What's behind Microsoft's fall from dominance?

[psxphill]

If that's true, I could say the same of you.

You think anyone who disagrees with you is worthy of an attack, I tend to wait until I'm attacked.

[gertsy]

@gaula92 - It's evident that you have no idea what life is like in the business world.  

The company I work for has over 15,000 computer users worldwide, ALL using Microsoft products.  In spite of what you may think, most work is not done on tablets or smart phones, but by people sitting at desks using laptops or desktop machines.  The business world has no intent of ever moving to an underpowered Android device or an overpriced Apple product.  Thank goodness the majority of IT departments are run by intelligent managers, not by fan boys like yourself.

The ONLY contender for a business O/S besides Windows is, of course Linux, however I don't see much movement in that direction.  The Linux business model is not what most companies are looking for in selecting an operating system,  It's unfortunate, but true.

Whether you like it or not, Microsoft will be around for many years to come.

All true. But don't let reality get in the way of tall poppy stories. Microsoft is the only company with a serious joined up integrated business product model. Oracle are a disjointed basket case, IBM truly black, and Open Source puts you at the mercy of recalcitrant admins and zealots that don't understand what enterprise architecture actually means; AKA my way or the highway. The complexity and cost of integration and the resources required to do it (badly) blows it out of the race.

IMO there is no competition. If MS are doing so badly in sales where is all their money coming from? The company I work for has 25k + Windows Desktops and I estimate over 1000 Windows servers and 200-300 Linux & Unix(solaris). Both physical and virtual.

[gertsy]

Nah, not true. It's something a lot of computer enthusiasts will try to sell these days, but its not accurate.

BHP, Telstra, Optus, Compaq, etc. are hardly niche markets

Compaq definitely are.

[Iggy]

Software is different and that's why you have copyright for it. Software patents are an abomination of the patent system.

A very valid point and an important distinction, Staf.
Patents just stifle progress.

[commodorejohn]

You think anyone who disagrees with you is worthy of an attack, I tend to wait until I'm attacked.

Insist all you like; that won't make it true, any more than your portrayal of me as some kind of Linux-loving Windows-hater was true.

[Fats]

The issue there is that you can have a patented piece of hardware that you can then duplicate using software without having to pay a patent license fee.

Could you give an example of such a hardware patent that could be replaced fully with pure software ?

[Fats]

A very valid point and an important distinction, Staf.
Patents just stifle progress.

I do think certain industries like pharmaceutics needs protection from cloning for a certain amount of time to earn back the research. I don't count software as one of those industries though. There patents are more used as protection of the monopolies/duopolies etc. against competition than it is to protect real innovative inventors from the big guys.

[psxphill]

Insist all you like; that won't make it true, any more than your portrayal of me as some kind of Linux-loving Windows-hater was true.

I don't need to insist, by keeping arguments going like this you prove it yourself.

[psxphill]

Could you give an example of such a hardware patent that could be replaced fully with pure software ?

Will this do?
 
http://www.google.com/patents/US5093831
 
This is part hardware and part software
 
https://www.google.com/patents/US5926786
 
Here is a bad circuit patent.
 
http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20110025518_01

[fishy_fiz]

Compaq definitely are.

Damn, I still have a habbit of saying Compaq rather than HP.
HP are definately no niche

[commodorejohn]

I don't need to insist, by keeping arguments going like this you prove it yourself.

Takes two to tango, buddy.

[persia]

Was microsoft really ever dominant?

[Duce]

Was microsoft really ever dominant?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

I'd take that as a yes.

[psxphill]

Takes two to tango, buddy.

Sigh.

[Fats]

Forgive me for not diving into all claims in detail.

Will this do?
 
http://www.google.com/patents/US5093831

No, the fast hardware implementation part of the patent seems to an essential part of the patent so it should not apply to pure software solutions.

This is part hardware and part software
 
https://www.google.com/patents/US5926786

If I understand correctly they did patent here a design of an ASIC. Which I think should never have been patented as not passing the "non-triviality for somebody skilled enough" requirement. Although hard to judge so long after the fact, I don't see anything in the patent where another design team with the same specs couldn't have come with the same solution.

Here is a bad circuit patent.
 
http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20110025518_01

Sure, but I don't see how a bad circuit patent would make software patents any better.

[psxphill]

No, the fast hardware implementation part of the patent seems to an essential part of the patent so it should not apply to pure software solutions.

So if I design a CPU that has a couple of op-codes that are carefully designed to implement that functionality then because it uses software then it works round the patent?
 

I don't see anything in the patent where another design team with the same specs couldn't have come with the same solution.

With all patents it's possible for multiple people to come up with the solution, the patent system rewards the person who files first. It's assumed they are the ones that put the most effort and money into it.
 

Sure, but I don't see how a bad circuit patent would make software patents any better.

Because people talk as if software patents are the only bad ones out there, just because you can find a bad software patent doesn't mean that they are all bad.