TheFallen said:
Agreed. These so called "Analysts" need to take their heads out of Apple a** once in a while. Maybe then they can stop talking sh**. Just because Apple are having the luck of the draw at the moment doesn't mean other companies aren't bringing some good products and services to the table. The mass market is extremely fickle and as such will latch on to the next popular company. Wash, Rinse and repeat.
|
LUCK? I didn't like Jobs very much, but he didn't what he did just because he was LUCKY.
What I can call lucky is Bill Gates getting the chance of his life with IBM just because Gary Kildall had wasted it some days before.
And extremely lucky (the alternative is having done something illegal) that some years later MS repeatedly got away with anti-competitive behaviour far worse than IBM's one just paying ridiculous fines and being even let continue such behaviours almost unchanged, while IBM instead, for its faults, was threatened of splitting by the antitrust and had to thwart its own OS, OS/2, in its competition with Windows, to avoid that fate.
But back on topic:
Ballmer may be ridiculous sometimes, but he isn't the worst CEO, and he isn't alone in deciding strategies. But often greed blinds him, as firing and/or cutting benefits, like he did, to some of the most productive employees of America, that managed to keep your company profitable, despite less than in better times, even when almost all the others were losing money isn't very bright or farsighted, it's just greedy and shortsighted. Suggesting that America should pay less engineers, scientists and technicians is plain stupid, had he said they pay too much marketers, I could agree, most of them are just good to repeat some clichés learned in self-proclaimed good training programs, but technically and scientifically skilled and talented people are the most precious human resource of developed countries, you don't want them to look for a better paid job in another country, you should want instead to attract the skilled ones from other countries that pay them less.
Finally. MS won't die and won't disappear. It will grow. But the risk is that it grows less than competitors in other markets growing more than the ones dominated by MS. A near monopolist doesn't fall easily if it doesn't commit horrible mistakes or if disruption of its market doesn't happen. But its monopoly can become marginal (even if still growing) compared to bigger markets growing outside of the ones it dominates. In the past, competing OS' tried to attack MS in the PC market and they failed. Now they dominate some markets already or soon to become bigger than PC, where Windows has no previous monopoly or strong legacy or other advantages. And PC-like devices can be derived from this bigger market, running OS' that totally bypass the need to attack Windows to succeed and creating a new, non-Wintel PC market (non-Wintel tablets, born from smartphones and multimedia readers, are the first step, while more expensive and less efficient Wintel tablets derived from the classic PCs and notebooks, but they remained a niche). In these new markets MS arrived quite late. Was it TOO late? Time will tell.