Agreed. But I don't think the situation is as dire as the article paints it. Office is not going anywhere anytime soon. The rise of smartphones does not suddenly mean that there is any lesser demand for Office. The enterprise trusts Microsoft (with good reason IMHO) and if they stay on their game they can continue to dominate the market. Can you imagine trusting your billion dollar company to Google's half-assed support, or some upstart pitching support for OpenOffice (okay maybe eventually)?
Microsoft should spin off everything except Windows and Office. Let all those divisions and products sink or swim on their own merits. Ultimately they will get more value from the ability for some of those units to have a breakout success than the marginal benefit they get from twisting all products to serve the "Windows Everywhere" strategy. Not that "Windows Everywhere" is inherently a bad strategy, but if you have a CEO lacking vision, and a glut of middle management politics, it just makes sense to gut the inefficiencies and scar tissue in the middle of the organization and give the rank and file the opportunity to rise to their abilities.
This would also play to Ballmer's strength as a salesman. I get the feeling he looks at how Apple is thriving on a closed ecosystem ("OS X Everywhere") and wants to succeed in a similar way, but he is utterly incapable of it. If he were to focus on Windows / Office and say how can we sell more of this on its own merits I think he would be more successful.
Except, it's not "OSX Everywhere" - Apple doesn't have an OS integration in automobiles (Ford deal), refrigerators (http://www.zdnet.com/news/microsoft-plans-to-sit-inside-your...), and they're not trying to right now. That said, if they entered those markets, it'd probably be good. :)
I get the feeling he looks at how Apple is thriving on a closed ecosystem ("OS X Everywhere") and wants to succeed in a similar way, but he is utterly incapable of it.
Ah, but that's the thing-- Apple didn't go for "OS X Everywhere", they were willing to segment their OS strategy, and developed iOS for the iPhone and iPad. There's no telling what the tech world would look like now if Microsoft hadn't tied their tablet strategy to Windows XP.
iOS is based on OS X though, but anyway the technical distinction is irrelevant to my point.
The point is that Apple integration is very tight across devices, in a way that must be very appealing to Microsoft from a business perspective.
But Microsoft has it's own strengths, such as catering to the support and feature needs of the enterprise. In a way it mirrors Apple's strategy of targeting the high-end consumer market, Microsoft targets the highest-end software market, period.
The difference between "based-on" and "Windows everywhere" is subtle, but makes for a huge difference. Apple is willing to fit the right parts in place where Microsoft has made some truly bad and confusing technology selections (e.g. full Windows on tablets instead of a grown-up phone OS).
The difference is the quality of execution. I don't think "Windows everywhere" implies the crap they've been putting out. I chalk it up more to incompetent middle management.
Perhaps not for certain definitions of OSX. Have you shopped for a car recently? Look how many different automobiles have dock connectors these days...
Those Fords with Windows in the dash are the same ones with ipod cables in the glove box.
> Can you imagine trusting your billion dollar company to...
> some upstart pitching support for OpenOffice (okay maybe eventually)?
Perhaps Microsoft could hasten that day by increasing their prices for office licenses by, say, five-fold. OpenOffice is looking better and better every day.
Microsoft should spin off everything except Windows and Office. Let all those divisions and products sink or swim on their own merits. Ultimately they will get more value from the ability for some of those units to have a breakout success than the marginal benefit they get from twisting all products to serve the "Windows Everywhere" strategy. Not that "Windows Everywhere" is inherently a bad strategy, but if you have a CEO lacking vision, and a glut of middle management politics, it just makes sense to gut the inefficiencies and scar tissue in the middle of the organization and give the rank and file the opportunity to rise to their abilities.
This would also play to Ballmer's strength as a salesman. I get the feeling he looks at how Apple is thriving on a closed ecosystem ("OS X Everywhere") and wants to succeed in a similar way, but he is utterly incapable of it. If he were to focus on Windows / Office and say how can we sell more of this on its own merits I think he would be more successful.