Reply to Message
Is Microsoft about to collapse?
I think that a balanced discussion about Microsoft's future
prospects must include a list of the things they do right. I don't have the
time or the inclination this morning to attempt a complete list, but I'll
contribute a few just-off-the-top-of-my-head items - in the hope that others
will flesh out the list.
I became a Microsoft developer by acquisition - Fox Software to be precise.
Despite years of predictions of FoxPro's imminent demise, MS has continued to
develop the platform. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when VFP was not
merged into the "grand vision" with the other programming platforms
in Visual Studio, but all the same Visual FoxPro has not been treated as a poor
relation.
I have, actually, tried hard not to be further usurped into the MS camp - I
have experimented with Linux, Perl, PHP, MySQL, Open Source, Open Office, etc.
I develop applications for the small business community, and keeping costs in
check is important. Linux came with the same price that I found Unix/Xenix to
have 15 years ago - hard to configure, hard to maintain, and expensive to hire
assistance for. Raw Perl and raw PHP are primitive compared to modern desktop
programming languages. IDEs are available, but everything seems to come from a
different source and tends to be as hard to implement as Linux itself.
Don't tell me it can be done. I know that. It has been done. Many developers
are highly successful with the whole mish-mash of MS alternatives that are
available. My point is NOT that MS alternatives are not viable. My point is
that MS has done a few things right, and an unbiased look at this comparison
has to include a few of the things they are doing right:: - They have a KnowledgeBase that is - to the best of my knowledge -
unparalleled. It is free to all and well-indexed by Google. As a developer, I
have not had to call their tech support line in years. Virtually everything I
bump my head on has been documented, along with step-by-step instructions for
resolving my issues.
- Taking into consideration the vast array of software they develop, Microsoft
is fairly consistent with their interfaces. Once you know how to work in MS
software, you can find your way around most any other piece of MS software.
- Microsoft DOES study usability. Whether you agree with their interface
choices or not, they design with the end-user in mind.
- Microsoft has an incredible developer training program, which includes both
live and webcast events almost every business day of the year. Much of their
training is free and it is real training - not just marketing.
- Microsoft continues to dominate the OS and browser market, despite the
gigantic target on their back and their forehead. All the talk about Apple,
Linux (desktop) and Firefox being more secure is largely based upon the fact
that their market share is miniscule compared to MS. (For the record, I use
Firefox as my primary browser, and IE7 will have to be pretty awesome to change
that.)
- Microsoft applications work together. They publish reams of documentation on
how to integrate their offerings.
- While Google is throwing mud at the wall and watching most of it slide right
off, Microsoft has a tendency to enter markets with purpose and resolve.
- Microsoft bundles most of the products a developer needs into subscriptions
that make being a MS developer a very reasonable proposition.
- However skewed MS comparisons may be, the fact is that it IS more expensive
to implement a platform that is poorly supported. Microsoft is out to make a
buck - and they deliver commercial quality product with commercial quality
support for the buck they charge.
- Microsoft's Windows Mobile 5.0 is an awesome tiny adaptation of the Windows
platform, and the integration of mobile development into Visual Studio will
paying increasing dividends for at least several years to come. As a developer, I finally came back around to Microsoft for several of the
reasons listed above. It became very frustrating to try to work around them. I
think Open Office is a great alternative for any business which does not need
the most advanced features of an office suite, and MySQL is an awesome SQL
platform if cutting-edge SQL features are not necessary. I recommend, consume
and deploy these (and similar) free resources whenever possible. But I am tired
of trying to mix solutions from 12 different sources in order to avoid MS. I am
tired of having 12 different installation/configuration experiences in 1
deployment (and - yes - I HAVE heard of LAMP). It makes more sense for my
clients to pay a little extra for the necessary platform, if it means that the
implementation can be simple and consistent.
Smart people think too much. Most of the havoc in my own life was created by
other-thinking - always trying to outsmart the world. I have come to view all
the Microsoft-bashing that is going on in the media currently as just more of
this over-thinking, fear and misplaced "rebellion". Fear that MS may
take over the world. And rebellion of the sort lampooned in the Sprint (?)
commercial (Boss says, "It's just my way of sticking it to the man."
Subordinate responds, "But, sir - you ARE the man!")
As mentioned in the original blog post - there are quite a few large
competitors, and there is still plenty of new turf to compete over.
Anti-Microsoft religion is no better than Pro-Microsoft religion. It clouds our
judgment. As developers, we should be rewarding the companies which provide us
with tools to do our jobs more efficiently. So far as I can see, Microsoft is
currently doing enough things right to fend off the wolves at their door for
many years to come. And - if my assertion is true - MS platforms should receive
the same consideration as any other when planning a new project.
I believe Google is in a much more precarious position than Microsoft right
now. Virtually all their income comes from advertising sales - driven by a computing
infrastructure that must be exceedingly expensive. They have invested heavily
in a diverse array of other web adventures - most of which have come out of the
oven half-baked. If they do not have a vision that goes beyond what I have seen
so far, they may eventually find themselves no more than a gigantic advertising
brokerage. Google's future is a far more interesting speculation than that
about Microsoft, in my estimation.
prospects must include a list of the things they do right. I don't have the
time or the inclination this morning to attempt a complete list, but I'll
contribute a few just-off-the-top-of-my-head items - in the hope that others
will flesh out the list.
I became a Microsoft developer by acquisition - Fox Software to be precise.
Despite years of predictions of FoxPro's imminent demise, MS has continued to
develop the platform. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when VFP was not
merged into the "grand vision" with the other programming platforms
in Visual Studio, but all the same Visual FoxPro has not been treated as a poor
relation.
I have, actually, tried hard not to be further usurped into the MS camp - I
have experimented with Linux, Perl, PHP, MySQL, Open Source, Open Office, etc.
I develop applications for the small business community, and keeping costs in
check is important. Linux came with the same price that I found Unix/Xenix to
have 15 years ago - hard to configure, hard to maintain, and expensive to hire
assistance for. Raw Perl and raw PHP are primitive compared to modern desktop
programming languages. IDEs are available, but everything seems to come from a
different source and tends to be as hard to implement as Linux itself.
Don't tell me it can be done. I know that. It has been done. Many developers
are highly successful with the whole mish-mash of MS alternatives that are
available. My point is NOT that MS alternatives are not viable. My point is
that MS has done a few things right, and an unbiased look at this comparison
has to include a few of the things they are doing right:: - They have a KnowledgeBase that is - to the best of my knowledge -
unparalleled. It is free to all and well-indexed by Google. As a developer, I
have not had to call their tech support line in years. Virtually everything I
bump my head on has been documented, along with step-by-step instructions for
resolving my issues.
- Taking into consideration the vast array of software they develop, Microsoft
is fairly consistent with their interfaces. Once you know how to work in MS
software, you can find your way around most any other piece of MS software.
- Microsoft DOES study usability. Whether you agree with their interface
choices or not, they design with the end-user in mind.
- Microsoft has an incredible developer training program, which includes both
live and webcast events almost every business day of the year. Much of their
training is free and it is real training - not just marketing.
- Microsoft continues to dominate the OS and browser market, despite the
gigantic target on their back and their forehead. All the talk about Apple,
Linux (desktop) and Firefox being more secure is largely based upon the fact
that their market share is miniscule compared to MS. (For the record, I use
Firefox as my primary browser, and IE7 will have to be pretty awesome to change
that.)
- Microsoft applications work together. They publish reams of documentation on
how to integrate their offerings.
- While Google is throwing mud at the wall and watching most of it slide right
off, Microsoft has a tendency to enter markets with purpose and resolve.
- Microsoft bundles most of the products a developer needs into subscriptions
that make being a MS developer a very reasonable proposition.
- However skewed MS comparisons may be, the fact is that it IS more expensive
to implement a platform that is poorly supported. Microsoft is out to make a
buck - and they deliver commercial quality product with commercial quality
support for the buck they charge.
- Microsoft's Windows Mobile 5.0 is an awesome tiny adaptation of the Windows
platform, and the integration of mobile development into Visual Studio will
paying increasing dividends for at least several years to come. As a developer, I finally came back around to Microsoft for several of the
reasons listed above. It became very frustrating to try to work around them. I
think Open Office is a great alternative for any business which does not need
the most advanced features of an office suite, and MySQL is an awesome SQL
platform if cutting-edge SQL features are not necessary. I recommend, consume
and deploy these (and similar) free resources whenever possible. But I am tired
of trying to mix solutions from 12 different sources in order to avoid MS. I am
tired of having 12 different installation/configuration experiences in 1
deployment (and - yes - I HAVE heard of LAMP). It makes more sense for my
clients to pay a little extra for the necessary platform, if it means that the
implementation can be simple and consistent.
Smart people think too much. Most of the havoc in my own life was created by
other-thinking - always trying to outsmart the world. I have come to view all
the Microsoft-bashing that is going on in the media currently as just more of
this over-thinking, fear and misplaced "rebellion". Fear that MS may
take over the world. And rebellion of the sort lampooned in the Sprint (?)
commercial (Boss says, "It's just my way of sticking it to the man."
Subordinate responds, "But, sir - you ARE the man!")
As mentioned in the original blog post - there are quite a few large
competitors, and there is still plenty of new turf to compete over.
Anti-Microsoft religion is no better than Pro-Microsoft religion. It clouds our
judgment. As developers, we should be rewarding the companies which provide us
with tools to do our jobs more efficiently. So far as I can see, Microsoft is
currently doing enough things right to fend off the wolves at their door for
many years to come. And - if my assertion is true - MS platforms should receive
the same consideration as any other when planning a new project.
I believe Google is in a much more precarious position than Microsoft right
now. Virtually all their income comes from advertising sales - driven by a computing
infrastructure that must be exceedingly expensive. They have invested heavily
in a diverse array of other web adventures - most of which have come out of the
oven half-baked. If they do not have a vision that goes beyond what I have seen
so far, they may eventually find themselves no more than a gigantic advertising
brokerage. Google's future is a far more interesting speculation than that
about Microsoft, in my estimation.
Posted by TaskMan!
Updated - 28th Mar 2006
