Earlier, sometime before the release of W8 (Windows 8), I posted a cautionary blog about the failure it would be. Since then it was released and has instantly become Microsoft's most widely hated release, even surpassing Vista in terms of its ability to incite user anger. It's widespread criticism is accompanied by record breaking low adoption rates, a much more objective measure. By every measure it's an astounding failure.
Microsoft had a lot invested in W8, it was supposed to bring Windows to tablets and cell phones. CEO Steve Ballmer said they would "bet the company" on Windows 8. Silly Ballmer, if you are going to bet the company, don't bet it on such a weak hand. Technically, the execution of W8 went well, they did manage a tablet/phone OS that at least works. They added a few nice features to the desktop as they do every release. For developers, they released an API (Application Programming Interface) for writing apps for the new OS.
But strategically they made a number of horrific errors. First and foremost was the idea that this new OS had to look and work the same across all three classes of devices: phone, tablet and desktop. This lead to the ill fated decision to make the desktop look like a tablet where everything has to run full screen and removing the Start menu. Software you could buy and install was replaced by the "Windows Store" which badly alienated Steam and everyone else who was already running a store. Lately, Steam has been working hard on a Linux based console and offering a selection of Linux based games in response.
When it comes to developer support, in their quest to go after the cell phone and tablet market, they introduced confusion over what tools they will support in the future and anger over old tools that were discontinued. The only clear path forward MS offered was a way to write Metro style applications for Windows 8 but since they're not backwards compatible with any other OS, it's understandable that response was tepid.
Microsoft should have seen it coming, they certainly had been warned enough. And everyone else could see it coming. When they undercut all their former hardware partners (e.g. Acer, Dell and Asus) and started manufacturing their own tablet (the Surface), it was inevitable that they would soon be the only ones doing so. MS charges $30 for each tablet OS license in a business with very thin margins. That plus the poor reputation of Windows 8, high prices and a general lack of availability of decent software continues to discourage partners like Acer, Dell and Asus from offering much in the way of Windows tablets. Or phones.
Most frustrating was MS's refusal to acknowledge any problems with Windows 8 and a stubborn determination to "stay the course" regardless of how reckless or wrong it was. This story could have ended very badly except for the MS board of directors. Once it was announced that they would take a $1
billion markdown on all the Surface tablets that nobody wanted, they demanded CEO Steve Ballmer's resignation. They had already sent Steve Sinofsky, the architect of W8 packing about a month ago. This bold action was followed by a purge of many top level managers associated with the grand failure. MS is now in the middle of a new CEO search but they're not finding too many takers. This is probably the best news I've heard for a long time, people had been calling for Ballmer's head for a long time. And all the failures were management failures.
Rumors of MS's new directions seem encouraging. I expect by Windows 9, they'll have recovered from their worst missteps. There are rumors that they'll restore the beloved Windows 7 desktop and allow their wretched Metro applications to run from the desktop. They still need to fix and unify their developer tools. I hope they make it.
Microsoft panicked and acted foolishly but the threats to their livelihood are real. How long they can continue to charge for Windows is coming into question because they are being seriously challenged by Google's Android. It already runs most phones and tablets and is not only free but open source so anyone (i.e. Samsung) can modify it for better consumer appeal. Google does this because it makes its money from its search engine. Android is just incidental to its business of putting the internet everywhere and you needing Google to search it. Well, it might have undermining MS as one of its goals too, I dunno.
For a long time, the Linux desktop and server has been predicted to take over the space that Windows once occupied. On the server that has largely happened and many web site servers are powered by Linux. At first people were wary of Linux because of a lack of stability in the versions available. But gradually companies formed to provide support to specific distributions. One of the more conspicuous examples is Intel's adoption of Red Hat which is now a major Linux distribution in the US.
So Microsoft has formidable competition on the server, still rules the desktop but is barely noticeable for tablets and phones. The botched rollout of Windows 8 hurt the desktop and drove consumers to alternative solutions, which is to say, Apple or Android phones and tablets. And everybody is waiting for Google to release a free desktop version of Android. They're very close with their Chromebooks which are selling well. I don't know what is keeping Apple back from releasing OS X for non-Apple desktops. That would be a blow to MS but the point is that one day, Windows may well become a much smaller market. MS will still have Office and the Cloud and a bevy of other products. Plus they still have the capability of creating so much more if they can only first conceive it. That's what the new CEO needs to bring. Steve Ballmer's solution was to adopt the Apple model, to make money off of running the Windows Store (where a hefty 30% commission is required of each publisher) and selling hardware. But I think they need a new vision.
