I guess I must be old now, because I find it hard to believe that a company that still has their software running on 95% of the world's computers is "dead". I just don't get this argument.
I totally agree that there's this very small, very insular part of the world that thinks it's dead, but that part of the world is apparently not working in large companies, or trading files with professionals in any profession other than design (e.g., try to find an Architect using Mac-based software -- they can't, because they couldn't trade files with each other or clients).
I'll believe MS is dead when they have, say, less than 70% of the world's computers running their operating system and when my corporate clients stop asking for files in Word format. Until then, they're just a monopoly that has massive amounts of power but that the cool kids aren't interested in.
It's like saying POTS telephones are dead -- they might not be interesting, but that's a big difference from being dead.
Quick reply for architects, well here in japan it's the contrary... Try to find an architect that doesn't use mac based software - you can't. (and even though autodesk tools are nicer than vectorworks....)
They are dead in the sense that while they still keep their old monopoly, it's slowly crumbling away...
Files in word format can be read on almost any plateform now (maybe not always perfectly but still good enough) and the file formats for texts or other things will change as people start using new software (web applications).
As a matter of fact, you can see the death of microsoft by the fact that it's not a problem to run another platform anymore (in 90% of the cases) and that it becomes more and more easier...
It's mostly because microsoft doesn't bring anything new to the table anymore... Before, they didn't really innovate but they often came with really good implementations of good ideas other people had (lotus 1-2-3 - excel, wordstar - word, netscape - internet explorer) and took the market. They don't seem to be able to do this anymore
POTS is a good example. Despite the wording, I think Paul was saying that: Microsoft isn't interesting anymore. It's unavoidable, sure, but it's just more brain-damaged infrastructure to work around.
Microsoft is now a nuisance, not a competitor. They can make business painful, but they aren't scary anymore.
I think PG's point isn't that MS will vanish or is vanishing from the current installed user base point of view (mainly their OS), but that they no longer control the direction of software development. This is a major opening for us Entrepreneurs that, as PG pointed out, has never happened before.
MS Office is clearly under serious attack now, and I'm sure the OS will follow in a few years unless MS takes a major tack in their business, which seems unlikely but is possible. If you are a top-notch programmer brimming with big ideas, do you want to work for MS? Probably not, and I think that is the biggest barrier they have to succeeding in the new web world. You can buy programming mercenaries with enough cash, but the genius paradigm-shifters will be hard to find over at MS.
Last time I checked, none of the online web two point ooh software can open big documents. These web-apps only match probably 20% of MS Office features and it's simply not enough these days when people are more tech-savvy than in the past.
every time I fire-up and use OpenOffice, I hear the 'cry' of another microsofty programmers` heart, breaking in two ... guess I fall in the second half.
The architecture example is a bad one. While AutoCAD on Windows is by far the dominant setup there is a product for Macs called Vectorworks that is used by many firms. Several in the Boston area alone.
It shouldn't hurt to follow the same basic model as most companies use -- some amount of options, vested at a specific rate, probably with a one year cliff and then monthly vesting after that.
You have to be a lot more willing to fire, though; you don't want to find yourself owing stock to someone who wasn't productive for a year just because you couldn't think of the right way to fire him/her.
I'm running an open-source software startup (apparently one of the three entrepreneurs who read this site and don't care about web apps), and I get plenty of interaction from my community. My problem is that no one else knows the code base or the problem space nearly as well as I do, which means the majority of my technical decisions are made with essentially no feedback.
I don't have problems with loneliness, and never really did even before I had an active community; I just have problems making competent decisions, especially since I'm a sysadmin turned developer, so I'm a bit out of water doing a software startup.
All you web guys need to quit yer complaining; at least you've got thousands of other entrepreneurs who are in the same boat. There is almost no one else in the sysadmin space, and pretty much everyone's eyes just glaze over when I mention that I'm working on infrastructure, not AJAXy web 2.0 bling.
It's certainly true for my startup. I've been advertising my ideas for years, hoping someone else would do all the work, but in desperation I'm now building a company to produce the software I was hoping someone else would make.
Look at Google -- they tried to sell their algorithm so they could stay in school, but no one was interested, so they had to put up or shut up. If a bunch of people already thought your idea was a good idea, it'd effectively be a mature space.
'... if a bunch of people already thought your idea was a good idea, it'd effectively be a mature space. ...'
I'd modify that slightly...
'people already thought your idea was a good (MONEY SPINNER) idea , it'd effectively be a mature space. ...'
New ideas maybe easy to come up with but translation into a product is not easy. If you can see a new idea implemented & copy it you piggy back on the innovation of others thinking & implementing.
Compare for instance Flickr to say Zoomer. The later was developed post flickr & probably quicker. The point being Flickr came up with the wonderful clean url design, api design and concepts such as 'favourites'. It also showed there was a market. Zoomer copied lots of Flickr ideas without having to think, tinker & hack.
I totally agree that there's this very small, very insular part of the world that thinks it's dead, but that part of the world is apparently not working in large companies, or trading files with professionals in any profession other than design (e.g., try to find an Architect using Mac-based software -- they can't, because they couldn't trade files with each other or clients).
I'll believe MS is dead when they have, say, less than 70% of the world's computers running their operating system and when my corporate clients stop asking for files in Word format. Until then, they're just a monopoly that has massive amounts of power but that the cool kids aren't interested in.
It's like saying POTS telephones are dead -- they might not be interesting, but that's a big difference from being dead.