Not a bad strategy.

They haven't lost a bit of relevance with the majority of the paying user base. However the tech press like to spin it that way. When I see a Mac or a Linux box in a 2000+ seat corporate network, then perhaps I'll believe it. The only markets they aren't winning are the freshly created volatile ones.

Spending time in the open source world with younger developers, it's clear the only value they get from Microsoft is for their gaming machines at home. While a number of them respect the development tools, it doesn't matter because Microsoft has done a great job tying it to the Windows titanic.

I recall interviewing with a number of companies in the mid 90's and talking with the programmers who worked with DEC based tools. The ones I talked to had nothing but good things to say about their tools and systems and how they had real implementations of various systems that PC's were trying to implement at the time. I can't help but look back and find myself in the same position on a course towards becoming irrelevant in 10-20 years.

I guess what I was trying to get at is Microsoft is going to have to make a considerable effort to focus on luring the generation they lost if they want to remain relevant. That generation of developers isn't simply going to pony up for slightly better tools. They demand having access to software when it's available so they can download it immediately with one of twenty different package managers.

I'm not predicting Microsoft's doom, but I am saying that Microsoft is facing an incredible number of challenges that will make "do everything" a bad strategy. On too many fronts they're faced with competition that ranges any from inferior to superior, but free. In development tools, they're up against a huge community of open source tools with some of them funded by huge companies whose revenues don't depend on the sale of software. MS Office's share is eroding, not just to direct competition, but to indirect alternatives that posit that complicated word processors and spreadsheets are the wrong answer.

I also don't think Microsoft can do everything because software is going through a Cambrian type of explosion where you're seeing all sorts of manifestations of species and hybrids. Sure a lot of these species will die out, but as we witness new species of databases and operating systems it will be difficult for a large company like Microsoft to predict which ideas it needs to pay attention to and which to ignore. Adapting the complicated markets is an incredible challenge, but there are companies that have done a remarkable job staying on top.

I should have added that I'm a .NET developer who's recently returned working with in an open source shop. The problem I see is not that they don't have good tools or relevant solutions for real world problems. The problem I see is I'm in my late thirties and I find myself to be one of the younger developers when I go out to MS related user groups and events.

Spending time in the open source world with younger developers, it's clear the only value they get from Microsoft is for their gaming machines at home. While a number of them respect the development tools, it doesn't matter because Microsoft has done a great job tying it to the Windows titanic.

I recall interviewing with a number of companies in the mid 90's and talking with the programmers who worked with DEC based tools. The ones I talked to had nothing but good things to say about their tools and systems and how they had real implementations of various systems that PC's were trying to implement at the time. I can't help but look back and find myself in the same position on a course towards becoming irrelevant in 10-20 years.

I guess what I was trying to get at is Microsoft is going to have to make a considerable effort to focus on luring the generation they lost if they want to remain relevant. That generation of developers isn't simply going to pony up for slightly better tools. They demand having access to software when it's available so they can download it immediately with one of twenty different package managers.

I'm not predicting Microsoft's doom, but I am saying that Microsoft is facing an incredible number of challenges that will make "do everything" a bad strategy. On too many fronts they're faced with competition that ranges any from inferior to superior, but free. In development tools, they're up against a huge community of open source tools with some of them funded by huge companies whose revenues don't depend on the sale of software. MS Office's share is eroding, not just to direct competition, but to indirect alternatives that posit that complicated word processors and spreadsheets are the wrong answer.

I also don't think Microsoft can do everything because software is going through a Cambrian type of explosion where you're seeing all sorts of manifestations of species and hybrids. Sure a lot of these species will die out, but as we witness new species of databases and operating systems it will be difficult for a large company like Microsoft to predict which ideas it needs to pay attention to and which to ignore. Adapting the complicated markets is an incredible challenge, but there are companies that have done a remarkable job staying on top.

I had the same response to the predicted demise of Palm and Blackberry. I'm not saying that I know the outcome but that current success is not a predictor of future performance, especially in an industry where disruption is such a focus.

  There's a big difference between a software company equipping developers with Linux based machines and a midsize to large non-tech company equipping their users with Linux or even Macs.

  Granted, I think Microsoft is losing their grip and non-tech companies (I work for one) are seriously beginning to consider PC alternatives.  On the manager and executive level, and power user level, IT departments seem to be accommodating Macs more.  For non-power users, web based machines like Chromebooks are becoming a more attractive each day.