Why did Microsoft fail despite spending billions of dollars on:
- high-performance / super computing (They tried and shilled hard in the 2000s.).
- mobile (They tried and shilled very hard.).
- embedded systems (They tried, had some success, which is now declining as well. Most new vending machines run Linux.).
- car entertainment
- set-top boxes
- web servers
What is the fundamental underlying issue?
Other urls found in this thread:
insights.stackoverflow.com
twitter.com
Now they're losing developers, too.
Less than half of professional developers use Windows and it's declining further.
>Why did Microsoft fail despite spending billions of dollars on:
They focus mainly on their flagship software, and drop the other projects before it poses a problem in maintaining, or funding. That's my guess. They seem open to try things, but they won't really drain their main moneymaker of resources if the side projects don't have adequate roi.
Is it really that high for linux?
Last time I checked linux had 2% marketshare for personal computers.
Yes. 1/4 developers prefer GNU/Linux nowadays and Microsoft is going to lose even more.
>1/4 developers prefer GNU/Linux nowadays
LInk souce.
>What is the fundamental underlying issue?
throwing moeny at something fdoesnt make it better
just look at amerikan public schools any government project ever, healthcare etc...
Who's this biomass extractor?
Pretty small sample size, no?
Do you have better data?
Do you?
microsoft's sucesses have been instances where they are market creators and dont have competition and they basically dont even consider what other options do better when there are other options and so they fail
>Do you have better data?
The entire sample size is a fraction of how many devs are actively using microsoft to develop.
this, and they started off with Gates who was a brilliant businessman but barely above average technically. So he hired shits who would suck up to him, and they had enough money to fuck up for decades without going broke. Look at his successor: Ballmer. that speaks volumes about the shit culture embedded in microsoft.
my favorite anecdote goes way back to when they were still micro-soft. the first compilers available for the pc were from them and were about 400 bucks in the early 80s which would be what, 2 grand today? we got one, and after the floppy went grind grind grind for about five minutes, it produced a "hello world" that was godawful huge for the time. so we went back to BASIC trash and mainframe pain. A few months later someone buys Turbo Pascal for 40 dollars, and it creates "hello world" literally in seconds with a tiny executable.
Supposedly Gates dragged in some of his geniuses and screamed at them "why does our shit suck so much?".
No. Please take a basic statistics course.
Envision your average Facebook-using clueless consumerist computer user and consider their inability to change the default web browser (which is why Edge is a success and Bing is a success, yes, really). Form an image in your mind trying to replace the OS pre-installed on their computer, envision the struggle.
Now ask yourself who those 2% of people who managed to install Linux and are using it would be. It's obviously going to be developers and people with above average computer skills. It totally makes sense that 25% of developers are using Linux.
The methodology was on point for those who participated, but the sample size reflected it's own site visitors which was the point, but it doesn't accurately reflect the entire world, or even the countries of each of the survey participants.
Visual studio had over 2 million active professional users which was a growth of over 150% from the previous year. It's user base is actually growing annually, so maybe not the 60-ish thousand people who bothered taking the stackxchange survey was not enough to accurately measure growth, or decline, but user only posted it, because it was the one statistic that backed up her post.
you must travel back in time, roughly 12 years.
>high-performance / super computing
Because source code. It's the only verified case of open source ideology actually working: when you have dozens of paid staff working on it. Go figure.
>mobile
Apple destroyed everything. Google showed up with a free (as in beer) also-ran.
>embedded systems
Actually, that's still everywhere. But you can't beat free (as in beer).
>set-top boxes
Can't beat free (as in beer).
>web servers
Can't beat free (as in beer). Seeing the pattern yet?
>professional developers abandoning 90% of the market
That is completely illogical, delusional even. Let's see that source...
>stackoverflow
>home base of the VB-tier cut-n-paste open sores "contributor"
>user only posted it, because it was the one statistic that backed up her post.
H/T user, very succinct.
lets get real for a moment. You install windows 10 in about 45 minutes and for most linuxes its about the same but remember. Biggest base linuxes are about 1 gigabytes or 2 while windows 10 can be more than 5 gigabytes of data. And what happens when you open them. On linux there are about 2 functional buttons, 3 are nonfunctional and in those two buttons there are some pictures to play with. Maybe slide down or up. On windows though, you feel like a god. Its professional its fast, its all functional. You have a godlike user interface. The thing that linux does not have. You have those two buttons in linux, but you still search google for codes to write in terminal. Linux is free because its not worth a penny. Nobody would sell a paper without taking the money. Just not sure why people still buy android while windows phone does 10 times more. Trust me. When you work with windows you know some genius ground breaker dedicated himself to give you an operational os
>You install windows 10 in about 45 minutes
Maybe on a Pentium 3. My boot device is a hard disk for fucks sake, and my last reinstall took about 15 minutes.
>"Why did Microsoft fail"
>second largest company by market cap
>Microsoft
>fail
It's time for you stop browsing this shithole
Most people I know IRL don't use Windows.
The last 2 companies I've worked at only had Windows for secretaries and QA.
Development on GNU/Linux
Graphic designers used macOS.
>Most people I know IRL don't use Windows
Most people you know IRL are on welfare, are homosexual, and think paedophilia is A-OK.
They're not representative of the real world, user - as every single survey since the late 1980s has proven every single time.
>Most people I know IRL don't use Windows.
that sample size
You and your "people" are a very small minority.
ITT: intense coping with the fact that Windows is the OS of choice for secretaries and pajeets
>i got assraped for my stupidity
Yeah, we know.
My cock still has his blood and feces all over it.
>ITT: intense coping with the fact that Windows is the OS of choice for secretaries and pajeets
It's actually the majority os for everybody including secertaries, and pajeets. Second is macOS.
There was big push for them in the third-world, actually. IIRC, I didn't buy one because they didn't have access to whatsapp back in 7.1 days.
I see you are very mad Pajeet
I see you predictably don't have any sort of counter-argument. But that's OK, your type never do.
Is this a copypasta from Windows XP era?
Probably. Numbers are ridiculously wrong to be XP. Having said that, they're ridiculously wrong for Longhorn-derivatives, too.
>linux-based
>linux
>BASED
And redpilled
>lumping in chink and pajeet ios and android malware app factory slaves
>calling graph "Professional Developers"
Steve Ballmers happened.
Linux is basically OS "by programmers for programmers".
More programmers use MacOS than linux, and more programmers use Windows than both of them combined.