> -----Original Message----- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 10:39 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Is "Microsoft" Dead? > > > Jim wrote: > > In the end I guess that's my biggest confusion: what he's saying? > > He's saying that 5 years ago most, if not all, tech ventures were > viewed through the lens of how Microsoft would react or what they'd > think about it. Today, however, is different: nobody seems to care.
Honestly I think that both statements are incorrect. Tech ventures (at least successful ones) will always look at the market leaders in their segment. MS still dominates many segments but never (or barely) touched others. Five years ago initiatives in those segments paid close attention to MS and today initiatives in those segments still do. I think the very premise that only one company is considered in most tech ventures is just plain silly. You would focus on Apple if you were entering the Music space; on MS if entering the Office productivity space and on Adobe in the graphics space. All (again, good) venture reports consider more than just the market leaders Again - it doesn't seem like he's talking about "all tech ventures" - it seems like he's talking about just those that support his premise. > I guess I agree with him quite a bit. His statement about "care about > computers" are really probably referring to venture capital firms and > people on the edge of tech development. I would still say that's patently false - especially since he made a blanket statement. It's just ridiculous (and a bit insulting) to assume such elitism: that 90% of the world is using MS but that "everybody that cares about computers" is not. I would accept, happily, that MS is less successful in that segment - even much less successful. But to say that they're completely shut out of it is ludicrous. He's stated a premise and used it to defend itself (it's a circular argument): if you care about computers then you don't use MS. Therefore if you use MS you don't care about computers and aren't considered. Therefore, considering only those _worth_ considering, MS is dead. > In the end he's really saying that Microsoft is a desktop company and > the desktop is dead. He's saying that they'll continue to make lots > of money servicing the desktops that will always be there, but the > future isn't about desktop apps, it's about web apps. And that's > something Microsoft never figured out. It's not in their DNA. I'm not sure if that's true... it certainly hasn't been proven in any conclusive way that the desktop is dead. The most successful Web Apps have still failed to capture significant market share and most are still used as adjuncts to desktop apps. I think it's also not true that MS has been unable to adjust. They seem to be doing exactly the right thing: they're embracing Web 2.0 to both extend their business (as with Live services) and enhance their existing business (using Web 2.0 tech to enhance and extend their traditional offerings). But I'm still confused... he's saying that the desktop will always be there, and that MS will continue to make lots of money but is "dead". So what exactly happens? Do his dangerous companies... what? Ascend to a to higher state of being? Gain diplomatic status? Because it sounds like he's saying that huge profits, dominating market share and broad spectrum success is a bad thing... ;^) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2 Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2?sdid=RVJT Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:232102 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
