedHat/etc! Not our fault!)
Shark Vs. Piranha (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is a shark, at the top of its food chain. It cannot be eaten and cannot be stopped unless it stops itself. It is predictably hungry and efficient. It can take its time and wait.
But it now swims in a sea filled with other fish that are just as ravenous. They can't and won't attack the shark; they don't have to. They'll just eat the same thing the shark eats.
And that food--the market--is in short supply.
Apple, the largest desktop competitor to the "WinTel" market, is no Microsoft, but it doesn't have to be. Microsoft cannot directly attack Apple without causing legal waves as it is already a convicted monopoly. Apple hasn't the capital or mindset in the enterprise to fully cause an IT schism where businesses move in droves to Mac OS workstations and servers. But it can erode the reputation of the larger opponent by being flexible enough to try new technologies by taking advantage of the fact that people turn to places like Apple for interesting gadgets and DON'T see Microsoft as the place to buy "cool" gadgets (the Xbox notwithstanding, but do you think people really associate the Xbox with the same company that makes Windows?)
A shark moves too slowly to eat smaller fish, especially schools. And even if the shark grabs a few (buys out), they are still plenty of new fish to take their place. Time will tell if the school of fish is more flexible and malliable than the overweight, overfed and relatively uncreative and inefficient fish that Microsoft has become.
Or, you can use the Rottweiler vs. a Rottweiler's Weight in Chahuahuas [grudge-match.com] analogy. Either way, Microsoft needs some weight loss. A Federally-mandated breakup might have actually been a good thing for MS a few years back to keep it stronger in the game and not this laggard monolith.
Re:and I quote: (Score:3, Interesting)
-Bill Gates
That just might possibly dethrone the 640kb crack. I know, I know, it isn't what he meant and is misconstrued. THIS little gem is fairly unambigous. Yes, let's remember it.
The important thing to note here are the crucial words "without the users' knowledge" - Bill isn't promising that there will be no malware unintentionally installed - only that users will be informed about it.
Re:Computer literacy? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's more to malware than just viruses.
Retroactive (Score:3, Interesting)
Viruses: Longhorn security features
Firefox: IE7
Java:
Can Microsoft simply change a bit? (Score:3, Interesting)
They are simply too huge to go away. They would have to make mistake after mistake for the stock to drop and for confidence to evaporate.
Hopefully Microsoft will soon realize that the wild growth of the 90s is gone, that they have run out of IT sectors to simply phagocyte, that they now need to really innovate rather than copy and do good-enough work, that they need play nicer and start collaborating a bit more.
There was a survey yesterday that said that basically people who choose open-source do that to avoid vendor lock-in, not for the price.
Microsoft cannot lower prices and recapture lost market, this is a race to the bottom that they cannot win. What this survey says is that they also cannot embrace-and-extend standards they way they used to because the industry has wised up to this strategy.
They pretty much own the desktop market, but there is no growth there except the natural growth of the market itself. They cannot grow all that much on the server market because Windows is not enough of a jack-of-all-trade, doesn't run competitively on large machines, and that the cheap servers run on Linux/BSD.
They are stuck. Sure they can grow on consoles, in the living room and on mobiles, but there is more competition there, and the margins aren't as fat.
Microsoft will not go away, but I wish they would realize that, become less paranoid and start behaving like a better corporate citizen. A bit like IBM has become. Start with following and proposing standards that other people can interact with.
Re:heh (Score:4, Interesting)
But the game's not the same anymore. Information is widespread, and first-time computer buyers are better informed. Cross-platform habits are becoming the norm (even QuickTime reads
With the market the way it is today, Microsoft is going to have to innovate or die just like everybody else - and it's exactly in the innovation department where they're lacking. I'll start the popcorn - who brought the beer?
Re:microsoft is done (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course there is no guarantee - tomorrow OSX might come out for the x86, it's such a cult hit that everyone switches over, and Microsoft closes shop. Is that likely? Of course not. Is it possible? Sure. Back in the net revolution Microsoft was proclaimed down and out because they came to the party late, and then virtually overnight they became dominant. Microsoft tends to do these things in cycles.
Eventually MSFT investors are going to get tired of waiting for the growth to return and MSFT is going to drop like a rock.
Do you imagine that Microsoft stock is static, staying in the same hands it's always been in? Some old lady attending the holder's meetings to bitch and complain about the lack of advertising for Flight Sim 2004?
Well it isn't. About 1% of the shares change hands every day, moving from a pessimist that thinks we're all going to move to Linux, to a optimist that thinks that Microsoft is on the cusp of a golden era.
and Linux continues to gain marketshare
Boy we've been hearing that one for a long time. While Linux is a threat in the backoffice (moreso to other variants of UNIX), despite all of the "2001 is the year of Linux!" type proclamations Linux is barely a minute blip on most surveys (just checked on one major site where Linux accounts for 0.7% of visitors. Macs account for 2.5%). The great Linux ascension apparently keeps getting delayed a year.
The real threat that Microsoft faces, or at least their Windows platform, is from Apple - Apple has shown a brilliance at being able to understand, deliver, and market their products. If the whole OSX package were available on the x86, I think the operating system universe would be a lot more dynamic.
Re:heh (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with what you are saying; they have hooked a lot of people when they first purchased a PC. When I bought mine, it was off a buddy who was going to college for CIS. It was an AT&T PC that was running 95c I believe. I cashed out savings bonds to buy it, and that's how I started.
Fast forward to today, I'm a PC Tech, fixing Windows stuff, (it's all I have ever known), and Apple, Linux/Unix, FreeBSD is all literally a foreign language to me. I did have a G4 for a little bit, but I used it for nothing other than surfing the web so I sold it. I don't code and even though Jaguar is simple enough to navigate, I really couldn't warrant keeping it around, so I used the money to buy stereo equipment.
All that being said, I still would like to learn about other operating systems. However I find it painful to do so. Like you said before, Windows is the only OS a lot of people know. Getting started with a flavor of Linux seems so painful. So how does one with no knowledge make the "switch" so to say from Windows to Linux? I think the Linux community needs to come up with a methodology to make the switch easier for those folks who don't want to put their whole life into learning an OS and dumb it down a bit.
Oxymoron (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't this an oxymoron?
Re:heh (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, think of it, Coke and H come from defined regions, in small areas of the world, usually tightly controlled by corporate-like entities, whereas meth is largely made by thousands of smalltime cooks in their spare time with recipes they got off the internet.
Proof that OSS works!
Microsoft Wins Again! (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Media constantly searches for new stories to entice readers to look at ads.
2. To entice readers to look at ads, writers build tension. In this case, the hero (big advertising $$ Microsoft) is being "challeneged" by other market participants. It doesn't matter how they define the issues, there's a challenge. This builds tension and a sense of excitement.
3. Microsoft finally releases something new(ish) and the writer proclaims, "Microsoft destroys its enemies! Our hero lives another day!!!" To the great pleasure of readers, Microsoft and the media outlet who just got you to look at more ads.
I think M$ competitors are willing participants because they get "some" press, but they are playing a losing game unless they can come up with more advertising dollars than Microsoft.
I'd like to know if anyone has a strategy to break this cycle. Other than IBM's mega-bucks linux ad campaigns, I don't know where to begin.
Longhorn (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why Microsoft is Invulnerable (Score:2, Interesting)
But today, Epson are just another manufacturer. Why? Because the world around them changed - specifically Windows 3 came along. Now you didn't have to persuade the whole world to support your printer; you only needed to write a single driver for Windows. And with that one change, the period of domination was over for Epson.
Likewise, today, if you want to write software it pretty much has to be for Windows if you want it to be widespread. But the shift is coming - people thought it was the web that would provide this shift, but it will actually be the death of the general purpose computer. Microsoft banked everything on making the PC the centre of the world - and it worked for fifteen years, but that time is coming to an end. Hence the XBox and Media Centre and NT Embedded - all ways that Microsoft is desperately trying to take their everything in one box vision and hammer it into this new world.
Are you for real?? (Score:4, Interesting)
As soon as I heard of it (about 6 years ago) I had to have a go, installing Slackware from diskette on an IBM thinkpad (Pentium-S, the S is for Slow I think!). IF only because I fancied messing about with partitions and seeing if I could reinstall windows.
As far as career development goes I'd have thought some *nix|*BSD|MacOSX experience was essential.
But hey, no-one offered me a job so I s'pose I got it bass-ackwards.
Seriously I'm not trying to offend but I can't actually believe I saw your post on Slashdot.
Re:Why does the name look good? (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually, all employers are freaks, and anyone who doesn't have more than 1 version of a resume is naive.
Re:Why Microsoft is Invulnerable (Score:2, Interesting)
microsoft's strategy with windows has always been integration - everything in one box, tied together. They are desperately trying to turn that around - hence Microsoft "Shoe" and SPOT and so on.
They will still dominate in "computers" but "computers" won't be as important as they are now. Bill Gates has already conceded the mobile phone market, saying that Windows Mobile will be just one of many platforms.
Absolutely bollock all to do with Linux.