12-13-2002, 12:50 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Microsoft's Secret for Staying on Top
How does Microsoft do it? Now before you say anything, read this article - the answer isn't as simple as you might think.
"Perhaps no tech company outside of IBM has been able to keep on top of the industry as much as Microsoft. What's more, Bill Gates & Co. achieved this success during times of incredible technological transformation, usually the period when titans are vulnerable to getting knocked off by disruptive technologies. Critics often argue that Microsoft can't innovate its way out of a paper bag and that instead it has used its monopoly position to stamp out competition and force an industry to bend to its standards.
But now comes a study on the inner workings of the company from Harvard Business School professors Marco Iansiti and Alan MacCormack. Their take: Microsoft actually wins through effective management of its intellectual property and an ability to spot and react to important trends before they take hold. In this e-mail interview with HBS Working Knowledge, Iansiti and MacCormack discuss their findings."
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 01:21 AM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 566
|
|
Re: Microsoft's Secret for Staying on Top
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
But now comes a study on the inner workings of the company from Harvard Business School professors Marco Iansiti and Alan MacCormack. Their take: Microsoft actually wins through......"
|
Aw come on Jason...., we all know these 2 guys were paid by M$ to write this article!
I figure it better to post this now in jest before the "Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ" faction start posting it as 'fact'. :lol:
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 02:03 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 725
|
|
I don't know that there was much that was new here. Microsoft exploits positive feedback cycles, there's no question about that.
I was glad to see that people are starting to realize that Microsoft simply tends to go overboard in their need to win. I strongly believe IE would have taken the market even if it had not been bundled with Windows (It was winning most comparisons by version 4.0). I don't think bundling it did that much.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 02:50 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,466
|
|
Microsoft's recipe for success is simply based on the fact that it had, and continues to have, the superior business model, and the most successful strategic planning. Microsoft has a tenacious nature to be sure, but much of Microsoft's success has as much to do with the failure of its competitors. While the competition flailed about or sat idly by, Microsoft innovated, listened to its customers, and poured millions of dollars into R&D. Some were simply the victim of their own arrogance, as was the case with Palm. As Palm continued to preach the same tired rhetoric, Microsoft and Sony out-innovated and stole marketshare out from under the once mighty handheld titan. Hubris.
It never ceases to amaze me, the over-zealous Linux and Mac community (even though I am a Mac user) and the barrage of hateful comments and conspiracy theories of the EVIL EMPIRE AND ITS PLOT TO ENSLAVE HUMANITY. Even if you dislike Windows, you have to admire a company with such ferocity and stamina. Those of us that work in the computer field owe a great deal to Microsoft. Would I have been able to make a career out of working in PCs, servers, web design, and other interesting fields if the technology landscape had been shaped by other firms like Sun or Oracle? Or if UNIX had become the dominant OS?
Something to think about the next time you spell Microsoft with a $.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 03:14 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 134
|
|
Windows is why they won the market.
Why did Windows win? Because it is cheaper than Apple and Unix and is open to different types of hardware, unlike Apple. If Apple was open, it would have won. I am not a Mac fan, but Apple started off better than Windows and should've driven in into the ground, but it didn't. And that is why Microsoft is dominant. It is willing to drive the competition to the ground by out-spending in R&D. That is why Microsoft's only decent enemy left is Linux. Microsoft won't and CAN'T kill Linux, either, because Linux is free and has free and almost unlimited free R&D through open software. Microsoft pretty much knows this, and so it is going to (and does) try as hard as it can to battle Linux. For this reason, I don't blame Microsoft for trying to target Linux as their number one enemy.
One cannot out-spend a software "company" that gives away its software. Linux can exist without any corporations at all. The Open Source movement is like an immensely powerful guerilla army. Sure, it is strongest when supplied with guns & ammo from actual nations, but it is able to survive and even thrive completely independently and with its individual members acting seperately.
I like Microsoft's products, but I think that Linux will always be around. Once Palladium starts, more and more people are going to flock to Linux, hearing stories of freedom from censorship and uber-powerful software companies and hearing that the streets of Linux are paved with gold. I hate Palladium sooooo much. Thankfully, I think that the window of opportunity of the technology is non-existent. If the technology were around in the Windows 95 era, it was easier for smaller hardware manufacturers to compete, so others would have arisen. And don't forget Apple. Apple hates Microsoft, and so would have never agreed to do Palladium. Skip ahead to today, Apple is still around, but not nearly as much as before, and a bright, new player is around. His name is Linux. He is perhaps the best player around, and the best thing about it is that he plays for free: he just likes to play the game. (Has anyone else seen that IBM commercial?) Linux has now teamed up with Walmart and is even offering uber-cheap computers that run many Windows programs. If Palladium were to come right now, it would cause a very large portion of users to switch, either to Linux or to Apple. I don't think that Palladium can work in today's world. It's just not possible.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 03:26 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,466
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robotbeat
If Palladium were to come right now, it would cause a very large portion of users to switch, either to Linux or to Apple.
|
This is one reason why I have toyed with the notion of switching to a Mac as my primary workstation. I don't like where MS is going with Longhorn/Palladium/.NET. The PC has always been an open platform, but some of Microsoft's vision seems to be taking us to a more "closed" system. And Windows itself is slowly becoming a front-end for MSN services. That I don't like. My PC is a workstation... my workstation. XP is a great product, however, I can't help but wonder where this road to Longhorn is going to take me. :?
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 03:38 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 160
|
|
Never underestimate the power of architecture 
__________________
------------------
Common Sense is Not Common
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 04:36 AM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Foo Fighter
My PC is a workstation...my workstation. XP is a great product, however, I can't help but wonder where this road to Longhorn is going to take me. :?
|
The thing is, we're no longer the primary audience: unlike 5 years ago, technologists are in the minority. MS is catering increasingly to those that treat the computer as a set-top box, and for them it matters less. Audiencewise (for the home), I couldn't really argue that much with this strategy. While I detest the concepts of DRM, Processor ID, and Product Activation, amongst others, most people haven't heard of any of these.
The question remains how it will reflect on their business offerings. .NET Server, for example, has Product Activation! I don't want to have to worry when I'm reinstalling a server, or to have to set up an internet connection immediately so I can activate the darn thing. This is where Linux really has a chance to gain a foothold if enough sysadmin types are turned off by MS. However, this is nowhere near a foregone conclusion -- we're seeing a "commoditization" of the sysadmin position too.
BTW: Microsoft's component-based approach, especially OLE, was laudable due to allowing application integration the likes of which had never been seen in Unix before. However, MS's dominant marketshare was equally important in seeing that their frameworks (first DDE, then OLE, then ActiveX/COM, finally DCOM and .Net) be adopted so widely. Monopoly or near-monopoly enables them to drive the market... which has both good and bad effects.
--bdj
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 08:14 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,768
|
|
if best wins
If the best OS would have won, we would all be running some form of AmigaOS...
Microsoft led by good management knew to invest in R&D much like the Japanese and had strategic vision. That is why I see them winning in the consumer space with future iterations of XP Media Edition and XBox 2.
__________________
Jonathan (JonnoB)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
|
| |
|
|
|
12-13-2002, 11:40 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 185
|
|
Re: Microsoft's Secret for Staying on Top
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
"Microsoft actually wins through effective management of its intellectual property and an ability to spot and react to important trends before they take hold."
|
Yes, but what they don't mention is that Microsoft has to change dramatically over the next few years - even more than they did in the past. The future success of Microsoft will not so much be dominated by operating systems or desktop applications. They are pretty strong there already, but the are not growing like they did in the past. A company using tenth of thousands of PCs running Windows and Office is not easily to convince that they need XP. We maniacs get every new product knowing that it's just slightly better than the one we already have. But we do it for our own curiosity and satisfaction - a company would only do it for either more profit or cost reduction.
Therefore I would think the future of Microsoft depends pretty much on their ability to switch their attention in the business market to their server products. Honestly, I have no doubts they'll be successful there as well!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
