M$, You Fooled Most Of The People For A Long Time. Face The Consequences Of Their Awakening.

While stifling competition for decades, M$ fostered the myth that it was the one true way to use IT in business operations and personal life.“In terms of technology development, demand for the new desktop Windows operating system has been weak since Microsoft has placed its focus on strengthening Windows 8’s touchscreen control, causing an inconvenience for users who are used to mice and keyboards. Windows RT 8.1 is currently having issues over weak performance and lack of applications, while Windows Phone is seeing problems in application compatibility.” What happens when most of the planet has seen other operating systems (Android/Linux for example) doing the job as well as or better than M$’s stuff? There will be a pronounced rebound in “customer loyalty”. Seeing proper IT happening on small cheap computers completely blows out of the water that behemoth of a lie that computers have to be big and expensive.

Today, I see M$’s big box computers gathering dust in retail establishments and only selling well into businesses who may not have accepted BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) or the fact that new employees may not actually have used M$’s OS ever. On the other hand, many more small cheap computers sold last year than M$’s legacy stuff and this year even more will sell. M$ is compensating by raising costs for business but that is just cutting off the limb of the tree … Even if M$ somehow manages to persuade the majority of businesses to stick with them, consumers seem to be lost forever, cutting M$ off from a huge and growing market. At best M$ will get 1/N of that pie and for the moment they are far less than that. With businesses using more web applications and M$ not having any monopoly on web-browsers, M$ has nowhere to go but down. It’s late but better late than never.

See Microsoft facing difficulties in 3 major segments.

See also, M$’s declining share of consumer PC OS documented at 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 and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to M$, You Fooled Most Of The People For A Long Time. Face The Consequences Of Their Awakening.

  1. oiaohm wrote, “People forget the age of computer with BASIC as their core OS. “

    I don’t forget that. I have an Ohio Scientific Superboard II… Some people forget that those machines were extremely limited for business-use. There weren’t any good editors until the IBM-PC set the standard for business-use. Before that, word-processing systems were dedicated machines, not general-purpose PCs. I don’t think I saw a PC used as a word-processor until about 1990. Most schools used typewriters until GUIs took over on PCs. PCs were too expensive and offered too little advantage. Was full-justification worth $thousands? Even today, I see folks who use that other OS and M$’s office suite running left-justified because it’s the default.

  2. oiaohm says:

    bilbophile Microsoft domination starts before the creation of the IBM-PC. People forget the age of computer with BASIC as their core OS. Microsoft had deals with the first generation of IBM-PC clone companies before they did the deal to acquire DOS.

  3. bilbophile wrote, “IBM-PCs were never held a monopoly position and it is unlikely they could have even without the “PC-compatibles”.”

    International Business Machines was the end all and be all of computing for business for decades. When the PC came along, IBM was the gateway to the new technology for businesses. IBM legitimized the PC for businesses large and small. The first PCs were so expensive only true committed geeks and businesses could afford them, $thousands. I knew one lady who spent $5000 on her IBM PC back in the day. What IBM put on those machines was M$’s DOS and any ISV that wanted to sell to businesses any software licence or service had to be compatible. M$ went out of its way to make sure lots of stuff would only work with their OS with their blessing. Hence, M$ had an instant monopoly, no earning it by producing a better product, no earning it by selling at lower prices. They just killed competition because IBM gave M$ a monopoly. After a while competition did arise but it could never gain traction, e.g. GNU/Linux took a decade to reach “legitimacy” in the eyes of most businesses despite being far superior to DOS-based software that M$ pushed all through the 1990s. The main reasons for that were the mindshare, lock-in with OEMs, and lock-in with ISV’s (not really independent but partners of M$) that was all built upon M$’s monopoly.

    You bet they had a monopoly, from day one with businesses, from the DOS/Windows transition with OEMs and retailers and M$ maintained it by illegal acts. One proof of the monopoly is how long it has taken to budge the market since US DOJ let them agree to stop doing illegal acts to maintain the monopoly.

  4. bilbophile says:

    IBM-PCs were never held a monopoly position and it is unlikely they could have even without the “PC-compatibles”.

    IBM got MS into the OS business, it’s true. However, Microsoft only became a monopoly when they could sell their OS to third parties, thus becoming the de facto standard for personal computing.

    It is the PC compatibles that made personal computers ubiquitous, obsoleted mainframes for over two decades, turned Internet into yesterday’s cable/fax/phone/TV and allowed the boom of the software vendors and even of the free software as we know it today.

    The basically open-standards architecture reduced the prices of computing dramatic ally and this architecture was made possible by the Intel monopoly.

    If you accept my arguments you will see that MS’s rise to power was not (just) an evil plot of criminal minds, instead it was essentially fuelled by the business interests of their customers; and the reason MS has been able to cling to this dominant position for this long has been the short-sighted approach to their interests corporations usually take.

  5. oiaohm says:

    wolfgang of course not I would not refer to dougman in a office suite case. It not certified for office suite support.

    Only an idiot would attempt to use a uncertified company when they just gave the list of certified companies. You are a idiot for attempt to use it to dig you way out. You just dug you way deeper proving yourself as a idiot on these topics.

    I did not only give you lanedo I have you the complete list of certified companies with Libreoffice. On a easy to access list. Yes its not simple on this site placing links so they work.

    So you are a true idiot you posted before reading the links wolfgang.

    When I start posting links I am straight after your hide. I never lay just 1 trap wolfgang. This post is still a trap waiting for another mistake.

    And the fact lanedo company is famous in your eyes you have dug yourself a new hole. Why are not not aware enough that parties like lanedo sell Libreoffice solutions to companies.

  6. wolfgang says:

    …posters here be careful…

    oiaohm lay traps and pounce if you not on your toes!

  7. wolfgang says:

    …oiohm say wolfgang is idiot…

    oiaohm point out that famous lanedo company support open office program. maybe oiaohm is also idiot because not point out that equally famous dougman company also support it. just go to show how tough life now is for microsoft.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Openoffice project never certified support companies. There are major changes in the way Libreoffice does business. In fact the way Libreoffice is doing business is working this is also showing in how fast security defects are being fixed.

  9. oiaohm says:


    wolfgang there are many companies buying Libreoffice support. Your claim no one is selling open source office is wrong. Libreoffice main project gives certification to support companies.

    The reality here you are the one living in the with your head in a hole in the ground. Pretending stuff does not exist.

    Yes businesses are interested in making more money. Being able to customise the office suite exactly to their requirements has major advantages at times.

    Sorry wolfgang you are a idiot I left Libreoffice sales off the list intentionally because I was 100 percent sure you would not do the homework to work out that its in fact sold to companies in the form of support subscriptions like many other open source items.

  10. ram wrote, “Microsoft, in total, never got even half. They just broke 1/3 during their peak several years back.”

    That’s for servers. “The people” ran clients mostly. There, M$ had 95% for nearly a decade from 1995 to 2005. “Others” dropped OS/2 and CPM down to MacOS and GNU/Linux by 2000. Basically, M$ locked in the OEMs and virtually no other OS came installed from the factories.

  11. bilbophile wrote, “Microsoift earned their monopoly position by eliminating hardware lock-in and by allowing boff-the shelf software to reach critical mass. This saved businesses, retailers and – to a lesser, but not negligible extent – consumers tons of money in the ’80s and early ’90s.”

    Nope. The monopoly was given to them by IBM agreeing to exclusivity. Anyone wanting to sell software for “IBM PCs” had to use DOS, M$’s DOS (M$ even checked the OS and failed to run it’s applications properly if not the one true DOS…). After that, any other OS had an uphill battle because porting in those days was a total rewrite. IBM insisted on second source suppliers for chips but failed miserable to insist on the same for software.

  12. wolfgang is out to lunch, writing, “smb can use pencil and paper even, or make do with open office. still use with windows os that comes with computer”.

    SMBs can also use GNU/Linux OS that comes with computer or needs a simple installation.

  13. wolfgang wrote, “microsoft office and rest of system not broken and nobody want to mess with it.”

    M$’s alpha software is broken when users disconnect from the web to avoid malware, re-re-reboot all day long, lose files, wait, wait, please wait… Then there’s the price/performance ratio in the pits.

  14. ram says:

    bilbophile has made some good points, at least with respect to the US market.
    Microsoft, at least for a while, was reducing costs to US businesses versus IBM. In the rest of the world, the status of IBM and later Microsoft is extremely doubtful.

  15. wolfgang wrote, “gray hair for nothing”.

    That was last century. It’s white now and M$ didn’t do that.

    Even in the days of DOS, I knew M$ was pulling a scam because I could write software that didn’t crash. M$’s sycophants blamed the hardware in those days.

  16. wolfgang says:

    …ram and bilbophile say game over…

    pogson can say hooray and quit worrying about microsoft now. ram even says never was big news so pogson just worried about ghost in closet. gray hair for nothing.

  17. wolfgang says:

    …oiaohm still living in tree…

    lots of things possible, but take work to sell to user. no one selling open source copy of microsoft office, so nobody buying. companies making money not interested in saving money as much as interested in making more money. microsoft office and rest of system not broken and nobody want to mess with it.

  18. wolfgang says:

    …dougman still in dark…

    talk about smb and why need big collaborative system. dougman not understand argument at all. nothing new there.

    smb not big buyer of microsoft office systems. smb can use pencil and paper even, or make do with open office. still use with windows os that comes with computer.

    big company is buyer. dougman not have any experience with big company so not know how things work.

  19. bilbophile says:

    Actually Microsoift earned their monopoly position by eliminating hardware lock-in and by allowing boff-the shelf software to reach critical mass. This saved businesses, retailers and – to a lesser, but not negligible extent – consumers tons of money in the ’80s and early ’90s.

    This is why the US DoJ and, most importantly, the customers allowed MIcrosoft to get away with blatant abuses of their monopolistic position: it still saved them money with backwards compatibility, interoperability (businesswise), less software development costs (at a time when multi-purpose free software still had to be written or at least polished).

    All the positives of Microsoft faded away when hardware margins became razor-thin, Linux took over the servers as an alternative “business standard” and Intel’s 32-bit single core architecture reached its limits.

    OLPC and the iPhone (in very different ways) showed that smaller/cheaper hardware could do the usual tasks just as well, FOSS demonstrated that properly developed and licensed software can be ported to different architectures at reasonable costs and GNU/Android Linux provided a free of charge foundation for the IT ecosystem.

    It was only after Microsoft became a net cost and alternatives (however imperfect) became available that the people started to resent the back-room deals and the arm-trwisting associated with Microsoft.

    Regulatory authorities have become less indulgent, they were required to provide the full specification of their networking protocols, were forced to turn their file formats into standards. Irrespective of the farce they made of the ISO process, it is the market that forced them to try to become standard compliant in their browser and in their Office formats.

  20. ram says:

    I don’t think Microsoft even fooled “most” people. They never did have the market penetration they claimed. Anybody who runs a few webservers hosting a few sites for unrelated businesses could see what operating systems and browsers clients were using. Microsoft, in total, never got even half. They just broke 1/3 during their peak several years back. Briefly, and then it fell back to twenty percent (total, all versions) or so.

    Most corporates and many government agencies used various flavours of Unix on “mainframes”. This has morphed into Linux on servers (and still some mainframes). Many banks used OS/2, which by the way is still supported, now by a separate company:(http://www.ecomstation.com/)
    so those sites don’t need to switch. They certainly will not be switching to Microsoft.

    Consumers often used Microsoft because of the games support. As the big games distributors move to Linux even that market is over for Microsoft.

    The small portable Android and other Linux clients further is enhancing the migration to Linux on the servers.
    Not that Intel and AMD mind. For every 10 (cheap) clients, they get to sell the parts for 1 (expensive, higher margin) server. Linux is a win-win-win situation. Good for the consumer, good for the server and support providers, and good for the chip manufacturers. It’s all good!

  21. oiaohm says:

    Exchange and Share-point are highly questionable. Openchange is becoming a very good non licensed limited replacement to exchange and alfresco is a good replacement to Sharepoint.

    Outlook is very much if person has MS Office installed use it if not don’t care.

    This is the problems everything is come apart for Microsoft.

  22. oiaohm says:

    wolfgang what form of outlook do you need. Outlook Web Access comes to mind that businesses are using more and more. This does not require a MS Office license. Yes Microsoft being nice and fun naming a part of Exchange as Outlook.

    sharepoint or alfresco these days is not much different. Other than alfresco does more out box.

    Brownieboy you have stated why more and more businesses are going thin client solutions. When you do a study the amount of MS Office and other closed source programs are used in a office is in fact very low. Per computer licensing is over spending. Yes the old IBM study 90/10 still hold. 90 percent of the time staff are using internal programs that you can have 100 percent control over. 10 percent of the time are they interface with the outside world so forced to use what the outside uses.

    Those studies by IBM were done on the presume OpenOffice/Libreoffice would be unable todo the job. So its less than 10 percent need the closed source programs. The want might be a bit higher.

  23. dougman says:

    Please explain why a SMB needs Exchange, Outlook and Sharepoint? Thats a 6-figure cost at the very least, especially if you running your own hardware.

    Google Apps for Enterprise run you $50/year, M$ costs you double that with less features and apps.

  24. wolfgang says:

    …everyone here stumped…

    dougman think microsoft not needed by business and compares to riding horse or heating with wood. …very interesting… wonder where he got idea.

    brownieboy not use word or excel. neither does wolfgang, at least much, just maybe to read file from mail. need outlook and exchange and sharepoint for most stuff day to day and not mentioned by brownie. maybe brownie and doug not really work in big business. doug say he not work anywhere now so maybe they out of date too.

  25. Brownieboy says:

    No company in their right mind develops Windows line of business apps any more. They develop them to run in a browser. Microsoft not needed.

    There’s still the “oh, but you need Office for your work” mentality to overcome. Seriously?

    If companies measured how little time their employees actually spent in Microsoft Word they’d get a real shock. That goes to the power of 10 for Excel and the power of 100 for PowerPoint.

  26. dougman says:

    I always laughed when IT idiots told me you NEED Windows for business. Ummmmm…seriously??

    Thats like saying one needs a horse to get to the store, or a wood-stove to heat your home. Yes, they are nice things, but totally outdated and unnecessary.

Leave a Reply