A little early to write off Microsoft, but interesting reading

I saw this article http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ste...181558610.html today. I thought it made for interesting reading.

This mess could have something to do with it..
http://zapt4.staticworld.net/images/...4900-large.jpg

- Poor/ugly UI design doesnt pull in new users..
- Lack of proper multitasking environment, makes it hard for companies to use it for work..
- Lack of useful apps, turns off would be users when they cant use normal stuff like Facebook...
- Mostly to drastic of UI change that it alienated many loyal users..

MS did it to their self..

is that the new gnome...

da da dat dat da da.

:guitar:

Pretty interesting read. Seems kinda scary that Microsoft may actually be losing in some departments, but it's not quite nightmare territory yet; they're just not doing very well with their attempts at copying the success of Apple's iPad and iPhone, from what I can see.

http://cdn.ientry.com/sites/webprone...ndows8Pic5.jpg

This is why I don't like the Metro UI, too kiddish for me. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnluke728

This is why I don't like the Metro UI, too kiddish for me. XD

---

People criticised XP when it came out for that exact same reason, and it turned out to be one of Microsoft's biggest successes.

Don't-call-it-Metro is a touch-centric UI, once there are more touch devices bouncing around it'll probably be quite popular IMO.

The ,hmmm *cough* journalist used the Mayan calendar as the source

I've been using ubuntu for nearly 5 years now - ever since a friend of mine suggested it when hearing about my Windows Vista / Office 2007 woes.

There are still things I would wish for. On my system ubuntu 12.10 is really unstable and I can't use Eclipse. I am, for now, quite content with 12.04. I wish that they would backport webapps, but that ain't happening anytime soon.

I was mentioning this to one of my managers, and the manager reminded me that banks are notoriously conservative. The chances of the bank changing from Windows 7 to any form of Linux are slim to none.

Windows ME was a disaster for Microsoft, Windows XP saved their bacon.
Windows Vista was a disaster for Microsoft, Windows 7 saved their bacon.
Windows 8 may be a disaster for Microsoft, Windows ? may save their bacon.

There is a pattern here, which is why I am suggesting that it is way too early to write off Microsoft.

But the more that I work with ubuntu at home, the more I like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fballem

Windows ME was a disaster for Microsoft, Windows XP saved their bacon.
Windows Vista was a disaster for Microsoft, Windows 7 saved their bacon.
Windows 8 may be a disaster for Microsoft, Windows ? may save their bacon.

---

Windows ME was a deliberate disaster by Microsoft. They made a terrible OS based on the original kernel because they wanted everyone to move to the NT-based XP; so they could discontinue the old line of products and just work on NT-based systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madverb

Windows ME was a deliberate disaster by Microsoft. They made a terrible OS based on the original kernel because they wanted everyone to move to the NT-based XP; so they could discontinue the old line of products and just work on NT-based systems.

---

No one spends the kind of money it costs to develop an OS, put it to market etc to deliberately make it fail that is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

The ,hmmm *cough* journalist used the Mayan calendar as the source

---

Probably as an in joke though

The article makes some valid points: Microsoft's problems are long-term and structural, and the very things which made it so successful--the ubiquity of Windows and Office--have now become problems, as the company seems unable to divorce itself from the to create something new, as Apple has done with its commitment to iOS devices. It is betting the farm on Windows Phone and the Surface, and I don't see either getting any real traction.

That said, Microsoft is still an enormously profitable company and Windows machines and Office are still the mainstay of the business world. If Microsoft does eventually die I think it will be a long, slow decline and not a sudden explosion.

Personally the author of the article seems to have the same mindset a lot of journalists have these days... which is a fanboyism of apple...

Frankly I don't think Microsoft are going anywhere soon.... lets face it.... are you going to do the major part of your work on an IPAD? are writers going to use an Ipad mostly? are anyone who does a lot (of typing and data entry? no....

Desktop systems are nowhere near dead.... we've heard this cry before with other devices.....

And I'd never give up my desktop for a tablet primarily.... all the typing (programing work) I have to do would be a nightmare....

I also agree with the post above.. if Microsoft ever does die it'll be a gradual decline.... too many companies and infrastructure does rely on Microsoft software

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

Frankly I don't think Microsoft are going anywhere soon.... lets face it.... are you going to do the major part of your work on an IPAD? are writers going to use an Ipad mostly? are anyone who does a lot (of typing and data entry? no....

Desktop systems are nowhere near dead.... we've heard this cry before with other devices.....

And I'd never give up my desktop for a tablet primarily.... all the typing (programing work) I have to do would be a nightmare....

---

Except that Mero (Modern UI) isn't a big hit with desktop systems either. I don't think businesses who has vast deployment of desktop systems are anxious to upgrade to Windows 8. I read that some IT consultants were advising businesses to upgrade to Win7 (from XP or Vista) last year just so that they could avoid windows8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monkeybrain2012

Except that Mero (Modern UI) isn't a big hit with desktop systems either. I don't think businesses who has vast deployment of desktop systems are anxious to upgrade to Windows 8. I read that some IT consultants were advising businesses to upgrade to Win7 (from XP or Vista) last year just so that they could avoid windows8.

---

Well in excess of 50 million units in just over a week is not bad.The OEMs are only just getting up to speed with their offerings, you can expect the uptake to accelerate as more new products hit the shelf.

MSFT would not have expected overnight corporate uptake, MSFT knows its market very well and will be fully aware of what the corporate transition rates will be.

I am already receiving corporate interest in Windows 8 family of products and have sold units and NZ is small market.

Also since windows 8 was a major change edition like Vista was.... the people that do hold back (win 7 users probably) will just upgrade to win 9 so one way or another most people will give their money to MSFT anyhow.... and MSFT knows this....

And Win 9 will be a polished win 8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

Frankly I don't think Microsoft are going anywhere soon.... lets face it.... are you going to do the major part of your work on an IPAD? are writers going to use an Ipad mostly? are anyone who does a lot (of typing and data entry? no....

Desktop systems are nowhere near dead.... we've heard this cry before with other devices.....

And I'd never give up my desktop for a tablet primarily.... all the typing (programing work) I have to do would be a nightmare....

---

Desktops are already dying. Look at the sales breakdowns for the big computer makers and you'll see desktop are now accounting for less than 25% or total sales and falling. Additionally, Apple aside, PC sales are steadily falling as more and more people realize they don't need anything more than an iPad for their everyday needs.

Now, I don't think desktops will disappear. But, like mainframes, minicomputers and workstations, they will become a niche segment for people who need the speed and power. Considering you can now buy an i7 laptop which will bench as fast as the last generation of Xeons, it's getting easier and easier to walk away from the desktop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

Desktops are already dying.

---

You'll have to pry my desktop from my cold hard fingers. :D

I just don't think it will go to the extreme your painting, most households have a main desktop and several laptops and other devices. But the vast majority of people I know do have a main desktop. Desktops also tend to last longer and stay useful much longer than laptops.

Sales numbers don't paint the whole picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerome1232

You'll have to pry my desktop from my cold hard fingers. :D

I just don't think it will go to the extreme your painting, most households have a main desktop and several laptops and other devices. But the vast majority of people I know do have a main desktop. Desktops also tend to last longer and stay useful much longer than laptops.

Sales numbers don't paint the whole picture.

---

Sales numbers pretty do much tell the whole story: most people don't need six cores and 16 GB of RAM.

Now, I'm with you. I love my desktop. But I also am pretty sure I can see what's coming.

the number also does not take into account that a lot of smart phone users upgrade their phones constantly every time they subscribe to a new plan (which by and far over inflates the usage share of phones and such making them more of a commodity type of item, also a lot of ipad/apple users buy every new version of something apple puts out).... desktop buyers are more usually to hold onto the systems for a few years and do ram/cpu upgrades....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

Sales numbers pretty do much tell the whole story: most people don't need six cores and 16 GB of RAM.

---

My point was that with a laptop, I'm likely to buy a new one every few years, whereas my desktop is going to be upgraded piece by piece to keep up with times, desktops are far less susceptible to being dropped or overheating from having the vents covered up frequently etc. Laptops break more often and are bought more often than desktops. Doesn't necessarily mean they are killing off desktops based purely on sales numbers.

Quote:

---

the number also does not take into account that a lot of smart phone users upgrade their phones constantly every time they subscribe to a new plan (which by and far over inflates the usage share of phones and such making them more of a commodity type of item, also a lot of ipad/apple users buy every new version of something apple puts out).... desktop buyers are more usually to hold onto the systems for a few years and do ram/cpu upgrades....

---

I see no proof for your assertions. You would need to provide figures to convince me, and I don't think you will find them. For a simple reason, look at the steady ramp up of smartphone penetration versus feature phone penetration. Smart phones are steadily increasing as a proportion of phones versus feature phones, which shows new users are steadily replacing their feature phones with smart phones. You'd also have to show me figures which prove iPads are replaced every feature cycle. Not only does this fly in the face of my experience--I know more than one person still using the first generation iPad--but the steadily increasing quarter-over-quarter sales for the iPad are not possible if the same people are buying new iPads every quarter.

Quote:

---

My point was that with a laptop, I'm likely to buy a new one every few years, whereas my desktop is going to be upgraded piece by piece to keep up with times, desktops are far less susceptible to being dropped or overheating from having the vents covered up frequently etc. Laptops break more often and are bought more often than desktops. Doesn't necessarily mean they are killing off desktops based purely on sales numbers.

---

There is no proof for your assertions in sales or usage numbers. It also flies in the face of historical sales data. If you look at the changing percentages of desktop-to-laptop sales you will see that laptop sales have steadily replaced desktop sales as technology has made laptops faster and faster. If you want some anecdotal evidence, walk around any large corporate office, or watch the footage from NASA launches. You will see lots and lots of laptops and very few desktops.

I'd like to suggest we're dealing with an emotional issue here. Many of us are attached to our desktops. I know I am. I'm about to put a GTX 670 in it and crank up the eye candy. But I don't think our love of our big boxes should blind is to the obvious fact that the majority of every day computing tasks don't need eight cores and 16 GB of RAM, since the majority of every day computing consists of email, web and office programs.

I'd also like to point out this isn't a new phenomenon. Twenty years ago you needed a US$50,000 Sun or SGI to do any serious 3D/CAD work. Ten years ago you needed a US$6,000 desktop to do that work. Now a $2,500 i7 laptop can do that work, and more.

Also walk around any major computer retailer and you will see rows of Laptops and tablets, you will see just a handfull of desktops.

Of course, when people are replacing their units more often... that does equal more sales..... it doesn't mean more people are using them instead of desktops.... Desktops are a more expensive purchase so are replaced less often..... All I see are people jumping to conclusions trying to make links that don't exist and proclaiming the the year of Desktop death.... yeah right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

Of course, when people are replacing their units more often... that does equal more sales..... it doesn't mean more people are using them instead of desktops.... Desktops are a more expensive purchase so are replaced less often..... All I see are people jumping to conclusions trying to make links that don't exist and proclaiming the the year of Desktop death.... yeah right

---

OK I own a reseller, the sales of desktops have been steadily falling for the last 2 to 3 years and Laptops growing.

I receive RFP's at the rate of around 5 to 1 for laptops over desktops. Desktops wont disappear, they will be a niche market.

I am not stabbing in the dark it is industry intelligence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerome1232

I just don't think it will go to the extreme your painting, most households have a main desktop and several laptops and other devices. But the vast majority of people I know do have a main desktop. Desktops also tend to last longer and stay useful much longer than laptops.

---

Well "household" is a rather all encompassing. I guess it depends on the demographic. I haven't had a desktop for years, laptops are way more convenient and a moderately spec laptop today is powerful enough for most purposes. Most of my friends don't use desktop either, we are single, rent a room and travel frequently. When you have a nomadic lifestyle a desktop is rather inconvenient and takes up too much space. I know a few young couples (families) who have no desktop either, instead each has his/her own laptop.

I think desktop is rather like a landline phone. Many people still have it and insist that they can't do without one, but a substantial demographic don't bother any more (that's why e.g election forecasts based on phone polls are very misleading and tend to only capture older demographics, families and suburban population)


EDITED: But then very few people I know actually use tablets or phones exclusively without a laptop. I suppose you will need a laptop at least to do the occasional word processing.

Guys like me who need heavy lift capacity will probably always have desktops rumbling in corners and heating rooms.

But we'll also have laptops and mobile devices, like I'm on right now.

As for Microsoft, a juggernaught of that size will not suddenly evaporate into the mist. All of this "trouble" and all of the blogs and punditry are hardly more than a burst of flatulence in a hurricane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monkeybrain2012

I think desktop is rather like a landline phone. Many people still have it and insist that they can't do without one, but a substantial demographic don't bother any more (that's why e.g election forecasts based on phone polls are very misleading and tend to only capture older demographics, families and suburban population)


EDITED: But then very few people I know actually use tablets or phones exclusively without a laptop. I suppose you will need a laptop at least to do the occasional word processing.

---

To add to this, I think it might be a generational thing. I'm 42. I've usually owned desktops. At the moment I have two, and I don't need a laptop as my phone is fine for mu mobile needs. My brother is 31 and has always owned laptops. I can't think of a single one of his friends who owns a desktop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QIII

Guys like me who need heavy lift capacity will probably always have desktops rumbling in corners and heating rooms.

But we'll also have laptops and mobile devices, like I'm on right now.

As for Microsoft, a juggernaught of that size will not suddenly evaporate into the mist. All of this "trouble" and all of the blogs and punditry are hardly more than a burst of flatulence in a hurricane.

---

With the fiscal reserves MSFT has they can fund a direction change at any time

Just making it clear, I don't dispute that laptops are growing in popularity and desktops declining, I just don't think desktops will get pushed into a niche.

I was also highlighting that laptops do, this is fact not merely conjecture, get replaced at a higher rate than desktops do, so their sales numbers will be a little disproportioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

With the fiscal reserves MSFT has they can fund a direction change at any time

---

Microsoft could buy small countries.

You Kiwis had best watch out! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QIII

Microsoft could buy small countries.

You Kiwis had best watch out! ;)

---

we have Kim dot com. oh hang on he is broke and selling off all his cars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

With the fiscal reserves MSFT has they can fund a direction change at any time

---

Well money is not everything, you also need a vision and a plan, which seems to be quite lacking in MS under Balmer. There is one word for big entities which have a lot of money and resources but don't know how to use them wisely: dinosaurs.

MS will not evaporate overnight, but it is possible that it will continue on a path of slow decline. IBM hasn't gone bankrupted but it has been considerably scaled back since its peak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

With the fiscal reserves MSFT has they can fund a direction change at any time

---

The problem isn't the amount of money they have, it's their corporate leadership and the fact the company is wedded to the Windows/Office revenue stream. If you break down Microsoft's financials you'll see that Windows and Office are the only two divisions which turn real profit. This has backed Microsoft into a corner: to take a risk and try something truly new means jeopardizing that revenue stream. However, remaining tied to that revenue stream means being tied to a steadily shrinking part of the computer pie.

If you want to see why Microsoft is in trouble, look at slide 24 from Mary Meeker's 2012 internet trends deck. It lists all operating systems, traditional and mobile, as a percentage of total. Look at the slope of the iOS/Android line. That should send shivers down Ballmer's spine.

What Microsoft needs to do is similar to what Apple has done: develop a mobile OS which, while perhaps based on their traditional OS, is specifically meant for mobile and only, and they have to be willing to let that OS grow as it will, even if it means cutting into their traditional OS revenues. Microsoft is completely unwilling to do that. Instead they have designed a mobile OS/traditional OS hybrid and have tried their usual tactics of buying and/or bullying their way into the market. It isn't working.

Now, as we've said, it's way too early to call the death of Microsoft. They have a lot of money and a lot of talent. They could, if those at the top were willing, pull a 180 and reinvent themselves. The question will be whether Ballmer, Gates and company are willing to let their traditional Windows monopoly fall away or if they will go down with the ship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monkeybrain2012

Well money is not everything, you also need a vision and a plan, which seems to be quite lacking in MS under Balmer. There is one word for big entities which have a lot of money and resources but don't know how to use them wisely: dinosaurs.

MS will not evaporate overnight, but it is possible that it will continue on a path of slow decline. IBM hasn't gone bankrupted but it has been considerably scaled back since its peak.

---

IBM changed direction, they have dumped non profitable lines, EG PC's, Laptops, POS. They are very invested in servers, consultancy and software, their profit in the last fiscal year was up. MSFT can do the same if they need to, but they don't. Windows 8 is the first step in a strategy, Surface RT and Professional is the next, 720 after that, then the pieces fall into place.

In business money is everything

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monkeybrain2012

MS will not evaporate overnight, but it is possible that it will continue on a path of slow decline. IBM hasn't gone bankrupted but it has been considerably scaled back since its peak.

---

Is this a joke? IBM is doing better than ever....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

IBM changed direction, they have dumped non profitable lines, EG PC's, Laptops, POS. They are very invested in servers, consultancy and software, their profit in the last fiscal year was up. MSFT can do the same if they need to, but they don't. Windows 8 is the first step in a strategy, Surface RT and Professional is the next, 720 after that, then the pieces fall into place.

In business money is everything

---

I'm slightly more bearish on MS, but this is a decent analysis. The biggest issue MS faces is with the rise of Apple and Android, consumers will demand platform independent software and services, so MS will have to compete on quality and not simply lock consumers in.

That being said, Windows 8 is a good system, definitely their best yet. They just need to get the phone platform up to par with iOS and Android (it still lacks some functionality from what I hear), and maybe leave the hardware bit to Lenovo, Acer, Asus, etc... The Surface sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeb85

Is this a joke? IBM is doing better than ever....

---

I was thinking the same thing.... just they concentrating on the more profitable corporate sector now.... and they're big as ever there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Also walk around any major computer retailer and you will see rows of Laptops and tablets, you will see just a handfull of desktops.

---

That is undeniably true, but it's still not the same as the desktop completely dying (I'm not saying you said that ;)).

To be more on-topic (regarding the linked article): What I am surprised about is that Microsoft is not making more money from the Xbox. Not that I expect them to make much from the hardware sales but I would expect more profit from the services that run on the Xbox.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euroman

To be more on-topic (regarding the linked article): What I am surprised about is that Microsoft is not making more money from the Xbox. Not that I expect them to make much from the hardware sales but I would expect more profit from the services that run on the Xbox.

---

The XBox really only sold well in the US. In Europe the Wii sold twice as many units, and in Japan the Wii sold ten times as many and the PS3 sold about six times as many. Even in the US the Wii outsold it by about 80%. Add to this that consoles are usually sold at a loss, with that loss made up by a share of game sales going to the console maker, and you have a recipe for not much profit.

The ubiquity of the Halo franchise has made the XBox seem more popular and profitable than it really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

IBM changed direction, they have dumped non profitable lines, EG PC's, Laptops, POS. They are very invested in servers, consultancy and software, their profit in the last fiscal year was up. MSFT can do the same if they need to, but they don't. Windows 8 is the first step in a strategy, Surface RT and Professional is the next, 720 after that, then the pieces fall into place.

In business money is everything

---

I would compare Microsoft today to the IBM of 30 years ago not to the IBM of today.

On the use of laptops in organizations....

The network administrators I know see laptops as the primary vector for malware on their networks as well they should. Unless you restrict laptops to network segments that cannot connect directly to the rest of the protected network, they are very difficult to manage. Once the laptop leaves the building, particularly if it goes home with the user each night, you're just begging for trouble.

Laptops and USB pen drives are the two main vectors for infections these days. I can block malware in email, and I can block it in HTTP (and soon HTTPS) transactions. I cannot easily control someone bringing in a laptop with some dicey worm on it.

People who want to maintain secure networks need control over all the hardware and software they support. That is one reason why desktop machines still have a market; they don't leave the premises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. C

I would compare Microsoft today to the IBM of 30 years ago not to the IBM of today.

---

I wouldn't

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fballem

I saw this article http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/ste...181558610.html today. I thought it made for interesting reading.

---

It's interesting to note that it never mentions Android. It thinks IOS is killing Windows... *smirk* Outside the US, IOS is barely 25% of the market for mobile devices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

I was thinking the same thing.... just they concentrating on the more profitable corporate sector now.... and they're big as ever there

---

Looking at Microsoft for the last 20 years, and Apple for the last 10, I don't think the corporate market is that much more profitable than the consumer one. But the IBM mindset has always been unable to understand the consumer market(*).

(*) And no, the PC is not a counter-example, it is actually one of the best proofs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ofnuts

It's interesting to note that it never mentions Android. It thinks IOS is killing Windows... *smirk* Outside the US, IOS is barely 25% of the market for mobile devices.

---

So, one US company controls one quarter of the global mobile computing space? That's pretty impressive.

The presentation I linked to shows both iOS and Android.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ofnuts

Looking at Microsoft for the last 20 years, and Apple for the last 10, I don't think the corporate market is that much more profitable than the consumer one. But the IBM mindset has always been unable to understand the consumer market(*).

(*) And no, the PC is not a counter-example, it is actually one of the best proofs.

---

IBM is not in the consumer market

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

IBM is not in the consumer market

---

Indeed, they learned their lesson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ofnuts

Indeed, they learned their lesson.

---

IBM made very good equipment, ThinkPad, Think Centre etc Desktops and Laptops, their POS machines are everywhere, however when PC's turned to a bargain basement item discounting made them a very low to zero margin item, IBM made the wise choice to exit the market by selling these divisions the last sold being the POS division to Toshiba.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

IBM made very good equipment, ThinkPad, Think Centre etc Desktops and Laptops, their POS machines are everywhere, however when PC's turned to a bargain basement item discounting made them a very low to zero margin item, IBM made the wise choice to exit the market by selling these divisions the last sold being the POS division to Toshiba.

---

I think IBM got out of the consumer space because it's not their core competency. What they excel at is business to business, and their revenue is all structured for long-term deals, whether its maintenance contacts on their servers/mainframes or long-term consulting. The PC was supposed to be a business machine. When it took off they sort of fell into a lot of profit, but they never really adapted to the quick churn rate in consumer electronics, which is why Compaq and others cleaned their clocks. IBM thinks of model lines in terms of years and decades, not in terms of quarters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

I think IBM got out of the consumer space because it's not their core competency. What they excel at is business to business, and their revenue is all structured for long-term deals, whether its maintenance contacts on their servers/mainframes or long-term consulting. The PC was supposed to be a business machine. When it took off they sort of fell into a lot of profit, but they never really adapted to the quick churn rate in consumer electronics, which is why Compaq and others cleaned their clocks. IBM thinks of model lines in terms of years and decades, not in terms of quarters.

---

Their reason for exit was no margins, HP are experiencing the same issues as are Dell. If Apple were to rely on iMac and MacBook sales alone they would also be in trouble. There is no money in PC's and Laptops. I sell them purely to get infrastructure, Cloud, services deals. I would drop them in a flash if they were not a door opener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

I think IBM got out of the consumer space because it's not their core competency. What they excel at is business to business, and their revenue is all structured for long-term deals, whether its maintenance contacts on their servers/mainframes or long-term consulting. The PC was supposed to be a business machine. When it took off they sort of fell into a lot of profit, but they never really adapted to the quick churn rate in consumer electronics, which is why Compaq and others cleaned their clocks. IBM thinks of model lines in terms of years and decades, not in terms of quarters.

---

This is so very true. IBM's core competency for over a century has been data processing for the very large enterprise. They have excelled with governments and very large corporations. IBM has tried the consumer and small business markets from time to time and more often than not have failed. A classic IBM failure in the consumer market is of course is the IBM PCjr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PCjr.

If we want to see innovation continue prices and margins need to go up for both hardware and software. We need to ensure companies like MSFT, HP, Apple, IBM, Samsung, Oracle, Redhat, Dell etc survive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

If we want to see innovation continue prices and margins need to go up for both hardware and software. We need to ensure companies like MSFT, HP, Apple, IBM, Samsung, Oracle, Redhat, Dell etc survive

---

Apple will survive. Samsung is the only other smartphone manufacturer making decent products. IBM and Oracle are safe in the corporate world.

Dell and HP are caught in the race to the bottom which is the commodity side of the business. I don't know if Dell will be around in five years.

Don't know enough about Redhat's business structure to say anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

Apple will survive. Samsung is the only other smartphone manufacturer making decent products. IBM and Oracle are safe in the corporate world.

Dell and HP are caught in the race to the bottom which is the commodity side of the business. I don't know if Dell will be around in five years.

Don't know enough about Redhat's business structure to say anything.

---

HP has a heavy involvement in Servers, infrastructure, services and consultancy. It needs to sell it's PC and Laptop divisions.

Dell needs to lift its margins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

HP has a heavy involvement in Servers, infrastructure, services and consultancy. It needs to sell it's PC and Laptop divisions.

Dell needs to lift its margins.

---

I don't see that happening tbh, if anything computers are becoming more and more commodity items, at least in the consumer space... hence I think why IBM pulled out... they saw the trend

Money will be made by those who can sell a lot and keep overhead low... companies are doing this by pretty much having 0 support and if you want decent support, you pay extra for it... which supports I suppose alot of what you said earlier....

And the fact is any companies that raise their margins will lose sales to the companies that don't.... a lot of companies that sell pc's are probably going to dry up in this process tbh...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

Apple will survive. Samsung is the only other smartphone manufacturer making decent products. IBM and Oracle are safe in the corporate world.

---

Samsung is incredibly overrated in mobile. HTC makes much better products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpny

Dell and HP are caught in the race to the bottom which is the commodity side of the business. I don't know if Dell will be around in five years.

Don't know enough about Redhat's business structure to say anything.

---

Dell won't be around in 5 years because they're being out-done in every way by Lenovo, Asus and Samsung. Dell has been unable to innovate or do anything to bring themselves out of their slump.

HP is big enough with enough non-PC business that they can evolve and turn into another IBM...

RedHat will be around because they have proven they can evolve and adapt to the market, and they have a good cost structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

If we want to see innovation continue prices and margins need to go up for both hardware and software. We need to ensure companies like MSFT, HP, Apple, IBM, Samsung, Oracle, Redhat, Dell etc survive

---

We don't need to ensure anything. If these companies fail, a new generation will step in and take their place.

A race to the bottom is bad for incumbents, but great for consumers and innovation in general. It needs to happen before technology can evolve to the next level.

We've already witnessed some shifts in the industry that are for the better, like the rise of ARM processors, cloud services, SaaS, IaaS, etc...

MSFT, HP, Apple and Oracle are monoliths that hold back the industry. IBM, Google, Amazon, Salesforce.com, ARM, etc... are the innovators and enablers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeb85

Samsung is incredibly overrated in mobile. HTC makes much better products.




Dell won't be around in 5 years because they're being out-done in every way by Lenovo, Asus and Samsung. Dell has been unable to innovate or do anything to bring themselves out of their slump.

HP is big enough with enough non-PC business that they can evolve and turn into another IBM...

RedHat will be around because they have proven they can evolve and adapt to the market, and they have a good cost structure.

---

Samsung make excellent products but from a business perspective they are a nightmare to deal with.

Lenovo's inability or glacial slow supply is legendary which is a shame as they again make good products.

MSFT are excellent to do business with as are Toshiba, ASUS and HP, IBM are somewhat arrogant and are always trying to tell how to run your business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeb85

We don't need to ensure anything. If these companies fail, a new generation will step in and take their place.

A race to the bottom is bad for incumbents, but great for consumers and innovation in general. It needs to happen before technology can evolve to the next level.

We've already witnessed some shifts in the industry that are for the better, like the rise of ARM processors, cloud services, SaaS, IaaS, etc...

MSFT, HP, Apple and Oracle are monoliths that hold back the industry. IBM, Google, Amazon, Salesforce.com, ARM, etc... are the innovators and enablers...

---

I disagree, failure of big players takes out competition, and more importantly investment, the consumer will be the looser. Google are a huge risk to competitiveness and will ultimately hurt the consumer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

I disagree, failure of big players takes out competition, and more importantly investment, the consumer will be the looser. Google are a huge risk to competitiveness and will ultimately hurt the consumer.

---

whatever demand is there will stay there however and if a big player goes out and isn't filling that area anymore.... someone else will, either another big companies or a number of smaller companies or a combination..

As was said above.... someone else will simply step in.... for example if say GM went out of business tomorrow....people that would of bought a GM will simply buy a car from elsewhere, maybe ford, maybe chevvy, maybe nissan.. who knows but a car will still get sold regardless of who it was from.... people wont go without a car simply because one manufacturer went out of business...

News this morning was talking about Apples sales were down 6% and it was from the Tablet market sales. They blame competition from Google and MS new Surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Their reason for exit was no margins, HP are experiencing the same issues as are Dell. If Apple were to rely on iMac and MacBook sales alone they would also be in trouble. There is no money in PC's and Laptops.

---

The Lenovo people are laughing all the way to the bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ofnuts

The Lenovo people are laughing all the way to the bank.

---

Not really ....

Lenovo profit = $470million
IBM profit = $15.85Billion

In comparison ....

Dell profit = $3.4Billion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Not really ....

Lenovo profit = $470million
IBM profit = $15.85Billion

In comparison ....

Dell profit = $3.4Billion

---

I would be happy if my profit = $1 Million....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit

I would be happy if my profit = $1 Million....

---

A company the size of Lenovo it is a poor result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit

I would be happy if my profit = $1 Million....

---

you gotta remember too that profit goes out to all the shareholders and such unless got no public offerings, which dell, IBM and such do have... that profit gets divided out to a lot of people....

So you making 1 million profit isn't really comparable.... a lot of the minor shareholders are probably lucky to see 100 dollars of that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

A company the size of Lenovo it is a poor result.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

you gotta remember too that profit goes out to all the shareholders and such unless got no public offerings, which dell, IBM and such do have... that profit gets divided out to a lot of people....

So you making 1 million profit isn't really comparable.... a lot of the minor shareholders are probably lucky to see 100 dollars of that

---

LOL I wasnt speaking as a company.. Just my wallet :lolflag:
But yea your both correct though..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

... Google are a huge risk to competitiveness and will ultimately hurt the consumer.

---

Amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vasa1

Amazing.

---

no worrying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

no worrying

---

you don't respond to sarcasm at all do you? lol.... seriously though how do you see MSFT and Oracle as companies that need to be protected and yet Google you see as a huge danger? Google for a start are one of the biggest innovators out there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

you don't respond to sarcasm at all do you? lol.... seriously though how do you see MSFT and Oracle as companies that need to be protected and yet Google you see as a huge danger? Google for a start are one of the biggest innovators out there

---

Never said that, I dislike anti competitive behaviour in any company, sector, market.

Google has little regard for other peoples property which is a shame they are very capable of very good work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Never said that, I dislike anti competitive behaviour in any company, sector, market.

Google has little regard for other peoples property which is a shame they are very capable of very good work.

---

what I am comparing this:

Quote:

---

We need to ensure companies like MSFT, HP, Apple, IBM, Samsung, Oracle, Redhat, Dell etc survive

---

yet you say Google is bad and worrying? Are you saying that Oracle, MSFT and Apple are better than Google? How?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primefalcon

what I am comparing this:

yet you say Google is bad and worrying? Are you saying that Oracle, MSFT and Apple are better than Google? How?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiwiNZ

Never said that, I dislike anti competitive behaviour in any company, sector, market.

Google has little regard for other peoples property which is a shame they are very capable of very good work.

---

What exactly are you referring to?

Google isn't anti-competitive, its just that most companies can't compete with them.

Microsoft, Apple and Oracle have behaved in plenty of anti-competitive behaviour, much more so than Google...