Microsoft: Are Things Really That Bad?
Microsoft is looking pretty healthy for a ‘dead’ company. Sure, former Microsoft VP Dick Brass essentially buried the company in a New York Times Op-Ed piece today. But remember: Skeptics buried IBM in 1993 and Apple in 1996. Critics thought the HP-Compaq deal was forever doomed. And lots of folks thought Larry Ellison had lost his mind when Oracle started buying up big enterprise software companies. So, what’s the reality at Microsoft?
Alas, The VAR Guy does miss the good old days — covering the birth of Windows 95, Windows NT, Microsoft BackOffice, and a range of applications that largely freed the world from expensive RISC/UNIX systems. More recently, Microsoft has missed the boat — badly — on digital music, Internet search, smart phones… and the list goes on.
But don’t count the software giant out. Windows 7 and Office 2010? Um, those will generate plenty of cash. But the really compelling efforts involve Windows Azure — Microsoft’s cloud platform.
With Azure, Microsoft gets to move forward while leveraging its greatest strength from the past: ISV (independent software vendor) relationships. Closed source and open source ISVs are jumping on the Azure bandwagon. The VAR Guy has a feeling Azure is the real deal.
And there are other signs of success across Microsoft — like SharePoint and Xbox LIVE, as Microsoft’s official reply to Dick Brass points out.
Sure, Microsoft has plenty of cash to help sort out its product and organizational problems. But money won’t solve the biggest problem of all: Media relations. The media generally focuses on insanely successful companies like Apple and Google. Second-best isn’t good enough in winner-take-all media stories. Apparently, strong profits aren’t sexy if they aren’t served on an iPad.
Microsoft has two choices: Start innovating and do something sexy. Or start accepting the fact that it’s okay to be a modern-day IBM — continuing to deliver strong profits without sitting at the center of the IT universe.
Sure – MS will be around for many many years.
But when refering to IBM and Apple – those went through som really hard times and had to reinvent themselves to regain their strengtht.
It doesn’t seem like Microsoft understands how they are perceived – even by many of their own customers. Hammering “the message” when everybody knows that a product is a disaster simply kills people’s trust in a company not only in the specific product but for everything they deliver.
The statements from Dick Brass makes sense to me in terms of possible causes. Typically (like IBM) a giant like MS can run for ages even when everything is a mess.
However: If they rely solely on their marketstrength without sorting out their organisation they are heading for more trouble.
Steve Jobs might be famous for design/market strategies, but to get there he (Apple) needs a organisation that fits the purpose…. 😉
Jack: Fair points all around. The VAR Guy appreciates the fact that you offered up some solid observations without throwing flames.
-TVG
I’ve read in one or two places that Windows 7 isn’t being adopted by businesses. Apparently there just isn’t a compelling enough reason for them to justify the move from XP. I’m that sure how accurate these reports. But I can see where these people are coming from.
So long as Microsoft keeps giving XP a stay of execution newer versions of Windows will fail to be properly adopted by business. Businesses are largely happy with what XP brings them. They don’t rely on Microsoft for security. They have third-party vendors for that.
This isn’t just a problem for Microsoft though. It’s also a problem for Linux and Apple. If people are happy with what they have they’re not going to switch. Switching/upgrading cost money and time.
I don’t think change would be a huge problem for companies. It’s just how they are shown or educated in the direction of where they would head. Windows had great years cause they were able to tell people there is better pastures just over the hill (while trying to obscure most of the view), which open source cut the hill down and more people could see what is available or at least have a more less risky move while trying out new things without spending.