Microsoft is irrelevant in the coming decade

Yup, I said it. Microsoft won’t be relevant in the decade which just started. Of course, they’ll still be around creating Windows, Office, etc., but they won’t be a major player at the forefront of personal computing technology. Even now, their relevance is fading. The big battle lines now are Apple vs. Google. Witness iPhone vs. Nexus One and the brewing battle between iPad and Google Tablet. Anyone bought a Windows Mobile device lately? Didn’t think so.

Microsoft nearly failed to grasp the importance of the Internet in time, and even then had to engage in anticompetitive behavior to catch up. They seemed to understand that mobile computing was going to be a big deal, but completely lost interest or motivation just as hardware made mobile useful.

I know Microsoft has never really been an innovator. They’re way better at the copy-and-perfect game, but they’re not even kicking ass at that game anymore. Zune? Has anyone even bothered to write a Twitter client for it?

Personally, I’ll be happy to see a decade dominated by two tech giants with deep pockets and much more interest in innovating.

Update: Dick Brass, a former Microsoft VP has written an interesting op-ed piece in the New York Times which gives great insider detail as to what’s wrong with Microsoft. Read it here. Thanks to David Bickford and Jason Willensky for pointing it out.

Matthew Petro Recommends

Apple has lost the magic (Tyler Hurst)
So What Exactly Is Keeping You In Your Current Mortgage? (Derek Neighbors)
What is Real in Social Media? (Voices of Arizona)

View Comments to “Microsoft is irrelevant in the coming decade”

tdhurst 3 February 2010 at 9:32 am #

The future is in online, mobile devices.

Microsoft can't spend their way out of this one.
Matthew Petro 3 February 2010 at 11:07 am #

They might still be able to, but I don't think they have the understanding of mobile computing or the innovative ability to execute anything worth the money.
D. Patrick Lewis 4 February 2010 at 9:05 am #

In the mobile aspect, I agree. But we will see what Win 7 brings to mobile. If it is anything like its PC counterpart, it will be impressive. That does not mean I will buy one but if anyone can reinvent themselves it would be Microsoft, they have the pockets to do so.

The thing I find ironic is the two companies you talk about are interested in innovation but at least one of them, Apple, is interested in an innovative very closed eco system. Is that really the future? I thought the vision of the future was some sense of transparency and openness to foster innovation.

Either way, it is going to be good for the consumer in the end. The competition will bear some awesome tech.
David Bickford 4 February 2010 at 1:09 pm #

Here's an Op-Ed piece from today's New York Times that essentially agrees with your post: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04bra...
Matthew Petro 4 February 2010 at 2:23 pm #

Thanks! That article is a pretty touch critique, but it sounds like there's some serious internal problems at Microsoft.
Matthew Petro 4 February 2010 at 2:27 pm #

It does annoy me that Apple is so controlling in some aspects of their products, but I think any really successful company has to have a tight fist to protect something critical. Apple wants to control their products, Google wants to control our data.

But, you are right that the competition will be good for the consumer in the end.
chris runoff 4 February 2010 at 2:38 pm #

Here's the MS response to the NYT piece… if you're interested.
http://blogs.technet.com/microsoft_blog/archive...
It really talks around the points that Dick Brass raised and tries to shift the conversation rather than address it head on. Look at the surprise on my face.

Microsoft's influence is too far reaching to suggest they will be completely irrelevant, but your scope is pretty narrow as well.

I don't disagree with you however. If MS wants to have any impact in the mobile world, they have a long way to go.
chris runoff 4 February 2010 at 2:51 pm #

Apple's controlling nature goes beyond just the creative process. The app store is the best example of this. With the iPhone/Touch/Pad, the only way to install anything is through the app store. The only way anything makes it to the app store is through Apples approval process. Out of the box, you have no control over the device or freedom to put whatever software you'd like on it.

Yes, the option exists to jailbreak the phone, but that isn't the point. Apple is creating a line of products designed to take the control out of our hands and only offer the experience Apple approves. They get away with it because the devices work well, are extremely easy to use and Apple is best marketer out there.

So, we all line up, myself included, eager to be the next person to have the next i(fill-in-the-blank). Oh look! New apps to look through!
Matthew Petro 4 February 2010 at 4:07 pm #

Thanks for the link! It does seem to just put some marketing spin on the whole thing without actually addressing the issues Brass raised, but really, did we expect Microsoft to? They're not gonna spill their guts as to how innovation happens (or doesn't) internally and what their organizational problems are.

Brass really framed the parameters of the debate with his op-ed piece and it put Microsoft into a position which can't be well argued. Microsoft's response should be to quit spending money on uncompetitive products like Zune and start spending it on some corporate overhaul.
Matthew Petro 4 February 2010 at 4:23 pm #

You're absolutely right about Apple's control. The reason it works for them is because most people don't want or even know what to do with the freedom to install anything on their device.

Look at the failure of Linux to become a legitimate contender as a desktop OS. It's the ultimate in software freedom…you can put anything you want on it, you can modify it all you want and you can build anything you want on top of it. But only hardcore geeks run it as their everyday desktop OS, because they're the only ones who really care about the freedom.

Most people view devices like computers, phones and music players like their cars…they want it to do what it's supposed to reliably and without a lot of hassle. This is why the iPhone has been so successful as a platform. It just works. Not many people care about the fact that they can't put just anything on it. They know that for anything they want to do with it, there literally is an app for that, and thanks to Apple's control over the App Store, it will be a fairly well built and stable app.

Apple's success has proven that a benevolent dictatorship can be more profitable than open-source freedom.
chris runoff 8 February 2010 at 9:44 am #

Desktop Linux failure is a topic all on its own, but the freedom in Linux is not why it hasn't become more popular.

I agree that the majority of consumers don't want hassle, but the ability to install apps that you want is hardly a hassle.

There are apps that fit most of our needs, but at the same time, we'll never get a flash plugin. Something we've all been conditioned to accept because everything else works well.
chris runoff 8 February 2010 at 4:44 pm #

Desktop Linux failure is a topic all on its own, but the freedom in Linux is not why it hasn't become more popular.

I agree that the majority of consumers don't want hassle, but the ability to install apps that you want is hardly a hassle.

There are apps that fit most of our needs, but at the same time, we'll never get a flash plugin. Something we've all been conditioned to accept because everything else works well.