Somehow, Paul Graham's Microsoft is Dead is catching on, even though it basically reads like a day in the life of Scoble. [more inside]
Although it would be ridiculous for me to get into here, I'll say that I agree with a lot of it... but it misses on a few points:
1) Microsoft is in all sorts of lucrative businesses that you never read about in the NYT Business section. I don't think anyone has written about this, so here's a scoop for you: I think this is what Bill Gates learned from Warren Buffet -- product diversification into areas that aren't sexy.
2) Microsoft is not nearly as monolithic as people think. Scoble makes this point all the time, but people still don't hear it: there are just vastly too many smart people at Microsoft for anyone to seriously believe there's a bunch of dolts running around making bad design decisions.
3) Microsoft still makes significantly more than Google or Apple, and had record profits this year.
However, the points about relevance -- cultural & technological -- are generally accurate.
posted by Rex at 3:35 PM on April 10, 2007
I think the points about cultural and technological relevance were the bulk of the article. I don't think it was about M$ being dead as a business. All that said, it was hardly revolutionary or surprising.
posted by britt at 4:37 PM on April 10, 2007
NOTE: The commenting window has expired for this post.
Company Tumblr VYou Twitter Google+ Facebook Instagram Flickr Amazon Foursquare
A fimoculous is a micro-organism that consumes its own waste for sustenance.