What I don't understand about Microsoft, Intel, and everything
There are lots of things I don't understand. They make me crazy. But don't worry, it isn't contagious.
What I don't understand
How was Lou Gerstner able to reposition a zillion-year-old company like IBM from big iron to services, while Jerry Yang doesn't even know where to begin reinventing Yahoo!?
Why does my wife clean the house before the cleaning people come?
When you tell telemarketers you're not interested, why do they keep talking until you hang up on them?
Why do criminals go to all the trouble of robbing a bank or smuggling drugs and then get caught with the goods doing something stupid like speeding?
Last week my dog pissed on the couch; the same day the cat threw up in my slippers. Why do bad things happen in groups? Is there some unknown force of attraction between disastrous events? Where are the physicists on this?
Why do at least half the people working in customer service act as if they hate serving customers?
Why don't boards fire CEOs who consistently underperform for 10 years or more? And how do those CEOs live with themselves?
Why do people cut across three lanes of traffic or stop and back up so they don't miss a highway exit? Do they think saving five minutes is worth the risk of getting crushed by 3,000 pounds of metal?
Why does Verizon have the best service and the worst phones? Are they mutually exclusive, like politics and honesty?
I don't get how each side in the Sirius-XM satellite merger saga can claim it has the consumer's interest at heart and the other side is bought and paid for by special interests. In reality, both sides are driven by special interests and nobody knows what's best for consumers.
You know what I really don't get?
After umpteen antitrust trials and billions in fines, Microsoft still doesn't see the writing on the wall.
Yesterday the European Union fined the Redmond software giant a record $1.35 billion for "...failure to comply with an antitrust decision," according to feisty EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
Here's my point: Remember how in Jurassic Park the scientist--played in the movie by Jeff Goldblum--said that life always finds a way to break through barriers? Well, free market economy is kind of like that too. Monopolies don't last forever. The market finds a way around them eventually.Microsoft and Intel--the world's biggest one-hit-wonder--will both go the way of the dinosaur if they don't realize that it's time to change. They need to turn the corner to a new business model while they've still got some of those fat monopoly profits coming in. And I don't mean simply diversifying as they've been trying to do for years; that won't cut it.
Why do you think Microsoft's stock has essentially flatlined for eight years? Ditto for Intel. Investors are wondering what comes next after the whole PC thing has run its course. Good question. Ballmer and Otellini definitely have some 'splainin' to do.
Steve Tobak is managing partner of Invisor Consulting LLC. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
Microsoft and Intel as 1 hit wonders?
The top 10 global R&D spenders in 2006 were, in descending order: Toyota, Pfizer, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, MICROSOFT, GlaxoSmithKline, Siemens and IBM.
why do politicians lie?
why clean the house before the cleaning peple?
this is like tim allen's joke about putting a dirty dish in the dish washer.... wake up, read some books, and don't post supid articles like this again.
Maybe you should read more carefully before posting a reply.
Steve Tobak
The outcome of unrestrained 'free' markets is monopoly. 'Free' markets always come at a cost - often to the poorest. Microsoft is the epitome of 'free' markets - and as such has shown contempt for EU law and EU consumers - hence the appropriate fines. I would jail Gates and Balmer were they responsible for the breaches of EU law.
The EU will continue to hold monopolists, and US corporations with contempt for the law, to account in Europe. The lesson clearly is - if you don't want to obey European law don't come to Europe.
Careful now. Linux (specifically Ubuntu) has mastered the art of copy-catting. Almost all of Linux's appeal would be lost without Windows or MacOS to copy off of. Free only has so much glamour if it the product is bad.
And the difference between Mac and Windows is largely preference. There aren't enough arguments for-or-against either to make a clear decision.
And if the "playing field were truly level" like you said, then we'd have something like an HDDVD/BluRay war going on. So, I'm just glad there's a clear winner (Windows or Mac - it doesn't matter). About 6 months into that HDDVD/BluRay spill and it's enough to make anyone want to bang those exec's heads together and ask why they just can't get along.
So maybe it's good that the market is a little one sided? Possibly the reason we've had so much innovation in computers is because we haven't had to deal with all that consumer confusion?
so i have to half agree and half disagree. people NEED microsoft products sometimes. some people will NEED windows because of some niche application only available on windows. some games only work with windows. some office documents are only viewed correctly under microsoft office. there's a need there, with the only one truly being MS's fault is the office document incompatibility issues & also web development issues (as in not sticking to html standards with internet explorer). aside from that, the vendor lockin is due to third parties and it'll never be fair to ever force them to write applications for all platforms. the only thing one can do is advertise alternatives to the things that people 'need' and can actually get on other operating systems.
It is humorous how candidly you say they need to find a new business model and then say not diversifying. Finding a new business model means diversifying and both companies have trying to do so for years. MS has had a lot more success at it than Intel - with their moves in Xbox, Ads and content generation, and over the years the growth of Office, their server products, development tools, and now adding hosting. MS has made lots of moves in this area. Do they have work to do still absolutely - but to say they haven't been doing anything and that they are just resting on the fat money being made off Office and Windows is utterly ridiculous - as noted above they are spending billions to drive into new markets.
People want to view Google's success and Apple's innovation as MS demise and in the same breath they curse the dominance MS has over so many markets. MS won in those early years - yes they had some unsavory business practices, but in the end the government punishments weren't what solved the problem - it was companies making good products that put the pressure on MS.
I think the EU at this point is just ridiculous - go ahead and fine the market leader until you make the market fair (they are doing the same thing to Intel) - that will not in the end make things better for the consumer all they are doing is just serving special interests of companies over there.
"Seinfeld5a...I think you are completely wrong. I don't NEED Microsofts Products. Nobody does. The fact of the matter is, we all LIKE them enough to buy them."
I'd argue that you've been scammed into thinking you like them. You like being vulnerable to millions of viruses? You like an OS that 12 year old script kiddies have hacked? You like instability and threats coming from every vector? You like your 2.8GHz Pentium 4 computer to act like a 700MHz machine? You like being forced to replace working programs whenever the Bill tells you to? You like having a killswitch (WGA) on your computer? You like M$ dictating what programs you should be allowed to run? You like paying for a computer that M$ claims is theirs when you install their garbageware on it?
Some people like being sheep. But given a true choice, few would choose it. That's a fact. M$ has grown to the size it is because of monopolistic practices and nothing more. Their software is garbage, bloated beyond reason and full of security issues. Given a choice between a product that works and a product that works when it wants to and only in concert with other products from the same company, people would chose what works.
Given a real choice, no one would ever choose M$. Ever. Keep in mind that for years you really had little to no choice, winblows was preloaded on every computer you could buy (except Macs, of course). Most people are too lazy to "start over" with a real OS and just go on using what was there to begin with. That's how M$ got to where they are today, not because they gave anyone anything desired.
- by ckurowic February 28, 2008 3:03 PM PST
- Stock price tells all just as mentioned in the article. It really does. A low price show low confidence by investors and other stakeholders. Microsoft's stock has indeed flatlined. The same with Ford, GM, and countless other companies who refuse to change.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)I don't think we really need to bring Apple or Linux into this blog for a few reasons, we are not talking about them directly and it only leads to hot-headed debate. I'm an Apple guy myself, and always have been. I used to fight about such things, but at the end of the day I say "use whatever you want to use". I don't think Microsoft's products are total garbage, but they do leave much to be desired.