Tuesday, January 30, 2007 at 1:40 am
Remembering when Microsoft was scary
As Bill Gates makes the rounds promoting Microsoft's new operating system and everybody yawns, it's worth recalling just how scary and important his company seemed a decade ago.
Just to pluck a few examples from the 1990s pages of Fortune: Microsoft was going to extend its dominance from desktops to handhelds. It was going to take over the media, travel, and auto-retailing businesses. It was building a giant research operation to give it "a tighter grip over the future of computing." Its software dominance was a textbook case of increasing returns, where "the bigger your installed base, the better off you are," as economist Brian Arthur put it.
Microsoft's huge installed base has made it better off: Its earnings for the last four quarters totaled almost $12 billion, up from $3.5 billion in 1997. But the company hasn't taken over industry after industry, and in recent years it's been repeatedly upstaged by Google and longtime doormat Apple. Gates now makes it onto the cover of Time as a philanthropist, not as the "Master of the Universe." Microsoft is now a big, successful, well-managed company that still hasn't entirely figured out its second act.
There's a lesson in here for all you extrapolators out there (which is just about everybody; I certainly am one). Trends don't continue forever. Dominant businesses don't stay dominant forever (except maybe Exxon Mobil). The world is a charmingly (and sometimes not so charmingly) unpredictable place. Which means, of course, that Microsoft could become scary again any day now.
1 Comment to “Remembering when Microsoft was scary”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About Curious Capitalist
RSS Feed
Daily Email
Recent Posts
The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com Archives
January 2007
Choose a day to view headlines.
< Previous Month
> Next Month
Blogroll
- Adam Lashinsky
- Amit Varma
- Barry Ritholtz
- Brad DeLong
- Calculated Risk
- Econbrowser
- Econlog
- Ezra Klein
- Felix Salmon
- Floyd Norris
- Going Private
- Greg Mankiw
- Herb Greenberg
- James Pethokoukis
- John Gapper
- Marginal Revolution
- Mark Thoma
- Matt McAlister
- Megan McArdle
- Michael Mandel
- Mike Moffatt
- Nicholas Carr
- Paul Kedrosky
- Roger Parloff
More TIME Blogs
Top Stories
- Oil-Price Drop Forces Big Energy to Retreat
- Were the Mumbai Terrorists Fueled by Coke?
- Iraq's Maliki Faces Challenge Over Power Grab
- Even with a Bailout, GM's Profit Prospects Look Bleak
- Interrogation Policy Still A Bit Shadowy
- Military Protests Add to Mugabe's Problems
- Study: Most Child Abuse Goes Unreported
- Why the Big Three Should Fly Corporate Jets
- Will Mumbai Chill the India-Pakistan Thaw?
- The Pope's Christmas Gift: A Tough Line on Church Doctrine
Top Photoessays and Slideshows
- A Brief History of the Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree
- Life Returns to Iraq's Streets
- Pictures of the Week
- Venice Floods
- 20th Century Britain
- Mumbai Sifts Through the Rubble
- Two Days of Terror in Mumbai
- Over 100 Dead as Terrorist Attacks Overwhelm Mumbai
- Photos: The Kitsch of Thanksgiving
- Animated Movies: Not Just for Kids
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Microsoft's monopoly-like dominance of desktop PCs and business computing is still a disturbing and real trend. The lackluster reception of Vista is a consequence of that dominance in that there is no real competitive pressure to drive the quality of Windows upwards. The release of Vista seems perfunctory because all significant or exciting advances have been dropped from it, one by one.
Many dire predictions about Microsoft have been made and many never came true. This speaks volumes about the quality of the prognostication, but says little about the reality of Microsoft's corrosive effects on the PC/software industry.