QS: I hear and respect your counters. I was mostly talking about the OS progression, and did not add details to my 'leap' from events to conclusion. I apologize, and will try to outline my reasoning.
There is a unspoken corporate mantra at many technology companies: Don't Bet Against MSFT. Some companies ignore this, and eventually pay the price. Many of these companies that fight the good fight promote their view as to why MSFT will die. Let's recall a list of MSFT's epitaphs:
Desktop Instability Kills MSFT!
Lack of Open Standards Kills MSFT!
Netscape Kills MSFT!
Inability to Move to Internet Kills MSFT!
Java Kills MSFT! (my personal favorite)
Government Antitrust Kills MSFT!
SUN/ORCL/EMC Bloc Kills MSFT!
Why is the news of their demise always so exaggerated?
1) Attitude
Companies generally inherit their underlying corporate behavior (call it culture or whatever) from their management. The stronger the management, the stronger this 'inheritance' seeps into all corners of the company. Be it through formal policies or company 'lore', a company can thus take on a 'personality' that is becomes a living organism surviving turnover and upheaval. Some companies have strong personalities, some have weak, but they all have them.
I have observed MSFT both from a corporate point of view (like others here, through the media) and as both a corporate vendor and user of MSFT professional products. If I had only one word to describe MSFT's personality, I would say 'relentless'. This relentlessness comes directly from His Foaming-at-the-Mouth Himself, Bill. It permeates how Microsoft does everything; how they sell, market, build, support, deliver, etc.
2) Strategic Thinking
MSFT has probably the best strategic thinking in all of industry. They know how to dissect a problem and design the ultimate solution. Each of the above 'death threats' were met with the absolutely appropriate response. When they needed to feign, they feigned. When they needed to deliver, they delivered (albeit always late, but never terminally late).
3) Development Paradigm - Their Killer App
It is a well known secret in the corporate world that MSFT NEVER GETS ANYTHING RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. Never. As I alluded to in my previous message, MSFT views the world as an extension of its corporation.
What this means is that MSFT feels no qualms at including the world in its development cycle: from raw development to final QA, outsiders get a chance to Be Like Bill (as much as you get to Be Like Mike by drinking Gatorade). Products are routinely released during all stages of development: prototype, barely alive, semi-tested, alpha, beta, and final release. They may label them as 'final release', but in reality their contents reflect their real stage in the development cycle.
Conclusion: Relentlessness + Great Strategy + Killer Execution
Why does MSFT continually dodge the aforementioned silver bullets? It is a combination of their great strategic thinking, their relentlessness, and their execution paradigm. They find the inherent weakness in their attacker, develop a strategy to overcome, and relentlessly execute while using the world as their development team. They have many missteps and some downright flops, but they just keep coming. They're like Sugar Ray, and the competitors all eventually become Roberto 'No Mas' Duran. Not all products survive or are successful, but when the game is on the line, they hit the clutch shot (just how many sports analogies can I fit in?)
Sometimes they take on a battle that is important to them at the time, but becomes unimportant later. They are also masters at letting go; if it is not important, they have no problem in abandoning a position (even if it leaves end users and partners up a creek). Few companies are good at this; many companies feel a moral or ethical obligation to retain previously held positions; MSFT does not. Success is their only obligation and objective.
So, if it important to MSFT, they will eventually win. Period. Is it right, or just? If not, it is still reality. I don't see it changing unless Gates leaves and his successor is a 'warm and fuzzy' type (which Ballmer ain't).
So, what's the point? The point is, past failures, missteps, or delays are no reflection of the success, past or future, of MSFT. Why? Because all the problems you cite (and many others) are all part of the three step strategy. Delayed releases are an embarrassment, but who will step into the void to take market share? The delays and underestimations you cite did not change the strategy or its outcome; they only push the eventual outcome out further.
I must reiterate that I am not a fan of MSFT. As with a natural phenomena, such as a hurricane, I am in awe of the singular power and purpose. And I ain't gonna sail against a hurricane... |
