M$ Admits the Game is Over – Will Have to Work for a Living

I and others have been predicting for a while that M$ would become just another player in the world of IT instead of dictator/tyrant/bully of the last two decades. It seems M$ now sees that eventuality. M$ has rewritten the “risks” part of their annual 10-K report to the SEC.

“We face intense competition across all markets for our products and services, which may lead to lower revenue or operating margins.

Competition in the technology sector.    Our competitors range in size from diversified global companies with significant research and development resources to small, specialized firms whose narrower product lines may let them be more effective in deploying technical, marketing, and financial resources. Barriers to entry in our businesses generally are low and software products can be distributed broadly and quickly at relatively low cost. Many of the areas in which we compete evolve rapidly with changing and disruptive technologies, shifting user needs, and frequent introductions of new products and services. Our ability to remain competitive depends on our success in making innovative products that appeal to businesses and consumers.

Competition among platforms, ecosystems, and devices.    An important element of our business model has been to create platform-based ecosystems on which many participants can build diverse solutions. A well-established ecosystem creates beneficial network effects among users, application developers and the platform provider that can accelerate growth. Establishing significant scale in the marketplace is necessary to achieve and maintain competitive margins. The strategic importance of a vibrant ecosystem increases as we launch the Windows 8 operating system, Surface devices, and associated cloud-based services. We face significant competition from firms that provide competing platforms, applications and services.

  • A competing vertically-integrated model, in which a single firm controls the software and hardware elements of a product and related services, has been successful with some consumer products such as personal computers, mobile phones, gaming consoles, and digital music players. These competitors also earn revenue from services that are integrated with the hardware and software platform. We also offer vertically-integrated hardware and software products and services; however, our competitors have been in the market longer and in some cases have established significantly large user bases. Efforts to compete with the vertically integrated model will increase our cost of revenue and reduce our operating margins.
  • We derive substantial revenue from licenses of Windows operating systems on personal computers. The proliferation of alternative devices and form factors, in particular mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers, creates challenges from competing software platforms. These devices compete on multiple bases including price and the perceived utility of the device and its platform. Users may increasingly turn to these devices to perform functions that would have been performed by personal computers in the past. Even if many users view these devices as complementary to a personal computer, the prevalence of these devices may make it more difficult to attract applications developers to our platforms. In addition, our Surface devices will compete with products made by our OEM partners, which may affect their commitment to our platform.
  • Competing platforms have applications marketplaces (sometimes referred to as “stores”) with scale and significant installed bases on mobile devices. These applications leverage free and user-paid services that over time result in disincentives for users to switch to competing platforms. In order to compete, we must successfully enlist developers to write applications for our marketplace and ensure that these applications have high quality, customer appeal and value. Efforts to compete with these application marketplaces may increase our cost of revenue and lower our operating margins.

Business model competition.    Companies compete with us based on a growing variety of business models.

  • Under the license-based proprietary software model that generates most of our revenue, we bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenue received from licensing our products. Many of our competitors also develop and sell software to businesses and consumers under this model and we expect this competition to continue.
  • Other competitors develop and offer free online services and content, and make money by selling third-party advertising. Advertising revenues fund development of products and services these competitors provide to users at no or little cost, competing directly with our revenue-generating products.
  • Some companies compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software at nominal cost to end users and earning revenue on advertising or complementary services and products. These firms do not bear the full costs of research and development for the software. Some open source software vendors develop software that mimics the features and functionality of our products.

The competitive pressures described above may result in decreased sales volumes, price reductions, and/or increased operating costs, such as for marketing and sales incentives. This may lead to lower revenue, gross margins, and operating income.”

While they are hedging, with “may result in decreased sales volumes, price reductions, and/or increased operating costs, such as for marketing and sales incentives.”, they could well have written, “Apple and Google are kicking our butts…”. They certainly acknowledge that the world could run perfectly well without M$, a sentiment with which I am in rare agreement with M$.

see M$’s Annual Report to the SEC.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to M$ Admits the Game is Over – Will Have to Work for a Living

  1. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon

    “Mostly that Linux does not exist on the machine and there is no reason to put it on the machine since the game suppliers will continue to supply Windows versions of new games before any other.”

    Colinux is a style of Linux install that can be installed in Windows Clarence Moon.

    The thing I was getting at the Windows version performance could end up weakened. They don’t have to keep on releasing quality on the Windows platform even if they remain on the treadmill.

    I guess the idea that Linux can run inside windows did not cross your mind as like an Application.

  2. Clarence Moon says:

    What stops them from going the colinux path longterm for windows.

    Mostly that Linux does not exist on the machine and there is no reason to put it on the machine since the game suppliers will continue to supply Windows versions of new games before any other.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon notice what you said.
    “Launching one of these games just takes over the screen and CPU pretty much entirely and I don’t see where Windows 8 would be any different from Windows 7 or Vista or XP for that matter. What do you think the issue is?”

    What stops them from going the colinux path longterm for windows.

    Question you have to ask yourself exactly how far will Blizzard and other Game makers want to control.

    Going Linux only for providing games does not prevent running inside windows.

    What is the key changes. Wayland process. So graphics of Linux can run on frame-buffers without any networking stuff. Go back a little deeper when the khronos group announced a unified program development platform based around the posix ideas.

    http://www.khronos.org/openkode

    The change of Valve and Blizzard is not surprising.

    Clarence Moon the big question is do you have to build Windows applications to support Windows. Lot of game developers though that Wine was suitable support for Linux. So no reason why they will not do the same to Windows so forcing those who want decent performance to leave it.

    Staying on the treadmill does not mean what you leave on the treadmill has to be the best.

  4. Clarence Moon says:

    I don’t see that.

    Consider the alternatives, then, Mr. Pogson. Blizzard is not going to stop or abandon its Windows business during any sort of transitional period. It would go out of favor immediately with hundreds of millions of gamers who are, rightfully or wrongfully, on the Windows “treadmill” that you deplore. Those are Blizzard’s customers and cannot be abandoned without great loss of revenues.

    So Blizzard is going to have to stay on the treadmill themselves regardless. There is too much inertia in the system. Windows is “too big to fail” as the popular assessment goes.

    Perhaps they will change their stripes and start to support their game client(s) on Linux as well, but they are hardly likely to abandon Windows ever. As to “Blizzard drooling at the thought of keeping Steam from taking all of those markets”, what are you suggesting here? Steam has the same landscape to face as Blizzard in this regard.

    Also, what is it about Windows 8 that causes these folk such apparent pain? Launching one of these games just takes over the screen and CPU pretty much entirely and I don’t see where Windows 8 would be any different from Windows 7 or Vista or XP for that matter. What do you think the issue is?

  5. Clarence Moon wrote, “A rather frail reed to cling to”.

    So, the news that Blizzard has a Linux platform ready to go and agreement with a competitor that “8” has no future does not lead to the natural conclusion that Blizzard is very likely to port to GNU/Linux? I don’t see that. They have already made a considerable investment in GNU/Linux. The final move will suit them well in Brazil, India, Russia and China where GNU/Linux is very popular. There is greater potential growth in those markets than the rest of the world’s existing installed base. That drip, drip, dripping sound is Blizzard drooling at the thought of keeping Steam from taking all of those markets.

  6. Clarence Moon says:

    Blizzard is interested in migrating to Linux as well

    A rather frail reed to cling to, doughman.

    For one thing the cite says “it doesn’t appear they have any formalized Linux plans” and for another it says “gamers being banned for using Wine and then a few years prior there was bans for playing World of Warcraft under Cedega”. That doesn’t sound like a bunch of enthusiastic supportes of Linux to me, but then I’m not so frustrated by the process as you might be.

  7. dougman says:

    Not to beat the dead horse of Windows, but it seems Blizzard is interested in migrating to Linux as well.

    Following the very public and widespread news this week that Gabe Newell thinks Windows 8 is crap — which is actually a repeat of what I exclusively reported back in April — there’s been a lot of interesting comments and prospects raised about the future of Linux gaming.

    Following Newell’s negative statements towards Windows 8, there was an interesting tweet by Rob Pardo, the Executive Vice President of Game Design at Blizzard Entertainment. “nice interview with Gabe Newell – “I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space* – not awesome for Blizzard either”

    So at least Pardo agrees with Newell over this next Microsoft Windows release due out in October is a catastrophe

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE0ODE

    It sees Windows 8 is one big failure; even M$ knows this and revised its BSOD. http://cdn.blogsolute.com/img/2011/09/windows-8-bluescreen-bsod.jpg

  8. oiaohm says:

    Tar
    “Want proof? Fedora is now paying Microsoft to sign the Fedora boot loader. Future is only more restrictive.”

    Ok then why has Fedora work on Arm support increased. Linux world has done what ever to run up until now.

    Now you are seeing KDE and other branch out into having there own hardware produced.

    Tar
    “Linux will fade away or become ultra-proprietary, just like Darwin.”

    Dream on. Even that fedora has paid for boot loader signing on x86 platform does not mean that platform long term is important to Linux.

    Fedora Microsoft only signs the bootloader after that everything is signed by a redhat key.

    The signing of binaries had to come. They funny part I don’t see how this Microsoft Signing idea will play out any good to stop the malware.

    Remember Flame and other Malware like it was made by the USA Goverment. Microsoft signing key is in the USA so the USA Goverment can get there hands on it and still make malware that infects the OS at boot loader level.

    Correct response to prevent hell was Motherboards come out without any signing keys and end user to install an OS has to install a signing key by the firmware of the board for the OS’s they wish to run. This would have remove the USA as a malware source also allowed business to unique sign their Linux installs so stopping lot of Linux malware dead in it tracks.

    Even the Redhat lead developer on EFI expects Malware to appear signed by the Microsoft keys. So paying Microsoft here is only until the complete badly made house of cards falls in on itself. He thinks it is going to be funny with how slow x86 firmware makers are at shipping out updates.

    Also Redhat has intentionally gone out of there way to make it hard on Nvidia and AMD and anyone else making closed source drivers by making all kernel drivers have to be signed in UEFI mode so pay redhat. So yes Redhat will recover that 100 dollars with profit and get to blame it all on Microsoft.

    Tar basically fedora paid so they have a scapegoat for blocking closed source drivers.

  9. kozmcrae says:

    Tar wrote:

    “Linux will fade away or become ultra-proprietary, just like Darwin.”

    Hang on to that vision Tar, it will help to keep you sane.

  10. Tar says:

    Future is closed Apple and Android stores, locked down and unhackable.

    The future will look back at Windows as a golden age of open software, when software could be written and sold freely without obtaining permission from Microsoft first.

    Want proof? Fedora is now paying Microsoft to sign the Fedora boot loader. Future is only more restrictive.

    Linux will fade away or become ultra-proprietary, just like Darwin.

    Just because OS is “open source” does not mean evil closed gardens cannot be built over top of it!

  11. oiaohm says:

    iLia “Actually it means that Google is subsidizing third part devices with Android.”

    In fact no Lot of carriers if you don’t pay for store on device they alter the store to point to there store and take the lot or not ship your device full stop. Look at the kindle for example with amazon. Why will Amazon not do this to a Windows 8 device. Google market is removed only Amazon market remains on Amazon devices. So Google is cut out of all income because Amazon wanted to take the lot. Same with default search engine and so on. Once you enter carriers its all up for grabs.

    Yes nothing will stop the carriers from pulling the same firmware mod on Microsoft.

    Once you enter the field of content carriers all nice bets are off.

    The carrier is allowing Google and Apple to take a cut basically. If they choose not Google and Apple will get nothing from the default install application markets.

    Yes the power of carriers is not a fair market for Google Apple or anyone else making devices.

    The court rulings over this
    “Internet Explorer is free to use, so no income here. And all major Linux distributions are including some browser now.”
    Did determine many things. 1 Internet Explorer is not free since its part of the OS core and sold along with the OS. 2 since internet explorer is not properly removalable its part of the OS so a segment of the OS price is paying for Internet explorer.

    Ubuntu is it possible to remaster an Ubuntu install disc with Firefox Chrome what every fully removed yes. Is it legal for you to remaster and ship remastered disc yes.

    So Ubuntu install disc is classed legally the same as a cover cd full of applications with a fancy installer interface legally.

    Ubuntu allows competition to provide options without Libreoffice. Kubuntu in fact does not ship with libreoffice neither does xubuntu. Both have been ubuntu funded.

    iLia
    “Do other major browsers fully support all W3C recommendations”

    Its not support all the recommendations. Internet explorer did not document many extensions properly. Also implementations of features done in W3C was done incorrect and MS never sent out a fix.

    Microsoft is the only one that when a fault is found in implementation of something in W3C .

    Just to top things off some w3c stuff is recommendations and some are standards http://www.w3.org/standards/ If your browser reports that you implement a particular standard then do it poorly this is a problem.

    How do you report what W3C your browser implemented compatibility the useragent string.

    Microsoft reports Mozilla/4.0 compatible in a lot of there browsers. This legally means by standard that Internet explorer should render exactly as Mozilla/4.0 would. Or it is illegal use.

    Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 4.0)

    Yes this stuff means MS browser is in breach of rules.

    From a Ipad.
    Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 3_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.21.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/7B405

    Notice Mozilla/5.0 compadible is start but there is a AppleWebKit entry. That says it can render like AppleWebKit.

    Microsoft has had illegal user-agent strings to identify themselves for ages. Pretending to be something you are not is not above board.

    If you don’t want to replicate the way gecko renders stuff don’t include Mozilla in user-agent string or at least include an entry like AppleWebKit stating a different rendering engine standard to refer to for this browser.

    By the standard this is important the stuff inside the brackets in a useragent string is technically void for rendering engine and should not be required to detect what rendering engine you are dealing with.

    The stuff in brackets is only for platform information for plugins not how a web browser renders.

    Microsoft with IE 10.6 still has a invalid useragent string because it reports the trident rendering engine inside the brackets.

    Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.6; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0; InfoPath.2; SLCC1; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) 3gpp-gba UNTRUSTED/1.0

    Basically the Trident/5.0 bit since that is Internet Explorer rendering engine that should appear outside the bracket so stating as per standard this browser is Trident rendering engine compadible. Gets better 3gpp-gba(UNTRUSTED/1.0) is how that bit should be written. UNTRUSTED is not a rendering engine but is extra version information about 3gpp-gba.

    Microsoft is not even getting the basics of implementing a web browser right. You don’t get any more basic than the user-agent string.
    http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/Opera/ Everyone else can get it right except for the Internet explorer and wrappers around Internet explorer.

    iLia basically its funny how MS cannot even get a basic right. Gets worse when you get to more advanced things. The basics are really simple things. Like declare your rendering engine.

  12. iLia says:

    Also remember with Android and Idevices the carrier takes a cut of everything sold in the stores. This is why Google and Apple don’t make much from there on-line stores for either of there platforms.

    Actually it means that Google is subsidizing third part devices with Android.

    It doesn’t look like a fair competition.

    When Microsoft does the same it is a crime, but when Google does the same they simply protect their search market.

    And forget about other mobile OS vendors who simply has no resources to compete against Google.

  13. iLia says:

    oiaohm:iLia so the question is not if MS has a monopoly but if they are still making income they should lose because they are only getting that income due to prior anti-trust actions.

    Can you give an example?

    Windows? Apple killed its operation system with high prices (unwillingness to compete) and lack of progress. IBM simply stopped supporting OS/2.

    When no one wants or can compete it is very difficult not to become a monopolist, even if you products of a such low quality like Window 3 or Windows 95.

    Internet Explorer is free to use, so no income here. And all major Linux distributions are including some browser now.

    MS Office, yes once upon a time MS shipped Word with Windows, and Corel Office was hit hard, but Ubuntu, which has 80% of Linux market share is doing the same thing now, they include not only Writer, but the whole LibreOffice, is it a anti-trust crime? Should Ubuntu be sued? Why they impose their choices on us?

    Data bases, Microsoft faces high competition here.

    Visual Studio? Absolutely the same thing.

    X-Box? Very high competition.

    Mobile phones? Profit? Here? Don’t joke!

    HTML? Do other major browsers fully support all W3C recommendations (not standards — so no one MUST support them)

    Java? How much profit Microsoft gets from it?

  14. oiaohm says:

    dougman
    “Windows 8 is the cheapest operating system Microsoft have ever put out. But that’s fine, because those who use it will be squeezed for every penny. Windows 8 is all about consumption: about watching Videos, listening to Music, and playing games; all bought from the three stores built into the Windows interface.”

    Dead on. Microsoft now will have to fight. No more easy income.

    Also you have to remember listening to Music and viewing is a highly competitive market. Even the xbox 360 has applications from parties that don’t pay MS for the provided content.

    Also remember with Android and Idevices the carrier takes a cut of everything sold in the stores. This is why Google and Apple don’t make much from there on-line stores for either of there platforms. The third party stores that go around the carriers do all right.

    Consumption based income puts you straight head to head with telecommunication companies who will want a nice large cut like 50 percent of the income.

    There is no magic safe path for Microsoft dougman. Each path takes them into the jaws of a different party who will want to be paid.

    Yes reduce cost of OS and move to Consumption still equals vastly reduced income with lots of money going to parties who are a risk of making the future OS to compete with Microsoft.

    There is no win here is more how much can Microsoft slow it down.

  15. Ted says:

    “Windows 8 will fail, especially since they only have 400 apps currently available.”

    And only about half a million or so from Windows 7 and earlier, that will still work on Windows 8.

    “Windows 8 is the cheapest operating system Microsoft have ever put out.””But that’s fine, because those who use it will be squeezed for every penny. Windows 8 is all about consumption: about watching Videos, listening to Music, and playing games; all bought from the three stores built into the Windows interface.”

    What makes this any worse than MacOSX, iOS, or Android?

    Why else do you think Valve are badmouthing Windows 8? They’re probably just petrified that an MS app store will supplant Steam. Steam is their cash-cow now, not their games. HL2, L4D, TF2 and Portal2 are just the bait on the Steam hook.

  16. Clarence Moon says:

    Collapse is a relative thing.

    Certainly that is the case, Mr. Pogson, and, in your world apparently an expansion can be a collapse if you look at it in some way that soothes your troubled soul. Everyone else, though, is looking at MSFT as a business that has ups and downs and is affected by the various world economies and by actions of old and new competitors and even in some cases the weather.

    My own prediction is that the economic adjustments that are being made today in the economy will continue to propel Microsoft upwards as a rising tide floats all boats. I don’t think that the waves of iPhones and similar devices or iPads and similar devices and Kindles and similar devices are going to materially affect the population’s need for PCs either.

    If you want to calculate Microsoft’s share of everything in the IT world and say that they are no longer growing faster than the world rate, you may be correct, but that is not how the real score is kept.

    What matters is how well they do in absolute terms based on where they are at the current moment. So far that has been generating an upward vector.

  17. dougman says:

    Windows 8 will fail, especially since they only have 400 apps currently available. Between iOS and Android, there is something like a million apps. Which would you prefer??

    Someone, somewhere will need to dream up, develop and submit for approval something like 6.84 apps per day for one-year to catch up.

    Windows 8 wants to take your money, day in-day out

    Windows 8 is the cheapest operating system Microsoft have ever put out. But that’s fine, because those who use it will be squeezed for every penny. Windows 8 is all about consumption: about watching Videos, listening to Music, and playing games; all bought from the three stores built into the Windows interface.

    D.

  18. oiaohm says:

    iLia
    “Competition and Monopoly are antonyms. Thus if Microsoft “faces intense competition across all markets” they are not a monopoly.”
    Remember this is only happening now because MS was pulled up for doing many Anti-trust things years back.

    Yes at some point the anti-trust things that causes MS monopoly would have to start failing in there effect.

    So Microsoft income has to drop as it market control breaks down.

    iLia so the question is not if MS has a monopoly but if they are still making income they should lose because they are only getting that income due to prior anti-trust actions. Yes is the correction over yes or no. From my point of view Microsoft correction of market share is only just starting.

    Chris Weig history only way to make a Anti-trust built monopoly disappear quickly is break the company up behind it. If you don’t do that it take decades to correct. We are starting to get to the point now that its correcting for Microsoft.

    Robert Pogson if with lower income MS does a huge spend like Vista with a stuff up MS might not live threw it once there market share is corrected. Less income also equals less money to spend on marketing and bribery.

  19. kozmcrae says:

    Gee, you could have written that yourself Robert.

    I do have one bone to pick with their statements: “however, our competitors have been in the market longer and in some cases have established significantly large user bases.”

    Microsoft reset their mobile phone operating system clock when Google released Android. According to Microsoft, they didn’t make a mobile phone operating system before Android. The real history of the mobile phone market speaks otherwise.

  20. Chris Weig wrote, “what you predicted for the longest time was that Microsoft would collapse. Like, totally! “

    No. Collapse is a relative thing. One could argue that 75% share down from 95% is a collapse. I would call it a sag. I will not be happy until M$ is down from 50% share of PCs. We are getting close if you count ARMed gadgets as PCs. In a year or two it will be obvious for everyone. I doubt it is possible for M$ to disagppear. They are just too big and they have salesmen who can convince people to throw money at M$. They will compete on price/performance from now on and lose a combination of margin and/or units sold, not “collapse totally”.

  21. Chris Weig says:

    Competition and Monopoly are antonyms. Thus if Microsoft “faces intense competition across all markets” they are not a monopoly.

    No need to worry. Mr. Pogson has proven repeatedly on this blog that he indeed doesn’t know what a monopoly is. Or at least that he can’t apply the theoretical wisdom he gained from 1913’s Webster to real life.

  22. iLia says:

    We face intense competition across all markets for our products and services

    Competition and Monopoly are antonyms. Thus if Microsoft “faces intense competition across all markets” they are not a monopoly 🙂

  23. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon sorry even if the Next quarter is ok still will not change the coming problems.

    The serous problem is hard work costs. This is what the MS report is telling you Clarence Moon. Microsoft is not expect todo well.

    By next quarter some of what is mentioned in this report will be confirmed.

    Basically Clarence Moon READ THE REPORT
    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000119312512316848/d347676d10k.htm#tx347676_3

    Its not Robert Pogson forcast of income problems. Its Microsoft own forcasts are tell them to prep the market for on going problems. No where in the complete report does it mention anything MS can particularly do to change their future.

    Unearned Revenue in the forecast is scary. Shows MS high end support contracts basically falling off a cliff in 2013.

    There are other bad numbers in there. Including the fact that the USA has closed its laws to block tax avoidance.

    Clarence Moon it will not be a quarter we have to look at this is a multi year problem. One good quarter will not be enough.

  24. Chris Weig says:

    Mr. Pogson, what you predicted for the longest time was that Microsoft would collapse. Like, totally! This has worked out fabulously for you. You only started with your “small cheap computers will take over the world” routine after you saw the failure that was the “liberation” of the PC by way of Linux netbooks.

  25. Clarence Moon says:

    I and others have been predicting for a while that M$ would become just another player…

    “Predicting” or just “wishing and hoping”, Mr. Pogson? A prediction would have to be coupled with some likely thesis of why there would be a loss of market leadership and some operational scenario for its occurrence. You just vent your indignation at Microsoft’s continued increase in sales and profits, blaming it on their monopoly.

    In you newly found solace, what are you going to use as an explanation? Your charges here would seem to imply that, if Microsoft continues to improve their business, it can only be due to their diligent application of their expertise, in short their “hard work”! Next quarter’s results will allow us to revisit your theory.

  26. oiaohm says:

    Phenom
    “Actually, no. MS simply demonstrates it is aware of the competition, and that they will not sit tight, blind and deaf to the world around them.

    If I were you, Pog, I would have been rather sad of Microsoft’s awareness.”

    Awareness does not mean there is anything Microsoft can do that can change their fate.

    Microsoft long term fate is lower income. Lower income will make doing another Vista impossible.

    “Some companies compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software at nominal cost to end users and earning revenue on advertising or complementary services and products. These firms do not bear the full costs of research and development for the software. Some open source software vendors develop software that mimics the features and functionality of our products.”

    Phenom Microsoft does not mention any possible counter to this. Microsoft is aware that FOSS vendors are not bearing full costs of research and development.

    Really I don’t see much Microsoft can do at this point other than accept the fact of reduced income. With reduced income means spending as much money as going to the moon and back to make a single version of windows most likely will never happen again.

    Microsoft own forecast here is not up beat.

  27. Phenom says:

    Actually, no. MS simply demonstrates it is aware of the competition, and that they will not sit tight, blind and deaf to the world around them.

    If I were you, Pog, I would have been rather sad of Microsoft’s awareness.

Leave a Reply