It seems that journalists now talk about Microsoft as being a spent force simply because it's become boring to continually recognise their dominant position in the computing industry.
By that token, you could also complain about the exclusion of IBM, Oracle, etc. These companies aren't really fighting it out for new territory the way Apple, Google, and Facebook are. They are big and relevant, but they're making money off existing fiefdoms.
Microsoft has the overall No.1[1] spot - it sells the OS and the software that virtually every office in the world (and most homes) rely upon. Nobody has come close to challenging that.
You can look at their other ventures - XBox, Bing, Zune, HD DVD, HotMail, SQL Server, IE, Windows Mobile/Phone and point out that they have not 'defeated' their rivals in these areas. But these are secondary or tertiary industries for Microsoft, where their main objective is to head-off any would-be challenges to their dominance of the PC market. Eg. consoles replacing the home PC, Google rendering it obsolete, Apple breaking into office sales.
[1] Yes Apple is the biggest company right now in financial terms, but Microsoft's turf is still the most desirable (though not quite as glamorous)
Except that IBM and Oracle are neither defending existing territory or actively trying to compete in mobile, search, games, etc. (and Microsoft is actively competing in all)
Maybe they think of them like the UK after WW 1, a former world power that paid a terrible price in the previous war and is now somewhat hamstrung by that history.
They definitely used to have a startup culture, despite being big, not unlike Google now. A prolonged anti-trust dispute can wreck this because suddenly you get in big trouble for not doing things by the book.
It is fascinating to see how much Microsoft used to be feared: "'Can you name anybody that's happy about being in the same industry with Microsoft?' Mitchell Kapor asks." -- http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
I like using the analogy of potential energy to think about this 'battlefield'. Each of the big 5 (or 6 if you include Samsung) has a large amount of potential energy they may be able to use over time to grow, entrnech, and profit. In the case of Apple, Google, MS and Samsung the PE is primarily profit.
In the case of Facebook, it is primsrily the social graph. For Amazon, the potential energy seems to be scale & efficiency.
I, personally, believe profit, and the ability to continue to generate profit is a better form of potential energy because it is more controllable.
I'm a military veteran. I've been to war. What the article is written about is not a war. It is a competition between companies in a safe and opportunistic market, which is the furthest thing from warfare and destruction that I know.
Whilst I respect you as a veteran I feel that your comment did little to add to this discussion.
The entire article is filled with metaphor and simile all building up this vision of a Middle Earth-esque world with these companies fighting for territory amongst themselves. The author was not saying that they were at war, I don't see Google launching drones filled with napalm at Cupertino any time soon, he was implying that these companies are fighting for survival in difficult and competitive markets.
As far as metaphors go, it was a fantastic one, filled with great imagery and for the most part fairly informative content.
Not all wars are fought with guns and muscles, and very few are won that way. At the top levels, companies fighting each other looks almost identical to warfare.
It's odd that Microsoft's name does not come in the discussion that talks about technology giants. Google, Apple all are competing with Microsoft tooth and nail. Amazon and facebook maybe less so. Not mentioning it makes me question if its the bias or lack of knowledge on the part of the author.
It's a war on multiple fronts, Facebook and Google for the graph, Google vs. Apple and MS for phones, and Amazon vs. Apple on content.
In most of these wars MS is currently not mounting any serious challenges, however, due to cash on hand and it's relationships it could eventually start to make serious inroads. MS is in a much better position in 2012 than Apple was in 97.
Most importantly MS isn't lacking any technology that Google has, despite lower userbase in things like search, etc.
What other ancient empires are still in play? IBM deals mostly in the realm of enterprise, eBay is still around as the master of its own specific market (with PayPal fighting back at the insurgent Square), and Oracle does- litigation and acquisitions?
